Why support Nader?

Abookamongstthemany

soulsinging wrote:

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.

I'm not sure if we would or wouldn't be in Iraq had Gore won. But still, it's Gore's own fault for losing.

It seems to me you're invoking the fear of more war to encourage people to vote for a Dem. That is fearmongering because your saying if you don't do this (even though you don't agree with it) then there will be more war. You're saying not to stand behind my own views, to just abandon them because of fear. It won't be my fault if the dems lose. It'll be their fault for not being worth a damn.

decides2dream

soulsinging wrote:

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.

absolutely.
although i am not 100% on the 'lesser of two evils' portion. LAST election, i DID absolutely go for the lesser of two evils, not much choice in my mind...i just wanted bush the FUCK out of office, so kerry got my vote. didn't do any good, but none the less. i DID support gore, got my vote...and i absolutely think he would've made a damn fine president, and i do not think we'd be where we are today if he were. however, the past is past. that said, i actually DO think when i go and vote....i will vote not out of FEAR, but with HOPE.....hope that our next president will try to undo all the damage done these past 8 years.....and start building this country back up, working for us, etc. i think obama could be the man, but i have not made up my mind just yet...there's still time. however, i did not think nader was the man first time out, don't think he is today. if he is for others.....good thing we all get our vote.

Abookamongstthemany

soulsinging wrote:

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.

Agree to disagree then. I think there is just as huge of a chunk of disillusioned, apathetic people waiting to feel like they have someone who will represent the people. Right now, they don't see a point in bothering. If people felt they actually had something to gain with their vote then they would be out at the polls in large percentages.

norm

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

It won't be my fault if the dems lose. It'll be their fault for not being worth a damn.

that's it right there....both parties are so corrupt and arrogant nothing will be solved by voting for either of their candidates....

Abookamongstthemany

decides2dream wrote:

absolutely.
although i am not 100% on the 'lesser of two evils' portion. LAST election, i DID absolutely go for the lesser of two evils, not much choice in my mind...i just wanted bush the FUCK out of office, so kerry got my vote. didn't do any good, but none the less. i DID support gore, got my vote...and i absolutely think he would've made a damn fine president, and i do not think we'd be where we are today if he were. however, the past is past. that said, i actually DO think when i go and vote....i will vote not out of FEAR, but with HOPE.....hope that our next president will try to undo all the damage done these past 8 years.....and start building this country back up, working for us, etc. i think obama could be the man, but i have not made up my mind just yet...there's still time. however, i did not think nader was the man first time out, don't think he is today. if he is for others.....good thing we all get our vote.

That's one way to word it, I guess, if we're still talking about not voting for the person you think would be best but instead for a Dem to offset a Republican candidate. It's like after suffering a dog attack, you run into this other dog on your street a few weeks later and say 'God, I HOPE that dog doesn't bite the shit outta me like the one did a few weeks ago.' It's still fear of the dog. If this wasn't the way you meant it, feel free to correct me.

norm

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That's one way to word it, I guess, if we're still talking about not voting for the person you think would be best but instead for a Dem to offset a Republican candidate. It's like after suffering a dog attack, you run into this other dog on your street a few weeks later and say 'God, I HOPE that dog doesn't bite the shit outta me like the one did a few weeks ago.' It's still fear of the dog. If this wasn't the way you meant it, feel free to correct me.

fear of the dog.....i like that....:)

Abookamongstthemany

cutback wrote:

fear of the dog.....i like that....:)

decides2dream

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That's one way to word it, I guess, if we're still talking about not voting for the person you think would be best but instead for a Dem to offset a Republican candidate. It's like after suffering a dog attack, you run into this other dog on your street a few weeks later and say 'God, I HOPE that dog doesn't bite the shit outta me like the one did a few weeks ago.' It's still fear of the dog. If this wasn't the way you meant it, feel free to correct me.

it's not...it's hope for the future. the past is past, can't change it. just learn from it, work past it, move on. i am not look for a 'dem' candidate, just the one candidate of ANY party, or no affiliation at all really, i personally think will do the best he/she can in my opinion. i am an independent and always will be, i don't 'believe' in parties....just finding the candidate i most believe will represent my ideals. as conor said earlier, i've yet to find a one who is *perfect*...so i look for the best representation offered each election, as close to what i most want....all i can look for in anyone really, b/c i've yet to find *perfect* in anyone at all, including myself.


so yes, i was speaking about voting for who i think would be best for the job, not merely about voting one party or another out of office. that lesson was learned last election, i try not to make the same mistakes twice....then again, there was no candidate last time around that truly appealled to me in any sense. yet, i still felt the need to vote, to do something.....


anyhoo...have a good night all.

soulsinging

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I'm not sure if we would or wouldn't be in Iraq had Gore won. But still, it's Gore's own fault for losing.

It seems to me you're invoking the fear of more war to encourage people to vote for a Dem. That is fearmongering because your saying if you don't do this (even though you don't agree with it) then there will be more war. You're saying not to stand behind my own views, to just abandon them because of fear. It won't be my fault if the dems lose. It'll be their fault for not being worth a damn.

that might be true if you hate the democrats. i just happen to think they're less than perfect.

as to fearmongering, if you're going to chaacterize it that way, ALL political stances are fearmongering. you're fearmongering by telling me that if i vote democratic i'm helping support corporate oppression. at a certain point, any view can be considered fearmongering by convincing people bad things will happen if they vote any other way. i'm not buying it, or at least i think your use of the term robs it of meaning.

soulsinging

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Agree to disagree then. I think there is just as huge of a chunk of disillusioned, apathetic people waiting to feel like they have someone who will represent the people. Right now, they don't see a point in bothering. If people felt they actually had something to gain with their vote then they would be out at the polls in large percentages.

perhaps. but my point was that i think those incredibly disillusioned people are not all uniformly people who would vote for nader. i think plenty would go to the opposite end of the spectrum. i think you overestimate the liberal contingent in america. we're generally a conservative country, unfortunately. that was what i meant to say. certainly, there are a ton of disenchanted folks who would vote for nader if they felt it would accomplish a damn thing. but i still think his far left views are definitely a minority in this country.

Abookamongstthemany

decides2dream wrote:

it's not...it's hope for the future. the past is past, can't change it. just learn from it, work past it, move on. i am not look for a 'dem' candidate, just the one candidate of ANY party, or no affiliation at all really, i personally think will do the best he/she can in my opinion. i am an independent and always will be, i don't 'believe' in parties....just finding the candidate i most believe will represent my ideals. as conor said earlier, i've yet to find a one who is *perfect*...so i look for the best representation offered each election, as close to what i most want....all i can look for in anyone really, b/c i've yet to find *perfect* in anyone at all, including myself.


so yes, i was speaking about voting for who i think would be best for the job, not merely about voting one party or another out of office. that lesson was learned last election, i try not to make the same mistakes twice....then again, there was no candidate last time around that truly appealled to me in any sense. yet, i still felt the need to vote, to do something.....


anyhoo...have a good night all.

Oh okay, I was misunderstanding where you were going with that. So we agree then about supporting who we see as the best choice. Cool.

I'm also a registered independent for the same reasoning.

Abookamongstthemany

soulsinging wrote:

that might be true if you hate the democrats. i just happen to think they're less than perfect.

as to fearmongering, if you're going to chaacterize it that way, ALL political stances are fearmongering. you're fearmongering by telling me that if i vote democratic i'm helping support corporate oppression. at a certain point, any view can be considered fearmongering by convincing people bad things will happen if they vote any other way. i'm not buying it, or at least i think your use of the term robs it of meaning.

I'm not telling you that, though. I'm telling you why Kucinich or Nader is a good choice compared to the other guys and you can agree or disagree. I'm not asking anyone to change their political ideology. I'm asking people to stay true to theirs. I'm not trying to convince you to vote in a direction you don't agree with because 'this might happen if you don't.' My problem is with the people who would rather see a Kucinich, Paul or Nader in office but are afraid to get behind them because of McCain. If that isn't letting Republicans own you, I don't know what is. It's taking your true voice away.

The closest I come to spreading fear is saying if you're not happy with the parties in power, why keep supporting them election after election? It's common sense though, if you want to see things change, you have to change it.

