Talk:Ralph Nader
Contents |
[edit] They see me rollin'; they hatin'
Don't disparage the Nada'! Sure, he may suck valuable votes away from other politicians, but he strikes me as an honest person. --
Radioactive Misanthrope 17:09, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- My opinion: He had a great and highly respectable career as a consumer advocate. But there is just something wrong with the tone of his recent pres. ambitions (back to 2000). His "deaf ear" to the real difference between Bush and Gore showed (to me) that his political instincts and wisdom were at best failing him, and at worst, non-existent. That he did not spend 2001-2004 on party-building for the Greens turned me off a lot. Other than that, he will always be a hero to me for his earlier work. human
18:56, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- I hate this fucker. Putting his sick idea of "making a point" ahead of the welfare of the country is unforgivable. If he wanted to make a difference as a third party candidate, he'd lobby for party system reform, not run as a failed candidate and fuck over America for eight years. Fucker.-αmεσ (spy) 19:07, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Down boy! No bite! --
Radioactive Misanthrope 19:36, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Down boy! No bite! --
- Nader has been a huge disappointment. He did some great work for consumers and just plain people. He should have stuck to battling corporations. He just can't seem to get it through his thick skull that there is a real difference between the Democratic Party and the GOP. Does he really think we'd be in Iraq now if Gore had won the election? That we would not have signed the Kyoto Treaty? That we would be torturing terror suspects? That we would have suspended habeas corpus? That we would be wiretapping citizens without warrants? PoorEd 21:53, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Maybe the US wouldn't be doing those exact things, Ed, but remember - in all likelihood more Iraqi children died because of the Clinton administration's determination to keep the sanctions on in Iraq than have died since the invasion. From Kennedy to Johnson to Carter to Clinton, one could compile a fairly impressive list of bloody horrors perpetrated on the rest of the world by Democratic administrations. The difference between the two major political parties may be a little larger than Nader thinks, but not that much.
- And for those of you piling on him for "stealing votes" from Democratic candidates, two things: one. Boo Fuckin' Hoo. It's a democracy. He's allowed to run. Nut up and present a better alternative. Two. I'll betcha more than half of Nader voters wouldn't vote Democrat if Nader wasn't on the ballot - they'd stay home.PFoster 22:59, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Hell, in Florida 99% could have stayed home, but if the remaining 1% had voted for Gore, he'd be President. He had a right to be one, but he still was s spoiler. DickTurpis 00:18, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- Not the point. Politics is very rarely about philosophy and principles. Sad but true. When people put principles above practicality, things like the Bush administration happen. Election season is a time for liberals to come together and fight off the conservatives, 'cause we can be sure as hell that they're not interested in principles. For Nader to ignore this fact and go off fighting his own windmills may be allowed, and of course it's legal, but it's just dick. True fact.-αmεσ (spy) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Ames, Ames, Ames - the Bush administration didn't "happen" (nice use of passive voice there) because Nader ran - it "happened because the American electoral system is incredibly flawed and designed to keep power where the founding fathers wanted it - in the hands of monied elites. There's no point in arguing contrafactuals - as any good historian knows - but if Nader had not run, it does not follow that Gore would have won - especially if, as I argue, a lot of those voters would have stayed home anyway. By discouraging candidates who represent something other than the interests of the elites from running because it prevents the lesser of two evils from winning a profoundly flawed and corrupt contest, you're just giving your tacit approval to the flaws and the corruption. PFoster 23:12, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- I will never, never argue that our election system doesn't blow goat balls. It does. But the time and the manner to protest it is not in a general election, when our rights & very liberties are on the line. Campaign for National Popular Vote. Campaign for Preference Balloting. Campaign for Proportional Representation. But don't do anything to risk the race, especially when running on a third ticket is a guaranteed loss. For a third party run to be anything other than the whinings and ramblings of an off-center loon, the election system has to be reformed first. Until such a point, Nader's candidacy is nothing more than meaningless protest, with the potential for massive harms to his ideological peers.
