Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:20 PM

Ralph Nader appreciation thread.

I appreciate that he's not running.

And hope it stays that way.

88 replies, 15804 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

88 replies	Author	Time	Post
Ralph Nader appreciation thread. (Original post)	Pab Sungenis	Dec 2011	OP
Thanks Ralph! nt	Old and In the Way	Dec 2011	#1
Amen. nt	onehandle	Dec 2011	#2
flame bait....	mike_c	Dec 2011	#3
Agreed....but then the Nader-haters need no excuse	AnOhioan	Dec 2011	#5
I don't hate him.	Pab Sungenis	Dec 2011	#7
Did he plan to run in 2012 and then bowed out? Did I miss something?	LiberalLovinLug	Dec 2011	#74
Considering the number of "Primary Obama now" threads floating around, I think it's a fair post.	brooklynite	Dec 2011	#77
For pointing out his responsibility for the Bush administration?	TheWraith	Dec 2011	#8
He was not responsible	AnOhioan	Dec 2011	#14
they sure don't seem to want to blame Jeb and Harris, or acknowledge that 2000 was a coup	MisterP	Dec 2011	#19
And infinite denial doesn't change the fact: without Nader we wouldn't have had Bush.	TheWraith	Dec 2011	#26
tough shit..	frylock	Dec 2011	#30
was it worth it to you? nt	dionysus	Dec 2011	#33
take it up with the 300000 registered DEMOCRATS in FL that voted for bush	frylock	Dec 2011	#45
Oh Snap!	LiberalLovinLug	Dec 2011	#80
+1	ellisonz	Dec 2011	#38
It can be aruged that he only made Florida easier to steal.	LiberalAndProud	Dec 2011	#75
he sure as hell shares some responsibilty. he's not the bebbe jesus, he's an egotistical douche who	dionysus	Dec 2011	#32
Oh , bullshit.	Webster Green	Dec 2011	#51
Agreed n/t	zappaman	Dec 2011	#57
And everyone forgets the votes deflected by the thought of Lieberman as POTUS. n/t	Mnemosyne	Dec 2011	#60
Very true.	zappaman	Dec 2011	#62
I know many dems here that could not stomach Lieberman and did not feel	Mnemosyne	Dec 2011	#87
+1	deutsey	Dec 2011	#66
thanks	G_j	Dec 2011	#70
I would appreciate him even more if he ran for President of Neptune. nt	TheWraith	Dec 2011	#4
I also appreciate Nader	Autumn	Dec 2011	#6
Without Nader, there would have been no Supreme Court case.	TheWraith	Dec 2011	#9
that is utter non-sense....	mike_c	Dec 2011	#17
It's the facts. Without Nader, there would have been no court case.	TheWraith	Dec 2011	#23
so you want to deny those 97,000 people their birthright to vote for the candidate of their choice..	mike_c	Dec 2011	#37
that's a strawman and you know it.	dionysus	Dec 2011	#39
it is not....	mike_c	Dec 2011	#52
+1	zeos3	Dec 2011	#54
Check New Hampshire's outcome	Old and In the Way	Dec 2011	#46
And his legacy now includes President Bush's legacy, including Citizens United.	libinnyandia	Dec 2011	#18
I agree. Unfortunately the man today has little in common with the man back then.	TheWraith	Dec 2011	#25
You and I will disagree on that.	Autumn	Dec 2011	#22
Doesn't change the fact that Nader helped create the Bush administration.	TheWraith	Dec 2011	#24
Or	SOS	Dec 2011	#83
without voting this would never have happened..	frylock	Dec 2011	#31
strawman. if you're going to sabotage elections, own up to the consequences.	dionysus	Dec 2011	#40
nader had every right to run for president..	frylock	Dec 2011	#47
