Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We're Saved! Nader is Running for President!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    We're Saved! Nader is Running for President!!

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=694&ncid=716

    #2
    Tear down the duopoly Ralph!!

    Throw the presidency to Georgey again!!

    Comment


      #3
      Wha......?

      Micheal Moore just creamed himself though.
      :qleft1: :new_cussi :qmickey: :evil7: :XXcat: :XXfish: :5crackup:

      Comment


        #4
        "Preparing mentally, the most important thing is, if you aren't doing it for the love of it, then don't do it." - Benny Urquidez

        Comment


          #5
          Why SHOULD the media care about Ralph Nader? It absolutely floors me that people in this country actually entertain the fantasy that a third-party extreme left-wing candidate is going to come swooping into office and change the world.
          Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the fuck I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog

          Comment


            #6
            Tell it to Jesus.
            "Preparing mentally, the most important thing is, if you aren't doing it for the love of it, then don't do it." - Benny Urquidez

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by The Wastrel
              Why SHOULD the media care about Ralph Nader? It absolutely floors me that people in this country actually entertain the fantasy that a third-party extreme left-wing candidate is going to come swooping into office and change the world.
              Contrarly, how much of the political party dualism is in fact perpetuated by the media?

              While Nader certainly has zero chance of being elected (and I would assume that all Green Party members realize that) I really don't think that is the point. Instead I think Nader's point is that both parties are stooges for special interests and this will prevent any substantial change from ever occuring. Whether that is right or wrong is a different issue, and largely a personal and ideological one.

              On a sidenote, comments from the democratic party that Nader cost Gore the election are both correct and irrelevant. Nader isn't a democrat, it wasn't his concern.

              Comment


                #8
                Nader would have probably picked a Dem. over a Rep.
                Katana, on 540 kicks: "Hang from a ceiling fan with both hands. Flail your feet out and ask people to walk into you as you hit their face."

                Comment


                  #9
                  His party line is contrary to that, though you are undoubtably correct.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Contrarly, how much of the political party dualism is in fact perpetuated by the media?
                    Probably about zero. Mass media in fact aids regionally-based third party candidates in getting wider exposure.

                    It's simple math. First-Past-The-Post electoral systems can't tolerate multi-party systems, with rare exceptions that only reinforce the rule. There is something called Duverger's Law. Here's a link to a brief explanation:

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_Law

                    There are some links to more complicated ones there. But the short of it is, if you elect a single candidate by simple plurality rule, voting for any lesser candidates is essentially a waste of a vote. Most voters understand this intuitively, except those who vote for the Green Party.

                    Pretty much the only way this can happen is if a third party actually REPLACES an existing one because of a sea change in issue dimensions; if a third party represents a regional nationalist movement, in which case you still see two-party competition within that region; or perhaps when prominent leaders leave to create new parties.

                    The reason other countries have multiparty systems is that they actually use different electoral rules that encourage them.

                    The basic problem with the Greens is that they don't seem to understand that you can't win office with a marginal proportion of the vote. If their candidates were the least bit serious they would be trying to capture the middle. When they lose, it isn't because of some vast conspiracy of the media, or the dominant parties. It's because you can't win elected office in this country with a constituency of college students, potheads, ex-hippies, and radicals.

                    And comparing Ralph Nader to Jesus is just asinine on so many levels.
                    Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the fuck I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Actually the interactions that I've had with ardent members of the Green Party indicates that they do indeed recognize they fact that they are never going to win a major office election. In many ways it is about protesting the percieved fact that they two parties in actuality do not have any concerns beyond getting elected and perpetuating pork legislation. The reality that the green party can act as a spoiler for the democrats would seem to me as a real way to effect change within the democratic party so that they are indeed distinguishable from the republicans. IMO that is a valid pursuit, and why I have voted for both green party candidates and libertarian candidates in past regional elections.

                      Independents can and infrequently do win regional elections, I would assume that is largely for the reasons you mention. However only a fool would think the green party has a chance at a presidential election (and I don't think Nader himself is a fool). They probably have less chance of getting a candidate elected than an atheist does.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        By the way, I wasn't explicit enough. The dualism I mentioned was in regards to there being substantial party differences. Sorry for the miscommunication though I learned something from it (i.e. Wow! you guys really do try and make it science :D)

                        Comment


                          #13
                          How can there be substantial party differences when they're both competing for the middle? There is a REASON why the parties look similar. There is a REASON why the Democratic party doesn't look like the Green Party, and why it's also more successful.

                          Centripetal competition is an inevitable consequence of the American electoral rule.
                          Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the fuck I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by The Wastrel


                            There are some links to more complicated ones there. But the short of it is, if you elect a single candidate by simple plurality rule, voting for any lesser candidates is essentially a waste of a vote.
                            I take exception to that. A presidential contest is not a horse race. The idea is not to "pick the winner." The idea is to vote for a candidate that will support your ideas and values.
                            Neither parties really do that now in my opinion. That is why I will probably vote libertarian.
                            And that's when I figured out that tears couldn't make somebody who was dead alive again. There's another thing to learn about tears, they can't make somebody who doesn't love you any more love you again. It's the same with prayers. I wonder how much of their lives people waste crying and praying to God. If you ask me, the devil makes more sense than God does. I can at least see why people would want him around. It's good to have somebody to blame for the bad stuff they do. Maybe God's there because people get scared of all the bad stuff they do. They figure that God and the Devil are always playing this game of tug-of-war game with them. And they never know which side they're gonna wind up on. I guess that tug-of-war idea explains how sometimes, even when people try to do something good, it still turns out bad.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by The Wastrel
                              How can there be substantial party differences when they're both competing for the middle? There is a REASON why the parties look similar. There is a REASON why the Democratic party doesn't look like the Green Party, and why it's also more successful.

                              Centripetal competition is an inevitable consequence of the American electoral rule.
                              I think (and I recall seeing support for this though I don't recollect where) that on the basis of issues the american populace is not as "centrist" as is often made out. When people actual sit down and think about what issues are most important to them they are in actuality more along the lines of either "liberal" or "conservative". Populist tendencies (probably misusing that but I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm saying) in this country makes everyone believe they are instead more "moderate" than they actually are, resulting in two parties that are quite similar and in actuality don't represent anyone. I'd be surprised if peoples views were normally distributed and that there wasn't a bimodal distribution.

                              As a caveat this is of course largely speculative musings and your area not mine.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X