Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Ralph Nader

  1. #1
    <3veg<3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    13

    Default Ralph Nader

    He's running independently for president and he seems like the best option in my opinion. If you look at his concentrated issues, you will see that he can lead us to a sustainable world. You can find out more at www.votenader.com There is a petition to get him on the ballot b/c he might not be. Everybody seems so caught up in Republican or Democrat and I think that it is often overlooked that there are other options. Check it out and let me know what you think!

  2. #2
    rantipole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    asbury park nj
    Posts
    449

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    I have voted for Nader several times. However, the real issue is that it's next to impossible for any party other than the big 2 to get into power. The Democrans and the Republicrats have rigged the system to keep themselves in power. Until the American public rebels against this, the system will not change. I really respect Ralph Nader and agree with most of his positions. However, I will be voting for a Democran this time, as the Republicrats must be defeated at all costs. I don't believe the Dems will be much better, but it's a start. Maybe after that, citizens will start working to make the Green, Libertarian, Socialist, and Labor parties viable. (Is there even a Labor party in the US at all?)

    Cheers,
    rant
    "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." --Yoda

  3. #3
    m@dgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    2

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    I voted for Nader a couple of times, too. He's probably the best person running, but I agree with the poster above about the importance of getting a Dem into office. I hope it's Obama, I'd feel slightly soiled voting for Clinton. But I'd do it. Too bad Kucinich didn't get farther than he did. A vegan in the White House would be grand.

  4. #4
    Pilaf
    Guest

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    I'll be voting Nader in 2008 because I care more about the issues and integrity than who is "electable".

    And another thing - if Nader is a spoiler, everybody running for president is a spoiler. Period. If Nader is a spoiler, so is Gravel..so is Hillary, so is Obama, so is McCain..they're all spoilers in that people who vote for them won't vote for all the others. It's just common sense and a poor cop out.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    Quote Pilaf View Post
    I'll be voting Nader in 2008 because I care more about the issues and integrity than who is "electable".

    And another thing - if Nader is a spoiler, everybody running for president is a spoiler. Period. If Nader is a spoiler, so is Gravel..so is Hillary, so is Obama, so is McCain..they're all spoilers in that people who vote for them won't vote for all the others. It's just common sense and a poor cop out.

    This is the kind of thinking that put Dubya in the White House back in 2000. Ralph Nader is little more than a egomanic these days and will be remembered as spoiler and a nut rather than for all he accomplished prior to 2000. I have lost all respect for him.

    Once the primary season is over, either John McCain or Obama or Hillary will be the next president. And I sure as hell don't want it to be MCain. Haven't the last eight years been tragic enough? To ignore reality is not an option in this critical time.

    My choice was John Edwards and I am not thrilled with Clinton or Obama, but I sure pray that one of them will be succeed Bush/Cheney and not John McCain.

  6. #6
    Pilaf
    Guest

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    Quote jalapeno View Post
    This is the kind of thinking that put Dubya in the White House back in 2000.

    Yours is the kind of thinking that keeps the two failing and corrupt parties of the United States clenching all the power as the lines on the issues continue to blur between the two until we have no real choices or voices.

    Ralph Nader is little more than a egomanic these days and will be remembered as spoiler and a nut rather than for all he accomplished prior to 2000. I have lost all respect for him.
    I don't even know you but I already lost all respect for you...why are you even vegan if you're afraid to take the road less traveled? Have a little integrity and display some guts for once. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Ralph Nader is a great man who fights a crucial battle.

    Once the primary season is over, either John McCain or Obama or Hillary will be the next president. And I sure as hell don't want it to be MCain. Haven't the last eight years been tragic enough? To ignore reality is not an option in this critical time.
    Let me make this perfectly clear to you - I'd vote for Nader even if I could see into the future and KNEW McCain would win. The truth does not defeat the symbolic action. That's what courage is.

    My choice was John Edwards and I am not thrilled with Clinton or Obama, but I sure pray that one of them will be succeed Bush/Cheney and not John McCain.
    There's so very little fundamental difference between Hillary, Obama and McCain. All religious...all warmongering ass kissers to the corporations and health insurance agencies. I see three heads of the same monster, and that monster is called Authoritarian Right.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    If you seriously think there is no difference between Hillary and Obama and John MCain, I suggest you do a little research on their past voting records and accomplishments.

    We define courage differently.

    I have been a vegetarian since 1978 when I was in high school. My work and professional experience has been for non-profits and social service agencies and I am currently most involved with cat rescue and other animal shelter work and mandatory spay/neuter legislation. So judge me any way you like.

    Ignoring reality is not only naive, but dangerous when it results in the election of men like Bush and Cheney. But truly there is very little to debate or discuss with someone who thinks there are no differences between the GOP candidate and Hillary or Obama. It would be like explaining the concept of animal rights to someone who refuses to face the realities of factory farming or won't watch Meet Your Meat.

    My choice is to make a difference and I refuse to take an all or nothing approach. If I did, I would accomplish nothing.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,562

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    I think that if we remain stuck with these two corrupt parties in the US just fighting for power b/w themselves we as a nation are ultimately doomed.

    I voted for Nader the last two elections. If everyone who truly believed in Nader and what he stood for, actually voted for him, we probably wouldn't even be having this debate.

    In 2004 I actually sat in the car outside voting headquarters and debated with myself. I went back and forth telling myself why I should vote for Nader and why I shouldn't. Ultimately it came down to I had to vote for what I stood for with no excuses.

    I've always had tremendous respect for Nader and always will. As a vegan I see things as black and white. Either things hurt animals or they don't. There is no middle ground. That's why I admire Nader. He'd never take the middle ground.


  9. #9
    Lover of ducks Mila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, California, USA
    Posts
    114

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    Nader's a good guy and since I live in San Francisco, CA - the most Democratic city within the most solidly Democratic state (note the big D) - I could vote for Nader and it wouldn't matter. Nader's a good choice, but it's so depressing to keep voting for the little guy and not seeing it ad up to more than a blip in the numbers. Damned Bull-Moose Party ruined it for all of us!

    Note: However, for the first time (for me) my guy (who I've been supporting since 2005) is actually pulling through the primary, and so I'm on that wagon, even volunteering to drag it with my teeth for free over the course of my entire Summer. Woot!
    I'm just a love machine and I won't work without a union contract.

  10. #10
    fucking vegan! JohnnyZu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Yosemite, California
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    I wonder if the American people have allowed the Bushes admistrations to do what they have done for so long, what makes us think the Dems won't try to get away with the same power grabs?
    Ralph Nader has always fought for the common person, for the average American. I'm voting for him, I'm never going to vote my fear again, nor let anyone else convince me to do so.
    51%? Really?

  11. #11
    desmond jones
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    southern california
    Posts
    34

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    i've been pro-Nadar sinse i was in 6th grade. and I'm going into 10th grade now.

    i hope that by the time i get to vote he is still running for presidency. i admire how he has been running since the late 80s, even though the chances of him winning have been slim.


    i think the perfect presidential team would be Ralph Nadar- Pres. Ron Paul- V. Pres.

  12. #12
    Lover of ducks Mila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, California, USA
    Posts
    114

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    Anybody catch the latest Nader soundbite?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-esk..._b_109194.html
    Quote Ralph Nader
    "There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate: He's half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know.

    I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?"
    Admittedly, I wish Senator Obama would discuss issues having to do with American poverty more often, but saying this? I didn't figure Nader for a racist. Moreover, how is it that these racists haven't figured out how to shut their mouths yet? (I'm unhappy and I vote! Yeah, I'm real important.)
    I'm just a love machine and I won't work without a union contract.

  13. #13
    rantipole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    asbury park nj
    Posts
    449

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    I don't understand how Ralph Nader is being racist there. Can you explain it to me?

    Cheers,
    rant
    "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." --Yoda

  14. #14
    Lover of ducks Mila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, California, USA
    Posts
    114

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    Sure, no problem.

    "There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate: He's half African-American."
    This kind of talk calls back to mind the remarks of one Geraldine Ferraro, along with the idea that this man may only be the candidate because of his skin color. i.e. "Oh, the kids find him novel in the same way they found the black iPod novel." Surely his voters picked him specifically as some sign of pity or tokenism and nothing else because he has no special characteristics (like policies the voter agrees with, solid record of public service, or eloquence).

    Now there are two points to be raised from this one:
    I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?
    First, because the Senator is black, Mr. Nader expects him to push the issues which he believes to most affect the African-American community to the forefront. African-American persons can't possibly have more on their minds than keeping their kids from licking the lead paint off their ghetto apartment walls and ducking the collection calls from the payday loan shop. Doubtless, they can't be interested in the war, and certainly not the environment. (This point may be a simply unfortunate misconstruction, especially as these sorts of issues are Nader's cup of tea. However, the way he grouped his points together over the course of the interview shows that it likely is not.)

    Second, the words "talk white" are enough on their own to raise objections. Whether you've done study on the subject or you've simply been around long enough to see it firsthand in the way Nader has, you know this phrase and the accompanying image come fully loaded. He's painting Obama to be a black man in whiteface: a depiction which harkens back to old-timey comedy sketches in which a stereotyped black person tries to act sophisticated or "white" results in a comedic failure due to his or her own lack of sophistication. Clearly, he can't focus on the issues most important the majority of the electorate without trying to make himself look less black (read: less threatening to white people [Which further implies that white persons and black persons must automatically have highly divergent interests.]). With this statement, Mr. Nader reveals that feels that Senator Obama needs to confine himself to the established set of discourses which he feels suit a person whom looks like he does (read: stay in his place).
    I'm just a love machine and I won't work without a union contract.

  15. #15
    desmond jones
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    southern california
    Posts
    34

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    Quote Mila View Post
    Sure, no problem.

    This kind of talk calls back to mind the remarks of one Geraldine Ferraro, along with the idea that this man may only be the candidate because of his skin color. i.e. "Oh, the kids find him novel in the same way they found the black iPod novel." Surely his voters picked him specifically as some sign of pity or tokenism and nothing else because he has no special characteristics (like policies the voter agrees with, solid record of public service, or eloquence).

    Now there are two points to be raised from this one:
    First, because the Senator is black, Mr. Nader expects him to push the issues which he believes to most affect the African-American community to the forefront. African-American persons can't possibly have more on their minds than keeping their kids from licking the lead paint off their ghetto apartment walls and ducking the collection calls from the payday loan shop. Doubtless, they can't be interested in the war, and certainly not the environment. (This point may be a simply unfortunate misconstruction, especially as these sorts of issues are Nader's cup of tea. However, the way he grouped his points together over the course of the interview shows that it likely is not.)

    Second, the words "talk white" are enough on their own to raise objections. Whether you've done study on the subject or you've simply been around long enough to see it firsthand in the way Nader has, you know this phrase and the accompanying image come fully loaded. He's painting Obama to be a black man in whiteface: a depiction which harkens back to old-timey comedy sketches in which a stereotyped black person tries to act sophisticated or "white" results in a comedic failure due to his or her own lack of sophistication. Clearly, he can't focus on the issues most important the majority of the electorate without trying to make himself look less black (read: less threatening to white people [Which further implies that white persons and black persons must automatically have highly divergent interests.]). With this statement, Mr. Nader reveals that feels that Senator Obama needs to confine himself to the established set of discourses which he feels suit a person whom looks like he does (read: stay in his place).

    hes really just saying that Obama isn't exploiting his own ethnicity. its not racist its true. Obama is doing good, showing that he is a person, not just a black person. he expects justice for all races, instead of just focusing on the black community.

