Forum archives » Fights Go Here » For anyone thinking of voting for Nader this fall.

« Prev Page 1 of 2 Next »

Inflatable_Man
July 20, 2004 8:20 AM

You should probably read this...

Nader Accepts GOP Signatures for Ballot

Mon Jul 19, 6:02 PM ET

By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN, Associated Press Writer

LANSING, Mich. - In an about face, Ralph Nader (news - web sites) decided Monday to accept thousands of petition signatures collected by Michigan Republicans if that's the only way he can qualify for the state's presidential ballot.

Last Thursday, Michigan Republican Party officials submitted 43,000 signatures — far more than the 30,000 needed — to ensure Nader could appear on the ballot as an independent. Republicans began collecting signatures after it appeared that Nader might not get on the ballot as the Reform Party's candidate for president.

Nader's campaign had turned in about 5,400 signatures. But spokesman Kevin Zeese said it stopped collecting them a month ago after the national Reform Party endorsed Nader and it looked as though he could get on the ballot as its candidate.

But there has been a growing dispute over who controls the Reform Party in Michigan. One group claiming to be the legitimate Reform Party of Michigan plans to nominate a presidential candidate for the ballot at its state convention Saturday. Chairman Matthew Crehan, of Muskegon, Mich., has said there is no guarantee Nader will get that nomination.

A group headed by John Muntz, of Wyandotte, Mich., which also claims to be the legitimate state Reform Party, already has nominated Nader for the spot on the state ballot. Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land has said she can't accept that nomination until the dispute over who controls the state Reform Party is resolved.

Zeese said the goal is to get Nader on Michigan's ballot — however it happens.

"We're going to continue to pursue the Reform Party, but we're not going to close off the independent option at this time while the Reform Party has not decided" who is in charge, he said.

Michigan Democratic Party leaders have asked Nader to refuse the signatures, saying Republicans want him on the ballot only to draw votes away from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites).

"We urge Nader to reject this Republican political trick and demonstrate that he is still a man with great integrity who honors his own beliefs," Michigan Democratic Executive Chairman Mark Brewer said.

Zeese initially said last week that the campaign would refuse the GOP signatures. He later said he wasn't sure that was still the case if it turned out state officials wouldn't accept the Reform Party nomination.

Brewer said Nader's decision not to withdraw as an independent will force the party to file a federal election complaint against Nader's campaign and the Michigan Republican Party, which it contends exceeded a state political party campaign limit of $5,000 in helping Nader get on the ballot.

State GOP Executive Director Greg McNeilly said last week that the party didn't exceed any campaign spending limits because it collected most of the signatures through volunteers.

Democrats also plan to check the validity of all signatures and challenge any they find in error. Any challenges must be filed by Thursday afternoon.

"A close inspection of the petitions revealed numerous instances of petition fraud made by Republican Party staffers," Brewer said Monday in a statement.

As someone who regrettably voted for Nader in 2000, I shake my head in disgust at the length he's gone to this year when the election is already this tight, the fact he doesn't care for those he claims to represent and the extent of his egomania. I'm usual all for candidates who run independantly, but this election everyone who wants to defeat Bush should freakin' vote for a candidate who CAN defeat Bush. Ralph Nader is not going to win, so what's the point in supporting him? *sigh*...

I seriously think that Ralph Nader the crusading consumer advocate has been body-snatched and replaced by an alien who wants to ruin his reputation. It's already ruined in my book.

Post #145873link

UnknownEric
July 20, 2004 9:14 AM

Honestly, it depends on your state and what's more important to you, voting your conscience or voting out Bush. I voted Nader in 2000 and I'm not sorry, because I still lived in New York and Gore took NY by a fair margin. If Kerry has a substantial lead in Maryland this year, I may vote Nader or Libertarian or some other wacky small party, just because I'd really rather if NEITHER Bush nor Kerry were President. But if forced to choose which candidate to be anally raped by, I'll choose Kerry because at least he uses lube.

Post #145874link

Inflatable_Man
July 20, 2004 9:35 AM

Yeah... I guess my post is aimed mainly at people who live in swing states like Michigan. However, even though I live in Mass which will surely pick Kerry either way, I still couldn't bring myself to vote for Ralph after he accepted GOP help to get on the ballot. How can he not see that he's helping the very people he claims to be at odds with? As for Kerry, the lesser of two evils... yeah, I'm not too keen on him either, but I'll deal. Better an ordinary President than the dangerous, sociopathic one we have now. At least Kerry only killed a couple VC in 'Nam, compared to the thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of American troops Bush has murdered. Kerry is only diet-evil. Not quite evil enough. ;-P

Post #145877link

MikeyG
July 20, 2004 9:44 AM

I don't even know what to do anymore. Our votes really don't mean shit in the first place, so it doesn't matter. I am just saddened that Ralph seems to be so desperate for this bid.

