Well, why SHOULD young, idealistic voters choose Kerry over Nader?

[hope42mro]

As an 18 yr-old, idealistic voter I'll admit these arguments are seductive. Thus I ask these questions with both sarcasm and real concern.

Source: www.votenader.org, "Students", "A Message to Young Voters (and Non-Voters)

Since I'm a young person how can I be both "naturally questioning and rebellious, much more willing than (my) parents to abandon the system and try something new" and vote for one of the "two corporate-controlled puppets"?

Nader shares my beliefs on issues like Opposing the Iraq war, supporting gay/lesbian equal rights, universal health care, maintaining commitment to affirmative action, and more. Even if the Republicans are supporting Nader, he's a powerful activist for the Far Left. The Republicans are unknowingly giving him a stronger voice.

Eventually, I want America to have more than a two-party system, so why not help America down that road by supporting Nader?
After all, "Nader can't win" is an irrelevant argument for young people--our lives will extend beyond this election. (Direct Quote from website)If I vote for one of the two-parties I could be limiting my expectations. They'll realize we're serious, if every young voter favors Nader, about wanting more parties.

As a young person I must "take the qualities that young people are known for--rebelliousness, skepticism, and optimism-- and apply them to politics. We must abandon our parents' cynicism and unwavering faith in the way things are, and instead create a vision for the way things should be." (Direct quote)

So why shouldn't I use my influential vote to through off the current system?

[countmyvote4real]

1. A Nader vote in THIS election WILL change the current two-party system.

But be careful about what you wish for.

You'll get a one-party system that will gas any opposition for years to come.

Ideals are nice. I have them, too. Mine tell me it's time to be pragmatic. It's best to play our cards when there's a table that at least has a sear for us.

[nofurylike]

2. to even hope to HAVE an "eventually"

in which we may re-form this place.

have a read:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=721702

goodnight



peace

[CaTeacher]

4. I believe that people should vote their

conscience.

[Salviati]

9. I believe that people should live their conscience...

and vote in order to get results.

[Hobarticus]

3. Vote as you please.

[DieboldMustDie]

5. Because young idealistic voters are going to be eligible for the draft...

that's going to be required if Bush's military adventurism continues.

[King of New Orleans]

6. Vote how you want but be aware

of the consequences of your actions. A vote for Nader, makes the status quo (Bush) much more likely--and it's a lousy status quo.

[dpbrown]

7. Because pedantic rejection of the broad for the narrow will never win

My thoughts on this are here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x65598

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[hope42mro]

10. Whoa. You're amazingly eloquent. I'm speechless.

I'm printing this out for personal indoctrination.

[hope42mro]

8. Here's what I actually believe...

1) The letter, written by a young woman named by Kayty Himmelstein, calls for young people to not conform to their parents two-party system. To think for themselves. To be rebellious, skeptical and optimistic, like we SHOULD be. What B.S. Please? I don't need Nader and his followers to remind me to think for myself, I do it everyday. How can someone tell me to be the stereotype of my age group while telling me to abandon "the system"? Be what we tell you to so you can be different!
Kayty, sweetheart, please don't patronize me by asking me to "abandon (my) parents cynicism and unwavering faith in the way things are." My parents ARE optimistic and what exactly is "faith in the way things are"? Seriously though, there's a time to be rebellious and a time to be unified. United we Stand(against Bush).

2)Yeah Nader shares my beliefs and is a champion of issues my age group and I care about. SO are the Democrats, smart one. If Nader wants to be president he's gonna have to wait in line, preferably behind Barak Obama. Kucinich is as Green and Independent as Nader yet he went about his campaign the honest way.

3) This election is really important. Hell, EVERY election is really important. Tell the 900 dead soldiers, the 10,000+ dead Iraqi's, the 3,000 dead New Yorkers that the 2000 election didn't matter. If Bush screws up our country, our world, it's our generation will have to fix it.

