Click on this ass to learn more about his presidential campaign/ego trip.
I'll be honest. I voted for him in 2000, which was my luxury because Mass was heavily favored to vote for Gore (and did). I voted for him in 2000, because I was young and idealistic, and I wanted to vote my conscience. Eight years of George W. Bush has put that idealism permanently to rest...especially in the general presidential election.
I know Dad Eardley is a big fan of third-party candidates, and Nader does indeed represent something different than Obama, Clinton, or McCain. He has a point that the two-party system has begun to look more and more like a one-party system. But it pisses me off. Nader will only take votes from Obama, the same way he took votes from Gore. And in an election that is all about the war and healthcare, he's only going to take votes from the democratic nominee. The tragedy is that the democratic nominee will be closer to his positions than McCain is.
But it's the same as it was in 2000.
I admire Nader's refusal to sell out, but I think he, like Dennis Kucinich, does not represent the majority view in the USA. Neither Nader nor Kucinich will ever be president of the USA. They're far too radical. I admire that, but I also want Obama to get elected.
That is why I think Nader is an ass. I call it an ego trip, because he insists on running for president, instead of some lesser office, like governor, congressman, or senator. He could be a great liberal congressman, but he has to go all the way to the top.
Lame! Totally not cool!
3 comments:
I agree re: his assness. Still, I went to his website (thanks for the link) and ended up looking into single payer healthcare. It does sound good--I'd like to hear why Obama and Clinton don't advocate (or why they SAY they don't).
Kucinich is the only democratic candidate who advocated single payer healthcare.
Most establishment dems (politicians and lobbyists...and media) basically say it's too radical a change. We're not ready for it. It would never pass through Congress. It would be too expensive, and that taxes would go up prohibitively.
My question is...How much do individuals and employers already play per person for insurance? Could that number possibly be so radically different than what a tax would be?
When I worked for Indigo, they paid all my health insurance. They did that instead of giving me a larger pay raise. So, the reality is that I WAS paying for my insurance. It's just that I didn't know it.
I'd be curious to hear what other people have to say about health care.
Well it's an interesting theory, single payer healthcare but I don't agree with it.
My first hesitation is giving the government the ability to control the payment of the people in the healthcare industry seems to be a 'match in a powder keg' scenario. I don't think that the governing body of our country should dictate the ammount of funding something as important as healthcare should get.
I agree that the current system is bloated with fat HMO's and services that take too much from the people but I don't like the idea of funding someone else's healthcare through my money. I've seen and heard of people take advantage of a system designed to help people because they refuse to pay for the services they receive, and/or feel as though they need to have constant attention to symptom or ailments when none of the above is truely the case. I like the idea of a consumer based system where doctors and helathcare facilities have to improve themselves and provide a quality product to gain customers but we shouldn't limit them with a national quota.
As for anything with the drug company's involvement I'm sorry but you're going to have a tough time budging me on the price of drugs. I think that the price of medicine is based on demand, production, research, and study. Along with fraudulant cases against drugs, lawyers, and government demands, all these things drive the cost up.
So there's my 2cents. I could keep going but I'll leave room for others.
Post a Comment