TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Nader to Run for President
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Nader to Run for President

quote:

Nader to Run for President As Independent Candidate Associated Press February 24, 2008 12:36 p.m. WASHINGTON -- Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will "shift the power from the few to the many." Mr. Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt. [Ralph Nader] "You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts." "In that context, I have decided to run for president," Mr. Nader told NBC's "Meet the Press." Mr. Nader also criticized Republican candidate John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for failing to support full Medicare for all or cracking down on Pentagon waste and a "bloated military budget." He blamed that on corporate lobbyists and special interests, which he said dominate Washington, D.C., and pledged in his third-party campaign to accept donations only from individuals. "The issue is do they have the moral courage, do they have the fortitude to stand up to corporate powers and get things done for the American people," Mr. Nader said. "We have to shift the power from the few to the many." Mr. Nader also ran as a third-party candidate in 2000 and 2004, and many Democrats still accuse him of costing Al Gore the 2000 election. Mr. Obama, responding Saturday to Mr. Nader's earlier criticisms that he lacked "substance," praised Mr. Nader as a "heroic figure." "In many ways he is a heroic figure and I don't mean to diminish him. But I do think there is a sense now that if somebody is not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, then you must be lacking in some way," Mr. Obama said. Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Nader's announcement a "passing fancy" and said she hoped his candidacy wouldn't hurt the Democratic nominee. "Obviously, it's not helpful to whomever our Democratic nominee is. But it's a free country," she told reporters as she flew to Rhode Island for campaign events. Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, speaking shortly before Mr. Nader's announcement, said Mr. Nader's past runs have shown that he usually pulls votes from the Democrat. "So naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race," the former Arkansas governor said on CNN. Mr. Nader vociferously disputes the spoiler claim, saying only Democrats are to blame for losing the race to George W. Bush. He said Sunday there could be no chance of him tipping the election to Republicans because the electorate will not vote for a "pro-war John McCain." "If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form," Mr. Nader said. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120...s_whats_news_us

this is going to be a very interesting election. it makes me worried for the democratic candidate but Nader is right, if the democrats can't win big in this kind of environment against a Bush2 republican there is something very wrong

1. He can't win.
2. He can't win.
3. He is a spoiler.

I had dinner with Nader once and he's a great guy with some great ideas, but he can seriously go straight to hell with this wanting to be President shit.

Obama hit it right on the money:

quote:

Yesterday, when asked about a potential Nader candidacy at his press conference, Obama said: "I think anybody has the right to vote for president if they file sufficient papers. And I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage of the vote going to another candidate's not going to make any difference." When reporters reminded Obama that Nader had said some not-so nice things about him, Obama replied: "He had called me and I think reached out to my campaign. My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who if you're -- don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work. Now, and by the way, I have to say that historically, he is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anybody on behalf of consumers. So in many ways, he is a heroic figure and I don't mean to diminish him, but I do think there's a sense now that um, you know if somebody's not hewn to the Ralph Nader agenda then you, you must be lacking in some way."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/arch.../24/698037.aspx

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I had dinner with Nader once and he's a great guy with some great ideas, but he can seriously go straight to hell with this wanting to be President shit.

He fails to realize that his candidacy might result in the very thing he claims to be against.

in 2000 Nader pulled a little less than 3% of the vote and in 04 (the year I supported him), he pulled only 0.4% of the votes. I don't think he has the support to play spoiler this year and expect him to garner something closer to his 04 numbers rather than 2000.

I do think Ron Paul could be a Nader-type this year if he chose to enter the presidential election. I believe he's announced hes focusing on his Congressional re-election bid, but even 3-5% of the national vote (majortiy Republican?) could be enough to tilt the race if it's similarly close.

Of course, if Hilary pulls the nomination, I believe Nader will have a larger effect.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I had dinner with Nader once and he's a great guy with some great ideas, but he can seriously go straight to hell with this wanting to be President shit.

He'd make a worse president than the current one?

quote:

Originally posted by donegalredneck He'd make a worse president than the current one?

You're missing the point - this current president makes a worse president than Gore would have. Or Kerry would have. Or Obama will.

Once again, I would like to use this opportunity to thanks Mr. Nader for helping Bush win the 2000 elections. And y'all know what I am talking about. If you dont know what I am talking about - then you got issues.

Until third parties really matter its a waste of time and money for him to run. he just takes voted away from both parties overall.

good

Random fact: Nader is the son of a Lebanese immigirant couple, not to mention an uber lefty (the latter being somewhat obvious). That should be enough to discourage some of you from voting for him, or maybe not.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Once again, I would like to use this opportunity to thanks Mr. Nader for helping Bush win the 2000 elections. And y'all know what I am talking about. If you dont know what I am talking about - then you got issues.

Nader's wasn't exactly a supreme court judge.

EDIT: In my opinion, giving him the benefit of the doubt, he values idealism or pragmatisim... which isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless you consider ideals to be ficticious and lacking in merit. On the other hand, it can also have some pretty serious implications, given the situation. But some closer observation and pondering should make the contrived nature of this fiasco people in general still insist on giving meanig, would make one realize that in the larger scheme of things, he's not exactly hurting anybody and it isn't entirely fair to direct the amount of resentment he gets nor is he somehow completely accountable. A small variable can certainly change the outcome of an equation, so pragmaticaly there is legitimacy for concern or resentment. But overstating that certainly isn't warranted, becuase the assumption that makes is that the alternative is substantially better.

Cool. Maybe he'll pull that extra 10,000 votes that throws it for the Dem.'s

GO NADER!!!!

By voting for Nader, you're essentially voting for the Republicans. He's got absolutely no chance of winning anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium By voting for Nader, you're essentially voting for the Republicans. He's got absolutely no chance of winning anything.

That's a pragmatic consequence depedent on popular vote, or maybe not, ever since the not so popular diebolt. Strategically, that's one predictable outcome. Eigther way, do you honestly think it'll have much impact? I guess it depends on your evaluation of pragmatism v.s idealism in both the short term and long run. I personally don't think it matters eigther way really, and I'm not even a nihilist. I see little point in maintaining status who when the domino effect is already propagating. Are you implying that Obama or Hillary are going to go against the grain and dismantle totalitarian legislation or will have significantly different policy? The precedent has already been set by the NeoCon administration which I don't see being rolled back, short of a revolution which won't happen eigther.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That's a pragmatic consequence depedent on popular vote, or maybe not, ever since the not so popular diebolt. Are you implying that Obama or Hillary are going to go against the grain and dismantle totalitarian legislation or will have significantly different policy? The precedent has already been set by the NeoCon administration which I don't see being rolled back, short of a revolution which won't happen eigther.

Its the truth - Nader has essentially no backing among the most important "voters" - the big business. Politicians dont work for the people, they work for the companies that funded them to power. Its the way of things in USA (and many other countries too). Average people, the citizens, they dont really vote (aka sheep) - they just show up at a polling stations and vote for whomever Deep Pockets have told them to vote via the television and radio campaigns, because the money is the only thing thats needed to make people believe whatever, to make them vote for whomever Deep Pockets want to vote for. Just like Obama and Clinton they dont speak from the heart. They read scripts that are made by other people who are are paid money to represent an agenda - lots of edits, approvals, and discussions of what people will think of this or that is said. Very carefully choreographed, planned, like a movie or a show or a game. There's really no emphasis to do stuff for the people, because the people dont elect politicians to power.

OK, enough of my ramblings.

I am still bitter about the 2000 elections. Tell me exactly what do you think voting for Nader will achieve?

^^^That being said, would people rather vote for big business representing employment, productivity, and a stable economy (Republican)?

Or would everyone rather vote for the Trial Lawyers (Historically, one of the biggest contributors to the Democrats), who produce nothing and who's only real purpose is to litigate this country to death in an attempt to spread the wealth around?

Fuck the Democrats and their Socialist "Great Society". Bullshit, costly pipe-dreams. I don't want to live in a country that thinks "rich" people should be punished for doing better than the average dumb-fuck out there. It's an infantile mentality. And what's worse; It's counter-productive to a free market, which is the only real healthy way to run a country.

I'm not a really big fan of Republicans either, but I'll take what they're selling ANY day over this "poor me, I just need a hand-out" crap that the Democrats have been peddling EVERY damn election year for the past 40 years! It's old, tired and goes against the principles of success that this country was founded on. It's also been tried already (socialism and communism are FAILED ideologies).

It's the party of the ignorant, petty masses. And what's ironic, is that the people at the top of the party KNOW that what they are doing is pandering to this ignorance, purely to get votes. They know that it's counter-productive. But they're making bank off of this support, so they just don't care. The party of the "working class", my ass. The Kennedy's, the Clinton's, Obama, etc...they're ALL making just as much money as Republicans are, but at least the Republican party backs something viable that creates and adds wealth to the country; Industry!

The Democrat constituency just wants what those who have worked harder for already have, and they vote for and support candidates who would take it away from them.

