Ralph Nadar
- Thread starter IntenseOperator
- Start date
I personally would guess he's getting under-the-table money from the very people he "supposedly" opposes like the pharmacutical and insurance companies to run, and his true intention is four more years of Bush. This man is pure political cancer as far as I'm concerned.
i for one
i for one
am glad he`s running....i wish we had a few more viable candidates available....the 2 party system blows,imo......i think the majority of the people fall somewhere in the midde politically,anyway.........
as far as the democrats taking gas about him running,ohhh well........i guess they`ll have to deal with it...
i remember republicans wetting the bed when buchanan ran...that`s life in the big city.....
these 2 parties...that put forth garbage for candidates time and again,have monopolized the political process for way to long.....
i for one
am glad he`s running....i wish we had a few more viable candidates available....the 2 party system blows,imo......i think the majority of the people fall somewhere in the midde politically,anyway.........
as far as the democrats taking gas about him running,ohhh well........i guess they`ll have to deal with it...
i remember republicans wetting the bed when buchanan ran...that`s life in the big city.....
these 2 parties...that put forth garbage for candidates time and again,have monopolized the political process for way to long.....
Last edited:
GW have to agree. Our out look for this fall is very bleak. Bush and I dont care witch Kerry or Edwards. Problem is the very best won't run. Why bother when both Left and right attack as they do. It's not about you and me and our familes any more. It's about how great they think they are. All special interest and political money that has to be repaid. The one that gets the most money. Looks like Bush this year. Well he gets to pay-em all back off our backs and hard work.
hellah10-
I voted for him last time as well.
Gardenweasel-
Well said. 5 million people rejected the 2 party system for whatever their reasons last election, I'd like to see 10 times that do it this time and that might just be enough votes to begin some other, viable 3rd parties in this country.
bjfinste-
Interesting thoughts you have here on Nader. I would tend to think exactly opposite of you on this. Nader is a name because he has always stood against big business and corporate abuses, with the Corvair being the most famous example. Any idea where one could check to see if your theories have any merit?
I voted for him last time as well.
Gardenweasel-
Well said. 5 million people rejected the 2 party system for whatever their reasons last election, I'd like to see 10 times that do it this time and that might just be enough votes to begin some other, viable 3rd parties in this country.
bjfinste-
Interesting thoughts you have here on Nader. I would tend to think exactly opposite of you on this. Nader is a name because he has always stood against big business and corporate abuses, with the Corvair being the most famous example. Any idea where one could check to see if your theories have any merit?
some interesting posts here, but i tend to disagree with most of you.
a couple of predictions on nader's candidacy:
i will be very surprised that nader pulls in the 2.5% of the vote that he pulled in last time. most people view this as an important election & are very adament about bush not being re-elected. so i think they are afraid that a vote for nader is a vote for bush.
nader needs approximately 700,000 signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states. imo, without some type of party endorsement ( the green party) this will be difficult.
have to run now, will be back shortly on why nader is a bad idea.
a couple of predictions on nader's candidacy:
i will be very surprised that nader pulls in the 2.5% of the vote that he pulled in last time. most people view this as an important election & are very adament about bush not being re-elected. so i think they are afraid that a vote for nader is a vote for bush.
nader needs approximately 700,000 signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states. imo, without some type of party endorsement ( the green party) this will be difficult.
have to run now, will be back shortly on why nader is a bad idea.
well, since Nader is not running on the Green ticket this year (said they were too constraining to him), he's going to have to run as a straight independent, and he'll be mighty fortunate to get on the ballots in 4/5th of the states, so he's severely handicapped already.
Hellah10, I know you don't like BUsh, and redfann, I don't think you do either, so why do you feel that voting for Nader is anything different than voting for Bush? There's no way he's going to win, obviously, and all I see him doing is taking away from the Democratic vote. Isn't that why Bush won in 2000 (and conversely one of the reasons Bush Sr. lost in '92 since Perot took a lot of his votes)? If you are so against Bush, why not vote for the Democratic candidate? Not dogging you, just curious to the thought process. Thanks.
