Nader forms exploratory committee

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jelloshotsrule, Jan 30, 2008.

  1. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #1
    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/
     
  2. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #3
    Not again . . .

    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.
     
  4. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #4
    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
     
  5. jelloshotsrule thread starter macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #5
    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...

    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.
     
  6. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #7
    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...
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    We're in complete agreement on that. When will this man get over himself and knock it off? He does no one any favors.
     
  9. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #9
    No kidding. Blaming Bush on Nader is about as true as blaming Iraq for 9/11.
     
  10. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #10
    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.
     
  11. jelloshotsrule thread starter macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #11
    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.
     
  12. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #12
    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.
     
  13. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #13
    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.
     
  14. jelloshotsrule thread starter macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #14
    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.
     
  15. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #15
    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.
     
  16. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #16
    Really, it's Bush who's responsible and bears the blame "....for all that has happened since".
     
  17. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #17
    Just look at the Florida popular vote results from 2000.
     
  18. Eric Piercey macrumors 6502

    Eric Piercey

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Location:
    Perpetual Bondage
    #18
    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.
     
  19. jelloshotsrule thread starter macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #19
    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....
     
  20. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #20
    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.
     
  21. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #21
    Nope. And you know better. ;)
     
  22. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #22
    Hah, you should know better than to think I know better!
     
  23. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #23
    :)

    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.
     
  24. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #24
    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

    <BREATH>

    ...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    OK. I'm done.
     
  25. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page