Me wonder's the reason why nader is running?

[The Stigenator]

Its pissing off the democrats who want bush out of office. A recent NY Times article says he is on the ballot in 30 states.

If he takes out votes from kerry this will suck for the next 4 years.

Is he that single minded.. why doesnt he just drop out and then he can run in 4 years time when bush is out of office.

 

[Kibbo]

He sees no essential difference between the two parties.

He thinks that both major parties are corporate shills.

He wants to give voters a real choice.

Too bad he wants to do it tis year.

 

[Yolner]

I think he is an idiot.

 

[Todd33]

He is a media whore.

 

[BA]

Originally posted by: Todd33
He is a media whore.

As opposed to?

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
He sees no essential difference between the two parties.

He thinks that both major parties are corporate shills.

He wants to give voters a real choice.

Too bad he wants to do it tis year.

True, but he must be aware of the dynamics if this particular election and that he is only likely to draw votes from Kerry. Surely he would prefer Kerry over Bush.

 

[Tom]

I don't fault Nader for running, no one has to vote for him if they don't want to.

 

[Infohawk]

Nader doesn't understand the two-party system. For someone who's supposed to be smart and educated he needs to learn about Duverger's law.

Yes, we have systemic problems in this country that affect both parties. But his solution sucks. And the fact that he's trying to push his candidacy in such an important election is really sad. This not the time nor the place. He should have run in the Democratic primary.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Nader doesn't understand the two-party system. For someone who's supposed to be smart and educated he needs to learn about Duverger's law.

Yes, we have systemic problems in this country that affect both parties. But his solution sucks. And the fact that he's trying to push his candidacy in such an important election is really sad. This not the time nor the place. He should have run in the Democratic primary.

Many third party candidates over the years realize that they could hurt a "primary" party.

The reasons are diverse.
The primary parties have gotten off course; it is felt they no longer represent the basic fundimentals
The person is looking for attention.
The person feels that the existing system is flawed and will not be fixed until the voters realize what the consequences are.

In general, every person has a right to chose. Those that refuse to grant that right are as just as bad as what they think they are pointing a finger at. The Dems and Repubs have long feared a viable third party; however, they do not mind a fringe party that they can point and laugh at when they feel that it is not a valid threat to them.

In this election, the Dems are scared. At other times, the Repubs have been scared.

Nader has long been a person that attacks the system for its flaws and riding roughtshod over the little person. This year he may have felt that there was no public figure that was going to hightlight the problems, so he stepped forward.

Many a maryter (political /re;igious, etc) exists for just the sake of making a statement, pointing out the flaw/falicies of the sytem that is condemming them.

 

[Zedtom]

Mr. Nader is waging a one man war against the status quo of American politics. I have never totally agreed with his stance, but I did vote for him in 2000. I have since lost faith in him. The other person that is on my former heroes list is John McCain. I wish these two men would find a place where their talents could be utilized without them looking like total jackasses.

 

[preslove]

I, and around 1000 other people, saw him when he came to town. I would say that about half were hard core naderites (I live in gainesville, fl, a lefty stronghold). He was 45 minutes late arriving to the venue, and then he decided to talk to the press instead of coming on to the patiently waiting crowd. He was ranting, making incoherent jokes, skipping all over the place, and generally just being an asshole. One thing he said was that the Avian flu from from Asia is going to kill millions of people, making it much more dangerous than Terrorism. He also talked a lot about how he is the left's biggest defender and how all the other leftists who call him an egotistical has-been who is fvcking up the country by running are just a bunch of pussies. He went off stage and this nasally voiced dude comes on and asks "How many of you guys want to give $1000 to Ralph Nader, who has always been there for you? Come on give us your money, it will give you wings." Then he reduced the $ amounts for half an hour collecting money. I went to a 2000 rally and he was much more coherent and there wasn't any of the bullsh!t $ pandering. There also was a much bigger, and enthusiastic, turnout.

Four days later Michael Moore came to town and 12,000 people came to our 10,000 seat basketball arena. During the beginning this wacked out Nader guy walked around yelling "Shame! You've sold out Ralph Nader, your friend and brother!" Moore tried to compliment the guy and say that he was just foolish, but he wouldn't stop yelling. Moore said, "I'm trying to compliment you, now shut the fvck up!" and the place went MAD, people laughing, clapping, making noise. Moore went on afterwords to say how Nader and his followers are being very selfish and elitist, harping on and on about being so much smarter and better than everybody else, while doing nothing to help the country get past the reactionary right.

My opinion? Nader is slowly going insane. He was almost completely incoherent, and the only people really clapping and yelling for him were the zonked out hippies and neo-hippies who consider vegans who eat cooked food, sellouts. Doing the wave with 10,000 people at the moore rally, which basically was an anti-bush pep rally for Kerry, I realized that Nader won't be half as dangerous, or popular, as he was 4 years ago.

 

[ReiAyanami]

because it was either this or playing dungeons & dragons in his parent's basement for 11 months

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: presloveMy opinion? Nader is slowly going insane. He was almost completely incoherent, and the only people really clapping and yelling for him were the zonked out hippies and neo-hippies who consider vegans who eat cooked food, sellouts. Doing the wave with 10,000 people at the moore rally, which basically was an anti-bush pep rally for Kerry, I realized that Nader won't be half as dangerous, or popular, as he was 4 years ago.

