Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

Palomar · 2004-06-25 08:00:08

There's another possibly for Nader's fixing on Kerry. Perhaps he, among others on the far-left, feel that the Democrat Party has left them behind, and therefore wants the Right to hold power and expand so that more people might be pushed leftward as a reaction. I've seen this before, both Left and Right.
In this case it's a sort of "liberal fundamentalism" seeking converts.

*Hummmpfh.

Well, this is a really rotten year to pull a stunt like this -- if that's the case.

Economy is slowing AGAIN and inflation is rising.

If people are stupid enough to vote for Nader and thereby help Bush get elected -- well, I wouldn't know what to say.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if Nader has an "accident" (NOT saying I hope such a thing would happen, by the way). The situation is so volatile right now and all he's doing is complicating further an already bad situation.

Nader needs to butt out. Alt asked the other day if this isn't as good a time as any for Nader to run, when would be? Well, I disagree.

Over 800 troops dead in Iraq and the economy is still in the toilet. Bush has had 4 years to improve this nation -- he hasn't. He doesn't deserve another 4 years, thanks to Nader's interference especially.

Kerry's being double-teamed, IMO. Kerry isn't my ideal candidate either (by a long shot)...but I'm just calling it as I see it.

--Cindy

P.S.: Anyone catch the latest Bush campaign ad which shows Kerry in 1971 talking to a camera, saying "we can't fight Communism everywhere on the globe" (not sure I've quoted that exactly word-for-word, but nearly so IIRC)? It shows a clip of the Berlin Wall coming down ala Reagan (riding on Reagan's coattails again -- I'll bet Ron Jr. is steamed) and then it shows a clip of Saddam's statue being torn down in Iraq. Heck, I didn't know Saddam was a Communist!

Stop the world...no, really -- I've had enough of the circus and the clowns. :down:

Algol · 2004-06-25 08:29:19

Want to bet the Republicans (including the Bush family of course) are behind this?

It is most certainly the repulicans - its a form of tactical voting. They arent proposing voting for him, just to get enough signatures to get him on the ballot. They quite correctly realise that he will eat up a small percentage of kerry voters but is highly unlikely to woo any Bush voters.

In the 1997 UK elections Labour encouraged its voters to vote Lib Dem in those seats where it was a close race between Conservative and Lib Dem and Labour were a distant 3rd and it helped them secure their landslide victory.

On another note, i think what the US really needs is a third major party - it would go a long way to reducing a lot of the political polarisation which makes getting things done so hard sometimes.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 08:36:12

You are acting like that people that vote for Nader are obliged to vote to Kerry. They are not or that they would have voted for Kerryif he didn't run, maybe they would have not voted at?. Nader has nothing to do with Kerry or his goals. He just wants to give people a way to show that some people care about other issues. If Kerry wants Nader votes well then do some stuff that Nader proposes not cry about it, Nader is not a traitor, he has every right to run! If Nader wouldn't have run then people supporting his ideals would have never gotten a chance with Kerry. Just support a few key points of Nader's issues or shut up. If they want republican votes they will add some issues. If they want churchgoers then will add. If they want Nader votes then just do the same.

By saying that Nader shouldn't run you are basically you are telling people to vote for the less of two worse, in their view. People know that Nader doesn't have chance and still vote for him. If they cared about getting Kerry that much in to office, then they would vote Kerry, if Nader ran or not.

And really who has any proof that Kerry will be a lot better then Bush? I mean the US army is going to stay in Iraq and Gulf with Bush or not. The deficit is going to continue to grow unless he raises taxes. And what magic wand is Kerry going to wave to restore the economy, remember there is no money to spend?

I read the transcript of Nader with the radio talk show host and I think he has some good ideas and I would vote for him if I were American, just to show I don't want to keep the status quo, I want to improve. Actually I thought that the talk host would rip him apart as he is right winged and a lot of times leftist ideas are to far fetched but Naders plan looks ok to me.

Palomar · 2004-06-25 08:46:36

You are acting like that people that vote for Nader are obliged to vote to Kerry.
By saying that Nader shouldn't run you are basically you are telling people to vote for the less of two worse, in their view.

*Nope. No one's obligated to vote for anyone. People can vote for Nader if they want to.

(And I'm entitled to my opinion that they're stupid if they vote for Nader)

You're European, aren't you? Do you like George Bush? Do you hope to see him get re-elected? Not if what I'm consistently hearing in news reports from "across the pond" for the past 2 years is any indication.

Nader is simply making trouble. He can't win. All he can accomplish is further divisiveness and helping Bush win this election.

