The Nader Thread

[Immortalfire]

http://mt.laweekly.com/sea/dailyweekly/ralph_nader.jpg



Vote! 2008!



:grin: :oldrazz:

[The Original Bamfer]

I have a feeling Nader's got this one! :up:

[Bubonic]

If all I've heard of him is true, its a shame he isn't taken seriously.

[cookiva]

Nader is a good man. He is just given a hard time because people think that he stole the 2000 election from the democrats. Not true. Nader told Gore that he would drop out if Gore would apply a few of Naders views into his own, and Gore basically ignored him. Nader, at the last hour, was about to drop out of the race, but stayed in because of this. I love Gore, but he would be in the White House right now if he wasnt so stubborn.

[Arkady Rossovich]

He's never going to be Presisent.

[Super_Ludacris]

:whatever:

Nader takes steps towards another White House bid

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate who was blamed by many Democrats for Al Gore’s loss in the 2000 presidential election, launched an exploratory committee Wednesday for another White House bid, and told CNN he is likely to get in the race if he can put the resources in place.

"John Edwards, the banner of Democratic Party populism, is dropping out, and Dennis Kucinich dropped out earlier, so in terms of voters who are at least interested in having major areas of injustice, deprivations, and solutions discussed in a presidential campaign, they might be interested in my exploratory effort," Nader said.

Nader has launched an official exploratory committee Web site, and said he will formally make a decision in about a month. He said he is certain to get in the race if he can demonstrate the ability to raise $10 million and recruit enough lawyers to deal with ballot access issues. He has yet to formally file paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission, though he does not need to until he officially becomes a candidate, according to the FEC.

Nader said he finds Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both unacceptable candidates, and he said whichever wins the party's presidential nomination will not have an impact on his decision to run.

"They are both enthralled to the corporate powers," Nader said of the two leading Democrats. "They've completely ignored the presidential pattern of illegality and accountability, they've ignored the out of control waste-fruad military expenditures, they hardly ever mention the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars to corporate subsidies, handouts, and giveaways, and they don't talk about a living wage."

He expressed particular disappointment with Obama, whose senate record he called "mediocre, and quite cautious."

"It's not that he doesn't know what the score is, of course he does — look at his background, he knows plenty," Nader said. "But he's censoring himself."

Nader attracted close to 100,000 votes in Florida in 2000 — a state Al Gore ultimately lost to George Bush by approximately 500 votes. He brushes aside suggestions his candidacy this year may ultimately spoil the election for the Democratic Party.

"Political bigotry will be the label on anybody who uses the word 'spoiler,' he said. "Because ‘spoiler’ means minor candidates are second class citizens. Either we have an equal right to run for election, or we are spoilers for each other trying to get each other's votes.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/30/nader-takes-steps-towards-another-white-house-bid/

[rdh007]

Useless prat cost us 4000+ lives if you ask me. Wait a minute...nobody did.

[Matt]

rdh, who do you think cost us 4000+ lives? :cwink:

As for Nader, why does he even form an exploratory committee. Exploratory committees are made to answer whether or not the person actually has a shot of winning the presidency. He knows the answer. He has to pay a committee to tell him that he will get 2-3 % of the vote?

[hippie_hunter]

Considering how Americans are completely discontent these days with the two party system, I'd imagine that Nader would do much better than he did in 2004.

And considering that Hillary will most likely get the nomination, the only person Nader is going to hurt is Hillary.

[bell110]

Nader is A-OK :up:

[MaskedManJRK]

Was he the one who did that "YAAAAAAAAA" speech that got him kicked out of the race, or am I thinking of someone else? :confused:

[bell110]

That was Howard Dean. Nader is the Green Party candidate most of the time.

[SuBe]

Well, Cythia McKinney is Running for the Green Party Ticket. So, I guess they'll need to fight it out.

[Matt]

Nader did not run on a Green ticket last time. He was independent.

[Malice]

Nader will kill the Democrats chance of winning.

[Super_Ludacris]

Its good to know Republichumps feel that confident about there OWN party that they think Nader will ONLY cost the democrats the office....

[hippie_hunter]

Its good to know Republichumps feel that confident about there OWN party that they think Nader will ONLY cost the democrats the office....

Nader ain't going to hurt the Republicans. He's too left for them.

Bloomberg on the other hand will hurt the Republicans if he runs.

[Malice]

Nader ain't going to hurt the Republicans. He's too left for them.

Bloomberg on the other hand will hurt the Republicans if he runs.

Exactly....you have the right idea about bloomberg too

[The Senator]

Eh, let him run. He wasn't a big challenge in 2004, so I doubt he'll have much of an impact in 2008.

[hippie_hunter]

Eh, let him run. He wasn't a big challenge in 2004, so I doubt he'll have much of an impact in 2008.

He wasn't that big of an impact because people who actually wanted Bush out of office knew that if they voted for Nader they would hurt Kerry. And frankly most people who voted for Kerry, voted for him simply because they wanted Bush out of office.

Bush ain't running now and the majority of people are both discontent with the Republicans and Democrats (over 70%) thanks to the Bush Administration and Congress being pretty damn useless. I think Nader will do as well as he did in 2000.

[Obi-Ron]

If Nader runs again I will vote for him again. I won't even have to change my avatar.

[hippie_hunter]

If Nader runs again I will vote for him again. I won't even have to change my avatar.

Vote Zod!

[The Senator]

I doubt he'll have as much clout as he did in the past. The Democrats and left-leaning independents will stick with the Democratic nominee for the same reasons they did in 2004. They don't want an extension of Bush's term, and they don't want a Republican president. Plus, in the seven years since the 2000 election, Nader's image has been tarnished further, and has become a symbol of fear among the liberal base. I just can't see him doing half as good as he did in 2000. If he was going to do damage at all, it would have been in 2004, when he was up against a far more boring, far more disenchanting Democrat.

[Super_Ludacris]

If Nader runs again I will vote for him again. I won't even have to change my avatar.

Of course you wont, he's a grown up version of Ralph Wiggum

[bell110]

Well, Cythia McKinney is Running for the Green Party Ticket. So, I guess they'll need to fight it out.

The one that shoved a Capitol Police officer? **** that ***** :down

Will Nader be running Green or Independent this time?

[Immortalfire]

He wasn't on the ballot...I didn't know what to do :csad:

[Ash J. Williams]

He's never going to be Presisent.
Because Bruce Campbell is.

[CorpusBlack]

Because Bruce Campbell is.

What a wonderful country we'd live in if Bruce Campbell was president.

[Matt]

What a wonderful country we'd live in if Bruce Campbell was president.

Bruce Campbell doesn't have the experience. Sure, he led a small, rag tag, bunch of soldiers to victory against a larger, more formidible army (of darkness) but does THAT alone really qualifiy him to be President of the United States? Allow me to answer that with a smiley that will not only convey my skepticism but do so in a smug manner.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ernstmul/images/yahoo/20.gif

However, I will say, Bruce Campbell is young. He should be the runningmate on the Zod 2008 ticket! That would not only get him the experience he needs, it would give America the much needed leadership of an experienced military leader and statesman, General Zod for 8 years! Remember, in 2008, choose to:

http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/Kneel-Before-Zod.jpg

:woot:

[CorpusBlack]

Bruce Campbell doesn't have the experience. Sure, he led a small, rag tag, bunch of soldiers to victory against a larger, more formidible army (of darkness) but does THAT alone really qualifiy him to be President of the United States? Allow me to answer that with a smiley that will not only convey my skepticism but do so in a smug manner.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ernstmul/images/yahoo/20.gif

However, I will say, Bruce Campbell is young. He should be the runningmate on the Zod 2008 ticket! That would not only get him the experience he needs, it would give America the much needed leadership of an experienced military leader and statesman, General Zod for 8 years! Remember, in 2008, choose to:

http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/Kneel-Before-Zod.jpg

:woot:

Zod would be good until Palpatine devised a plan to overthrow him, create a new army and send us to war all in an attempt to maintain power and create his own empire. Then the Young Guns would have to defend his honor.

