It is true in your guy's case you are voting for the person. But at the same time I would have to think there would be an advantage to sticking with the same party for every election, in that it shows consistency and gives you better recognition. Plus I would think some people might think that if someone can't decide which party they want to be aligned with then maybe they might not be so good at making other important decisions.
Plus I would think that after one election with a certain party (say Nader with the Greens or whatever) you would have built up solid group of people campaign worker (both people who are there because they believe in the person and because they believe in the party). To me it would seem useful to go back to those people and build on what they had done in the past rather than ditching them and starting again with a whole new group.
Nader has made strategical moves from parties to accomplish certain objectives.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I am not trying to tell you what to do here, but if you feel so strongly about a certain candidate have you ever thought about volunteering to work for their campaign? I would think getting involved with a campaign, at least at the local level would have a far greater effect than posting on political blogs. I don't know how it works for you guys, but here it is pretty easy to volunteer at the local level for a riding association during election time (usually the candidates are looking for people). I am not trying to single you or anyone out, but I do see a lot of people online making all these comments about how changes need to be made and I wonder if any of them have actually made any effort other than posting on a message board.
I'm disappointed in myself for waiting until my thirties to take a serious interest in politics. I have a lot of catching up to do. I'm starting by volunteering for Nader which fortunately puts me in contact with other groups that have my interest.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
I am not trying to tell you what to do here, but if you feel so strongly about a certain candidate have you ever thought about volunteering to work for their campaign? I would think getting involved with a campaign, at least at the local level would have a far greater effect than posting on political blogs. I don't know how it works for you guys, but here it is pretty easy to volunteer at the local level for a riding association during election time (usually the candidates are looking for people). I am not trying to single you or anyone out, but I do see a lot of people online making all these comments about how changes need to be made and I wonder if any of them have actually made any effort other than posting on a message board.
I've signed up to volunteer for Nader's campaign, as well
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nadert's presence on the ballot in 2000 sure served the people well. Other fashions to convey a message exist other than running for president. I'm not saying the media should be allowed to dictate who can and can't run, but until Perot had misgivings about running, he was a legitimate contender. I'd have no qualms supporting a non-party candidate as I am declared independent, but I wouldn't vote for somebody I knew was going to lose. Consider the circumstances our country faces right now. If a lefty, third party candidate causes a repeat of 2000 (which isn't going to happen) and McCain somehow won, you could thank him/her for 4 more years of Iraq, failed healthcare, a deepening chasm between classes, corporate pandering and this list goes on.... and on... and on....
every single 3rd party candidate on the ballot in florida received more votes than the difference between gore and bush...so why is nader the only one singled out??
you will get all those things at the end of your post w/ obama, as well
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
This is absolutely the best thought I've read in a while. Good insight and I confess I'm just as guilty as the next of getting in way too deep with the concept of the presidency versus the congressional representation that actually legislates.
I'm not saying that thrid party candidates shouldn't seek the presidency, but when it becomes painfully evident that such a candidate is only going to win perhaps 1% of the vote, that 1% could be the difference between having somebody in office who is going to prolong war or end war, somebody who is going to seek affordable healthcare versus pandering to healthcare lobbysists.
Al Gore did run a shitty campaign in 2000 ~ I don't disagree with that fact. Do you think if Nader knew what Bush's presidency would deliver, had he known then what he knows now, that he still would have ran? Gore's campaign might have been poorly carried out, but he wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq and he wouldn't have leveraged Medicare at the expense of taxpayers, amongst a mountain of other policies the Bush administration has created at the expense of people like me, you and the majority of Americans who aren't homeless or wealthy.
Farfromglorified ~ I think Nader was fully aware when he ran that he had more in common with Gore than Bush in terms of policy and ideology. Hillary's campaign invoked negativity and many feel that she bears the bulk of responsibility for creating divisions in the woefully inept Democratic Party. John Edwards or Bill Richardson could be in Obama's position right now and I'd have the the same misgivings with the Clinton's.
nader didn't run as intense a campaign in states that were close
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Yeah, Randi Roads, who told off and hung up on Nader in 2004, was talking about Perot last night and doing much of the same thing.
Could there be whispers of other strong well funded candidates entering the race?
Perot got 19% in 1992 and beat Clinton in Utah where Bush actually won.
27% 24% 43%
Perot got 8% in 1996 with not being in the debate, spending less money. . .and I think this was the one where he dropped out temporary.
Anyway, Randi was saying how he was "crazy" ..........."what were those pie charts all about. . .ha ha" ............and also said "Did he even get 4%"? ? ?
I know she's more knowledgeable than that. . .Same old shit from her.
I was proud to cast my first presidential vote for Ross Perot!
me, too!!!!
04 was the first time i voted major party...i got sucked into the fear and propaganda of 'anyone but bush!!!' and i remember everyone saying back then that we all could vote for whoever we wanted to next time, but this election was too important...now they are saying the same exact shit...we can't afford mccain so we MUST vote for the democrat!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
however, history has shown, supporting 3rd party candidates may have unintended consequences...
such as??
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
call me kooky, but I'd be willing to bet, some who voted 3rd party in 2000 may have rethought their vote if they had any idea how bad bushy and company would be...thus, unintended consequences...
and yes, gore should have done this, that, and the other...and yes, nader (and other 3rd party candidates) did not steal votes, and yes, those who voted 3rd party are seeking a change....but bush may have not been the change they were looking for...
again, I'm not saying voting 3rd party should not happen, in fact, I say hooray for those who want to do so...
like i've been saying ... all like minded peeps should all move to one state - take it one territory at a time ... forget the presidency, forget congress, one state at a time!
like i've been saying ... all like minded peeps should all move to one state - take it one territory at a time ... forget the presidency, forget congress, one state at a time!
not a bad idea...
personally, I think folks like Nader should run for Congress first, then, perhaps move up to president...
And consider today's political climate. The Democrats and Republicans are basically at war with each other. You need no venture away from this board to see how divided we are... based soley on political party!!! Some Republicans would rather sacrifice their virgin daughter than to ever vote for a Democrat... and vice versa.
Example: Bush has a 29% approval rating. Let's say that the 29% translates into 29% of the popular votes. all you need to do is lock in 22% of the rest of us and you win... 51 to 49.
Granted, that 29% are the ones who Tina Fey said, "Believes that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church one Sunday"... but, still... it's 29%.
I think I follow you.
so basically it's like baseball, everyone roughly gets 40% (excluding any 3rd party) The remaining 20% are up for grabs and pander fodder.
The problem is that 20% is essentially vacant, so you're basically trying to sell them on an idea when in reality they are so dumb they'll buy anything so the posteuring is all about trying to make one group happy. I think the issue with this is towards the thinking center of the country roughly the 5% or up to perhaps even 10% of the middle of the two parties get annoyed with the pandering and might even have Ideals they look for in a canidate.
I think the entire issue with 3rd parties, is that that roughly 10% of the voting public is already counted on, so they start with 35% instead of 40 and there is the rub.
When Gore had to suddenly compete with an idealistic canidate with some reasonable support albiet small and get back members of his own already counted on vote it bothered him... same with Bush and Ross Perot... slowly I think the departure from the main political base is gaining a little ground and this is disconcerting to the established base. Sure you wound up with Bush... but that was a really close election. I think it says more about the weakness of both canidates than anything else. I think even members of the Republican Party would tell you McCain was better back then but they chose Bush because they knew what they were getting and they loved the established entrenched political people that were in bed with him. It happens in corporations all the time too. Even when there are better canidates... they hire the one with the connections or the least radical one even if it's for the worse. Now McCain is the one who has wandered in to the safe zone so now he's ok with them. I actually like him far less now than I did 8 years ago.
It's kind of refreshing really all in all with the rise of people paying attention especially to the central 3rd parties, maybe this is the sign of better canidacy to come and less pandering to X group of people. Says that our generation in parts is paying attention and is involved. That's why we're on this message board anyway right?
Maybe I should just write in Citizen Dick this time around... a vote for us... is a vote for you
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
personally, I think folks like Nader should run for Congress first, then, perhaps move up to president...
but that's just me...:)
seriously - i think it's the only way ... can't change a corrupt system like this in one or two elections ... it has to be a revolution of sorts built up over a sustained period of time ... much easier to win a state then the whole country ...
personally, I think folks like Nader should run for Congress first, then, perhaps move up to president...
but that's just me...:)
The fact that he doesn't makes me think he is running for president for pretty selfish reasons. I mean lets face it, the guy is in his 70's and it is pretty safe to say will never be president in his lifetime. It seems he cares more about getting his name in the paper than actual making a long term change that will be around long after he is dead. I mean if he really wanted to make a change why doesn’t he campaign all the time and build upon the votes he got in 2000 (or like you said start small and run for congress).I would think he would have an advantage in that other than the two main parties he can start campaigning the day after inauguration for the next election. Instead it seems he typically shows up a few months before the election gets his name in the paper and then goes away until the next election year.
seriously - i think it's the only way ... can't change a corrupt system like this in one or two elections ... it has to be a revolution of sorts built up over a sustained period of time ... much easier to win a state then the whole country ...
You can't change it or you won't?
If you agree the US government is corrupt, that the system and the bases on which it rests are rotten... why not change it now? Do you honestly think change will come from voting in the people, which the system supports, and that support the same system themselves?
Right now the power is in the hands of a few, and they have a lot to loose if it should slip away. Power corrupts, and those in power will do anything to hold onto it.
Over that same sustained period of time, things will get worse as a logical result of the corrupted power structure.
If the people want change they should not wait for it or gradually build up to it, but they should demand it now. It is your right to demand change, real change.
But my guess is that people will only respond when it's way too late. And I don't mean that it will be too late to change, or to resist or to fight back... It will be too late because at any point in time the people can take what is rightfully theirs, they can demand that their freedoms are respected, they can choose not to be subjected to irrational fear. A people can hold its officials accountable for their actions. The US government has taken away freedoms, has infringed upon them and they will continue to do so until the people say stop.
A revolution will only occur when the people can no longer deny that the situation they are in is not right, that it has to change now.
I'm currently reading Václav Havel's biography, and I read a passage, which I think fits in my argument. It is about the communist regime in Czechoslovakia and a letter Havel wrote to Husák in which he addressed the problems, but I think it applies to all systems which no longer function as they should:
"... Here someone had put the pieces together for them. It was exactly what the regime feared most. So long as each person had his own concerns, all slightly different, it would not occur to anyone that there was a common denominator and a single culprit, that someone had deliberately organized the system that entrapped them."
