I am not satisfied with my options presented in the "Did someone mention politics" thread. I am starting my own thread.

What are the big thoughts on Ralph Nader?

I know what most Republicans are probably thinking: "heh heh heh AAHHH HAAA HAAA BWAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAAAAAA".

In the end I think he'll probably be good for the Democratic party, but is it worth it if he costs you this election?

Here are some good points he brings up:

The Democratic party's current agenda is to "beat Bush". This would leave the candidate with no mandate. I have to agree with this, and actually brought this up in the DSMP thread (the one propped up by corporate dollars). This degenerates the party to nothing more than "anti-Republican" dejected rejects with no identity.

Nader wants to beat Bush. Nader doesn't want to stop the Democrats from beating Bush. Nader thinks beating Bush is very important. Nader says he didn't cost Gore the 2000 election. I have to say a big "hmm" here. He seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. Democrats saying "beat Bush" is bad, but agreeing with them is ok. Sounds a litte hypocritical.

Also I'm pretty sure most math says Nader hurt Gore more than he hurt Bush. I find it really hard to believe he's going to draw more Republicans into his camp then Democrats.

He says he's set up a system on the Internet to make sure votes are cancelled out and yadda yadda and so forth but I don't think anyone could reasonably believe that. Also I think the ballot is secret so you can't prove it.

I understand the logic that by Nader taking a stand, he will eventually force the Democratic party to absorb some or all of the Green Party platform. He even says he was surprised the party hasn't done this already, and that he has no choice but to run. That point is fine and valid, but I still don't see how he can say with a straight face -in an election unanimously declared to be critical- that he doesn't think he will increase Bush's chances to win.

Most of Nader's points aren't that disagreeable, and some should in theory have sway with fiscal conservatives:

Corporation are not people and shouldn't be treated as such

Corporate money out of politics

Tax goods and services less and sin and luxury more

I kind of quesiton what his real motives are. Chiefly, how can he be both Anti-Bush, and for his own candidacy. Is he really crying for the Democratic party's attention or is he striking at them? If so, are his reasons really benign?

Also this is an area of politics I know little about. Where does his money come from? Is it accounted for somewhere? I'd be interested in seeing if he has any suspect supporters that mind reveal some kind of divergent agenda.

I still can't forgive Nader for trash-talking the Corvair.

i'm coming at it from a completely different perspective. i was so disenchanted by both the republican and the democratic parties that i wasn't going to vote until nader announced he's running. there are a lot of us disenchanted republicans that think the democrats are only going to perpetuate the problems bush has caused.

more importantly, however, there's a lot of us voters in general (just look at the posts in "did somebody mention politics) who are disenchanted with the whole two-party system: even NPR this morning discussed that growing dissatisfaction. nader represents the possibility of a movement away from that frustrating and failing two-party system; and possibility in itself is worth all the bin ladens in afghanistan, in my humble opinion.

quote:

---

I kind of quesiton what his real motives are. Chiefly, how can he be both Anti-Bush, and for his own candidacy. Is he really crying for the Democratic party's attention or is he striking at them? If so, are his reasons really benign?

---

I voted for him before, and probably will again. It doesn't really concern me whether he costs one rich-kid Yalee skuzball or another the election. I have no use for any of these political and business dynasts trying to out-buy thier way into the White House, be they Republicrats or Demopubs. My ancestors didn't suck up musket balls so that some preening smug aristocrat could sit in the big chair gloating over his rolodex full of fat-cat golf buddies and Skull and Bones contacts. Besides, Nader wants to legalize the herb, which I need for my, uh, rheumatism.

quote:

---

I still can't forgive Nader for trash-talking the Corvair.

---

quote:

---

The Democratic party's current agenda is to "beat Bush". This would leave the candidate with no mandate. I have to agree with this, and actually brought this up in the DSMP thread (the one propped up by corporate dollars). This degenerates the party to nothing more than "anti-Republican" dejected rejects with no identity.

---

quote:

---

• A balanced budget
  
• Tax fairness = repeal tax custs for the rich
  
• Real protection of the environment
  
• Reduce dependence on foreign oil
  
• Reform/fund No Child Left Behind
  
• Protect a woman's right to choose
  
• Support civil unions for gays and lesbians on a state-by-state basis
  
• Stop the doctrine of pre-emptive war.
  
• Health care coverage for all
  

---

quote:

---

My ancestors didn't suck up musket balls so that some preening smug aristocrat could sit in the big chair gloating over his rolodex full of fat-cat golf buddies and Skull and Bones contacts.

