Opinions on Nader's decision?

[Poetic_Justice]

I'm slightly bemused by you Americans...
You seem more concerned about making sure your own pet political doctrine gets enacted than that principles are held to...

Why is a vote for Nader or Nolan wasted? At least those two are principled. The democrats and republicans merely move where the voters go, they have no real principles. Neither has morals or fixed stands. If suddenly abortion became an election issue and 80% of the american public wanted it banned, then Kerry and Bush would immediately both promise to ban it, or at least put much stricter regulations on it. If suddeny 80% of the American population felt that Germany shuld be made an American colony, well then guess what Kerry and Bush would say?

At least Nader an Nolan are willing to forgo a chance at actually being elected in order to stand up for their beliefs, to take a hard line, and to actually represent the large number of Americans who beleive in their ideals, but won't admit it because you're stuck in a two party system.

I'm a libertarian, but the way americans vilify socialism just sickens me... I say get out of your shell and vote how you think the country should be run, not just for the guy you think could win who is closest to your ideas...

Oh how condescending :rolleyes: Just because Libertarians are the underdogs does not imply that they would not be the same way had they a majority.

The democrats and republicans are fundamentally different. This election is important to liberals because we fear more increases in the deficit, we think the war in Iraq is unjustified, and we hate to see all of these jobs being outsourced. I could go on with the differences between a democratic president and a republican one, but you get the idea. Now republicans have their own reasons for wanting a republican in the Whitehouse too, but I can't speak for their bias-the current president seems neither liberal nor conservative-just crazy in my honest opinion.

Poetic, there are differences as I've said, between the two parties, and if Nader gets votes, Bush gets a better chance at re-election. The 3rd parties will not get elected, so they are truly making it worse for liberals.

[ArtyP]

"At least Nader an Nolan are willing to forgo a chance at actually being elected in order to stand up for their beliefs, "

This comment implies that either individual if they so chose could actually stand a chance of being elected, which I think is probably giving them both more credit than they deserve!

I wrote a long thing on Nader on my blog today which I'm not going to reproduce here in its entirety but I think he has let his ego run away with him.

But like I said, I'm delighted as Nader's egotism could equal 4 more years for GW!

[Poetic_Justice]

You'll notice I mentioned the Green Party, not just the libertarians... and libertarians generally take rightist votes anyways, you should cheer us on.

So you say they are fundamentally different... how come when they're in office they end up doing the same thing? They are different by minor degrees. Heck, to a european the differences are amazingly small, Yo ugo to a country like France where the political spectrum goes from Communists to Liberals to Socialists to libertarians all getting votes and seats. and then you see the American political 'spectrum' and I use that term VERY loosely...

Not saying that Canada's any better, we tend to break out of our two party state tendencies every few years with some regionalist parties, but other than that we're pretty much a two party state also.

If they were so fundamentally different, then Clinton never would have been able to get any bills through the house, and Republicans and Democrats would not periodically change the way they vote in your Congress. Instead Republicans very often vote for "Democrat" bills, and Democrats vote for "Republican" bills.

The differences are in methods, not goals. They are generally inconsequential differences that are meant to make everyone feel like there's a difference depending on the President. But I challenge you to look at the campaign financing in the last election. Companies like AT$T financed both Bush and Gore with millions! Both of them! It doesn't matter to any company who gets in office, they'll still get their way.

[jim sofra]

Hi all, Nader's a pretty strange bird. You all should read up on how he runs his staff to get some insight into his personality. It's argueable that his work caused more problems than it solved. His running will split the antibush vote like the last time. Would he make a better prez than bush? At least he reads newspapers and books. Has he a hope in hell of getting elected? No way! Which makes me wonder what his real reasons are for running. Basically this helps the bushies. On the other hand 4 more of the incredibly stupid and corrupt folks in there now will finally stuff it up the butts of most of the unpleasant people I know. These guys are betrayal personified. Remember this is all about money/power/lies. JS

[Willie Dent]

I think Nader has his heart in the right place and besides, in a free and democratic society, everyone has the right to serve as long as they are not a criminal, usually the criminal qualifications come after your elected.
No kidding Nader an ok guy, I think he would be a good voice to have in your government, he would keep them all on their toes.

