Ralph Nader?

[il Commy]

Do you think Ralph Nader should run for presidency on the next USA elections? I mean, it's obvious he doesn't stand a chance and that the Democrats are just as capitalists as the Republicans. But today, for mostly populist reasons, the Democrats will oppose wars and the occupation of Iraq. So isn't it right for the left to unite behind a democratic candidate for the elections and proceed with non-Democrati actions outside of the Congress-Senate-President game?

[Pete]

Basically you want Nader to sell out for the lesser evil instead of fighting his fight against the combined darkness of capitalism? (I laugh as I read that sentence)

[Marxist in Nebraska]

There has been talk of Nader running for Senate, and I think his chances there are much better than running for president. Personally, I think he should support a progressive Democrat like Kucinich and then run in a realistic Senate race. I think those are the best odds for progressives' electoral victory in 2004

[Umoja]

I'd never support a Democrat, if they ever were trully progressive, they'd be able to divorce themselves completely from the Capitalist elements of their party. Nader, for example, wasn't a traditional member of the Green Party USA, he was more like a Greens/Green Party member and they had tried to convince him to run under their banner first. Logically, Presidential elections aren't where power is won. Power is won in Congress.

[Severian]

Nader doesn't have anything to do with independent working-class politics either; he and the Green Party are a thoroughly middle-class force, and basically his last presidential campaign was an effort to get the Democratic Party to move left a little.

Power doesn't come from elections, presidential or congressional; it comes from mass action.

[Umoja]

Not in America. Power, more often then not, comes from Legislation in America. Unless you want to wage a publicity war against corporations.....

[praxis1966]

Which is exactly what Michael Moore is doing right now. Did anyone see him on "Real Time" last night? If not, you should definately check out the re-run. I'm sure it will be on again several times between now and the end of next week. If you don't have HBO, find a friend who does and watch it at their house.

As far as mass action goes, I thought that's what elections are. That's kind of the whole concept. Besides, if you refuse to vote, you'll be just as culpable for Bush getting re-elected as the people who voted for him. I personally am going to vote Sharpton in the primary and then probably hold my nose and vote for whoever wins the nomination after that.

[Umoja]

Sharpton is the most Radical Democrat running, but he isn't largely liked by moderates in the White and Jewish communties I've noticed. Also, his damn conk turns everyone else off, but seriously, he does seem to have decent leaderships qualities being connected more strongly with the lower class then many average people.

[Xvall]

I don't like the Democratic Party. I don't have any problems with Nader, but they will never let him win.

[mentalbunny]

I think the important thing is to get involved in your local communities and talk to the people who matter, the working class - those who produce, not those who own the means of production. Obviously you have to interpret that for yourself but the thing is you have to get people demanding stuff, like better health insurance, a living wage, etc. When people realise they can win stuff like that they'll keeep going, they may need a little prompting now and again, saying "how about this now you've got that?" and "what about the wider effects of this activity?" and "let's establish links with other people like us in other countries who don't necessarily have so much success and we can help them".

I appreciate that for the teenagers on this board it's not easy, hell it's not easy for anyone to get involved in this kind of stuff, but it's what needs doing. We can't sit here and discuss how to run the country after the revolution, we have to discuss how to best encourage the workers to take matters into their own hands.

[Umoja]

That's what V. Debbs tried, iirc, and look at his wonderful legacy.... *grumbles*

[Xvall]

You dislike Debs?

[Hampton]

There's only one guy I know who could dislike Eugene:

http://www.ipdi.org/images/carlson.jpg

[Umoja]

No I just used words with the wrong connotations in that. I'm saying what Eugene V. Debbs tried wouldn't work now, because you'll notice the power of the Socialist Party has been decreased after WWII, it was very much a party "of the people".

[Comrade Ceausescu]

people like nader are useless.all the greens to do is sit on their asses and whine.they dont get much done.

[Umoja]

Don't get much done in comparisson to who? And if all Nader does is whine, I guess that would explain why his organization hasn't accomplished anything. *Sarcasm*

[EZLN88]

I may not be in tune with the latest political candidates all that much but I am trying do that as I sit here now but the way I see, most of you call yourselves communists or socialists and yet you're still talking about voting Democratic or Green. That doesn't make sense to me. If you want a communist or socialist state you need to find out about those candidates and you need to spread the word on them. If enough people vote for them, they get better recoginition. With better recognition, they can spread their ideas much more easily. Like it or not, the elections in any government are based on how much the public sees a person, that is, that's the large percentage of the vote. Issues don't matter any more. If you can make a candidate seen, then people will vote for that candidate. If they vote for him, they will actually look into the issues that candidate believes in.

I also agree with Mentalbunny, when you start in your own community, you can build a strong following. You go from those humble beginnings to being a political powerhouse.

[Alejandro C]

nader won't run next year.

he has said that he won't run because now there are progressive democrats.



that is naders weakness. HE IS WEAK. he gives in. just like he did during 2000. he says "vote for gore not me"? i lost any respect i had for him and he could never get it back.


nader was powerful though, because of nader (mostly) we have bush in the whitehouse not gore. i don't think there is any difference between bush and gore but i was glad to see someone else determine an election.


i hate the two parties in america more than i hate anything else. i will see them both burn in my lifetime.

anyone that is going to help make that possible is helping everyone.

my enemy's enemy is my man

[timbaly]

For a third party candidate Nader did very well in the 2000 election. He got a toal of 2,834,410 votes. That was the most for athird party candidate. But he has no chance to win the election. Bush and Gore got over 100 million combined. 2 million is next to nothing compared to Bush and Gores totals. Naders vote toal was only 2.69% of the poular vote. another one of his problems is that he wasn't on the ballot ion some states like Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

EZLN88 has a point about supporting radical candidates in the elections. I think we should work toward that, but align with Dems and Greens in the short term since we have no political organization in place yet for a more radical candidate.

Alejandro C,

I have not heard anywhere that Nader has already ruled out a run in 2004. And Nader never pitched his support to Gore in 2000, not even in the close states. And of course, Bush is more to blame for stealing the election via disenfranchisement of voters in Florida than Nader is for bringing in votes of conscience and revealing the mediocrity of Al Gore.

timbaly,

We need to make an effort to get the Greens (at least, if not radical leftists) on the ballot in all 50 states.

[Umoja]

I actually do want to see a Green state, Socialism and Communism would be transitioned into much easier if the state that was being dissolved was already burning capitalism like natural gas.

[timbaly]

I believe it was Red Celtic who once told me that in order to be on a ballot in a paticular state you need a certain amount of signitures from the residents. After you have the set number you will then be on the ballot. I was just wondering if that was the whole story or is there more to it?

[Red Flag]

finding the exact requirements for running for ANY office in ANY state is hard to do online, as I've searched MANY time and can never seem to find any relevamt information. :(

[profound]

i'm an Australian, so i don't know all to much about American politics, would some one please explain to me about Nader? Earlier i read that Nader ran for the Greens, and now is running for the Democrats, is this true? I also understand that in the 2000 elections when Nader knew he wasn't going to win, he asked voters to pass their votes for Gore instead? Someone, please elaborate... I wish to understand more about this topic.






:blink: confused kangaroo

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 02:02 PM
Not in America. Power, more often then not, comes from Legislation in America. Unless you want to wage a publicity war against corporations.....
No, the power is far from legislation, it is in the courts. They don't have to be elected and they sit there forever and most laws legislation passes will have to go before courts sooner or later.The judicial system in America is the most powerful branch.

Legislation just got stomped on, Pledge Alliagance, Nike's freedom of speech, the 2000 presidential election, the no call list, abortion rights, rights to privacy. If somebody was willing to and if the supreme court would see the case they could even strike down the Patriot Act. The supreme court had final say on faith base initiatives and the voucher system.

Even right wing radio talk shows know this and talk about the power the court system has. The libertarians want them gone as well, because they know they are the true legacy a president leaves behind.

[Alejandro C]

nader did do very well in the 2000 elections. his party got over %5 of the vote in my state and so were officially recognized by the state. you see one of the biggest reasons why we have such shitty politicians in america is that the system is entirely monopolistic. in order to be even recognized as a party you have to get %5 of the vote. in order to participate in the debates you have to have %10. catch 22. well nader got %5 and was recognized. you could actually register as a green. i was damn surprised to see that as a choice instead of just rebulican and dem and independent. along with being automatically on the ballot your parties fundraising is matched by the state. yeah it was sweet for the greens.... until 2002. on that election year they did horribly and fell to less than %2 of the vote. they were subsequently kicked off the ballot and i got a letter in the mail saying that i could no longer be registered as a green. and now it seems the green parties influence and success is waning. and what is nader doing about it?

also i was wrong about nader asking people to vote for gore (i think). i think i was mixed up because i just read mike moore's book and he told people to vote gore not nader. so i reverse my statement about how weak nader is to say that michael moore is very weak and too soft to stick by his own convictions.

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by Exploited Class+Oct 3 2003, 03:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Exploited Class @ Oct 3 2003, 03:21 AM)
[email protected] 27 2003, 02:02 PM
Not in America. Power, more often then not, comes from Legislation in America. Unless you want to wage a publicity war against corporations.....
No, the power is far from legislation, it is in the courts. They don&#39;t have to be elected and they sit there forever and most laws legislation passes will have to go before courts sooner or later.The judicial system in America is the most powerful branch.

Legislation just got stomped on, Pledge Alliagance, Nike&#39;s freedom of speech, the 2000 presidential election, the no call list, abortion rights, rights to privacy. If somebody was willing to and if the supreme court would see the case they could even strike down the Patriot Act. The supreme court had final say on faith base initiatives and the voucher system.

Even right wing radio talk shows know this and talk about the power the court system has. The libertarians want them gone as well, because they know they are the true legacy a president leaves behind. [/b]
I agree. I was just going to make the point that if there is any reason to vote in the Presidential elections, then it would be to try and get Kucinich in there so he could load the courts with left judges. There has been a lot of damage done there in the last 15 years.

Everyone forgets the importance of judicial nominations.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I would disagree with the sentiments expressed in this thread by some insisting the Congress or the courts are the most powerful branch. I would say the Executive Branch is the most powerful. The president has power paralleling the law-passing of Congress via the executive order. And it is the president who appoints those judges for life. The president also has far greater influence because it easier for him or his cabinet to get on TV than it is for judges and most in the Congress.

It is a moot point though, when all three branches of the federal government are dominated by the Republican Party. Checks and balances do not mean shit when one party gets to control all of the power, and many Democrats are center-right themselves and practically caucaus with the Repubs.