Post #145880link

Inflatable_Man
July 20, 2004 10:58 AM

Depends where you live. If you live in a red or blue state, you're probably right. No, your vote doesn't mean shit. If you do live in a swing state though, just remember we lost Florida in 2000 by a little more than five hundred fucking votes. That's like my extended family.

Post #145887link

UnknownEric
July 20, 2004 11:12 AM

quote:
I am just saddened that Ralph seems to be so desperate for this bid.
Yeah, I don't really get his motivation this year. He made some good points in 2000, but he seems to be moving away from these points and into the Ross Perot land of "Dammit, I wanna run for President and you can't stop me!"

If I don't vote Kerry, I'll probably end up voting Socialist Workers Party or something else like that.

Post #145891link

possums
July 20, 2004 11:43 AM

quote:
I am just saddened that Ralph seems to be so desperate for this bid.

I'm saddened by his idiocy! He can't even notice that the GOP is trying to get him on the ballot to take votes away from Kerry! What a dolt.

Post #145896link

Inflatable_Man
July 20, 2004 12:07 PM

He probably notices. He just doesn't care. He's too self-absorbed and deluded.

Post #145899link

MaKK_BeNN
July 20, 2004 12:12 PM

I've donated to Nader's campaign. I'm sure he'll do great things for this election. ;)

Post #145902link

Inflatable_Man
July 20, 2004 12:28 PM

See? Now do you see?! A vote for Nader is a vote for MaKK!

Post #145904link

MikeyG
July 20, 2004 12:31 PM

A vote for anyone is a vote for MaKK in his mind. He'd find a way to justify it in his little head.

Post #145905link

UnknownEric
July 20, 2004 12:40 PM

I honestly don't believe Nader will be as big of a factor this election as he was in 2000. He has no momentum, many of his voters, seeing what damage Bush has done, will back Kerry this time, and he has no real platform. Running on the same "there's no difference between the two major parties so vote for me" isn't going to hold the same resonance as it did in a pre-9/11 world.

I predict 2% nationally at best for him. And I don't think it'll be as close between Bush and Kerry as it was between Bush and Gore (although, sadly, I'm not sure which of the two will be on the business end of the drubbing).

Post #145906link

MaKK_BeNN
July 20, 2004 12:47 PM

You're right, 2% won't make a difference! Go vote for Nader! ;)

Post #145908link

NooniePuuBunny
July 20, 2004 8:49 PM

Nader is a fucktard, just as he always has been. But someone answer me this:

What are the origins of the name Nader anyway? It sounds like a really obscure sex term for a penis or something.

Post #145930link

Inflatable_Man
July 20, 2004 9:59 PM

quote:
What are the origins of the name Nader anyway? It sounds like a really obscure sex term for a penis or something.

Is the Nader *big* enough to effect the election?

...

Ah.. heh... ha.... I got nothin'.

Post #145946link

Kr0n1c
July 21, 2004 1:00 AM

Nader=throwing away vote

Post #145959link

AtheistDiary
July 21, 2004 1:56 AM

Post #145967link

boorite
July 21, 2004 6:36 AM

Wow, AtheistD, that image really got me thinking.

Yes, yes, we know about the GOP's love for the Nader "spoiler" factor. For me, it's a dead issue. Here in the Republic of Maryland, Bush will not win. Cast your vote for Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise or Tom Thumb or Tom's Thumb Up Your Ass-- Bush will not win Maryland.

Those of you in swing states have something to think about, though.

Post #145975link

Zaster
July 21, 2004 6:54 AM

A vote for either of the Big 2 political cadres these days is a vote for resuscitating aristocracy (by empowering ivy-league schooled career politicians and families of wealthy business dynasties), and it's also a vote for shrivelling the middle class by encouraging the continued flight of good jobs overseas. I won't waste my vote on either element of this endless good-cop bad-cop routine.

Maybe after the Democrats lose enough enough elections on account of Nader they'll go back to being a viable alternative to the republican party again.

