Comment Vote Your Conscience (Score 1) 1041
It seems the majority of people say Nader is a bad vote because he will not win, in otherwords it is a throwaway vote.
Well, I completely disagree. You should vote your conscience. Do you think the American colonialists thought to themselves, "hmm, we probably won't win a war against England - lets just do what is safe and side with their overwhelming numbers."
And who won that war? And what did they fight for? Monarchies? I don't think so. (at least not ones as strict as Englands)
And lets suppose you vote Nader and he loses and George W'buh gains power. Bush acts predictably and puts on a black cloak dons a raspy old voice and begins to refer to all the unrich as 'insulent dogs'. Big f'in deal - it's riot'n time. You wanna be Jedi Rebel? What about a real rebel! Sounds fun don't it?
And lets suppose you vote Nader and Gore wins. Gore will act predicatably (as you can see from his track record see: Al Gore A User's Manual) and his head spins around 90 degrees {much like the mayor from Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas} to reveal the effigy of whoelse but George W'buh. Well, the 'safe' vote isn't so safe anymore.
It's hard for me to believe that people actually want to make a safe vote. And I _think_ that's what V. Cerf and Brin are advocating. They fear Bush winning because not enough voted for Gore. I can't see it any other way.
Vote what you believe, and fight for(which includes an ability to justify) your beliefs.
::: that's my main comment, you can read more below if you have time :::
Some others claim it's becuase he's a crackpot with crackpot ideas.
I'm going to vote for Nader because I like his position on issues - he is obviously more philanthropic than individualistic (as Bush and to slightly lesser extent Gore are).
Which leads me to respond first to the latter, I believe that one can roughly generalize two types of voters [as Brin did with those who want all to be rich, and those who want to be rich-"er"].
Thus, individualists will want to be rich"er" and favor themselves any way they can. The great lyricist Reznor wrote:
'god money's not looking for the cure
god money's not concerned about the sick among the pure
god money let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised'
Perhaps this is out of context, as far as I know I don't think it is. And if you're an individualist, then you'll think Nader is a crazy man. You'll think and say "geeze, what a loon, I'm not just gonna give my hard-earned money away. Hell, if I can steal money and get away with it, then I deserve to be richer too [see corporate crime - the _largest_ of all criminal acts]!"
Note: I'm not making an absolute judgement call here, who knows if there is 'right' way to act in ones life anyways. You'd need to deeply study ethics to be able make an educated guess at what is right or wrong and even then there may not be an answer. In summary, self-serving people think Nader is crackpot because they are different, not because Nader is an all-around crackpot. Perot is more a crackpot than Nader. Crackpots are crazy, for real, at least by definition, and I don't think Nader is crazy. Crockpots, on the other hand are good for chili and nacho cheese dips.
Well, I completely disagree. You should vote your conscience. Do you think the American colonialists thought to themselves, "hmm, we probably won't win a war against England - lets just do what is safe and side with their overwhelming numbers."
And who won that war? And what did they fight for? Monarchies? I don't think so. (at least not ones as strict as Englands)
And lets suppose you vote Nader and he loses and George W'buh gains power. Bush acts predictably and puts on a black cloak dons a raspy old voice and begins to refer to all the unrich as 'insulent dogs'. Big f'in deal - it's riot'n time. You wanna be Jedi Rebel? What about a real rebel! Sounds fun don't it?
And lets suppose you vote Nader and Gore wins. Gore will act predicatably (as you can see from his track record see: Al Gore A User's Manual) and his head spins around 90 degrees {much like the mayor from Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas} to reveal the effigy of whoelse but George W'buh. Well, the 'safe' vote isn't so safe anymore.
It's hard for me to believe that people actually want to make a safe vote. And I _think_ that's what V. Cerf and Brin are advocating. They fear Bush winning because not enough voted for Gore. I can't see it any other way.
Vote what you believe, and fight for(which includes an ability to justify) your beliefs.
::: that's my main comment, you can read more below if you have time
Some others claim it's becuase he's a crackpot with crackpot ideas.
I'm going to vote for Nader because I like his position on issues - he is obviously more philanthropic than individualistic (as Bush and to slightly lesser extent Gore are).
Which leads me to respond first to the latter, I believe that one can roughly generalize two types of voters [as Brin did with those who want all to be rich, and those who want to be rich-"er"].
Thus, individualists will want to be rich"er" and favor themselves any way they can. The great lyricist Reznor wrote:
'god money's not looking for the cure
god money's not concerned about the sick among the pure
god money let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised'
Perhaps this is out of context, as far as I know I don't think it is. And if you're an individualist, then you'll think Nader is a crazy man. You'll think and say "geeze, what a loon, I'm not just gonna give my hard-earned money away. Hell, if I can steal money and get away with it, then I deserve to be richer too [see corporate crime - the _largest_ of all criminal acts]!"
Note: I'm not making an absolute judgement call here, who knows if there is 'right' way to act in ones life anyways. You'd need to deeply study ethics to be able make an educated guess at what is right or wrong and even then there may not be an answer. In summary, self-serving people think Nader is crackpot because they are different, not because Nader is an all-around crackpot. Perot is more a crackpot than Nader. Crackpots are crazy, for real, at least by definition, and I don't think Nader is crazy. Crockpots, on the other hand are good for chili and nacho cheese dips.