How did Nader "sabotage the elections"?	zappaman	Dec 2011	#58
sabotage in that he knew where he'd be peeling votes from... in that he promised not to campaign	dionysus	Dec 2011	#64
We could have lost Florida if Ralph had kept his promise and not competed in close states...	Old and In the Way	Dec 2011	#49
Ditto.	AtomicKitten	Dec 2011	#10
You could have saved me a facepalm.	Xipe Totec	Dec 2011	#11
Naderites... -_-	chrisa	Dec 2011	#12
Second Nader thread that makes me miss	quinnox	Dec 2011	#13
you had enough interest to post in one.	dionysus	Dec 2011	#34
I figure right about now former President Gore would be dedicating his library	bluestateguy	Dec 2011	#15
I know that's right!	George Glass	Dec 2011	#16
i hope you enjoyed your brief visit to DU. sleep well, sweet prince.	dionysus	Dec 2011	#35
did you go run tell mommy?	frylock	Dec 2011	#82
you may grieve for your TSed troll friend as you wish.	dionysus	Dec 2011	#84
i'm all broke up	frylock	Dec 2011	#85
Now why would you say something like that? Seriously.	DevonRex	Dec 2011	#86
Agreed. I wonder if, at some level, Nader himself agrees.	Jim Lane	Dec 2011	#20
whew	lillypaddle	Dec 2011	#21
I appreciate that he's not running, too.	MineralMan	Dec 2011	#27
i like it.	dionysus	Dec 2011	#28
I thank him for his great work on auto safety	Generic Brad	Dec 2011	#29
he did some good before he went around the bend. now he thinks bloomberg should be president. sad.	dionysus	Dec 2011	#36
I was just thinking of him today when I was putting on my seatbelt. Thanks, Ralph.	The Wielding Truth	Dec 2011	#41
What in the fuck is with the Nader obsession on DU?	SomethingFishy	Dec 2011	#42
agree,	quinnox	Dec 2011	#44
nader derangement syndrome	frylock	Dec 2011	#48
hell yes!!	BootinUp	Dec 2011	#43
Funny, though...the same people claiming we have "Nader Derangement Syndrome" -a term I first heard	Old and In the Way	Dec 2011	#50
and when exactly can we criticize or ask the president we voted for for more without you guys waving	yurbud	Dec 2011	#53
Criticize away! Hey, I'm not happy with the accomplishments to date, either. The difference is,	Old and In the Way	Dec 2011	#63
First of all, who ever felt inspired to vote for Gore?	jerseyjack	Dec 2011	#55
OK It has been 12 years now	Eliminator	Dec 2011	#56
They were 12 long, very destructive years.	Pab Sungenis	Dec 2011	#65
Time doesn't enter into it.	ChadwickHenryWard	Dec 2011	#79
i believe they would stole the election with or without Nader	sasha031	Dec 2011	#59
Watch the footage of jr. & family the night of the election - no sweat at all, complete confidence.	Mnemosyne	Dec 2011	#88
amen	DonCoquixote	Dec 2011	#61
Thanks Ralph! n/t	unionworks	Dec 2011	#67
Aha! Great. Wish I could rec it more than once. nt	mistertrickster	Dec 2011	#68
I heard Ralph Nader speak way back in 1972. I thought then that it was "all about Ralph"	yellowcanine	Dec 2011	#69
I imagine that fewer candidates on any given ballot	LanternWaste	Dec 2011	#71
This message was self-deleted by its author	Tesha	Dec 2011	#78
I'll drink to that	wryter2000	Dec 2011	#72
Should I wander into this minefield?	a2liberal	Dec 2011	#73
Lol and may it stay that way n/t	azurnoir	Dec 2011	#76
He's a decent guy...........	AverageJoe90	Dec 2011	#81

