Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

I would love to vote for one of these candidates, I hate a two party system, but unfortunately for the time being I can't conceive of anyway one can break through.

 

[siamesedreamer]

He's gonna be on Meet the Press this morning.

 

[Amir0x]

WTF @ this caller on C-Span

"Ralph Nader is nothing but a Republican who steals Democratic votes" :lol

God C-Span is always entertaining for these DUMB CALLS

 

[JayDubya]

I think anyone who would actually work or vote for Nader is already working for Obama. Nader may just shave off some of the Libertarian vote.

HO-LEE SHIT. NO.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

You are so much smarter than that. Realistic politics are not about ideals at all. If you feel the need to place a vote that your ideals command you to place, don't vote, period. That same action is as useful to Nader as though you voted for him a dozen times.

Vote Obama - The Timidity of Cynicism confirmed? >_>

 

[Amir0x]

I should call in and give a shout out to neoGAF

 

[Wes]

He is always running. He ran as part of the Green Party in 1996 and 2000, then as an independent two times now (2004, 2008).

He is not a democrat at all

Ah I see. The BBC News initially ran the breaking news of him running as he was a Democrat that's why I asked!

I should call in and give a shout out to neoGAF

Do it, and youtube it.

 

[White Man]

Vote Obama - The Timidity of Cynicism confirmed? >_>

Let's just put it this way, Jay: there's a reason I don't want the word "liberal" associated with me at all, even though I'm as socially liberal as they get.

 

[scorcho]

wait, does this mean i have to hear, read and groan through the phrase 'liberal intelligensia' for nine more months?

ugh.

 

[kame-sennin]

Nader: If the democrats can't win in 2008, they should just wrap it up.

:lol

 

[Stoney Mason]

Nader running for president
Consumer advocate announces third-party bid on ‘Meet the Press’


WASHINGTON - Ralph Nader is launching a third-party campaign for president.

The consumer advocate made the announcement Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." He says most Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties, and that none of the presidential contenders are addressing ways to stem corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promote labor rights.

Nader also ran as a third-party candidate in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. He is still loathed by many Democrats who call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost the party the election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a razor-thin contest in Florida.

Last month, Nader began an exploratory presidential campaign and launched a Web site that promises to fight "corporate greed, corporate power, corporate control."

Nader's appearance on "Meet the Press" was announced Friday in an e-mail message from Nader's exploratory campaign. The message from "The Nader Team" urges supporters to tell friends and family to watch the show and requests online contributions.

"As you know, we've been exploring the possibilities in recent weeks," the message said.

Nader is still loathed by many Democrats who call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost Democrats the election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a razor-thin contest in Florida.

Nader has vociferously disputed the spoiler claim, saying only Democrats are to blame for losing the race to George W. Bush.

Though he won 2.7 percent of the national vote as the Green Party candidate in 2000, Nader won just 0.3 percent as an independent in 2004, when he appeared on the ballot in only 34 states.

Nader was forced to fight dozens of court battles over ballot access in 2004, as Democrats pressed legal challenges over whether he gained enough legitimate signatures to get his name on the ballot.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319781/

 

[Mandark]

Vote Obama - The Timidity of Cynicism confirmed? >_>

Read.



Addendum to that post: Some of us lefties don't even like him on the issues, especially cultural stuff (immigration, women's issues, censorship of violent media), and he's so obviously unconcerned with building a viable left-liberal party that he makes a lousy protest vote. At least in 2000 people could say they were trying to get the Greens to 5%.

 

[kame-sennin]

I still don't think you get my point. First of all, "Running" his campaign is a much bigger claim than you've supported thus far, are requires a much higher burden of proof. Even then, supporting a campaign is different from owning it. Obama still has the independence to evaluate the merits of policy proposals, he can say "no" without worrying about the poorhouse, and I don't see Mark Penn on his staff.

You're right. I take that back. As for the latter point, I would argue that his policy positions call his independence into question. If that's not the cause of lobbyists, then I guess I just don't like where the guy stands.

I think that Obama's supporters are dismayed when they see him take positive steps, and still get dismissed as a "corporate tool" by a guy who, despite his lack of concern over his credibility in recent years, used to be pretty respectable and worth paying attention to.