Hellah10, I know you don't like BUsh, and redfann, I don't think you do either, so why do you feel that voting for Nader is anything different than voting for Bush? There's no way he's going to win, obviously, and all I see him doing is taking away from the Democratic vote. Isn't that why Bush won in 2000 (and conversely one of the reasons Bush Sr. lost in '92 since Perot took a lot of his votes)? If you are so against Bush, why not vote for the Democratic candidate? Not dogging you, just curious to the thought process. Thanks.
He will be lucky to get on 15% of the state's ballots since he has waited so long to enter the battle and he does not have the capital behind him that he had in 00. I like his policies and nearly voted for him last time before settling on Bush, but this time it is going to be a decision between Ralph and Kerry for whom I vote for since as far as I know there is no other 3rd parties running.
we supposedly
we supposedly
live in a democracy....the leader of the free world.....yet we only have 2 choices as far as how our country is governed?.....a "duopoly",so to speak........
we have never known anything else.....nor will we ever have a legitimate alternative choice....
doesn`t that disturb anyone?......if you think outside the box.....just a little...
two extreme opposites that basically leave most of us,the moderates,with very little choice......certainly,even the most hard core from both ends of the spectrum would admit that over the last several decades,the choices have been abysmal......
i think many feel disenfranchised by our political process...
not trying to sound like some radical wacko....but,if you really think about it,there can never be a legitimate alternative to the 2 party system......
they have all the power...it`s so entrenched that people....people that complain about having no voice,don`t even consider it as a viable option.....
now nadar jumps in and people automatically label him a nutcase and dismiss him....even though,imo,he`s probably preferrable(imo) because he`s NOT a part of the political establishment....
it`s something that`s so engrained in our subconscious that it`s not even a consideration....
think about it
we supposedly
live in a democracy....the leader of the free world.....yet we only have 2 choices as far as how our country is governed?.....a "duopoly",so to speak........
we have never known anything else.....nor will we ever have a legitimate alternative choice....
doesn`t that disturb anyone?......if you think outside the box.....just a little...
two extreme opposites that basically leave most of us,the moderates,with very little choice......certainly,even the most hard core from both ends of the spectrum would admit that over the last several decades,the choices have been abysmal......
i think many feel disenfranchised by our political process...
not trying to sound like some radical wacko....but,if you really think about it,there can never be a legitimate alternative to the 2 party system......
they have all the power...it`s so entrenched that people....people that complain about having no voice,don`t even consider it as a viable option.....
now nadar jumps in and people automatically label him a nutcase and dismiss him....even though,imo,he`s probably preferrable(imo) because he`s NOT a part of the political establishment....
it`s something that`s so engrained in our subconscious that it`s not even a consideration....
think about it
Last edited:
Gardenweasel,
Excellent write up and I have to agree with you 100%!! I really think it's sad that we are limited to a selection of just two folks for President each year but do you or anyone else seem to think that this is going to change in the future? I cant see it changing because the bottom line is money, no start up party is ever going to have the funds to challenge the establishment in a nationwide election. Ross Perot may have caught lightning in a bottle in 92 when he staged a hell of a run at Bush and Clinton and whatever became of his party? I have not heard nothing for a few years about the party he started hell I am even drawing a blank on the name of the party. Too bad we cant have more alternatives especially with the state of the union today, Bush has no clue, he lacks understanding of what the common man needs and caters too much to the powers to be and the use of scare tactics and equating Patriotism with religion is sickening. Kerry, is no peach either he has taken so much from special interest groups over the years to basically buy his votes and he has been unable to clearly tell me what his message and goals would be if elected president. I like Nadar because he tells it like it is and would be a tough SOB but I also feel that voting for him would be a wasted vote, many supported him in 00 but he didnt even get enough support to get matching funds for the Green Party. I guess it will be the same thing this time, we can either vote for Bush and have four more years of special interest catering to whomever Cheney is getting some cash from and put up with the lies of the administration or we can vote for Kerry and follow a man with no plan. Neither one seem really worth voting for since both have no clear plans but what else do we have to choose from?
Excellent write up and I have to agree with you 100%!! I really think it's sad that we are limited to a selection of just two folks for President each year but do you or anyone else seem to think that this is going to change in the future? I cant see it changing because the bottom line is money, no start up party is ever going to have the funds to challenge the establishment in a nationwide election. Ross Perot may have caught lightning in a bottle in 92 when he staged a hell of a run at Bush and Clinton and whatever became of his party? I have not heard nothing for a few years about the party he started hell I am even drawing a blank on the name of the party. Too bad we cant have more alternatives especially with the state of the union today, Bush has no clue, he lacks understanding of what the common man needs and caters too much to the powers to be and the use of scare tactics and equating Patriotism with religion is sickening. Kerry, is no peach either he has taken so much from special interest groups over the years to basically buy his votes and he has been unable to clearly tell me what his message and goals would be if elected president. I like Nadar because he tells it like it is and would be a tough SOB but I also feel that voting for him would be a wasted vote, many supported him in 00 but he didnt even get enough support to get matching funds for the Green Party. I guess it will be the same thing this time, we can either vote for Bush and have four more years of special interest catering to whomever Cheney is getting some cash from and put up with the lies of the administration or we can vote for Kerry and follow a man with no plan. Neither one seem really worth voting for since both have no clear plans but what else do we have to choose from?
GW- For me, it has nothing to do with that. I would like to see 4-5 viable parties. But it's not happening anytime soon. I don't think Nader is a nutcase because he's in the election, I think he's a nutcase because he's very left, and his presence in this election may give the White House to the far right.
That's what it boils down to for me. I wouldn't mind Nader in the White House at all. If he was a viable candidate, I would strongly consider voting for him instead of the democratic party. But he's not, and voting for him is voting for Bush. And I cringe at the thoughts of having that religious extremist in the White House for four more years.
That's what it boils down to for me. I wouldn't mind Nader in the White House at all. If he was a viable candidate, I would strongly consider voting for him instead of the democratic party. But he's not, and voting for him is voting for Bush. And I cringe at the thoughts of having that religious extremist in the White House for four more years.
Oh, Redsfan- I obviously don't know if that's actually the case. I was just trying to make the point that the person who benefits most from him running is Bush. Nader is the reason Bush is in the White House now, and may end up being the reason he has a second term. It just seems fishy to me that a guy like Nader, who "supposedly" is against big business and corporate abuses and fighting for the common man, makes two decisions to run and play a large role in putting Bush - the be-all, end-all champion of big business and catering to the very wealthy - into the White House.
Im not sure if we will ever have a real strong 3rd party. Money has to be able to buy them. So Sad is it not. But a country this size you think there would be more to choose from.
bjfinste quote:"I personally would guess he's getting under-the-table money from the very people he "supposedly" opposes like the pharmacutical and insurance companies to run, and his true intention is four more years of Bush."
although nothing would surprise me, this statement helps me realize why i'm no longer a liberal. instead of looking for positive things or coming up with solutions, liberals, instead always think that there is a conspiracy afoot on different fronts that is against the masses. bjfinste, hope i didn't offend you.
i am puzzled by posters here that i have great respect for say that they would vote for a liberal person to run our country in these tough times. i can't believe that people would trust a liberal in dealing with these terrorist thugs & the countries that feed them.
my memory is a little fuzzy. can someone give me names of some liberals who have been successful as either pres., governor, or mayor of a relatively large municipality?
the only liberals that come to mind are jimmy carter who history shows was in over his head & the american people had no confidence in him, dennis kucinich, who while mayor of cleveland drove that city into bankruptcy, as was nyc driven into bankruptcy by either liberal mayor abe beame, or ed koch(forgot which one).
