Why should I vote for Nader

decides2dream

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Oh and I posted some links a bit later to other threads and posts where I went into FAR more detail in the past in...no need to keep repeating myself.






It will never happen if people keep waiting for others to make someone suddenly 'strong opposition' or 'have a chance at winning'.

For that to ever happen people would have to start getting behind him BEFORE he had a chance at winning. The numbers just aren't going to appear out of thin air and toooooo many are using this 'he's not viable' excuse to ever get there at this point.

i know you did, but for what i quoted, at least to me at the time, it was funny.


nah.
he's just not my candidate. if he were, i'd be behind him...whether he had a chance of winning or not. that's not why i said what i said. it really isn't about nader, just ANY 'outside' candidate. i AGREE they need the chance, people need to get behind em, etc....tis the only way it CAN work. it's the HOW part that seems to be elusive. also part of the reason why i think candidates NEED a party affiliation, a STRONG party - which could be a newly developed one, of course - for the 'general voter' in our current system to even give them the time of day and take them seriously. it's got to start somewhere, and from what i have seen...i've not seen much, if any, success outside of that system.


but what i was asking you is do you seriously consider him 'strong opposition' at this point, b/c i don't think many do, if at all. not at the electibility factor anyway. as to having influence for the future, getting his ideas out there, etc, perhaps...although a different debate entirely. and it in no way is meant to be dismissive of him as a candidate, b/c it's not meant to be....just that quite honestly, given how many times he's run, i don't think too many have taken him seriously this time around from the get-go...and at this point i imagine most have dismissed him entirely as viable. doesn't make his ideas/positions any less, just the phrasing of 'strong opposition'....odd? to me. i do not think the major parties view him in that way, at all. back in 2000......yea, maybe, but not now. perhaps someday, i HOPE anyway...there really WILL be 3rd party candidates that make the major parties quake in their boots, thus far....i've not seen it. shame really, just in principle alone.

El_Kabong

decides2dream wrote:

i know you did, but for what i quoted, at least to me at the time, it was funny.


nah.
he's just not my candidate. if he were, i'd be behind him...whether he had a chance of winning or not. that's not why i said what i said. it really isn't about nader, just ANY 'outside' candidate. i AGREE they need the chance, people need to get behind em, etc....tis the only way it CAN work. it's the HOW part that seems to be elusive. also part of the reason why i think candidates NEED a party affiliation, a STRONG party - which could be a newly developed one, of course - for the 'general voter' in our current system to even give them the time of day and take them seriously. it's got to start somewhere, and from what i have seen...i've not seen much, if any, success outside of that system.


but what i was asking you is do you seriously consider him 'strong opposition' at this point, b/c i don't think many do, if at all. not at the electibility factor anyway. as to having influence for the future, getting his ideas out there, etc, perhaps...although a different debate entirely. and it in no way is meant to be dismissive of him as a candidate, b/c it's not meant to be....just that quite honestly, given how many times he's run, i don't think too many have taken him seriously this time around from the get-go...and at this point i imagine most have dismissed him entirely as viable. doesn't make his ideas/positions any less, just the phrasing of 'strong opposition'....odd? to me. i do not think the major parties view him in that way, at all. back in 2000......yea, maybe, but not now. perhaps someday, i HOPE anyway...there really WILL be 3rd party candidates that make the major parties quake in their boots, thus far....i've not seen it. shame really, just in principle alone.

yes, i think he is certainly would consider him strong opposition. I can't think of anyone who was fought year after year for the good of the public and done more for the good of the public than ralph nader. can you name just 1 person who has done more than nader for the progressive movement, the common person? just 1 person that has helped bring about more change?

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/56-The-Concord-Principles-An-Agenda-for-a-New-Democracy.html

http://www.votenader.org/about/achievements/

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/nad0pro-1

http://www.votenader.org/about/


just a small list of organizations (ie strong opposition) he's created
http://deoxy.org/meme/RalphNader

