Nader forms exploratory committee

[jelloshotsrule]

well he's always left the idea open to running, especially if hilary gets the nod... i'm upset that edwards is out, and that's why i feel like nader's ideas are so important, as they were on a similar wavelength on many things...

http://www.naderexplore08.org/

[Don't panic]

i like him, but I hope he doesn't run.

he has zero chances of winning, but the real possibility of favoring the GOP again.

2000 was enough. No thanks.

[Naimfan]

Nader was at least partly responsible for the Republican victories in 2000 and 2004, and thus must bear some of the blame for all that has happened since.

His running again should only underline that which appears obvious--that he does it solely to feed his ego, since he cannot put the welfare of his country above his own.

[nbs2]

His running again should only underline that which appears obvious--that he does it solely to feed his ego, since he cannot put the welfare of his country above his own.

Unless, he does it with the hope that the Dems will begin to espouse some of his positions (as jsr feels Edwards had). With the firm position of the two party system here in the US, the best way to create change may be to have a third party that you know will wreak havoc on one of the majors unless that major can appease you enough to keep you out of the race. This seems to be especially true during this period of political polarization.

But, more than likely, you're right. :D

[jelloshotsrule]

interestingly enough, i thought it was the pathetic campaigns run by gore (if he had the charisma and fortitude of conviction that he has now... wow) and kerry that allowed the republicans to "win" the elections in 2000 and 2004.

even if you try to make the case for him costing the dems the election in 2000 (gore could have also stood up to the BS moves pulled in florida, but nah), how do you figure he cost them in '04? you do realize he was so marginalized by the democrats and media that he ended up not getting much results, right??

i just hate it that so many "progressive" people accept having the bare minimum number of candidates to be able to even call it a choice...

His running again should only underline that which appears obvious--that he does it solely to feed his ego, since he cannot put the welfare of his country above his own.

having worked on his campaign in 2004 (i admit my bias), i question how much you've heard him speak. having spent significant time around him and listening to him, i believe his ego has nothing to do with it. he believes in certain ideals that the democrat simply do not stand up for (anymore?). do i wonder if he couldn't have more impact trying to work with democrats or get some sort of cabinet position...? sure. but i respect his convictions and his determination to be a voice for those who can't find one in the centrist democrats of today.

[Naimfan]

i believe his ego has nothing to do with it.

Can we agree to disagree?

I certainly appreciate his efforts to bring a variety of issues to the table. But surely he can recognize that by running he is damaging the prospects of the one party that has shown itself to at least be aware of those issues. Either he is not smart enough to understand that, a contention I reject, or it is his ego.

Better, then, for him to advocate for his issues in a manner other than running for President.

[Lord Blackadder]

I certainly appreciate his efforts to bring a variety of issues to the table. But surely he can recognize that by running he is damaging the prospects of the one party that has shown itself to at least be aware of those issues. Either he is not smart enough to understand that, a contention I reject, or it is his ego.

If the Democratic candidates are so weak that Ralph Nader's candidacy can damage their chances of election, then they are pretty weak candidates indeed...

[leekohler]

Can we agree to disagree?

I certainly appreciate his efforts to bring a variety of issues to the table. But surely he can recognize that by running he is damaging the prospects of the one party that has shown itself to at least be aware of those issues. Either he is not smart enough to understand that, a contention I reject, or it is his ego.

Better, then, for him to advocate for his issues in a manner other than running for President.

We're in complete agreement on that. When will this man get over himself and knock it off? He does no one any favors.

[NAG]

No kidding. Blaming Bush on Nader is about as true as blaming Iraq for 9/11.

[Macky-Mac]

Nader was at least partly responsible for the Republican victories in 2000 and 2004, and thus must bear some of the blame for all that has happened since. ....

Gore's rightward drift in the 2000 election alienated so many progressive voters that it cost him many votes, some voted for Nader but many others just stayed home.

