Ralph Nader is polling at 6% nationally in the latest Presidential poll. That's even above the margin of error, which is what is is to even consider voting for Nader in 2008.Anyone who votes for Nader this year has the blood of 4094 US soldiers, and even more Iraqis, on their hands. There's just too much at stake to throw a vote away on "principle". And that's even discounting the fact that Ralph is about as qualified to be President as I am (because I'm a U.S. born citizen over 35 too).
As ¡Jestaplero! would say "People are idiots (results higher for Nader voters)"
6 comments:
I don't know what the deal is with Nader, honestly. As for his voters: how damned naive can you get? The voting system absolutely is not set up to accurately reflect everyone's ideal preference; instead, the only viable option, given 50%+1 winner-take-all and the Electoral College, is to vote for whichever of the two major-party candidates you would least hate to be president. If you actually agree with and like the politics of that candidate, it's a bonus. But if Americans had any sense about this, we'd realize it's unlikely: as if the entire spectrum of political belief in the nation could be reflected between two candidates.
None of that is to question the crying need for electoral reform...
Oops - it's not even 50%+1, of course: it's simple plurality, winner-take-all. So in any givens tate if Nader does get 6% (he won't), Obama gets 48%, McCain 45%, and assorted hopeless cases voted for by idiots the remaining percentage point, Obama'd still win the popular vote, and therefore most likely that state's electoral votes. But not necessarily - which is yet another insane aspect of the system.
I can't believe you haven't also included the blood on Nader's hands for the 3,000+ killed in Manhattan on September 11, 2001. Or the scores killed that same morning in Arlington, Virginia.
And what about the eight servicemen killed in Iran while trying to rescue the hostages. The rescue operation, and the hostage-taking itself, were the direct result of Nader's support [albeit tepid support] of Jimmy Carter.
What utter, unadulterated bullshit.
You lose the force of your argument by talking about blood on his hands, and patently appealing to people's emotions, you dick.
Hyperbole's for asswipes.
I've voted for third, fifth, and seventh party candidates in California gubernatorial races, but any vote that isn't for the lesser of two evils (including no vote at all) is a vote for the worser of two evils.
The "blood on their hands" analogy was a bit over the top (it was channeling Charles Spencer), but every 2008
vote for Nader is a de facto vote for 100 years in Iraq. I don't know what this has to do with 9/11 or Eagle Claw, but if drive-by James is still reading this, sarcatic personal attacks are also for asswipes.
well, actually, I'm mosey by James. But your point is well taken about sarcasm.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
One cliche doesn't make a post.
What it has to do with 9/11 and Eagle Claw is that all of the things we do and people we support lead us to where we are. If you vote for Nader and then lobby extremely hard to elect legislators who take their constitutional duty seriously [retaining the power, and responsibility, and heat, of declaring war] you have no blood on your hands, and you avoid whatever unknown evils Al Gore would have visited on us.
But James: it's true that "all of the things we do and people we support lead us to where we are"; however, that fact doesn't somehow eliminate the concept of consequences. You imply that one might expiate a Nader vote by working to elect good legislators...but that doesn't mean the vote for Nader wasn't a bad idea on its face in the first place. Our voting system is not, repeat not, set up for idealistic voting - and to the extent our civic culture encourages belief in the myth that it does, those who voice such cultures deserve blame, too.
Post a Comment