|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 21:37:34 [Permalink]
|
Exactly. Democrats are pissed off at Nader taking votes from the democratic nominee but that is sort of the point. Nader hasn't been any more a Democratic candidate than the GOP nominee has been. Sometimes I feel as if I missed something when democrats get all pissed off. Nader isn't a Democratic Party candidate. His job is to take votes from Democratic party candidates. If the democratic party candidates lose votes to him it's only because they aren't doing a good enough job. I know I'm repeating myself but sometimes I feel as if I have to. People sometimes act as if Nader's a candidate for a party he isn't and hasn't been. He doesn't take votes from other candidates. He wins votes because of what he's for. How easy is that?
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/26/2008 : 22:10:21 [Permalink]
|
@ said:
| Exactly. Democrats are pissed off at Nader taking votes from the democratic nominee but that is sort of the point. Nader hasn't been any more a Democratic candidate than the GOP nominee has been. Sometimes I feel as if I missed something when democrats get all pissed off. Nader isn't a Democratic Party candidate. His job is to take votes from Democratic party candidates. If the democratic party candidates lose votes to him it's only because they aren't doing a good enough job. I know I'm repeating myself but sometimes I feel as if I have to. People sometimes act as if Nader's a candidate for a party he isn't and hasn't been. He doesn't take votes from other candidates. He wins votes because of what he's for. How easy is that? |
So you are satisfied with the last seven years of the G.W. Bush presidency? No complaints?
G.W. Bush won the most electoral votes, so by your logic I can say to all those Nader voters who are unhappy: "Get over it, thats democracy! Now STFU!"
Or perhaps you can recognize that your above paragraph is a complete strawman.
Nader, obviously, isn't a democrat.
But he IS a liberal and lives on the left of the political spectrum. The consequences of a Nader candidacy are simple, less votes for the OTHER liberal candidate and a greater probability of a win for the republicans.
As Nader has never had a chance to win an electoral vote, say nothing of an election, the pragmatic choice is to vote for the candidate closest to your views who actually has a chance to win. Do you want 100 more years in Iraq or not? Me, even though I once liked Nader better than any other candidate, I'll be putting my vote where it can help ensure we leave Iraq asap, and Nader ain't it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 22:21:15 [Permalink]
|
@:
He doesn't take votes from other candidates. He wins votes because of what he's for. How easy is that? |
It's very easy if you don't care the least about what is practical.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 11:45:47 [Permalink]
|
| It's very easy if you don't care the least about what is practical. |
Honestly, isn't that for the voters to decide? Don't blame Nader, blame those that vote for him. I see no logic in blaming Nader for anything.
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 12:49:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by @tomic
| It's very easy if you don't care the least about what is practical. |
Honestly, isn't that for the voters to decide? Don't blame Nader, blame those that vote for him. I see no logic in blaming Nader for anything.
@ |
I don't blame Nader. I blame Nader voters. Yes, they have the right to vote for whom they choose. But their choice also handing Bush the presidency. That outcome of history is on their consciences.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 17:16:01 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo, Marfknox, Kil, Atomic.....
| It's great that he's running. |
| So if Nader wants to run, he should run. If people want to vote for Nader instead of a Democrat, despite that increasing the chances of a Republican, they should go with their conscience. |
| And I too would defend their right to vote for who ever they want to vote for, even if it means that the actual winner is much further from their values then what the other possible outcome would have brought them, because rather than seeing the big picture, they voted independently as free Americans. |
| Deciding that I was no longer in a swing state, I figured I was safe to vote for Nader. I was right. |
| I'm glad Nader's running. He represents the views of many Americans, myself included. Any votes he may get are there for other candidates to win. It's called democracy. |
| Nader isn't a Democratic Party candidate. His job is to take votes from Democratic party candidates. If the democratic party candidates lose votes to him it's only because they aren't doing a good enough job. |
| Don't blame Nader, blame those that vote for him. I see no logic in blaming Nader for anything. |
I can hardly believe it! Are you people saying that if Nader was a viable enough candidate to genuinely spoil the race for either Hillary or Obama, and as a consequence the Republican McCain was elected; and possibly (because of pre-election poll results) even pulled in a bunch of Republican congressmen and senators - are you saying that you would be happy that it turned out that way because Nader got a fair shot at the presidency and our Hooray-For-American-Democracy triumphed?
Even if we got another GOP ideolouge, war-prone, Falwell-hugging fanatic conservative for president, and possibly even got another Republican-dominated Congress? The combination of which would certainly continue to destroy the hallowed freedom and democracy that you extoll as a reason to applaud Nader voting!
