Support NeoGAF

[Tobor]

FUCKING NADER.

 

[White Man]

Nader has every right to run. Gore lost the 2000 race by running a tepid campaign and not fighting. His message is going to be much less effective after the disaster that was Bush Co.

I think the idiotic media coverage of the campaign had more to do with it than Nader, but I'm not happy that I have to tolerate Nader's now regularly scheduled LET'S PRETEND I'M IMPORTANT tour.

 

[Tobor]

I think the idiotic media coverage of the campaign had more to do with it than Nader, but I'm not happy that I have to tolerate Nader's now regularly scheduled LET'S PRETEND I'M IMPORTANT tour.

Don't you understand, White Man, it's not about Nader, it's about proving how broken the system...

FUCKING NADER.

 

[Blader]

Clinton is now "the democrats"?

It's allowed by the DNC.

 

[TheDrowningMan]

Some little pieces on Nader:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/33
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/907
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/06/29/nader

Listen, the man doesn't accept this backing for nothing. He's a Neo-Con thinly cloaked in 'socialism' continually wheeled out in the hope that he'll help his Republican paymasters to election victory. And, let's face it, such administrations can benefit priviledged individuals like Nader. He's the stock 'wacky liberal' championed as a consumer hero, further to the left than the allegedly terrible 'moderate' Democrats, put in there to syphon votes from gullible young people who would otherwise opt for the Democratic candidate. They buy his spiel because they are clueless, because they do not care about the bigger picture, the wider impact.

That the man primarily focuses on campaigning in swings states that Democrats NEED to win in order to stand any chance tells you all you need to know. He could base his effort in solidly blue, mass populated states in order to gain more votes for his cause but no. And we know why that is. If he truly wanted to put the average person first and fight for their cause, there are a million and twelve better ways in which he could do it.

 

[grandjedi6]

It's allowed by the DNC.

That can happen in the Republican party too and the US electoral college for the GE allows the same thing. Plus the DNC would haven't allowed that to happen. Plus Hillary never did anything and her stupid campaign manager back down after trying that one

 

[Slurpy]

Fuck Nader. Fuck him.

There are ways to achieve his goals without a stupid fucking Presidential run. What a pompous, narcissistic asshole.

Pretty much. He knows he has absolutely no chance to win. The most he could possibly do is cost the democrats the whitehouse. And thats clearly become his goal. He clearly doesnt give two shits about the country. Fuck him and his fucked-up priorities.

 

[kame-sennin]

Do you believe that a "terrorist" attack on a nuclear facility will have more impact than on another electric facility?

Um... yea. Causing a meltdown or simply stealing plutonium to make a nuclear bomb would be horrifically worse than shutting down a standard power plant.

Nuclear waste isn't really a prime terrorist target.

I mentioned the waste as a health issue. As for terrorism, see above.

And I have a question about Nader's energy policy. What does he plan to do about energy? He advocates an end of Nuclear energy. But the only solution he offers is to use solar energy. But there is no way the current renewable energy sources we have can meet are power demands. So I think it's incredibly foolish of him to talk about getting rid of pollutants and move to renewable energy, but refuse to compromise to make his plan even remotely realistic

I'm wondering about this myself. I've heard that solar panels only harness a small fraction of the Sun's energy and that scientists are working on prototypes that are more efficient. I imagine he would put more funding into that kind of research, while introducing mandates on energy consumption (or at least a carbon tax). However, I don't know if all of that, combined with ethanol, can cover the gap.

damn dude, way to suck the fun out of a harmless joke. maybe your attitude is more toxic waste than the nuclear stuff sitting in your backyard.

Your post was actually just the first that I saw that mentioned nuclear power. I wasn't actually criticizing your joke.

 

[kame-sennin]

Good god, every line of that table is either sickeningly disingenuous or completely unrealistic. It's like he's trying to get labeled a crank.

Really?

-Adopt single payer national health insurance
-Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
-Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare
-Open up the Presidential debates
-Adopt a carbon pollution tax
-Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
-Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax
-Put an end to ballot access obstructionism
-Work to end corporate personhood

Don't get me wrong, most of the above would be hard to pass. But as a matter of policy, how would any of these be unrealistic or disingenuous?

 

[kame-sennin]

Pretty much. He knows he has absolutely no chance to win. The most he could possibly do is cost the democrats the whitehouse. And thats clearly become his goal. He clearly doesnt give two shits about the country. Fuck him and his fucked-up priorities.

:lol

You should look into this guy's biography. You may hate what he's doing to the democratic party, but he's basically traded his adult life for the cause advancing consumer and citizens rights.

 

[thesoapster]

:lol

You should look into this guy's biography. You may hate what he's doing to the democratic party, but he's basically traded his adult life for the cause advancing consumer and citizens rights.

Yes, that's good. That doesn't mean he's fit to be the president.

 

[kame-sennin]

Btw, for all the people who are angry about the spoiler factor, wouldn't you agree that the democrats have created this problem for themselves by not calling for instant runoff voting?

They have the majority in Congress now, why not put this into effect and eliminate spoilers - and the threat of Nader specifically - forever?

For those who don't want to go through the flash animation posted above (though I highly recommend it), here's the wiki explanation if IRV:

nstant-runoff voting (IRV) is a voting system used for single-winner elections in which voters rank candidates in order of preference. In an IRV election, if no candidate receives a majority of first choices, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated, and the votes cast for that candidate are redistributed to the remaining candidates according to the voters' indicated preference. This process is repeated until one candidate has a majority among votes for candidates not eliminated. The term "instant runoff" is used because IRV is said to simulate a series of run-off elections tallied in rounds, as in an exhaustive ballot election.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Edit: thesoapster, I never said he was. I just found Slurpy's assertion hard to swallow.

 

[Gruco]

For starters...

-Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
Is off the table? Iraq alone makes this bs.

-Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare
Again, off the table? Outright dishonest; any idiot can read specific plans that say otherwise.

-Adopt a carbon pollution tax
Either disingenuous or ignorant. Permit auctions are functionally identical, with the added benefit of being able to measure the quantitative impact.

-Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
If there's one message I've been getting from Clinton, Obama and McCain it's their dogmatic support of a subsequently weakened 1947 union law.

The rest are more complicated, and I probably still owe you a response on your last post, but then again, ones you didn't post, like "Change policy in Middle East" and "no to nuclear" are even more blatant.

Nader...seriously...dig UP.

edit -

IRV should not be used. But...apparently electionmethods.org no longer exists for be to back this up easily. Approval voting is a good system and I think it's a shame it hasn't been pushed for. But then again, it's a bigger shame that Nader and his supporters aren't able to stay current.

 

[Mandark]

Yeah, including the carbon tax as something Obama's against is a pretty WTF moment.

Who made that chart?

 

[Armitage]

God, what an idiot. Does he really think that after 2000, he has any chance whatsoever of being anything close to a viable candidate?

And if not, why is he running?

This is kind of a weak argument. You could say the same thing about Ron Paul, who knows he has no chance in hell of coming close to winning. The thinking, I guess, is that by entering the race, the other candidates will have to take stances closer to his own in order to keep the votes that would be lost to him.

 

[grandjedi6]

I'm wondering about this myself. I've heard that solar panels only harness a small fraction of the Sun's energy and that scientists are working on prototypes that are more efficient. I imagine he would put more funding into that kind of research, while introducing mandates on energy consumption (or at least a carbon tax). However, I don't know if all of that, combined with ethanol, can cover the gap.

As of now all the renewable energy combined would not cover all of our energy demands, even if we limit the energy usage. Solar energy is probably the most environmentally friendly energy source, but its also one of the least effecient. And all the other renewable energy sources are their own various problems. So we have to use coal, oil or nuclear in some form. And the adverse effects of Nuclear energy are much lower than Oil or coal. So while it would be nice to use only solar and get rid of Nuclear, it's not going to happen.

Btw, for all the people who are angry about the spoiler factor, wouldn't you agree that the democrats have created this problem for themselves by not calling for instant runoff voting?

They have the majority in Congress now, why not put this into effect and eliminate spoilers - and the threat of Nader specifically - forever?

For those who don't want to go through the flash animation posted above (though I highly recommend it), here's the wiki explanation if IRV:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Edit: thesoapster, I never said he was. I just found Slurpy's assertion hard to swallow.

Democrats and Republicans will never get rid of the electoral college or create a IRV, simply because the system in place now keeps out competing parties. Why would the ones in charge work to destroy themselves?

And IRV actually increases the threat of 3rd parties since it opens up the possibilty of the Democrats or Republicans actually being kicked out of the GE entirely, in favor of a 3rd party.

Yeah, including the carbon tax as something Obama's against is a pretty WTF moment.

Who made that chart?

Nader himself. It's the only thing on his website about his policies. Essentially that chart is the reasons Nader has for why you should vote for him

 

[kame-sennin]

For starters...

-Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
Is off the table? Iraq alone makes this bs.

No way. Getting out of Iraq has almost nothing to do with cutting military spending. We will still be buying hundred-million dollar jets in bulk whether we are in Iraq or not. Getting out of Iraq will only decrease the operational budget of the military. Nader is talking about buying shit we don't need. That's always been off the table.

-Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare
Again, off the table? Outright dishonest; any idiot can read specific plans that say otherwise.

You're right here. Obama and McCain have definitely commented on this. Though I would argue that their solutions will be unsatisfactory.

-Adopt a carbon pollution tax
Either disingenuous or ignorant. Permit auctions are functionally identical, with the added benefit of being able to measure the quantitative impact.

I agree here as well.

-Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
If there's one message I've been getting from Clinton, Obama and McCain it's their dogmatic support of a subsequently weakened 1947 union law.

You haven't gotten any message from them, because it's not an issue they have ever, or will ever bring up. Nader's right on this one. Clinton and Carter failed to repeal this even when they had a democratic congress, despite urging from union leaders. I don't expect Obama or Clinton II to be any better.

As you said, some of his attack points are unfair, but I don't think any of what I posted is unrealistic.

The rest are more complicated, and I probably still owe you a response on your last post, but then again, ones you didn't post, like "Change policy in Middle East" and "no to nuclear" are even more blatant.

You don't have to. I didn't post those because I see where you're coming from. However, American presidents have done seemingly unfeasible things in the past. One would have thought the end of slavery would cause the American economy to collapse. Then there's getting through the great depression and navigating the cold war, ect. Comparatively, reversing course in the middle east seems quite plausible, despite the willpower and potential sacrifice it would require. But I will concede that stuff like impeaching Bush is just throwing stir-fried tofu to the crowd.

 

[kame-sennin]

As of now all the renewable energy combined would not cover all of our energy demands, even if we limit the energy usage. Solar energy is probably the most environmentally friendly energy source, but its also one of the least effecient. And all the other renewable energy sources are their own various problems. So we have to use coal, oil or nuclear in some form. And the adverse effects of Nuclear energy are much lower than Oil or coal. So while it would be nice to use only solar and get rid of Nuclear, it's not going to happen.

That sucks.

Democrats and Republicans will never get rid of the electoral college or create a IRV, simply because the system in place now keeps out competing parties. Why would the ones in charge work to destroy themselves?

And IRV actually increases the threat of 3rd parties since it opens up the possibilty of the Democrats or Republicans actually being kicked out of the GE entirely, in favor of a 3rd party.

So basically, the democrats are afraid of losing to third parties, so they enforce a system that keeps third parties out. In doing so, they make minor candidates who probably would not win in any circumstance, a threat to them. So, if Nader splits the liberal vote and throws the election to the republicans, it would be as much the democrat's fault as it is Nader's? Because anyone who insists that Nader "stole" the election from Gore also has to acknowledge that instant runoff voting would have resulted in a Gore victory. Essentially, democrats are willing to risk the threat of Nader now, in order to insure that a third party NEVER has a chance at any point in the future. Consequentially stealing choices from the American people. Why do people support these guys again?

 

[grandjedi6]

So basically, the democrats are afraid of losing to third parties, so they enforce a system that keeps third parties out. In doing so, they make minor candidates who probably would not win in any circumstance, a threat to them. So, if Nader splits the liberal vote and throws the election to the republicans, it would be as much the democrat's fault as it is Nader's? Because anyone who insists that Nader "stole" the election from Gore also has to acknowledge that instant runoff voting would have resulted in a Gore victory. Essentially, democrats are willing to risk the threat of Nader now, in order to insure that a third party NEVER has a chance at any point in the future. Consequentially stealing choices from the American people. Why do people support these guys again?

3rd parties would be a far greater threat in a IRV than the norm.

Scenario 1

Liberal Voters
1st choice -- Democrats
2nd Choice -- Moderate Party

Conservative Voters
1st choice -- Republicans
2nd Choice -- Moderate Party

Moderate Party wins and goes against either Democrats/Republicans, most Liberals or conservatives are pissed off

Scenario 2

Liberal Voters
1st Choice -- Democrats
2nd Choice -- Radical Left party

Conservative Voters
1st Choice -- Republicans
2nd Choice -- Radical Conservative Party or Radical Left Party (to screw up the Democrats)

Radical Left Party vs Conservatives. Radical Left loses for being Radical, most Democrats are pissed off

Scenario 3

Liberal Voters
1st Choice -- Democrats
2nd Choice -- Ron Paul (Iraq = bad!)

Conservative Voters
1st Choice -- Republicans
2nd Choice -- Ron Paul (conservative!)

Non-libertarians am cry



The best solution for 3rd parties would actually be making the electoral college proportional. However that would also piss of Democrats and Republicans so it won't happen

 

[kame-sennin]

Because the alternative is worse?

But the problem with that mentality is that democrats are free to be as shitty as they want as long as they are slightly less shitty than the republicans. This sets up a situation where the republicans can continually pull the country to the right with no counterbalance. And if you look at the last twenty years, that scenario has played out, with the added shitty result of consistent republican victory (even without third parties). Game theory seems to have backfired.

The best solution for 3rd parties would actually be making the electoral college proportional. However that would also piss of Democrats and Republicans so it won't happen

In my view, your scenario does not accurately represent how people would vote in a newly applied IRV system, but rather applies current trends onto a new model. But your position on proportional voting makes sense, though I doubt it would be enough to fix our system.

 

[grandjedi6]

But the problem with that mentality is that democrats are free to be as shitty as they want as long as they are slightly less shitty than the republicans. This sets up a situation where the republicans can continually pull the country to the right with no counterbalance. And if you look at the last twenty years, that scenario has played out, with the added shitty result of consistent republican victory (even without third parties). Game theory seems to have backfired.

How are they shitty? You must understand, most Americans don't want half the things Nader is promoting. If the election came down to Nader vs Republicans in a IRV, most Americans would be pissed off since they don't agree with Nader. There is a reason why Republicans and Democrats move to the center in the GE, and that is because it's what the majority of America wants

In my view, your scenario does not accurately represent how people would vote in a newly applied IRV system, but rather applies current trends onto a new model.

Wait, you actually think voting would significantly increase in an IRV

But your position on proportional voting makes sense, though I doubt it would be enough to fix our system.

Probably not, but anything to get rid of the electoral college is a plus in my book

 

[Stoney Mason]

That made sense in 2000, but it no longer does. I'm not calling him non-viable in the sense that he can't win (that's blindingly obvious), but in the sense that he won't even be effective in getting votes and forcing others to change their stances.

Not that I'm a Nadar fan or anything but in 2000 he got very few votes percentage wise and arguably he didn't make any politicians change their stance in 2000 despite a very green friendly candidate running for the democratic nomination then. I'm not sure what's changed exactly to make it so much worse versus the run in 2000.

 

[kame-sennin]

How are they shitty? You must understand, most Americans don't want half the things Nader is promoting. If the election came down to Nader vs Republicans in a IRV, most Americans would be pissed off since they don't agree with Nader. There is a reason why Republicans and Democrats move to the center in the GE, and that is because it's what the majority of America wants

From a progressive perspective. Most of the people who vote in democratic primaries lean progressive, which includes avid supporters of the democratic party, which includes people who shout "fuck off Nader, don't spoil the election". When it comes to Iraq, military spending, healthcare, gay rights, union laws, and corporate crime, most democrat voters are at least somewhat disappointed with their party. Then you have to remember that half of all eligible voters chose not to vote. They certainly are not all Nader fans, but I imagine his positions would be more popular with a broader electorate if he had fair media coverage and a shot at winning.

Wait, you actually think voting would significantly increase in an IRV

I'm an optimist... sort of.

Probably not, but anything to get rid of the electoral college is a plus in my book

Agreed.

Edit: icarus-daedelus, why are you not angry about the democratic party's failure to challenge the electoral system. This is one of the many things they could change that would bring democracy to disenfranchised voters - the same voters they claim to protect. Why should they get a pass on this issue and how will voting for them progress your point of view?

 

[Stoney Mason]

Now he isn't even running under the pretense of giving the Green Party a chance; it's all about him, since he is an independent.

Perhaps, but when I go to the green party page, there is a draft Nadar text on the page so they must not be that against him running. Has he ever stated why he is running under the banner of the Green party outside of people just assuming he has a massive ego and wants to run by himself? Serious question.

 

[grandjedi6]

From a progressive perspective. Most of the people who vote in democratic primaries lean progressive, which includes avid supporters of the democratic party, which includes people who shout "fuck off Nader, don't spoil the election". When it comes to Iraq, military spending, healthcare, gay rights, union laws, and corporate crime, most democrat voters are at least somewhat disappointed with their party. Then you have to remember that half of all eligible voters chose not to vote. They certainly are not all Nader fans, but I imagine his positions would be more popular with a broader electorate if he had fair media coverage and a shot at winning.

You are vastly overestimating Democrats liberal leanings. Not all Democrats support all the things you listed, and only a fraction support Nader's positions. I am liberal on most positions myself, but I understand that 90% of the country disagrees with me. If the Democrats became more liberal, most people would view the party as shitty and radical. And thus they would not win elections

And most people vote don't to apathy more than anything else


Actually, I'm pretty sure Nader would become less popular if he had lots of attention

 

[Stoney Mason]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Nader would become less popular if he had lots of attention

You mean he would get less than 2 or 3 percent?

 

[Lost Fragment]

Should be Ross Perot instead. At least he's entertaining.

 

[grandjedi6]

You mean he would get less than 2 or 3 percent?

His vote percentage might stay the same, but more people knowing of his far left views would probably make more people dislike him.

 

[kame-sennin]

You are vastly overestimating Democrats liberal leanings. Not all Democrats support all the things you listed, and only a fraction support Nader's positions. I am liberal on most positions myself, but I understand that 90% of the country disagrees with me. If the Democrats became more liberal, most people would view the party as shitty and radical. And thus they would not win elections

Not all democrats, but many if not most. As for the rest of the country, they seemed to have little trouble with the republican party becoming radically neoconservative. I know Americans will remain more conservative than western Europe for the foreseeable future, but more than anything else, I think the electorate responds to clear policy stances and moral certitude. If the democrats were more firm on their positions, people would gravitate to them. As it stands, they are seen as republican lite, and thus lose more elections.

And most people vote don't to apathy more than anything else

Many of whom are apathetic towards an electoral process that fails to provide choice or the opportunity for change.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Nader would become less popular if he had lots of attention

I dunno. As bias as it is, after watching An Unreasonable Man, most people come away with a drastically improved opinion of Nader.

 

[grandjedi6]

Not all democrats, but many if not most. As for the rest of the country, they seemed to have little trouble with the republican party becoming radically neoconservative. I know Americans will remain more conservative than western Europe for the foreseeable future, but more than anything else, I think the electorate responds to clear policy stances and moral certitude. If the democrats were more firm on their positions, people would gravitate to them. As it stands, they are seen as republican lite, and thus lose more elections.

Both times Bush ran, he ran as a compassionate conservative who was moderate leaning. While, the obviously didn't turn out like that, that is what Bush ran as and is what America choose. Nader though would not make himself more center leaning in the election, and instead would support his far left positions. And Nader would lose, horribly. For proof, look no further than McGovern. McGovern was a far left Democratic candidate who lost horribly in the GE due to his image of being a radical liberal.

I think the problem here is that you are assuming most Democrats support Nader's positions. But they don't. Americans want center/moderate candidates, not extreme left. Obama is seen as pretty left leaning, but is no where near as extreme as Nader. The reason Democrats lose elections is do to their own problems and the fact that Republicans label them as far left. Not because they aren't liberal enough.

I respect your and Nader's political positions but you guys are in the vast minority on issues.

Many of whom are apathetic towards an electoral process that fails to provide choice or the opportunity for change.

Apathy mostly comes from a lack of interest, disillusion with American politics (coughWatergatecough) and just plain lazyness. More choices isn't going to make more people vote if the voters still feel their vote doesn't matter.

Also, the people who know of 3rd party's positions are probably going to vote anyway. So increasing the chance and number of 3rd parties probably won't increase voting much. Just look at the primaries. There was a whole host of candidates in the Democratic ones, with everyone having a chance at winning. Yet Obama and Hillary still got almost all the votes.

I dunno. As bias as it is, after watching An Unreasonable Man, most people come away with a drastically improved opinion of Nader.

Nader would be painted as more of a radical than he already is, which would not help him overall

 

[Finnish the Fox]

This thread is disgusting, why shouldn't Nader run? Because you say so? It's a sad state of affairs, when democracy is decried. If you don't want Nader to run, tough luck the US is a democracy, go move to a totalitarian state if you don't like it.

Also the idiotic childish remarks towards Nader is saddening. But hey that's what Nader get's for getting in the way, when were the one's we have been waiting for, the nerves of Nader. I always laugh when people say Nader cost Gore the election, when Gore couldn't win his own state. Not only that, Bush was re-elected in 2004, also Nader's fault, just because.