babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Ralph Nader

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Ralph Nader
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 26 February 2007 10:10 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I can’t imagine why Ralph Nader would run again. He has been branded as an egomaniac, blacklisted by the media, plunged into debt by a Democratic Party machine that challenged his ballot access petitions and locked him out of the presidential debates. Most of his friends and supporters have abandoned him, and he is almost universally reviled for throwing the 2000 election to George W. Bush.

I can’t imagine why he would want to go through this one more time. But when Nader hinted in San Francisco that he might run if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee, I knew I would be working for his campaign if he indeed entered the race. He understands that American democracy has become a consumer fraud and that if we do not do battle with the corporations that, in the name of globalization, are cannibalizing the country for profit, our democratic state is doomed....

Nader argues that there are few — he never said no — differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. And during the first four years of the Bush administration the Democrats proved him right. They authorized the war in Iraq. They stood by as Bush stacked the judiciary with “Christian” ideologues. They let Bush, in violation of the Constitution, pump hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into faith-based organizations that discriminate based on belief and sexual orientation and openly proselytize. They stood by as American children got fleeced by No Child Left Behind. Democrats did not protest when federal agencies began to propagate “Christian” pseudo-science about creationism, reproductive rights and homosexuality. And the Democrats let Bush further dismantle regulatory agencies, strip American citizens of constitutional rights under the Patriot Act and other draconian legislation, and thrust impoverished Americans aside through the corporate-sponsored bankruptcy bill. It is a stunning record.


Chris Hedges

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 27 February 2007 05:43 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One statement in support of Nader.

FUCK any democrat who blames Ralph Nader for losing the presidency. Look in the goddamned mirror first and see that the whole party from the executive all the way down to the complete lack of response to an election that was stolen by the so called 'opponents'.

Ralph is the only real option in the coming election (as I'm sure Kucinich is going to get the same treatment).


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 February 2007 07:59 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is a huge difference between Nader and Kucinich. Kucinich ran for the Democratic nomination. He lost. He then wholeheartedly endorced Kerry in the general election instead of trying to sabotage him.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
marzo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12096

posted 27 February 2007 08:23 AM      Profile for marzo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
One statement in support of Nader.

FUCK any democrat who blames Ralph Nader for losing the presidency. Look in the goddamned mirror first and see that the whole party from the executive all the way down to the complete lack of response to an election that was stolen by the so called 'opponents'.
.



It's typical of the cult of narcissism that dominates USA politics. The Democrats are an elitist party and can't tolerate upstarts like Nader and will complain that he 'makes them look bad.' Instead of examining their policies and trying to determine what Nader's supporters demand of their government, they just scapegoat Ralph Nader because it's easier than being honest with themselves, and with the people of the USA.

From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 February 2007 08:31 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Democrats are not a "party" at all, they are a collection of Independents who are all free to vote any way they wish on any issue. There is no such a thing as party discipline in the American system

The US has a de facto French style two round process. Anyone from the centre right to the far left competes to be the Democratic nominee. Then anyone from the centre right to the far right competes to be the GOP nominee. Then they have a final face off.

Given that Nader got a measly 2% of the vote in 2000 and .5% in 2004 it is clear that the % of Americans who actually support his policie sis negligible.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 27 February 2007 08:35 AM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
After 6 years of the Bush administration, anybody who still believes there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is a complete idiot. Of course, that sums up most of the handful of Nader supporters.
From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 27 February 2007 08:38 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Given that Nader got a measly 2% of the vote in 2000 and .5% in 2004 it is clear that the % of Americans who actually support his policie sis negligible.
What is actually clear is that the vast majority of US voters never got to hear about his policies because of the political duopoly supported by the mass media; what is also clear is that the Democrats were successful in mounting legal challenges to keep Nader off the ballot in as many states as possible.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 27 February 2007 08:54 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam T:
After 6 years of the Bush administration, anybody who still believes there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is a complete idiot. Of course, that sums up most of the handful of Nader supporters.
Anyone who thinks that there should only be 2 parties in Federal Election is a complete idiot. It is a bad recipe.

