The Nader Thread

[Lightning Strykez!]

Like I said somewhere else, he doesn't have to care about the Democratic Party's well being because he isn't a Democrat.

I was referring to BOTH sides of the issue. He's a spoiler.

 

[The Senator]

You do have a point there. But Henry Clay and Ralph Nader are far from being in the same category.

No, but that's because Clay was considered an excellent statesman who had a damn fine reputation. Nader is considered an angry, bitter wacko who only wants to destroy the Democratic Party... but I personally think that his entrance in this race or any other race highlights a fine point about American elections: elections aren't, and shouldn't be, confined to the two major parties. It brings an extra, contrasting voice into an already crowded room full of special interests and consultants. And while that voice is often silenced by the endless bickering and name calling, it sometimes has the ability to speak louder than everyone else. To me, that's what is desperately needed in a political system which only has two similar arguments going back and forth like a game of pong.

 

[The Senator]

I was referring to BOTH sides of the issue. He's a spoiler.

Call him what you will, but if the Democrat can't earn the votes of those ultra-left liberals he essentially caters to, it's the party's own damn fault.

 

[StorminNorman]

I wouldn't rely to heavily on that, if I were you.

His first "bid" garnered 3 million votes which cost Gore his presidency, and effectively pissed off the Democratic Party as a whole. People are dumb. This is illustrated by the fact that the next time he stepped out there he garnered a measely 500,000 votes. Hardly an indication of the democratic "love" out there for him.

His take on this election will be even less. Mark my words, he will have ZERO impact on the race; most people seem to see him as a divisive attention ****e, and little else.

Nader had no impact on 2004 because people were voting AGAINST Bush - not FOR a candidate. Since there is no enemy in Bush, everyone - again - will be voting FOR a candidate.

The dynamics of this election are far closer to 2000 than 2004.

 

[Marx]

No, but that's because Clay was considered an excellent statesman who had a damn fine reputation. Nader is considered an angry, bitter wacko who only wants to destroy the Democratic Party... but I personally think that his entrance in this race or any other race highlights a fine point about American elections: elections aren't, and shouldn't be, confined to the two major parties. It brings an extra, contrasting voice into an already crowded room full of special interests and consultants. And while that voice is often silenced by the endless bickering and name calling, it sometimes has the ability to speak louder than everyone else. To me, that's what is desperately needed in a political system which only has two similar arguments going back and forth like a game of pong.

This election has electrified voters and gotten everyone talking about the important issues at hand. I am all for a multi-party system, but I see absolutely no credibility in Ralph Nader. For candidates to be successful, they have to credible, respectable, and believable. Nader is no longer one of those people.

 

[The Senator]

This election has electrified voters and gotten everyone talking about the important issues at hand. I am all for a multi-party system, but I see absolutely no credibility in Ralph Nader. For candidates to be successful, they have to credible, respectable, and believable. Nader is no longer one of those people.

Ralph Nader will never be successful. But that doesn't mean people won't vote for him. The people that will vote for him are more than likely fans of his anyway, and the people who aren't fans who 'convert' will do so because they are frustrated with all the two-party bull****. They will look right past your definition of credibility to vote for someone who stands for what they believe in and offers a sharp contrast from the two main candidates.

 

[Marx]

Ralph Nader will never be successful. But that doesn't mean people won't vote for him. The people that will vote for him are more than likely fans of his anyway, and the people who aren't fans who 'convert' will do so because they are frustrated with all the two-party bull****.

I completely agree J. I'm just saying that the number who are "Naderites" (is that even a word? ) is dwindling.

 

[The Senator]

I completely agree J. I'm just saying that the number who are "Naderites" (is that even a word? ) is dwindling.

They may actually be rising. I know a few folks who haven't been able to vote in an election before who are seriously considering Nader.

 

[Marx]

They may actually be rising. I know a few folks who haven't been able to vote in an election before who are seriously considering Nader.

It's definately going to be interesting. That's for sure.

 

[The Senator]

I'd consider voting for him if he wasn't such a crackpot, and if he didn't want to declare Jihad on anything nuclear.

 

[Marx]

I'd consider voting for him if he wasn't such a crackpot, and if he didn't want to declare Jihad on anything nuclear.

(Scary, but true.)

 

[psychocheeseman]

Nader/Paul would be very damning to Obama.

You guys really need to amend your constitution. If in presidential elections you allowed for preferential voting, like we do down here, you could vote for who you wanted first and foremost, and then, if they don't get in, your vote flows onto your second preference. That also gives the smaller parties far more power in negotiating with the large parties in regards to policy. For example, if a preferential deal was struck between gore and nader last time, Naders votes could have gone on to Gore. Or more importantly, If individuals choose where they want their preferences to go, when nader didn't get in, their votes would flow to which ever respective party they had voted for as their second choice, and so on

Much closer to the democratic ideal in my opinion. otherwise you'll always be laft with alot of people whose votes effectively meant nothing.

 

[psychocheeseman]

I'd consider voting for him if he wasn't such a crackpot, and if he didn't want to declare Jihad on anything nuclear.

Wow...most racist post of the day by far!

but apart from that, isn't getting rid of nuclear weapons a good thing. like, in international political terms, the stupidity of M.A.D. during the cold war is pretty well acknowledged.....

just out of interest, what is it that he says that makes you think he's a crackpot?

 

[The Senator]

Wow...most racist post of the day by far!

but apart from that, isn't getting rid of nuclear weapons a good thing. like, in international political terms, the stupidity of M.A.D. during the cold war is pretty well acknowledged.....

just out of interest, what is it that he says that makes you think he's a crackpot?

