30 Replies to “Ralph Nader Is At It Again, Endorses Ron Paul”

  1. I remember when Nader was of some use to this country, back in the late 1960s and 1970s. Not anymore. He’s as rigid and ideologically driven as any far right conservative. He has his few issues and d@mn what happens to us in any other area.

  2. That’s what I don’t get. He’s long out-lived his usefulness. I wonder what made him go around the bend, because Paul would undo many things which Nader fought for.

  3. Indeed, Nader is revealing that his animosity toward the “establishment” requires a primer. Nader did have some valid points in years past…but I question his understanding of endorsements of someone like Paul who is a known Dominionist follower (R.J. Rushdoony); and a supporter of fiscal support for military funding and anti-women’s rights legislation over the years + more.

    This is dangerous misinformation that will take the emotions of single issue voters on the far left and sway them to waste their votes. Yep…I said it. Wasted votes.

  4. I don’t think this was an actual endorsement. It sounded as though he just answered the question as to whether there was an anti-war candidate in this race and he responded with “Ron Paul” going on to say that Paul was not getting coverage because of his anti-war stance and opposition to the Federal Reserve. I would like to believe that Ralph Nader would not endorse any candidate who is so intent on removing programs he helped establish to protect citizens and stripping women of their right to choose.

    This may be an instance of reading too much into a response. Until he actually says “I endorse” I think it best not to extrapolate a simple comment into an endorsement.

  5. I don’t see how you can blame Nader for the deaths in a war started by George Bush, you just can’t say that without being dishonest.

  6. “This is dangerous misinformation that will take the emotions of single issue voters on the far left and sway them to waste their votes. Yep…I said it. Wasted votes.”

    Are you such a cold heart, that you would rather support a candidate that promotes the mass slaughter overseas and the stripping of our individual rights, simply because he supports an entitlement system?

    You do know, that the monetary policies under Bush and Obama are exactly the same, right? You do know, that these policies of inflation and easy money are going to destroy the currency and by default make everyone poor, right?

    Wasted votes, right?

    All I see so far, are empty insults with unthinking stereotypes.

    Anyone who voted for Nader would never vote for Al Gore, period. Stop blaming him for the failures of the Democratic party. Especially after the Democratic and Republican parties get away with voter fraud all the time by denying alternative choices.

  7. Ron Paul certainly is not the answer to our ills. Nader is trying to bask in the spotlight. However, he did not cause the deaths of thousands. George Walker Bush, his cronies, and the gutless corporate Democrats in Congress – who cowed to his edicts – caused those deaths. The corporate media and the sheeple played a role in this destructive mess, too. (But don’t let the facts get in the way of placing the blame primarily on a single old man who ran as a third party candidate in 2000, right?!?!)

    For clarification, the U.S. Supremes selected Idiot George to occupy the oval office. (By the way, who can say that corporate “New” Democrat Al Gore would have responded much differently?) The right wing morons on the bench – who repeatedly squeal about “state’s rights” and “local control” – did whatever they could to make sure that the state of Florida did not recount the votes.

  8. Is seems to me that Ralph Nader has lost his credibility to the extent that his endorsement would be a negative for Ron Paul. One can hope, anyway.

  9. What is he doing??? Nader used to stand for principled ideas, but to pull the wool over the young and idealistic eyes that a vote for Paul will cock-block the Koch’s, wall street, theocratic monsters, bring “jobs” back is simply incredulous…no, not this time Ralph, not after you helped sink Gore…hopefully, this too shall pass.

    (and there I was, minding my own, thinking of ways to get students to be sure and vote absentee to cock-block the Kochs…and he pulls this!)

  10. I love Ralph Nader, but anyone that is incapable of recognizing the corporate tyranny that Ron Paul would unleash has the blinders on. Bad move Nader.

  11. Giovanni, you’re delusional to insist that anyone who voted for Nader would have never voted for Gore. Who then would they have votes for? Bush? Give me a break. That’s like saying that the people who voted for Perot would have voted for Clinton, simply untrue.

  12. Gore, at least would not ignore the Aug, 2001, intelligence briefing. Bush let 9/11 happen and lied to Congress, the UN and the American people about WMD to start his jihad against the man who tried to kill his daddy. Bush wanted this war since 1999 and said he would finish the job his daddy didn’t. Bush is responsible for every death on 9/11 andd the deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. Period.

  13. OMG! It’s right in front of our eyesa and so many Americans are not seeing that 9/11 was an inside job. Which Bush was in charge of security for the WTC on 9/11? Marvin Bush was a principal in a company called Securacom which provided security for the World Trade Center.


    As for Ralph Nader he’s irrelavent at least in my book.

  14. The author does not address what Nader said about Obama’s extension of the wars started by Bush and his destruction of the Constitution (NDAA).
    Not to mention his ties to the banksters. And his pre-judging Bradley Manning as guilty – before a trial. And failure to rein in his corrup Justice Dept. failure to give Don Siegelman a fair hearing. On and on.

