Ralph Nadar
- Thread starter IntenseOperator
- Start date
Politics in america is nothing more than a sham. The democrats and republicans continiously argue about things they intend to do nothing about to distract the hypnotyzed publics' attention away from the things they are really doing. Its all about power and money, nothing more and nothing less. 99% do not give a rats ass about the people...I think it was George Carlin who said " I don't vote...I am afraid the person I vote for might win, then I will be responible for his actions"...considering the choices, hard to go against his logic.
Redsfan and Hellah-
If you honestly think there is no difference between the Dem. nominee and Bush, then there is nothing wrong with voting for Ralphie. But if you are like me, and you think the Dem. will suck but that Bush is the worst thing ever to happen to America, then a vote for Nader is truly a vote for Bush. I'm sorry. Redsfan, I don't really know you that well, but Hellah, you are one of my favorite posters on this site, so I mean no disrespect to either of you... I just don't understand how people who hate Bush and want him out can possibly make a vote that can directly lead to him getting the office back. And no matter how it's spun, anyone who would vote democrat if only presented with rep/dem options that votes for Nader is helping Bush win.
If you honestly think there is no difference between the Dem. nominee and Bush, then there is nothing wrong with voting for Ralphie. But if you are like me, and you think the Dem. will suck but that Bush is the worst thing ever to happen to America, then a vote for Nader is truly a vote for Bush. I'm sorry. Redsfan, I don't really know you that well, but Hellah, you are one of my favorite posters on this site, so I mean no disrespect to either of you... I just don't understand how people who hate Bush and want him out can possibly make a vote that can directly lead to him getting the office back. And no matter how it's spun, anyone who would vote democrat if only presented with rep/dem options that votes for Nader is helping Bush win.
bjfinste
i agree. i think by people voting for nader, it takes away votes from Kerry...but I gotta vote for Nader...he, unlike everybody else in DC, likes the arabs
i agree. i think by people voting for nader, it takes away votes from Kerry...but I gotta vote for Nader...he, unlike everybody else in DC, likes the arabs
It is a shame those liberials just give up on everything. If you believed some of the BS here. Well after 9/11 those liberials would have thanked who ever did that and said please now that's enough. Or would you like one more target just to make you happy. There are dumb folks out there with chit like this in there head. I can only feal sorry for them. I hope they dont hurt themself or someone else some day. When the rest of there brain drains. We used to call them the fake outrage dudes.
Nader has no chance. Kerry has one. Edwards maybe. Bush has gone way of base. Maybe Pat Buchanon would be better. At least he believes in safe borders.
Nader has no chance. Kerry has one. Edwards maybe. Bush has gone way of base. Maybe Pat Buchanon would be better. At least he believes in safe borders.
bjfinste--
No offense taken. I've had the arguement that you are putting forth in your last post with several people since Sunday, including several Green Party members who are doing exactly what you are doing, which is voting for Kerry(or Edwards, if he pulls the huge upset) because they can't fathom what 4 more years of Bush would be like. Sorry for the run-on sentences....
As you know, trying to communicate your thoughts and ideas in this sort of medium is all but impossible. While I call Kerry "Bush lite" I think its safe to say we both know that there are many more differences between the two than I let on in my replies to this thread. For me, the Democratic Party has moved much too far towards the center (or even the right) for me to be able to support it in its present form. Again, while I don't wish to see 4 more years of Bush, I also will not lie down and not vote my conscience.
Good thread here, and thanks to everyone for not turning it into one of hostility towards our fellow Madjackers.
No offense taken. I've had the arguement that you are putting forth in your last post with several people since Sunday, including several Green Party members who are doing exactly what you are doing, which is voting for Kerry(or Edwards, if he pulls the huge upset) because they can't fathom what 4 more years of Bush would be like. Sorry for the run-on sentences....
As you know, trying to communicate your thoughts and ideas in this sort of medium is all but impossible. While I call Kerry "Bush lite" I think its safe to say we both know that there are many more differences between the two than I let on in my replies to this thread. For me, the Democratic Party has moved much too far towards the center (or even the right) for me to be able to support it in its present form. Again, while I don't wish to see 4 more years of Bush, I also will not lie down and not vote my conscience.
Good thread here, and thanks to everyone for not turning it into one of hostility towards our fellow Madjackers.
