What do you think of Ralph Nader?

I generally think that he, as a Presidental candidate, is kind of a douche (gogo Michael Badnarik), but as a third-party catalyst, I think he's really cool.

He tries his hardest to point out how much the American system of "democracy" is a joke with examples like how we claim to have so many different parties, but only the "left" and the "right" get to have live debates. What if we cares about someone else's stance on the issues?

I think he's an interesting guy and he makes a lot of noise during the election year, and he's gotten me to pay more attention to third party candidates now, so kudos to him.

a viable third party candidate in america will likely never happen

but yea, nader is fighting the good fight....
trying to set precidents even if they only pay off 50years in the future
even if in the short-term he sucks votes from the "lesser-evil" party.... suppose thats the price of thinking ahead

btw george w bush owns u

Lol Darth Nader.

likely the third party nader is now championing will become corrupted by ulterior interests in a matter of a few personnel cycles as well(lol politics)
....if it were ever to be established as viable third party, in some future century....

I'm going to vote for a third party even if they can't get elected, because I want to change the literal voting system to something like runoff, and the major parties refuse to do that.

>>2


You must be too young to remember Ross Perot. He was not only viable, but a serious contender.

>>6 You must be too young to remember Teddy Roosevelt. He was not only viable, but a serious contender.

>>7
Man, you're old. :P

these are not the days of ross perot anymore...

and perot was no roosevelt, roosevelt ran an independent ticket(picked up by republicans) because he was secure in his chances.. ted and j.p. morgan were drinking buddies
perot was a self-funded one time gamble, not an attempt at creating a viable 3rd party

further, the two established parties have consolidated enormously in the post 9-11 world... a third party(of equal influence) would seem a crowd and therefore completely infeasible in the current climate

candidates are products sold to the public by the party (marketing)image teams, they use focus groups and intense response testing to fine-tune their advertising campaigns in close to real-time(the speed was the largest innovation in 2004)

its just commercial advertising to the nth power, souped up and obsessively time-critical... budget-less, money is no object after primaries

rove was the project leader on bush's team...
he won it fair and square, targeted only crucial states with custom issues..  
simply did a superior image job vs the other firm

Nader fucked everything up, he was a pawn for the Republicans just to steal votes like the Diebold e-voting machines did.

At one point Nader really gave a shit about people and started the whole consumer protection movement thing which was great.

But please explain the logic of running up against an "I'll-screw-you-to-the-wall" asshole like Bush, not having enough votes to even have half a chance of winning, and STAYING in the race if ONLY to take votes from Kerry?

If he hated Bush so much (as he claimed to) he would have dropped out to give Kerry a chance, but he basically ensured that Bush would win. Handing the election over to the guy you speak against doesn't make any sense.

Don't get me wrong, Kerry totally fucked up and lied to the public about his promise to challenge the election result, so he's even more of an screwup than Nader was.

I went to see Ralph Nader speak when he was at Hofstra University, delivering his State of the Union Address.

I agree with everything >>1 said.  Nader's an activist and even though I doubt many of his ambitions will ever come to fruitition during his lifetime, it's good to see a politician who's actually trying to make a difference.

If only he were a politician. . .

BUMPIN SUPER OLD THREAD

Ross Perot got like 20,000,000 popular votes and not a single electoral vote.

bump

Bump

hes a preddy nice gui :D~~~

>>1

You can also check his background to prove he is 'clean' : http://www.inforegistry.com

His background is too clean. That's why Libertarians will eternally hate him for trying to legalize drugs and seatbelts.

>>19

You mean he is a road sweeper or cleaner?

Aren't seatbelts already legal?

He is a gigantic liberal faggot.

>>1

Who is  Ralph Nader and why should I care about him? Don't look like he can suck my dick :D

>>23
politician who never got married and gives most of his money away, he wants to do good but I'm not sure what the deal is with him, maybe he is stuck in his ways

>>23
Why would you want a elderly ma to molest you? Everyone keeps joking about a "Lemon Party" and I still see no political movement happening. Instead, I just see lots of disturbing elderly porn. Shame on you guys.