 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 04:46 PM I didn't name you by name in the 1:24 post, did I? When I said right wing, I was actually referring to Beccy. I think you need to chill, Ron. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 02 Jul 03 - 04:31 PM I agree with you guest, and I hope you will take note of your last sentence because you missed your own point. If you will notice, you attacked me first. I gave my opinion on why I did not think Nader was a good candidate and then you accused me (and others who don't like Nader) as "swallowing right-wing propaganda". When I defend my position you accuse me of attacking you. How ridiculous is that? I have no clue who you are since you where an electronic cowl over your head because you don't want people to identify you for your views. Please learn tolerance guest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 04:20 PM catspaw and Ron Olesko are, of course, entitled to their opinions that Nader wouldn't make a good president. Just as those who feel Nader would make an excellent president are entitled to their opinions. At least, that is the way the democracy was supposed to work. We were supposed to be able to at least tolerate the opinions of those we disagreed with, and refrain from attacking them personally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 02 Jul 03 - 04:05 PM Guest - sounds like you are wearing the thin skinned liberal mantle very well. I guess you also think that you are something of a mindreader. Where did I say I blamed Ralph Nader? Please point this out. You must have read it somewhere if you can make such a statement. Or perhaps you are doing a Rush Limbaugh and inserting your own words to try to make a case. Don't make such an ass out of yourself. You don't have a clue yet you can make suggestions about the way other people think. Shame on you. I have no problems with a third party candidate running, I just don't think that Nader is much of a candidate. Nader was not the problem in 2000, the problem was with Al Gore and George Bush. You are a troll plain and simple. If you want to engage in a discussion, use your name. Don't be so paranoid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Jul 03 - 03:52 PM Nader is now qnd has always been a bit of an ass and a boring fuckin' ass to boot. He is less qualified to run the country than even Bush or Carter or even Dan Quayle. I'd love to see a third party but find a realistic candidate. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 03:34 PM Ron Olesko, you sound like a very thin skinned liberal Democrat, harboring a lot of anger against Nader for refusing to back down in 2000. In the 2000 election, both Democratic liberals and Democratic conservatives attacked Nader the person, in order to avoid engaging in discussion and debate on the issues he raised. Just like you attacked me in your above post. Rather than engaging in a discussion on the issues, you chose to make an ad hominem attack instead, using the lamest of lame Mudcat chickenshit strategies: invoking the troll flame. Next I suppose you will be claiming that there isn't a well oiled Democratic Party propaganda machine that continues to attack Nader in the mainstream media whether he shows any sign of making a run in 2004 or not. BTW, I also make the fearless prediciton that that same Democratic Party propaganda machine will be ripping Kucinich to shreds everywhere in the mainstream media, very soon. The attacks against him will be brutal and very, very personal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 02 Jul 03 - 03:07 PM Guest, I beg your pardon. I am far from right wing but that doesn't mean I have to think that Nader is a qualified candidate for the presidency. I do admire his work and the sucess he has, but that doesn't mean he can lead a country. Don't start feeding us the B.S. that the right wing tried to do with the war - you are either with us or against us. You've managed to bring up separate issues concerning Israel and the BBC. Sounds like you are the troll that is claiming the sky is falling. Ron |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 02:44 PM I also find it odd that so many people swallow the right wing propaganda lines about Nader, making him out to be just a little less distasteful than Saddam Hussein. It also shows they don't know any of the facts of Nader's life and work, which has been tremendously successful over the years. I was just channel surfing during my lunch break, and saw a Fox report on how evil the BBC is--they are a monopoly! The Blair government DEMANDS an apology! The Israeli government has banned the BBC for Nazi like reporting! The sky is falling on Fox! The sky is falling on Fox! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jul 03 - 02:17 PM In the present American system it can happen that the most preferred does not, but it cannot happen that the least preferred wins. Well, it wasn't far short of that - the "first past the post" system produced a result in whch the winner came past the post second on the popular vote. No system is perfect. To produce the kind of result Wolfgang suggests would require some very sophisticated tactical voting, it seems to me, with people voting for people they actually wish to see defeated, as opposed to the sort of tactical voting where you vote for your second choice, because you don't think your first choice would win. On the other hand a skewed result under first past the post system - by which I mean a result where more people vote against the winner than for him or her - is built in. All it needs is for people to vote for the candidate they would like to see win. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bill D Date: 02 Jul 03 - 01:31 PM Nader, like Al Sharpton, is not an administrator...he is a gadfly. Let him continue at what he does well and not muddy the waters of an already murky pond. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Mark Clark Date: 02 Jul 03 - 01:27 PM This just in from the Kucinich campaign: RALPH NADER, on last night's CNN Crossfire, said: "If Dennis Kucinich - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 01:24 PM What is amusing to me is the silly way the right wingers carry on about how much they want Nader to run--as if that somehow validates their own and their Bushie Boy's fanatical, dictatorial misrule of the nation. Wolfgang is dead on. The only reason for both conservative and liberal reactionaries to delight/abhor the thought of Nader running, is because they so fear that the Democrat that will eventually be crowned, will inevitably be a sacrificial lamb for the fascists. And it is easy to foresee Republicans and Libertarians drinking the blood of their sworn enemy--their fellow citizens with different beliefs and values than their King's--come November 3, 2004. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: CarolC Date: 02 Jul 03 - 01:19 PM Please, please, pretty please let Nader run again. He made it so amusing last time. How so, Beccy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Beccy Date: 02 Jul 03 - 12:57 PM Oh yes!!!! Please, please, pretty please let Nader run again. He made it so amusing last time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Wolfgang Date: 02 Jul 03 - 11:28 AM Now a fair voting system would have you putting the candidates in order of preference. (McGrath) We had that argument already in the thread about the last Presidential elections in France. What I have posted there applies also here: What you think, McGrath, only works if you make the unrealistic and uncontrollable assumption that there is no tactical voting by voters in the ranking of preferences. But if there is, you can have anything, for instance: Let us assume that there are only three candidates next time: Bush, Dem, Nader. Then a Bush preferer could rank against his personal wishes: Bush, Nader, Dem. Not because he prefers Nader to Dem, but because he never believes Nader could make it. He ranks Nader higher than he truly believes to damage Dem, the only one he fears. It has been analysed from all angles by people who know a lot more about mathematics than you and I. The bottom line: There is no voting system that is inherently better than others and has no disadvantages. It can be shown that in the voting system you propose the least preferred can win under certain circumstances. In the present American system it can happen that the most preferred does not, but it cannot happen that the least preferred wins. Like in presidentail elections (grin), your only choice is between different disadvantages (and advantages). Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,Ron Olesko Date: 02 Jul 03 - 09:30 AM I am all for a viable third party candidate, but Nader is not it. He carries the same baggage that the Democrats and Republicans carry. He is a manufactured image that has no qualifications for the job. You can't run a country on principles alone. You need someone that will compromise, give inspiration, mend fences and emote confidence. Nader has none of those qualities for a job like the Presidency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 03 - 09:18 AM Lady Jean, I believe most people who voted for Nader in 2000 are fully aware that he isn't a member of the Green Party. That is just one more EXCELLENT reason for voting for him and for supporting the only party that doesn't demand an blind loyalty to party appartchiks in order to participate in the political process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jul 03 - 08:34 AM Now a fair voting system would have you putting the candidates in order of preference. Who is it decides people you have this weird first-past-the-post system? I know how it works (or doesn't work) here in England, but in the USA you sometimes seem to be a bit quicker at changing things, but evidently not this thing. I mean, in the US, is the current system laid down at national level, or determined more locally? And is there any prospect of it ever changing? (After all, in successive elections the present system has probably unfairly damaged candidates from both major parties.) The thing is, if you screw it your politics, it screws it up for everyone else as well, in a way that doesn't apply the other way round. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Date: 02 Jul 03 - 08:29 AM Like I said, "Anyone want to broker their vote?" If the Republicans hadn't sent their lawyers out to shut down the vote brokering between Greens and Democrats, Bush wouldn't have been close enough to have these same lawyers stop the Florida recount. Yeah, sure, the Bush administration has proven to be very damaging, but if weren't for Ralph Nader and the Green Party their would be virtually no other voice but that of the Repubocratic Party. It is important not to allow the ruling class minimalize or trivialize the true voice of the working class. (With that said, I still could see a scenerio in next election working for Dean, if it looks as if he has any chance of beating Bush.) But, still Green. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: LadyJean Date: 02 Jul 03 - 12:37 AM The emancipation proclamation was a compromise. The holocaust wasn't. Did you know Ralph Nader doesn't belong to the Green Party? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 01 Jul 03 - 11:49 PM Politics isn't about compromise, it is about governance by the people, for the people, and for the good of all. It is about meeting our civic and social responsibilities to one another with all the integrity one can muster. Political sleeze, political corruption, political graft, greed, and political extortion--those are all about compromise and the art of the deal. What we should be demanding is the former. Tolerating sell outs in the name of compromise is what has given us the later. As to dictatorships, I think Cheney/Bush have nearly succeeded in imposing one here in the US, in Iraq, and Afghanistan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: MarkS Date: 01 Jul 03 - 10:48 PM Wonder if a comment is worth the effort. Every time I make an argument why supporting him is the BEST thing we can do to improve the political environment in total, seems I upset those who prefer their particular Republicrat. I will support him again if he runs, but I'm just afraid it will be another exercise in futility. Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST,amergin Date: 01 Jul 03 - 12:14 AM I voted for him twice....but I sincerely hope he does not run this year...I just want that piece of shit out of the white house... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: LadyJean Date: 30 Jun 03 - 11:49 PM Politics is about compromise, which isn't necessarily, a bad thing. Ralph Nader doesn't know HOW to compromise. He would make a great dictator, but a lousy president. I'm not sure I'm up for a dictator. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 30 Jun 03 - 11:07 PM I tell you what, if the choice is between Bush and Gephardt, I won't waste my vote on either. Sooner or later Democrats have to wake up and realize that the choice between two evils is not a choice at all, but a death sentence for democracy. Just like the Do Nothing Democratic strategy is not a strategy for governance, which truly IS destroying our democracy. When we wake up tomorrow morning to Democrat controlled California's default on it's debts--the 5th largest economy in the world--what will the DNC say to the grassroots then? You should still vote for us anyway, because we aren't Republicans? I don't think so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 30 Jun 03 - 11:04 PM I said "Democratic National Congress". I, of course meant "Democratic National Committee". The other's in South Africa, isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: katlaughing Date: 30 Jun 03 - 10:59 PM Gawd, I hope he does NOT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 30 Jun 03 - 10:58 PM If the Dems had offered Nader a cabinet-level position like Secretary of Interior in 2000 he would have probably taken it and Dubya would be a dim memory. If they lose another squeeker for the same reason, mass suicide on the part of all members of the Democratic National Congress would be the only appropriate response. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: Bobert Date: 30 Jun 03 - 10:05 PM Anyone from Texas who wants to broker their vote? Bobert |
|
Subject: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004 From: GUEST Date: 30 Jun 03 - 10:02 PM It seems Nader is refusing to count himself out of the race, much to the dismay of the Democrats. Depending upon who the Dems run, I'd certainly vote for him again. Nader article |
