Comments nunyerbus has made

  • re: easy to be pure

    You are entirely correct about the safety and comfort of not having a chance. When one isn't even at the negotiating table, there is no need to think about which item of value one must give up in order to secure another. That is the kind of problem faced when you finally get in the game.

    Before going further about how to get in the game, I would ask if the positions taken by Nader are worth pursuing. If  "90% of U.S. voters" disagree with the positions, then probably not. However, I suspect that on the issues, Nader's views are, in general, fairly popular. Examples include (from Nader's campaign site):

    •  No to nuclear power, solar energy first
    •  Adopt single payer national health insurance
    •  Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
    •   Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare

    So for us comfortable Naderites (many of whom were likely recent Kucinichites), the question is, how can we gather up the support of people who support our platform and get in the game? Then we can worry about which items to keep and which ones to give up.

    When I see all the attacks against Nader related to the 2000 election, his ego etc. I think its a real shame. It is less about how disrespectful people are being to someone who is trying to help and more about the missed opportunity for our country.  The message from 2000 should have been, "Wow, we got a lot of votes!" "How can we capitalize on this" "How can we get some candidates who are more appealing than Ralph to move this agenda forward?" "How can we hold the Democrats feet to the fire with this big voting bloc we've developed?"

    These are the types of questions the "street fighters" eriqa refers to would ask. Instead, what we get is an attitude of giving up and accepting a crop of democratic candidates that are only slightly differentiated from the republican nominee.

    Politics is a long, slow process. If we never take a stand for what we believe in, we will never achieve success. On Ralph Nader jumps into the presidential race posted 1 year, 9 months ago 31 Responses

  • Well said

    Nader, while certainly not perfect, is the only attractive candidate in this election for a large number of people who support a progressive-leaning agenda.

    The democratic party has defeated somewhat progressive candidates such as Edwards, and aggressively marginalized others such as Kucinich. This party is no friend of people who support a platform that includes the following (and other related) items:

    1. A serious, aggressive approach to environmental problems
    2. single-payer health care
    3. a non-imperialist foreign policy
    4. reduction of corporate influence in policy-making and the end of excessive subsidies.

    I agree wholeheartedly with Wolverine's comments about how voters settling for lesser-of-evils candidates exacerbate the problems of choice in our government.

    I also remind those who disagree with my support of Nader that they are still allowed to vote for one of the other candidates, so don't worry, he hasn't wrecked everything. Remember, there are three candidates you can support, and they all are in favor of  "clean coal" !!On Ralph Nader jumps into the presidential race posted 1 year, 9 months ago 31 Responses

  • nice to see you care

    Randy,
    Its good to know there is a authority like you around to tell us when we are behaving inappropriately. I didn't realize the act of persistently advocating for what one believes in makes one a buffoon. Thanks for cluing me in.On Ralph Nader announces his presidential run, calls for carbon tax posted 1 year, 9 months ago 23 Responses

  • Nothing at stake

    If there is a fear that Ralph will "siphon democratic votes"

    Environment:
    The handy Grist comparison of candidates shows little difference on the environmental platforms of  Clinton, McCain and Obama. In any case, they will be signing or vetoing legislation from congress, not drafting the bills.

    Other issues:
    Healthcare. There is no candidate advocating single-payer. This area will not change meaningfully.

    Foreign Policy:
    Some differences about when to get troops out of Iraq. But no one has put forward significant proposals on changing policies overall. (ie support for Israel, Saudi Arabia, South America policy etc.)

    Trade:
    No one is bailing out on WTO, NAFTA, etc.

    Military Spending:
    We spend more than the rest of the world combined. We buy $300mm jet fighters to fight.... umm, the martians maybe? No one is out to slash this corporate welfare program.

    A vote for Ralph at least acknowledges that there is a key root cause common to many of the issues above. A vote for any of the other 3 just doesn't mean too much.On Ralph Nader might jump into the presidential race posted 1 year, 9 months ago 129 Responses

  • Carbon tax

    The statement "tax incentives will work better than tax penalties" shouldn't go unchallenged. Constructing tax incentives requires that we make bets on what we think the likely winners are. If we look at existing examples what do we get? Corn Ethanol!

    A carbon tax would likely be an effective strategy because it puts everyone in the position of paying more for fossil-fuel energy. This will stimulate demand for solutions across the population and will leave the door open for flexible, true free market solutions. (You'd think Newt would like that...)On Gingrich's further explications of green conservatism do not inspire confidence posted 1 year, 10 months ago 11 Responses