Another interesting quote:
"... Our parents' fear entered our subconscious minds, and we will never get rid of it. Our children no longer have this fear, because fear is not passed on by genes - it has to be taught.
The signatories of Charter 77 were the first citizens to try to rid themselves of this basic, existential fear by overcoming it. They reckoned they would be jailed and persecuted, bu they realized [...] it was necessary to take risks and confront those in power. They realized a free act by individuals opens realms that they cannot imagine."
My point is, previous generations all over the world have shown they can bring about change. All you have to do is want it.
So, I see no point in postponing change and continuing a corrupt system.
Ralph Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida; Al Gore lost to Bush by 537 votes. The Green Party is much more aligned with Democrats than Republicans. If those 97K voters had to choose between Bush and Gore, I'd be willing to bet a rather large percentage would have opted for Gore.
Why did Nader wait so long to commence his run for the presidency this time around? It would seem, considering how difficult it is for third party candidates to gain traction both with the media and voters that he would have started earlier. My take, and this is just my opinion, is that he's running to bring some issues to the forefront. If he really wanted those issues to gain focus amongst the people, he should've been pushing them much earlier.
In 2004 when Nader was testing the waters for an independent run, I sent a lengthy e-mail to his website inquiring about stances on specific issues and how I could volunteer my time. I didn't receive anything in response ~ no thanks for your inquiry, please donate or general response. I was disappointed to say the very least. Sure, it's easier for a larger scale candidate to coordinate communication with potential supporters or volunteers, but when you're starting at the grassroots level it would seem beneficial to build one voter at a time. I do believe that in 2000 the state gave Nader his highest percentage of votes was Alaska which happens to be where I call home.
Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
If you agree the US government is corrupt, that the system and the bases on which it rests are rotten... why not change it now? Do you honestly think change will come from voting in the people, which the system supports, and that support the same system themselves?
Right now the power is in the hands of a few, and they have a lot to loose if it should slip away. Power corrupts, and those in power will do anything to hold onto it.
Over that same sustained period of time, things will get worse as a logical result of the corrupted power structure.
If the people want change they should not wait for it or gradually build up to it, but they should demand it now. It is your right to demand change, real change.
But my guess is that people will only respond when it's way too late. And I don't mean that it will be too late to change, or to resist or to fight back... It will be too late because at any point in time the people can take what is rightfully theirs, they can demand that their freedoms are respected, they can choose not to be subjected to irrational fear. A people can hold its officials accountable for their actions. The US government has taken away freedoms, has infringed upon them and they will continue to do so until the people say stop.
A revolution will only occur when the people can no longer deny that the situation they are in is not right, that it has to change now.
I'm currently reading Václav Havel's biography, and I read a passage, which I think fits in my argument. It is about the communist regime in Czechoslovakia and a letter Havel wrote to Husák in which he addressed the problems, but I think it applies to all systems which no longer function as they should:
"... Here someone had put the pieces together for them. It was exactly what the regime feared most. So long as each person had his own concerns, all slightly different, it would not occur to anyone that there was a common denominator and a single culprit, that someone had deliberately organized the system that entrapped them."
Another interesting quote:
"... Our parents' fear entered our subconscious minds, and we will never get rid of it. Our children no longer have this fear, because fear is not passed on by genes - it has to be taught.
The signatories of Charter 77 were the first citizens to try to rid themselves of this basic, existential fear by overcoming it. They reckoned they would be jailed and persecuted, bu they realized [...] it was necessary to take risks and confront those in power. They realized a free act by individuals opens realms that they cannot imagine."
My point is, previous generations all over the world have shown they can bring about change. All you have to do is want it.
So, I see no point in postponing change and continuing a corrupt system.
Just my 2 cents.
i don't disagree one bit ... i've been voting primarily 3rd party in all elections not just federal for years ... i want to be part of any change but how many federal elections does one have to go through to see that it's gonna take a huuuge revolution to upend the current corrupt structure ...
why not start smaller? - win municipal or county elections under a 3rd party banner ... and move up ... once you build that experience - people can't ignore you anymore ... proof that a 3rd party is viable is real not idealized ...
i don't disagree one bit ... i've been voting primarily 3rd party in all elections not just federal for years ... i want to be part of any change but how many federal elections does one have to go through to see that it's gonna take a huuuge revolution to upend the current corrupt structure ...
why not start smaller? - win municipal or county elections under a 3rd party banner ... and move up ... once you build that experience - people can't ignore you anymore ... proof that a 3rd party is viable is real not idealized ...
It won't ever be viable as long as people continue to discourage who know how badly 3rd parties need to be supported on BOTH the national and state level.
There are too many of us who refuse to vote and support people whom we know
are part of the problem. And I really think you shouldn't complain about the horrible 2 party system when you are a part of keeping it in place.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
call me kooky, but I'd be willing to bet, some who voted 3rd party in 2000 may have rethought their vote if they had any idea how bad bushy and company would be...thus, unintended consequences...
and yes, gore should have done this, that, and the other...and yes, nader (and other 3rd party candidates) did not steal votes, and yes, those who voted 3rd party are seeking a change....but bush may have not been the change they were looking for...
again, I'm not saying voting 3rd party should not happen, in fact, I say hooray for those who want to do so...