---

Oh come on, Makk. You could just as well say that the unifying mandate for the other side is to win at all costs.

I kept hearing from candidates and the press telling voters what they were thinking that the thing to do was finding a candidate the could "beat Bush". The only other big identifying issue I've heard from the serious candidates is that "they would do something sort of different with the war, which is bad that we are in, but they wouldn't stop it".

I'm wondering what else is supposed to distinguish the party from the Republicans this election.

I'm tired of the 'Beat Bush at any cost' bullshit. What if Kerry's worse? I don't even think Kerry could beat Bush when it comes down to it.

My candidate is Kucinich. He hasn't a shot in hell, but the guy is a sound thinker. He ALSO wants to legalize the wacky tobacky. I voted for Nader in the last election, my reason being that I knew what Bush was about, and I knew what Gore was about. The first ever debate I saw between Al Gore and some other talking heads, every statement or comment made by Al wsa prefaced by the same thing. 'BillClintonandI'. One word. He said it like they were the same person, or more accurately, he was just the marionette. I was not a fan of either major-party candidate.

This time around, although I disagree slightly on Nader's sin and luxury taxes (seeing as how I am a big fan of both), I will probably toss my vote his way, especially when Kerry offically gets the nomination. Nader said Washington has become corporate occupied territory. I wholeheartedly agree.

quote:

---

I kept hearing from candidates and the press telling voters what they were thinking that the thing to do was finding a candidate the could "beat Bush". The only other big identifying issue I've heard from the serious candidates is that "they would do something sort of different with the war, which is bad that we are in, but they wouldn't stop it".

I'm wondering what else is supposed to distinguish the party from the Republicans this election.

---

quote:

---

This time around, although I disagree slightly on Nader's sin and luxury taxes (seeing as how I am a big fan of both)

---

Nader's great. Kerry's just the lesser of two evils.

Gotta back Nader on militarism, electoral reform, and trade policy.

quote:

---

Nader's great.

---

quote:

---

I have a bad feeling, though, that no matter what, Bush is going to pull out Bin Laden around August and ride that popularity wave to another term.

---

quote:

---

I have a bad feeling, though, that no matter what, Bush is going to pull out Bin Laden around August and ride that popularity wave to another term.

---

Heh heh heh.

"Also, please pay no attention to the fact that his beard is coming off and his turban is made of aluminum foil. This IS the real Bin Laden! Victory!"

They won't have to find Bin Laden in Iraq, "finding" him would be enough. In fact if they actually found him in Iraq they'd have to fly him to Afghanistan and pretend to find him there so it looked believable.

I agree with a lot of Nader's populist attitude, especially in regards to consumer advocacy. On the other hand I'm not big on socialism or career doves. Sometimes you have to fight.

Consumer advocacy, like border control, now makes sense as a national security issue (in terms of making goods and services safer for use and consumption) and I'm surprised at how slow legislation boosting these issues has been coming. I'm wondering if Bush's recent illegal alien work card is a step towards sewing up the Mexican border to something that reflects the state of the current terrorism crisis.

We heard that Gore and Bush are the same last time. And it proved to be wrong - a load of crap. Bush stinks to the forking clouds and needs to be dumped. Yes, Kerry would be much better.

Well when you're the same in the sense that both candidates are just fighting towards the middle to get elected, then you are pretty similar in terms of mandate you will have. Right now the biggest issue (other than the pro and anti Bush issue) seems like it's the constitutional amendment, but Kerry doesn't even have a stand and just looks to be in more support for gay marriage de facto, but so little time has passed since Bush dropped da bomb today it's definitely too soon too comment.

Four years ago I figured Gore and Bush were somewhat close with Gore being more honest. Then Bush came in and proved he was FAR worse.

quote:

---

• A balanced budget
  
• Tax fairness = repeal tax cuts for the rich
  
• Real protection of the environment
  
• Reduce dependence on foreign oil
  
• Reform/fund No Child Left Behind
  
• Protect a woman's right to choose
  
• Support civil unions for gays and lesbians on a state-by-state basis
  
• Stop the doctrine of pre-emptive war.
  
• Health care coverage for all

  And I would add
  

• Minority rights and representation
  

---

Also, ignore the fact that he is white. That is all. Thank you.

WE R TEH WIN!