The problem - from the progressive perspective - is that Obama has a good record on ethics, but overall, a bad record. He talks about ending lobbyist control, and supports public financing, but his positions on all the major issues don't differ significantly from Hillary Clinton's, who is a the candidate of the corporate class. People like Nader don't want to get away from lobbyists because they hate people with money, but because their influence is corrosive to our foreign and domestic policy. What's the difference between a corporate candidate with corporate policies and an independent candidate with corporate policies? Moreover, while Obama has made a lot of positive statements with regard to campaign ethics, he has not demonstrated leadership to the point that progressives can assume that he will actually effect change.

Anyway, we're not going to agree on this. But you made relevant points that I thought should be addressed.

 

[Triumph]

Jesus Christ, Triumph. You are smarter than this. If you vote by only following your very specific personal ideals, you're never going to win anything. Politics is not a game of voting on your ideals; it's a game of voting for the person that most closely matches your ideals while still being electable.

I appreciate that you align yourself with a niche candidate. If I were an irrational thinker, I might do the same. Idiot's voting on ideals is as dumb as voting on party lines have given us nearly 30 years of corporate handjobs. You have the chance of voting for the first Democrat in as many decades to not be a slave to lobbyists, and you waste your vote on a vanity candidate?

You are so much smarter than that. Realistic politics are not about ideals at all. If you feel the need to place a vote that your ideals command you to place, don't vote, period. That same action is as useful to Nader as though you voted for him a dozen times.

Uh... dude. I realize all of that. I was pointing out in that post that people on the left like to turn Ralph into some boogieman who was the sole reason Gore lost in 2000. I was pointing out that he didn't and was, in fact, largely marginalized and ineffective in 2004.

I'll happily vote for Obama in 2008 unless he starts compromising in a serious way on issues that are important to me. If he starts looking more likely to be a corporate stooge a la every modern President, then I'll probably have to sigh and vote for Nader again.

HO-LEE SHIT. NO.

There are plenty of people who supported Paul that now seem to be gravitating towards Obama- including posters on this board. Of course, I'm sure you'll now tell me that they weren't true believers or something and didn't REALLY want the gold standard reinstated.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Look's like you're voting for Nadar, Triumph assuming the Dems aren't successful in stopping him get on most state ballots.

 

[APF]

Isn't Obama's entire campaign based on the idea that he'll compromise on important issues in order to get people to like him?

 

[Triumph]

Isn't Obama's entire campaign based on the idea that he'll compromise on important issues in order to get people to like him?

About as much as Hillary's campaign is based off of the idea that being first lady is an item that is important on a resume.

And Stoney, I doubt he'll get on the NC ballot.

 

[thekad]

Isn't Obama's entire campaign based on the idea that he'll compromise on important issues in order to get people to like him?

That's funny. I thought we were talking about Nader.

 

[APF]

About as much as Hillary's campaign is based off of the idea that being first lady is an item that is important on a resume.

Considering she had a historic "term" as First Lady, I assume you mean I was completely correct.

thekad: as should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above their age, I was responding to a comment Triumph made.

 

[thekad]

APF: I think anyone with any semblance of even pre-school grade reading comprehension would realize Triumph was speaking about compromise with corporate lobbyists, not Republicans. Your obsession with Obama is frightening.

 

[speculawyer]

APF: I think anyone with any semblance of even pre-school grade reading comprehension would realize Triumph was speaking about compromise with corporate lobbyists, not Republicans. Your obsession with Obama is frightening.

McCains top campaign managers are corporate lobbyists so it is often difficult to tell the difference.

 

[grandjedi6]

Calling Nader's move "very unfortunate," Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters, "I remember when he ran before. It didn't turn out very well for anybody -- especially our country."

"This time I hope it doesn't hurt anyone. I can't think of anybody that would vote for Sen. McCain who would vote for Ralph Nader," she said.

Nader was criticized by some Democrats in 2000 for allegedly pulling away support from Democrat Al Gore and helping George Bush win the White House.

Noting that he ran on the Green Party ticket that year, Clinton said Nader "prevented Al Gore from being the 'greenest' president we could have had."

Nader has long rejected his portrayal as a spoiler in the presidential race. In his NBC interview Sunday, he cited the Republican Party's economic policies, the Iraq war, and other issues, saying, "If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form."

But Clinton said, "Obviously, it is not helpful to whoever our Democratic nominee is. But, you know, it is a free country."

Nader said political consultants "have really messed up Hillary Clinton's campaign."

Long-shot GOP contender Mike Huckabee said Nader's entry would probably help his party.

"I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats and not the Republicans, so naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race," Huckabee said Sunday on CNN.

Nader said Thomas Jefferson believed that "when you lose your government, you've got to go into the electoral arena."

"A Jeffersonian revolution is needed in this country," he said.

Nader told NBC that great changes in U.S. history have come "through little parties that never won any national election."

"Dissent is the mother of ascent," he said. "And in that context I've decided to run for president."

Nader, who turns 74 this week, complained about the "paralysis of the government," which he said is under the control of corporate executives and lobbyists.

Sen. Barack Obama criticized Nader earlier this weekend. "My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive," Obama told reporters when asked about Nader's possible candidacy.

"He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work."

Obama said Nader "is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anyone for consumers."

"I don't mean to diminish that," he said. "There's a sense now that if someone's not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, he says they're lacking in some way."

Responding to those remarks, Nader called Obama "a person of substance" and "the first liberal evangelist in a long time" who "has run a good tactical campaign." But he accused Obama of censoring "his better instincts" on divisive issues.

Nader encouraged people to look at his campaign Web site, votenader.org, which he said discusses issues important to Americans that Obama and Sen. John McCain "are not addressing."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/nader.politics/index.html

 

[Amir0x]

Nader has the winning point. if the Dems lose because of his paultry 1%< in this year of all years, they should pack it in

 

[Hootie]

Obligatory "VOTE NADER" post.

Why he is even bothering...

 

[Propagandhim]

Wait wait wait, what is wrong with nuclear power?

The waste is hazardous (along with emissions), the plant is costly, and precedent shows that nuclear power plants have enjoyed limited liability in lieu of disaster compensation.

You could also make a solid argument that the Atomic Energy Commission has no transparency or oversight, etc. (No i'm not a libertarian)


Considering the cost, safety, and ongoing scientific innovations, renewable ethanol energy is a much better route. I'm with Obama on this one. Nuclear energy is becoming more and more unnecessary.

 

[JayDubya]

There are plenty of people who supported Paul that now seem to be gravitating towards Obama- including posters on this board. Of course, I'm sure you'll now tell me that they weren't true believers or something and didn't REALLY want the gold standard reinstated.

I would have to imagine that people that supported Paul and now support Obama are people that are centrist on most issues and oppose the war more than anything else, so they went with the candidate that most strongly opposed the war, and now follow suit with those that are left, within the confines of the de facto two party shitfest / prison of our own making.

Wait wait wait, what is wrong with nuclear power?

The same thing that's wrong with DDT or GM crops. Nothing.

Who's complaining about nuclear power? The same people that complain about the above.

Read.

Okay, I read it. I suppose that would be a frustrating scenario if there were 6 rightist political parties and 1 leftist party. However, the polar opposite is not desirable either.

 

[kame-sennin]

Addendum to that post: Some of us lefties don't even like him on the issues, especially cultural stuff (immigration, women's issues, censorship of violent media), and he's so obviously unconcerned with building a viable left-liberal party that he makes a lousy protest vote. At least in 2000 people could say they were trying to get the Greens to 5%.

Why isn't Nader running with the greens? Before he announced, they had a draft Nader site up, so they are open to nominating him. This is probably my only problem with Nader, that his strategy seems flawed. His goal is essentially to get on television, in debates, and on the ballot so that important issues get "put on the table". But how much can that possibly accomplish? Granted, if Nader were actually allowed to debate, he would blow any republican or democratic candidate out of the water. But ultimately, he still wouldn't win and the American people have short memories. A democrat or a republican would win the election and eventually, any progressive issues that were brought up would get snuffed out*. In my mind, Nader and other progressives should take the back door, and try to win elections at the local level. It's easier for third parties to win local elections, and it would be harder for the DNC and RNC to stamp out the various candidates in all those districts. If a third party led a continual, determined effort, they could make up a significant portion of the congress within 15 or 20 years. Then they could democratize elections laws, clearing the way for a viable third party presidential candidate from a party that had established itself as a national brand. Then we might see real change. But this whole, send a lone starfighter to blow up the Deathstar, longshot strategy makes no sense to me.