4) Meh, screw the third parties. Two seems fine. The more parties, the more focused and isolated their platforms would be. Each nominee would be too extreme to accurately represent America. Just because a party is large doesn't mean it can't be diverse. The Democratic party is wonderfully diverse, yet it's huge. Oh, and strength in numbers. Wouldn't the greens get more done if they helped the Democrats, if they joined us and spent more time adjusting our party platform to affect their causes? I think so. The Left would get more done if we stayed united and inched America our way, one election at a time.

Gggrrr Nader. Go away! I won't fall for your transparent, slimy pandering to my idealistic heart.

[DaveSZ]

11. Supreme Court

Most progressive social gains from the last century such as women's rights, civil rights, environmental laws, etc. hang by a 5-4 or 6-3 vote on the Supreme Court.

Bush just has to replace O'Connor and Stevens, and the blood of those four little girls in Birmingham, the Earth Day marches, and everything else will have been for nothing.

For me, this is the main reason to vote for Kerry along with his amazing record on environmental issues.

P.S. I'm also young and idealistic, but the pragmatic side of me doesn't want to live in a Fundamentalist country.

:)

[KT2000]

12. Bush is beating the drum

for taking on Syria and Iran. So far he has shocked and awed some 10,000 Iraqi's out of existence. They have experienced the end of their world.We don't know the tally of Irqi dead after Bush declared the war complete. We are nearing 1,000 military dead, and many thousands injured.

With another term he will compound those numbers when he takes on other countries.

Bush was almost gleeful about the huge number of executions in his state when he was governor. He is careless with the lives of everyone involved in this war.

If you want to game your vote and have the effect of re-electing this mad man - you will assist in "throwing off' the planet, a lot more innocent people.

Sometimes that is what a vote really means.

[flaminbats]

13. know the good and bad things about every candidate..

I can't help but notice that Arizona is your home state. If that is the state you vote in, you and your friends will not see Nader or Cobb on the ballot in November. Both of these candidates have now failed to gain the necessary signatures to obtain ballot status in 15 states.

The reason Ross Perot was briefly the front-runner in 1992 was because people thought he could win, and Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states. If Perot had not dropped out or picked Stockdale as his running-mate, he would have done much better.

When picking a Presidential candidate, the best candidates are ones running nationwide. Candidates like Nader, Thurmond, and Wallace were all regional candidates who were unable to deliver their message to the national electorate. But candidates like TR and Ross Perot did have a national impact...and both changed the political landscape with their campaigns. The only way a vote for Nader would have effected politics in 2000, would be if you were a Democrat in Florida who could have otherwise voted for Gore.

If you oppose the war, support universal healthcare, and want an environmental policy in this country..Kerry-Edwards is the ticket. If you want to vote for a 71 year-old who would likely not make it through four tough years, a candidate millions of voters like you will not even see on the ballot, and someone who is more likely to steal votes from Cobb than Kerry..Nader is your candidate!

[JI7]

14. because it's being "rebelliious" because it seems cool rather than right

thing. that's how many people are now. they like to see themselves as some special group who is known for being against things rather than be someone who try to make a change for the better. i am 25 now but have been into politics since before i could vote and i often get turned off by those who define themselves as being against the system but don't really seem to have any intention of changing it. i see myself as an idealist many times.but i also see john kerry as being the one who represents me in addition to many politicians we already have in power. he has lived his life in a way where he did things to try to change things for the better. he has been to places where people who had advantages as himself never had to go. he didn't oppose the vietnam war because he decided to define himself as some idealist who wants to show how special he is by going against the system.

[Krupskaya]

15. Because Nader's a union-busting asshole...

...who tells people to "vote their conscience" while displaying a total lack of one himself.

[IndianaGreen]

16. You should vote for whoever you want

and no one has the right to harass you for your vote. There are better third party candidates out there than Nader, such as the Socialist Equality Party and the Socialist Party USA.

As to my own personal opinion about a vote for Nader, the Left has pretty much rejected the idea of a Nader vote. Because of our undemocratic electoral system, the only way to make your vote count against Bush is to vote for Kerry/Edwards.

I live in Indiana, a state that will go into the GOP column one minute after the polls close (GOP allegiance in this state is genetic!). I won't have a problem with my vote that some will have in a closely contested state. This is why the Left in Indiana is working very hard to elect Democrats to Congress and to prevent Mitch Daniels from being elected Governor.

I wouldn't want to find myself in a situation were Bush wins my state on account of my vote.

[Killarney]

17. Have fun in Iran next year.

Hope you live.
:)

If Nader really cared about you, he wouldn't be running this year. He'd release his followers like Dean and Kucinich did... for the betterment of their supporters lives.

If Bush is re-elected (with the help of Nader and his Republican supporters) there WILL be a draft. The war drum is already pounding. And a woman's right to choose will be gone. Seven out of the nine current Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans. Two will be retiring in the next four years. If you think America will be the same after Bush selects two SCJ's, you're smoking crack.

[IndianaGreen]

18. There is going to be a draft no matter who wins

If the Kerry Administration decides to pursue a "stay the course" in Iraq and continues to wage the endless and phony "War on Terror," there is no way to maintain the military going without conscription.

On the other hand, it is a certainty that Bush will expand the war into Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

Whe it comes to the draft question, the choice is between an "IF" and a "CERTAINTY."

[Killarney]

25. Kerry will not re-instate the draft.

Yes, he will continue the war on terror, as any president should. But he will do it the right way... as a mainly intelligence operation, breaking up the cells, etc. Not by taking whole countries and regimes down.

[moez]

19. Agreed.

http://www.unrepentantnadervoter.com/

[Zynx]

23. And you sir are useless.

[Northwind]

20. Really simple answer:

So that they have some hope of becoming old, idealistic voters.

[DinahMoeHum]

21. Getting ride of * by any means necessary comes FIRST.

And if that means having to put a clothespin on your nose and vote for Kerry, so be it.

How many times does it have to be put to you - Nader has NO f**king chance whatsoever - he has no clout and no support in Washington for afterwards (if a miracle too place and people suddenly voted Nader in)


:kick:

[Zynx]

22. You're too idealistic to be a responsible voter.

If you really believe that Kerry would have taken us to war in Iraq, don't vote for him. However, if you do believe that, then you need a serious check up.

You should also examine Nader's personal character. He lies every two seconds when he speaks such as pretending that he has 7-9% in the polls, saying that Republicans aren't helping him get on the ballots, and so on. He is generally a deceitful megalomaniac.

You don't vote for people for president just for the sake of protest. That is irresponsible. You vote because you think that person would make the best president among the candidates running. Firstly, you know Nader won't win, even in a two way race against Bush he would get at most 20% of the vote. By voting for Nader, you are not adding your vote to the tally that might remove Bush from office. Secondly, do you really believe Nader could be president? I don't, and I would never want him as president. Think before you excersise a truly awesome responsibility. However, I don't expect as much because you are not being responsible by even considering Nader.

[zulchzulu]

24. Door #1: Kerry Door#2: Bush Door#3: Nader (which means Bush)

Besides Nader being a phony egomaniac, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Period.

[KFC]

26. Because the "anti-corporate" Nader is just stroking his ego

The hypocrite just loves the attention. Not a serious candidate.

[jadesfire]

27. his leadership on environment and energy

he has a 96% LIFETIME LCV score w/ 100% for the last seven years. He has fought for higher CAFE standards (gas mileage) and for 20% renewable energy by 2020 for the last five years. He understands that the environment is critical to America's continued leadership and the health of every American and has never been afraid to stand up to those who would sacrifice the environment for short term gain.

there are many other reasons why progressives, idealists, "lefties" should support JK but this is what caught my attention 18 months ago.