Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at [email protected] and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

___________________________________RALPH

Discussion in 'News' started by BROWNer, Oct 18, 2004.

  1. BROWNer

    BROWNer Guest

    i would like to discuss and take a good look at ralph nader and this incredible groundswell of opposition to his running.
    i mean, the level of vitriolic opposition to such a man is quite astounding.
    i would like for someone(poop?) to lay out the full argument for why
    a vote for nader is a vote for the enemy. take it back to 2000 if needed.
    just on a surfacey type of deal, i have been mulling it
    over and it occured to me that on at least one plane of thinking, this probably isn't a great argument for american "democracy".
     
  2. seeking

    seeking Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: May 25, 2000 Messages: 32,277 Likes Received: 235
    all i can say is that at this point, 'democracy' is not the objective, getting bush the fuck out of office is.
    breaking into a sporting goods store and stealing a case full of guns and ammo is not 'right' under normal circumstances. but if the nation were under attack and you needed to get supplies, it would be totally acceptible.

    this is not a 'normal' election year. this one carries the weight of the world (literally) on it. nader, who i otherwise liked and i believe voted for in 2000 (i honestly can't remember) should not be fucking around with our country like this.
    that's why rational, otherwise 'democratic' people are taking a strong-arm approach to the topic.

    i'm not sure if that's the exact question you were asking, i was a little confused, but thats the one i went for.
     
  3. hobo knife

    hobo knife Junior Member

    Joined: May 30, 2004 Messages: 219 Likes Received: 0
    Right now you have two options. A. you can vote for the lesser of two evils. B. you can vote for a third party candidate (who has no chance of getting elected) in the hopes that thirty-forty years down the road we can break away from this "two party dictatorship"

    It would be great if we could get someone like Nader in the white house or at least someone with half as much integrity. But for now, you only have to realistic choices. The differences between Bush and Kerry are minimal at best....ALTHOUGH in the situation we're currently in those small differences can amount to huge consequences if we elect the wrong president.

    The place you can make a third party more realistic is in local politics. Voting third party in local politics will bring about change much quicker than throwing your vote away in a presidential election....this race is so close right now that if Nader gets too much support Bush will def. win...if it were a clear victory for Kerry already...I would be voting for Nader but thats not the case.

    I know I didn't address the entire argument but that pretty much sums it up for me.
     
  4. porque

    porque Senior Member

    Joined: May 5, 2002 Messages: 1,844 Likes Received: 0
    ...back in 2000 i did vote for nader...i believed in a lot of the things that he stood for...and his push was not to win the election but to gather 5% of the popular vote inorder for the green party to be recognized and therefore be a huge step in breaking the two party system and establishing a better idea of democracy in the nation...

    ...this year, however, nader is not running on the green party...he is running as an independent...so even if he gets ten percent of the popular vote it won't change the two party system...even though i still feel that i share many of the views of ralph nader...i'm not voting for him...

    ...this time the decision isn't about voting for the candidate that best represents my views...it's about voting out someone that never should have been there in teh first place...do i agree with everything john kerry stands for?...hell no...but he's not bush, and i don't agree with anything that bush stands for...so i'm voting for kerry becasue that's the best chance i have to support what i really want: bush gone...

    ...voting for nader now does mean something...especially if you live in a state that is absolutely going one way or another...your vote means that you don't suport either major party candidate...but right now that doesn't mean much...
     
  5. ModelCitizen

    ModelCitizen Member

    Joined: Feb 6, 2003 Messages: 356 Likes Received: 8
    The only thing changing the two party system is an intense societal lobotomy.
     
  6. LaCosaNostra

    LaCosaNostra Senior Member

    Joined: Feb 3, 2004 Messages: 2,191 Likes Received: 0
     
  7. ModelCitizen

    ModelCitizen Member

    Joined: Feb 6, 2003 Messages: 356 Likes Received: 8
    I agree that nader should have sat this one out, but I can't believe how much effort and energy the media and the public have channeled into insulting or degrading him. All these anti-nader websites and hate-fueled columns in magazines -- who the fuck are these people? How many assholes pointing fingers down from the almighty fuck nader high horse have ever approached the same level of exhausting, life-long progressive activism?
    People bitch and whine that we "might not" have gone to war in iraq because bush "might not" have been elected if nader hadn't run in 2000, while those same people "might not" have survived their last mini-vancapade to six flags if nader wasn't beating down the door of the automobile industry in the 60s (probably well before a lot of these arrogant know-it-alls were even born).

    I'm not voting for nader but damn, dude's become the rodney dangerfield of american politics.
     
  8. hobo knife

    hobo knife Junior Member

    Joined: May 30, 2004 Messages: 219 Likes Received: 0

    They are operatives of the democratic party...I think it's a matter of self defense for the Kerry campaign to try ruin Nader's chances...
     
