Why support Nader?

245

Comments

  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    double post
    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
    Kenny Olav wrote:
    maybe he can be a backup singer?

    i dunno, Mike Gravel might be trying to coalesce the third parties for a renewed presidential run, and as you know, i think that dude is rad.

    not really sure how i'll be voting tho.

    Gravel's not too shabby. He's a fighter and I dig that about him. He's got a big heart.
    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
    soulsinging wrote:
    not exactly. it's not a matter of ethics or preferences or moral worth. it's a matter of realism. in utilitarian terms, there is probably great benefit in campaigning for ralph nader. in realistic terms, he has no chance of winning so i'd just as soon divert my efforts to other areas.

    We make reality by our actions and our courage to stand behind our beliefs.
    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
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    You brought up the dead soldiers angle, not I. And frankly, I was a bit surprised.

    So, we should all just give in because you and so many others are afraid of McCain still winning over a Dem? Why wouldn't a Dem be able to beat him in this current political climate? Only because they weren't good enough to get enough votes. And that's their problem.

    you can do whatever you please. i just encourage you to consider the potential outcomes of your actions, since i regret the outcome of my own.

    what surprises you about the soldiers comment?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I don't think it's that simple either but I do think it plays a huge part when so many see the govt working against our interests, not for them.

    i think that's the crux of my reluctance to accept your argument. i don't think the general perception is that government is working against our interests. i think the general perception is that government is totally out of touch with our interests and is thus unable to accomplish anything of significance to most people.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    We make reality by our actions and our courage to stand behind our beliefs.

    i admire your optimism. i wish i shared it.
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    soulsinging wrote:
    there will be war as long as there is a human being in office leading other human beings. there would be war with ralph nader in office too. he cannot make it disappear with a wish and a prayer. they tried that in the 60s.
    Wrong.
    Wrong.
    Wrong.

    Plenty of countries are NOT at war. I refuse to believe the insane argument you present. It's irrational and illogical.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    soulsinging wrote:

    what surprises you about the soldiers comment?


    One, because I know you view war as inevitable. Two, I thought we all got tired of the cons using the soldiers angle in the past and though yours is different, it's still rooted in fearmongering.
    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
    soulsinging wrote:
    i think that's the crux of my reluctance to accept your argument. i don't think the general perception is that government is working against our interests. i think the general perception is that government is totally out of touch with our interests and is thus unable to accomplish anything of significance to most people.

    They work in the interests of lobbyists and campaign contributors. And I think people see it happening. Do you really think Obama thinks nuclear power is 'green'?
    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
    soulsinging wrote:
    i admire your optimism. i wish i shared it.

    If you wish it then share it and there it is. :)
    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
  • LikeAnOcean
    LikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    How do you know what mainstream america agrees with?
    Nader is too liberal for most, unless most are not voting.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    Nader is too liberal for most, unless most are not voting.


    They told you this?
    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
  • LikeAnOcean
    LikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    They told you this?
    No, the media told me this. :(

    I just know too many people who think he's crazy. Not that I agree.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    No, the media told me this. :(

    I just know too many people who think he's crazy. Not that I agree.

    Correct. And I'm sure you know better than to let the media or the masses, for that matter, make your decisions for you. Get behind what you believe in, they're not going to do it.
    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
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    soulsinging wrote:
    i dont think it's as simple or specific as that. millions of americans don't vote or are disenchanted with the process, but i think it runs far deeper than the perception of "corporate control." ignorance plays a large part. so does apathy. the government is so large and removed from their lives and impersonal that a lot of people don't feel it has anything to do with them. i heard it when i campaigned for nader. for every one person who told me i was throwing my vote away, or every one person who told me their vote was outweighed by corporate interests, there were 20 people who said voting didn't matter, period. and that's on a college campus.
    If anyone is voting for a 'lesser of two evils' with more than two names on the ballot before them....then it must be ignorance. I wish this apathetic majority would get off their asses and do what is the only logical thing for them to do....Or is the possibility of an 'unkown evil' more terrifying than the lesser of two? ugh...fear again.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Correct. And I'm sure you know better than to let the media or the masses, for that matter, make your decisions for you. Get behind what you believe in, they're not going to do it.

    i think you just tacitly agreed with him. if it's so farfetched that nader is too liberal for most of america as he claims, then why do you advise him not to let the masses make his decision for him?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    One, because I know you view war as inevitable. Two, I thought we all got tired of the cons using the soldiers angle in the past and though yours is different, it's still rooted in fearmongering.

    im not sure i know what you mean by this. i said i feel guilt over helping to elect a president who is so gung ho on war that he led us into a totally needless war. war is an inevitable part of human society. i accept that. so i prefer to vote for a candidate who will think very hard before committing to one. nader would. gore would have as well. i do not think we would be stuck in iraq, had al gore been elected in 2000. im not entirely sure how that is fearmongering. seems to me it is simply about knowing where candidates stand on important issues.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    soulsinging wrote:
    i think you just tacitly agreed with him. if it's so farfetched that nader is too liberal for most of america as he claims, then why do you advise him not to let the masses make his decision for him?


    I guess you could say that. But I was really just batting down each argument whichever way you decided to see it.

    My own view: If people had more exposure to Nader and weren't told he had no chance of winning...they'd be supporting him in droves. All opinion of the media pushed aside and each candidate compared against each other based on merit and platforms, with no cries of 'unelectable'....Nader would recieve a ton of support.
    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
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Drowned Out wrote:
    If anyone is voting for a 'lesser of two evils' with more than two names on the ballot before them....then it must be ignorance. I wish this apathetic majority would get off their asses and do what is the only logical thing for them to do....Or is the possibility of an 'unkown evil' more terrifying than the lesser of two? ugh...fear again.

    how do you figure this? i've yet to see a perfect candidate. so inevitably i am voting for a lesser of evils. who's to say i would vote for nader anyway? i've not really made my mind up about the election, i don't know who the democrat will be or where s/he stands on various issues. what i am saying is that in retrospect i was wrong. al gore was a better candidate than nader. and not just becos he could win. he would have made a great president. and even if i weren't leery of john mccain, i wouldn't vote for nader.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I guess you could say that. But I was really just batting down each argument whichever way you decided to see it.

    My own view: If people had more exposure to Nader and weren't told he had no chance of winning...they'd be supporting him in droves. All opinion of the media pushed aside and each candidate compared against each other based on merit and platforms, with no cries of 'unelectable'....Nader would recieve a ton of support.

    honestly, i think you're way off base with that one. a HUGE chunk of america is pretty conservative and would be very turned off by nader's stances on government involvement in the economy. heck, i'm pretty liberal by most standards and even i don't care for many of his views.

Categories