you know, Nader is actually the best candidate.

[roosta]

I was just watching some Nader speechs on youtube.

Realistically he should be the most popular candidate. He should be allowed on the debates, if anything to make the two men realise its not just about them two. Narrowing it to two people is insane.

THAT IS ALL.

[ericg]

Right!?!!

Whats up with that? I think he is 'allowed', but the media's spotlight and promulgated polls have effectively kept him large in the margin. That is to say that like Obama and Mccain, the media is bought and paid for.

It's very simple. There's a lot of bad business these days on every front. Nader still represents good business. It's too bad to see him go down like he has for the dumbest and most evil characters in the world.

[AceFace]

i love Nader. i've voted for him before. i'd love to vote for him again, but it's disheartening to keep voting for people that lose and shouldn't. i feel bad that he's not given a chance b/c to me, he DOES make the most sense.

[Adam]

Is he like the Green Party candidate in the US or something? I've heard of him is all.

I always vote green but until recently they haven't had a leader (in the UK) for the party - just a load of members and you voted for 'the green party'. I think having a leader to vote on is a good idea ~ but I forgot her name right now.

I would say that if he is allowed on those televised debates that you have; he would show up wouldn't he? And if he doesn't want to show up - then why?

As for voting for some1 who always loses - its a tricky one. Tories getting in here in the UK is like republicans getting in the US. I wouldn't want to see that at all. I made the choice that I'll support Green and they will never win but as long as people like me continue to vote for them, then they'll slowly get a voice. If several thousand people vote for some1 who says "U, V, W" instead of "X, Y, Z" then I think people who are in charge will also have to pay a little attention to the U, V & W because they may lose those few thousand completely - which could lead to a bigger revolution. They need to keep us all in check.

Or just execute us.

[DroppinScience]

No, he's running as an Independent this year. He was on the Green Party ticket in 2000, however. Cynthia McKinney is running for the Greens this year.

I do think the bare minimum that can be done for third-party candidates is to let them in the debates. At the very least, they can call out both the Republican and Democratic candidates when they both resoundingly agree on an issue (which does happen a bit too often). This will then put the two major parties to task and they'll have to actually come up with better ideas to sell to the people.

Amy Goodman demonstrates how the "town hall" could have been far better with Nader and Barr in there especially in light of the economic crisis.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/09

Published on Thursday, October 9, 2008 by TruthDig.com
Open the Debates

by Amy Goodman

The reviews are in, and the latest U.S. presidential debate, the "town hall" from Nashville, Tenn., was a snore. One problem is that in a debate it is important for the debaters to actually disagree. Yet Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain substantively agree on many issues. That is one major reason that the debates should be open, and that major third-party or independent candidates should be included.

Take the global financial meltdown. Both senators voted for the controversial bailout bill that first failed in the U.S. House of Representatives. It passed resoundingly in the Senate and, larded with financial favors to woo uncooperative House members, finally passed the House. The news each day suggests that the bailout hasn't solved the problem. Rather, the economic contagion is going global, with European and Asian banks teetering on the brink of collapse. Iceland-not just its banks, but the country-faces financial ruin.

Earlier Tuesday, before the debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve announced that it would for the first time ever begin buying up the debt of private companies to help them meet short-term cash needs for things like payroll. Shortly after the debate ended, major central banks around the world, again for the first time ever, cut their prime lending rates in unison. Yet on the debate floor, there was no sense that the global financial system needed more than a tax cut here, a voucher there. The major thing lacking from the debate was, well, debate.

Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, reacted to the debate, writing: "Sen. McCain, Sen. Barack Obama and the other members of Congress who have supported one bailout after another have turned fiscal responsibility into a sucker's game. ... There's no meaningful difference between the two major parties." The independent campaign of Ralph Nader put out a debate-watching e-mail, asking supporters to listen for key words and phrases, among them: "working class," "Taft-Hartley Act," "labor unions," "military-industrial complex," "single-payer health care," "impeachment," "carbon tax" and "corporate power." None of these was mentioned.

Obama supporters noted that McCain did not mention "middle class" once. Yet neither candidate mentioned poverty.

Obama and McCain fought to prove who was more sympathetic to the nuclear-power industry. They each bowed to the coal industry, with its controversial "clean coal" gambit. They split hairs over who would more cagily bomb Pakistan.

At the core of the problem with U.S. presidential debates is that they are run by a private corporation, the Commission on Presidential Debates, founded in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD took over the debate process from the League of Women Voters. Just once since then has a third-party candidate made it into the debate -- Ross Perot in 1992. After he did well, he was excluded in 1996. The CPD requires contenders to poll at 15 percent before they qualify for any debate.

Nader calls the 15 percent threshold "a Catch-22 level of support that is almost impossible for any third-party candidate to reach without first getting in the debates."

George Farah directs Open Debates, a group that works "to ensure that the presidential debates serve the American people first." He told me that "historically, it has been third parties, not the major parties, that have supported and are responsible for the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, public schools, public power, unemployment compensation, minimum wage, child labor laws. The list goes on and on. The two parties fail to address a particular issue; a third party rises up, and it's supported by tens of millions of Americans, forcing the Republican and Democratic parties to co-opt that issue, or the third party rises and succeeds, which is why the Republican Party jumped from being a third party to being a major party of the United States of America."

There is a move to organize a third-party debate, in New York City, a day or so after the final McCain-Obama debate on Oct. 15. The CPD could still liven its last debate, and serve the electorate and history, by opening up that debate to all candidates who have at least obtained significant ballot access. Both Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are on the ballot in close to 45 states, Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party is on the ballot in 30 states, and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin is on in more than 35 states. Let's open the debates and have a vigorous and honest discussion about where this country needs to go. It will not only make for better television, it will make for better democracy.

[Dorothy Wood]

in 1996, my high school history teacher showed us a 3rd party candidate debate and Nader was participating. at first people were like, "ew, that guy's ugly", but by the end of it, the whole class was chanting, "NADER! NADER! NADER!" we were all 15/16 though, so it didn't matter.

He is pretty awesome, too bad things turned out the way they did.