Post #145978link

boorite
July 21, 2004 7:31 AM

quote:
A vote for either of the Big 2 political cadres these days is a vote for resuscitating aristocracy (by empowering ivy-league schooled career politicians and families of wealthy business dynasties

Let's start with that.

You think we're RESUSCITATING aristocracy? I hadn't noticed it was in cardiac arrest! No, I think it's alive and kicking the shit out of us!

You think WE are EMPOWERING these sons of bitches? Good lord, they already have power! An Ivy-League degree IS power! That's just for starters! These guys have more power in their jacket buttons than you have in your whole wardrobe!

We're hosed!

So vote for Kerry.

Post #145985link

MaKK_BeNN
July 21, 2004 7:37 AM

You all know Nader actually stands for something! Vote for him! ;)

Post #145986link

Inflatable_Man
July 21, 2004 7:39 AM

So Zaster... in order to punish the Dems you think we should have another four years of King Bush? Is that your line of thinking? Because if it is, that's a long way to go just to prove an assanine point. There will be other times to reform the Democratic party. Right now our first priority should be getting a madman out of the White House.

Post #145987link

boorite
July 21, 2004 7:46 AM

OMG MaaK is in the White House??

Post #145991link

Inflatable_Man
July 21, 2004 7:52 AM

.... uh...

...

Sure. Why not.

Post #145992link

Zaster
July 21, 2004 8:07 AM

quote:
You think WE are EMPOWERING these sons of bitches? Good lord, they already have power! An Ivy-League degree IS power! That's just for starters! These guys have more power in their jacket buttons than you have in your whole wardrobe!
Yeah; its like that -- only worse. It isn't enough that Shrub & Kerry get Ivy League diplomas and a batch of skull-and-bones contacts to help them along the fast-track. But then the rest of us can't afford to send our kids to college at all because every time we retrain for a decent paying career, the entire industry packs up and ships out, leaving us to scrabble for jobs as forklift operators and greeters at Wal-Mart. That's the new aristocracy. And the Democrats don't care. Repeat: The Democrats don't care. They are doing thier best to convince us its for our own good, rather than the good of thier own fat-cat campaign contributors. As long as it isn't costing them votes, they aren't going to change.

Post #145993link

Zaster
July 21, 2004 8:22 AM

quote:
So Zaster... in order to punish the Dems you think we should have another four years of King Bush? Is that your line of thinking? Because if it is, that's a long way to go just to prove an assanine point.

Indeed. Thank you for helping me get in touch with my assanine nature.
quote:
There will be other times to reform the Democratic party. Right now our first priority should be getting a madman out of the White House.

Gee, does that ever sound familiar. Same old good-cop bad-cop routine the Dems bring out every election year. When will people learn?

Post #145994link

Inflatable_Man
July 21, 2004 8:33 AM

quote:
Gee, does that ever sound familiar. Same old good-cop bad-cop routine the Dems bring out every election year. When will people learn?

Again, you didn't answer my question. You just gave me some "good cop, bad cop" bullshit. In supporting Nader all you're doing is help Bush secure a second win. Kerry may not be a great President, but I have a feeling he'll be a safe, stable one at least. Considering our choices, I'll go with the safe, stable, wishy-washy one over the psychotic, corrupt, jingiostic cowboy who was a former drunk and cokehead who found Christ again and now wants to start a crusade here and abroad so we all find Christ again.

Nader will never be President. The parties are changing anytime soon. Sometimes you have to make compromises in order to stop a greater evil, and that's never been more evident than now.

Post #145995link

Inflatable_Man
July 21, 2004 8:36 AM

Oops. That should be... the parties are *not* changing anytime soon.

Post #145996link

Zaster
July 21, 2004 9:32 AM

quote:
Again, you didn't answer my question. You just gave me some "good cop, bad cop" bullshit.

I assumed your question was rhetorical, since it was so facile that the only possible answer could have been to refer you to my previous post.

quote:
In supporting Nader all you're doing is help Bush secure a second win.

No, the Democrats are helping Bush secure a second term by failing to provide an actual alternative. You know -- one who actually represents the interests of the average American rather than a few wealthy campaign contributors.

quote:
Nader will never be President.

That's a given, but irrelevent. Who votes only for the candidate they think is most likely to become president?

quote:
The parties are *not* changing anytime soon. Sometimes you have to make compromises in order to stop a greater evil, and that's never been more evident than now.

Sure it has. It was evident when Reagan was the bad guy. It was evident when Bush Sr. was the bad guy. It is the same argument the Dems haul out every election year in order to cow the disgusted and disillusioned into upholding the status quo.

