HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ralph Nader wants liberal...

Thu May 1, 2014, 06:06 AM

Ralph Nader wants liberals to back Rand Paul. Don't do it.

By Bill Scher

This week, Ralph Nader returned to the political stage with a new book Unstoppable, whose triumphant subtitle is The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State. To kick off his publicity tour, he has argued that liberals should "definitely" impeach President Barack Obama, abandon the "international militarist" Hillary Clinton, and instead embrace Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) as a possible leader of his dream coalition.

To what end? In the book, Nader writes that by marrying the left with the libertarian right, we can cut off government support for corporations and have "honest government," "fair taxation," and "more opportunity." Nader sees relatively low-hanging fruit in opposing "sovereignty-shredding global trade agreements, Wall Street bailouts, the overweening expansion of Federal Reserve power, and the serious intrusions of the USA PATRIOT Act against freedom and privacy." He also articulates loftier, if not fully fleshed out, aspirations to "push for environmentalism," "reform health care," and "control more of the commons that we already own."

Some liberal commentators like Esquire's Charles Pierce and the American Prospect's Scott Lemieux are dismissing Nader's vision as fantastical, since the right will never join his progressive crusade. But Nader's vision should not be dismissed so quickly. He leads his book with concrete examples in the 1980s of when he put left-right coalitions together to stop an over-budget nuclear reactor project, and to pass legislation to protect whistleblowers who have uncovered wasteful government fraud.

However, coalition building requires compromise and, most critically, prioritizing one set of issues over another. The trade-offs inherent in Nader's path into Rand Paul's arms should make liberals run screaming.

more
http://theweek.com/article/index/260813/ralph-nader-wants-liberals-to-back-rand-paul-dont-do-it

81 replies, 9218 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 81 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ralph Nader wants liberals to back Rand Paul. Don't do it. (Original post)
n2doc May 2014 OP
sendero May 2014 #1
KoKo May 2014 #25
msanthrope May 2014 #32
NobodyHere May 2014 #58
sendero May 2014 #63
NobodyHere May 2014 #72
randys1 May 2014 #77
otherone May 2014 #2
Cali_Democrat May 2014 #42
L0oniX May 2014 #62
Itchinjim May 2014 #3
calimary May 2014 #69
Champion Jack May 2014 #4
kysrsoze May 2014 #51
pampango May 2014 #5
Bobbie Jo May 2014 #6
onehandle May 2014 #7
hobbit709 May 2014 #8
ProfessorGAC May 2014 #9
KaryninMiami May 2014 #10
Theyletmeeatcake2 May 2014 #20
Jesus Malverde May 2014 #11
WhiteTara May 2014 #12
MohRokTah May 2014 #13
Jefferson23 May 2014 #14
TheCowsCameHome May 2014 #15
Javaman May 2014 #16
Gman May 2014 #17
bowens43 May 2014 #18
LWolf May 2014 #19
Laelth May 2014 #30
dionysus May 2014 #39
LWolf May 2014 #45
aquart May 2014 #52
LWolf May 2014 #74
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2014 #67
LWolf May 2014 #73
truebrit71 May 2014 #21
JHB May 2014 #22
chrisa May 2014 #23
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2014 #68
ladjf May 2014 #24
Arkana May 2014 #26
blm May 2014 #27
we can do it May 2014 #28
warrior1 May 2014 #29
Gothmog May 2014 #31
MurrayDelph May 2014 #33
frylock May 2014 #34
Beearewhyain May 2014 #35
dionysus May 2014 #40
MisterP May 2014 #36
Wounded Bear May 2014 #37
Rowdyboy May 2014 #38
Gothmog May 2014 #41
Jim Lane May 2014 #44
CaliforniaPeggy May 2014 #43
JustAnotherGen May 2014 #56
AverageJoe90 May 2014 #46
SidDithers May 2014 #47
HughBeaumont May 2014 #48
Initech May 2014 #49
woo me with science May 2014 #50
Iggo May 2014 #53
Tom Ripley May 2014 #54
JustAnotherGen May 2014 #55
CanSocDem May 2014 #57
arely staircase May 2014 #65
arely staircase May 2014 #59
MineralMan May 2014 #60
L0oniX May 2014 #61
Blue Owl May 2014 #64
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2014 #66
ismnotwasm May 2014 #70
Skidmore May 2014 #71
alan2102 May 2014 #75
FiveGoodMen May 2014 #81
Dawson Leery May 2014 #76
WhiteTara May 2014 #78
DonCoquixote May 2014 #79
DonCoquixote May 2014 #80

Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 06:19 AM

1. Nader..

.... has finally lost his nut. Nobody is less likely than a libertarian to Dismantle the Corporate State. Hell, all they care about is the Corporate State.