[saz]

i love Nader. i've voted for him before. i'd love to vote for him again, but it's disheartening to keep voting for people that lose and shouldn't. i feel bad that he's not given a chance b/c to me, he DOES make the most sense.

don't be disheartened for voting for who and what you believe in.

this thread completely rules. kudos to roosta and all of you (y)

barack mccain: republicrat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5WiE6MnmCM)

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

[roosta]

don't be disheartened for voting for who and what you believe in.

this thread completely rules. kudos to roosta and all of you (y)

barack mccain: republicrat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5WiE6MnmCM)

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

no problem man, Seriously, argument for argument, nader has it.

[Bob]

i'm actually considering voting for nader. don't get me wrong, a mccain presidency still scares the hell out of me (not nearly as much as a palin presidency...seriously, say the phrase "palin administration" and try not to dry heave a little...but i'm sure that won't happen) and i really wouldn't be dissatisfied with obama, but i do like nader more. i live in massachusetts, mccain isn't going to win here (although we did vote for hillary)

maybe man, maybe

[DroppinScience]

i'm actually considering voting for nader. don't get me wrong, a mccain presidency still scares the hell out of me (not nearly as much as a palin presidency...seriously, say the phrase "palin administration" and try not to dry heave a little...but i'm sure that won't happen) and i really wouldn't be dissatisfied with obama, but i do like nader more. i live in massachusetts, mccain isn't going to win here (although we did vote for hillary)

maybe man, maybe

If you want to, go for it. People in "swing states" probably shouldn't gamble and give their state the possibility of a McCain victory. Nevertheless, of any Democratic candidate in recent years, Obama is the one I'd be the most happy to vote for. Sorry Nader, but keep doing your thing. You're smarter than I am.

[Randetica]

i wouldnt say i know THAT much about him but he seems to be a quite pleasant and clever person and i enjoy watching him in interviews


SEAT BELTS FTW!

[greedygretchen]

dang, I haven't been here in a while *rubs eyes*

wow, I have pretty much always been on the Nader bandwagon- much to the chagrin of Democrats whose pat response is "you're throwing away your vote" or "Nader's the reason Bush is in office." Al Gore actually won- even with Nader's participation!- but was set up by the heads of the State of Florida then sold out by Congress and the Supreme Court, but it's Ralph Nader's fault Bush's in office. Ok.

I have been reading America: (The Book) A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction and think these excerpts are especially fitting:

"Luckily, all human opinion falls neatly into one of the two clearly defined camps. Thus, the two-party system elegantly reflects the bichromatic rainbow that is American political thought."

"Whether seeking city, state or federal office, they [political candidates] are undoubtedly running under the auspices of one of America's two political parties- the Republicans and the Democrats. (Yes, there's probably some state senator in Oregon who belongs to the Green Party, but face it: Hippie Q. McFreakington ain't going anywhere outside the greater Eugene area.) The Republican Party is the party of nostalgia. It seeks to return America to a simpler, more innocent and moral past that never actually existed. The Democrats are utopians. They seek to create an America so fair and non-judgmental that life becomes an unbearable series of apologies. Together, the two parties function like giant down comforters, allowing the candidates to disappear into the enveloping softness, protecting them from exposure to the harsh weather or independent thought. "

[saz]

People in "swing states" probably shouldn't gamble and give their state the possibility of a McCain victory.

so people voting for who and what they believe in, in swing states, are gambling? lamerz.

[DroppinScience]

so people voting for who and what they believe in, in swing states, are gambling? lamerz.

As long as the electoral college is still used, unfortunately that's what happens. People who say they'll vote Nader go: "I'm voting Nader, but I live in New York, so there's no chance I'd be splitting the vote." For better or worse, it's what they say.

[DroppinScience]

so people voting for who and what they believe in, in swing states, are gambling? lamerz.

One thing I'd like to add about third parties and the argument of "you should vote your conscience" (which I would largely agree with). This is all well and good, but how about this approach? What if your conscience can't possibly allow for the remotest possibility of a McCain presidency, so with that you feel compelled to vote for the lesser of two evils. If the lesser of two evils wins, well that means the greater of two evils has lost, right? With that, even if they may be compromising, they're actually voting their conscience. Am I blowin' your mind? ;) (and that is to be said in a Rob Corddry voice)

I know, I know. Nader and other voices will say "the lesser of two evils is not good enough. The American people deserve the best." Fair enough, but damn, we got some real greater of two evils going down.

If it were up to me, it'd be Obama and Nader in a neck-and-neck race and the Republican candidate would be polling 5%, but alas that's not what's happening. :(

[Bob]

One thing I'd like to add about third parties and the argument of "you should vote your conscience" (which I would largely agree with). This is all well and good, but how about this approach? What if your conscience can't possibly allow for the remotest possibility of a McCain presidency, so with that you feel compelled to vote for the lesser of two evils. If the lesser of two evils wins, well that means the greater of two evils has lost, right? With that, even if they may be compromising, they're actually voting their conscience. Am I blowin' your mind? ;) (and that is to be said in a Rob Corddry voice)

I know, I know. Nader and other voices will say "the lesser of two evils is not good enough. The American people deserve the best." Fair enough, but damn, we got some real greater of two evils going down.

If it were up to me, it'd be Obama and Nader in a neck-and-neck race and the Republican candidate would be polling 5%, but alas that's not what's happening. :(

pretty much. again, in 2000, bush "won" in florida by about 500 votes. nader got 97,000 votes there. i don't think it's too unreasonable to think that if nader weren't there, 500 of those voters would have voted for gore instead, and i'd bet that at least 500 of those voters are kicking themselves for their decision today.

i like nader a lot, but i also like obama, just less than nader. i think a nader presidency would be a lot better than an obama presidency but an obama presidency would be a damn sight better than a mccain presidency (or god forbid, a palin presid...no i can't finish the thought this time), and if i lived in a state where my vote for nader would have a real chance of resulting in a mccain presidency (and a 0% chance of resulting in a nader presidency), i'm sorry, but i'd vote for obama, hands down. it's a lame system, and i'd love a new one, but it's the system i have to vote in in november. as good as i'd feel about myself for voting for the candidate i liked the most, it would be peanuts to how bad i'd feel about myself if it resulted in mccain winning.

btw, i've said this before, but i'll say it again: i'm not blaming nader for bush winning in 2000, there were a lot of things that happened in 2000 that resulted in bush "winning", and i'm certainly not saying nader shouldn't have run. i'm just saying that if i personally were a floridian who voted for nader in 2000, my conscience would not feel clean right now.

