< Spike's Al Gore video
- Started
- Last post
- 84 Responses
- harlequino0
At the time (6 years ago now, let's remember), I could not in good conscience vote for Gore. I did not believe in him, and I had a real problem with his involvement in using his power to push his wife's PMRC agenda in the 80's. I found him uncharasmatic and unbelievable. That's his failing as a candidate, not mine as a voter. And voting for the current shithead was not an option. Had to vote my conscience, despite the inevitble outcome.
The whole point of this posting, was to share my current feeling-which is if Gore had ONLY shown the same approach and honesty when really campaigning, I would have felt differently.
That's all. Carry on.
- mrdobolina0
do you think nader will ever hold any public office whatsoever, harlequino?
- ********0
// Al Gore invented the g-ddamn internet. If it wasn't for him, you couldn't talk about wishing you knew him better six years ago.
* Member of Young Democrats six years ago.
- harlequino0
flav-
I understand your point. However, I feel pretty good about my understanding of the electoral college, and I don't believe it made a difference in the key states-Florida, Texas, and so on.
There are many who feel that the goal of Nader's campaign was not to win the election itself, but to get to a level of public support, that would qualify his party for the same federal money that the two main partys get. I firmly believe that there should be other partys represented on the same level of visibility as the Dems and Reps.
However, believe what you want.
- mrdobolina0
thanks a lot for spoiling it by voting for nader.
- harlequino0
do you think nader will ever hold any public office whatsoever, harlequino?
mrdobolina
(Jun 6 06, 08:32)Not necessarily. Nor does he, I imagine. In the long run, it has more to do with expanding party choices. I think the Green, Libertarians, Socialists, and so on deserve the smae platform.
- mrdobolina0
at what cost?
- harlequino0
Of course there is a huge cost. Maybe it's all a mistake I don't know. But are you saying we should toss out progressivism, just because it's costly?
All progress is costly isn't it?
- mrdobolina0
as if gore isn't progressive.
- paraselene0
well put, harlequino. i made the same choice at that time and i don't regret it.
i won't be bullied into voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate.
maybe now the dems will pull their goddamned socks up and earn a few more votes.
and dobs, those who chose to vote green are not responsible for bush getting into office. especially not those who voted green in oregon. point fingers at those who voted for bush.
- Republican0
mrdobolina is like one of those ideolistic 17 year old stoners who never grew up and hates any authority. Sad really.
- mrdobolina0
How are Nader voters not more idealistic than I am, fuckface?
- harlequino0
Thanks paraselene.
Look, maybe it was the wrong year to push the Greens. I still don't think it afected things the way people like to think.
All I'm saying is I believe there is an alternative to "winning back the kingdom" from corporate greed and corrupt politicians, other than voting for a guy you don't believe in.
Try to imagine a country where one or two more partys had the same visibility or support as the two we have now. I think it would amazing.
- ********0
Now who is the 17 year old stoner?
- mrdobolina0
Sorry I am too cynical to fuck a vote off on a pipe dream. no offense, para.
- kyl30
I understand your point. However, I feel pretty good about my understanding of the electoral college, and I don't believe it made a difference in the key states-Florida, Texas, and so on.
====
this is a good point, voting reform needs to happen.
- paraselene0
none taken.
but bear in mind that i never would have made that decision if i were in a swing state.
five percent for the green party in oregon never meant the possibility of a republican upset. all it meant was that a third party would start getting some of the breaks that the big boys have been used to for so many decades now, priveledges that i belive they've started to take for granted and that have allowed them to cater to lobbyists and corporations, rather than their sworn constituencies.
- mrdobolina0
In all honesty, I think that Gore was just more qualified to be President than Nader.
I don't think that it is debatable, really.
- harlequino0
Exactly para.
And thanks for mentioning the swing state thing, I forgot. Totally with you on that. I was in either NY or CT at the time, didn't make a dent.
- paraselene0
In all honesty, I think that Gore was just more qualified to be President than Nader.
I don't think that it is debatable, really.
mrdobolina
(Jun 6 06, 08:56)but of course you don't! that's what makes him your candidate!