Wow. You really don't have any idea what racism is, do you? The word Jihad-- which is an Islamic word to describe an informal/ formal declaration of Holy War-- doesn't even come close. Next time, consult a dictionary (or better yet-- a simple glance at Wikipedia!) before you decide to go off on a finger-waving assault on my personal credibility

And no, it isn't his tirades against nuclear weapons which makes him a crackpot. It's his tirades against nuclear power which makes him a crackpot. Statements such as "if a bomb goes off in a nuclear plant, we could have a Hiroshima on our hands" (which he said on some talk show a few months ago) is completely ignorant considering the amount of nuclear fuel and the method by which it is contained would yield less of a nuclear blast than a dirty bomb would. That's just insane to go off spouting ill-informed statements like that and base it as a part of your presidential platform.

 

[psychocheeseman]

You really don't have any idea what racism is, do you? The word Jihad-- which is an Islamic word to describe an informal/ formal declaration of Holy War-- doesn't even come close. Next time, consult a dictionary (or better yet-- a simple glance at Wikipedia!) before you decide to go off on a finger-waving assault on my personal credibility .

Sorry if i offended you, it just really looked like you had assumed he was of a religious fanatical persuasion based solely on the fact that he has a Lebanese background... which would be a fairly racist assumption in my opinion.

It's his tirades against nuclear power which makes him a crackpot. Statements such as "if a bomb goes off in a nuclear plant, we could have a Hiroshima on our hands" (which he said on some talk show a few months ago) is completely ignorant considering the amount of nuclear fuel and the method by which it is contained would yield less of a nuclear blast than a dirty bomb would.

You're right, Nader's overzealous hyperbole appears inaccurate. But that doesn't mean that nuclear power is all safe. - furthermore, safety is not the only arguement against nuclear power that Nader uses, he's also mention, amongst others, the same promblem with all non renewable energy sources, that of a finite resourse, the problem of wastes disposal, and the long term environmental effects of such power sources.


conversely, he could have meant that if a nuclear bomb were put in a nuclear power plant we would have another hiroshima.

 

[The Senator]

Sorry if i offended you, it just really looked like you had assumed he was of a religious fanatical persuasion based solely on the fact that he has a Lebanese background... which would be a fairly racist assumption in my opinion.

I had no idea Nader was Lebanese.

conversely, he could have meant that if a nuclear bomb were put in a nuclear power plant we would have another hiroshima.

Um... then why even bother to bomb a nuclear power plant in the first place if you have a nuclear weapon??

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

What is Ralph's purpose in existing today? Seriously? Check out this article....

June 25, 2008
Nader: Obama 'talking white'
Posted: 01:08 PM ET

Nader is taking heat for his latest comments.
(CNN) — Ralph Nader's presidential candidacy has received little media attention, but his latest critique of Barack Obama has come under fire for it's seemingly racial overtones.

Speaking with Colorado's Rocky Mountain News, Nader accused Obama of attempting to both "talk white" and appeal to "white guilt" in his quest to win the White House.

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader told the paper in comments published Tuesday. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."

Obama's presidential campaign called those comments disappointing.

Nader, the longtime consumer advocate who was blamed by many Democrats for Al Gore’s loss in the 2000 presidential election, said Obama's top issue should be poverty in America, given his racial heritage.

"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law," he said. "Haven't heard a thing."

Nader also said Obama is making a concerted effort not to be "another politically threatening African-American politician."


"He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

Nader formally entered the presidential race last spring, expressing disappointment with both remaining Democratic candidates at that time.

"They are both enthralled to the corporate powers," he told CNN of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. "They've completely ignored the presidential pattern of illegality and accountability, they've ignored the out of control waste-fruad military expenditures, they hardly ever mention the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars to corporate subsidies, handouts, and giveaways, and they don't talk about a living wage."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/25/nader-obama-talking-white/#comments

Okay, after I read this, I must admit--I was reaching for the card. As an articulate man of color I am dissapointed that this guy thinks that black people apparently can only "talk" one way or appeal to one race. I also don't believe "pay day loans" are the only things on the list of priorities for blacks--or any other people. How about rising gas prices, foreclosures and other "All-American" issues????

But before I declare this comment racist, I was just wondering if any of you can shed light on any other POSSIBLE ways I can interpret this comment. I wanna say this fool is just being a media ****e but...to me there are seeeerrrrious stereotypes in his comment.

Floor's open.

 

[Marx]

There already is a Ralph Nader thread Lightning. Must we pollute this forum with anymore?

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Hmmm...I haven't seen one. The thread must be dead. I wonder why?

If the moderators wish to merge this, that's fine. However, I am not making an "official" Nader thread here--I specifically want to talk about his inane comments released today. I think he might be politic's Imus.

 

[Marx]

*bump*

Because Lightning is opening up a can of worms!

 

[Marx]

Hmmm...I haven't seen one. The thread must be dead. I wonder why?

If the moderators wish to merge this, that's fine. However, I am not making an "official" Nader thread here--I specifically want to talk about his inane comments released today. I think he might be politic's Imus.

It was a dead thread...

 

[souvlaki]

There already is a Ralph Nader thread Lightning. Must we pollute this forum with anymore?

He insists on polluting politics with his idiotic views, so he might as well pollute our messageboard too.

 

[Marx]

He insists on polluting politics with his idiotic views, so he might as well pollute our messageboard too.

This board deserves a better class of topics and threads...

 

[souvlaki]

Obama on Nader: "He's just trying to get attention."

Haha, that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Marx]

Obama on Nader: "He's just trying to get attention."

Haha, that pretty much sums it up.

Yeah, I'd say so.