Just curious, and correct me if Im wrong. But I believe I read in another thread that you voted for Kerry in 04. Did you seriously think he was the best choice?
Nope, I knew he wasn't and did it anyway. I've also stated that I regret that lapse in judgement...it was a vote made 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
fair enough. i don't think i've been very good at explaining myself in this thread.
i will not be picking based on fear of mccain. nor would i really encourage people to do so. personally, kucinich, paul, and nader aren't really my cup of tea regardless. when i campaigned for nader, i was smoking a LOT of pot at the time but my point was not that i should have voted for gore solely becos bush turned out to be a nightmare. my point was that there WERE significant differences between gore and bush. and just as you feel i would be doing a disservice to urge people to vote dem out of fear of republicans, i think you are doing a disservice by acting like there is no difference between mccain and obama. there is.
so i think what i am urging is not "vote dem or else." it's more a matter of truly thinking things through and not being blinded by rhetoric, be it the rhetoric of third party votes are wasted or the rhetoric of all major party candidates are evil corporate whores. at the time, i was saying the same things about bush and gore that you are saying now about mccain and the dems. my point was that i was wrong and i wish i had known then what i know now.
by all means, vote your heart. but don't vote out of fear that any major party candidate will inevitably be ruled by special interests. al gore would have made a fantastic president. if only he'd had edwards as a running mate to give the ticket enough personality to win, i'd be a whole lot happier today
IMO, there wasn't enough difference between Gore and Bush pre 9/11 in the 2000 to support Gore's half-assed platform. If you thought there was you should have voted and campaigned for him instead. I don't understand how pot would have caused you not do so but perhaps it works differently for different people. I got high as hell in 04 and still managed to vote for Kerry. Maybe that was because of the pot, hmmm....nah, I'm still going with fear on that one.
And it's not rhetoric about Obama that turned me against him. It's because I had supported Kucinich and went into great detail when comparing the others guys so that I could be sure I was making the best decision. What I found, I didn't like at all. Obama IS backed by special interests, most alarming to me is the nuclear power industry. That might not mean shit to you, but it does to me. Also, his record lacked much to be desired. So yeah, I'm voting for the best person.
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
Messaged boiled down to: The two parties in power now are the best we can ever hope for. Don't be so foolish as to stand up against them or think progress is worth it. It's not and neither is a damn thing you believe in. You MUST submit. Even though the Democratic party hasn't done too much for you lately and have mostly sold out to special interests, this should be none of your concern. Big bad republican monster will always be under your bed keeping you and your visions of 'real' change in check. So do what's right kids, the media has already told you how limited your potential is, how optionless your choices are and how powerless you really are....so act like it, shut the fuck up and do as we say.
Actually, my boiled down summary might have been longer.
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
Messaged boiled down to: The two parties in power now are the best we can ever hope for. Don't be so foolish as to stand up against them or think progress is worth it. It's not and neither is a damn thing you believe in. You MUST submit. Even though the Democratic party hasn't done too much for you lately and have mostly sold out to special interests, this should be none of your concern. Big bad republican monster will always be under your bed keeping you and your visions of 'real' change in check. So do what's right kids, the media has already told you how limited your potential is, how optionless your choices are and how powerless you really are....so act like it, shut the fuck up and do as we say.
Actually, my boiled down summary might have been longer.
IMO, there wasn't enough difference between Gore and Bush pre 9/11 in the 2000 to support Gore's half-assed platform. If you thought there was you should have voted and campaigned for him instead. I don't understand how pot would have caused you not do so but perhaps it works differently for different people. I got high as hell in 04 and still managed to vote for Kerry. Maybe that was because of the pot, hmmm....nah, I'm still going with fear on that one.
And it's not rhetoric about Obama that turned me against him. It's because I had supported Kucinich and went into great detail when comparing the others guys so that I could be sure I was making the best decision. What I found, I didn't like at all. Obama IS backed by special interests, most alarming to me is the nuclear power industry. That might not mean shit to you, but it does to me. Also, his record lacked much to be desired. So yeah, I'm voting for the best person.
i've no doubt you've done your homework. im willing to bet you know more about any given candidate than i do. i havent looked into it yet... election's a few months away still i guess im more directing it at people who get caught up in the trends of the moment, like i was with nader in 2000.
i've no doubt you've done your homework. im willing to bet you know more about any given candidate than i do. i havent looked into it yet... election's a few months away still i guess im more directing it at people who get caught up in the trends of the moment, like i was with nader in 2000.
