 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Nader 2008?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Stringsinger Date: 03 Feb 08 - 04:56 PM too little, too late. The election is sewn-up. The fix is in and the general American public are too lazy or distracted to do anything about it. Ralph is a much better consumer advocate than he would be a president. I admire him greatly and think he has done a real service for our country. I hope he will continue to be the advocate against corporate malfeasance and the abuse of the public. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 02 Feb 08 - 07:43 PM Okey dokey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 02 Feb 08 - 07:36 PM So whining is your shtick. I see. So I won't bother to look for anything of value in your posts. Fine. Have a nice whimper. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 02 Feb 08 - 06:29 PM I don't know what you want me to say, Don. You are demanding I provide "solutions" to/for/about what, exactly? If it is "solutions" to the electoral politics crisis in the US, and the takeover of the federal government by corporate plutocrats, I have no solutions. I've said that over and over again. Just because I have no solutions, however, doesn't mean I have to shut up, and not offer my opinion about the state of things. I'm not a member of the idiotocracy. Yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 02 Feb 08 - 06:19 PM "I'm concentrating my energy and efforts outside of electoral politics these days." Okay. Such as? As I said to you on another thread, I'm open to suggestions. So far, you haven't offered any. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 02 Feb 08 - 04:33 PM Defeatist because I refuse to succumb to the lull of easy answer Democratic party politics as usual? Guilty as charged. I consider myself a pragmatic optimist. Which is just another way of saying I'm not a Democrat. My attitude might appear defeatist to you, but I'm guessing that is because you are looking for a strategy where Democrats win the White House and change the priorities and direction of the federal government. I don't believe that can happen under the current two party system. It has been corrupted to the point where we rely upon those guilty of corruption to save us. That's sort of like electoral Stockholm syndrome, IMO. Which is why I'm concentrating my energy and efforts outside of electoral politics these days. I truly believe electoral politics in the US is a lost cause. I'm not the only person here who has said that, so I don't know why you are singling me out instead of, for instance, catspaw or Bobert. But I can take the heat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 02 Feb 08 - 04:25 PM You speak wisdom, Ron. The monster is hydra-headed, and one approach can't handle it. A single person can only do so much, so it's best to have as many people as possible attacking it from different directions. By the way, GG, I find that you are enunciating a completely defeatist attitude, beating the same old hum-drum that the political parties are always and forever bought and paid for so there's no point in even trying to alter them from within. If enough people get involved in changing the direction of a party, the corporations can't do anything to stop them. More often than not, the only way a corporation has been able to end a boycott, for example, is by capitulating. By the way, my second paragraph here is not inconsistent with my first. The person who says "It can't be done!" obviously is not going to be the one who does it. And is often surprised when someone else does. And "by the way" #2: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of any political party. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 02 Feb 08 - 02:27 PM Oh--I meant to also mention that voting Democratic doesn't win elections, even though there are far more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in the US. But you knew that too, right Charley? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 02 Feb 08 - 02:26 PM Oh please Charley, that's what the partisan Dems have been saying since 2000 when they lost the White House. Voting the same way you voted in '00 and '04 is simply handing another victory to The Gipper party. If you vote Democratic no matter who is nominated Charley, you are one of the reasons why we have George W Bush as president right now. In other words, people using that strategy ARE THE PROBLEM, and the reason why the Republicans keep winning elections. My point is legitimate and it is the reason why voting Democratic doesn't win elections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Charley Noble Date: 02 Feb 08 - 02:18 PM GG- You may have a point but it's not one that wins an election, and that's a priority for me this time around. No, I don't expect radial change from a win by any Democrat but it will be a major shift from what we've had to put up with for the last seven years. I'll vote Democratic this year, whichever candidate survives the Primary. The last time I voted for Nadar was back in 2000, where in our state the prospect for a Republican win was not even close. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:57 PM The problem with the back and forth here is all of you are thinking in the same paradigm as you did 4 years ago. And that's the problem. Same old paradigm. There isn't one single solution to what ails the US political system, but there is widespread agreement across the political spectrum as to what ails it: corporate ideological control of the two party system. The reason your boy's (and your) plan won't work Don, is because the corporatocracy (or the corporate wing of the Democratic party, if you prefer) won't allow progressives to take control of the party. I can't believe that isn't bloody obvious to everyone by now. Both Obama and Clinton are corporate wing Dems. Both McCain and Romney are corporate wing Repubs. Your choice is the flavor. Some folks shop at Wal Mart, some at Target, some at Amazon.com. Doesn't matter. The US political system has been bought and paid for, and no one, unless they are willing to make drastic changes with the stroke of their pen the way the Bush administration has (ie, through the use of executive orders), can change much of anything. You have to give Bush/Cheney this much--they went petal to the metal from day one, overturning nearly 50 years of Democratic rule. You think Clinton or Obama will do the same? No, they won't because they are both corporate controlled chicken shits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:45 PM Don, I think it is imperative that we MUST disagree on how to fix things. IF we assume there is only one path, we are in dangerous trouble That has become the problem in this country, everyone wants a finite answer and life is not black and white. Sometimes we need to forget the opinions of others and step back and think for ourselves. The media feeds us a bill of goods that the candidates know how to deliver in quick sound bites. We already have the Cliff Notes version of government and free speech, we do need to expand that into our everyday functions. We need to listen to others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:13 PM And my apologies for snapping at you, Ron. As you say, we're on the same side. I have been deeply concerned with the direction this country has been going for some years now, and have been following political campaigns all that time. In addition to this, I have read more books lately than I would really care to have read (most recently, Robert Reich's Supercapitalism) and, Lord, I wish someone would come out with a series of "Cliff's Notes" on these books. One of the best I have read is a small, concise book by Paul Woodruff, First Democracy : The Challenge of an Ancient Idea, which I have recommended several times on these threads. The final chapter is entitled, "Are American's Ready for Democracy?" I'm currently on the hold list at the Seattle Public Library for The Conscience of a Liberal, by Paul Krugman (number 140 on a list for 25 copies!). After pondering deeply about the state of the country and what I, as a citizen and voter, can do to try to help fix it, I think you can see why, when someone tells me that I have blinders on or that I don't know what a progressive is or that I don't understand the problem, I tend to get a bit cranky. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on how best to fix things. Again, my apologies for snapping. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:45 PM You are right Peace. My apologies for snapping back at you Don. Just understand, my intent was not to patronize you but to have a discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Peace Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:27 PM Gentlemen, let's call it a draw and start over again tomorrow, OK. It hurts to see two good men at each other in this manner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:21 PM "But one thing I would ask of you. Kindly stop trying to put words in my mouth and please stop patronizing me." I'm not patronizing you and I fail to see where you get that opininon. If you don't want to discuss this, stop, but don't resort to those tactics. You are saying that people need to get off the couch, and then when they do to back someone like Nader you say they are wasting their vote. You fail to grasp that they have gotten off the couch and done something. Stop patronizing us Don. We all want change and there is no need to resort to that. Some of us disagree with your stance and have pointed out holes. No need to attack us as people. We are on the same side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:23 PM No. I spotted one more thing I can't let you get away with, Ron. "You keep saying that if enough people of a progressive persuasion (whatever persuasion that could be) backed a Democrat then it would fix the problem." I did not say that. I didn't just recommended "backing a Democrat." What I said was "If enough people of a progressive persuasion took active participation in the Democratic Party, made their stance known, and kicked some butt if necessary, instead of sitting back and sulking, it would fix the problem." That means "Get up off the frickin' couch and get involved in party activities. Go to meetings. Speak out. Talk to other people. Recruit friends who believe as you do and get them to got to party meetings with you. Exert yourself!! Speak out!" That's the way the conservatives got where they are today. It worked!! Get out and vote, by all means! But if that's all you do other than sitting in front of the television set and bitching, then you get exactly what you deserve. THAT's what I'm talking about! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:06 PM I put forth these same ideas (linking to Thom Hartmann's article) back before the 2004 election. Nader didn't win. Bush did. One final thought: Insanity: repeating the same actions over and over again, each time expecting a different result.So rather than be considered insane here, I will no longer repeat my efforts. I will, however, repeat the efforts that proved successful, at least marginally, elsewhere. How about you folks? Going to repeat what you did four years ago? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Feb 08 - 07:41 PM "The faults in your scenario are that you are deciding what problem needs to be addressed." Not just one problem, Ron. There are lot's of problems, and I am fully aware of them. I'm not suggesting a single solution, as you seem to be implying that I am. I have spent too much time on this discussion when I said early on that I didn't care to get involved in another snarl-fest. But one thing I would ask of you. Kindly stop trying to put words in my mouth and please stop patronizing me. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Feb 08 - 05:19 PM "But neither does voting for a candidate that you know ahead of time won't get more than a small percentage of the vote." Yes it does! You keep saying that if enough people of a progressive persuasion (whatever persuasion that could be)backed a Democrat then it would fix the problem. The faults in your scenario are that you are deciding what problem needs to be addressed. Obama is in favor of strengthing our borders to deal with the immigration issue. Suppose a "progressive" disagrees with that, or the candidates stand on same-sex marriage, or right to life, etc. You seem to have a definition for "progressive" that fits your own scenario. In reality, the issues are wider. IF all those progressives voted with their head, and IF all the conservatives voted with their head, perhaps we would have more choice - and THAT can help create a candidate that is responsive to the needs of the population they serve, not a candidate that is resposible to the donors and corporations that got them elected. No one is suggesting giving up - but your idea is not one that everyone shares, and until DEMOCRATS realize that - the party will continue to be screwed up. You talk about your ONE voice and what it was able to do. Don't try to stop others from using their ONE voice and making a concscious decision to vote with their head. With all due respect Don, you seem to have blinders on concerning this issue. I know I did as well and four years ago I was right with you. But it is time to think about what is going on, and listen to reason - or at least listen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Feb 08 - 04:51 PM ". . . but it doesn't fix the problem." But neither does voting for a candidate that you know ahead of time won't get more than a small percentage of the vote. If enough people of a progressive persuasion took active participation in the Democratic Party, made their stance known, and kicked some butt if necessary, instead of sitting back and sulking, it would fix the problem. In 2004, I argued like hell for Dennis Kucinich in my precinct caucus and was sufficiently persuasive to swing a lot of votes his way--even to the extent of being asked to be a delegate to the state convention. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was unable to accept. BUT--I saw what one voice, my own, speaking with passion and conviction, could do. Kucinich didn't get the nomination. But he had more delegates coming out of Washington State than he would have had, had I not done what it did. I was only one person, but I managed that. So I have a pretty good, in-the-trenches idea of what can be done if enough people get involved. That's the way democracy is supposed to work. I absolutely refuse to simply throw up my hands and say, "Why bother? It's hopeless!? Because it isn't. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Feb 08 - 04:32 PM "and ask themselves if they really want to throw their votes away on a candidate who obviously doesn't stand a chance. " I guess I should not have voted for Dukakis? Sorry, even though he did not have a chance, I could not pull the handle for "he who shall not be named". It is not handing over the election to someone else, nor is it an empty gesture. Vote what your head and heart tell you, but don't tell anyone that they are wasting their vote. Talk like that keeps people away from the voting booth. Those are the ones who throw away their votes, and cost candidates elections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Feb 08 - 04:23 PM Don, the choices offered by the Republicans are not better. You are looking to have the Democratic party, a party that I belong to, get their act together. That doesn't help. It is a band aid to fix the bleeding, but it doesn't prevent the cause. We need choices and NO ONE throws their vote away by voting for a candidate of THEIR choice. You may not like the outcome, but it the process that is the issue, not the act of placing the vote. Your strategy to get the Democratic party into shape makes sense, but it doesn't fix the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Feb 08 - 04:09 PM "If any of us were that smart, the answer would be implemented." Well, Ron, you will note in Hartmann's article that the conservatives were that smart and they made it work. I am not telling people not to vote for the candidate of their choice. I'm just suggesting that they think about the matter a bit more carefully and ask themselves if they really want to throw their votes away on a candidate who obviously doesn't stand a chance. Empty gestures can cost a good candidate—a passable candidate—a merely acceptable candidate—the election and put in someone like Bush. I wasn't particularly fond of either Gore or Kerry—I started out with other another candidate in mind—but I'd much prefer one of those two to what we got. If you're bleeding, and a Band-Aid is all you've got. . . . But I don't think it's just a Band-Aid. The conservatives made it work for them, and look where they are now. ### Way to go, Amos!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Amos Date: 01 Feb 08 - 03:32 PM Don: I just read the article you linked to "How to Take Back...", and I was shocked in recogntiion (as Little Hawk might say, I experienced a frisson). Independently, about two months ago, I came to the same conclusion, never having read this article, and changed my registration tot he Democratic Party despite the aspects of their history with which I disagree. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Feb 08 - 03:23 PM Don, I don't proclaim to have an answer. If any of us were that smart, the answer would be implemented. The problem is, you can't tell someone that the process of voting for the candidate of THEIR choice is wrong. That goes against the consitution. If the consititution doesn't work the way it is intended, then there is something wrong with the system. Hartman's idea is simply a bandaid that is creating the same problem in a different suit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Feb 08 - 03:18 PM Mind you, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here. I'm asking because if someone has a real solution, one that I can actually take an active part in and that has an honest chance of being successful, I would like to know it. So far, what Hartmann says in the article is the most reasonable that I've seen. And in the meantime, that's the area in which I am working. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Feb 08 - 03:13 PM Then what would you consider to be a practical, workable solution? Not just an empty gesture, like voting for a candidate that you know doesn't have a chance, just to "make a statement?" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Feb 08 - 02:15 PM I think he is beign idealistic. You won't get change, you get a candidate who is least offensive to the most voters. Working to fix the Democratic party is a noble idea, but ultimately you get what the Republicans are giving. Having multiple choices would require each candidate to stand for their principles and not a public opinion poll - at least in theory. The reality is, the current system is not working for the people it is supposed to serve. It is serving the candidates that can raise the most money. Hartmann's opinion is not the solution, in my opinon and probably that of many others. If it would work, don't you think it would have been adopted in practice? It isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Feb 08 - 02:09 PM I read it too...the last time you posted it. It's a very well-thought-out argument for how to effectively fight the Republican Party by getting all the progressives to work effectively in and for the Democratic Party...thus gradually making it more progressive than it is at present. He also notes that the basic problem with American democracy is that the Constitution was written in a way that ended up inevitaby creating a 2-party system where " the winner takes all", and that James Madison had warned strongly against the rise of political parties, because he foresaw that they would end up destroying the democracy. Thom Hartmann proposes what he thinks is the best solution under the circumstances. He may be correct. I would prefer to see an end to political parties altogether, specially the Democrats and Republicans...but I know that's not going to happen in the forseeable future. They are the reigning political illusion of our time...just as absolute monarchs were the reigning political illusion of a former time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Feb 08 - 02:09 PM Well, Ron, what do you think about what Hartmann says? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:55 PM I read the article too. Your point? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Peace Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:54 PM By Dennis, do you mean Kucinich? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Stringsinger Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:53 PM Smart guy. Intelligent. Huge ego. Great gadfly. He is hip on the issues. Would make a terrible president because he would piss everyone off. But he would really be right (morally not politically) on day one. Dennis would make a better pres in my opinion. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Peace Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:50 PM I ain't nobody. I read the article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:47 PM I take it nobody can be bothered to read the article, right? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:41 PM god forbid we ask for toast! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Peace Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:30 PM "Would you like bacon and eggs, or would you prefer eggs and bacon?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Peace Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:29 PM The system works, Ron, but not for the electors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:24 PM Don, yes we were awake in high school. You aren't listening to us. Yes, a constitutional amendment might be called for - the system does not work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Peace Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:09 PM My candidate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:07 PM I've argued this argument before and I'm not interested in another back-and-forth snarl-fest. The problem is inherent in the two party system, and simply starting a third party, or a fourth, fifth, sixth, etc., is not going to solve the problem, especially when those "alternatives" to the Republican and Democratic parties will never garner more that a few percentage points of the overall vote. There is plenty of history to support what I say, and anyone who managed to stay awake in high school American history classes ought to know this. Other than a complete overhaul of our electoral system, to the extent of a few Constitutional amendments, I see no solution other than the one that Thom Hartmann advocated in an article published in March 24, 2003. It's a good breakdown of the whole problem, and an explanation of how to go about altering the situation for the better. I've posted links to this several times before, but I could tell from the responses I got that damned few people bothered to read it, and some of those who did read it didn't grasp the concepts, probably because they were hell-bent on there own agendas. So, in the spirit of "hope springs eternal," I'll post it again. CLICKY. This is what I'm doing, anyway. And I'm having some affect, at least locally. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:53 AM Hmmm. Now who DO we want behind the desk in the oval office? Who has that degree of maturity, experience, honesty, conviction, courage, strength, ability, command.... Gosh. This is tough. Really tough. Hmmm. All I can come up with at this moment is... William Shatner! Pity he wasn't born in the USA, isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:42 AM I would say that he serves a BIG purpose raising issues, but that does not qualify him for being president. You need people like Nader to get at problems and expose the bastards, but that does not translate into being head of state. Dick is voicing what many of sense, Ralph Nader is not the person you want behind the desk in the oval office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Bill D Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:29 AM *grin*....that was sorta my impression for years, Dick....glad to see my intuition is not totally off-the-wall. He serves a small purpose by raising 'issues', but I'd *shudder* to see him with any power. Kinda like nominating Carrie Nation to regulate saloons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: dick greenhaus Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:45 AM Having worked for a company where Nader was one of the directors (for a while, at least), the nicest thing I can say about him is that he's an irresponsible principled monomaniac. One of the last people you'd ever want to see in power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:52 AM I've never been a Democrat or a Republican, and I am representative of many independent voters in the US right now who don't align themselves with either party. We have often voted for independent candidates and third party candidates. We consider voting for the candidate we believe best fits the job description to be our civic duty in a pluralist society. It is the Democrats and Republicans who have problems with the civic part of doing work for a civil (instead of religious) society, and boy do they ever have problems with the pluralistic part! If I vote at all for president this year, it will be for Nader. Not as a lesser of two evils, or as a vote against another candidate. It would be a vote for Nader, because I genuinely believe he does have what it takes to be a good president of the United States. Now, more than ever, we need a president like Nader. And this year, he would pull as many Republicans, if not more, than he would dumbass Dems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:43 AM There is a lot of ignorance around these parts. The Democrats, my party of choice, sold you a bill of goods. They are slicker than hot chicken fat on a doorknob, but too many people drank the Kool Aid and believe that a vote for a third choice is throwing it away. Tain't so! The Dems and the Republicants want to you to believe that their choices are the only ones. Some folks hatred of Bush (mine too) cloud their thinking into believeing that ANYONE is better. Tain't so! As much as I despise him and would not want to live under a Nader presidency, we need voices like his as well as Kucinich, Paul, Bloomberg and whatever other option comes down the pike. Money has brainwashed the masses into thinking the crap that is being spewed by some of the voices on Mudcat. I was brainwashed too. You can get better. If enough voices were allowed to be heard, politicians would have to throw away the game book and figure out what people really want in a president. The brainwashing will stop. I will probably be voting for Barack, because I think of all the names thrown about he is the only one that can effectively change things for the better. I'm still open to options. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:18 AM "But some people are amazingly slow learners." They pick that up in church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Ron Davies Date: 31 Jan 08 - 10:53 PM Now there's an interesting theory. Anybody who really wants the Democrats to have a cakewalk should be trying to encourage Rig's favorite buddy, Lou Dobbs, to start his campaign, which should peel off the anti-immigration fire-eaters-- but not start another splinter group on the Left. But some people are amazingly slow learners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 08 - 10:06 PM . . . votes, that is. DonFirth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 08 - 10:04 PM "How did that work out?" Exactly the way I said it would if people like you did what they said they were going to do, GG. And here we go with the same nonsense all over again. Nobody is going to come riding in on a white horse, not even Nader. And engaging in practical politics is not joining a flock of sheep. Same old pseudo-idealistic nincompoopery. Actually, GG, you're sure you aren't a Republican, trying to get people to split their notes yet again? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Peace Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:48 PM Yeah. But there is STILL a difference between the same-ol'-same and the same-new-same. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:47 PM No, Ron.... Jus' a way of sayin' "no thanks" to that same-ol'-same... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:30 PM I used to feel that a vote for Nader was a waste and that it cost Al Gore the election, but after a lot of soul searching - I realize that was a mistake. It is horseshit to think that anyone other than Al Gore lost the election. He took way too long to find "his voice" and he played it too safe. Perhaps if we had more voices speaking up and running for office, candidates would really say and do meaningful things. Instead we have a choice between Coke and Pepsi, and both will give you gas. I happen to think that Ralph Nader would be an AWFUL choice for president. A vote for Ralph Nader simply because he is a third choice is about as meaningful as voting for Hillary because she is a woman or Barack because he is black. There are other reasons to choose a president, and Nader is a one-trick pony who should not hold public office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:30 PM Don, did it ever occur to you that Democrats inability to win presidential races might have a wee bit to do with the way they conduct business and the candidates they put forth? And Don, I seem to recall you were one of the biggest of the Mudcat lesser of two evil doers in 2004. How did that work out? Yeah, the only spoilers in this election are the Democrats themselves, for continuing to put forth another piss poor pool of corporate candidates again this year. It would be hard for anyone to damage the Democrats prospects for taking back the White House worse than the Dems themselves. They are uber pathetic, despised, and lowest in the poll games. But hey Don, if you really believe Obama or Clinton will ride in on a white horse and save us all, well go ahead and pull the trigger in the voting booth come November. At least, as you pointed out, you'll be right in there with the flock of sheep who think the same way you do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:21 PM Not me.... I'll take a 4th crack at Nader, or if he ain't on the ballot, then vote local stuff and take a pass on the presidential... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:20 PM "Crapola?" If the people who voted for Nader in 2000 had voted for Gore instead, things might not be ideal now, but it would be one helluva lot better world now that the one we're living in. My favorite candidate this time was Dennis Kucinich, but he has withdrawn. I know some folks who say they're going to write him in anyway. Well, I'm tempted, but I know perfectly well what will happen if enough people do that. I know perfectly well that the vast majority of people are going to vote either Democrat or Republican, and any liberal third party or write-in for a liberal candidate other than the Democratic candidate is just going to give the Repubs a better chance of getting back in. Isn't that a lovely thought? [GAG!!] It looks like it's going to be either Clinton or Obama. And whichever one it is, that's who I will vote for, even if I have to hold my nose when I do it. Lousy way to run a system, but that's the political reality. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:50 PM God, not that crapola again. If the Democrats want to win back the White House, they are going to have to stop running corporate candidates. It really is that simple. I believe Nader running as an independent, could pull in a lot more votes this time around than the last races he was in, because of the deep and wide discontent with both political parties. So how many here who are Obama supporters will back Clinton & vote for her if she is the nominee? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Sorcha Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:35 PM And, again, a vote FOR Nader is probably also a vote FOR the Republicans. Can't win. I'd really rather not split the message. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: MarkS Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:32 PM If you vote for him at least you know you voted for a person who you actually want instead of yet another member of the ruling oligarchy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:12 PM Well, he had been saying he might run if Hilary Clinton was the Democratic nominee for over a year now. It doesn't look like he is going to hook up with the Greens, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Peace Date: 31 Jan 08 - 07:38 PM I can't see that it will impact the election in any significant way, GG. Them what was gonna go Green will still do so. IMO, people will want to see a Dem in, and this election I don't think too many voters will fall into a 'protest vote' vortex. He helped get Bush re-elected (imo, elected for the first time), and most folks won't forget that. Of course, I've been wrong before and won't be surprised if I'm wrong again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 08 - 07:33 PM 'er was it the last 3???... Who's countin'??? LOL... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader 2008? From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 08 - 07:32 PM I don't think the 3rd time is the charm... I've given him the last 2 votes I had in me... I'm either done votin' or votin' for Ralph... But I loves the dude... He is smarter than anyone left in the running... B~ |
|
Subject: BS: Nader 2008? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 31 Jan 08 - 07:12 PM Well, an email showed up in my inbox today from "The Nader Team". Seems Ralph has gone and formed himself an exploratory committee. Apparently, there is also a draft Nader effort going on by the Greens, too. Interesting. |
