What happened, Ed?

VINNY GOOMBA

If I had to guess, maybe Ed feels partially responsible for the election of Bush in 2000 because of his outward support for Nader. Votes for Nader spoiled it for Gore. Ed did not back Nader in '04, and made a statement likening the whole political climate to a house being on fire-- that a vote for Kerry meant putting the fire out, and a vote for Nader would be the re-building from the foundation up. I'm sure I butchered it-- but his point was, that no one is going to start re-building from the foundation if the house itself was still on fire. Although Kerry was far from the best choice, he was a change from Bush and had a legitimate shot at beating Bush.

I'm sure his ideal candidate would still be Ralph-- the same for many on this board here. The problem is, it does take nothing short of a complete revolution of mind on the part of the entire country to get someone like Ralph Nader into power. That's the question, do you work within the system (which is what Ron Paul does), or do you work around the system (Nader).

Really, everyone in this country should agree that the donkeys and elephants have fucked us equally, and vote for neither. Instead of pushing for an election where we can't win (R vs. D), this country should push for a Libertarian vs. Green Party election. That would be (idealogically speaking): small government versus honest, efficient government for the people. Both of which share a foreign policy of non-interventionism, which is the best road to peace, while cutting out-of-control spending.

Who loses there?

Special interests.

pjhawks

Obama may not be a great president (although one should give him a full term before deciding that in my opinion) but he sure as hell isn't evil like the previous regime. Bush was a moron and Cheney was pure evil. I much rather have a regime of normal thinking humans (regardless of religious affiliation) than an evil person who hides behind christianity.

And do you know what Ed's current thoughts are? Maybe Ed has become disillusioned with this President as well. Just because someone was supported in the election doesn't mean you can't disagree with policies once they are in office. Frankly I think that is one of the problems we have in this country - republicans blindly defending republicans and democrats blindly defending democrats even for obvious f-ups.

puremagic

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Remember the good old days of believing in something and someone genuine, authentic, real?

In case you don't remember here is some help http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNAoi6ff ... r_embedded

So why the support for Obama? Not only does it boggle the mind because the two are so incredibly different, but I have to question the motive of jumping off the Nader train and onto the Obama train(wreck)...

Nader knew during the Bush/Gore campaign that his platform as an environmentalist, anti-corporation, and anti-trade unions would not get him elected as President. Had Nader, as encouraged, ran for a Congressional/Senate seat, Deep Horizon may never had happen, Citizen Union may never had occurred, and, the failure of the U.S. auto industry due to NAFTA and WTO agreements could have been foreseen.

Nader’s self-centered ego got in his way and with the McCain/Obama campaign he showed his true colors and they were no different from the mainstream parties that he had tried to disassociate himself. He abandoned his platform and fell right in line with the racial remarks. He then refused to reveal his tax returns (him being the champion of the working people) like the other candidates. That left Nader with nothing to fall back on because Bush/Cheney wiped out all environmental policies, protection of corporations grew stronger and the only unions that were abolished were the ones that helped workers with benefits. Nader couldn’t even fall back on the Iraq war, because he, too, opposed the Iraq invasion. Nader sold himself short because he thought he could defeat a black man and in doing so he showed many of his follows his true colors and they were no different from the 8 previous years, why would or should Ed continue to support Nader.

Cosmo

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Remember the good old days of believing in something and someone genuine, authentic, real?

In case you don't remember here is some help http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNAoi6ff ... r_embedded

So why the support for Obama? Not only does it boggle the mind because the two are so incredibly different, but I have to question the motive of jumping off the Nader train and onto the Obama train(wreck)...

...
Let's play pretend...
Pretend that Ralph Nader was not a candidate and didn't run back in 2000.
Q: Would the people who did vote for Nader in 2000:
a. Have voted to Bush?
b. Have voted for Gore?
c. Not voted at all?

Eliot Rosewater

Cosmo wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Remember the good old days of believing in something and someone genuine, authentic, real?

In case you don't remember here is some help http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNAoi6ff ... r_embedded

So why the support for Obama? Not only does it boggle the mind because the two are so incredibly different, but I have to question the motive of jumping off the Nader train and onto the Obama train(wreck)...

...
Let's play pretend...
Pretend that Ralph Nader was not a candidate and didn't run back in 2000.
Q: Would the people who did vote for Nader in 2000:
a. Have voted to Bush?
b. Have voted for Gore?
c. Not voted at all?

If those were my only options I would not have voted at all.

fuck

Cosmo wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Remember the good old days of believing in something and someone genuine, authentic, real?

In case you don't remember here is some help http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNAoi6ff ... r_embedded

So why the support for Obama? Not only does it boggle the mind because the two are so incredibly different, but I have to question the motive of jumping off the Nader train and onto the Obama train(wreck)...

...
Let's play pretend...
Pretend that Ralph Nader was not a candidate and didn't run back in 2000.
Q: Would the people who did vote for Nader in 2000:
a. Have voted to Bush?
b. Have voted for Gore?
c. Not voted at all?

how about this game... pretend that Gore wasn't such a shitty candidate...