Nader must be losing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #1)

Thu May 1, 2014, 10:16 AM

25. Bill Sher's alternative (in the rest of the article) is for us to work with Corporations....

(As I recall we've bailed out Wall Street and Big Corporations and that led austerity for the rest of us but big bonuses and profits for those bailed out. Bill Sher thinks we need to work with corporations to achieve our goals. He feels liberals are currently agitated over income inequality but that it's not particularly important in long term goals. So it seems that Bill Sher's agenda is a contrast with what Nader proposes. Just thought I'd put out the rest of article in fairness.)

-----

Snip from the rest of the article the OP Posted:

As I observed in the New York Times following the Supreme Court's upholding of ObamaCare, "When corporations are divided or mollified, reformers can breathe. The president can be heard. Business owners can be convinced that they will remain profitable. The dim prospect of perpetual gridlock can be trumped by the allure of regulatory certainty."

Nader wants to scrap this long, if quiet, history of liberal success that has built the pillars of modern activist government in favor of prioritizing a civil libertarian agenda. His strategy makes sense if you think smashing the NSA is more important than saving the climate or feeding the hungry. I suspect most liberals would not make that trade.

There's nothing wrong with forging temporary, limited partnerships with whoever is willing to play ball at that moment. You can work with libertarians against corporations on global trade today, and cooperate with corporations against libertarians on funding infrastructure tomorrow.
But Nader's vision goes beyond ad-hoc coalitions. He wants to permanently side with government-hating libertarians over government-accepting corporations. That may have superficial appeal to liberals currently agitated over income inequality, but it's not the strategy that helped liberals in the past century build the social safety net, reduce poverty, and avoid another a Great Depression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #25)

Thu May 1, 2014, 11:15 AM

32. So do you think Nader is correct?? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #1)

Fri May 2, 2014, 10:22 AM

58. You forget about Conservatives and about half of Democrats

 

At least libertarians were against the bank bailouts and are opposed to things such as subsidies to oil companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #58)

Fri May 2, 2014, 10:58 AM

63. The fact that Libertarians,

.... whose implemented policy of deregulation essentially CAUSED the financial meltdown to begin with, opposed bailouts does not mitigate their involvement at all.

It's kind of like saying yeah they detonated a nuclear bomb but we're going to take away their lunch money.

Libertarians are (admittedly sometimes unwitting) lackeys for the rich and that is all they will ever be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #63)

Fri May 2, 2014, 03:18 PM

72. I don't remember republicans and voting against deregulation of banks either

 

Of course those republicans had the help of some democrats as well.

The fact that knowing the government will wipe your ass after you(bankers, not any posters) shit on the country also helped caused the meltdown as there were no real consequences for the bankers that were irresponsible and/or fraudulent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #1)

Wed May 14, 2014, 04:39 PM

77. White privilege has poisoned his brain

to want to go for a known racist prick like Paul, means he has no connection to civil rights issues at all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 06:23 AM

2. I love Nader

but doubt a Rand Paul coalition could go anywhere. I wouldn't join.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to otherone (Reply #2)

Thu May 1, 2014, 03:43 PM

42. You love Ralph Nader?

 

He recently called for the impeachment of President Obama:

When it comes to the current president, Nader said that Obama has violated the Constitution on several occasions and should be impeached.

"Oh, most definitely," Nader said when asked if Congress should bring forward articles of impeachment against Obama. "The reason why Congress doesn't want to do it is because it's abdicated its own responsibility under the Constitution."


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/ralph-naders-america-impeach-obama-decriminalize-drugs-libertarians-progressives-unite-110418813.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to otherone (Reply #2)

Fri May 2, 2014, 10:42 AM

62. Look down. You just stepped in shit.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 06:23 AM

3. Fuck Nader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Itchinjim (Reply #3)

Fri May 2, 2014, 12:01 PM

69. Amen!

He's nothing but a disruptor now. Sour grapes because his base is evaporating - due to the damage he's caused for the sake of his own ego and his weird-ass yen to "send a message"? "Send a message" to where? Hell? 'Cause that's basically the result of his last "Send a Message" quest - when his efforts led directly to "president" bush/cheney.

There are still many here and elsewhere who insist that he had nothing to do with it, didn't have enough of an impact to cause Selection 2000, it wasn't him, it was all Gore, Gore, Gore.

Well, given - Gore didn't run as good a campaign (THANK YOU, donna brazile, you useless worthless mush-bucket!!!!) BUT everything I've seen and lamented over proves to me that if it weren't for fucking ralph nader being a spoiler and siphoning off JUST ENOUGH VOTES, it would CLEARLY and DEFINITIVELY have been President Gore. nader got in there and just fucked it up enough so that bush/cheney got close enough to steal it. THAT'S ALL THEY NEEDED. To get close enough to steal it. And they knew it. And I bet they funneled money to the nader campaign to keep it alive because they knew that's what might happen if he stayed in it. They were just devious enough to think that up and do it. And nader was just the guy to help them out. His own hellish brand of "creative destruction" maybe? Well, it was straight from the bowels of Hell as we've all seen, very sadly, since. His horrifyingly expensive and self-flattering and greedy, arrogant, egomaniacal blunder became OURS to have to pay for.

And I, for one, will never forget that, OR forgive it. Well, maybe someday I can get to the forgive part ('cause Our Lord says that's what we're supposed to do). But I'll never trust or support ralph nader again. I remember him saying, at the time, that he believed things would have to get BAD ENOUGH to affect REAL change. Well could be, but SHIT!!!! Is it REALLY worth it, REALLY, to know that at least 4,000 American troops and who-knows-how-many innocent Iraqis paid for that experiment with their lives? How many multiples of just those numbers paid with their limbs, their eyes, their hearing, their skulls, etc? How many lives of those who survived will NEVER be whole again? Besides, even the results we got don't seem to have been bad enough. I'm not sure it's possible to get to that level of "bad enough."

And what about the land over there - sodden with depleted uranium? That's a gift that'll keep on giving for generations over there. To the Iraqi people AND to whoever of our people have the misfortune still to be over there - and others as well!

What about the budget deficit that mushroomed because of that war that bush/cheney HAD to have and LIED us into and "paid for" on OUR credit card that we're gonna be paying off for generations? Put us all so deep in the hole it may not be possible to get back out - in our lifetimes!

And what about the precious irreplaceable antiquities? bush/cheney thoughtfully remembered to have the Oil Ministry in Baghdad guarded, but NOTHING ELSE WAS. The ministry of antiquities, the MUSEUM of Antiquities! SHIT! LOOTED!!! All those treasures of thousands of years ago - that belong to all of humanity - GONE. DESTROYED! STOLEN!!!

And what about the ammo dumps and weapons storage strongholds? THOSE were left unguarded too, and all of THAT got looted, too!!!! So all our guns and ammo and other such menacing hardware of death all was allowed to fall into the hands of every rag-tag terrorist and al Qaeda operative and Shiite nutcase who ever wanted to get a hate-on for the West.

THANK YOU, ralph nader. And FUCK YOU VERY MUCH!!!! NONE of that would have happened if YOU hadn't been in there trying to fuck things up during Campaign 2000. Happy NOW??? HAPPY NOW, YOU ACCURSED ARROGANT FUCKWAD???

How'd that work out for ya, ralph?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 06:27 AM

4. Fuck Nader

I have no use for that piece of shit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Champion Jack (Reply #4)

Fri May 2, 2014, 09:30 AM

51. Amen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 06:39 AM

5. "... opposing "sovereignty-shredding global trade agreements, Wall Street bailouts, the overweening

expansion of Federal Reserve power, and the serious intrusions of the USA PATRIOT Act against freedom and privacy" may be Paul ideas that would get some support from the left, aligning yourself with him politically cares a lot of baggage as well.

