Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 11:25 PM Feb 2014

Has Ralph Nader commented on Obama's Executive Order raising the minimum wage?

He wrote an open letter last year.

Ralph Nader to President Obama: It’s Your Sole Decision

Dear President Obama,

June 25th marked the 75th anniversary of the federal minimum wage law in the United States, known as the Fair Labor Standards Act. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed this legislation, his vision was to ensure a “fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work” and to “end starvation wages.”

Seventy five years later, there are 3.6 million Americans working for pay at or below the federal minimum wage. More extensively, thirty million low wage workers are making less today, adjusted for inflation, than they did 45 years ago in 1968. They are working for a minimum wage that does not even reach the federal poverty line for a family of three and they cannot afford basic necessities like food, housing, transportation, and health care.

<...>

Not to mention that increasing wages could help spur on a lagging economic recovery. The Wall Street Journal’s story on June 24, “Slow-Motion U.S. Recovery Searches for Second Gear,” discussed how the slow pace of recovery has left businesses and consumers wary. The Economic Policy Institute, in examining Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Congressman George Miller’s (D-Calif.) legislation to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016, estimated that increasing the minimum wage above $10 per hour would provide $51 billion in additional wages during the phase in period for consumers to increase their spending for their livelihoods.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act into law, he showed courage in the face of the Great Depression as well as considerable opposition and criticism from businesses. Is it not time, after four and a half years, for you to leave your mark, to show Americans what type of President you want to be remembered as, and to be a leader on this issue? Millions of workers throughout the country deserve a minimum wage that, at least, catches up with 1968.

http://www.timeforaraise.org/2013/06/27/ralph-nader-to-president-obama-its-your-sole-decision/

President Obama went one step more and included workers with disabilities, who have been excluded since 1938.

BOOM: Obama signs order to raise minimum wage for federal contractors...disabled workers included!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024489919

I want to thank our President. Doubly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024497604


