The consequences of not voting for Kerry was the Supreme Court

[DanCa]

Like I said earlier this was the consequence when people voted for the libertarian or green candidate in the 2004 election. Any vote not for Kerry was for Bush and his right wing band of thugs who now own the court. Don't blame it all on Diebold either. While I am sure Diebold was a factor, and played a percentage in the election, I know far too many Greens and Libs who didn't vote for Senator Kerry. Why, because they didn't like the senator's popularity or were a one issue voter. Like I said if you didn't vote for Senator Kerry than your responsible for Alito being on the court just as much as the repukes are.

[catmother]

1. agreed. nt

[JanusAscending]

2. And I SECOND THAT !!!

SO MOVED ????? !!!!!

[Coexist]

3. NO - it wasn't. There are 44 Democrats in the Senate

more than enough to filibuster. They chose not to. The Presidential election had NOTHING to do with it.

[high density]

4. Umm yeah it did have something to do with it

Or do you think that President Kerry would have nominated Alito as well?!

[DanCa]

7. The Presidential election had nothing to do with it?

Do you think that President Kerry would have nominated John Roberts or Alito to the court to begin with?

[smartvoter]

16. Really? You think Kerry would have nominated Alito? nt

[ginnyinWI]

5. and the saddest part, to me is

there are a lot of people out there who voted for * who were also one-issue voters, either voting for him on the question of abortion, or voting on the question of who can save them from the terrorists.

I don't have the answer, I'm just saying that the current occupant of the White House certainly does not have a mandate from the people to rule as he is ruling!

[NoPasaran]

6. The biggest share of the blame

Belongs to those who voted for George W Bush, not any hapless third party clown in 2004.

[EFerrari]

8. No, the consequence of our fucked up elections systems

was the Supreme Court.

You can ignore it. You can doubt it. You can disagree with it.

But you cannot prove that my GREEN vote for Kerry was counted.

There are now more than several serious studies of the 2004 election.

Please read ONE of them and help us get elections at least as clean as the one that just elected Hamas.

[Junkdrawer]

10. Amen n/t

[Junkdrawer]

12. ...and the neglect goes back at least to the 1980s...

The privatization of the counting of the votes occurred when we ASSUMED that something as fundamental as the right to have our votes counted would be jealously guarded by the Democratic Party. It wasn't.

[DanCa]

13. Simple math question. How many people voted green in the last election?

If you tally all the green votes and put them in the Dem category Kerry's numbers woulda been that much higher. Let's take the number five thousand and say five thousand people voted for Nader. If Nader wasn't running than people probably would've voted for kerry. That would be five thousand votes added to the Kerry Camp that the greens took from the Dems.
I stand by my criticism. Don't blame all of it on diebold .

[Junkdrawer]

14. Do you think the Green vote was counted with more accuracy...

that the Democratic or Republican vote? :shrug:

[DanCa]

18. Your missing the point.

It doesn't matter whether one person voted for Nader or a thousand. That one vote didn't go to the Dems which inched Dubya that much closer and put Alito on the bench. Except the reality.

[Junkdrawer]

21. My point is that, by and large, the numbers are what the private companies

say they are.

Little or no auditing is done. Hell, the good people of Alaska have been told that they CANNOT examine the voting database as it is private property.

[DanCa]

24. And I agree with you that Diebold should not be dismissed.

I am saying don't dismiss the fact that green votes still took away from senator Kerry. It was a combination of effects.

[EFerrari]

25. Most Greens I know voted for Kerry. There was a huge debate

about whether to field a candidate at all -- which I only heard because I registered Green after the Senate stood down and left the CBC twisting in the wind in 2000.

And, btw, Nader was not invited to run as a Green candidate in 2004. (Slaps forehead.)

Nader has nothing, nothing to do with this in reality. There is no margin that can be fielded that will outdo Diebold's candidate -- you learned that in 2004 or, you could have. Most people vote for one of the two parties. And the Republican machines eat Democratic votes.

Upside: Diebold is tanking all over the country. But, it still could use your help. It could certainly use more concerted help from the Party that has now been ripped off in two Federal elections.

[DanCa]

30. Sfexpat I agree with you about diebold.

I like you your a good guy. :D :hug: I am just saying that all things have consequence. Hell I wanted Dean or Clark to run but I bit the bullet and went with senator Kerry because of this huge consequence

[EFerrari]

31. Yep. Hubby was a Deaniac and I'm a Green. We both voted Kerry.

Have to tell you, I'm older than dirt and have never seen such a massive coalition like the one we put together against Bush and kept together for two years. No way Kerry lost that one.

There's a lot of progress against the vote eaters. We need more. :)

[Imajika]

9. Yup..

Presidents nominate judges. If Alito had been stopped, Bush would just keep nominating conservative judges - there is simply no way to stop them all. Alito is bad, but there are far worse. Unfortunantly, these are the consequences of having lost the last election to Bush. People should stop blaming it on Diebold, Kerry just didn't get enough votes - and now were stuck with another Bush term and all the rightwing judges he will push onto the courts.

There are consequences to these elections - allow McCain, Allen, Guiliani, Rice or whoever to win for the GOP in 08' and there will be more conservative judges filling the ranks of the judiciary - and in reality we will be powerless to stop it. Even with a majority in the Senate we are not going to be able to stop most of a Republican President's judicial nominees - it just isn't realistic and it isn't going to happen.

We must win in 06' and 08'.

[Junkdrawer]

17. Does the privatization of vote counting bother you?

:shrug:

[Bouncy Ball]

11. I keep thinking of all those minority voters in Ohio who were

standing in those long ass lines well into the night who didn't even get to vote.

Hundreds and hundreds, THOUSANDS of them.

Didn't get to vote.

Come on. You're gonna tell me that didn't have any effect on the outcome?

And it wasn't just in Ohio, either.

[DanCa]

22. I didn't say it didn't have any effect on the outcome.

I am saying it's "all" a contributing factor.

[EFerrari]

27. And students, too. And minority voters all over the country.

Remember, the electricity went out in NOLA and thousands didn't get to vote there either? The list of dirty tricks and thievery is longer than your arm.

[ChipsAhoy]

15. AMEN!

That's what we were trying to tell people in 2004. NOW it is biting us becasue we weren't heard.

[messiah]

19. lol

Democratic voters were scared of putting up a a true lib fighter because they were scared of the Republicans trashing him. The Democrats are scared of everything scared to fight, scared to be liberal, scared to say the right things in tuff times. Instead of blaming voters for seeing Democratic Party incompetence you better look inward and investigate the cowardice within your own party.

[DanCa]

20. Wow Kerry wasn't a true liberal?

Than why the hell where the repukes attacking him month after month. It seems to me now where hearring from all the green appologist who want to purify the planet so much you can't live on it. COngrats you got your wish Alito in the name of purity.

[FreedomAngel82]

34. He's one of the most liberal in the Senate

He's right after Kennedy.

[DanCa]

38. Yeah the post above me shocked me :D

It's my bad I should have put sarcasm on my post. :D

[FreedomAngel82]

33. "within your own party"?

You do know this is a democratic board right? :eyes:

[seabeyond]

23. i agree danca n/t

[Flabbergasted]

26. Totally Disagree.

Its highly immoral to condemn people because they voted for someone they liked instead of voting for someone you liked. Thats not how election systems work. In addition various reports indicate that Kerry won by as much as 5 million votes.

[EFerrari]

28. Thank you. n/t

[DanCa]

29. So i am immoral now :D Yippie

Hey you can vote for anyone you like. I am just saying that actions have consequences and a green vote simply took away a vote from Kerry. If that makes me immoral than so be it.

[FreedomAngel82]

35. Disagree

If you didn't like someone just don't vote for them. Don't vote for someone else who you know has no chance of making it in. I still blame them for 2000 and 2004 and what we're in now. It's not my fault that's for damn sure.

[FreedomAngel82]

32. Damn straight

Kerry fought for us. The people who didn't vote for him didn't. Thanks for turning my country more fascists. :cry:

[mydreamcametrue]

36. Careful, the greens will be after you.

But you are definitely right.

[DanCa]

39. Welcome to DU MDCT : love your ID :D

[stepnw1f]

37. Hold On Dan... Hear Me Out Others!!!!

We can't do this to each other anymore. It doesn't work in the end. I know you are angry, I am as well. But this fragmentation on the left needs to end. We just keep reopening more and more resentment on the left, when all of us should work together to change the state of our nation. Sounds corny, but I believe this is the truth.

We need to move on, but we need to move on together!