Gothamist: Nader Street Art in Brooklyn

HellsYeah

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:48:27 -0500

NADER HAS MY VOTE!

thefacts

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:24:46 -0500

Please click on #12's helpful link: In part: Nathan Sproul, a renowned GOP operative who has been investigated on multiple occasions for suppressing Democratic voter turnout, throwing away registration forms and even spearheading efforts to get Ralph Nader on ballots to hinder the Democratic ticket.

djwerdna

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:20:04 -0500

Chris Lee, I agree with you that a lot of issues aren't slam dunk. I happened to pick a pretty controversial issue in my example, but I still think there is too much compromise in politics. Yes, I understand that it's necessary to compromise. But, as I said, compromise doesn't always serve the people. There were members of the House who were initially against the bailout, then for the sake of compromise and political benefit to their constituents, decided to vote for it in the second go around. Corporations aren't inherently evil. They just need to be responsible. emilydickenson- Abortion is a medical issue, and medical issues need legislation, whether in the form of regulation or protection of rights. bagelman - I think the Greens dissociated themselves with Nader after all the criticism after 2000. Why is one a egomaniac just because he runs as an Independent? A true egomaniac wouldn't subject himself to all the abuse and ridicule that he's gone through. breaknight - I agree that Nader should have been involved with developing third parties in the off years. But, he is just one man. A lot of other people and groups could have stepped up as well. Let's hope that after this election we'll start seeing some electoral reform. I think a lot of Democrats are against Nader's candidacy but not his positions. In this is the case, why not push the political discussion more towards the issues he brings to the table instead calling him names? The party machine is completely happy that people are more focused on Palin being an idiot or scared about a "Nader Effect" than talking about Obama's quick support for the bailout.

MFer

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:12:59 -0500

@emilydickinson. Pizzerias, bookstores, etc, are almost all corporations. So really you have to be a little sharper than that. You don't know what you are talking about. Corporations are just legalized entities. But they all form under a purpose clause of their own and with bylaws to govern their running. And if you mean publicly traded corporations are different, you would be wrong. It's no different from a pizzaria, whose stockholders are its owners. They are there to make money too. Non-profits are corporation too. But really when did making money become evil? Those on the left who speak of good and evil will turn into right-wing nut jobs eventually.

chris lee

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:36:50 -0500

Abortion is not just a "medical procedure" as the organism becomes more and more sentient and viable it becomes legal and moral.

chris lee

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:33:43 -0500

Pizzerias.bookstores don't want to make profits? They are just there to serve YOU?. WAKE UP! Corporations are simply three or more people who enter a business venture and contract. Like a person they have the capacity to harm or benefit. There need to be laws and there are. Oversite is necessary and it exists. I am no polyanna. I know about the ENORMOUS influence and capacity to subvert the process that SOME corporations and SOME individuals have, but that's the struggle of social existence.

emilydickinson

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:18:33 -0500

@ChrisLee I have to disagree, corporations are inherently evil. By law, a corporation is a financial vehicle which is bound by law to generate the maximum amount of profits for its' shareholders. An engine that exists for the sole purpose of generating profit as opposed to a business like a pizzeria, bookstore etc., which exists to provide a service, is not a positive institution. Abortion is a medical issue, period, and shouldn't be legislated. Don't like abortions? Don't have one.

chris lee

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:50:32 -0500

djwerdna- When will today's so called liberal progressives see that many of their issues are not slam dunk. The nostalgia for FDR's New Deal and the Great Society's Civil Rights reform spills over into much of todays thinking. 1. Gay marriage is NOT a slam dunk. Civil Unions is. Gay couples are entitled to total recognition of property sharing and transfer and medical benefits and visitation. They are NOT entitled to be called "married" as we define. Because we DEFINE it a certain way. When we STOP defining that way then it would be different. 2. Abortion is a concession to human frailty and the limits of our biological condition. Any rational person can sympathize with a woman making a choice in the first trimester to abort a pregnancy but their has to be some reasonable debate about late 2nd trimester and 3rd trimester abortions. 3. The Welfare State. The meme that Rich is bad and the mythical "hard working" lower middle class is good. I don't get it. The purpose of America is the pursuit of happiness and good fortune as YOU define it. You can't arbitrarily "punish" people for being TOO successful ( err..rich) taxation should be fair but not as a deterrent for making "TOO much money according to someone else".

bagelman

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:23:11 -0500

if nader's not an egomaniacal prick, then why is he running independent, after all those years of affiliation with the green party? a green party endorsement, however inconsequential, would have been much more respectable.

breaknight

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:42:28 -0500

I've met Nader on a few occasions. A good friend of mine was one of his aids back, I'd I've had conversations with him in his offices in DC. He's a decent man, a man on who I agree w/nearly 99% on the issues. But he's also an unrealistic idealist,who is not willing to compromise any of his ideals. In some circles, that's seen as integrity. In politics that's a death sentence. Politics is about compromise, and especially on a national stage, you need to compromise. If he were really interested on fostering 3rd party politics, he'd start at the grassroots. Presidential politics is personality cult, not really about the party. Name one 3rd party candidate who you ID'ed with a party affiliation. Anyone remember what Party Ross Perot was? Not me. Pat Buchanan? Not me.

NYCSniper

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:02:22 -0500

Wow... Instant Run-Off Voting is a pretty cool concept. I'd never heard of that before. Wish it were part of the process here.

djwerdna

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:23:49 -0500

How does Nader's track record serve his own ego and nothing else? He doesn't name organizations after himself. He voluntarily stepped down from Public Citizen in 1980 to move on to other projects rather than holding on to power there. He has a right to be proud of his legacy, but it's not egomania. Nader's not the one with a fake presidential seal. Nader is uncompromising, and that may be his downfall. But, if you look at it from the perspective that compromise can weaken your purpose and principle. Take the issue of gay marriage. Many Democrats support civil unions but won't support gay marriage (even in principle, much less legislatively) to appease a certain audience without offending another. And progressives and liberals are supposed to say "Well, that's good enough?" also @7 redwhiteandbrooklyn, Nader supports choice http://issues2000.org/2008/Ralph_Nader_Abortion.htm What's your source that he's anti-choice? If you don't support Nader or third parties because you're afraid of spoiling the election, fine. Why not support instant runoff voting so more voices can be heard? People need to stop thinking that Obama is some sort of messiah who will bring great change. He does not have a record showing he's capable bringing about great change. We need to be critical of him and all politicians if we expect them to be responsive to us.

MFer

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:54:36 -0500

The Nader hate is much more understandable when you realize that he has a long track record that actually serves his own ego--and nothing else. And if he ego aligns itself with one political ideology, then so be it. It's just accident. The man's got no soul. He is worse than Bush.

chris lee

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:30:48 -0500

He's got a STELLAR history as a consumer advocate. Corporations aren't inherently BAD. We NEED cars just SAFE cars. His argument is that in a climate of PROFIT is all, we overlook things..that's his message. But governance of the body politic is not hes AOR (area of responsibility) you HAVE to work with people, it's one thing to be a reformer, it's another thing to be a SERIOUS reformer and take responsibility for the mess as is and not be some corny idealist poser who thinks he can change EVERYTHING whole cloth without kissing babies and working with other people.

emilydickinson

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:19:47 -0500

I don't understand all the Nader hate, he's the only person running with a long track record that actually serves the public and not corporations.

chris lee

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:58:38 -0500

Nader is a prick. Does he have a wife? A family? A dog? Does he have a stake in the everyday ordinaryness that we mere mortals slog thru? Or is he a dull closeted ivory tower social critic who could NEVER work with a Congress of Representatives and a network of organizations to get this or that done. Ralph, go back to being a consumer advocate and sideline critic.

djwerdna

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:39:33 -0500

Also, although Nader does not have a chance of winning, third parties play an important role as a voice for issues that do not get much time from the media or the major candidates.

pixie52

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:11:33 -0500

@edEx re. GOP diversion tool he may not know it, but he most DEFINITELY is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/20/mccain-employing-gop-oper_n_136254.html

dcooper

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:10:28 -0500

Demacrats?

djwerdna

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:02:32 -0500

Nader may have been a factor in causing Bush to win Florida, but the Democrats have not stood up against the Republicans on many issues for 8 years. Nader didn't say there was no difference between Bush & Gore. He said that the number of things that the Democrats and Republicans were willing to argue over was dwindling. So, instead of blaming Nader for a Bush presidency, why not hold the Democratic party accountable for their actions? I don't see the Democratic party being capable of true change. They voted yes with the Republicans on off-shore drilling, voted yes to the bailout, voted yes to tax rebates, voted yes to the Patriot Act (twice), voted yes to immunity for telecoms, voted to keep Guantanamo prisoners in Guantanamo, allowed their convention to be a corporate lovefest...

thefacts

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:02:21 -0500

When was the last time you saw unanimous agreement on Gothamist on an issue? Well deserved.

bagelman

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:33:28 -0500

what a hack

RedWhiteandBrooklyn

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:29:28 -0500

This is the fool who told us eight years ago that there would be no difference between a Gore and a Bush presidency... and refused to say otherwise! Also, he is no friend to pro-choice legislation, either. Check his record on that.

virgil

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:26:45 -0500

Politics is the art of the possible; a fact that escapes Nader, who looks at two very different parties, sees that they don't agree with him exactly, and concludes that they are therefor identical.

edEx

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:59:03 -0500

Fact: GOP diversion tool.

gimme

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:46:08 -0500

he'll always be darth nader to me

HUGO_MEGO

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:37:29 -0500

Nader should take a good look in the mirror. He is part of the problem.

redhookreject

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:36:27 -0500

that dood is older then McCain. FACT.

longacre

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:35:56 -0500

Maybe third parties would get more street cred if they knew how to spell their opponents' names.