Ralph Nader for President

[editec]

Nadar>

You mean the man most responsible for getting Bush II elected?

No thanks.

 

[merrill]

Read the link, you loon.

There is no hard evidence in that opinion piece from the Washington Times about Barney Frank. The fact remains the ball was in the Bush court to stop the corrupt loan practices that the TIMES implied the Bush admin was aware of. Bush and Paulson could have pulled the plug on that fraudulent scheme at any time .... it was their job to do yet they turned a blind eye.

Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a housing bubble? | Dollars & Sense What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a housing bubble? Dollars & Sense

What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a housing bubble? Dollars & Sense

4. Bush/Cheney implied several financial institutions were at risk when only 3 were seriously a concern so why $700 billion in bail out money? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money?

"Good Billions After Bad" - One Year After Wall Street Bailout, Pulitzer Winners Barlett and Steele Investigate Where All the Money Went "Good Billions After Bad" - One Year After Wall Street Bailout, Pulitzer Winners Barlett and Steele Investigate Where All the Money Went

Where did all the bank TARP money go? The banks paid it back.
At a profit to the Treasury.

I would suggest the money went to bonus packages for bank executives instead of lending it out to small business people and new economic growth...

Meanwhile:

In a new article in Vanity Fair, the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative team Donald Barlett and James Steele try to find an answer. Poring over bank records and Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Barlett and Steele recreate what happened in late 2008, when the Bush Treasury Department, led by former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson, sought to prevent a complete Wall Street meltdown by pouring billions into the banking system.

AMY GOODMAN: The problem is, they write, “once the money left the building, the government lost all track of it...It was hard to escape the feeling that the real strategy was less than scientific — amounting to a hope that if a massive pile of money was simply thrown at the economy, some of it would surely do something useful.”

 

[merrill]

The democratic leadership aka politicians convinced people it was Nader's fault because the democratic party could not get Gore elected.... can we say that sounds very politician like?

Nader has a legitimate argument. The political parties are supposed to be representative of the political system, not the other way around. He has every right to run for President, and if the Democrats can't overcome his candidacy, that's their problem, not his.

However, look at outcomes. Had Nader not run, Gore would have been elected President, not Bush.

It is a canard to say that the two parties are the same. No self-respecting liberal would have said there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Had Bush not been elected President, we would not have invaded Iraq, nor would have had budget-busting tax cuts. Heck, we might have had "Obamacare," or maybe "Gorecare." And who would have been more environmentally friendly, Gore or Bush? I'm not debating the merits of those policies, but to say that the world wouldn't have been different had Nader not run is utter horseshit. And for that, Ralph Nader bears some responsibility for what has happened over the past decade, no matter how much he denies it.

All democrats who chose not to vote or who crossed over to vote Bush bear the responsibility for Gore not getting elected.

It's the voters that did not vote for whatever reason and fraudulent voting devices is why Gore lost the election. We know computers can be designed to do most anything including Gore votes going to Bush.

Seems to me the supreme court lost the election as they would not accept the premise
of a fraudulent vote count. Gore should have challenged that decision. Not what I expected from Gore.

Fraudulent vote counts are directly associated with computerized voting which today can still create the same scenario.

 

[merrill]

Paperless Electronic Voting

A bedrock of democracy is ensuring that every vote counts. There needs to be a transparent system of vote counting so that people can trust that their vote is counted as they cast it. Paperless electronic voting on touch screen machines does not provide confidence to ensure votes are counted the way voters intend.

The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret, and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded, no analysis could discover it. Further, because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount. This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated, expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud. We should not trust the future of our nation to such malleable technology.

On July 23, 2003, the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security far below even the most minimal security standards.

 

[merrill]

In the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004, four top computer scientists from the University of California, Johns Hopkins University, and Rice University similarly critiqued Diebold’s voting system:

"We found significant security flaws: voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater.

Based on our analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, we believe that an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project such as this was not maintained. In fact, there appears to have been little quality control in the process.

"…The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run our elections appears to be unreliable, and if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate."

Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions.

Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day. Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote - thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.

Moreover, the seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major party candidates, George W. Bush. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to the Bush campaign. A corporation with vested political interests should not have control over the votes of the populace.

Voters using Diebold machines should immediately report any suspected malfunctions or deficiencies at voting precincts to their Board of Elections. Voters should also urge their legislators to require a voter verified paper ballot trail for random audits and independent recounts. Count every vote!

 

[percysunshine]

I will vote for Nader when he crusades against exploding Chevy Volts.

 

[merrill]

To deny Ralph Nader the opportunity at the office of the President because one believes Nader is the factor of Gore's loss is absurd.

There is only speculation at best that Nader was the reason Gore lost the campaign.

Tons of democrats stayed home perhaps because they were thinking GW Bush could not possibly be elected after 4 years of GW Bush and RINO questionable politics = disaster.

Or perhaps the voters got turned off due to the nasty campaign that RINO's put together at every election period which in fact does turn off voters to the point where they say all candidates are the same..... which is certainly not true.

BS nasty campaigns came on with Reagan/Bush and have yet to cease.

We need serious new rules for campaigns such as not allowing ads to run until contents
are proved to be true.

Again to deny Ralph Nader the opportunity at the office of the President because one believes Nader is the factor of Gore's loss is absurd.

Ralph Nader has the credentials.

 

[merrill]

The republican party is essentially dead. Due to the covert action/takeover of violent libertarians and Christian Fundamentalists. Most all republicans have been purged from elective office. This is why my father in law a fiscal conservative republican for at least 60 years moved to the democratic party in Pennsylvania 3 years ago.

My in laws cannot stomach the Bush family of politicians and politics which has a tight grip on the party. They are not republicans,they are not fiscal conservative and certainly NOT socially responsible.

Fiscal conservative and Socially Responsible republicans have no home unless they do as my inlaws have done. Incidentally my Father in law happens to be a quite a brilliant fiscal conservative.

My inlaws could never bring themselves to vote for a Bush. Quite stunning was they voted Kerry and Gore.

 

[candycorn]

In the last 30 years he has held no political office.

Experienced politicians in too many cases know all about corrupt special interest campaign money.

In the last 30 years those experienced republicans have
sent the economy down the tubes twice that required trillion dollar bailouts.

Why does one need to have held a political office? This man likely knows more about government than many elected officials.

Knows campaign finance like the back of his hand.

This NOT republican party is anything BUT fiscally conservative and certainly not prudent.( spent $53 million tax dollars to nail Clinton on a blow job).

Ralph Nader is fiscally prudent and socially responsible.

That would likely be a key to the GOP presidency....

Romney (if nominated) should attack Nader. Don't even mention President Obama's name. Nader will not get votes from Republicans but he will peel them from the Democrats. Having Nader in the conversation adds another chair to the table. The liberal base will then have another choice.

 

[merrill]

In the last 30 years he has held no political office.

Experienced politicians in too many cases know all about corrupt special interest campaign money.

In the last 30 years those experienced republicans have
sent the economy down the tubes twice that required trillion dollar bailouts.

Why does one need to have held a political office? This man likely knows more about government than many elected officials.

Knows campaign finance like the back of his hand.

This NOT republican party is anything BUT fiscally conservative and certainly not prudent.( spent $53 million tax dollars to nail Clinton on a blow job).

Ralph Nader is fiscally prudent and socially responsible.

That would likely be a key to the GOP presidency....

Romney (if nominated) should attack Nader. Don't even mention President Obama's name. Nader will not get votes from Republicans but he will peel them from the Democrats. Having Nader in the conversation adds another chair to the table. The liberal base will then have another choice.

Moderate fiscal conservative republicans will vote for Nader. He is smart about taxes and money.

 

[Katzndogz]

Nader should challenge Obama for the Democratic Nomination and when he loses he should run third party.

Yes he should!

I had no idea he was still alive.

 

[Full-Auto]

In the last 30 years he has held no political office.

Experienced politicians in too many cases know all about corrupt special interest campaign money.

In the last 30 years those experienced republicans have
sent the economy down the tubes twice that required trillion dollar bailouts.

Why does one need to have held a political office? This man likely knows more about government than many elected officials.

Knows campaign finance like the back of his hand.

