A different opinion of the matter of the election

Now, I understand how passionate some of you activists are. I understand because I used to be just like you. But then I realized the joke and hypocrisy that are American politics, and would like to propose an opinion, or idea.

Bush and Kerry are sponsored by the same people. What makes them different?

I would go so far as to say nothing. Now, what is the point of supporting someone who is just like your 'great enemy' Bush? Neither is going to withdraw troops, and it DOES NOT MATTER who wins. Nothing will change. Nothing will change. Nothing will change. Is three times enough for you to get it through your head?

Yes, the common man is pretty powerless. But they can do one thing. They can still vote. And they can decide to vote for the party that THEY believe in. You don't have to buy into the lie of the '2 party system'. Remember, there is the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitutional Party, and Ralph Nader, among others. All I'm asking is that you think for yourself, and stop going along with the multitude, the flock, the sheep. This message is addressed to those who still believe that we have a 'two party system'. To the ones who have seen beyond this illusion, please disregard this post. Peace

 

Im tired of this, there are obvious differences between the two candidates this time. Furthermore, who are these "same group of people" that are sponsoring both Bush and Kerry?
If nothing will change why did things change when Clinton became president over George Bush Sr.?
I am asking what it will do to hand over your vote in a presidential election like this to a 3rd party candidate that will not win?
I am all for the third party but even I am not silly enough to vote for one in a presidential election when I know I will not have a majority.
I save all my third party votes for local elections where there may be a candidate that can win the office. Start at the bottom, do not throw away your vote when its most needed.

 

God I'm sick as hell of that bullshit of throwing away our votes if we vote 3rd party. Look, you may actually like Kerry, but I don't! I have read, I have researched, I have watched debates, and the candidate I like most happens to be Cobb of the Green Party. I did NOT throw away MY vote! I voted for the guy I thought would do the best fucking job. That's the fucking point of voting. I refuse to simply choose "the lesser of two evils". Damn. I am sick and fucking tired of hearing this from the "anyone but bush" Kerry supporters. It's driving me freakin crazy. Get over it and let people vote for who they agree with most!

 

Oh YES, an actual intelligent person. Thanks CookiwGurl.

and to duckandmiss, you obviously see nothing wrong with being in the majority, even if it is not your own opinion. That's ALL I am trying to say.

 

I am so sick of people saying Bush and Kerry, Republicans and Democrats are the same thing, it's like saying the US and Italy are the same country.

 

Well man, neither of the parties offers any REAL change. Other than that, I can't engage you in debate, because your name is Syd, and I think Syd Barrett was like the greatest artist to live, besides John and George, and Jim, of course.

 

Well I'm actually going to agree with you on those things that Syd is 1 of the greatest artist ever, and that neither party will bring about massive change, but over time change will happen. The only 2 presidents I can think of that I think really changed the country in recent times when in office were FDR and Reagan.

 

Yea, agreed. I still stand firm in my position though of voting your beliefs. Like Gandhi said, ya gotta be the change you want to see in the world.

 

Yep.

He'll probably say Skull and Bones or corporations.

Good question. And Clinton wasn't half as liberal as Kerry is. I consider this post nothing more than 3rd party propaganda. They want to compete, so they say things like "nothing will change, they're the same..." to get votes for their socialistic agendas. I'm not saying it's wrong to do this, it's just politics, but the notion they portray is incorrect and I dispute it whenever it emerges.

I think that in states that are very clearly going to go for one or the other, it should be encouraged that people vote 3rd party. I think they should have more of a chance and get more attenton in elections. However, it is my opinion that in swing states people who are against the war and against Bush should vote for Kerry.

I think that is a good idea, start small. And you're right, this is a very important election.

 

My assertion that you are throwing your vote away when you vote 3rd party, especially in a swing state seems to me understandable. I vote 3rd party for every local election and even backed Nader in the last election (that seemed to turn out poorly didnt it?) The last election with Nader shows us how far a candidate can go with the right resources, Nader had more money and support than any of the third party members have this year, and Nader could not even make it into the debate because he did not have the right amount of funding. Now, If you cannot even get into the national debates and you have no money to get your message out to the people, how can they find out who you are? Most Americans do not have the luxury of computers like we do, therefore they will never even know about some of the third party candidates. And if people do not know, how can they win? If they cannot raise the money from supporters and cannot even get on the ballot in some states, how can they win? Unfortunantly a 3rd party can not, and will not win in this election. So instead of voting for who I think will do the best job despite there impossibility of winning, I will vote for who I know can do the job better than the current regime and has a chance of actually winning.

 

These type of threads are just getting dumb.