The only difference I see between the 2 is the domestic policies.


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
James Brooks
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13238

posted 27 February 2007 09:00 AM      Profile for James Brooks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
hmmm... Good thing Canada doesn’t stop Political Leaders from entering the debates even though they have millions of supporters. And good thing a mean little man with the initials JL isn’t behind it because he doesn’t want to get creamed in the debates. And good thing I’m not talking about JACK LAYTON!

Also, Fuck anyone who thinks Nader elected Bush! Its called democracy! DEAL!
Exxon elected George Bush! You want to get mad at someone get mad at the Exxon. Or the do nothing democrats. America needs Nader. Because if the democrats get elected it’s just another 8 years before another Bush becomes Prez.


From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 February 2007 09:04 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What is actually clear is that the vast majority of US voters never got to hear about his policies because of the political duopoly supported by the mass media;

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that if Al Gore had run for President in 2000 running on Nader's "platform" he would have been elected? What have you been smoking?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 27 February 2007 09:19 AM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anyone who thinks that there should only be 2 parties in Federal Election is a complete idiot. It is a bad recipe.

What exactly has Ralph Nader done to help build a political party in the U.S? He ran as an independent in 2004. I believe he considered the Green Party a flag of convenience in his run in 2000. I'm familiar with a number of Greens who resented Nader for refusing to help build the party during that election.

quote:
The only difference I see between the 2 is the domestic policies.

You have got to be joking. Just take a look at the debates over Iraq policy.

Unlike I suspect most here, I actually pay attention to U.S elections below the presidential level. The reality is that the U.S has more than 2 political parties: there are also the Green Party, the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. Contrary to what M. Spector says, the fact is the local media (which can be anything from a small community paper to the local section of the Washington Post) profiles these candidates and reports on their platforms. They are usually included in Congressional or other debates as well.

And yet, these parties remain fringe for all that. In most cases, it is probably because they do get reported. They are fringe because they hold fringe views and most Americans regard them as such.

I disagree with Stockholm in regards to the Primaries as compared with the French election first round, but I agree with him on the major parties. The U.S has only two parties, but for most of its history (this has changed a lot with the Republicans under Bush), the elected members of the parties are very independent. Historically, the U.S political system can not be compared to the Canadian party line whipped approach. The reality is that, under the two party system, virtually every credible idea and many ridiculous ones, proposed on any issue has at least one champion in either the Democratic or Republican parties in either the House or the Senate.

So, regarding the views of Ralph Nader. There are 69 Democrats in the House who are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Adam T ]


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 February 2007 10:15 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Americans vote like we do with a FPTP system. They vote so as not to elect a bunch of right-wing whackos while a large percentage of voters stay at home on election day despondent over their choices. And some Americans who do vote refuse to hold their noses to vote for Liberal Democrats. America's plutocracy is even more powerful and tyrannical than our's.

Obama ?. He's not going to buck the hawks either. They need an anti-war party and proportional voting like we need. The MI complex is still running the show down there. The U.S. has been in a state of war, hot and cold, since at least the NSA-NSC.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 27 February 2007 10:18 AM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At least American's (and Canadians) have a choice, unlike in that 'Socialist' haven Cuba.

quote:
America's plutocracy is even more powerful and tyrannical than our's.

No where near as powerful as Castro's plutocracy.

I don't see why anybody should care what Fidel thinks about this when he's made it clear that he's happy if a country has only one political party as long as that party supports policies that he also supports.


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 10:22 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
There is a huge difference between Nader and Kucinich. Kucinich ran for the Democratic nomination. He lost. He then wholeheartedly endorced Kerry in the general election instead of trying to sabotage him.


Well that's nothing in comparison to Kerry's treachery in trying to sabotage Bush's presidential bid!


