(no subject)
Aug. 25th, 2004 01:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
my_window_seatI know this will be an unpopular opinion.
From me? Really?
I'm going to do some more homework, but thus far, after listening to the news these last months and from and reading the campaign information from the major candidates, I'm pretty close to making my decision for the election this Fall.
At this point, it's based primarily on the fact that the candidate that I'm leaning toward voices clear and easily understood opinions - not happy-face, diluted, wishy-washy, electorally 'safe' ones.
The candidate I'm leaning toward doesn't just give vague promises to 'improve' this or 'focus' on that - he gives specific and detailed goals - and equally detailed descriptions of his plans for accomplishing them.
The candidate I'm leaning toward has a viewpoint that focuses on cause, rather than effect - he realizes that in a nation that has "one out of four of the world's prisoners, half of them non-violent" - that's over two million people, right here in the US, behind bars - the causes of crime - poverty, lack of education - need to be addressed and dealt with on a real, tangible level.
The candidate I'm favoring clearly states that he supports gay rights. Doesn't dance around the issue, isn't afraid to say, unlike most of the other pansy politicians.
There are more reasons I like this guy more and more.
And despite what everyone is going to say - "ooooh, if you don't vote for Kerry, you're voting for Bush!" - I may very likely vote for Ralph Nader.
If Bush wants the damn election, he'll get it again. We didn't vote him in last time - there's absolutely nothing to stop him from stealing it again, if he really wants it bad enough.
Certainly the American people won't stop him. Our apathy is his greatest ally.
And I'm sorry, but Mr. Kerry, while seeming to be a nice enough guy, has very little to say in the way of specific, clear, detailed suggestions on how he's a better choice than anyone else. His website is one big shiny vague postcard of ill-defined, feel-good fluff.
Ralph Nader is so far the only person who really seems to be able to provide me with information that makes sense.
Yeah, go ahead and throw rocks at me. I'm used to it.
But I don't feel like wasting the one thing that really makes me an American - my vote - on a decision based solely on fear. Yeah, George Bush's cabinet scares the hell out of me - but that's not a good enough reason to vote for someone who doesn't seem to really have his sh*t together.
And like I said - if Georgie wants, Georgie will get. So I'm going to at least use my vote the way I would want to see it used.
I refuse to vote out of fear.
Color me crazy - but wasn't that the point of setting up this kooky little thing we call democracy in the first place?
From me? Really?
I'm going to do some more homework, but thus far, after listening to the news these last months and from and reading the campaign information from the major candidates, I'm pretty close to making my decision for the election this Fall.
At this point, it's based primarily on the fact that the candidate that I'm leaning toward voices clear and easily understood opinions - not happy-face, diluted, wishy-washy, electorally 'safe' ones.
The candidate I'm leaning toward doesn't just give vague promises to 'improve' this or 'focus' on that - he gives specific and detailed goals - and equally detailed descriptions of his plans for accomplishing them.
The candidate I'm leaning toward has a viewpoint that focuses on cause, rather than effect - he realizes that in a nation that has "one out of four of the world's prisoners, half of them non-violent" - that's over two million people, right here in the US, behind bars - the causes of crime - poverty, lack of education - need to be addressed and dealt with on a real, tangible level.
The candidate I'm favoring clearly states that he supports gay rights. Doesn't dance around the issue, isn't afraid to say, unlike most of the other pansy politicians.
There are more reasons I like this guy more and more.
And despite what everyone is going to say - "ooooh, if you don't vote for Kerry, you're voting for Bush!" - I may very likely vote for Ralph Nader.
If Bush wants the damn election, he'll get it again. We didn't vote him in last time - there's absolutely nothing to stop him from stealing it again, if he really wants it bad enough.
Certainly the American people won't stop him. Our apathy is his greatest ally.
And I'm sorry, but Mr. Kerry, while seeming to be a nice enough guy, has very little to say in the way of specific, clear, detailed suggestions on how he's a better choice than anyone else. His website is one big shiny vague postcard of ill-defined, feel-good fluff.
Ralph Nader is so far the only person who really seems to be able to provide me with information that makes sense.
Yeah, go ahead and throw rocks at me. I'm used to it.
But I don't feel like wasting the one thing that really makes me an American - my vote - on a decision based solely on fear. Yeah, George Bush's cabinet scares the hell out of me - but that's not a good enough reason to vote for someone who doesn't seem to really have his sh*t together.
And like I said - if Georgie wants, Georgie will get. So I'm going to at least use my vote the way I would want to see it used.
I refuse to vote out of fear.
Color me crazy - but wasn't that the point of setting up this kooky little thing we call democracy in the first place?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Um....
Date: 2004-08-25 10:03 pm (UTC)Heh.
I'm trying to bypass the conditioned reaction to someone saying they want to vote for Ralph Nader here, because what you've said is pretty interesting.
The only problem I have with it is how what you're saying maps onto the American electoral process, or at least what I understand of it.
I have to say, I agree with you - maybe you've seen those Alien Versus Predator spoof pictures around, with a picture depicting Kerry vs Bush with the tagline "whoever wins, we lose". Nader's stated opinions sound a lot more appealing than either of the major candidates.
However.