Seriously though. If we kill Bin Laden, or capture him, or whatever, what next? I agree with the idea. Terrorism needs to be stopped. But how? Stopping terrorism is akin to stopping elitism, or republicans. Sure, you can jail, kill, or otherwise do-away with the head guys, but then what? Do you just keep killing everyone who so much as mentions that he/she doesn't like something, and would be willing to do something drastic to change it?

I was all about the "revenge on Bin Laden" war. But the "stop terrorists and free the Iraqis, while maybe getting some oil as well" war is not what I was looking at when this was dropped on the table.

If it'd been a "In, kill some guys, out with few or no casualties on our side" deal, I'd be fine. But every soldier that dies in this "war" just makes me dislike it more.

I'd like to feel more compassion for the innocents dying there, too, but I can't. No more than I would on any other day that we *weren't* there drawing fire toward them. It used to be "terrorists kill women and children", now it's "terrorists kill women and children, oh, and some of our soldiers too, and some of our soldiers kill women and children by accident, and eachother, and themselves." Graaaaargh! What, is today's military being trained by Return to Castle Wolfenstein players? "I'm gonna blow you to shit with this Panzerfaust! *splat* Oh, damn, I'm dead, and three of my teammates are too." "GAH! *firing* Oh, sorry, didn't realize you were on my team."

quote:

---

A balanced budget

Tax fairness = repeal tax cuts for the rich

Real protection of the environment

Reduce dependence on foreign oil

Reform/fund No Child Left Behind

Protect a woman's right to choose

Support civil unions for gays and lesbians on a state-by-state basis

Stop the doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Health care coverage for all

And I would add

Minority rights and representation

---

quote:

---

...

Also explain the difference between deciding on gay marriage with a state-to-state vote to determine whether or not there will be an amendment, and deciding gay marriage issues on a state-by-state basis.

...

---

quote:

---

Also explain the difference between deciding on gay marriage with a state-to-state vote to determine whether or not there will be an amendment, and deciding gay marriage issues on a state-by-state basis.

---

Mikey asks "What if Kerry is as bad or worse than Bush once he's in office?"

I think that's an excellent question. I would hope that if this is the case it would wake the majority of the voters in the nation up to the futility of the two-party dominated system and actually consider their third party candidates. I'm not at all confident that it will happen, though.

The biggest problem with this year's election thusfar, and one that even though boo and company have tried their best to fight against, has in fact been all this talk about "electability." It's one of the few things that I agree with mAAk about, and I'm sick to death of hearing about it. While some may consider this electability nonsense to be a point of "strategic thinking," I consider it to be a lack of defineable backbone in what you believe, and a willingness to settle for less. I'm apalled at the lack of conviction displayed thusfar in the people who voted in the primary states. I don't think it's anything in particular about his platform or policies that has led Kerry to victory in so many state primaries in the 2004. Instead, I think it's just simply the fact that he won Iowa, and the democrats in the other states wanted so badly to back a "winner" that they threw in their votes with him because they thought that the people in Iowa were a fair representation of the people everywhere else in the US. Then as successive states went to Kerry, it became a self-fulfilling prediction. It's all because they're so desperate to get rid of Bush that they'll take whoever they think can do it. It's pathetic. The whole Democratic primaries process is pathetic. Why doesn't everyone vote at once so we can actually have someone who represents what the voters want instead of what voters in 49 states think everyone else wants based on voters in one state? In 2000, Did you see armies of republicans endlessly bemoaning the fact that "Well, I really like McCain, but he has no chance to beat Gore, so we'll vote Bush instead?" I certainly didn't hear it. Hell, if they had been talking about it they'd probably have been voting for McCain in the primaries, because he seemed far less objectionable to the democrats I knew at the time than Bush ever was. Some of those said democrats would have voted for McCain over Gore or Bradley, even.

Anyway, best case scenario that I'm willing to hope for is that Kerry wins the election, becomes president, proves only slightly less scummy than Bush, and it leads people to actually vote for what they actually want for a change... but I'm more willing to bet that it will just be yet another step in the seemingly endless cycle of 2-party insanity. I suppose it's theoretically possible for Kerry to be a "good" president, but I wouldn't be willing to bet on it.

quote:

---

Democrats "own" the concept of health care for all? What the hell was Clinton working on during his 8 years in office? I sure could go for some health care right now. Oh he didn't give me any.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Also explain the difference between deciding on gay marriage with a state-to-state vote to determine whether or not there will be an amendment, and deciding gay marriage issues on a state-by-state basis.

