flowers for two.
2004-02-25 07:01:51 ET

i've been watching the news. and watching people come out of city hall in san fransisco instantly makes me well up with tears. i can't believe that this is such a big deal.

of course president bush is all over the news making his sound bites heard. this is what he has the time for. shouldn't he be focusing on the larger things at hand. last time i check people were pretty pissed about half the stuff he has or hasn't done. his approval numbers aren't all that great.

one thing that made me happy was nader's clear standing point on the issue. he said in his speech on monday that he supports gay marriage. my dad's upset that i want to vote for nader this election. he tells me i'm wasting my vote and essentially voting for bush. you know i wouldn't have voted in this election cause its a bunch of crap. the democrats are just as evil. and my dad keeps spewing democrat propoganda at me. about how gore would have won, blah blah blah. and how we wouldn't have gone to war. you know what. super shady business was going on in florida and i don't think there would have been anything we could have done about it. he had the fucking supreme court backing him up. everyone in big parties has corprate interest being blown up their ass. and quite frankly that's not something i support. i don't want to settle for the lesser of two evils. so heres to wasting my vote in 2004. go nader.

2004-02-25 08:19:10 ET

well im not going to even touch on the nader thing...since i may even agree with some of what your father has to say about that...
but the reason there is so much focus on the gay mariage thing is this...there are still x amount of conservative states to appeal to...the mid west and the south comes to mind right off the being election time coming right around the corner, im sure appealing to these states would be in ones best interests at this present moment...
remember people tend to have short memories...and unless you keep flogging them with all the bad stuff bush has done (hence those smear campaigns people always pull) then your going to see him in office for another 4 years...
which of course would be worse than a kerry or edwards, since this guy has lied about things regarding a war and hasnt even heard the word "impeachment"...which of course is another little hot topic of debate...

2004-02-25 08:51:40 ET

jorge was saying how he kind of wants to get married too, how fun!

2004-02-25 11:17:06 ET

nicole, yeah i know i was talking to him about it. i think it would be fun.

dollfullofrivets: i hate george bush. but i can't see why i should have to give up what i believe in. i can't say that i could vote for whatever democrat and feel ok about it. during years when an opposing party is in power the next election has a voting surge in the opposite party. so for example more democrats are going to come out and vote this election. since i live in california, i'm not too worried. cause california is typically democratic. so my one vote is going to nader. which won't make a difference really here. i told my father he needs to worry about the swing states.

i'm aware of the other side of the country. but what he is doing is appealing to a group of people who is most likely going to vote for him anyways. you know are whole voting system is soo whack. he should be appealing to those that he has burned.. but then again, what do i know.

in all reality i've lost faith in our goverment. i don't believe that any of this is for people like you and i. we just happen to be very small and expendable pieces to a large puzzle. any educated person knows that bush should be impeached, considering the "weapons of mass destruction" was a load of crock. pentagon information just happened to be wrong. its all bullshit. the pentagon is filled with right wing pro war on any basis people. its how they make their money. thanks for the great reply back. :)

2004-02-25 21:53:05 ET

i am voting for what i believe in...that would be a lesser of two evils, the beast that has an ear and will hopefully obey...i dont believe nader would do a good job for two reasons...he has no party now from what i hear, and even if it was the green party still, what kind of clout would he have with congress...could he get things done how they are supposed to (even if those acomplishments arent the greatest of ideals)? i just dont feel he would have any strength in office...
and secondly, i havent heard much in the way of credentials regarding with the state dept over seas and seeing how the machine works, credentials are always essential...has he had much dealings with foreign affairs (which bush did not when he started...and look where it got us)? sure his domestic programs may look nice...but im just as worried about the outside world as whats happening at home...not because i watch the news (hardly, more like read it online, non-american), and they tell me to worry about because living in africa, having friends in liberia, and knowing what goes on over there amongst other places is always a concern, and if nader cant handle something like that, he just wont get my vote...
in the end oregon is deffinately one of them swing states...and if maybe nader was working within a party that had a good power base (damn two party system) my vote would have already been cast in his direction...but of course as you said the voting here is whack...and im glad your voting for what you believe in, and in the end we have the freedom to do so...

2004-02-26 07:50:59 ET

Maybe Gore could have won, but it's about time this country has at least more than two leading parties in our political arena. The two parties that basically get to run the show every time are too similar. There just aren't enough ideas being represented in the country for most people to see. So yeah, don't vote against a candidate but for one. It's the only chance we have to bring other parties into the limelight.

2004-02-26 13:51:29 ET

Nader's foreign policy statements are very naive at best. Furthermore, I strongly doubt we would have had the Patriot Act under Gore, nor led an ill-advised invasion of Iraq.

I wish we had approval voting, in which one could vote for more than one candidate. Then you could have your Nader and eat it too.

2004-02-26 13:56:08 ET

I'd vote for Nader, love the man, but Im more concerned about four more years of allowing us to hurdle more and more to an Orwellian nightmare on our current path, so I'm voteing for Kerry and a quick fix.

2004-02-27 06:45:52 ET

In a wide election I would vote independant to make the point but there is too much at stake to let Bush "slip through" like he did last time.
Dollfullofrivets has a great point about foreign policy, as well. Bush has pissed, oh, everyone off so we need someone with worldwide cred and knowhow to attempt to repair the damage done.
I don't view voting Dem as giving up what I believe in. I'm a commie, but I know they don't have a realistic shot at winning the presidency so I vote for the candidate who has a real chance of winning that is most likely to implement more of the programs that I support. For me, it boils down to what I want to see done and getting there by whatever means necessary.

  Return to beetleginny's page