[Matt]

Zod would be good until Palpatine devised a plan to overthrow him, create a new army and send us to war all in an attempt to maintain power and create his own empire. Then the Young Guns would have to defend his honor.

But thats already happened. Only it was George W. Bush who went to war to create the Empire and maintain power instead of Palpatine...and instead of the Young Guns defending his honor it was the old guns led by Charleton Heston. :hehe:

[comicgirl]

Nader poised for another run at the White House


Obama Not Concerned By Possible Nader Bid

Ralph Nader goes on NBC’s Meet the Press tomorrow morning, stoking speculation that the consumer advocate is gearing up for another presidential bid.

Barack Obama said today during a visit at the Ohio State University Medical Center that he wasn’t terribly concerned about the prospect of a Nader campaign. “I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/23/obama-not-concerned-by-possible-nader-bid/?mod=googlenews_wsj


I was ready to kill this guy during the 2000 election.

Well, there you go Mr. Ralph -I might as well work for Karl Rove - Nader. Way to hand the election to the Reps again. Vaingorious, self important, unelectable SOB:cmad:

[Matt]

I don't buy that Comicgirl. The entire purpose of democracy is dissent. I find it puzzling how Democrats (specifically Barack Obama supporters) are adopting the same 'with us or against us' attitude that the Republicans have used for the past 8 years.

I was recently contacted by an old friend of mine who is the chairman of the local Democratic party. He was asking for a donation and I told him no as there are no local Dems running and I don't support Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Jason Altmire in the Congressional campaign. He went on a rant about how I am handing the White House to the Republicans and leaving our troops to die. I said "Wait a ****ing second. When did the Democrats start using these kinda scare tactics? I thought our party was better than that." I may have not realized it in the past, but this election makes it clear as day. It shows how similiar the two parties are and why candidates like Nader are needed. I probably won't vote for Nader (I am still hoping Bloomberg jumps in). I will write in Richardson if Nader doesn't enter. I will be damned if I am going to be bullied or scared into voting for some pseudo-Democrat, especially when it so goes against the fundamental principals of our entire Democracy.

[jaguarr]

Nader makes a very, very valid and important point when he says things like Washington is "corporate occupied territory" that turns the government against the interests of it's own people. However, his methods and tactics for raising awareness to that ultimately are horribly ineffective and I wish he'd rethink how he's getting that message across and working to change they system. This approach doesn't do much of anything and just makes people write him off as a bit of a nut.

jag

[The Senator]

As much as I disagree with Ralph Nader, and as annoyed as I am over his 2000 campaign, I believe he has every right to seek the Presidency if he so wishes. If Obama or Clinton have a message which will appeal to the far left, or anyone else who supports Nader, then they shouldn't have to worry about the left-most liberals jumping ship and voting for him.

The other important thing to remember about Nader is this: While he may have got 2.7% of the vote in 2000, he only received 0.3% in 2004. No one was able to say Nader took votes away from Kerry. So I'm under the impression he won't receive over 1% of the vote come November anyway.

Personally, I'm hoping Bloomberg jumps in...

[comicgirl]

I can just see McCain and co. high-fiving each other.

[Matt]

I can just see McCain and co. high-fiving each other.

I doubt it. Like Jman said, Nader got .3 % of the vote in 2004. He will probably get less this time around. Especially if Obama wins the nomination.

[comicgirl]

I know....its just irritating....grrr!!!!!:cmad:

[Matt]

Why is it irritating? I thought Democracy was all about contrasting ideas? Why is it wrong when Bush shuts out the opposition from the decision making process but you want to do the same thing to a third party candidate?

[comicgirl]

You're misunderstanding my meaning...................I don't like it because the only thing he's been is a spoiler. Man doesn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

He's like a crabby old Economics Prof. that believes he alone has the "solution" and everyone else is wrong. Whatever.

[The Senator]

You're misunderstanding my meaning...................I don't like it because the only thing he's been is a spoiler. Man doesn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

He's like a crabby old Economics Prof. that believes he alone has the "solution" and everyone else is wrong. Whatever.

So what? Like I said earlier, if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton feel Ralph Nader will spoil the election again, then they should do everything in their power to convince his voters that they're worth a damn. If they can't do that, then it's their own fault their potential voters went for Nader.

So many people are tired of having to vote for the same politician every election cycle. The fact that there is that alternative makes this Democracy so much better by giving those people a say.

[Matt]

You're misunderstanding my meaning...................I don't like it because the only thing he's been is a spoiler. Man doesn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

He's like a crabby old Economics Prof. that believes he alone has the "solution" and everyone else is wrong. Whatever.

But again, isn't it the candidates fault for not reaching out to his side? Sure, he can't win, but that is certainly no reason to put your ideas out there and run. That is what America is all about.

[comicgirl]

I'm not dissing alternative choices to the main Parties. I..........just........don't....care......for..... ....Nader. Period. I'd rather vote for Ross Perot if he was still kickin' it.

[jaguarr]

So what? Like I said earlier, if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton feel Ralph Nader will spoil the election again, then they should do everything in their power to convince his voters that they're worth a damn. If they can't do that, then it's their own fault their potential voters went for Nader.

So many people are tired of having to vote for the same politician every election cycle. The fact that there is that alternative makes this Democracy so much better by giving those people a say.

Like Nader who's in nearly every damn Presidential election? :huh:

jag

[Matt]

I'm not dissing alternative choices to the main Parties. I..........just........don't....care......for..... ....Nader. Period. I'd rather vote for Ross Perot if he was still kickin' it.

Ah, I see, so under your train of thought, it is okay for someone with no chance of winning to run so long as they play spoiler to the party you dislike. I follow, now.

[The Senator]

Like Nader who's in nearly every damn Presidential election? :huh:

jag

At least he says different things.

[comicgirl]

Ah, I see, so under your train of thought, it is okay for someone with no chance of winning to run so long as they play spoiler to the party you dislike. I follow, now.
Independents tend to float from the Dems more than Rep's. No loyality...or more prone to openminded thinking?.....Who knows.












BTW....................still don't like Nader. :grin:

[Matt]

Independents tend to float from the Dems more than Rep's. No loyality...or more prone to openminded thinking?.....Who knows.


Please, you have absolutely no way to back that up. There simply has not been a prominent third party, conservative candidate since 1996. In fact, the last prominent third party candidate who appealed to Republicans was Ross Perot who won 19 % of the popular vote in 1992, mostly from disenchanted Republicans. The last prominent third party who spoils for Democrats was Ralph Nader who in 2000 won at the most won 3 % of the popular vote. So yeah, there goes your argument.

[jaguarr]

At least he says different things.

I get the point you were trying to make about people trying to break the two-party stranglehold that's around the throat of American politics, but Nader's hardly the guy to do it. It will take a truly enigmatic, charismatic, powerful leader to run as an independent to do that. Someone who doesn't subscribe to the two-party system at all and wants to tear it down. Unfortunately, that person will also probably be a part of the top 2% of the nation that possesses 80% of the wealth and would therefore be unlikely to break the current problem with lobbyists and corporations practically running the damn government like we have today. It takes money to get elected, unfortunately. Sadly, the kind of person we really need to run this country is not going to have the money nor are they going to have the backing of either of the two parties, more than likely.

jag

[The Senator]

Independents tend to float from the Dems more than Rep's. No loyality...or more prone to openminded thinking?.....Who knows.












