[quote]lixy wrote:
Whether you agree with his positions or not, whether you want to age-discriminate on him,
whether you think he’s on cahoots with Bush,
Nader remains an intelligent man with unmatched integrity. At least he’s not a rich kid with a speech impediment, a stone cold calculating biyatch or a pretty boy full of hooey. And if you think he sounds like a broken record, pray tell what McCain is bringing to this election that hasn’t been the party line for almost a decade now.[/quote]
The Democratic Party doesn’t look as if it’s too fond of democracy:
EXCERPT:
[i] Ralph Nader announced on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he�??ll run as a third-party, anti-corporate candidate for president this fall, which would be likely to drain votes from the Democratic nominee and provide a huge boon to Republicans.
Democrats say they will work behind the scenes - and use court challenges, if necessary - to try to thwart his access to ballots. [/i]
[quote]lixy wrote:
Nader remains an intelligent man with unmatched integrity…[/quote]
Bullshit. He’s an attention whore who runs to see his name in lights. If he truly had any aim of creating some political change in this country he would have tried running for a lower position than the Presidency, state governor, congressman, whatever and work for change that way. He runs for his own ego, and the idea (his own delusion) that he will help America get past the 2 party system by him simply being on the ballot (even if it’s as an independent because the Greens are running Cynthia McKinney).
I agree that he believes in his message, but his own ego won’t let him put himself in a lesser position politically even if it would allow him to…you know…do something about the change he wants to see so badly.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Just saw on the news that Nader is going to run.
Does it matter? Is there enough interest in him for him to be a 3rd party spoiler?
Or is he yesterday’s news and liberal Democrats have nothing to fear from his run?
Certainly having the wack job Nader in the race is a good thing for the republicans. He drew about 3 million votes in 2000 garnering almost 3% of the total vote cast.
While his popularity is not nearly as high as it was 8 years ago we can look to him to siphon off votes from whoever the democrats nominate as their candidate.
Certainly even 1 million votes could turn this election toward the republicans.
[/quote]
In '04 he dropped from 3million to 400k votes IIRC, which was about .3% of the votes cast. Granted that may be because he was not on the Green ticket, but then again he wont be in '08 either. His ability to swing an election has taken a big hit.
Which he won’t be able to do anything about if he refuses to be less than the President. He has principles, won’t argue there, I even like some of them, but his ego seems to trump their importance.
Why do we hear nothing from him between the presidential races anymore? He could run for any number of positions in government to work on his vision, but the only one that interests him is the presidency. If he really cared he’d get involved more than once every 4 years.
Why hasn’t he started building up that 3rd party we so desperately need? What work has he done to start one? Where are his senators…his congressman…hell, even a candidate running for school board? He’s not willing to put the work into getting a 3rd party even a little power, unless he is the one holding all of it. We’ll see him again in another 4 years, til then I doubt we’ll hear from him again after this race.
This is bad news for ron paul. Just when ron was poised to increase to 5% of the primary vote, nader jumps in.
nader will split the “I’m angry at my father” vote.
I’m surprised paul didn’t send some of nominal prospect’s money to nader.
I can imagine ron paul sending a letter like this:
Dear Ralph,
Please accept this bribe to stay out. I have a good thing going. I’m funding my retirement right now. I’m finding it quite easy to fleece these donors. Hell, I can’t even hear the questions being asked. I just scream, “I’m Constitutional” and these gullible clowns send me cash! I’d appreciate it if you could find it within your heart to skip this election cycle. If you do, I’ll keep in touch.
The notion that Ron Paul and Nader appeal to the same audience is stupid. They have nothing in common, especially when it comes to domestic policy. In foreign policy, their similarities are superficial at best.
Is it Nader’s fault that the mainstream media doesn’t cover him? Even at elections, all coverage consists of his effect on the horserace in the absence of any substantive coverage of his views.
Claiming that Nader runs on ego, or that his ego trumps the importance of the issues is so asinine that it doesn’t deserve response.
[quote]Gael wrote:
The notion that Ron Paul and Nader appeal to the same audience is stupid. They have nothing in common, especially when it comes to domestic policy. In foreign policy, their similarities are superficial at best.[/quote]
Perhaps you have missed the internet discussions for the last year but there have been many angry liberals that have claimed to be Paul supporters but do not seem to understand what his policies mean.
I’d like nothing more than to see the Republican and Democrat parties lose their position. If Nadir can break up the left a bit, great. As for the right, I’m still hoping the LP and CP can eventually provide strong alternatives to the Republicans.
[quote]Gael wrote:
The notion that Ron Paul and Nader appeal to the same audience is stupid. They have nothing in common, especially when it comes to domestic policy. In foreign policy, their similarities are superficial at best.[/quote]
Stupid, huh?
