Nader announces new bid for White House

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer Chaos is right on... both major parties produce inept mouth pieces as candidates.

Oh, I think they're adept enough at stealing resources, killing people (often overseas) and then lying about it.

Grandpa h.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Chaossaber Believe it or not, our country is made up of significantly more people than those that turnout to vote in primaries. Particularly in a nation such as ours with such piss poor voter turnout to begin with. Record numbers? Your point?

And believe it or not, people are aware of that and have taken it into acount. I stand by my point, which is regardless of YOUR dissatisfaction with the candidates, Americans in general - at least those on the liberal side - are excited and motivated by their candidates.

USA Today/Gallup 2/21-24/08

..........McCain....Obama....Other....NEITHER...UNSURE
%..........48.............47.........1...............2..............2

..........McCain....Clinton.....Other....NEITHER...UNSURE
%..........50.............46.........1...............2..............1

As you can see, the "I can't stand any of them" faction is pretty marginal.

Quote by: Chaossaber It's like a small town that averages 1 murder per year suddenly has 2 and that's a statistical jump of 200% in violent crime. It still doesn't negate the fact that this is an extremely low amount of violent crime for any place.

Then explain this...

"Now we have some questions about the general election for president, which will be held in November 2008. Compared to previous elections, are you more enthusiastic than usual about voting, or less enthusiastic?"

More......Less......Same.....Unsure
62%........30%.......7%..........1%

I suspect the "Less" folks would be conservatives. 'Same'? The usual cynics.

Quote by: Chaossaber All of the front runners are members of congress. Congressional approval is at record lows. Quit being dishonest. People are disenchanted with both parties.

Bollucks back at you... ask an average American how THEIR particular Representative or Senator is doing and they'll likely heap them with high praise... which is why they keep getting re-elected. It's easy to be pissed off at Congress as an amorphous body - hell, it's the hip thing to do - but ask people about individual members and all that changes.

Quote by: Chaossaber Quit being dishonest. People are disenchanted with both parties.

Well then, Mr. Honesty... which alternative party have the disenchanted people suggested they'd prefer instead?

Quote by: Chaossaber Yes, the country did get screwed, but things can get a whole lot worse. If you don't think so, I have no further reason to debate you.

Indeed... for instance, under a Ron Paul or a Ralph Nader administration this country would flounder and sink like the Titanic.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Indeed, it's ironic that the people that seem to call for change the most are the same ones complaining when another option becomes available.

It has to be a serious, workable option.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart It has to be a serious, workable option.

Nonsense, nobody ever complains about the viability of the candidate, they bitch about another candidate "stealing votes" from their inept corporate mouthpiece.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Sonart It has to be a serious, workable option.

A living human being who will be at least 35 years old at the time of inauguration and who is a natural-born US Citizen is the only definition of a serious, workable option.

Anything else is your viewpoint - i.e. this candidate is not well-spoken enough, looks like a flood victim, too short, too old, too young - anything other than the bare minimum required by the Constitution is a qualifier YOU have placed upon the Presidency to assist in your decision.

[The Decider]

Quote by: tivodan1116 A living human being who will be at least 35 years old at the time of inauguration and who is a natural-born US Citizen is the only definition of a serious, workable option.

No, that's a definition of eligibility only. "Serious" and "workable" relate to electablity, popularity, and political intellligence. And of course money.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: The Decider No, that's a definition of eligibility only. "Serious" and "workable" relate to electablity, popularity, and political intellligence.

All of which are subjective.

"Electability" is a ridiculous trait to seek out in a candidate. If you're voting for them, it means they're electable to you. What else matters?

And of course money.

Once again, a ridiculous trait. If you know the candidate and like their views, what difference does money make?

[another day]

The Decider obviously thoroughly accepts the current status quo of bipartisan corporatist parties vying for the corrupt control of the government.

But in a realistic sense it's probably true. The masses are easily duped by this system.

[The Decider]

Quote by: tivodan1116 All of which are subjective. "Electability" is a ridiculous trait to seek out in a candidate. If you're voting for them, it means they're electable to you. What else matters? Once again, a ridiculous trait. If you know the candidate and like their views, what difference does money make?

Lots of things matter, tivodan. But if the candidate can't get elected because of money problems, or dumb strategy, or a host of things that seperate the "serious" from the "also rans" then I make that calculation. We can't always get what we want in politics as in life. You can dismiss that as "ridiculous" or any number of derisive names thrown about this forum by unhappy people, but I disagree.

[The Decider]

Quote by: another day The Decider obviously thoroughly accepts the current status quo of bipartisan corporatist parties vying for the corrupt control of the government. But in a realistic sense it's probably true. The masses are easily duped by this system.