BTW....................still don't like Nader. :grin:

There's no such thing as an independent voter. Those who identify as true independents represent roughly 10% of the population-- but 85% of independents vote along party lines the duration of their 'voting career.' Only 15% of independents are truly independent-- that is, they vote sporadically from party to party-- which makes up less than 2% of overall voters. Most Americans stick with one party, whether they are subconsciously aware of it or not.

Oh, and-- surprise, surprise-- you tend to find more right-leaning independents than you do left-leaning ones.

(Citation: Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America by Morris P. Fiorina)

[Matt]

:o CitatOWNed!

[Marx]

You're misunderstanding my meaning...................I don't like it because the only thing he's been is a spoiler. Man doesn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

He's like a crabby old Economics Prof. that believes he alone has the "solution" and everyone else is wrong. Whatever.

I think that anyone who wants to run, should be able to run. That being said, I couldn't agree more. At one point in time, Ralph Nader was respected and admired. But after FIVE losing presidential campaigns, he has resigned himself to being nothing more than a public nuisance. I just hope that Barack or Hillary can overpower what little effect he will have. I don't think I could handle another election like 2000.

[comicgirl]

I think that anyone who wants to run, should be able to run. That being said, I couldn't agree more. At one point in time, Ralph Nader was respected and admired. But after FIVE losing presidential campaigns, he has resigned himself to being nothing more than a public nuisance. I just hope that Barack or Hillary can overpower what little effect he will have. I don't think I could handle another election like 2000.me neither. My first thought when I saw that Nader back was $%^&$%^!! not again!!

[ScottyBBadd]

I don't buy that Comicgirl. The entire purpose of democracy is dissent. I find it puzzling how Democrats (specifically Barack Obama supporters) are adopting the same 'with us or against us' attitude that the Republicans have used for the past 8 years.

I was recently contacted by an old friend of mine who is the chairman of the local Democratic party. He was asking for a donation and I told him no as there are no local Dems running and I don't support Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Jason Altmire in the Congressional campaign. He went on a rant about how I am handing the White House to the Republicans and leaving our troops to die. I said "Wait a ****ing second. When did the Democrats start using these kinda scare tactics? I thought our party was better than that." I may have not realized it in the past, but this election makes it clear as day. It shows how similiar the two parties are and why candidates like Nader are needed. I probably won't vote for Nader (I am still hoping Bloomberg jumps in). I will write in Richardson if Nader doesn't enter. I will be damned if I am going to be bullied or scared into voting for some pseudo-Democrat, especially when it so goes against the fundamental principals of our entire Democracy.

I would likely vote for Ralph Nader if he ran again.

[YsoSerious]

I would likely vote for Ralph Nader if he ran again.

So you're the one!!

[hippie_hunter]

I doubt it. Like Jman said, Nader got .3 % of the vote in 2004. He will probably get less this time around. Especially if Obama wins the nomination.

The main reason why Nader got less of the vote in 2004 was because people were serious in trying to get rid of George W. Bush and voting for Nader wasn't going to help in that.

It's a completely new scenario in 2008. Instead of being fed up with the Republicans, the average American is fed up with both parties now. George W. Bush isn't running again either.

I think Nader will do just as well as he did in 2000 this time. Which will be a huge spoiler for the Democrats considering how close the general election polls are between McCain and Clinton/Obama.

[Mattchew]

I'm all for decent, but the PROBLEM with Nader is that he spent about 90% of his time on Meet the Press ripping on Obama, the only legit candidate that he has anything in common with, policy-wise.

[rdh007]

I wish I believed Nader gave a tinker's damn about the average American. I think at one point he probably did. Now he's just looking to secure an historical legacy to rival that of only one man.
http://www.tvparty.com/bgifs18/paulsen.jpg
He's become a joke. At least Pat Paulsen was obvious about his comedic intent.

[Marx]

I would likely vote for Ralph Nader if he ran again.

Why? What is this man's appeal?

[BlackLantern]

Nader is just lonely...somebody said in another thread that maybe Nader and Ron Paul should team up and they could probably get 10 percent of the vote

[Cosmic]

Nader is not bitter about anything. Some Democrats are bitter about the way they lost in 2000, and that's why they try to use him as a scapegoat to cover up their own party's shortcomings.

Nader knows what he's talking about. Both major parties are corrupted by the influence of big business. Both parties share and maintain a monopoly on political power in Washington and throughout the whole nation. He's speaking up for our rights as citizens, as voters, and as consumers. He can't win the election, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that Americans get to hear the voice of a candidate who's not part of the big-corporate machine.

[BlackLantern]

Nader is not bitter about anything. Some Democrats are bitter about the way they lost in 2000, and that's why they try to use him as a scapegoat to cover up their own party's shortcomings.

Nader knows what he's talking about. Both major parties are corrupted by the influence of big business. Both parties share and maintain a monopoly on political power in Washington and throughout the whole nation. He's speaking up for our rights as citizens, as voters, and as consumers. He can't win the election, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that Americans get to hear the voice of a candidate who's not part of the big-corporate machine.

Yes they hear him, but no one takes him seriously....so he can go on and on about corruption and so forth all he wants, but all people see is some ranting old guy who doesn't matter....

[comicgirl]

Yes they hear him, but no one takes him seriously....so he can go on and on about corruption and so forth all he wants, but all people see is some ranting old guy who doesn't matter....
Yeah, he lost all political cred. around Nov, 2000.

[Arkady Rossovich]

I doubt Nader will ever be an American President. It's a dream he will never achive.

[hippie_hunter]

I doubt Nader will ever be an American President. It's a dream he will never achive.

True dat. Some people just don't get a clue :csad:

[Lightning Strykez!]

LOL

Just when I thought this election mess couldn't get any worse (and dumb), here comes this fool. :rolleyes:

[BlackLantern]

I'm wondering if you put Ron Paul and Ralph Nader in the same room, would the mass irrelevance cause some sort of black hole??

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'm wondering if you put Ron Paul and Ralph Nader in the same room, would the mass irrelevance cause some sort of black hole??

:lmao:

Most likely!

[Marx]

Yes they hear him, but no one takes him seriously....so he can go on and on about corruption and so forth all he wants, but all people see is some ranting old guy who doesn't matter....

He has absolutely zero credibility anymore.

[The Senator]

He has absolutely zero credibility anymore.

Ralph Nader doesn't need credibility to run for President. All he needs is a reason. To him, the party system is broken in the United States. It doesn't accomplish anything. And as long as there's no one around to challenge the status quo, he has his reason to run. As much as I think Nader is a misbegotten, senile whacko, he serves a purpose in this campaign and makes a valid point: Elections aren't just confined to two guys from the two national parties. He made that point very clear in 2000. Whether he'll make it clear again this time around is another story.

[Marx]

Ralph Nader doesn't need credibility to run for President. All he needs is a reason. To him, the party system is broken in the United States. It doesn't accomplish anything. And as long as there's no one around to challenge the status quo, he has his reason to run. As much as I think Nader is a misbegotten, senile whacko, he serves a purpose in this campaign and makes a valid point: Elections aren't just confined to two guys from the two national parties. He made that point very clear in 2000. Whether he'll make it clear again this time around is another story.

I completely understand what you're saying. I am all for whoever wanting to run should be able to run. The candidate should at least be respectable. Nader and any "message" he may have, have been widdled away into pieces thanks to his four previous presidential campaign losses.

[The Senator]

I completely understand what you're saying. I am all for whoever wanting to run should be able to run. The candidate should at least be respectable. Nader and any "message" he may have, have been widdled away into pieces thanks to his four previous presidential campaign losses.

