Why not vote Nader?

[abester]

It is becomming increasingly evident that perhaps the majority of high level Democrats have no real intention whatsoever to affect any change at all. Many of them voted for Iraq, voted for PATRIOT, and after the deception came out, did not support censure.

To say its all the Republican's fault is inaccurate. Yes, they may have the majority for the moment, but the Democrats were often willing to go along out of their own free will.

Perhaps this is because like the Republicans they have some vested interest in the entire culture of corruption themselves. So from where I'm standing it doesn't really matter all that much who is at the helm, for I know any serious change will not be possible.

But there is a third choise. Ralph Nader is one of the few politicians who recognize all the major dangers that threaten America today. The primary is the corporalization of society and the corruption of government that comes with it. A particularly dangereous form of this dynamic is the well known industrial-millitary apparatus. There is no real objective reason for the US alone to spend more than all other nations on Earth combined for defence (war-mongering), and it sustains itself in reinforcing cycle of paranoia and fear.

The Republicans in the White House today are the embodyment of the merger between corporation and government, there really cannot be any doubt about that. They start wars to secure strategical power, satisfy The Complex, give out huge contracts to their buddies, etc. At home, they negate laws meant to protect the workers and envirenmont, give tax breaks to those who need it least, and decimate healthcare, figuring it will 'cure' the poor (cure him with death).

But you'd make a very serious error in judgement if you think the Democrats of this day are very different! They are not, they are exactly the same. Not all of them of course, with John Coyers being a notable exception, but the majority.


Until now, I have only seen one person actively campaigning for reducing corporate influence in government and put the citizens in front, where they belong, and re-enact thorough acts to protect the environment, the worker and health care. From a point of view of policies, I really can't imagine why someone would be against Nader.

Next time you go to the polls ask yourself this: do I vote for him/her's (party) whom I strongly agree with from a policy and ethical point of view, or do I vote out of fear: to just keep The Other Party out?

If you are of the first catagory, I would really suggest paying more attention to Nader, and vote massively for him next time to send a signal - also to the democrats - that we want change! Not futile, meaningless, but radical change to reverse the course that has been taken since the 80's.

[Bluebear]

1. I would really suggest that you peddle your wares somewhere else. nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

2. My thoughts exactly

I just alerted. Subtlety is not something this poster is concerned with, evidently...

[mike_c]

6. using the alert button to stifle progressive dissent....

How very democratic of you.

[Bluebear]

7. Well, this is DU, not a third-party community, no? nt

[dad]

37. that guy who alerted is a joke

Somebody alerted the forum moderator because a poster formed a cogent argument. Logically Ralph Nader had the best policies of any candidate, regardless of party.

[abester]

10. sweet mother of god!

I have said nothing offensive at all. I have not said anything offense in my last post also, which was locked in 30minutes. All I am trying to do is START AN HONEST DISCUSSION!

I just dont personally feel the Dem Party has enough juice left in the minority of honest people servicing it to bring about the change necessary. Look at Hillary for crying out loud, cozying up to the right, and I don't care if thats just plain strategy to get more votes, its wrong.

What is this place? Democratic or not? Why is my voice stiffled, locked and deleted whenever it doesn't please a few christians or nader-haters? I hope I can post this before the inevitable happens

[Bluebear]

11. This place is Democratic, yes, capital D

Your calls to vote Nader will do nothing except provide us with President Jeb Bush this time.

[William769]

44. This is a place for Democrats

How would voting for Nader fit in that catagory?

Go find a Nader board if there are any.

[Rainbowreflect]

50. In the past I might have supported Nader, but not now.

First, he has become too much about Ralph, it's his ego that matters not the issues anymore, IMHO.
Second, it is too big of a risk to support a third party candidate for president.
I often support green locally, but we cannot afford 4-8 more years of repub "leadership".

[kurth]

3. Edwards is very different from Cheney

Ralphie was a good guy. But you have to be realistic.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[still_one]

16. ralphie is an aragont fool who may have helped destroy our republic

any good he might have done, has been erased in 2000

[AndyTiedye]

4. Some People Voted for Nader in 2000 and We Got Change

I can't think of a single one of the changes that have occurred since then that has been in any way beneficial however.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Point in the right direction ther was

one vote that determined this, and it was not for ralph, but the vote in the USSC to stop the count... Bush is in power becuase of five Supreme Court Justicies.

Anybody who has actually looked at the data KNOWS THIS.

[mike_c]

5. for what it's worth, I think you're entirely correct...