  16. #16
    Lover of ducks Mila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, California, USA
    Posts
    114

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    Quote tofuandpotatoes View Post
    hes really just saying that Obama isn't exploiting his own ethnicity. its not racist its true. Obama is doing good, showing that he is a person, not just a black person. he expects justice for all races, instead of just focusing on the black community.
    I gave the benefit of the doubt after reading blurbs from the speech on blogs, but after I watched the entire thing in context it became clear that Mr. Nader was not paying the Senator any compliments. CNN should still have the interview lurking around on their mess of a video site.
    I'm just a love machine and I won't work without a union contract.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Anthem, Arizona
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    I'm sorry, I don't really understand, are you saying that Nader is racist against black or whites? Because certainly, if one wishes to take Nader's point literally, it implies a negative connotation towards white people. Though you seem to be suggesting that he's racist against black people.

    Or do you mean to say racialist? Which is of course quite different a from a racist. As racist means a negative attitude towards race; while racialist means a person believes in race.On either point I think you're wrong and if I may I'll try put these quotes into context.

    "There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate: He's half African-American."
    You appear to be taking this to mean that he is suggesting that the only reason Obama has been successful is because he's African American. But did you actually go to the Rocky Mountain News interview instead of watching the Anderson Cooper clip? The question was as follows:

    People portray him as being different. Do you see him as being any better than Al Gore or any of the other Democrats that you've opposed over the years?
    And thus Nader said no, the only difference is that he is half-black. That's not racist. The Obama campaign as well as the media have continuously equated the fact that he is black with some kind of change. They were doing it with Hillary Clinton as well.

    "THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT!"
    "THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT!"

    Nader is merely saying that just because Obama is black doesn't mean he is anymore better or anymore progressive.

    The only way that this would be racist would be if he thought democrats were progressive and Obama tricked them. But considering Nader calls the democrats corporatists...I think we can safely say this is not the case.

    I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?
    You make two claims. First that Nader is suggesting that because Obama is black he should have to focus on these things. But Nader criticizes Obama in the same interview as lying to people about his position on lobbyists and being in the pockets of healthcare, transportation, and defense industry. On Nader's site he criticizes Barack on the Iraq War, unwillingness to impeach Bush, his support of Israel (he called his AIPAC speech disgraceful), the military budget, ect. He doesn't merely criticize Barack on his actions with regard to poverty and such.

    I mean everything is context. He was asked what makes Barack different from past candidates. Well the media has answered that haven't they? He's black. Well, all Nader is saying, is that that is superficial and his positions are just the same as all the past white presidential candidates.

    As to the term "acting white" as some kind of racist term... once again, I don't understand. If it has any kind of negative connotation it's that it asserts that white people don't care about black people; and a black person acting white doesn't care about the plight of African Americans. And thus this couldn't possibly be conceived as racist against blacks... racist against whites perhaps but not black. Traditionally the term isn't used by white people. I mean Nader isn't the first person to suggest this about Obama... hasn't Cornel West said it? Hasn't Jesse Jackson? Are they racist against black people?

    Side Note: I would like to point out for this comment I looked up the video on CNN, and seriously how much are they in the democrats pockets? Anderson Cooper refers to Nader as a spoiler in 2000 and 2004! Even if one wishes to accept the undemocratic spoiler concept, and Cooper shouldn't considering he's supposed to be unbiased, Nader was a spoiler in 2004? Nader had no affect on 2004 election! And then, that's not all, it ends it's segment by saying Nader "only has 4% support"... umm... that's a lot for a third party candidate! And wait a second for the capper: "But considering how close the election could be..." yada, yada, Nader is going to be a spoiler... really the election is going to be close? The poll Cooper just showed had Obama up ten percentage points on McCain! But it's going to be close, so don't vote for Nader. Wow that was lovely, thank you for mentioning that. Normally I find republican run news propaganda more entertaining, while democratically run propaganda is more annoying, but that was utterly brilliant...

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Anthem, Arizona
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    Also I got address those jalapeno posts. I feel odd doing so because I don't really agree with Nader's populism; nor do I think there is much point in his current candidacy – I probably will vote for him but only because the Greens are useless and the Socialist Party won't even qualify as a write-in in the despicable state of Arizona.

    But there is nothing more intolerable than the nonsensical blaming of Nader for the Bush presidency – it stems completely from anti-democratic "democrat" propaganda.

    Anybody who blames Nader for the Bush election, should realize the following things.

