Last time we met was a low-lit room
Got the third and final debate coming tonight.
Hopefully I will get a chance to see this one -- I was working at the Blockey-B during the last one and my manager, despite repeatedly ducking into the back room to check the "score", would not allow me to put it on the TV. (Of course, he did allow me to put the Aladdin DVD in to prove that Aladdin does say, "All good teenagers, take off your clothes.")
Who knows if it will be interesting like the first debate or boring like the veep one? One thing is for sure though, you can read this awesome document which features all three candidates carefully-scripted responses to questions posed by youth voters like you and me.
I wish the real candidates didn't ignore the portions of the questions that would be politically-dangerous for them to answer, because these really are the issues about which I care and to which I want real answers. But it is definitely worth a read so you can be as informed as possible. And, if you are like me, and seriously considering voting for Nader, you get to see about which issues a Nader vote says, "Hey, pay attention to these things."
22 Comments so far
Leave a comment
I respect your consideration of Nader. I have a caveat, however. While I totally agree that third parties need to be part of this system, a vote for Nader is essentially a vote for Bush in this election. Personally, I am so opposed to Bush and his policies, that I would even leave the country if he is reelected. Contrary to popular belief, Indiana is not necessarily going to go Bush. Young people are voting in droves this year. So, I hope that maybe you can put off your third party vote until the ridiculous electoral system is gone.
I have heard these rumors that Indiana is in contention, but I'll believe them when I see them.
I am hip to what you are saying about the vote for Bush thing, but it the idea is that if things are close and every vote counts then the Demos (or whoever) cannot afford to assume that they "deserve" the votes of people simply by virtue of not being Republican. In other words, if you want my vote, you can get it by adopting these viewpoints to which I subscribe.
In fact, if one makes up his mind that there is very little difference between Bush and Kerry, then in an election like this is the best time to use your vote to vote for change.
That said, I have not made my mind up by any stretch of the imagination about voting for Bush, Kerry, or Nader, though I do absolutely intend to vote. And, if I did decided I wanted to vote Nader, there are cool ways to do so without risking a defeat for a certain second choice.
I agree with Ray, I wouldn't throw my vote to the Democrats just because I'm fed up with Bush. Kerry would need to prove that I should vote for him on his own merits. Its not a wasted vote voting 3rd party. At least you are voting.
Less seriously I will buy a I hate blockbuster tshirt if you do Ray!
I do like that yellow Fuck Blockbuster Video shirt.
Have you guys watched the debates?? Kerry has merit. His healthcare plan is suberb. He is pro-choice. He is for giving gay couples the same rights as straight couples. He wants to limit malpractice awards. He wants to improve international relations. He wants to repeal the dumb-ass wealthy tax cut. He is for environment rights, such as not logging. He realizes that abstinence-only sex education in unrealistic. I could go on an on. I am not voting for Kerry out of disdain for Bush. I am voting on his support of issues I am passionate about (namely abortion). Do want your female friends and family and women-kind in general in the country to have to go to mexico or the back of an alley to prevent the multitude of problems presented by an unwanted or dangerous to your health pregnancy. I'd love to talk more about this if you want. Call me. And if you haven't already, check out factcheck.org
Yousa point is well-seen.
Look, I like Kerry and I have watched the debates and I like what I hear. But I am also skeptical of what I hear, because so often in politics, words are meaningless. Speaches are designed to appeal to me, so are platforms.
So there's got to be some thing deeper for me to truly rally my support. I heard that calling at the DNC, felt a very emotional connection to the candidate and his prospects for chaning things. Now my support is more intellectual.
Because of what I said above, I'm not sure that intellectual support is enough to win an election.
I don't think you can blame Jake and I for our statements. Kerry has framed his whole campagin on Bush's mistakes, problems with Bush, etc.
I just can't get behind a candidate whose campaign has been so reactionary. I intend to vote for Kerry either technically or de facto, but I find it hard to get excited about him, and I want to be excited about my vote.
Nader is allowed to say the things he says because he has doesn't have a fucking snowballs chance of really winning. Not a single state, nor probably even a single county. In fact, his largest base is unrealistic, young, middle class whiners. His former - reputable - disciples are even denouncing him.
Point?: It's easy to be "real" when you don't have anything on the line. Kerry can't be Bullworth here when every vote counts. That kind of sophomoric idealism is exactly what makes Nader such a dumbass. (We've already had 4 years of stark idealism, I think I've had all I can stand).
He has no chance of winning, so he is going to mock the electoral process to make a "statement." Thanks alot asshole, you're going to give us four more years of Bush-hell, so you can be in the spotlight.
Edit above post:
I meant "what makes Bush such a dumbass", not Nader.
I completely echo Eric's statements. And dont get me wrong... I am not in love with Kerry, but in today's political environment one has to vote on particular issues. No candidate, as Eric said, can be themselves. Candidates running against current Presidents have to reactionary. There is national mentality that a president should definitely be re-elected unless they majorly screwed up. The only way Kerry can get office, make change, and spout his views is to 'prove' that Bush was unfit. I too would love to get behind a candidate whole-heartedly, but this country needs a hell of a lot reform first.