I agree with many of the thoughts here on Nader. I do think he cost Gore the election, I do think hes a nutcase but I also think that 2 choices for President is unacceptable.
Here's a quote from the Washington Post editorial this morning, which by the way, is a very left leaning newspaper.
===================
"We took issue then with Mr. Nader's assessment of what he termed "the systemic convergence of the two major parties," and we'd argue that history proved him wrong. The differences are more evident than ever. Indeed, Mr. Nader seems, more or less, to agree; in formally launching his candidacy yesterday, he said his chief target would be "the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being, George W. Bush." And he defended his candidacy with the rather odd -- for a politician -- proposition that it wouldn't make any difference in the end, citing the possibility of Internet vote-trading arrangements that would allow citizens to avoid casting pro-Nader votes in states where that could have an impact.
Some of Mr. Nader's positions are intriguing but a tough sell politically: He supports gay marriage, single-payer universal health care, public financing of elections and repealing all the Bush tax cuts. Others are more troubling. A Nader presidency would be dangerously protectionist; he would pull America out of NAFTA and the global trading system. His rhetoric against undue corporate power is overheated, to put it mildly: "Presently, global corporations are bent on strategically planning our future, our politics, our economy, our military expenditures, our education, our environment, our culture, even our genetic inheritance," he said yesterday.
On Iraq, Mr. Nader makes Howard Dean look like a paragon of moderation. He argues that Mr. Bush should be subject to impeachment over the war, and he irresponsibly threatens to take on the Democratic candidates if they "persist in supporting a further quagmire war in Iraq without end." Mr. Nader's purported exit strategy, to bring in U.N. peacekeeping forces, is unrealistic. Asked whether the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam Hussein, Mr. Nader rejected the premise of the question -- he said the problem of Saddam Hussein should have been resolved after the first Gulf War -- but then went on, disturbingly, to suggest that they are not, citing postwar problems with food, electricity and security.
Mr. Nader is entitled to state a case. Voters are entitled to judge how much sense he makes."
===========================
So thats great, a guy running that already knows he wont make a difference in the end. If you want to vote for someone just as a way of voting against the 2 party system, I can respect that. But Nader is just a little too alarmist/extreme for me - corporations are planning my genetic inheritence? Wow, I had no idea. I can respect Nader for the consumer work he's done in the past, but sorry, I have no desire to pull the United States back onto its own little island and return to the good old days of protectionism and isolationism.
Here's a quote from the Washington Post editorial this morning, which by the way, is a very left leaning newspaper.
===================
"We took issue then with Mr. Nader's assessment of what he termed "the systemic convergence of the two major parties," and we'd argue that history proved him wrong. The differences are more evident than ever. Indeed, Mr. Nader seems, more or less, to agree; in formally launching his candidacy yesterday, he said his chief target would be "the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being, George W. Bush." And he defended his candidacy with the rather odd -- for a politician -- proposition that it wouldn't make any difference in the end, citing the possibility of Internet vote-trading arrangements that would allow citizens to avoid casting pro-Nader votes in states where that could have an impact.
Some of Mr. Nader's positions are intriguing but a tough sell politically: He supports gay marriage, single-payer universal health care, public financing of elections and repealing all the Bush tax cuts. Others are more troubling. A Nader presidency would be dangerously protectionist; he would pull America out of NAFTA and the global trading system. His rhetoric against undue corporate power is overheated, to put it mildly: "Presently, global corporations are bent on strategically planning our future, our politics, our economy, our military expenditures, our education, our environment, our culture, even our genetic inheritance," he said yesterday.
On Iraq, Mr. Nader makes Howard Dean look like a paragon of moderation. He argues that Mr. Bush should be subject to impeachment over the war, and he irresponsibly threatens to take on the Democratic candidates if they "persist in supporting a further quagmire war in Iraq without end." Mr. Nader's purported exit strategy, to bring in U.N. peacekeeping forces, is unrealistic. Asked whether the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam Hussein, Mr. Nader rejected the premise of the question -- he said the problem of Saddam Hussein should have been resolved after the first Gulf War -- but then went on, disturbingly, to suggest that they are not, citing postwar problems with food, electricity and security.
Mr. Nader is entitled to state a case. Voters are entitled to judge how much sense he makes."
