Talk Elections

Okay, I want to hear from all sides of the spectrum, what do you guys really think of Nader in 2004.  Any opinions of the campaign? his veiws? his goals? Good? Bad?

He ran to piss democrats off...that is all. Had nothing to do with neither candidate being right.

I agree with him on some issues, but in my mind the man is crazy...so I wouldn't have voted for him.

I think Nader ran because he disagreed with both major parties on a number of issues--specifically Iraq.  I think that he sincerely believes that it doesn't make any difference at all which major party is in power.

I think that it was poor strategy to run as an independent, but as he wasn't expecting to win anyway, it probably made sense.  He's never been a member of the Green Party.

I think it was reasonable of the Democrats to challenge his signatures and such as he fought for ballot access.  That's politics; if his signatures weren't legitimate, it's okay to challenge.

However, I remember an incident in Oregon where Nader was trying to get x number of signatures at one event, as an easier way of getting on the ballot.  Reports were that Democrats turned out in high numbers, swelling the attendance so that not everybody who wanted to attend could get in, with no intention of signing petitions.  They were unable to get enough signatures.  If those reports were correct, I think that's dirty pool.

Even though challenging Nader's signatures was legitimate, I still think it's shameful the way both major parties work to make ballot access more difficult for minor parties.  They are putting party ahead of country.  I also think it's ridiculous that when people across the country step into the voting booth to choose a President, not everyone has the same choices.  What sense does that make?

And I have never understood why it's supposed to be Ralph Nader's job to get the Democratic nominee elected.

He's an utterly disgusting piece of crap and worthless excuse for a human being who hasn't done jack sh**t for anyone but himself. In the 60s he lied about the auto industry to increase his stocks in competing companies and the left sadly took him seriously for once. He is just one huge union busting fraud and isn't leftist in any way at all, and hasn't done crap for the left ever. He just needs to shut up and go away forever.

I agree with Ralph on some issues and disagree with him on a lot of issues.

If the Democrats and Republicans would have ignored him, he probably would not have gotten much news coverage. Look at Badnarik, Peroutka, and Cobb.

We may have a Libertarian, Constitution, or Green Party President one day. It probably won't be Badnarik, Peroutka, or Cobb. But when it does happen, that person and the party will owe its gratitude to everyone in the past who helped build that party. Nader ran as an independent. No doubt he did help the Green Party a lot in 2000, but in 2004, he has little if anything to show for his work where as the other candidates at least helped a party grow.

I found this article while searching for some third party news.
http://illuminati-news.com/nader's-truce.htm It says if Nader were to use the coverage he was getting to help the other parties, they could begin to chip away at the R and D's.

The thing that strikes me most about Nader is his sheer arrogance.  Given the choice between Gore and Bush in 2000, Gore was closer to his own views.  Yet he never resented his run or apologised in any way to his supporters for helping Bush to win.

Then, in 2004, pretty much everybody deserted him.  The Green party, most of his closest election strategists and campaign team.  There wasn't a hope in hell he was going to get swing Democratic voters on his side again, which meant he was doomed to an embarrassing defeat.  Yet he still persisted.

I also agree with Andrew on the issue of Nader being used as a 'spoiler' in the swing states.  It really highlighted the dirty tricks used by both main parties, which I think is really ugly politics.

I see BRTD still doesn't want to address the corruptness of the Democrats of being in bed with corporations ("This Convention is brought to you by...") and opts to deflect the issue instead by attacking the messenger. Shame on you.

Better than being in bed with partisan GOP operatives like Nader is. Plus I don't recall the convention being sponsored by Halliburton, which Nader is full of financial links to. Nothing Nader says has any credibility whatseover, period, any statement of his is utterly worthless to me. He is worthless as a person, has never accomplished anything positive, and needs to fade into obscurity forever.

Do you benefit from corporations on a daily basis, or do you live in a poor, backwards country?

Nice straw man, Philip. Does any possible good a corporation MIGHT do, justify their filling the pockets of politicians and thus effectively taking control of government?
As for BRTD, if there ever was an incurable case of cognitive dissonance, this is it. Completely unwilling to discuss any failing of his sacred Party. If the entire planet didn't depend on the Republicans at least being kept SOMEWHAT in line, the Democrats could be utterly wiped off it for all I care.

though i disagree strongly with some of his positions, i like nader a lot!

and nader has the coolest supporters of any politician.

then you'd agree that the Republicans are worse. And Nader accepts support from Republicans. He accepted their help to get on the ballot in Michigan and accepted their donations. And he connections to Halliburton stocks a few years ago. Plus he said flat out in 2000 that he wanted Gore to lose before the election, and now said Gore would've invaded Iraq just like Bush even though Gore was consistently against the invasion. He's a liar and corrupt fool, why should I take anything he says seriously?