    1) By saying this, you're admitting that, at least under-circumstances, you're opposed to democracy. There is no two ways about it. The "Spoiler Concept" is an anti-democratic concept.

    2) You are aware that even if you follow the spoiler concept it only applies to a few states? For instance it doesn’t matter if people vote for Nader in California or Illinois or Massachusetts, because the democrats own those states...thus it doesn’t matter if you vote for Nader in most places...it's not going to change the results of the election! Thus even using the pseudo spoiler argument; this merely means Nader shouldn’t campaign heavily in a few states not that there is anything wrong with him running for president.

    The Democrats, being un-democratic, fail to mention that in their spoiler rhetoric.

    3) Al Gore won the popular vote and electoral college was likely stolen from him. Was Nader supposed to predict that this was supposed to happen? Was he also supposed to predict that Gore would lose his home state? Was he supposed to predict that Al Gore, who had been a congressman for 6 years, a senator for 8, and was the current vice president was going to lose to a 1 term governor who couldn't string a sentence together? Does this sound like it should have been a close election? Could it possibly have been complete incompetence on the democrats part? Is it possible that Gore should have pushed for investigation on the voting in Florida? Is it possible that he shouldn’t have conceded?

    3) You are aware if Gore won Florida by a few hundred votes, the republicans could have blamed Buchanan and Harry Brown? I mean how ridiculous do you want to be?

    4) And I know it's the current fad to pretend that Bush/Cheney are the devil incarnate...and I hate to spoil that fun... but how many of his dreadful deeds do you think would’ve been possible if September 11th didn't happen? Is the problem with Nader that he wasn’t merely a spoiler but also failed to be psychic? DAMN HIM!

    I mean George Bush won in 2004 because he could get the public afraid about terrorism. (And because Kerry’s campaign was terrible)

    So everything he has done in his second term is irrelevant.

    In his first term...

    He wouldn’t have been able to invade Afghanistan – for obvious reasons. (Democrats supported this)

    He wouldn’t have able get the Patriot Act passed. (Democrats supported this)

    He wouldn’t have been able to invade iraq – the weapons of mass destruction argument was too pathetic in of itself. (The Democrats supported this)

    Sure he would have still supported the coups in Venezuela and Haiti...but then again I don’t recall the democrats complaining much about that.

    Here's a history lesson the last time something comparable to September 11th happened was 1941 – when a military base on a U.S. colony was attacked. We had democrat run white house then...what did they do, what did they do... well they blew up Nagasaki and Hiroshima, firebombed Tokyo to ashes, and imprisoned over 100,000 Japanese Americans.

    Presidents abuse power when they can. Truman and FDR could, so they did. Bush could, so he did. Clinton excuses were limited, so his abuses of power were limited. There is no reason to believe that Gore wouldn’t have abused power in a similar fashion – though he may not have done the same things.

    As for the differences between the republicans and democrats. One’s splitting hairs, there simply aren’t any significant difference. Both parties would be considered very conservative in Europe...and the majority of Europe supports capitalism.

    For instance I know the democrats "say" they oppose the war on Iraq...but they've controlled the congress for two years. Which means they control whether we can fight a war or not by deciding whether to fund the war or not... so umm... yeah. They could've also impeached the president... why didn't they do that? Maybe because they realized that they approved every impeachable offense that has taken place. Just a suggestion.

    And what would be the great difference between McCain and Obama?

    They both support the war in Iraq – look at their records not their words...it should be noted that much like Obama, Nixon said he would end the war in Vietnam, but also, like Obama, refused to be specific...I don’t think we need to go over what Nixon did after he was elected.

    They both support the war on Afghanistan – which, hint hint, has about as much do to with fighting terrorism as Iraq.

    They both wouldn't press to try the Bush administration for war crimes – so they do not believe international law.

    Neither have come out against the drug war.

    They are both oppose to the U.N. and wish to continue being outlaw nation – or have you not seen them threatening Iran? To threaten a country is actually a violation of the U.N. charter.

    Neither are opposed to U.S. backed coups of democratically elected presidents... or did Barack come out against the overthrow of Aristide?

