The Democrat's Big Lie: A Vote For Nader Is A Vote For Bush

Just like Johnson didn't get us into Vietnam, right? Didn't stop him from dragging us deeper into the mess his predecessor created, did it?

What matters is what Kerry will do about the war once elected. By his OWN ADMISSION, his plan for Iraq is going to be more of the same, only "better" and "smarter". He claims that, even knowing that the WMDs were nonexistent, Iraq had no connection to 9/11, and that Saddam posed no immediate threat to the US, he would STILL have voted to authorize war! Give him the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and he comes down on the side of the empire!

I don't know that anybody claimed that. I guess if they are both on the same stage at the debate, that would be disproven....

They ARE both frat brothers from Yale, members of the same "secret society", and are both members of the ruling class corporatocracy.

You might want to check a ballot sometime. You almost certainly can have Nader (independent/Reform), Badnarik (Libertarian), or Cobb (Green). You most likely also have choices ranging from the fascist right to the Stalinist left. The only thing keeping your choices limited to Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber is your own lack of imagination and conviction.

It is only because the populace is brainwashed into the "2-party paradigm" that a 3rd party is so hard to get elected.

 

No, Kerry says he would send more troops in to help end the war..to get it out, OTHERS say the same thing, we need more troops in order to get out, to help fight with less casualties..He does NOT say he would do the same thing..and by yer own admission you are stating..that he would be the same as bush..which leads to what i said earlier

Now as for the claim i have said about Certain people saying that "bush and kerry are the same" i see it all the time on this forum..

Yes, Nadar is on the ballot, but he doesn't have a chance, he's only got 2 or 3% of people that say they will vote for him

 

Ah, yes! The LBJ technique! Send MORE troops in order to withdraw! Brilliant military strategy, enlarging a war in order to end it! Kinda like fucking for virginity, no?

And exactly WHERE will Kerry get all the fresh cannonfodder to send over there anyway? The same place Bush would--it's called a DRAFT!

 

we need more troops because we don't have enough there to fight anymore, and as a result more US casualities, thats the problem, and no, noone is saying a draft! They arent saying send scores of troops there, just MORE troops that's all, and there is no talk of a draft to do so..
This is what McCain and others are saying, as is John Kerry..
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/iraq.senators/index.html

 

The "problem" is that US troops are seen as exactly what they are--an OCCUPYING ARMY. The more troops that get sent, the more "fuel" it will provide to the insurgents. If the US uses enhanced troop strength to actively fight the growing insurgency, it will only strengther the argument of the radical clerics and terrorist leaders that this war is a religious crusade against Islam, and the insurgents will grow in number faster than our increased troops can kill them off. Short of absolutely overwhelming firepower (turning Fallujah into a glass parking lot?), anything that Kerry can do other than simply PULLING OUT is going to strengthen the anti-US sentiments among ordinary Iraqis.

Of course not. There's an ELECTION in a couple of months, ya know! Neither side wants to bring up a draft now, as it would be political suicide. Once the election is over, expect a draft to be placed "on the table" very quickly, no matter if Bush or Kerry wins.

You do know that Kerry supports a mandatory 2 year period of "Compulsory National Service", right? That's a lot closer to a draft than anything Bush is calling for right now.....

 

Neither is Kerry! So Kerry is Skull and Bones, big fucking deal!

I personally have sent many emails to Kerry's campaign, close to a hundred. Every time they send me an email saying- "Help us tell Bush this.. Help us fight back....Respond to vile Republican attacks!...etc. (all of course asking for my money, I send them an email telling them to fight back themselves. I make my demands, get the troops out, amend the Patriot Act or get rid of it entirely and just plain get tougher. I want to see anger in Kerry that all the people who hate Bush feel. Then they'll get my $, which wouldn't be much, but for now they just get my vote.
Why do you Naderites insist on bitching at Kerry supporters, I'm not involved in the campaign, I'm not advising him.
You guys like to justify Nader taking money from Repulicans by saying, well he needs it to get his voice heard. Well Kerry needs help from corporations to get his voice out too. He has to compete with Billionaires and big oil, etc. A hell of a lot more of his campaign money came from individuals and not $1,000 dinners either.