...and even though I didn't vote for Nader in 2000, I've come to believe that he was utterly correct about there being little difference between democrats and republicans-- they're mostly different flavors of corporatist lackies. Events since 2000 have proven that, IMO.

[Mythsaje]

9. Ah, but they beat out Baskin Robbins...

They have many more than 31 flavors...

;)

[still_one]

18. really, what about Feingold or Boxer, or Conyers

AT THE VERY MINIMUM GORE WOULD NOT HAVE RAPED THE ENVIRONMENT

I am NOT a fan of what has become of many democrats, BUT I will work to get candidates that represent party values

If you seriously believe that their is no difference between democrats and repukes, than why waste you time here.

Most people here will work to change the party, NOT DESTROY IT!!!

[abester]

32. Please sir, re-read my post!

As I actually mentioned Conyers, but Feingold and Boxer could be included as well. I deeply respect these people, they are truly the democratic underground. But let's face it, they are hopelessly outgunned, even within their own party.

I am not trying to destroy it, but I've come to believe since 2000 that the party in its Current State is beyond salvaging, and the progressive agenda cannot rest on a few courageous individuals.

Also, I don't claim to know what the answer is, but voting for the status quo won't do anything good. Perhaps all the truly progressive forces should combine in a new and truly democratic party?

[personman]

54. Here is where Political Compass ranks them...

Telling I think.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/uselection.php

[Rich Hunt]

8. Well, I like Nader a hell of a lot...

I'm not going to change my opinion of him because of a pack of lying right-wing bullies.

However, he's not supposed to be a candidate, he's supposed to be a government reformer.

How I wish it were the seventies again sometimes. There was a hell of a lot more transparency about the fraud and filth that was around us. So that's why I still think Nader's cool. But I think pushing him into candidacies does him a disservice, although it gives him a chance to speak and he's a hell of a speaker.

[still_one]

20. nader is a scum bag hypocrite whose own ego gave us bush

nader can take his magellen fund, and oil stocks, and shove them up his ass

he enabled what we have today, and any environmental positives he may have done, ARE NOW ERASED

HE IS AS BAD AS THE NEOCONS and DINOS, and can burn in hell for what he has done

He has the blood of Iraq on his hands by enabling these gangters to take over

[abester]

33. Are you a democrat?

Don't look like one to me. You are basically condemning a man for participating with his own party in a national election, yet you dare call yourself democrat? More like an authoritarian to me if you so blatantly dismiss our most fundamental democratic principles.

[rpannier]

12. 4 MORE YEARS!!!

Of repuke leadership.
Another set of right wing fundie judges on SCOTUS, not to mention the lower federal courts. Can you say "Bye, bye Roe"
More dismantling of environmental regulations -- Hell, who needs glaciers and national parks anyway. We can all go and gaze in awe of the oil derricks and polluted rivers -- Go to India sometime and hang out near the Ganges River. I have, it's tru;y memorable.
Let's not forget Faith Based Initiatives. Totally unqualified counselors getting your tax dollars to tell people that the cure for every ill are "Having faith in God."

I have no idea where you're coming from, but I suggest you rethink your drink. Naders jump into the Presidential race helped cost Gore the Presidency since the campaign had to shift money to shore up their campaigns in places like Wisconsin. It also didn't help that he kept appearing on Chris Matthews show and bashed Gore every chance he got. In fact, if you watched the old Matthew's shows, Nader spent more time bashing Gore then he did scrubbie.

Thanks. I'm sure pukes everywhere support your idea.

[seg4527]

19. and how much time do dems STILL spend attacking nader

6 years after the fact, when all of these things ARE happening.

there are serious problems with this country, and with this democratic party, and blaming everything on nader, ignoring the issues, and just expecting americans on the left to support any candidate on the democratic slot ISN'T going to solve a whole lot.

The fact is more democrats voted for BUSH than NADER, the democrats still have no spine, and a lot of LIBERAL people aren't going to vote for a Hillary Clinton or a Kerry-retry no matter how much corporate washington insider democrats complain about them.

With Russ Feingold and some others there is a good possibility of attracting alot of moderate america who would be attracted by his midwestern nice-guy personality, and attract a lot on the left because of his actual concern for important issues like iraq, civil liberties, campaign finance reform.

Yes, I know, a candidate who actually voted against the war, against the patriot act, and wants a timeline to get out of Iraq. It's kind of crazy, actually opposing the policies of the Republicans, but maybe it's worth a try!

[still_one]

22. WRONG, GORE WON THE ELECTION

INCLUDING THE POPULAR VOTE!!!

[seg4527]

29. i remember

i was there. i don't think i said that he didn't.

