Sorry, not that one : ( So this some dude professor guy, his name is Larry, and he is running for U.S. President of America. You may be familiar with his previous political experience supporting a fake candidate for Senate in 2014, but, like, to make a
Lessig is mor.
Getting back to my point, my comparison of Lessig to Nader is how I fear he might operate as a third party candidate, attacking the candidates closest to him more fiercely, because that's what third parties do. And in a First Past the Post system like we have, that's why 3rd parties are ususally worse than useless to the people who support them. I wish we didn't have that system but we do; and people have understood this aspect of it for a long time. Sorry if St. Ralph never figured it out.
I didn't bring up Gore, you did, to do a hatchet job. Why, Oh yeah, because to "defend" Nader you had to attack Gore. Because no good came out of the Nader campaign at all. One can try to argue that it was "harmless" I suppose, but IMHO, actual evidence makes that a tough proposition to defend. But certainly, you can't point to any benefits of Nader's campaign, so on the attack you go. Have fun being stuck in 2000.
Regardless, Lessig shows the signs of being another Nader, and as someone who is not ashamed of my strong preference for a Democrat to win the presidency in 2016, I hope he does not go that way. That was my original point. What you said that was actually relevant to that point I found unconvincing. Regards.
I fantasize constantly of a chance meeting (grinding) with a boy that reads/comments on JMG and Wonkette, and/or writes to Slate to complain about how their contributors are fucking stupid cause they what can't spell good.
Believe me. Drives them NUTS!
It's very clear that we are not going to agree on this subject, so I'll make a few points in response to attacks: I'm not "stuck in 2000," I can point to a significant benefit of Nader's campaign (and every other "third-party" campaign that attracts significant backing), and "hatchet job"? Fuck that noise.
Gore lost the election. It wasn't Nader's fault, or anyone else's fault, it was because he ran a campaign that was so uncompelling that he couldn't get enough folks to vote for him. Blaming Nader because he got some people to turn out for him? Bogus. Get some of the other people who stayed home to turn out. That was Gore's failure, unrelated to Nader, and even unrelated to the criminally dishonest opponents in the Republican Party at the time.
This is the advantage of a campaign like Nader's, if a party is capable of listening: dear party, you're losing from what you consider to be your core demographic; you need to elucidate positions that actually attract them.
My bottom line: "Anybody would be better than my opponent" is a fucking shitty GOTV slogan. When it's deployed, you can expect voters that you can convince to turn out to vote for anyone but your opponent. Even in the known-broken American system, where it's nearly impossible for a third party to actually win anything due to decades of bipartisan legislative maneuvers intended to produce that result, people encouraged to vote for the least-worst will register their disappointment or disgust by voting for a hopeless long-shot.
The message, clearly, often doesn't get through. Worse than useless? No. Pay attention, and figure out how to get "back" the votes that the party thinks are its due.
I can point to a significant benefit of Nader's campaign (and every other "third-party" campaign that attracts significant backing)
And yet you don't; just another diatribe about how Al Gore is a bad, bad man.
It's well established that our (unfortunate) voting system makes 3rd parties problematic; there's no example of a successful 3rd party in American history for that reason. This is not something that's even considered controversial by historians or political scientists.
And if you think lying and saying "both parties are the same, the system is so broken I'm the only good choice, not either of the guys that are actually going to win" is a great GOTV strategy, then well, we'll just have to disagree. I think it tells people to stay home, that their vote doesn't really matter. And I think that is also the message a hypothetical Lessig 3rd party candidacy would send. Clearly you think another sanctimonious purity candidate would be great. We'll have to agree to disagree about that.
I recommend that if you're going to descend to ad hominem, you use the actual words that I spoke, and not this fucking nonsensical drivel that you're attempting to attribute to me.
Good day, sir.
They'll spin so much we'll get bored of spinning! We never get bored of spinning!
That was a good one LOL.I'm sure she thought that crack about Bamz' leading "from behind the skirt of his right-hand man, Valerie Jarrett" was pure gold, too. Because in the alternate reality of Dumbfuckistan, Obama is the pussy and Trump is the Manly Man.
I forget which dipshit was speaking, but one of them had to correct himself because I swear he started to say "genital" when he meant to say "genocidal".
Instead of mocking, we should be fortifyin' our tinfoil hats- Teddy said that if this Iranian dealio goes through, them moslems are gonna set off a nuke in the sky and trigger an EMP that's gonna kill TENS OF MILLIONS along the east coast!!!,1!!Laters, SHEEPLE
Since he is a law perfesser, he will at least be used to hypotheticals...
...another one: "I did your sister this morning."
Idealism doesn't butter the bread.
Crazy John McAfee announced he's running as a Dem. http://www.npr.org/sections...
I can't believe you guys haven't heard of Larry Lessig. Seriously.
However, I can believe he doesn't get a lot of play here -- he isn't particularly funny.