[DroppinScience]

pretty much. again, in 2000, bush "won" in florida by about 500 votes. nader got 97,000 votes there. i don't think it's too unreasonable to think that if nader weren't there, 500 of those voters would have voted for gore instead, and i'd bet that at least 500 of those voters are kicking themselves for their decision today.


Very true, but then again there were about 250,000 registered Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush in 2000. If 500 or more of them decided to stay with Gore, there wouldn't be this Bush mess either. So in total, there's about 1000 voters who are kicking themselves.

[Bob]

like i said, i'm not blaming nader and i'm not blaming the people who voted for nader. they followed their hearts, god bless them, and it blew up horribly and if i were one of them, it would weigh pretty badly on my conscience, and i wouldn't be about to repeat the error in 2008.

but that's just me.

[saz]

what blew up horribly was 250,000 registered democrats in florida who voted for bush, and the ultimate decision of the supreme vote appointing bush as president. i don't think you're taking into consideration that the majority of people who vote for third party candidates, whether it's nader, barr etc, aren't interested in voting either democratic or republican. if it wasn't for these third party candidacies, most of them would be staying at home on election day.

[Bob]

what blew up horribly was 250,000 registered democrats in florida who voted for bush, and the ultimate decision of the supreme vote appointing bush as president. i don't think you're taking into consideration that the majority of people who vote for third party candidates, whether it's nader, barr etc, aren't interested in voting either democratic or republican. if it wasn't for these third party candidacies, most of them would be staying at home on election day.

like i said (twice), i'm not blaming nader and i'm not blaming the people who voted for nader. i'm aware of the other factors. but the 92,000 that voted for nader was probably one of them and if i were one of those 92,000 people i'd feel bad about it, and i'd learn a lesson from it.

i'm also aware that many 3rd party voters wouldn't vote for one of the main two parties, and i am taking that into consideration. i don't think it's a stretch to assume that at least 500 of those 92,000 nader voters would have had much of an objection to voting for gore if nader hadn't been running. perhaps a "majority" of third party voters aren't interested in voting democrat or republican, but over 99.5% of them? i have a hard time believing that, i'm sorry.

[Dorothy Wood]

one of my best friends voted for nader in 2000 and she definitely feels guilty about it. she's a god damned hippie social worker that was in the Peace Corps in Armenia for 2 years though. I don't know how she couldn't have voted for Nader.

[yeahwho]

1. There is no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, according to Ralph Nader.

2. Also things have to get worse before they get better, according to Ralph Nader.

He's not talking about the gold medal winner: Harold Stassen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Stassen) and his seven runs for the President of the United States. Only two to go to tie the record, three to break it, Ralph!

[saz]

yeah, and meanwhile what have the democrats accomplished. oh yeah, that's right:

voted for the iraq war
voted for the patriot act
voted to give immunity to telecommunication corporations
voted to confirm condoleeza rice as secretary of state
voted to confirm michael mukasey as attorney general
do not support single payer healthcare
refuse to impeach george w. bush and dick cheney and yes they have broken the law
keep funding the occupation of iraq
refuse to cut the bloated defence budget

they enable bush and the republicans. woohoo, go democrats.

[yeahwho]

Hey things have to get worse before they get better, according to Ralph Nader.

There is no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush, according to Ralph Nader.

The last eight years would have been exactly the same with with either Bush or Gore in office, according to Ralph Nader

[travesty]

yeah, and meanwhile what have the democrats accomplished. oh yeah, that's right:

voted for the iraq war
voted for the patriot act
voted to give immunity to telecommunication corporations
voted to confirm condoleeza rice as secretary of state
voted to confirm michael mukasey as attorney general
do not support single payer healthcare
refuse to impeach george w. bush and dick cheney and yes they have broken the law
keep funding the occupation of iraq
refuse to cut the bloated defence budget

they enable bush and the republicans. woohoo, go democrats.

(y)(y)(y)(y)

This thread is funny to me. Look, GW is no prize of a president but it truly makes me laugh when people say with 100% conviction that we would have been better off with Al Gore. Al fucking Gore? Really? Al Gore? That dude, and his wife, are the some of the biggest douchebags that ever strolled the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania. Just because GW is the worst president to date doesn't mean that things could not have been even worse with someone else. Unlikely, yes. But if anyone in this world could have done a worse job of things than GW it would probably be Al Gore. Keep in mind that Bush WAS re-elected in 2004.

[DroppinScience]

(y)(y)(y)(y)

This thread is funny to me. Look, GW is no prize of a president but it truly makes me laugh when people say with 100% conviction that we would have been better off with Al Gore. Al fucking Gore? Really? Al Gore? That dude, and his wife, are the some of the biggest douchebags that ever strolled the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania. Just because GW is the worst president to date doesn't mean that things could not have been even worse with someone else. Unlikely, yes. But if anyone in this world could have done a worse job of things than GW it would probably be Al Gore. Keep in mind that Bush WAS re-elected in 2004.

Well, I could have seen Al Gore being a bland centrist president at the very worst, but I have a very hard time thinking Gore would have ended up doing worse than Bush. Unless you're thinking Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and Kazakhstan all in the same day. :eek:

[yeahwho]

(y)(y)(y)(y)

But if anyone in this world could have done a worse job of things than GW it would probably be Al Gore. Keep in mind that Bush WAS re-elected in 2004.

I now understand why your voting for Bob Barr.

[travesty]

I now understand why your voting for Bob Barr.

I don't know what that is meant to imply but yes, I am leaning toward Barr.

