marketing the third candidate

This forum is for friendly discussion among DesignCommunity members on weather, sports, politics, fishing, and those other parts of life that don't fit into the topic-specific DesCom discussions.

marketing the third candidate

Postby Richard Haut » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:18 pm

now let me say straight away that I neither know nor really care precisely who Ralph Nader is.

in the brief coverage that I see of his part in elections he seems to put himself across as a sort of Jiminy Cricket character. However I did read that the powers of the chirpy little fellow are not perhaps what they used to be.

he was the third candidate - but for how much longer ?

an election video has just been shown of another possibility who may not have the care of the American conscience at heart like Ralph, but whose influence is profound.

to give the background to the new third candidate's marketing possibilities, it is necessary to go back to the last quarter of 2001 - not long after September 11th. A new trading name was registered for a line of men's smart - casual clothing. The man behind this new clothing label decided to use his own name when he registered the label in Switzerland.

The name of the clothing line was (I kid you not) "binladen".

This was one of Osama's many brothers. Discussions were undertaken as to whether or not it was reasonable to launch the brand with such a name after 9.11. At the time I discussed this with a friend from a big branding house. They said that the whole idea was disgusting. I expressed surprise.

"You mean that you AGREE with this, Richard ? It's revolting." they persisted. Now look, let's get real here. Taste, shmaste - these clothes would sell. From churlish American teenagers to (sorry) France, they would sell big time. As for Muslim countries, would they like something that said Levi Strauss or binalden ? Forget terrorism and decency - the rag trade is about turnover. This was the best marketing idea that I had ever come across - the best.

However binalden (of Switzerland) decided against starting his clothing line because of the conduct of bin Laden (in a cave, somewhere in Afghanistan).

Nonetheless, the principle holds true.

Republicans have to vote for Bush and Cheney - but they know that things are not quite right. Democrats have to vote for Kerry and whathisname, but still need to toughen up their act. Never mind Schwarzenegger talking about -, or Springsteen playing a few chords for politics.

With a two-party, entrenched system people need and want to hear from someone who is not a supporter of either side - a neutral, but with a genuine interest in their nation. Osama is perfect for the job. He is obsessed with America. He will never be influenced by either party. His view is genuinely different and important.

Rather than his little videos, give him his own show, his own newspaper columns, syndicate them across the US.

He may like the job - and it will keep him busy and away from his nasty little habits.

The viewing figures would be spectacular.
Richard Haut
millennium club
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:07 am
Location: Cuneo, Italy

Postby Architorture » Sun Oct 31, 2004 4:42 pm

...ralph nader USED to have some influence....back in the days when he had over 2% of the vote...now he is simply running on ego alone... he single handedly lost gore the previous election by eating up valuable votes that probably would have gone democrat...

there certainly could/should be a third party...but the problem today is that all the other parties are very specific in their drive...

most are interested in one thing and thats it...whether it be pot, the environment, or going back to when the stars on the flag were still in a circle...

there simply is no comprehensive third party...the libertarians probably come the closest...but they have that nasty stigma of the uni bomber and tim mcvehey associated with them...

having osama bin laden give his point of view would be useless...am sure you can agree his is a bit dilluted himself... according to him 'his people' have never done any wrong and it has always been the american/israeli oppressors who have created all the harm in the world....

the only reason people would watch is in hopes that an audience member would rush the stage and kill him...i mean you can barely get people in this country to watch the little tapes he releases every few months...with their doom and gloom and threats... osama talk show could never compete against desperate housewives or survivor...
Architorture
millennium club
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 12:11 am

Postby Richard Haut » Sun Oct 31, 2004 6:13 pm

"it has always been the american/israeli oppressors who have created all the harm in the world.... "

the number of Iraqi children dead as a direct result of the vindictive US/UK enforced sanctions was in excess of three quarters of a million. Saddam - for all his faults - tried and largely succeeded in keeping a health service running. America smashed that. America deliberately smashed the water supplies.

Madeleine Albright (as US Ambassador to the UN) described the UN-confirmed figure of the number of dead Iraqi children as "acceptable".

doubtless it is equally acceptable to you.

unfortunately for you, most countries of the world neither respect nor fear those who deliberately make war on children.

if you have the courage, why don't you check out Seymour Hersch's descriptions of what was on the abuse pictures and videos that america was too gutless to watch. American soldiers raping children (obeying orders ? no doubt).

it was the Israeli Minister of Justice, Tommy Lapid, who said that the conduct of Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza reminded him of the treatment of his grandmother by the Nazis.

it was the Israelis themselves who found Sharon "morally responsible" for the obscene massacres of women and children at Sabra and Shatilla, crushing them to death with bulldozers.

nobody is interested in the corrupt nonsense of an election in a country too dishonest to count up the votes.
Richard Haut
millennium club
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:07 am
Location: Cuneo, Italy

Postby Kevin » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:09 pm

Perhaps your rhetorical florish might more say more precisely, 'nobody [outside the US] is interested in the corrupt nonsense of an election in a country too dishonest to count up the votes' ?

Inside the US, we're expecting record or near-record turnout. That shows some interest!

And from an outisde perspective, extended coverage of these US elections seems to be the top story for the BBC, at least in the "World" version I get here.

Even gravely flawed, our elections are of world importance. (Which of course, is why we're here internationally discussing them!)

And yes, the state of vote-tallying in the US is frankly scandalous. And that is scary to many of us, on this Halloween.
User avatar
Kevin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: Eugene, Oregon

Postby Architorture » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:20 pm

Richard Haut wrote:"it has always been the american/israeli oppressors who have created all the harm in the world.... "

the number of Iraqi children dead as a direct result of the vindictive US/UK enforced sanctions was in excess of three quarters of a million. Saddam - for all his faults - tried and largely succeeded in keeping a health service running. America smashed that. America deliberately smashed the water supplies.

Madeleine Albright (as US Ambassador to the UN) described the UN-confirmed figure of the number of dead Iraqi children as "acceptable".

doubtless it is equally acceptable to you.

unfortunately for you, most countries of the world neither respect nor fear those who deliberately make war on children.

if you have the courage, why don't you check out Seymour Hersch's descriptions of what was on the abuse pictures and videos that america was too gutless to watch. American soldiers raping children (obeying orders ? no doubt).

it was the Israeli Minister of Justice, Tommy Lapid, who said that the conduct of Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza reminded him of the treatment of his grandmother by the Nazis.

it was the Israelis themselves who found Sharon "morally responsible" for the obscene massacres of women and children at Sabra and Shatilla, crushing them to death with bulldozers.

nobody is interested in the corrupt nonsense of an election in a country too dishonest to count up the votes.


see you took that out of context...my statement indicated that i believe the united states and isreal have had their fair share of misdoings, but to hold up osama bin laden as an objective observer is ludicrous...

also interestingly enough, since you brought up the deaths by sanction, the death rate in iraq has fallen off since the beginning of this most recent conflict...obviously there was a spike during the main offensive, but since that time rates are better than pre-invasion... so does that mean the invasion was good for the children of iraq?
Architorture
millennium club
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 12:11 am

Postby Richard Haut » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:43 pm

since the figures from the Lancet indicate that the Iraqi deaths have been many times the number originally estimated - and since it is stated policy that the US cannot be bothered to count Iraqi dead - I can only wonder how you estimate how many deaths there have or have not been.

or do you consider the Lancet estimate of 100,000 dead of whom over 50% are women and children to be OK ?

no bin Laden is not a good objective observer.

let me put it plainly - Bush deceived both his own nation and the United Nations to start a war of aggression.

a vote for him endorses that.

you are right that I am saying that the election is of distant interest outside the US - because the US now has virtually no friends. Doesn't that seem strange to you ? (And don't say the Brits ...... they REALLY are not with you in a way i would never have thought possible).

