Are there Outsports members seriously with the Green Party?

What did you think of Nader's platform? His run?

Who's got some fresh ideas for in-your-face LGBT issues to present to whoever would run for President in 2004 (e.g., a national marriage registry)?

Vote libertarian!! http://www.lp.org/

Should this discussion be moved to the 'politics and religion' category?

Oh yeah. You're right.

I'll move it there tomorrow, when I get a minute.

Thanks, sir.

The Libertarian Party has a quiz you can take to determine where you stand on the political spectrum. I'm a "Left Liberal". There's a shocker. It's interesting though, and short.

As for Ralph Nader, I don't mean to harp on the whole 2000 election thing, but any vote for Nader is a vote taken away from the Democratic Party. You may not like it, and Ralph still refuses to take responsibility for handing the White House to Dubya, but that's how it is.

[quote]Originally posted by conor500:
The Libertarian Party has a quizany vote for Nader is a vote taken away from the Democratic Party.

---

1) ... unless you live in a one-sided state, as I do in NY. I cast a protest vote for Nader in '96 & '00 with zero guilt. I am disappointed in the Greens' weak efforts to expand their party and have no plans to formally join.

2) The Democrats, now a "centrist" corporate party missing in action in the fights against the Thief Executive's perpetual war crusade and assaults on civil liberties, have to EARN my vote. I haven't voted for one of their presidential candidates since '84 and barring a miraculous run by Russ Feingold in '04, don't expect to this time.

Ralph Nader is a good guy and I agree with some of his views. But I don't think he knows how to play the game. He's kinda flaky. That Doesn't work well with image conscious political consultants. Ask Jerry Brown. Besides if Nader ever got into the whitehouse, congress wouldn't work with him. Clinton had to learn that road quick with the gays in the military issue.

My two cents: No third party candidate will ever win the White House as long as the electoral college is in place. And abolishing the EC would take a constitutional amendment, which will never happen. So face the music, pick either the Democratic or Republican party and work within it to change it more to your liking. Otherwise you're not only throwing your vote away, you may be ensuring that the worst candidate gets into the White House (see Nov/Dec 2000).

I have a couple of points, Bill:

[quote]1) ... unless you live in a one-sided state, as I do in NY. I cast a protest vote for Nader in '96 & '00 with zero guilt.

---

This was the purpose of the whole "Nader-Trader" thing - for people in states where there's no chance of Gore losing (or a state where it was a lost cause) to "trade" votes with someone from a state where the race was much closer. E.g. someone in NY would agree to vote for Nader, if someone in, say, Florida would agree to vote for Gore.

[quote]2) The Democrats, now a "centrist" corporate party missing in action in the fights against the Thief Executive's perpetual war crusade and assaults on civil liberties, have to EARN my vote.

---

I actually agree with you here, I'm as disillusioned with the Democratic Party as the next guy. All they've done this whole year is sit around and make nice with Bush, which is fine when it comes to "The War on Terrorism" but not so good when it comes to the economy, the environment, civil rights and liberties, etc.

[quote]Originally posted by Lots-of-us:
pick either [major] party and work within it... Otherwise you're not only throwing your vote away, you may be ensuring that the worst candidate gets in...

---

Sorry, I'm with Nader's line on this one: Gore would be doing the same things as Bush -- militarily, on civil liberties -- only a bit more slowly in some instances. Let fascism come faster so I'm young enough to fight or flee.

I never voted for a third-party candidate believing he could win -- it's purely an Extended Middle Finger to the Republicrats. Punk rock.

Voting for a truly *evil* lesser is "throwing your vote away," in my opinion. If I had to guess, I won't vote for president at all in 2004... the only statement left to make in this quadrennial fraud where it takes $30-50 million to get a White House campaign STARTED.

I believe that third parties are probably not a good option in national elections. Ralph Nader siphoned off enough votes in key states (New Hampshire and Florida come to mind) to give the Republicans the opportunity to steal the election. Gore was a lousy candidate, to be sure, but he is a lot better than the moron who is presently in the White House.

My strategy is, as long as the Republican party is dominated by the (wrong) Religious Right, then they can not be allowed to win a national election and I must vote Democrat. If they lost 3 in a row (which they did), then they might be forced to reevaluate their extreme positions. On a local level, I will vote Green and establish a basis for future growth.

conor500, Bill W., I also agree that if Gore was President, Gore would be doing pretty much the same thing as Bush in the war on terrorism, civil liberties, possible attack on Iraq, etc. There would be some differences, perhaps more advances with gay rights. But after 20 years, I don't see any difference between a Bush and a Gore Presidency.

Because of this, it doesn't make a difference if Nader took away votes from Gore or not. If I do not like either Presidential candidate, I will vote for the best third party candidate. More people doing so would send a much better statement than voting for the lesser of two evils. For other races, I will either vote for the non-incumbent, or vote for the candidate who raised the lesser amount of money. I see that as the only way of erasing the corruption of money.

[quote]Originally posted by pat125:
..I will either vote for the non-incumbent, or vote for the candidate who raised the lesser amount of money.

---

Clearly Pat is with either Minnesota or Oakland for the baseball postseason.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:

1) ... unless you live in a one-sided state, as I do in NY. I cast a protest vote for Nader in '96 & '00 with zero guilt. I am disappointed in the Greens' weak efforts to expand their party and have no plans to formally join.

---

One-sided? Huh? New York State has elected a Republican to serve as governor two consecutive terms; it has one extremely liberal U.S. senator (Schumer) and one who needs to be called out as a charlatan for her flipflops (Clinton); it has a Republican-controlled State Senate and a Democratic-controlled-State House; it has a range of U.S. congresspeople, spanning the spectrum; and a formerly conservative, populous suburb like Nassau County is now headed up by a Democratic County Executive.

I mean, even look at New York City: it has a socially progessive and fiscally tightfisted Republican mayor, who followed a socially liberal and fiscally irresponsible Republican mayor, who followed a socially liberal and fiscally irresponsible Democratic mayor, who....

No, one-sided would be Hawaii, where Democrats hold every major office; or Wyoming, where the reverse is true, I believe, with regard to Republicans.... (Even Salt Lake City has a Democratic mayor, I think.)

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
one-sided would be Hawaii

---

Even they are on the verge of electing a Republican governor -- Linda Lingle, the Mayor of Maui County.

(When Hawaii and Alaska finally joined the Union in the late '50s most pundits assumed that Alaska would be the Democratic state and Hawaii Republican -- mainly due to the large military presence -- That certainly didn't hold true ...)

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
One-sided? Huh?

---

Regarding New York, all this stuff is true. But it consistently votes Democratic in presidential elections. That's all we were saying.