Two-party system fears Ralph Nader's candidacy

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Not nearly as big of a concern to me as Obama's pandering and half assed platform. Sorry.

i havent seen blatant pandering from obama...

pandering is railing against wall street for 30 years and investing in it at the same time...

i will address your questions in that other thread... i actually was researching the mining act and all my responses deleted by accident... so it will have to wait

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

i havent seen blatant pandering from obama...

pandering is railing against wall street for 30 years and investing in it at the same time...

i will address your questions in that other thread... i actually was researching the mining act and all my responses deleted by accident... so it will have to wait

No, that's not pandering. Pandering is giving political favors and support to certain industries based on their contributions and then implementing them into your policies.

Abookamongstthemany

dg1979us wrote:

I think Nader has lost his appeal. I dont think its his fault, but I think thats true. Like I said, I voted for him in 04, and there is a good chance I will this year. But, the way he was looked at and treated after 2000 I think really ruined his appeal. Michael Moore and Bill Maher on their hands and knees begging ya not to run doesnt look favorably for a person. Susan Sarandon basically tried to seperate herself from the fact she campaigned for him in 2000. THese are influential people to a Nader type crowd, and I think they helped turn people off of him. I do think a 3rd party could do well, but I think its going to be from the libertarian angle, not Nader. Say what ya want about Obama or Hillary, but they inspire people, for whatever reason. Thats what an election in this country is about. It isnt about issues, its about rallying people around you. And Obama and HIllary both do that. I cant see a wide range of liberal democrats voting for Ralph over either of those two.

To me that doesn't say too much for Maher, Moore or Sarandon. And what you say may be true but it doesn't change how sad it is that people prefer to support someone because of campaign speeches and promises over the actual issues they supposedly care about.

my2hands

In politics, pandering is to portray one's views to fit in line with a certain crowd of voters the candidate is attempting to impress, when often, these are not the candidate's true beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandering

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

In politics, pandering is to portray one's views to fit in line with a certain crowd of voters the candidate is attempting to impress, when often, these are not the candidate's true beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandering

To which I still say Obama has Nader beat hands down. Any word on what's in Obama or his wife's stock portfolio?

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

To which I still say Obama has Nader beat hands down. Any word on what's in Obama or his wife's stock portfolio?

they have provided full financial disclosure...

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

they have provided full financial disclosure...

So how squeaky clean is his? And even if his was, I still have many more problems with Obama that I have clearly stated throughout this forum. Not to mention how weak I view his platform.

PaperPlates

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Not nearly as big of a concern to me as Obama's pandering and half assed platform. Sorry.

Not nearly as big, nor no concern at all??

dg1979us

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

To me that doesn't say too much for Maher, Moore or Sarandon. And what you say may be true but it doesn't change how sad it is that people prefer to support someone because of campaign speeches and promises over the actual issues they supposedly care about.

I completely agree with ya on this. Im not much for Obama or Hillary either and would love to see Ralph do well. And I could be wrong, but I dont think he fairs very well this year.

Abookamongstthemany

PaperPlates wrote:

Not nearly as big, nor no concern at all??

Oh, it's a concern and I've contacted his campaign for an explanation and also even messaged the guy who runs his myspace apge to ask for further info. No reply yet but I'm sure they're swamped after Nader's announcement to run a couple of weeks ago.

flywallyfly

Interesting stuff. Sources seem legit.

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#antiunion
============================================
Amassing millions of dollars and playing the stock market with it:

For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.

Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered.

In 1970, IT&T attempted to merge with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Nader filed a 50 page brief attacking the merger, then SSF sold IT&T stock short. It made almost 10% on its money in 6 DAYS, then closed its position two days before the merger was approved. When pressed by a reporter, Nader said the timing was "mere coincidence" and said he had no control over the investment. However, his sister Laura Nader Millerson was the sole trustee of SSF throughout its existence, and Nader was the sole contributor.

===================================
Busted a union among his workers:

Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."

When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.

According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades…you can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.

stratomaster

I totally support Nader’s right to run, and in a sense I applaud his ideals.
If Nader can get say 10% or even 5%, that says something. That means something. If people want to use their vote to make that statement, that’s their right.
It just seems that people like Nader, would rather spend their lives cutting off their nose to spite their face than get into power and start making the small steps which will make a difference. Seems to be all or nothing. Which so often means nothing.

Abookamongstthemany

flywallyfly wrote:

Interesting stuff. Sources seem legit.

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#antiunion
============================================
Amassing millions of dollars and playing the stock market with it:

For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.

Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered.

In 1970, IT&T attempted to merge with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Nader filed a 50 page brief attacking the merger, then SSF sold IT&T stock short. It made almost 10% on its money in 6 DAYS, then closed its position two days before the merger was approved. When pressed by a reporter, Nader said the timing was "mere coincidence" and said he had no control over the investment. However, his sister Laura Nader Millerson was the sole trustee of SSF throughout its existence, and Nader was the sole contributor.

===================================
Busted a union among his workers:

Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."

When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.

According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades…you can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.

The stocks have already been brought up and Nader does make a point about the non profit groups. You work for those because you want to support a cause. Those groups would go broke especially considering the limited amount of resources they have and need to stay afloat. If you were working for a non profit for money or benefits then I would say you were a bit misguided and should look elsewhere for these kind of perks because they(non profits) are not going to be able to provide them.

Commy

why is it anytime someone comes along that's worth voting for people spend all this energy trying to discredit them in any way they can. it happens with all the candidates, but wtf, why can't people discuss the issues, is it that hard, does it require that much brain power.

beachdweller

no one is thinking of or worrying about Ralph Nadar in 2008.

Abookamongstthemany

beachdweller wrote:

no one is thinking of or worrying about Ralph Nadar in 2008.

You must have missed all the posts saying how a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain and how he cost Gore the election in 2008 and could do it again. Not to mention all the media I've seen spouting the same thing.

stratomaster

There are many things I will knock Nader for. If he really cared for his cause he would form a real party instead of jumping to whatever party will have him. He would stop jumping in every four years to make some noise and begin work at gaining seats at the local and state level. He would spend the four years between elections lobbying for fairer ballot access. All his running does is remind us that these problems exist and that no one, including Nader, want to actually fix them.

What I will not allow people to do is knock Nader for ‘playing spoiler’. Votes are earned - not owed. We still live in America, this is still a democracy, and he still has a right to run. Nader did not cost Gore the election. Gore,The Supreme Court, Jeb Bush, and the dragon lady who certified the election, cost Gore the election. If Al really wanted those votes, he would have worked hard and earned them. Nader did work hard in 2000, and Nader did earn those votes.

So to all my fellow Democrats who believe that Nader stole the 2000 election, I say this. Get down off your high horse, and if you really believe in your party and candidate, then get to work and start campaigning for them and help them earn votes.
It’s that simple.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Nader is going to get even less than he got in 04. Far less.

Commy

A fascist regime is defined as a 1 party system...that is basically what we have to deael with in the United States. Nader is trying to bring democracy to the table, to give us an alternative. Even if he doesn't win (which he knows he wont'), even if he just gets the message across he's done his job. He's trying to give the people the power.

Abookamongstthemany

MrSmith wrote:

Nader is going to get even less than he got in 04. Far less.

I don't think so. There's a strong sentiment of wanting more options and choices in our democracy and a sense of no confidence in the two parties who had did so little for us since they have had power. All that has been achieved as far as real rpogress goes is been won the strong movements from the people who forced our gov't to listen to their demands. The two parties have done as little as they thought they could get by and will continue to do so as long as people remain complacent and apathetic. This view that we have to accept these things we don't like because this is the best we can hope for is ridiculous. I don't think Obama or Hillary's healthcare plan is the best we can hope for. I don't think nuclear power is a good idea. I don't think we should let Bush/Cheney slide for their crimes in office, I don't think we need to expand and modernize our military, I don't think so much of our budget should go to defense, I don't believe the Patriot Act or voting to fund this war was a good idea...and on and on. So, I'm not voting for someone who does.