General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRalph Nader: Hillary Clinton is a 'menace to the United States'
She may be leading all of the polls looking ahead to the 2016 presidential election, but Ralph Nader, the former Green Party and Independent Party presidential candidate, doesn't want anything to do with Hillary Clinton.
In an interview with WeAreChange earlier this week, Nader sounded off on Clinton, saying she's "a menace to the United States."
He starts off by saying she's too big of a "corporatist and a militarist."
But then he kicks it up a notch.
She thinks Obama is too weak, he doesnt kill enough people overseas," Nader said. "So shes a menace to the United States of America.
http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/ralph-nader-hillary-clinton-menace-united-states/wed-10292014-208pm
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)brush
(53,764 posts)You can always count on this guy to do or say things that help the repugs.
It's like clockwork who can forget 2000.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Unsafe at any age. STFU Ralphie.
demigoddess
(6,640 posts)please!!!!
fredamae
(4,458 posts)I second!
kysrsoze
(6,019 posts)I notice he never gets around to criticizing and writing long, bloviated editorials about Republicans. Hmmm...
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,881 posts)Little Star
(17,055 posts)STFU and go away Ralph.
former9thward
(31,970 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Hubert Flottz
(37,726 posts)As soon as Jeb talks about running, up pops "Raaaaaaalpf. " Does Ralph work for Karl Rove and the Bush Whackers?
I award Ralph, this week's in re award, of the week.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)he's completely irrelevant.
Some people just can't handle obscurity.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)just sayin.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)just sayin.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)or growing too senile to know the difference.
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)Its really hugh!
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)His following may be with the politically apathetic more than anything else. No grassroots backing.
BootinUp
(47,138 posts)Ron Green
(9,822 posts)I don't understand the hate.
JHB
(37,158 posts)Can't speak for other people's issues with him, but that's mine.
That and his myopia about "not a dime's worth of difference". There isn't nearly as much difference as there should be, but when one party has gone completely off the deep end there's a hell of a lot more than a dime.
G_j
(40,366 posts)rarely, if ever, will you hear someone address the actual text of what he says.
BootinUp
(47,138 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Little Ralphie usually expresses a broad opinion rather than making an argument from specific facts. Arguing against that typically turns into a "nuh-uh" contest. And Ralphie is an narcissist asshole to boot, so you have that.
MH1
(17,595 posts)I see that particular "actual text" addressed here all the time.
Some statements matter more than others.
BootinUp
(47,138 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)He let his ego come before even the most basic common sense. Had it not been for him, shrub would have never been President.
You can talk about him being "right" all you want, but the Iraq war would have never happened had he not run in 2000.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)and now he has the nerve to disparage Hillary.
That's why.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,230 posts)Winning elections is important therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
AFAIK, Nader isn't a Democrat, so he's met here with the same disdain as any other non-Democrat. Hope that helps.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)just march in unison!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,230 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)It's not about *having* content. It's what the content *is*. Duh.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,230 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I mean, really, really ineffective.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)And from the sound of it would like to run again so he can make Romney or Jeb President.
Making RALPH himself, the menace.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)JHB
(37,158 posts)No, really, where? You've had 14 years since 2000 (18 if you include 1996) to build an effective independent party. How much time have you spent on it? Promoting it, finding candidates, promoting them, things that would actually be effective, not simply making the occasional speech and winging in as a "candidate" every few years. Local level, state level, federal level, how many candidates has your party run?
Gadfly.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)He didn't build a movement, but neither did anyone else.
BootinUp
(47,138 posts)Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)JHB
(37,158 posts)The other people at least don't pop up every few years to pretend to build a movement.
Where was his outrage when it is obvious that republicans want to take healthcare away from people. When the SC ruled on hobby lobby, when republicans have enacted these abortion restrictions, when republicans blocked the disability treaty.....
I am not thrilled by the idea of Hillary Clinton being our nominee, but this is overkill. I am not going to discount the possibility that he could exert some influence again.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)It's the Party Faithful's dog whistle. I haven't even read upthread but I already know the response. There may be drooling involved and perhaps a little bit of spittle.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)1) He has spoken a great deal of truth over the years, and is doing so again.
2) He has sometimes been a majorly destructive and divisive force on the left.
3) Observation # 2 doesn't invalidate observation # 1.
