Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Ralph Nader...

1

There's a lesson many on Slog have been learning lately that could also apply to Nader:

Please don't feed the trolls.

Posted by Mike of Renton | February 24, 2008 12:27 PM
2

Huh???

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 24, 2008 12:28 PM
3

right, god forbid there be a candidate that actually thinks gays should be allowed to marry, or that bush/cheney should be impeached, or any other issue that nader is advocating that the other major candidates are afraid of.

in elections, you have to earn votes. and nader will have to earn votes just like obama and mccain will (and maybe even mike bloomberg). and, based on his past record, chances are he'll earn less votes than last time. maybe your broader concern should be with the fucked up way we conduct our elections, whereby ppl consider a vote for nader a "wasted" vote. and your broader complaint about 2000 should be that al gore was such a goddamn lousy scrotum of a candidate.

sometimes you're such a histrionic, hysterical, reactionary d-bag, dan. this--where you intimate that ralph nader should be assassinated for running as an independent outside of our rotten two-party system--is one of those times.

Posted by jaykay | February 24, 2008 12:38 PM
4

Mike, does it count as trolling if Dan does it on his own blog? I'm confused.

Posted by johnnie | February 24, 2008 12:38 PM
5

Translation of @1: If we all ignore Nader, maybe he will go away.


Posted by Ad | February 24, 2008 12:38 PM
6

Nader is like a televagelst; if you give them air time and money they never seem to go away.

Posted by Andrew | February 24, 2008 12:58 PM
7

Well, at least Nader's not an anti-American Muslim.

Posted by Elvis | February 24, 2008 1:00 PM
8

@7: he's lebanese-american. close enough!

Posted by jaykay | February 24, 2008 1:06 PM
9

While it likely will not be Nader who starts a viable third party, we very much need an alternative to the major parties. The sooner the center ceases to hold the better.

Posted by Heather | February 24, 2008 1:06 PM
10

Dan, that threatening tone toward Nader is beneath you.

And it's not Nader's fault that Al Gore ran such a weak campaign. All you Democrats need to stop displacing your anger at your own Party onto Nader, who actually stood for something worth voting for.

Posted by Miles | February 24, 2008 1:09 PM
11

I think Dan is referring to the fact that no one is really against Nader except Democrats who don't want to give McCain the presidency.

Nader doesn't have to worry about a thing, no with with all that fresh Republican green coming in.

Posted by Ben | February 24, 2008 1:28 PM
12

A wee bit agro, don't you think, Dan? In case you hadn't heard, we elect our Presidents in this country. We don't coronate them. Someone "wasting" their vote on Nader is between that person and ... well... nobody else.

Posted by Mahtli69 | February 24, 2008 1:35 PM
13

Who did the Stranger endorse for the White House in 2000?

Posted by Andrew | February 24, 2008 1:37 PM
14

Runaway global warming. A $10 trillion debt. Permanent loss of standing among nations. Destruction of our currency. The Iraq quagmire. Effectively, the likely end of the American experiment and possibly the world. No need to run again, Ralph. Your legacy will be with us forever.

And any idiot who thinks there can be a "viable third party" CAN'T DO MATH. Unless the constitution is changed to allow some form of proportional representation, where post-election coalitions can form a government, elect an executive, etc., the only way to win is to form coalitions before the election. Here, they are called the Democratic and Republican parties. They could be called something else, but in a winner-take-all system all the varying priorities and viewpoints will quickly coalesce into exactly two coalitions. This is neither a plot, nor is it evil. It is the physics of our constitution.

Posted by DC | February 24, 2008 1:48 PM
15

My, my, my...it's so funny to watch the Democrats run around with their skirts up...flailing in panic...."Have you HEARD!?!?!?!? NADER!!!!"

Quick - to the blogs. Anyone that seems like the are dissatisfied with Obama/Clinton is a troll. Start talking about how old he is (he is terribly old...older than old). He hasn't been relevant for half a century. Look what he did to poor Al Gore (helped him win a Nobel prize).

If Nader is so abysmally corrupt and doomed to defeat - then why does he attract so much attention from the Dems?

Are they that scared that someone is going to take a close look at them?

Are there really any people in the country that will vote Nader now and reject their membership in the Cult of Obama or the turn away from the warm, comforting bosom of Clinton?

Really? Is there such little confidence in the candidacy of Obama/Clinton?

Buck up little Democrat soldiers...if things fall apart and Nader is allowed to compete in even 10% of the states, you will be able to blame him for McCain's victory. You can rest easy...its never your fault and Nader helps you avoid taking any blame.

Posted by patrick | February 24, 2008 1:59 PM
16

14 is obviously right. In order to become President you need to convice 60 million people to vote for you. Candidates need to try to bring in as many people as they can without pissing of the people who vote based on personality not issues. So any presidential candidate who wants to win can't make anyone totally happy but tries to leave some kind of positive impression with a majority.

Posted by Mike | February 24, 2008 2:01 PM
17

By the way, if I didn't read Slog, I would have NO IDEA that Nader was even running. So don't get your collective panties' too bunched up over this in the next few months, Stranger, because you're the best publicity that Nader has.

@14 - LOL ... tell that to the Whigs.

Posted by Mahtli69 | February 24, 2008 2:03 PM
18

The fact that anyone defends this puke, just tells me that Ron Paul does NOT have the monopoly on fringe weirdo supporters. Hey Ralph, make like a Corvair in a rear end collision and just burn out.

Posted by Bob | February 24, 2008 2:23 PM
19

@17 - what? You must only read the Slog. It's the top of the mainstream news today.
And Dan, I'm SO very disappointed in your spitefulness toward a man who's made our lives much better through his hard work.
And BTW, he does need security unfortunately. I met with him during the WTO protests and he needed security even then - and that was 9 years ago.

Posted by Sarina | February 24, 2008 2:26 PM
20

Bob, starts with a B ends with a B what's your name BOB? What a Bozotron.

It was the Pinto that caught on fire in rear end collisons, the Corvair tucked a wheel on a sharp turn

Posted by ouch | February 24, 2008 2:35 PM
21

@15. This Democrat is not worried about Nader spoiling the election. This story is attracting my attention because I'm fascinated by why on earth he would possibly run again. He clearly is not going to win, and it would be shocking if he go more than 1% of the vote. If he was running to inject his viewpoint on issues into the race, then why not get involved much earlier?

It's just sort of puzzling to me, so the only conclusion I can draw is that he is the worst kind of attention whore.

Posted by Julie | February 24, 2008 2:50 PM
22

"Dan, that threatening tone toward Nader is beneath you."

No, it isn't.

Posted by w7ngman | February 24, 2008 3:38 PM
23

Then why are you paying attention enough to read about him and comment?

Apparently, he does make people think...and it appears that is just what the Democrats would prefer we do not do.

Posted by patrick | February 24, 2008 3:40 PM
24

Welcome aboard, Mr. Nader! In a strong democracy, the electorate would not fear more options.

Posted by Bub | February 24, 2008 3:55 PM
25

Is it possible????...
...for Isreal and the Arabs to join hands and sing the Coke song?
...that Democrats can ELECT a Democrat and STOP complaining how they run their campaigns, how they look, how the speek, how they do ANYTHING...because if it weren't for THAT, there would not be a Bush in the White House right now. You want WORSE clusterfucks? Keep voting for Nader/third party assholes when All We Need Right Now is a Democrat who will set a GOP roach bomb off in DC. So STOP complaining!!!!

Posted by ohnoNOTagainsaidDaffyDuck | February 24, 2008 3:57 PM
26

I predict Ralph Nader's political aspirations will end when it becomes public knowledge that he is the secret love brother of Jim "Gomer Pyle" Nabors.

Posted by Smarm | February 24, 2008 4:46 PM
27

Why do all the Nader supporters/apologists in these comments sound like that crazy chick who sat in back in Poly Sci 101? Smelling like patchouli, condemned to a life governed by teenage angst, that girl was annoying and made just as much cohesive sense as anyone who thinks his insertion is anywhere near a good idea.

Posted by B | February 24, 2008 4:56 PM
28

Those foolish non-conformists.

Drink the Kool-aid angst girl.

Join the Party!

It is useless to resist!!

apologist! idiot!

(you sound so scared...)

Posted by patrick | February 24, 2008 5:29 PM
29

@17 while you are telling that to the whigs remember that they do not exist anymore. The reason they don't exist is that the First Past The Post/single district plurality electoral systems absolutely destroy third party candidates. The only way to effectively compete is to have extremely strong regional representation, or completely supplant an existing party like the Republican party did to the Whigs in the 1850s-60s.

A third party cannot succeed in America today, the other parties are too well established and dominating for another party to spring up out of nowhere and succeed. the only way is for some form of proportional representation to be enacted, but that won't happen because it would hurt the D and R parties.

If you want to make a meaningful change for a Three party system, work towards a PR system, or a grassroots Green party election. Voting for Nader is the exact wrong approach

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 24, 2008 5:34 PM
30

Maybe Raoul Castro can off him his vice-presidency?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 24, 2008 5:54 PM
31

I just think it's cool that the Ron Paul supporters will have companions to hang out with on the freeway bridges. Make awesome signs, puppets.

Posted by Bob | February 24, 2008 6:22 PM
32

Only people on Slog could be capable of writing something so hateful. This one is only second to your post about how the Shannon Harp memorial on Howell should be taken down (just because you don't care about it).

Posted by Katie B | February 24, 2008 6:49 PM
33

Nader apologists who accuse Democrats of being afraid of Nader are right. In fact, that's exactly the point. We're afraid he'll spoil the election and give it to the Republicans like in 2000. It's not a question of not being "confident" in our own candidates, it's a question of wanting to see the GOP out of office.

Posted by NJ Matt | February 24, 2008 7:14 PM
34

Nader apologists who accuse Democrats of being afraid of Nader are right. In fact, that's exactly the point. We're afraid he'll spoil the election and give it to the Republicans like in 2000. It's not a question of not being "confident" in our own candidates, it's a question of wanting to see the GOP out of office.

Posted by NJ Matt | February 24, 2008 7:15 PM
35

@14 - You don't need proportional representation to create a system where independents and third parties can run without directly taking votes from the major parties.


It's called preferential voting, and we have it here in Australia. It means I can happily cast my first vote for the Greens, or whoever else I may wish, safe in the knowledge that if/when my first preference is eliminated, my vote is passed to my second preference, then third, and so on until only 1 candidate remains.


Not difficult.

Posted by Bento | February 24, 2008 7:47 PM
36

Oh, but it is difficult here, bento. If it might decrease the chances the Democrats have of winning because there is a better choice, then they will never support that change.

They just like the way the word change sounds.

The more things change...

Posted by patrick | February 24, 2008 7:50 PM
37

Nader is a fool - and is part of why we've been going backwards for the last seven years.

Time to kick him to the curb.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 24, 2008 9:03 PM
38

...Because Nader would be a viable candidate and Obama (and Clinton) would be a long-shot nobody?

Yeah, that'd be cool.

Posted by K | February 24, 2008 10:18 PM
39

Nader has million of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Nader wants more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

phony modern lefty - Stalinist thinker

past his prime, way past, underpaid staff with no benefits, WHAT AN EXAMPLE OF GREED

out the fucker

Posted by Mac Grinker | February 24, 2008 10:21 PM
40

The vitriol the Democrats hold for Nader and Nader voters can be startling. For every lefty I know who voted for Nader I know twenty who didn't bother to get off the couch and go to the ballot box. It's often claimed that a vote for Nader is a vote for the Republican. How this makes any sense, I don't understand; at "worst" (from a Democrat's perspective) a vote for Nader is a vote that should have been for the Democrat but wasn't. Is this really any worse than a presumptive Democrat voter staying at home? And does anyone doubt that there are a great many more lazy Democrats than there are Nader voters? Wouldn't it be better strategy - and more logical - to take the energy currently used to excoriate Nader and his supporters and use it to shame the apathetic into voting?

Posted by 您看什么看? | February 25, 2008 5:28 AM
41

Hooray! I'm voting for the ugly old troll under the bridge again. Talk about your cock-eyed optimist.

Posted by Vince | February 25, 2008 8:26 AM
42

The Dems should have learned after 2000 that they ignore the left at their peril. They didn't in 2004, maybe they are starting to in 2008.

Posted by K | February 25, 2008 9:45 AM
43

#40
sure- already doing that - have registered 11 people at my office building in the last month - will give much money and much time -

good advice - go to work all you Dems.

Nader is still a senile money grubbing idiot - too bad

Posted by John | February 25, 2008 10:23 AM
44

I wonder if Obama will be serious about being a uniter. Well here is his opportunity. Sitting down and talking to Nader should be as challenging as talking with Syria or N. Korea. If he really is about changing the way we do politics he should denounce the demonizing of Nader and bring him on board. If he lets the Democrats return to the dirty tricks of 04 that kept Nader off the ballot I will no longer support Obama.

Posted by j | February 25, 2008 10:38 AM
45

dan, you're a bitch.

Posted by Emily | February 25, 2008 11:02 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).