---

With the "state's rights" view, each state is free to choose for itself. With a Constitutional amendment (if ratified) it would no longer be a matter of choice for any state--it would be federal law and would overrule all state (and lower) laws.

---

I am ardently and vehemently pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-war, and anti-death penalty. A lot of people here consider themselves liberal but are pro death penalty. Quickly, the death penalty is crap because the percentage of people proven innocent after their executions is far too large for comfort. But gay marriages?

The majority of Congress, and definitely the Bush Administration, is Christian. Marriage is NOT only a Christian sacrament. Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and other major religions all practice marriage. If you are going to limit a group of people to restrict them from marrying, as long as they are not RELATED to each other, based on their Christian beliefs, then why not restrict non-Christian marriage as well?

quote:

---

If you are going to limit a group of people to restrict them from marrying, as long as they are not RELATED to each other, based on their Christian beliefs, then why not restrict non-Christian marriage as well?

---

quote:

---

With the "state's rights" view, each state is free to choose for itself. With a Constitutional amendment (if ratified) it would no longer be a matter of choice for any state--it would be federal law and would overrule all state (and lower) laws.

Or was there an answer you were looking for that's less blindingly obvious?

---

And I get to be the man btw

quote:

---

quote:

---

With the "state's rights" view, each state is free to choose for itself. With a Constitutional amendment (if ratified) it would no longer be a matter of choice for any state--it would be federal law and would overrule all state (and lower) laws.

Or was there an answer you were looking for that's less blindingly obvious?

---

wirthling the problem is once it was decided on a state-to-state issue, someone would challange it nationally by moving to a state where it wasn't allowed, and it would be taken through the court system and decided on a national level anyway. So either way the Constitution is going to have the final say, and if either side wants to be secured, they really do need their own respective amendment. Nothing is stopping the gay rights advocates for proposing their own amendment.

---

quote:

---

P.S. from now on wirthling and I are married.

---

Awww, it's a non-traditional marriage! C'mon Wirth, you know you want it.

I would like to bump this thread by reminding people that it is actually ESSENTIAL for Ralph Nader to run in this election. Before anyone accuses me of parroting Howard Stern, because this morning he said something similar but not the same, I had this stance when I first heard Nader was running.

We are supposed to be a democracy. It is ESSENTIAL in a democracy that we have choices. Ralph Nader represents the freedom to choose. I honestly don't think Kerry is going to be any better than Bush, but that's not even the point.

The point is that we have been so very, very limited to the two-party system that it has come to represent, now more than ever, the lesser of two evils as a standard. I don't like that idea one damn bit. Stalin over Hitler? Idi Amin or Slobodan Milosevic? Those might be extreme examples, but you get the point. How can anyone who supports democracy tell Nader not to run?

'Beat Bush at any cost'. But there IS a cost. DEMOCRATS are petitioning for Nader to NOT RUN. Did we forget what happened the last time he ran? At the Presidential Debate, he was not allowed to debate because HIS VOTE PERCENTAGE WAS NOT HIGH ENOUGH. He did not have a high enough percent to be allowed into the debate. This was because the Clinton Administration raised the percentage requirement from 5% to 7% just in time to lock Nader out of the debate. Nader had either five or six percent, I can't remember exactly. When Nader showed up at the debate, he was kept out, EVEN AS A SPECTATOR, by police and security.

Nader has said, accurately, that Washington has become 'corporate-occupied territory'. How many Democratic Senators do you think are on someone's payroll? A lot, if not all. We all know whose payroll the majority of Republicans are on, right? That's right, it's God's payroll, and Jesus is the Director of Human Resources.

Kerry considers himself a conservative, or at least that his stances are conservative. His wife seems to be pretty damn liberal, but she is conspicuously quiet during much of the Kerry hoopla.

Let Nader run, dammit. You can say that voting for Nader is throwing a possible Kerry vote away if you want. I say voting for Kerry is throwing a possible Nader vote away.

You say in a democracy, we have to have a choice, but with Nader running he greatly increases the chances that there will be no choice, and Bush will stay in office. That's why I brought this up. Without a fourth party to balance out Nader he is hindering democracy from functioning.

That's what you get when you go to Howard Stern for your political opinions, MikeyG.

Hey, MaKK. Shut up.

If I went to Howard Stern for my political opinions, I'd have been pro-Bush for a while. When are you going to EVER know what you're talking about?

