Why doesnt Ralph Nader help build a viable 3rd party between elections?

Rhinocerous Surprise

my2hands wrote:

who said anything about compromising ideals?


you guys really stretch things... especially considering he has ran as a Green Party candidate 2 times and officially accpeted the endorsement of the Reform party in 2004. i dont think he has an issue with organized politcal parties. that is exactly what he stands for, an organized voice

So surely the fact that he's running without a party this time says something?

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Maybe he doesn't care for political parties like I already mentioned.

he has run for President 3 times on a political parties ticket


so i am not thinking that the issue

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

i am not really sure what obama has to do wit this thread and my question. but whatever.

that seems to be ralphs only play in the playbook as well

I'm just trying to get what your whole point is? You seem to hold Nader to a higher standard than Obama.

my2hands

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

So surely the fact that he's running without a party this time says something?

um, no, not really


maybe none of the 3rd parties want him? because they see that he just uses them for his agenda


call me crazy

Eliot Rosewater

my2hands wrote:

um, no, not really


maybe none of the 3rd parties want him? because they see that he just uses them for his agenda


call me crazy

crazy.

just kidding. of course the benefit of a party is financing. that's a no-brainer.

Eliot Rosewater

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I'm just trying to get what your whole point is? You seem to hold Nader to a higher standard than Obama.

can't blame anyone for that....

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

he has run for President 3 times on a political parties ticket


so i am not thinking that the issue

They have sought him out not the other way around. And that makes all the difference in the world. Sure he can use the support but he's saying he doesn't wanna have to adapt their platform or at least that's my opinion. And I don't blame him...I wouldn't wanna have to adapt another group's platform, either. Nader has a great set of ideas of his own that he wants to gain attentions for. I don't see a problem with that at all. What's your problem with his approach?

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I'm just trying to get what your whole point is? You seem to hold Nader to a higher standard than Obama.

pretty simple. my point is exactly what i asked in the original post... feel free to refer back to it


why does people questioning Ralph Nader upset you so much? i am being serious? i mean it only took 5 posts for you to attack me when i am asking a very good question in my opinion...

every 4 years it is the same old song and dance from Nader and his supporters... and then as soon as the election is over he is gone with the wind and abandons the "3rd party" movement

Rhinocerous Surprise

my2hands wrote:

um, no, not really


maybe none of the 3rd parties want him? because they see that he just uses them for his agenda


call me crazy

You're crazy.

I think anyone who gives the voters a choice beyond the two main parties should be respected. If Nader feels the best choice he can give the public is by running as an independent, that's his choice. But as far as I can see, the problem isn't with Nader not having a third party - it's with the vast majority of people not looking beyond the other two.

my2hands

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

of course the benefit of a party is financing. that's a no-brainer.

and organization...

Eliot Rosewater

my2hands wrote:

pretty simple. my point is exactly what i asked in the original post... feel free to refer back to it


why does people questioning Ralph Nader upset you so much? i am being serious? i mean it only took 5 posts for you to attack me when i am asking a very good question in my opinion...

every 4 years it is the same old song and dance from Nader and his supporters... and then as soon as the election is over he is gone with the wind and abandons the "3rd party" movement

Nader has never been "gone with the wind". Maybe it's you. Have you considered that maybe you only pay attention every four years...

Abookamongstthemany

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

crazy.

just kidding. of course the benefit of a party is financing. that's a no-brainer.

exactly

Abookamongstthemany

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Nader has never been "gone with the wind". Maybe it's you. Have you considered that maybe you only pay attention every four years...

exactly again

people have posted so many links on what Nader has been doing in the years between elections. But then again, my2hands has said he doesn't read links I post so that might explain the ignorance.

Abookamongstthemany

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

You're crazy.

I think anyone who gives the voters a choice beyond the two main parties should be respected. If Nader feels the best choice he can give the public is by running as an independent, that's his choice. But as far as I can see, the problem isn't with Nader not having a third party - it's with the vast majority of people not looking beyond the other two.

exactly exactly exactly

Eliot Rosewater

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

exactly again

people have posted so many links on what Nader has been doing in the years between elections. But then again, my2hands has said he doesn't read links I post so that might explain the ignorance.