    Flash! The 2000 election was not close! That Nader cost Gore the election is a myth belied by the facts. Gore won by 5-7 million True votes, not the 540,000 recorded. Those who claim that Nader cost Gore the election in FL and NH must realize that Bush would have found a way to steal them even if Nader did not run. Many other states were stolen by Bush. Bush would have still stolen EVERY state in which Gore won the exit poll (AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC TN TX VA). Also, a moot point: had Nader not run, a certain percentage of his voters would have stayed home and not voted. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/2000-election/

  15. I understand that you don’t like the two party system,I don’t like it either,but to endorse someone like Paul, when there are others who have better answers(Jill Stein,Rocky Anderson, anyone??)annoys me greatly.I’ve had to deal with a whole bunch of so-called “progressives” who’ve been acting like Ron Paul is the messiah, ignoring his right wing policies, this electon season and it annoys me greatly. I know quite a few Libertarians who can’t stand Ron Paul,especially since he likes to hang around with racists,dominionists, and anti-choicers,they like to joke “Yeah, he wants smaller gov’t,small enough to fit in one’s pants”.

  16. I must add that if Nader had not run in 2000, perhaps 80% of his voters would have voted for Gore. There is no question that Nader cost Gore votes. Had Nader not ran, it would been more difficult for Bush to steal the election. But he would still have won because the fix was in. Don’t blame Nader; blame the corrupt so-called “liberal” mainstream media (like NY Times, CNN, etc.) which demonized Gore at every opportunity. YET HE STILL WON THE TRUE VOTE BY NEARLY SIX MILLION VOTES!

  17. Nader is not responsible for Gore losing. Bush stole the goddamned election. That whole “siphoning votes” narrative is about discouraging 3rd party candidates because then Your Lesser Of 2 Evils Candidate will lose “his” votes. Nader didn’t siphon anything, people voted for him because they wanted Nader to win, and to suggest that voting ones conscience is to be taking a vote away that rightfully belongs with some other candidate is offensive.

  18. President George W. Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, was not only the Director of the World Trade Center’s electronic security company, he was also the Director of the World Trade Center’s casualty insurance company called Houston Casualty (HCC Insurance). That company terminated their insurance coverage for the world trade center just before 9/11. Marvin Bush’s company also provided security for 9/11’s United Airlines and 9/11’s Dulles Airport.

  19. As I said…

    You need to read the REAL research and not the stuff pushed by a few nutcases. That makes no more sense than the birthers make.

    Next you’ll be saying that Bush orchestrated 9/11.

    He’s bad, agreed. That, however, is pure conspiracy theory stuff and I don’t buy a second of it.

  20. The only comment I think I’ll make about this is that anyone who votes for Ron Paul is a self-centered idiot who doesn’t even try to look at the big picture or how it affects others, and my opinion of Nader has never been good – and has only gone downhill after this move.

    (And before someone ups with the anti-war stuff, remember this: President Obama ENDED the war in Iraq and has gotten us out of there in such a way to reduce the impact of the change on the Iraqi people. Remember them? They’re people too!)

  21. To: A Walkaway on February 28, 2012 at 3:52 pm
    You’re going to be in for a rude awakening soon when the arrests commence. What is the best way to rob a bank-own the bank!

    Intel Exclusive: Trillion Dollar Terror Exposed – Bush, Fed, Europe Banks in $15 Trillion Fraud, All Documented
    Thanks to William

    By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor, Veterans Today: Military and Foreign Affairs Journal
    February 21, 2012
    Below is one of the strangest stories in financial history, one involving the US government lying about hundreds of thousands of tons of imaginary gold, illegal wire transfers and loans totaling $15 trillion. The video, from the House of Lords, is amazing in itself. What it doesn’t express is where the money came from though Lord James of Blackheath proves conclusively that an effort was made to say it came from a gold reserve in Brunei that, in fact, never existed.

  22. I agree with you on President Obama ending the Iraq war and I’m not a huge fan of Dr. Paul although I wouldn’t frame someone that votes for him as a “self-centered idiot”. We can all politely disagree with one another and debate issues without attacking.

  23. Well, we have a saying – incredible claims require incredible proof.

    So far nothing of yours comes any further than claims, with the one link. It will take more than your claims (and the single link) to convince me that you have anything more than conspiracy theory stuff.

    Plus I’ve heard the “Bush involved in 9/11” stuff before – and it was thoroughly and completely debunked.

  24. Well, the people I’ve met who support Paul are either in it only so they can have their favorite substance legalized (and don’t give a damn about what he’d do to the country) – my definition of a self-centered idiot, or they are bigots and know him for what he is… and support him for that (again self-centered idiots).

    The anti-war crowd… if they’re so bent on the single issue that they ignore everything else Paul stands for (theocracy, racism, etc.), then they fit the definition as well. “My issue is instantly supported or nothing!”

  25. Ralph Nader has surrendered to his selfish ego. Politically he was washed up as demonstrated by the 2000 presidential election. It is of little surprise that he would embrace an anarchist libertarian Ron Paul. As a matter of fact Nader would sell his soul to the devil for one more big hey-day on the national political stage. Personally I have decided to make a clean break with Nader and his media organ PUBLIC CITIZEN, which will receive no further support from myself and my circle of friends. In my opinion “Naders Raiders” have gone the way of “Quantrill’s Raiders”.

  26. Nader showed his racist side in 2008 by calling Obama an uncle tom and saying that the white people who support him are “just showing white guilt”. Never mind that many black people have run for president before.

  27. I’m with walkaway on this one. I spent some time investigating the “inside job” claims and found them lacking. Much of the “evidence” is false or misleading, particularly with regard to the Pentagon attack. What real evidence exists isn’t particularly persuasive, and accepting the conspiracy theory conclusion raises more questions than it theoretically answers. Such astonishing claims really require more evidence, less supposition.

Comments are closed.