Edwards may be out, but soon he'll be replaced by a...Will someone please slap Nader?
- Thread starter grandjedi6
- Start date
- Status
Absinthe (Permed)
Banned
I'd vote for him over anyone else that is currently running.
Obama is "enthralled to corporate powers?" What a tool. I think you can count on this guy making a minimal impact. Nader garnered a lot of votes in 2000 where two candidates were struggling to get the center and sounded far too alike. The difference between Obama and McCain could not be more clear.
Absinthe (Permed)
Banned
C4Lukins said:
It's a very biased film, in the same vein as Michael Moore films. It's not objective, not even in the least.
Justin Bailey
------ ------
Welp, that's one stolen vote from Obama, any others?Triumph said:
Smiles and Cries
Member
Triumph you can remove you avatar now and hand in your Hope card
respect -1
respect -1
Absinthe said:
Biased in what way? I came out of it not hating or especially liking the guy, it seemed to have commentators who both bashed him and supported him. I only saw it once right after it was released, and I am pretty familiar with his career. I have only read one of his books though which was terribly boring but semi informative. I am not contradicting you, I am just curious in what direction you found it to be biased.
Gaborn said:
Or... people should not blame any of those things, or Nader, and just vote for who they think best represents their values, and then stop being whiners when their team doesn't win the ballgame that year.
For some people, that's Obama, for others it's going to be McCain, but then there's also more than two choices out there, and that's a good thing.
Keylime
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
Ralph running is basically him saying that he would rather increase the odds of a Republican candidate being seated again for another 4 years.
If he truly believed in his ideals, he would come to terms with the fact that he can't win shit, and he shouldn't fuck with the chances of someone who at least sees things more closely to win this election. Shut the fuck up, and sit the fuck down.
If Obama loses this by the same number of points Nader gets by running... I don't know what the fuck I'd do. Probably nothing but flip the shit out on GAF...but holy christ does this piss me off.
It's one thing to have your own opinions and to disagree with a candidate. It's entirely something else when you have 0% chance of winning, and are essentially saying you would rather the other side win then your own...just so you could stand on your soap box a little longer.
Do not fuck with the Democratic votes you idiot... do fucking not. If a Republican is sitting in the oval office when the dust settles... holy shit...
Fuck this news.
...
If there were no political parties, this wouldn't be an issue whatsoever...but there are. And he's going to be leeching from only one side.
If he truly believed in his ideals, he would come to terms with the fact that he can't win shit, and he shouldn't fuck with the chances of someone who at least sees things more closely to win this election. Shut the fuck up, and sit the fuck down.
If Obama loses this by the same number of points Nader gets by running... I don't know what the fuck I'd do. Probably nothing but flip the shit out on GAF...but holy christ does this piss me off.
It's one thing to have your own opinions and to disagree with a candidate. It's entirely something else when you have 0% chance of winning, and are essentially saying you would rather the other side win then your own...just so you could stand on your soap box a little longer.
Do not fuck with the Democratic votes you idiot... do fucking not. If a Republican is sitting in the oval office when the dust settles... holy shit...
Fuck this news.
...
If there were no political parties, this wouldn't be an issue whatsoever...but there are. And he's going to be leeching from only one side.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
I have no problem with 3rd parties running. But why the hell Nader? He isn't even running with his own party. So what is the point?
Justin Bailey
------ ------
Gaborn said:
Hey lemmie get a hit of whatever you're smoking.Gaborn said:
Justin Bailey said:
Do you disagree with either of those statements? Practically speaking most Obama voters, should he drop out would probably not go over to McCain. Practically speaking, if the concern is to some degree the "liberal" vote is going to be split by Nader, then Obama dropping out would work just as effectively as Nader dropping out in uniting that vote.
Keylime
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
Nope.C4Lukins said:
I think it's clear who my choice is in this election.
That being said, I'm fine if there are no parties involved at all...just people running. Just people running means people look at individuals and vote based on the candidate.
Having two left leaning candidates and one right leaning candidate means that the lefties need to work a lot harder to win.
If elections weren't brought down to 2 candidates that can win, and other candidates who can't...I wouldn't give 2 shits who ran. But that's not reality, and Nader apparently doesn't live in it.
This sort of thing is generally curious to see given that I've seen most of political GAF's scores on Political Compass, and Nader should, in theory, have a huge well of support.
Now if you're closer to Obama on the issues, good for you, support your guy, but I can't see why you'd begrudge the Green candidate.
Now if you're closer to Obama on the issues, good for you, support your guy, but I can't see why you'd begrudge the Green candidate.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Gaborn said:
You honestly think all Obama supporters would vote for Nader. ONly 1% would probably do it in actuality
Stoney Mason
Banned
JayDubya said:
Nadar should realize the perfect candidate is running and step out of the way for the good of the country.
I'm guessing this is the view from certain quarters...
grandjedi6 said:
Not necessarily, no. But given the choice between McCain, and Nader? Yes, I do think so. I do find it interesting though that the fear is that Nader's going to steal Obama's voters, but that you seem to believe Obama's voters would be unwilling to support Nader in that situation.
I mean, don't get me wrong, you guys can do what you want, I'm almost guaranteed to vote LP this time around, but it seems sensible enough.
Justin Bailey
------ ------
Are all Obama supporters Nader supporters? No.Gaborn said:
Are some Obama supporters Nader supporters? Yes.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
JayDubya said:
See right there is my problem. He isn't the green candidate. If he ran, he would run independent. There is no point to him running, and he isn't helping a cause. So why?
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Gaborn said:
What about the majority of Americans who are moderate and would be far closer to McCain than Nader?
RubxQub said:
So you are just pissed because it effects your personal choice? That makes sense and is reasonable. I thought you may be suggesting that it should just be the two parties running in the election. I would actually like to see a process where there is an initial election to determine the final two candidates in order to prevent these spoiler guys who appear from time to time. I think just having something like that in place would really expand the political landscape for the electoral process.
Justin Bailey said:
True, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Again, the theory of some people here is a binary, or trinary race, where the major players are McCain, Obama, and Nader. Lets say Nader leaves the race. Presumably most of his supporters would support Obama rather than McCain. Now, instead lets say Obama has some sort of campaign ending scandal and quits the race. Where exactly would you believe Obama's supporters would go?
Grand Jedi - *shrug* According to some groups (who are probably rather biased but nonetheless...) Obama's about as far left and non moderate in his ideology, if not his rhetoric as you can get. I'm not sure how many moderates Obama will really pull at the end of the day anyway.
Justin Bailey
------ ------
Seeing as how most of America is actually moderate, they would probably either split or McCain would walk away with an edge based on name recognition alone - effectively giving him the election.Gaborn said:
RubxQub said:
Which would be great for McCain or for Obama for that matter if the election were held tomorrow. As of right now it's an interesting fatoid but probably useless. I'm pretty sure at this point Al Gore was leading in the polls by a wide margin as well, heck, at this point I'm reasonably sure ROSS PEROT was the front runner in '92. Perceptions shift and using this poll as some sort of evidence for a point isn't exactly useful.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Gaborn said:
It's naive to think that the majority of Obama's supporters share his ideology, most of them are likely moderate and would be closer to McCain than Nader. Especially come GE time when McCain paints himself as a maverick moderate while Nader stays as the far left. Plus that isn't even counting the quality of the President or people's various popularity contest influences like name recognization
Keylime
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
I just made these numbers up.Gaborn said:
Tell Nader to fix the party system and election process before he starts fucking with the one already in place.
The only point he's making is that he thinks too highly of himself.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Drey1082 said:
Nader did'nt cost anybody any election.
1- You have to earn your votes, people are'nt born Democrate/republican...ect
2- people who voted for Nader in 2000
D), would'nt vote AT ALL, usually the feeling is "This is Jack Johnson vs John Jackson, I ain'nt votin'. ". Nader Voters were NEW voters mostly.3- John Kerry???...:lol :lol :lol , pathetic. I did'nt even vote at all in 2004. One of the shittiest Election cycles of all time.
Nader is great American figure, He's Done ALOT for this country, and i mean things I believe would've never happen. BUT, my problem with him is his personality, he's a bit hard headed, does'nt seem like a good negotiator. Public Advocate suits him best, and people tell em that. But he keeps running for President and clearly he's not a politician.
I suported him in 2000, cuz i agree with most of his agenda, and he's very straight foward and I wanted (STILL DO) more than a 2 Party System. But Nader is not a good politician, he would'nt be able to bring these changes.
so i cant support him this time
Xisiqomelir
Member
RubxQub said:
Motherfucker
JayDubya: GAME THEORY
People get one vote for president, which goes towards electoral college votes, which are assigned on a plurality-takes-all basis.
Voting isn't just an expression of pure preference. It's a choice among limited options, taking into account the likely actions of others.
Imagine a country with an electorate split the following way: 40% socialist, 10% geolibertarian, 10% classical liberal, 10% Objectivist, 10% anarcho-capitalist, and 20% miniarchist.
Presidential elections have the same system as the US, and there is a candidate representing each philosophy. Every time that everyone votes their first preference, there's a predictable result. Should the libertarians be commended for sticking to their principles, election after election, as a socialist state gradually engulfs them?
The failure is built into the system, but that doesn't mean voters shouldn't take the system into account when making their decision.
People get one vote for president, which goes towards electoral college votes, which are assigned on a plurality-takes-all basis.
Voting isn't just an expression of pure preference. It's a choice among limited options, taking into account the likely actions of others.
Imagine a country with an electorate split the following way: 40% socialist, 10% geolibertarian, 10% classical liberal, 10% Objectivist, 10% anarcho-capitalist, and 20% miniarchist.
Presidential elections have the same system as the US, and there is a candidate representing each philosophy. Every time that everyone votes their first preference, there's a predictable result. Should the libertarians be commended for sticking to their principles, election after election, as a socialist state gradually engulfs them?
The failure is built into the system, but that doesn't mean voters shouldn't take the system into account when making their decision.
What's it say about the DNC when they're running scared from Ralph Nader? What's it say about Democrats that they tremble at the very possibility of Nader running? Let him run and take him on just like McCain. Those votes aren't Obama/Clitnons anymore than they're anyone elses and if you're afraid to run or vote because of a third party candidate then you have no business voting or running in the first place.
Maybe if one person can split your party in half like that then you should reconsider the premises, or promises, upon which your party is built.
problem with this is that in most countries the parliament is comprised of parties of the same beliefs, not just two parties, so that when bad ideas come along the various representatives can get together. Failure is only built into the system because we hold our congressional representatives to lower standards than we do the President.
Maybe if one person can split your party in half like that then you should reconsider the premises, or promises, upon which your party is built.
Mandark said:
problem with this is that in most countries the parliament is comprised of parties of the same beliefs, not just two parties, so that when bad ideas come along the various representatives can get together. Failure is only built into the system because we hold our congressional representatives to lower standards than we do the President.
Propagandhim
Banned
Somewhere, hollowed away in a little cave, is a Nader supporter that's really pissed off over the throngs of shallow Obama supporters that have no idea what the guy is about.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
whytemyke said:
What?
- Status