    Neither show any sign of changing U.S. policy towards South America – i.e. opposition to democratically elected presidents such Evo Morales or Hugo Chavez, they all ready tried to get rid of Chavez...what’s next?

    Both believe in the continued, unquestioning, support of Israel – i.e. there will not be a Palestinian state.

    Okay, now true, that's merely international issues and it's true that while their policies will be essentially the same, Obama does have a more likable personality. What about domestic issues.

    They support the death penalty.

    They are both politically obliged to pretend to care about Abortion and Gay Marriage – but let's face it the Republicans had full control of every section of government they couldn't get a constitutional ban on gay marriage and they couldn't ban abortion... they don’t care... they have empires to build.

    They both support the drug war or at least don’t oppose it.

    They have the same position on immigration.

    They are both opposed to a U.S. democracy – or did Obama complain when Nevada changed their primary debate rules to keep Kucinich out?

    Oh and just general positions: neither have come out in support of animal rights nor do they have any kind of serious position on the environment.

    Okay, now it's true, there are a few difference between them. Barack will support a slightly different tax system than McCain; he will also support minor reforms in healthcare. But these are actually the same position. Because the goal of each position is to maintain privatized healthcare and the current system of wealth in the country – McCain, like republicans in general, believes that if you make reforms you are going towards a more socialistic position while Barack believes you have to make minor reforms otherwise more socialistic parties will get support... this is the difference between liberal capitalists (obama) and conservative capitalists (McCain).

    One can decide which one is more dangerous to the idea any kind of serious reform... but I'm always more worried about the liberal capitalists than the conservative ones...because the liberal capitalists always look better.

    And by the way all of this ignores the relative fact that Obama is leading McCain by double digits and has zero chance of losing the election. Good speakers don't lose presidential elections to bad speakers. This election will be about as close as 84...

    Of course none of this matters. We should vote for the best of two evils – even though most of us don't live in place where electoral vote means anything – and condemn people like Nader for their villainous democratic ideas.

  19. #19
    songlife
    Guest

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    It's like me voting for the NDP (the only socialist-type party in Canada, and they also happen to be environmentalist, woohoo!)... since we don't have proportional representation (actual democracy), there's not too much hope of us getting tons of power in parliament but I still support them 100%, I feel it's only fair as they support me. <3

  20. #20
    fucking vegan! JohnnyZu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Yosemite, California
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    Quote Sizemore101 View Post
    Also I got address those jalapeno posts. I feel odd doing so because I don't really (snip)
    Thanks for your post!

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Korea
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: Ralph Nader

    great! looks like we are on the same page. i hate it when i hear time and again that nader "stole votes" from gore. what political bigotry that is. nader also said once that gore "stole" votes from him if you apply such illogical nonsense. this is a democratic system and he has the right to run and either all the candidates stole votes from each other or none of them did.

    if people actually would start believing in third party candidates and give them a chance instead of automatically declaring that they have no chance at all, then we would actually be having a competitive race against the 2 party duopoly who are all entrenched with big money interests.

    nader's platform actually is the most friendly towards those who believe in animal rights considering how stauchly anti-animal agribusiness he is. his campaign website at votenader.org has a good page on just this issue among others.

    and yes, i'm also currently working to get him on the ballot in south carolina. (keeping my fingers crossed)




    Quote Pilaf View Post
    Yours is the kind of thinking that keeps the two failing and corrupt parties of the United States clenching all the power as the lines on the issues continue to blur between the two until we have no real choices or voices.



    I don't even know you but I already lost all respect for you...why are you even vegan if you're afraid to take the road less traveled? Have a little integrity and display some guts for once. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Ralph Nader is a great man who fights a crucial battle.



    Let me make this perfectly clear to you - I'd vote for Nader even if I could see into the future and KNEW McCain would win. The truth does not defeat the symbolic action. That's what courage is.



    There's so very little fundamental difference between Hillary, Obama and McCain. All religious...all warmongering ass kissers to the corporations and health insurance agencies. I see three heads of the same monster, and that monster is called Authoritarian Right.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •