Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

Alt2War · 2004-06-23 14:20:26

Well...a decision not to vote at all (I'm tempted!) is still a decision.
That's the best decision you could make. :laugh:
Someone always loses in an election, and someone always win. We know the rules of the game, and we can play it how ever we want. Strategic, from the heart, or not at all- it's our choice. Ain't it grand?
Would you rally as hard if there was an alternative to Bush that might steal votes from him? I doubt it.
I would prefer a "none of the above" choice, with a minimum percentage to invalidate the electoral college votes for the entire state. Then we could really have our voice heard- really what is being said in this thread.
Of course that will probably lead to the Supreme Court choosing more Presidents, but whatever.

I believe in that case the House chooses the Prez.

clark · 2004-06-23 14:26:03

Think of that then- what might you do as a Represenative from a State whose population basically gave the middle finger to both parties. The Rep's want to be elected another term just as much as any Presidential canadite.

I believe it might weaken the parties, or at the very least, we could ammend the Constution to disallow the Reps from voting.

If you don't have the electoral votes, you can't be President, and we have another race.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 14:48:12

In the D parties rush to the center, it has let it's base's mechanism to atrophy while the right continues to strengthen it. Believe me I've seen the inside of a lot of the D party, and it aint preatty.

The Democrat base has largely been reduced to far-left doomsayers, environmentalists, and hard line socialists. The more mainstream voters are part of that vast 'swing' block that both parties fight over every election. The Democrats focus on this base during priamries, but in general elections they have to back off, they can't win otherwise.

If you don't have the electoral votes, you can't be President, and we have another race.

Yet a further break from the Constitutionally structured system of this country. I'm not saying that it's unworkable, only that it is another step down the path that has led to many of the problems we currently have with our electoral system. If we return to the less democratic method as described in the Constitution it will work well. If we adopt a proportional parliamentary system that can work, though we'd have to pass an amendment that rewrites a large chunk of the Constitution. At the moment we have an awkward hybrid, and that's the problem.

C M Edwards · 2004-06-23 14:53:23

Enough crying over Gore.

What's Nader and Kerry's positions on Space Exploration?

clark · 2004-06-23 14:58:53

Yet a further break from the Constitutionally structured system of this country.

We are allowed, and meant, to change the Constituion Cobra. That is the fundamental basis of the agreement. It is not tablets from on high, it is a framework for Man, by men (and women now!).

I'm not saying that it's unworkable, only that it is another step down the path that has led to many of the problems we currently have with our electoral system. If we return to the less democratic method as described in the Constitution it will work well.

Are we less educated, or more educated than our Fore Fathers? As an aggregate average? I would say more so. We don't need less democracy, we either need the same, or more. We need more choice. We need more opportunity to exercise the choices that are right for us, not less.

That is the beauty of the whole framework, it allows us the opportunity to include more choice for future generations. That's why the recent talk about banning homosexual marriage within that framework is an abomination (it enshrines bigotry and reduces choice)

Right now, we don't have a choice not to vote for "one of the above." We have to vote for a canadite. A none of the above is a choice exercised by a voter. Not voting is not a solution as it removes you from the system to begin with.

I would like the choice to say that I find none of the canadites set before me as acceptable. I would like the choice to say I do not believe any represent my interest. I would like to be able to opportunity to vote, and have this choice counted.

Invalidating all of the electoral votes within the state works within the current framework of our election system. It dosen't disqualify all the other states- just MY state. If enough other states in the union feel the same way, then I would say we need to find some other canadites.

Right now, we get the choice of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." And it sucks. You admit as much.

Then more people can vote their heart, instead of some lame strategy. We wouldn't end up with the problems in herent in a third party canadite. We don't change the system by miles, but by little inches- as long as we improve our opportunity to make choices as individuals, while still respecting each others choices, we are ahead. We retain the very essence of what our Fore Fathers intended.

BWhite · 2004-06-23 14:59:13

Enough crying over Gore.
What's Nader and Kerry's positions on Space Exploration?

Irrelevant! :;):

Congress is what matters. And 2008 and 2012 matter more than 2004. Bush ain't going to do anything between 2004 and 2008 other than shuttle return to flight, ISS completion and a few small prizes.