Without Nader, what would have happened? Would Gore have gone even further towards the right costing himself the votes of even more progressives?

Gore lost because of the positions he took and the campaign he ran.....he couldn't even win his own home state.

[jelloshotsrule]

Can we agree to disagree?


sure. probably better for all of us :)

i can accept that people disagree with his approach, but to:

1. blame bush's reign on him

or

2. say that nader shouldn't run

just seems to be against the core of democracy to me. especially in a system which provides us with 2 choices each election, both of whom almost always fall far short of what i believe in.

[Don't panic]

it's true that Gore could and should have won (and he actually did) by himself, but it is also true that Nader, by participating, knowingly favored bush, and thus contributed to bring about that unmitigated disaster, which we will be keep paying for many more years.

i think that initially, when the election seemed to be easily won by the dems, he was right to be in, but towards the end, he should have realized the issues at stakes and endorsed Gore, who would have been a great president, and not too distant to at least some of his positions.

that said, i don't think at all it was out of personal vanity, but he is intelligent enough to realize that some times a politician should aim at minimize damages rather than shoot for a clearly impossible goal.

[Naimfan]

Rather than multiquoting everyone, I did not say Nader was the reason Bush won in 2000 and 2004. What I said was "Nader was at least partly responsible for the Republican victories in 2000 and 2004, and thus must bear some of the blame for all that has happened since."

I did not mean to suggest he was the sole reason.

[jelloshotsrule]

it's true that Gore could and should have won (and he actually did) by himself, but it is also true that Nader, by participating, knowingly favored bush, and thus contributed to bring about that unmitigated disaster, which we will be keep paying for many more years.

i think that initially, when the election seemed to be easily won by the dems, he was right to be in, but towards the end, he should have realized the issues at stakes and endorsed Gore, who would have been a great president, and not too distant to at least some of his positions.

that said, i don't think at all it was out of personal vanity, but he is intelligent enough to realize that some times a politician should aim at minimize damages rather than shoot for a clearly impossible goal.

but that mindset is such that if you have a message that differs quite clearly from the two major parties, you should just take your medicine and accept you can't win and get behind whichever party is less bad... that sort of defeatist attitude doesn't embody my beliefs, so i reject it for myself. you are welcome to your acceptance of the status quo, however.

naimfan- no problem, i didn't necessarily mean you specifically. just that type of mindset.

[NAG]

Was Nader a factor? Sure. But to call him "responsible" even if it is only partial is implying he had some amount of control over the situation. I haven't seen a convincing argument that if Nader wouldn't have run we wouldn't have had Bush in office.

[Macky-Mac]

Rather than multiquoting everyone, I did not say Nader was the reason Bush won in 2000 and 2004. What I said was "Nader was at least partly responsible for the Republican victories in 2000 and 2004, and thus must bear some of the blame for all that has happened since."...

Really, it's Bush who's responsible and bears the blame "....for all that has happened since".

[Naimfan]

Was Nader a factor? Sure. But to call him "responsible" even if it is only partial is implying he had some amount of control over the situation. I haven't seen a convincing argument that if Nader wouldn't have run we wouldn't have had Bush in office.

Just look at the Florida popular vote results from 2000.

[Eric Piercey]

sure. probably better for all of us :)

i can accept that people disagree with his approach, but to:

1. blame bush's reign on him

or

2. say that nader shouldn't run

just seems to be against the core of democracy to me. especially in a system which provides us with 2 choices each election, both of whom almost always fall far short of what i believe in.

Of course they fall short, the good ones have been weeded out. The plantation owners aren't letting anyone in there that truly threaten them. Nader wouldn't be elected with a 95% majority, he's not on the list. Gore won in 2000 but didn't get in. Kerry probably won 2004 if votes were actually counted. It's all rigged. We're all going to die horribly. The sky is falling. I digress, but basically the "core of democracy" is fair elections and that's absent here. Without fair elections all conversation and debate is rendered academic.

