In the SST forum, users are free to discuss philosophy, music, art, religion, sock colour, whatever. It's a haven from the madness of Bulldrek; alternately intellectual and mundane, this is where the controversy takes place.
Ok, well, actually, it's not so much of a rant, just something that struck me while I was reading this BBC article on Nader.
Nearly three million Americans - more than 2% of the vote - backed this anti-establishment consumer champion when he stood as the Green Party candidate in the last presidential election.
Considering the closeness of that election, a small proportion of those votes - particularly in the key state of Florida - would have put Al Gore in the White House.
As a result, many on the left of American politics have never forgiven him and there has been an angry backlash. Thousands of people have cancelled donations to consumer groups Mr Nader founded or supported.
With this election forecast to be every bit as close as the last, friends and leading Democrats had pleaded with him to stay out of the race.
This, they argued, would give whoever emerged as the main challenger to Mr Bush the best chance of beating the incumbent.
It's really weird/anoying/somethingelse to me that the democrats think that Nader likes them any more than he likes Bush. That's the impression I get here. 'You know you're not going to win, so you might as well help us win'. That's dumb. Sure, he's got no chance of winning, but I don't see where the democrats get off thinking that he should give up because of that and help them out. Does this sound retarded to anyone else? (Note, I'm not saying that I don't see why the Dems. would want to do it, but still....)
Last edited by Liniah on Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<center><font face="monospace" color=#0099FF font size="-1">one more blue sunny day</font></center>
Am I wrong in assuming the Green Party's agenda is much closer to the Democratic than it is to the Republican?
One time I built a matter transporter, but things got screwed up (long story, lol) and I ended up turning into a kind of half-human, half-housefly monstrosity.
It's fairly certain that he will take votes away from the Dems, yes, which is why it's understandable that they want him not to run. But, iduno, I hope they really don't expect him to go 'oh, ok, well my opinion is closer to yours than the Reps, so sure, I'll not run'. That's the part that I think it kinda silly.
Plus, Nader isn't with the Green Party this time around.
<center><font face="monospace" color=#0099FF font size="-1">one more blue sunny day</font></center>
Basically, the Religious Reich in the USA has been voting Republican. If they broke off into their own fringe party, it's be easier to deal with them. Unfortunately, the liberal equivalent has broken off, which means they lose that end of the specturm (and the votes it brings).
In American politics, the third party has traditionally been the "spolier", where the most commonly shared viewpoint is ignored.
Eva wrote:Am I wrong in assuming the Green Party's agenda is much closer to the Democratic than it is to the Republican?
Basically yes. Someone mentioned he may not be running Green Party this year, which I could see happening. He's getting a lot of back lash from Democrats who blame him for their guys loss in 2000.
Personally he's pretty old, and looks like hell warmed over once or twice. I'd rather vote for someone who doesn't look like thye'll just make into office and then croak. Oh that an agenda thats realistic and possible. Nader couldn't get anything done in Congress-there'd be way too much partisan politics from both sides.
I forget, what does Reich mean in English again? Reign?
And I've gotta wonder, I mean, I've really got to wonder. If the Democrats are that bent on winning, then they would roll over Nader like a hundred straight yards of roadkill lined up head to tail. Why do they have to ask him to leave to win? Do you see them asking the Republicans to bow out of the race so they could win their very first meaningful victory?
I mean, it's pussy shit like this that makes me embarassed to be a liberal: this is a fucking Presidential election not a game of Candyland, you either play to win or you don't play at all. Godamned punk Democrats, you're not supposed to ask people to bow out of the race so you could win, you fucking elbow them in the jaw if they get close and scream "Man, get the fuck out of my way!"
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing left to pursue." - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
Well an example on the Republican side of the hosue of this, was Perot. When Ross Perot ran, a lot of people said he cost George Bush Sr. the election in 1992. Of course he sort took himself out of the political arean, but his tax party, or whatever it is, is still a pretty powerful force ina number of states.
Well an example on the Republican side of the hosue of this, was Perot. When Ross Perot ran, a lot of people said he cost George Bush Sr. the election in 1992. Of course he sort took himself out of the political arean, but his tax party, or whatever it is, is still a pretty powerful force ina number of states.
He got 19 fricking percent of the vote. I'll say he had an impact on the election. His party, by the way, was the Independent party, and which I believe is the party Nader's running with this year.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
I thought it was the Reform Party, same as Jesse Ventura.
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
True, Marius, but IIRC, Perot got no electoral votes, which is really all that matters.
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing left to pursue." - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
I've written about this before, I think. Gore cost Gore the election. The Dems are just too stupid and stubborn to admit it.
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing left to pursue." - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
Jesus, Flame. You need to take it easy on the drugs.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
Actually, Salv, where did you get the Idea I was talking about Southern Baptists? I was talking more about the nutcases from Hayden Lake, Idaho. They're what I think of when I picture a hard-core right winger.
Gore lost because he didn't push the issue, Flame. If he did, he might not have lost, but he just rolled over and showed Bush his tummy, and that's why GWB is the alpha male today.
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing left to pursue." - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
ak404 wrote:Gore lost because he didn't push the issue, Flame. If he did, he might not have lost, but he just rolled over and showed Bush his tummy, and that's why GWB is the alpha male today.
Well, and if Gore had campaigned against Bush instead of campaigning so heavily against Nader, fewer traditionally Dem voters would have actually paid any attention to Nader.
_<font color=red size=2>Just wait until I finish knitting this row.</font>
Not sure what Gore should have done to win, but if he were an honorable man he would have asked to redo the whole Florida election. It was a shambles from beginning to end, and both Bush and Gore were too busy pursuing personal victory to give a thought toward honoring the democratic process. Neither Bush nor Gore is worthy of the White House, and while Gore may have lost the election, the big loser was transparent and reliable democracy.
I've never heard that one before. Now I have a new phrase to taunt my fundamentalist friends with. Cheers.
He gets quite perturbed with FOX News when Bill O'Reilly states otherwise.
*ducks*