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 27 February 2007 10:30 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I care what Fidel thinks. It is true that support of Castro and support of elections in Canada are not exactly in synch.

That is also true, for example, when one supports Iran in everything they do, yet believes in equal rights for women here.

But the fact that a contradiction exists doesn't mean that a person's opinions have no value. It usually means that they implicitly believe that third-world countries are to be held to a different standard than developed countries.

If Fidel were calling for a Castro dictatorship in Canada, I'd be very alarmed. Presumably, his support for proportional representation here in Canada is a matter of principle, not just convenience.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 February 2007 10:35 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam T:
At least American's (and Canadians) have a choice, unlike in that 'Socialist' haven Cuba.

Our voter turnout in the last two elections were 60 and 64.9 percent. Yankee voter turnout is even worse. Democracy rates a C grade in Canada at best since FTA and NAFTA were rammed through parliament. The truth is, Cuba has higher voter participation.

And a lot of those who do vote are cynical of our plutocracy but vote anyway out of fear of another Mulroney. We've had more phoney majorities in Ottawa than real ones as two old line parties have swapped power back and forth since the time of the Tsars in Russia. Democracy? In Canada ? Who are you kidding besides yourself ?.

Thanks Jeff. PR could be the answer to plutocracy and unfair trade deals. It could be. If they don't hamstring democracy in Canada with North American Union beforehand.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 27 February 2007 10:41 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam T:

You have got to be joking. Just take a look at the debates over Iraq policy.
.....
So, regarding the views of Ralph Nader. There are 69 Democrats in the House who are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Adam T ]


yeah exactly. How many of these people voted against the lies in the first place?

How many of these people voted against the draconian Anti-terrorism bill?

How many of these people voted FOR equal marriage?

Yeah, right, 1-2 per bill.

CALLING yourself progressive and BEING progressive are two very different things.

But then, you probably get suckered into voting Liberal if you believe these guys.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 27 February 2007 10:43 AM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, I care what Fidel thinks. It is true that support of Castro and support of elections in Canada are not exactly in synch.
That is also true, for example, when one supports Iran in everything they do, yet believes in equal rights for women here.

But the fact that a contradiction exists doesn't mean that a person's opinions have no value. It usually means that they implicitly believe that third-world countries are to be held to a different standard than developed countries.


Jeff, that is actually, in my opinion, a fair and pretty perceptive observation. I guess I would take issue, though, at least with many of the people on this board, whether they are supporting different standards for Iran and Cuba because they are '3rd world countries' or whether it's because these are two nations that stick it in the eye of the U.S.

quote:
We've had more phoney majorities in Ottawa than real ones as two old line parties have swapped power back and forth since the time of the Tsars in Russia. Democracy? In Canada ? Who are you kidding besides yourself ?.

So, in other words, Canada doesn't have a 'real democracy' because we don't vote into power the parties that Fidel wants to see elected.


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 February 2007 10:54 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cubans have avoided becoming another Puerto Rico. I wish I could say the same thing about Canada but cannot. We're being absorbed whether we like it or not apparently. How did you vote on deep integration and NAU, Adam ?. And why does Stephen Harper feel that Canadians don't need to know about SPP meetings with Pentagon officials and CEO's of multinationals friendly with our autocratic old line governments, this one elected with just 24 percent of the eligible vote ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 February 2007 11:00 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The truth is, Cuba has higher voter participation.

How can there be "voter participation" in a country with no free elections?

Its common knowledge that in Cuba there are Stasi-style secret police informers on every block. If you don't show up at the polls and vote for the one and only name on the ballot, your son or daughter gets expelled from university and you don't get any ration coupons for the following month.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 27 February 2007 11:17 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
It usually means that they implicitly believe that third-world countries are to be held to a different standard than developed countries.

I cut Cuba some slack not because it is a "3rd world country" but because it has been under constant infiltration and sabotage and economic seige--low level and high level warfare launched from the US.

