Ralph Nader will run

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2004-02-22 07:02pm

It should be obvious and evident that Nader is a Republican in disguise. He is a part of the evil Republican's plan to give Bush victory. Just look at the poll numbers here and you can tell everyone thinks so.

How interesting for someone so universally acclaimed as a dummy (Bush) be so diabolical in his execution of politics (putting in a nutty independent to draw off votes from the Dems)

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-22 07:09pm

0.1 wrote:It should be obvious and evident that Nader is a Republican in disguise. He is a part of the evil Republican's plan to give Bush victory. Just look at the poll numbers here and you can tell everyone thinks so.

How interesting for someone so universally acclaimed as a dummy (Bush) be so diabolical in his execution of politics (putting in a nutty independent to draw off votes from the Dems)

Interestingly, during the 2000 election season, a Republican-affiliated group ran an attack ad with footage taken from elsewhere of Ralph Nader bashing the environmental record of the Clinton administration.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-02-22 08:26pm

I recall that Republican strategists were aiding Sharpton's campaign. Perhaps the GOP will surreptiously back Nader?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-02-22 09:07pm

what´s so bad about nader? i mean about his political leanings not the fact that he´s taking away votes from the demokrats.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-22 09:20pm

salm wrote:what´s so bad about nader? i mean about his political leanings not the fact that he´s taking away votes from the demokrats.

He's way out there on the extreme fringe left wing. Maybe not by European standards, but by American and even Canadian standards, he sure is.

Gunshy · Post by **Gunshy** » 2004-02-22 09:28pm

See for yourself if you agree with Nader.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php

His employee bill of rights, frankly has me scared. I know he won't win, but still...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-02-22 09:36pm

salm wrote:what´s so bad about nader? i mean about his political leanings not the fact that he´s taking away votes from the demokrats.

Among other things he wants a 25-dollar minimal wage, aka lets force the nation to become hardcore socialist in a vain attempt to avoid economic ruin.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-22 09:51pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
salm wrote:what´s so bad about nader? i mean about his political leanings not the fact that he´s taking away votes from the demokrats.
Among other things he wants a 25-dollar minimal wage, aka lets force the nation to become hardcore socialist in a vain attempt to avoid economic ruin.

Dude... That's a big ass minimum wage.

I've never been paid minimum wage in my life ($7.50 an hour at least for me), but I know its not enough to live on. But $25? That goes too far the other way. Does he want to bankrupt the employers so nobody gets paid, or what?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-02-22 10:05pm

Dean has said that he'll support whoever the nominee turns out to be toward the end of getting rid of Bush.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-02-22 10:10pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: Among other things he wants a 25-dollar minimal wage, aka lets force the nation to become hardcore socialist in a vain attempt to avoid economic ruin.

25 dollars? that´s ridiculous.
i like a lot of his other points tough.
- health care
- higher taxes for rich people
- public financing of elections
- enviornment
- less power for corporations
- he wants to kick out the stupid patriot acts
- opposition to war in iraq
- wants to end the ridculous war on drugs
- wants to abolish the three strikes you´re out law
- opposes the death penalty
-

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-22 11:48pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
salm wrote:what´s so bad about nader? i mean about his political leanings not the fact that he´s taking away votes from the demokrats.
Among other things he wants a 25-dollar minimal wage, aka lets force the nation to become hardcore socialist in a vain attempt to avoid economic ruin.

That's the stupidest piece of shit idea I've EVER goddamn heard. Doesn't he realize that the correlation between wages and the number of jobs in the country is about -.2? He would quite literally put TENS OF MILLIONS of Americans out of work and force damn near every company to outsource to foreign countries, even further magnifying the impact of his already craptastic policy.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-22 11:54pm

Are you sure it was $25 an hour, Skim? As I recall it was more like $12-13. Still a ridiculously high amount, would cause mass unemployment.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-22 11:59pm

Joe wrote:Are you sure it was $25 an hour, Skim? As I recall it was more like $12-13. Still a ridiculously high amount, would cause mass unemployment.

Even if it was JUST that, it would still put millions of Americans out of work, and hardest hit would be those in rural areas. The rich guys he hates so much would be almost totally untouched by such a policy, though his massive taxations on wealth rather than work would do them serious damage.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-23 12:03am

As he put it, he thought every employee should have a "living wage", not a "minimum wage". Damned if I know what that means.

It's worth pointing out that his general anti-corporatism does strike a chord. Those who believe that corporations should be free to do whatever the fuck they want are living in a dream world, where big corporations are something other than bloodsucking amoral machines.

And his general idea of taxing obscene wealth, inheritance, and "undesirable" activities more than others is not exactly unique; people have had "sin taxes" on things like gasoline and cigarettes for a long time. Nader just doesn't bother hiding the basic intent, which is to use taxation as a means of social engineering.

However, his energy policy is a sad joke which is based on total ignorance of technological reality, and he doesn't seem to have a lot of ideas about how to make his ideas work in the real world.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-23 12:06am

As he put it, he thought every employee should have a "living wage", not a "minimum wage". Damned if I know what that means.

Basically, the living wage would be a very high minimum wage, if ever instated.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-23 01:07am

Joe wrote:
As he put it, he thought every employee should have a "living wage", not a "minimum wage". Damned if I know what that means.
Basically, the living wage would be a very high minimum wage, if ever instated.