Post #146002link

MikeyG
July 21, 2004 9:39 AM

quote:
Nader is a fucktard, just as he always has been. But someone answer me this:

What are the origins of the name Nader anyway? It sounds like a really obscure sex term for a penis or something.



Nader is not a fucktard. He's desperate right now, and I am disappointed in him.

And I don't see how voting for him is a vote for Bush. At all. Voting for him or any other third-party candidate is simply participating in the democracy we all claim to revere.

But seriously, we need to stop pretending like our votes mean a fucking thing in the first place, because we know they do not. The election will go to whoever the Powers That Be decide they want to fuck us up the ass for a four-year span.

I know Bush will not win New York either, because he never did, but who even gives a shit?

Post #146004link

Inflatable_Man
July 21, 2004 9:46 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you didn't answer my question. You just gave me some "good cop, bad cop" bullshit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
I assumed your question was rhetorical, since it was so facile that the only possible answer could have been to refer you to my previous post.

What's not valid about my question? You say you're for Nader. Nader drew enough votes away from Gore in battleground states in 2000 resulting in Bush getting the disputed election. He seems primed to do the same thing this election. I draw the logical conclusion and say that you would be comfortable with Bush winning again, as long as Nader gets enough votes and teaches the Dems a lesson. Is that incorrect?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In supporting Nader all you're doing is help Bush secure a second win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
No, the Democrats are helping Bush secure a second term by failing to provide an actual alternative. You know -- one who actually represents the interests of the average American rather than a few wealthy campaign contributors.

Here's the problem though. Mainstream America is unfortunately so fucking conservative nowadays, that a true leftwing candidate like Howard Dean would not be able to win the election if he were on the ticket. Sad to say, it does take a bit of a wishy-washy person to win over all factions of the Democratic party. Without giving any solid stands on issues, the voting public is unsure whether he's a conservative Dem, a moderate one or a liberal one... thus making sure he ensnares all three voting factions. After he's elected is when he can start making risky and courageous stands on issues like stem-cell research, gay marriage and our foriegn policy which is in shambles right now (and which Kerry would undoubtedly be more apt to handle than Bush).

I think you're being a bit unfair to the man, in saying he caters to his campaign contributors. He has talked about labor reform, wants to raise the minimum wage, fix the sad state of healthcare, and of course, get rid of these stupid tax cuts for the rich. If you want to see someone catering to a campaign contributor look no further than Dick Cheney and Halliburton. That's catering if I ever saw it...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nader will never be President.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
That's a given, but irrelevent. Who votes only for the candidate they think is most likely to become president?

People who want to make a difference in the election. Besides, did you even read the article at the beginning of this thread? Nader is just a big a sell-out and a phony as the rest of them nowadays.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties are *not* changing anytime soon. Sometimes you have to make compromises in order to stop a greater evil, and that's never been more evident than now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
Sure it has. It was evident when Reagan was the bad guy. It was evident when Bush Sr. was the bad guy. It is the same argument the Dems haul out every election year in order to cow the disgusted and disillusioned into upholding the status quo.

Let's be frank here... there's never been a bad guy like this one. This is the, bar-none, worst President in the history of our country. Do you disagree? If so, please point to another one who has done as much damage on so many different levels. If we have another four years with this guy, there may not be an America left to save.

Post #146007link

MikeyG
July 21, 2004 12:53 PM

One point:

Howard Dean is not a true left-wing candidate. Kucinich was. And both of them were corny and white.

God help us all.

Post #146016link

boorite
July 21, 2004 1:22 PM

quote:
(snipped stuff which is basically true) As long as it isn't costing them votes, they aren't going to change.


Costing them votes? Are you out of your mind? Who cares if they change? Who cares if "they" get elected? Power is power is power, and it will offer the candidates of its choosing. Kerry and Bush are just dummies propped up for the rubes to throw things at.

But if you vote for Nader, you hose the lesser of two weevils.

There is no right answer. They have us down good. That's why it's power.

Post #146019link

bunnerabb
July 21, 2004 3:52 PM

quote:
There is no right answer. They have us down good. That's why it's power.

Issue this man a staff, a robe and a mountain to sit upon.

Welcome to the aftermath of having the trappings, if not the spirit, of everything all of those "stupid smelly hippies" in the '60s tried to accomplish sold back to you at Wal-Mart.

So.. how's the scenery in "the one true America", these days, kids?

No worries. Fuck who's running things or how badly. Just play along and maybe you can get a new Scion with a bitchin' stereo and a MasterCard!

Woo hah.

Suckers.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha....

*sigh*

Post #146034link

MaKK_BeNN
July 21, 2004 5:58 PM

Boorite is right. Vote for Nader! ;)

Post #146053link

andydougan
July 21, 2004 7:13 PM

If Kerry wins, I wonder what all you Nader-bashers will have to say when he invades Iran. ;)

Post #146063link

Inflatable_Man
July 21, 2004 8:22 PM

Hey, at least Iran REALLY did have a link to Al Qaeda! :-D

Maybe ole Bush got confused in the war-room. Iran... Iraq... it all sounds the same to him.

Post #146073link

Zaster
July 21, 2004 9:01 PM

quote:
What's not valid about my question? You say you're for Nader. Nader drew enough votes away from Gore in battleground states in 2000 resulting in Bush getting the disputed election. He seems primed to do the same thing this election. I draw the logical conclusion and say that you would be comfortable with Bush winning again, as long as Nader gets enough votes and teaches the Dems a lesson. Is that incorrect?

Maybe I misunderstood the question before. I guess the short answer is "no", I don't care whether either a demopublican or a republicrat wins as long as both parties remain completely corrupt and unreformed. Many of the founding fathers believed that political parties were beneath contempt to begin with. Turns out they were right. American democracy is broken hella bad as a result of our knee-jerk reliance on them.

quote:
Here's the problem though. Mainstream America is unfortunately so fucking conservative nowadays, that a true leftwing candidate like Howard Dean would not be able to win the election if he were on the ticket. Sad to say, it does take a bit of a wishy-washy person to win over all factions of the Democratic party.

"Left wing, right wing, it tastes the same to me."
-- accidentally insightful KFC slogan.

I'd actually like to see a staunch Moderate in the big chair for once. But then we couldn't have this bogus liberal/conservative dichotomy that keeps everybody prostrating themselves before one of the corrupt major parties for fear of the bloodlettings and kidnappings of small children that will ensue should the opposing camp win.

quote:
Without giving any solid stands on issues, the voting public is unsure whether he's a conservative Dem, a moderate one or a liberal one... thus making sure he ensnares all three voting factions. After he's elected is when he can start making risky and courageous stands on issues like stem-cell research, gay marriage and our foriegn policy which is in shambles right now (and which Kerry would undoubtedly be more apt to handle than Bush).

Granted, Bush is an imbecile. No argument there.

quote:
I think you're being a bit unfair to the man, in saying he caters to his campaign contributors. He has talked about labor reform, wants to raise the minimum wage, fix the sad state of healthcare, and of course, get rid of these stupid tax cuts for the rich. If you want to see someone catering to a campaign contributor look no further than Dick Cheney and Halliburton. That's catering if I ever saw it...

True, but the Democrats do not have a great record themselves. How many opportunities for real campaign finance reform have they passed up? And how many thousands of good, skilled jobs have given way to crappy service jobs on thier watch? We are being sold out big-time by both major parties.

Ever seen the engineering staff of a typical American corporation. More often than not it looks like a meeting of the United Nations -- you'll see a huge number of first generation immigrants and sons and daughters of well-heeled foreign nationals. I have nothing against these people; in fact we'd be a bananna republic already without thier education and skill. But it is revealing that so few Americans can attain these positions themselves nowadays. Outsourcing of labor has lowered material costs, but the costs that matter (notably education) are only rising. Ask a democratic congressman or senator if he cares. Chances are his friends and family will all be wealthy lawyers and big-time corporate dynasts. He'll have a fat stock portfolio built on outsourced labor at sweatshop wages. Behind the placating rhetoric he will be laughing at you.

quote:
Besides, did you even read the article at the beginning of this thread? Nader is just a big a sell-out and a phony as the rest of them nowadays.

Alternatively, he could be seen as sticking it to the man with his own weapons. I admit that view is kind of desperate. The whole state of American democracy is desperate.

quote:
Let's be frank here... there's never been a bad guy like this one. This is the, bar-none, worst President in the history of our country. Do you disagree? If so, please point to another one who has done as much damage on so many different levels. If we have another four years with this guy, there may not be an America left to save.

Well, there was that one guy... that, uh... O.K., George W. Bush is bad. Really, really bad. I admit it. A hyracephalitic orangutan would make a better president. But I've been burned too often by the empty promises of the democrats.

