|By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 06:57 am: Edit|
In this thread, please discuss ONLY positive things about Ralph Nader and why he would make a good president---no negative things. Please do NOT discuss or even mention George W. Bush or John Kerry.
|By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 10:30 am: Edit|
He obviously believes what he's fighting for, although a bit radical, I'll respect any third party candidate, because I'm fed up with the two-party system.
|By Ares15 (Ares15) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 02:43 am: Edit|
He's persistent. In the face of inevitable failure, he continues to fight for what he believes.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 02:52 am: Edit|
Although I am a Bush supporter, I do find some refreshing contrasts between him and Kerry. Kerry is for the war and patriot act, but tries to make himself superficially different from Bush for political purposes. Nader actually has convictions. Nader and Bush actually have clear policy differences.
|By August (August) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 04:41 am: Edit|
Nader is my idol. He is incredibly hard-working, and he is the most prominent person out there seriously advocating a national health care plan.
I'm not sure about the "inevitable failure" comment above. Of course he will inevitably fail to become president, ever. But he has met with some success in his consumer advocacy work. Also, winning the presidency is not the only thing that can be accomplished by running for president. When people vote for Nader, they are showing that Nader has a constituency, that people believe in what he stands for, and this will change things slowly, over time. Nader is also making his own contribution to defeating the two-party system, slowly.
|By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 11:08 am: Edit|
Good Lord, he's an attractive man.
|By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 01:25 pm: Edit|
Random note: he is not the Green party nominee for President. The Greens nominated David Cobb and his VP running mate Pat LaMarche - a woman - last night!
Anyway, back on topic. Let's assume that Nader does run as an independent or something else. The guy is persistent. We will never get out of the two-party system and into something more rational until people like him keep running, over and over. He's increasing visability of the Green party - in Massachusetts last year, Jill Stein was a Green party contender for governor. (My belief on her is that, if we had instant run-off voting, she would have accumulated a lot more votes. Very well respected.) Anyway, having a visible Green running every year does give a lot of credibility to the party. Unlike the "indpendents," Green is an actual party which is becoming more organized and more well-known because of Nader.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit|
While I strongly disagree with the green party/nader and liberalism in general, I dont think that a vote for him is useless in the longrun for those that like that stuff. Even if he gets like 5% of the vote, it wont stop the two party system, but it will cause great effect because it will force the democrats to adopt more of the nader/green platform in order to gain a part of that crucial 5%.
|By Hayden (Hayden) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 03:31 pm: Edit|
Positive comments only? Okay:
Oh, wait, yes! The car thing back in the 1960's.
|By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 03:42 pm: Edit|
I'm not sure... maybe the Japanese car industry can think of something.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 03:46 pm: Edit|
It's nice to see that both sides are equally irrational and inconsiderate.
|By Aspirer42 (Aspirer42) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 05:05 pm: Edit|
He picked a top-notch running mate in the form of Peter Camejo, who is probably a better orator and certainly less... stigmatized than Nader himself. One of the top political issues that his campaign has been pushing this year is electoral reform (in the sense of not only removing corporate influence, but creating more opportunities for minor parties to flourish), which, although not surprising given his status, is still a topic overlooked much more in modern national politics than it should be. Many of his planks in this election are palatable to many people, if a bit idealistic.
He's also the centerpiece of a future religion in a series of novels by the noted author Greg Bear.
|By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 06:16 pm: Edit|
Who's being inconsiderate? We've seen a lot worse on the Bush thread.
Nader has balls, I'll say that. To run when all the Democrats are hoping you don't-- that takes serious balls.
Plus he did some good for consumer rights in the day.
|By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 11:34 pm: Edit|
I don't agree that Nader and the Green party is a subsidiary of the Democratic party. The Dems cannot simply absorb them or their ideals and call it a day, as a lot of what they stand for is getting away from the two-party system, more rational government, less corporate involvement in politics, etc. Furthermore, as a conservative who has considered voting Green (and probably will in November), I don't think that all Green voters would otherwise vote Democrat. Many of the people I know who are Green (or would vote that way) are disenchanted with both parties. They might believe in environmental protection without creating a socialist society a la Dems. Republicans tend to vote much more consistently than their Democratic counterparts, which might be a demographics issue - older voters, more wealthy voters, suburban, whatever - but many Democrats stay home instead of voting the party line. The Green party really has gotten people to vote who otherwise would not. Green supporters, whether they be disenchanted Dems, GOPs, or usual non-voters, won't switch Dem if the Green party goes away.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 01:59 am: Edit|
im not saying the dems would ever adopt all of greens/nader's policies, but if the greens again take away democratic votes, the dems would be forced to change. That is what I think is the purpose of nader's running.
aries, wealthy(over 200k) and older people(over 65) are more democratic than the overall population. Older people are more democratic because of the gov entitlments they get. Wealthy ppl are because (this is just my theory) they feel bad for the little ppl who are too dumb to help themselves and are ashamed they are so rich.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 02:40 am: Edit|
Are you a social darwinist Jlq3d3?
|By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 01:27 pm: Edit|
Many wealthy people are Republican, as they don't really enjoy being hit with more taxes than they already pay. I don't think that many people who pay AMT are really big fans of the Democrats. I will go so far as to say that I don't know a single person who earns more than $200k a year and is a Democrat, but can easily tick off a dozen of them who are Republican. I did not mean that the over 65 crowd is necessarily Republican, but that a lot of kids (college age) are Democrats. College kids don't come out in the numbers that 35 year olds do.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 04:33 pm: Edit|
No, I am not craig.
Ariesathena, rich people (200k+) are for a fact more democratic. I have seen that statistic in many political science books. Also, I have done campaining(for republicans) in Beverly Hills, one of the richest parts of the US, where the majority are democrats.
|By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit|
That does surprise me. Does it break down directly by income, or is there a certain threshold at which Republican takes over? Not to be pushy, but is there someplace where I could find that breakdown of political affilition vs. income?
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|