Are you guys living in some kind of Ivory Thermos Bottle, totally isolated from the realities of the filthy political system we have?
Nader would probably make a good domestic president. He represents many virtues as not beholden to either Democratic or Republican Party politics. BUT HE CAN NOT WIN!
As Filthy states, he probably can not even be enough of a spoiler to affect the election. But the memory of Florida in 2000, and a Red-Party packed Supreme Court (more Red-packed now than then) selecting our president, is too strong for me to make any allowance, even the slightest, for a Republican - especially McCain - to have a chance of winning!
Idealism is admirable in many areas of human thinking and activity. It has absolutely no place in politics which is a down and dirty, greed, money and power saturated free-for-all with no holds barred.
Neither Obama, nor Hillary, nor McCain are any kind of idealist. Each has their own brand of money, greed and power manipulation to practice if they are elected. I am quite sure that, if deeply investigated, some of the above would apply to Nader as well. The very nature of politics demands it - and precludes the campaigning of saints!
But for god and practicality's sake we can't risk, in the slightest degree, any kind of repeat or continuation of what we have had under Bush, Cheney, and the neocons. McCain would inevitably be, to some degree, a continuation of Bush's foreign policies - "maybe a hundred years in Iraq"? - and the ever-increasing erosion of our precious American liberties. And think, for a moment, of McCain's choices for the Supreme Court to be sent to a possibly Republican packed Congress! Bad as the Dem choices may be, THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN McCAIN AND EITHER OBAMA OR HILLARY!!
Get real, folks. At least understand the realities of any possibility of a continuation of the horror that is destroying the essential liberties, principles, and the perceived-by-other-nations essence of this "God Blessed America" that we live in.
We have to vote for the lesser of two evils - a Republican or a Democrat. No other outcome is possible. A vote for Nader is, in practicality, a vote for McCain. Why is the unrealistic idealism of voting for Nader, superior to the unrealistic idealism of not voting at all? If you can't accept either a Republican or a Democrat, why vote in a manner that favors one of them as an expression of Idealism, even though, because of secret ballot, that expression is directed only to yourself? Who are you impressing or affecting with such a vote or advocacy?
Particularly, when you run a chance of creating a political situation not too different than that which we have had during the administration of the worst President in US history?
For me, Ivory Tower Romanticism rhapsodizing about an idealistic Democracy is fine as a Platonic exercise in theorizing. I think it is damned dangerous when applied to decisions such as do we want McCain or Obama as our president - not do we want McCain or Obama or Nader as our president. The latter is just not possible. So to let the theoretical virtues of what would be the perfect expression of Democracy functioning to trump the reality of a possible reincarnation of Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfeld type of Administration, coupled with a Tom Delay type of Congress, is - to me - irrational! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 18:11:01 [Permalink]
|
| Hey Bill, how did I make your list? I think you missed my sarcasm.... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 18:46:40 [Permalink]
|
So what?
| All that other stuff you said |
You really need to think about what you said. A vote for Nader is not a vote for McCain or anyone but Nader. I absolutely disagree with everything you said. It just came out like a rant as far as I'm concerned. You don't even know who I'm voting for. You seem to think you do, but you don't. In any event, you're just flat out wrong.
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 19:30:50 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
You said...| I'm with you Marf. And I too would defend their right to vote for who ever they want to vote for, even if it means that the actual winner is much further from their values then what the other possible outcome would have brought them, because rather than seeing the big picture, they voted independently as free Americans. Hooray for America! A country in which a dickhead is really free to be a dickhead, unless laws are broken… And I support that kind of freedom. Really… I do... |
Kil, you sly old, practiced Critical Thinkers are way beyond me in the presentation and detection of subtlety!
I did take the above exactly at face value. Reading a second time, I can see your ridicule of Marfknox's ridiculous assertions - So if Nader wants to run, he should run. If people want to vote for Nader instead of a Democrat, despite that increasing the chances of a Republican, they should go with their conscience."
"...and what the hell, if McCain gets elected, hires Cheney and Rove back and pulls Rummy out of retirement, what the hell! At least we practiced DEMOCRACY and went with our conscience! Too, bad, we'll never have another chance to do either!"
I hang my head in shame at failing to recognize truly excellent satire, which I revere! |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 20:30:25 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: I did take the above exactly at face value. Reading a second time, I can see your ridicule of Marfknox's ridiculous assertions - So if Nader wants to run, he should run. If people want to vote for Nader instead of a Democrat, despite that increasing the chances of a Republican, they should go with their conscience."
