Answer this question for me... Options

[*kryogenix*]

I've approached some people with the question, Why John Kerry, even when you acknowlege that he's a lousy candidate? They reply "He's not George Bush. Anyone but Bush."

Well, Ralph Nader isn't George Bush. Michael Badnarik is not George Bush. Why not vote for them?

Most reply, "Because they won't win."

I thought the reason we vote was because we wanted the candidate with the closest ideals to ours to be elected. Not because we wanted to vote for the winning candidate.

Responses?

[strice]

barelyy coherent, you live up your to your name.

heathasm, i think you missed what i said. i acknowledge that people will be the ones doing the discrimination, but the government will be the one giving them the authority to do so, should bush be reelected. i dont' see how it isn't discrimination. if they passed a law saying that irish can't marry, people would be quick to label it as discrimination.

and i don't see what you find flawed in the reasoning of voting for kerry instead of nader or whoever else. of course you vote for someone who has the same values, but whats the point if these ideals are never realised? it makes much more sense to vote for someone who has a fighting chance and adheres to most of what you value. you don't bet on a lame horse.