JHB
(37,158 posts)...when another bout of #2 is looming.
I don't care for Hillary for even more reasons that Ralphie has, but 'menace to the United States'? In an era where the Republicans are pining to eliminate the 20th Century? For whom any restraint on business owners, any public investment, and -- in particular -- Ralph's signature accomplishments are equated with the Warsaw Pact? Whose public officials have such a blinkered fantasy-view of the world they wouldn't notice if a dragon flew by?
in that situation I have very little patience for Ralphie's myopia.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)As far as I'm concerned, issues like climate change, overpopulation and environmental degradation are rushing at us at blinding speed. (Sorta literally--most of us are blind to the rate and devastating potential of the onrush.)
The Democrats pay at least lip service in acknowledgement of the impending Perfect Storm, and will likely do some minor things to ameliorate the impact, while the Republicans and their corporate sponsors are willfully blind to the coming catastrophe.
It's a choice between a rapid drop into perdition under Republican control and a somewhat slower slide to the same destination under the conventional Democratic policies I anticipate.
Given only those choices, I choose the latter, if only in hopes of buying us time to wake up. Or, on a more cynical and self-centered level, I'm old and would as soon live out the remainder of my years without fully experiencing the misery I know to be coming.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)contradict each other.
Just like
1) Bill Clinton slowed down the progress of the GOP (true)
2) Bill Clinton proved that taxing the rich doesNOT sink the eocnomy, but helps it (true)
3) Bill Clinton gave away the damned store with letting Glass_Steagall and the fairness Doctrine be axed (Damned true)
Sadly, even our heroes have villain sides to them.
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)More at 11.
WhiteTara
(29,699 posts)You have no relevant place in our country or history.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I forget... is Nader the most dangerous man alive today, or Greenwald?
Regards,
TWM
Rex
(65,616 posts)Or it lets others know just how much some hate democratic elections.
BootinUp
(47,138 posts)former9thward
(31,970 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and his groupies.
Sid
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Say, between 2001 and 2009?
Didn't exactly work very hard to make people talk about corporatism and militarism during that time frame.
Where's that third party to challenge the "not a dime's worth of difference"? Why haven't you been working on it?
Golly, it's almost like you're seeking attention instead of seeking change.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)JHB
(37,158 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,881 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)#37, #38, #40, and #41 - bravo on a great sequence of posts!
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Christ, it isn't like Hillary drives a Corvair or something really spooky like that!!!
liberalhistorian
(20,815 posts)he's the real danger. If it weren't for him and his "no difference between the parties" horseshit, there never would have been a President Dubya, with all the bullshit wr've had since. Fuck him and his continued efforts to fuck over and smear Dems.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)He's certainly one of them.
otohara
(24,135 posts)go away old man
Hekate
(90,633 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)so just a while ago, he proposed an alliance with Libertarians (the same crowd that opposes expanded health care and wants to ultimately eliminate the safety net) while attacking Obama, and now he's calling HC a "menace"?
He's obviously diagnosed with the "Doesn't-Know-WTF-He's-Talking-About Syndrome".
Tarheel_Dem
(31,230 posts)guy, and that was just too far for him. If he hadn't already lost it in 2000, the election of BHO sent him right over the edge, despite Nader's best efforts to peel off support.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)brooklynite
(94,489 posts)Plenty of DUers would likely support him.....
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts). . . and promises not to reproduce!
No cloning, either!!
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)He would have been in several televised debates with Gore and Bradley. He would have drawn more attention to his views. He would have mobilized a lot of people to become active in Democratic Party politics and help us oust the DINOs. He would have gotten more votes than he did running in the general election.
Not to mention the minor matter that Al Gore would have become President.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)being relentlessly pushed by both Republican and Democratic corporatists, including Hillary.
And until people get past the hyperpartisan wagon-circling and start rallying the nation to demand representation on issues rather than party, these criminals in both parties will continue to feed us a suicidal corporate agenda.
Hillary stands for more deluges of corporate money driving policy, the familiar agenda of perpetual war, TPP, austerity, mass surveillance, assaults on journalism and suppression of dissent, "Kill Lists," indefinite detention, all manner of corporate domestic policies, and dismantling of the Bill of Rights of our Constitution....and so will the ultimate Republican candidate.