[jelloshotsrule]

Of course they fall short, the good ones have been weeded out. The plantation owners aren't letting anyone in there that truly threaten them. Nader wouldn't be elected with a 95% majority, he's not on the list. Gore won in 2000 but didn't get in. Kerry probably won 2000 if votes were actually counted. It's all rigged. We're all going to die horribly. The sky is falling. I digress, but basically the "core of democracy" is fair elections and that's absent here. Without fair elections all conversation and debate is rendered academic.

exactly. and which candidates are doing the most for campaign finance reform and things such as paper trails for elections, much less instant run off voting...? i shudder to think that mccain is the most progressive in terms of election reform....

[NAG]

Just look at the Florida popular vote results from 2000.

You mean Nader was at fault for voter fraud and the courts over stepping their bounds and deciding the next president? Nader wasn't the cause, he was the scapegoat.

[Naimfan]

You mean Nader was at fault for voter fraud and the courts over stepping their bounds and deciding the next president? Nader wasn't the cause, he was the scapegoat.

Nope. And you know better. ;)

[NAG]

Hah, you should know better than to think I know better!

[Naimfan]

Hah, you should know better than to think I know better!

:)

Good one! Glad we can still have a sense of humor here!

Slightly more seriously, I think Nader was, as you wrote, a "factor." And I think he did have some control--he could have withdrawn (and should have, in my view) from the general election. Can we definitively state that if Nader had not run in the general election that the 2000 result would have been different? No, of course not. But the polling data certainly support that hypothesis, since the overwhelming majority of Nader's votes came from those who said they would have vote for Gore, which most likely would have changed the outcome of the election.

[themadchemist]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

<BREATH>

...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

OK. I'm done.

[Don't panic]

but that mindset is such that if you have a message that differs quite clearly from the two major parties, you should just take your medicine and accept you can't win and get behind whichever party is less bad... that sort of defeatist attitude doesn't embody my beliefs, so i reject it for myself. you are welcome to your acceptance of the status quo, however.


it's not so much accepting the status quo as accepting that sometimes the lesser of two evils is the better choice, and you cannot always afford to be idealistic.

a part from the fact that i am convinced that gore would have made a good president (and not just a less bad one), if he had endorsed Gore in the end, when the polls showed that it was going to be close and he could be have been a factor, he wouldn't have been worse off from it.

He actually would have accrued some significant political capital to spend in his battles, rather than being set back 30 years.

[NAG]

Eh, I think the republicans rigged the election and would have still rigged it regardless. Yeah, I'm cynical.

[Macky-Mac]

:)

Good one! Glad we can still have a sense of humor here!

Slightly more seriously, I think Nader was, as you wrote, a "factor." And I think he did have some control--he could have withdrawn (and should have, in my view) from the general election. Can we definitively state that if Nader had not run in the general election that the 2000 result would have been different? No, of course not. But the polling data certainly support that hypothesis, since the overwhelming majority of Nader's votes came from those who said they would have vote for Gore, which most likely would have changed the outcome of the election.


and another plausible hypothesis would be that without Nader in the race, Gore would have moved even more aggressively away from the progressive wing of the party and even more of those voters would have given up on him and stayed home.....and he would have lost by a greater margin than he did.

[Marble]

I respect Nader for holding the course in 2000, even though it was inconvenient. It took fortitude to stick with his beliefs. The democratic ideal, however unrealistic it might seem, is just diluted further by the posturing and poll-chasing that our system seems to require of its candidates. Blaming him seems to be blaming the only aspect of that election that was actually hopeful.

[themadchemist]

I respect Nader for holding the course in 2000, even though it was inconvenient. It took fortitude to stick with his beliefs. The democratic ideal, however unrealistic it might seem, is just diluted further by the posturing and poll-chasing that our system seems to require of its candidates. Blaming him seems to be blaming the only aspect of that election that was actually hopeful.