How much exactly are we talking about, though?

I can easily model the unemployment rate vs. benefits from a change in minimum wage rates if I knew how much money we were talking about, here.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-23 01:10am

Wants to create a new energy policy
We urge a new clean energy policy that no longer subsidizes entrenched oil, nuclear, electric and coal mining interests -- an energy policy that is efficient, sustainable and environmentally friendly. We need to invest in a diversified energy policy including renewable energy like wind and other forms of solar power, more efficient automobiles, homes and businesses – one that breaks our addiction to oil, coal and atomic power. A new clean energy paradigm means more jobs, more efficiency, greater security, environmental protection and increased health.

There are entrenched nuclear interests? We're addicted to atomic power?

I figured it was bad Mike, but not that bad.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-23 01:13am

It varies considerably; some people favor a very high living wage, others a lower one. You may want to check out this site:

http://www.livingwagecampaign.org/

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-02-23 02:03am

Master of Ossus wrote:That's the stupidest piece of shit idea I've EVER goddamn heard. Doesn't he realize that the correlation between wages and the number of jobs in the country is about -.2? He would quite literally put TENS OF MILLIONS of Americans out of work and force damn near every company to outsource to foreign countries, even further magnifying the impact of his already craptastic policy.

0.2 is a ridiculously weak correlation. I'd think it'd be higher.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2004-02-23 03:29am

jegs2 wrote:He's running for President:
CNN wrote:Nader's announcement was widely watched by Democrats, many who blame him for siphoning off votes in Florida in the 2000 election that might have gone to Democratic nominee Al Gore, who lost the state and the overall election in a split decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Democrats also fear a Nader campaign could swing the election to President Bush this year.

John Kerry is a bit further to the left than the AL GORE 2000 was. Really, about the only people who voted for Nader were the Green Party faithful and some far-left leaning Democrats. However, the installment of Bush, and the dismal failure of the AL GORE 2000 at the hands of Nader probably wiped out whatever support he garnished from the fringes of the Democratic party. And again, John Kerry is further to the left than the AL GORE 2000 was, so Nader (being so far to the left he requires counterweights to keep from toppling over to one side) isn't going to attract any more than the hardcore Green Party faithful this time around.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-23 01:17pm

Durandal wrote:0.2 is a ridiculously weak correlation. I'd think it'd be higher.

In economics, that's a VERY strong correlation. I guess it's relative, but remember that if somone with ten thousand dollars could find a .01 correlation between some factor and the price of a stock, they could probably be a millionaire by the end of the month.

Edit: Oops, I see that I mistated the correlation (explaining why it appeared so weak). It's -.2 for every dollar that you raise minimum wage. Now, that correlation will go down (it obviously can't continue indefinitely like that) with such a radical shift. One of my books here has to have the formula for that, but Nader's plan would obviously put tens of millions out of work with such a ludicrous shift in market strategy. I imagine it would also lead to considerable inflation.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-02-23 04:53pm

$25/hr would be higher than that of either France(where some consider the 9% unemployment rate "structural") or Germany(I think; don't know about the Germans for sure). One thing's for sure; we'd see a helluva a lot more robots.

Anyway, Nader may not get as many votes from the left side this time around since he's running as an independent and not as a Green Partymen(which he never joined, probably for obvious reasons).

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-23 05:31pm

As he put it, he thought every employee should have a "living wage", not a "minimum wage". Damned if I know what that means.

Massive, massive wage increases essentially stripping away all corporate profits. Indeed, more or less removing the rights of companies to determine wages and benefits.

It's worth pointing out that his general anti-corporatism does strike a chord.

The notion that corporate interests have gone too far resonates.

His message that the answer is to strip business of almost all rights is seriously flawed. It really is anti-corporate, in the borderline communist sense. Taking away the most basic coporate rights isn't going to help the problem.

Those who believe that corporations should be free to do whatever the fuck they want are living in a dream world, where big corporations are something other than bloodsucking amoral machines.

The people that believe that are the right-wings idiot-equivalent of Nader.

And his general idea of taxing obscene wealth, inheritance, and "undesirable" activities more than others is not exactly unique; people have had "sin taxes" on things like gasoline and cigarettes for a long time. Nader just doesn't bother hiding the basic intent, which is to use taxation as a means of social engineering.

I'd say it goes a fair way farther than just social engineering. It's a like a great big government Robin Hood robbing everyone with money blind for the sake of the mythical common man.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-02-23 05:32pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:$25/hr would be higher than that of either France(where some consider the 9% unemployment rate "structural") or Germany(I think; don't know about the Germans for sure). One thing's for sure; we'd see a helluva a lot more robots.

25 dollers an hour would be exactly 25 dollars an hour more than the german minimum wage. we don´t have minimum wages.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-23 11:13pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
salm wrote:what´s so bad about nader? i mean about his political leanings not the fact that he´s taking away votes from the demokrats.
Among other things he wants a 25-dollar minimal wage, aka lets force the nation to become hardcore socialist in a vain attempt to avoid economic ruin.

Say, where'd you get that about the $25 an hour? I foolishly used that figure without having a source to back it up and need to know fast. >_<

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ralph Nader will run

Will Nader give Bush a second term?

Re: Ralph Nader will run