Comments on: A Surprisingly Reasonable Unreasonable Man

By: domajot

domajot — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 01:45:02 +0000

Political strategies don’t appeal to me, so I won’t speak to how Nader has influenced politics.
As a man, however, Nader has come close to being a hero for me. He has brought issues to public attention in an intelligent, dillignet, well researched and rational manner. Like MVDG points out, many lives have been saved due to his work.

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:43:25 +0000

Note that Nader wants what others on the far left want, because they know it helps them: They want the voting age reduced.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=28

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:39:36 +0000

What’s needed for more points of view to be truly represented is a multi-party system with proportional representation. The “Establishment” here in the USA loathes the concept, which given their opposition and why, amounts to evidence it indeed is desireable.

By: Volunteer Voters

Volunteer Voters — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:16:11 +0000

[...] A Surprisingly Reasonable Unreasonable Man [...]

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:22:36 +0000

I’ve been watching some of the features on Al Gore’s movie. I’ll watch Inconvenient Truth in a few weeks when time, but he so simplifies stats that while I believe he would not have gotten us into Iraq, I think we’d have big problems in other areas.

The fact is that the American public is spoiled, lazy, and dumb. They’d rather watch cable TV shows w ex-celebs than really think on deeper things. And the Rs and Ds know this.

I’m not saying I’d not vote for an R- if he was Teddy Roosevelt, or a D- FDR/JFK. Hel, I might vote for Barack or Edwards if they make it, but Hillary- No! Any of the Rs- NO!

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:50:25 +0000

Michael,
Yeah, exactly. I don’t think it’s an accident that so many people have a fatalist approach to politics in the U.S.

TPTB want people to feel helpless.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:30:25 +0000

True:

Think about it like this – they can win the elections with only 50% of the people voting. Why in the world would they want to have the other 50% involved?

The other 50% can be ignored. Makes it so much easier.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:18:21 +0000

Michael,
Glad we agree.
Personally, I don’t think we’ll be able to really start solving big problems in the United States until one of the big 2 parties implodes and throws the entire system a curveball.

As it stands, Democrats and Republicans have very little reason to actually represent the voters.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:11:25 +0000

Exactly Chris. Nader makes that point as well in the documentary. He’s exactly right.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:04:05 +0000

Less than half of the eligible voters voted in the 2000 election. Al Gore had a lot of other potential voters to woo before he could start complaining that Nader was a spoiler.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:55:27 +0000

Dan – that’s exactly Nader’s point and I agree with both you and Nader.

The ‘lesser of two evils’-argument is a horrible one. You’re destroying your own country if that’s what determines the way you vote.

It’s 17,99 now I saw, so it has come down 9 bucks.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:40:59 +0000

Dusrin, yours is the wasted vote, because by your own rationale you are just facilitating a corrupt system because you cannot change it. The system won’t change until 3rd and 4th parties arise to change it. You believe it’s a Catch 22, and do nothing.

I’ll have to get this when it comes down in price.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:20:26 +0000

Until our electoral system is changed third parties HAVE no place in America. All they do is allow idealists to think their protest vote has any more chance of winning then the guy who voted for Mickey Mouse. Problem is it really doesn’t, and it often pulls enough votes away from the “least bad” party to make them lose.

Third party protest votes have gotten both Clinton and Bush, so I can’t really see how liberals OR conservatives can seriously consider it.