sixfive quote:"There's no way he's going to win, obviously, and all I see him doing is taking away from the Democratic vote. Isn't that why Bush won in 2000"
ralph nader did not cost al gore the presidential election in 2000. al gore cost al gore the election. gore lost because he is the worst politician of our time. here we had a vp following a very popular president who couldn't even win the state where he was born in, became senator, & where his father was probably the biggest politician in the state since the last 60 years. al gore lost because he has terrible instincts, ie-endorsing howard dean.
gw, great second post. i always believed that there should be more than 2 candidates running for the presidency, more like 3 or 4. but both the dems. & the republicans wouldn't allow it. because they would lose power & significance. but having a very weak ralph nader be that 3rd candidate, is definitely not the answer. especially post 9/11.
although nothing would surprise me, this statement helps me realize why i'm no longer a liberal. instead of looking for positive things or coming up with solutions, liberals, instead always think that there is a conspiracy afoot on different fronts that is against the masses. bjfinste, hope i didn't offend you.
i am puzzled by posters here that i have great respect for say that they would vote for a liberal person to run our country in these tough times. i can't believe that people would trust a liberal in dealing with these terrorist thugs & the countries that feed them.
my memory is a little fuzzy. can someone give me names of some liberals who have been successful as either pres., governor, or mayor of a relatively large municipality?
the only liberals that come to mind are jimmy carter who history shows was in over his head & the american people had no confidence in him, dennis kucinich, who while mayor of cleveland drove that city into bankruptcy, as was nyc driven into bankruptcy by either liberal mayor abe beame, or ed koch(forgot which one).
sixfive quote:"There's no way he's going to win, obviously, and all I see him doing is taking away from the Democratic vote. Isn't that why Bush won in 2000"
ralph nader did not cost al gore the presidential election in 2000. al gore cost al gore the election. gore lost because he is the worst politician of our time. here we had a vp following a very popular president who couldn't even win the state where he was born in, became senator, & where his father was probably the biggest politician in the state since the last 60 years. al gore lost because he has terrible instincts, ie-endorsing howard dean.
gw, great second post. i always believed that there should be more than 2 candidates running for the presidency, more like 3 or 4. but both the dems. & the republicans wouldn't allow it. because they would lose power & significance. but having a very weak ralph nader be that 3rd candidate, is definitely not the answer. especially post 9/11.
Last edited:
First off, no, you didn't offend me. Nothing wrong with thinking differently. I was trying to sound outlandish when I made that post because it blows my mind that Nader would run again after he saw what effect he had in 2000, considering how he rails on Bush and clearly has disdain for his administration.
As for this quote:
I think the forum will continue to go 'round and 'round on this, and we're not going to change each other's views. The way I see it, I'd trust a Dem far, far more than Bush on national security. The reason being I feel we'd still be focused on Bin Laden and the terrorist networks, rather than Iraq, which was utterly and completely unnecessary in my mind. But that just goes back to the Iraq debate, which has been covered here enough and I don't need to rehash it.
As for this quote:
AR182 said:
I think the forum will continue to go 'round and 'round on this, and we're not going to change each other's views. The way I see it, I'd trust a Dem far, far more than Bush on national security. The reason being I feel we'd still be focused on Bin Laden and the terrorist networks, rather than Iraq, which was utterly and completely unnecessary in my mind. But that just goes back to the Iraq debate, which has been covered here enough and I don't need to rehash it.
