| 75° | 
|
Gothamist is a website about New York. More
Editor: Jen Chung Publisher: Jake Dobkin
About Us & Advertising | Archives | Contact | Mobile | RSS | Staff
Most Recommended:
Confession in Pace Student's Death (19)
Swoon, Artist (15)
Would You Tap This? NYC Tap Water For Sale (11)
Scott Gold, Author, The Shameless Carnivore (11)
Most Commented:
McCain Officially Nominated, But Palin Steals the Show (107)
McCain Accepts Nomination: "Change is Coming" (67)
Giuliani Says Palin is More Qualified Than Obama (61)
VP Candidate Sarah Palin Says Daughter is Pregnant (54)
What RNC? Palin Grandbaby News Dominates Media (50)
Latest tip:
the faces are flickr icons. [more]
Latest link:
[from jenchungsboobs] Hundreds of Protesters Arrested - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com
Latest Photo:
Ralph Nader will be making another third-party bid for the Presidency in the 2008 election. The consumer advocate - and bane of many Democrats - made the announcement this morning on Meet the Press.
And speaking of party spoilers, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee appeared on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update:
|
Nader, the Republican diversion tool.
Nader has turned into an egomaniacal a**hole.
The very reason Bush is president is because of Nader. BOOO!
nader is paid off by republicans to rock the vote, this is more obvious than the dude who got "robbed" after starbucks for 150g's
Perhaps news of Nader's run should finally draw attention to our out-of-date electoral system, where the candidate with the most votes wins even if no one has a majority. We could solve this problem by adopting instant runoff voting (IRV). IRV is a simple and more fair way to vote: First, you rank your choices in order of preference. Then, the first choices are counted, and if someone gets a majority, they win; but if no candidate gets a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their supporters' votes count for their second choices instead. IRV is so simple, common-sense, and democratic that both the major parties' front-runners, McCain and Obama, publicly support it. You can learn more at: www.fairvote.org.
Nader was always an egomaniacal asshole. He got .3% of the vote last time around. Expect less than that this time around ... unless Hillary gets nominated. Unfortunately for Hillary, more than a few Obama supporters are crazy enough to vote for Nader instead of her, if she's nominated.
Score book:
Obama +1
McCain +1
Clinton -1
Nader -9, as in Level of Hell
Eight years ago, Nader said that there would be absolutely no difference between a Bush and a Gore presidency. Why does he refuse to answer if he still believes that?
It's pathetic that this man, to whom we all owe so much for the many good fights he's fought in our name, has become such a fool.
He's as irellevant as ever. It's too bad because he did such good work in the past. He hasn't done a thing in the last decade except prove how big of a messiah complex he has. A third party will never get elected simply due to the structure of our system. If he really wanted to make an impact, he'd run for congress.
And yet everything he says is correct.
Although most Americans oppose the war, and are deeply dissatisfied with conditions at home, McCain, Clinton and Obama are all safely and completely within the ruling-class framework, especially that of continual imperial war.
Bush was no doubt more inept that Gore or Kerry would have been, but we would have the same basic thing: the US ruling class trying to dominate and control the world, getting involved in wars all over the map, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, the environment going to hell. Bush was crude about it; a Democrat would be more polite, degradation with style.
Nader may be the megalomaniac or fool you call him, but you have no answer, either. Follow your leaders; we'll hear from you a year or two from now, crying about how you were deceived. You're asking for it.
(sigh)
I wonder, Will he really get on the Ballot in 50 states or is this just him stroking his Ego Yet again?
it's funny how left wing nutjobs who voted for him actually benefited right wing nutjobs.
Nader becomes less and less relevant every time he runs. Unless he's completely lost it, it seems like he runs only because it makes him "relevant" for a short period of time and gives him a free platform to talk about the issues as if what he has to say matters. I'd be shocked if the miniscule percentage of people who vote for Nader in 2008 make any difference in the upcoming presidential election.
Someone should emphasize to Nader that more than 99% of Americans are disenchanted with him.
Anyone who votes for Nader on ideological grounds (because they think he's right) doesn't have a clue about American politics or functional democracy in general. I hope he doesn't get on the ballot.
Consumer advocacy (his genesis) is a noble cause. But in the bigger picture, you might as well vote for L. Ron Hubbard.
The probability that your vote will affect an election where millions of people vote is infinitesimal, that is, zero. Therefore, you might as well vote for ideology, or good looks, or the party, or whatever you like -- or stay home. If I'm not mad at you all for sheepishly supporting a candidate packaged and operated by the ruling class, why should you be mad at me for supporting someone else? I just don't want any more blood on my hands.
Someone should buy him Rudy's old Corvair so he can drive off into the sunset and never be heard from again.
Plus given the current political climate, nobody is going to vote for an Arab.
If I'm not mistaken, Nader is even older than McCain. Even if Obama were TWENTY years older than he is now he'd look like narcissus standing next to these two old farts.
Nader ran in 2004?
I didn't even notice.