And of anyone cares, Barr will be braodcasting a counterdebate on his website in real time with the other guys tonight. Hopefully it will be better than the last one which awas lacking some technology to make it bearable to watch.

Using digital video recording technology, Bob's responses to the moderator's questions will be spliced in in real time for viewing at the campaign's website at www.bobbarr2008.com/counterdebate

[yeahwho]

I don't know what that is meant to imply but yes, I am leaning toward Barr.

And of anyone cares, Barr will be braodcasting a counterdebate on his website in real time with the other guys tonight. Hopefully it will be better than the last one which awas lacking some technology to make it bearable to watch.

Well, Barr hated the Clinton's, it goes without saying he has at minimum a strong dislike for Al Gore. So if your leaning towards Bob Barr you would have to share some POV with him, your obvious disdain for Al Gore must be part of what you and Barr have in common.

[saz]

And of anyone cares, Barr will be braodcasting a counterdebate on his website in real time with the other guys tonight. Hopefully it will be better than the last one which awas lacking some technology to make it bearable to watch.

kudos and much respect goes to barr for doing this. i hope he gives mccain hell. too bad though he can't make the third party debate (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/third-party-debate-columbia-university-nader-mckinney-baldwin-goodman) at columbia university.

[travesty]

Well, Barr hated the Clinton's, it goes without saying he has at minimum a strong dislike for Al Gore. So if your leaning towards Bob Barr you would have to share some POV with him, your obvious disdain for Al Gore must be part of what you and Barr have in common.

Gotcha. I never actually put the two together till you said it....but WTF, another reason to like him (y)

[roosta]

An Unreasonable Man (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7584143836275846674&hl=en)

Great documentary about Nader....watching the 2000 campaign and the support behind him is amazing....and the anger Democrats have pointed at him afterwards is shocking, and completely against the tenets of democracy. Watching him being banned by the state police from entering the campus where one of the debates is on is stunning.

Check it out.

[saz]

cheers for the link. here's a bonus feature from the dvd:

featuring howard zinn, phil donahue, lawrence o'donnell, ralph nader and pat buchanan, a documentary which challenges the corporate controlled two party system.

parts one (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zw1Aji8FzJc), two (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bVRevKOtSh0), three (http://youtube.com/watch?v=oC8g7YNmCpM), four (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zece3k884R0), and five (http://youtube.com/watch?v=szBugsr7bls).

[DroppinScience]

An Unreasonable Man (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7584143836275846674&hl=en)

Great documentary about Nader....watching the 2000 campaign and the support behind him is amazing....and the anger Democrats have pointed at him afterwards is shocking, and completely against the tenets of democracy. Watching him being banned by the state police from entering the campus where one of the debates is on is stunning.

Check it out.

Yes, an excellent documentary. No matter what side you are on about Nader or third parties in general, you owe it to yourself to consider the issues behind a third party presidential run and examine this documentary. You still may not want to vote Nader, but at least you'll understand the rationale and stop demonizing someone who has done so much good for the country.

[yeahwho]

You still may not want to vote Nader, but at least you'll understand the rationale and stop demonizing someone who has done so much good for the country.


I will not demonize Ralph Nader the consumer advocate, but fuck Ralph Nader the presidential candidate.

Perhaps, as conventional wisdom has it, Barack Obama will win comfortably; perhaps John McCain - in an increasingly longshot scenario - will claw his way to victory, and in such a way that Nader's candidacy will not figure.

But bring about a close election in a number of states - especially Ohio and Missouri, where polls show Nader winning about 2 and 4 per cent, respectively - and it is just possible to see how Nader, with his messianic vanity, and destructive urges that are best explained by God or psychiatry, can again determine the future of America.

Voter Beware: Of Ralph Nader (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/voter-beware-of-ralph-nad_b_140051.html)

Message to Ralph Nader (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIFEceopAUI)

[DroppinScience]

I will not demonize Ralph Nader the consumer advocate, but fuck Ralph Nader the presidential candidate.

I agree with Howard Zinn ("http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2606) on his candidacy, he's better served being a consumer advocate than third party politics, but if you think he's going to be a factor in this election, I think you're mistaken. He got 0.3% of the vote in 2004 (which wasn't enough to sway the results one way or the other). I'd be surprised if he got 0.15% this time around.

[DroppinScience]

While we're on about Nader's campaign. I do have to say his web videos have veered towards the bizarre. There's one about a great quest to find the "Obama nuts"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15188.html

Essentially it's 10 minutes of college students using "Obama nuts" in every other sentence. A tad immature and desperate, but he uses the Beastie Boys music in the video, so I guess that's cool.

:confused:

[roosta]

i cannot get my head around this anger at Nader....its the complete antitheses of the democratic system! Maybe its because im used to multi-party politics (although in reality theres two biiiiig parties in ireland, but we havn't had a one party goverment in years, coalitions are the norm) but I don't get it.

To those people who say "fuck Nader", what do you say to the vote who wakes up Tuesday morning and who agree's with Ralph Nader's policies more than anyone else. Why shouldn't he/she vote for Nader? And why can't Nader run? It's mind boggling! Like Obama is the end all, be all of liberal thought.

As for 2000, why didn't Gore appeal to to the 2% of people who voted Nader? Why should their concerns and hopes be discounted?

[yeahwho]

i cannot get my head around this anger at Nader....its the complete antitheses of the democratic system! Maybe its because im used to multi-party politics (although in reality theres two biiiiig parties in ireland, but we havn't had a one party goverment in years, coalitions are the norm) but I don't get it.

To those people who say "fuck Nader", what do you say to the vote who wakes up Tuesday morning and who agree's with Ralph Nader's policies more than anyone else. Why shouldn't he/she vote for Nader? And why can't Nader run? It's mind boggling! Like Obama is the end all, be all of liberal thought.

As for 2000, why didn't Gore appeal to to the 2% of people who voted Nader? Why should their concerns and hopes be discounted?

I know this is absolutely impossible for me to explain, I think former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell summed up my feelings about Ralph Nader during the 2004 presidential run...