I definitely understand the feeling. It's a big pet peeve of mine...seeing people jump on a bandwagon and act so fanatical about things they really don't know much about.
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 definitely understand the feeling. It's a big pet peeve of mine...seeing people jump on a bandwagon and act so fanatical about things they really don't know much about.
that's what i was trying to get at, in my own misguided, inept, and roundabout way.
I was just talking to my younger sister, who is 30 years old. She has never given enough damn about politics to make it to the polls, yet she does have her opinions on what she does and does not like about certain political issues.
Anywho - I was pitching Nader to her and she was like, "Ugh, I don't want to get all informed with all of the details!"
I told her it is so simple to get a very basic idea if Nader is someone you care to support. Just go to http://www.votenader.org/issues/ and he lays out some easy to read sentences for you. She agreed to do it and you bet I'll be following up to see how she feels about him.
I love my sister dearly. However, this is frustrating 'cause I have to wonder how many people are like this. How many people are just following the masses 'cause they would rather watch Entertainment Tonight than hear how our any potential next president plans to run our country? :mad:
It really chaps my hide. :cool:
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.
On an issue by issue basis, americans would support Nader. See the Civics Test in the original post for examples.
Its not his policies that americans aren't in support of, its the media narrative that pigeonholes him as a lonely loon.
Lack of corporate financing and major party support may be unsurmountable in winning the presidency. His aim is to pull the major parties in a more populist direction. If Kucinich, Gravel, or even Edwards won the democratic nomination he wouldn't be running. The more support he can get the stronger his pull will be.
He may seem stubborn and in your face, but that is how he has achieved his great accomplishments.
If the democrats don't like it they can present a more populist platform to appeal to his supporters.
Perhaps he would be more effective, and not forced to defend tiresome accusations of being a spoiler, if he were to run for congress instead.
"Matt Gonzalez is Ralph Nader’s Vice Presidential running mate.
In 2000, Gonzalez was elected to the 11 member San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which supervises a city with a budget of $6 billion. He became President of the Board three years later.
Gonzalez worked as a deputy public defender in San Francisco from 1991 2000, developing extensive trial experience. "
anyone consider the fact nader might actually take republican votes away ... i mean the blanket republicans that are pissed at bush but can't bring themselves to vote democrat ... or the ones that think mccain is too liberal (which is hilarious in it of itself) ...
anyways - i would vote for nader in a heartbeat given the other 2 choices ...
anyone consider the fact nader might actually take republican votes away ... i mean the blanket republicans that are pissed at bush but can't bring themselves to vote democrat ... or the ones that think mccain is too liberal (which is hilarious in it of itself) ...
anyways - i would vote for nader in a heartbeat given the other 2 choices ...
they think mccain is too liberal so they're going to vote for nader? that makes no sense.
"Of the following Presidential candidates – Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain – which one supports a single payer, Canadian style, free choice, Medicare for all health care system?
Answer: Ralph Nader
October, 2003 Washington Post/ABC poll, by almost a two-to-one margin (62 percent to 33 percent), Americans said that they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to the current employer-based system.
Which one supports solar energy and would take nuclear power off the table?
Answer: Ralph Nader
CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 20-24, 2007. N=1,052 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Would you approve or disapprove of building more nuclear power plants to generate electricity?"
Approve 45%
Disapprove 47%
Unsure 8%
"Would you approve or disapprove if a nuclear power plant to generate electricity is built in your community?"
Approve 36%
Disapprove 59%
Unsure 5%
"Would you be willing or not willing to pay higher taxes on gasoline and other fuels if the money was used for research into renewable sources like solar and wind energy?"
Willing 64%
Not Willing 33%
Not Sure 3%
"Some people say using nuclear power to generate electricity is a good idea because uranium fuel is available in North America and nuclear power doesn't contribute to global warming. Other people say using nuclear power is a bad idea because of the risk of accident and the fact there is still no long-term solution for nuclear waste disposal. What do you think -- is using nuclear power to generate electricity mostly a good
idea or mostly a bad idea?"
Good 36%
Bad 58%
Unsure 6%
"Some people say using renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power, to generate electricity is a good idea because they are readily available and better for the environment. Other people say using renewable energy sources are a bad idea because they are too expensive and can be unreliable. What do you think -- is using renewable energy sources to generate electricity mostly a good idea or mostly a bad idea?"
"There is much discussion as to the amount of money the government in Washington should spend for national defense and military purposes. How do you feel about this? Do you think we are spending too little, about the right amount, or too much?"
Too Little 20%
About Right 35%
Too Much 43%
Unsure 2%
Which one would reverse U.S. Middle East policy in Israel/Palestine, Iraq and Iran?
Answer: Ralph Nader
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Jan. 18-22, 2008. N=1,312 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).
"In your opinion, should the United States withdraw troops from Iraq right away, or should the U.S. begin bringing troops home within the next year, or should troops stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to win the war?"
Withdraw Right Away 20%
Withdraw Within Year 43%
Stay as Long As It Takes 31%
Unsure 6%
October, 2003 Washington Post/ABC poll, by almost a two-to-one margin (62 percent to 33 percent), Americans said that they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to the current employer-based system.
and both obama and hillary have plans to move towards this. health care is coming. people want it and it will happen. but it won't happen overnight, whether nader is elected or not. so he's one of 3 candidates supporting some form of national health care.
yes, people support environment issues. but when has an election ever been decided on those issues? it's not going to trump the war and health care.
"There is much discussion as to the amount of money the government in Washington should spend for national defense and military purposes. How do you feel about this? Do you think we are spending too little, about the right amount, or too much?"
Too Little 20%
About Right 35%
Too Much 43%
Unsure 2%
43% want to reduce military spending. how does that show a majority or americans want to cut the military budget like nader does? 55% think it is fine or low.
"In your opinion, should the United States withdraw troops from Iraq right away, or should the U.S. begin bringing troops home within the next year, or should troops stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to win the war?"
Withdraw Right Away 20%
Withdraw Within Year 43%
Stay as Long As It Takes 31%
Unsure 6%
20% are on board with nader's "get out now plan." 43% are on board with obama's proceed with caution plan. 31% are on board with mccain/clinton's stay the course plan. that doesn't look much like consensus to me.
now, you got polls on gay marriage? creation science in classrooms? raising taxes? school vouchers?
and both obama and hillary have plans to move towards this. health care is coming. people want it and it will happen. but it won't happen overnight, whether nader is elected or not. so he's one of 3 candidates supporting some form of national health care.
yes, people support environment issues. but when has an election ever been decided on those issues? it's not going to trump the war and health care.
43% want to reduce military spending. how does that show a majority or americans want to cut the military budget like nader does? 55% think it is fine or low.
20% are on board with nader's "get out now plan." 43% are on board with obama's proceed with caution plan. 31% are on board with mccain/clinton's stay the course plan. that doesn't look much like consensus to me.
now, you got polls on gay marriage? creation science in classrooms? raising taxes? school vouchers?
You are completely missing the point. You claim that this country is conservative and would reject Nader's ideas. The opposite is true. The country is leaning towards Nader's direction especially on the huge issue of healthcare(single payer) and the rapidly growing issue of the environment(don't act like you haven't noticed it), government corruption, and they want less spent on defense and more on social programs. Now...to say that most of the country has heard Nader's platform is extremely unlikely. Hell, I asked my youngest brother last night about his thoughts on Nader and he'd never even heard of him. I believe, and you can continue to disagree, that people would get behind Nader's ideas if they knew about the guy and his platform as a whole. Many aren't even aware someone is out there supporting these kinds of ideas so how can we claim he'd be rejected until he's actually heard out and without being tainted by media cries of 'unrealistic'. When do the people get to decide what they want to make real or not. To hear the media tell it, they have no power at all except to go along with whatever our politicians happen to be telling us is possible at the moment. That's not how it used to be. People got out and fought for what was right for them. They accomplished worker's rights, unions, civil liberties, voting rights etc. Now people are complacent and apathetic for sure but that's not the same as saying they wouldn't welcome the changes Nader would bring to the table if they thought he actually stood a chance. People are going to have to realize that no one can get the chance if you're too afraid to give it to them.
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 gouging price of oil – today reaching over $105 a barrel – is spiking gasoline and heating oil prices."
"They are not speaking out forcefully and demanding the Justice Department and Congressional committees use their subpoena powers to delve into the workings of the these mercantile exchanges, the timing and excessively long shutdowns of refineries for repair, and the resulting refinery shortages – which curtail supply and push prices upward.
Nor do they aggressively advocate for an excess profits tax on the oil industry – a tax which has been supported by American leaders ranging from former President Harry Truman to entrepreneur and CEO Jeno Paulucci."