There is no hope in harmful futility.

[Marble]

There is no hope in harmful futility.

I respect that point of view because the last eight years have indeed been terrible, but Nader's candidacy was only harmful in retrospect. Telling third party candidates that they shouldn't run in important races because it might be harmful or futile precludes any chance they might have of influencing politics, ever. At least if their supporters matter, in the way they mattered in 2000, there is a chance that the leading candidates will compromise over issues that are important to the minority in order to attract their support.

[themadchemist]

I respect that point of view because the last eight years have indeed been terrible, but Nader's candidacy was only harmful in retrospect. Telling third party candidates that they shouldn't run in important races because it might be harmful or futile precludes any chance they might have of influencing politics, ever. At least if their supporters matter, in the way they mattered in 2000, there is a chance that the leading candidates will compromise over issues that are important to the minority in order to attract their support.

If the point was to change the nature of the debate, he could have quit in October.

[Marble]

Did he change the nature of the debate?

[Don't panic]

Did he change the nature of the debate?

i think that his best move would have been to publicly throw his support behind gore late in the game, at least in some key states. His supporters would have understood and, as i said before, he would have accrued significant political capital. Then he could have changed something.

[SMM]

Was Nader a factor? Sure. But to call him "responsible" even if it is only partial is implying he had some amount of control over the situation. I haven't seen a convincing argument that if Nader wouldn't have run we wouldn't have had Bush in office.

Every vote Nader got, would have gone to the democratic candidate. That would have changed the outcome of both elections. One of the most fundamental military tactics is to divide your enemy's forces. I do not recall off-hand what Nader's vote percentage was, but they were enough to make the difference for Bush. I just cannot figure out WHY he did it. He was running on an extremely liberal platform and very environmentally focused. Surely, he did not think he had a chance to win (in his own words). Why would he risk handing environmental protection to someone like Bush? The net result is that four decades of environmental work, much of it done by citizen volunteers, has been lost. If one wanted to be charitable, and allow for him making a blunder in the first election, fine. But, there is no excuse for repeating the same thing four years later, and now contemplating the same arrogant stupidity. Nader either has an ego so large, he needs this 15 minutes every 4 years, or the republicans have the goods on him.

[NAG]

Every vote Nader got, would have gone to the democratic candidate.

Um, no.

[Marble]

Every vote Nader got, would have gone to the democratic candidate. That would have changed the outcome of both elections. One of the most fundamental military tactics is to divide your enemy's forces. I do not recall off-hand what Nader's vote percentage was, but they were enough to make the difference for Bush. I just cannot figure out WHY he did it. He was running on an extremely liberal platform and very environmentally focused. Surely, he did not think he had a chance to win (in his own words). Why would he risk handing environmental protection to someone like Bush? The net result is that four decades of environmental work, much of it done by citizen volunteers, has been lost. If one wanted to be charitable, and allow for him making a blunder in the first election, fine. But, there is no excuse for repeating the same thing four years later, and now contemplating the same arrogant stupidity. Nader either has an ego so large, he needs this 15 minutes every 4 years, or the republicans have the goods on him.

I find it hard to believe that those are the only two possibilities you can imagine. I believe it's his right to fight for what he believes in by declaring himself a candidate (or not; I respect Kucinich's choice to drop out). Being a person of influence in 2000, his choice was to either do nothing about his convictions and not run, to throw his support behind someone who didn't adequately represent his goals at the very moment that his constituency becomes politically influential, or to stay on in the hope that he might force someone to compromise with his point of view.

It seems to me like you all are saying that it's ok for him to run a futile campaign when it doesn't actually matter to anyone, but that if his being in the race might actually alter the balance of power, it's his duty to go back to his corner. It seriously sucks that Bush was the President for 8 years. Such horrible things have happened because of him and his cohort. But if the primary parties want Nader's voters, they should consider compromising over issues that are important to them, not counting on them to be so afraid that they can't even vote their conscience.