However, coalition building requires compromise and, most critically, prioritizing one set of issues over another. The trade-offs inherent in Nader's path into Rand Paul's arms should make liberals run screaming. ... you can forget about anything that involves new government regulation, higher taxes, and more spending. That would preclude big-ticket liberal priorities like capping carbon emissions, expanding anti-poverty programs, guaranteeing universal pre-school, and investing in infrastructure. Nader effectively deprioritizes those goals, because his primary agenda is to "Dismantle The Corporate State."

Nader wants to scrap this long, if quiet, history of liberal success that has built the pillars of modern activist government in favor of prioritizing a civil libertarian agenda. His strategy makes sense if you think smashing the NSA is more important than saving the climate or feeding the hungry. I suspect most liberals would not make that trade.

There's nothing wrong with forging temporary, limited partnerships with whoever is willing to play ball at that moment. You can work with libertarians against corporations on global trade today, and cooperate with corporations against libertarians on funding infrastructure tomorrow.

But Nader's vision goes beyond ad-hoc coalitions. He wants to permanently side with government-hating libertarians over government-accepting corporations. That may have superficial appeal to liberals currently agitated over income inequality, but it's not the strategy that helped liberals in the past century build the social safety net, reduce poverty, and avoid another a Great Depression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 06:40 AM

6. Well, who could have seen that coming?

Fuck Nader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 06:43 AM

7. Fuck that assclown. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 06:45 AM

8. Ralph Nader can go suck eggs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 06:45 AM

9. This Proposal Makes No Sense

It's not a coalition if one side has to abandon nearly every other item of interest. It's a benevolent dictatorship.

The items spelled out in the article are exactly correct. Basically target the globalization issues and give up everything else in the social and local economic spheres.

Stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 06:51 AM

10. Most liberals remember

what happened when he ran and most liberals know that Nader's ego in running helped Bush win. Imagine how different things would be now had Bush not been President. So I doubt they will pay much attention to his latest round of bull shit- at least that's my hope.

Nader really wasted his talents- could have really made a positive impact in many areas but he chose to be an asshole instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KaryninMiami (Reply #10)

Thu May 1, 2014, 08:17 AM

20. Hasn't he done enough... Just ask Iraq!!

I don't think I'm drawing a long bow either!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 06:56 AM

11. Fuck Nader...

Loser

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 07:00 AM

12. Rot in hell Nadir. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 07:11 AM

13. Nader loves the Bushes, he does so much to try to get them elected.

 

This time he wants to hep put Jeb Bush into the White House just like he made sure George W. was put in the white house in 2000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 07:13 AM

14. You always take a vote where you can to meet your goal, but this is a precarious plan

and I don't see the upside benefits out weighing the cons.

Wasn't it Nader not long ago who said he did not think Bernie Sanders should run for POTUS?








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 07:28 AM

15. Go back under your rock.

I really didn't expect him to emerge this early.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 07:30 AM

16. ralph has gone off the rails. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 07:48 AM

17. More inspiration from the man with the blood of Iraq and Afghanistan

on his hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 07:50 AM

18. the asshole who put bush in the oval office now wants paul? what a fucking moron

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 07:52 AM

19. Nader and Rand?

I threw a shoe at my tv last night. Why? Because some local fucking Republican was airing a campaign ad about how Republicans will make sure that we help people "the American Way" by "pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps." Ridiculously transparent propaganda. As one of the outliers in that false myth, I know that people don't dig their way out of poverty with bootstraps.

I fucking hate political propaganda that encourages people to, en masse, adopt false memes. And, of course, EVERY campaign season, we are fucking BURIED by them, from both sides.

Nader is a false boogie-man pulled out every fucking campaign season to attack the left, blame them for the 2000 selection, and try to bully/scare people into voting for fucking neo-liberal corporate dems. Every political campaign needs an "enemy" to promote the "lesser evil" meme, because, god knows, there are very, very few candidates worthy of supporting on their own merits in these days of corporate ownership of the whole process. So faithful partisans always have to have an enemy to bash, and devote so much of their time and energy into doing so.

I, for one, think that time and energy would be better spent cleaning our own house, so to speak, but then, I AM a lone wolf when it comes to politics.

One of those enemies I've read more and more vitriol against the last couple of years has been "libertarians." Rand Paul, while a Republican, seems to be a favorite example of a "libertarian." To see him linked with Nader in an OP for a double whammy of "evil" is not surprising. Just discouraging. As for the point? Nader suggesting a marriage of the left and right? Not going to happen, but it's not a surprising suggestion. After all, those of us on the fringe of mainstream corporate politics are always looking for ways to break up the corporate status quo.

For the record, I do not now, never have, and probably never will, hate Ralph Nader, blame him for the 2000 selection, or make my voting decisions based on what he says or does. I've also never voted for him.

For the record, I don't give a fuck about Rand Paul. While I don't like him, I also don't plan to spend any energy giving him time and attention in any kind of forum.

I care about issues, and about what the Democratic Party is doing with them. That's ALL I care about, and that's what drives my voting decisions.

I'm never going to vote for a Republican. Never. Efforts to convince me that they are "bad" are a waste of time. I already know that. Efforts to marginalize the left, or to bully them into line? With this far-left Democrat, those efforts are not only an utter failure, but tend to have unintended consequences...the more I see, the less I respect or listen to those voices.

I'm looking for candidates to vote FOR, and that has to be based on their positions and records on issues...not on their opponents.

But that's just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #19)

Thu May 1, 2014, 10:41 AM

30. +1. Well said. n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #19)

Thu May 1, 2014, 03:30 PM

39. Nader wouldn't be a "false boogie man" had he not run for president 5 times, nopt taken GOP $$$ to

fund some of his campaigns.

purging the Dem party of all who we deem not liberal enough sounds great on paper, but would leave us with even further reduced numbers in the house and senate.

you won't be able to run a sanders style liberal in red states and win until you've counteracted the 30+ years of GOP ideological framework imprinted into the voter's brains. that's a long project, and can't be fixed quickly by simply nominating the "right" candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #39)

Fri May 2, 2014, 07:27 AM

45. He can run. That's democracy,

which shouldn't be a boogie-man to Democrats.

I think you just illustrated my point perfectly. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #19)

Fri May 2, 2014, 09:32 AM

52. The American way is to help your neighbor erect his barn

And to do it so joyfully you bring fried chicken, pies, potato salad, and make it a party.

WE COULDN'T HAVE MADE IT IF WE DIDN'T HELP EACH OTHER.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #52)

Fri May 2, 2014, 06:51 PM

74. That's right.

Let's do more of that. I can think of some opportunities right here, right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #19)

Fri May 2, 2014, 11:16 AM

67. It's hard to pull oneself up by the bootstraps

when they have no boots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Reply #67)

Fri May 2, 2014, 06:50 PM

73. Yep.

It's amazing how some are willing to watch people drown while they frantically grab for non-existent boots and straps. Those boots were probably the first things to go when they got thrown overboard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 08:36 AM

21. Ralph Nader gave us Lt Awol and two un-necessary wars...Fuck him...Twice.

 

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 09:12 AM

22. And what sort of judges would Prez Rand put on the courts, Ralphie?

Answer: The kind that would throw out every consumer protection case you ever filed.

Think these things through, Ralph.


But I suppose that if 2000 didn't teach you that you have political myopia, then nothing will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 09:16 AM

23. I'm sorry - What planet are the Naderites living on? Planet Naderon?

Rand Paul is going to give even more payouts to corporations. He's going to sell us out more to corporate interests.

It seems Nader has swallowed the Libertarian doublespeak bait - hook and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chrisa (Reply #23)

Fri May 2, 2014, 11:19 AM

68. Here are some of Ralph Nader's concerns about corporations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 09:54 AM

24. Please be quiet Mr. Nader. You have harmed America enough already.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 10:18 AM

26. This borders on hilarious in its naivete.

He thinks common cause can be made with the Paultards? Not. A. Chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 10:20 AM

27. Rand Paul has voted FOR every pro-corporate, anti worker, anti-consumer NWO Republican bill.

Rand Paul IS a fascist, and, damn Nader for pretending he isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 10:23 AM

28. Fuck Nader

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 10:23 AM

29. fuck nader

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 11:12 AM

31. Nader is a joke and no one should pay any attention to his stupidity

Nader is crying out for attention. The best thing to do is to ignore him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 11:32 AM

33. Thanks to Obamacare

We can get this Republican mole removed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 02:52 PM

34. fuck scalia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 02:54 PM

35. Wow. How can such a smart man be so stupid? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beearewhyain (Reply #35)

Thu May 1, 2014, 03:40 PM

40. he's very old, and judging from the looks of him, he's had a stroke or two...maybe he's got dementia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 03:04 PM

36. silly Nader, we're only supposed to ADOPT GOP policy, not briefly ally with

policies that were uncontroversial within the Dem party before '09!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 03:12 PM

37. Well, if I had seen a merest thread of "compromise" from anybody on the right...

for the last 30 years or so, I might consider seeking a compromise with them. Frankly, I consider libertarians to be Repubs on steroids, so no alliance is likely from this progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 03:29 PM

38. I file this with everything else Nader has said in the last 15 years....

Maybe someday people will see through his bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rowdyboy (Reply #38)

Thu May 1, 2014, 03:43 PM

41. Nader has been a joke for a while

He needs to shut up and go away because no one is paying any attention to him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rowdyboy (Reply #38)

Fri May 2, 2014, 03:53 AM

44. "Someday"? Most of his voters from 2000 have already seen through his bullshit.

 

Nader's vote totals and percentage of the popular vote:

2000: 2,882,955, constituting 2.74%
2004: 465,151, constituting 0.38%

So his total dropped by about 84%. Those who saw through his bullshit included his own running mate from 2004, Winona LaDuke, who in 2004 endorsed John Kerry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 03:57 PM

43. I wouldn't follow his directions if he were God!

No way in hell.

Get lost, Nader.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #43)

Fri May 2, 2014, 09:46 AM

56. I'll one up you

He has a better chance of meeting god in the next three seconds after I post this than of me supporting this idiotic and petulant snot plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 07:48 AM

46. Kiss my liberal, progressive, "white priv'leged" @$$, Ralphie.

 

Not falling for this shit. Frankly, they could run an average, 60-year-old white male Democrat and that'd still be better than sitting it out.....and certainly infinitely better than voting for any of today's Rethugs.

I actually respected you once upon a time.....but that was when I was naive and still believed in that literalist "white privilege" crapola, amongst other things. Now I see you for what you are: a has-been and an opprotunist.....and one who helped Bush get the WH at that.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 07:53 AM

47. Fuck Nader...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 08:33 AM

48. The libertarian right are economic whack-jobs.

Swaths of them are also anti-choice and pro-racism. Their politics are nothing but circular arguments.

Sorry, but I don't want to hear any fiscally comfortable white males talk about "masters" and "slaves".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 09:00 AM

49. Hell no!!!! Like all Republicans, Rand Paul is a snake oil salesman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 09:34 AM

53. Fuck Nader.

:middlefinger:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 09:40 AM

54. Fuck that noise, Ralph

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 09:45 AM

55. No - just no

Rand Paul pals around with domestic terrorist wannabes - i.e. White Supremacists.

So nope - not gonna do it.

There's nothing, I mean just NOTHING in it for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 10:07 AM

57. Reading this thread...

 


...is further confirmation that the USA will never rise above corporate servitude. The number of people who were too young or too un-informed to know of Nader's efforts on their behalf now gather on the rooftops and scream deliriously for the head of the man who gave them life.

If you think Nader is bad, then, by default you think corporations are good. Which of course explains why you continuously and inexplicably elect corporations to govern you. You dimly pretend that one choice is better than the other despite clear evidence it isn't.