And then, of course, the world community will be REALLY happy.

--Cindy

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 08:48:21

Heck, I didn't know Saddam was a Communist!

I think Saddam was a communist, well as much as an Arab, Muslim dictator can be.

Well maybe communist isn't the right word but I think the original ideas of the Baath party ideals had socialist tendencies.

And the old
http://images.google.com/images?q=iraq% … b=wi]Iraqi flag did have stars on them.

But on the other hand Reagan's government liked Saddam.

Algol · 2004-06-25 08:58:18

Nader is simply making trouble. He can't win. All he can accomplish is further divisiveness and helping Bush win this election.

If he gets 5% then he gets government funding for his campaign next time round.

Im an admirer of Nader too, but it is tempting to agree with Cindy that he should take one for the 'team'.

That said a viable alternative to both the Republicans and the Democrats needs to emerge at some point and if the Republicans happen to help it along to swing an election and then get bitten in the ass 8 years later, then i wouldnt be able to help but enjoy the irony. That said...... Bush still in the whitehouse..... for another 4 years....... <shudder>

EDIT - One final point. Bush has managed to polarise the political landscpae so much that america could end up stuck on the Republican-Democrat 'knife edge' (ie 50-50) for a generation - maybe the emergence of a third party is important enough for me to grit my teeth and bare Bush for another 4 years - who knows.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-25 09:20:16

The problem with this "third party" talk is that no one can say with any certainty what that party would be. Everyone has an idea what they'd like, but it's hardly a thought-out analysis.

Current "third parties" really aren't, they're simply extreme versions of the core values of the major parties. Ultra-conservatives have parties, ultra-liberals have parties, but non of them could serve as a third major party because they aren't that different. If another major liberal party formed, more forceful than the Democrats, we'd still have two parties because the Democrat Party would disintegrate, the real leftists going to the new "Liberal Socialist" party and the rest just drifting into moderate oblivion.

A third party needs real differences, a new philosphy, a new approach. Nader doesn't offer that. He could certainly play a role in a new, revived Leftist party after the Democrat crash (which is coming in our lifetime, mark my words) but it wouldn't be new so much as a change of labels.

The equilibrium would come later, when we have a hard-left party, a true conservative party, and another faction with significantly different ideas than both, all vying for the considerably reduced 'moderates' left over. We'd have many close elections, but people could for the most part vote their heart.

Of course I've got my own very defined ideas on that party, so I'll stop short of spouting FedImp rhetoric.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 09:23:38

You're European, aren't you? Do you like George Bush? Do you hope to see him get re-elected? Not if what I'm consistently hearing in news reports from "across the pond" for the past 2 years is any indication.

No I don't like his war or spending taxpayer’s money like there is no tomorrow. Anyway I do think that’s its good for the Iraqis that Saddam is gone but I also think that the US should now just go, no if's or but's, leave now! Give Iraq foreign aid and let them manage their own business.

But it’s also mostly Germany and France making most of the noise coming from Europe. A lot of eastern European countries supported Bush but were threatened by Germany-France to shut up or loose money from the EU. And I didn't like that, Germany and France playing the boss, countries should decide for them self who they agree with and not be bullied into some other peoples views.

Nader is simply making trouble. He can't win. All he can accomplish is further divisiveness and helping Bush win this election.

Well I agree somewhat but Kerry just doesn't have it for me. He is just more of the same.

But I think Nader is just trying to get noticed so that people that share his views may have a bigger chance with the Kerry camp. Like I said Kerry should just adopt certain issues from Nader to make the would be Nader voters more attracted to Kerry. Not blackmail them with: "If you don't vote for me, Bush will rule for another 4 years and the country will go to hell."

The Kerry camp should think about how they will attract Nader voters.

And then, of course, the world community will be REALLY happy.

The world community will never be happy; there will always be other issues. But they could be perhaps satisfied. But then they should also respect whom the American people choose as president. Even though if he is a minority president, it still means that a lot of Americans support him. Bush still represents a lot of the American people else we wouldn’t have this discussion about how to scrape every possible voter to vote for Kerry.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 09:44:49

Current "third parties" really aren't, they're simply extreme versions of the core values of the major parties. Ultra-conservatives have parties, ultra-liberals have parties, but non of them could serve as a third major party because they aren't that different. If another major liberal party formed, more forceful than the Democrats, we'd still have two parties because the Democrat Party would disintegrate, the real leftists going to the new "Liberal Socialist" party and the rest just drifting into moderate oblivion.