Republicans have virtually no chance of running anyone in 2016 who can stand even for a while during the campaign against these things, to help educate the nation and grow the dissent we desperately need to save ourselves from the corporate coup well underway in this nation.
Democrats actually have a couple of possibilities who might be able to do some good, if we get behind them strongly now and push to keep menaces like Hillary out of the running.
We can respond to the hyperpartisan corporate dog whistles and mindlessly rally around Hillary because Nader is a poopy head and Hillary has a deceptive (D) after her name, or we can look honestly at the malignant agenda she represents and try our damnedest to avoid running another corporate Trojan horse in 2016.
I know which route I would rather take.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts)..... the facts of the matter, well said.
Hopefully, somehow, it will not be a choice between a horrid HRC and a more horrid Republican, hopefully we can nominate someone who is not exclusively on the side of the 1%.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Thanks for posting.
Hekate
(90,633 posts)RandySF
(58,728 posts)Skittles
(153,141 posts)Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)some good and some not so good.
I'd like to see a debate between Nader and Clinton.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)wants to help another Bush get elected.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)You're so tiresome.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)And I hope you choke on it, you irrelevant asshole.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)I found a picture of Ralphie.
The truth hurts, as evidenced by the predictable, stereotypical responses in this thread.
And, of course, for the record, as I have reminded people ad nauseum every time a Nader hate thread pops up, I never voted for him, anywhere, for anything, and I voted for Al Gore in 2,000.
That doesn't mean that I'm not honest enough to acknowledge his legitimate points, even when they are a bit hyperbolic, as this one is.
Hillary Clinton, as a representative of the dlc/centrist/3rd way/new dem/neoliberal wing of the party, is not good for the party nor for the country. She represents a faction that IS a menace.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)than i do Hillary Kissinger Clinton. she and Dick Cheney have the same foreign policy beliefs.
and i voted for Gore in 2000. I will never blame Nader for 2000. it's fucking pompous to presume Gore/Lieberman was owed those Nader votes.
G_j
(40,366 posts)I mean GG, I mean Dennis Kucinich... oops..where the hell am I?...
Fuck all those loony fringe lefties who just don't "get it."
G_j
(40,366 posts)pal around with Henry Kissinger.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)The I'm not much of a Ralph fan, he does have a way of putting the truth out there. Whether Mr Nader runs or not, is irrelevant to me. Either way, I will not vote for a Clinton ever again in my life.
djean111
(14,255 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)He's being attacked for his opinion, as anyone can be.
djean111
(14,255 posts)with reasons, of his opinion of Hillary Clinton.
He is being attacked for HAVING an opinion on Hillary.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If he had specifics, it might be possible to discuss them.
It sounds more like trolling for attention than anyone else. He knows Hillary is a front runner thus far, so he generally attacks her with OTT language about being a menace to the U.S. That's not constructive.
djean111
(14,255 posts)In the scheme of things DU, I guess that makes me a Naderite, which I am not, but so it goes.
Youdontwantthetruth
(135 posts)Will make a great sig line!
Thanks Ralph for reminding people who she really is!
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)chrisa
(4,524 posts)You can tell his words are hollow like a termite-eaten stump. Just another politician pandering to his base to get elected.
Reter
(2,188 posts)How can anyone support her?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Many on this board love this shit.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Never will forgive him for 2000.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)"Menace to the U.S." if OTT. Can no one use moderation in their terminology any more? It's making me think they have no real argument they can use on which to debate, rending them ineffectual.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Ralph is obviously doing his little "pay attention to me" dance, which will be followed by him and jane hamsher gladly taking right wing money.
To those who say "he Iz telling Duh Troof!" I offer you this, the best con jhobs are based on truths perverted to the con artist's game, and Raplihe has a goood oen going, one that will keep him in Champagne and Big cars long after whatever fantasy you have about a third party beign elected fades out.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)This statement of his serves no purpose except to get his name in the paper again.
There might even be a backlash. Before I opened this thread, I considered Clinton a corporatist and a militarist. I still think that. Nevertheless, I'll admit to being slightly uncomfortable at finding myself on the same side as Nader. Stopped clock, I remind myself.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)But she was merely a Bush toady. She isn't the one who helped the fucker get into power.
It's a mathematical fact: No Nader in 2000 = President Al Gore in 2001. No amount of disenfranchisement or hanging chads would have overcome the 30,000 or so votes Nader took from Gore in Florida.