RALPH NADER, GET THE F OUTTA MY PRESEDENTIAL RACE

[GilloD]

Is this guy addicted to failure and fucking things up? What a gigantic, enormous fucking prick. Look, you distinguished mentally-challenged fellow, shit just started to look up for once and if you step in and fuck up th vote again, I will lose my shit.

Ralph Nader: DO NOT FUCK THIS UP. GO HOME.

[Phoenix Dark]

Please. Gore "lost" the race in 2000, he deserves the blame.

[lordmaji]

Fuck Nader and his bitch ass. someone needs to smack dis foo in his melon.

He'll get that 1-2 karate chop. 

[Mandark]

Ahem.

[APF]

If you're going to attack or blame anyone, it makes no sense to attack Nader for running; attack the people voting for him if you're so afraid of his campaign "spoiling" your tidy little race.

[lordmaji]

If you're going to attack or blame anyone, it makes no sense to attack Nader for running; attack the people voting for him if you're so afraid of his campaign "spoiling" your tidy little race.

It's easier to attack the figure head. Take the head Vampire out, then his underlings w/ be forced to something else.

Shitty metaphor, I'M HIGH bitch!

[MrAngryFace]

You cant figure out who's voting for him unless they tell you, and those are just the vocal crazies, they dont ULTIMATELY matter as much as the silent minority that casts their ballots for him. Nader is as much a waste of a vote as fucking Ron Paul

[Flannel Boy]

If you're going to attack or blame anyone, it makes no sense to attack Nader for running; attack the people voting for him if you're so afraid of his campaign "spoiling" your tidy little race.

Nader would be responsible for putting his name on the ballot with the full knowledge that he would have no chance of winning. All he would do is siphon off votes from the Black Jesus. He knows he will get votes, whether it is a few hundred thousand or more, and these votes might matter.

Not that I personally care as I don't get fooled by public hysterias like Obamamania.

[Joe Molotov]

If Nader's 0.5% of the popular vote is enough to blow the entire election for your party, it might be time to get a new candidate.

[MrAngryFace]

If you're going to attack or blame anyone, it makes no sense to attack Nader for running; attack the people voting for him if you're so afraid of his campaign "spoiling" your tidy little race.

Nader would be responsible for putting his name on the ballot with the full knowledge that he would have no chance of winning. All he would do is siphon off votes from the Black Jesus. He knows he will get votes, whether it is a few hundred thousand or more, and these votes might matter.

Not that I personally care as I don't get fooled by public hysterias like Obamamania.

This could affect either democratic candidate you doof

If Nader's 0.5% of the popular vote is enough to blow the entire election for your party, it might be time to get a new candidate.

This would be true if our system wasnt broken and one bumfuck state couldnt ruin it for everyone.

[Flannel Boy]

This could affect either democratic candidate you doof

So the Democrats will have two candidates on the ballot this November?

Clearly I was going on the assumption that Obama will win the nomination. However, if he doesn't win, this would hurt Hillary even more. Voters most likely to support Nader would probably rather vote for Obama than Hillary. If Obabma were on the ballot they might decline to vote for Nader. If Hillary were on the ballot they would be more likely to vote for nader.

[APF]

Nader would be responsible for putting himself on the ballot, but is he more responsible for people voting for him than they are themselves for casting the vote?  I don't think that makes any rational sense whatsoever.  It's the people who would be persuaded into his camp that are "to blame," and if they are that important perhaps Obamessiah should try and court that camp more vigorously than uh Republicans who for some reason aren't racist even though that's the foundational aspect of Republicanism don't ask me I only work here.

[AdmiralViscen]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Van Cruncheon]

nader's not getting the coverage he did in 2000. he has as much chance of hurting a dem victory as badnarik or larouche does a republican one

[Flannel Boy]

If he's not on the ballot, then they can't vote for him. He has the ability to prevent others from causing harm. If I leave a nail gun lying on my lawn and a teenager picks it up and shoots himself with it, don't I share in the responsibility? If I didn't leave it on the ground, he wouldn't have the ability to play around with the gun.

And yes, I am comparing voters to teenagers; I'm being charitable.

[APF]

Not only that, you're comparing people voting their conscience to someone doing themselves violent bodily harm, which is complete hyperbole at the very least.  Again, if these folks are so easily persuaded, and are so important, perhaps The American Jesus should I dono, try and capture their hearts-and-minds?  Or is that too much to ask of the most persuasive and charismatic figure ever to grace these shores, if not the entirety of the Earth itself, for all of recorded history?

[APF]

Oh, and actually people can in fact vote for him, even if he's not on the ballot, and in fact Nader ran a write-in campaign in the 90s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate

[Flannel Boy]

Not only that, you're comparing people voting their conscience to someone doing themselves violent bodily harm, which is complete hyperbole at the very least.

That is an inessential aspect of the analogy. Analogies are not tautologies. The harm doesn't have to be qualitatively or quantitatively similar. 

On the other hand, if McCain is elected president many more US soldiers will experience bodily harm. So. . .

Oh, and actually people can in fact vote for him, even if he's not on the ballot, and in fact Nader ran a write-in campaign in the 90s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate

ONLY IN A PRIMARY! Did you think that I wouldn't actually read the wikipedia page that you linked to?
Even if he was a write-in-candidate, he would not get nearly as many votes as if he was actually on the ballot.

[Mandark]

Lump of responsibility!  No such thing!

[APF]

Actually, you can be a write-in candidate in the GE as well as in primaries, despite Wikipedia not saying that explicitly.

In any case, what then is the essential aspect of the analogy?  That it begs the question?  Are we not talking about who is responsible for their actions?  But the fact is, children are not inherently responsible for themselves--at least not as far as both reason and the law see it,--whereas adults, in fact, are.  The foundational premise of your analogy is horribly flawed, at least in as much as we're debating responsibility, which is the point I at least am debating.

[APF]

Is that another Ghostbusters reference that could mean approximately 100 different things?

[APF]

And a further point, in the case of an Obama victory, a McCain supporter could point-out that more Iraqis will experience serious bodily harm...  Of course, in neither case are we talking about likely Nader voters, so again I point-out how far your comparisons are missing the mark.

[Flannel Boy]

Actually, you can be a write-in candidate in the GE as well as in primaries, despite Wikipedia not saying that explicitly.

In any case, what then is the essential aspect of the analogy?  That it begs the question?  Are we not talking about who is responsible for their actions?  But the fact is, children are not inherently responsible for themselves--at least not as far as both reason and the law see it,--whereas adults, in fact, are.  The foundational premise of your analogy is horribly flawed, at least in as much as we're debating responsibility, which is the point I at least am debating.

so replace the teenager in my analogy with an adult.

The word harm is bogging down the discussion. Instead of using the value-laden term harm, I will use the descriptive term vote-spitting.

So who is ultimately more responsible for the affects of vote splitting, the candidate or the voter who votes for the candidate? If an individual voter does not vote for the candidate vote splitting can still occur. If the candidate does not have his name put on the ballot, or run a write-in-campaign, then vote splitting is not possible (at least as far as he splits the vote). Thus the candidate has more individual power than any one voter. The voter has but one vote, the candidate has the power to prevent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people from voting for him. He can by himself prevent the affects of vote-splitting (though not all forms of vote splitting), but not the voter.

[Phoenix Dark]

Not that I personally care as I don't get fooled by public hysterias like Obamamania.

omg I'm going to send you some NyQuil

[Mandark]

It means personal responsibility for any particular event or outcome isn't a finite quantity.

I'm sure there's a fancy pants philosophical term for that, which I'll outsource to Prole, TVC, or malek.

[Flannel Boy]

It means personal responsibility for any particular event or outcome isn't a finite quantity.

I'm sure there's a fancy pants philosophical term for that, which I'll outsource to Prole, TVC, or malek.

contributory group responsibility?

[APF]

While I myself prefer to think of it in terms of appeal: if you do not appeal to a person, they may not vote for you, ie Democracy.  Whether they choose to vote for someone else, or choose not to vote for anyone is inconsequential.  If the presence of a minor political figure of limited appeal is so powerful that your entire campaign falls into disarray, leading to the most horrible outcome imaginable--an ~moderate winning the Presidency by a tiny margin and a Democrat-dominated Legislature,--then perhaps you may need to rethink the strength of your candidacy in the first place.  One would think this wouldn't be an issue for someone of such allegedly-universal appeal, vs a curmudgeon whose political capital has waned drastically over the last eight years, but then the further left you go the more paranoid and irrational you become, I fear.  Tsk tsk.