The US electoral system is effectively a two party system in that there are significant voter groups who will, no matter what, vote for their traditional party. This means that, unfortunately, there is no real chance of Nader getting in. The best thing he can possibly do is try and show (again) that independent candidates can affect the outcome of an election. I say "again" because in my opinion Gore would have had sufficient advantage over Bush to win the last election regardless of cheating, if Nader had not been a factor. This doesn't explain the way Gore conceded defeat without demanding an investigation into the massive fuck-ups that went down in Florida, but it certainly didn't help.
I'm not trying to say that you should vote for Kerry simply to keep Bush out; I'm just making the point that (as J Grant has illustrated with one of his strips in the past) a vote for Nader, whilst intended as a blow against the way both major parties fail to represent many individuals, may end up contributing to the least desirable candidate on offer. However, the choice between idealism and pragmatism lies, as it should, with you as an individual. And, much as I worry about the possible outcomes of a significant voter group making that choice, I still respect the fact that you're willing to stand up and do this.
If anything, it saddens me that, given your post, you are evidently not being given the type of electoral process you are entitled to. It's so damn rare to see a voter actually care about the issues; realising that the system effectively penalises them for this is even worse.
This concludes the view from across the pond :)
Re: Um....
Date: 2004-08-26 12:49 am (UTC)And the worst part of all of this is that I do understand - if in only a vague and fuzzy way - how this race has the potential to be fragmented in favor of Bush.
But I'll say it again - if Bush wants it, he'll find a way to steal it. Again.
Have you all across the pond been getting the word on the 'new and improved' electronic voting systems that are being hastily put into place before this election? Have you heard about all the controversy surrounding them, primarily because they are engineered for sh*t, are just about hackable from a Palm Pilot, aren't capable of being fault-checked by the persons running the voting stations because they aren't allowed access to the software?
There have been individual counties here and there that have flat out refused electronic voting for their areas - but sadly, these are few and far between.
And if I remember correctly, there's a very traceable line from GWB's business interests straight to the company responsible for supplying the electronic voting machines and software.
For this and many other less conspiracy-theory-flavored reasons, I believe in voting with my conscience.
I believe that the voting process is a complete f*cking sham. I think that the governmental system that was intended to be kept in check by a clearly delineated system of - say it with me, folks - checks and balances - is now nothing more than a playground of see-saws set up in favor of the people with the largest pocketbooks.
The worst of it is - I don't actually hate rich people just for being rich. What I really hate is the short-sightedness and selfishness of some rich people - and sadly, of many, many more people who aren't even rich, but who think that it's necessary to get all that they possibly can for themselves and screw anyone else on the planet.
This isn't entirely a digression from the voting point.
While not every person who votes for George Bush is a selfish bastard - I think, and this is just my opinion, mind you - I think the selfish bastards make up a generous part of his voting block. If not in numbers, then certainly in political power.
And Kerry - I'm sorry, but he's just not specific enough about anything other than 'I'm not George Bush!' and "I'm a War Veteran for Peace - mostly - when possible - sorta - hey, wanna see my Purple Hearts!'.
That's not good enough for me.
Maybe this next election will end up being just as f*cked up as the last one.
Maybe GWB will stay in the driver's seat - and continue driving us into a series of armed conflicts that we can never, ever win - and that will, very possibly, result in the end of the US Empire. And a loss of life unprecedented in history. And an end to a way of life for this country that has systematically defeated, disenfranchised, and destroyed the livlihoods and lives of millions of other people across the planet.
And maybe that's exactly what needs to happen.
Maybe I'm an anarchist.
But I'm g*ddamn well tired of giving in to to what is obviously and disasterously wrong. I'm tired of just letting it ride.
Maybe if enough people felt the same way, we wouldn't be where we are right now. With our backs against the wall, faced with choices that are all faulty in one way or another.
If we give up our freedom to choose anything but fear, what's the f*cking point in choosing anything?
Re: Um....
Date: 2004-08-26 05:24 am (UTC)FYI - While I don't think it comes across in the sentence structure, I really do thank you for your reply, which was, again, very courteous and very thoughtful.
Just wanted to emphasize that point, which probably went down for the third time and drowned somewhere just after paragraph three of my follow-up rant.
Chagrined,
~D~
Re: Um....
Date: 2004-08-26 06:44 am (UTC)I always thought of Nader as an interesting mna that had a good point to make, that our two party system does need changes, it more than a bit past its time, and no longer truly represents the people, but he has taken his statement to a different level when he takes money from the people he claims to oppose, and rides around in their trouser pockets right next to their wallets, I no longer think that he is as independant as he claims to be.
N
Re: Um....
Date: 2004-08-26 07:20 am (UTC)Nik, you just officially dropped my jaw.
Ouch. That hurt.
Sources, please? Pretty please, with sugar on top?
Re: Um....
Date: 2004-08-26 07:37 am (UTC)I really liked the man until now, and at this point in time, I do not know whast to think about him, the republicans are right though, if they make Kerry look like an idiot, and promote Naders platform, it really will do them alot of good becasue there is no division in the republican voting, but democrats by nasture want more than just whoever is up there, bleh!
N
Re: Um....
Date: 2004-08-26 08:36 am (UTC)And please - do save that Alibi for me. I searched the website and couldn't find it. Although the article by Tim McGovern about the marketing company funded by republicans that is collecting signatures to get Nader on the ballot has certainly given me a stomache ache. To go with the jaw. Chr*st...
http://www.alibi.com/editorial/section_display.php?di=2004-08-19&scn=news