76 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Has Ralph Nader commented on Obama's Executive Order raising the minimum wage? (Original Post) ProSense Feb 2014 OP
Good question.. Ralph.. Cha Feb 2014 #1
Thanks. ProSense Feb 2014 #4
Kick! sheshe2 Feb 2014 #2
There's no "air time" or print inches in a " well done Obama" nt pkdu Feb 2014 #3
Exactly! Tarheel_Dem Feb 2014 #27
Kick! n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #5
Oh goody...Time for a new round of Nader Bashing Armstead Feb 2014 #6
Leave Nader alone. n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #9
Waahhh!!! Tarheel_Dem Feb 2014 #28
for the win! dlwickham Feb 2014 #30
!!! Tarheel_Dem Feb 2014 #37
Sorta reminds me of myopic Democrat bawling because mean old Ralphie got a few votes.. Armstead Feb 2014 #34
I know, Democrats are so paranoid. Tarheel_Dem Feb 2014 #38
Hehehe... SidDithers Feb 2014 #67
!!! Tarheel_Dem Feb 2014 #69
I'll look for a comment when Walmart has to pay $10.10 per hour Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #7
The OP was specifically about an executive order. n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #8
Which affects about 250,000 people. And that is a good thing but not a great thing. Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #10
No, it affects a half a million initially, and the EO is still what the OP letter is about. n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #11
Actually, it is about raising minimum wage for ALL Federal contract workers. Not just contractors Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #15
What? n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #19
You can't unilaterally modify an existing contract. jeff47 Feb 2014 #25
So GOTV 2014 Cali_Democrat Feb 2014 #12
I don't discuss issues with people who spread outright lies and baseless insinuations. GOTV, indeed. Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #13
I wasn't insulting Democrats or Democratic voters Cali_Democrat Feb 2014 #16
I said, "insult the intelligence of Democratic voters like me." Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #17
Here in Oregon our turn out beats the 'cali' turn out although CA does ok, also we have Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #22
Actually the real "yappers"... Cali_Democrat Feb 2014 #72
Boo-Yah! Tarheel_Dem Feb 2014 #29
Maybe Nader should go lobby Republicans on Capitol Hill Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #59
Ralph's niche in society Jamaal510 Feb 2014 #14
So glad that he's a professional shit stirrer. Do you like your cleaner air and drinking water? Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #18
Bullshit list. I mean, lots of people fought for those issues. They're not Nader "accomplishments." ProSense Feb 2014 #20
You know Pro, I have seen a list of Obama's accomplishments that include items millions Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #23
Obama ProSense Feb 2014 #32
Heartily agree. Ralph Nader is one of myriad gadflies. That is all Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #41
His accomplishments are still impressive. Mojorabbit Feb 2014 #45
When Ralph starts attacking Republicans too, he might become believable again. jeff47 Feb 2014 #26
I guess you were taking naps all those times when he was bashing Republicans Armstead Feb 2014 #36
Thanks for proving my point. jeff47 Feb 2014 #42
I'm sorry i missed your ever-so-subtle role playing satire of thickheadeness Armstead Feb 2014 #43
Yes, one sentence is clearly more than multiple paragraphs. jeff47 Feb 2014 #48
That "couple of sentences" is the basis of the whole article Armstead Feb 2014 #52
Then why only talk about it for a couple of sentences? jeff47 Feb 2014 #57
No to be honest, i tried to avoid this thread Armstead Feb 2014 #60
Perhaps if you actually responded to the arguments are, instead of what you think they are. jeff47 Feb 2014 #63
Truce Armstead Feb 2014 #65
Things have a way of changing after large checks from Koch Brothers. blm Feb 2014 #31
This Is Tongue In Cheek, Right? ProfessorGAC Feb 2014 #33
Just like Martin Luther King was a professional shit stirrer -- and we're all better off for it Armstead Feb 2014 #24
Ralph Nader is not equivalent to MLK. And ProSense Feb 2014 #51
I have decided not to waste my time engaging with you. Armstead Feb 2014 #53
I could not care less what that guy says about anything anymore. Adrahil Feb 2014 #21
Exactly! Tarheel_Dem Feb 2014 #35
Ignore Reality and Regret Armstead Feb 2014 #39
Go sell it to these idiots! Tarheel_Dem Feb 2014 #44
You read it and dont agree with any of it eh? Armstead Feb 2014 #49
I dunno about you.... Adrahil Feb 2014 #47
Personally, I also think it's important that elections be about something more than... Armstead Feb 2014 #54
Then you probably oughta start "Not The Two Parties" Underground? This one is partisan. Tarheel_Dem Feb 2014 #55
Nah. When push comes to shove, I say Support the Democrats Armstead Feb 2014 #66
Doesn't really matter what "you support", you don't own the joint, and therefore don't make the TOS. Tarheel_Dem Feb 2014 #68
Huh...it looks like no one really cares what you think DisgustipatedinCA Feb 2014 #70
That's me! "Caustic"! I stand chastened and rebuked. Tarheel_Dem Feb 2014 #71
So you're one of those the Dems=Repugs kind of guys? Adrahil Feb 2014 #56
I've been around the DU block a lot longer than you have Armstead Feb 2014 #58
Fair enough, but.... Adrahil Feb 2014 #61
Fair enough. I'm not crazy about Nader's behavior either...But... Armstead Feb 2014 #62
Me neither. Why do the same people start threads about him all the time? Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2014 #75
Does what Ralph Nader think even matter? No it does not. Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #40
It's amazing how some Democrats have become so opposed to any talk of acual reform Armstead Feb 2014 #46
No. A bunch of Democrats are tired of Obama being used as whipping boy Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #50
Ah yes, Le Taz Hot Feb 2014 #64
You're against anyone bringing attention to the OP letter and asking about followup? n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #73
ProSense ismnotwasm Feb 2014 #74
Thanks. ProSense Feb 2014 #76

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
15. Actually, it is about raising minimum wage for ALL Federal contract workers. Not just contractors
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:21 AM
Feb 2014

with new or renewed contracts.

Like I said. Good not great.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
25. You can't unilaterally modify an existing contract.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 01:20 PM
Feb 2014

The mechanism for the minimum wage increase is to require that wage in contracts.

One party can't unilaterally change an existing contract. Obama can't just add it. He'd have to renegotiate every contract.