Nader just sealed the following - President John McCain. Thanks asshole.
Nader just sealed the following - President John McCain. Thanks asshole.
Huckabee was really funny; Nader... not so much.
Don't think I want the word "president" attached to either of them.
I agree with starrygordon - Nader speaks the truth. And I admire him for that - the two-party system is a mess. I understand why he's running - I just don't think I want him to.
Most people who want a Democrat to win should hope that the record turnout for the Democratic primaries - I think Democratic primary voters outnumbered Republican 2 to 1 - will be an foreshadowing of the interest in the general election.
Nader's not interested in running about any truth. He's a glory hound, high on a fiction of his own self-importance. Truth is just a tool to get him some airtime.
Megalomaniacs, narcissists, or whatever ego-driven term finger-pointing democrats use describe Nader would not want to open themselves up to criticism for their actions and risk their legacy as Nader has. They shy away from failure and criticism.
And if people listened to what Nader said during his announcement, they would learn, among other things, that every 3rd party candidate in Florida earned more than the 537 vote difference between Gore and Bush (Howard Philips of the Constitution Party won 1378 votes!). Yet, all people can seem to blame is Ralph Nader as the singular reason why Gore lost the election.
Regardless of whether you're liberal or conservative, I think we can all agree that our politicians have failed us. They are beholden to corporate interests. They charm us with pretty words but never seem to do much when we have complaints for them.
If Nader's candidacy stands for anything, I think more than any specific agenda, it's that fundamentally, citizens need to hold their elected officials accountable and that Americans need take a more active role in civic affairs.
I suggest everybody watch An Unreasonable Man. I think it gives a great perspective of the type of framework an American democracy should operate in and what citizens should really expect from their government.
Megalomaniacs, narcissists, or whatever ego-driven term finger-pointing democrats use describe Nader would not want to open themselves up to criticism for their actions and risk their legacy as Nader has. They shy away from failure and criticism.
And if people listened to what Nader said during his announcement, they would learn, among other things, that every 3rd party candidate in Florida earned more than the 537 vote difference between Gore and Bush (Howard Philips of the Constitution Party won 1378 votes!). Yet, all people can seem to blame is Ralph Nader as the singular reason why Gore lost the election.
Regardless of whether you're liberal or conservative, I think we can all agree that our politicians have failed us. They are beholden to corporate interests. They charm us with pretty words but never seem to do much when we have complaints for them.
If Nader's candidacy stands for anything, I think more than any specific agenda, it's that fundamentally, citizens need to hold their elected officials accountable and that Americans need take a more active role in civic affairs.
I suggest everybody watch An Unreasonable Man. I think it gives a great perspective of the type of framework an American democracy should operate in and what citizens should really expect from their government.
Mr. Nader is to be commended for his long work on behalf of consumers. But as presidential candidate he could be better for the GOP than a Republican third candidate plant. 8 years ago, he was instrumental in bringing George W. into the White House. Without a chance to publicize his agenda during the presidential debates in fall, there is no rationale for him to get into the race--except his ego.
The thing is though that if he really wanted to change things he would do something that would actually matter. These worthless presidential runs accomplish nothing; he would NEVER win. running for a house seat might actually accomplish something; not these pointless presidential runs. The system needs to change and it's too bad he's doing nothing to try to make these changes.
From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation
I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:
1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder);
2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder);
3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever";
4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for one's actions;
5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President";
6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office;
Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:
Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me";
Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me";
Severe: Announces campaign for president.
Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html
From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation
I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:
1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder);
2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder);
3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever";
4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for one's actions;
5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President";
6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office;
Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:
Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me";
Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me";
Severe: Announces campaign for president.
Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html
Nader is working for the Al Qaeda
all the handwringing over Nader is laughable. Nader isn't going to get enough votes to change anything.
The left wing will not be foolish enough to waste their vote for this vanity candidate. The web sites like Daily Kos have already started to mobilize their troops to block his "nomination". I can't imagine Ralph Nader having a significant effect on this presidential election. But if he does become the spoiler, we are all going to hell in a handbag.
To paraphrase Bush "Vote for Nader once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again."
Or in other words: If we didn't learn anything in 2000 we deserve whatever happens to us.
To paraphrase Bush "Vote for Nader once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again."
Or in other words: If we didn't learn anything in 2000 we deserve whatever happens to us.
GO AWAY.
I cannot BELIEVE that deformed knucklehead is AGAIN so full of himself that AGAIN he places his own over-blown aspirations above the GOOD of the American people.
Hey Ralph, remember how the Shrub (W) got elected? You insisted on having your scrawney ass in the race & too many other knuckleheads switched their vote from Gore to YOU. So what happened then? Shrub was planted & bloomed for EIGHT LONG YEARS. You'll NEVER be forgotten for that one.
BTW, what exactly can you offer this country other than having written a book on Corvairs & being a hero to the Buckminster Fuller crowd?
"NADA".
You seem to have some great ideas, but they're outweighed by your idea that you should be President.