posted on October 4, 2004 02:06:19 PM
Well, to be quite honest, I'm not familiar with their candidate, however, I can tell you I completely sympathize with you.
This will be second time I have ever voted for a Democrat. I am sure many participants on this thread will be quite astonished by this. The first time I voted for a Democrat was for the first election of Bill Clinton. My first opportunity to vote came in 1988 when I turned 18. I voted for George Bush Sr at that time. I just started working at NAS Jacksonville at the time, and really couldn't see past my nose at 18. I figured if I wanted to be rich and succeed in life I should be a Republican. Boy was I wrong. The following election in 1992, I voted for Bill Clinton. During the Clinton years I became involved in political activism at Florida State University including protests against Al Gore for his lack of environmental focus during his VP terms. We entitled the protest, "Hey Al Read Your Book" referring to his book, Earth in the Balance. I also served as Chapter Chair and on the State Board of Directors for Florida PIRG. After my two years with PIRG I went on to be voted into the Student Senate at FSU, oveseeing a 5 million dollar annual budget. I took on Administration over various issues that mainly involved student rights and first amendment issues.
In the 1996 and 2000 elections I voted for Ralph Nader, who was the founding father of the PIRGS. This year, I was undecided as a voter up until just before the DNC. I was most interested in seeing what role Nader would play, and became quite dissapointed in a man I held with such great regard. Not because of what many Democrats claimed, "his shortsighted spoiler role", but rather his ethics, particularly his acceptance of help from conservative groups whose ideology and platform were nothing close to that of Nader's and that their only mission was to have another candidate to take votes from Kerry.
I was happy to see the energy and dignity of Howard Dean, and his true mission of removing George Bush from the White House. His sheer attitude and drive before and to a greater degree after the DNC has made him a hero to many of us lefties. He didn't drop off the face of the earth after he lost the nomination, he remained focused and has been an integral part of the Kerry campaign. Through that alone, I began leaning towards Kerry and began learning more about his campaign which led me to support Kerry.
You have to decide in your heart what is more important this time around. Is it to feel good about your vote, even if it means that your candidate has no chance of coming close to winning, or do you want to give your vote to one of two candidates that you don't support wholeheartedly (aka: the lessor of two evils attitude). It is a matter of strategy and if you are in a state that leans strongly towards one cadidate, then vote your conscious without hesitation. If you are in a swing state, you really have to think about what is more important to you.
posted on October 4, 2004 09:17:30 PM
The libertarians are the closest thing to real conservatives that exist today. A vote for them is a vote for Kerry. Go for it
posted on October 4, 2004 09:31:18 PM
lol no, no, no...don't listen to the profe by voting for the Libertarian candidate.
Voice your upset that we only basically have a two party system...vote for Nader as a protest vote. Both dems and republicans watch the number of votes he got last time. Threatens both parties with a viable 3rd party candidate.
posted on October 5, 2004 07:08:54 AM
Thanks you all for your responses so far.
Rusty, we are contemporaries. I turned 18 in 1988 also. Unfortunately, I missed the deadline to register (not by age, but by distraction). BTW your advice: if you are in a state that leans strongly towardsone candidate, then voteyour conscious without hesitation.If you are in a swing state,you really have to think about what is moreimportant to you. Is very much appreciated and has got me thinking. Especially, since most publications consider my state (AR) to be a swing state.
I have never voted based one party or another. Generally, I just listen and read and try to choose between the two. But this election ....well..hmmm?
Sorry Linda , just can't bring myself to vote for Nader. And I don't really think he's any more viable (realistically) than Badnarik -- the Libertarian candidate. Thank you for the list of third party candidates, though! If I still throw away my vote, I'll be better prepared to at least choose one whose platform most closely matches my beliefs. (I had been looking for such a link, but I guess I just didn't have the search perimeters to find it. THANKS!)
Profe, I'm curious as to whyyou think of the Libertarianparty as being conservative?
I am very conservative in my personal beliefs, and have been thinking the Libertarians may be too liberal. Just curious why you consider them so conservative. Please, explain. I, for one, am extremely interested. Seriously.
edited to correct UBB error
[ edited by SuperFrogWonderGirl on Oct 5, 2004 09:41 AM ]
posted on October 5, 2004 08:10:27 AMit is pretty sad that you need to come to a message board to ask advice on who to vote for
Guess I missed the part where she asked someone to tell her who to vote for.
You are asking everyone to do the work for you... start reading, get educated and then make your own choices
Sigh, as someone who's been around these boards for a long time, I can tell you, SuperFrogWonderGirl, that you'll see these kind of strawmen atttacks frequently.
posted on October 5, 2004 08:10:52 AM
You're welcome. I hope you scrolled down the page and found the link to answer questions to help base a judgement about which party your answers most resemble.
I turned 18 in 1988 also. I have two sons...both older than you and Rusty.
