Appeal to Green Party Voters...

one_raven

one_raven

God is a Chinese Whisper
Valued Senior Member
Please please don't do it.
Hear me out...

Yes, our two-party system is a heavy cross to bear, and I would love to do away with it.
It's a real shame that we are reduced to chosing between the lesser of two evils, but that is the reality of the situation we have.

Let's say you have 11 people voting.
5 vote for greater evil.
4 vote for lesser evil.
2 abstain (or vote for Nader, who has no chance whatsoever of winning, so in effect they didn't vote at all).
The result?
More evil wins, and the two Nader voters get to feel good about themselves and say, "Well, at least I didn't vote for Bush so you can't blame me." But, if they voted for lesser evil, at least lesser evil would be in office rather than greater evil.
So, the people get a more evil leader, and the less than 2% can feel good about not voting for more evil.
Where's positive gain for the people in that?

I can't understand how that makes sense.
Who, besides yourself, does that help?
Do you support the Green Party because they are activists and care for the environment and the most important things?
That all sounds well and good, but try and look at it objectively and somewhat pragmatically.
I agree with what the Green Party stands for, but sadly that is beside the point at this stage.
Ask yourself...
Is the point of being an activist feeling good about yourself or helping others?

Ralph Nader has absolutely NO CHANCE of winning. Say all you want, that simple fact remains.

So, what is the result of you casting a vote for him?
Simply one less vote for Kerry.
That's all.

So, pragmatically, what you achieve by your personal "activism" is giving Bush a better chance of winning.
As close as this race is turning out to be, the miniscule 1 or 2% that Nader may recieve could very well be a deciding factor.
So, in an attempt to assuage your conscience by not voting for Kerry because you don't like the system, you could have to live with the fact that you helped Bush win another term.
No different AT ALL than not voting, except you get the selfish pleasure of having a smug smile when you say you voted for Nader.
Again, what is the point of activism, personal gratification or helping others?

Why do you think that Republican groups are donating money to Nader's campaign?
Not to mention, what does it say about Nader's integrity to accept the money.
He knows he has no chance of winning.
He knows he is basically taking votes away from Kerry, because no Green Party member would vote for Bush.
He knows that the Republicans realize this so they want him to do as well as he possibly can because he is taking votes from Kerry that have no chance of going to Bush.
He knows that's why they are giving him money.
Knowing all this he still doesn't drop out of the race.
Not for any higher ideals, because, just like you, he is effectively sacrificing his ideals for the sake of his own bullshit pride.
His books and speeches may make a positive difference in people's minds and lives, but his staying in the race makes a negative difference in those same lives.

Ideals are funny tricky little things.
Sometimes it's not easy to tell if we are adhering to them or betraying them.
They get in the way of objective and pragmatic thought.
I have often been a victim of this.

Do me a favor...
Take a pen and paper and write down the issues that mean the most to you when it comes to who should be president.
Examine each of these issues and consider where we would be if Bush were elected.
Examine each of these issues and consider where we would be if Kerry were elected.
Examine each of these issues and consider where we would be if you vote for Nader.

Try to think of ways your issues would be helped if you give Nader another vote, rather than Kerry.
Tell me, how, in any concievable way, your issues would get any help if Nader got 10% rather than 2%?

Which of your specific issues does Kerry stand against?
How are your issues harmed by Kerry getting into office?

If you truly believe that every vote counts, and you vote for Nader than you are doing nothing but helping Bush get into office.
If you don't honestly believe that every vote counts, why bother voting at all?
How does your vote cast for the Green Party, who doesn't have a snowflake's chance in Hell of winning, help work towards accomplishing your ideals?

Wouldn't the Green Party be helped much more by you voting for someone that is closer to your own ideals and perhaps volunteering to help them with their envrionmental efforts and lobbying so maybe they can gain more votes and actually giving them some tiny bit of hope winning the next time?

I submit, that by voting for Nader, rather than Kerry, you are actually betraying your ideals.

Here is a simple question that sometimes has a very complex answer, nevertheless, it is imperative to be honest and frank with yourself and answer it truthfully.

What will best serve, not display or reflect, but SERVE your ideals?

Vote Kerry.
Thank you for your time.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you actually. I've been polled several times and my response is always 'Nader'. Politicians base their jobs on polls... and I believe that's the best way to send the message.

Yet rest assured that when I go to the both I'm voting against Bush first. Since my state is a swing state, that means Kerry.
 
Nader is polling at basically nothing right now. He's off the ballot in Pennsylvania, and a load of other states. I think he was on every ballot in 2000; this year, he's only got the twenty or so brought to him by the Reform Party (that same party that once had Pat Buchanan as their candidate). The lack of enthusiasm for Nader's run in 2004 is exemplified by his failure to qualify for the ballot in California. CALIFORNIA!

It is my firm belief that people who are saying they will vote for Nader now would rather sit out this election than vote for Kerry. Many Greens have allied themselves with the Democratic effort this election to oust Bush. There are a few holdouts, but you can't be 100% in everything. I seriously doubt that Nader will have the kind of impact he had in 2004. The only place I'm worried about is Florida, because it's crazyland down there.
 
one raven : are you absolutely sure, that kerry is the lesser of to evils.
I dont, he's the sort that would push, the big red button and say oops.
dont waste your vote, let common sense prevail.
 
Mis-t-highs said:

I dont, he's the sort that would push, the big red button and say oops.
Click to expand...

This sort of paranoia would crack me up if it wasn't so sad. Just so I have it straight, it's all about the big red button and saying "oops"?

Because I understand: George W. Bush hasn't pushed the big red button, and he certainly hasn't said, "Whoops". And, as we know, wars are really cool, really good things that get everybody involved what's best for them, so W owes us no "oops" for being wrong about WMD, about Al Qaeda, and about the Iraqi response.

Makes sense to me: raise an illegitimate fear of what might happen without any means of justifying that fear in order to ignore what's already on the historical record--the best thing to do is to give in to irrationality in order to avoid the possibility of something irrational.

Explain to us, please, your big red button theory. On what do you base it?
 
I doubt I'll vote at all, having school work and a job. I'm calm though, since NY voted against Bush before and will do so again. Although my parents, two new voters this year, are hard-core Republicans.

Uh, I wanted to ask, after I sent the card to register they sent me a letter saying they need some whole bunch of information and stuff to be sent in, and that if I don't send it I'll have to do all the paperwork right before I vote. There was a website which I of course forgot. Q: What website, what stuff?
 
Mis-t-highs is right.
You can just tell that kerry couldn't resist pushing that big red button at the white house that says "don't push".
I'm not saying I could resist necessarrily, that button is like a drug, which is why the president needs to be a man of steel.
I don't know why they don't just remove the button, or put a plastic case over it, but hey its there. Please don't vote kerry, he can't be trusted around the button.
 
About who would press the big red button first:
It doesn't matter. A few more 9/11s and anyone can press any button of any size and any color without recourse. It's not the Administration. It's the PEOPLE stupid!
 
It's not the Administration. It's the PEOPLE stupid!
Click to expand...

Yup, I absolutely agree. President doesn't act alone, when it comes to buttons; that is provided by the constitution, so you can't ignore it. And, who elected all the people that went along with Bush to press buttons? We did. That means we messed up the entire thing, not just one gov't post.
 
Yeah, they should stop fitting all new houses with big red buttons. And remove big red buttons from all of the old houses.
I know what buttons people have in their own home is their own business but we can no longer trust the general public to act responsibly with their big red buttons.
 
No, I like your initial idea of removing the Big Red Button or putting a "plastic case over it". Unfortunately, billions (maybe trillions) are budgeted to make the Big Red Button bigger, redder, and easier to push.
 
David Cobb is the Green Party candidate, not Nader. Nader is an Independent this time around.

To your post: 5 vote for evil, 4 vote for less evil, 2 vote for a third party. Are you absolutely sure that those 2 would have voted for Kerry? What about Badnarik of the Libertarian Party? Absolutley pro-choice (at least, against federal legislation restricting choice)... might lean towards Dems. Very ANTI gun control. Might lean towards Reps. Pro legalizing drugs ... might lean towards Dems. ANTI an opressive tax system ... might lean towards Reps. Pro gay marriage, might lean towards Dems. Depending on which issues a Libertarian voter might find most salient to his or her political being, one could vote either way. So, Badnarik voters might take votes away from both candidates. Badnarik is actually on the ballots in ALL 50 states.

It seems you would like it if people would not fully exercise their right to vote by being forced to vote for one of only two candidates? If I don't see either major candidate as being the one I want in office, but I vote for one of them just because Nader or Badnarik (my candidate, by the way) has no chance of winning, THAT would be a wasted vote. That is what democracy is all about.

Perhaps if third party candidates were able to get enough support in a given election, thereby becoming able to receive matching campign funds, they won't have to spend most of their money getting enough support just to get their names on ballots the next time around. They'll be able to more actively campaign and actually get to participate in the debates and allow the people to hear their views. How many on here are informed enough to know Badnarik and his views on the issues. Figure maybe less than 3% of the general public even know the name? I would say that there are many "undecideds" out there, whom if they were to take a survey, would likely fall into the category of Libertarian. But, since many think like you, few people vote Libertarian (or Green, or otherwise) because they're not one of the two main parties and few will ever even get to hear what they have to say.
 
Last edited:
Tiassa:
why did the american attack Afganistan, and the Taliban, to find Osama Bin Laden.
did they find OBL,( NO) but a change of regime has made all the difference.
why did the american attack Iraq an Saddam Hussain,
to find Weapons of Mass Distruction.
did they find WMD,(NO) but a change of regime as made all the difference.
why has Libia become allies with the west, because they thought they were next.
why has Iran become allies with the west, because they thought they were next.
have you noticed how many countrys, that were once your enemy, are now your allies.
whether you like bush or not he has'nt done so bad.
what you lose from one hand, you gain back with the other.
though we'ed have liked to have found WMDs and OBL, it is the start of a new world order, eventually all the troubles will ease off.
but kerry is not the man for the job.
it's better the devil you know, than the devil you dont
 
Mis-t-highs:

How disrspectful. Oh, well, it's what's to be expected of a cowardly Bushmonger.

In the meantime, that's a strange picture of the world you've spun.

All of your arguments make sense if we decide that freedom, compassion, and the good things about the noble American vision are all bullshit and instead celebrate might is right and tyranny with a smile.

If you want us to rumble around changing regimes, I'm sure we'll find a way to manage. Either you're with us or against us.

Then again, some prefer more intelligent solutions, not just ones that look really good because we get to blow people up on CNN.

Such bloodthirstiness, such celebration of the lowest aspects of humanity, are best left to warmongers like you, and only the stupid think you can bring freedom, compassion, and stability at the end of a rifle.

As you have shown, Mis-t-highs, the only reasons to vote for Bush are hatred of life, hatred of dignity, and hatred of peace.