The difference is asking someone to go against what they believe in based on fear VS asking someone to have enough courage to stand up for what they believe in. All the great breakthroughs in human history took courage, had risks and wasn't easy but worth it in the end.

Abookamongstthemany

soulsinging wrote:

perhaps. but my point was that i think those incredibly disillusioned people are not all uniformly people who would vote for nader. i think plenty would go to the opposite end of the spectrum. i think you overestimate the liberal contingent in america. we're generally a conservative country, unfortunately. that was what i meant to say. certainly, there are a ton of disenchanted folks who would vote for nader if they felt it would accomplish a damn thing. but i still think his far left views are definitely a minority in this country.

I don't think they are all Nader people, either. But I think there would be a good amount. His honesty and dedication to the people would be an attraction to non lefty types, as well. Anyways, it's all speculation, we don't really know how liberal or conservative the country is. All we have is the media with conflicting sources and agendas to push. Then we have our own experiences with people which can only tell you so much about the nation as a whole. He has good support in the past even with the media's bombardment of 'unelectable' and 'spoiler' crap and no attention apart from that.

MrBrian

I'm glad he's running, of course he will probably only get a few votes. but he is still the best choice around. It's strange that people don't wanna vote for him.

How can people really cast a vote for obama/clinton or whoever else! It's also sad to read/hear people calling nader selfish. I mean he is only running bcoz the other top runners are not taking on the issues. Obama,clinton and all the like are the selfish ones. I mean they only talk about what they want then complain about how nader takes votes from them. duh! if they took on the issues he does then he would not run.

Until the front runners start to pay attention. Nader should always be throwing his hat into this circus known as the US presidential race. Sadly I dont think Mr Nader will be a spoiler, nevertheless I wish him luck and would love to see him do well. But that will be hard since the american people seem to have this deep dislike for him. I think those people should remove the airbags from their cars and whatever else.

El_Kabong

soulsinging wrote:

what good do those stances do if he doesn't get elected?

i campaigned for nader in 2000. i too was one of those "im not being pushed into voting for the lesser of two evils" people. i also argued that gore and bush were both corporate whores that were essentially the same.

i was wrong, and i've regretted it ever since.

there was a huge difference between gore and bush. and i fucked up big time. dubya's presidency has exceeded my worst nightmares. i will not make that mistake again.

why do you regret it? you didn't live in florida, did you? the outcome would've been the same even if you voted for gore.

FinsburyParkCarrots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIFEceopAUI

dg1979us

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Oh okay, I was misunderstanding where you were going with that. So we agree then about supporting who we see as the best choice. Cool.

I'm also a registered independent for the same reasoning.

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?

soulsinging

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I'm not telling you that, though. I'm telling you why Kucinich or Nader is a good choice compared to the other guys and you can agree or disagree. I'm not asking anyone to change their political ideology. I'm asking people to stay true to theirs. I'm not trying to convince you to vote in a direction you don't agree with because 'this might happen if you don't.' My problem is with the people who would rather see a Kucinich, Paul or Nader in office but are afraid to get behind them because of McCain. If that isn't letting Republicans own you, I don't know what is. It's taking your true voice away.

The closest I come to spreading fear is saying if you're not happy with the parties in power, why keep supporting them election after election? It's common sense though, if you want to see things change, you have to change it.

The difference is asking someone to go against what they believe in based on fear VS asking someone to have enough courage to stand up for what they believe in. All the great breakthroughs in human history took courage, had risks and wasn't easy but worth it in the end.

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

soulsinging

El_Kabong wrote:

why do you regret it? you didn't live in florida, did you? the outcome would've been the same even if you voted for gore.

i lived in ohio. and i didn't just vote, i campaigned heavily and tried to push people to change. all eyes were on florida, but ohio was pretty close too and has always been a swing state. the nader camp was as damaging in ohio as in florida. florida's scandals just got more attention.

am i personally responsible? no, of course not. no one person is. but did i help give nader some ohio momentum, maybe even enough to have an impact? perhaps.

THC

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/latest-poll-mccain-beats_b_87213.html

that poll says Obama over McCain in poll by 3%

Poll today (can't find the story now) says McCain 2% over Obama

That is why you don't vote for Nadar in THIS election.

*i'm currently half sick to find out this election may be this close*