[Thomas Veil]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

[SMM]

Um, no.

Um, yes.

[Macky-Mac]

Um, yes.

um, no

you go on and on about how you can't understand why Nader ran.......so I doubt you are in a position to judge how people who supported him might have voted if he hadn't been on the ballot.

[Sun Baked]

And if his message was important enough to people to affect the outcome of the election, don't you think the party should have listened?

If people are still worried about him messing with the election this time, it just means his message is still important to enough people to be worth thinking about.

[leekohler]

um, no

you go on and on about how you can't understand why Nader ran.......so I doubt you are in a position to judge how people who supported him might have voted if he hadn't been on the ballot.

You've got to be joking. You mean to tell me that a bunch of Republicans voted for Nader? You're missing the point then. Nader ran because he didn't think that the Democrats were liberal enough.

And if his message was important enough to people to affect the outcome of the election, don't you think the party should have listened?

If people are still worried about him messing with the election this time, it just means his message is still important to enough people to be worth thinking about.

NO- he's never going to be elected in a million years and he knows it. What's so great about a message that's hopeless? The man is an egomaniac- end of story.

[NAG]

You keep putting ego into this as the primary concern. Do you not think this is the primary concern of every politician? Name one politician that doesn't have a huge ego.

Blaming Nader is a huge false dichotomy. Look up the definition of scapegoat. Really.

[leekohler]

You keep putting ego into this as the primary concern. Do you not think this is the primary concern of every politician? Name one politician that doesn't have a huge ego.

Blaming Nader is a huge false dichotomy. Look up the definition of scapegoat. Really.

So what good did he do? David Duke got votes too. Was his message important?

Bottom line- Nader knew damn well he cost Dems the election in 2000. Why do you think he didn't run in 2004?

[jelloshotsrule]

So what good did he do? David Duke got votes too. Was his message important?

Bottom line- Nader knew damn well he cost Dems the election in 2000. Why do you think he didn't run in 2004?

wow. you're comparing ralph nader's message to david duke? and you're a democrat? no wonder i wouldn't vote for a democrat, but would vote for nader. i will not vote for hilary clinton. not sure yet on obama.

and i'm also glad that you have sat down and had enough discussions with the man to ascertain that he's an egomaniac. now i truly take your opinion to heart, end of story

[leekohler]

wow. you're comparing ralph nader's message to david duke? and you're a democrat? no wonder i wouldn't vote for a democrat, but would vote for nader. i will not vote for hilary clinton. not sure yet on obama.

and i'm also glad that you have sat down and had enough discussions with the man to ascertain that he's an egomaniac. now i truly take your opinion to heart, end of story

Sorry, but if someone is going to claim someone's message is "important" just because he got a certain amount of votes, I've got to call that flawed thinking out. There is simply no correlation there. I wasn't comparing David Duke to Nader directly. I certainly hope you can see that.

And I take it you've had direct conversations with Nader? I don't think it's necessary honestly. Do you need to have direct conversations with Bush to know the man isn't good at his job? I hope not. Their actions speak volumes.

[NAG]

What's the point of trying to change the kingdom? I mean the king is ruling everything fine and by demanding more equal representation since Britain is taxing America we'll just end up with a messy revolution that will kill a bunch of people. These revolutionaries know damn well that they killed all those people. They're egomaniacs!

(Since we're going with outlandish metaphors.)

[leekohler]

What's the point of trying to change the kingdom? I mean the king is ruling everything fine and by demanding more equal representation since Britain is taxing America we'll just end up with a messy revolution that will kill a bunch of people. These revolutionaries know damn well that they killed all those people. They're egomaniacs!

(Since we're going with outlandish metaphors.)

A revolution would be just fine with me. But I fail to see how Nader's pointless presidential runs represent a revolution.

[atszyman]

that said, i don't think at all it was out of personal vanity, but he is intelligent enough to realize that some times a politician should aim at minimize damages rather than shoot for a clearly impossible goal.