Comments
-Big Fish
Nope, I knew he wasn't and did it anyway. I've also stated that I regret that lapse in judgement...it was a vote made in fear.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
IMO, there wasn't enough difference between Gore and Bush pre 9/11 in the 2000 to support Gore's half-assed platform. If you thought there was you should have voted and campaigned for him instead. I don't understand how pot would have caused you not do so but perhaps it works differently for different people. I got high as hell in 04 and still managed to vote for Kerry. Maybe that was because of the pot, hmmm....nah, I'm still going with fear on that one.
And it's not rhetoric about Obama that turned me against him. It's because I had supported Kucinich and went into great detail when comparing the others guys so that I could be sure I was making the best decision. What I found, I didn't like at all. Obama IS backed by special interests, most alarming to me is the nuclear power industry. That might not mean shit to you, but it does to me. Also, his record lacked much to be desired. So yeah, I'm voting for the best person.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
'Obama makes us cry sometimes.' Great point
Messaged boiled down to: The two parties in power now are the best we can ever hope for. Don't be so foolish as to stand up against them or think progress is worth it. It's not and neither is a damn thing you believe in. You MUST submit. Even though the Democratic party hasn't done too much for you lately and have mostly sold out to special interests, this should be none of your concern. Big bad republican monster will always be under your bed keeping you and your visions of 'real' change in check. So do what's right kids, the media has already told you how limited your potential is, how optionless your choices are and how powerless you really are....so act like it, shut the fuck up and do as we say.
Actually, my boiled down summary might have been longer.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Er, I think it was a bit more ironic than that.
Perhaps. It's hard to tell these days...honestly
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've no doubt you've done your homework. im willing to bet you know more about any given candidate than i do. i havent looked into it yet... election's a few months away still
I definitely understand the feeling. It's a big pet peeve of mine...seeing people jump on a bandwagon and act so fanatical about things they really don't know much about.
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's what i was trying to get at, in my own misguided, inept, and roundabout way.
Gotcha
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Anywho - I was pitching Nader to her and she was like, "Ugh, I don't want to get all informed with all of the details!"
I told her it is so simple to get a very basic idea if Nader is someone you care to support. Just go to http://www.votenader.org/issues/ and he lays out some easy to read sentences for you. She agreed to do it and you bet I'll be following up to see how she feels about him.
I love my sister dearly. However, this is frustrating 'cause I have to wonder how many people are like this. How many people are just following the masses 'cause they would rather watch Entertainment Tonight than hear how our any potential next president plans to run our country? :mad:
It really chaps my hide. :cool:
***********************
"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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvFCcMbnyTs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdBWdMM3ruc&feature=related
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://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/10.07/17-nader.html
Nader knocked down every harvard student that attacked him, at the end all they could do is start singing.
I mean the speech was good, the q&a part at the end was the best. please try and find it. its a must watch!
i agree with that...
if only his name were on your seat belts and airbags would he not be slammed.
Its not his policies that americans aren't in support of, its the media narrative that pigeonholes him as a lonely loon.
Lack of corporate financing and major party support may be unsurmountable in winning the presidency. His aim is to pull the major parties in a more populist direction. If Kucinich, Gravel, or even Edwards won the democratic nomination he wouldn't be running. The more support he can get the stronger his pull will be.
He may seem stubborn and in your face, but that is how he has achieved his great accomplishments.
If the democrats don't like it they can present a more populist platform to appeal to his supporters.
Perhaps he would be more effective, and not forced to defend tiresome accusations of being a spoiler, if he were to run for congress instead.
Nader: "If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up,"
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://www.votenader.org/media/2008/02/28/matt-gonzalez-is-naders-vp/
"Matt Gonzalez is Ralph Nader’s Vice Presidential running mate.
In 2000, Gonzalez was elected to the 11 member San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which supervises a city with a budget of $6 billion. He became President of the Board three years later.
Gonzalez worked as a deputy public defender in San Francisco from 1991 2000, developing extensive trial experience. "
he said that in 2000 too.
i very very very highly doubt that is true.
anyways - i would vote for nader in a heartbeat given the other 2 choices ...
It's a shame they can't learn from the past and run on more important issues.
Also, I don't think a landslide was nearly as likely in 2000 coming off a Democratic presidency with so much scandal.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
they think mccain is too liberal so they're going to vote for nader? that makes no sense.
