What does Nader believe anyway?

I’ve noticed there are quite a few Nader supporters on this board and I was wondering why they support him. I’ve never heard any of his plans on what he would do if he actually got elected. (They should have let him attend at least the first debate.) I grew up in a General Motors household so I only heard Nader’s name in connection to him being someone who hated corporations and doesn’t know much about cars. I’ve been trying to find more points of view. I did find this interesting article:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11868-2000Sep4.html

Blackclaw: As far as what Nader’s platform is, here’s a link to the campaign’s Issues page: The Issues

And for more insight into the Green Party’s platform: Green Platform

Hope these help!

Nader has attacked Al Gore on his environmental record, saying he’s supposed to be in charge of the environment as Veep, but sold out to corporate America.

He is against “corporate welfare”, ie govt aid to corporations and other incentives.

He is extremely pro-Union

He opposes the WTO because he says it allows foreign companies that use cheap labor thus taking away American jobs

He is for raising the minumum wage to $8 and change

He is against jailing drug addicts and for giving them help instead

He claims that of the Western Industrialized world, the US lags behind since it has more poverty

He is for teaching democracy in public schools, like classes on local govt, writing policy papers, etc

I’d think of more but I think you get the general idea. I like Nader, he is obviosly brilliant and makes good points, but since I’m a Libertarian, I obviously can’t vote for him.

There was an excellent Rolling Stone interview with him a few issues back. I don’t know if you can download it off their site or not. Or just go the library and read it. I dont agree with the man, but it’s one of the best politcal interviews I ever read.

Nader is the ultimate lawyer0hypocrite. His worldview is an extremely simple one-for him, the world is divided into two groups:
(1) the great mass of the population, who are ignorant and stupid. These people can be led by the nose, and believe any and all advertisements.
(2) the intellectuals (this group includes himself). These people know how life is to be lived, and are aware of the need to protect the world, etc. They also know that the rules do not apply to them.
This elite sees its mission as defending the masses from the “evil” corporations, who seem intent on killing their customers (for some odd reason, they produce defective cars, unsafe tires, etc.) even though killing their customers would not seem to be in their interest.
Nders MO is always the same-as a lawyer, he seeks to identify a conspiracy behind every human tragedy. Thus, GM “conspired” to produce a defective car 9the Corvair), and only Nader can protect us from the evil beings at GM. The man is a complete fraud.

Gee, egkelly. With Nader, a Yale grad, and a Harvard grad running, we might actually get a man with a brain in office no matter what happens this year.

Sure, Nader is a member of the intellegensia. How is that a bad thing? Should only stupid people be allowed to be president? Since Gore flunked whole semesters of college, I presume he is your first choice?

Then how come he’s the only canidate who doesn’t sound like he’s talking down to his audience?

(2) the intellectuals (this group includes himself). These people know how life is to be lived, and are aware of the need to protect the world, etc. They also know that the rules do not apply to them.
This elite sees its mission as defending the masses from the “evil” corporations, who seem intent on killing their customers (for some odd reason, they produce defective cars, unsafe tires, etc.) even though killing their customers would not seem to be in their interest.
**
[/QUOTE]

Yeah I would think it wouldn’t be in there interest either. And yet (!) unsafe products are in fact produced some times. Obviously not on purpose. But they may, not unlike an individual may, try to avoid taking responsiblity when they do. And, to a greater extent than for an individual, they can avoid having to, for both the unintentional like making an unsafe product, or the intentional like getting rid of waste products in an unsafe manner.

I (and Ralph) am not saying corporations are evil.
I am saying they have an undue amount of power and influence in the country (including on the political process),without an equivilalent level of responsiblity. Are you saying they have never exploited this position?

Funny, it seems to me corporations are the ones that think the rules don’t apply to them. And regretable they’re right.

From what I hvae heard I thought a lot of his (and the Green Party’s) beliefs could basically be summed up witht the word socialism. Methinks I need to read more, not that my vote will be changing.

[QUOTE]
(2) the intellectuals (this group includes himself). These people know how life is to be lived, and are aware of the need to protect the world, etc. They also know that the rules do not apply to them.[\QUOTE]
So he is a politician?

Nader is now denying the platform at the official Green Party website, saying only the one at votenader.com counts. No 100% tax on income over 10 X minimum wage. No breakup of fortune 500 companies.

Corporations only have 1 interest, and that is making money the fastest. Its definately not safety of their customers unless that safety causes them to buy another one.

I agree with Asmodean.
:smiley:

Dear Ralphy figured out that one court case with lots of publicity would keep him in spending money reguardless of whether he won or lost. He still gets enough people to support him to live better that most in the dear old USA. Like D.B. Sweeny, the first to do something generally gets away with it if it’s done right. Those that follow have a harder time. Jesse had to move to D.C. and get elected a non voting member of congress with the salary.

I deleted where he asks for contributions to keep this from being spam.

He is for deep democracy.
If you want to know more, please check out his web site.

Um… I don’t understand. Maybe I need to check out the threads on Libertarianism, but I don’t understand why it’s “obvious” you can’t vote for him? I’m a registered D and I voted for him (mail-in ballot, I voted last week). If you agree with him, then what’s the problem? Or am I just being thick and you’re saying that, while he makes good points, you “obviously” don’t agree with him? In which case I understand and am shutting up now.