It's sickening how STUPID and childish the human race is sometimes...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Its the truth - Nader has essentially no backing among the most important "voters" - the big business. Politicians dont work for the people, they work for the companies that funded them to power. Its the way of things in USA (and many other countries too). Average people, the citizens, they dont really vote (aka sheep) - they just show up at a polling stations and vote for whomever Deep Pockets have told them to vote via the television and radio campaigns, because the money is the only thing thats needed to make people believe whatever, to make them vote for whomever Deep Pockets want to vote for. Just like Obama and Clinton they dont speak from the heart. They read scripts that are made by other people who are are paid money to represent an agenda - lots of edits, approvals, and discussions of what people will think of this or that is said. Very carefully choreographed, planned, like a movie or a show or a game. There's really no emphasis to do stuff for the people, because the people dont elect politicians to power. OK, enough of my ramblings.

In acknowledging of that, what's the point of voting period or perpetuating a collapsing system? To slow down entropy? What pragmatic benefit does that yeild in the long run? I hope you see the futility and contradiction here.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I am still bitter about the 2000 elections. Tell me exactly what do you think voting for Nader will achieve?

I let go of it, there's no point in letting biterness tarnish the essense of yourself. It's baggage like many other things... no point in carrying for the rest of your life when there's nothing you can do about it.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco The Democrat constituency just wants what those who have worked harder for already have, and they vote for and support candidates who would take it away from them.

What makes you think I associate myself with or support eigther party? Or would even vote in the first place?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco It's sickening how STUPID and childish the human race is sometimes...

As much of an abberation from the norm it is, I pretty much agree with you on that count.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What makes you think I associate myself with or support eigther party? Or would even vote in the first place?

What makes you think my post was directed at you?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^That being said, would people rather vote for big business representing employment, productivity, and a stable economy (Republican)? Or would everyone rather vote for the Trial Lawyers (Historically, one of the biggest contributors to the Democrats), who produce nothing and who's only real purpose is to litigate this country to death in an attempt to spread the wealth around? Fuck the Democrats and their Socialist "Great Society". Bullshit, costly pipe-dreams. I don't want to live in a country that thinks "rich" people should be punished for doing better than the average dumb-fuck out there. It's an infantile mentality. And what's worse; It's counter-productive to a free market, which is the only real healthy way to run a country. I'm not a really big fan of Republicans either, but I'll take what they're selling ANY day over this "poor me, I just need a hand-out" crap that the Democrats have been peddling EVERY damn election year for the past 40 years! It's old, tired and goes against the principles of success that this country was founded on. It's also been tried already (socialism and communism are FAILED ideologies). It's the party of the ignorant, petty masses. And what's ironic, is that the people at the top of the party KNOW that what they are doing is pandering to this ignorance, purely to get votes. They know that it's counter-productive. But they're making bank off of this support, so they just don't care. The party of the "working class", my ass. The Kennedy's, the Clinton's, Obama, etc...they're ALL making just as much money as Republicans are, but at least the Republican party backs something viable that creates and adds wealth to the country; Industry! The Democrat constituency just wants what those who have worked harder for already have, and they vote for and support candidates who would take it away from them. It's sickening how STUPID and childish the human race is sometimes...

no no..... i think its greedy, childish and egotistical to think that someone can't share a little part of their wealth especially if they are extremly rich by using that money to do something positive for the country itself, in other words people need to stop being selfish...

quote:

Originally posted by SiLveR_NrGy_985 no no..... i think its greedy, childish and egotistical to think that someone can't share a little part of their wealth especially if they are extremly rich by using that money to do something positive for the country itself, in other words people need to stop being selfish...

If they are wealthier than middle-class, they already ARE doing something for the country by paying more in taxes, for one thing.

They are also likely engaged in creating work for others via whatever it is that they manufacture or whatever service it is that they provide.

Shaolin, yes yes, I forgot to add to my rumblings that its pretty much pointless to vote, except for maybe your local town councillor which will make more difference. Elections in the bigger picture, global/national scale are a clever game/show, as I described, and there's really no independent choice. By voting for either of the current USA politicians running for presidency there's hardly anything to choose from ... I dont trust a single word out coming out of the candidates' mouths. They know that to capture the presidency its not honesty that matters, but who outwits and outsmarts and outfunds the other competitor. Brilliant flashes in front of the public, carefully orchestrated campaign stops, video editing, smiles, catchy words, etc. etc. People love it. They probably know deep inside its all horseshit. But they're like sheep, they enjoy it and vote for the biggest liar. Trust me, the future will be worse.

My question to Nader is, "Where are you the other 3.5 years, when the election isn't in swing? What do you do?"

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.