Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Ralph Nader: He's baaaaack! (maybe)

Feb 6, 2004 5:03PM PST
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/benson020504.html

Consumer crusader Ralph Nader, the Green Party's presidential candidate in 2000, says he is "itching to run again" this year.

In an interview, Nader said he wants to "broaden and deepen" the issues debate and challenge "the unbelievably obstructive rules and deadlines" that keep third parties and independent candidates off the ballot in many states...

Nader insisted he wants Bush to be defeated, calling him "a big corporation disguised as a human being." He argued that his own candidacy could prod the Democratic nominee to be bolder in confronting Bush, something he doubts leading Democrats are capable of doing on their own.

"I find the substantive rationale (to run) compelling," Nader said.


If this happens, and if the November election is as close as some suggest it will be (and I'm not convinced yet that it will be), then it appears that the Deaniacs may yet have someone for whom to vote... at the expense of (presumably) John Kerry.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:Ralph Nader: He's baaaaack! (maybe)
Feb 6, 2004 9:43PM PST

If he truly wants Bush to be defeated, than he would not run splitting the vote of the Dems . No, he is just an egomaniac who wishes to stay in the news at whatever cost.

- Collapse -
Gooooo Ralph! May you do to the Dems what you did to Corvair! (NT)
Feb 7, 2004 10:45AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re: Ralph Nader: He's baaaaack! (maybe)
Feb 7, 2004 1:32PM PST

Hi, Paul.

Nader has zero credibility at this point. After the last time, his support will only be the extremists who probably would have voted for the Socialist Workers Candidate if he weren't in the race.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Socialist Workers Party...
Feb 7, 2004 2:07PM PST

Hi Dave,

If I'm not too wrong the leader of that party was born in Australia and is a naturalized American citizen and thus cannot become the president of the USA.

The Vice President nominee for the party is too young for office, since she's only 24...

However, I think it is a pity that we don't have a parliament system instead so we could see more parties being part of the political decisions, no matter if they are right- or left wing (I obviously have MY preferences...). Then it would matter who you voted for, even if it was a small party and the decisions would probably have a broader support in the society. Just my opinion/thoughts.

- Collapse -
Re:Socialist Workers Party...
Feb 8, 2004 10:18AM PST

Well, the head of the party, or even the vp, doesn't have to be the candidate does it? in fact, I dare say that the head of the Democratic or Republican party has rarely ran for President or VP, at least not while head of the party.

Anyone that wants to can start a party I think. And any district that wishes can elect anyone of any party to be a member of the House or the Senate. There is no requirement to have a parliament system, however you define it, to have different parties representative.

So why do you feel that we need a parliament system for "... it would matter who you voted for, even if it was a small party ..."?

Shrug, our way has held up pretty good for 200 years plus, with changes made when enough approved. It has it flaws, and many disagreements about what is flawed and what is good. But it works as well as any other currently in the world I suspect.

Every country doesn't have to have the same style of government as what you're use to for it to work fine.

"... we don't have a parliament system ..."

So you are a US citizen then? if you wish to say that is. There was some question about it in the past and if it was clarified, I must have missed it.

roger

- Collapse -
Re: Socialist Workers Party...
Feb 8, 2004 12:21PM PST

Hi, Charlie.

The problem with parliamentary systems is that the requirment in most that the ruling party prevail in all "substantive" issues is death on compromoise -- and we have too much of that attitude already! It's also the exact opposite of our system of "checks and balances," where each branch tends to limit the power of the other. In a parliamentary system, the executive and legislative are the same.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!