I know that Nader will never ever get elected President, and that you saying a vote for Kerry is a vote stolen from Nader is so funny I might fall off of my high horse laughing so much.

quote:

---

Without a fourth party to balance out Nader he is hindering democracy from functioning.

---

My point is the Democrats and Republicans have a monopoly on winning whether or not you agree with it. Ralph Nader running for president isn't the same thing as the communist party being on the ballot in two states; Nader will make a noticable difference and it will make a difference by hurting the Democrats. He will never win this year, ever, under any circumstance. He will make enough of a difference to swing some state, and that's it.

In a way the Democrats are to blame, by racing to make themselves more like the Republican party they open themselves up for a splinter group. This is a big reason I feel the Democratic party having no mandate is a bad thing. (Ralph Nader looks pretty hot to disaffected Democrats not).

I've wondered if maybe this is like a hostage situation, with Nader demanding the V.P. nomination. I can't imagine that would be better for Kerry though, who is working hard to make himself look less liberal.

Saying Nader shouldn't bother running for President is akin to saying 7up should stop production because it doesn't sell as well as Pepsi and Coke.

7up = Nader
Pepsi = Kerry
Coke = Bush

Hehe. Coke. Bush. Nyuck Nyuck.

The problem isn't him doing well, it's that he basically assures another party's defeat. America isn't set up for elections based on plurality, so the outcome is very biased if you don't have run-off elections as they do in countries where several parties is the norm.

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Nader running for prez and garnering a few votes isn't "hindering democracy", as you put it MaKK...it is encouraging it. It's encouraging freedom of choice. Personally, I would love to see Bush out of office because he's a pompous prick and easily the worst president in the history of the United States, but that shouldn't limit the choices of who we have to vote for.

Besides, if either party is scared of losing votes to Nader (with Democrats being a lot more scared), then maybe they need to work harder at earning votes for their candidates, instead of bitching and moaning about losing the fence sitters to Nader or any other smaller party candidate.

quote:

---

I honestly don't think Kerry is going to be any better than Bush

---

Niteowl, maybe you should read up on the differences between a pluralistic democracy and a two-party democracy before you become condescending on the issue.

I say again: Nader is taking away the voice of the people, not giving more to them if he assures Bush victory in states where otherwise he would lose.

Yes, our government is elected, but they also have to be fairly elected, you minicing goofus.

I seriously cannot believe your post above this MaKK. Either you're trolling to get a rise out of me, or you are a complete idiot.

It's not condescending, it's the truth.

Jesus H, I'll just bring up the soda reference again. Why should I drink Pepsi or Coke just because everyone else is doing it? What if I want a 7up?

You keep talking about the "voice of democracy". If everyone is voting for who THEY want (as opposed to voting for a lesser evil), then the voices of everyone are being heard. Which means whoever gets elected gets elected fairly. And I'll say it again : If the 2 parties are so worried, then get your shit together and earn the votes. Period.

Besides, if this is truly a two party system, why is the Green Party still around? Or any other party? Shouldn't they have been wiped out by now?

Have you thought that maybe...JUST MAYBE...there are some people who don't want to vote for either Kerry or Bush? Oh, that's right...people shouldn't rock the boat and instead alter their votes so they don't spit in the face of "democracy".

I completely stand behind my point.

Thank you, niteowl.

First off, Nader isn't 'off his meds'. He is participating in democracy. I don't remember anyobdy jumping up and down on Pat Buchanan for taking votes away from Bush. Why is it that Republicans are so single-minded and organized while Democrats are contentious and divisive?

By the by, as for stupid things to say, MaKK may have topped us all with the comment that there has to be a fourth party to balance out Nader. MaKK's ability to reason and make at least coherent statements seems to be directly proportionate to how much confidence the public has in the current administration. Since the confidence level is pretty low, MaKK's reasoning is waffling.

I am glad Nader is running. Shit NEEDS to be shaken up. Bush does need to get the fuck out of office, that is VERY, VERY important. But MaKK is right about one thing. Kerry has been distancing himself from the left lately. He's been calling his stances on issues conservative. His WIFE I like, and she's got the right idea. How often is Kerry going to listen to her?

Nader is NOT a fence-sitter and Kerry does not represent my issues. Kucinich totally did, but Nader comes the closest. I don't want Kerry. I'm so fucking tired of this compacency shit. 'Let's vote the LESSER of two evils in, and eventually we can just keep doing that until there's no evil at all!'. Is it too impatient of me to not want to be in my eighties when a viable candidate is elected?