* American Antitrust Institute
* Appleseed Foundation
* Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
* Aviation Consumer Action Project
* Capitol Hill News Service
* Center for Auto Safety
* Center for Insurance Research
* Center for Justice and Democracy
* Center for Science in the Public Interest
* Center for Study of Responsive Law
* Center for Women Policy Studies
* Citizen Advocacy Center
* Citizen Utility Boards
* Citizen Works
* Clean Water Action Project
* Congress Project
* Connecticut Citizen Action Group
* Corporate Accountability Research Group
* Democracy Rising
* Disability Rights Center
* Equal Justice Foundation
* Essential Information
* FANS (Fight to Advance the Nation's Sports)
* Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
* Freedom of Information Clearinghouse
* Georgia Legal Watch
* Multinational Monitor
* National Citizen's Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
* National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
* National Insurance Consumer Organization
* Ohio Public Interest Action Group
* Organization for Competitive Markets
* Pension Rights Center
* Princeton Project 55
* PROD - truck safety
* Public Citizen
o Buyers Up
o Citizen Action Group
o Critical Mass Energy Project
o Congress Watch
o Global Trade Watch
o Health Research Group
o Litigation Group
o Tax Reform Research Group
o The Visitor's Center
* Retired Professionals Action Group
* Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
* Student Public Interest Research Groups nationwide
* Telecommunications Research and Action Center
* Trial Lawyers for Public Justice

so he hasn't held office, that is a non point/issue when you look at the body of his life's work and achievements and change he has brought about.


why have ppl dismissed him as not viable? why do ppl dismiss ppl like kucinich, nader, gravel, paul....ya think it has something to do w/ the media introducing them in that way? anytime there is a one on one interview they are always told they are a long shot, not realistic, don't have a shot, they know they're not gonna win...

maybe the 2 corporate parties don't see him as a threat b/c they know the corporate media will dismiss him, tell the public they will just be throwing their votes away? and they know the majority of the public who are 'informed' by corpoate news (which many aren't even news but corporate op/ed programs) will buy right into it.

how is it if you compare polls of what the public want in terms of policies w/ someone like nader or kucinich compared to 'corporate whores' to quote my2hands the public strongly support nader and kucinich's ideas but they get such a low vote? maybe b/c they are not covered or what little coverage it is it's dismissive and degrading or talking about ufos? then ppl get scared to back someone everyone calls or is portrayed as 'crazy'. i have a kucinich sticker on my car and some ppl would tell me he's crazy...and yet they overwhelmingly support his views over any of the other corporate candidates, including whoever they support. how is that? i remember a thread months back where ppl said he couldn't be elected b/c he's too short, a vegan (or was it vegetarian?), looked weird....well as long it's based on substantial issues! :rolleyes:

anyhow, my point is how can these ppl be 'unelectable, unrealistic...' when the public seems to want what they are offering more than anyone else? it seems obvious to anyone who sees the coverage it is b/c the media rams down your throat that you shouldn't support them.

flywallyfly

I believe by "strong opposition" people are thinking along the lines of strong threat to the other candidates in the election, not in Nader's accomplishments. Nader is not a threat to their staus quo for various reasons in this election. I dont believe the inference is that Nader is not an accomplished advocate. He just isnt a factor to McCain/Obama.

El_Kabong

flywallyfly wrote:

I believe by "strong opposition" people are thinking along the lines of strong threat to the other candidates in the election, not in Nader's accomplishments. Nader is not a threat to their staus quo for various reasons in this election. I dont believe the inference is that Nader is not an accomplished advocate. He just isnt a factor to McCain/Obama.

And that point was answered too by saying how will any 3rd party option ever be considered a 'strong opposition' in the first place if people don't start getting behind someone BFORE they become a strong oppostion? It's not just going to happen out of nowhere and still most people continue to fall back on the excuse of someone 'not having a chance' so they won't vote for them...the whole 'I would but it's a wasted vote' excuse. So answer me how someone can become a strong opposition with people not giving them the chance they would need in the first place?

flywallyfly

El_Kabong wrote:

So answer me how someone can become a strong opposition with people not giving them the chance they would need in the first place?

I dont have the answer but i do know that when people say Nader is not a strong oppsition to these candidates they are correct. The original statement was from Abook saying Nader and other 3rd party candidates being strong oppositions to the mainstream candidates keep them in check. I dont believe this is true. They dont pay any attention to these guys and after the election they give them even less. You are not opposition when you are completely invisible. Just the truth.

cincybearcat

1) Carter was a terrible president.

2) Why does someone have to be either 100% behind Israel or 100% behind Palestine?

It seems to me that some on this forum subscribe to the same thing they bash GW for...you're either with us, or against us.

El_Kabong

flywallyfly wrote:

I dont have the answer but i do know that when people say Nader is not a strong oppsition to these candidates they are correct. The original statement was from Abook saying Nader and other 3rd party candidates being strong oppositions to the mainstream candidates keep them in check. I dont believe this is true. They dont pay any attention to these guys and after the election they give them even less. You are not opposition when you are completely invisible. Just the truth.

And that only points to the increasing arrogance and total feeling of no accountability that the two major parties have. They have always taken their voters for granted and gone against the interests of the people and since they see people less inclined to support 3rd parties....they feel less threatened by them and ignore the issues these candidates bring to light. So it's really the people shooting themselves in the foot here. If they are too afraid of the other major party winning and keep voting in fear of a Rep or Dem getting in office then the actual issues that could make this country a much better place for them and not the wealthy and special interests will continue to go unrepresented. The major parties are going to continue to take
those votes for granted because it seems no matter how horrible they are, people are still all too eager to line up with free passes in hand and vote them all right back in. And what's going to stop them from getting even worse and more ineffectual(if that's even possible)? No one is there holding them accountable...


It's the same completely frustrating trend we see in our democracy.....the people bitching about the gov't, saying how ineffectual and corrupt they are AND THEN these very same people going right out every election cycle and voting them back into office. Excuse me if I pass on all that and decide to use some common fucking sense.....I don't care how popular my candidate is, I'm not taking part in the perpetual cycle of voting against my own interests and the interests of my country to settle for either of these 2 piece of shit excuses for political parties. I don't care if I was the only one voting for Nader, it would still make more sense than doing that.


Not to mention that Ron Paul has had some great ideas and is similarly being dismissed and wrote off by the Republican party. They ignore the shit out of him, too just like the Dems ignore Nader and Kucinich. They even went to the extent of ridiculing him in the debates. The Dems haven't dropped quite low enough to do that to Nader....just yet, but have to Kucinich .

their pompous arrogance is astounding and sickening

flywallyfly

El_Kabong wrote:

their pompous arrogance is astounding and sickening

I agree completely.

El_Kabong

flywallyfly wrote:

I agree completely.

awww, we can still find some mutual ground

SundaySilence

flywallyfly wrote:

I believe by "strong opposition" people are thinking along the lines of strong threat to the other candidates in the election, not in Nader's accomplishments. Nader is not a threat to their staus quo for various reasons in this election. I dont believe the inference is that Nader is not an accomplished advocate. He just isnt a factor to McCain/Obama.

Strong opposition will come when they open up the debates. Currently they are controlled by a private corporation run by former heads of the two dominant parties.

If Nader was not a threat the status quo wouldn't be going to great lengths to undermine democracy and keep him off the ballots.

decides2dream

flywallyfly wrote:

I believe by "strong opposition" people are thinking along the lines of strong threat to the other candidates in the election, not in Nader's accomplishments. Nader is not a threat to their staus quo for various reasons in this election. I dont believe the inference is that Nader is not an accomplished advocate. He just isnt a factor to McCain/Obama.

exactly what i meant.

SundaySilence wrote:

Strong opposition will come when they open up the debates. Currently they are controlled by a private corporation run by former heads of the two dominant parties.

If Nader was not a threat the status quo wouldn't be going to great lengths to undermine democracy and keep him off the ballots.

and THAT is truly ridiculous and wrong! i personally do NOT know how they get away with it, how it is acceptible and why we as citizens can't force that change! i don't know the ins and outs of how that all works, what is 'right' and all...but that just absolutely seems WRONG.

however, i still don't see nader, personally, as a 'threat' at all, not for electablitiy. i DO hope, more and more, that 3rd party candidates in general keep rocking the boat and thus break the 2 party dominance. i don't think nader alone is responsible for it, just an active player and i hope we see more of em.

MrBrian

Simple,

Vote for Nader bcoz he is hands down...the best.

So what if he lost support over the years? Is truth measured in mass appeal?
Nader speaks the truth, he makes sense, he is the best choice.

El_Kabong

decides2dream wrote:

exactly what i meant.





and THAT is truly ridiculous and wrong! i personally do NOT know how they get away with it, how it is acceptible and why we as citizens can't force that change! i don't know the ins and outs of how that all works, what is 'right' and all...but that just absolutely seems WRONG.

however, i still don't see nader, personally, as a 'threat' at all, not for electablitiy. i DO hope, more and more, that 3rd party candidates in general keep rocking the boat and thus break the 2 party dominance. i don't think nader alone is responsible for it, just an active player and i hope we see more of em.

how do they get away w/ it??? b/c the ppl don't demand otherwise, they keep supporting ppl who want it that way!