|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/20/2004 : 02:27:08 [Permalink]
|
Paladin, there is no way short of the mass murder of both parties (hmmmm....) that Nadar can be any more than a minor blip in the final count percentages. I think he should sit this one out simply because it is absolutly vital that we get rid of the flesh-eating bacteria currently in office.
I do not believe that Kerry walks on water, quite the contrary, but he's still a lot better and far more honest than Bush. And the way things stand at the moment, Nadar might as well be campaigning for Bush. Thus, he is not serving in the best interests of the country.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 05:55:24 [Permalink]
|
Paladin, do you honestly believe that Bush and Kerry are equivalent in the corporate favors they offer their donors? Because if so, you really oughta consider the new overtime rules, the Medicare prescription drug giveaway to biotech, and the gutting of environmental protection, just to name a few. Bush is an astonishingly corporate president.
The problem with looking at the Democrats and Republicans from the outside and sniffing is that you miss the complexity and the intricacy of the day-to-day mechanisms of government. What kind of experience does Nader have in public office? How much experience does he have with foreign policy, building consensus, drafting legislation....?
Why are most people OK with the two-party system? Could it be that the world of independents and contrarians hasn't offered up a stellar candidate?
That Nader is not Bush nor Kerry does not make him a qualified candidate. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 08:51:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Renae:
That Nader is not Bush nor Kerry does not make him a qualified candidate.
I don't think his qualifications are the issue this time. Frankly, I believe that there are many people out there more qualified than either Bush or Kerry. I do hate that the democratic party is at least to some degree beholden to corporate interests. I agree with Renae that at least they mitigate some of that by promoting programs that are more in line with taking care of the needs of the middle class and the poor. The Democratic Party is, after all, a coalition party. That is why minorities and woman vote democratic. They can expect nothing from the republicans. And the republicans usually deliver just that. Nothing. There is a long list of differences between the party's. Problem is the democrat's can only take it so far because the same corporations are funneling money into both parties Ah well...
Thing is, Bush is a disaster. And while I would love to have the luxury of voting for the best candidate, I don't. If, with all we know about Bush, and we know a lot, the difference in this election turns out to be Nader, I will be blaming him and all who voted for him for not having sense enough to know that this is not the time to stand on principle. We have sky rocketing deficits, a misguided war in Iraq and a president who regards science as an annoyance and regularly ignores his own panels of scientists when they conclude something different from what he wants. We have a president who is actively seeking to limit our freedoms. We have a president who would make this country a theocracy if he could. (And we do have a creeping theocracy with him.) The list goes on. The idea that Kerry would do the same thing is just nuts. No president has acted as irresponsibly as Bush has, no matter what ties to special interests they have had.
I think Bush envy's Putins' ability to suspend democracy in the name of national security. I think he would do that in a heartbeat if he thought he could get away with it.
And he would wrap that move up by spinning that it was the only way to save our democracy...
How Nader supporters cannot see how dire is the need is to get rid of Bush, I just don't understand. If their vote is the difference, will they still sleep better at night knowing that they have doomed us to another four years of this monster? Will they be satisfied knowing that what they did will some day change things for the better? Can they live with Bush? I don't get it... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 09:38:08 [Permalink]
|
This "anybody but bush" hysteria is turning people into sheep. The quest to remove the "monster", "Tyrant", "Despot" you could be putting in someone worse. The Dems are using the Supreme Court to invalidate Nader's ballot spot in FL.
Gee, the last time I heard that was in IRAN, where the Mullahs invalidated all the reform candidates.
If the Democrats were truly a coalition party, they would be reaching out to Nader rather than kicking him off the ballot.
If a guy is voting for Nader, I say he is voting for his conscience and thinking.
For me, I am voting for Badarnik, Libertarian.
If Bush wins a second term, it won't be Nader's fault nor Badanik's. The only one to blame would be those who did not vote. And there is alot them. and the current political system that crushes any "alternative" candidate.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 10:40:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Paladin, do you honestly believe that Bush and Kerry are equivalent in the corporate favors they offer their donors? Because if so, you really oughta consider the new overtime rules, the Medicare prescription drug giveaway to biotech, and the gutting of environmental protection, just to name a few. Bush is an astonishingly corporate president.
The problem with looking at the Democrats and Republicans from the outside and sniffing is that you miss the complexity and the intricacy of the day-to-day mechanisms of government. What kind of experience does Nader have in public office? How much experience does he have with foreign policy, building consensus, drafting legislation....?