Even in multiparty Europe it’s like that. Most parties nowadays don't have enough votes to form a government so most likely they will form a coalition and by that loose their individual party policies.

For instance it would mean that the democrats and nader's party would negotiate about a coalition after the elections and have a combined total vote more then any other coalition or party. Then depending on how many votes each party got they will decide who's policy will dominate (but with restrictions) and the smaller party will get some of their policy into the general government policy besides some people at certain state departments.

In Europe the parties are mostly: left, right, Christian, extreme right/left, extreme Christian and the greens.

Left, right and Christian are mostly centrist parties and you will not notice a big difference if one of these parties rules or not.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-25 10:15:06

European parties need to form coalitions because of their parliamentary system. In the American system the winner takes all. Forming a coalition would really be counter-productive in most cases.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 10:35:11

European parties need to form coalitions because of their parliamentary system. In the American system the winner takes all. Forming a coalition would really be counter-productive in most cases.

As far as I remember, at least where I'm from, you could form a government with just one party but you need 51% of the votes. But I'm not sure of it. But to be sure most of the time they do form coalitions to be sure their “legislation” (is that the word?) passes as not everyone from the government’s party agrees with every plan.

But shouldn't the congress control the president’s government? I read once that if you have a democratic president with a majority republican congress you will have a really hard time.

And a lot of times the president and the congress members do form casual coalitions. Such as ok I will pass this but you must make such and such changes and next time you will pass my plan. As the president can’t do a lot without congress’s approval.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-25 10:45:01

As far as I remember, at least where I'm from, you could form a government with just one party but you need 51% of the votes.

That's my understanding as well. We don't do it that way here.

But shouldn't the congress control the president’s government? I read once that if you have a democratic president with a majority republican congress you will have a really hard time.

Separation of powers, we like to keep Congress and the President at each others throats. Keeps 'em on their toes. Generally, that conflict is more desirable than handing the entire government to one party.

Now, I might feel differently if I didn't look down at both current parties.

And a lot of times the president and the congress members do form casual coalitions. Such as ok I will pass this but you must make such and such changes and next time you will pass my plan. As the president can’t do a lot without congress’s approval.

Yes, they do. But they don't need to mathematically to win the election, only afterwards to get anything done.

It's just we have a mentality that anyone not a Republican or Democrat can't win, when if everyone actually voted honestly they just might. It's a stupid game we engage in.

Alt2War · 2004-06-25 12:54:25

*Notice how it's always Nader against Kerry.
::EDIT:: Whoa. Where did that post of Alt2War's go just now, which was a photocopy-looking thing about an Oregon petition? That's what I based this entire post on. It was all "get votes away from Kerry, endorse Nader" ::end edit::
Want to bet the Republicans (including the Bush family of course) are behind this?
Can't prove it of course, but I wouldn't be the least surprised if Ralph's pockets are being abundantly lined with green alright ($$$) -- straight from the Repub coffers.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but this entire situation...
--Cindy

Al Sharpton got some cash from Republicans. Was all over the Village Voice, and other places.

Alt2War · 2004-06-25 13:02:56

Want to bet the Republicans (including the Bush family of course) are behind this?
It is most certainly the repulicans - its a form of tactical voting. They arent proposing voting for him, just to get enough signatures to get him on the ballot. They quite correctly realise that he will eat up a small percentage of kerry voters but is highly unlikely to woo any Bush voters.
In the 1997 UK elections Labour encouraged its voters to vote Lib Dem in those seats where it was a close race between Conservative and Lib Dem and Labour were a distant 3rd and it helped them secure their landslide victory.
On another note, i think what the US really needs is a third major party - it would go a long way to reducing a lot of the political polarisation which makes getting things done so hard sometimes.

Except if you have a 3rd party that can pull an average of 33% of the votes, The House will always pick the president.

Alt2War · 2004-06-25 13:07:07

But shouldn't the congress control the president’s government? I read once that if you have a democratic president with a majority republican congress you will have a really hard time.

that "really hard time" was intentional and is essential to our system.

smurf975 · 2004-06-25 17:44:29

Basically I'm trying to get the message across that Kerry does anything/everything to appeace the right but almost nothing for the left and I feel thats why Nader stepped in.

Alt2War · 2004-06-30 05:21:38

after losing the nomination, Ralphie trashes the green party?!?!

Ok, the ####### is a megalomaniac.

Palomar · 2004-06-30 08:27:10

after losing the nomination, Ralphie trashes the green party?!?!
Ok, the ####### is a megalomaniac.

*Alt, I wish you would have included a link or source.

