View Full Version : My ego desires... nay, DEMANDS I ruin it again! (Nader)
EZ_Ten Evenings
02-23-04, 08:40 AM
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/23/elec04.prez.main/index.html
Now, I agree with a lot of Nader's politics. Didnt vote for the man, as in my state it was a vote for Bush, but still, I like his point of view.
But this is rediculous. Why, in the name JesusAllahBuddha, would he do it again?
maybe he believes he is better than both "other" parties...
Do you not support the election system that allows anyone to run?
EZ_Ten Evenings
02-23-04, 08:53 AM
Being cute doesnt become you, Aidden. Id like it better if you just came out and laughed.
Giggle behind your hand all you want, but from where Im sitting, the point of the next election is to get Bush out of office. The only (realistic) way thats going to happen is the Democratic nominee wins, and Nader is going to nibble liberal votes away.
I suppose you have the same view of him as I did for Perot, who did such an admirable job of getting Clinton in two terms.
(Well, except that I didn't agree with perot's politics, and I thought he was an absolute crackpot.)
But the effects will be the same.
shehab aldean
02-23-04, 09:30 AM
why no one mention that he ruined it for the republicans in 1996 ?
he got 4 X what he got in 1996 , the guy work more and he got it , Dem didn't work harder , he would win , as nader said " gore beat gore "
www.uselectionatlas.org/U...?year=1996
he is not a Dem running vs kerry , he is ANOTHER
party all together and he has his followers ( for lack of other word )
is the Dem party working on getting the people that normally vote for nader to vote for them ? first time i hear anyone comment on any issue nader talk about was when he said he is going to run
of course if kerry win the dem race and he is going to try to ignore the southern state ( as a lot of analyst say ) he is going to lose , and lose hard
Gnmish Gearbinder
02-23-04, 09:36 AM
Ten, your argument doesn't really hold water. If the people vote for Nader as opposed to the Democratic ticket then obviously they were choosing to vote for either; A: The lesser of two evils or B: Voting for who they really wanted to vote for.
Just because the votes didn't go where you want them to is irrelevant. What you're describing is the voter just putting his vote on the Democratic ticket because they don't want to vote for anything else. This, while it's in poor taste does sound like a terribly democratic ideal. On the other hand, them voting for Nader is similar to what you're already describing but it's 'wrong' because it's not the candidate you want to see win.
What an amusing dynamic. gnmish.gearbinder.ring.warden.sullon.zek
'Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest... Honestly.'
Caowyth
02-23-04, 09:42 AM
I think Nader is going to be an attack dog more than anything.
He'll be able to run extremely negative anti-Bush ads, etc, without actually risking anything or alienating voters.
EZ_Ten Evenings
02-23-04, 09:45 AM
Hey Gnmish, check it out:
Im a Democrat (Whiz, bang, gee-wow). I think its 'wrong' for Nader to run because it will in fact lessen the chances of the Democratic candidate winning the general election.
Dont get all 'he can run if he wants' with me, folks. Im a donkey, and I want a damn donkey in the White House. Ill bitch as I please, and if bitching as I please involves calling Nader a willful wrench in the works of left-atizing the government, I shall.
Quote:He'll be able to run extremely negative anti-Bush ads, etc, without actually risking anything or alienating voters.
Have you heard what's coming out of the Democrats' mouths so far? You mean that wasn't extremely negative anti-Bush rhetoric?
Gnmish Gearbinder
02-23-04, 10:05 AM
Quote:Dont get all 'he can run if he wants' with me, folks. Im a donkey, and I want a damn donkey in the White House. Ill bitch as I please, and if bitching as I please involves calling Nader a willful wrench in the works of left-atizing the government, I shall.
Then if this is just an impassioned rant with no bearing or basis in the reality of voting...then perhaps it belongs in The Rant Hall...eh?
I don't mind anyone running for president (except that Dean guy of course). I could never vote for Nader because he is directly responsible for making that one electrical plug blade wider. @#%$ him and his obscure safety rules. He got convertibles banned for a long time too.
Edit: And there has always been a spoiler... Perot, Larouche, Buchanan... If people want a protest vote they should be entitled. Some day the protest vote may win the White House. Edited by: Nocte at: 2/23/04 9:12 am
If it won the white house, it wouldn't be a protest vote, now would it?
Anyway, some of you may be interested in the following links about Duverger's law and the Spoiler Effect.
Krimzan
02-23-04, 10:44 AM
I'd rather have Nader in the White House than Kerry or Bush.
(Note: This is not a debate about who's side is right, this is about 3rd parties) Here's the problem, it's like a catch 22. Right now, 3rd parties are not good for much of anything at the national level (not state/local level). The problem is, people continue to say that voting for a 3rd party canidate is "throwing their vote away." That's @#%$. That's the point of your vote, your opinion. In my opinion, (out of the 3 choices) I want Nader. Here's the problem, though, I REALLY don't want Bush, and that's what a lot of people are thinking. Until 3rd party canidates get votes, they won't be viable. So we're stuck in a loop. Come election day I don't know who I'll vote for. Hell I don't know if Nader will even make it on the ballot, but you vote for who you think should win. Saying it's "throwing your vote away" is stupid, and if that was the case, than why did anyone bother voting for anyone but Bush in Texas during the last election.
The only way that a third party will ever be viable is for it to become popular enough to supplace one of the two major parties. Of course, during that time, the vote would be split horribly, giving power to the remaining major party that is not divided.
The catch with our style of first past the post elections is that instead of hundreds of small parties, you end up with two major parties, both relatively balanced on either side of the population's opinion.
What would make up other parties in some countries end up being factions within one of the two parties here.Look at the Dems, and you have Labor unions, Gay Rights groups, Various Minority Interests, Environmentalists, anti-war demonstrators, Trial Lawyers, etc. etc. Look at the Repubs, and you have Gun Rights groups, Small Business owners, Small government/low tax types, Hawks and law and order types. Etc.
Each party has to move their position a bit here and there to attract a slightly larger chunk of the vote. You still ahve a coalition government here, its just that the coalitions are inside the parties, rather than outside.
EZ_Peebs
02-23-04, 01:41 PM
Personally, I think you should vote for who you want to have the job. Seems obvious.
Your candidate may not win this time, but the support you show may change things down the road. It certainly won't if you (and presumably many other people like you) vote for someone who doesn't match what you're looking for.
I agree Peebs. I have a horrible win/loss record with my voting history for just that reason.
I only voted for one President and that was the first and only time I voted strategically (i.e. to keep the opponent out). George Senior is the only president you can blame me for ... but hell Dukakis would have been so much worse.
Other than that one instance, I've voted for the people I wanted to see in office- and have lost. Primaries are particularly frustrating for me as so many worthy people (of both parties) get buried by high financed campaigns.
My Crib « · » ErollisiMarr « · » E-mail
Mynd yov moose bites kan be pretti nasti!
Note to Democrats: Quit whining. The Republicans didn't blame Perot for losing, at least not for four years. Sort of strange that Perot is so quiet though--when he was so concerned about the deficit the two times he ran.
3rd parties are good for national politics. There, i said it. In 1912, Eugene Debs got 1 million votes. Eugene Debs was a socialist. of course he lost, but what happened over the next several years? Several ideas that Debs campaigned on were introduced. Not all of them of course, but enough to sway the tide. 1890 to 1896, the Populist party fought for poor farmers in the west. They never got a canidate in the white house, choosing to back the dem canidate in the 1896 election (and lost) but thanks to them the people vote for Senators, and not the state legislature, and several other things like the ICC and other laws.
So you don't like Bush, alright, neither do I, I hope he loses to be honest. If enough people vote for Nader, maybe Bush or the next president will take notice and enact several of the ideas that he is campaigning on. If.
I should hope that over the past century polling has progressed to the point where we no longer need to waste an entire presidential election just to find out what the people want.
EZ_Iscin
02-23-04, 08:17 PM
The two party system is not the problem. The problem is that elections are bought with corporate donations and spin control from the corporate controlled news media.
Nader, who is twice the American of Kerry and Bush Jr. combined decides to run and the only thing the news media really seems to think is important about it, is that he might steal some of Kerry's thunder. Absurd.
His chance to win is only zero because it has been predetermined by the news media and because he represents what many corporations fear.
If electoral procedure precluded ads, banners, media coverage or anything else money could buy, and just went based on debates and speeches where time was given freely and equally to all running, we'd get a better presidents every 4 years.
EZ_Jakmagister
03-07-04, 06:15 PM
Good thread. Many of the main points have been made.
If I were in charge of writing the Constitution of some country, I would have a bicameral legislature, with one chamber elected in a single-ballot plurality voting system like the one we have in the US, and the other chamber elected by some form of proportional representation. That way, there would tend to be only two parties capable of winning seats in the former, but lots of minor parties holding seats in the latter. There would be a major difference between the two, which is what the idea of checks and balances calls for.
Quote:Nader, who is twice the American of Kerry and Bush Jr. combined decides to run and the only thing the news media really seems to think is important about it, is that he might steal some of Kerry's thunder. Absurd.
Did I miss a "How American are you" web test? Did someone post the results of all the candidates?
