Criticize Nader's Positions Here (or the Shortest Thread in GD:P)

[Bonobo]

Lots of anger and hatred for Nader here, so I thought I'd provide a place where people could criticize Nader for his platform and positions rather than just calling him an "egotistical sack of shit" or some other drivel.

Just remember, positions only. Personal attacks just make you look ignorant and infantile.

Okay, lots of you know so much about Nader, so I'm sure this will be big!

Ready, set, go!

[high density]

1. Why are you here at "Democratic Underground?"

:eyes:

[Bonobo]

3. That's one substanceless post! Let's hear another!

I'm here to be an advocate for Democratic Progressive principles!

[high density]

20. Congrats on starting a flamefest, mr. advocate

Yay.

[Bonobo]

29. There are 50 other Nader threads you know.

[BootinUp]

2. "The Democrats are the same as the Republicans"

Say it loud Ralphie, maybe it will come true.

[Bonobo]

4. That's 2 substanceless posts! Woohoo!

[crispini]

11. No, that's a position of Ralphie's

Demonstrably false.

[crispini]

7. Ding ding ding ding!

You get the gold star!

[Bonobo]

10. No ding ding deserved for that. 90% of DU'ers have said it at one point or another.

It is a rhetoric device.

[crispini]

15. 90% of DU'ers? I certainly hope not.

That would mean that 90% of DU are senseless twits. I think it's much lower, say, 25% senseless twits. :D

[riverdale]

40. He never said that

That is as inaccurate as Republicans insisting that Al Gore said he invented the Internet.
Thanks

[BootinUp]

42. Its close enough for me. lol.

[cloudythescribbler]

55. Nader DID say repeatedly in 2000 that the main difference b/t the Dems and GOP is the rate at ...

which their knees drop to the floor before the power of corporate capital. I think that interpreting that repeated meme as saying there 'ain't a dime's worth of difference' b/t the parties or something to that effect is fair and NOT a stretch.

Incidentally, I am myself a socialist to the Left of the Democratic Party (including Obama and Kucinich) but still feel that we had better get the best outcome electoral politics MIGHT deliver (President Obama) or we're toast. Staying in Iraq and spending TRILLIONS more on that debacle? I don't think so.

[MH1]

61. I believe the phrase was "not a dime's worth of difference"

Or was it someone else that said it and he just nodded?

[Swamp Rat]

5. I see Naders everywhere!

:D

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

27. No shit!

Ha!

:rofl:

[Liberal Veteran]

6. It's hard to pin him down considering he seems to hibernate between election cycles.

What change has he tried to implement in the last couple of periods between elections?

[Bonobo]

8. I don't know what he did. Do you? But it still isn't an attack on his positions, is it?

[AllieB]

14. None, of course. Ralph is running because of ego.

I hope people are as tired of him jumping in, trying to be the spoiler, as I am. Each election cycle, he gets fewer and fewer votes, and I think this time, he'll be irrelevant.

[PeaceNikki]

9. The problem isn't even his platform as much as his slimy methods.

He let's his anger get in the way of his issues. Instead of working with a viable candidate, he's so pissed off at the Dems, he'd rather sabotoge than really work to get things done.

He's an angry selfish man.

[Bonobo]

12. Again, that has no substance. Can't you see that?

[PeaceNikki]

16. But it DOES. And if you can't see that, you're blind.

His positions are fine, his methods suck. He needs to work WITH someone to achieve his goals not try to be the center of attention and sabotoge someone else.

How is that not clear?

[Bonobo]

25. I cannot say his methods suck 100% because I have not seen ANY methods that work.

We are slaves of this corporate system. It needs to be busted up. I have seen nothing work in my lifetime, so I am on safe ground when I say that I am not sure his ways are "sucky".

[PeaceNikki]

31. Ding! Ding! Ding! They DON'T "work"! They just get in the way of others!

And you don't see the problem with that? :wtf:

If they DID "work" he would probably not be the subject of such scrutiny. But they don't. They don't work.

[democrattotheend]

13. Personally, I disagree with what he just said about Israel/Palestine

I don't think Israel is above criticism by any means, but he was criticizing Obama for not being "pro-Palestinian". Personally, I don't want a president who is "pro-Palestinian". I know that's at odds with a lot of posters here, and I don't want to start a war about it. But that is one of the reasons I would not vote for Nader even if I could do so without him being a spoiler (such as in an Instant Runoff system, which I support).

His record on labor is also less than stellar...he is calling for a repeal of Taft-Hartley now, but when he ran US PIRG, he was a union buster.