(please fast forward to the 4 minute 30 second point on this youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RysZy331YK0) to hear her talk to Ralph about his stature)

Politics is not an abstract idea, it's about real flesh and blood human beings and how they will be effect by the decision...

.........she goes on to explain as clearly as she can how Mr. Nader can preserve his stature as a leading voice in politics and rally support with voters on his very legitimate voice.

I have a disdain for his motivation, it isn't working and I feel it minimizes his cause. I, along with millions who listened to him in 2000 agree with this course brought up every time I talk seriously with voters who once respected his run.

It's not a cop out, it's a compromise and a different path to expedite many of his ideals. In politics compromise is not a sign of weakness. I think he would become a political giant if he just joined those who are trying to make the change through political numbers. It would be an amazing move.

Obama on Nader (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1025947,CST-NWS-nader26.article)

[saz]

I will not demonize Ralph Nader the consumer advocate, but fuck Ralph Nader the presidential candidate.

yeah, and fuck barack obama and spineless democrats for not supporting single-payer health care, for not impeaching bush and cheney, for not voting against immunity for telecoms, for confirming condoleeza rice, for confirming michael mukasey, for reauthorizing the patriot act, for not cracking down on corporate crime, for not cutting the bloated defence budget, for not cutting off funding for the occupation of iraq, for not trying to end the occupation, the bunch of useless cowards that they are.

and fuck the two corporate party system. america is supposed to be a democracy. if the democrats are going to continually scapegoat and have sour grapes over nader, or mckinney or anyone else for that matter, than they need to wake up and start stealing their platforms and policies.

[AceFace]

As for 2000, why didn't Gore appeal to to the 2% of people who voted Nader? Why should their concerns and hopes be discounted?
i voted nader in that election. i remember being told that i threw my vote away to the republicans. my response was that i voted for the candidate i thought was best and that my vote went straight to ralph nader and him only.

people thought i was insane for voting 3rd party.

[travesty]

yeah, and fuck barack obama and spineless democrats for not supporting single-payer health care, for not impeaching bush and cheney, for not voting against immunity for telecoms, for confirming condoleeza rice, for confirming michael mukasey, for reauthorizing the patriot act, for not cracking down on corporate crime, for not cutting the bloated defence budget, for not cutting off funding for the occupation of iraq, for not trying to end the occupation, the bunch of useless cowards that they are.

and fuck the two corporate party system. america is supposed to be a democracy. if the democrats are going to continually scapegoat and have sour grapes over nader, or mckinney or anyone else for that matter, than they need to wake up and start stealing their platforms and policies.

I think I love you:D

[yeahwho]

Here is a message to those of you who voted for Nader in the past.

It's not your fault (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOVS_SYyXe8&feature=related)

[Bob]

i'm still thinking about voting for nader tomorrow. mccain isn't going to win massachusetts, i don't think i'm in danger of that happening.

but i don't want to look racist!

[DroppinScience]

i'm still thinking about voting for nader tomorrow. mccain isn't going to win massachusetts, i don't think i'm in danger of that happening.

but i don't want to look racist!

*Psst* You do know that Nader is an ARAB, right?

[yeahwho]

I'm thinking the whole Nader campaign is a crying shame. Reading his biography explains the man and the reasoning behind his decline. Quick Objective Take (http://books.google.com/books?id=grtKlQqTQr0C&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=ralph+nader%27s+clothing&source=bl&ots=FJcKSkX-iN&sig=SFHfQvRQPctWZTlQ03Nmrrx0Cto&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPP1,M1), He has set such a great template for America and for the media yet his criteria changes when he is actually the candidate.

I wouldn't vote for him, I think that's obvious. I bet McCain wins by one vote in Mass.

Bob your setting yourself up for a life on the run. Or maybe a FOX show with Joe the Plumber, a point counter point sort of affair.

[saz]

yeah, a crying shame even though they're on the ballot in 45 states, and can be written-in, in another four.

[yeahwho]

yeah, a crying shame even though they're on the ballot in 45 states, and can be written-in, in another four.

An effort not easily obtained. You must be very proud, at the end of the day the overwhelming majority who voted for Nader in 2000, 2004 are rapidly reaching 30+ years. The majority of that group will not vote for him. A hardcore dedicated group of campaigners will, these folks (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2008#Endorsemen ts) and the usual hardcore Nader voters, his numbers will be interesting.

[DroppinScience]

An effort not easily obtained. You must be very proud, at the end of the day the overwhelming majority who voted for Nader in 2000, 2004 are rapidly reaching 30+ years. The majority of that group will not vote for him. A hardcore dedicated group of campaigners will, these folks (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2008#Endorsemen ts) and the usual hardcore Nader voters, his numbers will be interesting.

Interesting... Howard Zinn is now switching to Nader in the 11th hour? Like Bob, he lives in MA where it's going to go Obama no matter what. I understand and respect his strategy of people living in solid-blue blue states to vote Nader if they want to... while those in swing states should vote Obama to prevent even the most remote possibility of McCain in the White House. What about in solid-red red states? I guess progressives can do whatever the hell they want. :p

[saz]

An effort not easily obtained. You must be very proud, at the end of the day the overwhelming majority who voted for Nader in 2000, 2004 are rapidly reaching 30+ years. The majority of that group will not vote for him. A hardcore dedicated group of campaigners will, these folks (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2008#Endorsemen ts) and the usual hardcore Nader voters, his numbers will be interesting.

oh, you just know who is, and who isn't going to vote for nader? really? wow. :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

oh, you just know who is, and who isn't going to vote for nader? really? wow. :rolleyes:

More importantly I know who isn't going to vote Nader. Talking to two Canadian's about USA politics on election day kind of shows how fucked up I am anyway.

BTW, did you listen to Kim Campbell on the Bill Maher youtube (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RysZy331YK0)? She is saying what I've been saying for months on here. I am afterall the one who lives in the USA. I'm not trying to put down Canada or any of the people, candidates or policies of your country.

I could care less who you vote for, it's your choice. In fact your opinion on your own countries candidates is yours, without any input positive or negative from me.

