Nader announces new bid for White House

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 I wish there was a third viable option.

There are many options. It just depends on what you mean.

Grandpa h.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: grandpa There are many options. It just depends on what you mean. Grandpa h.

He means viable, as in those media pundits not telling him it would be a waste of his vote.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I dunno. With how disenchanted everyone has become with the primaries thus far... maybe he'll actually stand a chance this time around? At the very least this is the best chance he's ever had.

it is a pretty common consensus that the primaries have invigorated everyone, not disenchanted them, so, i dont know where u got that from


and I am also now 100% convinced Ralph Nader is working for the GOP.

[Suburbanite]

Nader has proven he doesnt EVER intend on winning because he runs in the least opportune elections. He wouldve had a MUCH MUCH better chance against Kerry, but the GOP didn't need back-up taking down Kerry. He could've ran WITH al gore, instead of against him.

look at Nader's record and who he likes to fuck over:

1st Al Gore, the MOST environmental presidential candidate in our history. You'd think the Green Party would have supported him.

2nd Obama, a president, again who is pro-green and truly defies the status quo of american politics

and yet, the ONE person he couldve beaten, he chose not to run against, and thats Kerry, the weakest candidate in my history on this earth. He was SILENT! No Nader when the GOP is going to win, Nader when they aren't.

I've never voted main-stream in my life until this election, and ive lsot all respect for nader and the green party and i am personally going to take it upon myself to insult them as often as possible.

[lsbskins1]

I wish that those of you who think it would be better if we had 30 parties vying for votes would just go live in Italy and see how you like it. And I bet most of you who think it is super-duper would just luuuuuv it when actual Communists and actual Socialists and actual Neo-Nazi groups get to drive the agenda in this country because they are needed in coalition governments. Why do you think the situation in Israel is so screwed up? Most of the country does not support the settlement policies, but over and over again, the radicals get to drive that agenda, all because someone needs their 5 % to form that block to have their 38 % beat the other major party's 39%. I'll take the problems of a 2 party system any day, thanks.

[The Decider]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I wish that those of you who think it would be better if we had 30 parties vying for votes would just go live in Italy and see how you like it. And I bet most of you who think it is super-duper would just luuuuuv it when actual Communists and actual Socialists and actual Neo-Nazi groups get to drive the agenda in this country because they are needed in coalition governments. Why do you think the situation in Israel is so screwed up? Most of the country does not support the settlement policies, but over and over again, the radicals get to drive that agenda, all because someone needs their 5 % to form that block to have their 38 % beat the other major party's 39%. I'll take the problems of a 2 party system any day, thanks.

Excellent point, lsbskins.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Suburbanite Nader has proven he doesnt EVER intend on winning because he runs in the least opportune elections. He wouldve had a MUCH MUCH better chance against Kerry, but the GOP didn't need back-up taking down Kerry. He could've ran WITH al gore, instead of against him. look at Nader's record and who he likes to fuck over: 1st Al Gore, the MOST environmental presidential candidate in our history. You'd think the Green Party would have supported him. 2nd Obama, a president, again who is pro-green and truly defies the status quo of american politics and yet, the ONE person he couldve beaten, he chose not to run against, and thats Kerry, the weakest candidate in my history on this earth. He was SILENT! No Nader when the GOP is going to win, Nader when they aren't. I've never voted main-stream in my life until this election, and ive lsot all respect for nader and the green party and i am personally going to take it upon myself to insult them as often as possible.

Uh, your entire post is based on a falsehood.

Ralph Nader DID run against Kerry.

pwned.

Quote by: lsbskins1 I wish that those of you who think it would be better if we had 30 parties vying for votes would just go live in Italy and see how you like it. And I bet most of you who think it is super-duper would just luuuuuv it when actual Communists and actual Socialists and actual Neo-Nazi groups get to drive the agenda in this country because they are needed in coalition governments. Why do you think the situation in Israel is so screwed up? Most of the country does not support the settlement policies, but over and over again, the radicals get to drive that agenda, all because someone needs their 5 % to form that block to have their 38 % beat the other major party's 39%. I'll take the problems of a 2 party system any day, thanks.