I'm sick of people blaming Ralph Nader for taking votes from Gore in 2000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEQ5G_w3 ... re=channel

Cosmo

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Let's play pretend...
Pretend that Ralph Nader was not a candidate and didn't run back in 2000.
Q: Would the people who did vote for Nader in 2000:
a. Have voted to Bush?
b. Have voted for Gore?
c. Not voted at all?

If those were my only options I would not have voted at all.

...
That means, you let other people decide for you.
...
My point is... a third party is a much needed remedy, but, the year 2000 was not the time for it because of the odds of it getting quashed was too great, regardless of the candidate.
It is going to require a monumental shift of voter participation in order to create and sustain a viable, long term third party. This is almost impossible today because of the polarization of the two parties. The Tea Party may claim to be 'Independent'... but, in reality, they are Republicans and will vote Republican.

Eliot Rosewater

Cosmo wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Let's play pretend...
Pretend that Ralph Nader was not a candidate and didn't run back in 2000.
Q: Would the people who did vote for Nader in 2000:
a. Have voted to Bush?
b. Have voted for Gore?
c. Not voted at all?

If those were my only options I would not have voted at all.

...
That means, you let other people decide for you.
...
My point is... a third party is a much needed remedy, but, the year 2000 was not the time for it because of the odds of it getting quashed was too great, regardless of the candidate.
It is going to require a monumental shift of voter participation in order to create and sustain a viable, long term third party. This is almost impossible today because of the polarization of the two parties. The Tea Party may claim to be 'Independent'... but, in reality, they are Republicans and will vote Republican.

I get your point. But I take my vote seriously. I don't have to choose between two clowns if I don't want to. I would have written in a vote if you had listed that as an option. But If that's not an option and Bush and Gore are my only options I would just not vote.

To me, a vote says:

"I support you. I believe in you. You're my guy."

It doesn't say: "I hate you less than the other asshole. I don't agree with much if anything that you stand for, but I'll vote for you anyway because I know I don't like the other asshole."

Cosmo

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

If those were my only options I would not have voted at all.

...
That means, you let other people decide for you.
...
My point is... a third party is a much needed remedy, but, the year 2000 was not the time for it because of the odds of it getting quashed was too great, regardless of the candidate.
It is going to require a monumental shift of voter participation in order to create and sustain a viable, long term third party. This is almost impossible today because of the polarization of the two parties. The Tea Party may claim to be 'Independent'... but, in reality, they are Republicans and will vote Republican.

I get your point. But I take my vote seriously. I don't have to choose between two clowns if I don't want to. I would have written in a vote if you had listed that as an option. But If that's not an option and Bush and Gore are my only options I would just not vote.

To me, a vote says:

"I support you. I believe in you. You're my guy."

It doesn't say: "I hate you less than the other asshole. I don't agree with much if anything that you stand for, but I'll vote for you anyway because I know I don't like the other asshole."

...
I totally respect your view.
Unfortunately... that is American Politics... a choice of brain cancer or AIDS.
Like I said, it is going to take a monumental shift in the American Voter that is going to create a lasting Third Party. There is too much complacency in the voting public. There are people out there who believe replacing the Democrats with Republicans is going to save them... just as there were people who believed replacing Republicans with Democrats would save them. The truth of the matter... you are basically trying to use crap to clean up shit.
That being said... my view is... 'Who is going to inflict the LEAST amount of damage to my country... at this time?" It's a sad state... but, we (American Voters) are to blame for putting up with it.

fuck

Cosmo wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
That means, you let other people decide for you.
...
My point is... a third party is a much needed remedy, but, the year 2000 was not the time for it because of the odds of it getting quashed was too great, regardless of the candidate.
It is going to require a monumental shift of voter participation in order to create and sustain a viable, long term third party. This is almost impossible today because of the polarization of the two parties. The Tea Party may claim to be 'Independent'... but, in reality, they are Republicans and will vote Republican.

I get your point. But I take my vote seriously. I don't have to choose between two clowns if I don't want to. I would have written in a vote if you had listed that as an option. But If that's not an option and Bush and Gore are my only options I would just not vote.

To me, a vote says:

"I support you. I believe in you. You're my guy."

It doesn't say: "I hate you less than the other asshole. I don't agree with much if anything that you stand for, but I'll vote for you anyway because I know I don't like the other asshole."

...
I totally respect your view.
Unfortunately... that is American Politics... a choice of brain cancer or AIDS.
Like I said, it is going to take a monumental shift in the American Voter that is going to create a lasting Third Party. There is too much complacency in the voting public. There are people out there who believe replacing the Democrats with Republicans is going to save them... just as there were people who believed replacing Republicans with Democrats would save them. The truth of the matter... you are basically trying to use crap to clean up shit.
That being said... my view is... 'Who is going to inflict the LEAST amount of damage to my country... at this time?" It's a sad state... but, we (American Voters) are to blame for putting up with it.

how can we complain if we willingly participate in it?