Comments on: Naderless November

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"The reason bush is in office is because people
like you and me voted third party in 2000 when we
thought it didn't matter."

There's a major fallacy in that statement that A LOT of people are guilty of. I cannot at any point recall having any intention of voting for Gore. Prior to the debates, it was because I was already fed up with the two-party system and because Gore hadn't inspired me in any way to vote for him. I'd intended to avoid watching the debates entirely since my mind was made up already. I happened to catch debate #3 when a bunch of friends had it on. I was disgusted by what I saw. Bush was a blithering idiot, but I expected that. Gore was so slimy I thought he was going to slide off the stage. If there was any chance of me voting for Gore prior to the debates, it was squashed that night.

"If there was some third (or fourth or fifth) party do you really think you'd agree with them? "

Economic competition is good for the consumer. Political competition is good for the voter. Oligopolies are harmful to both systems. There are laws in place to stop them in the market. There aren't any for government.

Anyhow, as h2 said, "I'd just like to find a candidate with whom I agree more than I disagree…I'm not looking for a clean sweep of ideals, but a majority of common ideals would be nice."

"I can't believe you have let yourself be led into believing the image of Kerry as portrayed by his opponents. Some of it is true, but anyone can be made to look bad."

I can't belive you have let yourself be led into believing the image of Kerry as portrayed by the DNC. Some of it is true, but anyone can be made to look good. Except for perhaps Hillary Clinton.

"And lay off on the anti-gay stuff."

Why? I think approval of homosexual behavior is harmful to society. Nobody, including you, has given me any reason to believe otherwise.

"On a positive note (it's been a very depressing week due to the RNC) today pitt announced it will pay for healthcare for same sex partners! It's about time."

I think offering same-sex benefits is no more or less foolish than offering benefits to any cohabitating but unmarried couple. It doesn't make sense to offer benefits without a contract of some kind binding the couple. I've said from the very beginning of this controversy, I think it's a state problem, not a Pitt problem. If gays want benefits, they should try to get civil unions in PA.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Funky, you cannot be serious about the Constitution Party?"

If Peroutka had any real chance of winning, I'd think more carefully about voting for him. As it stands, I'm trying to register discontent with Dems and Reps without shirking my civic duty or wasting a privilege.

Out of curiousity, would the Libertarian candidate, Bednarik, or the Green candidate, Cobb, bother you less?

By: steve

steve — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Out of curiousity, would the Libertarian candidate, Bednarik, or the Green candidate, Cobb, bother you less?

Well, I see the Libertarians in about the same light as I see the Constitutions: Hopeless (and hopelessly confused) ideologues. I actually voted Libertarian in '88 BTW. I was, at the time, a hopelessly confused ideologue though--a recent survivor of a right wing brainwashing attempt.

The Greens are slightly less laughable and, on issues of social justice at least, more nearly right. But of course their extreme "conservative" views on abortion (I refuse to see killing babies as "liberal") would almost surely prevent my vote.

I guess I just can't shake this single-issue voting pattern, as much as I'd like to.

Cheers!

By: John Thompson

John Thompson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Also, you can vote for Nader even if he's not on the ballot, just write it in.

By: Mike Gallaugher

Mike Gallaugher — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Eric, we need the Pensylvania vote. Please - just do one for the Gipper. Go pramatic my friend, please please please

By: steve

steve — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Hmmmm…. hard to offer much more than what has already been said. But in response to h2's plea for someone with a "majority of common ideals," I second the plea. But who might that be? If Karol Wojtyla runs, I'll vote for him, but lacking that…

Funky, you cannot be serious about the Constitution Party? Okay they're right (no pun intended) on about… oh say…. 1 (one) issue… and that's about it. And they're right the same way GWB is…

Hold your nose and pray that a couple supreme court justices die (or get sued for sexual harassment by their gay lovers) in the next 4 yrs, and then maybe, just maybe GWB can do what we put him there for.

By: h2

h2 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I don't think I would have a problem with major party candidates if there were only a smattering of differences between his and a candidate's platform.

The reason it's so hard for me to stomach voting for either of the big two is that there are practically legions of stated and demonstrated political positions on each side that rub me the wrong way.

I'd just like to find a candidate with whom I agree more than I disagree. The sense I get from both major parties is that they are somehow simultaneously dogmatic and lukewarm, all the while not supporting enough of the positions I hold.

I'm not looking for a clean sweep of ideals, but a majority of common ideals would be nice...

(Maybe Funky fits in with this view somewhere too)

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I just skimmed the Pitt News article on this breaking story. As I suspected, straight couples will be offered the same benefits. Also, couples must sign an affidavit to prove their monogamy. Pitt knew all along, as I did and many others did, that the benefits wouldn't stop with gays because straight unmarried couples would demand them. Apparently Pitt decided they could afford to foot the bill for everyone.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

If there was some third (or fourth or fifth) party do you really think you'd agree with them? They would probably be pro choice or have some other reason serious reason for you not to vote for them.

The reason bush is in office is because people like you and me voted third party in 2000 when we thought it didn't matter. Now we know it matters.

For the record, julie was approached in oakland by someone with a clipboard asking if she would sign a petition to the United Nations. She said yes, but when she looked at the clipboard it was a petition to get Nader on the ballot. The next day watching the news I learned it was the deadline for Nader to get enough signatures. You were going to vote for a guy who runs his campaign that way. If Nader was the actually a serious threat to Bush's reelection he would easily look like a far less attractive candidate than Kerry by the time Karl and company were done with him.

I can't believe you have let yourself be led into believing the image of Kerry as portrayed by his opponents. Some of it is true, but anyone can be made to look bad.

And lay off on the anti-gay stuff. On a positive note (it's been a very depressing week due to the RNC) today pitt announced it will pay for healthcare for same sex partners! It's about time.

By: John Thompson

John Thompson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Just to clarify something for Funky, the vast majority of companies give benefits to nonmarried couples in a committed relationship. I'm also fairly certain that pitt was already providing this for couples of opposite sexes.

It is good right and just that it should be so. If marriage is going to mean something, then we should not browbeat people into getting married who don't want to by threatening them with death by lack of insurance.