Your obsessed with my choice and freedom. You aren't ever going to be able to correct me, even if you were a US citizen. So honestly sazi just say you do not like me as a person or a board member and then ignore me.

[Bob]

so i voted for nader.

massachusetts is about as blue as it gets, obama isn't going to lose in this state. every vote for obama above 51% is pretty much wasted, except for the symbolic value. a vote for nader though, at least says, "here's one more voter that is neither impressed nor represented by the two-party system" i felt like it counted for more. my vote wasn't going to have an impact on who wins this election but at least it says something about what i think about the political system here.

i mean i like obama. i do. i won't be unhappy with an obama presidency, exactly, it's just...i dunno. i don't like the game

looking back i don't even know why i was considering not doing it

of course if nader gets like a million votes here and mccain ends up winning, i'm definitely going to feel bad about that

now if only there was some way to vote against the electoral college...

[Bob]

also, it was kind of interesting looking at the ballot. all you hear anywhere about this race is mccain v. obama, mccain v. obama, mccain v. obama, so you expect to go in there and see MCCAIN and OBAMA in great big letters at the top, but no, they're just two of six candidates, listed in alphabetical order.

i didn't even know we had a constitution party

[saz]

More importantly I know who isn't going to vote Nader. Talking to two Canadian's about USA politics on election day kind of shows how fucked up I am anyway.

BTW, did you listen to Kim Campbell on the Bill Maher youtube (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RysZy331YK0)? She is saying what I've been saying for months on here. I am afterall the one who lives in the USA. I'm not trying to put down Canada or any of the people, candidates or policies of your country.

I could care less who you vote for, it's your choice. In fact your opinion on your own countries candidates is yours, without any input positive or negative from me.

Your obsessed with my choice and freedom. You aren't ever going to be able to correct me, even if you were a US citizen. So honestly sazi just say you do not like me as a person or a board member and then ignore me.

oh right, only 'maricuns can talk about 'maricuh right?

i saw that before years ago. kim campbell is the former progressive conservative prime minister of canada. i'm not a progressive conservative, i'm a social democrat. she can say whatever she likes, but the bottom line is that nader has every right to run for president, just as any other american does. as long as the democrats continue to become more and more right-wing, he will do all he can to pull them back to the left.

i'm not "obsessed" with your "choice" or "freedom", or however else you want to spin it. i'm wasn't attempting to tell you who to vote for yeahwho, nor how to think. i don't know why you perceive it that way. roosta revived this thread a few days or so ago with the link to the unreasonable man documentary, and then you felt the need to once more jump in and take another swipe at nader, despite the fact that obama was on his way to crushing mccain in the presidential race. oh, and i like you as a person and as a member of this board.

[Randetica]

how many votes did he get? doesn anyone even know?

[DroppinScience]

how many votes did he get? doesn anyone even know?

Well, presumably ALL third party candidacies got 1% of the vote if Obama and McCain have 52% to 47% of the vote.

Exact counts to be determined, I suppose.

Edit: Popular vote has actually changed to 53% Obama and 46% McCain. Even more impressive!

[Randetica]

bob was that 1%

[yeahwho]

oh right, only 'maricuns can talk about 'maricuh right?

i saw that before years ago. kim campbell is the former progressive conservative prime minister of canada. i'm not a progressive conservative, i'm a social democrat. she can say whatever she likes, but the bottom line is that nader has every right to run for president, just as any other american does. as long as the democrats continue to become more and more right-wing, he will do all he can to pull them back to the left.

i'm not "obsessed" with your "choice" or "freedom", or however else you want to spin it. i'm wasn't attempting to tell you who to vote for yeahwho, nor how to think. i don't know why you perceive it that way. roosta revived this thread a few days or so ago with the link to the unreasonable man documentary, and then you felt the need to once more jump in and take another swipe at nader, despite the fact that obama was on his way to crushing mccain in the presidential race. oh, and i like you as a person and as a member of this board.

Nader is human, he contributed his white statement about Obama's race then continued on as if the Obama campaign were just another robotic machine using color as a selling point. Nader is not some sort of exilar for America, he is not a skilled political machine and he comes across as not very kind.

But most of all when I watched the Obama family together on the stage in Chicago last night, Nader just seemed very little in my mind. I too felt sorry for him. And that is what it is.

[DroppinScience]

how many votes did he get? doesn anyone even know?

I can't seem to really find anything that lists the TOTAL amount of votes any third parties have received, but CommonDreams has an excellent breakdown of all the votes (including Nader, Barr, McKinney, and others) for each state. The mainstream media treated the results as if third party candidates weren't on the ballot (with rare exceptions).

http://www.commondreams.org/google-map

Maybe when the results are made official by the canvassers for each state will we know the EXACT number of votes.

[DroppinScience]

Speaking of Nader, now that the election is over and Obama will be in the White House, Ralph Nader is starting the November 5th movement.

http://www.november5.org/

Watch the video. Personally, I think THIS is far more productive of him to do than any third-party bid for President. To me, this is closer to the Nader of the '60s and '70s who was effective as a consumer advocate. Essentially, Nader now wants to focus his attention on the 435 Congressmen/women and 100 Senators and President Obama to make their voices heard and to advocate for the very things the Democrats say they want to do (health care, environment, etc.) and to keep the pressure on them to follow through. In a nutshell, follow the will of the people, not corporations, military, lobbyists, et al.

I have faith in Obama becoming a good or even (fingers crossed) great President, but he needs the help of the American people, the same people who helped him get to this position. To use his words, "close the deal."

Thoughts on this approach?

[roosta]

He asked if Obama will be an "Uncle Tom" on Fox News. Fox News gets disgusted for the nation! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo)

[DroppinScience]

I heard about that. I'll watch the clip when I get the chance (no sound/no time right now), but that was really dumb of him to say that.

[QueenAdrock]

Well, there goes a lot of respect I had for Nader...

lol @ Fox News pretending to be outraged, though :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

Way to garner the national spotlight, what a arrogant racist statement. He should be ashamed of himself. To actually offend the sensibilities of FOXNews reporters, wow.