And you're from AR...so am I. Right in between the Twin Lakes at the very northern part of central AR. small world brought closer on the internet.
And I posted that for the profe's benefit. He and I go back and forth about Nader and which candidate those voting for him will hurt...so after what he posted, I decided to 'play' with him.
I, judging myself to be a conservative - not a neocon nor a neonazicon, as I have been accused of being - came out with an 84% on the issue which favor voting for re-electing President Bush. [surprise, surprise]
posted on October 5, 2004 09:27:27 AM
The sad truth is, I don't think either Dubya or Kerry are so hot. So, the deciding factor is what message do we want to send to the rest of the world? That we are indecisive and vacillating or steadfast and determined?
We have a long and arduous confrontation in need of resolution. We do not need a President that thinks concession to the enemy is better than the ugly reality of battle. By the enemies own words, John Kerry helped birth the debacle of Viet Nam. Is that really what we need now?
posted on October 5, 2004 10:16:01 AM
I was in NO way asking who I should vote for!
I saw the debate on the CSPAN (with the split screen) with a completely open mind.
Kerry's vacillating scares me. While President Bush's responses and his facial expressions during debate caused me much concern.
At first I thought the President was really having trouble controlling his anger, and then I began to wonder if he wasn't having genuine comprehension problems.
I posted here because I was seriously considering voting Libertarian, and I thought (having lurked on these boards for awhile) that someone would most certainly have a strong negative opinion about the party. I like to hear ALL sides before making a decision. Frankly, after listening to CSPAN almost everyday (CSPAN makes great "white noise" for sleeping children), I wish we could just trash the whole system and start over.
Maggie, dear gentlelady, I've always thought YOU might be FTWC aka IRAT.
Please try to remember that not everything of Wonder is also Fluffy
posted on October 5, 2004 11:37:00 AMI am very conservative in my personal beliefs, and have been thinking the Libertarians may be too liberal. Just curious why you consider them so conservative. Please, explain. I, for one, am extremely interested. Seriously.
When I say conservative, I'm talking about the following:
Small, unobtrusive government that does not interfere with personal liberties and individual rights.
Fiscal conservatism. Low taxes, sparse benefits, no pork.
Traditionally, conservatism had nothing to do with the christian right, or the imposition of moral judgements onto the unwilling. It was about strict adherence to the letter of the constitution, the individual rights of the states, and personal and governmental financial responsibility. Today, you'll find that someone who considers themselves conservative is really only referring to being "socially conservative", in other words, hewing to whatever they consider to be "traditional" moral values. Problem is, they don't see anything wrong with imposing those values on society in general, and that's where they leave off being conservative. If that's not true, then why the push to bring religion into the classroom? Why push to have a biblical story of creation taught in secular, public schools? Why try to change the constitution to allow it to define something as personal and private as marriage? No real conservative would stomache that kind of irresponsible fiddling with the constitution.
Traditional conservatives are incensed to see the way we are spending the legacy of our great grandchildren in Iraq, with no sign of any positive effects on world wide terror or the safety of Americans.
In my view, the new neoconservatism has little to do with real conservatism. Go back in history and read the thoughts of some real conservatives. Goldwater comes to mind. Those folks had a lot more in common with today's libertarians than with today's Republicans.
BTW, linda knows a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush
[ edited by profe51 on Oct 5, 2004 11:38 AM ]
posted on October 5, 2004 11:39:30 AM
superfrog- I was afraid I would see people on here suggesting who to vote for. Don't let their opinions make your decision. You have plenty of time to do some research on the different parties, their candidates, and their platforms.
Strategy in your state, as in mine this time around is the key. No other time in American history has elections been so close throughout the country, whether for the President, a Governor, Federal legislators, or even at the State level. I believe this Presidential election is different than in most elections of the past. There are so many important topics that it makes it nearly impossible to vote consciously on just one.
As you can see, I don't feel it is my place to offer an opinion on who to vote for, but rather point out the importance of voting.
posted on October 5, 2004 12:09:24 PM
Linda- you are so full of crap. talk about a flip flopper.
"Voice your upset that we only basically have a two party system...vote for Nader as a protest vote. Both dems and republicans watch the number of votes he got last time."
Only to be followed up with, " I agree with fiset....she only started a discussion...didn't ask who she should vote for. Such negativity all the time."
I'm sure you'll come up with something to defend that, but those were your exact words.
Your first comment is another absurd misconception by the Conservatives. Someone who is left enough to vote for Nader would most likely never in their right mind vote for Bush. They would rather die a miserable death by the smell of patchouli than vote for Bush, and someone on the far right most likely wouldn't vote for Kerry over Bush. To claim that Nader is the protest vote against the two party system is completely misleading, you know it and should be ashamed of yourself for another one of your lies.
posted on October 5, 2004 01:16:23 PM
profe - Just like the democratic party has come more to the center....so has the far right. The more centralists and moderates of each party are very similar.
But on this
If that's not true, then why the push to bring religion into the classroom?
The Republican party platform is not doing that. They do, however, believe that people including children have a constitution right to *practice* their religion where they wish....not have their rights stop at the school door step. They aren't calling for the return of forced school prayer...but that those who wish to pray be allowed to do so.
Why push to have a biblical story of creation taught in secular, public schools?
Because BOTH are only theories....and it was in years past before all the liberals started changing everything.
Why try to change the constitution to allow it to define something as personal and private as marriage?
Again the 'right' is more religious, on the whole, while the left tends to be much more secular. The 'right' supports the values of traditional instutions...like marriage.
No real conservative would stomache that kind of irresponsible fiddling with the constitution. Fiddling? lol There wouldn't have been a clause in it to enable it to be changed/modified by the people if it weren't constitionally allowed.
Traditional conservatives are incensed to see the way we are spending the legacy of our great grandchildren in Iraq,
have some stats to back that statement up? Yes, some are very upset about the high deficit. But they also understand what was spent was necessary...defending this nation in two wars.
with no sign of any positive effects on world wide terror or the safety of Americans.
Even kerry stated those thinking we weren't safer now that saddam had been caught...didn't know what they're talking about because we are. [obviously not a direct quote - but the essense of how wrong those people are - according to him]
posted on October 5, 2004 01:29:43 PM
First, fiset, I apologize for referring to you as a female....though it's really not an insult to accidently think one is of the more feminine gender. I now stand corrected by helen...who, herself, has made the exact mistake several times with posters. But, please accept my MOST sincere apology. I shall not again repeat my error.
------------------
Then we have rusty who cannot control his own emotions enough to be civil.
Linda- you are so full of crap. talk about a flip flopper.
"Voice your upset that we only basically have a two party system...vote for Nader as a protest vote. Both dems and republicans watch the number of votes he got last time." Only to be followed up with, " I agree with fiset....she only started a discussion...didn't ask who she should vote for. Such negativity all the time."
I'm sure you'll come up with something to defend that, but those were your exact words.
Other than just calling names and whining again, I really don't see your point. maggie posted in a negative manner, imo.....I explained to SuperFrogWonderGirl that I was giving the profe a hard time....and I did vote in 2000 for Nadar as a protest vote....so what's YOUR problem today. Forget to take YOUR drugs or take too many, the drugs you think I need?
Your first comment is another absurd misconception by the Conservatives. Someone who is left enough to vote for Nader would most likely never in their right mind vote for Bush. They would rather die a miserable death by the smell of patchouli than vote for Bush, and someone on the far right most likely wouldn't vote for Kerry over Bush. To claim that Nader is the protest vote against the two party system is completely misleading, you know it and should be ashamed of yourself for another one of your lies. Your rant was answered above.
IF I wanted to recommend who she should vote for I believe most intelligent posters here would KNOW I would have HIGHLY recommended President Bush. But it obviously has escaped your reading abilites to have noticed who I'm supporting.
And you're incorrect...if you would read anything from the election in 2000 Nader himself gives the percentages of Republicans that voted for him and the number of dems that voted for him. There were thousands of protest votes. You saying differently doesn't make it true.
posted on October 5, 2004 01:58:10 PM
Heh, no apology needed as I took your meaning the first time. Although after reading your apology I thought I might have read your comment wrong the first time. So I went back to the original comment and was like, "nope, thats not me she's referring to."
But no matter. While I don't post much, I've been around these boards a long long time and as such, am very familiar with the dynamic between you and Helen.
posted on October 5, 2004 02:29:12 PM
fiset - am very familiar with the dynamic between you and Helen. LOL as are most.
Sometimes I think we should take a poll here to see who would like to see us stop posting to once another or maybe stop making 'zingers' at each other...and who finds them entertaining. And we'd both have to abide by the majority of the votes. LOL
I should have known better than to take anything helen says at face value...trusting she knew what she was talking about, when she didn't.
You have have just opened the largest hole in your philosophy and attacks on John Kerry as a flip flopper yet.
How? Well lets see. "and I did vote in 2000 for Nadar as a protest vote." only to be followed with, "IF I wanted to recommend who she should vote for I believe most intelligent posters here would KNOW I would have HIGHLY recommended President Bush."
So, Linda, if I understand you correctly, you understand the idea of voting as a protest vote, correct? Hmmm. John Kerry has repeatedly defended his voting record, including his use of protest voting. Yet, you continue to whine and moan about it, referring to him as a flip flopper. Wow, that is pretty amazing.
You really crack me up. Talk about being a hypocrite!!!
I would say you're no longer backed into a corner, but rather knocked completely out of the ring. You have no defense on this, oh Great Linda "The Hypocritical Flip Flopper."
Thank you for finally admitting you understand the art of protest voting.
by voting for the Libertarian candidate.
- came out with an 84% on the issue which favor voting for re-electing President Bush. [surprise, surprise]