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

Palomar · 2004-04-06 09:34:07

[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … l_pr/nader]Click

*This doesn't hurt my feelings at all. Maybe this is a good indication that previous supporters of his are afraid Bush will get re-elected if they vote for Nader, thereby taking away votes from Kerry? [Some supporters of his from the 2000 election have admitted what they consider a mistake in having voted for him then, considering the outcome].

Do you think Nader is doing a noble thing in trying to run (shaking up party demographics and loyalties) or is this merely self-agrandizement on his part? [Last I read/heard, the Green Party has encouraged Nader not to run and it won't endorse him at all].

I definitely think it's the latter.

--Cindy

Paul · 2004-04-06 11:26:08

I wish Nader'd shut his yap.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-06 16:13:38

Run Ralph, Run!

But really, Nader isn't the biggest problem the Democrats have this time around.

John Kerry is.

clark · 2004-04-06 18:31:48

Why should we vote for any particular canadite.

John Kerry because he isn't Bush?

Bush because he isn't John Kerry?

Nader because he isn't either?

Palomar · 2004-04-07 10:14:23

[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … pr/nader_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

John Creighton · 2004-04-07 10:23:45

Good point Cindy.
It's too bad I don't know what Kerry's space policy is.
Oh, well I am not a US citizen. So I have no vote. I wonder If I could register in Florida?

Mundaka · 2004-04-12 17:02:39

dicktice · 2004-04-12 20:21:19

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.

Palomar · 2004-06-23 10:02:11

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.

*I agree with you, dicktice. Am reviving this thread.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … er_8]Guess the Green Party -IS- endorsing him again (:edit: This article indicates he's seeking GP endorsement, yet the other day I'm sure I heard they *are* going to endorse him)

::shakes head::

Nader knows he cannot win. He cares more about getting a solid place in the history books -- his ego, lights and camera on him -- than he does about this nation. He wouldn't be the first or last in the political spectrum with that attitude, but the stakes are so high right now.

Vote for Nader = Vote for Bush.

If I were him, I'd watch my back. People in such volatile situations often have sudden "accidents." :-\ [Does the name "Jimmy Hoffa" ring any bells?]

:down:

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 10:24:36

Nader knows he cannot win. He cares more about getting a solid place in the history books -- his ego, lights and camera on him -- than he does about this nation. He wouldn't be the first or last in the political spectrum with that attitude, but the stakes are so high right now.
Vote for Nader = Vote for Bush.

Well, maybe. But there's another angle here. Nader's voters are flaming left-wing loons, but they're honest. They passionately believe and they support the candidate they'd most like to see elected.

Too many Democrats, on the other hand, pick the candidate they think is most "electable."

This coming election especially, Kerry's supporters generally aren't planning to vote for Kerry so much as against Bush. Nader's voters will vote for Nader. There won't be many, but they'll cast a sincere vote based on conviction.

Perhaps if we all voted for the candidate we want rather than the one we think can win this country would be a better place. ???

Palomar · 2004-06-23 10:36:05

Perhaps if we all voted for the candidate we want rather than the one we think can win this country would be a better place. ???

*I understand your points, Cobra.

Trouble is I don't want any of these candidates!

And the nation can't afford 4 more years of George Bush. We're not an island. Our former closest allies hate his guts and he's lost a lot of credibility because of the Iraq war.

We can't afford to alienate ourselves further.

Nader is being a *troublemaker*, pure and simple. And for his own exclusively selfish motives (EGO).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 10:57:00

And the nation can't afford 4 more years of George Bush. We're not an island. Our former closest allies hate his guts and he's lost a lot of credibility because of the Iraq war.

In all fairness, many of these 'close allies' were allies primarily if not solely because we were standing between them and the Soviets not so long ago. Perhaps recent events have merely shown us who our friends really are. ???

And the nation can't afford 4 more years of George Bush. We're not an island. Our former closest allies hate his guts and he's lost a lot of credibility because of the Iraq war.
We can't afford to alienate ourselves further.
Nader is being a *troublemaker*, pure and simple. And for his own exclusively selfish motives (EGO).

Now we're getting to the very heart of democracy. Surely free citizens should not be expected or shamed into voting for a candidate in whom they don't believe. What would be the point?

To vote your conscience is worthy of a free people, to vote for the guy you think can win is pointless, it's an act carried out by sheeple.

I admit my own difficulty here. I used to vote for Harry Brown of the Libertarian Party, but can no longer do so without reservations. Bush, I'm not terribly impressed and would like a better option. Kerry isn't it, not even close.

I'll just vote for myself I guess, wouldn't be the first time.