Nader has my respect for trying his damndest to be the best Lyndon LaRouche he can be :dry:

[psychocheeseman]

i feel kinda weird posting on this thread as i'm not american, but i have studied international politics, and it's kinda important who leads teh worlds most powerful nation so i'll throw my 2 cents in. In my opinion Nader is unlikely to win, which is a pity as i think he is definately the best suited for teh job (if we want to be ruled by the wise and all). He's done far more for protecting the rights of citizens and people world wide than any other candidate. He's highly intelligent and is not afraid to outline clearly what his policy is. unlike other candidates (including Obama who i'd also quite like to see elected).
But unfortunately, Americans don't seem to vote for the intelligent people and Nader is no longer as charismatic as he perhaps once was. The average american probably doesn't realise how much Nader has done for them, as blacklantern said;

but no one takes him seriously....so he can go on and on about corruption and so forth all he wants, but all people see is some ranting old guy who doesn't matter....

sorry to imply you're average blacklantern. But it seems almost ironic, that the same group of people Nader has been fighting for since the 60s don't seem to know how much he has done.

[wiegeabo]

I would likely vote for Ralph Nader if he ran again.

Same here.

Do I think Nader will win? No. He probably won't have a chance. I expect him to perform about how he did the last time, maybe a little better. If he had decided to run a year ago, he probably could have built up enough momentum to get close to what he did in 2000.

But I'd still vote for him because I can't stand the two big parties anymore. In fact, I don't think I've ever voted Republican or Democrat for President. I also saw a documentary about Nader on PBS. I was shocked at how poorly he was treated back in 2000, and how the Dems did everything they could to keep him out of the debates, the election, everything. Even things bordering (or actually) illegal.

[BlackLantern]

sorry to imply you're average blacklantern. But it seems almost ironic, that the same group of people Nader has been fighting for since the 60s don't seem to know how much he has done.

It's ok....I am as average as it gets....as is most of America....hence why we all consider Nader a ranting old guy

[Spider-Fan83]

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9376/ralph08mq0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/8247/ralph082hn9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[souvlaki]

Yes they hear him, but no one takes him seriously....so he can go on and on about corruption and so forth all he wants, but all people see is some ranting old guy who doesn't matter....

It's hard to take someone seriously after they claim there is no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush.

[souvlaki]

Yes they hear him, but no one takes him seriously....so he can go on and on about corruption and so forth all he wants, but all people see is some ranting old guy who doesn't matter....

Well, it's hard to take someone seriously after they claim there is no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush.

[bell110]

The main reason why Nader got less of the vote in 2004 was because people were serious in trying to get rid of George W. Bush and voting for Nader wasn't going to help in that.

It's a completely new scenario in 2008. Instead of being fed up with the Republicans, the average American is fed up with both parties now. George W. Bush isn't running again either.

I think Nader will do just as well as he did in 2000 this time. Which will be a huge spoiler for the Democrats considering how close the general election polls are between McCain and Clinton/Obama.

:up:

You hit the nail on the head. I'm going to expand on what you said. If Clinton gets nominated, I think Nader will definately take a lot of independent votes away from the democrates and she will lose. I think Obama will stand a better chance if he gets it.

[Lightning Strykez!]

^ Of course Nader will eat up their voting leverage. Why?

Because he's the white male alternative to both candidates. Which is why he's getting into this thing now. :rolleyes:

[Marx]

^ Of course Nader will eat up their voting leverage. Why?

Because he's the white male alternative to both candidates. Which is why he's getting into this thing now. :rolleyes:

Hopefully not.

[The Senator]

Everyone's really making Nader's candidacy out to be something more than it is. If Hillary or Barack can't run a campaign which appeals to his voters, it's their own damn fault. Even then, I feel he'll struggle to get near 1% of the vote. People also seem to forget that Cynthia McKinney is running as a Green, and her outrageous, ultra-liberal record will appeal to the far left as much as Nader's does. The two of them will split that extreme left vote so much so as to make it completely irrelevant come election day.

I also don't think this election will be as close as it was in 2000, simply because you will be able to distinguish both party's nominees from each other, even if it simply comes down to race or gender combined with all that hope/ change/ military experience fluff which has hijacked this election.

[BlackLantern]

Nader is slowly becoming that crazy uncle that stands up in the middle of Thanksgiving and goes on a rant about the gold standard and corsets...everyone laughs and puts him at the kiddie table

[The Senator]

Nader is slowly becoming that crazy uncle that stands up in the middle of Thanksgiving and goes on a rant about the gold standard and corsets...everyone laughs and puts him at the kiddie table

I thought that was Ron Paul :huh:

[Marx]

Everyone's really making Nader's candidacy out to be something more than it is. If Hillary or Barack can't run a campaign which appeals to his voters, it's their own damn fault. Even then, I feel he'll struggle to get near 1% of the vote. People also seem to forget that Cynthia McKinney is running as a Green, and her outrageous, ultra-liberal record will appeal to the far left as much as Nader's does. The two of them will split that extreme left vote so much so as to make it completely irrelevant come election day.

I also don't think this election will be as close as it was in 2000, simply because you will be able to distinguish both party's nominees from each other, even if it simply comes down to race or gender combined with all that hope/ change/ military experience fluff which has hijacked this election.

I don't think that Nader will make all that much of a difference. I just hope that the margin is large enough that any impact he may have, if any, won't matter at all.

[BlackLantern]

I thought that was Ron Paul :huh:

Ron Paul is the other uncle that shows up with no pants and smelling of bourbon....

[Marx]

Ron Paul is the other uncle that shows up with no pants and smelling of bourbon....

Oh wow...there's a picture I didn't need!

[souvlaki]

I was always under the impression that Nader received a decent chunk of his votes from people under the age of 30 (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption). Obviously there are people in this thread that prove the exception to the rule, but generally those are also Obama's most enthusiastic supporters. Young voters are certainly more enthusiastic about Obama than they were about Gore or Kerry. Because of this I will be shocked if Nader gets even half as many votes as he did in 2004.

[Marx]

I was always under the impression that Nader received a decent chunk of his votes from people under the age of 30 (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption). Obviously there are people in this thread that prove the exception to the rule, but generally those are also Obama's most enthusiastic supporters. Young voters are certainly more enthusiastic about Obama than they were about Gore or Kerry. Because of this I will be shocked if Nader gets even half as many votes as he did in 2004.

That's true. Many would say that the "under 30" crowd are the CORE of Obama's support.

[hippie_hunter]

Ron Paul is the other uncle that shows up with no pants and smelling of bourbon....

No that was Mike Gravel.

[Marx]

No that was Mike Gravel.

Wow...yet ANOTHER picture I didn't need in my head! :lmao:

[The Senator]

No that was Mike Gravel.

To be fair, he only shows up like that because pants cost more than bourbon, and he can't afford both.

[Immortalfire]

He's running! O happy day :word:

[DBella]

I was surprised when I heard this last night on the news. Surprised and encouraged. Unfortunately, with the two-party dominance, I doubt very much that he'll win the election. The good part is that, it gives people who won't vote for the ones currently running, representing the two dominant parties, another option. I think they need a challenge from a third party.

[Arc-Light]

Bruce Campbell doesn't have the experience. Sure, he led a small, rag tag, bunch of soldiers to victory against a larger, more formidible army (of darkness) but does THAT alone really qualifiy him to be President of the United States? Allow me to answer that with a smiley that will not only convey my skepticism but do so in a smug manner.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ernstmul/images/yahoo/20.gif

However, I will say, Bruce Campbell is young. He should be the runningmate on the Zod 2008 ticket! That would not only get him the experience he needs, it would give America the much needed leadership of an experienced military leader and statesman, General Zod for 8 years! Remember, in 2008, choose to:

http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/Kneel-Before-Zod.jpg

:woot:

Zod a very weak pick, why vote for a silly mortal while you can vote FOR A GOD

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd45/INBuckeye/cthulhu4Prez-preview-5.png

[comicgirl]

http://www.nerdyshirts.com/avactis-images/campbell_product.jpg

[souvlaki]

I was surprised when I heard this last night on the news. Surprised and encouraged. Unfortunately, with the two-party dominance, I doubt very much that he'll win the election. The good part is that, it gives people who won't vote for the ones currently running, representing the two dominant parties, another option. I think they need a challenge from a third party.

http://www.szilagyi.us/images/Simpsons/KangKodos.jpg

"Go ahead! Throw your vote away!"