You may have noticed the curtailing effect on civil liberties justified by the one 911 attack on US soil.
Try to imagine what the US state of "civil liberties" vis a vis "security measures" would be like if it was under siege the way Cuba has been.

Lastly, the greatest assault on civil liberties being practiced in Cuba is occurring in the US occupied Guantanamo
Bay.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 27 February 2007 12:19 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:

Lastly, the greatest assault on civil liberties being practiced in Cuba is occurring in the US occupied Guantanamo
Bay.


Of which both non-Nader parties haven't done anything to stop. They are the same in intent, same as the liberals and conservatives, they just more at differenet speed.s


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 February 2007 12:31 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Meanwhile, any American citizen can stand in the middle of of Times Square reading passages from the Communist manifesto all day and nothing will happen to them. I know people who have walked around major American cities wearing t-shirts that say "Bush = Terrorist" and nothing happened to them (apart from a few people saying "right on!").

In Cuba, you can be jailed for even being seen talking to a foreigner and there are secret police everywhere jailing people for the slightest lack of enthusiasm for the Castroite personaility cult. How long do you think someone would last wearing a "Castro = Terrorist" t-shirt in havana before getting jailed for life?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 27 February 2007 12:41 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it would be wonderful if the US had a third party. After all if we didn't have a third party we wouldn't have health care etc., etc.

But I question Nader's sincerity, or, at least tactical smarts. Where was he in the presidential off-season? I think after the first run, while there was resentment against him, there was an equal amount of good will and hope that he could build a real third party. But, like Perot, in the subsequent 4 years, where was he? Why didn't he take a run for a congressional seat? He had a national organization and volunteer base. If he grabbed one seat as an independant that'd be a helluva base to grow a national party.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 February 2007 01:00 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
If you don't show up at the polls and vote for the one and only name on the ballot, your son or daughter gets expelled from university and you don't get any ration coupons for the following month.

Hmm, sounds like our Liberals and how they dole out government contracts to friends of the party.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 27 February 2007 01:19 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I know people who have walked around major American cities wearing t-shirts that say "Bush = Terrorist"

Now why don't you put that T-shirt on, go to Iraq, and walk past some of the US occupying "soldiers of democracy". Do report back.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 27 February 2007 01:20 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Seriously, you guys want to have another derailing threat about Castro, go ahead, last ime I checked this was a Nader thread.

quote:
But I question Nader's sincerity, or, at least tactical smarts. Where was he in the presidential off-season? ...

Minkepants, he was busy touring, writting, lobbying, being a protestor, being an activist, sending out press releases to the media abour corporate lies, and generally being IGNORED by the MSM. Sure you can fault him for not running for smaller positions, but the battles he has getting on the presidential ballots are costly enough, he may not have the funding with this.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 27 February 2007 01:56 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't care about statements of principle from Nader; the bottom line is: the world would have been a healthier, marginally saner world, under Gore, and a lot less people would have had their lives destroyed.

Nader knows he has no chance of winning, none, zip. I'm not saying he is an agent of the Republicans but at least THEY knew what they were doing when they gave money to his campaign.

If he was just interested in getting the message out, he would be taken more seriously if he was not playing this very destructive, self-absorbed game.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 February 2007 01:59 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, this is a Nader thread. And a few million American voters vote for him and don't care about strategic voting. And millions more would vote for Nader if they weren't afraid of inadvertently allowing a lunatic right-wing fringe of about 36 percent of American voters to elect the elephant party.

The U.S.A. has been a nation of some percentage of voters who vote out of fear since the formation of NSA and security state in America. Americans are adrenaline junkies taught to fear everything from the colour red to people with turbans. And about half of them are fearful of a bunch of right-wing whackos winning power without winning the true popular vote in America. And our two old line parties want to give away our sovereignty to an American corporatocracy without so much as a vote on the matter.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 02:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:
I don't care about statements of principle from Nader; the bottom line is: the world would have been a healthier, marginally saner world, under Gore, and a lot less people would have had their lives destroyed.