[rpannier]

31. And where in OP was the name "Feingold" even mengtioned

The OP praised Conyers and basically wrote off everyone else -- that would include Feingold.
You are talking about voting for a Democrat. The OP is talking about voting for Nader -- someone who is NOT a member of this party. Who, by voting for him, gets you John McCain, Jeb Bush, Bill Frist, George Allen or some other neocon jerk. Maybe that's o.k. with you. But not me.
In addition, if Nader runs in '08, people should be reminded what his run in 2000 accomplished. It's not an 'attack' as you put it. It's a fact.

[seabeyond]

45. nader took $ from repug. only talking nader cause poster started

a thread. i dont see any talk at all about nader day in and day out. when a poster starts a thread on the man, you can hardly ask how long we are going to spend attacking him. dont bring him on a thread and i bet never. bring him up and ask why not run him and people may say no

i liked nader in 2000. 2004 listening to the man turned me off. he is dishonest. he is a hypocrit and he toook funding from republicans.

[seg4527]

13. because apparently you need to walk lock-step with the democratic party...

to be considered a "progressive".

whatever people feel like saying, i'm not going to get duped into voting for any lightweight democrat again.

i should have known better in 2004. it was particularly disgusting in pennsylvania, where i was living before i went away to school, how the democratic party treated nader. they got him knocked off the ballot. he wasn't even a choice to vote for.

i was planning on not voting at all, simply as a protest against this undemocratic action by the democratic party. enough people here on DU were convincing enough with their "anybody but bush" slogans and junk that i wound up voting for kerry, green for the rest of the offices if there was a candidate running.

the idea that we need to support any democrat just because they are a democrat is all too similar to the republican talking points "we need to support the commander in chief, because he's the commander in chief" and so on. from now on, i vote for somebody if they deserve it, if they've stood up to these war criminals. not because they simply have a D after their name. that's not enough.

the idea that democrats are so scared of debating the merits of somebody more progressive, that they are going to hit an alert button and hope that a moderator makes sure that people aren't allowed to participate in this important debate, shows me how far -or not far- we've come as a party.

there's something wrong in this country, there are lots of things wrong. i'm only going to vote for somebody who is actually wants to fix these problems. if it's a democrat, then that's awesome. if it's nader, or some green party candidate, then that's awesome too.

if it's nobody, then it's nobody.

if we're afraid to even talk about it, then that's pretty sad.

[still_one]

25. you don't have to vote for a light weight democrat

or DINO, but nader IS NOT THE HERO that his followers would like you to believe. HE is an arragont son-of-a-bitch

I hope he breaths the smog deep that he has helped enable by bush getting elected in 2000

We can change the party within, we do NOT need nader, he is a puke

[seg4527]

28. i don't think he's a hero

i know a lot of people who voted for him and volunteered in his campaign, being part of the student anti-war movement. i don't know any who make him out to be a hero. just an alternative to the broken system.

there is a lot more villian making or nader that is not needed than vice versa.

nader ran for office in 2000. a few people voted for him. people had a choice, and they chose. if the democrats best bet for winning is to have the least number of parties running as possible, that says a lot about what they have to offer.

and you know what?

Gore won anyway, and the rightwing scum stole it. try getting pissed off about that instead. the 2000 was a complete failure of what is supposed to be a democracy, and people are STILL more pissed off about one candidate who got a small percentage of votes than they are about democracy being ignored.

The supreme court gave the election to Bush illegaly, damn that bastard nader! Or something like that.

[abester]

34. Wholeheartedly agreed

And thank you for expanding on my original post and explaining exactly what are also my feelings.

If only more would be willing to use their gray matter the Supreme Being gave them, instead of just the spinal column.

[radfringe]

14. saying it one more time with feeling

nader: Right message - wrong messenger

running for any office is as much a matter of ideas and competence as it is public relations. nader can have the answer to all our problems, but he is NOT perceived by the general public as a serious candidate

I've often wondered how many people who vote for Nader do so NOT because they support Nader, but rather because they feel there are not other candidates they can support and vote for nader to register their dissatisfaction with Dem/Rep choices.

I still think that a NONE OF THE ABOVE choice should be on all primary/general election ballots

[moondust]

17. How about...

one person, one vote: FOR or AGAINST a candidate in each race. The "winner" may actually end up with a negative vote total!

[radfringe]

24. either way

I'm just real tired of having to hold my nose when I vote.