I agree viz: voting on issues.
My big issues are Jobs / Economy and Healtcare. I like Kerry on these things. and I hope he wins. Again, I will be voting for him either technially or de facto.
But another issue that is important to me is election reform. Not campaign finance reform, but electron reform -- namely changing the electoral college to a quasi-popular vote, instituting instant run-offs, and absolutely eliminating gerrymandering.
In the link that I posted, Nader is the only of the candidates who said that these things are important -- the two guys from entrenched political power don't have any intentions of shaking things up at all. (I'm shocked.) And because of the percieved "spoiler" effect of a Nader vote, a vote for him forces this issue. Not that I'm going to be doing that neccessarily.
Of course, all this is irrelevant because I've got to stay loyal.
Electron reform?
Here here for election reform. If you think Indiana is a battleground state, you are dreaming. Even if Kerry has a chance of winning Indiana (which he doesn't) he wouldn't be able to do so without doing some real campaigning there. A vote for nader is a vote for more choices. You who have said that he has no chance of winning are absolutely right, but the fact that people vote for him says something. I will vote for nader even though I disagree with him on almost every issue. Why would anyone do that? Simply because he has no chance of winning. I guess you could call that wasting your vote. But I call it a statement. I don't want Bush to win and I suppose Kerry is a better choice, he did impress me in the second debate. But my vote isn't going to make Indiana a blue state. The most powerful use for me is in statement making.
Amen, Live. A vote for Nader speaks in a louder voice than a vote for either of the other two guys, or for any other independent or 3rd party choice.
Jesus Christ! You guys are killing me. Ray, could you go back and forth anymore? Sometimes I think you agree with whoever has posted last. Mike, you have no business saying that I am dreaming thinking that Indiana MIGHT go Kerry. You're in fucking Japan!! Have you been talking to young voters? Have you been at debates? Have you observed the vast amount of campaigning for Kerry on the college campuses? No, no, and no. I think that it is you guys that are dreaming. Fucking grow up and live in the real world. We WILL NOT have significant third parties just because 3% vote for it.... hell even if 25% did.
contd...It will only happen with reform. And reform sure as hell won't happen with a fucking RETARD in office. (I wont even get into all the OTHER things that wont happen or the horrible things that could with said retard.) Call me a bitch, I don't care. I no longer live in fairytale land, which you guys obviously still do. In order for a statement to have meaning, it has to be heard.
One more thing... I don't think I've specifically said this. Your guy's thought process on voting is exactly why the electoral system doesn't work. You ASSUME your state is going to go a certain way, so you either don't vote or "make a statement." This happens on a mass level and guess what happens... a state where the majority wanted demo goes repub. Welcome the cruel world of reality, babe... you live in a country with a stupid ass electoral system. It is pointless to buck the system, because (contrary to popular belief) you can't change it.
After being home for almost a year now I realize that all the politics that happen on college campus's means diddly squat to the rest of the people in the state. A couple hundred college kids is not going to change the beliefs of a blue-collar factory worker that his president is defending the country his best way possible.
I wish Hulk Hogan meant it when he announced he was running for president.
Because you posted last, I agree with you wholeheartedly about Hulk Hogan.
True I may be in Japan. And I have as a result been on a media black out for a few weeks. But don't talk to me like some sort of uninformed child. Don't lecture me about maturity when you are sitting there calling the other candidate a "fucking retard". Clearly Dubya isn't the brightest man to ever sit in the Oval Office, but I don't think he should be so underestimated because, A) he can't speak well, and B) he doesn't agree with you. I have come to my decision after months of listening to varying points of view, in a great variety of different media outlets, and my decision is this, I don't want to vote for Bush and I don't want to vote for Kerry. So I want you to tell me why I should vote for either of them. I suppose I could vote for no one, but what good would that do?
Certainly, Noelle doesn't mean anything personal by it. She would agree that her comment(s) were rash. Tempers are high in this election cycle because for some people, the stakes seem high indeed.
But for other people, the stakes don't seem high. Should people who don't like any of the candidates not have a voice in our most cherished of civic processes? I believe the votes of those people should be able to speak just as loudly as the vote of someone who is passionate about a particular candidate. Indeed, part of the problem with voter turn-out, particularly among young people, has typically been a lack of interest in the available choices.
Therefore, I advocate election reform to get a "None of the above" choice on the ballet. A real "none of the above" choice, too, not just some yahoo also-ran.
Regarding Indiana, I have been hearing alot of rumblings about it being some secret swing state. I'll believe it when I see it, though I would certainly like to see it.
But you can change the system. You just have to make enough noise. Electoral reform is on the way -- look at Colorado -- obstensively because 2000 was so crazy. If someone is an issue voter and that person decides that election reform is their issue, obviously that person has only one choice and that is to make 2004 crazy too. And nothing says crazy like Ralph Nader.
I am an issue voter. And I passionately believe that we need serious election reform including increasing direct-vote referendums. In this election, though, my issue is the economy. But that doesn't mean that a sensible person could decide that another issue is more important to them and thus vote accordingly. Hell, that's what politics is all about.
I am done with this conversation.