[Bonobo]

17. You are the first poster to criticize his positions. Congratulations!

[seaglass]

48. I don't think that is what he said. He said that Obama was

pro-Palestinian before he ran for the IL Senate and while he was in the IL Senate and now he is not and supports Israeli (govt)positions. I believe Nader's point was that there needs to be discussion of I/P not a taking of sides. At least that's what I got out of it.

[NoodleyAppendage]

18. O.K. How about his running ONLY PERPETUATES the problems he rails against.

To be successful in his policies and platforms would ultimately mean that the attention and spotlight would fade and his ego would begin to starve for the attention it pathologically needs.

Nader knows that he doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning the Presidency, yet he also knows that his policies and platforms will be perpetual issues upon which he can rail on T.V. and radio.

Nader's platform and policies are the lifeblood of his personality disorder.

Go ahead and throw your vote away, idiot.

J

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

36. This is the problem with Nader

He will not only distract us from removing the GOP from the White House, DUers will be at each other's throats....... again.

I have suggested to the DU Admin to create a Nader forum, so folks can discuss him, yet his impact on DU will be minimalised.

[Bonobo]

41. That is a fine, fine suggestion, Swamp Rat.

[Swamp Rat]

45. I already PMed Skinner.

I hope others do the same.

We'll see if he responds.

[TZ]

19. I'm a Democrat

I care about Nader's third party platform as much as I care about McCain's positions.
Someone want to remind me when this became Nadar Underground?

[Coexist]

21. he and Dr. Frist were part of the Save Terri! crowd.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

39. Really? I missed that.

Time to research, thanks for that snippet.

[Coexist]

22. oops!

[beyurslf]

23. He is not the Dem nominee so he does not get our support. Start Naderunderground

if you want to support him.

[blondeatlast]

24. How about his defenders defend them instead? Just a thought. nt

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

34. You mean how he took his considerable name recognition and eight years ago began to work on

building a truely progressive third party, starting at the grassroots, because he's so passionate about it.

Never mind. He seems averse to sharing the spotlight.

Good morning, BAL! :-)

[blondeatlast]

57. Yeah, just like that!

Backatcha. Won't be on much as today is my son's 11th birthday! :bounce: :party:

[BootinUp]

28. The position of his middle finger to America. nt

[saltpoint]

30. Issues aside for just a second, my objection to Nader is personality.

This guy doesn't smile much. He doesn't seem very welcoming. He seems introverted, isolative, and pouty.

What faces us after 8 dreary years of Dubya is a list of near-crises-level challenges and I think a far more collaborative personality is required to begin the work and see it through.

IMO Ralph Nader is not that personality.

[Bonobo]

38. I agree, but it is NEVER about issues for people here. When do ISSUES become an issue?

We never discuss platforms here on DU.

So it bothers me when I see all these personal attacks against Nader because I think it makes our side look as ignorant and stoopid as the other side.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

43. Oh, poor Bonobo. I 'm sorry personal attacks upset you so much.

Bonobo>>>leave Nader alone>>>>:cry:

[saltpoint]

46. Hi, Bonobo. Issues are the odd cousin up in the attic room, agreed, but

most of us, if pressed, would acknowledge that the next president has a long list of them to tackle.

Bush has trashed the garage and it will take more than one long weekend's work to clean it.

For that kind of long-term trajectory, I think a more community-minded personality is the most workable. Nader is allowed to run, and I'm not questioning his right to do that, but simply choosing the form and style of leadership I feel has the best chance of undoing the wrongs of the Bush administration's last 8 years and then moving ahead in a healthier, saner, and more mutually respectful direction.

[rhiannon55]

52. We NEVER discuss platforms here on DU???

NEVER? Are you reading DU posts or just looking for things to argue about? We have discussed all the previous and current Democratic candidates' platforms upside down and backward. And I don't think that our side could ever "look as ignorant and stoopid as the other side". Are you sure you wouldn't feel more at home elsewhere? DU is for Democrats.

[Swamp Rat]

49. And he's green, and smells like Limburger too.

:D :hi:

[saltpoint]

51. LOL! This is your best ever. Among many really terrific images, this

one is the best. The dialogue bubbles are the icing on the cake. This is Nader in a nutshell.

And one only hopes it's a sturdy nutshell to contain Ralph Nader.

Bravo!

[citizen snips]

69. Good point OC.

Since Nader does not have a snowballs chance in hell to win the GE why debate his issues?

Nader is going to be an old waxwork compared to the likely nominee Obama.

[saltpoint]

80. Hi, MATTMAN. Yes -- and I think either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama will

wipe the floor with McCain.

McCain's lobby hobby still hasn't played out fully yet. There could be some more dislodging headlines to follow this past week's.

Nader is kind of a self-isolating public figure with a minimal constituency. I'd be more worried about Michael Bloomberg, who has not quite the intellectual heft but quite a bit more political talent and a buck or two saved up for big projects.

[goldcanyonaz]

32. But, personal attacks on Clinton are kewl.

:woohoo:

[stahbrett]

33. His big position seems to be...

To try to keep Republicans in the White House.

[LoZoccolo]

35. He says that there is little difference between the two major parties.

His idea of "little difference" encompasses things like abortion, same-sex unions, and Supreme Court justices, amongst many other things.

[sabbat hunter]

37. Nader

does nothing to push his platform in between presidential elections. That is my criticism of his positions. If he really cared about them, then why doesn't he work on the grass roots, to get people that think like him elected to state, local offices. Those are the people that eventually get elected to federal offices.

Nader isn't running because of his positions. He is running because of his ego, the amount of press he will get for 9 months.

[cali]

44. I have no idea what his platform is and it's irrelevant to me.

And I don't hate him and it doesn't matter to me if he runs. I see him as a curiosity at this point. (Ok, actually I know he has a strong anti-corporatist pov, but I still don't care) He's done good work in the past, but I can't think of his being relevant to anything of import over the past decade.

[workinclasszero]

47. Heres Nader's platform in a nutshell:

Nader enters in boon to GOP

By: Mike Allen and Ben Smith
Feb 24, 2008 09:48 AM EST
Updated: February 24, 2008 10:35 AM EST


Ralph Nader announced on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he'll run as a third-party, anti-corporate candidate for president this fall, which would be likely to drain votes from the Democratic nominee and provide a huge boon to Republicans.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8655.html

[Bonobo]

50. Hopefully my man, Obama, will not make the mistake Gore made vis a vis Nader.

Nader's positions should not be ignored. Nor should his supporters. They are a legitimate voice.

He should do what is needed to get Edwards' full anti-corporate support and nullify Nader that way.

[skipos]

53. Nader is and has been painfully wrong about many things

E: You said during your campaign that it didn't really matter if Al Gore or George W. Bush won the election.
Nader: That's right.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?696

So Nader thinks that Gore would have had us in Iraq, would have sat on his hands while thousands died in N.O., would have appointed Alito and Roberts, etc? Yeah right.

Nader claims Gore is WORSE than Bush.
Martin was especially struck by a Portland speech where Nader said that Gore was "more reprehensible" than Bush because Gore "knows so much and refuses to act on his knowledge."
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html

Nader says Gore would have had us in Iraq.
Nader said that a Gore presidency "wouldn't have been any different in terms of military and foreign policy."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4304155/

Nader on Gore's environmentalism.
"Gore talks environment. In one area after another, he has betrayed the environmental movement."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/103000-03.htm

Nader on Clinton's impeachment.
DONALDSON: You say that if you'd been in the Senate, you would have voted to convict Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial, correct?
NADER: Correct.

[Ravy]

54. (1) Helping neocons get elected (2000).

(2) Try it two more times (2004 & 2008)

Most would stop reading the list at (1).

[Bonobo]

56. Those, my young Jedi, are not issues.

[Zynx]

58. A person's character is just as important as their positions.

[progressive_realist]

59. If only policy positions mattered

I'd just vote for myself. Because no one else is guaranteed to be absolutely right on every point.

[Bonobo]

60. I agree. So why don't we discuss which of Nader's positions we should adopt?

Instead of just talking about what an egotistical piece of shit he is?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. You Are Starting A Thread To Defend A Piece Of Shit's Third Party Positions. Shame On You.

Fuck Nader, and fuck anyone who condones that empty headed piece of fuckin shit.

And personal attacks are are sometimes warranted. This isn't a site for condoning Nader's positions or allowing someone to defend them, much as we wouldn't allow someone to defend Bush's positions here. So no, the personal attacks are of no problem here in this context. Nader is an egotistical narcissistic piece of ignorant motherfuckin shit, and so are those who condone or support him.

[mudesi]

65. Really? Because his positions are LIBERAL ones

You may not defend his candidacy, but to say we can't defend his positions?

Positions like universal health care, taking corporate interests out of government, diplomacy over war, environmentalism?

Give me a break, OPERATIONMINDCRIME.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

73. Sometimes It's Not About POSITIONS, It's About INTENT.

Who he is, what he stands for, what he's done, and what he continues to try and do, makes him one of the biggest political pieces of shit I've ever known. To defend his positions is NOT to defend what we liberals hold dear. To defend his positions in direct relation to the context of HIM, is to defend what HE is and what HE stands for. And that is NOT the position of Liberals. It is the positions of a piece of shit egotistical selfish ignoramus, who uses OUR positions as justification for his being a piece of shit. I will NOT assist in giving that fucker credibility by defending nor encouraging his positions as if that makes him ok.

[Bonobo]

66. You sound foolish when you talk like that, OMC. It is his POSITIONS that are important.

I could care less about him as a person -and if you are confident enough tapping away at the keys to call ME an ignorant piece of motherfucking shit, than I say fuck you. You don't know me and you should lay off that personal crap against me, pal.

[dansolo]

63. It's not about his positions

Anyone can spout off populist rhetoric. The problem is that without any party support behind him, how is he going to get anything passed? Even Kucinich, who is a Democrat, would have a difficult time getting most of his proposals passed.

[lojasmo]

64. "There is no difference between Gore and GWB" [/thread]

[citizen snips]

Why debate his platform if he is never going to win?

it seems like a waste of time to me.

[Yossariant]

67. LOL! The Dems blame Nader for their impotence, like Bush blames Clinton.

:shrug:

[JVS]

68. He's an Ay-rab

:sarcasm:

[Skinner]

70. This OP completely misses the point.

His alleged "positions" on the issues are completely beside the point. I would be the first to admit that his stated positions on various issues may well be very good. In fact, for progressives, they might be better than the stated positions of either of the two Democratic front-runners.

But no matter how sweet his platform smells, the (perhaps unintended) consequence of his candidacy is to split the progressive vote and help the Republican nominee.

By running as a third-party candidate in the general election, Ralph Nader makes progressive change less likely.

[ulysses]

72. that's doesn't have to be so, Skinner.

Requisite disclaimer - no, I'm not supporting Nader's candidacy.

By running as a third-party candidate in the general election, Ralph Nader makes progressive change less likely.

Seems to me that that depends on how our nominee responds (if they do at all). If they move to neuter him by playing even a little bit more to the left, which I wish they would, then they both cut Nader off at the knees and make progressive change more likely.

[Skinner]

74. But the calculation is not so simple for the Democratic nominee.

Whoever wins the nomination will need to find voters wherever they can. With a high-profile candidate on the left of the Democrat, our nominee has three main groups of voters that they need to consider in any calculation:

1. The voters they already have. We'll call them loyal Democrats.
2. The persuadable voters in the political center who are choosing between the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee (or nobody). We'll call them centrist Independents.
3. The persuadable voters to their left who are choosing between the Democratic nominee and the third-party candidate on the left. We'll call them liberal Independents.

Obviously, it would be great if our candidate could win the votes of all three groups. In fact, I think it is safe to say that our nominee will be able to get some voters from their left and from their center.

But the bottom line is that a candidate will almost certainly have to decide what image they wish to project, and where on the (oversimplified) right-to-left continuum they will be positioned. Positioning their candidacy on the left and the center really isn't a viable option for most candidates. (Some may be talented enough to do it, but not many.)

So, which side will the Democratic candidate choose? Obviously, there are many factors that go into that decision, perhaps the most important being where they fit based on their pre-existing positions on various issues. So this is a gross oversimplification. But if a candidate were to make a calculation based entirely on what makes sense from a mathematical standpoint, they will likely choose the center. But not for the reason you think -- which is that there may be more voters in the middle.

The real reason why the center is a better place to get votes is because each vote there is worth more. But how can this be? Aren't all votes worth the same? Well, yes and no.

I will never say that a vote for Nader (or some other liberal third-party candidate) is the same as a vote for the Republican nominee. Because it's not. It's actually worth one half of a vote for the Republican nominee, and a half a vote for the Democrat. Allow me to explain.

Let's imagine a campaign with three candidates: Republican Candidate, Democratic Candidate, and Third-Party Liberal Candidate. The Republican and Democratic candidates are the two major-party candidates, and they are the only two candidates with any realistic chance of actually winning the election. So, the winner of the election will be the major-party candidate that gets more votes than the other major-party candidate.

Now, imagine an electorate of 100 voters. A poll one month before election day shows them distributed like this:

Republican Candidate: 49 voters
Democratic Candidate: 46 voters
Third-Party Liberal Candidate: 5 voters

Our Democrat is down by 3 votes, compared to the Republican. How many voters need to switch their support in order for the Democratic Candidate to win the election?

If our Democratic candidate tries to pick up votes from the Third-Party Liberal Candidate, he needs to convince 4 voters to switch sides, which would lead to a final vote of:

Republican: 49
Democrat: 50 (+4)
Third-Party Liberal: 1 (-4)

If our Democratic candidate tries to pick up votes from the Republican Candidate, he only needs to convince 2 voters to switch sides, which would lead to a final vote of:

Republican: 47 (-2)
Democrat: 48 (+2)
Third-Party Liberal: 5

So, voters to the middle are worth twice as much as the voters to the left! Peeling a vote away from the middle gives you a net gain of +2 against the other major-party candidate, because it makes the Democratic total go up and the Republican total go down. But peeling a vote away from the left only gives you a net gain of +1.

So, it stands to reason that a candidate would be more likely to go for the votes in the center, rather than the votes on the left.

(Another incidental issue: If you focus on the left, not only are the votes worth less, but you also have to get a higher percentage of them. By going left, you have to win 80% of the persuadable voters (4 out of 5). But if you go to the center, you only have to peel away 4% of the votes (2 out of 49).)

For the record, this is a purely mathematical argument, and does not have anything to do with my own positions on the issues.

So, in conclusion: yes, it is certainly possible that the election could turn out the way you suggest. But it's unlikely. A candidate is more likely to try to pick up the extra voters in the center.

[ulysses]

75. true enough

Can you see, though, how continued movement toward the center-right of the (oversimplified) spectrum in an effort to pick up those voters could leave even moderate liberals (which, in a truthful political world, is what I am) more than a little dissatisfied with the direction of the party?

I understand the math. I'm just saying that expecting those whose votes are needed - if, in fact, they are - but whose concerns repeatedly go unaddressed to remain "on the reservation" forever is probably unrealistic. Nader himself is irrelevant. Continued third-party challenges probably won't be down the line.

[Skinner]

79. This party is a coalition.

In a two-party system, by necessity each party is going to be a coalition of people who hold a broad range of different beliefs. Furthermore, "the party" does not actually have any beliefs at all. It is just a coalition of people. Even our elected officials do not share the same beliefs -- Elected officials from more liberal areas tend to be more liberal, and those from more conservative areas tend to be more conservative. The closest we come to having a particular set of views is that every four years we pick a presidential candidate, and that SINGLE PERSON's views become the default agenda of the party as a whole, even if we don't all agree with everything that person stands for.

So, how does one help determine the agenda of the presidential nominee of the Democratic party? I think it's pretty clear: Support a like-minded candidate in the Democratic primary.

[Bonobo]

76. I don't see how a call to discuss issues misses the point.

We are a democratic message board that should air ideas.

Most here agree with Nader's positions, ergo we should urge them to be accepted by our own party -and thus deflect the Nader bid anyway.

[Skinner]

77. But you see...

...that does not appear to be the point of this thread. By asking for criticism of Ralph Nader's policy positions, it appears as if your intent is to show that those who oppose Ralph Nader do so because we do not know his policy positions. The implication is that if only people were informed about his policy positions, they would support Ralph Nader. The intent appears to be to support and legitimize his candidacy.

It is certainly possible that that was not your intent. But I don't see anything in your OP about urging our party to accept the same positions as Ralph Nader.

[Bonobo]

78. Interesting observation and thank you for that. To be more clear about my intent...

My motivation actually derives, believe it or not, more from the fact that the criticisms of him as a "narcissistic scumbag" seem to be so low and well, frankly, ignorant-sounding. It sounds like we are willing to dump everything on the guy and completely IGNORE that he takes the correct side on issues.

Let me put it another way. Suppose I agree he is a "jerk" on a personal level (as if that would matter). If I agree he is a jerk, can we also agree that the positions he espouse are also OUR issues? Can we ask our representatives, such as Clinton or Obama, to speak out in unison for the same issues and thus deflect them that way? Rather than the Rush Limbaugh-like piling on of personal insults.

That is where I am coming from.

[stevenleser]

71. This thread should be titled "Bonobo gets Ignored" bye! Just say NO to NADERITES

Thanks for supporting the guy whose lies gave us Dumbya, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, etc. Bye1

[Mooney]

81. He has a lazy eye

So fuck him.