- I'm not arguing that Nader was the but-for cause of the Bush years. At most, he was one of many. But he sure as hell didn't help.-αmεσ (spy) 23:34, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- "Ideological peers" - that's the key. People who vote for the Democratic Party are not Nader's ideological peers, unless by "ideology" you mean "not Republican," which is a pretty lame ideology. If I were American, I would never vote for the Democratic party, because they're WAY too right-wing for me - i imagine many in the States feel the same way, and they deserve a candidate who will run to represent their ideologies and beliefs. PFoster 23:44, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- That's a real nice theory, but it has the effect of throwing your vote away, and helping people who you surely hate more than the Dems.-αmεσ (spy) 23:46, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Votes are never "thrown away" in a democracy - and my disdain for the Dems is not that mush lesser than my disdain for the Republicans. Another point - the presence of a candidate like Nader forces the Democrats - and the system at large - to shift the discourse to the left in order to try to compete on the ideological terrain that he has staked out: that's the effect that the NDP has had in Canada, and that the Greens have had in Europe...they give "radical" ideas a greater degree of credibility in the mainstream and force more traditional politics to engage with them on a somewhat more even playing field. PFoster 23:51, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- If the presence of Kucinich & Edwards couldn't shift it (well, much, anyway), what's a non-player like Nader going to do? (By non-player, I mean someone who has "never been elected dog-catcher") human
00:18, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- Bummer, but votes are definitely thrown away. This is the effect of the electoral college soon and the two-party system. The reality of these two systems forces us to abandon the intellectual nicety - that every vote matters, and voters should vote their true preference - and makes it much more important to think strategically. I don't doubt that Nader makes sure that the farther left views are catered to, but the price of that inclusion is far too great. There needs to be another way to do it, and frankly, I suspect being a perennial spoiler is not the best exposure for his views. It makes him hated by far more than he would be otherwise, and channels his influence into areas where it does more harm than good. He'd do better to campaign for actual party-system reform, while contributing meaningfully to Democratic party choices and politics. I agree that the Greens are significantly different, but until the party system is changed, they'd give better voice to their policies by packing up and joining the Dems. And working on the sidelines for party system change.-αmεσ (spy) 23:56, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- If the presence of Kucinich & Edwards couldn't shift it (well, much, anyway), what's a non-player like Nader going to do? (By non-player, I mean someone who has "never been elected dog-catcher") human
- Votes are never "thrown away" in a democracy - and my disdain for the Dems is not that mush lesser than my disdain for the Republicans. Another point - the presence of a candidate like Nader forces the Democrats - and the system at large - to shift the discourse to the left in order to try to compete on the ideological terrain that he has staked out: that's the effect that the NDP has had in Canada, and that the Greens have had in Europe...they give "radical" ideas a greater degree of credibility in the mainstream and force more traditional politics to engage with them on a somewhat more even playing field. PFoster 23:51, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- That's a real nice theory, but it has the effect of throwing your vote away, and helping people who you surely hate more than the Dems.-αmεσ (spy) 23:46, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- "Ideological peers" - that's the key. People who vote for the Democratic Party are not Nader's ideological peers, unless by "ideology" you mean "not Republican," which is a pretty lame ideology. If I were American, I would never vote for the Democratic party, because they're WAY too right-wing for me - i imagine many in the States feel the same way, and they deserve a candidate who will run to represent their ideologies and beliefs. PFoster 23:44, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Ames, Ames, Ames - the Bush administration didn't "happen" (nice use of passive voice there) because Nader ran - it "happened because the American electoral system is incredibly flawed and designed to keep power where the founding fathers wanted it - in the hands of monied elites. There's no point in arguing contrafactuals - as any good historian knows - but if Nader had not run, it does not follow that Gore would have won - especially if, as I argue, a lot of those voters would have stayed home anyway. By discouraging candidates who represent something other than the interests of the elites from running because it prevents the lesser of two evils from winning a profoundly flawed and corrupt contest, you're just giving your tacit approval to the flaws and the corruption. PFoster 23:12, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- And for those of you piling on him for "stealing votes" from Democratic candidates, two things: one. Boo Fuckin' Hoo. It's a democracy. He's allowed to run. Nut up and present a better alternative. Two. I'll betcha more than half of Nader voters wouldn't vote Democrat if Nader wasn't on the ballot - they'd stay home.PFoster 22:59, 24 February 2008 (EST)
<---Many Nader voters could justify their vote - they were in "guaranteed" Gore states (like MA, EG) or guaranteed Bush states, and could afford to make their voice heard without affecting the result. Florida was just a mess, and between Harris and Bush frere, the odds are the state would have ended up the way it did anyway. human
00:18, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- Obama just said it all. PoorEd 09:40, 25 February 2008 (EST)
- I think Hillary really hit it, though.-αmεσ (spy) 09:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
[edit] Ames' personal problem
Sorry, Ames, but your strongly-worded POV paragraph in the article has been moved to its own essay. It ran right past "snarky point of view" right into "injecting my embittered cynical opinion, which I shall now attempt to pass off as a legitimately belonging in the article"-territory. --
Radioactive Misanthrope 23:19, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Can I at least get a "see also"? :-) Fair call on the essay-fication though.-αmεσ (spy) 23:34, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Of course you can! I whore my essays (on the relevant pages) myself. : ) --
Radioactive Misanthrope 23:36, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- It's fun, right?!? Thanks buddy :-). And thanks especially for keeping me in line. May I also whore out my blog too?-αmεσ (spy) 23:37, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Your welcome! And... you have a blog? --
Radioactive Misanthrope 23:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- It's mostly what me and one of my law school friends do in class. LOL-caption political figures. -αmεσ (spy) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- I'm a tryin' to get some more of why people give a shit about Nader into the article (hint, it happened long before 2000). I can haz helpss maibe? Oh, and AmesG, of course, as RA the essay whore says, you can haz see also. Put ur blog in the blogroll wit teh udder hoars, m'k? human
23:43, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- I'm a tryin' to get some more of why people give a shit about Nader into the article (hint, it happened long before 2000). I can haz helpss maibe? Oh, and AmesG, of course, as RA the essay whore says, you can haz see also. Put ur blog in the blogroll wit teh udder hoars, m'k? human
- It's mostly what me and one of my law school friends do in class. LOL-caption political figures. -αmεσ (spy) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Your welcome! And... you have a blog? --
- It's fun, right?!? Thanks buddy :-). And thanks especially for keeping me in line. May I also whore out my blog too?-αmεσ (spy) 23:37, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Of course you can! I whore my essays (on the relevant pages) myself. : ) --
Done! Wait. Where is teh blogroll? And, errr, yeah. I keep forgetting to do cover story stuff. Srry.-αmεσ (spy) 23:46, 24 February 2008 (EST) Solved my own idiocy.-αmεσ (spy) 23:58, 24 February 2008 (EST)
[edit] May I say
I like these debates. I think that's the one part I miss about CP - real ideological clash. And here there's no threat of bannination.-αmεσ (spy) 23:57, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- And, after wwe distill all our differences, we usually end up with half-way decent articles as a result - that have the added benefit of often being a bit, you know, "funny". Yes, it is fun. Now go rewrite your diatribe so it reads properly, it's a little grammatically/referentially lost "out of the article". human
00:14, 25 February 2008 (EST)
I agree. I love a good argument! DogP 14:27, 25 February 2008 (EST)
[edit] Ames Revisited
I don't really understand why Ames's contribution was moved out. Nader deserves better, both pro and con. So far the article sucks, "before most of you were born" and all. I think Ames's POV fits right in until it is re-written. PoorEd 08:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
[edit] Cut from article
- Clean Water Act
- Freedom of Information Act
- Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
- Clean Air Act
- Atomic Energy Safety Act
- Privacy Act
- ...(that is off the top of my head)
- Seat belts
- Airbags
- Renumeration on airline tickets when they bump your flight
- ...
The above is not exactly writing, can we clean it up - and get cites attributing each of these things to Nader? ħuman
23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- That was a suggestion to comment here, not to just re-add them all and more... ħuman
23:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] );
Though I disliked Nader for causing Bush to come into office, I never thought he'd descend to this level. How many more good people on the left must we lose to the Paulbots? I'd be cool if Nader ran another time, but every new supporter of Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul represents another shift to the far right. The fact that Paul is preying on the youth vote is most sickening. I don't think he'll cause Obama to lose in November, but if this continues then the future will be disastrous.
Sorry, I just had to have my rant of the week. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nader did not cause Bush to come to office. If Gore had carried his own state of Tennessee or Clinton's state of Arkansas, he would have won the election. If the Supreme Court had not given Florida to Bush, Gore would have won the election. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that only two parties should field candidates for the presidency, and to try to criticize someone for running for high office on the strength of his own political vision, or to try to criticize people for voting for a candidate whom they believed was the best choice is a profoundly undemocratic sentiment. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) I am not particularly surprised by the endorsement. Left-wingers have a very long history of cozying up to people who do not share their views on economics, but who do agree with them on one hot-button issue. U.S. foreign policy is a very hot-button issue just at present.
ListenerXTalkerX 22:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- (EC)You forget New Hampshire, the state Gore lost by fractions of a percent. Nader spent all his time attacking Gore, and rarely attacked Bush. Worse, Gore was among the most progressive members of the Democratic Party. As someone pointed above, the best way to reform the system is to do so through legislature, where Nader's strongpoint is. Fact is, there's no point running to the left of the Democratic Party if you are going to go third party. Ross Perot, the most successful third party of all time (I don't count Teddy) had to run in the center. Voting for a third party in the current system is a waste of a vote, especially when one knows that it is only symbolic.
- But that's not why I just edited his article. If you look at the history, I tried to make the article more neutral towards Nader, raising points about Gore's campaign strategy. What ticks me off the most is that he turns around and supports Ron Paul, the most conservative congressman since 1937. Mistakenly issuing a third party bid at the wrong time is excusable. Supporting a blatantly racist, sexist, and homophobic candidate like Paul at the same time as calling oneself a progressive is not. I like Nader for what he did, but I can't forgive him for this. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also, you presume that Nader supporters would have voted for Gore. They may well have just stayed home that day if Nader had not run--just like many if not most Ron Paul supporters who voted in the Republican primaries. The GOP is foolish if they think the majority of those folks are going to support the party come November."Gore was among the most progressive members of the Democratic Party." For many on the left, that statement means nothing. Still nowhere close enough to "progressive" to draw their votes. "Fact is, there's no point running to the left of the Democratic Party if you are going to go third party." If the point is to get ideas out there, and give progressive people someone to vote for who represents their interests, that's all the point you need. Like I said, to try to marginalize a bunch of people because their politcal visions fuck with your party's strategy is profoundly undemocratic. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fact is, we are not a Democracy. We are a constitutional Republic. Also, I've found many examples of Nader voters who have since regretted their vote. Again, even 20% of Nader's voters voting for Gore would have made the election an easy win, far beyond the reach of voter fraud. The purpose of voting is to impact the government towards your favor. Why vote in such a way that the opposite would happen? Let's make something clear: the majority of Nader's supports probably would say that Gore would be their second choice. Gore is much closer to Nader's views than Bush. So why did Nader spend so much energy attacking Gore and not Bush? Mr. Anon (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note: I'm not trying to say it's all Nader's fault. Gore could have campaigned better, Lieberman could have been replaced with a better choice, and there could have been less voter fraud. But Nader should have known better than to run that kind of a campaign against that kind of opponent, especially in that close of a race under this system. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- "The purpose of voting is to impact the government towards your favor. Why vote in such a way that the opposite would happen?" If your favor is that Ralph Nader was the candidate who best represented your interests, then that is reason enough to vote for somebody. "Let's make something clear: the majority of Nader's supports probably would say that Gore would be their second choice." let's make something clear: who my second choice is is irrelevant if my fist choice is the guy that I'm voting for. Let's make something else clear: asking people if they would have voted differently in hindsight ain't worth a pinch of shit. Like I said, many if not most Nader supporters would not have voted at all if Nader wasn't there. I am fucking sick of Americans who bitch and whine and moan about politics in this country and then shut down one of the best options for changing it--opening up the system to alternatives outside the two major parties--for stupid strategic reasons that end up reproducing exactly what it is that pisses them off in the first place. "Don't vote for the third party guy! He won't win!" Well, he won't fuckin' well win unless short-sighted moronic assholes who are beholden to a corrupt fucking system open their minds and fucking well vote for him, will he? It's such bullshit. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your statement implies that the only way to fix the two-party system is to vote for third parties that you know will not win. More and more states are agreeing to dropping the electoral college. That alone would encourage more third party candidates. Even as it is the system allows for third party candidates, as long as they are viable - Ross Perot has a real chance of winning in 1992. Thing is, voting for candidates this far to the left (or to the right, for that matter) is pointless if the candidate has no legitimate chance of winning. Why make a vote that will result in the country going against your favor? Why vote for Nader rather than Gore when you know it will only make a Bush presidency more likely? Don't give me the bullshit that you should vote whatever person in the world who most reflects your views - if that were the case, everyone should just write in themselves. Why vote for Nader when you know he won't win? Why not vote for Gore when you know that your vote could help him win, and that he would bring the country somewhat closer to what you desire, unlike the other guy?
- Like it or not, we have a two party system, and until something is done about that electoral college, you will almost always just have a choice between those two parties and not voting at all. Speaking of which, what evidence do you have that "many if not most Nader supporters would not have voted at all if Nader wasn't there"? I can find plenty of people who voted for Clinton in '96 and Kerry in '04, but voted for Gore in 2000. If I put some effort, I could probably find over 537 such people in Florida alone. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- And again, you ignore some of my other points. Why did Nader focus so much of his energy attacking Gore, who had the most similar views to himself, rather than Bush? If you were a centrist, and you had people from both the left and the right attacking Gore, and only people from the left attacking Bush, why would you bother voting for Gore (as you are a centrist, you don't want Nader anyways) and not Bush? Mr. Anon (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- "The purpose of voting is to impact the government towards your favor. Why vote in such a way that the opposite would happen?" If your favor is that Ralph Nader was the candidate who best represented your interests, then that is reason enough to vote for somebody. "Let's make something clear: the majority of Nader's supports probably would say that Gore would be their second choice." let's make something clear: who my second choice is is irrelevant if my fist choice is the guy that I'm voting for. Let's make something else clear: asking people if they would have voted differently in hindsight ain't worth a pinch of shit. Like I said, many if not most Nader supporters would not have voted at all if Nader wasn't there. I am fucking sick of Americans who bitch and whine and moan about politics in this country and then shut down one of the best options for changing it--opening up the system to alternatives outside the two major parties--for stupid strategic reasons that end up reproducing exactly what it is that pisses them off in the first place. "Don't vote for the third party guy! He won't win!" Well, he won't fuckin' well win unless short-sighted moronic assholes who are beholden to a corrupt fucking system open their minds and fucking well vote for him, will he? It's such bullshit. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note: I'm not trying to say it's all Nader's fault. Gore could have campaigned better, Lieberman could have been replaced with a better choice, and there could have been less voter fraud. But Nader should have known better than to run that kind of a campaign against that kind of opponent, especially in that close of a race under this system. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fact is, we are not a Democracy. We are a constitutional Republic. Also, I've found many examples of Nader voters who have since regretted their vote. Again, even 20% of Nader's voters voting for Gore would have made the election an easy win, far beyond the reach of voter fraud. The purpose of voting is to impact the government towards your favor. Why vote in such a way that the opposite would happen? Let's make something clear: the majority of Nader's supports probably would say that Gore would be their second choice. Gore is much closer to Nader's views than Bush. So why did Nader spend so much energy attacking Gore and not Bush? Mr. Anon (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also, you presume that Nader supporters would have voted for Gore. They may well have just stayed home that day if Nader had not run--just like many if not most Ron Paul supporters who voted in the Republican primaries. The GOP is foolish if they think the majority of those folks are going to support the party come November."Gore was among the most progressive members of the Democratic Party." For many on the left, that statement means nothing. Still nowhere close enough to "progressive" to draw their votes. "Fact is, there's no point running to the left of the Democratic Party if you are going to go third party." If the point is to get ideas out there, and give progressive people someone to vote for who represents their interests, that's all the point you need. Like I said, to try to marginalize a bunch of people because their politcal visions fuck with your party's strategy is profoundly undemocratic. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) I am not particularly surprised by the endorsement. Left-wingers have a very long history of cozying up to people who do not share their views on economics, but who do agree with them on one hot-button issue. U.S. foreign policy is a very hot-button issue just at present.
"Why did Nader focus so much of his energy attacking Gore..." Because he had zero chance of convincing a Bush supporter to vote for him and thought he had a good chance of creating a leftist movement that would draw from dissatisfied progressives in the Democratic Party (people pissed about Clinton's welfare reform being one example....).He wanted to pick votes off of the left and center-left parts of the Democratic Party, 'cause those were the folks who might vote for him. Trying to convince Republicans to move that far left would have been a wasted effort. That's good politics. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- But Nader also knew that he was not going to win. He knew that polls showed an overwhelming amount of Americans rejected him, and that America's constituents were not prepared to go that far. Deny it all you want, but Nader did not run to win. He ran to make a message. And because of that message, people who might have otherwise voted for Gore voted for a no hope third party, in one of the closest elections in history. Anyways I'm done with this debate. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Damnit
Consider the above a parting shot, but that is not the reason I made this section. As I said, although I partially blame him for 2000, I've respected him until now, when I discovered that he endorsed the likes of Ron Paul. That, in my view, is unforgivable. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- As it turns out, he did not "endorse" him per say. This is where my misconception originated, where he writes an extremely favorable article about the man without much thought for Paul's reasons for addressing those issues, and without much look at what his larger solutions are (isolationism being the answer to wars, private currencies being the answer to the Fed, etc). Mr. Anon (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Slacktivism
How comes that slacktivism is listed at “See also”? From what I see, Ralph Nader's and his Raiders' work has achieved a lot. This association seems undue to me. Sophophobe (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)