Archive through November 7, 2000

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archives Thru July 2001: Topics Archived Thru Nov 2000:So, who are you voting for?:Archive through November 7, 2000
By Tabreaux on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 10:01 am: Edit

I vote not necessarily on how much in taxes I will pay, but rather in how my hard-earned tax money is managed. At the present, I don't like the way my money is (mis)managed, so I vote accordingly.

By Melinelly on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 09:21 am: Edit

lots of good third party energies here this morning =)

just got home a little while ago from voting. i helped get David McReynolds (Socialist Party USA) official write-in status here in CA, and that's how I voted. if we hadn't been able to get him on, I would've voted Nader.

here's another quote to add:
"Vote your hopes, not your fears!"
dunno who said it first, but it's been a rallying cry for some.

and as i like to say, a third party vote is not a wasted vote, because it is the only true vote for democracy.

forget bore and gush. vote socialist, green, libertarian, etc... vote your conscience in a candidate who truly speaks your mind.


oakland ca

By _blackjack_ on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 09:18 am: Edit


Do you really have no money because of taxes? Funny, my taxes are only about 30% of my income, and I budget accordingly. It's not like taxation is so oppressive in this country that poeple can't become VERY rich if they work hard and/or get lucky. Our level of taxation is the lowest in the industrialized world.

Yeah, I do have a '72 Eldo. Sometimes you have to destroy the planet a little to be this cool.

By Bob_chong on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 09:02 am: Edit

Right on, Anatomist! My bro-in-law gave me the flipside spiel about "a vote for Browne is a vote for Gore." I agree with you that we should vote for whom we want and not be bullied into changing our votes due to fear or whatever else people are peddling.

Blackjack, taxation might be a necessary evil, but I want to pay less in taxes. I am tired of having no money. And Gore's "plan" gives me no tax relief whatsoever. None. Nada. Zip. (Also, do you really drive a '72 Caddy? I had a '73 Coupe DeVille. The Greatest Car I Ever Owned.)

Pataphysician, you're right. Follow the money and you'll see that I am hopeful for tax cuts, which would mean I am excited by the prospect of not running out of food money four days before every paycheck...or finally getting to turn the thermostat up a little bit...etc.


By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 08:38 am: Edit

One way to think of your vote in an election of this scale, is that it is ridiculously improbable that your one vote can make any difference. Stastically, you would get hit by lighting, a meteor, and win the lottery three times on the way to the polls in such an improbable world.

If it was a local election where only a thousand people total voted, there might be legitimacy in thinking in terms of 'game-theory'... not in this one. Therefore, you should vote for who you really want, as at least it is a way to speak your mind and live with a good conscience. All that talk about 'a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush' is just a bullying tactic to get us to lie down and take the one party corporatist system like good dogs.

What we really need, aside from private money out of elections, is a system of proportional representation... if we had it, we'd be looking at a congress and senate made up of about 10-15% Greens, and at least 10% Libertarians tomorrow.

Nader is actually going to win in my precinct...


Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation