[quote]Sloth wrote:
… If Nadir can break up the left a bit, great. …[/quote]
Uh, Sloth, does this represent a “low point” for you?
[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]
You’re right, of course, which is why I admitted to superficial similarities when it comes to foreign policy. And regrettably, many of the younger voters don’t make the distinction. Admittedly, I have seen some pretty dumb Internet posters saying things like “Nader and Paul should be running mates…” and the like. It is unfortunate, and when I said the idea that they appeal to the same audience is stupid, it was wishful thinking coupled with frustration and disappointment.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
… If Nadir can break up the left a bit, great. …
Uh, Sloth, does this represent a “low point” for you?[/quote]
Edit: Doh! Didn’t catch on to the “low point” crack, at first. Heh. I’m a little slow.
[quote]Gael wrote:
…
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. …[/quote]
I think it would be hard to make the point that the Democrats and Republicans are irrelevant that way…
Bloomberg is not going to run. Nader’s impact will not be enough to put yet another Republican in office.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Gael wrote:
The notion that Ron Paul and Nader appeal to the same audience is stupid. They have nothing in common, .
Other than that they’re both nuts, I agree.[/quote]
Why is Nader a nut? What is your purpose in stating your opinion if you’re not going to defend it? To point out that you exist?
What is your purpose in calling someone a moron without defending or even stating your viewpoint. To point out that you exist?
[quote]Most of those 3 million who voted for Nader in 2000 would not have voted at all if Nader wasn’t in the race.
That’s a silly assumption on your part. The far left usually votes democratic. Unless of course they see that candidate as not being left enough, then and only then do they stay home. If Nader runs he’ll cost the dems about 1 million votes at best.[/quote]
What you called a silly assumption is not silly, nor is it an assumption. Nor do any of your following statements support your argument. And your numbers are off. Are you ever right?
For me, in this election, it is not a choice between Nader and Obama/Hillary. It is a choice between Nader and staying home. I personally know and can think of 6 people (2 professors, 2 family members, 1 author, and 1 colleague) off the top of my head for whom this is also the case. If you look on the internet and elsewhere, you will find many many people for whom this is true. Additionally, it is backed by statistical evidence in the form of polls. Most of them show that a substantial number – if not a majority – of Nader voters would not have voted at all.
[quote]Gael wrote:
JeffR, I see a lot of ridicule in your post, but not much substance worth responding to.
JeffR wrote:
Stupid, huh?
Well, pretty big words for someone with no capital.
Stupid is “big words”? No capital? What?
Same with nader.
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.[/quote]
gael,
One of the more annoying aspects of internet posting is when you write a post to someone and they don’t read or respond to it in it’s totality.
Did you simply skip the links? I made my point, then followed up with some supporting opinions.
Anyway, if you don’t see how disturbed many of the ron paul/nader voters are, I can’t help you. Anytime you see a Rebel without a Cause Raging Against the Machine, or sites like “wakeupfromyourslumber,” one can pretty much guarantee these people had trouble with their parents. Usually it’s young males who are rebelling against their father. I was thinking of providing links, but, I doubt you’d read them.
Oh, dinglefritz, you calling my statement “stupid” is using big words. Or, tough talk. Or, talking big. I am suprised you couldn’t figure this out as no one could reasonably interpret your posts as using complicated or erudite language.
JeffR
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
I voted for Nader in '00, didn’t like Bush, and wasn’t going to vote for Gore, which is why I disagree with those who say Nader or Paul would take away votes from a certain candidate. If I didn’t vote for Nader, I wasn’t going to vote, and all the other Nader fans I’ve talked to said the same thing.
I still like Nader, he would shake shit up, but he sounds like a broken record these days and some friends of mine who saw him speak recently said he just looked tired and cranky.[/quote]
Gabby, I love your avatars. Jayne was certainly letting it hang out.
God bless her.
JeffR
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Most of those 3 million who voted for Nader in 2000 would not have voted at all if Nader wasn’t in the race.
That’s a silly assumption on your part. The far left usually votes democratic. Unless of course they see that candidate as not being left enough, then and only then do they stay home. If Nader runs he’ll cost the dems about 1 million votes at best.[/quote]
How many in the far left do you know that you can speak for what they usually do? Re-read my post. I voted for Nader in 2000. I would not have voted for Gore under any circumstances. Nader did not take my vote away from Gore. The same goes for everyone else I knew who voted for Nader. Therefore saying that one candidate costs another candidate votes is stupid. You might as well say George Bush cost Al Gore 50,000,000 votes because if Bush didn’t run, all those people would have had no choice but to vote for Gore. Read the posts of people here who identify conservative but refuse to vote for McCain. No one is taking their votes away, McCain never had them to begin with.