Back on topic - when David Brooks is good he is very very good, when he is bad, he is horrid. Thoughts on this?

hen Bill Clinton was 8, he started taking himself to church. When he was 10, he publicly committed himself to Jesus. As a boy, he begged his Sunday school teacher to take him to see Billy Graham. And as anybody watching his book rollout knows, he still exudes religiosity. He gave Dan Rather a tour of his Little Rock church, and talked about praying in good times and bad.
More than any other leading Democrat, Bill Clinton understands the role religion actually plays in modern politics. He knows Americans want to be able to see their leaders' faith. A recent Pew survey showed that for every American who thinks politicians should talk less about religion, there are two Americans who believe politicians should talk more.
And Clinton seems to understand, as many Democrats do not, that a politician's faith isn't just about litmus test issues like abortion or gay marriage. Many people just want to know that their leader, like them, is in the fellowship of believers. Their president doesn't have to be a saint, but he does have to be a pilgrim. He does have to be engaged, as they are, in a personal voyage toward God.
Clinton made this sort of faith-based connection, at least until he sullied himself with the Lewinsky affair. He won the evangelical vote in 1992, and won it again in 1996. He understood that if Democrats are not seen as religious, they will be seen as secular Ivy League liberals, and they will lose.
John Kerry doesn't seem to get this. Many of the people running the Democratic Party don't get it either.
A recent Time magazine survey revealed that only 7 percent of Americans feel that Kerry is a man of strong religious faith. That's a catastrophic number. That number should be the first thing Kerry strategists think about when they wake up in the morning and it should be the last thing on their lips when they go to sleep at night. They should be doing everything they can to change that perception, because unless more people get a sense of Kerry's faith, they will feel no bond with him and they will be loath to trust him with their vote.
Yet his campaign does nothing. Kerry talks about jobs one week and the minimum wage the next, going about his wonky way, each day as secular as the last.
It's mind-boggling. Can't the Democratic strategists read the data? Religious involvement is a much, much more powerful predictor of how someone will vote than income, education, gender or any other social and demographic category save race.
Can't the Democratic strategists feel it in their bones how important this is? After all, when you go out among the Democratic rank and file, you find millions of Democrats who are just as religious as Republicans. It's mostly in the land of Democratic elites that you are likely to find yourself among religious illiterates.
But of course this is the problem. Forests have been felled so people could publish articles and books on the religious right's influence on the Republican Party. But as the Baruch College political scientists Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio have suggested, the real political story of the past decade has been the growing size and cohesion of the secular left, and its growing influence on the Democratic Party.
According to the American Religious Identification Survey, the number of Americans with no religious affiliation has more than doubled since 1990. There is now a surging but unself-conscious power bloc within the Democratic Party.
Like the religious right in the Republican Party, the members of the secular left are interested primarily in social issues. What unites them more than anything else is a strong antipathy to pro-lifers and fundamentalists. While 75 percent of Americans feel little or no hostility to fundamentalists, people in this group are far more hostile to them than to other traditional Democratic bête noires, the rich or big business. They don't like to see their politicians meddling with religion in any way.
Just as Republicans have to appeal to religious conservatives but move beyond them, Democrats have to appeal to the secular left but also build a bridge to religious moderates. Bill Clinton did this. John Kerry hasn't. If you want to know why Kerry is still roughly even with Bush in the polls, even though Bush has had the worst year of any president since Nixon in 1973 or L.B.J. in 1968, this is one big reason.

Remove the creationists and the "Rapturists" from the voting pool and Bush loses really BIG. Really really BIG.

Just as a guess, how many "young Earth creationists" will vote for Bush, or for Kerry?

BWhite · 2004-06-23 15:03:10

PS - I want a libertarian reaction to http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Leo_Strauss]this - - Cropsey and Strauss are as classic U of C guys as Uncle Milty (Milton Friedman).