Oh and Ten Evenings, I am truly sorry that you think I was being cute..
I wholeheartedly believe that any person should be able to run for president, regardless of what party they are in.
Edited by: Aidden at: 3/7/04 5:25 pm
EZ_MorrellVZ
03-07-04, 07:40 PM
I think what Iscin meant was that Kerry and Bush are only concerned for their corporate owners while Nader is actually concerned about the American people.
Darkefang
03-08-04, 07:13 AM
Nader thinks he is going to take votes from the far left AND the far right. He feels that the far right is upset with Bush and that they have a lot in common with him. However, I'm not so sure that many right-wingers will be comfortable voting for him, since they have so many obvious conflicts.
Kerry has some notable disadvantages, primarily being from the northeast. If the Democrats are going to win, they have to come up with a candidate from the South, California, or possibly the midwest (Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, maybe Indiana). As it stands, I just don't see Kerry even coming close this election. He'll do better than Mondale, but not a lot better.
Nader won't make Kerry lose, unless Kerry can manage to swing to the middle pretty successfully. If he can feed into many people's dissatisfaction with the PATRIOT Act, the budget deficit, and the perceived slow-going in Afghanistan and Iraq, without appearing condescending, then Nader might come into play. I don't see Kerry being able to overcome his problems, however, and Bush will be able to blunder his way into a second term.
EZ_joekreeper1
03-08-04, 07:36 AM
Quote: I just don't see Kerry even coming close this election. I think he'll do well there are still alot of yellow dog democrats and " anyone but Bush " people
"I'm going to torment you until you're translucent!!!"
EZ_Jakmagister
03-09-04, 11:28 AM
I think Bush will win. I think the popular vote will be fairly close, and the electoral vote will be solid but not a landslide.
EZ_Aldarion Shard
03-09-04, 11:45 AM
All I can say is I hope it comes down to a Bush victory in FL by 533 votes, again.
Just so I can hear all the pissin and moanin again
Krimzan
03-09-04, 11:47 AM
Get back under your bridge!
I'll help push him under there...
Dragynphyre
03-09-04, 02:12 PM
All presidential candidates should be given the same amount of funds from a centralized campaign donation fund, with the stipulation that they are not allowed to accept any donations, soft dollar or otherwise, from anywhere but from that central fund.
This way, all candidates, no matter what party they are from, will get equal funds with which to buy media advertising time and space, and campaigning tours. No favoritism from the media or corporate concerns.
*nods sagely* (Back In Black)
Delissandra Splitshadow - Marauder of Clan X
Grandmaster Poisoner (250), Master Potter (195), Grandmaster Lush (200)
where do the funds come from to fill the central fund?
what if this year there are 40 candidates, and next election there are only 3?
how do you distribute the money?
EZ_Aldarion Shard
03-09-04, 04:34 PM
Quote:Get back under your bridge!
-------------------------
I'll help push him under there...
I miss the days of insults I could figure out. Im a troll because I disagree with Krimzan... got it. Meddiks comments.. I dont get. But whatever.
Ald: Its because neither of us want to go through another florida debacle again.
Drag, going to ahve to strongly disagree with you there. As Citizens, we are allowed to support whoever we like, and show our support for them. The supreme court has ruled multiple times that the ability to donate money to a political campaign for advertising, etc. is a neccesary component of free speech.
And even if you banned it from campaigns? What happens then? It goes through other sources, such as moveon.org, or soem other means. You can't stop people from supporting their candidate of choice.
Darkefang
03-10-04, 07:38 AM
This is also not to mention the fact that we'd have about 10,000 candidates running for President every election if we gave everyone the same amount of money. Then, if they set up strict standards for a candidacy, there would always be a few fringe candidates stirring up major problems when they didn't get their federal campaign money. It would be nice if campaigns started off equal, but it is always too easy to bend the rules and cause problems.
A big problem I do have with the current system is that public companies can donate a lot of money to campaigns with little oversight by shareholders. I often question how much they expect that donation to help the company, and how much they expect the donation to help the CEO and board of directors.
Companies? Or individuals within companies?
AFAIK, It is illegal for a corporation to directly donate money. Now, the individuals in a corporation can give monet, and at sites like opensecrets.org, it tracks this. (i.e., look at Kodak, and you see who employees of kodak donated to personally , but Kodak itself didn't donate anything.)
Unions, on the other hand can donate directly to a candidate, something that I think is just as likely to cause problems as a corporation donating directly.
EZ_Jakmagister
03-15-04, 11:57 AM
Iirc, for-profit corporations and unions are on an equal footing now that McCain-Feingold is in effect.
If the popular vote were instituted in Presidential elections and districts were elected based popular vote in a state rather than gerrymandered districts, do you think we'd see more people turn out to vote? I think we would.
Yes, but if Congresssional representation and Presidential vote were handled that way, the constitution would have never been approved by all the states, so Its sort of a moot point.
Besides, I'm not entirely sure that increased voter turnout is a good thing, in and of itself. An increased percentage of informed voters seems to be a much better goal.
Personally, I'd say that increasing the number of voters who are currently too apathetic or ignorant of the issues to bother voting would be a bad thing.
Darkefang
03-15-04, 12:56 PM
Quote:Companies? Or individuals within companies?
AFAIK, It is illegal for a corporation to directly donate money. Now, the individuals in a corporation can give monet, and at sites like opensecrets.org, it tracks this. (i.e., look at Kodak, and you see who employees of kodak donated to personally , but Kodak itself didn't donate anything.)
Unions, on the other hand can donate directly to a candidate, something that I think is just as likely to cause problems as a corporation donating directly.
Corporations have been able to donate money directly to political action committees. McCain-Feingold may have effected how those donations are made in some manner, but they will still find a way to make donations.
I also include labor unions under the corporation banner, since making money and retaining influence seem to be their main concerns now. And labor unions also have little oversight on how those donations are made. They often do not necessarily represent the best interests of the members it represents.
Quote:Personally, I'd say that increasing the number of voters who are currently too apathetic or ignorant of the issues to bother voting would be a bad thing.
Sadly, the ones that could help increase the number of informed voters are also those who have benefitted from the current system: elected officials and the mass media. Its not rational to expect them to want to change the current system.
Does no one else find it hillarious that there are people actually pissed off that someone would chose to use the democratic process for it's purpose so they can run for office? I mean being pissed at someone for running because it will take votes away from your canditate. Surely I can't be the only person who thinks it's incredibly silly and more than a little hillarious?
EZ_Diabalein Avidyia
03-15-04, 01:34 PM
get rid of all the retarded political nonsense involved in the voting process and go to a straight majority wins system and america for a change might see some new blood at all levels of office, as it is now the sad truth is a 3rd candidate does make a difference in who you vote for. personally I would love to see Nader in the oval office even if only to see a nondemo/republican president. but the reality is bush sucks donkeys balls as a presisdent and needs to get his ass voted out of office. and Nader running brings in all sorts of new aspects to the election that might make that not happen.
EZ_Vindicor
03-15-04, 03:46 PM
Drag, going to ahve to strongly disagree with you there. As Citizens, we are allowed to support whoever we like, and show our support for them. The supreme court has ruled multiple times that the ability to donate money to a political campaign for advertising, etc. is a neccesary component of free speech.
And even if you banned it from campaigns? What happens then? It goes through other sources, such as moveon.org, or soem other means. You can't stop people from supporting their candidate of choice.
No, but that doesn't stop them from trying...
Quote:RNC tells TV stations not to run anti-Bush ads
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Republican National Committee is warning television stations across the country not to run ads from the MoveOn.org Voter Fund that criticize President Bush, charging that the left-leaning political group is paying for them with money raised in violation of the new campaign-finance law.
"As a broadcaster licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, you have a responsibility to the viewing public, and to your licensing agency, to refrain from complicity in any illegal activity," said the RNC's chief counsel, Jill Holtzman Vogel, in a letter sent to about 250 stations Friday.
"Now that you have been apprised of the law, to prevent further violations of federal law, we urge you to remove these advertisements from your station's broadcast rotation."
But MoveOn.org's lawyer, Joseph Sandler, said in a statement that the ads were funded legally, calling the RNC's letter "a complete misrepresentation of the law."
"The federal campaign laws have permitted precisely this use of money for advertising for the past 25 years," he said.
And MoveOn.org, which was planning to spend $1.9 million on an ad buy that started Thursday, said Friday that it would spend another $1 million.
'Soft money' targeted
The RNC charges that because the ads are designed to help defeat President Bush, the group cannot pay for them with unlimited "soft money" contributions but only with contributions raised in amounts less than $5,000.
Although MoveOn.org is a so-called "Section 527" organization that is legally allowed to raise soft money in unlimited amounts from donors, the new campaign-finance law prohibits the group from using those funds to pay for ads that directly attack Bush, Vogel said.
And in a bit of political one-upmanship, the letter quotes the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry, as saying that the objective of the new law "is to eliminate altogether the capacity of soft money to play the role that it does in our politics."
But MoveOn.org says it has raised $10 million for advertising from 160,000 donors, in amounts averaging $50-$60. It is running two ads in 67 TV markets in what its Web site describes as 17 "battleground" states.
"It's not surprising that [RNC Chairman] Ed Gillespie continues to make false claims about the legality of our campaign in order to silence us," Wes Boyd, president of the voter fund, said in a statement. "Our lawyers continue to assure us that our advertising, and the small contributions from tens of thousands of our members that pay for it, conform in every way to existing campaign-finance laws."
The group maintains that a recent ruling from the Federal Election Commission supports the method it is using to fund the ads. But in her letter to the stations, Vogel said that FEC ruling makes it clear that any ad that "promotes, supports, attacks or opposes" a federal candidate comes under the contribution limits, which she charges MoveOn is violating.
One of the ads, called "Worker," ends with the tag line, "George Bush. He's not on our side." The other, called "Child's Play," shows small children working at various jobs and ends with the tag line, "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?"
RNC: Problem with funding, not content
Vogel insisted that the RNC's problem with the ads stemmed from their funding, not their content.
"I write not because of the misleading allegations contained in the advertisement, which will be answered in due time, but because running this advertisement breaks the law," Vogel's letter said.
MoveOn.org has been running ads for several months on cable channels, which don't fall under FCC regulations. However, CBS refused to broadcast the group's ads during the Super Bowl, saying the network did not run issue advertising.
MoveOn.org and other groups trying to defeat Bush have been raising money to help the Democratic nominee compete with the president's vast war chest in the period between the end of the Democratic primaries and the political conventions. The Bush-Cheney campaign, which launched its first ad salvo this week, has more than $100 million to spend.
The RNC has complained that though it is no longer allowed to use soft money for campaigning, MoveOn.org is accepting large soft money contributions from a cadre of wealthy donors, including billionaire financier George Soros and film producer Steven Bing, in its quest to defeat the president.
Soros has said ousting Bush this year is now the "central focus of my life."
Well, lets see... The Dems push through Campaign Finance Restrictions, and then immediately try to Subvert them through loopholes like 527 organizations?
I think its appropriate to call foul on that. And I'd do the same if it were Republicans doing the same.
Of course, republicans are far less dependent on single large donors like Soros. They get a much larger portion of their contributions from a large number of small donors, whereas the Dems have historically depended on smaller numbers of big donors.
In the 2002 election cycle, Donors of > 1 million gave a total of 36 million to the dems, compared to 3 million for the republicans. Its no surprise that the fat cat democrat contributors want to find loopholes.
Look at this chart from opensecrets.org. In this campaign cycle (2003-2004), Republicans have taken 53.2 Million from Donors between 200-1000, and Democrats have only taken in 36.9 million from that same group. (Contributions under 200 are less easily tracked, because IRS tracking begins at the $200 threshold.) For those who donate over 95,000, Its overwhelmingly Democrat, with 1.1 Million to 0.1 Million D/R.
Unfortunately, Data is not available for those contributions under 200$, But Based on all the other trends, I'd bet money it is even more overwhelmingly Republican than the 200-1000 range donors. Trojan Horseshoes
Need Help coming up with arguments against mine?
EZ_Emmrys
03-15-04, 07:29 PM
always an answer...
EZ_Vindicor
03-15-04, 10:26 PM
Meddik, one page ago you were heralding MoveOn.org as working as it (and all) political sway groups are supposed to.
What happened to "The supreme court has ruled multiple times that the ability to donate money to a political campaign for advertising, etc. is a neccesary component of free speech. And even if you banned it from campaigns? What happens then? It goes through other sources, such as moveon.org, or soem other means. You can't stop people from supporting their candidate of choice."?
I'm pointing out the Hypocrisy involved in Passing Campaign Finance Laws, and then Immediately subverting them through Loopholes.
No, I don't think those particular laws were right, but for a party to enact them, and then blatantly bypass them the very next election is even worse.
I don't think that it should require money to go through those groups, on the whole, I think they are a negative effect, because it makes it much much harder to trace who gave money to influence what campaigns.
I think that restrictions on giving to campaigns should be relaxed, but that the bookkeeping should be much more transparent. The most recent laws don't do anything to keep money out of politics, they only make it more difficult to track who gave what to which campaign.
Darkefang
03-16-04, 07:47 AM
For the record, there were just as many Republicans in favor of campaign finance reform as Democrats. And as has been pointed out before, the Democrats do benefit more from soft money than the Republicans do.
I suspect there will be many more disputes like the one presented in the article above. The new campaign finance laws are pretty complicated, and nobody seems to know just how much of the law is Constitutional. Figuring out which accusations have some merit is not going to be a fun task.