Unfortunately we're stuck with our current dual-party mess unless something major happens to change it. We'll probably all vote for people we don't really want who villify the other side as extremists. Of course some are, but...

Ah, stupid system anyway... :angry:

No, I guess I don't really mean that. Sometimes...

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-23 11:47:38

Couple of comments...

There are two parties basically because there are really two opposing forces for governance, even the independants like Ralph are a brand of leftists for intents and purposes.

Democracy is about making a consensus between the citizens, not about making all the citizens happy. No canidate effective canidate can ever make everybody happy.

And about America "gong it alone" and being all "unilateral" (like it was a curse word) or "not an island" etc... So far the most vocal and steadfast major nations (who feign being our "allies") that have spoken against the US in confronting a known threat to national security, plus is one of the most evil and murderous regiemes on Earth (hundreds of thousands or millions dead) have enjoyed substantial economic bennefits from doing business with said regieme (see Oil for Kickba-er-"Food" program) or who are opposed to the American fundimentally (Spain's socialists).

Oh and let me mention again, that Bush did not at any time attest that Iraq was an immediate threat nor that he possesed large stockpiles of WMDs as rationale for the war, and that the rationale for the war was to get rid of him BEFORE he could aquire such things again in quantity again, as both the UNMOVIC and US WMD hunters have confirmed that Saddam did indeed have active programs to rebuild said weapons. Lets not forget that artillery shells with Sarin and Mustard Gas have been found, and a large quantity of Saddam's stockpiles of ammunition (rivaling WW2 german stockpiles) will take years to inspect... Oh, and how about that foiled nerve gas attack in Jordan, or the highway between Iraq and Syria being so busy before Gulf War II?

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-23 12:11:26

To give you a little of the scope at what almost happend in Jordan... or could have happend here...

If you were to drive along a road with the fatalities layed on shoulder head-to-feet and take six feet of ground, you would have to drive ninety miles to get from the first victim to the last... and thats to say nothing of the perminant debilitating neurological/muscular/cardiopulminary injuries on those not lucky enough to have died in a most gruesome way...

Gee, where do you think they got so much nerve gas?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 12:23:10

Democracy is about making a consensus between the citizens, not about making all the citizens happy. No canidate effective canidate can ever make everybody happy.

Of course not. I'm just trying to find one that'll make me happy.

But seriously, our two parties are sliding ever closer toward the much vaunted 'center' which has itself been sliding leftward. The Democrat Party isn't a party so much as a collection of single-issue groups sharing a leftist bent. The Republican Party has no real force of its own, it generally responds to outside events, be it the leftist drives of the Democrats domestically or the actions of foreign powers internationally. Both sides feign and shadow their real positions in an attempt to entice voters from the other, it's an ongoing ballet of bullshit.

In short, it really isn't as simple as Left and Right. Both sides have odd juxtapositions if you really examine them. We simply choose the side which fits us closest and hope for the best, while the same show plays out again and again.

Or maybe I'm just some post-fascist romantic hearing echos of a time when political battles really meant something profound and lasting. Ignore or take to heart at your discretion, it's a free country.

Palomar · 2004-06-23 12:23:32

And the nation can't afford 4 more years of George Bush. We're not an island. Our former closest allies hate his guts and he's lost a lot of credibility because of the Iraq war.
In all fairness, many of these 'close allies' were allies primarily if not solely because we were standing between them and the Soviets not so long ago. Perhaps recent events have merely shown us who our friends really are. ???
And the nation can't afford 4 more years of George Bush. We're not an island. Our former closest allies hate his guts and he's lost a lot of credibility because of the Iraq war.
We can't afford to alienate ourselves further.
Nader is being a *troublemaker*, pure and simple. And for his own exclusively selfish motives (EGO).
Now we're getting to the very heart of democracy. Surely free citizens should not be expected or shamed into voting for a candidate in whom they don't believe. What would be the point?
To vote your conscience is worthy of a free people, to vote for the guy you think can win is pointless, it's an act carried out by sheeple...
Unfortunately we're stuck with our current dual-party mess unless something major happens to change it. We'll probably all vote for people we don't really want who villify the other side as extremists. Of course some are, but...
Ah, stupid system anyway... :angry:

*It IS a stupid system.

I'm not one much for conspiracy theories, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Bu$h family are passing Nader money under the table to continue. Another "tally hassle" in Tallahassee (spelling?) might look suspicious.

As for not being shamed into voting or going against one's conscience. Well...a decision not to vote at all (I'm tempted!) is still a decision.

