Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Les Ismore]

Like Pat Buchanan said in the movie, democracy is a fraud.

[Ashermusic]

Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 23 December 2007 02:43

It doesn't make one a socialist to want some limits on corporations.  Citizens have a vote, corporations do not.  But they've discovered how to BUY votes.  Corporate money has corrupted the political system to the point where someone like Bush can just plain take over and do as he chooses.  Guess who his friends and benefactors are.  A little bit (OK, a LOT) of reigning-in does not constitute socialism.

Actually I largely agree  with you here but when you use phrases like throwing off the "yoke of Capitalist  control' makes it hard not to leap to that conclusion.

[mgod]

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 22 December 2007 17:39

Wow, you really are a Socialist. Oh well, at least you're living in the bay area where you have lots of company

Thanks to BushCo and the Dick, not to mention WorldCom Enron, etc., he's got lots of company everywhere. This is what they've done for us - created a much more unified stance against them (not counting you of course Jay!). This is the thrust of Daniel Yankelovitch's "Profit With honor."

 http://www.amazon.com/Profit-Honor-Capitalism-American-Democ  racy/dp/0300122608/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&q id=1198427928&sr=1-1

DS

[mgod]

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 22 December 2007 17:36

Here's what Nader himself says: "exit polls showed 25 percent of my votes would have gone to Bush, 38 percent would have gone to Gore, and the rest would have stayed home and not voted." +13% of Nader's votes clearly would have provided a comfortable margin for Gore.

That says that a plurality of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore. It doesn't say that he was the one who had the most votes that would have gone to Gore. So, yes, those votes would have made the actual President the certifiable President as well. But someone else's may also have done that, and with a wider margin. Yet Nader is sole focus of the blame.

In the end the real blame lies with Sandra Day O'Connor, who, as a final act of treason, abandoned her constitutional duty as a sitting member of the nation's highest court and admits to deciding Bush -v- Gore before she even heard the case. Because she wanted a Republican to retire under.

And now, hundreds of thousands of deaths later, billions and billions of dollars to China later, admits regretting it because he's turned out so awful.

And she's not on trial?

And people blame Ralph Nader?

Pathetic and easy.

DS

[Ashermusic]

mgod wrote on Sun, 23 December 2007 16:49

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 22 December 2007 17:36 Here's what Nader himself says: "exit polls showed 25 percent of my votes would have gone to Bush, 38 percent would have gone to Gore, and the rest would have stayed home and not voted." +13% of Nader's votes clearly would have provided a comfortable margin for Gore. That says that a plurality of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore. It doesn't say that he was the one who had the most votes that would have gone to Gore. So, yes, those votes would have made the actual President the certifiable President as well. But someone else's may also have done that, and with a wider margin. Yet Nader is sole focus of the blame. In the end the real blame lies with Sandra Day O'Connor, who, as a final act of treason, abandoned her constitutional duty as a sitting member of the nation's highest court and admits to deciding Bush -v- Gore before she even heard the case. Because she wanted a Republican to retire under. And now, hundreds of thousands of deaths later, billions and billions of dollars to China later, admits regretting it because he's turned out so awful. And she's not on trial? And people blame Ralph Nader? Pathetic and easy. DS

Maybe so, but this thread is about Nader and if if he isn't  the only, or even most egregious offender, the fact still remains that he remained in the race knowing full well that it would almost certainly run the risk of making Bush the president rather than Gore. He was OK with it because he said there was no real difference, which IMHO was stupid, and that if Bush won it might be for the best because he would be so bad it would push people towards a "real choice."

So if it turns out it is i.e Obama or Clinton vs. McCain, Romney or Guliani, with the Green Party getting probably about 6-7% of the vote, if that,  as the price of having had the Bush Administration for 8 years how well did his game plan work?

I am today announcing I am forming an exploratory committee for a 2008 Nader for Dog Catcher in Chief campaign

[Les Ismore]

That logical end of that rationalization would be to outlaw anyone other parties than the Democratic and Republican candidates because they could possibly split the vote.

And that's not democracy.

Maybe we should just abandon the pretense of running a democracy anyways seeing as it's a freaking joke. Banana republics have more honest elections.

You have the CHOICE of two different named chocolate bars with the same ingredients made by the same company in the same factory. But you have the CHOICE. Don't you feel empowered? You're FREE to choose one of two of the same thing (with different names).

This is nothing other than a dictatorship run by corporations.

In a real democracy Nader and other different candidates would have been included in the debates and not had their ads blacklisted by media, at the very least just for the sake of keeping the whole system honest and issue driven.

But yeah the whole world is in an awful mess in a large part because a bunch of ignorant Americans voted for GW, so we do agree on something. Just not who to blame.

[Ashermusic]

Les Ismore wrote on Sun, 23 December 2007 23:52

That logical end of that rationalization would be to outlaw anyone other parties than the Democratic and Republican candidates because they could possibly split the vote. And that's not democracy. Maybe we should just abandon the pretense of running a democracy anyways seeing as it's a freaking joke. Banana republics have more honest elections. You have the CHOICE of two different named chocolate bars with the same ingredients made by the same company in the same factory. But you have the CHOICE. Don't you feel empowered? You're FREE to choose one of two of the same thing (with different names). This is nothing other than a dictatorship run by corporations. In a real democracy Nader and other different candidates would have been included in the debates and not had their ads blacklisted by media, at the very least just for the sake of keeping the whole system honest and issue driven. But yeah the whole world is in an awful mess in a large part because a bunch of ignorant Americans voted for GW, so we do agree on something. Just not who to blame.

Les, well argued but I would ask you to consider one fact and then give your most honest reply: Al Gore just won the Nobel Prize for his work on Global Warming. Are you REALLY going to tell me there is little difference between he and W? Do you REALLY think the country, indeed arguably the planet, would only be a teeny bit different today had he been elected 8 years ago ?

[studiojimi]

by 2012

there will be not time to be discussing any person or pointing any fingers

there will be a scramble to unify and save the planet or watch the planet colllapse before our grandchildren's eyes or sooner with no solution

in fact ...it may already be too late.

Gore is a good man.

he got the real short end of the stick

one can blame it on NADER but..too late now

this is much more urgent biz on the table don'tcha think

and writing songs like  don'tcha wish your girlfriend was hot like me is just a big distraction.

we need some artful tunes to raise the level of consciousness to a solution oriented urgent collectivenes

and asher and ismore could lead the way

bot not pecking away about hysterionics LOL

[Les Ismore]

Ashermusic wrote on Mon, 24 December 2007 08:20

Les, well argued but I would ask you to consider one fact and then give your most honest reply: Al Gore just won the Nobel Prize for his work on Global Warming. Are you REALLY going to tell me there is little difference between he and W? Do you REALLY think the country, indeed arguably the planet, would only be a teeny bit different today had he been elected 8 years ago ?

The negligible difference is between the parties and their financiers. Of course we would have been waaaaaay better off with Gore. I like Gore. He's very smart. He has really shone since he left politics.
He would not be able to shine like he is with the financing of the Multinational Corps payrolling him.
And no I don't think that the blame goes to Nader. It goes to the American People and the crooked and corrupt system that they support. People should be DEMANDING a return to a fair and honest democracy in America.

But yeah we all wish Gore had done a little better back in 2000. Even the republicans.

[studiojimi]

Les Ismore wrote on Mon, 24 December 2007 15:07

He has really shone since he left politics.

You believe he left?  I wouldn't be so sure.

I think he has better chances than ever.

[Berolzheimer]

It's a big distraction to argue that Nader cost Gore the election, and it's exactly what the the right wants us to do- infight about that, rather than deal with the much larger and more relevant fact that Bush & company, and the Supremes, stole the election.  I don't think anyone here would argue that point, it's only become more apparent over the years, it's a huge crime and yet we do nothing about it.  A stolen election in the most powerful ( and supposedly democratic) nation on earth should be a big deal.