Yes, the consequences that we have to live with are that people still voted for candidates like Gore and Bush. Others did what I view as the right move.
The only ones we can blame for Bush's presidency are the people that voted for him. It's that simple. This is America and for now we have a right and I say a duty to vote our conscience instead of our fear....to grow some balls and make effort to change the things we view as wrong and not working for us.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Why did Nader wait so long to commence his run for the presidency this time around? It would seem, considering how difficult it is for third party candidates to gain traction both with the media and voters that he would have started earlier. My take, and this is just my opinion, is that he's running to bring some issues to the forefront. If he really wanted those issues to gain focus amongst the people, he should've been pushing them much earlier.
That is what I don't get about Nader. If the guy wants to be treated like a legitimate option why doesn't he start earlier to get his message out? He could have started the day after the last inauguration and started campaigning. If he feels the media doesn’t cover him enough he could have gone door-to-door explaining to people what his beliefs are and trying to get support.
personally, I think folks like Nader should run for Congress first, then, perhaps move up to president...
but that's just me...:)
So you think the 2 major parties should run uncontested for president? Give you no other options? Why would they even bother addressing issues then? They could just give you whatever they felt like throwing out.
It is unbelievable how low the approval ratings are for congress and the president yet people are too fucking complacent to do anything about or even think 'Gee...these guys sure do suck. Maybe we should try something new? Nah, lets just stick with these clowns because it's all we are capable of.'
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The fact that he doesn't makes me think he is running for president for pretty selfish reasons. I mean lets face it, the guy is in his 70's and it is pretty safe to say will never be president in his lifetime. It seems he cares more about getting his name in the paper than actual making a long term change that will be around long after he is dead. I mean if he really wanted to make a change why doesn’t he campaign all the time and build upon the votes he got in 2000 (or like you said start small and run for congress).I would think he would have an advantage in that other than the two main parties he can start campaigning the day after inauguration for the next election. Instead it seems he typically shows up a few months before the election gets his name in the paper and then goes away until the next election year.
He runs for us and to have the issues address by the 2 parties that otherwise would be ignored. If they don't take on these issues Nader brings to the race then they WILL lose votes. That's how it works.
And he doesn't have truck loads of corporate money to run these long publicity tours and campaigns like the others. Also it's been debunked over and over again about Nader just 'going away' until next election year. He's out there fighting for these causes because they are important to him. He's a full time citizen....perhaps we all should take a page from him.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That is what I don't get about Nader. If the guy wants to be treated like a legitimate option why doesn't he start earlier to get his message out? He could have started the day after the last inauguration and started campaigning. If he feels the media doesn’t cover him enough he could have gone door-to-door explaining to people what his beliefs are and trying to get support.
Do you honestly think the average person wants to start hearing about someone running for office the day after inauguration day? Maybe they should, but most are probably happy all the frenzy surrounding the last election is finally over. Also he's not made of money....it takes money to run a campaign.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Looks like Nader is coming up with a West Coast tour. Even if your not voting for him you shouldn't miss what may be your last chance to see him.
This will be my second time and possibly my third.
Nader/Gonzalez event schedule
Friday, May 9th, 6:30pm
Ralph Nader Rally
Tempe, AZ
Arizona State University Room# CDN,60 (College of Design North)
850 South Forest Tempe, AZ 85287
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More info call (714) 292-8675 or nicole@votenader.org
Saturday May 10th 3:30 pm
Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez Rally
Santa Monica Bay Women's Club
1210 4th Street Santa Monica, CA 90401
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (213) 841-6042 or la4nader@gmail.com
Sunday May 11th 7pm
Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez Rally
Roxie Theater
3117 16th Street San Francisco, CA 94103
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call -(510) 914-8355 or events@votenader.org
Monday May 12th 12pm
Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez Rally
Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists
1924 Cedar St. (at Bonita) Berkeley, CA 94709
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call -(510) 914-8355 or events@votenader.org
Monday May 12th 8pm
Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez Rally
Rio Theatre
1205 Soquel Ave. Santa Cruz, CA 95062
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (831) 466-0739 or events@votenader.org
Tuesday May 13th 7:30pm
Ralph Nader Rally
Benson High Auditorium
546 NE 12th Ave Portland, OR
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (503) 484-6626 or events@votenader.org
Wednesday May 14th 1:30pm
Ralph Nader Rally
Tacoma Community College (Building#3)
6501 S. 19th Street Tacoma WA 98466
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (206) 755-4262 or events@votenader.org
Wednesday May 14th 7pm
Ralph Nader Rally
University of Washington
Seattle WA,
Kane Hall Room 120
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (206) 755-4262 or events@votenader.org
If you keep yourself as the final arbiter you will be less susceptible to infection from cultural illusion.
Looks like Nader is coming up with a West Coast tour. Even if your not voting for him you shouldn't miss what may be your last chance to see him.
This will be my second time and possibly my third.
Nader/Gonzalez event schedule
Friday, May 9th, 6:30pm
Ralph Nader Rally
Tempe, AZ
Arizona State University Room# CDN,60 (College of Design North)
850 South Forest Tempe, AZ 85287
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More info call (714) 292-8675 or nicole@votenader.org
Saturday May 10th 3:30 pm
Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez Rally
Santa Monica Bay Women's Club
1210 4th Street Santa Monica, CA 90401
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (213) 841-6042 or la4nader@gmail.com
Sunday May 11th 7pm
Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez Rally
Roxie Theater
3117 16th Street San Francisco, CA 94103
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call -(510) 914-8355 or events@votenader.org
Monday May 12th 12pm
Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez Rally
Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists
1924 Cedar St. (at Bonita) Berkeley, CA 94709
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call -(510) 914-8355 or events@votenader.org
Monday May 12th 8pm
Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez Rally
Rio Theatre
1205 Soquel Ave. Santa Cruz, CA 95062
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (831) 466-0739 or events@votenader.org
Tuesday May 13th 7:30pm
Ralph Nader Rally
Benson High Auditorium
546 NE 12th Ave Portland, OR
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (503) 484-6626 or events@votenader.org
Wednesday May 14th 1:30pm
Ralph Nader Rally
Tacoma Community College (Building#3)
6501 S. 19th Street Tacoma WA 98466
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (206) 755-4262 or events@votenader.org
Wednesday May 14th 7pm
Ralph Nader Rally
University of Washington
Seattle WA,
Kane Hall Room 120
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (206) 755-4262 or events@votenader.org
Thanks, I posted a thread with those same clips last week. No one replied. I guess they'd rather just post their preconceived notions than to take the time to find more out about the process. It's frustrating to be honest.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If you agree the US government is corrupt, that the system and the bases on which it rests are rotten... why not change it now? Do you honestly think change will come from voting in the people, which the system supports, and that support the same system themselves?
Right now the power is in the hands of a few, and they have a lot to loose if it should slip away. Power corrupts, and those in power will do anything to hold onto it.
Over that same sustained period of time, things will get worse as a logical result of the corrupted power structure.
If the people want change they should not wait for it or gradually build up to it, but they should demand it now. It is your right to demand change, real change.
But my guess is that people will only respond when it's way too late. And I don't mean that it will be too late to change, or to resist or to fight back... It will be too late because at any point in time the people can take what is rightfully theirs, they can demand that their freedoms are respected, they can choose not to be subjected to irrational fear. A people can hold its officials accountable for their actions. The US government has taken away freedoms, has infringed upon them and they will continue to do so until the people say stop.
A revolution will only occur when the people can no longer deny that the situation they are in is not right, that it has to change now.
I'm currently reading Václav Havel's biography, and I read a passage, which I think fits in my argument. It is about the communist regime in Czechoslovakia and a letter Havel wrote to Husák in which he addressed the problems, but I think it applies to all systems which no longer function as they should:
"... Here someone had put the pieces together for them. It was exactly what the regime feared most. So long as each person had his own concerns, all slightly different, it would not occur to anyone that there was a common denominator and a single culprit, that someone had deliberately organized the system that entrapped them."
Another interesting quote:
"... Our parents' fear entered our subconscious minds, and we will never get rid of it. Our children no longer have this fear, because fear is not passed on by genes - it has to be taught.
The signatories of Charter 77 were the first citizens to try to rid themselves of this basic, existential fear by overcoming it. They reckoned they would be jailed and persecuted, bu they realized [...] it was necessary to take risks and confront those in power. They realized a free act by individuals opens realms that they cannot imagine."
My point is, previous generations all over the world have shown they can bring about change. All you have to do is want it.
So, I see no point in postponing change and continuing a corrupt system.
Just my 2 cents.
Also, nice post, Collin.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So you think the 2 major parties should run uncontested for president? Give you no other options? Why would they even bother addressing issues then? They could just give you whatever they felt like throwing out.
It is unbelievable how low the approval ratings are for congress and the president yet people are too fucking complacent to do anything about or even think 'Gee...these guys sure do suck. Maybe we should try something new? Nah, lets just stick with these clowns because it's all we are capable of.'
Why is it that most candidates declared their quest for the presidency nearly a year before Nader did? What option does Ralph Nader provide when voters are exposed to other candidates a year ahead of Nader? When 10 options exist leading into Iowa and voters who give a damn actually seek information, it's not not fair to them as they seek a candidate who best suits their needs as a voter for a third party candidate to jump in 8 months later and expect support.
I'd say it's complacent for Nader to jump in so late and expect to get his issues at the forefront. I'd have no qualms whatsoever voting for a non-party or smaller party candidate, but for me that candidate must display some semblance of viability (as Ross Perot did to many voters) and seek the position with as much vigor and commitment as major party candidates.
Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen
That is what I don't get about Nader. If the guy wants to be treated like a legitimate option why doesn't he start earlier to get his message out? He could have started the day after the last inauguration and started campaigning. If he feels the media doesn’t cover him enough he could have gone door-to-door explaining to people what his beliefs are and trying to get support.
Do you honestly think the average person wants to start hearing about someone running for office the day after inauguration day? Maybe they should, but most are probably happy all the frenzy surrounding the last election is finally over. Also he's not made of money....it takes money to run a campaign.
I think he was still paying off his debt from 2004 because he had to fund a recount. . .up until 2007 I think that lasted
If you keep yourself as the final arbiter you will be less susceptible to infection from cultural illusion.
Why is it that most candidates declared their quest for the presidency nearly a year before Nader did? What option does Ralph Nader provide when voters are exposed to other candidates a year ahead of Nader? When 10 options exist leading into Iowa and voters who give a damn actually seek information, it's not not fair to them as they seek a candidate who best suits their needs as a voter for a third party candidate to jump in 8 months later and expect support.
I'd say it's complacent for Nader to jump in so late and expect to get his issues at the forefront. I'd have no qualms whatsoever voting for a non-party or smaller party candidate, but for me that candidate must display some semblance of viability (as Ross Perot did to many voters) and seek the position with as much vigor and commitment as major party candidates.
How is he going to run a campaign for as long as the other candidates when he's not funded by huge corporate donations? Let's be real here.
They go out state and petition just to get ballot access. And yes, their work is done with vigor and commitment...they do all they can realistcally do. And if any life has been lived selflessly, it's Ralph Nader's.
Watch the videos Hoon posted a few posts up if your truly interested in knowing the importance of Nader's and other third party runs.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
How is he going to run a campaign for as long as the other candidates when he's not funded by huge corporate donations? Let's be real here.
They go out state and petition just to get ballot access. And yes, their work is done with vigor and commitment...they do all they can realistcally do. And if any life has been lived selflessly, it's Ralph Nader's.
Watch the videos Hoon posted a few posts up if your truly interested in knowing the importance of Nader's and other third party runs.
I understand it's difficult raising money when not affiliated with a major party, but if you consider Ron Paul, he is in some essences an outside candidate even though he's declared Republican. Look at how much money Howard Dean (I do understand the vast difference between an activist and a governor) raised online and the doors his campaign opened for candidates to court small donors. It can't be that expensive to run an online campaign. If he can afford a website with a "contact us" section, he can afford to offer responses to potential voters.
I'll give you that it would be nearly impossible to run a dollar for dollar campaign, but if he utilized the grasrrots resources and internet, he wouldn't have to wait a year after oother candidates declared to make his own declaration.
Somebody mentioned earlier that he spends a lot of time in the public arena speaking about issues ~ how hard would it have been for him to do so and state at the end of each gathering that he's running for president?
Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
Comments
Nader has made strategical moves from parties to accomplish certain objectives.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm disappointed in myself for waiting until my thirties to take a serious interest in politics. I have a lot of catching up to do. I'm starting by volunteering for Nader which fortunately puts me in contact with other groups that have my interest.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
I've signed up to volunteer for Nader's campaign, as well
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
every single 3rd party candidate on the ballot in florida received more votes than the difference between gore and bush...so why is nader the only one singled out??
you will get all those things at the end of your post w/ obama, as well
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
nader didn't run as intense a campaign in states that were close
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
me, too!!!!
04 was the first time i voted major party...i got sucked into the fear and propaganda of 'anyone but bush!!!' and i remember everyone saying back then that we all could vote for whoever we wanted to next time, but this election was too important...now they are saying the same exact shit...we can't afford mccain so we MUST vote for the democrat!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
such as??
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
call me kooky, but I'd be willing to bet, some who voted 3rd party in 2000 may have rethought their vote if they had any idea how bad bushy and company would be...thus, unintended consequences...
and yes, gore should have done this, that, and the other...and yes, nader (and other 3rd party candidates) did not steal votes, and yes, those who voted 3rd party are seeking a change....but bush may have not been the change they were looking for...
again, I'm not saying voting 3rd party should not happen, in fact, I say hooray for those who want to do so...
not a bad idea...
personally, I think folks like Nader should run for Congress first, then, perhaps move up to president...
but that's just me...:)
I think I follow you.
so basically it's like baseball, everyone roughly gets 40% (excluding any 3rd party) The remaining 20% are up for grabs and pander fodder.
The problem is that 20% is essentially vacant, so you're basically trying to sell them on an idea when in reality they are so dumb they'll buy anything so the posteuring is all about trying to make one group happy. I think the issue with this is towards the thinking center of the country roughly the 5% or up to perhaps even 10% of the middle of the two parties get annoyed with the pandering and might even have Ideals they look for in a canidate.
I think the entire issue with 3rd parties, is that that roughly 10% of the voting public is already counted on, so they start with 35% instead of 40 and there is the rub.
When Gore had to suddenly compete with an idealistic canidate with some reasonable support albiet small and get back members of his own already counted on vote it bothered him... same with Bush and Ross Perot... slowly I think the departure from the main political base is gaining a little ground and this is disconcerting to the established base. Sure you wound up with Bush... but that was a really close election. I think it says more about the weakness of both canidates than anything else. I think even members of the Republican Party would tell you McCain was better back then but they chose Bush because they knew what they were getting and they loved the established entrenched political people that were in bed with him. It happens in corporations all the time too. Even when there are better canidates... they hire the one with the connections or the least radical one even if it's for the worse. Now McCain is the one who has wandered in to the safe zone so now he's ok with them. I actually like him far less now than I did 8 years ago.
It's kind of refreshing really all in all with the rise of people paying attention especially to the central 3rd parties, maybe this is the sign of better canidacy to come and less pandering to X group of people. Says that our generation in parts is paying attention and is involved. That's why we're on this message board anyway right?
Maybe I should just write in Citizen Dick this time around... a vote for us... is a vote for you
seriously - i think it's the only way ... can't change a corrupt system like this in one or two elections ... it has to be a revolution of sorts built up over a sustained period of time ... much easier to win a state then the whole country ...
The fact that he doesn't makes me think he is running for president for pretty selfish reasons. I mean lets face it, the guy is in his 70's and it is pretty safe to say will never be president in his lifetime. It seems he cares more about getting his name in the paper than actual making a long term change that will be around long after he is dead. I mean if he really wanted to make a change why doesn’t he campaign all the time and build upon the votes he got in 2000 (or like you said start small and run for congress).I would think he would have an advantage in that other than the two main parties he can start campaigning the day after inauguration for the next election. Instead it seems he typically shows up a few months before the election gets his name in the paper and then goes away until the next election year.
You can't change it or you won't?
If you agree the US government is corrupt, that the system and the bases on which it rests are rotten... why not change it now? Do you honestly think change will come from voting in the people, which the system supports, and that support the same system themselves?
Right now the power is in the hands of a few, and they have a lot to loose if it should slip away. Power corrupts, and those in power will do anything to hold onto it.
Over that same sustained period of time, things will get worse as a logical result of the corrupted power structure.
If the people want change they should not wait for it or gradually build up to it, but they should demand it now. It is your right to demand change, real change.
But my guess is that people will only respond when it's way too late. And I don't mean that it will be too late to change, or to resist or to fight back... It will be too late because at any point in time the people can take what is rightfully theirs, they can demand that their freedoms are respected, they can choose not to be subjected to irrational fear. A people can hold its officials accountable for their actions. The US government has taken away freedoms, has infringed upon them and they will continue to do so until the people say stop.
A revolution will only occur when the people can no longer deny that the situation they are in is not right, that it has to change now.
I'm currently reading Václav Havel's biography, and I read a passage, which I think fits in my argument. It is about the communist regime in Czechoslovakia and a letter Havel wrote to Husák in which he addressed the problems, but I think it applies to all systems which no longer function as they should:
"... Here someone had put the pieces together for them. It was exactly what the regime feared most. So long as each person had his own concerns, all slightly different, it would not occur to anyone that there was a common denominator and a single culprit, that someone had deliberately organized the system that entrapped them."
Another interesting quote:
"... Our parents' fear entered our subconscious minds, and we will never get rid of it. Our children no longer have this fear, because fear is not passed on by genes - it has to be taught.
The signatories of Charter 77 were the first citizens to try to rid themselves of this basic, existential fear by overcoming it. They reckoned they would be jailed and persecuted, bu they realized [...] it was necessary to take risks and confront those in power. They realized a free act by individuals opens realms that they cannot imagine."
My point is, previous generations all over the world have shown they can bring about change. All you have to do is want it.
So, I see no point in postponing change and continuing a corrupt system.
Just my 2 cents.
naděje umírá poslední
Ralph Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida; Al Gore lost to Bush by 537 votes. The Green Party is much more aligned with Democrats than Republicans. If those 97K voters had to choose between Bush and Gore, I'd be willing to bet a rather large percentage would have opted for Gore.
Why did Nader wait so long to commence his run for the presidency this time around? It would seem, considering how difficult it is for third party candidates to gain traction both with the media and voters that he would have started earlier. My take, and this is just my opinion, is that he's running to bring some issues to the forefront. If he really wanted those issues to gain focus amongst the people, he should've been pushing them much earlier.
In 2004 when Nader was testing the waters for an independent run, I sent a lengthy e-mail to his website inquiring about stances on specific issues and how I could volunteer my time. I didn't receive anything in response ~ no thanks for your inquiry, please donate or general response. I was disappointed to say the very least. Sure, it's easier for a larger scale candidate to coordinate communication with potential supporters or volunteers, but when you're starting at the grassroots level it would seem beneficial to build one voter at a time. I do believe that in 2000 the state gave Nader his highest percentage of votes was Alaska which happens to be where I call home.
i don't disagree one bit ... i've been voting primarily 3rd party in all elections not just federal for years ... i want to be part of any change but how many federal elections does one have to go through to see that it's gonna take a huuuge revolution to upend the current corrupt structure ...
why not start smaller? - win municipal or county elections under a 3rd party banner ... and move up ... once you build that experience - people can't ignore you anymore ... proof that a 3rd party is viable is real not idealized ...
It won't ever be viable as long as people continue to discourage who know how badly 3rd parties need to be supported on BOTH the national and state level.
There are too many of us who refuse to vote and support people whom we know
are part of the problem. And I really think you shouldn't complain about the horrible 2 party system when you are a part of keeping it in place.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes, the consequences that we have to live with are that people still voted for candidates like Gore and Bush. Others did what I view as the right move.
The only ones we can blame for Bush's presidency are the people that voted for him. It's that simple. This is America and for now we have a right and I say a duty to vote our conscience instead of our fear....to grow some balls and make effort to change the things we view as wrong and not working for us.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That is what I don't get about Nader. If the guy wants to be treated like a legitimate option why doesn't he start earlier to get his message out? He could have started the day after the last inauguration and started campaigning. If he feels the media doesn’t cover him enough he could have gone door-to-door explaining to people what his beliefs are and trying to get support.
So you think the 2 major parties should run uncontested for president? Give you no other options? Why would they even bother addressing issues then? They could just give you whatever they felt like throwing out.
It is unbelievable how low the approval ratings are for congress and the president yet people are too fucking complacent to do anything about or even think 'Gee...these guys sure do suck. Maybe we should try something new? Nah, lets just stick with these clowns because it's all we are capable of.'
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
He runs for us and to have the issues address by the 2 parties that otherwise would be ignored. If they don't take on these issues Nader brings to the race then they WILL lose votes. That's how it works.
And he doesn't have truck loads of corporate money to run these long publicity tours and campaigns like the others. Also it's been debunked over and over again about Nader just 'going away' until next election year. He's out there fighting for these causes because they are important to him. He's a full time citizen....perhaps we all should take a page from him.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Do you honestly think the average person wants to start hearing about someone running for office the day after inauguration day? Maybe they should, but most are probably happy all the frenzy surrounding the last election is finally over. Also he's not made of money....it takes money to run a campaign.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zw1Aji8FzJc
Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S. Pt. 2 of 5
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bVRevKOtSh0
Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S. Pt. 3 of 5
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oC8g7YNmCpM
Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S. Pt. 4 of 5
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zece3k884R0
Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S. Pt. 5 of 5
http://youtube.com/watch?v=szBugsr7bls
Looks like Nader is coming up with a West Coast tour. Even if your not voting for him you shouldn't miss what may be your last chance to see him.
This will be my second time and possibly my third.
Nader/Gonzalez event schedule
Friday, May 9th, 6:30pm
Ralph Nader Rally
Tempe, AZ
Arizona State University Room# CDN,60 (College of Design North)
850 South Forest Tempe, AZ 85287
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More info call (714) 292-8675 or nicole@votenader.org
Saturday May 10th 3:30 pm
Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez Rally
Santa Monica Bay Women's Club
1210 4th Street Santa Monica, CA 90401
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (213) 841-6042 or la4nader@gmail.com
Sunday May 11th 7pm
Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez Rally
Roxie Theater
3117 16th Street San Francisco, CA 94103
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call -(510) 914-8355 or events@votenader.org
Monday May 12th 12pm
Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez Rally
Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists
1924 Cedar St. (at Bonita) Berkeley, CA 94709
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call -(510) 914-8355 or events@votenader.org
Monday May 12th 8pm
Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez Rally
Rio Theatre
1205 Soquel Ave. Santa Cruz, CA 95062
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (831) 466-0739 or events@votenader.org
Tuesday May 13th 7:30pm
Ralph Nader Rally
Benson High Auditorium
546 NE 12th Ave Portland, OR
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (503) 484-6626 or events@votenader.org
Wednesday May 14th 1:30pm
Ralph Nader Rally
Tacoma Community College (Building#3)
6501 S. 19th Street Tacoma WA 98466
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (206) 755-4262 or events@votenader.org
Wednesday May 14th 7pm
Ralph Nader Rally
University of Washington
Seattle WA,
Kane Hall Room 120
$10 contribution/ $5 student/low-income (no one turned away)
More Info Call – (206) 755-4262 or events@votenader.org
Thanks, I posted a thread with those same clips last week. No one replied. I guess they'd rather just post their preconceived notions than to take the time to find more out about the process. It's frustrating to be honest.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Also, nice post, Collin.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Why is it that most candidates declared their quest for the presidency nearly a year before Nader did? What option does Ralph Nader provide when voters are exposed to other candidates a year ahead of Nader? When 10 options exist leading into Iowa and voters who give a damn actually seek information, it's not not fair to them as they seek a candidate who best suits their needs as a voter for a third party candidate to jump in 8 months later and expect support.
I'd say it's complacent for Nader to jump in so late and expect to get his issues at the forefront. I'd have no qualms whatsoever voting for a non-party or smaller party candidate, but for me that candidate must display some semblance of viability (as Ross Perot did to many voters) and seek the position with as much vigor and commitment as major party candidates.
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen
That is what I don't get about Nader. If the guy wants to be treated like a legitimate option why doesn't he start earlier to get his message out? He could have started the day after the last inauguration and started campaigning. If he feels the media doesn’t cover him enough he could have gone door-to-door explaining to people what his beliefs are and trying to get support.
I think he was still paying off his debt from 2004 because he had to fund a recount. . .up until 2007 I think that lasted
How is he going to run a campaign for as long as the other candidates when he's not funded by huge corporate donations? Let's be real here.
They go out state and petition just to get ballot access. And yes, their work is done with vigor and commitment...they do all they can realistcally do. And if any life has been lived selflessly, it's Ralph Nader's.
Watch the videos Hoon posted a few posts up if your truly interested in knowing the importance of Nader's and other third party runs.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
nevermind, I was talking about this
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4925/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiED0xToa48
yay democracy!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I understand it's difficult raising money when not affiliated with a major party, but if you consider Ron Paul, he is in some essences an outside candidate even though he's declared Republican. Look at how much money Howard Dean (I do understand the vast difference between an activist and a governor) raised online and the doors his campaign opened for candidates to court small donors. It can't be that expensive to run an online campaign. If he can afford a website with a "contact us" section, he can afford to offer responses to potential voters.
I'll give you that it would be nearly impossible to run a dollar for dollar campaign, but if he utilized the grasrrots resources and internet, he wouldn't have to wait a year after oother candidates declared to make his own declaration.
Somebody mentioned earlier that he spends a lot of time in the public arena speaking about issues ~ how hard would it have been for him to do so and state at the end of each gathering that he's running for president?