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:22 PM

Old and In the Way (37,540 posts)

1. Thanks Ralph! nt

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:22 PM

onehandle (51,122 posts)

2. Amen. nt

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:23 PM

mike_c (35,409 posts)

3. flame bait....

Slow day in your world, huh?

Reply to this post

Response to mike_c (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:26 PM

AnOhioan (2,894 posts)

5. Agreed....but then the Nader-haters need no excuse

Reply to this post

Response to AnOhioan (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:27 PM

Pab Sungenis (9,612 posts)

7. I don't hate him.

I'm just glad that isn't playing spoiler this time around.

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 05:33 PM

LiberalLovinLug (13,682 posts)

74. Did he plan to run in 2012 and then bowed out? Did I miss something?

If not, then yes its flame bait.
Bringing up old news in order to poke at an old scab that you know will have a polarizing effect on DU.

All this to re-badmouth an outstanding US citizen that has looked out for consumers for decades. Who stands for ideals that the Democratic party USED to stand for. What many of us wish our Democratic representatives WOULD actually stand for and vocalize.

Not only is Ralphs running not the only reason Bush Jr. won, Harris and the Supreme Court did their part as well, but also the methodical march to the right that the Democrats and the DLC are heading. If Gore had been more firebrand about the Corporatocricy of America, and undue influence in Washington in his campaign, Ralph would have had the wind knocked out of his sails, or maybe even not run at all.

My god, so hypothetically, had Martin Luther King been running because the Democrats had refused to fully support de-segregation, and clung to their previous position on the topic, causing enough of the liberal base to vote for MLK and upset the vote, I suppose you'd be dragging his name through the mud as well.

Believe me, I can understand the ANGUISH. But to bad mouth someone who put himself out there to talk truth to the American people, knowing he would take abuse from both sides, is just wrong.

Reply to this post

Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 06:23 PM

brooklynite (85,470 posts)

77. Considering the number of "Primary Obama now" threads floating around, I think it's a fair post.

Reply to this post

Response to AnOhioan (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:31 PM

TheWraith (24,331 posts)

8. For pointing out his responsibility for the Bush administration?

Yes, because it's useful to remember what happens when that delusional, "Democrats and Republicans are equally at fault" bullshit is allowed even the slightest crevice of acceptance.

Reply to this post

Response to TheWraith (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:38 PM

AnOhioan (2,894 posts)

14. He was not responsible

You can tell yourself that ad infinitum, but that does not make it so.

Blame Gore for running a lack-luster campaign, blame Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris for rigging the Florida vote, blame the Justices of the Supreme Court who allowed the travesty that was Dubya to occur.

I will not castigate the man for speaking his mind and running for office.

Reply to this post

Response to AnOhioan (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:44 PM

MisterP (23,730 posts)

19. they sure don't seem to want to blame Jeb and Harris, or acknowledge that 2000 was a coup

or even blame Gloria LaRiva

Reply to this post

Response to AnOhioan (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:34 PM

TheWraith (24,331 posts)

26. And infinite denial doesn't change the fact: without Nader we wouldn't have had Bush.

No Nader campaign means no 97,000 votes in Florida, and Gore puts the state in the bag easily. Everything else wouldn't have meant shit. It's really easy to blame Gore, but some people still haven't learned the lesson from Nader 2000: that the "Democrats and Republicans are equally bad" line is total, utter, and complete horseshit. There is no comparison.

Reply to this post

Response to TheWraith (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:58 PM

frylock (34,825 posts)

30. tough shit..

nader didn't break any laws by running.

Reply to this post

Response to frylock (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:11 PM

dionysus (26,467 posts)

33. was it worth it to you? nt

Reply to this post

Response to dionysus (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:06 PM

frylock (34,825 posts)

45. take it up with the 300000 registered DEMOCRATS in FL that voted for bush

Reply to this post

Response to frylock (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:52 AM

LiberalLovinLug (13,682 posts)

80. Oh Snap!

Reply to this post

Response to TheWraith (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:24 PM

ellisonz (27,235 posts)

38. +1

"The Nader Fallacy"

Reply to this post

Response to TheWraith (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 05:39 PM

LiberalAndProud (12,799 posts)

75. It can be aruged that he only made Florida easier to steal.

Jeb did for Junior what he promised; he delivered Florida Electoral votes. Would it have been possible had Nader not run, I can't answer that question. The vote count was manufactured, of that I have no doubt.