*Six months ago, there was no issue more "on the table" than the subject of Iraq, and the democrats still couldn't get us out. Public willpower centered around an issue is not enough to effect change in the face of an inept government. At least not in the modern apathetic era.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

Is Nader running to win or just to make noise? Run to win or GTFO.

 

[APF]

APF: I think anyone with any semblance of even pre-school grade reading comprehension would realize Triumph was speaking about compromise with corporate lobbyists, not Republicans.

Oh? Your position is, that's the only "issue" he's concerned about, and that he's not concerned about any compromise on issues with Republicans? Really? Your obsession with spinning for Obama is frightening.

 

[TheDrowningMan]

WTF @ this caller on C-Span

"Ralph Nader is nothing but a Republican who steals Democratic votes" :lol

God C-Span is always entertaining for these DUMB CALLS

His campaigns are generally funded by wealthy Republicans, he only really focuses on campaigning in swing states that Democrats *need* to win.

It's clear just what he is.

 

[kame-sennin]

Is Nader running to win or just to make noise? Run to win or GTFO.

The DNC has actively filed lawsuits against Nader in almost every state he has run in to try and get him off the ballet. It's hard to win an election when your opponents can prevent people from even having the OPTION to vote for you. No third party candidate who is not independently wealthy could possibly win with current election laws. The system - and I mean this in no conspiratorial way - is in fact rigged against third parties. And the "noise" you mentioned includes pushing issues like full withdrawal from Iraq and single payer healthcare, both of which would save lives. I think that's worth making noise about.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

I hope you guys have done your research as far as Nader is concerned. He isn't just a crazy old man who "lost" the election for Gore. He's done more for consumers than you can even think of. Sure, Gore lost by 100 votes. But even the worst 3rd party candidate in FL got more than 100 votes.

Gore lost because he was not appealing enough as a candidate and because the Bush machine worked overtime to steal that election. This "Blame Nader" BS needs to stop.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Wow I thought you guys believed in democracy, or is the threat of Nader slaying The Messiah too great?

Nader has every right to run. Gore lost the 2000 race by running a tepid campaign and not fighting. His message is going to be much less effective after the disaster that was Bush Co.

 

[grandjedi6]

Wow I thought you guys believed in democracy, or is the threat of Nader slaying The Messiah too great?

Nader has every right to run. Gore lost the 2000 race by running a tepid campaign and not fighting. His message is going to be much less effective after the disaster that was Bush Co.

I believe anyone should have the right to run. But why does the major 3rd party always have to be an independent Nader? Why can't Nader at least run with the Green Party? Why can't anyone else get a stab at the 3rd party spot? I just don't see a point in Nader running.

 

[firex]

Wait wait wait, what is wrong with nuclear power?

Far too many hazardous byproducts, like 1950s-era superheroes.

 

[kame-sennin]

Far too many hazardous byproducts, like 1950s-era superheroes.

Are people who are pro-nuclear also in support of having the waste stored near their hometown? I'm not asking this as a gotcha question, but more to get a sense of how people feel about nuclear safety. I myself live near Indian Point (though I have no idea where the waste is stored) and I'm not comfortable having such a tempting - yet poorly guarded - terrorist target in my backyard.

 

[APF]

I'm not comfortable having such a tempting - yet poorly guarded - terrorist target in my backyard.

I live in NYC. In 2001 I could see the Twin Towers from my window; they were literally (figuratively) "in my backyard." Not sure I'm seeing your point here, as far as the terrorism angle goes.

 

[grandjedi6]

Are people who are pro-nuclear also in support of having the waste stored near their hometown? I'm not asking this as a gotcha question, but more to get a sense of how people feel about nuclear safety. I myself live near Indian Point (though I have no idea where the waste is stored) and I'm not comfortable having such a tempting - yet poorly guarded - terrorist target in my backyard.

Nuclear waste isn't really a prime terrorist target.

And I have a question about Nader's energy policy. What does he plan to do about energy? He advocates an end of Nuclear energy. But the only solution he offers is to use solar energy. But there is no way the current renewable energy sources we have can meet are power demands. So I think it's incredibly foolish of him to talk about getting rid of pollutants and move to renewable energy, but refuse to compromise to make his plan even remotely realistic

 

[Tamanon]

Are people who are pro-nuclear also in support of having the waste stored near their hometown? I'm not asking this as a gotcha question, but more to get a sense of how people feel about nuclear safety. I myself live near Indian Point (though I have no idea where the waste is stored) and I'm not comfortable having such a tempting - yet poorly guarded - terrorist target in my backyard.

Do you believe that a "terrorist" attack on a nuclear facility will have more impact than on another electric facility?

 

[scorcho]

with Nadar back in the race i'm hoping to procure his post-debate virtual debate DVD where he acts as puppeteer and pretends he was actually a part of the festivities.

fun!

 

[firex]

Are people who are pro-nuclear also in support of having the waste stored near their hometown? I'm not asking this as a gotcha question, but more to get a sense of how people feel about nuclear safety. I myself live near Indian Point (though I have no idea where the waste is stored) and I'm not comfortable having such a tempting - yet poorly guarded - terrorist target in my backyard.

damn dude, way to suck the fun out of a harmless joke. maybe your attitude is more toxic waste than the nuclear stuff sitting in your backyard.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

WTF @ this caller on C-Span

"Ralph Nader is nothing but a Republican who steals Democratic votes" :lol

God C-Span is always entertaining for these DUMB CALLS

Very dumb. Nader leans more towards socialism than conservatism.

 

[grandjedi6]

Realism isn't typically on the agenda of crazy ultra-left wingers. This is why, in spite of being pretty far left myself in terms of ideals, I try to stay away from these kinds of people. -_-

Even looking at what Nader says he advocates that the other candidates don't, it's very unrealistic

I mean seriously. That is why I should vote for Nader? Impeaching Bush doesn't matter by election time, the Election process itself doesn't matter for the Presidency itself, and alot of policies like energy are unrealistic. You think he would at least try to come up with some realistic and good positions, but this seems more like a "You dont' agree with me on everything" list.

 

[RiskyChris]

Fuck Nader. Fuck him.

There are ways to achieve his goals without a stupid fucking Presidential run. What a pompous, narcissistic asshole.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Fuck Nader.

This isn't like a European Parliamentary system where Democrats and Green/Better Life could just create a coalition. Nader is just going to siphon votes from Democrats. Although I hope it doesn't come down to hand counting like in 2000, it might cost the Democrats dearly in certain areas, that will weaken their stance overall for 11/2.

 

[Gruco]

Good god, every line of that table is either sickeningly disingenuous or completely unrealistic. It's like he's trying to get labeled a crank.

 

[Blader]

I'm glad Nader is running. If he costs the Democrats the White House, then so be it. The DNC deserves it for trying to steal the election.

 

[RiskyChris]

I'm glad Nader is running. If he costs the Democrats the White House, then so be it. The DNC deserves it for trying to steal the election.

wat

 

[Blader]

wat

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

 

[demon]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

Clinton is now "the democrats"?

 

[Kitschkraft]

This may hurt the dems more then people think...

The end of this Obama/Clinton race is going to leave a lot of people quite bitter...many of those people who say "I won't vote for so and so" now have another leftist option. This is perfect for them, as they can NOT support the democrat who beat their candidate, but they don't have to feel guilty for doing so because they are still voting.

I agree that our two party system is unacceptable, Nader needs to realize however that he's not going to change anything trying to start from the top down...no third party is going to just come in there and sweep it like that. A viable third party could be started in this country but it needs to start at the very very bottom...I think that Nader has had a chance to do something like this in some of the very liberal cities...he could probably get a Green party mayor in a city like San Fran or somewhere like that, from there, see if you can get more councilmen and congressmen, just keep building your base and your support, do it in multiple cities unanimously, do whatever you've gotta do....but instead he'd rather throw his name on the ballot for president of the US, with basically no structure beneath him whatsoever!