He has come out against the war about as much as any electable candidate can. He said it was a misguided war, we were misled into it and it was wrong. Do you think most Americans would be cool with him saying "We're getting out of Iraq. Sorry guys, we really fucked up your country, but we're outta here."
He has said he'd like troops home by the end of his term and I certainly think that with the way things are going over there the people could insist they come home much sooner and he would listen. With Bush our pleas would and have fallen on deaf ears.

Yes, we all admire that, but maybe if Nader took money from Corporations his voice would be heard, which you all want. This takes money. Of course that would be hypocritical of him.

 

It has been brought up and Kerry and Edwards said no draft. If you don't believe Kerry then you shouldn't believe Nader either, both are running for positions of great power thereby making them untrustworthy.

 

For the same reasons that the Kerryites are attempting to smear Nader and his supporters as "Bush Proxies". For the same reasons that the Democratic party is "upholding democracy" by attempting to keep Nader and Cobb of ballots in many states. And because the Kerryites can't argue against any of Nader's POSITIONS, so they insist on attacking Nader as a PERSON with charges of egotism, etc.

And if Kerry and the Dems actually GAVE A SHIT about this situation, they would be calling for total public financing of campaigns, Instant Runoff Voting, open debates, and the elimination of the electoral college system. Such things would eliminate the corrosive effect of corporate money on our democratic process. Bush and Kerry both oppose real campaign finance and electoral reform. Nader (and the Greens) support it. A candidate shouldn't NEED to suck at the corporate teat in order to get on ballots and have their views heard. The Reps and Dems support a system in which you NEED billions to run for office. We need REAL change, not more bullshit from the "evil of 2 lessers"!

 

and that is YER opinion

 

I completely agree. And if Nader was advocating a foreign policy that would necessitate a draft, but claiming that he wouldn't institute one, I would be calling "bullshit" on him, as well.

But Nader isn't planning to send huge numbers of troops anywhere, now is he? Bush and Kerry both are...

 

But the thing is, he would haveta do something, because we are still in war :/

 

Ya got me there, I guess.

I would much rather express my own opinion, than just parrot the Democratic party line.....

 

I'm really getting sick of the misconstruing of his position, you guys spin things worse than Fox. He didn't authorize the war. He gave the President the power so that he could enforce inspectors. That's it. Bush is at fault here. What is the big difference between Kerry's plan and Nader's plan? I see little difference except that Kerry's is more realistic. He wants to bring troops home too, just not as soon as Nader.

Not this again. I think a little history lesson is in order. The United States has always been ruled by the elite class. ALWAYS. How the hell is Nader going to change that?
Here you go:

"Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.
When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they haave received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future gnerations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.
-Howard Zinn

This nation has always been this way, why do you guys continue to pretend you've unearthed some fantastic information?

Nader is not electable. You like to blame it on the media, but come on, who doesn't know about Nader? Everyone who is likely to vote knows he's an option, yet he remains unpopular. This is a Democracy, the people elect their leader (or misleader). What if Nader just doesn't appeal to many Americans? You never seem to consider that. You Naderites seem to think that deep down most Democrats want Nader, but know he won't win so don't vote for him. I don't know that that's true.

 

and I express my OWN opinion for voting for Kerry..which is my perogative, and my right to do so..

 

I personally support all this too. I'm not a Democrat really though, just voting that way this year for reasons I've outlined about a million times.

 

I don't know if Nader is "electable" or not. And once Nader (and other 3rd party candidates) get equal media coverage, campaign funding, and access to the debates to make their positions known, then we can see who is "electable" and who isn't.

As it is, a candidate is deemed "unelectable" if they don't grab an immediate lead in a primary process funded by corporate money and private contributors. The media (owned by many of the same corporate interests, and driven by ratings) then focus the coverage on crap like personalities, hairstyles, and how the potential "first ladies" look in a formal dress. Candidates that pose a potential risk of offending corporate interests are either completely ignored (Kucinich), marginalized as irrelevant (Sharpton), or set up for a media hatchet job (Dean, and his infamous "scream"). After meaningless conventions with platform debate squelched in the name of "party unity", the blandest of the bland survive to do battle in scripted "debates" where the talking heads toss softball questions (from a candidate approved list), while pesky independents like Nader are blocked from even participating, because they would "disrupt the process".

