Jump to content

___________________________________RALPH


Guest BROWNer

Recommended Posts

Guest BROWNer

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by LaCosaNostra@Oct 18 2004, 08:27 PM

Nader is such a dumb ass motherfucker. He consistently runs for president, just so he can say he has ran for president X times. He knows he can't win, but he still goes out there and takes away votes from people like John Kerry, whom acutally need them. This election, it's about the Bad and the Evil. John Kerry might be Bad, but Bush is Evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by hobo knife+Oct 19 2004, 01:59 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hobo knife - Oct 19 2004, 01:59 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Ten Cents@Oct 19 2004, 12:55 AM

who the fuck are these people?

 

 

 

 

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...

[/b]

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BROWNer

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...you know what i would like to see...i doubt it would happen...but if kerry wins he should put nader on his cabinet, secretary of the interior or something like that...but with all the shit talking going on between their campaigns, i doubt it, but then again kerry got dean back on his side...

 

...i'm a little tired of the 'lessor of evils' claim as well...one of the best things about kerry is the people that he has around him...he's not going to get in the whitehouse and make every decision that comes up right away by himself and then have a bunch of 'yesmen' tell him how great it is...he has real people with real experience (not ceo's) to guide decisions...i was arguing with my roomate the other day and she was saying that all of kerry's plans are going to wind up hurting the middleclass in the long run (...the need to raise taxes was her only point)...so i was trying to explain to her that none of that shit mattered, kerry's health plan plain and simple is not going to happen, even if he does win (...am i the only one that can still remember clinton's first term and the health care fiasco?)...it's just something to talk about to sway people's votes...most of the 'issues' in an election are all pretty much bunk...i feel that the way to elect a president is to pick the one that you feel makes the best decisions, which boils down to their decision making process...i think kerry has an amazing understanding of the global and domestic governmental picture...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by oh so modern@Oct 20 2004, 10:10 AM

if democracy didnt put this usurping dipshit in office

what leads anyone to believe it will help remove him?

democracy is a joke in this country.

that idea about busting into gun shops might be more appropriate.

the ruling class has many rules, democracy is one of them.

war is peace.

 

 

...and i just voted.

one love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Nader on CNN last night and realized once again how much I still like this guy. Unfortunately it looks as though he has suffered a stroke since I've seen him last (which was IRL about five years ago).

In the couple of minutes he was allotted on CNN he managed to criticize big business, the government for it's dubious ties to big business, there still being poor in the wealthiest nation of the world etc.. etc. He even criticized the media for the sound byte hype type of coverage.

His basic argument is that he is representing those people who feel that neither of the major parties represents them.

He even said when he was asked if one of the two candidates were better than the other, he said that Bush was obviously the worse of the two.

 

I wish people would stop picking on him. And I haven't really liked Alex Jones since he dissed Noam Chomsky. Just seems to me like he's trying to one up his contemporaries despite anything valid he may have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't a nickel's worth of political difference between Bush and Kerry. It's a matter of which ruling class puppet looks better in office.

 

Nader has the only program that makes sense, but only voting for him is bullshit. It will take first a movement and eventually a revolution to change the 'Democracy of the Rich' we live in.

 

Break with the Duopoly.

 

Big things must start small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE 1 PARTY SYSTEM THAT WE LIVE UNDER CONTROLS THE SO CALLED THIRD PARTY.......THATS WHY WEVE NEVER WITNESSED A WIN FROM AN INDEPENDENT CANIDATE...........EVEN THOUGH I BELEIVE THAT MOST OF AMERICANS COULD BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENTS.............WHY DOES THIS CONCEPT THAT ONLY DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS CAN WIN EXSIST?????BECAUSE THEIR IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS MY FRIENDS...........WISE UP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by hobo knife@Oct 18 2004, 11:05 AM

The differences between Bush and Kerry are minimal at best....

 

idont think this is a valid argument in anyway. certainly kerry is not exactly what we, as liberal young people, want but he is in no way close to bush in his ideas for our country. this was blatantly obvious through out the entire debate series. his answers were excellent and while i myself squirm at the though of some of his personal beliefs i think he is intelligent enough to refrain from imposing them on the rest of america. at this point in time we are at square one and kerry is an excellent stepping stone in helping our country become what it should have always been. these last four years has helped motivate our generation in a way that nothing else could have however it is not just our generation who will have a say in the next election. we will no doubt progress through out the next couple of decades (given this enthusiasm stays with us) but we have to start somewhere and work our way towards the type of government we desire. i can assure you there are very few people looking back at the 2000 election and finding inspiration via the nader vote just as i can assure you that in 2008 there will be very few people who find the 2004 election results relevant to their choice. no one voting for nader this election will be making a point that will have any staying power. thats the bottom line....we all know the support is there and the desire to vote for the candidate we actually believe in is there. if we continue to carry that through the kerry administration into 2008 we may have something but for the time being the whole point is moot.

 

if bush is reelected where do you think we will be in 2008? do you think that your gung-ho liberal attitude will be even remotely relevant then. i would chance to say it wont...at that point in time most americans will be scrambling for ANYTHING better than bush and i can assure you that is much worse than the current situation we are facing. at that point in time we will be even farther from electing a candidate who shares the same ideals as nader. people will be so desperate that the whole issue of a third party candidate will be lost in the scramble to rebuild our country.

 

we have the nations interest and the desire....its at our fingertips...however jumping the gun at a time like this has the potential to destroy that completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nader is a bitch motherfucker. He's also almost entirely funded by the republicans. I don't have the patience to track down a ton of sources at the moment, so I'll just use a couple examples.

 

You have to get a minimum number of signatures in each state to be on that state's ballot. Ralph Nader has no means of getting those signatures by himself. However, the Republican party does. This is why they sent out petitions to all their members in swing states to get him on the ballot.

 

Ralph Nader has taken tens of thousands of dollars from known Republican operatives, including $8,000 from the people behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...