Guess I'll check Green Party web site or whatever; I haven't seen a news headline yet pertaining to your post.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-06-30 09:24:52

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … er_4]Uh-oh!

*Too bad I can't link to a sound byte of "Who Let the Dogs Out"?

Will be veeeery interesting to watch this development.

--Cindy

Alt2War · 2004-06-30 10:22:54

after losing the nomination, Ralphie trashes the green party?!?!
Ok, the ####### is a megalomaniac.
*Alt, I wish you would have included a link or source.
Guess I'll check Green Party web site or whatever; I haven't seen a news headline yet pertaining to your post.
--Cindy

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cct … 030161.htm

A day after not getting the Green Party's endorsement for president, Ralph Nader brushed off the rejection as an inconvenience, described the party as "strange," called the party's national nominating convention "a cabal," and predicted the party would be the big loser.
"The benefit was really for the Green Party," Nader said Sunday of what an endorsement of him would have meant. "I don't want to exaggerate it, so I'll just say massively more."
Endorsing him, Nader said, would have meant higher visibility and better fund-raising opportunities for the party.
And because of his vice-presidential running mate, Walnut Creek's Peter Miguel Camejo, it had the potential to attract Latino voters.
Instead, by nominating Texas attorney David Cobb, Nader said, the party that made him its candidate in 1996 and 2000 will "shrink in its dimension" and "has jettisoned (itself) out of any influence on the Democratic party."

C M Edwards · 2004-06-30 10:44:25

Well, it looks like the US Green Party has decided to nominate a presidential candidate who is, well, a declared member of the Green Party. Go figure.

As for Ralph, his candidacy is still a joke -- the Greens just had enough sense not to laugh along this time. A smart move on their part. Having Nader mentioned in all the good Green party jokes attracted attention away from them.

Gennaro · 2004-07-01 19:45:44

Excuse me, but who is this Nader guy? Is he the leader of the American Greens?

After reading the Buchanan interview Alt to War provided, he strikes me as perfectly sound in his views and judgement.
In fact, I'm quite sympathetic to Buchanan too, but I'm not sure where he stands in relation to the Christian right/universalist Bible thumpers faction, which I don't respect at all. Could be I just don't agree about his metaphysics, but I don't know.

So what is all this ranting about Nader about? Why don't you vote for him instead, or someone like Buchanan if you dislike the Bush/Kerry faction? (They have roughly the same employers it seems to me.)

Alt2War · 2004-07-01 21:15:51

Excuse me, but who is this Nader guy? Is he the leader of the American Greens?
After reading the Buchanan interview Alt to War provided, he strikes me as perfectly sound in his views and judgement.
In fact, I'm quite sympathetic to Buchanan too, but I'm not sure where he stands in relation to the Christian right/universalist Bible thumpers faction, which I don't respect at all. Could be I just don't agree about his metaphysics, but I don't know.
So what is all this ranting about Nader about? Why don't you vote for him instead, or someone like Buchanan if you dislike the Bush/Kerry faction? (They have roughly the same employers it seems to me.)

Why not vote for him? because the US presidential election system has fallen to pieces.

Gennaro · 2004-07-02 09:51:32

Why not vote for him? because the US presidential election system has fallen to pieces.

Explain.

C M Edwards · 2004-07-02 21:32:46

Why not vote for him? because the US presidential election system has fallen to pieces.

It seems to have about the same number of pieces it usually has.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-06-25 08:00:08

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#52 2004-06-25 08:29:19

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#53 2004-06-25 08:36:12

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#54 2004-06-25 08:46:36

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#55 2004-06-25 08:48:21

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#56 2004-06-25 08:58:18

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#57 2004-06-25 09:20:16

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#58 2004-06-25 09:23:38

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#59 2004-06-25 09:44:49

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#60 2004-06-25 10:15:06

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#61 2004-06-25 10:35:11

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#62 2004-06-25 10:45:01

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#63 2004-06-25 12:54:25

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#64 2004-06-25 13:02:56

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#65 2004-06-25 13:07:07

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#66 2004-06-25 17:44:29

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#67 2004-06-30 05:21:38

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#68 2004-06-30 08:27:10

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#69 2004-06-30 09:24:52

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#70 2004-06-30 10:22:54

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#71 2004-06-30 10:44:25

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#72 2004-07-01 19:45:44

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#73 2004-07-01 21:15:51

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#74 2004-07-02 09:51:32

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

#75 2004-07-02 21:32:46

Re: Ralph Nader - ...(love him or hate him?)

Board footer