You don't get it... when the federal government does things, thats bad. The federal government should get as little done as possible. If having 50 parties grinds it to a halt, all the better. Every time they do something I lose either money or freedom.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Suburbanite it is a pretty common consensus that the primaries have invigorated everyone, not disenchanted them, so, i dont know where u got that from and I am also now 100% convinced Ralph Nader is working for the GOP.

Everyone you say? How about you use an argument that isn't a media talking point. An increase in primary voter turnout is irrelevant because it's already a percentage of the already small total voter turn out for national elections.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: tivodan1116 You don't get it... when the federal government does things, thats bad. The federal government should get as little done as possible. If having 50 parties grinds it to a halt, all the better. Every time they do something I lose either money or freedom.

You don't seem to get it. When the federal government takes your money and does not provide the services you pay for, that is bad. When the federal government takes your money and does what it is supposed to do, that is good. If you make the federal government so inefficient that they can never effectively govern, the federal government will not simply disappear and they will not stop taking your money. They just take more of it. We gotta have an army. We have to have a law making body, we have to have a national leader, we have to have a state department, we have to have a department that regulates commerce between the states and hundreds of other agencies for things neither of us ever really think about. Government is not going to go away. Making it bog down will make the situation pissing you off worse, it will not make it go away. Here comes my constant refrain: try thinking of a viable solution to the problem you see, something that will actually make the situation better. "Government sucks! Mess it up more." Not a solution.

[Nono]

Ibskins, your point about too many parties (with the result that the tail ends up wagging the dog) is a good one, and Israel a good example.
But I'd say that the two-party system in the US is an undesirable opposite extreme.

Anyway, imagine if votes in the US presidential elections were split more or less evenly between 10 different candidtates. What would happen. The guy with 11% would win?

Suburbanite (BANNED? What for?) may be going a bit far when he says Nader is working for the GOP. Nader just has an overdose of puritanism. But the practical effect, in a close election, would be as if he were working for the GOP.

It's sad to such a useless and potentially destructive gesture.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Nono Ibskins, your point about too many parties (with the result that the tail ends up wagging the dog) is a good one, and Israel a good example. But I'd say that the two-party system in the US is an undesirable opposite extreme. Anyway, imagine if votes in the US presidential elections were split more or less evenly between 10 different candidtates. What would happen. The guy with 11% would win? Suburbanite (BANNED? What for?) may be going a bit far when he says Nader is working for the GOP. Nader just has an overdose of puritanism. But the practical effect, in a close election, would be as if he were working for the GOP. It's sad to such a useless and potentially destructive gesture.

This argument is an example of not having a proper view of the term "extreme". The undesirable opposite extreme would more accurately be seen as some dictatorial individual (whether of the right or the left) with all power concentrated in his/her hands, like those boogey men so faithfully trotted out, Hitler and Stalin. Calling a two party, consitutional democracy an "extreme" streaches the definition of the term beyond recognition. I am all for hyperbole, but only when it serves to heighten contrast for illustrative purposes or forces someone to see the logical end of an alternative they support. But, do not read this as me saying a two party democracy does not have problems of it's own. Power tends to concentrate and, at times, the two parties seem less like competitive movers and more like complacent power brokers. But though this needs to be stirred when it gets to be at its worst, it also provides a measure of stability, allowing the population to be free from wide swings in extreme and allowing change to come, not in sweeping floods, but in managable increments. It all tends to ballance out nicely, in my view. The extremes are forced to MOVE the middle, rather than dictating to the whole.

[Socrates]

The problem with the two party and the winner take all is that only one view point ends up in the white house, either Republican or Democratic, and it makes reaching across party lines difficult.

[another day]

The answer to the bipartisan vs. too many parties problem is obvious.

Reduce the power and control of the federal government. Put the power back with states, where smaller localized government parties can be better suited to represent their constituents.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: another day The answer to the bipartisan vs. too many parties problem is obvious. Reduce the power and control of the federal government. Put the power back with states, where smaller localized government parties can be better suited to represent their constituents.

That simple and obvious answer was tried in the late 1800's and early 1900's. It has already proven to be a failed idea. It simply allows large commercial intersts to do the job a quashing individual rights. Power will not be left on the table. Someone will take it.