Ralph Nader

24567…14

Comments

  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    flywallyfly wrote:
    Say Nader wins with 35% of the vote (McCain has 34% and the Democrat has 31%). 35% is not the will of the majority of the nation PLUS the Dems and Republicans in Congress know that 35% didnt vote for their party anyway so I dont believe they would yield to Nader's ideas (or any other third party President). That is why I think change has to start in Congress with a viable third party to get anything done. A mere 5% representation in Congress by a third party (because the numbers are so close between the two parties) would force the other two parties to form a coalition with it to enact some of the small party's ideas if they want their own ideas brought into law. This occurs in many European parliaments and is the best way for a small party to gain power and enact progressive agendas.

    And I say we can do both. The problem is, most americans just aren't paying enough attention to the congressional races and then they generally don't get nearly the amount of coverage or stressed importance from the media. So, I think it's best to put yourself where people are paying the most attention at the moment to further your cause. Polls have shown americans are overwhelmingly in favor of Nader's ideas but he doesn't have the clout, corporate sponsorship or media coverage to get his message to the masses. Now he always get people's attention when he runs for president. He brings ignored issues into the spotlight and helps to guide the major candidates towards his ideas or face losing votes. Him running is a good thing, it keeps the others more honest and gives a voice to those of us who the system ignores. Win or lose Nader should run. If he won, I think he would do very well. Just look at his accomplishments listed in the link I gave earlier. he fought the odds and the powers that be to gain those goals too...he doesn't back down from an uphill battle. I have no doubt Nader would get the job done. It would be a welcome change to the elected officials in our gov't now who don't address the needs and concerns of the people...they only pander and promise the sky on election years and then spend their terms falling far below expectations, to where we don't, as a country, even expect them to do anything anymore, to do their job and represent our voices. I can't keep supporting such a sorry, broken system. I want real change.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Maybe we'll get some answers to these questions, too. Anyone?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUTkg-zt6S8
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I answered your question. I can make another thread for mine if you'd rather.

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5276934&postcount=8

    i wasnt harping you for the answers, i respect your answer... i dont want to pick a fight with ya :D
  • dontloseyourheat
    dontloseyourheat Posts: 483
    flywallyfly wrote:
    Say Nader wins with 35% of the vote (McCain has 34% and the Democrat has 31%). 35% is not the will of the majority of the nation PLUS the Dems and Republicans in Congress know that 35% didnt vote for their party anyway so I dont believe they would yield to Nader's ideas (or any other third party President). That is why I think change has to start in Congress with a viable third party to get anything done. A mere 5% representation in Congress by a third party (because the numbers are so close between the two parties) would force the other two parties to form a coalition with it to enact some of the small party's ideas if they want their own ideas brought into law. This occurs in many European parliaments and is the best way for a small party to gain power and enact progressive agendas.

    Why is this specific to Nader? This is a problem that every president has to deal with.
    "Don't lose your inner heat...ever" - EV 5/13/06
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Maybe we'll get some answers to these questions, too. Anyone?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUTkg-zt6S8


    in this thread i was hoping for more of HIS agenda and ideas...


    not even anything from when he ran in 2000 or 2004? i mean whats going on here folks... :rolleyes:
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    i wasnt harping you for the answers, i respect your answer... i dont want to pick a fight with ya :D

    Oh c'mon, I've been looking for a little scuffle all day!

    Grrrr

    ;)
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    in this thread i was hoping for more of HIS agenda and ideas...


    not even anything from when he ran in 2000 or 2004? i mean whats going on here folks... :rolleyes:


    But it's the same. He still backs a single payer plan.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • flywallyfly
    flywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    dontloseyourheat wrote:
    Why is this specific to Nader? This is a problem that every president has to deal with.

    Nader would have both parties against him, not just one.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    flywallyfly wrote:
    Nader would have both parties against him, not just one.

    Why? Just because he's not a member of their party? Isn't that a bit silly? I think he would bring to the table issues both parties could work with him on.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Some of his non profits have unionized, actually. And the case of Nader's union busting was brought out by two employees who had been fired already for running an article in which Nader hadn't approved yet. So it's their word against his...and they were disgruntled employees.

    Also, as you well know, non profits have tight resources...even if Nader did bust up a union inside a non profit it is understandable bc how else is he going to keep these groups afloat with such limited resources. They are non-profits for a reason...because they aren't about making money, they are in place to further a cause. I posted a nice piece about the struggles of non-profit groups with unions which didn't get any respones.

    not only that but the only source i could find was the guy who had been fired (then filed for a union)...on his blog a girl posted saying she was fired w/ him and she still voted for nader in 2000.

    did your research turn this up as well, my2hands? you said you were gonna do more reading on it

    but my favorite part was his complaint:
    "Ralph would sometimes call asking me to work on sunny weekend days."

    boofuckinghoo
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I've already said he hasn't laid about specifics just yet on his site but he did just announce last month. And looking at his past accomplishments, I have complete confidence that he knows how to get the job done. His direction and stance on the issues that are the most important to me is enough for now because the other guys aren't even addressing them. He has a record long and true of getting the job done and putting the people's interests on top.

    Do you think Nader is incapable of being President even after seeing his resume of leadership and victories for the common man? How is Nader less qualified than Obama? What has Obama done for the american people? I think Nader is much MORE qualified, actually and has proven himself time and time again.


    And what good is Obama's 'plans' when he has a history of saying one thing and then doing/voting another way?

    And what did you think about Nader single payer plan, again?


