agreement is not enoughgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Sleeptalking : One Thread
just agreeing with nader is not enough. it was delusional to vote for him. you should have been practical and thought about what is actually going to happen now with a republican president, a republican congress, and a probably conservative supreme court.
i agree with nader too, about everything, but diplomacy is a big part of the job he wants and the man is too much of a smartass. you and he both should have looked the bigger picture. in reality it cannot be all (abolished death penalty, abortion rights) or nothing.
today i am pissed off because you and 95000 other idiots in florida have fucked this country with misguided idealism. soon there will be prayer in schools and the ten commandments posted on every stop sign, all because you couldn't compromise. thanks a lot.
-- mo (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 08, 2000
I understand your anger. I don't live in Florida, though. I live in Massachusetts.
I do not accept the argument that Nader cost Gore the election.
Gore cost himself the election. Don't blame Nader.
-- molly zero (email@example.com), November 09, 2000.
I have a whole lot more respect for someone who votes for the person they believe in, rather than "compromising," or choosing the person they think would be the lesser of two evils. Voting out of compromise is apathetic, and if everyone voted that way, nothing would ever change. There would be no point at all to voting. And it's just as unrealistic to expect everyone to agree to compromise as it is to vote hoping for major change. (For what it's worth, I don't know anyone who votes assuming that there will be instant, drastic changes. You vote for someone in the hopes that there will be small, gradual changes. That's the way it works.) I don't live in Florida either -- and I'm more inclined to believe that a very flimsy, poorly designed ballot is more to blame for the problems there than the people who voted for Nader are.
-- Mary Ellen (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 09, 2000.
i can't possibly seem apathetic to you. i care deeply about the fate of civil liberties in this country. i voted the way i did because so much was at stake -- had Gore managed to campaign better I'd have voted for Nader.
But he didn't, and he was a fuckhead, but Nader was also a fuckhead and I don't think he can be absolved of responsibility for the next four horrible years. He knew what would happen if he continued with his campaign, and he did continue, and it probably will happen. And for what? What did he get in exchange? Glorification of the Green party? 2.5%?
It's not a matter of whether compromising was unrealistic or not, it's that there was no compromise! We would never have gotten Nader, it was only Bush or Gore. Gore will, to my disgust, continue to support the death penalty, but he would have vetoed more abortion restrictions. It's not enough, it's not how it should be, but it's fucking important.
-- mo (email@example.com), November 09, 2000.
I do blame Nader. When the pollsters learned before the election that he wasn't expected to get the 5% or whatever he needed, he should have told his supporters to back Gore. Now we're going to be stuck with that hardass Bush. Thanks a lot, Nader. Hope you're #@$! happy!
-- Bear (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 15, 2000.