To vote for Nader, one has to believe:

[sangh0]

Poll question: To vote for Nader, one has to believe:

To vote for Nader, one has to believe:

[mike_c]

1. too much time and not enough to do, eh...?

Anti-Nader circle jerk!

[louis c]

34. Pro-Nader=Pro-Bush

and no amount of naive, well intentioned bull-shit is going to change that formula.

[mike_c]

38. not for the truely closed-minded, no....

eom

[louis c]

45. The most important thing

in politics is being able to count. Come out of that shell, and try it. Also, link on to my thread of yesterday, entitled "Please don't make my mistake". You may see a similarity between me and you. Kind of like the ghosts of Christmas.

[stavka]

126. For this For this statement to be true, Bush must equal Nader

I am bad in math, but that can't really be true.

[louis c]

128. Explain to me, then

How a vote for Nader helps to remove Bush from office. That's the whole point of this election. Either Bush wins or loses. There's no in between.

[stavka]

130. I was speaking of math, not common sense

[louis c]

133. Politics is Math

Most votes win. In other countries with Parliamentary systems, parties of varying positions can take their votes and join together in coalitions, thereby modifying each others positions in forming a Government. In some European countries, they even have first and second choices, so after the first round of voting, they recount the ballots of the top two finishers, so no one's vote is wasted. But here, the rules are winner take all. Until the rules change, we better make the best of it. NADER=BUSH. That's both common sense and math.

[Morning Dew]

2. One has to believe

that leaving the shrub in office for 4 more years is a really good idea.

[fdr_hst_fan]

8. Of course,

one ALSO has to believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, and the Great Pumpkin as well!

[John_Shadows_1]

3. How about the system is a false choice between two...

... corporate-owned parties, and if you vote for John Kerry, you buy into that notion whether you like it or not.

How about, I live in S.C., and the Republicans could run a Chimp here and win (oh, wait!), so i'm going to use my vote as an investment to raise awareness of an other way of thinking - not a lesser-evil one.

[sangh0]

4. "not a lesser-evil one"

Proof that some prefer the "greater evil" :-)

[John_Shadows_1]

82. Nice try, slick...

.... I 'prefer' neither.

[jobycom]

10. So what if Kerry chooses Edwards and polls show a close race

in SC? I'm seriously asking.

[John_Shadows_1]

76. I'll hold my nose and vote for Kerry, probably, because...

... I hate Bush so much. By the way, just last night I went out and saw the Green Party candidate David Cobb speak here in Columbia, and he brought up all of the points raised here - the Greens are aware of what a huge problem Bush really is. But he is also right that the Progressive voice has been shut out of the process in the Democratic Party - I learned this working on the Kucinich campaign, and watching the Dean campaign - the way the media jumped on him over that speech. The establishment sees a threat and either ignores it or ridicules it.

[sangh0]

84. So you'll vote for the corporate-owned party??

So much for standing on principle

[John_Shadows_1]

85. Yeah, you keep playing 'gotcha', buddy...

... that's what it's all about, isn't it - just a game? Not moving the country ahead and getting the dialogue back to the left of center - just 'gotcha'.
Congrats, gamester!

[sangh0]

94. Call it what you want

but that won't change the fact that the "Stand up for principle" voters are the ones who play "Gotcha!". One "wrong" move, and a politician is labelled "Bush*-enabler". The ones standing in the way of progress are those who refuse to help Kerry beat Bush*, just so that they can "stand on principle"

*YOU* are the one who called the Democratic Party "corporate controlled", and *YOU* are the one who turned tail and sang a different tune when someone else called attention to reality.

It's great fun to criticize, and easy to do, but the inaccuracy (if not dishonesty) of your mischaracterizations is made clear when you say you would vote for them.

[jobycom]

104. Good job, but I so disagree with David Cobb on that

It isn't the media or the Democratic Party that is shutting out the "Progressive" voice. It's the voters. Everyone knew who Dean was, and yet he finished third in Iowa. The media replaying his scream didn't kill him, he was dead before that, which is why he made his scream speech in the first place.

The problem is that the Greens and progressives don't know how to deliver their message. They want to stay clean of corporate money, so they have no money to advertise and sell, so they get ignored by voters, so the media ignores them. Then they whine that the problem is the reverse, that they get no votes because the media shuts them out. Public financing is one solution (though why we'd want someone elected who can't even manage their own finances is beyond me), but all that would do is bring out more also-rans, and the also-ran voters would split their votes even further.

Like it or not, money and power are intricately intertwined, and a person running for the most powerful office on earth needs a ton of money to gain the office, because otherwise someone with a ton of money will beat them. Too many progressives want the media to talk the nation into voting for their candidates. That's not the media's job, that's the candidate's, and if they can't get the attention on their own, they don't deserve it.

Clinton in 92 was shut out by the media when Perot got in the race. He had to go on Arsenio, Donahue and MTV to get airplay. Rather than whine about the lack of media coverage, he found ways. A candidate who can't win because he doesn't like the rules has no chance of being an effective president, anyway.

[sangh0]

105. It's odd that some think "the scream" did Dean in

when the scream didn't happen until AFTER he had lost Iowa.

[mac56]

5. One has to believe that a "send a message" vote -

is actually a principled stand and not just sophomoric posing. Never mind that the "send a message" vote will have no effect except to keep * office for four more years, and subvert any and all good work Nader has been able to accomplish during his long career.

File under: nose, cutting off, for face-spiting purposes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Well, we certainly don't want Democrats with principles

running for office, do we? After all, if Kerry had any of those durned "principles" he would've voted against the invasion and subjection of another country. Those other 23 senators who voted against bush's little bloodbath were just trying to keep bush in office for 4 more years and cutting off their noses to spite their face.

[sangh0]

17. #9

Vote for Nader. He'll end the war, but first he has to lose the election.

[mac56]

19. Naturally I want Dems with principles.

That's not the point. A protest vote for Nader should not be confused for a principled act. Especially if the protest vote results in four more years of undermining many, many genuinely principled acts.

I don't see why Ralph and his followers don't "get" that. Unless they're having too much fun dressing up and playing "rebel".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Your definition of principles is lacking.

: 1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.

2a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle. b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.

You should particularly note that "a decision based on principle rather than expediency"

Kind of like Kerry's vote for the war?

I prefer "dressing up and playing rebel", than turning a blind eye to Kerry's support of the war and dressing up as a "progressive".

[sangh0]

37. No, your understanding is lacking

There is a principle that acts that do not improve anything are not consistent with principled action.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Kerry's vote for the war "improved" things?

Fill me in on how that occurred?

[sangh0]

54. Nice try

ain't biting on Nadir lies

[mac56]

39. Well, as long as we agree that there's "dressing up" involved.

Take your "principled" stand. I hope you - and the rest of us - can withstand the consequences.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Consequences.

"Consequences" like the 20,000 dead Iraqis? Like the torture of prisoners? Like the hundreds of dead GI's?

Those are the "consequences" that Kerry voted for and continues to support so he can "dress up" as some sort of "tough on defense" guy with a jock-strap as big as boobya's.

[mac56]

47. Consequences. Damn right.

Consequences we wouldn't have if Gore were in office.

Get it now?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Right. I get it, do you?

You're saying that Gore isn't in office because the left didn't vote for him. A "consequence" of his moving to the right during the campaign.

Now, Kerry is doing precisely the same thing. Do you get it? The DLC sure as hell doesn't.

[sangh0]

55. A vote for Nadir is a vote for war

The preferred choice for Nadirite Bush*-enablers

[mac56]

59. I'm saying no such thing.

Please don't speak for me. "Left" doesn't equal "Nader". Gore got plenty of the progressives' votes. Kerry will too. What Gore didn't get is the "disgruntled poseur" vote. Enough of them went to Nader to ... well, you know the rest.

[sangh0]

62. That's all he can do

Go and read his posts in this thread. Almost every one has him putting words in someone's mouth

[WoodrowFan]

171. "disgruntled poseur"

I like that! Nice turn of phrase. Sums the Nadar voters up very well in two short words.

[louis c]

40. FOUR MORE YEARS

four more years four more years four more years four more years four more years four more years four more years.

[I thought so.]

6. Nadir

The only reason that he runs is so he can sucker people in to his lectures. They come and hear rhetoric that pleases them.

When did Nadir ever do anything important recently? No BS I want links for maybe the last 10 years. If the nerd had any balls he would have run for Congress. Its so easy to whine and bitch. And his suckers eat it up.

[Walt Starr]

7. "in santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy"

because both of those fairy tales have as much of a chance at being true as Nader does of not helping to get Bush re-Selected.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mac56]

11. To quote another poster, another thread:

You must secretly wonder just how bad another four years of * will be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. I'm well aware of how bad 4 more years will be.

I'm also aware of how "less bad" Kerry will be. This is an easy one: If Kerry wants left wing votes then he should move left, not right, to get them. Take it up with the DLC.

[sangh0]

12. #9....nt

.

[Killarney]

14. Four years ago

When the choices were Bush, Gore, and Nader people voted for Nader because Gore wasn't progressive enough and they thought Bush wouldn't be that bad anyway... not much different than Gore.

Gore NEVER would have started this war with Iraq.
Gore NEVER would have given the rich a $3 billion tax cut, severely gutting important programs, ruining our economy, and creating the largest deficit in the history of the country which may soon give us no choice but to kill the safety net and the New Deal.
Gore NEVER would have annointed right-wing fruitcakes to judicial appts.
Gore NEVER would have filled the White House with neocons who HAVE A PLAN and Iraq is only the beginning.

Now, after the past 4 years, people are going to do it again. I don't understand. I can somewhat understand why in 2000, but I can't for the life of me understand why they would do it again unless they think:
1) Bush is doing a splendid job.
2) Bush won't add more wars in his second term (yeah right)
or
3) Kerry is the same as Bush (which is a weaker argument than Gore was the same as Bush and you should have learned that Nader lied to you then and is lying to you now).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Let's see if I got what you're saying right.

If Gore had been elected things would be hunky-dory right now. But, Gore wasn't elected because of the Green vote. The Greens didn't vote for him because he wasn't progressive enough.

Question: Why didn't Gore get the progressive vote? Could it be that he moved right instead of left?

Further question: If Kerry and his DLC apologists are so worried about not getting the progressive vote, why don't they go after it instead of shunning it? You would think that they would have learned after 2000.

BTW I voted for Gore.

[sangh0]

25. Gore was elected

and Gore got the progressive vote. I'm not fooled by Nadir's lies

Further question: If Kerry and his DLC apologists are so worried about not getting the progressive vote, why don't they go after it instead of shunning it? You would think that they would have learned after 2000.

Turn your question qround:

Since Kerry is NOT going after the progressive vote, then he must not be worried about not getting it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Having it both ways?

On the one hand, you're saying that the progressive (green) vote cost Gore the election. On the other, you're saying he got the progressive vote.

It's obvious that Kerry isn't worried about the progressive vote as he continues to move to the right. So, why are you worried about it?

[sangh0]

35. No

and I said nothing like you claimed. You just made that up.

It's obvious that Kerry isn't worried about the progressive vote as he continues to move to the right. So, why are you worried about it?

Worried? I'm having fun. I am so NOT WORRIED that I have no problem ridiculing the loony left.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Then we're both having fun.

I have a pretty good laugh pointing out the inconsistancies of the hypocritical "moderates".

[sangh0]

56. Is that how Nadir gets the Repuke vote?

Or is that just another lie?

[Solidarity]

142. You Got It Right!

"Since Kerry is NOT going after the progressive vote, then he must not be worried about not getting it."

Well I'll be damed. You got it right!

[jobycom]

18. A vote for Nader is a vote for war.

And any delusion you sell yourself won't change that. Nader is the candidate for those without the guts to do what needs to be done, for those who are terrified of winning because it means they have to prove themselves. It's easy to claim you are against the war, it's a bit harder to do the work to actually stop it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Yeah, right.

"It's easy to claim you are against the war, it's a bit harder to do the work to actually stop it."

Do you mean like Kerry? The guy who voted FOR the war. The guy who continues to support it? The guy who promises to get us out in only 4 years?


"...those without the guts to do what needs to be done"

Like vote against the IWR. Like promise to pull the troops out now?

Your definition of "guts" doesn't seem to apply to your candidate.

[sangh0]

28. #9

I'm sure Nader will end the war as soon as he loses another election

[LoZoccolo]

33. PNAC supporters want you to vote Nader.

Rock on. :thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Really?

Well, I'll expect a call from Cheney from urging me to vote. Yeah, Nader and the Greens are all a neo-con conspiracy. The anti-war demonstrations were cooked up in the White House by Karl Rove.

I suppose that's easier to believe than that Kerry voted for the war and continues to support it.

[sangh0]

73. Yes, really

Those repukes signing Nadir's petitions should have been a clue.

[Solidarity]

90. Thanks For The Hot Conspiracy Info!

Thanks for the hot info! I thought that the Republican party wanted people to vote for Bush. How foolish of me!

[LoZoccolo]

93. No, they want Bush* to win.

That would be good enough for them.

(Psssst...it's because we know you know this stuff already that you get ridiculed.)

[Solidarity]

106. How Many Votes Did Gore "take away" From Nader In 2000?

Bush can win only if he gets more votes than Kerry assuming it's not again decided by the Supreme Court. Bush does not want people to vote for Nader because a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader and against Bush!

Now is that really so difficult to understand?

It probably is if you really think that most potential voters for Nader would vote for Kerry if Nader were not a candidate. However, that's at best problematic. According to one exit poll study most people who voted for Nader last time would not have voted for Gore or Bush if Nader had not been a candidate.

And 21% of people who voted for Nader were Republicans who didn't like Bush and would never had voted for Gore.

That percentage will be much higher this time.

In any case votes must be won by candidates. A candidate is not somehow entitled to votes. If you don't believe that perhaps you can tell us how many votes Al Gore "took away" from Ralph Nader in 2000 that Nader was somehow entitled to.