"Duped." That's the kind of arrogance I've come to expect from those who lack skills of persuasion. When they can't win an argument, they insult the opponent's alleged lack of intelligence and wisdom. At least show some originility, another day.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Decider "Duped." That's the kind of arrogance I've come to expect from those who lack skills of persuasion.

Well, it just so happens that people are duped. That's how political systems function.

Grandpa h.

[Whilletal]

Its pretty obvious that Nader is in play to stir things up and to distract people from the issues. Of course some will vote for him without caring about any of his stances except his stance on green issues. I think however the numbers he will pull are insignificant. Of course I'm not a political analyst so I could be totally wrong.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Whilletal Its pretty obvious that Nader is in play to stir things up and to distract people from the issues. Of course some will vote for him without caring about any of his stances except his stance on green issues.

Forgive me for being so blunt, but this is absurd. Nader is one of the few candidates for President who actually emphasizes the issues rather than his "character." His general stance is that the two-party system is like one corporate party, that its members are largely wrong and deviated off course -- and not just regarding the environment. He sees the status quo largely as duplicity getting a pass.

Actually, in plenty of ways, he's more conservative than the Republican Party. Really, the same could be said of the Green Party in general, whose platform coincides with the Libertarian Party on a surprising range of issues.

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

Didn't the guy get only 1% of the popular vote in Gore/Bush and less than half of a vote in Kerry/Bush. The guy is a non-factor and should be treated as such. The Democrats want to complain about the Green party steal votes from then, what about the Libertarian party stealing votes from the Republicans. Why not the big out cry there!

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 Didn't the guy get only 1% of the popular vote in Gore/Bush and less than half of a vote in Kerry/Bush. The guy is a non-factor and should be treated as such.

That's the usual attitude, yes. However, when the mere candidacy of an alternate candidate is seen as absurd and scandalous, I think it really shows the two-party system's contempt for democracy.

Still, I wish all politicians were "non-factors."

Grandpa h.

[xyzer]

Yep, like Paul, Nader is a wasted resource! A couple of cranks will vote for him anyway...cranks usually suffer from reverse vertigo, sudden double jointedness and the eye hair knee sap syndrome when they venture to the polls? Some will even vote for Dodd, Biden or some other barroom relic stumbling around the scene.
Or some unknown homeless person sleeping on the sidewalk outside the polls?

Its a joke and we pay for it!

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: The Decider Lots of things matter, tivodan. But if the candidate can't get elected because of money problems, or dumb strategy, or a host of things that seperate the "serious" from the "also rans" then I make that calculation.

But at the time you are making that final calculation - standing in the voting booth - NONE of those things matter any more. The campaign is over. Money and strategy are no longer needed.

You and others like you miss the point. If people would simply vote for the person they thought best represented their interests instead of relying on media polls and major party shills telling them which candidates are "electable", a lot of those candidates WOULD have a chance. The ONLY reason they don't have a chance now is because people like you are voting based upon the strength of their CAMPAIGN instead of the strength of their IDEAS.

That's why voting for someone based upon "electability" is stupid - it's circular reasoning. "Because X is electable, he'll get votes. Because he'll get votes, he's electable."

Quote by: xyzer Its a joke and we pay for it!

If by this you mean we all pay for the joke that is our $3 trillion budget and the $500,000 worth of unfunded mandates we hand each of our children to pay, then I agree.

[GHook93]

Quote by: grandpa That's the usual attitude, yes. However, when the mere candidacy of an alternate candidate is seen as absurd and scandalous, I think it really shows the two-party system's contempt for democracy. Still, I wish all politicians were "non-factors." Grandpa h.

I wish there was a third viable option.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Sonart And believe it or not, people are aware of that and have taken it into acount. I stand by my point, which is regardless of YOUR dissatisfaction with the candidates, Americans in general - at least those on the liberal side - are excited and motivated by their candidates. USA Today/Gallup 2/21-24/08 ..........McCain....Obama....Other....NEITHER...UNSURE %..........48.............47.........1...............2..............2 ..........McCain....Clinton.....Other....NEITHER...UNSURE %..........50.............46.........1...............2..............1 As you can see, the "I can't stand any of them" faction is pretty marginal.

Which goes to show how representative that specific poll is since we know that more than 2% are going to stay home on election day.

Then explain this... "Now we have some questions about the general election for president, which will be held in November 2008. Compared to previous elections, are you more enthusiastic than usual about voting, or less enthusiastic?" More......Less......Same.....Unsure 62%........30%.......7%..........1% I suspect the "Less" folks would be conservatives. 'Same'? The usual cynics.

If we suddenly have 62% turnout I will buy you a drink in concession.

