Essay talk:Ralph Nader sucks

So, while legally anyone can run for President, they can do so only at the price of a vicious attack piece written by you? I do say, I like your logic!</sarcasm> -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:27, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, that's right :-). There's nothing in the law - unless the Roberts court has changed that, too - to suggest the contrary at least... honestly the fact is that I'm really pissed off. I'm tired of this eight year nightmare, and if it continues for another 4/8, the America we get on the other end will be very different indeed.-αmεσ (spy) 00:29, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The Ralph Nader debate is a really interesting one. The US, while loudly proclaiming itself the most democratic nation on Earth, has always been run by one of only two political parties. And frankly, although there are clearly differences between the Demz and the Crazies, I consider them both right-wing parties, and in a broader sense I see little light between them. While I can certainly see that Nader could damage Dem aspirations, and while i would infinitely prefer a Dem to a Rep, I would still resolutely support Nader's right to have his voice heard. He was on Meet The Press this morning and spoke more simple and direct sense than any of the three likely candidates, particularly in pointing up the complete inability of any candidate to intelligently talk about the Palestnian situation.. You don't get real opinions from any likely candidates for the US President any more, and at least Nader seems like an honest man. I get your passion on this matter, and I respect that, but the political system in this country is so beholden to money that a principled independent voice is needed, and badly. And frankly, whether the Prez ends up Dem or Rep, you can be quite sure the military-industrial complex will continue to grow its power. [User:Doggedpersistence|DogP]] 02:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I just wanted to add something about the consequences of helping Bush win the election: two more ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justices for decades to come, a quagmire in Iraq that has cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, over 4,000 (and counting) American lives, and 3 trillion dollars the U.S. could ill afford, a deterioration of U.S infrastructure as the rich get tax breaks, setbacks across the board for the environment and no action on global warming, deteriorating relations with most of the other countries in the world - I could go on, but that's enough for now. Rational Ed^perception 21:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Ralph Nader May or May Not Suck; It's Immaterial

Right, so Nader was selfish to run, but Gore would've saved the world. Gore would've not gone to war in Iraq and would've stopped global warming, but Nader's decidedly less-militaristic and more environmental platform made him a sophist. Learn to think outside the Catch-22.

From a purely philosophical position, is Nader responsible for every vote that Gore didn't get, or only for those votes that Gore didn't get and Nader got? After all, we're discussing an election in which just a bit more than 50% of eligible individuals turned out. One unfortunate aspect of participatory democracy is that you have to actually convince people that you're worth voting for, and that you're worth it more than the other candidates are. For a certain 2.7% of the voters, Nader did that, and Gore didn't. If Gore wanted those votes, maybe he should have appealed to those voters. (Crazy thought, right?)

Gore didn't run hard with what we would later learn is his strong suit (the environment), and he had a background from his '88 campaign as a Southern centrist with moderate to right-wing positions on gun control, Israel, abortion and prayer in schools. Granted, he had moved considerably left by 2000, but his record as V.P. doesn't reflect the kind of mountain-moving agenda the Nader haters allege. As a simple point of fact, he floated a larger military budget than Bush did in 2000, which did little to endear him to the peace-loving progressive contingent.

Oh, and most Nader haters ignore one important little point--okay, they ignore several, but the most important is this: Al Gore won in Florida. Here's the short version, from Ford Fessenden And John M. Broder, New York Times, November 12, 2001: "If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin." Jon in Iowa 22:23, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Everyone complains about the votes that Nader split away from Gore, but what about the votes that he sucked away from some other 3rd party candidate (eg the likes of LaRouche); and don't forget, crazy as it sounds, he surely split some votes away from Bush too! Honest! It might go like this: "Well, I don't want to vote for Bush, but my only alternative is Gore, who I REALLY don't want to vote for... so I guess I have to vote for Bush... oh wait, whose this Nader fellow that's also running?"

Chasanidya (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

nader sucks

75000 dead iraqis are so grateful to him,