Name one politician that has ever acted in such a manner...

Sure you could cite those dropping out of the primaries but they are simply angling for favor when the president gets elected and keeping in the party lines.

The current governor of TX is not well liked, yet he won his seat back in 2006 because he was running against 3 opponents. Had the opposition unified it would have been an easy defeat. None of them was really that stupid, but politicians are an odd breeed...

[jelloshotsrule]

A revolution would be just fine with me. But I fail to see how Nader's pointless presidential runs represent a revolution.

let me give you an example... i wasn't much into politics before the 2000 election. it was my first election being able to vote (19) , and if anything, i was leaning republican just because i was sort of ill informed (my own fault, obviously) and had been raised more or less republican.... then my roommate was working for the school's nader group... and i started learning, reading, and i got inspired and became more active in political, specifically, progressive thinking. i'm no revolutionary, but i do believe that i wouldn't have marched in anti war marches, anti wto rallies, voted the way i've voted (you say a wasted vote anyways....), and in 2004 i worked on nader's campaign (so yes, i've talked to him and spent a good amount of time around him... he is neither stupid, nor egomaniacal in my opinion). i'd never have considered working on a campaign before nader. i'd never have considered contributing to edwards' campaign had i not been inspired into civil action by nader....

the point being, revolutions are made up of people who want change. before i knew of nader, i was more or less blissfully ignorant. but now, i at least consider voting democrat (no, i would not vote republican, at least not with any of these oafs)... and i don't think i'm the only such story.

[SMM]

um, no

you go on and on about how you can't understand why Nader ran.......so I doubt you are in a position to judge how people who supported him might have voted if he hadn't been on the ballot.

Do the research. Where do you think Ralph is getting his campaign money? From the republicans! This year it is Freedom's Watch. Does that name mean anything to you? These are the same underhanded neo-cons who were behind the Swiftboat liars who ambushed Kerry. So, Nader stands against everything these prigs believe in, and yet they give him millions of dollars to draw-off of the liberal vote from the democratic ticket. And I do not have to be in a position to "...judge how people who supported him might have voted if he hadn't been on the ballot.", because their is considerable documentation, op-ed pieces, research papers, etc that deal with this in great depth for those interested (like me). :p

[nbs2]

I am curious - would it be fair to say that Democrats, more than Republicans, look to Europe as a proper political model? If so, why hasn't the party worked to embrace the splintered faction that is costing the left side of the aisle elections, rather than ignoring and/or denigrating it like it was the GOP?

In 2000, if Gore had adopted his environmental stance, he may have gotten the only state that was swung by Nader. Of course, would he have held the other 20 states by swinging that way is another issue all together. But, that he would have picked up much of what Nader took I think would be a given.

What I find most disturbing is the inability of the Democratic party to move on. Like a bunch of petulant 5 year olds, they still fuss over Nader "costing" Gore the White House. That Gore would likely never have seen a candidacy develop had Ross Perot not run in 1992, seems to be ignored.

[leekohler]

let me give you an example... i wasn't much into politics before the 2000 election. it was my first election being able to vote (19) , and if anything, i was leaning republican just because i was sort of ill informed (my own fault, obviously) and had been raised more or less republican.... then my roommate was working for the school's nader group... and i started learning, reading, and i got inspired and became more active in political, specifically, progressive thinking. i'm no revolutionary, but i do believe that i wouldn't have marched in anti war marches, anti wto rallies, voted the way i've voted (you say a wasted vote anyways....), and in 2004 i worked on nader's campaign (so yes, i've talked to him and spent a good amount of time around him... he is neither stupid, nor egomaniacal in my opinion). i'd never have considered working on a campaign before nader. i'd never have considered contributing to edwards' campaign had i not been inspired into civil action by nader....

the point being, revolutions are made up of people who want change. before i knew of nader, i was more or less blissfully ignorant. but now, i at least consider voting democrat (no, i would not vote republican, at least not with any of these oafs)... and i don't think i'm the only such story.

