Nader - prove me wrong

Taking a second look......for the third or fourth time

from JoeUser Forums
First off, how come the only choices for political discussions here are international, democrat and republican? Oh well.....okay so here goes my rant, regardless of whether a lot of people will write me off for this.

I will have to do a lot more soul searching...but mostly as a vote of protest I will more than likely be voting for Nader unless someone can really convince me to see past my biases against rich people (Kerry) or tell me something about Edwards I don't know (which would pretty much be anything). I know this is a rash wake up on Friday morning and rant decision. But regardless of what has resulted from Nader's actions...everything he's ever done has been in the interest of others....how many candidates can say that?

Nader is a robot as well....a pure work-a-holic. There's no way he could ever be bribed with anything. I'm pretty sure he is assexual or rather has no sexuality at all, as such he has no lady friends....or maybe even friends at all, he's just too damn devoted to his work to find time for that. He is almost emotionless as he decides many things on reason and common sense. I don't think Nader would ever use the presidency (nor do I ever think he would ever win the presidency) as a soapbox for his personal issues that many candidates democrat and republican have. He works for the people and will continue to do so with or without the American public backing him. Let's say for example that Nader was guilty of taking the election from the democrats...when is the media and public going to acknowledge everything he's done. Your life is safer and more valuable with Ralph Nader. Do I agree with everything he's said and stands for....well no. But I also don't agree with everything I have ever said........Nader has a ton of history to his advantage and disadvantage.

I'm not trying to encourage anyone to vote for him, and I can appreciate why those tempted to vote for him won't in fear of another 2000 election....what I am trying to do is get everyone to take a second look at this great man of civic mind and soul.
politics
11,762 views 19 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
He used to be of great civic mind, but what has he done lately, besides hand Bush the Presidency and now threaten to do it again? You can only ride on your past achievements for so long.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
President - no.

Part of the cabinet.

Prolly - it is beneath him
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even if you think Bush & Kerry are ultra rich at least they represent *some* segment of society.  I don't know who the hell Nader is, I have never met anyone like him, and I have no clue what he would do if he was elected. 
I have no idea why he didn't shoot for legislative office, really.  Then he could at least propose tons of legislation and oppose all that stuff he doesn't like.  As President he'd just be a veto machine.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well actually Nader has already proposed tons of legislation...though with little success of course. Nader's running is symbolic in that by gaining attention for Nader could mean that candidates who stand a chance may have to at least address issues that Nader's presence could raise. I think the more third party candidates the better....it's tragic that they never stand a chance, that's not very democratic.

And Bakerstreet....so what if they represent a segment of society that does little good for the American people? How is that looking out for the average American citizen's wellbeing?

I think the fact that you have no idea who is he speaks to my point. If this election would acknowledge people with Nader's history they might have to better back up their own....all Bush has is a scorched path of failed businesses and frat boy rowdiness.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nader sounds like a robot. Perhaps we should have robots rule the world.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
[quote="BulbousHead"]
but what has he done lately, besides hand Bush the Presidency and now threaten to do it again

Alright, this is not the first time I've heard this argument nor will it be the last, but it IS the first time I get to make my point, because usually I hear it on TV and , while I do shout at the TV, it rarely responds.

What's your point, asshole? Here it is.
Gore WON the popular vote in 2000. It was pretty obvious that the people spoke agianst Bush in the 2000 election, considering the fact that even after all those votes that Nader "stole" from Democratic candidate, Gore still actually won.
So, if you don't like Nader, I understand. I voted for him in 2000, and I know he is not a likeable man. He's surly and grouchy and not really a people person. So don't vote for him. But don't use argument, cause it's just not true, and I think liberals and/or anti-Bushites who bring up that point shoot themselves in the foot.
Me? I think we need a very strong showing to get Bush out of the White House, being that we know how his party can manipulate things to their advantage. I'm going to vote for whoever has the best chance of beating him.
Chris
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
A couple of reasons why I think Nader could never stand a chance. For one, he is a 70something yr old bachelor. Never had a family. Never owned a car. How many Americans feel they can relate to that? I think on some level, most Americans find it important to have their President be a family man/woman. He is not a good public speaker (he has zero charisma). He has never held an elected office of any kind.

Suspeckted, what is not democratic about it? Why does the third party fail?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
right, and rich millionaire, military service dodgers, who are handed oil companies can relate to most americans.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think there are many more draft dodgers in America than there are 70 year old bachelors with the emotions of a Vulcan.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Third parties are disasterous. Look up politics in countries that have them. Our system isn't perfect and the people who have the stamina to run for president are not perfect either. They have to compromise in order to get things done. I wish that they would do things differently, but they do stand for what the majority stands for. If you don't like what politicians do, then change the way most Americans think. MADD changed the way Americans think about drunk driving. Anti-smokers made smoking to be less socially acceptable. That kind of change is slow but it works, eventually.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's your point, asshole?


Name-calling right off the bat! A sharp indicator of the illogic to follow.


Gore WON the popular vote in 2000.


Irrelevant, since the President is not determined by the popular vote.



I voted for him in 2000, and I know he is not a likeable man.


I liked him, a lot, right up until he announced he was running for President again last week.


But don't use argument, cause it's just not true


If you gave even 1% of Nader's votes in every state to Gore, it would have been President Gore. Is this that hard to grasp??


I'm going to vote for whoever has the best chance of beating him.


Which will be the Democratic nominee. If you honestly thought Nader had a chance in 2000, you were in a fantasy world.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey, guy, back off. I was calling MYSELF an asshole. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Also, I realize that the popular vote does not elect the president (which I feel is wrong, but not a whole lot to be done about it in time). My point was that the people did not choose Bush. There was not a whole lot more that the American voters could do to not elect him.

I didn't say I didn't like him, nor did I say that nobody liked him. I was referring to his lack of charisma...(see sentence directly after the one you quoted.)

You're right. 1% of each would have done it. I stand corrected.

Also, I understand that the Democratic nominee has the best chance of beating Bush, which was my point. I knew that Nader didn't have a chance in 2000, but I wanted him to get his 3% of the vote or whatever it takes to get equal funding.

Think about what someone says next time before, try to derive the point of his sentences before you mistakenly cast him as a bad guy.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey, guy, back off. I was calling MYSELF an asshole.


Oooooh, I see it now; I just misread it.

Sorry, man.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow, actually returned to a civil thread...I'm proud of you guys...and intoxicated....proud and intoxicated.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'll show you a civil thread, Ted! Come over and I'll pound ya!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Chris, at 1.80/gallon there is no way I'm going to make that four hour drive...well unless of course you have some pretty ladies waiting for me.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ted, I'm sorry to say, pretty ladies don't really exist in Cook. They're more like myths...I tell stories about them, but no one actually believes me.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unfairman:
Also, I understand that the Democratic nominee has the best chance of beating Bush, which was my point. I knew that Nader didn't have a chance in 2000, but I wanted him to get his 3% of the vote or whatever it takes to get equal funding.


if you're in a state that's "safe" for the democrats/republicans you can safely vote for whatever third you want. in a swing state, you may want to be more careful. don't let it be the sole reason guiding your vote, but do be aware that your vote is weighted a bit more.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
So many things to consider...makes me so upset when people vote with little consideration about the candidates at all but look only at extrenal cues to guide them.