  9. Poop Man Bob

    Poop Man Bob Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Nov 16, 2000 Messages: 10,259 Likes Received: 18
    Brown - I think everyone else pretty much covered it. I'd like to expand on the fact that he's running as an independent candidate this election - i.e., he doesn't have the backing of the Green Party, which he did in 2000. There were a lot of arguments in 2000 that voting for Nader was assisting in party-building, and by getting the Greens their 5%, you'd help party to obtain federal funds and thus a greater representation of progressive ideals. I voted for Nader in 2000, and unfortunately he didn't get the required national percentage.

    But now, no one can make the party-building argument. Granted, there's no requirement that anyone run on the ticket of a particular party - I know that. But it does remove a large reason for running when your previous candidacy was based, on a large part, on party-building.

    You can watch this short quicktime video to get a summary of the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" argument.

    I'll write more if you're unconvinced.
     
  10. ModelCitizen

    ModelCitizen Member

    Joined: Feb 6, 2003 Messages: 356 Likes Received: 8

    They are operatives of the democratic party...I think it's a matter of self defense for the Kerry campaign to try ruin Nader's chances...
    [post=3675908]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]

    I.E. Eric Alterman. In this month's Nation he replies to a "defense of nader" type letter and once again shits all over nader. I think he even blames him for "dooming the world" or something like that.
     
  11. seeking

    seeking Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: May 25, 2000 Messages: 32,277 Likes Received: 235
    ya know what's really crazy, if you dont watch the news or read the paper, you really dont even know that nader is running.
    it's awesome.

    even more than nader bashing, one thing i'm really fucking sick of listening to people regurgitate the same 'lesser of two evils' bullshit, simply because they're afraid to stand behind a candidate. yeah, we all know that kerry isn't going to legalize pot, give us free money and offer blow-jobs for guns program, but so what?! if someone isn't an angel that means they must be a devil? fuck that. i dont think kerry is 'evil' at all. infact, from what i can tell, he seems to be about the least potentially 'evil' candidate we've had in a long time. even clinton had a lot of backroom deals and chikanery going on. kerry doesnt really seem to have any of that. yeah he's been a little 'wishy-washy' on things, but welcome to washington. any democrat that takes an unflinching stance never gains an inch, it's the nature of the beast.
    granted, i can think of a whole list of people i'd rather see in office, but all things considered, from what i've seen, i'm not at all bummed that it's him. i think he'll do a good job and if he turns out to suck monkey asses, then i'll admit i was a sucker and whatever.
     
  12. 23578

    23578 Elite Member

    Joined: Jul 2, 2000 Messages: 2,521 Likes Received: 0
    Yo, you're talking about my homie Ralph Nader. I will always give him his, he was fucking with Republicans before i was born. I was watching this documentary on the two candidates that aired on PBS, and they were showing Kerry's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. You know the one where he was with the Veterans group that opposed the 'Nam War and was asked to testify. Anyway he had a really good showing, enough so that, then President, Nixon took notice. He was heard on one of the White House Tapes telling one of his Aides de Camp, "that young feller, what's his name. . .Kerry, we ought to watch him or he'll become another Ralph Nader, and we can't have that, hrrumph, no, that won't do." Nader, I'd vote for him if I lived somewhere really Republican like Utah, Arizona, or Idaho. Unfortunately I'm afraid how New York is going to show up at the polls this time around what with all the dickheads that are running around here. Bush was in Jersey yesterday because apparently it's shifting towards the right, and Ed Koch was on the Daily Show last night saying Bushie's stance on homeland security overrides the fact that he disagrees with his domestic agenda to the last point, now that's scary thought.
     
  13. hobo knife

    hobo knife Junior Member

    Joined: May 30, 2004 Messages: 219 Likes Received: 0
    ^^

    Yea I hear ya, I dont think Kerry is evil, but every four years theres only two realistic choices and usually neither of them is too concerned with the well-being of the people voting for them.
     
  14. !@#$%

    [email protected]#$% Moderator Crew

    Joined: Oct 1, 2002 Messages: 18,517 Likes Received: 621
    he's got a good message, it's just the wrong time.
    perot had a big effect on the 2-party system in a fairly recent election, that came out in the democrats' favor.
    did ralph forget that or something is what i'd like to know.
    he acts as though nothing like a 3rd party influence on the election has ever happened, which is obviously not true.

    the country is so fucking polarized right now, i think it may need a little healing from a more moderate leader anyway. the time for a far-left prez is not now. (did i just type that?)
     
  15. BROWNer

    BROWNer Guest

    hmm, well i watched that vid poop, and i really wish
    they let him speak instead of cutting him off.
    the 2000 thing is something else, i don't buy that
    argument. these days i can see everyone's point..
    it's just rreeeal interesting..

    let's hope the next election is so fucking stupid.
     
Top