Protestantism

» pink101 - The Pork Chop Kid

In response to The Pork Chop Kid posted by Migisi:

.
I watch Hagee on the tube every once in a while.
.
The man is one of the worst bigots I've ever noticed. He spews out a line of hatred that would make Hitler roll over in his grave.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - The Pork Chop Kid

In response to The Pork Chop Kid posted by pink101:

.
Obama openly rejected Farrakhan's endorsement because the khan spews bigotry and hatred. I admire Obama for that.
.
They say 'beggars can't be choosers'. Obviously, McPain doesn't care who endorses him - as long as they have money to contribute, and a long membership mailing list of voters.

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - The Pork Chop Kid

In response to The Pork Chop Kid posted by Migisi:

So, could history also be in the making with the first Arab-American...and independent...Ralph Nader? Or is he still good for the protest vote from the disenchanted, fragmenting the vote away from those with a better chance?

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - The Best Candidate?

In response to The Pork Chop Kid posted by redback:
.
I watched a recorded session of Ralph Nader for an hour this afternoon as he gave a talk about his book, Seventeen Traditions.
.
After his talk he took some questions. The very first questioner jumped on him for giving America 8 years of the Bush administration with the claim that Nader spoiled the election for Al Gore.
.
Here's a link where the book can be purchased: http://product.half.ebay.com/_W0QQprZ570...
.
Here is the program I watched today. If you watch it through, you will see the questioners and you will see Nader's responses to each one.
.
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?Progr...
.
I can easily support his candidacy and vote for him.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - The Best Candidate?

In response to The Best Candidate? posted by pink101:

.
I can easily support his candidacy and vote for him.
.
I could, and did support Nader in 1996. Our choices came down to Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Ross Perot (Reform Party), and Nader (Green Party). My hubby voted Perot, I voted Nader.
.
.
Some claimed Nader was a spoiler and was responsible for Bush getting elected, but I think that accusation is simply sour grapes coming from the losing party (Dems). I don't think Nader 'took' anything away from anyone. No way to know if Nader voters would've supported Gore even if Nader hadn't run. They might've stayed home and not voted at all. Same way some might point to Ron Paul or Huckabee as a reason for McPain losing in the upcoming election. IMO, McPain can only blame himself (and Bush) for that.
.
Regarding Nader, Billary can't use lack of experience against him, can she.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Spoiler?

In response to The Best Candidate? posted by Migisi:
.
If you bring up the link I offered just above and go to the 46 minute spot, you will hear Nader respond to a few questions that are relative to your post.
.
He mentions the 250,000 Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush. Does anyone see them as spoilers?
.
HEre's the link again: http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?Progr...
.
Notice the red and white "WATCH" button on the right about 2" down from the top. Click on it to see the video that played on C-span yesterday. If you don't want to watch the entire thing, move the marker over to 46 minutes and you'll see Nader's responses to being accused of losing the election for Gore.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Spoiler?

In response to Spoiler? posted by pink101:

Sorry, Pink. My computer really could care less for me wanting to access video-audio-based sites. It didn't work. grrrr!?

'Spoiler' is an interesting concept. BTW: I know Bush is your President but then I had to do a memory jogger to remind me that he's a 'Republican'. So, the question:

"He mentions the 250,000 Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush. Does anyone see them as spoilers?"

I don't know how people self-identify there. I see the 250,000 not as Democrats but as 'swinging voters' if they last voted Democrat. I'm a swinging voter here. Our family never votes "that way" coz that's how my great-great-great grandfather always voted. I hold no allegiance to any party nor am I a member of any political party. If the 250,000 are paid up members of a party and vote for the opposition, they've deserted the party?

The Democrats here were seen as spoilers because they were perceived as having no chance at all of ever gaining government in their own right and their creed to "Keep The Bastards Honest" as the next powerful (third) party in the Parliament, only served to hamper the winner's lust for escess. Fair-minded voters had the chance to accept their motives.

If I don't like either of the 2 major parties so vote for one with less chance, I'm still hoping they'll win seats and influence the political debate. So, I guess there is some element of a 'spoiler' within me.

If you got a President you didn't want, the 250,000 Democrats were not the only spoilers seems to me. The global inadvertant spoiler who doesn't know what they need, what they want.

From my understanding of Nader's background, I like the guy. I don't understand how he's in the Presidential race without any indication he's actually campaigning and "winning" States...but then how the whole race works, confuses me. I hope we don't get a similar system here.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - No Spoiler.

In response to Spoiler? posted by redback:

.
The concept in politics is, "Saints, Sinners, and Save-ables".
.
There is a "Swing" vote as well. These are the people outside of party views. They vote for "other" reasons than party affiliation.
.
Generally, if you consider the idea of saints, they are the ones who will vote the party no matter what and the sinners are those who will not vote the party no matter what.
.
There is a tendency, in American politics, to ignore individuals and look more to the percentages of some index or another. Thus, we can talk about how great the economy is when so many people are in a practical economic recession or actual depression. People on top generally consider such indexes with little regard for individuals who may be living in next to squalor.
.
So, when someone faults Ralph Nader for being a spoiler, his response is that he was born in the USA and is over 35 years of age--that qualifies him to run for president; so, how can he be a spoiler if everyone is not a spoiler for how they vote? Suppose Brian, for example, who was born in the Commonwealth of Virginia were to run for president because he believed he had something of importance to contribute. Is he such a second class citizen that others could call him a spoiler for not supporting the front runner?
.
There is a long tradition out of the nineteenth century in America that third parties are the ones that establish progressive change.
.
The statement stands that if Nader can be seen as a spoiler, then those people who normally always vote the straight Democratic ticket that swung over to vote for Bush are each and every one of them spoilers as well.
.
So, America's eight year nightmare cannot be blamed on Ralph Nader any more than it can be blamed on each and every person--regardless of party affiliation--that voted for Bush.
.
In other words ~ plain and simple ~ Ralph Nader was no spoiler.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - No Spoiler.

In response to No Spoiler. posted by pink101:

.
cannot be blamed on Ralph Nader any more than it can be blamed on each and every person--regardless of party affiliation--that voted for Bush.
.
You said it!
.

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - No Sinner Me.

In response to No Spoiler. posted by pink101:

The concept in politics is, "Saints, Sinners, and Save-ables".

I hadn't heard of 2 of those groups nor the possibility that I am NOT a sinner.

The tendency you speak of...the ignoring individuals et al...is some form of bizarre positivism IMO. If only 30% of the 'process' by whatever name...fails...then the process itself hasn't failed. We can't all be winners by definition?

...that third parties are the ones that establish progressive change.

Sounds right to me. Here the Democrats actually had democratic processes...conscience voting etc. It allowed a 'minority' view to be heard beyond mere tokenism. When a public advocate such as Nader is/was...then his street cred goes beyond the minorities it seems to me. And I wouldn't call him a spoiler in the derogatory sense of the word. It sounds like he's spoiling for a fair fight?

Suppose Brian, for example, who was born in the Commonwealth of Virginia were to run for president... I'd then ponder what he'd plan to do in his first 100 days in the top job.

And the way my mind trawls these things...ponder what you and Migisi would have in mind if you were of a similar bent ie towards the Presidency.

-- posted by redback