Message to Ralph Nader

Strangest Tribe

please go away....

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

we like you, but..... don't screw things up again

MrBrian

How does one explain the ass kicking Bush gave kerry? That's also when Nader took almost no votes away from anything.

Also, If Obama is worried about Nader taking votes from him, then Obama should take up the issues Nader does. Not just play middle ground or lean right.

FiveB247x

No candidate is owed or due a vote. You want to know who spoils the Democratic failures in campaigns.... THE DEMOCRATS! Scapegoating is petty, illogical and usually just misplaced anger.

ledvedderman

MrBrian wrote:

How does one explain the ass kicking Bush gave kerry?

Kerry being a TERRIBLE candidate pretty much explains all that is needed to say

Strangest Tribe

MrBrian wrote:

How does one explain the ass kicking Bush gave kerry? That's also when Nader took almost no votes away from anything.

Also, If Obama is worried about Nader taking votes from him, then Obama should take up the issues Nader does. Not just play middle ground or lean right.

Are you kidding ....Kerry almost won the last election despite being a horrible candidate... where were you?

jhinkle1114

Kerry and Gore did themselves in by running poor campaigns. Nader stole some votes, but not enough to turn the tide.

And I say that as someone that doesn't like Nader and don't like most of his stances on various issues.

Things are looking differently this time. Obama is running a very strong campaign IMO. The DNC is doing a good job of hammering home the differences between him and McCain and in making Obama known and hopefully dispelling myths about him.

Of course the problem is that morons who still think he's muslim and other stupid shit like that likely aren't paying any attention.

But at least the convention should do a good job of getting Hillary's supporters behind Obama after her great speech on Tuesday and President Clinton's rousing speech last night.

Point being, I think Nader will have even less impact on this election than the minor impacts he had on the last two.

Strangest Tribe

I just hope all the people that are much smarter than me would just let the intelligence level in the room drop a bit and decide that a vote for Obama just might actually be like a little cartoon break.

fuck

It's people like Strangest Tribe that make me WANT to vote for Nader.

Seriously, your message to Ralph Nader is so pathetic.

Like MrBrian said, Nader wouldn't be an issue if Obama would take up the issues Nader has already talked about.

Quit with the bullshit and start talking about why people should vote for Obama by discussing his issues and policies, not by saying 'Nader ruins the election'.

Eliot Rosewater

Strangest Tribe wrote:

Are you kidding ....Kerry almost won the last election despite being a horrible candidate... where were you?

And how again is that Nader's fault?

How about this - If you want to win an election, appeal to more voters than all others that are running. Wow. How fucking hard is that?

MrBrian

ledvedderman wrote:

Kerry being a TERRIBLE candidate pretty much explains all that is needed to say

Exactly...

Imagine, the republicans just had to wave 'flip flops' to beat Kerry.
---

Kerry also refused to take on any nader issues which in fact spoke for many of the population. Nader even presented kerry with the list.

Kerry ignored it, so did the american people, never once putting any demands on kerry.

ledvedderman

I think it is unfair to say Kerry lost because he woudn't take on any Nader issues. It would have helped him, but not enough to swing any swing states to go Democratic.

FiveB247x

We do not have a general election - every vote does not count. Saying a vote is "wasted" or could have gone in another direction is meaningless and unproductive.

People can vote for whomever they please and they aren't the reason a candidate doesn't win. A candidate doesn't win because they do not do enough to win. You can't blame voters. Elections are not popularity contests and it's illogical and irrational to blame voters (or other candidates) for the results. It's pretty pathetic.

Urban Hiker

I like how Nader sums this kind of thing up.

Political Bigotry

Dylan Stone

MrBrian wrote:

How does one explain the ass kicking Bush gave kerry?

This could have had something to do with it as well...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

No....

NEVER!!! Not here in the good old USA! USA! USA! USA!

Strangest Tribe

I like Ralph Nader, but he's a little kooky in the eyes of America...

but don't kid yourself that you are sending a message to the Dems by voting for Ralph. You're helping the Republicans.

Even Ralph says he knows what Obama stands for, but he wishes he would just say it

WTF????? C'mon Ralph... if you believe he stands close to you why even risk taking votes from him....

I don't disagree with Ralph....

But goddamn, give Obama a chance otherwise you're just dryhumping the system because you can.

Sometime people are blinded by such high ideals....

Here Nader actually sounds like he is for Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyfSN7B4lYI

jhinkle1114

ledvedderman wrote:

I think it is unfair to say Kerry lost because he woudn't take on any Nader issues. It would have helped him, but not enough to swing any swing states to go Democratic.

I agree. It would have probably driven way to many centrist democrats and done him more harm than good.

Strangest Tribe

_outlaw wrote:

It's people like Strangest Tribe that make me WANT to vote for Nader.

Seriously, your message to Ralph Nader is so pathetic.

Like MrBrian said, Nader wouldn't be an issue if Obama would take up the issues Nader has already talked about.

Quit with the bullshit and start talking about why people should vote for Obama by discussing his issues and policies, not by saying 'Nader ruins the election'.

People like ME....??????

C'mon outlaw..... it's petty shit, it's like saying we need to mow the grass and I say we cut it at 3 inches and you say we cut it at 4 inches...

fuck it... we need to stop arguing and mow the lawn....

FiveB247x

You're assuming that people vote for Nader or any 3rd party as a way to "send a message" to to the 2 major parties. This is not correct. In reality, most people regular 3rd party voters vote this way because the 2 main parties do not stand or allign with these voters on most issues.

The 2 major parties are not due anyone's vote. If you want to blame something or someone for Dems not winning or something, blame the Dems for not reaching out to the voters to win them over.

Complaining about a candidate running for office or something similar is simply petty, misguided and undemocratic (against our system).

Strangest Tribe wrote:

I like Ralph Nader, but he's a little kooky in the eyes of America...

but don't kid yourself that you are sending a message to the Dems by voting for Ralph. You're helping the Republicans.

Even Ralph says he knows what Obama stands for, but he wishes he would just say it

WTF????? C'mon Ralph... if you believe he stands close to you why even risk taking votes from him....

I don't disagree with Ralph....

But goddamn, give Obama a chance otherwise you're just dryhumping the system because you can.

Sometime people are blinded by such high ideals....

Here Nader actually sounds like he is for Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyfSN7B4lYI

fuck

Strangest Tribe wrote:

People like ME....??????

C'mon outlaw..... it's petty shit, it's like saying we need to mow the grass and I say we cut it at 3 inches and you say we cut it at 4 inches...

fuck it... we need to stop arguing and mow the lawn....

actually, it's nothing like that whatsoever.

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

You're assuming that people vote for Nader or any 3rd party as a way to "send a message" to to the 2 major parties. This is not correct. In reality, most people regular 3rd party voters vote this way because the 2 main parties do not stand or allign with these voters on most issues.

The 2 major parties are not due anyone's vote. If you want to blame something or someone for Dems not winning or something, blame the Dems for not reaching out to the voters to win them over.

Complaining about a candidate running for office or something similar is simply petty, misguided and undemocratic (against our system).

exactly.

Ralph Nader does not take away votes from Obama because Obama never has those votes to begin with.

MrBrian

Give Obama a chance? He had many chances and we all saw the way he voted for some key issues.

Vote to fund the war? Patriot act? His support for Israel, the way he won't even touch the root cause of the problems.

How many chances does he get? What is your breaking point? Some of you bend more than the fucking cirque du soleil, Just a bunch of bendy clowns. But very very entertaining I must add.

bryanfury

MrBrian wrote:

How does one explain the ass kicking Bush gave kerry? That's also when Nader took almost no votes away from anything.

Also, If Obama is worried about Nader taking votes from him, then Obama should take up the issues Nader does. Not just play middle ground or lean right.

here here!

ralph has done more for this country than either of the guys running.

jhinkle1114

_outlaw wrote:

exactly.

Ralph Nader does not take away votes from Obama because Obama never has those votes to begin with.

He does take some votes simply because some people would vote for who they saw as the lesser of two evils rather than writing in a name or staying home.

But I don't see it as having a major impact, and having people from other parties run is a good thing IMO, even though I don't vote for them as the democratic stance on issues is usually closest to my own views.

even flow?

If you had a viable third party that could actually play with the big boys would you still say they stole votes or would they be a valid check mark? Seems that if the democracy worked they would let Nader on stage with them instead of that tool Perot who was just the same as the other two lame parties.

FiveB247x

No candidate is "due" anyone's vote. The Dems would always win election if the Reps didn't run a candidate as well, but it's a pretty dumb point to make right? We don't have a system which only has 2 political parties, we merely have a system which promotes 2 main political parties. You can fault 3rd parties or their voters, rather you need to point to the actual 2 main parties which do not do enough to reach out to these 3rd party voters to win them over in some fashion.

But let's keep talking about "spoilers" or Nader compared to ignore the fact that almost half of the voting population doesn't bother to vote! That's not relevent at all right?

jhinkle1114 wrote:

He does take some votes simply because some people would vote for who they saw as the lesser of two evils rather than writing in a name or staying home.

But I don't see it as having a major impact, and having people from other parties run is a good thing IMO, even though I don't vote for them as the democratic stance on issues is usually closest to my own views.

Milestone

MrBrian wrote:

How does one explain the ass kicking Bush gave kerry?

OHIO

jhinkle1114

Hey, like I said I think candiates from other parties is a good thing and I agree no one is "due" anyone's vote.

I was just saying that regardless of our views on that, 3rd party candidates do take votes from the democrats and republicans as people would have picked one of those if the 3rd parties weren't on the ballot. That's just a simple fact.

I have zero problems with it. It's good for the system IMO.

Strangest Tribe

Dont get me wrong... I have high ideals as well.

But I have to check into the reality hotel occasionally an have some faith that the Dems are listening.
What about Dennis Kucinich? Didn't he speak at the convention yesterday? Sounded like he was supporting Obama to me and you guys usually praise Kucinich.

What do you want? Obama to endorse Nader?
America doesn't respect Nader because he's seen as a shit stirrer.
They won't even listen to him.
They point at him and say "there's the guy that tries to make everything SAFE... but what he's doing is costing us out the ass"

FiveB247x

There are plenty of people who do not cast a vote because they do not like either of the two major party candidates.

Also, you can't assume people who vote 3rd party would sooner vote Dem than Rep simply because you make that connection.

I'd sooner not vote at all than vote for one of those 2 main parties.

People like to assume that 3rd parties are irrelevent unless they "steal" votes somehow, but I got a news flash for you.
Republican voters in a blue state, Democrat voters in a red state, and 3rd party voters all vote and don't influence anything. I highly doubt anyone would claim the first two examples are "wasted votes" or similar. Anyone can vote for whomever they choose or not at all. People like to make unrealistic notions like if a person chooses C, they'd sooner pick B over A and therefore B got shafted by C. It doesn't work that way. People love the idea of free speech and free choice until it breaks their perception or barrier.

Anyways, none of this matters. Change doesn't occur in a voting booth. Pull a lever or don't, everyone pulling one is pulling their own crank in the end.

jhinkle1114 wrote:

Hey, like I said I think candiates from other parties is a good thing and I agree no one is "due" anyone's vote.

I was just saying that regardless of our views on that, 3rd party candidates do take votes from the democrats and republicans as people would have picked one of those if the 3rd parties weren't on the ballot. That's just a simple fact.

I have zero problems with it. It's good for the system IMO.

jhinkle1114

FiveB247x wrote:

There are plenty of people who do not cast a vote because they do not like either of the two major party candidates.

Also, you can't assume people who vote 3rd party would sooner vote Dem than Rep simply because you make that connection.

I'd sooner not vote at all than vote for one of those 2 main parties.

People like to assume that 3rd parties are irrelevent unless they "steal" votes somehow, but I got a news flash for you.
Republican voters in a blue state, Democrat voters in a red state, and 3rd party voters all vote and don't influence anything. I highly doubt anyone would claim the first two examples are "wasted votes" or similar. Anyone can vote for whomever they choose or not at all. People like to make unrealistic notions like if a person chooses C, they'd sooner pick B over A and therefore B got shafted by C. It doesn't work that way. People love the idea of free speech and free choice until it breaks their perception or barrier.

Anyways, none of this matters. Change doesn't occur in a voting booth. Pull a lever or don't, everyone pulling one is pulling their own crank in the end.

You're blasting the wrong guy here as I agree with everything you say. I was just saying there are some votes that go to third parties would have otherwise gone to either the republican or democratic candidate if the 3rd parties weren't on the ballot. Some would just have stayed home, some would have wrote someone in, and some would have picked the lesser of 2 evils and voted however. With Nader the dems likely lose more votes as it's hard to see someone who voted for Nader for his views choosing the republican as the lesser of two evils. If we're talking Libertarian candidates, you'd expect them to be more likely to go with the republican as the lesser of two evils given their small government preferences. Not that republicans live up to that any more, but the party line is closer to that idea than that of the democrats.

But again, I don't care about this. As I said I think it has little impact and I think 3rd party candidates are a good thing even though I've not remotely agreed with any who have came along in my lifetime. But variety in politics is a good thing and we need more third party candidates.

So I by no means think they are just irrelevant vote stealers. Differing views from politicians is a very good thing for or society. Practically all they're doing is getting votes from people who would have stayed home, wrote someone in, or voted for the lesser of two evils otherwise. But in the big picture of a healthy democratic republic having their views out there is a very good thing.

fuck

Strangest Tribe wrote:

Dont get me wrong... I have high ideals as well.

oh, you certainly do.

What about Dennis Kucinich? Didn't he speak at the convention yesterday? Sounded like he was supporting Obama to me and you guys usually praise Kucinich.

So because Kucinich is behind Obama, everyone should also jump behind him? how does that even make sense? yes, many people agree with Kucinich, but it doesn't mean they'll do anything he does.

America doesn't respect Nader because he's seen as a shit stirrer.
They won't even listen to him.
They point at him and say "there's the guy that tries to make everything SAFE... but what he's doing is costing us out the ass"

'They' are just plain stupid, and I don't care what 'they' think.

I support Obama in this election, but to see his other supporters doing these pitiful 'messages' to Nader's supporters is just sad. There are other ways to win over supporters, and this is not one of them.