Leo Strauss, a refugee from Nazi Germany who arrived in the United States in 1937, was trained in the history of political philosophy, and became one of the foremost conservative émigré scholars. He taught at the University of Chicago.
He was widely known for his argument that the works of Western philosophers up to Machiavelli can be read at two different levels: an exoteric level that may be quite conventional, and an esoteric level that contains potentially dangerous truths that could destablize society. The substance of esoteric level should be entrusted to a select few, while the exoteric level is suitable for the masses. This has come to be known as the hidden meaning thesis; Strauss himself called his interpretive method "the hermeneutics of reticence." Similar arguments have been made by Hakim Bey regarding Chinese writings associated with Tongs.

and this:

Holmes added, "The whole story is complicated by Strauss's idea--actually Plato's--that philosophers need to tell noble lies not only to the people at large but also to powerful politicians." In a liberal democracy it is complicated further still by the fact that consent of the governed is a basic requirement for legitimacy of any major decision. As Dennis Kucinich pointed out in 2003, shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when the debate among such politicians relies on false intelligence, whether the highest official is aware of this or not, such consent is obtained only by deception. The only alternate position is that one elects in effect a dictator with the power not only to act in accord with law, and make law, but also control the media and debate by feeding it with arbitrary and constructed stories.

and this:

"Robert Locke lists among Strauss's students or those influenced by his students: Justice Clarence Thomas; Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Dundes Wolfowitz; former Assistant Secretary of State Alan Keyes; former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett; Weekly Standard editor and former J. Danforth Quayle Chief of Staff William Kristol; Allan Bloom, former New York Post editorials editor John Podhoretz; and former National Endowment for the Humanities Deputy Chairman John T. Agresto."

clark · 2004-06-23 15:14:44

well, it appears the cat is out of the bag. good going bill.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 15:18:15

Quote
I'm not saying that it's unworkable, only that it is another step down the path that has led to many of the problems we currently have with our electoral system. If we return to the less democratic method as described in the Constitution it will work well.

Are we less educated, or more educated than our Fore Fathers? As an aggregate average? I would say more so. We don't need less democracy, we either need the same, or more. We need more choice. We need more opportunity to exercise the choices that are right for us, not less.

Which is why I included the other option. :;):

Personally, I find a republic greatly superior to a democracy and get nervous when we start sliding that way, but if that's what the people want, who am I to stand in their way?

Doesn't mean I won't, of course.

That is the beauty of the whole framework, it allows us the opportunity to include more choice for future generations. That's why the recent talk about banning homosexual marriage within that framework is an abomination (it enshrines bigotry and reduces choice)

More people have freedom today, but less of it. As the nation grows, government grows. We have not created new freedom so much as spread freedom around over a larger group. I'm not condemning this, but we must understand that while some people have more freedom others have less.

Crap, almost quittin' time. Makin' it quick.

Remove the creationists and the "Rapturists" from the voting pool and Bush loses really BIG. Really really BIG.

Depends on how you define creationists. There's alot of cognitive dissonance out there, many people believe in biblical creation while still accepting evolution and secular science.

PS - I want a libertarian reaction to this - - Cropsey and Strauss are as classic U of C guys as Uncle Milty (Milton Friedman).

Well, not being a libertarian strictly speaking I can't help you here. Not enough time to give a proper response, anyway.

C M Edwards · 2004-06-23 15:38:40

Enough crying over Gore.
What's Nader and Kerry's positions on Space Exploration?
Irrelevant! :;):
Congress is what matters. And 2008 and 2012 matter more than 2004. Bush ain't going to do anything between 2004 and 2008 other than shuttle return to flight, ISS completion and a few small prizes.

No, not necessarily irrelevant if Kerry wins. Although you do make a good case for it being irrelevant if Bush wins!

Remove the creationists and the "Rapturists" from the voting pool and Bush loses really BIG. Really really BIG.
Just as a guess, how many "young Earth creationists" will vote for Bush, or for Kerry?

Umm... I'll assume you're talking generally about evangelical christian denominations, which make up 33% of the population of the United States.

While the snake-handling variety tend not to vote much, they're not representative, and Bush -- being an evangelical christian himself -- enjoys a wildly disproportionate share of support among evangelical congregations. At this point, Bush could walk away with 20% of the vote just by virtue of being a Southern Baptist (or whatever). He'd barely even need to campaign for that much.

If you can come up with a way to get those people off the Bush ticket and on onboard with a man whose bishop wants him excommunicated, I'd be curious to hear it.

BWhite · 2004-06-23 15:50:36

Enough crying over Gore.
What's Nader and Kerry's positions on Space Exploration?
Irrelevant! :;):
Congress is what matters. And 2008 and 2012 matter more than 2004. Bush ain't going to do anything between 2004 and 2008 other than shuttle return to flight, ISS completion and a few small prizes.
No, not necessarily irrelevant if Kerry wins. Although you do make a good case for it being irrelevant if Bush wins!