 

Sorry.....

 

Here you go here is a friend of Ralph's position.

Posted: October 13, 2004
By Winona LaDuke

I am voting for John Kerry this November. I love this land, and I know that we need to make drastic changes in Washington if we are going to protect our land and our communities. I am committed to transforming the American democracy so that it is reflective of the diversity of this country. I believe in a multi-party system and a multi-racial democracy. I believe there are many opinions, not simply two, that merit a hearing on any issue. I believe we should be working harder to increase the numbers of people of color, women, and Native people elected to office because we are this country and we are what America looks like. I'm voting my conscience on Nov. 2; I'm voting for John Kerry.


This does not mean that John Kerry will be a perfect leader. Nor does it mean that any of us should give Kerry a pass simply because he is a rational alternative to the most destructive administration in recent memory. But he has earned my support, even if the leaders of his party aren't quite with the program. I regret that the Democratic Party is investing positive, grassroots energy in a campaign to deny ballot access to Ralph Nader - grassroots energy that is needed in these urgent times. I support wholeheartedly Ralph Nader's right to run and be on the ballot in all states. In a true democracy, the right to be on the ballot in all states and the right to participate in the presidential debates would be guaranteed. That's what democracy is. We must continue to work to make this ideal of democracy the reality in America.

For the past two elections, I've run for the office of vice president. Sometimes you run for vice president and sometimes you work on putting up wind towers. In either case, you are working to bring about a better future for your children. In 2004, I decided the direct action I could take to help put up wind towers in my community would be more effective at curbing global climate change than another run for office. On White Earth, Pine Ridge and on reservations throughout the Midwest and Great Plains, we are working to develop the wind resource on Native lands. And the electricity generation potential of the wind in Native communities represents about half of present U.S. installed electrical consumption. I believe we can combust ourselves to oblivion, or we can move to alternative energy. In the largest energy market in the world, your power supplier - particularly if you're a junkie like America - impacts your democracy. I was proud of John Kerry when he called the $87 billion spent in Iraq a ''Halliburton Slush Fund.'' It is, and we need to recognize that. Now if we could only get Kerry to pledge to 25 percent development of the wind potential of Native communities during his first term in office we could really get excited.

John Kerry provides promise for Native America and for America. His policy proposals involve vision - like alternative energy, more accessible health care, and finding all those children who have been ''left behind'' by the Bush administration. Heck, Kerry can even say ''sovereignty,'' which is a far cry from Bush's inability to pronounce the word. It is true that Kerry has not yet paid close enough attention to his base. But once in office, I know he will find himself and remember who we are. I've spoken with his staff and received some encouraging answers. He is more interested in solving than litigating the Indian Trust case. He wants to move federal policies to support Native communities, whether Native farmers, businesspeople or tribal governments. We are on his radar; this is a beginning.

Kerry offers other reasons for hope. He opposes converting Yucca Mountain into a nuclear waste dump. He noted in the first debate that America cannot demand that other countries dispose of their nukes while we are busy engineering new ones. He should find the courage to say that a right to life extends to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi women and children affected by our weapons. Kerry needs to make the rich pay their share, and end corporate welfare - I have heard some inklings of that. And while Kerry may be a diamond in the rough on issues like genetic modification, tribal budgets and building a more inclusive democracy, he has potential. And this is far more than what we can say for his opponent. By Nov. 2, 2004, John Kerry will have earned my vote.

Winona LaDuke, Ojibwe from the White Earth reservation, is program director of Honor the Earth, a national Native American environmental justice program. She served as the Green Party vice presidential candidate in the 1996 and 2000 elections. She can be reached at wlhonorearth@earthlink.net.

 

I think we all agree that the system should change. I would love a three, four or five party system (of real options). Unfortunately we just don't have that today. There are soem similarities between the D & R candidates, but if you think this makes them the same your just not paying attention.

Do you think Kerry would be opening up ANWR to oil drilling?
Do you think Kerry would be opening up our last pristine forests to logging?
Do you think Kerry would appoint a pro-life judge?
Do you think Kerry would conduct our war on terror the same way?

You can vote your conscious, and I encourage everyone to do so. But when you vote for someone realize that you are also not voting for someone else. When you vote your conscious be aware that it is sometimes just as important to vote someone out, especially if your vote isn't going to vote anyone in.

No, your not wasting your vote, but you may be wasting an opportunity to make things a little better - which is better than a little worse. If you will be happy with our destroyed environment, destroyed international image, destroyed lives of our soldiers, destroyed woman's rights, then stand proud and let this silly, silly man run our country for another four.