Given the chance to retract and change the statements the racist calls out the bullies and stands by his racist words.

Terrible, low, hurtful and what I believe is a career ending move. I will not associate with his ideals, I do not agree with his speaking points. It's over.

[DroppinScience]

Terrible, low, hurtful and what I believe is a career ending move. I will not associate with his ideals, I do not agree with his speaking points. It's over.

Hate to say it, but I agree with you. I thought he runs a third-party candidacy to touch upon ISSUES that neither the Republicans and Democrats want to discuss or do not differ enough on? So now he wastes the very few opportunities he has to appear on a mainstream news program where he has the potential to reach many more viewers than anywhere else and resorts to the low blow of calling Obama an "Uncle Tom"? If I were him, I'd be taking the time to bring up the issues that are important to me, not acting like a child.

FINALLY it has hit me why so many of his allies from his "golden age" in the '60s and '70s ("Nader's Raiders") have distanced themselves from him in recent years. I do think it's a shame. Eugene Debs or Norman Thomas wouldn't have been this foolish.

[roosta]

what's the deal with "Uncle Tom" anyway..why is it so offensive?

[funk63]

what's the deal with "Uncle Tom" anyway..why is it so offensive?

It means a black guy who loves white people. Or acts white. I think thats right.
But Obamas half white. And he was raised by white people... so ya..
I dono, I dont think its that offensive of a statement. But it doesnt really fit.

[funk63]

lolz at you people making a huge issue over it though

[Bob]

it means a black person who ingratiates himself to white people

and we all know his stance on that (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=88390)

[DroppinScience]

what's the deal with "Uncle Tom" anyway..why is it so offensive?

"Uncle Tom" originates from the abolitionist novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" which brought to light the injustice of slavery. Anyways, the Uncle Tom character was essentially a black slave who is ultra-obedient and subservient to his white masters. In other words, they ingratiate themselves to whites at the expense of black people as a whole.

When you call a black person "Uncle Tom," you're calling him a sell-out to his own people. Poor choice of words on Nader's part.

[DroppinScience]

Okay, now I got the opportunity to see the clip and his quote in full context. He could have easily got his point across and said something like "become beholden to corporate interests" instead of "Uncle Tom to corporations." :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

what's next? (http://www.236.com/video/2008/get_your_war_on_new_world_orde_10121.php)

[ericg]

He asked if Obama will be an "Uncle Tom" on Fox News. Fox News gets disgusted for the nation! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo)

yeah that was pretty rough.
it's a crude world.
i'd be callous too if people never listened.
he should have been more sensitive.
i mean, i'd hate for him to be right.
objectively speaking, what if obama has categorically sold out this nation and in particular, his race to big corporations and other interests besides the peoples?
what now?

[Randetica]

i voted nader CUZ he is a low racist (lb)

[ericg]

yeah, and fuck barack obama and spineless democrats for not supporting single-payer health care, for not impeaching bush and cheney, for not voting against immunity for telecoms, for confirming condoleeza rice, for confirming michael mukasey, for reauthorizing the patriot act, for not cracking down on corporate crime, for not cutting the bloated defence budget, for not cutting off funding for the occupation of iraq, for not trying to end the occupation, the bunch of useless cowards that they are.

and fuck the two corporate party system. america is supposed to be a democracy. if the democrats are going to continually scapegoat and have sour grapes over nader, or mckinney or anyone else for that matter, than they need to wake up and start stealing their platforms and policies.

so word

[yeahwho]

I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of flack from Barack Obama supporters. but let's face it, Barack Obama spoiled this election for Ralph Nader. Had the voters who "just wanted to make some statement" looked at the numbers and just realized... well let's just say we'd be saying President elect Nader not Obama. Barack is a self delusional maniacal egomaniac.

The math is simple, if the Obama voters would of voted Nader this discussion would be moot.

[saz]

wow, if i had a dime for every time ultra-partisan democratic hacks uttered the words "it's over", or "career-ender" in regards to nader, i'd be set for life.
and the mindblowing hypocrisy of some of you in this thread is incredible. it's very interesting and funny how none of you seem to be outraged when bill maher is politically incorrect, or says things in poor taste, but how dare ralph nader be blunt and do the same. how dare he. this bullshit nader outrage really reminds me of the fake republican outrage machine over flagpins or other instances of hissy fit silliness.

that said, i think the "uncle tom" phrasing was not politically correct, but was apt for making the point. that said, do we want to be politically correct, or make a point that will get people to pay attention to an important duty to control the abuse by corporations? people will always be offended by remarks, so political correctness does little good. i was kind of, a little bit taken back when an audience member at some bygone rally event asked hillary is she preferred diamonds or pearls; you know, as if a woman's domain is jewellery and fashion, rather than public policy. but being taken back by that shallow, and frankly retarded question does not prove that the person asking it was sexist. and nader using "uncle tom" in a question mentioning obama does not make him racist.

when a black candidate is elected to office, the black community (and others) will usually expect him or her to represent the issues near and dear to the community. if obama ignores poverty and the disproportionate jailing rates of blacks due to institutional racism, for example, then people may very well consider him a sellout, or an "uncle tom", to the extent that he would be towing the line that his white predecessors have set in place: incorrectly ignoring black issues. similarly, if hillary clinton had been elected and failed to address the lower wages women receive compared to men, or ignored a further rollback of abortion rights and access to birth control, she would be considered a sellout as well, or an "uncle tom": a subservient minority elected representative, that is failing to challenge the mistakes of the majority ruling class.

the supreme court is another good example. when the first woman and black justices were elected, those events were celebrated, because it was assumed their minority status would bring to the table more diverse viewpoints. i believe this is what nader is saying about obama. he has to meet a lot of expectations from the electorate. however, the companies like goldman sachs that helped get him elected will also expect certain things from him. nader's position has always been very clear: that the president has to put the needs of the people before the needs of corporations. this is what the democratic party used to be about. and for the record, nader has demanded this of all the white politicians in his lifetime as well.

so, is "uncle tom" a controversial term? of course. but i don't believe that nader is racist. he is of lebanese descent, speaking at least three languages and is well-traveled. he has worked on behalf of whites, blacks, jews, arabs, latinos, asians, the disabled, and the gay and lesbian community, with an unwavering support and enthusiasm that demonstrates he is clearly egalitarian. he has been an unwavering, consistent supporter of civil rights, racial equality and affirmative action (http://www.votenader.org/issues/social/affirmative-action/). nader is the farthest thing from a small-minded person.

plus, context is important when analyzing a term or phrase. nader's context is that an "uncle tom to the corporations who are running this country into the ground", is a person who fails to live up to sensational and incessant claims to be willing to "change" the nation. nader was not indicting obama, just asking him if he would indeed be a "change" candidate, or continue to serve the corporations and put their interests before those of the american people, like most of the previous presidents in recent memory.

anyways, with that beng said, i'm sure the usual trolling will continue in this thread with the now all too predictable, contrived vitriol: how nader is the anti-christ, and how he should just shut up and go away, or that he should do this and not run for president, you know, the continued and unabating insinuation that how dare anyone from the left challenge or call out the democratic party, et cetera et cetera.

[yeahwho]

wow, if i had a dime for every time ultra-partisan democratic hacks uttered the words "it's over", or "career-ender" in regards to nader, i'd be set for life.
and the mindblowing hypocrisy of some of you in this thread is incredible. it's very interesting and funny how none of you seem to be outraged when bill maher is politically incorrect, or says things in poor taste, but how dare ralph nader be blunt and do the same. how dare he. this bullshit nader outrage really reminds me of the fake republican outrage machine over flagpins or other instances of hissy fit silliness.

that said, i think the "uncle tom" phrasing was not politically correct, but was apt for making the point. that said, do we want to be politically correct, or make a point that will get people to pay attention to an important duty to control the abuse by corporations? people will always be offended by remarks, so political correctness does little good. i was kind of, a little bit taken back when an audience member at some bygone rally event asked hillary is she preferred diamonds or pearls; you know, as if a woman's domain is jewellery and fashion, rather than public policy. but being taken back by that shallow, and frankly retarded question does not prove that the person asking it was sexist. and nader using "uncle tom" in a question mentioning obama does not make him racist.

when a black candidate is elected to office, the black community (and others) will usually expect him or her to represent the issues near and dear to the community. if obama ignores poverty and the disproportionate jailing rates of blacks due to institutional racism, for example, then people may very well consider him a sellout, or an "uncle tom", to the extent that he would be towing the line that his white predecessors have set in place: incorrectly ignoring black issues. similarly, if hillary clinton had been elected and failed to address the lower wages women receive compared to men, or ignored a further rollback of abortion rights and access to birth control, she would be considered a sellout as well, or an "uncle tom": a subservient minority elected representative, that is failing to challenge the mistakes of the majority ruling class.

the supreme court is another good example. when the first woman and black justices were elected, those events were celebrated, because it was assumed their minority status would bring to the table more diverse viewpoints. i believe this is what nader is saying about obama. he has to meet a lot of expectations from the electorate. however, the companies like goldman sachs that helped get him elected will also expect certain things from him. nader's position has always been very clear: that the president has to put the needs of the people before the needs of corporations. this is what the democratic party used to be about. and for the record, nader has demanded this of all the white politicians in his lifetime as well.

so, is "uncle tom" a controversial term? of course. but i don't believe that nader is racist. he is of lebanese descent, speaking at least three languages and is well-traveled. he has worked on behalf of whites, blacks, jews, arabs, latinos, asians, the disabled, and the gay and lesbian community, with an unwavering support and enthusiasm that demonstrates he is clearly egalitarian. he has been an unwavering, consistent supporter of civil rights, racial equality and affirmative action (http://www.votenader.org/issues/social/affirmative-action/). nader is the farthest thing from a small-minded person.

plus, context is important when analyzing a term or phrase. nader's context is that an "uncle tom to the corporations who are running this country into the ground", is a person who fails to live up to sensational and incessant claims to be willing to "change" the nation. nader was not indicting obama, just asking him if he would indeed be a "change" candidate, or continue to serve the corporations and put their interests before those of the american people, like most of the previous presidents in recent memory.

anyways, with that beng said, i'm sure the usual trolling will continue in this thread with the now all too predictable, contrived vitriol: how nader is the anti-christ, and how he should just shut up and go away, or that he should do this and not run for president, you know, the continued and unabating insinuation that how dare anyone from the left challenge or call out the democratic party, et cetera et cetera.

Is Ralph Nader going to be a uncle sam or a cracker? What sort of motivation compels his ignorance?

[saz]

probably an emotional reaction, the same sort of emotional reaction which had members of the liberal intelligentsia calling colin powell and condoleeza rice uncle tom's.

from the daily kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/12/183155/559):

Uncle Tom Powell Stumps for Massah Bush

by Soj
Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 03:31:55 PM PST

Yes suh! Yes suh! Right away suh!

Mr. Powell sir, you are a liar and an apologist for a crooked regime known as the George W. Bush administration. I charge you with these offenses based on the following:

Soj's diary :: ::

Did you see it? Did you get it? Just as I posted several days ago, the United States IS NOT GOING TO TURN OVER full sovereignty to the Iraq people. Not even Chalabi. How can you be a sovereign nation with a foreign power in control of your military? Obviously, you can't.

Uncle Tom Powell gave three interviews the same day. Let's examine them.

Mass graves are no longer filled? You piece of shit maybe you ought to visit the morgue in Faloojah. I guess 600 graves to be filled in one week isn't "mass" enough for you.

Anyway, that's a brief analysis of the utter pile of horse manure that Secretary of State Uncle Tom Powell has been peddling to the American people over the weekend.

God help us all.

Peace

-Soj

[Bob]

forget about nader man, let's not forget who the real racist is

Silvio Berlusconi (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=73973233-9735-484f-9c5b-adfac1120c7b)

tanned? TANNED???? call the marines, let's go over there and invade that racist piece of shit country, they've had it coming for a while now. it's over italy, we're done.