Maybe I'll vote for you too, Cobra.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-06-23 13:04:31

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … rry_3]What nerve :hm:

Nader gives new meaning to the phrase "self-important prick." Sorry for the vulgarity.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 13:21:23

Hmm. Maybe the Democrats should just make Nader their nominee.

The Nader people will follow him to whatever party he goes to, and the Kerry people are really just anti-Bush people, so they're locked in regardless. Put one of those old hecklers from the Muppet Show up as the nominee and you'll get votes.

Then he could pick Edwards as his VP. He meaning Nader, though presumably the muppet isn't bound to special interests. It was on TV, so it must be true.

And since they're gonna lose anyway, it just confirms Nader's record and he can be swept aside for good.

Alt2War · 2004-06-23 13:23:07

1: Nader as an egoist is a meme that seemes overplayed and somewhat baseless. It takes a certian amount of ego to place yourself as a candidate for US President. He certianly has that. In my experience, though, those that repeat the "Nader is a magolomaniac" are usually trying to marginalize him not on his platform or ideas.

2: Nader makes really good points. Take the time to read what he says. I for one have a very hard time finding anything that I don't agree with him on in principle, only sometimes on practicality.

Here's an interview of Nader by Pat Buchanan. At least listen to him.

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cove … cover.html

3: Our presidential election system is antiquated and flawed. A winner takes all voting system is impractcal in an election with any more than 2 candidates. Modern democracies embrace instant run-offs. Instant run-offs tend to favor "big tent" candidates without punishing votes who vote their hearts.

4: The Democratic Party takes advantage of the flaw in our presidential election system by forcing those left of center to vote stratigicly. (and the right has done the same). The Democratic party has been pandering to corporate doners, and giving little to no attention it's party base. In the chase for the swing voter, the Democratic party has disenfranchised the left, minorities, labor movements, environmentalists, and those who advocate socialization of healthcare.

5: Dispite all this, I will vote for Kerry. Or, if it seemed like he had a better chance, i would vote for CC, or a monkey in a bellhop suit, or a ham sandwhich. Whichever will get bush out.

I dont care for Kerry, but I will hold my nose and pull the D Lever. The only way we can pull ourselves out of the mess were in, is either booting bush out and aplologizing profusely to the whole goddamn world in an effort to get back some sort of credibility, or killing a large enough percentage of muslim arabs until they fall into submission. I prefer the first.

With bush we have no hope of winning the "Hearts and Minds" war. There is a small chance Kerry could help us recover, but I dont have my hopes up.

I have promised myself that this year will be my last year of stratigic voting. I am not looking for a candidate to pander to my every wish, but one that at least considers my point of view seriously before making decisions. I simply desire the democratic party put me under their tent.

Palomar · 2004-06-23 13:34:56

and the Kerry people are really just anti-Bush people, so they're locked in regardless. Put one of those old hecklers from the Muppet Show up as the nominee and you'll get votes.

:laugh: :laugh:

That was good!

"It's time to put on makeup, it's time to light the lights --"

Alt2War: Nader as an egoist is a meme that seemes overplayed and somewhat baseless. It takes a certian amount of ego to place yourself as a candidate for US President.

*Yes. But he's ONLY in it to grandstand, IMO. And to be a troublemaker. I mean THIS TIME -- 2004 election. I thought he had sincere motives in 2000. Not this time.

I'll read the article you linked to; thanks.

--Cindy

P.S.: Nurse Janice for President.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 13:37:08

Here's an interview of Nader by Pat Buchanan. At least listen to him.

I've listened to him, but Buchanan's just too extreme. Oh, right. Nader. Well, same comment.

3: Our presidential election system is antiquated and flawed. A winner takes all voting system is impractcal in an election with any more than 2 candidates. Modern democracies imbrace instant run-offs. Instant run-offs tend to favor "big tent" candidates without punishing votes who vote their hearts.

Our Presidential election system is perfectly suited to the form of election it was designed for. We don't use it that way anymore. Run-offs would ease some problems we have, but it is only necessary because we have adopted other practices from countries with a parliamentary system, which ours never was and was never meant to be. We've got mismatched parts right now.

The Democratic party has been pandering to corporate doners, and giving little to no attention it's party base. In the chase for the swing voter, the Democratic party has disenfranchised the left.

They have to, their base just doesn't have the numbers to win national elections. Democrats win largely on 'moderate' voters they can attract on specific issues.

5: Dispite all this, I will vote for Kerry. Or, if it seemed like he had a better chance, i would vote for CC, or a monkey in a bellhop suit, or a ham sandwhich. Whichever will get bush out.

Honesty. I can respect that, you are more upstanding than many of your comrades.

I hope I'm higher on the list than the monkey. The ham sandwich doesn't have a chance, already lost the Jewish and Muslim vote.

