Ralph Nader - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-21-2004, 08:38 AM   #1
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,460
Local Time: 11:28 AM
Ralph Nader

So it appears as if ole Ralph just might run for president again... we'll find out for sure Sunday on Meet The Press.

So what do those who tend to lean to the left around here... which would be most of you... think about Nader possiably joining the ranks?

As we all know, if Nader wasn't in the race last year, Gore more likely than not would have picked up either Florida or New Hampshire, if not both. So with another election that's predicted to be a tight one, do you want Nader in the race, knowing full well that it would make it tougher for Kerry to actually win the election?

Discuss...
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 02-21-2004, 09:47 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:28 AM
When I figure out who I am voting for I will tell ya!
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 09:51 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 05:28 PM
Is he a member of the Skull and Bones club ? It seems that it is a good thing to be a member of a secret club, to become a president of the USA.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 09:56 AM   #4
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:28 PM
I hope he won't run, but if he does, I think most Democrats/indies will have enough sense to not vote for him. Nader is a very smart man and I used to have a lot of respect for him, but he knows he can't win and that he'd only be taking votes from the Democratic candidate. The Democrats/indies/various Republicans who might be so inclined have to make getting Bush out of office their first priority.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 12:04 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:28 PM
I agree with you pax. This is not 2000. There is an intensity and fire in the Democratic campaign this year that was not there in 2000. 2000 was a "good feelings era" campaign; 2004 is not. I personally know some people who voted for Nader in 2000 who are voting Democratic this year. If Nader does run he's not going to get as many votes.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 12:08 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:28 AM
Ralph Nader is too good of a person to be president. Here is somebody who devoted his life to fighting on behalf of the little guy.

I have a lot of respect for him and I would vote for him, because I believe the USA needs a viable third alternative.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 12:57 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


I have a lot of respect for him and I would vote for him, because I believe the USA needs a viable third alternative.
Neither party will stand for this......
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 01:28 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:28 AM
That is why I feel sorry for you guys down south. We have 4 major parties up here in Canada. Western Europe is also categorized by choice. Hell, Eastern Europe has more choice than the Americans do when it comes to voting.

Is it true democracy to hunker down with two parties who are completely adverse to change? It's pretty sad.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 04:44 PM   #9
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:28 PM
Probably not, but a multi-party system is not going to crop up anytime soon, and certainly not if we get Bush back for another four years.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 06:04 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
That is why I feel sorry for you guys down south. We have 4 major parties up here in Canada. Western Europe is also categorized by choice. Hell, Eastern Europe has more choice than the Americans do when it comes to voting.

Is it true democracy to hunker down with two parties who are completely adverse to change? It's pretty sad.
No. This is why I *wish* we had a parliamentary form of government. It'd be more democratic. It's not going to happen--and pax is right, change is certainly not going to happen with another four years of Bush.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 06:40 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Ralph Nader is too good of a person to be president. Here is somebody who devoted his life to fighting on behalf of the little guy.

I have a lot of respect for him and I would vote for him, because I believe the USA needs a viable third alternative.

I agree. I really like Ralph Nader. Is he planning on running Green, cause they've already got their candidates for the primary. I would have voted for him in the last election had i been old enough. I would vote for him this time if polls were showing that Kerry had a sizeable lead in my state, which is likely cause i live in CA and Gore had a good lead last time. I don't blame Nader for Gore losing, Gore should have been a better candidate if he had wanted those votes. I think it was so close last time because there were so many people that really weren't fond of either candidate.
__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 06:44 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:28 AM
No, you don't want a parliamentary form of government, as it is, by design, one-party rule. The American federal form of government was designed to be obstructionist, as they were very cynical towards government, and, honestly, I don't blame them. I'm ashamed of most of the rejects we elect to be our "representatives" when our interests are on the bottom of their priority list.

But let's put it this way. If we had a parliamentary form of government right now, Bush and the GOP would have nothing stopping them from running over the nation with their agenda.

Nader is delusional. His idea of "making a statement" is derailing an election. Sorry to tell the Greens, but you're going nowhere and you will never get elected. Period. The Greens would be more effective if they swamped the Democratic Party and forced themselves into the agenda.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 07:16 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:28 AM
You're probably right, melon, that the Greens could try to inflitrate the Dems - after all, all revolutions start from within.

The Greens will never get elected in the US, because Americans are far too conservative. The Greens have done very well in places like Scandinavia, on the other hand.

As for the parliamentary system - I think you're slightly exaggerating there. The way I see it, the American system is no better, because if you can show to me that there is a distinct difference between the Dems and the Republicans, I'd love to hear it. America is a country for the corporations, run by the corporations, regardless of who is in office. This is the reality. The system is no better than a parliamentary system at this point in time, sorry to say.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 07:23 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:28 PM
Perhaps the parliamentary system isn't as great as I think it'd be. I would like it if we had politics more like Canada, to be perfectly honest. This isn't going to happen. I have to settle for trying to get Bush out of office.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-21-2004, 09:31 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:28 PM
For the record, I think Gore lost in 2000 mainly because he's a lousy politician. I think he's a bright guy but a crummy politician. Crummy politicians don't win presidential elections. I think blaming Nader for Gore's loss is a "blame-game" sort of thing that we Americans are maddeningly good at. It's so hard for us just to say "I screwed up" or "we screwed up". The press claimed this is what happened. But I'm sorry, I don't agree, and hell, I voted for Gore myself.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com