These are the issues that need to be addressed, and the major parties aren't doing a damned thing about any of them. As long as the electorate continuse to swallow the "electability" bullshit spoon-fed to them by the ruling class and their media lackies, they will continue to choose between candidates who are bought and paid for by the same groups of corporations. No matter who wins, they keep running to the bank!

 

Thankfully, we have thinking people like EllisDTripp to provide some REAL substance to this discussion. In my opinion, everything he said is pretty much right on the mark. This spares me from a lot of unnecessary typing.

All I hear coming from these rabid Kerry lovers in here is the same rhetoric and chorus lines I hear coming from Kerry himself and the Moveon.org crowd. These are the same people who claim not to watch TV or get their news from the mainstream media, yet practically everything they say sounds like a chorus line taken directly from what you hear coming from this mass-media influenced, group-think mindset. These people couldn't resort to critical thinking if their lives depended on it. They are much too conditioned.

I really get a kick out of people like Cyberfly, who never have anything of substance to say. They simply come in here and spam the forum with GIF's taken from Moveon, thinking they're making some kind of radical statement or something.

And Green_Thumb - yes, this country has always been ruled by elites. You are exactly right. The thing is that the elites have never been as interwoven with big-business and global interests like they are today. Apparently, you're having a hard time grasping this simple concept.

And as far as the draft is concerned, it's almost a fact that we are going to see it within the next year - it's only a matter of simple mathematics. Bush and Kerry both want to send 30,000-40,000 additional troops over to Iraq (FOR A WAR THAT CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE WON). To do this, and keep a reserve, will undoubtably require a draft. This should not be surprising, though, since their foreign policy is nearly identical. To think that some of you are so gullible to believe that the draft will not be reinstated, simply because puppet John Kerry said so, is frightening.

 

Well what are you doing about it?! Bashing Kerry (our only hope of getting Bush out)? Please tell me what good you hope to do by painting the Democratic party as evil. You take everything that the Republicans say about Kerry, lies and all, and use it against him. I suspect most of you are really Bush supporters.

 

lol. Ugh, get over yourself already!

And all we hear from you Nader-worshipping drones is the same crap to be found on Nader's website. Please. It is not wrong to agree with many other people about the obvious truth (Bush sucks and Kerry is the better choice hands down). Group-think is not always wrong, I know that's hard for someone like you to grasp, being that you're such a free-thinker (who spews whatever Alex Jones has said ten minutes ago no matter how ridiculous it sounds). There are some bandwagons that are good to be on.

No, you get the award for most radical, don't worry. Want a medal?

No, it's relatively the same. The country was much smaller obviously at that time. What difference does it make how the rich get rich? They still need to keep people poor, then and now.

Kerry is running on that fact, he won't change his mind, there would be outrage. It won't happen and really I don't see how Bush could make it happen either, then again I couldn't believe he started a preemptive war either.

 

You mean besides my last 15 years as a political activist? Besides actively engaging in debate (here and elsewhere) over REAL ISSUES, rather than the bullshit "issues" the media focus on? Besides being involved with the Kucinich campaign during the primaries? Besides trying to point out how the system REALLY works, and for whose benefit? Besides voting my hopes, and not my fears, and trying to convince others to do the same? Nothing, I guess....

I never claimed that they were "evil". Just owned by the same elites that own the GOP....

Oh, yeah. I am calling Kerry a "flip-flopper", accusing him of faking his injuries in Vietnam, and photoshopping him into protest photos with Jane Fonda. Give me a massive fucking break, OK?

I haven't heard any Republicans raise the issues I have about Kerry. Because most of the criticisms I have of Kerry hold equally true of Bush.

If you can't win a debate on the ISSUES, try to smear the opposition as "disloyal".. And exactly WHO is acting like Carl Rove here?

Why don't you Kerry people put some effort into actually helping your candidate (who desperately needs it), and stop trying to prevent other candidates from getting on ballots and into debates?