Bottom line is he's ALWAYS busy. He's always working, always writing, always doing what he's always done - trying to make this country and this world a better place.

My2hands - If you're ever concerned that Ralph is "gone with the wind" please visit his site http://nader.org/ to reassure yourself that he's still got your back.

Abookamongstthemany

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why don't you start a viable 3rd party, my2hands? You seem to have all the answers and know what every one else needs to be doing. What's stopping you?

How is this post insulting to you?

Were you insulting Nader, then?

I just think if you're gonna be so gung ho about telling people what they should be doing....you ought to be making an effort to do it yourself. Don't ya think?

It's thinking like 'everyone else should fix these problems for us while we sit back and only criticize' that makes me start to not care for the usual liberal types too much.

Eliot Rosewater

My attempt to answer the original question posed in this thread:

Nader works his ass off non-stop for this country and this world. He works his ass off for you, whether you like or not. Whether you appreciate it or not. Why may it seem that he only challenges the two-party system during election years? Well, isn't that when it's relevant? Would you rather him be campaigning non-stop, year after year, election year or not? I'm sure that wouldn't draw any criticism would it? :rolleyes:

So the simple answer to your question is this: relevance.

Election year or not, he's still doing his thing.

Anon

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Bottom line is he's ALWAYS busy. He's always working, always writing, always doing what he's always done - trying to make this country and this world a better place.

So are a lot of other people.....

from another thread, i have posted in.

You know, I like some of what Ralph Nader says, but I'm sick and tired of him popping up every four years saying he's running for President when he does nothing to build a viable third party in the years between. If he's SERIOUS, why isn't he out there tirelessly stumping for non-Democrat/Republican candidates at State levels? If our two-party system is ever going to change, it's going to happen from the bottom up. It's not rocket science.

It's like he is dangling candy on a stick in front of us. Close enough to see, but not close enough to touch. You're never going to taste it.

Anon

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

My attempt to answer the original question posed in this thread:

Nader works his ass off non-stop for this country and this world. He works his ass off for you, whether you like or not. Whether you appreciate it or not. Why may it seem that he only challenges the two-party system during election years? Well, isn't that when it's relevant? Would you rather him be campaigning non-stop, year after year, election year or not? I'm sure that wouldn't draw any criticism would it? :rolleyes:

So the simple answer to your question is this: relevance.

Election year or not, he's still doing his thing.

I absolutely get and respect most of what you are saying. The only thing i dont agree with is the comment that if he campaigned year after year, that he would draw criticism.

Wouldn't he at least give us a chance? He can be as outspoken as he likes and so can we on as many issues as we like, but if he is not in a position to support or make changes then we are fucked aren't we.

Abookamongstthemany

Pj_Gurl wrote:

So are a lot of other people.....

from another thread, i have posted in.

You know, I like some of what Ralph Nader says, but I'm sick and tired of him popping up every four years saying he's running for President when he does nothing to build a viable third party in the years between. If he's SERIOUS, why isn't he out there tirelessly stumping for non-Democrat/Republican candidates at State levels? If our two-party system is ever going to change, it's going to happen from the bottom up. It's not rocket science.

It's like he is dangling candy on a stick in front of us. Close enough to see, but not close enough to touch. You're never going to taste it.

How is Nader gonna change the things he rails against by running on a state level where hardly anyone will even hear his message? How many third party guys do you know of that have accomplished this feat you seem so sure than Nader could do? His issues need national exposure and he's going about it the right way to get his messages out to the nation as a whole...not just in one state. I agree with his approach and understand the reasoning behind it. Also, he helps to keep the 2 major parties honest by running in a race with them. He gets to call them out on their contradictions and offer a better choice filled with doable options that the 2 corporate owned parties will never touch because they are waist deep in special interest money and political promises and favors. Do you not see why Nader and other choices are VERY MUCH important in a healthy democracy on a federal level or do you feel that the 2 major parties should run uncontested? What's the real problem here with Nader's choosen approach?