home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

Decision: Nader for President

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

Nader's decision to run for President

Crap
63
65%
Not Crap
34
35%
 
Total votes : 97

Decision: Nader for President

Postby lostboy on Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:19 pm

Nader's decision to run for President this year: crap or not crap?
lostboy
duke
duke
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 9:24 am

!!!

Postby Mayfair on Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:25 pm

DOH!!!!! Why?! WHY?!!!

He is going to squash our hippy vote!

ugh!
User avatar
Mayfair
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 3:08 am
Location: Chicago!

Re: Decision: Nader for President

Postby stewie on Sun Feb 22, 2004 4:52 pm

lostboy wrote:Nader's decision to run for President this year: crap or not crap?


There are too many echoes of the 2000 debacle, and there's way too much at stake.

Crap.

However, there wasn't near as much Bush-resentment in 2000 as there is now, so perhaps his campaign won't dent the Democrats too much. As long as Bin Laden's "surprise" capture in the next few months doesn't cause a gigantic pro-Bush rally, then I think the Dems have a real chance.

I would really, really prefer it if he just retired though.
User avatar
stewie
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6804
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 10:43 am
Location: Near Boston

Postby instant_zen on Sun Feb 22, 2004 4:58 pm

He's drawing votes away from the Democratic party. As much of a problem I have with the Democratic party, I'd rather have a Democratic schmuck in office than the current Republican schmuck.
if i got lasik surgery on one eye, i could wear a monacle.
User avatar
instant_zen
john wyndham
john wyndham
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 12:38 am
Location: Wisconsin: the state of intoxication

Postby gcbv on Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:08 pm

when i voted for nader four years ago, i thought:

"it's okay, i can vote my conscience, because there is no way Bush will take this election."

boy howdy.

so it's crap. he can do whatever he wants, fine. but crap.
But I digress. Please continue with the squirrel circuit semantic debate.
User avatar
gcbv
ed o'neill
ed o'neill
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 10:20 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Postby toomanyhelicopters on Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:33 pm

it makes me so fucking mad. i am pro-environment, in terms of ideals anyway. living life without using gas and producing waste is something i just can't do, so maybe i'm a hypocrite when i make decisions based on what works for me as opposed to what is in the best interest of the environment. bummer. but that's how it is.

but THIS GUY! WHY is he running? in arguments i've heard posed that say he's not an asshole, people have suggested that even though he knows he has no chance of winning this election, or probably of EVER winning, he's using the opportunity to get national attention for his cause.

SO SELFISH! does he geniunely give a shit about the environment? if so, wouldn't he do well to come out publically and say "i will never be president, because the president is the commander in cheif of the military, not the head of the EPA. so i won't ever get elected. but if you want to cast a vote to help protect the environment, then vote democrat. because the democrats aren't the ones who want to open up ANWAR, or drill the great lakes. that would be the republicans. so do everything you can to make sure the democrats win and the republicans don't. that would be in the best interest of the environment."

i think if he did that, it would get him national attention for his cause, and *possibly* help keep bush from coming back. but by running, all he's doing is ensuring that many folks who would have cast a vote to get bush out of office and chose the democrats as the lesser of two evils, that they now will vote for him so they can "make their voice heard". and that won't do anything to help the environment. if anything, it might end up hurting.

i've said this before, but the green party has no business trying to take the presidency. they should be advocating education, and lobbying for legislation, but they have no business trying to run the country. it's beyond their scope. it just is.

so if it wasn't for the seriousness of getting rid of bush here, i wouldn't really give two shits. i'd be like "that nader guy is an idiot". but because of the gravity of the situation here, and the long-term effect on the US and on the world, i'm now like "i FUCKING HATE NADER!"

crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, CRAP!
User avatar
toomanyhelicopters
priss
 
Posts: 5080
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:58 am

Postby tmidgett on Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:45 pm

tell you what

i'm as mad about it as you are

whether or not i can get all psyched about john kerry or john edwards, let's make a deal

let's go work on the campaign of whomever gets the nomination for the democratic party

i don't know what boring crap they will make us do

but let's go do it

if all of us who bitched about nader's dilettante candidacy did something besides talk, his candidacy would be a boon for the democrats rather than a pain in the ass

all i have done is talk so far. i don't think that hacks it.
User avatar
tmidgett
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8941
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:30 pm

Postby toomanyhelicopters on Sun Feb 22, 2004 9:51 pm

i don't understand what you're saying. my work for the democratic party will consist of voting for whomever the candidate is. i really hope it's edwards. i would vote for him regardless of bush. but whomever they pick as their candidate, i will vote for that candidate in an effort to avoid four more years of bush. i truly believe that kerry (or edwards, the only two seemingly viable candidates at this point) will do less damage to the future of the US and the world than bush will. end of story for me. there may be a 3rd party candidate who would ultimately be the best candidate, the best president, whatever. but unless that 3rd party is viable and stands an actual chance of winning... now is not the time for that shit.

as far as working for the democratic party, like i said, my job with respect to them is giving them my vote. and any friends of mine who are on the fence, doing what i can to show them why i hold the opinion that we need a not-bush to win this next election. neither kerry or edwards is such a fuck that i'd be afraid they'd be as bad or worse than bush. but going to work for the party? don't you have a job, or even a career? i do. i'm not going to quit my job to go work for a political party that i see as the lesser of two evils. but i will do what i described above. which i think will do more than just talking about things.

last election i voted libertarian. i won't do that this time because i have a much better idea of what bush is capable of. i think i missed your point.
User avatar
toomanyhelicopters
priss
 
Posts: 5080
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:58 am

Postby Dylan on Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:54 am

By the way, Nader's not running as a Green Party candidate this time, he's pure Independent. And he probably won't get enough signatures. I wouldn't worry about it.
Dylan
Supreme Commander at the Forefront
Supreme Commander at the Forefront
 
Posts: 1958
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 8:56 pm
Location: The Square

Postby tmidgett on Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:58 am

but going to work for the party? don't you have a job, or even a career? i do.


yeah...full time, even. with other stuff in there as well.

my point is that anyone can talk. i don't know anyone who does anything but talk about this kind of thing.

you don't have to volunteer 40hrs/week. i'll let you know how it goes.
User avatar
tmidgett
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8941
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:30 pm

Instant Run-Off Voting

Postby sndo on Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:08 am

If the system instated instant run-off voting this wouldn't be an issue. You could vote for Nader AND the Dems at the same time in the more-than-likely case that Nader doesn't get majority.
Read this website to understand what instant run off voting is. It's too good to be true and the fact that it hasn't been brought into action says that the gov't thinks the average voter is either too dumb to understand how it works or that they want you to keep voting democrat because they're really the same as the republicans.

http://www.instantrunoff.com/
sndo
mister rogers
mister rogers
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Postby spoot on Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:59 am

I think Nader is running this year solely because he's an arrogant moron. But I do think much is different between now and 2000 & that Nader's supporters will be primarily the truly disenchanted who wouldn't vote for any mainstream candidate... and of course Howard Dean is going to be spending his time courting those folks.

Of course, when the issue comes down to fifty votes or so, it don't take much to fuck things up. Nader should certainly have stayed out. Then again, if Nader's running inspires tmidgett and a few others to get active, maybe it's a good thing.
User avatar
spoot
puggy pearson
puggy pearson
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: chicago, illinois

Postby Bradley R. Weissenberger on Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:14 am

The days where Ralph Nader can cause any political mischief are gone.

I am more concerned about Republican party hacks doing what they did in 2000 (e.g., using intimidation to deny black voters physical access to the polls in Florida; destroying ballots from black precincts).

I am concerned that the Republicans will be emboldened to act in an even more jackbooted manner because nobody stood up to these guys. Nobody held them accountable for their thuggery.

Obviously, access to the polls is a fundamental American right, and freedom from fear of physical harm is a basic human right, so here's my idea: Send the Nation of Islam to "monitor" polling stations in black precincts in Florida and other black precincts in key states. We'll see if any Republicans show up and try to close the polls early or say that the precinct has "run out" of ballots.
User avatar
Bradley R. Weissenberger
King Of All The Taverns
 
Posts: 7318
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 1:22 pm
Location: Western Michigan

Postby Mr. Chimp on Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:35 am

I've voted third party (or not for a Dem. or a Rep.) since I've been able to vote. The issue is one that was a founding tenet of Nader's campaign - the two current parties are merely as different as automatic and manual transmission vehicles. Both appeal to different consumers, both are petroleum-based vehicles.

Nader wants to be a hydrogen car, or more realistically, a hybrid. He has very solid reasonings for this, that make sense if you have the luxury of thinking outside of the current structure. Bring a third viable option to the forefront, with equal footing and status (given the fullness of time).

Unfortunately, this year we have no such luxury. Stakes are different, and high. The issues boil down to this for me - it's not about the type of fuel if the vehicle is going in the wrong direction. Or driving drunk, on the wrong side of the road with night-blindness.

So my perspective for the upcoming election is to vote to get the car back pointed straight. Because times feel critical, moreso than ever.

Plus, as nicely pointed out earlier in this thread, Nader is now running on pure hubris. If his platform was still entrenched with the Green Party (of which I am not a member and don't plan on becoming), I might have a case for more self-argument about not voting in that direction.

But not much more.

Nader has argued that the current two-party system is like a cancer on this country. Which is an appropriate analogy. But, as this writer points out:

The problem in the year 2004 is that the body politic is also suffering from multiple wounds and blunt force trauma, we're in the emergency room and it's a damn mess and there's blood everywhere and the doctors are working furiously but it's anybody's guess how things are gonna turn out. We are in triage, and we have to deal with the immediate problems, or the long-term ones won't matter anyway.



[note - I don't agree with every post I read on-line, nor every opinion presented in traditional media, but I did think that this was a succinct categorization.]
User avatar
Mr. Chimp
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 5:19 pm
Location: ChIL

Postby geiginni on Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:38 am

I was pissed off when I first heard of Nader running.

After giving it some thought, I believe it's a good thing and here's why:

Nader will be insignificant as an actual candidate in the election, but as a potential 'spoiler' the media won't be able to ignore him completely.

Nader's impetus is to ask the questions and raise the issues via the media that the media itself and other candidates will not raise. Let's face it - the 'big picture' issues and real concerns that should be on the minds of all voters will be ignored by the candidates and media, unless a highly visible figure or pundit can raise the issues.

Nader's role as a candidate is to raise these questions within the media and hopefully force the media and candidates to deal with these questions and issues. As Nader goes ignored by the media as a commentator or pundit - the only way he can achieve exposure is to run as the 'crazy-ass' or 'spoiler' candidate.

I don't think he actually believes anyone would vote for him this time around, but he is not going to allow this election to stagnate around bullshit non-issues like 'electability' and 'charisma/appearance'.
User avatar
geiginni
Man with Encyclopedic Knowledge
Man with Encyclopedic Knowledge
 
Posts: 5122
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:33 pm
Location: Mediating the Strong Force

Postby tmidgett on Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:01 pm

there's a very odd agreement he made w/the dems

he's not going to criticize the democratic nominee....

he has acknowledged this pact

weird

i don't know, it's confusing. maybe he has some kind of crazy master plan none of us could possibly understand.
User avatar
tmidgett
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8941
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:30 pm

Postby Mr. Chimp on Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:15 pm

tmidgett wrote:there's a very odd agreement he made w/the dems

he's not going to criticize the democratic nominee....

he has acknowledged this pact

weird

i don't know, it's confusing. maybe he has some kind of crazy master plan none of us could possibly understand.


The thought has crossed my mind that Nader might be going public so he can keep hammering on (all of) the Bush/Administration/Republican's Achilles Heels.

The aforementioned "agreement" makes that thought seem even more plausible, ie: pull another Howard Dean, but this time without significant paper trail to the Dems.

Interesting.
User avatar
Mr. Chimp
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 5:19 pm
Location: ChIL

Postby toomanyhelicopters on Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:36 pm

that whole "agreement" thing sounds good. it must be speicifically that he won't shit-talk the actual candidate, because he was sure shit-talking the democratic party on the news this morning. NBC4 had a live interview with him on the 7:00 news here. a couple interesting 'facts' based on what he said this morning.

1) he believes he is going to win the election
2) he believes he will take more votes away from the republican party than the democratic

i really do hope he's in there with a secret agenda to look like a nut but then take votes away from bush. that would be great. and his rhetoric about how the democratic and republican parties are the same party because they're all corpora-ma-tized and how washington has been bought and sold, all that stuff is very appealing. he should be able to get a lot of votes from the disenfranchised. the folks who, in this election anyways, should be voting for kerry or edwards, to get rid of bush. but i'll stop talking about it. according to nader, i'm wasting my time even thinking about this stuff, since he's gonna win the election. :roll:
Last edited by toomanyhelicopters on Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
toomanyhelicopters
priss
 
Posts: 5080
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:58 am

Postby tmidgett on Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:02 pm

the thing i always wanted to know, and still want to know, about nader is:

why the hell should HE be president?

you know? what are his qualifications? why should i think he has the slightest clue about how to handle congress? or national crisis? or international crisis? or that he has detailed ideas about how to implement any of his superficially appealing proposals?

i have tried to answer this question, and all i can find is a bunch of b.s. telling me things i already know about corporate america etc. etc.

a common knock on someone like kerry is that he has been grooming himself for the presidency for his entire life. is this...necessarily a bad thing? it's a big job! the biggest job! gwb went into politics as an afterthought--should i be comforted by that?
User avatar
tmidgett
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8941
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:30 pm

Postby spoot on Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:36 pm

tmidgett wrote:what are his qualifications? why should i think he has the slightest clue about how to handle congress? or national crisis? or international crisis? or that he has detailed ideas about how to implement any of his superficially appealing proposals?


I saw Nader speak in Seattle for the 2000 campaign. I was pretty excited about his candidacy until I saw him speak: he was dull, ineloquent and uninspiring. Any excitement I had was drained by my realization that he would make a lousy president.

Regarding his possibly ulterior motives for running: someone else mentioned Nader's "corporate pornography" thing... I still have no idea what he's talking about, does anyone else? And why mention pornography at all if not to turn some reactionary heads on the right?
User avatar
spoot
puggy pearson
puggy pearson
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: chicago, illinois

Next

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot] and 15 guests