===========================
So thats great, a guy running that already knows he wont make a difference in the end. If you want to vote for someone just as a way of voting against the 2 party system, I can respect that. But Nader is just a little too alarmist/extreme for me - corporations are planning my genetic inheritence? Wow, I had no idea. I can respect Nader for the consumer work he's done in the past, but sorry, I have no desire to pull the United States back onto its own little island and return to the good old days of protectionism and isolationism.
Last edited:
I still say a vote for Nader is a wasted vote if you want the Democratic ticket to win. I don't see how it can be anything else. We are often faced with decisions, especially in politics, of picking the lesser of 2 evils. In effect, voting for one candidate so another does not win. I suppose in your situation, redsfann, where you don't like either candidate, would you rather Kerry win or Bush stay in office? I think I know the answer to that.
Personally, I'll more than likely vote for BUsh. Not because he's a great candidate or because he's been a great president, but in my mind, almost anybody would be better than John Kerry. He's the choice I have, and even though he's not a great choice, he's the only choice as obviously no one else of the conservative genre has a chance to win.
If your goal is to win a national championship in NCAA football, and you can pick any school, you go to Miami, or Oklahoma not Toledo because you know Toledo is never going to win the national championship.
Good discussion, thanks for the views without the partisan bashing.
Personally, I'll more than likely vote for BUsh. Not because he's a great candidate or because he's been a great president, but in my mind, almost anybody would be better than John Kerry. He's the choice I have, and even though he's not a great choice, he's the only choice as obviously no one else of the conservative genre has a chance to win.
If your goal is to win a national championship in NCAA football, and you can pick any school, you go to Miami, or Oklahoma not Toledo because you know Toledo is never going to win the national championship.
Good discussion, thanks for the views without the partisan bashing.
why does voting as an "Arab" concern you and why dont you start voting as an "American"?
(i no longer identify myself as a German, Englishman or Frenchman and thus no longer feel compelled to vote in Germany's, England's, or France's best interest)
(i no longer identify myself as a German, Englishman or Frenchman and thus no longer feel compelled to vote in Germany's, England's, or France's best interest)
why do you care...i HAVE to vote as an american all of a sudden cuz you said so???
fawk that :nono:
I`ll do as I please
fawk that :nono:
I`ll do as I please
hellah10 said:
America used to be a melting pot where everyone came together, but now i guess now people have their loyalty elsewhere....not only sad but pathetic
hellah10 said:
Just asking my Arab friend...
How do you know he likes Arabs?
What has he said or done to indicate this? that appeals to you?
IntenseOperator said:
nooo..that message was meant for the doctor there not for you...
i`ll get more into this later..
Christ doc, what got into you? Hes not voting in another country, hes voting here as an American. So someone is voting in part because their heritage means something to them, whats wrong with that? Who are you to say on what basis people should be voting? If a candidate had anti-Canadian policies I wouldn't vote for them because my grandparents came to this country from Montreal. Does wanting to preserve my heritage or at least not see their home country desicrated not make me American enough for you? Eh?
So if he wants to vote against candidates who have policies that he perceives as anti-Arab (which I have no idea if they are or not, I just dont know) I applaud that.
Oh and lest anyone on this board forget, as no small part of this "argument" Omar is also a member of the armed forces (sorry man forgot the branch) and recently served the United States in Iraq. This guy can vote for whoever he wants whenever he wants in my book.
My big peave is people bitching and not voting. I dont care who you vote for or why, but get out and vote.
So if he wants to vote against candidates who have policies that he perceives as anti-Arab (which I have no idea if they are or not, I just dont know) I applaud that.
Oh and lest anyone on this board forget, as no small part of this "argument" Omar is also a member of the armed forces (sorry man forgot the branch) and recently served the United States in Iraq. This guy can vote for whoever he wants whenever he wants in my book.
My big peave is people bitching and not voting. I dont care who you vote for or why, but get out and vote.
Last edited:
My big peave is people bitching and not voting. I dont care who you vote for or why, but get out and vote.
DITTO ACE
DITTO ACE
I have a big problem when a person's heritage or former nationality supercedes our own country's.....
thanks goodness my Grandpa realized that and fought against the nazi's some 60 years ago.....
thanks goodness my Grandpa realized that and fought against the nazi's some 60 years ago.....