Well, pretty big words for someone with no capital.
I’ll humor you.
I’m charitable.
As I indicated, ron paul is the vehicle for the guys who want to Rage Against the Machine. Only the very, very disturbed (lifty) actually fall for all of ron paul’s crap. Same with nader.
Oh, I have a quick link for someone who agrees with me:
My favorite part: [quote]There is unhappiness in the electorate, and [Texas Republican Rep.] Ron Paul’s bid captures that anger," Geer said. "But Ralph Nader is not the vehicle for the expression of this discontent. Nader was a spoiler in 2000 and will long be remembered for that. But when he ran in 2004, few cared.[/quote]
“Expression of this discontent” equals “Rage Against the Machine.”
Here’s someone at “wakeupfromyourslumber” telling you all about nader and ron paul being Anti-Establishment.
[quote]Gael wrote:
The notion that Ron Paul and Nader appeal to the same audience is stupid. [/quote]
No, it’s not, actually. Both want to divorce government from big business. Though their end results would be almost polar opposites, most of the younger voters just don’t make that distinction. “End to corporations and power and government control and stuff, yay!”
Both are isolationists, and want to drastically reduce US Military deployment overseas. Both were against the war in Iraq, which was the issue that drove lefties to Ron Paul.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Gael wrote:
The notion that Ron Paul and Nader appeal to the same audience is stupid.
No, it’s not, actually. Both want to divorce government from big business. Though their end results would be almost polar opposites, most of the younger voters just don’t make that distinction. “End to corporations and power and government control and stuff, yay!”
Both are isolationists, and want to drastically reduce US Military deployment overseas. Both were against the war in Iraq, which was the issue that drove lefties to Ron Paul.[/quote]
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Gael wrote:
The notion that Ron Paul and Nader appeal to the same audience is stupid.
No, it’s not, actually. Both want to divorce government from big business. Though their end results would be almost polar opposites, most of the younger voters just don’t make that distinction. “End to corporations and power and government control and stuff, yay!”
Both are isolationists, and want to drastically reduce US Military deployment overseas. Both were against the war in Iraq, which was the issue that drove lefties to Ron Paul.[/quote]
Yep, a free market, small government, non-interventionist makes for an attractive candidate for some of us. Only one fits that bill, though.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Gael wrote:
The notion that Ron Paul and Nader appeal to the same audience is stupid. They have nothing in common, especially when it comes to domestic policy. In foreign policy, their similarities are superficial at best.
Perhaps you have missed the internet discussions for the last year but there have been many angry liberals that have claimed to be Paul supporters but do not seem to understand what his policies mean.
I have been very puzzled by the phenomena myself.[/quote]
You’re right. It’s strange. Where did all of these guys come from? But I can see why some of the weaker liberals would become Ron Paul supporters. Many have become so single issue minded about the war and civil rights and runaway spending. This is where most of the criticism against the current administration is dedicated. That’s what makes this years crop of democrats disappointing and lackluster. Along comes Ron Paul and aggressively criticizes the Bush administration in a way that the democrats have refused. Hence his appeal.
Still, I do not think there is a substantial overlap between Ron Paul and Ralph Nader supporters, who tend to be more educated with more developed viewpoints.
[quote]Magnate wrote:
lixy wrote:
Nader remains an intelligent man with unmatched integrity…
Bullshit. He’s an attention whore who runs to see his name in lights. If he truly had any aim of creating some political change in this country he would have tried running for a lower position than the Presidency, state governor, congressman, whatever and work for change that way. He runs for his own ego, and the idea (his own delusion) that he will help America get past the 2 party system by him simply being on the ballot (even if it’s as an independent because the Greens are running Cynthia McKinney).
I agree that he believes in his message, but his own ego won’t let him put himself in a lesser position politically even if it would allow him to…you know…do something about the change he wants to see so badly.[/quote]
So his candidacy serves no political purpose at all?
Still, I do not think there is a substantial overlap between Ron Paul and Ralph Nader supporters, who tend to be more educated with more developed viewpoints.[/quote]
They may not overlap in outlook, but they do overlap in number…
JeffR, I see a lot of ridicule in your post, but not much substance worth responding to.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Stupid, huh?
Well, pretty big words for someone with no capital.[/quote]
Stupid is “big words”? No capital? What?
Defend this statement. What do you mean by “disturbed”? Why do you have to be “disturbed” before you decide to vote for Nader?
And BB, I could just as easily make the same “point” about the democrats and the republicans. After all, last time they both got close to 49% of the vote. I’m not sure what you were trying to say, exactly.