[lemmasaurus]

Ugh. Seriously. A vote for Nader is a vote away from a democratic nominee, and a vote against any kind of change in this country.

[StorminNorman]

Nader/Paul would be very damning to Obama.

[souvlaki]

Nader/Paul would be very damning to Obama.

Yeah, you're right. They might even get 5% of the vote.

[StorminNorman]

Yeah, you're right. They might even get 5% of the vote.

Considering that 5% would be almost entirely of potential Obama supporters - it would be huge.

[Ash J. Williams]

http://www.nerdyshirts.com/avactis-images/campbell_product.jpg
Very nice.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Considering that 5% would be almost entirely of potential Obama supporters - it would be huge.

I wouldn't rely to heavily on that, if I were you.

His first "bid" garnered 3 million votes which cost Gore his presidency, and effectively pissed off the Democratic Party as a whole. People are dumb. This is illustrated by the fact that the next time he stepped out there he garnered a measely 500,000 votes. Hardly an indication of the democratic "love" out there for him. :rolleyes:

His take on this election will be even less. Mark my words, he will have ZERO impact on the race; most people seem to see him as a divisive attention whore, and little else.

[Marx]

Nader is a good man. He is just given a hard time because people think that he stole the 2000 election from the democrats. Not true. Nader told Gore that he would drop out if Gore would apply a few of Naders views into his own, and Gore basically ignored him. Nader, at the last hour, was about to drop out of the race, but stayed in because of this. I love Gore, but he would be in the White House right now if he wasnt so stubborn.

Nader thinks that he is right all the time, no matter what. (And if you don't adopt his policies then you're just ignorant.) Sounding familiar? There is a current administration that follows this same belief.

[Marx]

most people seem to see him as a divisive attention whore, and little else.

If the shoe fits...

(You forgot to mention egomaniac.)

[The Senator]

Look, Nader is quite the flimsy, irrational piece of political fodder out there today, but that doesn't mean he isn't getting in the race for legitimate reasons. He's able to draw a stark, shameless contrast between himself and the other nominees, giving voters a chance to vote for someone who doesn't position his or herself to win over as many votes as possible. I really respect that in him.

[Marx]

Look, Nader is quite the flimsy, irrational piece of political fodder out there today, but that doesn't mean he isn't getting in the race for legitimate reasons. He's able to draw a stark, shameless contrast between himself and the other nominees, giving voters a chance to vote for someone who doesn't position his or herself to win over as many votes as possible. I really respect that in him.

And he gets progressively less and less of the vote everytime he decides to run because he has lost all credibility.

[The Senator]

And he gets progressively less and less of the vote everytime he decides to run because he has lost all credibility.

Or it's because the media has anointed him a spoiler and the Democrats have upped their efforts to win over any support he once had. If Clinton or Obama fails to appeal to the large, left-win, anti-war, anti-corporation branch of the liberal electorate, then Nader will be able to rise up and take a meager-- though important-- percent of the vote, which could be quite decisive. In 2000, he was "the other guy." In 2004, he was "the evil man who cost Al Gore the election." In 2008, he's the "irrational yet semi-attractive candidate worth voting for if only because I can." His support will probably be bigger than it was last time, but I doubt he'll go much above 1%-- and hopefully the Democrat will be able to have a larger victory over McCain than that.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Look, Nader is quite the flimsy, irrational piece of political fodder out there today, but that doesn't mean he isn't getting in the race for legitimate reasons. He's able to draw a stark, shameless contrast between himself and the other nominees, giving voters a chance to vote for someone who doesn't position his or herself to win over as many votes as possible. I really respect that in him.

He cares nothing about the party's well-being though. What is so respectable about that?

[Marx]

Or it's because the media has anointed him a spoiler...

No I'm pretty sure that it's the four previous failed attempts and his unwillingness to let it go. He isn't what he once was, but he refuses to see that.

[The Senator]

He cares nothing about the party's well-being though. What is so respectable about that?

Like I said somewhere else, he doesn't have to care about the Democratic Party's well being because he isn't a Democrat.

[The Senator]

No I'm pretty sure that it's the four previous failed attempts and his unwillingness to let it go. He isn't what he once was, but he refuses to see that.

First, he only openly campaigned in two of his campaigns (2000 and 2004). The other two were draft movements which he wasn't very active in. Second, the media didn't focus on those first two bids at all, so I don't think he had any credibility to lose there. It wasn't until the 2000 fiasco that the media started referring to him as a spoiler, thereby crapping all over whatever credibility he did have.

[Marx]

First, he only openly campaigned in two of his campaigns (2000 and 2004). The other two were draft movements which he wasn't very active in. Second, the media didn't focus on those first two bids at all, so I don't think he had any credibility to lose there. It wasn't until the 2000 fiasco that the media started referring to him as a spoiler, thereby crapping all over whatever credibility he did have.

Openly or not J, this makes number 5. (I know what you're saying about 2000, but the media didn't have to spin anything, people made up their own minds about him.)

[The Senator]

Openly or not J, this makes number 5. (I know what you're saying about 2000, but the media didn't have to spin anything, people made up their own minds about him.)

So what? Henry Clay ran for President five times, and that didn't make him any less credible.

[Marx]

So what? Henry Clay ran for President five times, and that didn't make him any less credible.

You do have a point there. But Henry Clay and Ralph Nader are far from being in the same category.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Like I said somewhere else, he doesn't have to care about the Democratic Party's well being because he isn't a Democrat.

I was referring to BOTH sides of the issue. He's a spoiler.

[The Senator]

You do have a point there. But Henry Clay and Ralph Nader are far from being in the same category.

No, but that's because Clay was considered an excellent statesman who had a damn fine reputation. Nader is considered an angry, bitter wacko who only wants to destroy the Democratic Party... but I personally think that his entrance in this race or any other race highlights a fine point about American elections: elections aren't, and shouldn't be, confined to the two major parties. It brings an extra, contrasting voice into an already crowded room full of special interests and consultants. And while that voice is often silenced by the endless bickering and name calling, it sometimes has the ability to speak louder than everyone else. To me, that's what is desperately needed in a political system which only has two similar arguments going back and forth like a game of pong.

[The Senator]

I was referring to BOTH sides of the issue. He's a spoiler.

Call him what you will, but if the Democrat can't earn the votes of those ultra-left liberals he essentially caters to, it's the party's own damn fault.

[StorminNorman]

I wouldn't rely to heavily on that, if I were you.

His first "bid" garnered 3 million votes which cost Gore his presidency, and effectively pissed off the Democratic Party as a whole. People are dumb. This is illustrated by the fact that the next time he stepped out there he garnered a measely 500,000 votes. Hardly an indication of the democratic "love" out there for him. :rolleyes:

His take on this election will be even less. Mark my words, he will have ZERO impact on the race; most people seem to see him as a divisive attention whore, and little else.

Nader had no impact on 2004 because people were voting AGAINST Bush - not FOR a candidate. Since there is no enemy in Bush, everyone - again - will be voting FOR a candidate.

The dynamics of this election are far closer to 2000 than 2004.