Kerry could never allow NASA to disintegrate.

The right would put his head on a platter over that issue (among others) - - its the reverse side of "only Nixon could go to China" and only "Clinton could sign welfare reform" - - a Democrat could not sign legislation to end Americans in space and survive.

So I believe NASA will have a flat budget or the current budget plus 5% (more or less) as President Bush proposes no matter who wins in November 2004.

Although moving some Star Wars money into civilian space might be more feasible under Kerry.

How do we spend that money?

Unless orbiter return to flight and ISS completion are taken off the table, NASA has very little choice about how to spend their budget.

= = =

Want shuttle derived lifters rather than an all-EELV NASA?

The Louisiana Senate race (Michoud) and some Utah Senators (Thiokol) and Florida (Canaveral employees) is where you look for that.

= = =

BTW, has anyone else heard of Thiokol's plan to put a CEV on top of a single SRB?

How much does one SRB cost, anyways?

Boy, that would be a ride. Could you design an escape rocket for the crew on top of the CEV?

clark · 2004-06-23 15:59:57

Boy, that would be a ride. Could you design an escape rocket for the crew on top of the CEV?

Lockheed did.

C M Edwards · 2004-06-23 16:04:10

Want shuttle derived lifters rather than an all-EELV NASA?
The Louisiana Senate race (Michoud) and some Utah Senators (Thiokol) and Florida (Canaveral employees) is where you look for that.

I'm from Louisiana. I'll have to look into Michoud.

As for presidential candidates, I've almost reached the decision to abstain from the coming vote and just stick to local issues. However, I did that once back in the 1990's, and then I couldn't bring myself to bitch about the president FOR FOUR YEARS! :bars2:

I should vote libertarian. Won't count, but at least I could still complain... :;):

BWhite · 2004-06-23 16:08:12

Want shuttle derived lifters rather than an all-EELV NASA?
The Louisiana Senate race (Michoud) and some Utah Senators (Thiokol) and Florida (Canaveral employees) is where you look for that.
I'm from Louisiana. I'll have to look into Michoud.

Seems to me that the mayor of New Orleans should be very interested in whether NASA continues to buy external tanks.

Jobs.

And by extension, in an "up for grabs' Senate race if either candidate pushed for an exploration program that was based on X number of external tanks being needed by NASA after the orbiter was retired, that Senate candidate might well be able to extract a promise from "either" Presidential candidate.

Shuttle B/C as the mainstay NASA workhorse will keep jobs at Michoud for a long time to come.

Palomar · 2004-06-23 19:01:15

While the snake-handling variety tend not to vote much, they're not representative, and Bush -- being an evangelical christian himself -- enjoys a wildly disproportionate share of support among evangelical congregations. At this point, Bush could walk away with 20% of the vote just by virtue of being a Southern Baptist (or whatever).

*I'd be willing to lay a good sum of money on Bush NOT being anything but barely nominally religious and instead being a good Machiavellian who took Niccolo's advice to heart about putting on the appearance of virtue and piety, airs of religious devotion, etc., in order to draw more support.

Can't prove it, but I'd lay money on it if I could.

He's probably got "The Prince" so memorized he could recite it backwards while standing on his head and drunker than a skunk.

--Cindy

Alt2War · 2004-06-24 05:19:57

While the snake-handling variety tend not to vote much, they're not representative, and Bush -- being an evangelical christian himself -- enjoys a wildly disproportionate share of support among evangelical congregations. At this point, Bush could walk away with 20% of the vote just by virtue of being a Southern Baptist (or whatever).
*I'd be willing to lay a good sum of money on Bush NOT being anything but barely nominally religious and instead being a good Machiavellian who took Niccolo's advice to heart about putting on the appearance of virtue and piety, airs of religious devotion, etc., in order to draw more support.
Can't prove it, but I'd lay money on it if I could.
He's probably got "The Prince" so memorized he could recite it backwards while standing on his head and drunker than a skunk.
--Cindy

you will love this, if you have not seen it yet.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … ows/jesus/

Alt2War · 2004-06-24 05:28:21

Remove the creationists and the "Rapturists" from the voting pool and Bush loses really BIG. Really really BIG.
Just as a guess, how many "young Earth creationists" will vote for Bush, or for Kerry?

