Nader in...Again

Prediction - Nader will get the least votes he ever has. The election outcome will not be in any way be affected by his running.

Obama has the far left positions well covered, so why are voters going to vote for Nader in any significant numbers? It isn't going to happen.
 
I don't know if you saw the interview but Russert asked some insulting questions like "Who do you think is better Clinton or Obama?" and also "How would you feel if you were the reason the first African American president lost and the republicans won the white house again?" I was getting pissed off watching it and I don't even like Nader. Though like I said almost everything Nader said in that interview was true and made sense.
 
Ralph Nader is the new Harold Stassen, but without having ever been governor.

OK, folks, given my being a bit disgusted with the Dems and the GOP as of 2004 and 2006, can someone tell me why I should NOT vote for Nader?

What is wrong with him, other than being about six months late to the race? If your response is that it would cost Kinky Friedman votes, OK, I'll but that.

Any other reason not to vote for Nader?

DR
 
Last edited:
DR,

There is absolutely no reason on Earth why you (nor anyone else for that matter) should not vote for whomever you wish (including Nader). If one does not vote for a given candidate simply because they believe doing so will better secure another party's victory, then that only helps support the argument that those folks are voting against rather than for someone. A rather weak reason for voting in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Just thinking said:
DR,

There is absolutely no reason on Earth why you (nor anyone else for that matter) should not vote for whomever you wish (including Nader). If one does not vote for a given candidate simply because they believe doing so will better secure another party's victory, then that only helps support the argument that those folks are voting against rather than for someone. A rather weak reason for voting in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I voted against Al Gore in 2000. The guy I wanted for the GOP in 2000, McCain, wasn't on the ballot. Nader didn't appeal to me then, though I was tempted to vote Buchanan out of spite. I didn't, but I was tempted.

DR
 
Nader is a bad joke.
The only people who will vote for him are the hard core lefties who want the US to go totally socialist, and those who think voting for Nader shows how daring and anti establishment they are.
 
And the Nader supporters in this thread are giving me a definent Ron Paul supporter vibe.
 
SezMe said:
You gotta be kidding me. You think the Dems and Reps control who sits in those debates? If so, you are miserably wrong.

The networks that put on the debates control the participants. Ron Paul was excluded from some Rep debates. Gravel and Kucinich were excluded from Dem debates. Those actions were NOT taken by the parties, they were taken at the behest of some empty suit in a corner office.
Click to expand...

And the 'empty suits' lobby controls the Dems and the Reps, who in turn control who gets in the debates. Don't be naive.

GE/MSNBC the war profiteers, Kucinich the anti-war candidate. It's no surprise why Kucinich was not allowed in the MSNBC debate.

I say let Nader and anyone else with strong grassroots support into the debates.

The debates are a complete joke now anyways. All Clinton and Obama are doing now is acting out there parts. Let them sweat it out and actually make them tackle the issues and put aside the petty arguments of alleged plagiarism and if whether Obama has the correct amount of Patriotism!? (Did anyone see the CNN poll???:rolleyes: ) Let the 3rd and independent parties in, this is after all democracy.
 
Last edited:
And the 'empty suits' lobby controls the Dems and the Reps, who in turn control who gets in the debates. Don't be naive.

GE/MSNBC the war profiteers, Kucinich the anti-war candidate. It's no surprise why Kucinich was not allowed in the MSNBC debate.

I say let Nader and anyone else with strong grassroots support into the debates.

The debates are a complete joke now anyways. All Clinton and Obama are doing now is acting out there parts. Let them sweat it out and actually make them tackle the issues and put aside the petty arguments of alleged plagiarism and if whether Obama has the correct amount of Patriotism!? (Did anyone see the CNN poll???:rolleyes: ) Let the 3rd and independent parties in, this is after all democracy.
Click to expand...

Sorry. As Dem debates, Dem rules. (Secondly, proof is good. Proooof is goooood.)
 
Nader is not a Democrat. Why the hell should the Democrats let him into a Debate sponsored by the Democratic party for the purpose of choosing a Democratic Candidate.
You might have a case in the debates for the general election,but it would be a weak one since Nader has zero chance of getting elected. He is way far to the left to be a viable candidate.
Like someone said, Nader ranting about corporations is as paranois as Paul ranting about NAFTA.
 
dudalb said:
Nader is a bad joke.
The only people who will vote for him are the hard core lefties who want the US to go totally socialist, and those who think voting for Nader shows how daring and anti establishment they are.
Click to expand...
That's nonsense.

I'd love to see some of the issues Nader will raise addressed by the other candidates. Military spending, for one.

Apparently the media are more interested in the "horse race" and issues of personality. If it takes another voice to raise issues that are important to me, so be it.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
That's nonsense.

I'd love to see some of the issues Nader will raise addressed by the other candidates. Military spending, for one.

Apparently the media are more interested in the "horse race" and issues of personality. If it takes another voice to raise issues that are important to me, so be it.
Click to expand...

And of minor importance to 90% of the people out there.
I doubt this election will turn on Military Spending.
 
Policenaut said:
If anyone saw the interview with Tim Russert it was fairly obvious he didn't like Nader and didn't have much to say to him. I thought it was insulting that Russert basically asked questions that just marginalized Nader. He's got a right to be in the race. Unless we should just get rid of all the small parties and just announce that it is a strictly 2 party system. Screw off if you aren't a Democrat or Republican because we don't care what you think. And this is coming from someone that would never vote for Nader. I think the best part of the interview was at the end when they were going to commercial before switching topics. Usually Russert is talking to the guest and they are smiling and happy but instead Tim is shuffling his papers not saying a word and Nader is just looking around silently wondering why Russert was such an a-hole.

And btw pretty much everything Nader said was true. Russert seemed stunned by a lot of the replies and didn't have any comebacks.
Click to expand...
I would have had a lot of trouble having to sit next to the little slime myself.

( I am not a Nader fan. Used to be, back in the day when he went after important things. But he does not think through the effects/potential effects of things he wants to require being done- and he does not want to work with others to achieve slowly and cannot work well with others.)
 
Axiom_Blade said:
This is a straw man argument.
I don't think even Nader would argue that any random dude should be able to just decide to run for president and be allowed equal debate time with McCain, Obama, and Clinton.

The debate is over what that that "minimum level" of support and organization should be, and why the two major parties get to be the gatekeepers in this process. Conflict of interest much?! Do you think that the Dems are going to allow a third party candidate into the debates, if that person represents a threat to their power? Every election, somebody runs a poll asking if Nader should be allowed in the debates, and a majority always says that they do. The people want to hear what he has to say. The two parties do not want them to hear that.
Click to expand...
People who want to hear Nader have had ample opportunity to. I wouldn't mind having him in a debate for the big boys though - they would rip his out, put a new one in place and have the audience laughing about it.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
So, these concerns aren't relevant...how?

Man, this is seriously the best news I've heard in months!
You guys have no idea how happy I am right now!

Go NADER GO!
Click to expand...


God, no sooner then the Ron Paul campaign dies then we get another Personality cult going.
 
The people want to hear what he has to say. The two parties do not want them to hear that.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of people think Nader is a joke,and don't care what he says.
And it is not like Nader has not gotten plenty of chances to tell the people what he thinks.
And this sounds exactly like what we have been hearing from the Paul supporters.
Get real,guy. Even on the political left, Nader is considered a joke going nowhere.
If you want to take a hard left position, on issues,fine.But find a more effective spokesmen the Nader,who has been remarkably ineffective.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom