ME: if i could vote, i would vote for nader
YOU: that's completely unrealistic. that is just throwing your vote away, our goal is to get bush out of office. voting for nader steals votes from kerry and could tip the scale towards bush end the end... like in the last election.
ME: first of all, turn off the tv and read a book, you'd learn that al gore actually WON the election and nader STILL got a good percentage. second of all, even if that WERE true that bush won because of nader, it really only mattered if the nader voter voted for nader in a huge swing state; ie, Florida in the last election.
YOU: well nader still took votes away from gore, and it would have been harder for Bush to steal the election if he had more people voting with the democratic party.
ME: it seems to me that you should take this arguement up with BUSH, not nader, as BUSH was the one who rigged the election. maybe your party should grow a spine and call for this nazi's impeachment, like nader has been doing.
YOU: our party DOES have a spine, thank you very much, gore took the issue of the 2000 election all the way to the supreme court.
ME: i am glad he did that back then, but by now it appears that your party has completely forgotten about the issue. in fact, i dont think i've ever heard your presidential candidate, john kerry, mention it once... and I have watched all of Kerry's lame ass commercials and debates.
YOU: you are taking this off subject, the fact is that nader is seriously doing no good for democracy by stealing Bush's opponate's votes.
ME: first of all, nader is more of an opponent of Bush than Kerry is. look at the similarities between Bush and Kerry. Kerry praised Bush's dad for such a good job during his presidency for god's sake... and that's not something Kerry said years ago, it's something he said MONTHS ago. now on the subject of democracy, it seems to me that YOUR party has a shameless disregard for democracy seeing how hell-bent they are on taking nader off the ballots by any means possible. do you get that? they are trying to take another candidate out of the race, another voice out of the race... this is democractic? and how democractic is it that they won't let nader in the debates?
YOU: it's not our party's fault that nader doesn't have enough percent to get in the debates.
ME: yes it is. your party controls half of the CPD which determines WHAT that percentage is. how about the fact that most voters (even if they don't plan on VOTING for nader) still want to see him in the debates?
YOU: well nader should still have to meet the 15% criteria like everyone else.
ME: well it is kind of hard when your party does everything in their power to silence him. and how fair is it that the 2 main parties get to decide what the criteria is for a third party to enter the debates? that is like giving two people power and the people who get to decide on if anybody else shares that power happen to be THOSE two people that already have power. a candidate only needs 5% of support to qualify for matching federal funds in the following election, so why the 15% hurdle on debates? also, the commision (of presidential debates) had only 12 criteria for a candidate to enter the debates in 1996, so why the sudden raising of the bar when nader goes all out as a candidate in 2000? also, nader happens to be the largest anti-corporate power advocate of our age, and the CPD just happens to be a private corporation, run by private individuals who fund their CPD with corporate sponserships from companies such as AT&T, IBM, Philip Morris, and Sarah Lee. Your party, of course, saw no problem with this, seeing as how this is the way that the democractic party itself operates... not to mention John Kerry being the most lobbied senator. Nader was the only one to actually speak out against this obvious misgrievance of democracy.
YOU: OK, well quit blaming me for the CPD, it's not my fault what they do.
ME: you just said that you think nader should achieve the 15% hurdle like everyone else.
YOU: that's right, he should.
ME: (sigh)
YOU: and why are you on your high horse? nader took money from the republican party!
ME: it's funny that the only arguement you have against nader isn't anything he says, anything he stands for or any way in which your candidate is better, it is purely that he is going to tip the scales towards bush by taking vote away from kerry.
YOU: he does take vote away from kerry which will tip the scale towards bush, and you are avoiding the question of nader's ties with the republican party.
ME: haha. first of all, nader doesn't have any ties with the republican party and has not accepted any money from the party. what you are talking about is individual donations from INDIVIDUAL republicans. keep in mind that it isn't only democrats who have voted for nader in the past, republicans have voted for him as well. there are certainly going to be less republican votes for nader than democrats, but republicans still vote for him, such as in New Hamshire in the 2000 election. how is nader going to know exactly what the intentions of his donors are. should he not take ANY money from ANY republican, even though there are many republicans that actually DO support nader when they donate to him? should he run background checks on every single person who gives him a donation? I understand what you are saying, and it IS a shame that the republicans are trying to help nader only so he will collect votes that otherwise might have gone to the democratic party, but the fact that the republicans are doing this isn't nader's fault. there isn't any conspiracy of nader working with the republican party. it's a really odd thing to assert, seeing that nader has spent his whole life battling the republicans and the corporate interests that control them. it would be pretty random of nader to all of a sudden abandon everything he has worked for in his entire life.
YOU: well he still shouldn't collect money from republicans.
ME: speaking of collecting money from republicans, how many of the corporations that fund your party are operated by republicans that are simply betting on both horses?
YOU: well they give the republicans MORE money.
ME: i'm not saying that the republicans aren't worse than the democrats, they are, but the democrats are corrupt corporate machine party as well. the only arguement that I can see that is pro democrats is that they aren't AS horrible.
YOU: whatever. well i have to go to bed now, i am tired.
ME: yeah me too. we will meet again...
No comments:
Post a Comment