Vote with your heart, but..
LikeAnOcean
Posts: 7,718
..like someone here mentioned, understand the winner will and always will be the one who compromises.. There's going to be a lot of things you don't agree with them about. They are going to kiss a lot of ass. They are going to say a lot of things they don't follow through with.. but that's the nature of politics. For every opinion, there's an opposite opinion, a vote that is going to be needed to make it to the White House..
Nothing wrong with voting for Nader, but understand he will never make it to the White House.. and you can argue and say "well with that type of thinking he never will." and I'll say if you want a little, you're going to have to give up a little..
Which is why Obama will be the next president.
Unless you are willing to compromise your opinions, the White House will never be run by you..
Sadly, I think I hear more reasons why not to vote for Obama than I hear reasons to vote for Nader.
Like I said, if you believe in Nader, vote for him. Endorse him. Preach him, and be proud of it, but don't question other peoples reasons for voting for Obama.
The boys in Pearl Jam are smart guys. They are well informed, have a good understanding of politics and their own reasons.
My thought of the day.
Nothing wrong with voting for Nader, but understand he will never make it to the White House.. and you can argue and say "well with that type of thinking he never will." and I'll say if you want a little, you're going to have to give up a little..
Which is why Obama will be the next president.
Unless you are willing to compromise your opinions, the White House will never be run by you..
Sadly, I think I hear more reasons why not to vote for Obama than I hear reasons to vote for Nader.
Like I said, if you believe in Nader, vote for him. Endorse him. Preach him, and be proud of it, but don't question other peoples reasons for voting for Obama.
The boys in Pearl Jam are smart guys. They are well informed, have a good understanding of politics and their own reasons.
My thought of the day.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
McCain '08.
Should be the new Diebold slogan...
hehe
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i knew you had an ulterior motive. it's all coming out now...
ps. don't kill me
Nothing wrong with voting for Nader, just understand atleast 3/4 of the population do not agree with him even when informed.
If we really voted with our hearts, we'd be running the country.. not possible, you have to compromise. You will never 100% agree with something to some level.
Republicans really picked the cream of the crop to throw to the wolves. Is McCain even a conservative?
Sort of a "you can't get there from here" kinda thing...
Nader splits the dem vote up and McCain takes it...just like the tortoise and the hare...
lol...but not really lol...
The US electoral process is pretty much yet another washout, depending on how the cross your fingers on Barak thing pans out.
Better luck next time I guess. Hit the ground running and all that...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
no thanks. I know what a compromise is. you're asking me to take a leap of faith.
Of course they don't want us there, but can we leave without trying to fix the mess we made?
My opinion of the Iraq changes daily, I don't want the U.S. to be there, but today I'm feeling responsible.
I think the million dollar question is why or why not we should leave, and 99.9% of us are not informed enough to make a good enough judgment call on this. Myself included..
Paying reparations to the Iraqi people, holding referendums to see what THEY want, holding real elections and placing prominent people we know and trust in charge, etc etc etc... all this could be done. we could also even send some fucking construction workers there to rebuild shit, whatever.
a military presence is NOT necessary.
and Iraq is not Obama's only problem. he has many more problems.
i'd take his problems over nader's. nader's only got one: he will never get elected no matter what his positions are
Denny Crane!
What would happen to those construction workers with no military presence there?
http://inthepresenttense.blogspot.com/
Exactly. It's stupid to vote for someone you don't agree with just because they have the best chance of winning.
I say do not vote for anyone.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
which is even more stupid...
Maybe so, but what would happen if they held an election and nobody showed up? Now that would force some change - considering all I hear the lemmings squealing about is "change, change, change". (change of fools?)
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
lemmings, huh...
at least those lemmings are taking the time to vote...
I do find if amusing that those who don't vote have time to whine about others voting...good stuff indeed...
Glad I could amuse you. I'm just looking at it from a different perspective. Why would someone in good conscience vote for a candidate who does not uphold his/her values?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Denny Crane!
fair enough...
perspective is important...you have yours and I have mine...I suppose choosing not to vote is fine...but just don't complain if things don't go your way...
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Unless we the people make some drastic changes in the way this country's run and in the voting/election process; the president will always be picked by other interests and infleunces. Not by the american people.
I think that if you choose not to vote because there is no candidate available that represents your views, then you still have a right to complain. I mean, I could go vote for myself for president, I suppose, and then I could complain all I want, right?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I think every country should have that actually...
awesome idea.
It's like saying..."no I didn't just forget to vote...and this election was a pretty much a failure to adequately represent"
woohoo...let's go again!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i consider myself somewhat "informed" and i am not voting for Nader, and never have either... so you make a good point.
nothing wrong with voting for nader... but trying to paint Obama as some war mongering mcbush clone is just silly and it really isnt working for nader or his camp either
9 months ago the conspiracy crowd was saying the same thing about Hillary Clinton.. that she was penciled in
what you just witnessed my friend was democracy in action... obama was running in single digits 9 months ago and Clinton was "undefeatable" .... and now Obama is about to hopefully win in November against a very popluar long term Senator and former POW
We would definately get change. Probably not for the best, though.
you mean out of this list of people running you can't find anyone who represents your views...?
http://www.votesmart.org/election_president_search.php?type=alpha
That's quite a list. Obviously, I haven't taken the time to investigate each of their views, but if they don't match mine 100% - at least on issues that I consider non-negotiable - then I could not vote for them.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
you're a hard one to please...;)
I bet you were a bridezilla....he he....(seriously, I hope everything went well)