I know the "primaries" are suppose to winnow down the candidates to the 'best one' -- but we've all seen how the party leaders do the actual selecting

there's been many times when I've gone to vote and Monty Python's skit about SPAM flashes in my head --

http://www.detritus.org/spam/skit.html

Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam;

[still_one]

15. I am NOT a big fan of what the democrats have become

but I will NEVER forgive or forget what nader did. HE ENABLED THESE POMPUS DICTATORS TO CONTROL OUR GOVERNMENT

If our republic falls nader will have had no small part in its demise

Eventually, the Democrats will get their act together

Any good that nader MAY have done environmentally has been erased by his aragonce in 2000. That is what he will be remembered for

[PhilipShore]

21. Ralph Nader and the Naderites

Unfortunately, Ralph Nader and his followers -- the Naderites -- follow a political point of view that would support the Republican Party -- before they would support the Democratic Party.

[still_one]

26. I remember how that judas nader had no problem taking

money from the repukes in 2000

[jpgray]

23. Because he invests in Halliburton, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing

And yet he's against the Iraq war. Attacked Gore in '00 for holding Occidental oil stock, stock which he himself held. Doesn't let his workers unionize, yet is for repealing Taft-Hartley. Tell me why I should spend my time working for a hypocrite who has no chance of getting elected and doing some good, when I could work for other hypocrites that stand a chance and will actually change some miniscule things that will be magnified by the power of their offices to make big differences for millions of people?

[still_one]

27. any legacy nader had he destroyed in 2000

[abester]

35. Source?

[seg4527]

30. i've been here for like 5 years

and i remember a time where people could have had an honest discussion about problems in the democratic party.

man, how this place has changed. just scream about nader, and that's supposed to show that you have a grasp on the issues in this country.

there are so many more important things facing us besides a guy who gets one percent of the vote. let's get over it people. out of all the things to be pissed off about, even about the 2000 election, this is not nearly the biggest.

[TomClash]

36. You mean the guy . . .

. . . who ran as a Green when the Democratic Party put up the most environmentally progressive candidate in the history of the Republic?

Ralph Nader can go to hell.

I think I'll pass.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

38. Nader can go to hell.

He's partly to blame for the shithole of the last 6 years.

And until the Green Party grows to the size of the major two parties, voting for Nader or anyone from that party running for President isn't going to accomplish shit except for serving your self-smugness while what we have left of this country burns to the ground.

[Minnesota Libra]

39. I really don't understand this and hope someone can enlighten me..........

....as to why some people view Nader :freak: as darn near a god when he stood and said Democrats deserved to loose :spank: WHILE TAKING MONEY FROM THE NEOCONS/FUNDIES.:puke:

That, in my book, is a classic hypocrite.

Nader ran in 2000 and look what he helped put is in the WH?? The neocons/fundies ran laughing their asses off all the way to the bank to get even more money for Nader.:banghead:

Some people still want even more of the same.:eyes: I really don't get it.

[DiverDave]

41. Nader is a classic egomaniac.

He took money from everyone because he thought what he was doing was right, in a twisted way.
He is smart enough to realize that what he did split the democratic vote...just as the rethugs saw, and exploited.
He is the classic egomaniac.
He did ALL of this because he was "smarter" then the rest of us.
He was USED by the right, plain and simple.
The worst thing?
He aint man enough to admit it.
Fuck ralphie, and the horse he rode in on.

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. Screw Nadar!

[Hubert Flottz]

43. Is that you KKKARL?

Damn, ain't you seen enough?

[Terran1212]

46. Because we're scared of democracy

Vote for one of two parties OR DIE

[abester]

47. care to elaborate, nader-bashers?

So far all the criticism I have seen of him falls in either two catagories: he took money, from whom varies with the critic, and the old 'nader caused our loss because he stole a couple of thausand votes'.

Now, that last conclusion is so thoroughly bogus that you must have a poor grasp of logic or otherwise have an antidemocratic inclination.

I'd like to learn more. So Nader took money. From whom? When? Why? Sources?? Anyone? I need more than hearsay to reconsider my view of him.

Finaly, my bigger point was that the Dem Party has lost its momentum for one reason or another over the past few years, and my suggestion was the Nader, or the progressive wing of the Dems could carry it further by spliting up.

[FreakinDJ]

48. Because he is a Republican Shrill

[depakid]

49. Maybe because he isn't running for anything?

:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. He threatens the oligarchy. The bosses don't want us to vote against it.

I didn't vote for Nader in 2000 & 2004.

But he was right.

[donheld]

52. Why not George Forman, Why not Madonna

Why not Forrest Gump :grr:

[paparush]

53. Because I will peronally come and hunt you down....

and pelt you with water balloons..

[Moderator]

55. locking

From DU rules:


You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.