Salon phone interview with Nader (shorter: he's nuts!)

[trogdor]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/14/naderphonecall/index.html

Everyone here should read this.

Talbot: Why are these groups giving you money and trying to get you on the ballot? They have no interest in your political agenda. They're working to get Bush elected so he can keep the war going and keep supporting his rich friends.

Nader: Wait, wait, wait. Working to get someone on the ballot is working to give someone their free speech. I have no problem with that.

Talbot: I have no problem with that either. But I think you need to question who some of your political bedfellows are, and ask why they're helping you. The press should do that with any candidate.

Nader: No, no. The criteria is that you're an American citizen and it's within the limits of the law. Period. We are not going to let Salon...

Talbot: Hold on, let me finish. We have a right to point out that if you are in bed with people and groups who are anti-gay, antiabortion, anti-immigration...

Nader: Oh Jesus, you're really degrading yourself.

Talbot: Well, that's the truth.

Nader: These are press releases by these idiot groups. Look at our gay rights position -- it's much better than Kerry's.

Talbot: Why are these conservative groups helping you then?

Nader: Because they're mischievous, that's why! They want to get their name in the paper and trick people like Salon.

Talbot: They're mischievous because they think they can sabotage the Kerry campaign...

Nader: But they haven't done it, they haven't done it.

Talbot: ...by helping you.

[Melodybe]

1. Awesome, Talbot isn't giving him an inch, I LOVE IT!

thanks for posting.

[Liberal Veteran]

2. I hate to say it, but people still defending Nader are nuts too.

He's no longer helping the liberals or progressive and his antics are becoming more and more shrill and counterproductive to all of us.

That is not to disrespect Nader's accomplishments in the past, but that doesn't mean he's above reproach now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. He's Fundamentally Evil...

Like Bush, Cheney, PNAC, and the neocon crowd....


I don't know how any of them can sleep....


(-:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Every Time I See Nad(i)rs Name I Want To Puke....

He is a bad man...

(-:

[Seven]

5. I'm not voting for Ralph...

..but I'm opposed to fighting to keep him off the ballot.

He is working with groups that I don't like at all, but the Dems take contributions from groups and corporations that I find just as undesirable.

Politics is a dirty business I'm afraid.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. He Has The Right

to be on the ballot and people of good will have the right to say he is a fundamentally evil man...

He used to be a force of light but he went over to the dark side....

[Seven]

11. I agree that people can criticize him..

..anyway they want.

For the record I feel the same way about Kerry that you do about Ralph.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Kerry Might Be A Trimmer

but there's nothing in his record that indicates that he's ever been in bed with the most retrograde forces in American politics like Ralph Nad(i)r...

Nad(i)r is a pile of excrement.... He stinks....

[Seven]

35. Kerry gets contributions from right wingers

Every Dem does in every campaign.

Does he have right wing special interest groups work to get him on the ballot?

No..but that's because he doesn't have to. I have no doubt that Kerry would if he felt that was the only way he could get on the ballot.

Of course Kerry is LITERALLY in bed on a nightly basis with someone who at one point was married to Republican...and of course Carville is WORSE in that regard.

But I don't hold it against em.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. Don't You Get It

The right wing groups are trying to get Nad(i)r on the ballot to drain votes from Kerry....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Don't You Get It

The right wing groups are trying to get Nad(i)r on the ballot to drain votes from Kerry....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Don't You Get It

The right wing groups are trying to get Nad(i)r on the ballot to drain votes from Kerry....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. Don't You Get It

The right wing groups are trying to get Nad(i)r on the ballot to drain votes from Kerry....

[demwing]

139. OK, We GET IT - lol

we get it!
we get it!
we get it!
We REALLY get it!!!

:silly:

[belle]

142. Yes, but Kerry doesn't paint himself as some ideological puritan, see

And did you ever consider WHY he "doesn't have to" get right wing special interest groups to get him on the ballot? Why should Nader "have to?"

And the crack about his wife is just stupid.

[spooky3]

17. Can you be specific about which groups and corps. to which you are

referring?

While I certainly agree that there is too much corporate influence in politics, there is a BIG difference between taking money from orgs. with which you fundamentally agree and taking money from those with which you fundamentally disagree, who are using you to keep or get their disagreeable positions and representatives in power.

[Seven]

42. Here's a link

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/27/kerry_is_no_gandhi_on_corporate_donations/

I'm new here and if I am doing something wrong in protocall on links please let me know and I'll fix it.

[spooky3]

57. Welcome to DU! and thanks for the link...comments inside...

Here are a few thoughts and questions.

1. I'm still not clear on what you find objectionable about the positions that these corporations want Kerry to take:

"But this week, The Washington Post reported that Kerry's presidential campaign has received more than $540,000 from either companies that have moved operations overseas to avoid taxes or from fund-raisers run by executives who help companies move to tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Then there are the media and telecommunications. Kerry's top career contributor ($231,000), the law firm of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, is heavily involved in telecommunications. Kerry's third-biggest donor is media conglomerate Time-Warner ($141,000). Fourth is the law firm of Hale & Dorr, which is significantly involved in telecommunications and biotech. Fifth is the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which does work for nearly half of the Fortune top 250 industrial and service corporations."

2. The article you cite says the evidence shows that Kerry is far less beholden to corps. than are Republicans.

"To be sure, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being Gandhian suffering and 10 being unbleachable filth, Kerry cannot possibly smell like President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the Republican Party."

Are you making things black and white that aren't black and white?

3. The same W Post article that identified Kerry contributors has been chided for being misleading (I'll have to hope another DUer has the link--this was part of a long ago thread and I don't have it) because Kerry received only a very tiny % of all contributions from corps of any kind. There is a BIG difference between getting a lot of money from a few sources versus from a lot of sources, because in the former case, the contributors will have much greater impact. This is a key point that McCain has made repeatedly.

[sangh0]

92. That's pretty funny

how a poster claims that "there's no difference" between Kerry amd the right-wing, and to support that claims posts a link to an article which says the two are vastly different.

[Seven]

135. I never said they were the same

I don't think there is no difference.

But they are both beholden to corporate interest to at least some degree.

[Seven]

136. To me..

..the question isn't whether or not the Dems and Kerry are better than Bush and the reps, in this department.

I think we all know that.

To me the issue is whether or not Kerry is accepting money from corporations that seek to influence his campaign. And I think he is.

I'm particularly worried about taking money from defense contractors fwiw.

Thanks for the civil tone btw.

There is no reason people can't debate and disagree with each other in a civil way.

[TeacherCreature]

146. when the democrats take that money it is not to elect republicans

I may no like the democratic party to take money from those sources but they are trying to win and get rid of bush. Nader is throwing the election to the reps.

[lovedems]

7. He is nuts!

He is wacko! He has lost his marbles!

I honestly laughed at that interview. I thought this quote was very funny

"Nader: OK, now I've flushed you out. Now you've come out. I'm an expert in flushing out bias, prejudice and prejudgment. And you've demonstrated all three"

So in other words, if you question Nader's supporters you are bias, prejudice and prejudge! LOL! That is a way to win support Ralph! He wants to fight with the big boys but wants kid gloves during the match.

He is one effed up dude.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Isn't Prejudice And Prejudgment Redundant...

I guess Ralphie liked the alliterative effect...


What a pile of human detritus he is....

[lovedems]

10. I just kept waiting to read

"Republicans have feelings too!".

Pile of human detritus...You are to kind. :)

[Devils Advocate NZ]

12. No...

You are biased, predjudiced and prejudging when you question Naders supporters BUT IGNORE THE DEMOCRAT'S LARGEST SUPPORTERS.

Sure Nader has taken money from right wing groups, and the Dems have taken money from the same groups via a different route - corporate donations.

Why is it alright for the Dems to use corporate money to win an election, but not Nader? Why is it that the Dem's platform erases their dealing with corporations such as Enron, but Nader's don't?

That is bias. That is prejudice. That is prejudgment.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. If the Dems can do it, why can't nader?

[lovedems]

13. Are you kidding?

Nader is taking money from people he "claims" he wants to defeat. That is pretty funny. Nader is bitching that both parties are indebted to the corporate pigs and he want's to change things in this country by taking money from corporate pigs. What's even worse is that the people who are giving him money don't give a damn about his platform! I could give the guy a little bit of a break if at least these people agreed with what he is saying, BUT THEY DON'T!

It is Nader's own message that makes his acceptance of such money bogus. Nader is joke.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

14. So what is the Dem's excuse?

They do it too, and everyone here doesn't seem to mind, so why is Nader crazy or evil for doing the same damn thing?

It takes a whole lot of money to compete in an election, if Nader can use the Repubs own money against them, more power to him I say.

Of course that is what people say about the Dems too...

On edit: by the way, did Enron agree with the things the Dems were saying? Or were they trying to influence what they actually did?

In my opinion what Nader is doing is far less dirty that what the Dems do - They claim to want to work for the little guy, while taking the big guy's money. Then when they get in power...

[lovedems]

18. I don't want to sound crass and forgive me if I do but

Nader is not using the republicans money against them. He is using their money against Kerry. Nader is doing exactly what the republicans want Nader to do and people like you are falling for it. Bush supporters will give Nader their money, not their vote. Now Nader can get on the ballot with republican money to split the Kerry vote. It is quite simple if you ask me.

And the last I saw, the democrats weren't running to create a viable third party free from corporate funding. NADER IS. Nader is going against his own message! There lies Naders hypocrisy. He wants to take money from the evil entities he "claims" to despise.

Nader is evil for doing it because his message is that democrats and republicans are evil for doing it. He should either give back their money or tell people he is just like all the other politicians.

[spooky3]

20. well put.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

33. Of course he is using their money against Kerry!

That is what an election is about! You can't choose to run against only some of the candidates, you are in it against ALL of them.

And the last I saw, the democrats weren't running to create a viable third party free from corporate funding. NADER IS. Nader is going against his own message! There lies Naders hypocrisy. He wants to take money from the evil entities he "claims" to despise.

Ok, becuase the Dems are doing EXACTLY what Nader accuses them of, that means Nader is wrong? Sorry my friend but that doesn't cut it.

Where in Kerry's platform does he talk about wanting to give tax cuts to the rich? I've never seen it, but that seems to be what the corporations are after. So why are they giving Kerry money? Is it because they just want to throw money at the party that is going to go against their wishes? Or is it because they KNOW that won't happen?

What is more evil? Saying something and never having the chance to back it up, or saying something and reneging when you have the chance to back it up?

Why should I hate Nader for doing the same things the Dems do?

Nader is evil for doing it because his message is that democrats and republicans are evil for doing it. He should either give back their money or tell people he is just like all the other politicians.

So you admit Kerry is evil? After all, if Nader is just like all the other politicians, then Kerry must be evil too, right?

Or are you saying you can only be evil when you tell people that the other party is screwing you, but take money from the same coporations doing it.

Wait, that IS what Kerry is doing...

Sounds like pure hypocrisy to me...

[mzmolly]

37. What?

Why should I hate Nader for doing the same things the Dems do?

Uhm, because Nader SAYS he's offering you an alternative? :think:

What Nader doesn't tell people like you is that corporations give FAR MORE MONEY TO REPUBLICANS then to Democrats.

Here is one example of the disparity:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=A02

And another.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=H04

Poke around at open secrets if you'd like to compare. Don't take Nader's word for anything, he's a liar.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

44. Big effing deal...

What Nader doesn't tell people like you is that corporations give FAR MORE MONEY TO REPUBLICANS then to Democrats.

I have never even READ a Nader speech, so I have no idea whether Nader tells "people like me" anything. You see, I THINK for myself.

Now, as to corporations giving more money to Republicans, what is that supposed to mean? Of COURSE they give more money to Republicans! The question is WHY DO THEY GIVE MONEY TO DEMOCRATS?

Do they do it just for fun? Do they do it because they want to even the playing field a bit? OR ARE THEY BUYING FAVOURS?

If you think that the last one is NOT what they are doing, then YOU need to stop believing the lie.

Poke around at open secrets if you'd like to compare. Don't take Nader's word for anything, he's a liar.

Yes, they give FAR MORE to Republicans. Point taken. THEY ALSO GIVE VASTLY MORE TO DEMOCRATS THAN TO NADER!

Using YOUR logic, that means that Nader is far better than the Demcrats! Or is that faulty logic?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. Nad(i)r Is Evil...

All the pseudo intellectual bloviating can't obscure the fact but for Nad(i)r's presence on the Florida ballot Gore would be president....


Nad(i)r is an abortion....

[Devils Advocate NZ]

54. Bollocks! That is a lame copout.

You can't argue the facts, so resort to a bullshit claim from 2000.

Why does everyone assume that people who voted for Nader in 2000 would have otherwise voted for Gore? Isn't that like saying if Gore wasn't on the ballot YOU would have voted for Bush?

It is utter bullshit.

The TRUTH is if the votes were counted properly Gore would have won. Or if Gore had appealed to Nader voters, he would have won. Neither of those things came to pass.

Neither of those things is Nader's fault.

How many times have I seen Dem's on DU saying the far left should be ignored? Then they say that those same people they are ignoring WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THEM? Bollocks!

More importantly they are STILL saying ignore the far left - AND STILL EXPECTING THE FAR LEFT TO VOTE FOR THEM!

How fucking stupid do Dems think these people are?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. Don't Let The Facts Get In The Way Of A Good Argument

Nad(i)r got 97,000 votes in Florida.... Gore "lost" by 537 votes.....
Exit polling revealed that for every four Nad(i)r votes had Nad(i)r not been in the race two would have voted for Gore, one would have voted for Bush and one would have stayed home.... In the absence of Nad(i)r Gore would have carried Florida by some 30,000 votes....

What part of that you don't you understand?


Nad(i)r sucks... He's swine....

[Devils Advocate NZ]

61. Exit polling? The same exit polling that said Gore won?

Hmm something smells here...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. Arguing With A Naderite Is Like Arguing With A Cult Member

Will you have the cherry or grape kool aid?



on edit- I'm ABB baby, I'd prolly vote for you if you were running against *.....

[Devils Advocate NZ]

68. Nader is running against Bush. Why don't you vote for him?

That way you get rid of Bush AND the corporate influence on politics.

By the way, I'm NOT a Naderite. What I am is anti-hypocrisy. Every time you call Nader evil for doing the same thing Kerry is doing, YOU are drinking the kool aid!

PS, I actually don't suggest you vote for Nader, because there are far too many Dem kool aid drinkers like yourself who won't, so doing so is just wasting your vote. However, that doesn't change the point of my argument.

[mzmolly]

75. You see this is false.

That way you get rid of Bush AND the corporate influence on politics.

ONCE AGAIN, NADER IS TAKING MONEY FROM CORPORATE OWNERS who wish to help Bush. He is not the purist he claims to be.

So, I renounce your pitiful remark to vote for Ralph Nader.

Kerry doesn't claim to be a purist, although his record in the senate shows he has taken less pac money than his counterparts.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

77. So now you say Nader is taking corporate money (less than a million)

So he is bad, but Kerry taking corporate money is good?

Hypocrisy...

[mzmolly]

79. NO, I'm saying Nader says taking corporate money is bad, yet he

does it.

Kerry isn't running on an anti-corporate message. That's hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy = this guy right here:



Don't forget he's selling a book. You can buy it and support Nader and Murdoch at the same bloody time. :hi:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

86. But will Nader repay that money with favours?

I sure don't think so, and no-one is suggesting the money is given with that intention in mind.

The Dems on the other hand...

[mzmolly]

94. Yes, one BIG favor. Re-electing George Bush.

:hi:

[foo_bar]

121. now the devil has to defend himself

I'd love to debate Nader but I'm banned on CU.

[Seven]

137. This may deserve it's own thread..

..but in Micah Sifry's book "Spoiling For a Fight", there is a footnote that indicates that assuming every Buchanan vote would have gone to Bush and every Nader vote to Gore (both ridiculous assumptions), Buchanan cost Bush more States than Nader did Gore.

[mzmolly]

51. You claim to think for yourself on Ralph Nader but haven't heard one of

his speeches?

Regarding why corporations contribute to Democrats, it's because generally they have a 50/50 chance of winning a given election. Corporations want the R's in office, but give to Dems "just in case"

However as I pointed out, the amount of money given is quite different (in spite of the fact that Democrats control about half of Washington.) I'd like Ralph to explain WHY this is.

As to your other questions, they were already eloquently addressed by lovedems.

And the last I saw, the democrats weren't running to create a viable third party free from corporate funding. NADER IS. Nader is going against his own message! There lies Naders hypocrisy. He wants to take money from the evil entities he "claims" to despise.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

60. Hmmm...

maybe because I don't NEED to know what nader is saying, to know what is being said on this thread is bullshit. Everything Nader is being accused of, the Dems do too.

But Nader is evil while Kerry is the greatest?

Why do NONE of you want to address the fact that the Dems take money from corporations in return for favours?

Regarding why corporations contribute to Democrats, it's because generally they have a 50/50 chance of winning a given election. Corporations want the R's in office, but give to Dems "just in case"

Just in case what? In case the Dems win? Then what? What are the Dems going to do? Go on, YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS - JUST SAY IT!

And the last I saw, the democrats weren't running to create a viable third party free from corporate funding. NADER IS. Nader is going against his own message! There lies Naders hypocrisy. He wants to take money from the evil entities he "claims" to despise.

So is Kerry!

He claims to work for the "little guy" - but takes BIG MONEY from the the "big guy" - what for? Why does he take it? What do the "big guys" hope to achieve by giving Kerry money? It sure isn't that he will work for the "little guy"!

So why is it "going against his own message" when Nader does it, BUT NOT WHEN KERRY DOES IT?

Here is a question for you:

Everyone knows that the Dems have a far greater chance of winning than Nader does. So therefore, the Dems don't really need that corporate money, right? So why do they take it?

It's a simple question, perhaps someone will answer it.

[mzmolly]

71. Oh boy.

You are obviously not familiar with Mr. Nader or Mr. Kerry.

Naders entire premise is that the Dems and Repubs are corrupt because they take money from corporations, yet he is a tool for the Republican party and is on the payroll of Ruppert Murdoch.

Your spelling indicates you may be from the UK? That may explain your lack of knowlege on both men/the political parties.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

74. So what? Kerry says the same thing about Republicans...

And takes money from the same sources. What is the difference?

[mzmolly]

78. Actually your wrong again. Kerry does NOT take money from the same

sources. You make false claim after false claim and then ask a rhetorical questions based on your false assertions. Nader does the same thing. Sure you haven't heard a speech or two? ;)

Let's compare top donors for Bush/Kerry shall we? Note not only are the contributors largely different (80% different) but the contribution amounts differ greatly as well.

Also note that it is Nader (not Kerry) who is running on an anti-corporate interest platform. Though he has no chance of winning a damn thing he has taken money from corporations.

Note: Many presidential candidates receive the bulk of their funds from the same industries and Washington-based interest groups that dominate giving to all federal politicians and parties. Beyond this, some candidates receive sizable amounts from industries that make up the economic base of their home state. From this chart, you can get a flavor of which are the top industries giving to this politician.


Kerry:

University of California
$295,125

Harvard University
$203,935

Skadden, Arps et al
$187,475

Time Warner
$177,006

Citigroup Inc
$157,806

UBS Americas
$157,450

Goldman Sachs
$155,250

Robins, Kaplan et al
$148,250

Piper Rudnick LLP
$131,152

Viacom Inc
$106,444

Microsoft Corp
$104,663

Mintz, Levin et al
$102,301

Akin, Gump et al
$102,200

Morgan Stanley
$101,954

JP Morgan Chase & Co
$101,237

Stanford University
$97,950

Holland & Knight
$94,930

Latham & Watkins
$94,025

US Government
$90,749

Columbia University
$88,383



Bush

Morgan Stanley
$557,275

Merrill Lynch
$520,204

PriceWaterhouseCoopers
$492,350

UBS Americas
$431,850

Lehman Brothers
$353,434

Goldman Sachs
$350,875

MBNA Corp
$345,250

Credit Suisse First Boston
$303,900

Bear Stearns
$284,300

Ernst & Young
$277,890

Citigroup Inc
$269,050

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
$256,000

Ameriquest Capital
$243,150

Wachovia Corp
$218,785

Blank Rome LLP
$213,150

Southern Co
$189,097

Microsoft Corp
$184,040

US Government
$179,966

United Technologies
$171,351

Vinson & Elkins
$170,000

Kerry top donations are from colleges and universities, Bush from corporate interests.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

87. Citigroup is a university?

Microsoft a college?

So the #1 contributer may be different they still take money from the same sources. Or do you deny that Microsoft, UBS Americas, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley appear on BOTH of those lists?

You make false claim after false claim

Do I now? So do those corporations donate to both of them or not? If they do, then I was NOT making a false claim.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong. It makes this much easier.

[mzmolly]

95. Note where I said the donors were *mostly* different.

Here is what I said again ... ready.

Let's compare top donors for Bush/Kerry shall we? Note not only are the contributors largely different ... but the contribution amounts differ greatly as well.

I qualified my statements above.

Also note: Corporations take up collections via their employees and give to certain campaigns.

Your grasping at straws again :hi:

I fear you really don't know enough about Nader or American politics to comment on our system?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

103. Keep spinning, it's not going to work!

Let's compare top donors for Bush/Kerry shall we? Note not only are the contributors largely different ... but the contribution amounts differ greatly as well.

Come now, this is a message board and everyone can read what was said previously. You don't really think you will get away with that one, do you?

Here is what I said:

74. So what? Kerry says the same thing about Republicans...

And takes money from the same sources. What is the difference?

Here is what YOU said:

78. Actually your wrong again. Kerry does NOT take money from the same

sources. You make false claim after false claim and then ask a rhetorical questions based on your false assertions.

Now you are saying my "false claim" was NOT a "false claim", but that your baseless accusation was not a baseless accusation because you QUALIFIED YOUR STATEMENT?

You basically said I lied, then showed proof that indeed Kerry takes money from the same sources as Bush, then when I called you on that, you are now trying qualify your statements?

Spin away my friend, it is not hurting MY case!

[mzmolly]

106. Anyone reading this thread will see who's spinning and who's not.

Your desire to paint things in black/white terms is pathetic.

You have cherry picked quotes to assert your false claims, while refusing to address the actual evidence. Your remarks would have been accurate had you qualified your statements by saying "Kerry and Bush have a few of the same donors." Instead you chose to paint things in black/white terms with the intent to mislead people, much like Nader does.

I have proven that the donor structure of the two major party's differs greatly. Your cherry plucking and black/white assertions don't change the facts.

I am confident that anyone reading this thread will have been educated on the fact that the parties differ greatly in terms of who gives and how much. :hi:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

111. You should try reading what I said.

Here, let me help you. I said "take money from the same sources". That is a pretty straight forward English sentence. It doesn't say that ALL their money comes from the same donors, it says they "take money from the same sources".

If even ONE "source" is the same for both Bush and Kerry, then by definition they are taking money from the same source. If two or more are the same, then they are taking money from the same sources!

I don't understand why I have to give you an English lesson, but apparently a simple English sentence is confusing for you.

I have proven that the donor structure of the two major party's differs greatly. Your cherry plucking and black/white assertions don't change the facts.

Proven? In what way? Of the two lists you showed at least four corporations donated to both. More importantly, I never claimed that overall their "donor structures" were the same. I only said they take money from the same sources! Your list PROVED that they do indeed take money from the same sources!

Is that so hard to understand?

Here is my post that you responded to in its entirety:

74. So what? Kerry says the same thing about Republicans...

And takes money from the same sources. What is the difference?

The part about "What is the difference?" is asking what is the difference between Kerry and Nader. The rest, is absolutely true, as I have shown in this (and previous) posts.

[mzmolly]

115. You should read what you replied to initially.

You've proven nothing except you like Nader have a desire to mislead. Too bad I won't let you.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

122. Hahaha! Every time you try and spin, I shoot you down...

and now you are forced into making silly arguments like this.

I am the one misleading people, even though you continually accuse me of lying and then go ahead and prove me correct? Classic!

Now that you have nothing left to "prove" that I am lying, you are forced into just making an assertion and hoping that people won't notice that you have been thoroughly out-argued!

Too bad, because it is NOT going to work.

[mzmolly]

127. You ... shoot me down?

LOL. Your a riot and quite full of yourself too I might add.

You know little about Nader or our political system, and it's apparent by your posts. It's obvious your from another country or uhm planet because you are totally clueless when it comes to Ralph Nader and the US political system.

Here is your original post:

You are biased, predjudiced and prejudging when you question Naders supporters BUT IGNORE THE DEMOCRAT'S LARGEST SUPPORTERS.

Sure Nader has taken money from right wing groups, and the Dems have taken money from the same groups via a different route - corporate donations.

Why is it alright for the Dems to use corporate money to win an election, but not Nader? Why is it that the Dem's platform erases their dealing with corporations such as Enron, but Nader's don't?

That is bias. That is prejudice. That is prejudgment.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. If the Dems can do it, why can't nader?

Perhaps I am just not explaining this in a manner that you understand? My apologies if that is the case.

Here is a thread with your original question, I'll try to keep it kicked. I am hoping we can break down the commmunication barrier here because I have not been able to articulate things in a manner you understand. :) I did not note who posed the question, as I felt that may not be desired on your part?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x579323

[lovedems]

49. I will take Kerry's special interests any day over Bush's.

Kerry has the support and money from unions, other labor groups, the LCV, policemen, firefighters, veterans, civil rights groups, just to name a few.

Bush has the pharmaceutical industry, big oil, corporations, CEO's, religious fundamentalists, media outlets...just to name a few. Funny how Kerry supporters are calling for Nader to drop out of the race while Bush supporters are giving Nader money! Nader is getting his money and his help from anti-gay, anti-tax, conservatives!

If you want to break it down to the fact they all receive corporate and special interest money, fine. They do. I however LIKE the special interest groups that support Kerry. I would much rather have Kerry answer to them then I would Bush to Halliburton, pharmaceutical companies and big oil! Oh, that has happened already and we have war profiteering, high gas prices and a Medicare bill that has fucked over senior citizens. But...they would support Ralph if it helped get Bush get re-selected and Ralph would take their money and their support!

Pahleez. Ralph is a useful idiot and you are apologizing for him.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

67. Lets see shall we?

Contributions to the 2004 race:

Defence - 37% Democrats 63% Republicans
Health - 35% Democrats 65% Republicans
Energy - 24% Democrats 76% Republicans
Communications - 54% Democrats 46% Republicans

No, the Democrats don't take money from "the pharmaceutical industry, big oil, corporations, CEO's, religious fundamentalists, media outlets"! :eyes:

[lovedems]

69. Are you kidding?

Look at how screwed up we are because of those paybacks! More people are without health insurance now and those who have it are paying more. Californina was screwed by Enron and in 2000 and 2003 I paid more for natural gas to heat my house then I would a car payment for a nice car! In George Bush's America, it is a LUXURY to heat my house! And you really want to talk about the state of our military? It is stretched thin and Rummy has started the process of privatization to pay back all of their buddies.

Come on. You can do better then that.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

76. Yep the paybacks Bush gave them...

Wait a minute... What happened under Clinton? Wasn't energy deregulation in California carried out in 1996?

So, how much money did Nader get from Enron? And what did Nader do to make it possible for Enron to rip you off?

[mzmolly]

81. Speaking of Clinton and Enron.

Though this is a strawman, I'll take your bait.

President Clinton imposed price caps in California and banned Enron from the market. But within 3 days of Bush moving into the White House he reversed Clinton's executive order and put Enron back in business in California.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

88. Was that after Enron was enabled to steal billions?

Seems to me that it was...

[mzmolly]

96. Seems to me your wrong.

Again.

Clinton attempted to address the Enrons of the world, but the Republians stopped him over and over again. Your using a right wing talking point here, which is one of many talking points in which Clinton is blamed for everything but the black plague.

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/News/clinton.htm

Clinton and the Democrats did not cause the Enron disaster.

The Clinton Administration tried to PREVENT disasters like Enron from occurring -- and were stopped by the deregulation-crazed, corporate shill Republicans.

Here's a handy guide on the subject, with half-a-dozen of the bigger reasons why the right wing has suddenly gone missing on this matter. Download it and send it to your friends -- and to anyone out there who still thinks it's possible to fob this Republican scandal off onto Bill Clinton and the Democrats.

How the Clinton Administration and the Democrats Tried to Prevent the Enron Disaster from Happening

1) Stopping Auditor-Consulting Conflicts by Accountants

In 2000, Clinton Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Arthur Levitt, Jr. proposed regulations to prohibit accounting firms from simultaneously serving as consultants and auditors. Arthur Andersen and other accounting firms mounted a massive lobbying campaign against the Clinton-Levitt regulations, killing them. The lead lobbyist for the accounting firms was Harvey Pitt. After being sworn in as President, George W. Bush named Pitt chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

2) Greater Disclosure of Energy Derivatives

In 1997, Bill Clintons Commodities Futures Trading Commission Chair Brooksley Born proposed greater regulation (by way of more stringent disclosure) of energy derivatives, the key financial instrument in Enron's Ponzi-scheme empire. Her proposal was beaten back by House Republicans, including then-House Banking Committee Chair Jim Leach (R-IA) who scolded her for two hours at a hearing.

3) Oversight of Energy Traders

In 2000, William Rainier, Born's successor as chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, told Congress that he was "deeply concerned" about a bill to exempt energy trading from CFTC review, noting that those who trade energy derivatives were not subject to any other oversight. Rainer's objections were largely ignored by the Republican-controlled Congress, and the exemption, heavily backed by Enron, became law.

4) Cracking Down on Tax Havens

In 2000, Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers proposed a crackdown on tax havens such as those used by Enron. With the US co-chairing the OECD's Forum on Harmful Tax Practices, Summers crusaded for a crackdown on money-laundering and tax havens. His proposal was opposed by the GOP Congress. When the Bush Administration took office, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill abandoned Summers' crusade, telling the Wall Street Journal, "The government has not been respectful of the cost it imposes on society." The New York Times reported that Bush's top economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey (a former economic adviser to Enron) also opposed efforts to crack down on tax havens.

More at the article I referenced

[Devils Advocate NZ]

104. What about Peace?

A San Diego senator who helped create the state's 1996 energy deregulation plan has decided against running for secretary of state.

Sen. Steve Peace, D-Chula Vista, created an exploratory committee last year for a run at the statewide office in 2002. He closed the committee yesterday after spending all $326,495 in its accounts.

<SNIP>

Peace, a legislator since 1982, chaired a special six-legislator committee that wrote the electricity deregulation law that has contributed to California's current electricity crisis.
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Steve-Peace-Deregulation.htm

So it was a Dem who deregulated the California energy market? The same Dem who was director of finance under Gray Davis?

But of course, once the pillaging had occured THEN a Dem tried to stop it! Well that just shows the Dems are out to prevent this sort of thing doesn't it!

Look, I am NOT trying to bag the Dems here. They are by far the best hope for the future of the US and the world, but the hypocrisy on this thread is astounding. Nader has been called crazy, a liar, evil, and right wing operative, and ALL HE DID WAS RUN FOR PRESIDENT!

He DIDN'T write the California deregulation bill, he DIDN'T take money from Enron, but HE is the evil one?

Give me a break...

[mzmolly]

108. "ALL HE DID WAS RUN FOR PRESIDENT?!"

Man you've got much to learn about Nader.

Nader hasn't served ONE day in public office, and you prop the fact that he didn't get money from Enron? Let me assure you, Nader has yet to turn down a donation from anyone.

As for the energy deregulation issue:

Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger is preparing a push to deregulate the state's electricity markets -- a move embraced by business leaders and some energy analysts but criticized by many Democrats and consumer advocates as a return to the failed policies that sparked California's energy crisis.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/11/MN20927.DTL

Enron lied, that's not because of deregulation. The thread isn't about Enron however, so let's stick to the subject matter.

Regarding Ralph Nader and your assertion that we should leave the poor guy alone, cause gosh all he did was run for President:

http://www.soc.qc.edu/Staff/levine/THE-REAL-RALPH.html

MR. RUSSERT: Bottom line, it wouldn't bother you if your presence in this presidential race elected George W. Bush?

MR. NADER: Not at all.

When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush."

This is just the beginning of Mr. Nader's many quotes and lies about Democrats.

I don't care what your intentions are, your defending a lying Bush enabler, and I don't buy the "he's just a guy running for office bullshit" cause *I* know better.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

113. Once again, it's a bit late now!

As for the energy deregulation issue:

Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger is preparing a push to deregulate the state's electricity markets -- a move embraced by business leaders and some energy analysts but criticized by many Democrats and consumer advocates as a return to the failed policies that sparked California's energy crisis.

Well, yes, they would, wouldn't they? After all, this is AFTER Enron collapsed and everyone saw how big a ripoff had been occuring.

But in 1996, it was California Democrats who wrote the deregulation bill that allowed it all to happen in the first place!

Enron lied, that's not because of deregulation. The thread isn't about Enron however, so let's stick to the subject matter.

Actually, it is, and a whole lot more. I am asking why Nader is called crazy, evil and a right wing shill, when the Dems have done FAR MORE to enable the Enrons and the Abu Ghraibs and the invasions than Nader ever did.

Sure Enron is being used as an example, but it is an example of the hypocrisy of many anti-Naderites.

Once again, do I think anyone should vote for Nader over Kerry?

NO!

But do I think Nader should be called crazy, evil or a right wing shill for doing nothing worse than the Dem party itself has done?

NO!

[mzmolly]

117. Nader is accountable for assisting Bush BECAUSE HE SET OUT TO DO SO!

Yet you come here and defend him as though he's "just some guy running for office."

Allow me to show you WHO Mr. Nader is:

"The Democrats are going to have to lose more elections. They didn't get the message last time." ~ Ralph Nader

Yet YOU claim that us Democtats should leave this poor guy alone?!

As to your assertions that Nader is innocent in the failings of our imperfect Government ... :eyes:

Lest I remind you that HE HASN'T SERVED ONE DAY IN OFFICE! But, inspite of that he's managed to cause much damage.

Nader assisted in the election of George Bush. REPUBLICANS AREN'T DONATING TO HIM BECUASE HE'S A STAND UP GUY!! They are donating to his campaign in hopes to put Bush back the F in office!

Once again, do I give a shit if you like what I have to say about Nader.

NO!

And, now your linking Democrats to Abu Ghraib? :wtf:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

123. Wow!

So Nader hasn't server one day in office, yet is responsible for all those things that Democrats IN OFFICE voted for?

Yep, that makes sense! :eyes:

And, now your linking Democrats to Abu Ghraib?

Of course I am linking Democrats to Abu Ghraib! They voted for the war, and the war created Abu Ghraib! Are you going to tell me that voting to start a war, in order to avoid losing an election, is less EVIL than taking a bit of corporate money to try and win one?

Sorry, but you really have some messed up values if you think that!

[mzmolly]

128. The majority of Democrats voted AGAINST the war.

Sure is convenient when we can paint everyone with one broad brush though aint it? I admit it really helps to defend a lying egomaniac who never served a fucking day of his putrid life in office though.

Regarding your lesser evil statement, this is what Nader is running against isnt it? Isn't he the great saviour!?

Nader KNEW what Bush was capable of. No Democrat would have started this war. That's a fucking given. I protested this war, but realize that there is one alternative to MORE war, and that isn't Ralph Nader and his holier than thou (unless it applies to me) ass!

Nader said Gore = Bush, do you agree?

Nader lied, and ignorant people voted for him. Your defense that Nader is a lesser evil is a fucking joke. He's THE GREATEST EVIL IN THIS RACE, BECAUSE HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HE'S DOING.

Here is a quote from Gloria Steinem on Mr. Nader that always applies to a conversation about the windbag.

"He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy."

AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, I HAVEN'T AN ISSUE WITH THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES PARTICIPATING IN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM. I do have problem if said candidate PRETENDS TO OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE WHILE HE DOES IT.

For you to assert that Kerry is not an alternative to Bush shows your either a Republican or a Naderbot, eitherway YOUR IGNORANT.

www.damnedbigdifference.org

[demwing]

140. First, I don't agree that Nader is doing the same thing as the Dems

Because the dems are working to get Bush out of office and get Dems elected.

Nader, on the other hand, is working to get Dems defeated, regardless of who gets elected, so that he can take credit for moving a third party into power.

But a third party will not come into power in the sense of America having a multiparty system. A third party will simply move into the opposition spot, and the Dems will become the outsider third party. Nader is using smoke and mirrors to promote his candidacy. he is a spoiler.

Nader does NOT have the same agenda or methods as the Dems. And even if were to arguse that he did, it is still sheer hypocrisy to condemn the Dems for engaing in activities which Nader so readily embraces.

Understand this, and you're premiss begins to fall apart.

[lovedems]

141. Excellent!

A big hearty welcome to DU! What a great response and thanks for your input!

:hi:

[belle]

144. Hell, if he were even running to create a viable third party, that'd be

something at least. That's why a lot of people voted for him in 2000, because it seemed like he was working to get the Green party a real shot at having an influence. Now he can't even claim that. So why *is* he running?

[spooky3]

19. Did Enron give equal or greater amounts to Republicans? Are the groups

giving money to Nader giving equal or greater amounts to Kerry, to help him win?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

36. You tell me...

Ralph Nader has received 1 million dollars in donations.

John Kerry has received 148 million dollars in donations.

I'm pretty sure more than 1 million of Kerry's donations come from corporations, but you are free to prove me wrong.

[spooky3]

59. You're not answering the firstquestion that I asked. Check out the facts.

It just might change your views. I see other posters have provided the links for you showing that Enron and its execs gave FAR more to Republicans than to Democrats, as is true for most fatcats.

And re: the second q, how do you know it's the same corporations? And see post #57, point #3.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

70. So? Enron gave more to Republicans. So what? They also gave to Dems...

What did the Dems do in return? Or are you suggesting Enron enjoyed throwing money away?

As for the same corporations, well, even Enron hedged it's bets by donating to both parties, why would it be any different now?

[mzmolly]

80. Here is what the democrats did in return.

Democrats cite Enron to push campaign reform

Questions about Enron's alleged influence within the Bush administration underscore the need to change laws governing campaign contributions, Democrats said Sunday, predicting a reform bill would pass both houses of Congress.

"With the Enron scandal, there's no question that there is real momentum behind campaign finance reform," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/27/campaign.finance/

[Devils Advocate NZ]

89. Well, isn't that just closing the stable door AFTER the horse has bolted!

Of course Enron had already stolen all those billions by then, but hey this should prevent any further abuses, right? Or will it?

[mzmolly]

97. Red Herring # 375

:hi:

However, as I said earlier, Clinton made many attempts to prevent Enron like situations, only to be stopped by the Republicans. See my previous response for more specific information.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

105. Too bad it was a Democrat who enabled it in the first place....

See MY response to YOUR response for details!

[mzmolly]

110. Too bad Nader enabled Bush in the OO. No one forced Enron to lie.

Deregulation has occured in many aspects, Enron is one example of a company that chose to abuse it.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

114. Nader enabled Bush? What about all the Dems who VOTED for Bush?

What about all the Dems who were denied their vote, and were forgotten by their party afterwards? What about the Dems who KNOWING how Bush came to power, LINED UP behind him to start an unprovoked war?

Yep, Nader enabled Bush! :eyes:

[mzmolly]

118. My you sound like a Naderbot. The ol' what about the Democrats who

voted for Bush strawman.

This is textbook.

The Democrats who voted for Bush deserve my contempt, as do the Republicans who did so. Are you suggesting they don't have it?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

124. You expend far more time abusing people who DIDN'T vote for Bush...

Than those who did!

By the way, are Dems who voted for Bush evil? Are the Dems who refused to fight Bush's coup evil? Are they insane?

Never heard YOU or ANY OTHER DUer say anything like that, but Nader? I have heard that and worse on a daily basis.

And yet foolish people who say such things expect Nader and his supporters to vote for Dems? Now, THAT'S nuts!

[mzmolly]

129. You don't know what I expend my energy on.

HOWEVER A VOTE FOR NADER IS A VOTE FOR BUSH, so I'm not understanding your point.

The problem with Nader is that he claims to be a progressive, thus the contempt for his phony, lying, and/or insane ass.

Helping Bush get selected again, is not a progressive cause. This is where the lying, phony and/or insaneness comes in.

Bush and his supporters are at least upfront about their desire to see another Bush term, I can respect that much.

May I suggest you post at CU if you want sympathy for your/Nader's assistance in re-reselecting George Bush? Perhaps you can take up a donation to his campaign there.

As for the Dems who supposedly didn't fight Bush, we've had discussions about them as well. But, we haven't spent as much time on the majority of Democrats who voted against this war. However, I'll be glad to discuss that with you in another thread, because this one is about Ralph Nader (the coward who never had to answer for a vote on any issue in his life, yet claims to be ready to serve in our highest office) you know, THAT Ralph Nader.

[mzmolly]

65. Nader has zero chance of winning the election. He has one purpose.

ensure Bush wins.

Do note: Nader is the ONLY candidate on Rupert Murdochs payroll.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. LoveDems Has It's Right....

Nad(i)r is using the Repub's money against Kerry...


To the Republicans Nad(i)r is a useful idiot....

[belle]

143. There's a little word called "hypocrisy..."

If your ONLY platform is about how morally superior you are because you aren't beholden to the "corporate pigs"--not a phrase the Dems are prone to, for better or for worse--then taking money from the "pigs" is just so you can get on a ballot is, you know, kind of a problem.

The whole point is that Kerry and the Dems are more "mainstream" than Nader, which does mean that they end up making some compromises that a lot of us would prefer they don't. However, in many regards, they have proven themselves preferable to the Republican option; and they make the compromises so that they can WIN. which they actually have a reasonable chance of doing.

Nader has *no* chance of winning and his main beef with the Democrats is that they aren't pure enough for his tastes. So, in fact, what he's doing is far MORE dirty. The Dems talk out of both sides of their mouth regularly, but they're fairly up front about the practice, and their position is at least somewhat consistent (they haven't primarily been about the "little guy" economically for a while now, again, for better or for worse).

Nader is doing the complete OPPOSITE of what he claims to stand for. He has nothing to run on EXCEPT principles; and he's subverting them, his own principles, at every turn. You really don't see the problem with this?

[mzmolly]

39. Good answer.

:yourock:

[dsc]

16. Put up or correct yourself

I want you to site one instance of any national level Democrat who isn't Zell Miller taking money from the Oregon Family Council.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. The Nad(ir) Apologists Don't Get It...

God help us if he delivers this election to the reactionary republicans too...

[Devils Advocate NZ]

29. Who isn't Zell Miller? Ok, let's just IGNORE him shall we?

I mean why should the Dems be held responsible for what some of their members do?

Firstly I said a DIFFERENT route. I didn't say the same PAC's are giving the Dems money, I said the same corporations, that is, the people behind the PACs, are giving Dems money.

What does it matter if it is in the form of a Donation from a PAC, or directly from a corporation like Enron?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. At Least Zell Miller Isn't Coy About His Support For *......

-:)

[lovedems]

32. The democrats don't have to be responsible for Zell Miller

Zell Miller has to be responsible for Zell Miller and he has had some pretty nasty things to say about the party that put him into office. The democrats don't bear any responsibility for him at all. He is a disgrace to the party.

That being said, the corporations in this country are going to rally behind Bush because "God Forbid" Kerry has a trial lawyer on the ticket! The corporations that set out to screw people like you and me without repercussion are the ones who are going to donate heavily to BC04. The only thing I can say about the democrats are at least their big donors come in the form of unions and civil rights organizations not Enrons, Rupert Murdoch's and the Pharmaceutical industry.

[mzmolly]

41. Your rockin today lovedems !

:toast:

[lovedems]

43. Thanks!

Back at ya! I need all the help I can get! :toast:

[mzmolly]

84. You were doing just fine all by your lonesome.

But some times I can't keep the ol' trap shut. ;)

[Devils Advocate NZ]

50. Enron????

They didn't take donations from Enron? Wow, someone better tell Open Secrets:

ENRON CORP
WASHINGTON,DC 20006
6/15/2000
$25,000
DNC/Non-Federal Corporate

ENRON CORP
WASHINGTON,DC 20006
9/5/2000
$50,000
DNC/Non-Federal Corporate

ENRON CORP
WASHINGTON,DC 20006
9/5/2000
$50,000
DNC/Non-Federal Corporate

ENRON CORP
WASHINGTON,DC 20006
9/5/2000
$50,000
DNC/Non-Federal Corporate

ENRON CORPORATION
HOUSTON,TX 77251
5/22/2000
$50,000
DNC/Non-Federal Corporate

ENRON CORPORATION
HOUSTON,TX 77251
11/1/2000
$10,000
DNC/Non-Federal Corporate

ENRON CORPORATION
HOUSTON,TX 77251
11/1/2000
$10,000
DNC/Non-Federal Corporate

ENRON INTERNATIONAL
HOUSTON,TX 77251
5/17/1999
$25,000
DNC/Non-Federal Corporate

ENRON INTERNATIONAL INC
HOUSTON,TX 77251
12/15/1999
$25,000
DNC/Non-Federal Corporate

ENRON INTERNATIONAL INC
HOUSTON,TX 77251
3/31/2000
$50,000
DNC/Non-Federal Corporate

That is only the donations to the DNC. It excludes donations to DCCC and DSCC, not to mention direct donations to indivudal candidates. It also doesn't include personal donations from Enron employees etc.

[mzmolly]

52. Got the Republican numbers so we can compare?

:hi:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

72. What's to compare?

The statment was:

The only thing I can say about the democrats are at least their big donors come in the form of unions and civil rights organizations not Enrons, Rupert Murdoch's and the Pharmaceutical industry.

I merely proved that Enron DID donate to the Democrats.

Now, if you are going to say "but the Republicans took more", I will return to my argument in regards to Nder taking corporate money to say "But the Democrats took more!".

Either the argument is valid for both, or neither.

[mzmolly]

82. Wrong again. You missed a key portion of the op's remarks.

"The only thing I can say about the democrats are at least their big donors come in the form of unions and civil rights organizations not Enrons, Rupert Murdoch's and the Pharmaceutical industry."

I merely proved that Enron DID donate to the Democrats.

"Merely" is correct. You missed the clarification of lovedems when she said BIG DONORS.

Now, if you are going to say "but the Republicans took more", I will return to my argument in regards to Nder taking corporate money to say "But the Democrats took more!".

Either the argument is valid for both, or neither

Ah, wrong again. Nader is running on a platform of being an alternative to what he calls "two factions of the business party." Kerry is not. Therin lies one of the many hypocritical positions of Mr. Nader.

I haven't a problem with independant candiates taking money from corporations (in today's political climate). I do have a problem with a guy claiming to pose an alternative to this process taking part in it.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

91. Well, thanks to you I can prove that WRONG too...

On the list of the top contributers to Kerry, Time Warner is number 4 (is that a media interest I see?) and number 5 is Citigroup (big corporation not exactly a clean one either! US govt names Citigroup in $ 1.4 bn money laundering case)

Funnily enough, of only three larger donors than these two, one is a law firm and two are universities. None of them are unions or civil rights organisations.

But hey, thanks for playing.

Ah, wrong again. Nader is running on a platform of being an alternative to what he calls "two factions of the business party." Kerry is not. Therin lies one of the many hypocritical positions of Mr. Nader.

Yep, I agree - it is hypocritical. But as you said he can't really avoid it in the current climate can he? However, who is most likely to change the current climate? The person who is running against such influences, or the person who has no problem with it?

I think we would be more likely to see Nader win this election, than see Kerry do anything to remove corporate influence from politics, and that isn't very likely is it?

[mzmolly]

100. What on earth do you think you've proven wrong?

See open secrets and search by industry to see who gives what to whom.

The list I provided you was specifically about John Kerry's presidential race.

The OP was referring to the history of the Democratic Party as a WHOLE.

Here is the original quote:

"The only thing I can say about the democrats are at least their big donors come in the form of unions and civil rights organizations not Enrons, Rupert Murdoch's and the Pharmaceutical industry."

You've proven nothing but the fact that some Nader supporters lack comprehension skills.

Here is proof what lovedems asserted:

Civil rights:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=Q09

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q15

Labor:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=P

Pharmaceutical industries:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=H04

Search by other industry here.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/

While American politcs are not black and white, as you and Nader wish to paint it, the evidence is clear.

[lovedems]

102. Thanks for providing those links to help back up my claims!

I didn't know that site exsisted but will put it on my favorites now. That is great and thanks a bunch!

:yourock:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

107. Thanks for once again proving ME right. I don't even have to work at this!

The OP was referring to the history of the Democratic Party as a WHOLE.

Here is the original quote:

"The only thing I can say about the democrats are at least their big donors come in the form of unions and civil rights organizations not Enrons, Rupert Murdoch's and the Pharmaceutical industry."

You've proven nothing but the fact that some Nader supporters lack comprehension skills.

Well, I looked through your links, and you must be suffering from that lack of comprehension skills you were talking about. Let's take a look shall we?

Human Rights: $2,098,964
Pro-Choice: $913,055
Labour: $27,549,196
Total: $30,561,215

Pharmaceuticals: $3,144,263
Defence: $3,700,403
Energy: $6,853,328
Misc Business: $36,393,732
Total: $50,091,726

Of course the BIG DONORS are the unions and civil rights groups and NOT "Enrons, Rupert Murdoch's and the Pharmaceutical industry."!

Yep. No doubt about it. :eyes:

[mzmolly]

120. Let's get back to the subject matter shall we?.

Here are the top contributors by PARTY because that's what the initial point was about.

Though I would like a link to your irrelevant numbers because I don't see "misc business" as a category on Open secrets?



DEMOCRATIC PARTY - Top Contributors


National Education Assn

$2,658,633

Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union

$2,240,875

American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees

$2,179,274

Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

$2,173,320

American Federation of Teachers

$2,002,149

AFL-CIO

$1,845,424

Assn of Trial Lawyers of America

$1,649,000

Teamsters Union

$1,523,990

Laborers Union

$1,503,400

Communications Workers of America

$1,431,222

United Auto Workers

$1,428,204

National Assn of Letter Carriers

$1,285,847

United Food & Commercial Workers Union

$1,193,250

Rangel for Congress 2000

$1,182,025

Friends of Joe Lieberman

$1,144,531

Service Employees International Union

$1,139,390

Sheet Metal Workers Union

$1,104,050

Friends of Senator Carl Levin

$1,048,525

Bob Matsui for Congress Cmte

$1,020,481

Emily's List

$968,197

Contrast that to this list:


REPUBLICAN PARTY - Top Contributors

Contributor
Total

Texans for John Cornyn

$3,100,000

Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America

$2,944,287

Philip Morris

$2,387,480

Freddie Mac

$2,335,615

Microsoft Corp

$1,942,751

American Financial Group

$1,819,108

AT&T

$1,763,936

Governor Bush Cmte

$1,700,000

Sunland Park Racetrack & Casino

$1,305,000

Verizon Communications

$1,218,906

New Republican Majority Fund

$1,153,990

American International Group

$1,096,449

Citigroup Inc

$1,095,742

Cintas Corp

$1,072,300

Bristol-Myers Squibb

$1,072,217

Blue Cross/Blue Shield

$1,069,746

Pfizer Inc

$1,050,211

Archer Daniels Midland

$1,041,250

Pharmacia Corp

$1,037,188

Bill Thomas Campaign Cmte

$1,005,000

Your desire to paint the two major parties as the same isn't working. As you can see from the list above lovedems WAS CORRECT IN HER INITIAL ASSERTION, though you and I have gotten way off track.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

125. Show me where I said they were the SAME!

I never said they were the same at all. The closest I came to saying any such things was to suggest that Nader is to Dems, as Dems are to Republicans.

In other words, everything Nader is accused of the Dems do worse, and everything the Dems are accused of the Republicans do worse. The latter part of that statement is not in question. You and I both agree on that, and I have never suggest otherwise.

What we were talking about is the difference between Nader and the Dems, and it is clear that the Dems ARE far worse than Nader at taking corporate money in return for favours to corporations.

Do you deny that simple assertion?

Remember, the Defence industry ALONE has given three times as much money to Kerry as all the donations to Nader combined.

[mzmolly]

126. BOTTOM LINE. Nader rallies against lesser evil-ism and your

entire defense is based upon it.

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

Nader asserts that Republicans are corrupt (because they're in the back pocket of corporations) and Democrats are almost as bad, thus he is running to offer an ALTERNATIVE to his definition of a corrupt system. Did you see the word ALTERNATIVE? He's not running on the premise that he isn't as bad as X. NADER IS NOT LIVING UP TO HIS OWN PURIST AND CURRENTLY IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS.

Also, let's wait and see how the Rupert Murdoch book pans out before we tally his contributions? He'll make some dough off this run for office I guarantee.

I am simply suggesting Nader live up to his own @!$% criteria, not mine. HIS RUNNING MATE AGREES WITH ME.

[trogdor]

132. We're not talking about almost-evil vs semi-evil

We're choosing between maybe-somewhat-evil and definitely-very-fucking-evil. There is a big difference here. I do not have to agree with John Kerry 100% of the time. I just know that the 70% of the time I agree with him beats the 0.02% of the time I find myself agreeing with George W. Bush.

It doesn't matter if I agree with Ralph Nader 85% of the time. Why?

1. Ralph Nader can't win, and anyone who says otherwise is even more delusional than he is.

2. If enough people get sucked into Nader's vortex, we wind up with the guy who is the polar opposite of everything Nader claims to stand for.

Let me put it this way. You're playing draw poker. You're holding three aces, along with a king and jack of the same suit as one of the aces. What do you do? Discard the king and jack, hoping for a full house, knowing your three bullets is probably good enough to win already, or do you throw out your two off-suit aces hoping for a royal straight flush?

[lovedems]

53. And who was a big contributor to the re-districting of Texas?

EN-mother trucking-RON!

Good God. If it isn't obvious how much the republicans and Enron have scratched each others back over the last 3 years, you have not been paying attention. You can cite Enron donations to the democratic party all you want but it is the republicans who have gained from Enron's corporate donations. I will try to find where Enron gave 3 to 1 republicans over democrats. They know who will butter their bread.

[mzmolly]

55. Well lookey here. Enron gave LOADS more to Bushie boy.

Enron gave 28% of it's $$ to Democrats and 72% to Republicans.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000137&Name=Enron+Corp

Enron Corp
At one time, the energy giant Enron was one of the biggest companies in the world, dealing in everything from natural gas production to telecommunications. In 2001, the Houston-based firm collapsed after accounting improprieties made public revealed that the company’s booming financial success wasn’t what it seemed. Congressional investigators continue to probe what happened at Enron and whether it may have benefited from its close ties to the Bush administration. Former Enron chief Ken Lay was a major fund-raiser for the Bush-Cheney ticket during the 2000 election cycle and reportedly played a key role in the drafting of Vice President Cheney’s subsequent energy policy.

[lovedems]

56. Thanks! I started to google enron donations. I am glad you

found it!

You rock! :yourock:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

73. I robbed a bank, and gave only 28% to one friend, and 72% to another...

Are they not BOTH guilty of receiving stolen money? Or does the fact that the Repubs are worse mean that the Dems take NO BLAME at all?

Sorry, doesn't cut it.

How much did Enron give to Nader?

[mzmolly]

83. Well what about they guy who claims he doesn't take stolen money.

The one who drove the get away car for a portion of said money.

You forgot about him. His name is Ralph Nader.

The subject is not whether or not corporations should be able to contribute to candidates, it's wether the guy who bitches about the system should partake in it.

You keep missing that. :hi:

http://realchange.org/nader.htm#hypocrite

[Devils Advocate NZ]

93. Give me a break!

Talk about false analogies!

The one who drove the get away car for a portion of said money.

What did Nader have to do with enabling Enron to steal Billions? Nothing. How much did Enron donate to Nader? Nothing.

That is just bollocks and you know it.

The subject is not whether or not corporations should be able to contribute to candidates, it's wether the guy who bitches about the system should partake in it.

Well, isn't that just dandy! First Nader and his supporters are told that they should try and change the system from within, but when they do, they are told they should just keep out of it! How democratic!

See, this is what pisses me off! Anti-Nader types insist that Nader should live by rules their own candidate doesn't have to. Then when he does, they change the rules.

Either taking corporate money is a neccesity, and all parties will need to do it to have a chance, or taking corporate money is NOT a neccesity and those parties that do are WILLINGLY screwing the average person in favour of the wealthy.

I don't know why you are arguing so hard for the latter...

[mzmolly]

99. Nader enabled Bush who as I pointed out to you above, put Enron

back in play in California.

However, this thread isn't about Enron, it's about the statements and hypocricy of Ralph Nader whom you OBVIOUSLY don't know jack crap about?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26345

Enron is your strawman, but I don't blame you for clinging to a hair on a turd, cause that's all you've got.

Well, isn't that just dandy! First Nader and his supporters are told that they should try and change the system from within, but when they do, they are told they should just keep out of it! How democratic!

What are you talking about NOW?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

109. Put Enron back in play? For what 8 months?

What about the previous 5 YEARS? And what about the fact that Enron was first put into play by a Democrat?

Here is an interesting tidbit:

Enron hires Linda Robertson, from the Clinton administration, as vice president for federal government affairs to head its Washington office, infuriating Republican leaders who oppose business groups hiring Democratic lobbyists.

Nope the Dems had NOTHING to do with it! :eyes:

[mzmolly]

112. Deregulation did not cause Enron to lie.

You fail to miss that key point.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

116. No, but it ENABLED them to lie and get away with it for YEARS!

You miss THAT key point.

[mzmolly]

119. But the *desire* was NOT to enable Enron. Unlike Nader whos desire is

re-elect George Bush.

[lovedems]

101. Ahem

See, this is what pisses me off! Anti-Nader types insist that Nader should live by rules their own candidate doesn't have to. Then when he does, they change the rules.

No, Nader wants to make his own rules as evident by signatures he turns in to get on the ballots. WHEN the democrats insist he follows the rules what does Nader do? He whines that the democrats are preventing him from running. On the contrary, the democrats are holding Nader to the same standards as EVERYONE else who wants their name on a ballot and he doesn't want the rules to apply to him.

The same can be said of his donations. He wants to bitch about The democrats and republicans taking corporate money but it is OK for him to take it. That is what you need to understand. If Nader wants to run his purist campaign for the little guy and bitch about corporate financing then he shouldn't accept said corporate financing. If, as you think, corporate financing is a necessity, then Ralph should not run as a purist. It is really quite simple. I don't understand how you don't get it.

[mzmolly]

40. Zell Miller supporters aren't defending him here. Were they I'd

take issue with them.

Also, Zell Miller is HONEST about his support for Bush, Nader is dishonest about it.

[dsc]

145. The Oregon Family Alliance isn't a coroporation

and you said the word same not similar. Yes I read your post. Yes I am asking you to back up what you wrote. So again, and this time we will even included Zell Miller, do you have any citation at all that any Democrat for federal office accepted the help of or contributions from the Oregon Family Alliance or some other state's version of that organization? Yes or no.

[aden_nak]

8. Here's the thing.

I am fundamentally opposed to keeping anyone off the ballot. And during almost any other election, I would be supporting Nader's right to be listed in all 50 states. But he's being a naive fool. And if he's the 5% that Kerry needs to win, then he needs to be punted. I might be less harsh with him if he wasn't being so completely either A) full or shit or B) self delusional.

[mzmolly]

22. Dean addressed this in the debate. He said Dems do the same thing to one

another. They fight to be sure signatures are legit, yet Ralph acts as though he's being singled out here.

He's playing the victim ...

[mzmolly]

15. Ahhh, suddenly Nader is progressive on gay rights/womens rights.

Boy, his positions change with the wind. Before you know it he'll be God. Sure helps when you don't have a voting record to examine now don't it folks?

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=10207

"Perhaps the most disturbing item that both the HRC and NOW bring up is a 1996 comment from Nader when asked about his position on abortion and lesbian and gay rights. Nader said he wasn't interested in "gonadal politics." An April 2000 article in The Progressive noted that when Nader was recently reminded of the quote, he changed the phrase to "sexual politics," saying these issues were not the main focus of his campaign."

Boy, just 3 years ago he wasn't interested in "sexual politics" and today he's a real activist. :eyes:

[spooky3]

27. interesting how some "progressives" are blind on these issues

[mzmolly]

31. These issues and many others.

:(

We don't have a perfect candidate in this race. But Kerry is a helluva lot better than Nader, and worlds away from *.

[mzmolly]

21. OMG. Nader is on Rupert Murdoch's PAYROLL!?

:wow:

This becomes more and more clear.

Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree on the uniquely noxious role that Rupert Murdoch plays in the American media.

Nader: Well, let me trap you. Will you let me trap you? What if your brilliant Salon articles were reported on Murdoch's television programs -- would you object to that? Would you? What if they said, "Salon reported today etc., etc.," and they carried your message to millions of people that you don't reach. Would you object to that?

Talbot: This is different. He is paying you a good advance to publish your book because he has political interests in what you're doing in the presidential campaign.

Nader: He's paying me money to fight the likes of him and everyone else!

Talbot: That's not what his interest is this time, Ralph. He's interested in having you sabotage the Democratic effort to unseat President Bush.

[spooky3]

25. Amazingly good job by Talbot, fending off the childish attacks and

really bizarre denial.

Can Nader really not understand that what Talbot is saying is true, or has he become so much the type of person he used to forcefully decry? Neither option is good. What a sad descent for a once great and principled advocate for the little guy...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. He Called It Gonadal Politics...

Not to be crass but the right to sleep with who you want to sleep with is the most sacrosanct right a person can have...

In Orwell's 1984 a totalitarian government had taken away all the rights of the citizenry but Winston and Julia found what little freedom they had left in sex...


Nad(i)r called this gonadal politics...


He's a seventy year old virgin.... That's why he's so frustrated....

[mzmolly]

34. Yes he did, and "today" he's the most progressive candidate on Gay issues?

:puke:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. He's Lost His Mind...

History is replete with sad tales of failed megalomaniacs from Napoleon to Hitler to Mao.....

Nad(i)r lacks their acumen and I might add nads for gaining power so all he can do is tear things down... That thing being the Democratic party....

[Seven]

46. Well that sells me...

...looks like Michael Moore and Howard Zinn are Murdoch operatives also.

[mzmolly]

85. Really? Got more information on this. I'd like to see it.

:shrug:

On second thought, I assume your speaking about Harper Collins deal with Michael Moore etc?

I kinda think this Nader book just before the election is a bit different? As far as I know Harper Collins hasn't tried to censor Mr. Nader as they did Mr. Moore.

[Seven]

138. Moore had a working relationship with HarperCollins prior to Stupid White

Men...

Howard Zinn's book A Peoples History of The United States is pressed by Harper Collins and is extremely critical of both parties.

There are strong arguments to be made about why Ralph is a b.s. artist and why he shouldn't run.

But suggesting that he is a paid co-conspirator of Rupert Murdoch isn't a serious comment IMO, unless you are going to apply it to everyone.

[Zynx]

38. I tell you he has syphilis.

[CWebster]

48. I'll tell you what;'s nuts

Everyday an increasing number of Americans recognize this Iraq fiasco for the deception it is, yet our party leadership, despite the revelations, despite the investigations which reveal the obvious sham, still claim they would've voted to invade and still muscle out any official Democratic party stand opposing this disaster on the party's plank. I am listening to Air America and they are chastising, condemning the Right over the war, and at the same time, not acknowleging Democratic party complicity. STILL. This is the elephant in the living room.

THAT IS NUTS.

[sangh0]

90. Question

Will you ever defend Nadir? I have seen you post in several Nadir threads, and you never post anything about Nadir.

THAT IS NUTS.

[CWebster]

130. Sorry don't take marching orders from the DLC

You know, the Centrist leadership that targets the despised Left and progressive activists, anti-war protestors as the scum of the earth for not standing up with the president. You know like Michael Moore, for example.

[sangh0]

133. Will you ever defend Nadir?

I really doubt the DLC is insisiting that you defend Nadir. Blaming the DLC is just a dodge

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. We Are In A Manichean Struggle For The Soul Of This Nation....

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson "I tremble for Nader and his acolytes when I know that God is just."

[oasis]

131. Why trade one delusional egomaniac in the WH for another? Nader=Bush.

[GreenPartyVoter]

134. It all comes back to election reform. Publicly funded elections and

preferential voting would go a long way toward not having issues with who is funding who any more.