FWIW on the other hand I don't have the numbers in front of me but as I recall it could be argued that the socialist candidate took more votes that would otherwise have gone to Gore, than Nader did.

[rankus]

Berolzheimer wrote on Tue, 25 December 2007 17:33

A stolen election in the most powerful ( and supposedly democratic) nation on earth should be a big deal.

Thats what I have been wondering as well.... are these folks so powerful no one can stand up to them?

I suppose we already have the answer to that one...

[danickstr]

mgod wrote on Sun, 23 December 2007 11:49

And people blame Ralph Nader? Pathetic and easy. DS

It's kind of like in the (american) football game, when the other team members have obviously not done all they could have to win the game, but the running back you would like to count on fumbles at the most critical point in the last few seconds.

Do we blame the guy who only got 3 yards on a run in the first quarter? OR the guy who fumbled in the last play of the game?

Name call it as you will, but Nader fumbled in the last seconds.

[mgod]

danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 06:22

It's kind of like in the (american) football game, when the other team members have obviously not done all they could have to win the game, but the running back you would like to count on fumbles at the most critical point in the last few seconds. Do we blame the guy who only got 3 yards on a run in the first quarter? OR the guy who fumbled in the last play of the game? Name call it as you will, but Nader fumbled in the last seconds.

I might not understand football well enough.

It seems to me that Gore fumbled in the last 3 seconds, not Nader  - by not winning enough of a margin to make the crimes committed in front of our eyes impossible. He lost supporters like me early in 2000 by the dismissive way he failed to really debate the intelligent and reasonable Bill Bradley. I swore to myself then I wouldn't vote for him (although I did), and this had nothing to do with Nader. For a moment I fantasized that we might have an election between Bradley and McCain and we'd really have someone to vote FOR, on each side.

It was Gore's to lose, and although he didn't, he made it a virtual certainty that it'd be close. And your analogy assumes that Nader and Gore were on the same team, if I understand it - they aren't and never were. This is the part that I think people from the center left can't see - we think that just because the Republican Party has turned into the most traitorous people this nation has ever seen in the hands of Rove and BushCo, that everyone else is on the same side. That analogy works for WWII. It doesn't work in contemporary politics. Some people seriously want to reform the system. Issue by issue, Gore would have been better in these 8 years, its true. But the system would still be 100% corrupt, and although its not likely that the so-called "liberal" Justices on the Supreme Court would have committed the kind of betrayal of their oaths that Sandra Day O'Connor committed in the name of "Republicanism" (and who would have anticipated that she would?), we'd still be stuck. This is what Nader opposed.

I think in the long run we'll see a great benefit from the last reign of BushCo, because RumsfeldCheneyBush played all their hands this time out, and everyone got to see what vile, underhanded Anti-American pigs they are. Even a notorious wealthy, only-from-my-side-of-the-tracks ideologue like Richard Scaife has repudiated his anti-Clinton funding because of these schmucks, and O'Connor herself admits that her high crimes were a mistake. BushCo and Rove may be the Ipecac this system needs. Blaming Nader is nonsense. He's been the one guy willing to say its sick. And he's never been pro- either party - he's been consistently about trying to make the system more responsive to people's needs, rather than business's short-term desperation.

DS

[Ashermusic]

What it comes down to for me is Nader's choices were:

There is one guy, Gore, who shares many of my goals but is unable or unwilling to go as far as he should because he is operating in a corrupt system.

The other guy, Bush,  has my goals on the lowest priority rung of the ladder and is indeed not only going to make it better, he will make it worse.

So I decide to say "a pox on both their houses" and press my campaign knowing full well that I may contribute substantially to costing the first guy, Gore, the election and cannot possibly win the election myself.

Some call that a principled stand. I call it being an arrogant, self-righteous asshole.

While it does not justify what was done to him nor does it make him a hero in my eyes.