    'And what good is Obama's 'plans' when he has a history of saying one thing and then doing/voting another way?'

    or not bothering to even vote like the fisa issue, real id....
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    my2hands wrote:
    this thread is NOT about Obama/Clinton/McCain...


    it is a thread to list Ralph Naders plan, agenda, and ideas as President of the United States... this is for all the Nader supporters to showcase his specific ideas on how to address the issues...

    some have been posted in the 'on the issues' thread you and cornifer ducked out of, remember? cornifer asked for nader's specific health care plan and how much it would cost when i questioned the vagueness of his plan...i gave his exact, detailed plan and he....never came back...then you posted obama's health care plan and asked what i thought, i took the time to read through it all, again, and break down several parts of it w/ my thoughts and asked for yours....to which you never returned...there really was no need to start this thread, you could've just looked there
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    flywallyfly wrote:
    Say Nader wins with 35% of the vote (McCain has 34% and the Democrat has 31%). 35% is not the will of the majority of the nation PLUS the Dems and Republicans in Congress know that 35% didnt vote for their party anyway so I dont believe they would yield to Nader's ideas (or any other third party President). That is why I think change has to start in Congress with a viable third party to get anything done. A mere 5% representation in Congress by a third party (because the numbers are so close between the two parties) would force the other two parties to form a coalition with it to enact some of the small party's ideas if they want their own ideas brought into law. This occurs in many European parliaments and is the best way for a small party to gain power and enact progressive agendas.

    say obama gets 51% of the vote and mccain gets 49% of the vote, really only about 50% or less of the population usually votes, so in reality whoever wins the presidency is not by the will of the majority

    and a loooooot of ppl don't vote b/c they think the 2 party system is pointless and offers them nothing
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • flywallyfly
    flywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Why? Just because he's not a member of their party? Isn't that a bit silly? I think he would bring to the table issues both parties could work with him on.

    Silly?! Of course but we are talking about politicians. There is no way the two parties would work with Nader and therefore willingly help throw away their political power and monopoly. It just wouldnt happen. When do the Democrats and Republicans ever show unity ? -- war, economic woes, and disasters. Otherwise it is all political bickering, all the time.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    my2hands wrote:
    i wasnt harping you for the answers, i respect your answer... i dont want to pick a fight with ya :D


    then what did you mean by
    my2hands wrote:
    you mean your dodge? i am asking an easy enough question...

    what was 'her dodge'?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    my2hands wrote:
    in this thread i was hoping for more of HIS agenda and ideas...


    not even anything from when he ran in 2000 or 2004? i mean whats going on here folks... :rolleyes:


    funny, you demanding his full, detailed plans after he announced, what, maybe a month, if that? while obama's plans are pretty vague and when that is brought up you guys sure do get awfully quiet

    i'd ask what was going on here but i know ;)

    to quote thom yorke
    your mouth moves only w/ someones hand up your ass

    a lot of flowery words is nothing when it lacks substance
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    flywallyfly wrote:
    Silly?! Of course but we are talking about politicians. There is no way the two parties would work with Nader and therefore willingly help throw away their political power and monopoly. It just wouldnt happen. When do the Democrats and Republicans ever show unity ? -- war, economic woes, and disasters. Otherwise it is all political bickering, all the time.


    they pass those pay raises pretty quick

    ha,, but in reality what you said is true, and i refuse to keep on supporting that and just giving in/up and shrugging

    why should i keep voting for and supporting a broken system. vote for obama so maybe they won't bicker! hell, i guess it's as good a reason as any
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • flywallyfly
    flywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    El_Kabong wrote:
    say obama gets 51% of the vote and mccain gets 49% of the vote, really only about 50% or less of the population usually votes, so in reality whoever wins the presidency is not by the will of the majority

    and a loooooot of ppl don't vote b/c they think the 2 party system is pointless and offers them nothing

    I'm just trying to explain why I dont think throwing a 3rd party candidate into the presidency with no congressional backing would work. I'm just using a realistic example of how Washington works. They dont give two shits about the opinions of those who dont vote. That's why young voters (who dont vote in a large percent) get less attention than old voters (who DO vote in a large percentage). If you think Nader (or whatever 3rd party prez) is going to go to Washington and sit at a table with the Democrats and Republicans and sing campfire songs and change the world then that is your right and more power to ya.
  • flywallyfly
    flywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    El_Kabong wrote:
    they pass those pay raises pretty quick

    ha,, but in reality what you said is true, and i refuse to keep on supporting that and just giving in/up and shrugging

    why should i keep voting for and supporting a broken system. vote for obama so maybe they won't bicker! hell, i guess it's as good a reason as any

    I'm not voting for Obama, Hillary, McCain, or Nader.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    flywallyfly wrote:
    I'm just trying to explain why I dont think throwing a 3rd party candidate into the presidency with no congressional backing would work. I'm just using a realistic example of how Washington works. They dont give two shits about the opinions of those who dont vote. That's why young voters (who dont vote in a large percent) get less attention than old voters (who DO vote in a large percentage). If you think Nader (or whatever 3rd party prez) is going to go to Washington and sit at a table with the Democrats and Republicans and sing campfire songs and change the world then that is your right and more power to ya.

    they don't now. but i think if they don't it will only be their downfall. if nader got elected it would be b/c the masses were fed up and wanted real change and if they see congress holding it up, holding up the will of the masses like a single payer health plan which the ppl have showed overwhelming support for....what would be their excuse?? they could say nothing.

    i think many like kucinich, connyers and i think many others would work w/ him, there's a pretty good sized list of ppl who support the single payer health plan, are against the occupation of iraq....

    i think it would help clean the place out a bit and get ppl who are for the ppl but dont have the corporate dollar more of a voice
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way

Categories