RALPH NADER: An Independent Solution
There is, however, a third way to ensure that ordinary citizens determine what governments do and how they operate. We must select the best, most capable people in our community to run as independent candidates. If enough independent representatives, people free from the constraints imposed by party discipline, win seats in our parliament and our legislature, they can act as a swing vote forcing the party in power to act for all the people. Even if these people lose their election campaigns, the weight of the people backing independent candidates will force candidates who are elected to think twice before voting like a flock of trained sheep. We need candidates who have no party affiliation and will act on our behalf, using their best judgement and the brains God gave them. That way we will enjoy a government which is right more often than it is wrong, just more often than it is unjust, and capable more often than it is incompetent.

[mlingley]

Last time I checked I lived in a free state with open elections. We need more choices in government and I'd love to see more parties in the government. I might not vote for Nader, I think I'll go with a Liberatarian. I just hope we don't have 4 more years of Bush. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Kerry just to jump on the bandwagon.. too much of that going on in American politics these days. WE Americans seem to only support what's popular and not what is right.
4 more years of Bush = WWIII

[laserkid]

You know its funny. If someone like Ross Perrot comes in and takes votes away from the first president Bush, the dems don't care any, but Ralph Nader jumps in NOOOO DDON'T TAKE FROM US! Last I checked it was a free society and anyone could run if they got the proper signatures, and forms in (and of course funding thats not so much a requirement of RUNNING as it is winning though).

I hear you all on worrying about losing, believe me I do, but wanting to kill someone over it is just sickening. Heck my vote isn't even certain yet (although I am leaning towards GWB only because I've seen more consistancy with him than Kerry for reasons I'm not going into at the moment). Its just sad that such HATRED arises from some people when they see someone run with an agenda very similar to their own. I'd think you'd rather have someone whose entirely with you than partially, why not go fully supporting Nader?

[GuidoNius]

Well, obviously he´s allowed to run if he meets the requirements but one can still argue with him that it´s unwise to do so. There can be only one preseident elected & Ralph sure isn´t going to be the man - he probably realizes as much (which is why one can indeed question a man´s motive in this case).

If he´s interested in bringing a third voice in US politics, why has he not focused on his party or ideas being represented in some other democratic institutions. What´s the sense of focusing on presidency? What else could it be but narcissim?

AO

[laserkid]

Perhaps he thinks its the right thing to do. Assuming he believes and knows he's going to lose, he may well be running because he believes that those who share his views have the right to vote for someone whop agrees with them entirely rather than partially.

[RebelWithanAK]

Excepting the fact that he's anti-gay, you'd be correct.

[GuidoNius]

laserkid,

A direct election for president is not about knowing what proportion of people agree with Nader or anybody else. It´s about trying to get to be president.

Ask the French how happy they were knowing that left of centre & the more left of centre each individually were less popular than extreme right.

Rebel, who´s anti-gay & who´s not correct.

AO

[laserkid]

Yes, thats true, but sometimes ideals are worth fighting for even when you know you'll lose.

[GuidoNius]

lk, but nobody would deny that, it just happens to be the case there are many ways to fight for those ideals & not enough people to fight that good fight. Isn´t it then a bit illogical to choose fights that cost lots of resources & where there is zero opportunity to win? AO

PS: that´s the difference with Ross Perot, he did have a real chance to win

[RebelWithanAK]

More than the lack of winning is the real fear that his venture will equal a larger failure than most democrats and leftists will want to bear. When you fight against impossible odds, you do it because it can't get any worse. But it, bad as it is now, can still get worse.

[GuidoNius]

If it can´get any worse, you don´t fight anymore.

AO