[Marx]

No, but that's because Clay was considered an excellent statesman who had a damn fine reputation. Nader is considered an angry, bitter wacko who only wants to destroy the Democratic Party... but I personally think that his entrance in this race or any other race highlights a fine point about American elections: elections aren't, and shouldn't be, confined to the two major parties. It brings an extra, contrasting voice into an already crowded room full of special interests and consultants. And while that voice is often silenced by the endless bickering and name calling, it sometimes has the ability to speak louder than everyone else. To me, that's what is desperately needed in a political system which only has two similar arguments going back and forth like a game of pong.

This election has electrified voters and gotten everyone talking about the important issues at hand. I am all for a multi-party system, but I see absolutely no credibility in Ralph Nader. For candidates to be successful, they have to credible, respectable, and believable. Nader is no longer one of those people.

[The Senator]

This election has electrified voters and gotten everyone talking about the important issues at hand. I am all for a multi-party system, but I see absolutely no credibility in Ralph Nader. For candidates to be successful, they have to credible, respectable, and believable. Nader is no longer one of those people.

Ralph Nader will never be successful. But that doesn't mean people won't vote for him. The people that will vote for him are more than likely fans of his anyway, and the people who aren't fans who 'convert' will do so because they are frustrated with all the two-party bull****. They will look right past your definition of credibility to vote for someone who stands for what they believe in and offers a sharp contrast from the two main candidates.

[Marx]

Ralph Nader will never be successful. But that doesn't mean people won't vote for him. The people that will vote for him are more than likely fans of his anyway, and the people who aren't fans who 'convert' will do so because they are frustrated with all the two-party bull****.

I completely agree J. I'm just saying that the number who are "Naderites" (is that even a word? :yay: ) is dwindling.

[The Senator]

I completely agree J. I'm just saying that the number who are "Naderites" (is that even a word? :yay: ) is dwindling.

They may actually be rising. I know a few folks who haven't been able to vote in an election before who are seriously considering Nader.

[Marx]

They may actually be rising. I know a few folks who haven't been able to vote in an election before who are seriously considering Nader.

It's definately going to be interesting. That's for sure. :yay:

[The Senator]

I'd consider voting for him if he wasn't such a crackpot, and if he didn't want to declare Jihad on anything nuclear.

[Marx]

I'd consider voting for him if he wasn't such a crackpot, and if he didn't want to declare Jihad on anything nuclear.

:lmao:

(Scary, but true.)

[psychocheeseman]

Nader/Paul would be very damning to Obama.

You guys really need to amend your constitution. If in presidential elections you allowed for preferential voting, like we do down here, you could vote for who you wanted first and foremost, and then, if they don't get in, your vote flows onto your second preference. That also gives the smaller parties far more power in negotiating with the large parties in regards to policy. For example, if a preferential deal was struck between gore and nader last time, Naders votes could have gone on to Gore. Or more importantly, If individuals choose where they want their preferences to go, when nader didn't get in, their votes would flow to which ever respective party they had voted for as their second choice, and so on

Much closer to the democratic ideal in my opinion. otherwise you'll always be laft with alot of people whose votes effectively meant nothing.

[psychocheeseman]

I'd consider voting for him if he wasn't such a crackpot, and if he didn't want to declare Jihad on anything nuclear.



Wow...most racist post of the day by far!

but apart from that, isn't getting rid of nuclear weapons a good thing. like, in international political terms, the stupidity of M.A.D. during the cold war is pretty well acknowledged.....

just out of interest, what is it that he says that makes you think he's a crackpot?

[The Senator]

Wow...most racist post of the day by far!

but apart from that, isn't getting rid of nuclear weapons a good thing. like, in international political terms, the stupidity of M.A.D. during the cold war is pretty well acknowledged.....

just out of interest, what is it that he says that makes you think he's a crackpot?

Wow. You really don't have any idea what racism is, do you? The word Jihad-- which is an Islamic word to describe an informal/ formal declaration of Holy War-- doesn't even come close. Next time, consult a dictionary (or better yet-- a simple glance at Wikipedia!) before you decide to go off on a finger-waving assault on my personal credibility :up:

And no, it isn't his tirades against nuclear weapons which makes him a crackpot. It's his tirades against nuclear power which makes him a crackpot. Statements such as "if a bomb goes off in a nuclear plant, we could have a Hiroshima on our hands" (which he said on some talk show a few months ago) is completely ignorant considering the amount of nuclear fuel and the method by which it is contained would yield less of a nuclear blast than a dirty bomb would. That's just insane to go off spouting ill-informed statements like that and base it as a part of your presidential platform.

[psychocheeseman]

You really don't have any idea what racism is, do you? The word Jihad-- which is an Islamic word to describe an informal/ formal declaration of Holy War-- doesn't even come close. Next time, consult a dictionary (or better yet-- a simple glance at Wikipedia!) before you decide to go off on a finger-waving assault on my personal credibility :up:.
Sorry if i offended you, it just really looked like you had assumed he was of a religious fanatical persuasion based solely on the fact that he has a Lebanese background... which would be a fairly racist assumption in my opinion.

It's his tirades against nuclear power which makes him a crackpot. Statements such as "if a bomb goes off in a nuclear plant, we could have a Hiroshima on our hands" (which he said on some talk show a few months ago) is completely ignorant considering the amount of nuclear fuel and the method by which it is contained would yield less of a nuclear blast than a dirty bomb would.

You're right, Nader's overzealous hyperbole appears inaccurate. But that doesn't mean that nuclear power is all safe. - furthermore, safety is not the only arguement against nuclear power that Nader uses, he's also mention, amongst others, the same promblem with all non renewable energy sources, that of a finite resourse, the problem of wastes disposal, and the long term environmental effects of such power sources.


conversely, he could have meant that if a nuclear bomb were put in a nuclear power plant we would have another hiroshima. :huh:

[The Senator]

Sorry if i offended you, it just really looked like you had assumed he was of a religious fanatical persuasion based solely on the fact that he has a Lebanese background... which would be a fairly racist assumption in my opinion.

I had no idea Nader was Lebanese.



conversely, he could have meant that if a nuclear bomb were put in a nuclear power plant we would have another hiroshima. :huh:

Um... then why even bother to bomb a nuclear power plant in the first place if you have a nuclear weapon??

[Lightning Strykez!]

What is Ralph's purpose in existing today? Seriously? Check out this article....

June 25, 2008
Nader: Obama 'talking white'
Posted: 01:08 PM ET

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/25/art.nader.gi.jpg

Nader is taking heat for his latest comments.
(CNN) — Ralph Nader's presidential candidacy has received little media attention, but his latest critique of Barack Obama has come under fire for it's seemingly racial overtones.

Speaking with Colorado's Rocky Mountain News, Nader accused Obama of attempting to both "talk white" and appeal to "white guilt" in his quest to win the White House.

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader told the paper in comments published Tuesday. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."

Obama's presidential campaign called those comments disappointing.

Nader, the longtime consumer advocate who was blamed by many Democrats for Al Gore’s loss in the 2000 presidential election, said Obama's top issue should be poverty in America, given his racial heritage.

"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law," he said. "Haven't heard a thing."

Nader also said Obama is making a concerted effort not to be "another politically threatening African-American politician."


"He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

Nader formally entered the presidential race last spring, expressing disappointment with both remaining Democratic candidates at that time.

"They are both enthralled to the corporate powers," he told CNN of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. "They've completely ignored the presidential pattern of illegality and accountability, they've ignored the out of control waste-fruad military expenditures, they hardly ever mention the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars to corporate subsidies, handouts, and giveaways, and they don't talk about a living wage."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/25/nader-obama-talking-white/#comments



Okay, after I read this, I must admit--I was reaching for the card. As an articulate man of color I am dissapointed that this guy thinks that black people apparently can only "talk" one way or appeal to one race. I also don't believe "pay day loans" are the only things on the list of priorities for blacks--or any other people. :whatever: How about rising gas prices, foreclosures and other "All-American" issues????

But before I declare this comment racist, I was just wondering if any of you can shed light on any other POSSIBLE ways I can interpret this comment. I wanna say this fool is just being a media whore but...to me there are seeeerrrrious stereotypes in his comment.

Floor's open.

[Marx]

There already is a Ralph Nader thread Lightning. Must we pollute this forum with anymore?

[Lightning Strykez!]

Hmmm...I haven't seen one. The thread must be dead. I wonder why? :p

If the moderators wish to merge this, that's fine. However, I am not making an "official" Nader thread here--I specifically want to talk about his inane comments released today. I think he might be politic's Imus.

[Marx]

*bump*

Because Lightning is opening up a can of worms! :hehe:

[Marx]

Hmmm...I haven't seen one. The thread must be dead. I wonder why? :p

If the moderators wish to merge this, that's fine. However, I am not making an "official" Nader thread here--I specifically want to talk about his inane comments released today. I think he might be politic's Imus.

It was a dead thread... :cwink:

[souvlaki]

There already is a Ralph Nader thread Lightning. Must we pollute this forum with anymore?

He insists on polluting politics with his idiotic views, so he might as well pollute our messageboard too.

[Marx]

He insists on polluting politics with his idiotic views, so he might as well pollute our messageboard too.

This board deserves a better class of topics and threads... :oldrazz:

[souvlaki]

Obama on Nader: "He's just trying to get attention."

Haha, that pretty much sums it up.

[Marx]

Obama on Nader: "He's just trying to get attention."

Haha, that pretty much sums it up.

Yeah, I'd say so.

[Humpty Dumpty]

What is Ralph's purpose in existing today? Seriously? Check out this article....



Okay, after I read this, I must admit--I was reaching for the card. As an articulate man of color I am dissapointed that this guy thinks that black people apparently can only "talk" one way or appeal to one race. I also don't believe "pay day loans" are the only things on the list of priorities for blacks--or any other people. :whatever: How about rising gas prices, foreclosures and other "All-American" issues????

But before I declare this comment racist, I was just wondering if any of you can shed light on any other POSSIBLE ways I can interpret this comment. I wanna say this fool is just being a media whore but...to me there are seeeerrrrious stereotypes in his comment.

Floor's open.
This is not racist at all. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Let me explain:

What Ralph Nader is saying is that there are a number of problems in this country that disproportionately affect black people, but Obama will dare not touch on any of them for fear of losing the support of white people who claim racism is over and would rather blame black people for their own problems, rather than ascribing black suffering to hundreds of years of slavery, segregation, and prejudice. By addressing the issues Nader lists, Obama would be exposing the black inequality still very much alive in our society. In short, Obama is appeasing elements of the elite and white people in general by letting them live in the delusion that they can pat themselves on the backs for all the "progress" that's supposedly been made on the civil-rights front. While progress certainly has been made, mostly because of the diligence of the black community itself, we still have a far way to go before we reverse all the damage that has been done and continues to be inflicted, and Obama is not willing to contribute to this effort because of his greed for power.

[Lightning Strykez!]

This is not racist at all. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Let me explain:

What Ralph Nader is saying is that there are a number of problems in this country that disproportionately affect black people, but Obama will dare not touch on any of them for fear of losing the support of white people who claim racism is over and would rather blame black people for their own problems, rather than ascribing black suffering to hundreds of years of slavery, segregation, and prejudice. By addressing the issues Nader lists, Obama would be exposing the black inequality still very much alive in our society. In short, Obama is appeasing elements of the elite and white people in general by letting them live in the delusion that they can pat themselves on the backs for all the "progress" that's supposedly been made on the civil-rights front. While progress certainly has been made, mostly because of the diligence of the black community itself, we still have a far way to go before we reverse all the damage that has been done and continues to be inflicted, and Obama is not willing to contribute to this effort because of his greed for power.


Um...what???

What qualifies Nader (of all people) to determine what the needs of Black folks are in this country? There are a LOT of topics that Obama hasn't touched on yet--but neither did Hillary, John Edwards, John McCain--or anyone else! But because Obama is Half-Black HE'S supposed to "Go there"?

I don't think so. When I see everyone else bending over backwards to appease the African American audience then we'll see "progress. Obama has already addressed the plight of African American single-parent families and the need for Black Men to take responsibility. Aside from that, he's spent nearly all this time battling Hillary and other factors.

This man has JUST gotten the nomination, he's barely had a chance to form his election platform. I think Nader & Co. are being really unrealistic in their so-called "expectations" here. :down

[Lightning Strykez!]

"He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."


Humpty, considering the divide/conquer role Nader wants to play in this race (which he played in 2000 for Al Gore) you don't think the above statement is not the slightest bit intended to polarize whites in this country?

[Humpty Dumpty]

Um...what???

What qualifies Nader (of all people) to determine what the needs of Black folks are in this country? There are a LOT of topics that Obama hasn't touched on yet--but neither did Hillary, John Edwards, John McCain--or anyone else! But because Obama is Half-Black HE'S supposed to "Go there"?
That's a good question, and it is important to point out Nader did not himself link the issues he raises to the American black experience. All of what he said is backed up by all of the sociological data examining black inequality. For instance, when you control for income, a black person is more likely to get those trashy sub-prime loans pushed on them than a white person. One study found that controlling for income, 73% of blacks and hispanics got sub-prime loans pushed on them as compared to only 17% of whites.

I don't think so. When I see everyone else bending over backwards to appease the African American audience then we'll see "progress. Obama has already addressed the plight of African American single-parent families and the need for Black Men to take responsibility. Aside from that, he's spent nearly all this time battling Hillary and other factors.You see, this is his exact problem. When he talks about black suffering, all he does is complain about single mothers and absent fathers in perfect accord with the "blame the victim" mentality. The serious scholarship about the root causes of black suffering tells a very different story. If you want to investigate further, a good place to start is the work of Paul Street, who is an esteemed scholar on the issue of black inequality and also an Obama critic for the same reasons Nader is. There are plenty of other bad things about Obama too like how he rewrote a bill on nuclear-power-plant regulation to conform with the desires of one of his biggest contributors, the nuclear-power giant Exelon. I posted an article in full about that from NY Times on the Gas Prices thread if you want to check out the details.

Humpty, considering the divide/conquer role Nader wants to play in this race (which he played in 2000 for Al Gore) you don't think the above statement is not the slightest bit intended to polarize whites in this country?Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. These kinds of observations about Obama "assuaging white guilt" and the like are actually very commonly discussed if you follow progressive indymedia outfits (In fact, Paul Street expounds upon Nader's same basic statements in much greater detail in his articles on Znet, an independent libertarian socialist website), so these sentiments really have too much of a background to them for them to have merely been invented for shock value. Ralph Nader is an extremely idealistic man, and I don't think he would do something for such a pettily political purpose as polarizing a given demographic.

[Sandman138]

That's a good question, and it is important to point out Nader did not himself link the issues he raises to the American black experience. All of what he said is backed up by all of the sociological data examining black inequality. For instance, when you control for income, a black person is more likely to get those trashy sub-prime loans pushed on them than a white person. One study found that controlling for income, 73% of blacks and hispanics got sub-prime loans pushed on them as compared to only 17% of whites.

How did they control for income? Even if they managed to control for income, did they control for other variables? Geography? Lender? Sex? Preferably, I'd like to see the journal.

[Handsome Rob]

Nader and Barr (and any other candidate) should be able to get on the ballot if they meet the qualifications. If you don't like it, tell your major party candidate to do a better job selling himself/herself to the voters.

[EdRyder]

If you want to investigate further, a good place to start is the work of Paul Street, who is an esteemed scholar on the issue of black inequality and also an Obama critic for the same reasons Nader is.

You can read his book Racial Oppression in the Global Metropolis in its entirety on google books (couldn't get the link to work ,sorry)

[ScottyBBadd]

Nader and Barr (and any other candidate) should be able to get on the ballot if they meet the qualifications. If you don't like it, tell your major party candidate to do a better job selling himself/herself to the voters.

Agreed. All candidates should be in all debates. If you truely want change...vote Independant.

[ScottyBBadd]

Obama on Nader: "He's just trying to get attention."

Haha, that pretty much sums it up.

But, I will still vote for him.

[rdh007]

A "Texas Outlaw" is going to vote for Ralph Nader? Why?

[Cosmic]

Floor's open.

Forget about the rhetoric for a second. You know he's not literally talking about Obama's diction and word usage. As far as I've seen, Obama has shown virtually no interest in discussing issues concerning poor Americans. Nader is characterizing Obama as an elitist. Obviously, it's not the way you want to be perceived if you're running as the Democratic candidate.

The criticism is valid, IMO. It's Obama's own fault that he's left himself open to this kind of criticism, by failing to actually do something about it a long time ago. So, I think it's fair to ask Mr. Obama and friends, "why has nothing been done about this?" Nader is saying, don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Nothing will be done, because at the end of the day, Obama is looking out for the interests of big corporations.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Have people missed the point of my thread here? Some of these comments are all over the place and have nothing to do with the topic I've engaged here. Dealing with social issues has zero to do with "talking white" or appealing to "white guilt" folks.

And if it does, enlighten me please. :rolleyes:

[Immortalfire]

Nader ftw!!! :yay:




:oldrazz:

[Marx]

Nader ftw!!! :yay:




:oldrazz:

You just couldn't let this thread die, could you??? :cmad:

:cwink:

[Demogoblin]

Nader is running?:huh:

[Marx]

Nader is running?:huh:

As irrelevent as he is...yes.

[Immortalfire]

You just couldn't let this thread die, could you??? :cmad:

:cwink:

Nevah!

[Demogoblin]

As irrelevent as he is...yes.

Well, he gets an A for persistence.

[Ash J. Williams]

A "Texas Outlaw" is going to vote for Ralph Nader? Why?
I'd like to think of it as one less vote for Obama. And Nader's actually qualified, ya know.

[X-Ray]

He just ended his political career tonight during a interview with Shepard Smith in which he said "Obama will either be this country's Uncle Sam or it's Uncle Tom" :dry: ... :cmad:

EDIT:

His exact words ...

"To put it very simply, he is our first African American President, or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he's going top be Uncle Sam for this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporation"

The most irritating part about it was that he was trying to defend his use of the word "Uncle Tom" and that he doesn't regret saying it.

ibsP6XN2dIo

[redfirebird2008]

Screw Ralph Nader.

[Marx]

Ralph Nader can now go back to whatever cave he was in before the election. This time, he shouldn't come back out.

[redfirebird2008]

Ralph Nader can now go back to whatever cave he was in before the election. This time, he shouldn't come back out.

I think he pretty much just pissed away any credibility he might have had with the far left.

Or hell, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they LIKE that kind of rhetoric. Maybe they also liked when Jesse Jackson called Obama the n-word.

[Dr. Evil]

It's too bad that Nader has no personality, otherwise he would have been spoofed on Saturday Night Live more then once.

[Immortalfire]

This Obama winning is just talk. Later today, they'll examine the data and see that Nader won! :cmad:

[Marx]

This Obama winning is just talk. Later today, they'll examine the data and see that Nader won! :cmad:

Oh...you poor poor soul. Keep on believing that! Fight the good fight! :oldrazz:

[Immortalfire]

Ralph will prove you wrong! :cmad:




:whatever: :woot:

[jaguarr]

After Nader's "Uncle Tom" comment (and his defending the use of that term), he can go straight to hell. What an a-hole. :down

jag

[Marx]

After Nader's "Uncle Tom" comment (and his defending the use of that term), he can go straight to hell. What an a-hole. :down

jag

Exactly Jag.

[Mister J]

What a tool. :dry:

There were innumerable ways for Nader to communicate his concern without resorting to such a racially charged, offensive and ignorant reference. The fact that he insisted on keeping his foot firmly lodged in his mouth after time to reflect on the matter is actually worse than the initial statement.

Shepherd Smith did a fairly humorous and effective job at holding Nader out as an ass.

[Drizzle]

Why does Nader continue to waste time and money by running every election year?

[jaguarr]

Why does Nader continue to waste time and money by running every election year?

Because he is a racist dick and an attention whore.

jag

[Raiden]

Because he is a racist dick and an attention whore.

jag

Exactly. And I won't be surprised if Nader threw that Cabin Tom comment out there, hoping that it'd get him some headlines for his racially-charged remark. He thought he can become controversial enough to get some attention, even though he has become largely irrelevant.

[BlackestNight]

He just ended his political career tonight during a interview with Shepard Smith in which he said "Obama will either be this country's Uncle Sam or it's Uncle Tom" :dry: ... :cmad:

EDIT:

His exact words ...

"To put it very simply, he is our first African American President, or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he's going top be Uncle Sam for this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporation"

The most irritating part about it was that he was trying to defend his use of the word "Uncle Tom" and that he doesn't regret saying it.

I find this very extreamly ironic. I believe 2 weeks ago Nader Jumped on Bill Mahr for calling Sarah Palin a Brain less bimbo.

[Bubonic]

He just ended his political career tonight during a interview with Shepard Smith in which he said "Obama will either be this country's Uncle Sam or it's Uncle Tom" :dry: ... :cmad:

EDIT:

His exact words ...

"To put it very simply, he is our first African American President, or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he's going top be Uncle Sam for this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporation"

The most irritating part about it was that he was trying to defend his use of the word "Uncle Tom" and that he doesn't regret saying it.

ibsP6XN2dIo

So it is like, 3 in the morning, the election is over, and I'm a Canadian.

Didn't know what Uncle Tom meant so I looked it up in Wiki

It is commonly used to describe black people whose political views or allegiances are considered by their critics as detrimental to blacks as a group.


He should of said something else, but who is to say just yet that Obama has the average person in his best interest, I doubt he would be detrimental to black people, but it seems like much energy was spent looking at that instead of the brunt of what Nader was trying to get across.

Obama has a lot to live up too, and isn't it a legitimate concern on Naders part? Who's interest is Obama going to serve, the people or the corporations?

Is he just a figurehead of hope, or is he the real deal?

Only time will tell, but when you compare McCain and Obama's top contributors a lot of them matched up, and isn't the presidency a facade of power when in the end they still have to answer to those who invested in them?

Just seems like people are really click to pull the curtain over these independent candidates as soon as the media spins them out to be some loony.

What sort of faux democracy are you guys living in when you wont even consider anything but the two main parties, who basically serve many of the same interest.

The independents don't have the money to properly represent themselves, the media which is paid for by either Democrat or Republican money will obviously do whatever it takes to remind you that these men are jokes and a wasted vote.

It is just a bit shocking when you consider the polarity of your politics.

[psychocheeseman]

Nader's an academic - he used a term which now seems to be prejudicial - whereas it's origins come from the anti-slavery movement. Nader fought for equal rights for all people over the past decades - it seems unlikely that he is in fact racially prejudiced.
The point Nader is making is that he hopes Obama does not become a sell out to corporations - He should have chosen a better term as mentioning skin colour at all these days is taboo.

[Bathead]

Understood, and I agree to a certain extent, I also feel he could have been a little more thoughtful in his choice of words. He's a smart man, he should have known using that term would have overshadowed any message he was trying to get across.