Reply to this post

Response to AnOhioan (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:09 PM

dionysus (26,467 posts)

32. he sure as hell shares some responsibilty. he's not the bebbe jesus, he's an egotistical douche who

negated his entire career for running on a flat out lie, and being one of a few things that gave us bush.

he's got blood on his hands.

PS ask the hypocrit how his raytheon stock is doing

Reply to this post

Response to TheWraith (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:38 PM

Webster Green (13,905 posts)

51. Oh , bullshit.

If anything, Obama and the rest of the wussie dems have proven Nader correct. The only difference in the two parties is how quickly they get on their knees to service their corporate masters.

Nader has always made far more sense than Obama. I'm not sorry I voted for him in 2000, and I think I may just write him in if I decide to vote in the 2012 presidential election.

And, the notion that Nader is responsible for the Supreme W. Court appointing the chimp is just absurd.

Reply to this post

Response to Webster Green (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:53 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

57. Agreed n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Webster Green (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 12:43 AM

Mnemosyne (21,363 posts)

60. And everyone forgets the votes deflected by the thought of Lieberman as POTUS. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Mnemosyne (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 01:59 AM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

62. Very true.

Running away from Clinton, a lackluster campaign, and picking that douche for the VP slot was what killed Gore's chances.
Not Nader.

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #62)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:45 PM

Mnemosyne (21,363 posts)

87. I know many dems here that could not stomach Lieberman and did not feel

comfortable enough with him to vote for Gore.

He did win though, until the Supremes selected that future war criminal.

Reply to this post

Response to Webster Green (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:01 AM

deutsey (20,166 posts)

66. +1

Reply to this post

Response to Webster Green (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:48 PM

G_j (40,347 posts)

70. thanks

That is the truth

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:24 PM

TheWraith (24,331 posts)

4. I would appreciate him even more if he ran for President of Neptune. nt

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:26 PM

Autumn (42,593 posts)

6. I also appreciate Nader

not running. I also appreciate the good things he has done. I lay the blame for 2000 right where it belongs, on a corrupt supreme court.

Reply to this post

Response to Autumn (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:32 PM

TheWraith (24,331 posts)

9. Without Nader, there would have been no Supreme Court case.

Yes, it is his fault.

Reply to this post

Response to TheWraith (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:40 PM

mike_c (35,409 posts)

17. that is utter non-sense....

The SCOTUS ruling did not mention Nader, was not about Nader, and had zero to do with Nader. It was, on the other hand, all about Gore's failure to run a compelling enough campaign to energize voter support, and his failure to fight for a recount in Florida. Are you suggesting that all those fucked up Florida ballots resulted from voters who voted for Nader when they meant to vote for Gore? Because that's the ONLY way the SCOTUS decision could have any thing to do with Nader at all, and it's utterly delusional. That NEVER happened.

Reply to this post

Response to mike_c (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:28 PM

TheWraith (24,331 posts)

23. It's the facts. Without Nader, there would have been no court case.

Gore needed a couple thousand votes in Florida to seal it up and prevent the court case. Nader siphoned off NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND VOTES. If even ten percent of those had gone to Gore, there would have been no court case, and no Bush administration. "Fucked up Florida ballots" have nothing to do with it.

Reply to this post

Response to TheWraith (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:20 PM

mike_c (35,409 posts)

37. so you want to deny those 97,000 people their birthright to vote for the candidate of their choice..

...because YOU know what's better for them? Sheesh. No wonder this country is so screwed up.

Reply to this post

Response to mike_c (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:57 PM

dionysus (26,467 posts)

39. that's a strawman and you know it.

Reply to this post

Response to dionysus (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:46 PM

mike_c (35,409 posts)

52. it is not....