America is in the position of being an aggressor nation. The "war on terror" is no longer even an excuse because there is no way that the attack on Iraq had any credible link to that.

why should anybody outside the US be interested in how you vote - let alone influencing the way that you vote ? In terms of normal politics they are not. Most neither know nor care about the differences between Republicans and Democrats.

they are only interested in knowing whether America will return to being a decent member of the international community - or whether they need to arm against you. That is the reality of the situation.
Richard Haut
millennium club
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:07 am
Location: Cuneo, Italy

Postby Architorture » Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:39 pm

it was a article talking about deaths due to sanction activity versus deaths due to bombing activity...

they cited a much higher number of deaths due to sanctions since '91...one that would come out to a yearly average higher than the 100k mark...and in the end it is all based on estimates...estimates that can be skewed and manipulated to indicate the point the statistician wants...

the article argued that the medical/food supplies that followed the invasion helped alleviate problems that were killing iraqis under the sanction system...

i'm sorry but not every bush supporter supports the war in iraq...and thus would not appreciate being told then endorse it by voting for bush...

believe it or not, there are people who could care less about military policy since it does not effect their lives in any percievable way... those people very well might be more interested in domestic issues that have a that are important to their lives...such as unemployment or health care or farm policy...these people don't worry about if america has a friend in the UK or anywhere...

i'm just saying as much as the international community may not know the differences b/w democrats and republicans, there are americans who could care less about foreign policy and the interests of other countries...

how do you judge whether someone is a decent member of the international community? when was the last time the united states was a decent member? who is arming against the united states? and what countries are 'decent' members of the international community?
Architorture
millennium club
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 12:11 am

Postby Richard Haut » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:49 am

"would not appreciate being told then endorse it by voting for bush... "

Bush deceived the nation and the international community in order to start a war (just as Blair did - let's not forget the part that Britain played).

this matters at many levels, but the reason that it is not something that can be ignored or just seen as one part of his conduct is the very real risk that he will do it again.

whether or not Republicans see it as an endorsement for that conduct, Bush and those around him will.

normally the views of the international community should be of secondary concern to US voters - why should those outside the US be interested in or seek to influence US voters ? what does it have to do with them ?

unfortunately the effect of a return of Bush will be viewed internationally as an American endorsement for Bush - as meaning that Bush's conduct is seen as acceptable to the people of the US.

one of the standards by which nations are judged is by the requirements of obeying international law. It was an American prosecutor at the war crimes trials after WWII who described waging aggressive war - called crimes against peace - as not just a crime but "the crime".
Richard Haut
millennium club
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:07 am
Location: Cuneo, Italy

Postby Architorture » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:12 am

well i see what you are saying and it does make sense...but i doubt that is the way in which people see their vote being cast here in most cases...

although the iraq situation generally leads the polls in what is the most important thing in this election, its not the sort of issue that will bring people out in droves...issues that have more domestic implications generally drive people to vote... and things like unemployment, health care, or perscription drugs don't have much connection to foreign policy in the military sense...
Architorture
millennium club
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 12:11 am

Postby Richard Haut » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:30 am

of course one can understand people being concerned with domestic issues - except under one single circumstance.

that is when they are being lead into a wider war.

Bush intends to attack other countries.
Richard Haut
millennium club
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:07 am
Location: Cuneo, Italy

Postby Richard Haut » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:15 pm

"... or am I just wasting my breath at this point."

why just at this particular point ?
Richard Haut
millennium club
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:07 am
Location: Cuneo, Italy

Postby Architorture » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:02 pm

hahaha
Architorture
millennium club
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 12:11 am


Return to Fireside Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron

User Control Panel

Login

Who is online

In this forum zone there are 4 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 593 on Sat May 26, 2018 5:18 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
DesignCommunity   ·   ArchitectureWeek   ·   Great Buildings   ·   Archiplanet   ·   Books   ·   Blogs   ·   Search
Special thanks to our sustaining subscribers Building Design UK, Building Design News UK, and Building Design Tenders UK.