BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: InOBU
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:03 PM

Geeze Loouuueeeeezzzz, Kev, that is the problem in the US, the majority don't play the game... They should get off their butts and vote in the primary, get involved in local politics and instead of playing the angery spoiled child... they should take back the country and make something of it... but Americans want fast food, spoon fed entertainment rather than participatory culture, live off the fat of everyone else's land... and then instead the hard work of social change to play a spoiler's game. This is a nation which, as in the immage of Billy Bragg's "save the youth of America" has a lot of growing up to do. Our intellectual lazyness is costing lives around the planit, and may cost us the planit. For Americans politics is the half hour sitcom and the news is the fifteen second sound bite. Nader wont fix that... it is just another comodity notion, the proof being he will sell out all the hard work he did in the past to make a fool's point.
All the best... (wish I was there... my love to the family!)
Larry

PS While wishing, wish I had a liver to share a pint with ya, shem!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:21 PM

Kerry not only won't fix any of the things you are pissing and moaning about needing fixing, he won't even discuss most of the issues you name.

We need political voices and candidate participation from across the spectrum. Silencing one of those voices by shouting down their right to be heard and by attempting to bully candidates out of participating in the politicial process as many Democrats are trying to do to Nader, is dictatorial and leaning towards fascism.

Don't like the fact that Nader is running? Don't vote for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:33 PM

There's apathy and there's disillusion, and they aren't the same things.

In principle the second is quite constructive, because it means you've seen through the illusions that have been thrown before you, and that can mean you are ready to actually do something relevant.

I've quite often gone into the polling booth and spoiled my vote, normally writing why I'm doing for the local candidate to read (they do, actually) - but I'd never just stay home. That's one reason I dislike these modern voting systems that get in the way of that kind of thing.

The apathy that means just not bothering to vote is something very different - and it's deadly. But it's not that different from the apathy that means voting under the influence of adverts, or without making any attempt to understand what its about, or of how the voting system works, when it comes to odd stuff like minority candidates, and that things in quasi-magical ways.

By quasi-magical I mean the kind of idea that somehow, if you vote to increase a massive local winning margin, or to reduce a massive local losing margin, of a candidate you don't much like, that is a strong enough reason for you to abstain from voting for a third candidate you know can't win, but whom you actually prefer.

Given all that, I'd hope Nader will campaign like hell to make sure some issues couldn't get buried, and to help interest a few more people in the idea of actually voting this time. And then at the most effective moment, recognising that there's a pretty naive set of voters out there (as in most countries), he'd be best to pull out of the race, and to urge people to do what they could to make sure Bush is defeated in the vote once again, and that, this time, this is allowed to stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:42 PM

I didn't say vote for Nader. I did say I applaud the way he "shakes the tree" and brings real issues to the forefront. The Dems need Nader to shake Kerry into taking a stand on some very important issues. Tell me, how will Nader spoil that? Chances are, those who champion Nader's causes (me, for example) would silently vote for Kerry when push comes to shove. Nobody hates Kerry. He just doesn't have as much guts.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 06:11 PM

Looks like a new catch phrase is making the rounds --- "shake the trees".   Clark, Rice, and now I see it here in the thread.

Interesting how these phrases come about---I wonder where this got started. Also--"horrific"---whatever happened to "horrible" and "terible"?

But, as to the thread about Nader--our "anonymous Guest" says "...don't vote for him". Great idea, but the problem is that every vote for him is a vote to keep this administration -by forfeit- in office.   

In the past few weeks I have had occasion to visit a few places that can be considered communities with a great lack of interest or knowledge of current events---gung ho headlines seem to turn them on and Bush is their man. A totally arbitrary conclusion on my part from my own completely amateur polling.

That is what frightens me.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 11:16 AM

"Great idea, but the problem is that every vote for him is a vote to keep this administration -by forfeit- in office."

I think you keep forgetting a very important fact in this matter Bill Hahn. And that is you are expressing your opinion. Your opinion is not fact. You obviously believe it to be a fact. Based upon your statement about you drawing "a totally arbitrary conclusion...from my own completely amateur polling", I'd say you often make these mistakes in logic.

Because Bush's supporters are enthusiastic, and don't critically evaluate their man's policies, etc doesn't mean that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Not only is that sort of thinking fallacious and illogical, it is also demagoguery.

Nader has a right to run as an independent. Some Democrats like yourself seem to think that because YOU suddenly think the country is going to hell in a handbasket (ie the middle class is finally being impacted by policies that both Democrats and Republicans are promoting), that we should suspend Ralph Nader's constitutional rights so that your guy has a better chance of winning.

That is fascism, and there seems to be a lot of it in the Democratic party these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 05:23 PM

Well, powerful words from one who remains anonymous for some reason. Usually when you believe in what you say you are not afraid to identify yourself.

My statements were honest ones--re: totally arbitrary conclusions and amateur and un-scientific poll. Surely not "demogoguery". Merely my opinion.

You---dear un-named guest --made quite a few assumptions that, very frankly, escalated to "demogoguery" (your word). How you got from misinterpreting my thoughts about Nader's running (I did not say he could not---I felt he SHOULD not) to fascism is quite a leap of alleged "logic". Sort of what many bigots have done historically---and they wore masks---I guess they, too, were anonymous guests.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 05:42 PM

Take away your rants about my anonymity Bill, and there isn't much of substance to that last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 05:54 PM

How could a vote for Nader help Bush, if it wouldn't have made any difference to the result if it had been switched to Kerry anyway , because the margin in a particular state between Bush and Kerry was always going to be much bigger than any conceivable Nader vote.

I suppose it's possible to argue that anything can happen in an election, and it might turn out that it was Florida-close in what had been assumed to be a safe state. But Florida was always expected to be a close race.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 05:57 PM

McGrath, it is no use. These people are not going to change their minds about Nader being a spoiler, no matter how many times they are presented with the facts.

They just can't stand the fact that Gore isn't president, because he couldn't get enough votes to put him there decisively. In other words, he wasn't "electable" (for want of another word).

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 06:33 PM

Gee---Guest---you surely have your "facts" right there. Some people voice opinion---you know things for "fact"   My comments re: your being the "masked marvel" surely were not the gist of my posting---merely a comment on your pride in showing ---openly--your opinions (though you post them as fact).

Ah--but you do remind me of a great old radio show---who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?---The Shadow does---perhaps that is who you think you are---but, trust me, you are not.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 12:59 PM

On balance I do think it'd be better if Nader pulls out before November, and I suspect it'll happen.

Although, as I've pointed out, where people vote intelligently, there is no reason whatsoever why his standing should serve to help Bush in any way, in practice there are an lot of people who don't understnad their votiong system well enough to risk giving them an opportunity to mess things up.   

For example, Nader sympathisers, in places like Florida last time, evidently didn't understand that in their case tactical voting was needed, because it was going to be a knife edge contest.

Mind, I wouldn't go expecting too much from Kerry if he wins. I'd envisage him waging war more intelligently, rather than introducing the kinds of changes that would reduce the need to wage it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: M.Ted
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 07:08 PM

If you are curious about the Masked Marvel, BillH, why not initiate speculation as to who it might be? My guess is that it is a regular member who is tired of getting jumped on personally for his/her Pro-Nader position.

I find it very interesting that, though completely anonymous, GUEST has scrupulously avoid flaming, and has bent over backwards to respond to all questions and criticisms in a reasoned and logical fashion. A one-time drop-in GUEST would be unlikely to take such care--In fact, I can only think of a few regular members who could carry on at such length without dropping a few barbs--

I have my suspicions--

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 07:33 PM

M.Ted---Has he/she really?   Check my last note. I now leave the field---since that is what it has become== with my armor intact.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Nader & the Liberal Virus-NYT interview
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 07:45 PM

How many times does it need to be said for it get through some people's heads?

Being anonymous doesn't require posting without a name. It just means you post without a name that tells people who you are, but with one thta just tells people you are the same person as the last time you made a post. Posting without a name has

But there's another current thread where this kind of discussion would better be carried on, rather than diverting this one.