The DUer to whom I was replying lamented that those 97,000 people voted for Nader, and has expressed the wish that they not have his candidacy to cast their votes for.

The point is that those voters CHOSE the candidate they thought best represented their interests. That's democracy. That's the way it's supposed to work. Claiming that a candidate should not run because YOU or anyone else knows better than their choice at the ballot box is just about as anti-democratic as the worst self-serving republican one-percenter nonsense. People voted for Nader because the democratic party candidate was not good enough to earn their vote.

It wasn't Gore votes mistakenly cast for Nader that lost Florida. Never happened, no matter how hard some folks work to believe it.

Reply to this post

Response to mike_c (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:50 PM

zeos3 (1,078 posts)

54. +1

Reply to this post

Response to TheWraith (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:07 PM

Old and In the Way (37,540 posts)

46. Check New Hampshire's outcome

Without Nader spoiling that contest, Gore gets NH and it's 4 electoral votes. Florida becomes irrelevant.

George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 273,559 48.07% 4
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 266,348 46.80% 0
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 22,198 3.90% 0

George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 50,460,110 47.87% 271 50.4%
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 51,003,926 48.38% 266 49.4%

Reply to this post

Response to TheWraith (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:42 PM

libinnyandia (1,374 posts)

18. And his legacy now includes President Bush's legacy, including Citizens United.

It is ironic that a man who spent his career fighting corporate power made possible Citizens United.

Reply to this post

Response to libinnyandia (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:30 PM

TheWraith (24,331 posts)

25. I agree. Unfortunately the man today has little in common with the man back then.

He's turned into either an outright Republican shill, or one of those people who thinks that the "answer" is to let the Republicans destroy everything, and then a liberal paradise will magically rise from the ashes. So he's either a tool or a fool.

Reply to this post

Response to TheWraith (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:18 PM

Autumn (42,593 posts)

22. You and I will disagree on that.

Ralph Nader had every right to run for President, as does ANY American. It was a corrupt supreme court who stepped in and appointed Bush. When all the votes were counted Al Gore had won the Presidency.

Reply to this post

Response to Autumn (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:28 PM

TheWraith (24,331 posts)

24. Doesn't change the fact that Nader helped create the Bush administration.

Without Nader siphoning off 97,000 votes, there wouldn't even have been a recount.

Reply to this post

Response to TheWraith (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:51 PM

SOS (7,048 posts)

83. Or

Gore could have selected Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) as his running mate.
Without that miserable bum Lieberman on the ticket, Gore would have easily carried Florida and Tennessee.

Reply to this post

Response to TheWraith (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:00 PM

frylock (34,825 posts)

31. without voting this would never have happened..

why not blame the founding fathers? it would make as much sense.

Reply to this post

Response to frylock (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:58 PM

dionysus (26,467 posts)

40. strawman. if you're going to sabotage elections, own up to the consequences.

Reply to this post

Response to dionysus (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:09 PM

frylock (34,825 posts)

47. nader had every right to run for president..

typing strawman a thousand times doesn't change that. 10 years on and people still can't bother to fucking educate themselves on the 2000 election.

Reply to this post

Response to dionysus (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:55 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

58. How did Nader "sabotage the elections"?

By running for President?
Do you know what democracy even is?
Is he not allowed to run?
Ridiculous!!!

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #58)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:57 AM

dionysus (26,467 posts)

64. sabotage in that he knew where he'd be peeling votes from... in that he promised not to campaign

in swing states, then did anyways.

of course it's a free country, he can do whatever he want. i hope it was worth it.

Reply to this post

Response to TheWraith (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:11 PM

Old and In the Way (37,540 posts)

49. We could have lost Florida if Ralph had kept his promise and not competed in close states...

like New Hampshire.

Without Nader spoiling that contest, Gore gets NH and it's 4 electoral votes. Florida becomes irrelevant.