Remove african americans from the D side and republicans win every time. Silly thing to say, really.

The difference is that Evangelicals have real reasons to vote for Bush.

According to the fronline video above, bush learned during his father's campaign that you can win the election essentially on evangelicals alone.

In a nation where less than 50% vote, any signifigant block of voters that can be counted upon to vote near 100% and are easily swayed and led by their leaders, and are spread across several relatively low population states can make a huge impact.

BWhite · 2004-06-24 15:05:44

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … 59]Digital "Brownshirts"?

Go! Al, Go!

In an hour-long address punctuated by polite laughter and applause, Gore also accused the Bush administration of working closely "with a network of 'rapid response' digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops."'

Alt2War · 2004-06-24 18:18:12

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … 59]Digital "Brownshirts"?
Go! Al, Go!

In an hour-long address punctuated by polite laughter and applause, Gore also accused the Bush administration of working closely "with a network of 'rapid response' digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops."'

Find them here:
http://www.freerepublic.com]http://www.freerepublic.com

Alt2War · 2004-06-25 01:11:44

this is circulating in Oregon:

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 06:44:36

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … er_8]Nader Calls for Bush Impeachment
*More spotlight grabbing?
Anyway, why -not- impeach Bush over his assertions about Iraq (WMD's)? If Clinton got hauled onto the carpet for lying about his "involvement" with...
What's more serious? Lying about sexual escapades or pretexts for war?
--Cindy

But you can't proof that Bush was lying as far as anyone knows he reallly believed the story of WMD.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 06:47:28

I don't think Nader has the good of the Nation at heart, since he won't even discuss what the effect of his running as independent candidate had-and-could haveon the presidential elections. In my opinion: He's a strangely flawed individual, who should (from his past good works) know better. Shame on him.

To me it shows that he is not interested in Kerry's nor Bush's policies and thinks there are people like him.

Perhaps in his eyes Kerry sucks as much as Bush so he couldn't care less if Kerry lost the elections to Bush.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 07:05:22

Enough crying over Gore.
What's Nader and Kerry's positions on Space Exploration?

I think you should better think first about your bank account and job before you buy that new car on credit.

Even Bush's new space initative will take 30 years to implement. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,12 … ead_3]NASA shakes itself up.

Palomar · 2004-06-25 07:06:34

*Notice how it's always Nader against Kerry.

::EDIT:: Whoa. Where did that post of Alt2War's go just now, which was a photocopy-looking thing about an Oregon petition? That's what I based this entire post on. It was all "get votes away from Kerry, endorse Nader" ::end edit::

Want to bet the Republicans (including the Bush family of course) are behind this?

Can't prove it of course, but I wouldn't be the least surprised if Ralph's pockets are being abundantly lined with green alright ($$$) -- straight from the Repub coffers.

I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but this entire situation...

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-25 07:27:16

There's another possibly for Nader's fixing on Kerry. Perhaps he, among others on the far-left, feel that the Democrat Party has left them behind, and therefore wants the Right to hold power and expand so that more people might be pushed leftward as a reaction. I've seen this before, both Left and Right.

In this case it's a sort of "liberal fundamentalism" seeking converts.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-06-23 14:20:26

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#27 2004-06-23 14:26:03

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#28 2004-06-23 14:48:12

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#29 2004-06-23 14:53:23

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#30 2004-06-23 14:58:53

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#31 2004-06-23 14:59:13

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#32 2004-06-23 15:03:10

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#33 2004-06-23 15:14:44

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#34 2004-06-23 15:18:15

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#35 2004-06-23 15:38:40

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#36 2004-06-23 15:50:36

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#37 2004-06-23 15:59:57

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#38 2004-06-23 16:04:10

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#39 2004-06-23 16:08:12

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#40 2004-06-23 19:01:15

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#41 2004-06-24 05:19:57

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#42 2004-06-24 05:28:21

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#43 2004-06-24 15:05:44

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#44 2004-06-24 18:18:12

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#45 2004-06-25 01:11:44

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#46 2004-06-25 06:44:36

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#47 2004-06-25 06:47:28

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#48 2004-06-25 07:05:22

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#49 2004-06-25 07:06:34

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#50 2004-06-25 07:27:16

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

Board footer