Ralph Nader

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Headache in a Suitcase

Site Team
Staff member
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
75,652
Location
With the other morally corrupt bootlicking rubes.
So it appears as if ole Ralph just might run for president again... we'll find out for sure Sunday on Meet The Press.

So what do those who tend to lean to the left around here... which would be most of you... think about Nader possiably joining the ranks?

As we all know, if Nader wasn't in the race last year, Gore more likely than not would have picked up either Florida or New Hampshire, if not both. So with another election that's predicted to be a tight one, do you want Nader in the race, knowing full well that it would make it tougher for Kerry to actually win the election?

Discuss...
 
Is he a member of the Skull and Bones club ? It seems that it is a good thing to be a member of a secret club, to become a president of the USA.
 
I hope he won't run, but if he does, I think most Democrats/indies will have enough sense to not vote for him. Nader is a very smart man and I used to have a lot of respect for him, but he knows he can't win and that he'd only be taking votes from the Democratic candidate. The Democrats/indies/various Republicans who might be so inclined have to make getting Bush out of office their first priority.
 
I agree with you pax. This is not 2000. There is an intensity and fire in the Democratic campaign this year that was not there in 2000. 2000 was a "good feelings era" campaign; 2004 is not. I personally know some people who voted for Nader in 2000 who are voting Democratic this year. If Nader does run he's not going to get as many votes.
 
Ralph Nader is too good of a person to be president. Here is somebody who devoted his life to fighting on behalf of the little guy.

I have a lot of respect for him and I would vote for him, because I believe the USA needs a viable third alternative.
 
anitram said:


I have a lot of respect for him and I would vote for him, because I believe the USA needs a viable third alternative.

Neither party will stand for this......
 
That is why I feel sorry for you guys down south. We have 4 major parties up here in Canada. Western Europe is also categorized by choice. Hell, Eastern Europe has more choice than the Americans do when it comes to voting.

Is it true democracy to hunker down with two parties who are completely adverse to change? It's pretty sad.
 
Probably not, but a multi-party system is not going to crop up anytime soon, and certainly not if we get Bush back for another four years. :|
 
anitram said:
That is why I feel sorry for you guys down south. We have 4 major parties up here in Canada. Western Europe is also categorized by choice. Hell, Eastern Europe has more choice than the Americans do when it comes to voting.

Is it true democracy to hunker down with two parties who are completely adverse to change? It's pretty sad.

No. This is why I *wish* we had a parliamentary form of government. It'd be more democratic. It's not going to happen--and pax is right, change is certainly not going to happen with another four years of Bush.
 
anitram said:
Ralph Nader is too good of a person to be president. Here is somebody who devoted his life to fighting on behalf of the little guy.

I have a lot of respect for him and I would vote for him, because I believe the USA needs a viable third alternative.


I agree. I really like Ralph Nader. Is he planning on running Green, cause they've already got their candidates for the primary. I would have voted for him in the last election had i been old enough. I would vote for him this time if polls were showing that Kerry had a sizeable lead in my state, which is likely cause i live in CA and Gore had a good lead last time. I don't blame Nader for Gore losing, Gore should have been a better candidate if he had wanted those votes. I think it was so close last time because there were so many people that really weren't fond of either candidate.
 
No, you don't want a parliamentary form of government, as it is, by design, one-party rule. The American federal form of government was designed to be obstructionist, as they were very cynical towards government, and, honestly, I don't blame them. I'm ashamed of most of the rejects we elect to be our "representatives" when our interests are on the bottom of their priority list.

But let's put it this way. If we had a parliamentary form of government right now, Bush and the GOP would have nothing stopping them from running over the nation with their agenda.

Nader is delusional. His idea of "making a statement" is derailing an election. Sorry to tell the Greens, but you're going nowhere and you will never get elected. Period. The Greens would be more effective if they swamped the Democratic Party and forced themselves into the agenda.

Melon
 
You're probably right, melon, that the Greens could try to inflitrate the Dems - after all, all revolutions start from within.

The Greens will never get elected in the US, because Americans are far too conservative. The Greens have done very well in places like Scandinavia, on the other hand.

As for the parliamentary system - I think you're slightly exaggerating there. The way I see it, the American system is no better, because if you can show to me that there is a distinct difference between the Dems and the Republicans, I'd love to hear it. America is a country for the corporations, run by the corporations, regardless of who is in office. This is the reality. The system is no better than a parliamentary system at this point in time, sorry to say.
 
Perhaps the parliamentary system isn't as great as I think it'd be. I would like it if we had politics more like Canada, to be perfectly honest. This isn't going to happen. I have to settle for trying to get Bush out of office.
 
For the record, I think Gore lost in 2000 mainly because he's a lousy politician. I think he's a bright guy but a crummy politician. Crummy politicians don't win presidential elections. I think blaming Nader for Gore's loss is a "blame-game" sort of thing that we Americans are maddeningly good at. It's so hard for us just to say "I screwed up" or "we screwed up". The press claimed this is what happened. But I'm sorry, I don't agree, and hell, I voted for Gore myself.
 
Last edited:
Gore just had to win his Home State...hehe...it is indeed his fault!
 
No I have to say Melon's assessment of the Parliamentarian system is quite correct. Anyone living in Ontario should know that it is one party rule. The Harris government rammed through so much legislation, streamlined (read: brutalized) the democratic process down to almost nothing, cut public servies almost down to nil (such that we had the Walerton disaster and the present state of affairs where my local hospital is bankrupt and is continuing to lay off staff even when they're running nurses on 12 hour shifts to fill all the hours with the few staff they have) thumbing his nose at the opposition teh whole way even going so far as to insult them. Harris ran roughshod over the entire democratic process because in the Parliamentarian system you can do that. It's a series of five year dictatorships. This comes from the fact that the cabinet was originally the monarch's governing council and as cabinet gained more and more of the executive powers of the monarch it became a power in and of itself. which ever party wins a majority and thus forms cabinet basically holds monarchal powers for five years, period. Why? Because in our system you vote with your party unless your leader is feeling generous and allows a free vote. And if you think you can vote against the party just look what happened to the Liberal MPs who tried to defy Chretien. Either kicked out of the party or left due to frost bite.

Hell Trudeau told us the benefits of parliamentarianism back in the 70's when he gave his reasons for preferring to be PM of Canada over bing US President. Becuase as PM in Canada as long as you can control your party and hold on to a sizable majority you can do whatever the fuck you want.
 
Last edited:
What I said about the parliamentarian system of government is hardly revolutionary: that's how government textbooks describe the differences between this system and the American system of government ("representative democracy"; "federalism").

Canada and the U.S. essentially chose different systems on the basis of their historical experience, with the U.S. preferring obstruction over action, due to their immense distrust of government as a kind of "necessary evil," while Canada (as a dominion, at least) tried to learn from the mistakes of U.S. Civil War, which the Canadian "Founding Fathers" said was due to giving too much power to the states--hence, creating a government that was highly centralized in a national government.

Things, of course, have changed a bit since then (over time, provinces gained more power than originally envisioned), but the historical reasoning still remains true.

Melon
 
I agree, to an extent, with Melon about the parliamentary system, which Australia also has. I am not so inclined to call it one-party dictatorship, as you'd be surprised how far that is from the truth when the parliamentary majority is very slim (as it often is in the modern era)... but relatively speaking I would say the Australian Prime Minister exercises more unfettered control over his nation and his government's activities, far more, than does the President of the USA.

As for the Greens in America, I am not anti-them, I wish them good luck. I don't think presidential politics is the place to make their stand. I think they should target local elections, build up support at city and state level, secure some mayoralties, get a few congressment elected... who knows, thirty years from now they might be a huge threat to the centre. This is, after all, not so far from how the far-right whiteanted the Republican Party.
 
I should add, in the interests of accuracy, that in reality Australia has a slightly bastardised version of parliamentary government, owing to the presence of a US-style senate (rarely controlled by the same party as the lower house where the government sits).

I do find it slightly ironic that Westminster parliamentary democracy, although an offshoot of the old British government-by-monarch, and not particularly democratic in intent, is actually to my view less likely to lead to great overreaches of power than America's avowedly cautious system.

Of course I don't know the specifics of the Canadian example... parliament tends to differ wildly in its function and form among the former British Empire dominions.
 
Dreadsox said:
Gore just had to win his Home State...hehe...it is indeed his fault!

Yes! There's something wrong with a campaign that doesn't even win the candidate's own home state. If the Democrats have a better candidate, they don't have to worry about Nader, they'll get the votes.
 
After actively supporting the Nader/LaDuke campaign of 2000, I'm proud that Ralph's sticking to his guns. Anyone with sense knows that Nader wasn't the sole or even the most significant factor in Bush's "victory".

While I support everything the man says, I also believe that he will barely make a smudge on the ballot. It's hard to say I'd vote for Kerry, but if it means getting Bush out of the White House, I'd be willing to ignore Nader on election day.

I think Nader would have served his cause better had he run as a democrat. He would have participated in the debates, been given exposure, etc. While he's message is admirable, his campaign is doomed...sadly. I wish he was the liberal option, but without the money and the corporate support, he's good as dead.
 
Let's look at a little history here. Jimmy Carter won in 1976 with an independent liberal, Eugene McCarthy, in the race. Some claimed that McCarthy's failure to get on the ballot in New York saved the situation for Carter. New York was very close between Ford and Carter. Carter had the South, but it was harder for him to win states outside of the South. He lost in California--in fact, Carter didn't win any Western states period. The race was a cliffhanger. If 8,000 votes had been changed in Ohio, Ford would have won. Each race is different. Nader is not going to have the Green Party apparatus with him, and it'll be harder for him to get on ballots. Nader could get more hell this year than votes.
 
anitram said:
You're probably right, melon, that the Greens could try to inflitrate the Dems - after all, all revolutions start from within.

The Greens will never get elected in the US, because Americans are far too conservative. The Greens have done very well in places like Scandinavia, on the other hand.

As for the parliamentary system - I think you're slightly exaggerating there. The way I see it, the American system is no better, because if you can show to me that there is a distinct difference between the Dems and the Republicans, I'd love to hear it. America is a country for the corporations, run by the corporations, regardless of who is in office. This is the reality. The system is no better than a parliamentary system at this point in time, sorry to say.

:applaud:
 
anitram said:
America is a country for the corporations, run by the corporations, regardless of who is in office. This is the reality.

When will we as Americans wake up to this reality? Or, are we comfortable with this reality. :|


God Bless the United States of Wal Mart
 
Last edited:
The 2004 election year has yet to gear up into full steam. The Bush Team has 200 million dollars they have yet to dump into this campaign and Kerry and the Democrats have their fortune as well.

Most are predicting this will be the most ugly campaign in decades with attack after attack from both sides. This will create a huge backlash and will probably help Nadar a great deal. When its all said and done, I predict Nadar will get more votes than he did in 2000.

Who will actually win the election will also depend on who is more united, The Republicans or The Democrats.
 
Back
Top Bottom