"...and what the hell, if McCain gets elected, hires Cheney and Rove back and pulls Rummy out of retirement, what the hell! At least we practiced DEMOCRACY and went with our conscience! Too, bad, we'll never have another chance to do either!" |
It is clear to me by now that my point was not taken as intended. It is stupid to vote for a third party if one truly believes that according to their own values and political goals the short and longterm damage done by the third party candidate would be worse than damage done by the "lesser of two evils". In other words, if someone thinks a single Republican president is likely to do more overall damage to the country than continuing to support an increasingly moderate/pro-cooperate Democratic party, they should vote Democrat.
But most third party voters do not do such a silly thing. Many people who voted for Nader in 2000 were honestly of the opinion that the Democratic party had become so middle of the road that they weren't going to solve any of the real problems. Lots of people hoped that Nader getting at least 5% and more money for the Greens would be a wake up call for the Democratic Party to change. Most of us didn't think there would be some kind of Green revolution, we were just so sickened by trends in the mainstream left.
As I've stated before, the amount of damage that Bush has managed to do during his two terms is truly baffling and horrifying. Hunter S. Thompson disfavorably compared him to Nixon! He makes his daddy look like a Godsend. And that is why very few people are willing to take the Nader risk again. I must admit that I don't like the Dems any more than I did 7 years ago. But right now, the Republicans are much worse by comparison that the scales have been tipped for me. But for others, with values only slightly different from mine, the faith in the Democratic party is just not strong enough to believe Clinton or Obama are really going to be able to do anything to change things. For fuck's sake, both of them are offering extremely moderate health care plans, and honestly doubt either of them will be able to even get those plans through. This country is fucked IMO, and the Dems don't have the values or balls to do a damn thing to stop it. But I have some hope, so I'll vote for a Dem anyway. Also because the Green protest vote doesn't nearly have the potential for making a statement as it did in 2000.
Anyway, politics aren't science. I can feel confident about saying that someone who believes Creationism should be taught in public schools is a dangerous moron, but I can't say that I'm so sure about the outcome of any one presidency as to know what's best for the country in the short and longterm. If someone is voting for someone different from me, but for rational reasons, I won't begrudge them. And plenty of Nader voters do this. That was my only point. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/27/2008 20:33:53 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2008 : 22:13:37 [Permalink]
|
@ said:
| A vote for Nader is not a vote for McCain or anyone but Nader. |
The bottom line is this: There are a finite number of votes. They are nearly evenly divided into two groups, liberal and conservative. There is a smaller group, but big enough to impact elections because of the nearly equal distribution of the other two groups, called independents.
So, when you have two liberal candidates, and one conservative candidate, if one of those liberal candidates gets even three percent of the total vote he/she is drawing from the same pool of voters as the other liberal candidate.
The consequence, in our electoral system, is that neither liberal wins.
If you can't understand that, then I don't know what else to say.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 00:19:10 [Permalink]
|
@tomic.....
To HE CAN NOT WIN, you ask "What" is the fact that because he can not win, a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. | You really need to think about what you said. |
I always think very seriously about what I say! Let's see if you do:| A vote for Nader is not a vote for McCain or anyone but Nader. |
1. It is almost a certainty that Nader cannot garner anything near 33.3333...% of the popular vote. I base this on Nader's dismal performances in many past elections!
2. Therefore, either McCain or Obama/Hillary will be elected.
3. Very few Republicans of any stripe will vote for Liberal Nader.
4. Far more far left Liberal Democrats will vote for Nader than Republicans.
5. Every Democratic vote for Nader is one less vote for Obama/Hillary.
6.. An Independent vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, but because he can't win, it is the same as no vote at all.
7. A Democratic vote for Nader = no vote at all, also, but is also one less vote for the Obama/Clinton vote pool, therefore there is one more vote in the McCain vote pool as it compares to the Obama/Clinton vote pool.
8. All votes for Nader are the same as no votes at all as pertains to electing someone. But a Democratic vote for Nader is also one less vote for Obama/Clinton, therefore an additional vote in the McCain vote pool. Because both Independent votes for Nader, and Democratic (or Republican) votes for Nader are = to no vote at all in terms of electing somebody, the only votes that count are those that are in the Obama/Hillary vote pool or the McCain vote pool
9. If the McCain vote pool exceeds the Obama/Hillary vote pool, McCain is elected!
10. So a vote for Nader is equal to a vote for McCain in any practical sense; i.e. that of actually electing someone!| I absolutely disagree with everything you said. |
I hear you, but what I don't hear is the reason(s) for your disagreement. | It just came out like a rant as far as I'm concerned. |
As far as I'm concerned, I would like to hear why you feel justified in calling what I said a "rant" | You don't even know who I'm voting for. You seem to think you do, but you don't. |
@tomic, I neither know nor care how you are voting. It has no relevance to the current discourse, nor to the election of 2008. No single vote of any ordinary citizen has any relevance to who is elected. What does have relevance is your advocacy of Nader for President.