There is absolutely no historical evidence that Democratic governments are any less billigerent than Repubican ones. In fact the history show that they are "tag team" not opponents. The entire groundwork for the attack on Iraq was a Democratic venture, largely concieved of by Democrats, and executed by Democrats, who of course even had the military draw up comprehensive military invasion plans and occupation plans, albiet ones ignored by Rumsfeld et al. The dispute, as you see, is not in the objective, but manner of its execution.

The entire Clinton period was one of build up and assertion of sanctions specifically aimed at undermining the ability of the Iraqi army to fight, both in a military sense but also in terms of its morale.

In fact the precedent upon which the Bush administration justified its unilateral, non-UN sponsored attack upon Iraq, supposedly to enforce UN resolutions that the UN was incapable of enforcing itself, is also an invention of the Democrats who used Human Rights concerns of the "international community" as pretext for attacking sovereign Serbia also without a UN use of force mandate, using NATO as its instrument.

What is NATO if not a "Coalition of the Willing?" It has no more legal standing as far as the UN is concerned than the present occupiers of Iraq. Truthfully, NATO probably has less legitimacy* as the self-appointed broker of the national issues of the Balkans, than Bismark's 1878 Congress of Berlin.

Colin Powell's use of an internationally accepted bedrock Human Rights issue (for Weapons of Mass Destruction read Nuclear Non-Proliferation) as the sailent Causus Beli used to justify unilateral intervention, is merely an echo Madeline Albrights earlier use of another internationally accepted Human Rights issue (mass ethnic cleansing.) Niether charge could be proven to have any objective validity.

In other words the only real observable difference between recent Republican adminstrations and recent Democratic ones (was it not Jimmy Carter who unleashed Al Queda in Afghanistan?) is that people on the "left" accept the justifications espoused by Democrat interventionists, while rejecting the ones made by the Republicans.

quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:
Nader knows he has no chance of winning, none, zip. I'm not saying he is an agent of the Republicans but at least THEY knew what they were doing when they gave money to his campaign.

This is the Liberal arguement for suggesting that the NDP fold.

* I say less legitimacy because in the original conference, Russia was a partner to the arrangements, and representatives of the Balkan countries were at least allowed to officially sit at the table, for whatever that was worth. None of these things could be said about NATO's "peace-making."

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 February 2007 02:39 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
There is absolutely no historical evidence that Democratic governments are any less billigerent than Repubican ones. In fact the history show that they are "tag team" not opponents.

Exactement. And we have our own tag team duo passing the torch back and forth in Ottawa since the Tsar's security forces were policing bread lines in Moscva!. "Tag team" That's good.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 27 February 2007 02:55 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that if Al Gore had run for President in 2000 running on Nader's "platform" he would have been elected? What have you been smoking?
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that that is a reasonable interpretation of what I said? What have you been smoking?

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 February 2007 03:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, Al Gore didn't get elected on his own plaform. It is hard to say what a more radical program, also backed by the gianormous democratic publicity machine might have done, now, is it?

They might have lost, but at least they would have lost with honour. In anycase 'platform' had little to do with Gores loss, as the Florida vote was rigged, as we all know. But of course lets attack Nader, and forget about the election fraud on behalf of the Republicans -- the left, as they say is its own worst enemy.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 February 2007 03:34 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And not only do our plutocracies rely on a dated electoral system that results in autocratic duocracy, the far right has to resort to stealing elections on top of it. We'll win a PR system at some point after our constitution is re-written to eliminate any and all chances for democratic ownership and control of the economy. We'll end up voting for administratorships with maybe the power to collect taxes on behalf of the corporatocracy and fund wars of conquest.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 27 February 2007 03:45 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
the battles he has getting on the presidential ballots are costly enough, he may not have the funding with this.

Look, this isn't a personal attack on you, or even Nader, it's a critique of how he's tactically foolish. If he wants to set up an alternative third party in the US then what's he think, it's gonna be a snap? The Greens in Canada are pretty useless, but at least they've stuck with it for enough election cycles to become a viable party. If just running in Prez elections was enough to build a party he wouldn't have gone from several percent to half a percent.

And ethically he's spent. Getting Republican operatives to gather petition names for him? WTF is that?


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 27 February 2007 06:12 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not a fan of Nader the politican (I like Nader the lobbyist). First of all, he fails to see that there is a significant difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Yes, it is true that for the last, oh, 13 years or so that the Democrats have been far too afraid of losing thier shot at power to take any principled stand on anything. Yes, it is true that the Democrats are far, far more liable for losing the presidency the last 2 elections than Nader ever was. Yes, it is true that the Democrats are use undemocratic methods to ensure that no third party ever becomes viable in the US, especially ones that would be to thier left.

But would the world with Gore in the Oval Office be the near same as the world we know today? No.

In any case, if I were an American, I'd vote for the Democrat (assuming he's not a DINO) in a competitive race and simply the best candidate in an uncompetitive one.


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 27 February 2007 06:53 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Al Gore was the Vice-President of the United States for eight years. He was in a much more influential position than Ralph Nader will ever be in. But what did Gore accomplish? Fuck all.

You start off by saying there's more of a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans than Nader realizes (as if that's relevant to anything), but then you don't explain that remarkable statement. All you do is offer three sentences criticizing the Democrats followed by a ludicrous rhetorical question.

Since you saw fit to raise the subject yourself (and derail the thread, by the way), the least you could do is give a shred of supporting evidence for your opinion. Or maybe you don't have any.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 27 February 2007 07:32 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
C'mon, accusing greeny of derailing the threads a bit rich, no? We're discussing Nader. Is Gore not supposed to come up?

I've got a couple. One of the first things Bush's a dministration did was seek to revise acceptable levels of mercury in drinking water. Gore said he would have signed and implemented Kyoto.

Maybe he would have worked as hard implementing Kyoto as Chretien did. Maybe he would have relaxed mercury standards. Hard to know. He didn't win.


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 27 February 2007 07:55 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If Nader had any significant use, he'd become a lobbyist again, or a Democrat. Since the possibility exists for him to re-enter politics, he ought to attempt to move the party to the left, by participating in the primary/caucus process as opposed to running (and horribly failing) again. The fact of the matter is that the US system is not designed to allow third party representation, as such, if one wishes to change the political discourse, one needs to take over one of the two main vehicles that can actually do that and have an actual effect on political discourse. That's how the far-right was able to get so much sway in the Republican Party, and that's how the left is going to have to do it. Ralph Nader's quixotic quests will have no effective, or tangible benefits because he can't get elected. Yet at the same time progressive Democrats, winning through the primary system can. Or at the very least have respectable showings.

If Nader where to use his skills to support a group like the CPC I'd say he'd have some tangible benefits on public discourse. One could say that the caucus had all but one or two members supporting the war in Afghanistan, and the Patriot Act, but considering the political climate and lack of support those congresspersons have had this isn't pretty suprising. Besides, if you take a look at the link Adam T provided, the policy prescriptions are pretty much where the NDP is. And most, if not all, of those members have probably reversed themselves on things like the PATRIOT act. Of course that's probably too right wing for half the people on this board, but still, it's reasonable enough for me, and most mainstream progressives. Nader's runs for the Presidency, as exciting as they are if you like good old fashion drummings, aren't particularly useful. If he couldn't get over 3% when the far-right had never been in control of every branch of government, he won't get more than that when the American people have had experience with that. Moderate to liberal to progressive Americans just won't want to deal with that again. If one takes a look at the American political process the great left hope, well progressive anyways, is through supporting progressive candidates in primary processes at various levels against conservative, or centre-right ones. And through supporting progressive media, and organizing a progressive movement and institutions that can counter the strength of the reactionary conservative one and it's echo chamber.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 February 2007 08:04 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree 100%!!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 February 2007 08:37 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[QB]Al Gore was the Vice-President of the United States for eight years. He was in a much more influential position than Ralph Nader will ever be in. But what did Gore accomplish? Fuck all.QB]

That's true. What did the Democrats do for the environment over two terms besides SFA ?. It's an inconvenient truth along with the fact that the Democrats did zip to alleviate poverty among lowest incomes in America during the mini boom of the roaring 90's.

Americans vote so as not to elect right-wing whackos, just like disinterested and jaded Canadian voters do. FPTP wastes millions of votes and allows a lunatic right-wing fringe to share power with one other party representing maybe a few different rich people and corporate interests. But it's not democracy.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 27 February 2007 08:41 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
FPTP wastes millions of votes

True, but you'd have to take the crunchy with the smooth, to quote Billy Bragg. Several million of those votes that get wasted are in Alberta, where tory support runs at 70% so a Prop system would mean at least a few more tories, no?


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 February 2007 08:52 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by minkepants:
.. so a Prop system would mean at least a few more tories, no?

I think fairvotecanada.org said that across Canada, there would be something like 10 fewer Tories, 12 fewer Liberals, half as many Bloc separatist MP's, and about 25 more NDP MP's.

But the Tories should fair better against what have been successive Liberal strangleholds on power in Ottawa with PR. But they would have to put up with more NDP'ers in Ottawa to break the Liberals.

It's my opinion that the Tories prefer the company of Liberals, even if it means accepting opposition status. The two old line parties have more common interests than any two other parties. It's the nature of our plutocracy in Canada, and duocracies are typical with FPTP.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 28 February 2007 06:43 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The reason Nader mentioned Clinton in the context of possibly running is that he knows there are a lot of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who can't stomach the thought of the Clintons returning to the White House. There will be a market, so to speak, for him should Clinton be the nominee. If she's not, I wouldn't expect him to run.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 28 February 2007 08:08 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
If Nader had any significant use, he'd become a lobbyist again, or a Democrat. ..... The fact of the matter is that the US system is not designed to allow third party representation, as such, if one wishes to change the political discourse, one needs to take over one of the two main vehicles that can actually do that and have an actual effect on political discourse. .....If Nader where to use his skills to support a group like the CPC I'd say he'd have some tangible benefits on public discourse. One could say that the caucus had all but one or two members supporting the war in Afghanistan, and the Patriot Act, but considering the political climate and lack of support those congresspersons have had this isn't pretty suprising. Besides, if you take a look at the link Adam T provided, the policy prescriptions are pretty much where the NDP is. .....

So, go back and look at US political history, you'll see that there's been a number of third parties that have had a large effect on the election outcomes. One of them being the 'reform' party that according to some people 'split' the right and allowed Clinton into the office. And there was also the Dixie party (something like that) that picked up a number of states for president ( I think this was the 30's). So saying that third parties aren't possible is a lie.

As for the CPC, if they'd shown ANY shread of credibility when it comes to standing up for their principles I might agree with you, but saying you're a leftist on paper and then running off to vote on bombing more brown people because of some CLEAR fabrication by the white house is complete bullshit, and the CPC deserves as much respect from us as the Liberal part of Canada.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 28 February 2007 09:40 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
First off the Dixiecrats, like Strom Thurmond, where still Democrats. They where never a true 'third party'. And once they decided that the Democrats where too liberal, and decided that they where voting with the Republicans most of the time anyways, they just became official Republicans. As for George Wallace, had he not been paralysed in the early 70's would have ran again for President, only this time by going through the Democratic primary process instead of on his ticket that didn't have anyone below him. He was a Democratic governor, and even with him in the race, Nixon still won. Secondly while Ross Perot was an independent, he only ran on the Reform Party ballot line in certain states, but it wasn't a true third party, because they never elected or even more importantly attempted to elect anyone below the Presidential level. It wasn't a movement, it was a vanity candidacy. Also, you'll note that the first two, Thurmond and Wallace were reactionary right-wingers, who played on racial hatred, and social divisions. Whereas Perot was just a cooky right-winger who played on economic concerns. None of them where the slightest bit left.

The last time any third party leftist, or left-ish Presidential candidates had any success was back when the Socialist Party, or Progressives, were around in the 1900's to 1920's. And the Progressives were pretty reactionary socially anyways, so they don't really count. Basically the point is that the two Party's have infrastructure that pretty much crowds out third party challengers, that don't sustain their movements once they as individuals go away. If they aren't going to try and use that infrastructure, the infrastructure will be used against them.

As for the CPC, I never said they were leftists, at least not in a babble sense, I said they where on the left. So I'll try to make the distinction now. There isn't really any elected leftists in the US. As for saying 'obvious' lies, well everything is obvious in retrospect. But the thing is that there really wasn't anyone, anywhere, except the occasional individual rep who voted against invading Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure that a strong majority, if not all of the CPC, voted against invading Iraq.

[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 28 February 2007 10:03 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
As for saying 'obvious' lies, well everything is obvious in retrospect. But the thing is that there really wasn't anyone, anywhere, except the occasional individual rep who voted against invading Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure that a strong majority, if not all of the CPC, voted against invading Iraq.

So, you agree, splinter or third party (whether true third party representations or not) offerings have made some differences.

Anyway, as for the 'obvious lies' yes, unless you were only listening to the MSM back when they were spreading the lies, you could find a massive amount of information that directly contradicted the White house (See Joe Wilson, Scott Ritter). It was pretty damned clear back then, and those of us who were saying so and being called 'naive' have still yet to be publically vindicated in the media. But then, why would we trust anything they say...


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 28 February 2007 11:26 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd agree that they can have an effect, but that effect is fleeting, and Nader won't have much of an effect, other than play spoiler, because he's a lone wolf. And like I said, it seems like the most successful ones are the hard-right ones, who have the ability to self-finance, or play on racial hatred and use existing party machinery. If you look at Thurmond and Wallace, the southern Democrats where mostly behind them.

[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 28 February 2007 12:01 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But if you go and talk to the vast majority of people who voted for Nader and you'll find people who would have eitehr stayed home, or voted for an independant.

He wasn't a spoiler, Gore was his own spoiler.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 28 February 2007 12:05 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There aren't really any elected leftists in the United States.

There are degrees of leftism and rightism. If you were to calibrate your political spectrum to say that Stephane Dion was bang in the middle (bear with me here) you would have a one or two congressment who are solidly left(Bernie Sanders comes to mind) a good sized handful democratic congressmen and senators that are centre-left (the Progressive Democratic caucus, and the rest of the democratic party split 30-70 or 40-60 between the centre and centre right. The republicans are split 50-50 between the right (like Harper) and the far-right. Democrats have been nominating centre-rightists for president for the last 15 years, because in thier minds, they are more electable (untrue).

quote:
Originally posted by minkepants:

True, but you'd have to take the crunchy with the smooth, to quote Billy Bragg. Several million of those votes that get wasted are in Alberta, where tory support runs at 70% so a Prop system would mean at least a few more tories, no?


No. PC support in this province ran 55% in the last election, and roughly 70% of the legislature is made up of PCs. FPTP will always do such a thing, especially with more than one opposition party on the other side of the spectrum.

[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 28 February 2007 12:22 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure I understand your numbers, are you saying that it's 30-70 or 40-60 far left to centre/centre right to far right?
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 February 2007 01:07 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And no federal party won more than 24 percent of the eligible vote in the last election. The CPC elected an all-time low number of MP's across major Canadian cities.

I think PR would result in gradual disappearance of the Liberal Party. We'd likely end up with conservatives and labour(NDP here) batlling it out in elections where at least another ten percent more Canadian voters show up at the polls, like New Zealand.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca