Ralph Nader Challenges Google to Hold Presidential Debates

[Axiom_Blade]

Nader wants to work with Google to host more-democratic presidential debates, so we can see a debate between (for example) Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, and independent presidential candidates.

Even with the weight of Google behind it, this will be a tough hurdle. The big question is, how do you get the big two-party candidates to sit down and debate the third parties?

 

[fuelair]

Why should they - when it would include little piles of feces like Nader who are just looking for self-aggrandizement? Nader doesn't give a crap about Democratic processes or the effects of his actions except as they keep him known and give him some pathetic level of destructive influence.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Why should they - when it would include little piles of feces like Nader who are just looking for self-aggrandizement? Nader doesn't give a crap about Democratic processes or the effects of his actions except as they keep him known and give him some pathetic level of destructive influence.

Note: the best trolling has some form of subtlety to it.

 

[JoeEllison]

What purpose does someone like Nader serve, given his current strategy?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

What purpose does someone like Nader serve, given his current strategy?

Help open up the electoral arena to more voices and choices, fight corporate power (beyond his presidential campaign, in the form of Congressional Watchdog Groups), and expose the hypocrisy of both major candidates.

Moreover, candidates like Nader engage otherwise cynical/apathetic voters in the political process. I probably wouldn't have ever become a voter if it weren't for third party candidates. Like Nader is so fond of saying, his campaign keeps topics "on the table" that are taboo to the two parties (e.g. the Taft-Hartley Act, which I probably wouldn't have known about if it weren't for him.)

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I actually would like more parties, though under our current system they can only work as spoilers.

But having the minor parties with the major ones would just show how sane and moderate the Democrats and Republicans actually are.

However, the third parties have had a long history of introducing new ideas, and when those ideas gain enough popularity to threaten the major parties, it is quickly taken up by one of the two. And thus the third party goes back to obscurity.

But having a single issue party in a debate would be hilarious.

"What do you plan to do about healthcare?"

"Prohibition."

"And you?"

"Legalize pot."

"Okay, and what about education?"

"Prohibition."

"And you?"

"Legalize pot."

 

[fuelair]

Note: the best trolling has some form of subtlety to it.

I do not troll and have never been accused of it. That is my firm and absolute opinion of Nader and has been so since November 2000. He used to have some value. He no longer has any. My message and opinion on this matter will never have/include subtlety.

 

[JoeEllison]

Help open up the electoral arena to more voices and choices, fight corporate power (beyond his presidential campaign, in the form of Congressional Watchdog Groups), and expose the hypocrisy of both major candidates.

Moreover, candidates like Nader engage otherwise cynical/apathetic voters in the political process. I probably wouldn't have ever become a voter if it weren't for third party candidates. Like Nader is so fond of saying, his campaign keeps topics "on the table" that are taboo to the two parties (e.g. the Taft-Hartley Act, which I probably wouldn't have known about if it weren't for him.)

Nah, he's not doing any of that. He's having a temper tantrum and he's willing to wreck the country to make a point.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Nah, he's not doing any of that. He's having a temper tantrum and he's willing to wreck the country to make a point.

Seems pretty lucid to me, and makes a lot more sense than the Big Three candidates.
Did you watch any of the video at all?

 

[fuelair]

Seems pretty lucid to me, and makes a lot more sense than the Big Three candidates.
Did you watch any of the video at all?

Don't know if he did. I didn't. I won't. I will cheer his demise but that's about it. He lost any honor or value a while back, I am uninterested in any thoughts, aims or goals he may have other than stopping him from reaching them where it is within my ability.

 

[JoeEllison]

Seems pretty lucid to me, and makes a lot more sense than the Big Three candidates.
Did you watch any of the video at all?

I don't need to watch any of the video. I know where Nader stands, and while I don't entirely disagree with his viewpoint, I have significant issue with his methods.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Don't know if he did. I didn't. I won't. I will cheer his demise but that's about it. He lost any honor or value a while back, I am uninterested in any thoughts, aims or goals he may have other than stopping him from reaching them where it is within my ability.

I'm sorry I called you a troll. It's just that usually when somebody makes an extreme post, they're just doing it to get an extreme reaction.
Why are you so angry at Nader? Care to elaborate?

 

[fuelair]

I'm sorry I called you a troll. It's just that usually when somebody makes an extreme post, they're just doing it to get an extreme reaction.
Why are you so angry at Nader? Care to elaborate?

Yes, it is quite possible that Nader gave an assist to Bush - especially in the 2000 election and against the desires of his former party/supporters in 2004. I dislike anyone involved in Bush's election in any way that helped it win. People are free to believe that there is no difference between Clinton/Gore/Kerry and Bush. If they have not, by now, figured out that was way wrong, it's their problem. Nader wanted things Nader's way and was willing to, in effect, help Bush win if it would put his "ideas" forward. He essentially (and the second time - 2004- he did not have the excuse of not knowing) helped sacrifice American lives (the Iraq war thing) to publicize himself. His right, but do not expect me to support or like or admire him for it. He is partially responsible for all the bush evils.

I did, by the by, e-mail the Nader campaign in the 2004 election on this topic, pointing out the problems. It, of course, did no good against Mr. Ego. Also, by the by, I truly and completely believe that this is entirely about Nader wanting to be well-known, respected and cared about again. Everything about his expressed attitude and positions that I saw prior to having him become invisible to me indicates this.

 

[GreyICE]

The attitude that Nader should have put up and shut up rather than run his campaign seems against the goals of this country to me. Certainly voters for him must have been aware that they were not voting for a viable candidate. Given that, it is questionable how many would have voted at all in the election. Certainly Nader is in no way responsible for the actions of Bush (any more than any one of the numerous people who passed Ted Bundy on the street and did not kill him are responsible for his murders).

Nader was attempting to reach the federally mandated 5% which would give Green Party candidates time and funding, allowing the Green party to reach a wide array of voters.

Furthermore Nader ran in 2004 more as a position statement against the donors who offered him money not to run, but would not guarantee support for his key issues in congress. From Wikipedia:

Meeting with John Kerry — Ralph Nader and Democratic Candidate John Kerry held a widely publicized meeting early in the 2004 Presidential campaign, which Nader described in An Unreasonable Man. Nader said that John Kerry wanted to work to win Nader's support and the support of Nader's voters. Nader then provided more than 20 pages of issues that he felt were important and he "put them on the table" for John Kerry. According to Nader the issues covered topics ranging from environmental, labor, healthcare, tax reform, corporate crime, campaign finance reform and various consumer protection issues.

Nader reported that he asked John Kerry to choose any 3 of the issues and highlight them in his campaign and if Kerry would do this, he would refrain from the race. Several months passed and Kerry failed to adopt any of Nader's issues as benchmarks of his campaign, so on February 22, 2004, Nader announced on NBC that he would indeed run for president as an independent, saying, "There's too much power and wealth in too few hands."

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I don't need to watch any of the video. I know where Nader stands, and while I don't entirely disagree with his viewpoint, I have significant issue with his methods.

What's wrong with his method? Lobbying and running for office?
People do that all the time.
Seriously, this is what citizens are supposed to do. Politics is not a spectator sport.

 

[TheJim]

I voted and campaigned for Nader in 2000 in the state of Florida and I do not regret it just to give some background. I also wish that the debate rules would change but the idea that a candidate that is polling at less than 1 percent should be invited to the debates is stupid. A huge problem I had with the primary debates was the amount of deadwood that was still on stage in December and January. I think the current these hold of 15 percent is too high but if a candidate can not even get a couple of points in any state then they have a problem that the debate will not correct.

 

[Slimething]

Hmm. Nader. Ralph Nader. Where have I heard that name before? Oh, yeah, he did in the Vega. No, no, it was the Corvair. Ah, that's it, the Corvair. So, now he wants to be Prez?

 

[Puppycow]

Help open up the electoral arena to more voices and choices, fight corporate power (beyond his presidential campaign, in the form of Congressional Watchdog Groups), and expose the hypocrisy of both major candidates.

Google is a corporation too.
We wouldn't have the standard of living we do or the cornucopia of amazingly cheap mass-produced products available without them. I'll bet the computer you wrote this on was made by a corporation. And their power is actually very limited. There are anti-monopoly laws, for example, which prevent the worst sorts of abuses.

 

[Dragoonster]

I really dislike Nader but would love to see third-parties represented in at least some General Election debates (perhaps also separate debates for them only). I'd also like to see mandates on the media to give at least some face time to third-party candidates. Not equal time, but bare minimum (i.e. for every 1000 minutes spent covering the GOP/Dem candidates, they must spend 30 minutes on third-party candidates. Which may not matter, just do it.)

Reality is the two major parties don't have to spend anything for enormous almost round-the-clock media coverage. I think this is an unfair advantage, particularly as third-party candidates DO get more than 0% of the popular vote (compared to just 0% of media coverage).

In 2004 the five next third-party candidates (including Nader) got 1%
In 2000 the five next got 3.7%

Both kind of hisotrically low I suspect. Yet aside from that idiot Nader, I can't recall a single second of coverage from major media, for say the Libertarian or Constitution party candidate. True, CSPAN offers some but who watches that? It isn't major media.

 

[dudalb]

I do not troll and have never been accused of it. That is my firm and absolute opinion of Nader and has been so since November 2000. He used to have some value. He no longer has any. My message and opinion on this matter will never have/include subtlety.

Nader has been on a huge ego trip ever since the 2000 election.
That so many people on the Political left who basically agree with his positions won't give him the time of day should tell you something.
He has a very,very,small group of True Believers for whom he is a Messiah figure and can do no wrong. He is like Ron Paul in that regard.