I just wanted to start this because everyone I talk to doesn't want to vote Nader, but also have no idea what he stands for... not meant as an argument. Just a resource. Sorry if it is a repost, but I didn't see anything...
Ralph Nader on Obama, McCain, and the issues...
Fixed the links... stupid pasting error. BLAGH.
the other day you said you hadn't even registered to vote yet! better get on it......
being idealistic is great but there comes a time when you have to be realistic. There may be a time when a 3rd party can win but it won't happen in this election. and I wil do whatever it takes to not get McCain elected.
Voting for Nader or Barr or Mickey Mouse will have the same effect as staying home and not voting at all, when it comes to the reality of which way your state will go in the electoral college.
I agree that voting for Nader won't affect the electoral college, but I disagree with the sense that it's pointless to vote if you don't vote for a Republican or Democrat. I support people voting according to which candidate most closely represents their values, no matter the party. If more people did that, we'd have a much more dynamic system. However, you're right. People don't vote that way. They resolve themselves to the big two.
I posted this before, but I think people should vote however they feel moved. One person may most value the positives of a candidate and vote for that person. Someone else may most value the "threat" of another candidate and vote for that person's strongest rival. I can be both idealistic and realistic because I live in a state that reliably votes for the Democratic candidate. I'd probably vote realistically under different circumstances, but it feels different, better, a rush, voting idealistically. It's a vote for hope. Realistic voting is a vote of fear (justified as it may be).
Bush wasn't elected president because people voted for Nader. Bush was elected president because his bro helped him out in Florida.
I guess you feel more strongly FOR Nader than AGAINST McCain/Palin? I feel it is more important to vote to do everything we can to keep M/P out of office. Especially Palin with her sickening love for killing animals. But yet she's "pro-life"!
I understand, and do not take it personally.
Given that people like to say those who vote for Nader steal votes away from democrats (which is not true... many democrats voted republican in 2000 and 2004, including those I know personally), thusly cause republicans to win the election I would say I am still "accomplishing something by having a say in the outcome in your state." Though, I do not agree with the way that you look at it. Maybe if the majority of the population were actually educated and informed in regards to politics/candidates, and not blindly voting for someone simply because of their party affiliation we would have a fair voting process, and finally elect a president who will do some good, rather than "settling"for a lesser evil. How about letting Nader or other third party candidates (including Mickey Mouse if you wish) participate in debates?
If Obama is elected, he (as well as Hillary) does not talk about cutting the military budget, and in fact has been quoted to "bumping" it up but for defense purposes. Why do we need to maintain or increase our defense/military budget in order to only defend our country? Obama talks about slowly withdrawing troops and working simultaneously with Middle Eastern government, ultimately withdrawing by 2010. However, small numbers of troops will remain for counter-terrorist operations. If the taliban and al-queda are stronger than ever, what is the proposition to handle this properly, peacefully, and as passively as possible? I have not heard Obama give his opinion on this issue, that is the reason for it as a question.
Do I care about green issues? Yes, that is why I'm voting for a candidate who has been backed by the green party and has a better environmental/energy stance than Obama or McCain... and supports the use of industrial hemp as a renewable resource with important fuel, fiber, food, paper, energy and other uses. Religious views? Obama is just as religious as a republican, and does not support gay marriage because of such, which is a personal LIBERTY! Do I care about the supreme court, big brother and individual liberty? Who cares more about individual liberty and the common people down to the community level... Obama or Nader??? Who is taking more corporate money? Whose plan is it to crack down on corporate crime, corporate welfare, and corporate personhood? Who supports single-payer national health insurance?
Some articles on "Nader stole Gore's votes"
Bush vs. Gore
That's why I'm voting for McCain...
I vote AnS for president
I am firmly against nuclear energy, which Obama supports... but only if "safe and effective measures are taken." Although everything I've heard him say about this issue is somewhat uncomfirmed and like he is leaving an open door for himself to change his mind later. As far as I see it... here is a comparison
-Address energy speculation pricing
-Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.
-Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas (oil exploration)
-Obama will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.
-Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles
-Increase Fuel Economy Standards
-Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015
-Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
-Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.
-Address energy speculation pricing
-Sounds like he is supporting swapping from SPR
-$5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car
-Expanding Domestic Oil ExplorationPropose
-A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles
-Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles
-Enforce Existing CAFE Standards
-Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D
-Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power
-Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options
I'm sorry but, I don't see much of a difference... McCain greatly supports nuclear power, Obama is not opposed. Take a look at what Nader's environmental/energy views. They're quite different.
I completely agree with you. I see very little *real* difference between McCain/Obama, the differences are all talk and no substance. Both candidates have strong ties to corporate power in this country and are unlikely to bite the hands of those who feed them. HOWEVER, I am voting for Obama over Nader for one reason and one reason only....the Supreme Court.
I do think that there will be a fundamental difference between the type of person Obama would appoint to the Supreme Court vs. McCain. Bush already got two appointments. At least two Supreme Court justices are very old and ready to retire right now (Stevens and Ginsburg)...both being more progressively-minded justices. I just don't think we can afford another two (or more) appointments similar to Roberts and Alito. These are appointments that could potentially sit on the bench for more than 30 years...way more than a 4 or 8 year term for any president.
Two or more justices in the vein of Roberts or Alito (or Thomas or Scalia) could disrupt women's reproductive rights, gay-rights, and first amendment rights (particularly the establishment clause), in addition to so many other issues (environment, expansion of executive-branch power, roles of corporate power in our country, hell....even animal rights cases could come before the Supreme Court...I could go on and on, the Supreme Court decides cases on every subject).
So with such a reaching, long term effect new appointments could have on the institution of the Supreme Court, coupled with the fact that these two candidates would appoint substantially different people....I'm voting for Obama.
That and Sarah Palin makes me ill...for too many reasons to count. ;)
I was showing my friend a candidate calculator and came up with this:
Ralph Nader (Independant) - 96.30% match
Cynthia McKinney (Green Party) - 76.85%
Barack Obama (Democrat) - 65.74%
Bob Barr (Libertarian) - 42.59%
Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) - 38.89%
John McCain (Republican) - 11.11%
That's not surprising, but this was. The exact same percent of people had Nader as there top match as McCain. If people did vote for the candidate that most represented their interests, Nader would in squarely in the running.
Obama - 36.24%
Mccain - 21.79%
Nader - 21.79%
Baldwin - 7.45%
Barr - 6.97%
Mckinney - 5.76%
Ralph Nader reminds me of Adolf Hitler in the 1920s - only less successful, but still harming the world to this very day.
Also: I don't vote, and neither should you. It legitimizes an inherently unjust system that only exists by violating individual rights. If a majority of the easily-manipulatable mob in your class / city / continent / planet / galaxy voted for you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?!
How the shit would your precious capitalism work if no one voted?