Nader Supporters: What Are You Thinking?

[sqweels]

Me:

Here’s a question: What do Nader voters have to say to people who may vote Republican, but may not?

No takers? I’m trying to raise an important point about political factions communicating with each other rather than bashing party leadership.

[Cronos1]

sqweels Me:Quote:
Here’s a question: What do Nader voters have to say to people who may vote Republican, but may not?
No takers? I’m trying to raise an important point about political factions communicating with each other rather than bashing party leadership.

I am not sure what you mean here. What do you mean when you say what Nader supporters WANT to say to Republicans, but WON’T?

What do Nader supporters what to say and won’t? Is their silence becuase:

1- They fear a physical reprisal?
2- They don’t think it’s worth their time?
3- They find Republican voters incorrigible?

[Blalron]

@Mr. Moto

I like things the way they are.

The only people disaffected by the American system are people who believe in political systems way out on the political fringe, or out of sync with American values and the Constitution.

I don’t think you have to be on the fringe to be against some aspects of our current system. Like partisan gerrymandering, which has become so sophisticated now that there is a 98% incumbent win rate in the House of Representatives.

Our system stifles change at every opportunity. For God’s sake, it took 100 years for blacks to really gain their freedom after the Civil War!

[Blalron]

I realize that Kerry will make few is any postive changes in our system of government like Nader would. But I also realize that George Bush continuing to be in office will so damage the country that I don’t have the luxory of trying to make new changes, all I can do at this point in time is cause the damage to stop.

If your house is on fire, your first thought should be putting out the fire. Remodeling the place is a luxory that should be reserved for when the crises is over.

[LivingInThePast]

Hey, I was looking at the OP, then I scanned all the posts, and I don’t find anyone who actually admits supporting Nader.

Seems like this thread got hijacked and there’s a lot of speculation about what a Nader supporter might say if you could find one.

Looks like SDMB doesn’t have any.

(I accept that I might have missed one as I skimmed the thread. If so, I apologize in advance.)

Anyway, the discussion is interesting, so carry on!

[erislover]

You can find some here.

[Mr.Moto]

@Blalron

I don’t think you have to be on the fringe to be against some aspects of our current system. Like partisan gerrymandering, which has become so sophisticated now that there is a 98% incumbent win rate in the House of Representatives.

Our system stifles change at every opportunity. For God’s sake, it took 100 years for blacks to really gain their freedom after the Civil War!

Please don’t interpret my statement to be blanket complacency. I have my beefs as well. Gerrymendering, as you’ve mentioned, is one of them.

I think, though, the two-party system is somewhat organic to American politics, and has, in general, served the country well.

[mbacko1]

I was a Nader voter in 2000. Let me give you some background.
I’ve been able to vote in 3 presidential elections and voted for the following people:
1992 Bush Sr.
1996 Clinton
2000 Nader

I voted for Bush Sr. in 1992 because I thought he was a strong leader and he did a good job with foreign affairs during his presidency.
I voted for Clinton in 1996 because though he was a dispicable person (he is a politician, so it goes without saying), I thought he was a masterful politician and did a good job at being a centrist leader.
I voted for Nader in 2000 because I thought that both Gore and Bush “W” did a poor job of stating their platforms and I thought that neither of them would be an effective leader. I admired Nader for actually stating what he thought, so I voted for him. Would I change my vote knowing that I might have helped Gore become president instead of Bush? No I wouldn’t. I don’t care for either of them. Gore might not have gone to war with Iraq, but he didn’t come across in 2000 as a charismatic or strong leader. IMO The President needs to be both of these things.
I am supporting Kerry in this election as a vote for the anti-Bush. I might vote for a donkey with a pole up his ass if I thought he could defeat Bush.

[Olentzero]

Here’s a question: Kerry’s victory in November will mean an end to the Bush administration. But will it mean an end to Bush’s policies? I mean, Kerry’s a supporter of the war in Iraq, he voted for the Patriot Act, opposes gay marriage at a time when civil unions clearly aren’t enough, and supports further tax cuts for businesses. How much is really going to change with Kerry at the wheel?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Olentzero

Here’s a question: Kerry’s victory in November will mean an end to the Bush administration. But will it mean an end to Bush’s policies? I mean, Kerry’s a supporter of the war in Iraq, he voted for the Patriot Act, opposes gay marriage at a time when civil unions clearly aren’t enough, and supports further tax cuts for businesses. How much is really going to change with Kerry at the wheel?

Talk about disingenuousness. Point by point:

1. Where the hell do you get Kerry’s *supporting * the Iraq war from? He wants to pull out as fast as possible while not letting the country slip into chaos. How much less support could a responsible person give the war?

2. He also voted for the Patriot Act’s sunset provision (which Bush/Ashcroft would like to repeal), and, as in the case of his “pro-war” vote, made it under the assumption that Bush was going to be reasonably responsible about using it.

3. He does not “oppose” gay marriage, although Bush has proposed an amendment to do just that. He supports confirming every legal right for gays but not the M-word, and he isn’t against that either.

4. Give the full story. He wants to rebalance the budget.

Tell us, are you refusing to vote for the real Kerry, or the Kerry your ideologuism needs there to be? Did you also buy Nader’s assertion that Bush and Gore were going to do pretty much the same thing? How’s that working out?

[Olentzero]

@ElvisL1ves

1. Where the hell do you get Kerry’s *supporting * the Iraq war from? He wants to pull out as fast as possible while not letting the country slip into chaos. How much less support could a responsible person give the war?

How about a word or two from the man himself, via an editorial published in the Washington Post?

But to maximize our chances for success, and to minimize the risk of failure, we must make full use of the assets we have. If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them.

Does “pulling out as fast as possible” somehow involve increasing troop presence first? Or this:

We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq. We need more troops and more people who can train Iraqi troops and assist Iraqi police.

So as long as it’s not US tropps occupying Iraq, that’s OK? The Iraqi resistance will somehow dissipate, and the atrocities cease, because the troops aren’t American? Or this:

The primary responsibility for security [in Iraq] must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility.

In other words, “We’ll stay there as long as we deem it necessary.” Seeing as how the occupation has already fomented stiff resistance, how will staying there longer improve anything?

2. He also voted for the Patriot Act’s sunset provision (which Bush/Ashcroft would like to repeal), and, as in the case of his “pro-war” vote, made it under the assumption that Bush was going to be reasonably responsible about using it.

Ah. “I told him it was okay to infringe on American citizens’ rights because I thought he would stop it later”. How about showing some spine and saying “I don’t support this at all, even if he says he’ll stop it later”? We’re supposed to support this man even though he showed us he got duped?

3. He does not “oppose” gay marriage, although Bush has proposed an amendment to do just that. He supports confirming every legal right for gays but not the M-word, and he isn’t against that either.

The Boston Globe begs to differ.

Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday (25 Feb) that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples.

The rights granted under civil unions would only apply if gay stayed in Massachusetts. How is that equality? And if he supports giving gays and lesbians equal partnership rights, why the hell does he feel he has to throw a sop to the bigots and support even a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

4. Give the full story. He wants to rebalance the budget.

By reducing federal income? How does that work?

Did you also buy Nader’s assertion that Bush and Gore were going to do pretty much the same thing? How’s that working out?

Don’t know - if Gore had taken the Oval Office we might have been able to find out.

[DKW]

(Will go through entire thread when I find the time.)

First off, I never thought Ross Perot was anything more than a deluded old guy playing out an ego trip, so I’m not too torn up about him quietly fading away.

Yeah, I voted for Nader in 2000. Hawaii’s overwhelmingly Democratic anyway, but it wouldn’t have made a difference. I was disgusted at how Al Gore agreed with his opponent on virtually every meaningful issue, I was leery at how easily he could scapegoat popular entertainment for society’s ills, and, well, he never convinced me that he wasn’t just another big-money politician. And any analysis of Bush’s “victory” must begin with the stopping of hand recounts, the inexplicable tossing of countless votes, and of course that butterfly ballot thing.

But it’s different now, right? Now that Bush has gone on a neocon rampage and wrecked the economy and gotten 800 of our finest killed for some ridiculous cause and wrecked our foreign policy, I have no choice to vote for Kerry, right?

Well…I don’t know. I haven’t decided yet.

See, what we need to remember that it wasn’t just Bush. It was a Congress who never questioned even ONE of his nominees. It was a sycophantic media, that, despite already looking like pathetic tools after Desert Storm, STILL could not even ask questions about going into Iraq (much less the unbelievable softpedaling of, oh, not being able to speak five sentences without messing up. Bush has spent a greater percentage of his presidency vacationing than any other president in history. He’s a front man. A mouthpiece. Remove him, and the neocon machine has no trouble at all replacing him.

Also, there’s the little matter of Kerry, ahem, not espousing any ideas that I agree with. He supported the latest Iraq adventure, remember? And what’s his plan for salvaging social security, cleaning up the environment, getting jobs for people without them (pretty important to me right now)? Maybe he’ll have something by the convention, but right now I don’t see anything.

I’m thinking that a wholesale obsession with “winning” is a terrible precept for a national political system. I’m thinking that too many Americans don’t take the time to analyze complex issues and end up grabbing at convenient black-and-white explanations (cf. the McDonalds scalding coffee case, which was resoundingly debunked as a “frivolous lawsuit”). I’m thinking that the Democrats gave the nod to the wrong guy, which is an all-too-common habit for them. What I’m not thinking is that John Kerry should be just handed the Presidencey simply for not being George W. Bush.

[Olentzero]

What DKW said.