Big deal? Not really. Government contracts aren't that long. When you read about a "ten year contract", it's usually something like a 3-year contract with 7 possible 1-year extensions. The government can use one of those extensions for the minimum wage hike - each extension has some renegotiation.

A new law supersedes the rates in the contract, but Obama can't create a new law.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
12. So GOTV 2014
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:11 AM
Feb 2014

The only way to get a higher federal minimum wage is to get legislation through Congress. That means we need more Dems and less Greenwaldian libertarians like Rand Paul in Congress. Too bad he isn't up for reelection.

People can't have it both ways...they can't cheerlead for people like Rand Paul while supporting a minimum wage increase.

That makes no sense.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
13. I don't discuss issues with people who spread outright lies and baseless insinuations. GOTV, indeed.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:12 AM
Feb 2014

If you think Democrats like you who insult the intelligence of Democratic voters like me is a winning strategy... think again. I've walked hundreds of miles and knocked on thousands of doors in every kind of weather to get out the vote and if I approached any independent with the attitude that you display towards your FELLOW DEMOCRATS, the door would be slammed in my face.

Go blast your blather to someone else.

I am fucking sick and fucking tired of these fucking marginalization tactics.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
16. I wasn't insulting Democrats or Democratic voters
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:22 AM
Feb 2014

I was attacking libertarian politicians like Rand Paul and their enablers..

...like the libertarian idiot who votes libertarian, but cries when his boys block unemployment aid:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024488493

Claiming Rand and his minions don't support minimum wage is not a baseless accusation.

It's a fact.

I bet many of the idiots who vote libertarian also want a higher minimum wage.

There's no fixing that kind of stupid.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
17. I said, "insult the intelligence of Democratic voters like me."
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:42 AM
Feb 2014

Greenwald is not a libertarian. This is not a libertarian track record no matter how you want to spin it. Libertarians DO NOT raise money for Democratic candidates. They just don't. Libertarians do not advocate for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They just don't. Libertarians do not advocate for public health insurance. They just don't. Libertarians do not advocate for public financing of elections. They just don't.

That you attempt to smear a person who advocates for all of the above as a Libertarian Rand minion, is insulting to anyone's intelligence.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#

* opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);
* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);
* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);
* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);
* attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);
* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);
* criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);
* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);
* using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;
* co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardim [sic], JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);
* co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);
 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
22. Here in Oregon our turn out beats the 'cali' turn out although CA does ok, also we have
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 10:08 AM
Feb 2014

a current minimum wage of $9.10 an hour indexed to inflation. So the 'big changes in DC' are not so big for us, our Democrats will of course fight for and then vote for giving the rest of the country what our minimum wage workers already get.
I have DeFazio, Wyden and Merkley representing me in Congress and they are Democrats. Interesting fact about the US Congress, there are two Independent members, Bernie Sanders and Angus King. The rest are either Democrats like me or Republicans. There is not one single solitary Libertarian seat in the Congress. Not one. When I see unhinged yapping about 'libertarians' who don't exist, I assume that the yapper is attempting to create a fuzzy narrative around Republicans they sort of like. A yapper who is trying to tell people that the enemy to defeat is not Republicans in Congress, but rather 'libertarians' is not informing the rank and file voter well. You tell folks to avoid libertarians, well they do that already, not one is in Congress.
Those of you who like to pretend that Republicans are not Republicans do not gain my trust at all. Those of you who wail that Democrats who elect nothing but Democrats are 'libertarians' are full of something, but is sure is not the direct honesty I look for out of Democrats. Call Republicans Republican. If you still want to vote for them, that's your issue, but dressing them up in cute cuddly names to present them to the world as 'not Republicans' is not a tactic I support at all.
When a voters looks at a ballot, their choices will be Democratic and Republican, yet what you say is 'don't vote libertarian'. As if Libertarians are the main competition, as if any of them are elected to office.
I don't get it. Republican is the worst thing that can be said about a politician. I assume that's why you don't like to call them Republicans.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
72. Actually the real "yappers"...
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:53 PM
Feb 2014

...are, for example, the folks who give Obama no credit for being the most pro-LGBT president in history. They give Obama no credit for anything and their goal is to actually get Republicans elected. They masquerade as Dems, but they're really not.

Those yappers are NOT to be trusted.

At. All.

I brush them off, like dirt off my shoulder:

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)
14. Ralph's niche in society
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:21 AM
Feb 2014

is that of a professional shit-disturber, and nothing more. Professional shit-disturbers like him are always quick to pounce on Obama, (rather than Republicans) when things are not going as smoothly as they like, but they strangely get quiet once things start to turn around and Obama adopts ideas that the Left generally supports.
RN may as well become a Republican.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
18. So glad that he's a professional shit stirrer. Do you like your cleaner air and drinking water?
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:51 AM
Feb 2014
List Of Accomplishments:

Instrumental in the passing of the following legislation:
National Automobile and Highway Traffic Safety Act (1965)
Clean Water Act
Clean Air Act (1970)
Co-Op Bank Bill (1978)
Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency (1970)
Consumer Product Safety Act
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Mine Health and Safety Act
Whistleblower Protection Act
Medical Devices safety
Nuclear power safety
Mobile home safety
Consumer credit disclosure law
Pension protection law
Funeral home cost disclosure law
Tire safety & grading disclosure law
Wholesome Meat Act
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
Wholesome Poultry Product Act
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1970
Safe Water Drinking Act
Freedom of Information Act
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Founded or sponsored the following organizations:

American Antitrust Institute
Appleseed Foundation
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
Aviation Consumer Action Project
Buyers Up
Capitol Hill News Service Center for Concerned Engineering
Center for Auto Safety
Center for Insurance Research
Center for Justice and Democracy
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Center for the study of Responsive Law - 1969
Center for Women Policy Studies
Citizen Action Group
Citizen Advocacy Center
Citizen Utility Boards
Citizen Works
Clean Water Action Project
Clearinghouse for Professional Responsibility
Congress Project
Congress Watch
Congressional Accountability Project
Connecticut Citizen Action Group
Consumer Project on Technology
Corporate Accountability Research Group
Critical Mass Energy Project
Democracy Rising
Disability Rights Center
Equal Justice Foundation
Essential Information
FANS (Fight to Advance the Nation's Sports)
Fisherman's Clear Water Action Group
Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
Freedom of Information Clearinghouse
Global Trade Watch
Government Purchasing Project
Health Research Group
Litigation Group
Multinational Monitor
National Citizen's Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
National Insurance Consumer Organization
Ohio Public Interest Action Group
Organization for Competitive Markets
Professional Drivers (PROD)
Professionals for Auto Safety
Public Citizen
Pension Rights Center
Princeton Project 55
PROD - truck safety
Public Citizen's Visitor's Center
Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGS)
Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees) 1004
Retired Professionals Action Group
Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
Tax Reform Research Group
Telecommunications Research and Action Center
The Visitor's Center
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice

http://www.boston-terriers.com/nader-bio.htm

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
20. Bullshit list. I mean, lots of people fought for those issues. They're not Nader "accomplishments."
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 09:45 AM
Feb 2014

LOL!

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
23. You know Pro, I have seen a list of Obama's accomplishments that include items millions
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 10:14 AM
Feb 2014

of others worked hard to achieve for many years, in some cases facing opposition from Obama himself until we persuaded him. Yet you and others list these things as his accomplishment, I have been chided for pointing out that people in uniform and those discharged lead the fight against DADT and that they should be included in our thanks. 'No' say the list makers 'it was all Obama'. 15 years some protested that vicious law. Some were arrested, dishonorably discharged, you name it but some on DU refuse to give them so much as a thank you. Some here have even attacked Dan Choi.
Major accomplishments never belong to one person. Not Barack, not Ralph, not me, not you.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
32. Obama
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 01:33 PM
Feb 2014

"You know Pro, I have seen a list of Obama's accomplishments that include items millions"

...is responsible for policy and signs bills into law.

Nader has never been an elected official. This ("Instrumental in the passing of the following legislation:&quot is bogus to claim as an achievement.

That would be like the NRDC claiming that the administration's new rule for trucks is one of its "accomplishments." It would be like any of the organizations fighting to help pass the health care law claiming that it's one of there "accomplishments."