Nader has changed considerably in the past 30+ years. He has always been able to appeal to the ideological virgins. Now that his originl ideas may gotten old (and some became mainstream) he seems to have lost his compass.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: presloveMy opinion? Nader is slowly going insane. He was almost completely incoherent, and the only people really clapping and yelling for him were the zonked out hippies and neo-hippies who consider vegans who eat cooked food, sellouts. Doing the wave with 10,000 people at the moore rally, which basically was an anti-bush pep rally for Kerry, I realized that Nader won't be half as dangerous, or popular, as he was 4 years ago.

Nader has changed considerably in the past 30+ years. He has always been able to appeal to the ideological virgins. Now that his originl ideas may gotten old (and some became mainstream) he seems to have lost his compass.

I think it is more the fact that he get's scorn from former friends and just resents the fact that Moore can get ten times the draw than he, while supporting a mainstream candidate. He is unable to realize that his own idiocy is to blame for the scorn that he now recieves. He's incapable of self-criticism, which is why I think he and Bush have a lot in common.

 

[mastertech01]

Just think what may have been the result had he been allowed to participate in the debates like Ross Perot in 92. Perot had a much larger following than Nader has, but for some reason the Dems are objecting much, much louder against Nader than they did Perot. What's up with that? Are we going to ever let everyone have an equal voice in our election process? Nope, NEVAR. The only way to break up the polarization of America is to break up their magnetic field of monopolization of our political process. Maybe then we will become a more perfect union of democracy.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
Just think what may have been the result had he been allowed to participate in the debates like Ross Perot in 92. Perot had a much larger following than Nader has, but for some reason the Dems are objecting much, much louder against Nader than they did Perot. What's up with that? Are we going to ever let everyone have an equal voice in our election process? Nope, NEVAR. The only way to break up the polarization of America is to break up their magnetic field of monopolization of our political process. Maybe then we will become a more perfect union of democracy.

Perot actually made sense. His big issue was the HUGE budget deficit. He may have lost, but he turned Clinton into a budget hawk, thereby ACTUALLY SUCCEEDING IN CHANGING U.S. POLICY FOR THE BETTER! Nader has no definite issue. Had Nader been on the debate he would have just talked about how the asian flu is more dangerous than terrorism (I swear to god, that's what he was talking about).

Perot=success
Nader=ranting asshat
any questions?

(sorry for the yelling)

 

[Infohawk]

If you guys want third parties change to a run-off or proportional system.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
If you guys want third parties change to a run-off or proportional system.

that would require a change in the political system. Dilute the power the big boys have.

Will never happen unless the American public feels that the existing system is so abused that they toss out the idiots that control all facets.

 

[cmp1223]

ANy one else see him on Bill Maher? That candanian lady was right, Nader could be much more effective if instead of running he used his "control" over that 1 to 2 percent that follows him to sawy the election. He could challege both the candidate's on the issues, hopefully have them open up more, and then tell his people who to vote for. In such a close election, both parties would probably listen to him.

 

[EDoG2K]

I think the problem here really is the winner-take all 2 party system. The election should be won by a simple majority popular vote rather than this fvcked up electoral college system.

I recall back in my High School days; about 5 people would run for class president. The top 2 vote getters would face each other in the runoff election, and the other candidates would pitch their support to one candidate or the other, thus accomplishing some of their agenda.

The American electoral system should be more like this, then you could vote for who you really wanted, and third party candidates could get their agendas heard and not disrupt the election.

Sadly, I think the Repubs won't go for it b/c the electoral college favors them.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: preslove


Perot=success
Nader=ranting asshat
any questions?

Yep...that about sums it up!

:disgust:

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
If you guys want third parties change to a run-off or proportional system.

A thrid party needs to emerge in the middle and not see how far left or right they can go.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: preslove


Perot=success
Nader=ranting asshat
any questions?

Yep...that about sums it up!

:disgust:

If you knew anything about the history of third parties and their candidates, then you would know that the successful ones pressured either one or both of the main parties into adopting some of their main planks.

here is something simple for you guys to understand...

1992, Perot=both parties adopt a balanced budget platform. Budget is balanced withing 6 years.

1968, 1972=Ex-democratic gov. of Alabama George Wallace runs for the Independence Party. Republicans subsequently adopt his rhetoric and eventually take the South away from the Dems.

1890-1892=Populist party, the most successful actual third party ever, they win a couple of states in 1892, and eventually are absorbed by the Democratic party, thereby creating the Democratic party of wilson, FDR, JFK, etc.

A third party is a PRESSURE GROUP, not a viable alternative to the two major parties. If your issues aren't adopted, you are useless. Nader has no actual issues, hence his uselessness.

 

[Zebo]

Nader at Brighton Beach

 

[CQuinn]

but for some reason the Dems are objecting much, much louder against Nader than they did Perot. What's up with that?

Perot did not have Republicans actively working to get him on the ballot. And he was equally disruptive
for both parties. Nader is seen as pretty much a leftist candidate.