The only way any political revolution is going to succeed is if you have a third party candidate who can pull equally from both conservatives and liberals. Nader isn't the person to do this.

[NAG]

I await your declaration in 2009 that Ron Paul was responsible for the Republicans losing.

[jelloshotsrule]

The only way any political revolution is going to succeed is if you have a third party candidate who can pull equally from both conservatives and liberals. Nader isn't the person to do this.

i agree and disagree... i believe we need someone who can convey their ideas passionately and in a way, show people the light... republicans who think we should privatize social security and ban gay marriage? i want someone to show them why that's bad... realizing a lot of people are not going to change their minds on some things, but some will, if the right kind of leadership is shown...

i would not vote for someone who falls in that sliver of space between the majority of democrats and republicans. that's not a revolution, that's what we've had for years now... status quo.

[atszyman]

What I find most disturbing is the inability of the Democratic party to move on. Like a bunch of petulant 5 year olds, they still fuss over Nader "costing" Gore the White House. That Gore would likely never have seen a candidacy develop had Ross Perot not run in 1992, seems to be ignored.

Both sides do this. I've seen Perot blamed for Bush I's loss before, and let's not forget the endless stream of "b...b...but Clinton did it first" every time the Bush administration (which campaigned on a promise of restoring honor and dignity to the White House) did something questionable.

Let's face it politics has the ability to turn otherwise intelligent and mature adults into bickering children....

Of course the same can be said for relationships, sports, videogames, etc.

[Macky-Mac]

Do the research. Where do you think Ralph is getting his campaign money? From the republicans! This year it is Freedom's Watch. Does that name mean anything to you? These are the same underhanded neo-cons who were behind the Swiftboat liars who ambushed Kerry. So, Nader stands against everything these prigs believe in, and yet they give him millions of dollars to draw-off of the liberal vote from the democratic ticket. And I do not have to be in a position to "...judge how people who supported him might have voted if he hadn't been on the ballot.", because their is considerable documentation, op-ed pieces, research papers, etc that deal with this in great depth for those interested (like me). :p



Don't bother with the "do the research" thing........YOU need to provide some links to support at least some of these claims when you make them.....especially the claims of all these conspiracies you're always promoting

edit: and for those support links, how about something a bit more substantial than a C&L repost of some commentator's rantings.....commentators are entertaining but face it, whether it's C&L or Fox News, they're mostly presenting their passions and opinions as opposed to facts

[Eric Piercey]

All I know is, it would be be nice to have a president who was both honest and competent. That isn't asking for the moon! That's pretty basic. I didn't like Kerry a whole lot as president.. but compared to GWB he was Thomas Jefferson. Gore would have rocked as president. This country just needs to get back on track- and "on track" means getting back to being America again- a place we can live without fear of being railroaded with no recourse - that there is due process. A place where the vote does count- that the government is there of the people for the people. "The people" does not mean the top 4% wealth bracket.

Off track means a place where everything is controlled by big money, including and especially the government and courts.

[SMM]

Don't bother with the "do the research" thing........YOU need to provide some links to support at least some of these claims when you make them.....especially the claims of all these conspiracies you're always promoting

edit: and for those support links, how about something a bit more substantial than a C&L repost of some commentator's rantings.....commentators are entertaining but face it, whether it's C&L or Fox News, they're mostly presenting their passions and opinions as opposed to facts

What I really want to do is not let this become personal. It is very easy for discussions to do that on this board. I have no intention of posting research links for you. If you want to maintain your position on thiis subject, it is not my place to tell you to think like me. As for C&L, they do have blogger comment attached to their stories, but it is the links to the source material that is important. It is also just one of ~20 sites that I read each day. It is easy to be informed if one wants to be.