[Phoenix Dark]

can i post that on GAF please

[APF]

While the concept of "responsibility" is of course not a concrete "number" to be crunched, the idea that personal responsibility is not personal, is a bit of a stretch IMO.

[Flannel Boy]

While I myself prefer to think of it in terms of appeal: if you do not appeal to a person, they may not vote for you, ie Democracy.  Whether they choose to vote for someone else, or choose not to vote for anyone is inconsequential.  If the presence of a minor political figure of limited appeal is so powerful that your entire campaign falls into disarray, leading to the most horrible outcome imaginable--an ~moderate winning the Presidency by a tiny margin and a Democrat-dominated Legislature,--then perhaps you may need to rethink the strength of your candidacy in the first place.  

I don't think Nader will have much of an affect on the campaign. I was more interested in the abstract argument regarding responsibility.

I wish voters had many choices offered to them. However under the current American system, no matter how many people are on the ballot, voters only have two choices. All third party candidates are not real choices as they have no chance of being elected. And they should know this and they have a responsibility to think about what may happen if they run.

One would think this wouldn't be an issue for someone of such allegedly-universal appeal, vs a curmudgeon whose political capital has waned drastically over the last eight years, but then the further left you go the more paranoid and irrational you become, I fear.  Tsk tsk.

Though this is not saying much, I'm probably one of the most conservative posters on the forum.

[AdmiralViscen]

Great convo.

[GilloD]

Personal liberty, yadda yadda, don't blame Nader, blame the voters. Sure, great. But in 2004, Nader was a liberal candidate. He very obviously split a liberal vote, or, at least, damaged it. And given how very, very tight that race was, it is not at all a stretch to say that Nader may have killed Gore's chance at the White House. Stop pretending that politics is a fair game. Even in a "3 Party" system, you're voting 2-party where the Repiblucans are concerened- Liberal or conservative. Nader will split the vote.

[Mandark]

Take that, malek!  You're a far leftist!  By next week you'll be a radical feminist.

Also, I get some hits for "collective responsibility," but that seems like a whole different animal.  Or maybe not.  Too much jargon and I get dizzy.

While the concept of "responsibility" is of course not a concrete "number" to be crunched, the idea that personal responsibility is not personal, is a bit of a stretch IMO.

Not what I'm saying.  Key word is "finite".

[APF]

I wasn't characterizing Malek as "far left" in that comment, even though I was responding to his post.

So by saying it's not "a finite quantity," you're saying there's an infinite amount of personal responsibility to be shared by people who are not your person?  I'm not too much of a philo guy, so I think what's tripping me up is the concept that something that is your personal responsibility is not your personal responsibility.  It seems to me that by saying responsibility is "personal" it is inherent to your person, and not the responsibility of another.  In reality, I think what you mean to say is that the responsibility for the outcome is not solely a matter of personal, individual responsibility, and is rather a collective responsibility thing, to be shared by Nader and his supporters.  But in making that assertion you're reiterating something we've moved beyond; that's the starting point, and the argument is more whether the real people to "blame" are the voters swayed by Nader's message and the failure of Obama to capture their hearts-and-minds, as opposed to Nader reminding people Obama isn't necessarily their dream candidate.

[TVC15]

Please. Gore "lost" the race in 2000, he deserves the blame.

Once again, PD, the US's shitty media had more to do with Gore's loss than Nader.  And if you want to get closer to blaming Gore than that, the DNC fucked up his campaign more than he himself did.

[Flannel Boy]

I wasn't characterizing Malek as "far left" in that comment, even though I was responding to his post.

So by saying it's not "a finite quantity," you're saying there's an infinite amount of personal responsibility to be shared by people who are not your person?  I'm not too much of a philo guy, so I think what's tripping me up is the concept that something that is your personal responsibility is not your personal responsibility.  It seems to me that by saying responsibility is "personal" it is inherent to your person, and not the responsibility of another.  In reality, I think what you mean to say is that the responsibility for the outcome is not solely a matter of personal, individual responsibility, and is rather a collective responsibility thing, to be shared by Nader and his supporters.  But in making that assertion you're reiterating something we've moved beyond; that's the starting point, and the argument is more whether the real people to "blame" are the voters swayed by Nader's message and the failure of Obama to capture their hearts-and-minds, as opposed to Nader reminding people Obama isn't necessarily their dream candidate.

Not finite does not mean infinite. Infinite is included in the concept of non-finite, but it does not exhaust the definition; in the same way cold is included in the concept of not hot, but it does not exhaust it. Something can also be cool or warm. I think Mandark is saying that responsibility in this case is not finite in the sense that it cannot be measured. Nnot that there is an infinite amount of responsibility to go around.

Blaming Obama is silly. No candidate can ever win everyone over. And he also has to pretend to be more centric than he really is in order to broaden his base, something Nader doesn't have to do.

[Phoenix Dark]

Please. Gore "lost" the race in 2000, he deserves the blame.

Once again, PD, the US's shitty media had more to do with Gore's loss than Nader.  And if you want to get closer to blaming Gore than that, the DNC fucked up his campaign more than he himself did.

Many things contributed to Gore's loss, from the media to the shitty way he ran his campaign. I've never heard the DNC angle though; care to expound? 

[TVC15]

Please. Gore "lost" the race in 2000, he deserves the blame.

Once again, PD, the US's shitty media had more to do with Gore's loss than Nader.  And if you want to get closer to blaming Gore than that, the DNC fucked up his campaign more than he himself did.

Many things contributed to Gore's loss, from the media to the shitty way he ran his campaign. I've never heard the DNC angle though; care to expound? 

Just the tendency for the Anointed One to get watered down and tooled with once the incompetent DNC gets their tentacles into him.  I'm not sure how I'd eloquently describe it since I'm no expert, but the effect was on display in both the Kery and Gore presidential runs.

[MrAngryFace]

Anyone who joins the race at this stage in the game has no interest in winning.

[Phoenix Dark]

Anyone who joins the race at this stage in the game has no interest in winning.

True, he knows he won't win. And I really like what Obama said earlier today about Nader. He basically said that in 2000 Nader ran on a platform describing Gore and Bush as the same corporatist deity, but after 8 years of Bush it was fucking clear they were huge differences between both lol
\ 

[APF]

Not finite does not mean infinite. Infinite is included in the concept of non-finite, but it does not exhaust the definition; in the same way cold is included in the concept of not hot, but it does not exhaust it. Something can also be cool or warm. I think Mandark is saying that responsibility in this case is not finite in the sense that it cannot be measured. Nnot that there is an infinite amount of responsibility to go around.

If that's the case--that the contention was with "responsibility" not being quantifiable--then why take issue when I say I understand that of course responsibility is not a number to be crunched?  Is this not saying precisely the same thing?

Blaming Obama is silly. No candidate can ever win everyone over. And he also has to pretend to be more centric than he really is in order to broaden his base, something Nader doesn't have to do.

"Blaming" Obama is far from silly: balancing-out the needs-and-wants of different potential constituencies is at the very core of politics and campaigning.  If he is unable to do so, knowing full-well that his campaign theme as running as a in-name centrist favorable to Republicans--rhetoric which will only increase once we're in the GE--will alienate the far left and other potential Nader voters, then he's running a poor campaign based on rhetoric that will torpedo his chances of winning.  The idea that the Obama campaign is not responsible for the effectiveness of its own message, and should not be responsible for alienating those for whom that message runs counter to their conscience, is I fear not a message that resonates with me at least.

[Trent Dole]

nader's not getting the coverage he did in 2000. he has as much chance of hurting a dem victory as badnarik or larouche does a republican one

p. much.

[Mandark]

It's not finite in the sense that if someone is responsible for an outcome, it doesn't necessarily mean that another person is not also responsible.

It makes sense to hold someone accountable for the results of a choice they made, even if other people also made choices that contributed to the situation.

Plural causation?  Is that a thing?

[APF]

It's all a rich tapestry.

[hyp]

ralph nader

[GilloD]

Since we know an original Lostie is going to die, smart money is

spoiler (click to show/hide)

on Claire. We know she gets on the hekalopter, but that doesn't mean she gets off the island. Rumor is she gets pushed out the whirlygig.

[close]

[Flannel Boy]

If that's the case--that the contention was with "responsibility" not being quantifiable--then why take issue when I say I understand that of course responsibility is not a number to be crunched?  Is this not saying precisely the same thing?

What I took issue with was your use of the word "infinite", but I really shouldn't have. The morpheme "in" acts as privative and the denotational meaning of infinite is, in part, something not measurable. However, the conotational meaning of infinite is almost exclusively something not measurable specifically because of its great size, number, degree, or unlimited nature. "Responsibility" in this instance may not be measurable, but not because of its great size or unlimited nature. While infinite is the absolute opposite of finite, I don't think it's the logical opposite. The logical opposite is simply the negation of finite: not finite or non-finite.

"Blaming" Obama is far from silly: balancing-out the needs-and-wants of different potential constituencies is at the very core of politics and campaigning.  If he is unable to do so, knowing full-well that his campaign theme as running as a in-name centrist favorable to Republicans--rhetoric which will only increase once we're in the GE--will alienate the far left and other potential Nader voters, then he's running a poor campaign based on rhetoric that will torpedo his chances of winning.  The idea that the Obama campaign is not responsible for the effectiveness of its own message, and should not be responsible for alienating those for whom that message runs counter to their conscience, is I fear not a message that resonates with me at least.

You really twisted my words. I only made the banal point that Obama cannot win everyone over; not that he isn't responsible for his own campaign.

A leftist third party will siphon off votes from a mainstream leftist party. It is inevitable. Because it is inevitable it is silly to blame the candidate from the mainstream leftist party for not being able to attract every single leftist voter. Especially when the number of people likely to vote for that third party is so small compared to the number of potential centrist voters. 

Look, the management of a fast-food Mexican restaurant is responsible for attracting customers to its restaurant. But if a taco stand opens up right next to it, the stand will siphon off some customers from the Mexican restaurant. It doesn't matter what the restaurant does; the taco stand will be responsible for taking away customers.

[Mupepe]

Since we know an original Lostie is going to die, smart money is

spoiler (click to show/hide)

on Claire. We know she gets on the hekalopter, but that doesn't mean she gets off the island. Rumor is she gets pushed out the whirlygig.

[close]

wrong thread?

[Human Snorenado]

More people will worry about Nader potentially spoiling the Dem. candidate's chances than will actually vote for Nader.  smh.

I suppose I should toss up an asterisk- if, for some reason Hillary is the candidate I could see a scenario where enough pissed off Obama voters would get Nader 2-3%, enough to potentially swing the White House to McCain.  I wonder what APF would say about Nader then.

[MrAngryFace]

Anyone democrat that spoils the chance of a democrat in the white house cause their particular democrat which is running on essentially the same platform didnt win nomination has issues.

[Human Snorenado]

Anyone democrat that spoils the chance of a democrat in the white house cause their particular democrat which is running on essentially the same platform didnt win nomination has issues.

Except that Obama is drawing huge support from Independents... like, say, me.  Sure I'm a lefty in general but I would have a hard time voting for Hillary and so would many other people.  The simple fact is that Obama has more appeal than Hillary.  REAL TALK.

[MrAngryFace]

id be fine with anyone these days. Thanks bush.

[APF]

More people will worry about Nader potentially spoiling the Dem. candidate's chances than will actually vote for Nader.  smh.

I suppose I should toss up an asterisk- if, for some reason Hillary is the candidate I could see a scenario where enough pissed off Obama voters would get Nader 2-3%, enough to potentially swing the White House to McCain.  I wonder what APF would say about Nader then.

I would say it's a free country where he has the right to run for President if he wants to, abides by whatever laws and regulations, etc.


Malek: I understood about every fourth word there, but again I say, if a Presidential campaign isn't able to deal with known realities--like the fact that their inclusionary message may alienate their fringes--to the extent that their inability to deal with those realities jeopardizes their chances for winning, then they are at fault for running a poor campaign that can't deal with the realities of running a campaign.  Period.

[APF]

It is negligent to hinge the success of your campaign on someone who has made a run every election cycle just choosing to not run for some reason.  Saying "I'm the guy who loves Republicans" only increases the chances that someone for whom a core message is, "both parties are essentially the same" will run, and that's a valid, known consequence of choosing to pimp that message.  Action -> consequence.

[MrAngryFace]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/25/nader/index.html