Choose: Kerry, Hitler, or Nader

[phrenzy]

Think carefully Naderites. What do you do in the following scenario?

John Kerry, Adolf Hitler and Ralph Nader are running for president.

You get to cast the deciding vote.

What do you do and how do you justify the consequences?

[BruinAlum]

1. Why bother? This just pisses them off and won't change any minds.

[phrenzy]

2. Because...

Because I've never heard them reconcile their cost vs reward in this situation. I can't figure it out. I mean, if they can not 'compromise their principles' in order to stop Bush - well, is there EVER a case where they can?

[BruinAlum]

3. No

You are asking for a rational explanation from irrational people. That is your mistake. There is no explanation. All you will get is purity and bullshit.

[bowens43]

4. This is silly . First, Hitler isn't running.

Second , you seem to be implying that if someone voted for Nader and Hitler won, those voting for Nader would somehow be responsible. That's ridiculous, those who voted for Hitler would be responsible for Hitlers win, no one else.

That being said, I hope everyone votes for Kerry (or Edwards) because we will need every vote we can get.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Au Contraire

Stalin urged the German communists not to copoperate with the socialists by mounting a common front against the Nazis in pre WW2 Germany....

He thought he was following the Leninist dictum of "maximizing the contradictions."


By failing to mount a common front against Bushco some on the left are committing the same sin...


When the barbarians are at the gate ideological purity is a pursuit for fools....


Peace

Brian

[Turbineguy]

5. It has interested me

this comparison between Bush and Hitler. But I don't think it's fair. To Hitler. During the first 4 years of the Hitler regime, Germany flourished.

[seventhson]

15. If you call killing Jews, eviscerating and burning books "Flourishing"

along with the abolishing of democratic political parties and the revocation of citizenship for anyone who opposes Naziissm....


I wonder what you think of Bush's economic rebound.

[Hav]

6. Hitler all the way baby!

It's needed to reform our party.


(Take that DLC! Suckahs!!! )

[BeatleBoot]

8. I choose Kerry.

Very simple, really.

:7

[muchacho]

9. I supported Nadar..

the last election and don't regret a thing.

Your question is simplistic and insulting on it's face. Yes everyone would vote against Hitler, what's your point?

Nadar speaks for the progressives that feel the Dems have abandoned them for opportunist reasons alone and feel quite comfortable nuzzling the corporate cash teet.

I feel Kerry and Edwards falls into that camp but I belive there is a larger problem to deal with, Bush and his Reagan/Bush cronies, and thier global colonial agenda.
So yes I won't vote for Nadar this time, but it's not because I no longer believe in what he says or that Kerry/Edwards is a better choice it's because Bush et al are so amazingly horrid for me to do otherwise.

Not really a very good stratgey for the Dem's longer term existence -

As long as the GOP has global bullying plans we look pretty good!

[polmaven]

24. I think that is the meaning

of the original post. That is exactly the point being made, IMO.

Nader has an important message, and can be an important spokesman for that message. He needs to be heard, and nobody is asking you to not believe in what he is saying.

The fact remains, however, that he is not going to be POTUS. For his message to be heard will mean ridding the country of the current fascist regime.

I think there are many more who, like you, voted for Nader in the last election, but will not this time, because it is just too important this time. I commend you for your willingness to compromise for the good of the country.

On edit...Ya know what? I may have misread the original post. It does seem to imply there is a 3 way tie, as noted below. OK..scrap the analysis of the original post. Switch that to reality.

[Walt Starr]

10. Oh this one is absolutely a breeze

A three way tie between those three individuals and I have the tie breaking vote?

The answer is a resounding RALPH NADER.

My rationale: Since I know for a fact beyond any doubt whatsoever that this is a three way tie and I have the one and only tie breaking vote, no fucking way do I go for Hitler or the DLC poster child. I punish both parties with a single vote that there was absolutely no doubt would decide the entire fucking thing.

Too bad elections aren't like that, but under your conditions this choice was the easiest one I've ever seen on DU.

[murielm99]

11. I am trying to imagine Ralph

actually RUNNING the country.

Getting elected is only the beginning. Once elected, you have to do something.

Look at what we have for a congress. They would run all over him. Look at what they tried to do to Clinton.

Kerry has the experience. He will be able to govern.

Yes, you are right. The choice is easy.

[Walt Starr]

12. As I said, under your conditions I'd punish both parties

You made up the conditions, I didn't.

[muchacho]

16. reactionary

So a right-wing reactionary congress should be rewarded for being as such by putting in Kerry so he might tame the beast?

I don't think so...as long as the GOP is as venomous and reactionary as they have become even someone as milquetoast progressive as Kerry (and Clinton) have a target on their back.

I could see Ralph changing the rules and bringing the fight to the people instead of the back rooms. Popular opinion can be a potent strategy device, assuming you care what the people think that is...

[seventhson]

13. Nader

But only if my vote is the deciding one.

If Kerry were running as a Republican and Nader the Demopcrat I would vote Nader.

But as long as I had the deciding vote - no matter what, I would vote Nader.

If Nader ran as an independent - NOT (unless my state was safe to defeat the BFEE)

[Skinner]

14. I think you didn't set this one up correctly.

You say "You get to cast the deciding vote." The assumption is that there is a three-way tie between Kerry, Nader, and Hitler, and the respondent gets to choose one of the three.

But this isn't comparable to the situation which we have in the US two-party system.

The correct analogy would be to say:

Hitler and John Kerry are in a close presidential race, each polling right about even in the popular vote and the electoral college vote. Nader is on the ballot, but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election. Assume that Hitler has made his intentions crystal clear: He's going to start a world war and commit genocide against his own people.

Do you vote for John Kerry, who can defeat Hitler, or do you vote for Nader, who can't?

If you vote for Nader, and if Hitler wins in a squeaker, can you sleep well at night knowing you didn't support the only human being on the planet that could have stopped him? Given that your intentions were honorable, can you be judged on the unintended consequences of your vote?

[XanaDUer]

17. Damn Skinner,

That's good. Very good.

[Skinner]

19. Thanks.

I'm actually kinda curious what people think. I do not buy into the Bush=Hitler argument, but many people here do, so I think it is a pretty interesting analogy.

[WillyBrandt]

20. Well, few totally believe Bush=Hitler, but Bush=Really Fucking Bad

And we want to make an analogy to another point of historical crisis.

[muchacho]

21. Proper analogies

I see Bush as Hitler lite...

hey how about this; Bush is to Hitler what the DLC is to the GOP....

[WillyBrandt]

23. That analogy is internally coherent, but I don't agree with it

I don't think the DLCs problem is so much their centrism, which I don't always agree with. Rather, it's that they seem to give sleeping pills to every Democrat who comes their way.

[Guaranteed]

18. Did Kerry vote with Hitler's policies, in this situation?

Just need some clarification.

[Skinner]

22. Touche.

Fair enough.

Let's say that Kerry opposed almost everything Hitler proposed, but made some notable screw-ups.

He voted against Hitler's massive tax cuts for the rich.

He has been a leader in the fight against Hitler's desire to open up the Bavarian National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

He has a solid voting record against Hitler's "genocide agenda." When Hitler wanted to round up the Jews, Gays, and other minorities, John Kerry opposed it. He even voted against Hitler's "Defense of Marriage Act", which defined marriage as being between two Aryans and which allowed German states not to recognize gay marriages from other German states. There is one problem, however. Even though he voted against Hitler's DOMA, he has publicly stated that he does not personally support non-Aryan marriage, and would only like to give non-Aryans civil union status.

John Kerry did vote in favor of the use of force against Poland, which was a huge mistake. He deeply regrets the fact that he took Hitler at his word when he said Poland had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to his neighbors, including Germany. He has since become a critic of the war, and has vowed to completely change Germany's foreign policy to be less unilateral and more cooperative.

No, John Kerry isn't perfect. But he sure as hell ain't Hitler.

[Walt Starr]

26. Now see, under those conditions I have no choice

I'd have to go Kerry.

The conditions mean everything under hypothetical situations.

[anti-NAFTA]

25. Please don't compare Bush to Hitler.

It's very tiring and unoriginal. Bush and Hitler are two completely different types of tyrants.

[RegenerationMan]

27. The comparison really should be Nadar, Kerry and the 1935 Hitler

Bush has not gone as far as Hitler did--yet. What the real comparison should be is Bush to the Hitler of 1935, before Hitler showed his true colors.

In 1935, the media admired Hitler and he had yet to commit his most horrible atrocities. Yes there was the Reichstag Fire (think 9-11), then laws passed to limit civil rights (think Patriot Act), then the Night of the Long Knives, in which all top political resistance was intimidated out of existence through violence (think Anthrax Attack on Daschle and Leahy after they spoke out against the Patriot Act).

But Hitler in 1935, like Bush, had yet to show his true colors. The world had not yet experienced the remilitarization of Germany (think a 2005 military draft) and the invasion of Europe (think PNAC Plan to take Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Khazakistan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, etc.) and the Holocaust (think a fleet of 60 jets armed with 2 Mw lasers able to shoot 180 miles by 2008, then orbiting lasers in the 2010s--allowing total world domination or the United States of Earth).

And the Western media still mostly admired Hitler in 1935. So you can't simply compare Bush to Hitler. That confuses the issue.

You must compare Bush OF 2004 to the Hitler of 1935.

NOW WHO DO YOU VOTE FOR?

[phrenzy]

28. Error in my premise.

Grrr. As many have noticed - My premise was set up wrong. I kind of thought it went without saying. Let me set this one up again:

say - The current vote numbers looks like this:

Hitler - 48 votes
Kerry - 48 votes
Nader - 3 votes


You are the final vote. Who do you cast your vote for? Why?

[seventhson]

29. Kerry