Post #146078link

bunnerabb
July 21, 2004 10:57 PM

I wish I had the presence of mind to say half of the things, here on this thread, that Zaster has said with eloquence and shaken-out-of-one's-sleeve lucidity.

I don't think that this person ever mistakes a few trees for a forest.

Well done.

And a great read.

Thanks.

Now if Zaster could just be swayed towards the lesser of the two evils...

heh...

:)

Post #146102link

ivytheplant
July 21, 2004 11:26 PM

I'm voting for Ted Nugent this year. Unless the cats can convince me to vote for Selina Kyle. My family is divided on the issue.

Post #146109link

boorite
July 22, 2004 5:54 AM

quote:
No worries. Fuck who's running things or how badly. Just play along and maybe you can get a new Scion with a bitchin' stereo and a MasterCard!


Play along or don't play along. Your balls are in a vice. That's what I mean by power. They have it. You don't.

OK, maybe they're scared of us. We do have numbers, after all. But it takes more than casting your personal token for the left or right wing of the chicken. It takes organizing. And right now I'm just too tired. But maybe this weekend.

Post #146124link

MikeyG
July 22, 2004 6:41 AM

Boorite, you constantly remind me of why I love you.

It's fucking hopeless, people. Anyway you look at it, it's fucking hopeless. I read an article amidst all the masturbatory Reagan articles in the "Remembrance" issue of Newsweek that showed how much good ol' John Kerry admired Reagan and sought to teach Democrats to be more like him.

Come on, now. No one who actually gets into the coveted Presidential seat will truly give a shit. Fuck Kerry, and Fuck Bush. They're all leading us down a path to hell.

Now I see why George Carlin threw his hands up. It's all a fucking joke.

Post #146134link

Inflatable_Man
July 22, 2004 7:29 AM

Correction, Mikey. While Bush is definitely leading us to Hell, I believe Kerry will only lead us to purgatory. I'll take the latter over the former, thank you. :)

Post #146140link

boorite
July 22, 2004 7:40 AM

Inflat employs a universal principle (which btw was expounded by Thomas Paine): Any reasonable person confronted with a choice between two evils will choose the lesser. Kerry, in my arrogant opinion, is way the lesser. I am boorite, and I approve this message.

Post #146142link

MikeyG
July 22, 2004 8:47 AM

BUT, what about the lesser of THREE evils? Or four?

Kerry might be the lesser of two evils, but that margin between them gets smaller and smaller as time goes by. He's a Democratic Reaganite for Christ's sake! We don't want to be led down THAT path, either?

The point is, I don't know WHO the fuck to vote for.

Hell, maybe I'll vote for Bush. Always bet on the sure thing.

Post #146156link

Inflatable_Man
July 22, 2004 8:49 AM

Mikey... if you voted for Bush I would take you off my favorites and never talk to you again. Fo' real, dawg!

Post #146157link

MikeyG
July 22, 2004 8:52 AM

God, you HAVE to know me better than that. I would NEVER vote for Bush. I may not vote at all, though. That's the truth.

Post #146158link

Inflatable_Man
July 22, 2004 8:58 AM

That's fine. Apathy (not voting) is a lot better than evil (voting for Bush). As that Garafalo girl said "voting for Bush at this stage could be called a serious character flaw". Or something like that. You get the idea.

Anyway, I kinda knew you were joking and so was I.

:-| mAAk will never get on dee favorites tho... he is too busy going down on dee Bush and dee Dick.

Post #146162link

boorite
July 22, 2004 8:58 AM

I'd vote for Bush if another four years of bullshit would finally put those assholes (figuratively) in the ground for good.

Post #146163link

Inflatable_Man
July 22, 2004 9:07 AM

boorite that's something I've actually thought about.

A part of me feels it would almost be better in the longterm if Bush got re-elected... after another four years of new wars and general fucked-upness from the Bush administration I think his approval ratings would drop to Carter lows and there would be a liberal backlash in the country, just as there was a conservative one after 9/11.

The thing is, while that might be better in the long-term, I'm not sure I could survive the short-term.

Post #146169link

Forum archives » Fights Go Here » For anyone thinking of voting for Nader this fall.

« Prev Page 1 of 2 Next »
stripcreator
Make a comic
Forums
featuring
diesel sweeties
jerkcity
exploding dog
goats
ko fight club
penny arcade
chopping block
also
Brad Sucks