Bollucks back at you... ask an average American how THEIR particular Representative or Senator is doing and they'll likely heap them with high praise... which is why they keep getting re-elected.

No, it's typically name recognition that keeps them getting reelected but I digress.

Well then, Mr. Honesty... which alternative party have the disenchanted people suggested they'd prefer instead?

Sorry, I don't consider the disenchanted under only one political ideology.

Indeed... for instance, under a Ron Paul or a Ralph Nader administration this country would flounder and sink like the Titanic.

You say that like I'd support the candidacy of either individual.

[Charlatan]

In shifting the power from the few to the many, you have to wonder what he means by that. Does he mean that he will give them perks? They already have less taxes to pay and recieve the same services as rich people. There are undoubtedly more poorer people that rich people, and usually rich people don't vote, having little time. So let's reverse it a bit, if poorer people didn't vote, and only the rich people counted, would he say to make the rich richer and the poor... whatever? Is he just playing to votes? He is supposed to win at all costs, all candidates think that, and so alter what they really want to do to what the people want. Candidates say they will do this or that expecting people to relate to them. They promise what people - the many - want and expect votes for them to give the voters what they voted for.

Unfortunatley you cannot give people what they want, because your responsibilities get in the way, responsibilities to big business with many workers, responsibility to raise taxes to meet demans that they themselves face, so people will never get what they vote for, as all candidates need the power so play them like suckers, and then they turn their backs on them. I think they should give worst case scenarios to the people, saying, for example, look people, we can't lower taxes, but I promise to jack up the services with more taxes. That is what Hillary is doing, and it is truthful.

In preparing people for the worst, they should trust you more, in being truthful they could make people see the other candidates for the scoudrels they are, maybe saying that there are going to be bad things they don't like will always make them feel informed.

Speaking of taxes, why do taxes go up? There are always more people each year paying taxes, so the taxes should stay the same with the increase in gross, but such is not the case. Is it from poor management that they always need more money? The dollar is not something that flips down the charts each week, so how could they want to increase taxes? Well I would guess that it is for a better standard of living, right? I mean if you pay more to live in a country, you should get more. How does inflation affect taxes? Taxes are raised because the government needs more to lend to the people, as there are more people each year, so they want to pay for all of these people to come through and start businesses? Is that it? Isn't that what a bank is for? What does the country do with all the increased money. Does the world economy affect it? If you think that all things get more expensive you'd surely not think that it gets more expensive in a percentage way to your taxes.

Let's see what you's expect for more taxes. You would expect the government to do far more for medical and other services, right? That percentage is paying for a lot of jobs, jobs that cost such a little bit and provide such a lot more to spend with. With the budget being aired every once in a while, people will see what the money was spent on, so there will be no place to hide. With all that extra money you'd expect to see a lot more spent on services. Think if the general hospital was given to then anyone could go there, and people wouldn't be faced with the probability of needing extra money at short notice to pay for their bills, so the poor live a more secure life, as they can't afford it. This way taxes are welcome, theoretically.

Now if the taxes get raised and you see it given in aid to foreign countries, shouldn't the candidate say this during press time what they plan to do with the money? Is voting for aid, aid you pay for, on any voters mind? Hopefully the taxes being raised is put to good use, for the people, and seeing as how the budget is leaked every now and again, it should be.

In relation to big business, how are candidates involved with them? Does the government give money to big business? How then can this guy say that Hillary and Obama want to give preferance to them? What will the big businesses do with the money? They should invest it, or spend it. I don't think state will just start paying other people monay to... well... what do they get in return for their money? Seeing the business grow is the only interest of the state, as that makes money and jobs, and is seen by the public as a good thing, if I am not mistaken.

[The Decider]

Quote by: tivodan1116 But at the time you are making that final calculation - standing in the voting booth - NONE of those things matter any more. The campaign is over. Money and strategy are no longer needed. You and others like you miss the point. If people would simply vote for the person they thought best represented their interests instead of relying on media polls and major party shills telling them which candidates are "electable", a lot of those candidates WOULD have a chance. The ONLY reason they don't have a chance now is because people like you are voting based upon the strength of their CAMPAIGN instead of the strength of their IDEAS. That's why voting for someone based upon "electability" is stupid - it's circular reasoning. "Because X is electable, he'll get votes. Because he'll get votes, he's electable."

Please don't cherrypick from my argument to build your strawman. I mentioned electability and money among many reasons for assessing a candidate. I'm quite familiar with Nader's agenda and I either disagree with some of it or feel the rest will not help Nader win support from a majority of Americans. Third party partisans are not the only one's with intellect and judgement at Volconvo, contrary to popular opinion.