FREEPER on FAUX News against Kerry/Nader vote switching...

[Hippo_Tron]

"You can't sell your vote for money, so why should you be allowed to trade your vote?"

[LoZoccolo]

1. You shouldn't be able to, I agree.

It's already illegal.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. Yet congressmen trade votes all the time?

I'll vote yes on your bill, if you vote yes on mine!

Your vote is your own. I don't see how it could be illegal for anyone to dictate the your motivations for voting.

[LoZoccolo]

7. That's completely different.

Think about it.

[Liberal Veteran]

I disagree....it's exactly the same thing.

Think about it.

Both are trading votes.

[LoZoccolo]

12. In different elections, plus it's verifiable. n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

16. So as long as it's verifiable, it's okay?

I think it's the same thing. Personally I think vote swapping with a dumb ass Nader supporter is stupid, but I certainly see no reason why it should be illegal.

[LoZoccolo]

18. No, but it's wiser.

Because you are less likely to get ripped off.

[Inland]

22. Well, your concern is touching, but why not let voters decide who to trust

I think if they are qualified to decide that about Bush and Kerry, they can decide about some other voter.

[Inland]

11. Okay. Thought about it. How is it different?

[LoZoccolo]

13. See #12. n/t

[acmavm]

2. Not for vote trading, but apparently has not problem with vote stealing.

Typical lunkhead freeper.

[aquart]

3. Well, I agree with that.

Any idiot who thinks any Nader vote is a safe vote is....an idiot.

[LoZoccolo]

5. Especially when it could lead to a vote rip-off.

The Nader supporter could just lie and vote for Nader, then the Kerry person tells the truth and votes for Nader, and then you have two votes for Nader.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. It's really not a bad idea, Kerry in the swing states, Nader safe states

Look, I'm an admant Kerry supporter and wouldn't dream of voting for Nader, but I think that the bottom line is that this helps Kerry in the swing states and the Repukes hate this idea. Besides even if some of them do decide to still vote for Nader, 5 Nader votes in Alabama is worth it for 1 Kerry vote in Ohio.

[cprise]

8. Kerry in the swing states, Nader safe states is OK, but...

Trading your vote w/someone you don't know is just asking for trouble. How do you know you're not trading with a Republican who has no intention of honoring the swap?

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Again, you don't but if you live in a state like Alabama...

It's worth the risk. Kerry will never win states like Alabama and if five Alabama Kerry voters trade their votes with five supposed Nader voters in Ohio and only one actually honors the vote swap, it's still worth it.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Yes, but then the other voter lives in a swing state...

...and rips you off by voting for Nader anyway. Why would you trust someone who goes around telling people that there's little difference between the parties or that we need to let America hurt badly and/or collapse to change things?

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Once again, if 4 out of 5 of them rip you off it is STILL worth it

Hell, if 19 out of 20 rip you off it is STILL wroth it. We lost the last election by 500 votes in Florida. If 20,000 voters in Florida and 20,000 in Alabama claim to trade votes but only 500 out of 20,000 of those voters in Florida actually honored the agreement it would STILL be worth it.

[LoZoccolo]

24. Nope.

One of the reasons being, it's only encouraged enough freakery to give Ralph the false sense of confidence for another run (or another left-wing demagogue to take advantage of the next generation of impressionable college students). He should have gotten less than 200 votes nationwide last time. Plus you still don't know if five out of five will rip you off, or how large the gap will be ahead of time. Better to just do the sensible thing, which BOTH parties know ahead of time if they are even vote-trading to begin with.

[LoZoccolo]

9. It's a bad idea because Nader supporters often lie and/or commit violence.

Why don't we just trade our votes with the Nationalist Party?

[Robbie67]

19. Nader supporters commit violence?

I've never heard that.

[LoZoccolo]

21. Yes, more than one time here I've heard them advocate...

...letting things get so bad under Bush* that people run to someone like Nader next time, or letting the country collapse so they can rebuild. If they were just fucking around saying that they shouldn't have, because now I go around saying that they advocate violence. They should never try to fuck with peoples' heads.

[Robbie67]

26. So, Nader supporters have never committed violence

I can see why you might equate what they say with violence, but that's much different than saying that they've committed violence.

[cprise]

28. Now I know you're full of it

[LoZoccolo]

29. Nope.

This really happened. I don't wanna go back and look for the posts now...maybe I could find them after the election if you remind me or something.

[aquart]

25. Then you've been suckered.

And you've also learned nothing from 2000.

There is NO safe Nader vote.

Don't let anyone try to get away with touting that piece of fraud.

[Arkana]

10. Well, I have to agree that it's an asinine idea

You have no guarantee that the Naderite you're trading with will vote for Kerry. But Freepers freaking about it is pretty funny.

[Inland]

15. Because it isn't money, or anything else of value. So you aren't selling

your vote. Sounds like the same dopes who can't tell the difference between prostitution and marriage.

[waldnorm]

23. Nader Trading Completely Useless in 2004

In 2000, the goal was for the Green Party to reach its 5% so that there would be a chance for funding for the third party in 2004. What's the reason for trading in 2004? So Nader gets more votes nationwide, and for what? His ego? In a recent interview he explained Winona LaDuke's support for Kerry out of concern that it's a close race in Minnesota and then later says that he will campaign in Minnesota this coming week. He doesn't deserve a trade, and I'd advise anyone in Blue States to vote Kerry, because we need to send a message if any cheating's attempted in certain battleground states as to who wins the popular vote.

[fujiyama]

27. You got it

There's absolutely no legitimate reason in voting for Nader. He's become the perpetual candidate. He will keep running until he dies. This is his THIRD time. He has the support of no party...well other than some idiots in the "reform party", which itself was formed around the ego of another man (Ross Perot). At least Perot had broad support from the public. Nader's own VP from 4 years ago said she wouldn't support him or vote for him. She instead praised John Kerry in how he handled Native American affairs.

Nader's a an egomaniac. I remember telling people I wouldn't have voted for him last time even if he had a viable chance. While he may say the right things regarding corporate power in the US, his ego is on par with that of Bush.