George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 273,559 48.07% 4
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 266,348 46.80% 0
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 22,198 3.90% 0

George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 50,460,110 47.87% 271 50.4%
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 51,003,926 48.38% 266 49.4%

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:33 PM

AtomicKitten (46,585 posts)

10. Ditto.

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:34 PM

Xipe Totec (43,676 posts)

11. You could have saved me a facepalm.

My forehead is still hurting.

Good one, you got me!

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:35 PM

chrisa (4,524 posts)

12. Naderites... -_-

lol

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:37 PM

quinnox (20,600 posts)

13. Second Nader thread that makes me miss

hide thread ability from DU2, I simply have no interest in Nader threads.

Reply to this post

Response to quinnox (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:17 PM

dionysus (26,467 posts)

34. you had enough interest to post in one.

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:38 PM

bluestateguy (44,173 posts)

15. I figure right about now former President Gore would be dedicating his library

And the national debt would be just about paid off (that's for all of you "deficit" fanatics).

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:40 PM

George Glass (22 posts)

16. I know that's right!

Go Obama! Yay team! He's a Democrat and I'M a Democrat!

And even if he acts like a Republican (or worse), I can say that MY TEAM WON!

Reply to this post

Response to George Glass (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:18 PM

dionysus (26,467 posts)

35. i hope you enjoyed your brief visit to DU. sleep well, sweet prince.

Reply to this post

Response to dionysus (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:20 PM

frylock (34,825 posts)

82. did you go run tell mommy?

Reply to this post

Response to frylock (Reply #82)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 02:16 PM

dionysus (26,467 posts)

84. you may grieve for your TSed troll friend as you wish.

Reply to this post

Response to dionysus (Reply #84)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 08:06 PM

frylock (34,825 posts)

85. i'm all broke up

boo-fuckin-hoo

Reply to this post

Response to frylock (Reply #82)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:42 PM

DevonRex (22,541 posts)

86. Now why would you say something like that? Seriously.

What good does it do? What purpose does it serve, exactly?

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:54 PM

Jim Lane (11,175 posts)

20. Agreed. I wonder if, at some level, Nader himself agrees.

He's never repudiated the stupid things he said in 2000, notably the implication that there was no significant difference between the parties.

One possibility is that he still believes that. Another possibility -- maybe I'm being too charitable toward him, but hear me out -- is that he's come to recognize that, although Democrats are far from perfectly good, Republicans are pretty close to being perfectly bad.

A less radical suggestion is that he still believes in that false equivalence but has at least come to realize that running as a third-party or independent candidate accomplishes absolutely nothing. Many of us are of the opinion that it's worse than useless, with 2000 being the prime example of how it can be absolutely horrific, but even if you reject that view -- with the perspective of several years, did Nader's runs achieve anything in terms of what the government of the United States actually does?

Please note that last qualifier. "Giving voice to progressive ideals" or the like doesn't count as an answer. Did he change any actual policies by the route of electoral campaigns outside the major parties?

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:06 PM

lillypaddle (9,514 posts)

21. whew

had me going there! You are a very bad boy!!!

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:56 PM

MineralMan (144,971 posts)

27. I appreciate that he's not running, too.

I'd appreciate not hearing a word from him throughout 2012.

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:57 PM

dionysus (26,467 posts)

28. i like it.

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:58 PM

Generic Brad (13,978 posts)

29. I thank him for his great work on auto safety

I salute him for his dedication to consumer protection.

Reply to this post

Response to Generic Brad (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:19 PM

dionysus (26,467 posts)

36. he did some good before he went around the bend. now he thinks bloomberg should be president. sad.

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:59 PM

The Wielding Truth (11,362 posts)

41. I was just thinking of him today when I was putting on my seatbelt. Thanks, Ralph.

He fought for this and saved tens of thousands of lives.

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:00 PM

SomethingFishy (4,876 posts)

42. What in the fuck is with the Nader obsession on DU?

The only time I ever see his fucking name is on DU.