 

Pretzel_Warrior

(8,361 posts)
41. Heartily agree. Ralph Nader is one of myriad gadflies. That is all
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:06 PM
Feb 2014

Nader's best days were 40 years ago and he's still living off of that reputation despite accomplishing so little since that time.

Mojorabbit

(16,020 posts)
45. His accomplishments are still impressive.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:21 PM
Feb 2014

He probably has done more than anyone on this board dissing him. Just saying.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
26. When Ralph starts attacking Republicans too, he might become believable again.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 01:24 PM
Feb 2014

There was a time Ralph did good. Then the cash started flowing.

Today Ralph spends a lot of time attacking Democrats. He spends no time attacking Republicans.

That disparity is a tad odd, shall we say.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
36. I guess you were taking naps all those times when he was bashing Republicans
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 01:57 PM
Feb 2014

He's an equal-opportunity basher, because -- and many would agree with him -- he believes the GOP has become more evil and the Democrats have become more spineless and corrupt.

Feel free to disagree with his opinion. But at least know what the hell he says.

This article, for example, from The Nation in 2013, is critical of Democrats, but certainly isn't letting Republicans off the hook. It is worth an open minded read:

http://www.thenation.com/article/173240/why-are-democrats-so-defeatist#

Excerpt:

In the last Congress, Democrats were up against the cruelest, most extremist, most corporate-controlled Republican Party in history—a party far too extreme for the likes of Senator Robert Taft or Ronald Reagan. Last fall, the House Democratic Caucus issued a list of sixty outrageous Republican votes. If these bills had not been blocked in the Senate, the legislation would have been very unpopular with most voters.

The list cited GOP votes to protect massive tax breaks for the wealthiest, end the universal Medicare guarantee, jeopardize Social Security, oppose measures that would protect seniors from abusive financial practices, attack women’s health and safety, weaken consumer protections, undermine the Pell Grant program for low-income students, favor corporations shipping jobs overseas at the expense of American workers, slash the food stamp program, weaken protections to ensure that every voter’s vote counts, and allow big oil companies and speculators to drive up gas prices along with a raft of brazen anti-environmental bills that would have despoiled our air, water and soil.

House Republicans even blocked bills to help veterans, including one that would have guaranteed our soldiers’ pay during any GOP-led government shutdown. One can easily imagine how the party of Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson would have eviscerated Republicans who took such an arrogant plutocratic record into the elections of their eras. Today’s Democrats are of a decidedly different ilk.

* * *

Early in 2012, I asked a number of high-ranking House Democrats the same question: “If you believe that on their record this is the worst Republican Party ever, why aren’t you landsliding them?” Their replies, preceded by wistful smiles, ranged from citing the difficulty of regaining gerrymandered districts to big-money support for the Republican Party. But the most candid response came from a high-ranking Democrat, who blurted, “Because we’d raise less money.” In other words, the Democrats are so beholden to their own big-money contributors that they can’t fight on issues that they know have overwhelming public support. Plainly, the House Democrats raised enough money. They benefited from their gerrymandering, too. On the issues, the Democrats had a huge advantage. Yet instead of confronting Republicans in district after district with the vicious Ryan budget and the Boehner Band’s voting record, the Democrats displayed open defeatism.

MORE

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
42. Thanks for proving my point.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:11 PM
Feb 2014

Your example of Ralph attacking Republicans contains minor asides calling Republicans bad things, then goes on at length about how terrible Democrats are.

As I said, he did good back in the day. That is no longer the case.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
43. I'm sorry i missed your ever-so-subtle role playing satire of thickheadeness
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:18 PM
Feb 2014

"... Democrats were up against the cruelest, most extremist, most corporate-controlled Republican Party in history—a party far too extreme for the likes of Senator Robert Taft or Ronald Reagan."

Yes that's a minor aside. Yup. Boy that Ralph sure minces his words to make the GOP look good.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
48. Yes, one sentence is clearly more than multiple paragraphs.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:24 PM
Feb 2014


If the Republicans truly are "the cruelest, most extremist, most corporate-controlled party in history", then why the fuck is there a couple sentences attacking them, and paragraphs attacking Democrats? Why spend so much more time attacking the lesser of evils?

But that's OK, Ralph will disappear again around late November. Then he'll come back out around February 2016. To launch more attacks on Democrats. Then he'll disappear again around late November. Then he'll come back out around February 2018....Nov disappear, Feb 2020 reappear, Nov disappear.......

It's almost like there's some pattern at work. Golly, I wonder why that is.
 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
52. That "couple of sentences" is the basis of the whole article
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:36 PM
Feb 2014

But I guess you'd rather go into crouch-and-defend mode than actually take an open mind about the content.

Okay you win. Things are just ducky. Democrats have made such great headway against GOP obstructionism. Corporations do not have enough power over the political system. Democrats should continue to turn to Big Money to drive their agenda.



I might be able to take opinions like yours more seriously if you actually talked on the subjects at hand, Like if you actually gave your opinion about whether or not Big Money has influenced Democratic positions and behavior too much. Legitimate basis for differences of opinion there.

But noooo. Instead this dissing of critics of the Democratic Status Quo always degenerates into inane American Idol personality chatter.....Ohhhhhh...Ralph is a jerk. Therefore nothing he says has any merit...Ohhhhh, even when he is calling the GOP evil, he is not supportive enough of Democrats, so therefore he must be a GOP stooge.

gimme a break.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
57. Then why only talk about it for a couple of sentences?
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:54 PM
Feb 2014

If the entire point of the article is to talk about how awful Republicans are, then it's rather odd that the vast majority of the article talks about how bad Democrats are.

Okay you win. Things are just ducky. Democrats have made such great headway against GOP obstructionism. Corporations do not have enough power over the political system. Democrats should continue to turn to Big Money to drive their agenda.

Not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is Ralph is using his successes from his "younger days" to support himself today.

Since about 1996, he's tried to make a splash every election year by attacking Democrats. Then he is fairly quiet in the intervening years. 2000 was obviously the largest one, but he did so in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and now 2014.

I don't begrudge the man for trying to make a living, but it's pretty obvious he's not working for himself anymore.

I might be able to take opinions like yours more seriously if you actually talked on the subjects at hand, Like if you actually gave your opinion about whether o not Big Money has influenced democratic positions too much.

That isn't the subject at hand. The subject at hand is Ralph, and the fact that he hasn't said jack shit about Obama doing what Ralph asked him to do. The OP is still right up there for you to look at.

You are trying to turn this into a thread about Big Money in politics.....and very carefully ignoring Ralph's "splash pattern", and the Big Money he eagerly accepted to fund his 2000 campaign.
 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
60. No to be honest, i tried to avoid this thread
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:09 PM
Feb 2014

Nader discussions always devolve into a bunch of useless circular arguments that go round in circles.

But I get sucked in (yet again) because I get soooooo pissed by this larger tendency (old and new) to demonize anyone who does not fall into the pattern of HAPPY UNTHINKING WARRIOR FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Regarding the Op...I don't know whether or not Nader has given his seal of approval to Obama's little gesture to the idea of a livable wage....Nor do I really care.

What i do care about is this framework that has evolved in which people are demonized and marginalized if they are trying to advance liberal-progressive principles but do not fall into the lockstep of a narrowly-defined Corporate Democratic Party Agenda.

So people whose principles or strategies do not conform precisely with those of the Democratic Elite are always wrong on everything? They are to be shunned and cast out?

That's as much of an obstacle to constructive change as any teabagger or GOP.

And it pisses me off, because we keep blowing opportunities to actually be the party that stands for The People and could succeed electorally by standing up for their interests instead of kowtowing the the Morgan Goldman GE Comcast cabals of the world.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
63. Perhaps if you actually responded to the arguments are, instead of what you think they are.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:25 PM
Feb 2014
So people whose principles or strategies do not conform precisely with those of the Democratic Elite are always wrong on everything? They are to be shunned and cast out?

Then why are you replying to me?

I'm not demanding that Ralph line up behind the Democratic party. I'm saying his criticisms should be taken with a grain of salt for three reasons.

First, he seems to be directing his attacks against the lesser of evils. That's odd if his goal is to talk about the evil. He also doesn't follow up with a "good job" or "good start" when something positive happens.
Second, he has an odd pattern where he does this intermittently. He is not trying to draw attention to himself in non-election years.
Third, he did exactly what he is complaining about in 2000 - took "big money". The vast majority of his campaign funding came from Republican donors.

Now, it's theoretically possible that there is some logical reason for those that doesn't involve anything nefarious. But I can't find one. And claiming I'm attacking Ralph because he isn't lining up behind Democrats doesn't help find one.
 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
65. Truce
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:59 PM
Feb 2014

I don't care enough about Nader to follow his schedule of appearances and comments. And I think he was tactically stupid in his full frontal assault on the Democratic Party in the 2000 election.

He is a gadfly. That's his role.

But I agree with 80 percent of his criticisms and observations about the Democratic Party.

You disagree and don'lt trust him.

But we both want Democrats to win. Let's just leave it at that.


blm

(113,043 posts)
31. Things have a way of changing after large checks from Koch Brothers.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 01:32 PM
Feb 2014

Don't know why, it just seems to be true in so many cases.

ProfessorGAC

(64,995 posts)
33. This Is Tongue In Cheek, Right?
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 01:38 PM
Feb 2014

It's hard to believe you seriously believe this list.

And for his next trick, faster than light travel.
GAC

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
24. Just like Martin Luther King was a professional shit stirrer -- and we're all better off for it
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 11:42 AM
Feb 2014

I don't know how old you are, but if it weren't for professional and amateur shit stirrers like Nader, we would be even more under the boot heels of the rich and powerful than we are now.

Nader blew it during the election of Boosh, and he is not astute in the art of conventional politics. He is in some ways an asshole. But that's part of the role of shit stirrers -- to force solutions that are getting smothered by "politics as usual."

If you take off the strange set of glasses of 'progressives" who now bash whistleblowers, activists and other "shit stirrers," you might appreciate that is what has advanced almost any positive progress over the years.



ProSense

(116,464 posts)
51. Ralph Nader is not equivalent to MLK. And
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:28 PM
Feb 2014
Nader blew it during the election of Boosh, and he is not astute in the art of conventional politics. He is in some ways an asshole. But that's part of the role of shit stirrers -- to force solutions that are getting smothered by "politics as usual."

...after making the comparison, you say that?

Ridiculous.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
53. I have decided not to waste my time engaging with you.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:37 PM
Feb 2014

I'm sure you're very disappointed by that.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
21. I could not care less what that guy says about anything anymore.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 10:04 AM
Feb 2014

He cost us a couple of elections. Screw him.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
39. Ignore Reality and Regret
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:04 PM
Feb 2014

Don't like the messenger? I'm not fond of everything he has done either.

But most of his criticisms are on target, unfortunately.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4527851

Tarheel_Dem

(31,232 posts)
44. Go sell it to these idiots!
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:19 PM
Feb 2014

Green Tea Party Loser Idiot #1:


Peace & Freedom Tea Party Loser Idiot #2:


 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
49. You read it and dont agree with any of it eh?
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:27 PM
Feb 2014

Okay you win.

Democratic politicians can do no wrong. Government is working just fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an electoral system totally dominated by the interests of wealthy campaign financiers. Corporations need to have more power to drive the agenda. Democrats need to keep turning to Corporate executives and Wall St. financiers to decide what poor and middle-class Americans need.

We shouldn't even question our Blessed Leaders, no matter whose bidding they do.

Thanks for sharing.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
47. I dunno about you....
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:22 PM
Feb 2014

... but when it comes to the general elections, I think it's important to actually elect Democrats instead of make a statement.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
54. Personally, I also think it's important that elections be about something more than...
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:41 PM
Feb 2014

empty contests between two parties who are beholden to the same Big Money interests.

There are issues at stake. It is not merely a matter of "making a statement"....

Tarheel_Dem

(31,232 posts)
55. Then you probably oughta start "Not The Two Parties" Underground? This one is partisan.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:47 PM
Feb 2014


Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.


 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
66. Nah. When push comes to shove, I say Support the Democrats
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:02 PM
Feb 2014

But I don't equate support for blind unquestioning loyalty.

Such jostling is part of the DNA of Democrats in general, and at DU. It's why the popcorn stand does so well here.