Of course, your disrespect is merely a symptom of your stupidity, so I suppose I owe you another chance:

• Explain to us, please, your big red button theory. On what do you base it?
 
what I'd like to know, is how you come to call misty, a warmonger, disrespectful, and cowardly.
she has'nt said once, she pro war, it looks to me as she was just stating the obvious.
it's you who are disrespectful, not her.

as for a big red button, I'd rather have a puppet, in the white house who's controlled by the people behind.
then a bleeding heart liberal, who has the power to destroy an entire country, rather then commit american boys to fight a war.

and I'm not pro war either.

misty said:
one raven : are you absolutely sure, that kerry is the lesser of to evils.
I dont, he's the sort that would push, the big red button and say oops.
dont waste your vote, let common sense prevail.
Click to expand...

misty said:
Tiassa:
why did the american attack Afganistan, and the Taliban, to find Osama Bin Laden.
did they find OBL,( NO) but a change of regime has made all the difference.
why did the american attack Iraq an Saddam Hussain,
to find Weapons of Mass Distruction.
did they find WMD,(NO) but a change of regime as made all the difference.
why has Libia become allies with the west, because they thought they were next.
why has Iran become allies with the west, because they thought they were next.
have you noticed how many countrys, that were once your enemy, are now your allies.
whether you like bush or not he has'nt done so bad.
what you lose from one hand, you gain back with the other.
though we'ed have liked to have found WMDs and OBL, it is the start of a new world order, eventually all the troubles will ease off.
but kerry is not the man for the job.
it's better the devil you know, than the devil you dont
Click to expand...
how are these two quotes, warmongering, disrespectful, and cowardly.

Of course, your disrespect is merely a symptom of your stupidity, I dont think she owes you another chance.
 
Last edited:
one_raven

its easy to eliminate that you know
change to the preferential system

then the 2 voters would then have the lesser evil as 2 or they would only have themselves to blame
 
whitewolf

i dont understand your atitude
i was brought up in a family who see voting as a responcability, its more important than the time it takes and there are so many ways to vote absentiee if you cant get to the booth that well, it IS a crime not to vote

i just dont understand americans especially who jump up and down about how partiotic they are but they cant go and do the one thing there country NEEDS them to do. THATS citizenship, not saying some oath and saluting the flag
 
Audible

I consider Mis-t-highs disrespectful and cowardly insofar as the question asked went without an answer. The response is warmongering--e.g. "It doesn't matter that the justifications for war were dishonest, just as long as we think we're winning." Additional cowardice comes when one is willing to ignore history in order to victimize themselves with fear of the unknown. Being an American does sometimes take courage, and that courage doesn't always involve killing someone else. Sometimes, that courage is invested in growth of the self. Raising dishonesty as a response to a question just isn't courageous.

If only people in your position, Audible, or Mis-t-high's, could argue honestly and substantially, you might be worthy of respect. The sad thing is that you don't have to do much to get my respect; merely, you simply need to not ask me to put that respect aside.

The real question is, what further chances do I owe either you or Mis-t-high to be honest?

Really, either one of you are welcome to fill us in on the detail of the "big red button" theory.

Or else maybe I should oppose Bush because he might start raping children?

So, Audible, answer me a few questions, if you have the courage:

(1) Should there be a valid reason to go to war?
(2) Should that valid reason be true?
(3) Why credit the Bush administration with Libya's change when the EU has been working the Colonel over for years on that very point?
(4) Why credit Iran as becoming an ally with the West?
(5) What enemies become allies?
(6) Would you agree that even though no primary objective of two wars has been accomplished or even, in the case of one, real, the United States should go around invading countries anyway?
(7) What is the basis of the "big red button" paranoia?​

All you've done with the "big red button" issue is repeated groundless paranoia. Hardly respectful.

If you want to act like a punk, Audible, I'm certainly willing to treat you accordingly. However, if you can't be respectful, why should we listen to a child killer like you?

(And if you don't get what that last line means, that's your problem.)
 
Kerry is not the lesser of two evils, he will be a great president.

If you're worried about nuclear war, Bush is developing new nuclear weapons, isn't doing much about nuclear proliferation, and supported the Barry Goldwater approach to Vietnam, which included the idea that nuclear weapons be used there for christssake. Bush also thinks God is on his side, which is scarier than his incompetence.

We allow more than two parties, but only two stand out for a good reason, that's what works in a free market, you need a united front to take out an incumbent, I don't think that dynamic will ever change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top