Why are most people OK with the two-party system? Could it be that the world of independents and contrarians hasn't offered up a stellar candidate?
That Nader is not Bush nor Kerry does not make him a qualified candidate.
Nader has extensive experience as a legislator and has drafted many bills in Congress. He's been on the hill for many years. Foreign policy, not so much.
His vision for America I do not agree with. However, it is important to note that the inclusion of Nader on the Florida ballot directly flies in the face of Florida election law. Nader needed 1% of all registered electors to sign his qualification document to be eligible to be printed on the ballot. He did not meet that, so he shouldn't be printed on the ballot. Nothing in the ruling prevents people from writing in his name.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 11:59:46 [Permalink]
|
Uh huh, and what do you think the US Supreme Court will look like a couple of years down the road if Bush remains in office? Do you like Tony Scalia and Clarence Thomas so much that you want the bench filled with their figutitive clones?
This election is too important to even consider a third party.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 12:21:54 [Permalink]
|
The argument that people who are voting for Nader are not taking votes away votes from Kerry, because without Nader on the ballot they would not have voted for Kerry anyway, (or for Bush) seems logical on the surface, but in reality it overlooks several points.
Politics is messy, not simple. It is reasonable to assume that there are fans of Ralph Nader who would vote for John Kerry if Nader were not on the ballot.
A Kerry administration is much more likely to bring in people who would be receptive to Ralph Nader's ideas. The Bush administration is not receptive to Ralph Nader at all, and might even be downright hostile in the future.
So the argument that Nader supporters will vote Nader anyway and have no effect on the votes Kerry gets fails to take into consideration the Nader voters who, in their private brief moment within the voting booth, switch to Kerry, knowing that Nader has a future via Kerry. If they stick with ideology, and vote for Nader in 2004, Nader would draw their votes from Kerry, and not Bush.
|
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 20:43:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Bush and Kerry can win this election, Nader can't. So why is he running? What can be gained? What can be lost?
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
How is Ralph running in and losing the 2004 presidential election helping the country and its citizens?
Please see my post in the thread entitled "Bush's Facade Crumbling."
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Unfortunately when Ralph Nader participated in an election that he had no chance of winning George W Bush became president.
That may be true, depending upon your point of view, but I believe you're implying cause and effect. I disagree with the contention that Ralph's candidacy caused Al Gore to lose the 2000 election, and I hope we can simply agree to disagree on that point. The alternative is to waste another twelve pages hashing over the dirty details which, in the end, probably won't convince either of us of the other's viewpoint.
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Do I really have to explain why Nader being on the ballot aids Bush?
My problem wasn't so much with the question as the way you phrased it. You structured it so that it was impossible to reply without agreeing to your premise - that Nader "help(ed) Bush get elected." It would be like me asking you "Does beating your dog make you feel good?"
Incidentally, I'd like to clarify my use of the word "uninformed." When I make that reference, I'm alluding to the fact that most of the Nader-bashers I've encountered appear to know very little about the man, other than he supposedly cost Gore the election or threatens Kerry's poll numbers. For most, that's all they care to know.
Now, I'll try to address your question. As I already noted, I disagree with its premise. In your follow-up, you provided a link to a statement by former Nader supporters who've joined the "anybody but Bush" crowd.
Surely, you're not expecting to prove a premise solely on the basis of how many people believe in it - here on the skeptics forums, of all places? If I posted data showing that billions upon billions of people believe in God, do you think most members here would slap their foreheads and say, "D'oh! How could I have been so wrong? Of course, God MUST exist if all those people say he does!" I'd argue that, despite their numbers, they belief is misplaced. Similarly, I propose that those folks signing that declaration are also mistaken. And here's why.
In their very own words, "For people seeking progressive social change in the United States, removing George W. Bush from office should be the top priority in the 2004 presidential election." But this is extremely short-sighted and, in the long run, will most likely HURT the cause of "progressive social change in the United States," not help it.
As I've explained in other, earlier political threads, our republic's problems neither begin nor end with George W. Bush and John Kerry. Voting "against" Bush with a Kerry ballot, while ignoring all other progressive priorities, may keep him from returning to the White House, but it won't stop the rightward slide of our government. I propose it will actually accelerate it.
Kerry is surrounded by people from the Democratic Leadership Council who advise him that the way to beat the Republicans is to move to the right, just the way Clinton did. (Never mind that Kerry has neither Clinton's charisma nor Ross Perot's 19% of the vote lowering his threshhold for victory).
If kerry does, indeed, win, he'll most likely conclude that his electoral strategy was a sound one, as any reasonable person would. And, since most of his traditional base has made little or no demands of him - other than that he defeat Bush, they'll have little leverage. And if progressives DO begin to make demands on him, experience will have taught him that he need only offer the spectre of Bush to silence them back into compliance.
But that's only the beginning. With both major parties moving to the right, things will surely only get worse. One can only imagine who the Republicans will choose to head their ticket in 2008. Perhaps someone much worse than Bush, (Tom Delay? John Ashcroft?). Surely someone with more skill, brains and money. And what will progressives do then? Insist, once again, that we must vote for Kerry or risk putting the anti-Christ in the White House? And again in 2012, or 2016? How long are you willing to wait? How much water are we willing to let the ship of state take on before we stop bailing and actually do something about fixing the leak?
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 20:45:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Paladin, there is no way short of the mass murder of both parties (hmmmm....) that Nadar can be any more than a minor blip in the final count percentages. I think he should sit this one out simply because it is absolutly vital that we get rid of the flesh-eating bacteria currently in office.
I do not believe that Kerry walks on water, quite the contrary, but he's still a lot better and far more honest than Bush. And the way things stand at the moment, Nadar might as well be campaigning for Bush. Thus, he is not serving in the best interests of the country.
I understand your concern, filthy. But I hope my immediately preceding post sheds some light on why I believe getting rid of Bush shouldn't be the only - or even the greatest - priority right now.
As for Kerry, there's actually still a small part of me that believes Kerry can be reformed as a candidate. As Ralph Nader often points out, John Kerry should LANDSLIDING George W. Bush. Dubya has a multitude of very significant weaknesses that can be exploited. But it's not enough just to attack them - and I believe it's this principle that Kerry and his bone-headed DLC advisors cannot grasp. Kerry must also offer a clear alternative. And in this regard, I believe he's failed miserably.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 20:48:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Paladin, do you honestly believe that Bush and Kerry are equivalent in the corporate favors they offer their donors? Because if so, you really oughta consider the new overtime rules, the Medicare prescription drug giveaway to biotech, and the gutting of environmental protection, just to name a few. Bush is an astonishingly corporate president.
The problem with looking at the Democrats and Republicans from the outside and sniffing is that you miss the complexity and the intricacy of the day-to-day mechanisms of government. What kind of experience does Nader have in public office? How much experience does he have with foreign policy, building consensus, drafting legislation....?
Why are most people OK with the two-party system? Could it be that the world of independents and contrarians hasn't offered up a stellar candidate?
That Nader is not Bush nor Kerry does not make him a qualified candidate.
Renae, I won't deny that Bush is probably the most corporate president I've ever seen. But Kerry's the question mark. He has clearly demonstrated that he shares that weakness with Bush, though I honestly don't know if he and Bush are equivalent in that regard or not. You appeared to be suggesting that Bush was the only one beholden to corporate and special interests, to the detriment of the public, and I simply offered evidence that suggested otherwise.
I would offer some background on Nader's previous political experience, but I believe Valiant Dancer answered that one sufficiently, at least for now. It's safe to say that Nader knows the "complexity and intricacy" of government quite well. He probably knows more about the inner workings of Washington than many in Washington would like.
As for the rest of your post, Renae, I'm not sure I would agree with your contention that "most people are OK with the two-party system," considering nearly half of them didn't vote in 2000. And I've certainly heard from many people who, even though they're planning on voting, aren't happy with it.
And, of course, I never implied that Nader is a qualified candidate solely because he isn't Bush or Kerry. I'm quite convinced that Nader is a "stellar candidate."
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 20:52:39 [Permalink]
|
Kil, you make an excellent point about the two parties being limited in the options by the corporate cash they accept. But I needn't elaborate, as we seem to more or less agree on that point.
As for your points about Bush, rather than repeat myself, I'll simply refer you to my earlier post. I hope that will help answer your questions about the motivations behind our votes this year. Naturally, I can only speak for myself, but I've generally found agreement whenever I've spoken to other Nader voters on the subject.
I especially share your concern over Bush's theocratic leanings, as you described them. Bush is rotten, but I propose that he wouldn't have the power to accomplish many of the things he has if not for the failure of leadership by the Democrats, both in their electoral strategies and in their congressional complicities. I can no longer trust in these people to protect us from the George W. Bush's of the world, and the people like him who are sure to follow.
And we're not blameless, either. We helped create the Bush monster. We keep settling for less and less and, in the end, that's just we've gotten. If we were in the habit of demanding better candidates, and demanding more of them, instead of merely selecting those who are "electable," I believe we'd already be seeing Dubya packing his bags for Crawford. Or perhaps he never would have made it to Washington in the first place... |
Paladin |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 20:56:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
His vision for America I do not agree with. However, it is important to note that the inclusion of Nader on the Florida ballot directly flies in the face of Florida election law. Nader needed 1% of all registered electors to sign his qualification document to be eligible to be printed on the ballot. He did not meet that, so he shouldn't be printed on the ballot. Nothing in the ruling prevents people from writing in his name.
Actually, no. This particular debate over his inclusion on the Florida ballot was over his status as the Reform Party candidate. The Democrats contended that the Reform Party was no longer a bona fide national party and that Nader wasn't properly nominated. However, the Reform Party is still recognized by the FEC as a national party, and Nader was, indeed, nominated at their convention. Thankfully, it appears that the court agreed. His independent candidacy, which is what I believe you're referring to, wasn't the issue at all.
Incidentally, here's a little tidbit for those of you who insist that Democrats are only insisting that Nader simply follow the rules like everyone else, from a piece at Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff09202004.html
Here's the jist of it:
"...according to a report in the St. Petersburg Times in Florida, the Bush campaign filed its election documents with the secretary of state's office in Tallahassee a day late, thanks to the Republican Party's decision to hold its nominating convention so unprecedentedly late (and conveniently close to the 9/11 anniversary). Technically, that late filing should have prevented Bush's name from appearing on Florida ballots in November. But did Democrats seek to make the state follow the letter of the law? No. The Democratic Party, incredibly, gave Republicans a pass and failed to challenge them! (Just imagine what would have happened had Kerry's people filed their papers a day late)
Ironically, the one place the Democrats have played hardball is in seeking to block access to the ballot by independent candidate Ralph Nader--and not just in Florida. Here, the Democratic Party machine has pulled out all the stops, challenging signatures, hiring pricey attorneys, defending arcane anti-democratic rules, and even using deception on occasion, in at least one case sending its own volunteers to Nader volunteer sign-up events to prevent genuine volunteers from getting into meetings."
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 20:58:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chippewa
The argument that people who are voting for Nader are not taking votes away votes from Kerry, because without Nader on the ballot they would not have voted for Kerry anyway, (or for Bush) seems logical on the surface, but in reality it overlooks several points.
Politics is messy, not simple. It is reasonable to assume that there are fans of Ralph Nader who would vote for John Kerry if Nader were not on the ballot.
A Kerry administration is much more likely to bring in people who would be receptive to Ralph Nader's ideas. The Bush administration is not receptive to Ralph Nader at all, and might even be downright hostile in the future.
So the argument that Nader supporters will vote Nader anyway and have no effect on the votes Kerry gets fails to take into consideration the Nader voters who, in their private brief moment within the voting booth, switch to Kerry, knowing that Nader has a future via Kerry. If they stick with ideology, and vote for Nader in 2004, Nader would draw their votes from Kerry, and not Bush.
Chippewa, it may be reasonable to make assumptions about the inclinations of potential Nader voters, given Ralph's mostly progressive platform. But what ISN'T reasonable is insisting that this somehow justifies his preclusion from the ballot.
And I disagree that a Kerry administration would be more receptive to Ralph's ideas. If you've read any of the statements from the Democratic Leadership Council - the group that now controls the (anti-)Democratic Party and its agenda, you'll see that they don't even have any use for Howard Dean, let alone someone like Ralph. And Howard's a Democrat! And just ask Dennis Kucinich (once the election's over) how receptive Kerry and his group are to dissenting opinions.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 21:55:32 [Permalink]
|
Nader can't win.
If Nader isn't on the ballot, registered voters who would have voted Nader are FAR more likely to vote Dem.
Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Rumsfield/Rove/Rice/ect... do not need to be in the Whitehouse for another 4 years.
The CONSEQUENCE of voting Nader instead of Kerry is a greater chance that Bush will win.
So, as much as I may admire Nader, he needs to sit his toad-lookin ass down and not run this year. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