Six-Five--
I have to disagree with your thought that a vote for Nader is nothing more than a vote for Bush. I will vote for Nader again for the same reason I voted for him the first time and thats because he is the only true liberal running. "Bush lite", er, I mean John Kerry has no chance of beating Bush and while I don't want to see 4 more years of Bush, I must(and will) vote my conscience. For me, thats a vote for Ralph Nader. It drives me crazy when I hear the Bush haters screaming "anyone but Bush". To me, thats a cop-out. You lean far left as I do? Vote for Nader or the Socialists... You lean far right? Write in someone like Pat Buchanon..(can't figure out how to spell his name..lol). My point being that just because you are faced with a ballot that might only have two names on it doesn't mean you have to lay down and choose between two people that you don't like. The problem is we settle for so much mediocrity in so many aspects of our lives that when presented a choice between a Bush or a Kerry we just shrug our shoulders and pull the lever.
Gore couldn't even win his HOME state as AR182 pointed out, and without trying to start any more Florida/Supreme Court election crappola, Gore did win the popular vote in 2000, for what thats worth.
We must also remember that a full ONE HALF of all the eligible voters don't even bother going to the polls on Election Day. I've always wondered what it would take to get those people to the polls.
Would we get a better turnout if there were 3, 5 or 10 different parties to choose from? Should we give out door prizes to incourage people to show up? How about a chance to win a million bucks by doing your civic duty?
I have to disagree with your thought that a vote for Nader is nothing more than a vote for Bush. I will vote for Nader again for the same reason I voted for him the first time and thats because he is the only true liberal running. "Bush lite", er, I mean John Kerry has no chance of beating Bush and while I don't want to see 4 more years of Bush, I must(and will) vote my conscience. For me, thats a vote for Ralph Nader. It drives me crazy when I hear the Bush haters screaming "anyone but Bush". To me, thats a cop-out. You lean far left as I do? Vote for Nader or the Socialists... You lean far right? Write in someone like Pat Buchanon..(can't figure out how to spell his name..lol). My point being that just because you are faced with a ballot that might only have two names on it doesn't mean you have to lay down and choose between two people that you don't like. The problem is we settle for so much mediocrity in so many aspects of our lives that when presented a choice between a Bush or a Kerry we just shrug our shoulders and pull the lever.
Gore couldn't even win his HOME state as AR182 pointed out, and without trying to start any more Florida/Supreme Court election crappola, Gore did win the popular vote in 2000, for what thats worth.
We must also remember that a full ONE HALF of all the eligible voters don't even bother going to the polls on Election Day. I've always wondered what it would take to get those people to the polls.
Would we get a better turnout if there were 3, 5 or 10 different parties to choose from? Should we give out door prizes to incourage people to show up? How about a chance to win a million bucks by doing your civic duty?
AR182,
You wrote that...."liberals always think that there is a conspiracy afoot on different fronts that is against the masses".
While this may be true of many liberals...that mode of thinking certainly isn't confined to liberals.
Of course I'm sure most have heard of the Trilateral Comm, the Bilderburg Group, and the CFR. I'm puzzled as to why these groups actually exist and if they actually do ( as many suggest) have a great influence on our election process.
From what I understand members of these groups include folks from both parties as well as influencial people such as Paul Volker, Alan Greenspan, C Powell and Pete Peterson. I've read also that these groups contain members of the so called liberal press, business and industrial leaders and all of our Secretary's of State since 1944.
Can anyone shed any light on these groups or any idea just how much influence or power these groups actually weld in our system of government?
TT:shrug:
You wrote that...."liberals always think that there is a conspiracy afoot on different fronts that is against the masses".
While this may be true of many liberals...that mode of thinking certainly isn't confined to liberals.
Of course I'm sure most have heard of the Trilateral Comm, the Bilderburg Group, and the CFR. I'm puzzled as to why these groups actually exist and if they actually do ( as many suggest) have a great influence on our election process.
From what I understand members of these groups include folks from both parties as well as influencial people such as Paul Volker, Alan Greenspan, C Powell and Pete Peterson. I've read also that these groups contain members of the so called liberal press, business and industrial leaders and all of our Secretary's of State since 1944.
Can anyone shed any light on these groups or any idea just how much influence or power these groups actually weld in our system of government?
TT:shrug:
