Nader To Run Again

[Busyman]

Originally posted by clocker+24 February 2004 - 19:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 February 2004 - 19:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@24 February 2004 - 09:01


The reason I don&#39;t vote for Nader is because it IS a wasted vote.

So this is what we&#39;ve come to.

I read today an interview with a guy who has put up an anti-Nader website.

When asked, he said "Oh no, Nader is right on all the issues, but he&#39;ll cause Bush to win".

We have a quality candidate, who is not afraid to position himself on unpopular issues, yet we are somehow irresponsible if we vote for him.

Do you guys hear what you sound like?

We need a political outsider...look how well the pros have handled things lately. [/b][/quote]
It&#39;s reality my man.

Nader needs a master plan.

He needs to do it from the inside of the Democratic Party then split off.

I know what your thinking. Even though will lose this election, by getting his positions heard, The Independents gain momentum more and more until they finally are real contenders (maybe around 2020 ).

Right now the REAL issue and reality is that, great stances and all, he is a Democratic spoiler (as the Repubs watch in gratification).

[clocker]

Originally posted by Busyman@24 February 2004 - 15:31

It&#39;s reality my man.

Nader needs a master plan.

He needs to do it from the inside of the Democratic Party then split off.

So, business as usual, eh?

"I have seen the enemy and he is us".

Basically, you propose that he trick his way into the Democratic nomination and then just do as he pleases.

Hmmm, wait a minute....isn&#39;t that what Bush did?
Pretend to be human and then reveal himself as a corporate greedweasel?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by clocker+24 February 2004 - 22:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 February 2004 - 22:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@24 February 2004 - 15:31

It&#39;s reality my man.

Nader needs a master plan.

He needs to do it from the inside of the Democratic Party then split off.

So, business as usual, eh?

"I have seen the enemy and he is us".

Basically, you propose that he trick his way into the Democratic nomination and then just do as he pleases.

Hmmm, wait a minute....isn&#39;t that what Bush did?
Pretend to be human and then reveal himself as a corporate greedweasel? [/b][/quote]

[j2k4]

How much time and effort are you willing to ante up to see Nader (or his like) to the top?

The system needs a complete overhaul, and on this, at least, I think we all agree.

This might be a more constructive debate/argument/lament if there was amongst us a consensus of exactly what we want our government to look like; checks and balances have taken a beating and need to be re-established, and, as Clocker has said in the past, transparency (as much as is practical) is another problem.

A return to the constitution would be a nice start, I think.

We have, through our own sloth and laziness, allowed the pols to build themselves a nice, comfy, insular existence, one in which they are indeed in a "class" of their own, with little fear from the ballot box.

In the end, though, how important are they?

How important should they be?

Let&#39;s say we put magically put Nader at the top of this extant heap; what could he possibly accomplish?

So far, you guys are a horse in search of the cart, I think.

Edit: spelling

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@25 February 2004 - 08:28
Let&#39;s say we put magically put Nader at the top of this extant heap; what could he possibly accomplish?

i agree with your implication that merely electing a "renegade" for president wouldn&#39;t have much of an impact at all in a system like the u.s., which requires a consensus of thought/agenda between the three branches in order to accomplish anything. having someone like ralph nader or ross perot as president would just create a stalemate between him and the business-as-usual congress. either that, or he&#39;d end up caving in to the reality of politics, or maybe vacate the office early due to an unexpected dirt nap.

supporting a nader or a perot is a symbolic gesture at best. however unrealistic it may be, though, a voter is allowed to cast his vote however he sees fit, even if it means choosing something as foolish as stubborn idealism over practicality, right? if nader is on the ballot when election day comes, i&#39;d prolly give him my vote based purely on principle.

to busyman-- i&#39;ve just thought of something re: your suggestion that nader should join the democrats. i&#39;m sure you realize that the u.s. president is elected by the electoral college rather than by popular vote... but you might be unaware of the problem this could create if such a freakish situation were to arise. if an oddball candidate like nader ends up winning the nomination of a party whose leaders are unsympathetic to him and then wins the popular vote, his party&#39;s electors are legally permitted to vote for the other party&#39;s candidate and betray the wishes of the populace. it allows the political elite to veto the election, if the average peons choose somebody that doesn&#39;t fit their agenda. it&#39;s incredibly unlikely that such a thing would happen... but the option remains, just in case democracy doesn&#39;t go the way the elites want it to.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@26 February 2004 - 04:14
supporting a nader or a perot is a symbolic gesture at best.&nbsp; however unrealistic it may be, though, a voter is allowed to cast his vote however he sees fit, even if it means choosing something as foolish as stubborn idealism over practicality, right?&nbsp; if nader is on the ballot when election day comes, i&#39;d prolly give him my vote based purely on principle.

Symbolism, in this context, is as useless as tits on a boar pig.

To effect actual change, you have to beat the streets, and you can&#39;t give up until you&#39;ve fomented change.

Funny how "grass-roots" movements never seem to get beyond that stage.

I&#39;ve done a bit of this type of thing (more than a bit, actually), and it requires lots of people and lots of work.

The problem is that most of the people find they are averse to the work.

As I said, we can blame no one but ourselves for the mess we&#39;re in, and we can&#39;t begin to change anything with what passes for an "average" voter in this country.

Say what you will about MY politics (insofar as you think you know them), but I am at least informed.

I listen to people spout off every day about things they know nothing about; the ignorance they evince is nothing short of astonishing, but you won&#39;t get anywhere thrashing them with logic or truth, as they will find offensive that you trample their "right to free speech" or some such nonsense.

Some (most) people just refuse to be relieved of their ignorance.

Not speaking generally about the board, but you have to admit, 3RA1N1AC, there are a few real mush-melons who should just be quiet.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+26 February 2004 - 03:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 26 February 2004 - 03:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@25 February 2004 - 08:28
Let&#39;s say we put magically put Nader at the top of this extant heap; what could he possibly accomplish?

i agree with your implication that merely electing a "renegade" for president wouldn&#39;t have much of an impact at all in a system like the u.s., which requires a consensus of thought/agenda between the three branches in order to accomplish anything. having someone like ralph nader or ross perot as president would just create a stalemate between him and the business-as-usual congress. either that, or he&#39;d end up caving in to the reality of politics, or maybe vacate the office early due to an unexpected dirt nap.

supporting a nader or a perot is a symbolic gesture at best. however unrealistic it may be, though, a voter is allowed to cast his vote however he sees fit, even if it means choosing something as foolish as stubborn idealism over practicality, right? if nader is on the ballot when election day comes, i&#39;d prolly give him my vote based purely on principle.

to busyman-- i&#39;ve just thought of something re: your suggestion that nader should join the democrats. i&#39;m sure you realize that the u.s. president is elected by the electoral college rather than by popular vote... but you might be unaware of the problem this could create if such a freakish situation were to arise. if an oddball candidate like nader ends up winning the nomination of a party whose leaders are unsympathetic to him and then wins the popular vote, his party&#39;s electors are legally permitted to vote for the other party&#39;s candidate and betray the wishes of the populace. it allows the political elite to veto the election, if the average peons choose somebody that doesn&#39;t fit their agenda. it&#39;s incredibly unlikely that such a thing would happen... but the option remains, just in case democracy doesn&#39;t go the way the elites want it to. [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m very familiar with the electoral college.

I think that this would make more of a "statement" though than basically knocking out the Democratic candidate.

Right now Nader is a Republican ringer.

Besides how much does Nader&#39;s stance on the issues differ from Democrats in general?

For the most part he definitely is for overhauling the system as is, like campaign contributions but Nader just takes a FIRM stance on the issues.

As someone said he doesn&#39;t dillydally around trying to get everyone&#39;s vote. He&#39;s not really neutral on anything. At least you where he stands versus these "career politicians".

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Busyman@25 February 2004 - 23:41
I&#39;m very familiar with the electoral college.

I think that this would make more of a "statement" though than basically knocking out the Democratic candidate.

good point, busyman. there might well be a much greater symbolic value in forcing one of the two big parties to either 1) eat crow and accept an outsider candidate, or 2) nix the popular vote and flush their own credibility down the crapper in a single moment (which could clear the field for an era in which newer parties can seriously compete for those votes which are now "up for grabs").

[clocker]

It seems to me that the concept of Nader fragmenting the traditional Democratic voting base and automatically handing the election to Bush ignores unrest amongst Republicans.

How can a Republican look upon the actions of the Bush administration and not be appalled?
Fiscal conservatism?
Bush is spending money like there&#39;s no tomorrow and not even accounting for huge chunks of it (i.e. the costs of Iraq and Pakistan) while trying to cut taxes at the same time.
Alan Greenspan is finally admitting what no elected official can afford to....Social Security is in dire straits.

State&#39;s Rights?
Bush wants to trample them by supporting a Constitutional amendment.

Nader may well end up polarizing the Republicans as well as the Democrats as his candidacy focuses on the incredible disparity between what Republicans theoretically stand for and what Bush has actually done.

Perhaps a Nader run at the Presidency is a futile, spoiler tactic.
However, if it manages to alert BOTH the major parties to a growing unease/disgust with "politics as usual" then maybe, in the long run it will be a good thing, no matter the result of the upcoming election.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@26 February 2004 - 10:58
State&#39;s Rights?
Bush wants to trample them by supporting a Constitutional amendment.

To digress, however momentarily:

Yes, many of us are mighty upset at spending issues and other things, but as to this amendment re: gay marriage, that is a tactic which may come to pass as a reaction (oddly enough) in defense of state&#39;s rights by virtue of it&#39;s effect of stemming the judicial activism brewed up by the Massachusetts Supremes.

I don&#39;t think Bush pushes such an amendment lightly; think of it for now as a "communication tool".

It&#39;s very odd:

Opinions expressed here and elsewhere state firmly that "everyone" thinks gay marriage is great idea, or at least doesn&#39;t care, one way or the other.

This in the face of polls that run 2 to 1 in the other direction.

If the former hold their conviction vis a vis gay marriage so firmly, why is this judicial activism necessary for anything other than to circumvent state&#39;s legislatures, or alternatively, a public referendum?