I think you don't really believe in a multi-party system and believe that voters should only be allowed to vote either Democrat or Republican in any contest in any election! In fact, you may rather see a Republican on the ballot than a Green given the choice.

[sangh0]

119. It's simple to understand that you're wrong

It's much harder to get you to understand why

I think you don't really believe in a multi-party system and believe that voters should only be allowed to vote either Democrat or Republican in any contest in any election! In fact, you may rather see a Republican on the ballot than a Green given the choice.

And here's where a Nadirite shows us Dems how they created their own "big tent" - by insulting everyone who isn't Green

[CWebster]

13. That no one's vote

should be taken for granted.

[mac56]

23. Sooooo...the way to prove that...

is to ensure four more years of *?

Petulance.

[CWebster]

66. That's all ya got?

Try running someone who has something to offer other than not being Bush. If more of you actually took a position--choose any thread, and stood behind it, maybe you would have a choice. So long as you accept anything the Dems throw at you, why should they bother to mount a challenge?

[mac56]

69. Ironic.

"Try running someone who has something to offer other than not being Bush."

The main reason many voted for Nader in 2000 was that he wasn't being Bush or Gore.

The only reason I've seen put forth for Nader in 2004 is that he isn't being Bush or Kerry.

Pot, meet kettle.

[CWebster]

86. Garbage

Regardless of what you say about Nader, his views actually are in conflict with Bush.

[mac56]

92. Exactly my point.

Not Bush.

Pot, meet kettle.

[sangh0]

74. #6

.

[jobycom]

16. Nader's lies.

Face it, Nader is a lying scum who loves George Bush and the tax breaks he gets from Republican leadership. Right after Bush passed his big tax cut bill, Nader wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal-- the most conservative place on the planet-- claiming that the bill was a positive step by Bush.

Nader lied about not owning a houe, not owning a car, and not campaigning in swing states in 2000. He lied about not taking corporate money. Until 2000 he refused to release his financial records. He's a multi-millionaire stock investor who busts up unions in his own corporations, lobbies Congress to protect anti-disclosure laws for corporations, and has been accused of shaking down corporations to stop him from targetting them. I trust him less than Bush. And I used to like him.

[ashling]

21. That Nader is going to work to build up the Green

Party like he promised-

as soon as Oj finds the real killer

[Township75]

24. in the US, you have the freedom to vote for whom you wish.

.

[mac56]

27. Be careful what you wish for.

nm

[sangh0]

31. You also have the freedom to be

as dumb as you wish. Having the right to something doesn't make it right to do it.

[Township75]

49. Disagreeing with someone else's choice, doesn't make his/her choice wrong.

And for those that wish to vote for Nader, or another 3rd party candidate, doesn't mean they are dumb. It could mean neither party has earned their vote.

[sangh0]

58. Nadir is a dumb choice

no matter how you slice it. That's why you have to make the general argument that disagreement doesn't prove stupidity, but you won't get specific and apply it to a Nadir vote.

[Township75]

100. Speaking of general arguements

"Having the right to something doesn't make it right to do it."

Take your advice and apply it

[LoZoccolo]

30. Great piece of work!

:yourock:

[robbedvoter]

32. Missing options: "vote? WTF is that? Voting is for birds"

"I am much better than all of youse"

[Beloved Citizen]

42. ...that pigs can fly.

Oh look, there goes Ralph now!

[PATRICK]

43. Wonderfully skewed questions

Not to get into the thick of the usual old ground but isn't this more flame bait?

I think it is legitimate to discuss Nader and his politics and the dynamics in relation to the other parties, the good of the nation and world, etc.

When it gets to the boiling point- as it does almost in a flash- nothing new or good seems to come of it.

Nader, Perot, Buchanan are no Senator Anderson. They polarize, oversimplify and grab a far spectrum wing to little purpose. Gov. Wallace did a better job of that and with more devastating effect. Third parties with a cult of the one don't last with the crushing defeat of such figures, not even Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose Party.

All courses are perilous at this juncture. Of these the best for future choice, reform, new parties and possibilities is a sweeping victory(not gridlock) for the Democrats followed immediately by pressing for reforms which will put this choice killing peril behind us. We do need more dynamics for healthy progressive choices. You are less likely to get them if the GOP thrives in the other scenarios. Very much so. Coalitions with the Greens would be a wise course. Swatting the DLC over their organizational heads would be another.

Voting for someone or against someone out of anger or frustrated idealism is setting aside our danger for private satisfactions. You'll be angry if the GOP wins, if Nader eats up Kerry's margin, if the Democrats brush aside progressives to devout their gray matter to gray matters.

But in which scenario is there the most future hope? In which will you have less guilt about people slaughtered, enslaved as a consequence of your personal choice? Which choice will even better the chance we will have our vote counted NEXT time?

If people can't see that, let them obstinately vote Nader, shake off the dust from your sandals and get some of the disenchanted frustrated voters we are too timid to address. The old American elections of fist fights and street brawls didn't do much good either.

Constructively it would be good to address Nader's IDEAS and the particular cause he represents- not his "spoiler effect" or shortcomings(which ALL candidates have in adequate enough supply for this game). He knows he can't win. He wants a platform for ignored ideas, truths in peril. The only spoiling is ignoring the real fight. Even Nader tells you that. The media only does half the job in belittling the Democrats. Our own infighting as disgruntled losers(when we have the field laid open as the sole party to represent the vast majority) has been the unhealthy side of real debate, the drunken side of our national image.

In the past good Democratic politicians were wise enough to embrace progressive rebels, however treacherously, even in losing causes. In this debate, in the righteous anger I only see the fear itself that can do us all in.

[Solidarity]

53. How Can That Be Done?

"I think it is legitimate to discuss Nader and his politics and the dynamics in relation to the other parties, the good of the nation and world, etc."

How can that be done here without stirring up the usual flaming or being accused of posting "flame bait"?

Even a simple defense of Nader from reckless slanders and character assassination attacks that fail to address Nader's politics seems an impossible task on DU.

[sangh0]

60. It can't be done

because Nadir lies. You can't have a reasonable discussion when unreasonable people participate.

[Solidarity]

70. I'm Reasonable!

So we can't have reasonable discussion on DU because people you disagree with are unreasonable?

I think that's an unreasonable view on your part!



:)

[sangh0]

75. No you're not

Many have asked you to post some evidence to support your claims, but you never do.

[Solidarity]

91. Say Again

What are you writing about? Some time ago I suggested that that some rather outlandish slanders directed against Nader be backed up with proof and none has been given. Is that what your writing about?

Well, in any case you still seem to believe that real debate and discussion on the Greens and Nader should not be allowed on DU and that only favorable comments on John Kerry should be permitted here. Is that correct?

[sangh0]

161. So what's the plan?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1792997#1799842

[PATRICK]

72. Well your second declaration

sums up a lot of what I said. So I don't really get worked up about the rough and tumble here. It is inevitable. It is also useful to keep pointing out that and other objective thing rather than just misspelling someone's name(other than W of course, who has abdicated legitimate ground for seize destructive power).

