Talk:Ralph Nader/Archive1

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. -- 17:09, 24 February 2008 (EST)
 * I'll bet the republicans are laugh laugh laugh! Susan  Purrrrr  17:26, 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.- 19:07, 24 February 2008 (EST)
 * Down boy! No bite!  -- 19:36, 24 February 2008 (EST)
 * 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.- 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.- 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.- 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.- 23:56, 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.- 09:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
 * Here's a summary of all the candidates' reactions. PoorEd 09:56, 25 February 2008 (EST)

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. -- 23:19, 24 February 2008 (EST)
 * Can I at least get a "see also"? :-)  Fair call on the essay-fication though.- 23:34, 24 February 2008 (EST)
 * Of course you can! I whore my essays (on the relevant pages) myself.  : )  -- 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?- 23:37, 24 February 2008 (EST)
 * Your welcome! And... you have a blog?  -- 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.  - 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)

Done! Wait. Where is teh blogroll? And, errr, yeah. I keep forgetting to do cover story stuff. Srry.- 23:46, 24 February 2008 (EST) Solved my own idiocy.- 23:58, 24 February 2008 (EST)

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.- 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)