the other day you said you hadn't even registered to vote yet!  better get on it......
being idealistic is great but there comes a time when you have to be realistic.  There may be a time when a 3rd party can win but it won't happen in this election.  and I wil do whatever it takes to not get McCain elected.

I am registered vote.
I often hear people praising Obama for his dreaming and idealism... I'm proud of my idealism.

Voting for Nader or Barr or Mickey Mouse will have the same effect as staying home and not voting at all, when it comes to the reality of which way your state will go in the electoral college.

I agree that voting for Nader won't affect the electoral college, but I disagree with the sense that it's pointless to vote if you don't vote for a Republican or Democrat.  I support people voting according to which candidate most closely represents their values, no matter the party.  If more people did that, we'd have a much more dynamic system.  However, you're right.  People don't vote that way.  They resolve themselves to the big two. 

I posted this before, but I think people should vote however they feel moved.  One person may most value the positives of a candidate and vote for that person.  Someone else may most value the "threat" of another candidate and vote for that person's strongest rival.  I can be both idealistic and realistic because I live in a state that reliably votes for the Democratic candidate.  I'd probably vote realistically under different circumstances, but it feels different, better, a rush, voting idealistically.  It's a vote for hope.  Realistic voting is a vote of fear (justified as it may be). 

Bush wasn't elected president because people voted for Nader.  Bush was elected president because his bro helped him out in Florida.

;)b

I was being sarcastic... :P
I feel VERY strongly about not having John McCain as our president, that's why I'm voting for Nader. I feel strongly about not having Obama as our president, that's why I'm voting for Nader. I would go as far as to say I completely agree with Nader and all that he has already done for our country and the ideas he has for the future of our country, that's why I'm voting for Nader.

First, I'll start on your comment that Nader has not "imposed or implemented any of his grand ideas"...
How about when Nader took on the FDA's approval of experimentation in artificial lense implants? Or him taking on GM (and the american automobile industry in general) for creating/manufacturing unsafe automobiles? Out of which came the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which ultimately is responsible for airbags, stronger windshields, safety belts, and automobile safety responsibilities being put on the manufacturers. In addition to this advising a senate subcommittee on car safety. Of the money he received out of lawsuits brought against GM for their smear tactics on Nader he donated much of this money to expand his consumer rights efforts. He is also a leader in the opposition to nuclear energy, favoring and promoting solar, wind, geothermal, etc. energy. Nader has also started MANY non-profit organizations such as Clean Water Action Project, Center for Women's Policy Studies, Resource Consumption Alliance, American Antitrust Institute, Democracy Rising, and if I'm not mistaken also a Clean Air organization.

You do not need to hold a spot in office to bring about change, make differences, and bring the public to realizations of issues that really matter. Maybe it is ego that he is starting off with presidency... perhaps it is a statement that a common private citizen can make as much of an impact as this man and get as far as he has in a presidential race without holding a seat in office, without being backed by corporations, and without being a democrat or republican. I do not know his personal motives, so I will not make a guess or assumption. Would you like to say Martin Luther King, Jr. made no difference because he do not hold a spot in office??? How about Gandhi???

Green issue...
I am firmly against nuclear energy, which Obama supports... but only if "safe and effective measures are taken." Although everything I've heard him say about this issue is somewhat uncomfirmed and like he is leaving an open door for himself to change his mind later. As far as I see it... here is a comparison

Obama:
-Address energy speculation pricing
-Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.
-Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas (oil exploration)
-Obama will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.
-Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles
-Increase Fuel Economy Standards
-Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015
-Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
-Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.

McCain:
-Address energy speculation pricing
-Sounds like he is supporting swapping from SPR
-$5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car
-Expanding Domestic Oil ExplorationPropose
-A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles
-Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles
-Enforce Existing CAFE Standards
-Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D
-Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power
-Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options

I'm sorry but, I don't see much of a difference... McCain greatly supports nuclear power, Obama is not opposed. Take a look at what Nader's environmental/energy views. They're quite different.

I do not disagree that McCain or Obama will end up being president. I'll state my reasoning from a quote in those links I put above,

"Better to vote for someone you believe in and lose than vote for someone you do not believe in and win, because that someone will surely betray you."
-Eugene Debs

I appreciate your admiration and support in those who are trying to make a diffence even if it is only seen as symbolic and as statements (as sad as that is). I rarely compromise and vote as well as act in my everday lifestyle in a manner that will hopefully turn my idealism into reality.

I was showing my friend a candidate calculator and came up with this:

Ralph Nader (Independant) - 96.30% match
Cynthia McKinney (Green Party) - 76.85%
Barack Obama (Democrat) - 65.74%
Bob Barr (Libertarian) - 42.59%
Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) - 38.89%
John McCain (Republican) - 11.11%

That's not surprising, but this was.  The exact same percent of people had Nader as there top match as McCain.  If people did vote for the candidate that most represented their interests, Nader would in squarely in the running.

Obama - 36.24%
Mccain - 21.79%
Nader - 21.79%
Baldwin - 7.45%
Barr - 6.97%
Mckinney - 5.76%

UH HUH!!!  8)