Nader for Mccain '08

13

Comments

  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    how much change did it bring in 2000? 2004?

    nada
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    i like nader... i support him running... but a vote for him will not change anything... thats the reality of the situation...

    a vote for nader will create as much change as a vote for kinky friedman


    Only because people are still voting in fear
    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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    how much change did it bring in 2000? 2004?

    nada


    I guess you think winning an election is the only way you bring about change. A bit shortsighted don't ya think? He brought important issues into the national debate and got people enthusiastic about someone being out there who actually represents the things they've been caring about for so long.

    Gore and Kerry didn't win either. I guess they shouldn't have ran. The Democratic party DOES NOT automatically deserve anyone's vote. To think otherwise is arrogant and anti democracy.
    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
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I guess you think winning an election is the only way you bring about change. A bit shortsighted don't ya think? He brought important issues into the national debate and got people enthusiastic about someone being out there who actually represents the things they've been caring about for so long.

    and how did that work out?

    i see no side positive change or side effects from the past 2 elections and Nader's candidacy
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    by the way...not saying winning is what iot is all about... i was simply pointing out that nader is irrelevant currently and a candidate getting 1% of the vote isnt making change... in my opinion
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    i bet you $20 he doesnt come even close to 6%...

    I don't care if he got 0.1%. I'm not basing my vote on what other people are going to do. I'm basing my vote on someone whose record and platform most closely matches my beliefs....that's what you're supposed to do, what a concept!! Anything else is politicing or voting out of fear.
    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
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Only because people are still voting in fear
    thats ridiculous. people are voting for the candidate they want. just because people dont vote for the candidate you think is right, doesnt make them wrong.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    by the way...not saying winning is what iot is all about... i was simply pointing out that nader is irrelevant currently and a candidate getting 1% of the vote isnt making change... in my opinion


    So he is irrelevant because why again?

    Nader has brought this country more change to this country than the other 3 ever will.
    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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    thats ridiculous. people are voting for the candidate they want. just because people dont vote for the candidate you think is right, doesnt make them wrong.

    No, I'm talking to the ones who won't vote nader bc they view it as a waste and say Mccain might win.

    If you vote for someone you don't like as much because you don't want another guy to win...it is fear of that 'other guy'.

    This is the case with some not all Obama supporters
    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
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    So he is irrelevant because why again?

    Nader has brought this country more change to this country than the other 3 ever will.

    "currently"



    and um, nader isnt ending the iraq war... and i believe Obama will... so, the setabelt is nice and i love all the things naders done... but he is also nearly 30 years older then Obama... and nader has never taken over a country in SERIOUSLY BAD SHAPE... which obama is about to do, so time will tell

    i believe Obama will be the best president this country has had... to some like me that isnt saying too much based on the past presidents, but it is saying something signifigant...

    i wont agree with everything... but i will agree with the large direction change, thats for sure...

    some times it is about larger pictures and basic directions... we are talking about leading a country of nearly 300,000,000... that isnt easy and you cant please everyone, or change it completely over night, even though we would like to
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    and how did that work out?

    i see no side positive change or side effects from the past 2 elections and Nader's candidacy

    I see people who have been inspired by Nader. Issues brought up by him have been carried on by his supporters...3 million of them the in 2000. he brought all these issues that the 2 major parties would touch and forced them into the mainstream. That is progress. Too bad the dems were as the usually are too stupid to pick up any of those issues and try to get more support from the left.
    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
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    No, I'm talking to the ones who won't vote nader bc they view it as a waste and say Mccain might win.

    If you vote for someone you don't like as much because you don't want another guy to win...it is fear of that 'other guy'.

    This is the case with some not all Obama supporters
    I get what you are saying abook. But why do you insist on singling out just Obama supporters? Wouldn't your theory apply to Clinton and McCain supporters too? Why do you always just mention Obama supporters?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    "currently"



    and um, nader isnt ending the iraq war... and i believe Obama will... so, the setabelt is nice and i love all the things naders done... but he is also nearly 30 years older then Obama... and nader has never taken over a country in SERIOUSLY BAD SHAPE... which obama is about to do, so time will tell

    i believe Obama will be the best president this country has had... to some like me that isnt saying too much, but it is saying something

    The seatbelt is all you can name. Whatever.

    More speculation about Obama...we will see. I have no doubt in my mind Nader would end the war and make a fantastic president.
    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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    I get what you are saying abook. But why do you insist on singling out just Obama supporters? Wouldn't your theory apply to Clinton and McCain supporters too? Why do you always just mention Obama supporters?


    Who here is a Hillary or Mccain supporter? Why should i waste my time stating the very obvious to people who already know the deal about those 2?
    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
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    The ironic thing is, Nader isn't even the least-worst candidate.
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Who here is a Hillary or Mccain supporter? Why should i waste my time stating the very obvious to people who already know the deal about those 2?
    I'm sure there are some here :)
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    my2hands wrote:
    bingo...

    sounds just like some people from here...

    honestly, nader is irrelevant at this point and i think is actually hurting the reputation of 3rd party candidates...

    so, it's all a conspiracy between nader and mccain to help get mccain in office?

    he has mentioned mccain and you can see his name right on top of his issues page, which we've posted several times. and hey, feel free to post as many mccain threads as you want! no one's stopping you or anyone else. is anyone really talking about mccain lately other than vp picks? not even too many threads other than one w/ his issues comparing them to obama's....in fact you've started threads about irrelevant ol nader but not a whole on mccain....a lotta ppl seem to focus a whole lot of attention on nader for being so inconsequential.....a loooooot moreso than mccain maybe you guys are in on it!!!

    my2hands wrote:
    why do you guys act like he is the first 3rd party candidate? and the only?


    and .3% is not another choice... its just another name

    and how did we act like he's the first 3rd party candidate???? see my above reply, you guys seem to focus quite a bit of attention and energy and anger at him for being 'just another name' oh well....i obviously know he isn't the first 3rd party candidate, my first election i voted for perot and i knew even he wasn't the first 3rd party candidate b/c i could see the obvious charade of the 2 party system here.

    if anyone thinks he's the ONLY 3rd party candidate it's all those ppl here who say nader lost the election for gore. they seem obliviously unaware that EVERY SINGLE 3RD PARTY CANDIDATE received MORE votes than the difference between bush and gore in florida

    the simpsons captured the fallacy of the 2 party system brilliantly in the halloween episode where the 2 aliens disguise themselves as clinton and dole to gain control of the us...right before election they are exposed to the ppl to be aliens and say 'well you have to vote for one of us, america's only a 2 party system' ....then perot comes out and is mocked and the ppl vote for the aliens....
    my2hands wrote:
    i like nader... i support him running... but a vote for him will not change anything... thats the reality of the situation...

    a vote for nader will create as much change as a vote for kinky friedman

    riiiiiight you like nader, you support him running but he's irrelevant and needs to stick w/ seat belts and all the other stuff you post...

    a vote for kinky friedman will bring about as much change as voting for obama or voting for clinton or mccain....no offense, kinky
    my2hands wrote:
    how much change did it bring in 2000? 2004?

    nada

    can't wait to see the change obama will usher in
    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
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    question: why doesn't Nader run for a seat in the senate or the house...? He could propose change via that venue and perhaps get some things done...
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    inmytree wrote:
    question: why doesn't Nader run for a seat in the senate or the house...? He could propose change via that venue and perhaps get some things done...


    I personally think it's very smart to run the way he has in presidential elections. They get tons more press than senate races so the issues he brings with him also get that attention. We all probably wouldn't know nearly as much about him if he hadn't ran for president. And I'm glad to have the opportunity to vote for someone who keeps my conscience at ease. He has gotten things done this way, as well. He rallys people behind him and they join his causes. The Dems don't own the right to run and they need to have people like Nader out there keeping them in check, imo.
    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
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I personally think it's very smart to run the way he has in presidential elections. They get tons more press than senate races so the issues he brings with him also get that attention. We all probably wouldn't know nearly as much about him if he hadn't ran for president. And I'm glad to have the opportunity to vote for someone who keeps my conscience at ease. He has gotten things done this way, as well. He rallys people behind him and they join his causes. The Dems don't own the right to run and they need to have people like Nader out there keeping them in check, imo.

    I understand your stance, but don't you think Nader could make an impact as a Senator or Representative...he could introduce legislation and raise awareness from the inside...

    Based on your response, it seems Nader is simply seeking attention for he sake of seeking attention...if he truly wanted change, Congress would be a good venue....

Categories