Tarheel_Dem

(31,232 posts)
68. Doesn't really matter what "you support", you don't own the joint, and therefore don't make the TOS.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:10 PM
Feb 2014
 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
70. Huh...it looks like no one really cares what you think
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:17 PM
Feb 2014

I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with your caustic personality.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
56. So you're one of those the Dems=Repugs kind of guys?
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:49 PM
Feb 2014

Recheck the Terms of Service. We work to get democrats elected here. It's one thing to support a candidate like Nader in the primaries, but in the generals, it's the DEMOCRATIC underground.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
58. I've been around the DU block a lot longer than you have
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:57 PM
Feb 2014

We have to elect Democrats, whether we are willy enthusiastic about particular candidates or whether it is simply to prevent the GOP from taking total control. The GOP is awful.

Duh. Okay. That's the basic TOS. What else is new?

But that does not mean we blindly fall in line behind Democrats when we disagree with them -- especially when their behavior supports the same Big Money interests that support the GOP.

The business of the nation is about much more than elections.

BTW, I agree that Ralph Nader screwed the pooch in 2000. He should have thrown his support to gore in the end. He's a political bonehead sometimes..... But I totally agree with his criticisms of the system, and I totally agree with his basic purpose of opening up the system to more grass roots involvement and accountability.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
61. Fair enough, but....
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:11 PM
Feb 2014

... IMO, the man committed a SUPREME error in judgement by insisting on running as a third party candidate.

He DID cost us the 2000 election, and I lay the BushCo Jr presidency directly at his feet.

I mean it when I say I do not give a goddamn what he thinks. His ego overcame whatever good sense he might have. DONE. WITH. HIM.

You're right that he's right on some of the issues. But frankly, I'd rather hear it from someone else.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
62. Fair enough. I'm not crazy about Nader's behavior either...But...
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:21 PM
Feb 2014

I agree with much of what he says.

Al Gore and the Democrats' reluctance or refusal to make the push to "seal the deal" cost the election. It should not have gotten down to Nader's tiny sliver of the vote making the difference. (And Gore did win the popular vote. It was the rooks in Florida and the Suprme Court that really screwed it up.)

I remember that campaign, and how Al Gore's popularity jumped after his nomination speech in which he struck a definite tone of aggressive progressive populism.

But in subsequent weeks the toned it down to be more "centrist" and not seem "too liberal." Which sucked oxygen from Gore's campaign and made it more difficult to siphon off enough of those who only supported Nader because they were so frustrated with Clintonian Corporate Centrism.

It's not worth rehashing that now. But the lessons are still valid. We win when we stand up for people. Oabma won because he created the image (true or not) of standing up for people for reform and change.

The real issue is whether the Democratic actually walk that talk once elected.



Hassin Bin Sober

(26,324 posts)
75. Me neither. Why do the same people start threads about him all the time?
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:58 PM
Feb 2014

I swear sometimes DU is like a sports forum.

 

Pretzel_Warrior

(8,361 posts)
40. Does what Ralph Nader think even matter? No it does not.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:04 PM
Feb 2014

Not everyone has opportunity to put an Op-Ed piece in the NYT. But I bet most didn't read another Ralph Nader screed or if they did, they rolled their eyes and moved on.

Ralph yammers on. The President gets things done.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
46. It's amazing how some Democrats have become so opposed to any talk of acual reform
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:21 PM
Feb 2014

Let's throw everyone who isn't blindly loyal to some ambiguous agenda funded by Corporate America to the wolves.



 

Pretzel_Warrior

(8,361 posts)
50. No. A bunch of Democrats are tired of Obama being used as whipping boy
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:28 PM
Feb 2014

For the sins of the multitudes. Hey, America. Look in the mirror. You elected a bunch of racist shit heads in 2010 which is why Obama can't pass jobs bills, fuel efficiency standards increases, immigration reform, minimum wage increases or anything else he'd like to have done.

Ralph is always aiming at the wrong target.

ismnotwasm

(41,976 posts)
74. ProSense
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:58 PM
Feb 2014

I stay out of GD a lot, but I do want to say you are one of my favorite posters.

A Hearty K&R

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Has Ralph Nader commented...