I am not satisfied with my options presented in the "Did someone mention politics" thread. I am starting my own thread.

What are the big thoughts on Ralph Nader?

I know what most Republicans are probably thinking: "heh heh heh AAHHH HAAA HAAA BWAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAAAAAA".

In the end I think he'll probably be good for the Democratic party, but is it worth it if he costs you this election?

Here are some good points he brings up:

The Democratic party's current agenda is to "beat Bush". This would leave the candidate with no mandate. I have to agree with this, and actually brought this up in the DSMP thread (the one propped up by corporate dollars). This degenerates the party to nothing more than "anti-Republican" dejected rejects with no identity.

Nader wants to beat Bush. Nader doesn't want to stop the Democrats from beating Bush. Nader thinks beating Bush is very important. Nader says he didn't cost Gore the 2000 election. I have to say a big "hmm" here. He seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. Democrats saying "beat Bush" is bad, but agreeing with them is ok. Sounds a litte hypocritical.

Also I'm pretty sure most math says Nader hurt Gore more than he hurt Bush. I find it really hard to believe he's going to draw more Republicans into his camp then Democrats.

He says he's set up a system on the Internet to make sure votes are cancelled out and yadda yadda and so forth but I don't think anyone could reasonably believe that. Also I think the ballot is secret so you can't prove it.

I understand the logic that by Nader taking a stand, he will eventually force the Democratic party to absorb some or all of the Green Party platform. He even says he was surprised the party hasn't done this already, and that he has no choice but to run. That point is fine and valid, but I still don't see how he can say with a straight face -in an election unanimously declared to be critical- that he doesn't think he will increase Bush's chances to win.

Most of Nader's points aren't that disagreeable, and some should in theory have sway with fiscal conservatives:

Corporation are not people and shouldn't be treated as such

Corporate money out of politics

Tax goods and services less and sin and luxury more

I kind of quesiton what his real motives are. Chiefly, how can he be both Anti-Bush, and for his own candidacy. Is he really crying for the Democratic party's attention or is he striking at them? If so, are his reasons really benign?

Also this is an area of politics I know little about. Where does his money come from? Is it accounted for somewhere? I'd be interested in seeing if he has any suspect supporters that mind reveal some kind of divergent agenda.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I still can't forgive Nader for trash-talking the Corvair.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

i'm coming at it from a completely different perspective. i was so disenchanted by both the republican and the democratic parties that i wasn't going to vote until nader announced he's running. there are a lot of us disenchanted republicans that think the democrats are only going to perpetuate the problems bush has caused.

more importantly, however, there's a lot of us voters in general (just look at the posts in "did somebody mention politics) who are disenchanted with the whole two-party system: even NPR this morning discussed that growing dissatisfaction. nader represents the possibility of a movement away from that frustrating and failing two-party system; and possibility in itself is worth all the bin ladens in afghanistan, in my humble opinion.

---
i want to piss on you

My question is...How can he have a last name like "Nader" and not be laughed at?

On a serious note, however, I think he's just stepping up to attack both parties. With the comments he's made, I think he's just out for a good bashing.

---
I will rate you hard, and unendingly.

I voted for him before, and probably will again. It doesn't really concern me whether he costs one rich-kid Yalee skuzball or another the election. I have no use for any of these political and business dynasts trying to out-buy thier way into the White House, be they Republicrats or Demopubs. My ancestors didn't suck up musket balls so that some preening smug aristocrat could sit in the big chair gloating over his rolodex full of fat-cat golf buddies and Skull and Bones contacts. Besides, Nader wants to legalize the herb, which I need for my, uh, rheumatism.

---
I was gonna send a robot back in time, but I got high.

My dad worked for General Motors for 38 years and my mom actually owned a Corvair when "Unsafe at Any Speed" came out. The resulting bad publicity and loss of resale value assures he won't get their votes.

I think this misrepresents the Democratic agenda. While he may not be the nominee, Howard Dean successfully re-focused the Democratic agenda to one with backbone:

[list]
[*]A balanced budget
[*]Tax fairness = repeal tax custs for the rich
[*]Real protection of the environment
[*]Reduce dependence on foreign oil
[*]Reform/fund No Child Left Behind
[*]Protect a woman's right to choose
[*]Support civil unions for gays and lesbians on a state-by-state basis
[*]Stop the doctrine of pre-emptive war.
[*]Health care coverage for all
[/list]

If the agenda seems to be "Beat Bush" it's because there is so much at stake. Another four years of his half-trillion dollar deficits will make it all the more painful to recover.

I *do* think that there is a tendency among my fellow Democrats (especially when looking for a Presidential nominee) to support candidates who we think will appeal to non-Democrats. This leads to candidates who try to have it every which way and don't stand up for core Democratic values. I think this is a mistake. I think that by standing by our convictions we will show people who don't normally vote that there is a difference between the parties, and that there is a reason to vote Democratic.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

quote:

---

[list]
[*]A balanced budget
[*]Tax fairness = repeal tax custs for the rich
[*]Real protection of the environment
[*]Reduce dependence on foreign oil
[*]Reform/fund No Child Left Behind
[*]Protect a woman's right to choose
[*]Support civil unions for gays and lesbians on a state-by-state basis
[*]Stop the doctrine of pre-emptive war.
[*]Health care coverage for all
[/list]

---

Yes they did. But they died so that they could be American aristocrats and not British ones.

First, Howard Dean isn't the nominee. Second, if people are mobilized to vote to beat Bush, it doesn't matter what they have on their platform if the only unifying mandate is "beat Bush". Likewise, believe it or not, some people are turned off by forming a culture of hate around an individual or individuals rather than talking about issues. But the people who need to hear this never listen.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Oh come on, Makk. You could just as well say that the unifying mandate for the other side is to win at all costs.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

I kept hearing from candidates and the press telling voters what they were thinking that the thing to do was finding a candidate the could "beat Bush". The only other big identifying issue I've heard from the serious candidates is that "they would do something sort of different with the war, which is bad that we are in, but they wouldn't stop it".

I'm wondering what else is supposed to distinguish the party from the Republicans this election.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I'm tired of the 'Beat Bush at any cost' bullshit. What if Kerry's worse? I don't even think Kerry could beat Bush when it comes down to it.

My candidate is Kucinich. He hasn't a shot in hell, but the guy is a sound thinker. He ALSO wants to legalize the wacky tobacky. I voted for Nader in the last election, my reason being that I knew what Bush was about, and I knew what Gore was about. The first ever debate I saw between Al Gore and some other talking heads, every statement or comment made by Al wsa prefaced by the same thing. 'BillClintonandI'. One word. He said it like they were the same person, or more accurately, he was just the marionette. I was not a fan of either major-party candidate.

This time around, although I disagree slightly on Nader's sin and luxury taxes (seeing as how I am a big fan of both), I will probably toss my vote his way, especially when Kerry offically gets the nomination. Nader said Washington has become corporate occupied territory. I wholeheartedly agree.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

quote:

---

I kept hearing from candidates and the press telling voters what they were thinking that the thing to do was finding a candidate the could "beat Bush". The only other big identifying issue I've heard from the serious candidates is that "they would do something sort of different with the war, which is bad that we are in, but they wouldn't stop it".

I'm wondering what else is supposed to distinguish the party from the Republicans this election.

---

By "sin and luxury" I meant he was talking about things like the amount of pollution corporations make, stock speculation, etc. I didn't hear him specifically mention actual sin and luxury items in the sense I think you think I meant.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Nader's great. Kerry's just the lesser of two evils.

Gotta back Nader on militarism, electoral reform, and trade policy.

---
What others say about boorite!

Agreed. He's been advocating major airport security reform for over 10 years, far, far before 9/11 happened, obviously.

Maybe. But he might be thre greater of two evils when in office. It's not a chance I want to take. Bush & Kerry need to go away.

I have a bad feeling, though, that no matter what, Bush is going to pull out Bin Laden around August and ride that popularity wave to another term.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

quote:

---

I have a bad feeling, though, that no matter what, Bush is going to pull out Bin Laden around August and ride that popularity wave to another term.

---

quote:

---

I have a bad feeling, though, that no matter what, Bush is going to pull out Bin Laden around August and ride that popularity wave to another term.

---

Heh heh heh.

"Also, please pay no attention to the fact that his beard is coming off and his turban is made of aluminum foil. This IS the real Bin Laden! Victory!"

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

They won't have to find Bin Laden in Iraq, "finding" him would be enough. In fact if they actually found him in Iraq they'd have to fly him to Afghanistan and pretend to find him there so it looked believable.

I agree with a lot of Nader's populist attitude, especially in regards to consumer advocacy. On the other hand I'm not big on socialism or career doves. Sometimes you have to fight.

Consumer advocacy, like border control, now makes sense as a national security issue (in terms of making goods and services safer for use and consumption) and I'm surprised at how slow legislation boosting these issues has been coming. I'm wondering if Bush's recent illegal alien work card is a step towards sewing up the Mexican border to something that reflects the state of the current terrorism crisis.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

We heard that Gore and Bush are the same last time. And it proved to be wrong - a load of crap. Bush stinks to the forking clouds and needs to be dumped. Yes, Kerry would be much better.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Well when you're the same in the sense that both candidates are just fighting towards the middle to get elected, then you are pretty similar in terms of mandate you will have. Right now the biggest issue (other than the pro and anti Bush issue) seems like it's the constitutional amendment, but Kerry doesn't even have a stand and just looks to be in more support for gay marriage de facto, but so little time has passed since Bush dropped da bomb today it's definitely too soon too comment.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Four years ago I figured Gore and Bush were somewhat close with Gore being more honest. Then Bush came in and proved he was FAR worse.

quote:

---

[list]
[*]A balanced budget
[*]Tax fairness = repeal tax cuts for the rich
[*]Real protection of the environment
[*]Reduce dependence on foreign oil
[*]Reform/fund No Child Left Behind
[*]Protect a woman's right to choose
[*]Support civil unions for gays and lesbians on a state-by-state basis
[*]Stop the doctrine of pre-emptive war.
[*]Health care coverage for all

And I would add
[*]Minority rights and representation
[/list]

---

Also, ignore the fact that he is white. That is all. Thank you.

WE R TEH WIN!

Seriously though. If we kill Bin Laden, or capture him, or whatever, what next? I agree with the idea. Terrorism needs to be stopped. But how? Stopping terrorism is akin to stopping elitism, or republicans. Sure, you can jail, kill, or otherwise do-away with the head guys, but then what? Do you just keep killing everyone who so much as mentions that he/she doesn't like something, and would be willing to do something drastic to change it?

I was all about the "revenge on Bin Laden" war. But the "stop terrorists and free the Iraqis, while maybe getting some oil as well" war is not what I was looking at when this was dropped on the table.

If it'd been a "In, kill some guys, out with few or no casualties on our side" deal, I'd be fine. But every soldier that dies in this "war" just makes me dislike it more.

I'd like to feel more compassion for the innocents dying there, too, but I can't. No more than I would on any other day that we *weren't* there drawing fire toward them. It used to be "terrorists kill women and children", now it's "terrorists kill women and children, oh, and some of our soldiers too, and some of our soldiers kill women and children by accident, and eachother, and themselves." Graaaaargh! What, is today's military being trained by Return to Castle Wolfenstein players? "I'm gonna blow you to shit with this Panzerfaust! *splat* Oh, damn, I'm dead, and three of my teammates are too." "GAH! *firing* Oh, sorry, didn't realize you were on my team."

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

quote:

---

A balanced budget

Tax fairness = repeal tax cuts for the rich

Real protection of the environment

Reduce dependence on foreign oil

Reform/fund No Child Left Behind

Protect a woman's right to choose

Support civil unions for gays and lesbians on a state-by-state basis

Stop the doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Health care coverage for all

And I would add

Minority rights and representation

---