We are facing a dilemma on November 2nd.

1. George W. Bush is quite clearly a total and unmitigated Jew puppet, putty in the hands of the Jewish neo-cons who are whispering in his ear, literally. (It's been noticed that the bulge in Bush's jacket at the second debate appears to have been a receiver. Some Jew offstage, possibly Wolfowitz or Rove, was whispering his answers for him through an earphone device.) Bush is the first American president to send U. S. troops to die for Israel. His removal from office would seem to be an absolute moral priority.

2. However, his liberal politics aside, Kerry admits to being part Jew, and if he is elected he will be the first OPEN Jew to hold the Oval Office, depending on whether or not you believe that old rite-wing conspiracy rap about the Roosevelts being Jews, which I never saw any proof on.

3. Not to vote at all, or to vote for any third party candidate, effectively helps Bush and the neo-con Jews get back in, and these people are so utterly loathsome that it is hard for me to believe anything could justify that.

So, it all boils down to this: do we sit it out, either by not voting or throwing away our vote on Nader or Peroutka, both of who are ideologically repugnant to WNs?

Or do we hold our noses and vote for a kike in order to possibly assist in getting this mass murdering moron out of there?

Wonderful system we've got, eh?

-Bob

Linder said that a vote for anybody is a meta-vote for the system.

That is the revolutionary viewpoint.

I think the revolutionary viewpoint is stay away, because any voting lends credibility to a false system. The system is false because we have to share the franchise with aliens and non-Whites and people who are so stupid as to be retarded. I do not believe that I should have to share my vote with blacks. Thus it is unfair from the get-go.

One more thought: if you must vote, voting on NADER is not throwing it away, because it will likely be read as a vote against either Israel, or economic globalism, both of which are enemies of our race. That is ten times more important than whether he endorses queer marriage or whatever.

A vote for Nader is the closest we can come to a vote against the System and against the Jews. Go to the ADL's site and read his letter to Abe Foxman, and tell me if you'd actually feel moral qualms about voting for this man. I don't care if he's pro-gay or pro-choice or pro-whatever else; he's the closest thing we've got to a viable third party candidate, and he's also the closest thing we've got to an anti-Jew candidate. If Buchanan were running again, I'd probably vote for him.

While I can agree with Linder's viewpoint, I think that ultimately it's not tenable. There are many more non-revolutionary non-voters than revolutionary non-voters. "Any vote is a meta-vote for the system" makes sense, but there's no way to counter it; not voting at all is not a meta-vote against the system, but rather joining the millions of Americans who agree with the system but don't care enough to vote. It sends zero message, whereas a vote for a third party candidate (or a write-in Adolf Hitler) at least registers your voice in protest of the status quo.

I live in Texas. Thus I can vote for Nader without a care as to how my vote impacts the larger election. If I were to live in a "swing state," though, I would have to consider things more carefully. There's always this revolutionary part of me that says "worse is better." I'm interested in doing what I can to accelerate the downfall of ZOGUSA. Now, which candidate would do the best job of that? Which candidate will make it easier to educate our fellow Whites on the evils of the Jews, of the effects of Mexican immigration and nigger crime? Which candidate will allow increased immigration, create new wars for Israel, take away more of our civil liberties, and boost affirmative action and welfare? Which candidate is likeliest to piss off and effectively disenfranchise the largest number of Whites with his policies? Which candidate will be easier to point to and say, "Look how the Jews actually control everything"? I actually can't say -- Bush and Kerry are esssentially tied in that regard, as far as I can see.

A vote for Nader will be perceived as a vote against Israel and the zionist lobby who control the political parties and the media.

WNs' should vote for Nader.

Different perspectives are needed before any major jew wise awaking will begin.

nader sounds like a nationalist.

Strange times.
Nader doesn't seem to be owned and operated by the jews.

Vote anti-Israel this election!
Vote for Nader. The closest thing we have now to someone who wil lnot bow down to the the jews.

If I vote in this election, then it will be for Nader for the reasons articulated by others above. Of course I disagree with Nader on many issues, but he has publicly spoken out against Jewish control of the US government and drawn the ire of the B'nai B'rith Brigade, and that alone makes him worthy of a protest vote.

~~~So, it all boils down to this: do we sit it out, either by not voting or throwing away our vote on Nader or Peroutka, both of who are ideologically repugnant to WNs?

Or do we hold our noses and vote for a kike in order to possibly assist in getting this mass murdering moron out of there?

Wonderful system we've got, eh?~~~

Unfortunately, our system sucks. The only candidate that has a chance against Bush is Kerry. I don't like Kerry, but in order to get Bush out of office I will vote for him.


Rage

[QUOTE=whiterage63Unfortunately, our system sucks. The only candidate that has a chance against Bush is Kerry. I don't like Kerry, but in order to get Bush out of office I will vote for him.[/QUOTE]





Yeah, our system does suck, but what postive attributes do you see in Kerry that make you actually think he would be any better then Bush? :confused:

Voting is a bigggggg waste of time.



I actually agree with something you said? :eek:

I think the revolutionary viewpoint is stay away, because any voting lends credibility to a false system. The system is false because we have to share the franchise with aliens and non-Whites and people who are so stupid as to be retarded. I do not believe that I should have to share my vote with blacks. Thus it is unfair from the get-go.

How do you propose changing the status quo then?


One more thought: if you must vote, voting on NADER is not throwing it away, because it will likely be read as a vote against either Israel, or economic globalism, both of which are enemies of our race. That is ten times more important than whether he endorses queer marriage or whatever.

That's what I think. Avote for Nader is a vote for Nader, especially if everyone votes for Nader.

I believe that worse is better, and that a jew is better than a jew puppet. At least if Kerry takes office, there can be no dispute about just exactly who is running this country into the ground. Either way, the jews are in control. Why not make it more obvious to the lemmings?

He isn't a Republican and he doesn't play the "pretend" to be a xtian game" in order to obtain all the votes of the moral majority...I didn't say he was great, and in my case, a vote for Kerry is a vote AGAINST Bush...!:)

Whitey is still the largest batch of voters, but not a majority. Most White women vote against the interests of their race and coupled with like-minded males, the anti-White vote from this source is on a par with the block jew, mestizo and simian votes. The Republican party, if it wants seats, will out of necessity cater more and more to the anti-White male vote. What the election process does is to squeeze the White male out of a position he firmly held a century ago. The net effect is to make the Republicans sound like second-rate Democrats. The White male has now passed the point of no return, and with his, the country.

The election process is now beyond its usefulness. Should we be concerned? No. The future will offer us a more efficient way to remove people from office than by means of a vote.

Lotsa voter discontent out there. As the ZOG regime enters its collapsing phase, one might wonder if 2004 will be the last batch of useless elections.

In Oregon, the Democratic Secretary of State rejected Nader's petition to get on the ballot because the petitions weren't numbered correctly. Nader's people sued and won the first round, but the State took it to the State Supreme Court, which held for the State of Oregon.

Nader called the courts' decisions "capricious and arbitrary," and he blasted Bradbury as a "political crook" whose resignation should be demanded. Nader also criticized the Democratic Party for caving in to oil, gas and other corporate interests.

But the only way we can vote for Nader here is to write him in.