I dont care for Kerry, but I will hold my nose and pull the D Lever. The only way we can pull ourselves out of the mess were in, is either booting bush out and aplologizing profusely to the whole goddamn world in an effort to get back some sort of credibility, or killing a large enough percentage of muslim arabs until they fall into submission. I prefer the first.

We don't need to kill a billion Muslims, but begging our 'allies' for forgiveness is not helpful, except to our enemies. No apologies, the French will get over it.

Alt2War · 2004-06-23 13:49:31

and the Kerry people are really just anti-Bush people, so they're locked in regardless. Put one of those old hecklers from the Muppet Show up as the nominee and you'll get votes.
:laugh: :laugh:
That was good!
"It's time to put on makeup, it's time to light the lights --"
Alt2War: Nader as an egoist is a meme that seemes overplayed and somewhat baseless. It takes a certian amount of ego to place yourself as a candidate for US President.
*Yes. But he's ONLY in it to grandstand, IMO. And to be a troublemaker. I mean THIS TIME -- 2004 election. I thought he had sincere motives in 2000. Not this time.
I'll read the article you linked to; thanks.
--Cindy
P.S.: Nurse Janice for President.

I, on the other hand, am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him to be standing on principle when in actuality being more practical would get him closer to his goals.

An egoist wants to be loved, admired, and applauded. Nader is not getting much warm fuzzies.

Our distaste and anger towards nader is due to his threat to our stratigic voting. This highlights much of the problems inherent in our presidential election system. I only wish the D party figured that out from last time, and that Nader would wait 4 years to make his point again.

But to look at the problem from his point of view, if now is not the right time to make his statement, and things are getting worse rapidly, how are we to be sure the situation will be any more receptive in the future? I could be an even more dire situation.

I'm not to quick to judge polititians who claim to be based on sound principle, and stick to that principle though a hostile environment.

clark · 2004-06-23 14:06:13

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.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 14:17:08

I'm not to quick to judge polititians who claim to be based on sound principle, and stick to that principle though a hostile environment.

One could argue for Bush on these grounds.

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.

Our voice is heard when our state is silent. Perhaps good advice, for both our blue states.

Of course that will probably lead to the Supreme Court choosing more Presidents, but whatever.

:bars2: Just can't get away from that little nugget eh?

Alt2War · 2004-06-23 14:18:24

I've listened to him, but Buchanan's just too extreme. Oh, right. Nader. Well, same comment.

I find myself finding some wisdom in Buchanan's words in the last year. What's happening to me.

They have to, their base just doesn't have the numbers to win national elections. Democrats win largely on 'moderate' voters they can attract on specific issues.

I disagree. The right is more organized, especially the fundimental christians.

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 D party does not fight for it's base in legislation, and rolls over when the R passes laws increasing it's own influence.

Take, for example, the elimination of union rights for a large portion of federal employees, compaired to the infusing of federal funding in christian social serves.

We don't need to kill a billion Muslims, but begging our 'allies' for forgiveness is not helpful, except to our enemies. No apologies, the French will get over it.

I believe this has been hashed out before. For most of the world, sending bush back to texas in a landslide will be more than enough of an apology.

The bush administration has no ability to win a war of Ideals in the middle east. There are no diplomatic paths to take. Our words have no weight.

Survival for our nation is now indeed on the line with a frightenly strong showing of Al Quida in Saudi Arabia. Under a bush regime our only option is a war of attrition, starting with the bombing of Al Jizera HQ, and ending with new flags over Mecca.

I want off this ride.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-04-06 09:34:07

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

#2 2004-04-06 11:26:08

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

#3 2004-04-06 16:13:38

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

#4 2004-04-06 18:31:48

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

#5 2004-04-07 10:14:23

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

#6 2004-04-07 10:23:45

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

#7 2004-04-12 17:02:39

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

#8 2004-04-12 20:21:19

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

#9 2004-06-23 10:02:11

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

#10 2004-06-23 10:24:36

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

#11 2004-06-23 10:36:05

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

#12 2004-06-23 10:57:00

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

#13 2004-06-23 11:47:38

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

#14 2004-06-23 12:11:26

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

#15 2004-06-23 12:23:10

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

#16 2004-06-23 12:23:32

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

#17 2004-06-23 13:04:31

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

#18 2004-06-23 13:21:23

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

#19 2004-06-23 13:23:07

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

#20 2004-06-23 13:34:56

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

#21 2004-06-23 13:37:08

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

#22 2004-06-23 13:49:31

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

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

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

#24 2004-06-23 14:17:08

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

#25 2004-06-23 14:18:24

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

Board footer