[welshTerrier2]

63. well said

one of the more lucid posts i've seen on this topic ...

Constructively it would be good to address Nader's IDEAS

i would extend this statement beyond just Nader himself ... i think the dialog we need is with all progressives, be they Greens, Socialists or others ... and this dialog does not imply that democrats should be pulled further to the left than is politically viable ... the purpose would be to look for points of agreement, to look for compromises where democrats could push for debate time for substantial third party candidates and at a minimum create a forum for ongoing discussions ...

what's the point of having a big tent if you don't invite everyone in ???

[sangh0]

67. IMO, Constructively it would be good to RIDICULE Nadir

I would extend this statement beyond just Nader himself and include his supporters too.

[welshTerrier2]

77. would you extend this wisdom

to include all third party voters and those who don't vote???

sounds like a great way to broaden the base to me ...

"Hello, I'm calling from the Kerry campaign and I understand you're registered with a third party ... you're such a moron I won't even waste my time talking to you ... goodbye ..."

Hello, I'm calling from the Kerry campaign and I see that you did not vote in the last election ... you're a totally worthless piece of crap ... can we count on your support this year ??"

[sangh0]

81. Yes, I would extend

I guess you never saw any of my Libertarian threads.

sounds like a great way to broaden the base to me

Who said it was an attempt to "broaden the base". I see no reason to waste time pandering to people who will not vote for Kerry. I see no reason for being nice to the competition.

"Hello, I'm calling from the Kerry campaign and I understand you're registered with a third party ... you're such a moron I won't even waste my time talking to you ... goodbye ..."

Hello, I'm calling from the Kerry campaign and I see that you did not vote in the last election ... you're a totally worthless piece of crap ... can we count on your support this year ??"

Clue: This is DU, NOT the Kerry campaign, and a thread is not a phone call.

[noiretextatique]

88. but isn't that what democrats do?

waste time pandering to people who will not vote for Kerry?
i think it's why the DLC wasn't interested in the disfranchisement in florida.

[sangh0]

95. Not in my opinion

.

[noiretextatique]

97. seems that strategy hasn't worked too well eom

[sangh0]

101. It won the last three Presidential elections

and a number of other offices.

[noiretextatique]

116. didn't work in the mid-terms

and what good is winning an election when your own party is too cowardly to fight for the win? no...much better to act like insane, bitter fascists when you have a little competition...even though you won.

[sangh0]

121. Three Presidential wins

and in the 2002 mid-term elections, only two moderate DLC Dems lost and one won, leaving a net loss of 1 Senator. Liberal Dems lost more seats, so that's not much of an argument against moderation in campaigning, IMO.

[welshTerrier2]

89. clue indeed

Clue: This is DU, NOT the Kerry campaign, and a thread is not a phone call.

thanks for clearing things up for me ... i thought one of DU's missions was to help get Kerry elected ... the fact that Kerry is on the top of the democratic ticket seems to include him and his campaign in our strategic considerations ...

no, i have not seen or do not remember any of your Libertarian threads ... given that you made reference to them but made no attempt to discuss their relevance to this discussion, you'll excuse me for not referencing them further ...

and finally, to your point that a thread is not a phone call ... what can i say ... it seems to me those "hypothetical calls" embody the very point you were making about not showing respect to those who don't agree with you ... and that point you have more than aptly demonstrated ...

[sangh0]

96. Nothing in that response supports your premise

that we should try to "broaden the base" by going after Nadir supporters. Though you might be good at criticizing me (while criticizing my posts for criticizing your posts), nothing you said explains how Kerry would benefit if we tried to get people who are hostile to the Democratic Party to vote for the Democratic Party.

While "broadening the base" is definitely a good concept, like any other concept it can be taken too far. People who are outright hostile to the DNC (and I'd say that anyone who claims that "there's no difference" is hostile) are not going to be convinced to vote for Kerry merely because an individual Dem was nice to them.

So keep pretending that you're working to help Kerry, while I'm just playing around. My posts do address the issue of Nadir's candidacy. Your latest post revolves around me.

[welshTerrier2]

127. "broadening the base"

you know, perhaps at some point we will have a real discussion about why and when efforts to broaden the base are warranted ... as i read your post, i found a brief point of shared values with you ...

i am in complete agreement with your statement:

While "broadening the base" is definitely a good concept, like any other concept it can be taken too far.

but then you had to revert to such unfortunate remarks as:

So keep pretending that you're working to help Kerry, while I'm just playing around.

you know nothing about what work I do for Kerry or the democratic party ... and please explain the path you took to arrive at your "just playing around" observation ... in previous threads, I have complimented your efforts to register voters ... i have made no criticism of any efforts you have made for Kerry or the democratic party and I certainly did not say or imply that you were "just playing around" ... my criticisms have only been with your hostility for all those who do not agree with you ...

when you fling unsubstantiated comments around, I see no point in pursuing further discussions ...

[sangh0]

129. You ignored half of the sentence

When I said that "So keep pretending that you're working to help Kerry, while I'm just playing around" it did not mean that you are not helping Kerry. I believe that we are BOTH doing what we think is best. We just disagree on what is best, and I took issue with what I saw as an implication that what I do is hurting Kerry.

and please explain the path you took to arrive at your "just playing around" observation

You're right. You never said anything about that. Make it "while I am not".

my criticisms have only been with your hostility for all those who do not agree with you ...

Though I do understand why you think my arguments indicate hostility, I can assure you that is not the case. I am hostile to certain arguments, but am not hostile to the person unless the person is hostile to me.

[PATRICK]

83. If his base is at Free Republic

you might have a point. However, his base uncomfortably resembles OUR base. No one dislikes or argues against someone with as little grace and good humor as someone close to you in belief. Historically it is easier to tolerate the strange, the alien than a neighbor who has seen fit to choose something else in a threatening(perceived) area of ideology or custom.

You can be critical, but what good does unstlyish insult do in any debate. Is it to scare off the undecided lest they get the same treatment? Just venting wrath? At least it is more constructive, even if just as lively to discuss green agendas and mutual progressive issues with variables. People want to be heard and taken seriously though none of us are the gods we are in our own minds.

We should not be always checking our rear view mirror to glare at the irritating roadster behind us. Something like that happened to me. Someone was trying to impossibly pass me and, not looking ahead but at me, crashed into the rear of another vehicle. Coming out of the spin he was STILL glaring at me, but since I had to attend to where I was going I didn't waste too much time wilting under his anger. In fact I didn't see the actual accident.

Useless piece of ancient memory.

[sangh0]

87. His base is NOT our base

and it's not going to be our base in the 2004 elections.

However, his base uncomfortably resembles OUR base

I disagree. The Dems base is nowhere near as ideological. That's why the Nadirites don't like the Dems - because the Dems are not ideological enough for the Nadirites.

You can be critical, but what good does unstlyish insult do in any debate. Is it to scare off the undecided lest they get the same treatment?

Ridicule demonstrates one's opinions more effectively than scholarly debate. It's also more honest, sometimes.

At least it is more constructive, even if just as lively to discuss green agendas and mutual progressive issues with variables.

It's constructive for the Greens. Not for the Dems.

We should not be always checking our rear view mirror to glare at the irritating roadster behind us. Something like that happened to me. Someone was trying to impossibly pass me and, not looking ahead but at me, crashed into the rear of another vehicle. Coming out of the spin he was STILL glaring at me, but since I had to attend to where I was going I didn't waste too much time wilting under his anger. In fact I didn't see the actual accident.

That's why ORGANIZED political activity wins over the unorganized. That's why Nadir is a disaster. He has no party, no organized political support, no credibility, and no one to help him watch road behind him or in front of him.

[noiretextatique]

98. if nader's base isn't your base

then why all the endless arguments and pleas for people not to vote for nader? :shrug:

[sangh0]

102. You've never seen me plead for Nader's votes

nor have you seen me blame Nadir for Gore's losing the election (which he didn't lose)

[noiretextatique]

115. true...you're not that bitter

but your anger is still misplaced.

[sangh0]

122. No anger at all

I ridicule because it's effective, not because I'm angry. Ridicule is an effective way to make a point.

[PATRICK]

141. Sorry, late to reply

Well, there are Nader ideas to be distinguished from Green issues. It might be more to the point to address(on other specific boards) common ground and differences on the environment especially. To say we don't share progressive, issue oriented concerns is really poking ourselves in the eye to spite the face.

It is more the competition between variations, the differing political organizations, the distressing big tent of the Dems and the alarming wandering small tent of the Greens, that bury any deeper dialog into mutual interests for the welfare of the nation.

When William Jennings Bryan borrowed from the Populists for his "Cross of Gold" oratory he did not reach out or dialog so much as upstage and kill the movement- and subsequently in one of his four(count them- four) electoral defeats. The non Nader Greens who are competing for the at Party's nod in fact do support John Kerry and non-interference in swing states.

Surely at least we can talk safely with them? Nader himself, like other third party nominees, is the black sheep on fire, and does represent an attack on Democrats as a non-progressive, non-liberal entity(or rather leaning inexorably that way, in his mind). he too wants to give it a kick back the other way, but in certain revealing ways that make it very very often seem a vengeful Ahab routine. Yet the ideas and the liberal issue itself is a separate common thread that draws all these personalities, and personalities here, together- unless you are staunch Zell Miller blue dogs cheering on polluters, unrestrained capitalism and adventurist militarism.

Yes Nader, in his pure crusade to change history can be set aside to see what embarrassing squelching of certain issues and liberalism in general empower him at all in the first place.

Cuomo used to have substantive debates with minor party members present that used to show the plain disagreements and basic unity in the heart of the Liberal Party. It showed up the harmful emptiness and meanness of the GOP and some of the rabid rightists AND the more rabid left wing radicals. Maybe NY is the last outpost of even these tiny splinters in the national blind eye. Not to say that Nader should receive his apotheosis in a national debate, in effect granting his real wish of being a debate moderator not a serious candidate.

But when for instance Nader said it is not enough any more just to vote, although non voters are a critical problem already, he started echoing things on that issue I have said for years. I am sure Kerry would say the same as would any democrat or "patriotic" American for that matter. Reaching those masses of voters and potential activists are much more important than any candidate and certainly puts the intramural Nader sport in perspective.

Sadly ridicule does demonstrate ones opinions, especially when inserted in otherwise rational debate. The High Freepers do that with gusto and reams of hard to research references. They signal that rational debate with the Borg is futile. AFTER 2004 and hopefully a chunk of victory won, we might then come to grips with the best ways to do things, accountability to goals, to the nation and the world? And not worry so much about swatting at a gadfly who makes us feel
insecure? The revolutionary war colonies struggled with differences and lack of unity as well as hammering our the goals of a free nation.
Did that endanger the war effort? Almost certainly, with worse odds than we are facing now.

If needed I could go off on a critique of the too personally righteous
campaign of Nader to goad the political mainstream, a real complex Quixote effort with no madness to excuse him, but some of the issues he espouses are crying out to be addressed, some of his critiques of the Democratic leadership milder than what is often posted here.

I don't think addressing them here is in any danger of alerting the public to the hotly personal debate. It is very in house yet we feel we are adjudicating the election and the future of the nation here?

The Greens are in the process of themselves wrestling with Nader's candidacy. The only threat most of them offer is the needful balance of debate in constructive criticism SHOULD the Dems become a one Party ruling body a little slow off the mark to get to needed reforms, which the inertia of a big tent makes at least somewhat inevitable.

If we were a bit more confident in our organized political strength we would have a lot more cool objectivity over the "Nader effect" and the media hype to create it if it doesn't exist. The NDP in Canada and leftist or rightist parties across the globe settle for being gadflies themselves though that forever bans them from growth to a big tent centrist dominator. Their nature is to challenge and goad and draw the most sympathetic parties their way. In other countries they have daily power to forge coalitions and agendas and cabinet shakeups. They have none here and less public access. Ideas from such an isolated realm would never be entertained unless something else stirs the political pot. Enter Ralph stage left.

Unfortunately, his phenomenon has provided less access to the ideas, even as he presents them at every media opportunity, than aiding the GOP in the war of nerves, the tense tug of war. Even the Greens who take his whole message(from Dem bashing to radical reform) seriously are frustrated and dismayed by that net effect. Yet the ideas and platform are not in spirit so far away from the democratic platform. Maybe, like the GOP, we are a little afraid of letting the mainstream review those planks and their real life applications. I would like both the Greens and any left leaning party to get a little more constructive in their ideas too other than contributing to a barely significant contest on the vote front. There are many places where there is a void because the party can't field a candidate against the unchallenged GOP. Our system is becoming more rigid and moribund and stagnant in this and other issues.

One kick, the strongest, is coming from Right wing extremists, now in the driver's seat, the other from a gadfly from the left allowed onstage by the GOP media to bash our party. The poor Greens themselves are barely in the shadows of this raw knuckled fight. That's why I said Nader was no Senator Anderson who likewise had no real party or lasting organization behind him, but more humanely framed the crying need for change. Even with the Greens, Nader fared less well than third party candidates(those allowed front stage) in the past and will fare even less well for his stubborn inflexibility now. His chief sting is in the realm of ideas that outside of a debate(probably even then) no one will listen or give much credit to. But oh boy, the personal stuff, yeah the media eats that up fine and couldn't care less if he were preaching Maoism or fascism so long as it stirs up the "contest".

Since the national campaign fundamentally otherwise obliterates his views even as he speaks them I see no particular harm in this small forum reviewing those issues which he holds to with suicidal tenacity when they are things we NORMALLY would be acting on when not dragged center right.

[sangh0]

160. Thanks for that reply

I think we are both making some very different assumptions. You seem to think that we share quite a bit with Nader and the Greens, while I see very little of that. I also think you do not give enough credit to the political side of these issues, as if the politics don't count. I believe that the politics is every bit as important as the ideas. How one goes about pursuing one's goals says a lot about how one thinks the real world operates.

Surely at least we can talk safely with them?

That depends. If a progressive wants to join the discussion in a cooperative manner, then they can join the party, and help shape it. Otherwise, I don't think the Democratic Party's positions should be shaped by people who are not members of the Party.

I found it unfortunate that you brought up Mario Cuomo. Though he definitely did give some good speeches, his record was disappointing. Cuomo, fearing competition from within, did nothing to strengthen the Democratic Party in NY State, which is why the state and NYC are now being run by Republicans.

But when for instance Nader said it is not enough any more just to vote, although non voters are a critical problem already, he started echoing things on that issue I have said for years. I am sure Kerry would say the same as would any democrat or "patriotic" American for that matter. Reaching those masses of voters and potential activists are much more important than any candidate and certainly puts the intramural Nader sport in perspective.

None of the issues that Nadir (supposedly) wants to raise are furthered by his run for President. The media attention his candidacy creates is focused on how his run will affect Kerry v Bush*, to the exclusion of the issues Nader raises.

I don't think addressing them here is in any danger of alerting the public to the hotly personal debate. It is very in house yet we feel we are adjudicating the election and the future of the nation here?

I disagree. Addressing them anywhere is an admission of credibility, and IMO Nadir has no credibility. If he wants some, let him go earn it.

And it's not a question of DU adjudicating the election. I don't have multiple personalities. I have one, and it has to work both here and in real life.

The Greens are in the process of themselves wrestling with Nader's candidacy.

And I take that as a sign of how clueless they can be. About 99% of the voting public has figured out that a Nader run is NOT good for the US, not good for peace, and not good for people.

Ideas from such an isolated realm would never be entertained unless something else stirs the political pot. Enter Ralph stage left.

We tried that experiment once, and the results were very disappointing. I don't see how anyone can argue that Nadir's run might start a national debate when his last run had no such effect.

And you know, we can discuss those issues without mentioning Nadir's name. Democrats do it ALL the time. It seems a bit contradictory to claim that Dems and progressive Greens and Nadirites share a lot of ideas, but those ideas can/will never get discussed unless we bring Nadir into the discussion.

The idea that Nadir's run will start a discussion about the issues is a scam. There is a discussion about the issues. I've participated in them scores of times. Nadir was nowhere to be seen.

Yet the ideas and platform are not in spirit so far away from the democratic platform. Maybe, like the GOP, we are a little afraid of letting the mainstream review those planks and their real life applications.

And again, I find the idea that we Dems have not been reviewing our positions to be inaccurate and contrary to my experiences. Here on DU, there isn't an idea or policy that hasnt been subject to debate.

Since the national campaign fundamentally otherwise obliterates his views even as he speaks them I see no particular harm in this small forum reviewing those issues which he holds to with suicidal tenacity when they are things we NORMALLY would be acting on when not dragged center right.

If you want to discuss the environment, workers rights, or what issue concerns you, go right ahead. But I see no need to make it about Nadir, and I really don't understand why you would think any different, since even you acknowledge that Nadir only attracts heat, and little light.

Make your thread about Nadir, and it will be Nadir that gets discussed. If you want to discuss an issue, then I suggest keeping you comments on the issue. There are plenty of people saying the same thing Nadir is. There is no need to bring Nadir into any conversation about any issue.

[Monte Carlo]

50. For more war, please, vote Nader.

Even if the hand of God somehow whisked him into office, ending a war involves more than giving an order. Nader has no idea how to be a general nor a diplomat.

[welshTerrier2]

51. that democrats are as bad as republicans

and the truth is that on many key issues, there still exists a substantial number of voters who believe this ...

it should be of no small concern to Kerry and the democrats that some percentage (perhaps between 1 and 5%) will consider themselves to the left of the democratic party and will not vote for Kerry ...

we have work to do to open a dialog with these people ... it may indeed be politically necessary for Kerry to stake out positions that appeal to the center ... this may well be the only viable political strategy ... in fact, i take no issue with this strategy ... bush must go and anything short of political pragmatism is unacceptable ...

having said that, however, should in no way preclude having each of us do all we can to try to earn the votes of Green / Nader voters no matter how misguided we may perceive their views to be ...

politics is about building bridges to form coalitions ... not about building fences to further alienate those who don't agree with us ... and the first step on the road to building bridges starts with respect, not hostility ...

[sangh0]

61. #5

(perhaps between 1 and 5%)

Perhaps closer to 1% than 5%

[welshTerrier2]

65. let's hope so ...

and it's not just the national percentage at issue ... we also have to identify what these voters will do in key districts and swing states ...

and measuring the actual vote percentage may not be the true measure of this population ... if these voters just stay home, that doesn't help us much either ... let's face, the percentage of people who don't vote is very high ... it seems more than reasonable to assume that some part of that population considers themselves to the left of the democratic party ...

i'll stick with my 1% - 5% estimate for these reasons ...

the main point is that we have work to do ...

[JHBowden]

57. There is no difference between Kerry and Bush.

The auxiliary hypotheses required for this theory: Abortion doesn't matter, Bush's Supreme Court appointments don't matter, progressive taxation doesn't matter, health care doesn't matter, the death penalty doesn't matter, gun control doesn't matter, social security doesn't matter, the environment doesn't matter, affirmative action doesn't matter, school vouchers don't matter, etc. etc.

I have seen many anti-Kerry wackos surprisingly espouse this view.

[Solidarity]

64. Who Has Said That?

"There is no difference between Kerry and Bush."

I haven't seen any posts stating that. Even Ralph Nader and the Green Party do not take that position. That obviously false statement seems more like a crude attempt to simplify and misrepresent their views.

But, I don't speak for them. You'll have to visit their various websites to find out for yourself what Greens and/or Nader supporters really think about John Kerry and George Bush.

I do know from visiting their websites that none of them have taken the position that "there is no difference between Kerry and Bush."

[sangh0]

68. read

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1792997#1793731

[Solidarity]

107. I Read It. What's Your Point?

I read it. The poster did not state there are no differences between John Kerry and George Bush. The poster merely suggested that many people (certainly in the tens of millions) do not trust politicians and believe they are all bad no matter what their political affiliation. That's why nearly 50% of potential voters don't vote! Does that surprise you?

[sangh0]

108. "democrats are as bad as republicans"

No, that's not the same as "there's no difference"

That's why nearly 50% of potential voters don't vote!

Do you have a cote that shows that's why people don't vote, or did you just make that up?

[Solidarity]

113. Yikes! Don't You Talk To People?

You ought to get out there and talk to people! If you did, you would know why many people don't vote. Have you ever asked any common everyday working people. I have. You don't need polls and focus groups to find out what many people are concerned about and why they don't vote. Ask them! They will tell you!

Well, I'm sorry but I don't have the time to educate you in the ABC's of politics right now.

[sangh0]

120. I register people every year

and I know why they don't vote. They're lazy.

That's why ridicule the Naderites. They have no idea what they're talking about. All they can do is insult everyone who isn't Green or pure

[Solidarity]

134. Workers Are Lazy? Where Have I Heard That Before?

Tens of millions of workers are too lazy to vote? That sounds more like a right-wing Republican attack on working people. You know. We're all a bunch of lazy shiftless people. That's what right-wingers say about working class people, especially those who are union members.

It's now clear to me you really know little or nothing about working class people and that's why it's so difficult for you to relate to us and our unions.

Perhaps you should go out there and talk to average working people. You'll learn something.

[sangh0]

152. Non-voters are lazy

You seem to be having aural hallucinations

[JHBowden]

140. Never happens.

While 'people who don't vote' are the holy grail for 3rd party candidates, they never show for them. The libertarians claim these people are naturally libertarian, socialists claim they are naturally socialist, and so forth.

I've done my share of degrading, low wage employment. These people aren't disgruntled socialists -- they simply don't know much about politics, and even worse -- don't care. You might be able to turn them out -- *if* you run a television candidate like Michael Jordan, Mike Ditka, Arnold Schwarznegger, Jesse the Body. Don't talk about issues, just promise to cut taxes, increase spending, and balance the budget. But this type of pandering negates a third party's raison d'etre. So we're back to square one.

Sometimes, one must do their best with what one is given to work with.

[LoZoccolo]

78. Oh so there is a difference?

Good. Now quit bashing Kerry and get something done.

[JHBowden]

137. That's even sillier.

If one knows that Bush is not a liberal like Kerry, then one must condemn the far left on grounds of stupidity.

In my experience, mainly dealing with a minority people I was involved with the Dean campaign-- the central idea is that Kerry is somehow conservative, and secret mysterious powers that control the Democratic Party (evidently not Democratic primary voters) need to go. I heard the standard talking points about the "corporate duopoly," how Kerry is Bush-lite, et cetera. Nothing I said to them about judges, liberal issues, an emboldened 2nd term Bush, et cetera, seemed to matter.

Though passion, imagination, sentiment, etc. are more relevant towards how we think about politics than reasoning-- some need to think about the consequences of their actions at the individual level.

[JayS]

71. "gun control doesn't matter"

It mattered a lot in 1994 and 2000. :)

[sangh0]

79. Nadir has said that abortion rights are merely "gonadal politics"

Now *there's* a principled stand

[LoZoccolo]

80. Hey that reminds me of the tiny winky theory.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1791511

[noiretextatique]

99. one only need believe that voting is a duty of citzenship

and that one's vote will be counted, and that SCOTUS and the republican party won't disenfranchise everyone who voted.
perhaps if we had some more engaging choices, the MAJORITY of the voting public would actually participate, and most likely, that would benefit democrats. one might also believe that neither of the two major candidates is the best choice in the race.

[sangh0]

103. Nadir says he runs to give non-voters a choice

but in 2000, they stayed home anyway.

The Dems are offering a choice that tens of millions of Americans find "engaging", which is more than Ralph offers.

[Solidarity]

109. Will You Be "Engaging" Voters Or Slamming Them?

You mean they didn't all vote for Al Gore? How shocking!

Well, perhaps this time around John Kerry can convince 8 million registered Democrats to vote for him rather than George Bush. Gore didn't seem to engage so well last time.

Will you be writing off potential Nader supporters and voters by slamming them or will you be trying to persuade them to vote for John Kerry?

[LoZoccolo]

110. When people lie and make stupid arguments they know aren't true...

...do you really expect us to try to "persuade" all that much?

[sangh0]

111. It depends on who they're voting for

Well, perhaps this time around John Kerry can convince 8 million registered Democrats to vote for him rather than George Bush. Gore didn't seem to engage so well last time.

Gore convinced 50 million AMERICANS to vote for him. Nader is the one who DREAMS of 8 million votes.

[noiretextatique]

114. you bitterness is like poison

truly...it makes it impossible to talk with you. you should see someone about it.

[sangh0]

124. It's not bitterness

and if it leads some people to ignore me, that means I get to post uninterrupted and unrefuted.

[LoZoccolo]

132. You haven't seen bitterness yet...

...and I hope you don't have to see it from like 48% percent of the population that tried to do something progressive.

[noiretextatique]

perhaps those sheeple will actually respond

to the next coup.

[noiretextatique]

138. perhaps those sheeple will actually respond

to the next coup.

[noiretextatique]

139. perhaps those sheeple will actually respond

to the next coup.

[sangh0]

153. Don't hold your breath noiretblu

We had one coup, and those "sheeple" (you remember them, right? They're the people Nadir claims to be fighting for while his supporters disparage them) did nothing.

Even during the American Revolution, only 1/3 of the people in America supported out independence and an even smaller proportion actually fought for our freedom. I wouldn't count on a popular rebellion, or for masses of people who have a history of sitting on the sidelines to do anything other than sit on the sidelines.

[Solidarity]

143. 48%?

What did 48% of the population do?

[LoZoccolo]

145. Oh geez think real hard you might get it.

The Nader strategy is based on using a sliver of the left to punish the rest.

[Solidarity]

149. Please Answer ..... If You Can

If you could stop cussing for a moment and please answer a simple question that would be greatly appreciated.

Once again: What did 48% of the population of the United States do?

[LoZoccolo]

150. Try to get someone elected...

...that would support the progressive issues that I outlined in another reply in this thread (#118) that you should know by now quit wasting our fucking time.

[Solidarity]

151. Huh?

I checked out the thread and it has nothing to do with 48%.

If you can't answer the question just say so! I don't expect you to understand everything much less your own comments.

Wasting "our" time? I didn't realize you spoke for everyone on DU. Who gave you that power?

Well, I'm certainly wasting time reading your posts since you find it difficult to respond intelligently to peoples comments much less answer questions.

[sangh0]

154. Here's your answer

The 48% didn't vote for Nader

[LoZoccolo]

156. You're fucking playing games but HERE YOU FUCKING GO.

Let me spell it out for you.

If Nader does what he did last time, something like 48% of people will vote for Kerry and Nader will get 3% of the vote, and thus the concerns of 48% of people will get flushed down the toilet on account of the 3% that could give a fuck about the other 48% is that fucking clear sir that's what happened last time and it's your full intention that it happen this time SO I THOUGHT YOU'D AT LEAST FUCKING RECOGNIZE IT WHEN YOU SAW IT YOU GOT IT SIR??!!

[LoZoccolo]

157. This is how I know your responses are full of shit.

Your handle is "Solidarity" so YOU SHOULD FUCKING UNDERSTAND THIS.

[LoZoccolo]

159. And consider this, you would-be Naderites...

...here's a strong advocate for defecting from Kerry, who (at least pretends he) has no clue about the political consequences of his actions. When someone comes up to you advocating Nader for this or that reason, realize they might not have a clue what they are actually doing to this country or this world.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

163. So what's your plan?

What are the Nadirites goals and how do they plan to accomplish them? I'm eager to vote for Nadir, and all I need is some assurance that there's a plan with a reasonable chance of success.

Here's your opporunity to attract a Dem who is disgruntled. Let's see how you put "the big tent" idea into practice. We've seen you preach it. Now let's see you put it into action.

[sangh0]

166. What happened to you?

All of a sudden, you have nothing to say

[LoZoccolo]

164. STUPID argument.

Stupid. I won't even really go over how you fucked with the Kerry/Gore thing. Go back and read the original post, starting with the one before it.

Anyways, change "people" to "voters" and you still have a lot more people for which you fuck up their efforts to get progressive things done than voted for Nader. You fuck over a lot more people than you get to vote for Nader. And my whole point is, if you guys fuck it up again, you'll know a lot better what bitterness is. The rest of us are trying to get progressive things done, at least an order of magnitude more of us than are out there for Nader, and you'd like to fuck up every last thing I list in that post below.

Hey how much does that Nader percentage shrink when you run it through the ringer and count the whole population and all that? Oh.

Anyways, I'm at the "point of making an example out of you" anyways so I'm not concerned what you think so much as exposing your fucked-up thinking to everyone else.

[Solidarity]

167. Huh?

So what's your point .... if you have one.

[LoZoccolo]

168. My point is...

...you don't want to do anything about the issues I listed, nor support the people who are trying to do something about them, who far outnumber the Naderites.

[LoZoccolo]

169. And if you do support them...

...then what's your plan?

[LoZoccolo]

165. P.S....

...what's your plan?

[LoZoccolo]

146. You know, it's like you don't even realize how your own bullshit works.

But I don't suspect you even care.

[LoZoccolo]

147. Actually, tell me your fucking plan.

1. What are you trying to achieve and...
2. ...how are you gonna get it. How is it all gonna fall into place.

[sangh0]

155. You discovered how to shut Solidarity up

Ask him for his plan

[LoZoccolo]

158. 'chyea no shit.

Though I think about half of his plan is just to annoy people.

[WI_DEM]

112. maybe some people just want to vote for Nader

because they agree with him on the issues and as far as I know it isn't illegal to do so in this country.

[Solidarity]

117. Bingo!

Bingo! And many are progressives who will never, ever vote for any Republican or Democratic candidate for President. That's just the way it is.

They don't trust the old parties and politicians. They want a new one. Not all of them. But a lot of them.

And others just like Ralph Nader, agree with his views and believe he is a true anti-corporate candidate.

Many potential Nader voters still may be convinced to give the Democratic Party one more chance. It's up to John Kerry and his supporters to convince them.

But perhaps Kerry has written off these progressive or believes the "liberal/progressive" vote is "in the bag". So now he is free to move to the right (called the center) without that "liberal baggage" and can ignore certain liberal issues in his quest of Republican votes and some big "conservative" corporate bucks to win.

That's what it's beginning to look like to me. Just my opinion.

[LoZoccolo]

118. Plus they don't care about progressive issues.

...abortion...offshoring...same-sex unions...social spending...more wars...Nader's strategy is not without its consequences for people concerned with the left side of the issues above and thus it's proponents cannot expect to be free of censure from people who see you as effectively being Republicans.

[sangh0]

125. Anyone who thinks abortion issues are "gonadal politics" is a Repuke

in my book.

[louis c]

131. I Hope You Agree

You're obviously pro-Union, and had the same reservations about Kerry's past votes for NAFTA, and the WTO, as I did. I wanted Gephart in the primaries. But now it's down to just two viable choices, and the Labor Movement can't afford four more years of a group of fuckin' assholes who are publicly and privately committed to screwing us as a matter of policy.

[stavka]

123. ...that a house will fall out of the sky and crush the wicked witch

[Hubert Flottz]

135. RE: "To vote for Nader, one has to believe"

That the world is still flat!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

136. Ha ha. LOL. Funny.

Brilliant even. I can't/won't vote. They are all too good.

[TexasBushwhacker]

144. You left one out!

To vote for Nader you have to believe he's the best choice, because you can't stand Kerry or Bush, and you figure Nader must be better, but you don't necessarily know where Nader stands on the issues.

Read this interview with Nader by Pat Buchanan:

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html

Excuse me, but some of his ideas are 1) nuts and/or 2) not practical in the long run. The biggest one that stands out to me is having a $10 an hour minimum wage. People who work for minimum wage have MINIMUM SKILLS. They're either new to the workforce (teenagers) or they've dropped out and school and don't have any really marketable skills. Do we really want encourage people to look at minimum wage work as a good lifestyle choice? If you're making minimum wage - GET SOME SKILLS! Can you imagine what a burger will cost if the fast food workers get $10 an hour? How much will it cost to go see a movie or take your family to an amusement park?

And then there's this:

"RN: I believe in choice. I don’t think government should tell women to have children or not to have children. I am also against feticide. If doctors think it is a fetus, that should be banned. It is a medical decision.

PB: Between the woman and her doctor—

RN: And whoever else, family, clergy."

DUDE - It's a fetus after 8 weeks!

[LoZoccolo]

148. Yes, the vanity of trying to look above everyone...

...causes some people to support a candidate for little other reason than that.

Listen, if these people were really concerned about these issues, they'd be getting them known well enough so that a big enough chunk of the left lends them their support and any Democratic candidate couldn't really ignore it. As it stands right now, I have no clue what Nader really even stands for. And this guy wants to change the world? Why don't some of the Naderites try to spread a message to the people rather than just the Democratic party? I doubt the party will adopt platforms that most people can't understand and could be easily steamrolled by the right with lies and half-truths for that reason.

[Martin Eden]

170. If I vote for Nader, it will be because:

Kerry will definitely win my state (Illinois), so a vote for Nader won't hurt.

But I'll vote for Kerry anyway. I'm not taking any chances.

I hate the "winner take all" aspect of the Electoral College, because unless the polls indicate a close race in your state it feels as though your vote has no impact. An amendment to abolish the Electoral College willl never be approved by two thirds of the states because there are too many small states which enjoy disproportionate representation via the Electoral College. However, that's no reason why it can't be modified, such as distributing a state's votes by percentage points. For example, a state with three electoral votes might split its vote 1.72 to 1.28.

Another major reform I'd like to see is instant runoff voting. That way, I could vote Nader first and Kerry second, with no fear that I'm helping Bush.

[TexasBushwhacker]

172. Instant runoff would be great ....

although I think 3rd party candidates would resent it. But it would only kick in if no candidate got over 50% of the votes. It could have changed the outcome of the following states:

Florida - 25 to Bush

Nevada - 4 EV to Bush

New Hampshire - 4 EV to Bush

Iowa - 7 EV to Gore

Maine - 4 EV to Gore

Minnesota - 10 EV to Gore

New Mexico - 5 EV to Gore

Oregon - 10 EV to Gore

Wisconson - 10 EV to Gore

Another thing I noticed when I went through the 2000 election results was that significant numbers of people were not voting straight party tickets. In Texas, of all places, Bush got 59% of the vote, but incumbent Republican senator Kay Bailey Hutchison got 66%. There are examples where Gore got less than an incumbent Democrat also. The bottom line is that I think this election will be much closer that then last one and considering everything that's gone on with Bush and Co., I think it's more likely he will have lost votes than gain them. JMHO, of course.