The guy is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:03 PM

quinnox (20,600 posts)

44. agree,

and this has been going on for a long long time. There is an obsession with Nader, I only wonder when the guy is no longer around what these folks will direct their attention to.

Reply to this post

Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:10 PM

frylock (34,825 posts)

48. nader derangement syndrome

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:01 PM

BootinUp (43,964 posts)

43. hell yes!!

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:25 PM

Old and In the Way (37,540 posts)

50. Funny, though...the same people claiming we have "Nader Derangement Syndrome" -a term I first heard

from Republicans telling us we had "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - are the same ones doing their darndest here to destroy our Democratic President's re-election chances. As the Selected One would say, "First time, shame on me...2nd time...won't get fooled again!"

I guess the only question I have is, what progressive Pied Piper 3rd Party candidate will Republicans be financing in 2012 to run an independent campaign to the left of Obama?

Reply to this post

Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:18 PM

yurbud (39,405 posts)

53. and when exactly can we criticize or ask the president we voted for for more without you guys waving

the GOP boogey man?

Honest to god, if you guys are trying to help Obama, it's having the exact opposite effect.

Or more likely, when people here vote for him, it will be in spite of, not because of you.

Reply to this post

Response to yurbud (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:13 AM

Old and In the Way (37,540 posts)

63. Criticize away! Hey, I'm not happy with the accomplishments to date, either. The difference is,

I put the blame squarely on the American voter who elects him, then 2 years later decides they want to put a whole bunch of teabaggers in Congress and give Republicans control of the House and with enough opposition in the Senate to fillibuster everything. And the sad fact is nothing will change until they figure it out and start electing progressives/liberals to work in their best interests.

When are you guys going to admit that no Democrat or Independent President, no matter how liberal or progressive, will deliver the goods until there's a Congress on the same page? Presidents can set the vision, they can give the speeches and energize the base, but we're kidding ourselves if we think they can, by themselves, deliver on the promises. There was a brief moment of hope in 2008, but the Democrats couldn't capitalize (or, maybe, wouldn't capitalize) on the opening. We got a half baked healthcare bill and lost the PR war in the process. Then 2010 pretty much shut down the opportunity altogether. Until the American people start putting liberals/progressives in Congress, we're playing defense. Right now, defense is at least holding the WH and perhaps getting another nominee on the Court.

I'm from Maine. In 2010, 68% of the people voted for the independent candidate and the Democrat. Both would have been reasonably progressive people to replace John Baldacci, the Democrat. The end result? We got a teabagger elected with 38% of the vote. Obama is not the enemy and shooting holes in him is not going to solve the problem.

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:51 PM

jerseyjack (1,361 posts)

55. First of all, who ever felt inspired to vote for Gore?

Is it Nader's fault that he was running against a wet dish rag of a candidate? Then Gore tells Clinton to stay out of the race.

Nader or anyone else has the right to run in any race they choose.

Don't blame Nader, blame Gore for being uninspiring.

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:53 PM

Eliminator (190 posts)

56. OK It has been 12 years now

If 12 years ago, you told me people would still be complaining about Ralph nader 12 years later, I'd have said you're crazy.

Reply to this post

Response to Eliminator (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:58 AM

Pab Sungenis (9,612 posts)

65. They were 12 long, very destructive years.

One wonders "what if."

Reply to this post

Response to Eliminator (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 06:41 PM

ChadwickHenryWard (862 posts)

79. Time doesn't enter into it.

First off, I don't think Nader did anything blame-worthy. It is his right to run for President, and if an American wishes to cast his or her vote for him, that's democracy. But eleven years ago this month, the United States Supreme Court hand-picked the President. It represented the total breakdown of American democracy and the bald power grab in which Americans finally of no say in who their leader is. For me, it was a watershed moment in my education as a citizen of the United States, and the first lesson on how power operates and decisions are really made.

However, I must agree that I am really surprised that people still blame Nader for it.

Reply to this post

Response to Pab Sungenis (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 12:42 AM

sasha031 (6,700 posts)