It is nonsensical, because, as a secret ballot, a vote for Nader either is a totally wasted vote having no visible symbolism to anyone but one's self, or to those you choose to tell about it; or it is a vote for McCain, the purpose of which would be far better served by simply voting for McCain, if that is whom you wish to see become president!| In any event, you're just flat out wrong. |
So, @atomic, please demonstrate to me in step by step, orderly precision, exactly how I am "just flat wrong"
@tomic, I respect your ownership of SFN and your technical maintenence of the cybernetic engine of the website. I do not respect banalities like: So what?
All that other stuff you said
You really need to think about what you said.
I absolutely disagree with everything you said.
It just came out like a rant as far as I'm concerned.
In any event, you're just flat out wrong. |
Your "employee" Dave and site co-owner Kil (I guess), are emphatic in their insistance on members supporting their expressed opinions with argument or facts or both. Is there some reason that the SFN standard of posting should not apply to you?
Support your claims as directly quoted above. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 05:38:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
@tomic.....
To HE CAN NOT WIN, you ask |
Nader is operating under the concept that voters are loyal to policy and not to people. He is effectively saying to the Democratic party brass: If you want to keep the voters that like my ideas, you better prove you are serious about supporting my ideas. You can't take them for granted, you have to earn them. He's hoping to pull the Democrats to the left a bit.
IMHO I think a 'lefter' democratic party is a good thing. The US is far too right these days and the nation is declining as a result. Nader's candidacy, if it threatens the Democratic win, should have the effect of pulling the party to the left a bit, lest the party lose. Whether it does is questionable and if they Democrats stay conservative, lose the Naderite vote, then good. They deserve to lose because they don't appeal to the left most Americans.
EDITED some grammar and more expostulation |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 02/28/2008 07:56:14 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 09:28:48 [Permalink]
|
chaloobi.....
| IMHO I think a 'lefter' democratic party is a good thing. The US is far too right these days and the nation is declining as a result. |
Chaloobi, I totally agree with you. The highest and best ideals of the Liberal position in this country have been seriously eroded by corporate greed, government aided oil addiction, foreign policy disasters and a taxation policy which neglects important domestic problems and makes the rich vastly richer at the expense of the middle and lower income segments of the economy.
We need to go way too far left for a while, in order to provide the political pendulum a longer and wider swath from the extreme right that it has approached recently, back through center toward the terminal sinistral and then return. Most of that movement will be through various degrees of center, heralding a long era of syncretic politics, by far the healthiest political condition for the country.
But, chaloobi, your thesis that Nader might pull the victorious Democrats further to the left, although probably correct, is very dangerous in these times. Not because of the movement to the left, but because the election may be a lot closer than optimistic liberals are fantisizing right now. And the Democrats may not be victorious and in a position to celebrate and practice their new "leftness"!
Bush, Cheney, and the neocon cabal that has damn near created an imperial presidency in this country, have taken the metaphoric pendulum so far to the right that we dare not risk any continuation of their policies. It is my view that McCain would do exactly that!
His domestic policies would probably offer some relief from the draconian corporate welfare situation now existing, but in matters of foreign policy he represents his own brand of neocon militaristic imperialism. He has and does support most of Bush's policies! Four or (if we survive) eight more years of this kind of militaristic nation building, particularly in the middle east, could lead to a world wide disaster! Possibly involving nuclear weapons!
So I don't think we can take a chance on idealistically voting for Nader in the hope that that is the way to affect Democratic (Obama's)politics. It is well-nigh inconceivable that Nader could get 34% or more of the popular vote.
If the Democrats fuck up to the best of their considerable upfucking ability (witness Kerry!), it might work just well enough to be a serious spoiler threat to Obama's election, a real danger that McCain, with the evil genius of Rove driving his efforts, could beg, borrow or steal the next election! I do not think the country can afford any possibility of this happening!
No matter how much Democratic politics may be moved to the left by Nader's barking on the sidelines of the main event, that badly-needed new position à gauche is totally impotent if it is not also the choice of the electorate! The Dems may deserve to lose it all right, but it most definitely would not be good! It would be a disaster! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Ralph Nader...