Things your government hasn't created but Ralph Nader did:

Citizen Advocacy Center
Citizens Utility Boards
Congress Accountability Project
Consumer Task Force For Automotive Issues
Corporate Accountability Research Project

Disability Rights Center
Equal Justice Foundation
Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
Georgia Legal Watch
National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
Pension Rights Center
PROD (truck safety)

Retired Professionals Action Group
The Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest


1969: Center for the Study of Responsive Law
1970s: Public Interest Research Groups
1970: Center for Auto Safety
1970: Connecticut Citizen Action Group
1971: Aviation Consumer Action Project
1972: Clean Water Action Project
1972: Center for Women's Policy Studies
1973: Capitol Hill News Service
1980: Multinational Monitor (magazine covering multinational corporations)
1982: Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
1982: Essential Information (encourage citizen activism and do investigative journalism)
1983: Telecommunications Research and Action Center
1983: National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
1988: Taxpayer Assets Project, WFHW-LP
1989: Princeton Project 55 (alumni public service)
1993: Appleseed Foundation (local change)
1994: Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees)
1995: Center for Insurance Research
1995: Consumer Project on Technology
1997: Government Purchasing Project (encourage purchase of safe products)
1998: Center for Justice & Democracy
1998: Organization for Competitive Markets
1998: American Antitrust Institute (ensure fair competition)
1998: Commercial Alert (protect family, community, and democracy from corporations)
1999: Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
2000: Congressional Accountability Project (fight corruption in Congress)
2001: Citizen Works (promote NGO cooperation, build grassroots support, and start new groups)
2001: Democracy Rising (hold rallies to educate and empower citizens)


....from Wikipedia


.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanSocDem (Reply #57)

Fri May 2, 2014, 11:12 AM

65. and then he flushed a lifetime of work and his reputation down the shitter nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 10:28 AM

59. what a sad little man nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 10:34 AM

60. Nader is a doddering old fool.

Anyone who listens to his natterings should have his or her head examined by a professional in that field.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 10:41 AM

61. Someone is confusing liberal with libertarian again?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 11:11 AM

64. 'Scuse me while I go ralph

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 11:12 AM

66. Ralph Nader lost touch with reality 14 years ago

when he said there's no difference between GW Bush and Al Gore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 12:03 PM

70. Ewwww

Ew ew ew

No way, that's just disgusting. Shame on you Nader

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri May 2, 2014, 12:05 PM

71. Nader has not only encroached on but entered

Lyndon LaRouche territory in terms of political aspirations and political dementia. This man does not really care who he hurts with his bizzarre machinations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Wed May 14, 2014, 04:32 PM

75. wow!

 

What an amazing thread! The vitriol directed at Nader for an obviously sensible idea. In fact the only idea that stands a chance of getting any of the big things done -- e.g. reigning-in empire, paring-back the military-industrial-security complex -- and perhaps the only idea that could save democracy in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alan2102 (Reply #75)

Wed May 14, 2014, 05:44 PM

81. That won't sell here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Wed May 14, 2014, 04:37 PM

76. The last time Nader was ever of any use of 1976.

No way will I ever back an anti-civil rights act nut such as Rand Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Wed May 14, 2014, 04:44 PM

78. Fuck Nadir. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Wed May 14, 2014, 05:23 PM

79. how can anyone to the left

support the Pauls, the ones that want to kill Social Security? To kill the EPA? Does Nader think legal MJ will work if we all get paid 5 cents a week?

This is idiocy, and worse, we can already see the Koches trying to set things up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Wed May 14, 2014, 05:26 PM

80. most telling quote

"The Nader strategy of a permanent coalition with the libertarian Right greatly limits what liberals can accomplish. Where there is a joint desire to restrain government (end the drug war) and limit spending (stop corporate welfare), a Nader-Paul alliance can form. But you can forget about anything that involves new government regulation, higher taxes, and more spending. That would preclude big-ticket liberal priorities like capping carbon emissions, expanding anti-poverty programs, guaranteeing universal preschool, and investing in infrastructure.

Nader effectively deprioritizes those goals, because his primary agenda is to "Dismantle the Corporate State." But the hard truth is that if liberals want to make progress on their core agenda, the coalition to nurture is not with the Paulistas. It's with the CEOs."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread