Why should I vote for Nader

What change are you looking for?
Based on that - do you see either Obama or McCain truly enacting that change?

More importantly do you see Obama or McCain wanting that change?

That should answer your questions

jeffbr wrote:

"Risk my vote"?? Do you mean, how can I make sure I pick a winner? If your goal is to pick the eventual winner so you can say you guessed right, then definitely don't pick Nader. But if your principles tell you that Nader is most closely aligned with your beliefs, you should always vote your principles.

Voting for the person that mostly reflects your opinions and beliefs is a good thing...however, I too can see value in voting for someone who you agree with to a lesser extent if it helps make sure a person you agree wth a lot is not elected...if that make sense.

Both arguments make sense, to me.

to shed light on that which is not being paid attention by the major parties.

If no one makes a stink, they won't pay attention. For instance, the republican party has essentially abandoned economic principle to adopt moral control as thier direction because the loud voting moonbats of this country in that party are the loudest voice. There aren't a lot of people who even understand economics so there aren't a lot of people who vote on them.

Voting for Nader won't change a damn thing in this election, but for that matter neither will casting your vote for Obama or McCain. Voting 3rd party is the only way to decrease the percantage of vote going to the Oligarchy.... and increase the attention paid to issues which haven't been addressed thoroughly.

Basically, if you don't... who will?


My reason for thinking this way is the in my opinion shortsighted finality that if so and so wins this election we are doomed. If that's the case we've been doomed the entire modern era. I don't think any one round of presidents or congressmen will lead to ruin, however years and years of bad policy will. So in that sense, to me it makes absolutely no sense to continue status quo when the machine is clearly broken and needs to be audited, examined and fixed. I'm sure it's happened plenty of times in our history where many in the public felt there was no really good canidate and the US was going to shit. If you feel that way it's kind of your civic duty to vote your principals and do what you can to save what you feel is good about hte country whatever that may be. Personally I don't feel that most people "continually" running for office do so for the good of the country. I don't really understand Ralphs fight in this since except for the reasons of the above. Bob Barr to me is a self aggrandizing ass but so are most canidates who espouse to actually WANT one of the most powerful and influential jobs in the world.. I don't quite know Ralph as well and he's a lawyer so there's probably a bit of that to him as well, but in his stead, he did do quite a bit to steer the country in the right direction when it comes to auto safety and that's probably what he's trying to do with the election process.

Personally I think shrinking the size scope and dependance on the Federal government is to the betterment of all, but that's just my opinion.

Anyone who wants to vote for Nader should vote for him. I would never tell anyone to not vote for someone even Bush.

However the constant Obama bashing by the Nader fans is getting really old and is making me turn against him much like 2000 when I turned against Nader for all of the Gore bashing. Look what that got us...

Strangest Tribe wrote:

Well, I just think that saying Obama won't change anything would be as stupid to believe as stepping back to 2000 and saying Bush wouldn't change anything. We all know where that led.

Obama is at the "say whatever to get elected" stage of his campaign.

I think too much is being read into the Iran nuke issue. Obama can't come out and say that he's for Iran on any issue, so he's going to pander these issues or side-step them until November.

He can't afford to lose the liberal Jewish vote especially if McCain selects Lieberman for a running mate.

Anti-War Obama supporters have to take a step of faith with this thought.

Voting for Nader is a blind leap of faith that gets us nowhere because if McCain gets President the same way Bush did in 2000 we are totally fucked again by the "idealists"

So people who have no faith in Obama's policies just have to get over it, but people who have no faith in Nader are right? I think you're trying a little too hard to justify Obama's stances.

Strangest Tribe wrote:

Voting for Nader is a blind leap of faith that gets us nowhere because if McCain gets President the same way Bush did in 2000 we are totally fucked again by the "idealists"

how's that, by thousands of ppl being prevented from voting b/c a list said they committed a crime in the future? by the supreme court overruling state law that said there had to be a recount?

it's been posted so many times, but you're aware ever single 3rd party candidate received more votes than the difference between bush and gore in florida?

and didn't more repbulicans vote for nader than democrats in florida w/ a large chunk saying if nader wasn't on the ballot they would've voted for another 3rd party candidate or not at all?

VictoryGin wrote:

for those that think this sends a message to washington or brings issues to light---wouldn't we have seen an impact after nader's (biggest?) win in 2000?

Yes, he brought upon change. Nader got some very important issues into the public arena, gained tons support for his causes, showed exactly how our elections and debates are a sham with no real choices allowed to compete effectively and he gave millions a choice...someone to get behind that represented their ideals when otherwise they didn't have that choice and were left feeling shut out of the system and apathetic that anyone is willing to fight against the odds to rail against all the problems/corruption that plague our government.

They way things are currently being ran is simply not good enough for many of us. And we're tired of just playing along and shrugging because we believe our country can do much better and we aren't content to settle for what we view as mediocrity anymore. To me that IS the problem...not it's certainly not fixing anything by settling for it year after year.

decides2dream wrote:

man if that first paragrpah were written about obama by another poster.....you'd call fowl and say it's far too vague.


i agree though on the last paragraph, i think many feel the same way. however, even within the confines of that....many do not see nader as the answer to that, not think that the candidate they may choose to vote for is a form of 'settling.' things are horrific right now and absolutely we cannot settle. just how and why and who you choose to start to implement such may differ according to your own pov and assesssment of the situation.


it's a circular arguement after awhile really...with some saying if you abandon your ideals you are settling - which i do agree....others saying if you do such knowing your candidate will never win no change will actually get to occur...which i also agree. so really, that's IT. how does a candidate outside of the 2 parties get elected? elsewhere i think someone mentioned ross perot as getting the 'closest' which is kinda scary ...but really, thus far.....no one else has gotten closer? honestly of the 3rd party presidential candidates i've personally not found 'better' choices either....so where ARE these better leaders? and how to get em in office? that's really the question in my mind. not for this election, but for the future.....THAt really is the 'change' i'd like to witness.

ha, YEAH

ross perot had the cash to buy airtime, which probably had a lot to do with his appeal. people got to see him talk with his charts and all. sadly it's so dependent on money. so in order to get other people in the running we'll have to fix our campaign system.

CHANGE is coming, d2d

decides2dream wrote:

man if that first paragrpah were written about obama by another poster.....you'd call fowl and say it's far too vague.

Good thing I was just answering a post on my way out the door to run an errand and it wasn't my platform on which I was running for president.

decides2dream wrote:

i agree though on the last paragraph, i think many feel the same way. however, even within the confines of that....many do not see nader as the answer to that, not think that the candidate they may choose to vote for is a form of 'settling.' things are horrific right now and absolutely we cannot settle. just how and why and who you choose to start to implement such may differ according to your own pov and assesssment of the situation.


it's a circular arguement after awhile really...with some saying if you abandon your ideals you are settling - which i do agree....others saying if you do such knowing your candidate will never win no change will actually get to occur...which i also agree. so really, that's IT. how does a candidate outside of the 2 parties get elected? elsewhere i think someone mentioned ross perot as getting the 'closest' which is kinda scary ...but really, thus far.....no one else has gotten closer? honestly of the 3rd party presidential candidates i've personally not found 'better' choices either....so where ARE these better leaders? and how to get em in office? that's really the question in my mind. not for this election, but for the future.....THAt really is the 'change' i'd like to witness.

Basically it comes down to our current system being corrupt and not working for the people. If you see huge problems that keep reoccurring year after year then you don't want to support more of that happening. You want to stop that cycle on go out on a limb and try for something different....a new approach because this old one is shit. Many of us see Obama as more of that same problematic system that is corrupt and ineffectual and have pointed out many good reasons for thinking so. We won't be supporting him...we'll be voting for whomever it is that we believe would bring the change we'd like to see to the office.