And you’re a child. How’d you get 1500 posts here and stay that stupid? But then if they are all of the same quality as the above I guess it’s easy.
Free Market= No government tax breaks for large corportations (no taxes of any kind for that matter), no corporate bailouts, no subsidies, no protectionism, etc, in short,the market is free from government interference, and government is free from market corruption, that’s on the right.
On the left, no corporate “welfare”, much tighter government control over corporations, but with little to no input from the corporations themselves.
Corporations have almost no say in government in either idealogy, one because they don’t need it, the other because it’s basically socialism. Therefore they are “divorced” from government. The reality would be different, but those are the theories that both sides sell. If you’re so simple that you can’t understand that I’m not going to waste anymore time on you.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
gael,
One of the more annoying aspects of internet posting is when you write a post to someone and they don’t read or respond to it in it’s totality.
Did you simply skip the links? I made my point, then followed up with some supporting opinions.
Anyway, if you don’t see how disturbed many of the ron paul/nader voters are, I can’t help you. Anytime you see a Rebel without a Cause Raging Against the Machine, or sites like “wakeupfromyourslumber,” one can pretty much guarantee these people had trouble with their parents. Usually it’s young males who are rebelling against their father. I was thinking of providing links, but, I doubt you’d read them.
JeffR[/quote]
I didn’t click your links because your post didn’t look like much other ridicule and character attacks. If you frequently experience problems with people not taking you seriously or not bothering to click your links, you may want to change your tune a bit.
The link between political outlook and parental relationships is often touted in pop psychology, along with “opposites attract”, right brain/left brain dominance goofiness, and the idea that humans only use ten percent of their brains. You are not being original in pointing it out. It’s a Freudian concept that was dropped along with the rest of his nonsense. Theories demand evidence, and no evidence was ever found in any substantial way, despite the efforts of several discarded studies.
Even if your claim were true, it is not sufficient to attack Nader’s platform by insulting the adherents. Irrational voters do not make the platform irrational. And there is plenty of stupidity and emotional voting to go around all of the parties.
Most of the rebellious subcultures today – punk, goth, emo etc – are politically apathetic. Granted, a lot of it is pseudo rebel without a cause bullshit, but there is no evidence to suggest that going through such a phase is unhealthy or disturbed.
You have backed off of your initial claim – that you MUST be disturbed to vote for Nader. Now it’s many of the Nader voters are disturbed. You’re making progress. Keep it up.
I have since read both your links. You presented an example of a guy who supports both Nader and Paul, but in that particular entry, the writer didn’t say why he supported Paul. Your other article was the typical future prediction/speculation run, which I don’t generally give much weight to. Few predicted McCain would be the front runner. These guesses don’t tend to fair much better than random.
No.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You’re kidding right? Please tell me that you’re kidding…come on…please.
You see my very dim friend, there is something called polling that demonstrates clearly that much of the Nader vote in 2000 would have gone to Al Gore had Nader not been in the race.
[/quote]
Yes, polls are always right. I just remembered that Kerry won in '04 and has been President of the United States for the last 4 years because the polls said so.
Yep, I’m the lunatic. [/sarcasm]
Are you even capable of a coherent post?
And you’re 15 years old and severely lagging behind your classmates in reading comprehension.
I’ll try one last time. I agree with Ron Paul when he says it is not the Government’s job to manage the economy. That means little to no regulation and no corporate bailouts. That means that corporations have no reason to flood Capitol Hill with lobbyists, because they have nothing to gain and nothing to fear. No lobbyists=no expensive dinners or golfing expeditions for our elected representatives=less corruption. How do you not understand that?
Yeah, I get it, you’re trying to paint me as some kind of left-winger so you can score points with, I don’t know, your special-ed teacher? I’ve said here and in other threads that I voted for Nader in 2000 and that I used to identify as center left. I also used to be 18 inches tall and poop in my diaper. That was almost 30 years ago and I’ve changed since then.
By why am I explaining any of this to you, Corky? I used words that are made up of more than 5 letters, and you can’t even count that high, so I’m wasting my time. I’ll let you have the last word here, go ahead and quote this post and follow it up with some more rambling nonsense.