[themadchemist]

Don't bother with the "do the research" thing........YOU need to provide some links to support at least some of these claims when you make them.....especially the claims of all these conspiracies you're always promoting

edit: and for those support links, how about something a bit more substantial than a C&L repost of some commentator's rantings.....commentators are entertaining but face it, whether it's C&L or Fox News, they're mostly presenting their passions and opinions as opposed to facts

As a matter of principle, I agree with you! If someone wants to claim that there is evidence backing up his/her position, then it would add to the debate to cite a source or provide a link or something. It would definitely elevate the quality of the debate on these forums. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not always the best about making sure that I provide such sources, but I try to do it when I can.

[Macky-Mac]

....... I have no intention of posting research links for you......

the guidlines for this forum say you should;

Since the topic of the "proper" means of discussing a topic seems to be coming up quite a bit, I figured it would be a good idea for the political community to come up with a set of guidelines for posters to attempt to adhere to. .....

II. Be willing to engage in fact-based debate

Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims.....

the bold is mine for emphasis, of course.....the guidelines are here guidelines (http://forums.macrumors.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=908334)

[Naimfan]

the guidlines for this forum say you should;



the bold is mine for emphasis, of course.....the guidelines are here guidelines (http://forums.macrumors.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=908334)

Actually, not any longer--at least not since July 13, 2004. Look here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=930655&postcount=1).

[Macky-Mac]

Actually, not any longer--at least not since July 13, 2004. Look here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=930655&postcount=1).

well, click on the link that's in the link you provided and you'll find where I found that.

in any event, if somebody wants to claim that something is fact supported by "... because their is considerable documentation, op-ed pieces, research papers, etc that deal with this in great depth for those interested (like me)", then they should be able to provide some evidence that all of this actually exists........it's really a put up or shut up sort of thing........but if people no longer are expected to make any attempt to back up their claims about facts, then while sad, c'est la vie.

[Naimfan]

Interesting. Here's what I get: (screenshot using "Grab.") I get the same thing in Safari and Firefox. I wonder what's going on? I do note the date on the one I linked to is July 13, 2004 and the one you linked to is dated June 29, 2004.


in any event, if somebody wants to claim that something is fact supported by "... because their is considerable documentation, op-ed pieces, research papers, etc that deal with this in great depth for those interested (like me)", then they should be able to provide some evidence that all of this actually exists to support their claim.....it's really a put up or shut sort of thing

Oh, I agree with you on that.

[P-Worm]

Nader is the one that most closely follows my own ideals. I believe in voting for someone based on who they are and what they are going to do while they are in office, not on whether I think the candidate will win or not. Too many people that agree with Nader won't vote for him because they consider their vote a waste. If that's true, why vote in the first place?

I support Nader and his cause and I'll speak my mind by voting for him unless there is someone else I agree with more.

P-Worm

[Macky-Mac]

Interesting. Here's what I get: (screenshot using "Grab.") I get the same thing in Safari and Firefox. I wonder what's going on? I do note the date on the one I linked to is July 13, 2004 and the one you linked to is dated June 29, 2004.



Oh, I agree with you on that.

alas, you posted while i was editing........deep in the many pages of discussion there was a post making the revision......I guess we're now free to say "I'm more informed than YOU and I say YOU"RE wrong" without having to back it up

[Naimfan]

alas, you posted while i was editing........deep in the many pages of discussion there was a post making the revision......I guess we're now free to say "I'm more informed than YOU and I say YOU"RE wrong" without having to back it up

Just sent you a PM rather than divert this thread. . .

[maestro55]

I was very happy when I saw this. I had been supporting Kucinich; however, he dropped out of the race and doesn't have plans to run as a third party. Nader seems to believe in a lot of the key issues that I believe in (universal health-care, fair trade, workers rights, civil liberties, the environment, better education). If Nader runs I will support him. I hope that he can get on the ballot in Texas, and if he runs I will help make that happen.