October, 2003 Washington Post/ABC poll, by almost a two-to-one margin (62 percent to 33 percent), Americans said that they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to the current employer-based system.
CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 20-24, 2007. N=1,052 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Would you approve or disapprove of building more nuclear power plants to generate electricity?"
Approve 45%
Disapprove 47%
Unsure 8%
"Would you approve or disapprove if a nuclear power plant to generate electricity is built in your community?"
Approve 36%
Disapprove 59%
Unsure 5%
"Would you be willing or not willing to pay higher taxes on gasoline and other fuels if the money was used for research into renewable sources like solar and wind energy?"
Willing 64%
Not Willing 33%
Not Sure 3%
"Some people say using nuclear power to generate electricity is a good idea because uranium fuel is available in North America and nuclear power doesn't contribute to global warming. Other people say using nuclear power is a bad idea because of the risk of accident and the fact there is still no long-term solution for nuclear waste disposal. What do you think -- is using nuclear power to generate electricity mostly a good
idea or mostly a bad idea?"
Good 36%
Bad 58%
Unsure 6%
"Some people say using renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power, to generate electricity is a good idea because they are readily available and better for the environment. Other people say using renewable energy sources are a bad idea because they are too expensive and can be unreliable. What do you think -- is using renewable energy sources to generate electricity mostly a good idea or mostly a bad idea?"
Good 87%
Bad 9%
Unsure 4%
Gallup Poll. Feb. 1-4, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"There is much discussion as to the amount of money the government in Washington should spend for national defense and military purposes. How do you feel about this? Do you think we are spending too little, about the right amount, or too much?"
Too Little 20%
About Right 35%
Too Much 43%
Unsure 2%
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Jan. 18-22, 2008. N=1,312 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).
"In your opinion, should the United States withdraw troops from Iraq right away, or should the U.S. begin bringing troops home within the next year, or should troops stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to win the war?"
Withdraw Right Away 20%
Withdraw Within Year 43%
Stay as Long As It Takes 31%
Unsure 6%
and both obama and hillary have plans to move towards this. health care is coming. people want it and it will happen. but it won't happen overnight, whether nader is elected or not. so he's one of 3 candidates supporting some form of national health care.
yes, people support environment issues. but when has an election ever been decided on those issues? it's not going to trump the war and health care.
43% want to reduce military spending. how does that show a majority or americans want to cut the military budget like nader does? 55% think it is fine or low.
20% are on board with nader's "get out now plan." 43% are on board with obama's proceed with caution plan. 31% are on board with mccain/clinton's stay the course plan. that doesn't look much like consensus to me.
now, you got polls on gay marriage? creation science in classrooms? raising taxes? school vouchers?
You are completely missing the point. You claim that this country is conservative and would reject Nader's ideas. The opposite is true. The country is leaning towards Nader's direction especially on the huge issue of healthcare(single payer) and the rapidly growing issue of the environment(don't act like you haven't noticed it), government corruption, and they want less spent on defense and more on social programs. Now...to say that most of the country has heard Nader's platform is extremely unlikely. Hell, I asked my youngest brother last night about his thoughts on Nader and he'd never even heard of him. I believe, and you can continue to disagree, that people would get behind Nader's ideas if they knew about the guy and his platform as a whole. Many aren't even aware someone is out there supporting these kinds of ideas so how can we claim he'd be rejected until he's actually heard out and without being tainted by media cries of 'unrealistic'. When do the people get to decide what they want to make real or not. To hear the media tell it, they have no power at all except to go along with whatever our politicians happen to be telling us is possible at the moment. That's not how it used to be. People got out and fought for what was right for them. They accomplished worker's rights, unions, civil liberties, voting rights etc. Now people are complacent and apathetic for sure but that's not the same as saying they wouldn't welcome the changes Nader would bring to the table if they thought he actually stood a chance. People are going to have to realize that no one can get the chance if you're too afraid to give it to them.
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 gouging price of oil – today reaching over $105 a barrel – is spiking gasoline and heating oil prices."
"They are not speaking out forcefully and demanding the Justice Department and Congressional committees use their subpoena powers to delve into the workings of the these mercantile exchanges, the timing and excessively long shutdowns of refineries for repair, and the resulting refinery shortages – which curtail supply and push prices upward.
Nor do they aggressively advocate for an excess profits tax on the oil industry – a tax which has been supported by American leaders ranging from former President Harry Truman to entrepreneur and CEO Jeno Paulucci."
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08