This NOT republican party is anything BUT fiscally conservative and certainly not prudent.( spent $53 million tax dollars to nail Clinton on a blow job).

Ralph Nader is fiscally prudent and socially responsible.

My god you are quite the liar.

A regular DNC Stalin-Grad..... IE..... USEFUL IDIOT.

 

[Meister]

No matter how much you stump for Nader, in the end he's unelectable, Merrill. When he has run in the past he was unelectable and nothing has changed with him.
Nobody has denied Nader any opportunity, he just isn't electable.

 

[Gagafritz]

Nobody cares about Ralph Nader. He isn't even a viable option.

 

[merrill]

No matter how much you stump for Nader, in the end he's unelectable, Merrill. When he has run in the past he was unelectable and nothing has changed with him.
Nobody has denied Nader any opportunity, he just isn't electable.

Nader has been denied access to debates which is not democratic in principle. Voters deserves to hear from all candidates no matter what.

He would be an excellent participant in the campaign because he could keep the other candidates on the issues instead of getting caught up in matters of nonsense such as sex and
abortion.

 

[Gagafritz]

I mean, how many times are they going to try and resurrect that corpse? Time to move on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no hard evidence in that opinion piece from the Washington Times about Barney Frank. The fact remains the ball was in the Bush court to stop the corrupt loan practices that the TIMES implied the Bush admin was aware of. Bush and Paulson could have pulled the plug on that fraudulent scheme at any time .... it was their job to do yet they turned a blind eye.

Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a housing bubble? | Dollars & Sense What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a housing bubble? Dollars & Sense

What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a housing bubble? Dollars & Sense

4. Bush/Cheney implied several financial institutions were at risk when only 3 were seriously a concern so why $700 billion in bail out money? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money?

"Good Billions After Bad" - One Year After Wall Street Bailout, Pulitzer Winners Barlett and Steele Investigate Where All the Money Went "Good Billions After Bad" - One Year After Wall Street Bailout, Pulitzer Winners Barlett and Steele Investigate Where All the Money Went

Where did all the bank TARP money go? The banks paid it back.
At a profit to the Treasury.

I would suggest the money went to bonus packages for bank executives instead of lending it out to small business people and new economic growth...

Meanwhile:

In a new article in Vanity Fair, the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative team Donald Barlett and James Steele try to find an answer. Poring over bank records and Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Barlett and Steele recreate what happened in late 2008, when the Bush Treasury Department, led by former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson, sought to prevent a complete Wall Street meltdown by pouring billions into the banking system.

AMY GOODMAN: The problem is, they write, “once the money left the building, the government lost all track of it...It was hard to escape the feeling that the real strategy was less than scientific — amounting to a hope that if a massive pile of money was simply thrown at the economy, some of it would surely do something useful.”

The banks gave out several hundred billion in bonuses? Wow, liberal math!

Actually, in the real world, the money was used to increase their capital.
And then, when mortgagees kept defaulting, they needed more capital.
And then, when new regulations required more capital, you know, they needed more.
And then, when banks were criticized for being too big and making too many weak loans, they decided to make fewer loans. And then they repaid their TARP loans.

Yes, it's true, the strategy was less than scientific.
In contrast, Obama's stimulus money was thrown at the economy, wasted and contributed zero to the recovery. And must be repaid, unlike the profitable TARP.

It's funny to hear critics bash the banks now for not making the poor choices with TARP money that they made earlier with their own money.

 

[merrill]

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, what about that big meeting that you talk about — I think it was October 12th — the nine big banks? Eight of those banks, as you reported, ended up getting two-thirds of all of the money, 67 percent. How did that meeting come about, and who was there?

JAMES STEELE: Paulson actually called that meeting. He called the heads of those banks the night before and said, “I want you here tomorrow in Washington.” He was very vague as to what the purpose of the meeting was. But once they got there, he told them, “You are taking money. We are going to buy stock in your banks. And we need to get this economy going again.” Some bankers objected, saying by accepting this money it would look like they were weak. Others simply said they didn’t need it.

The fact of the matter is, one of the things we concluded very early on in this whole process is that while Treasury was trying to create the image that there was widespread weakness in these banks — and then there was a credit freeze, there’s no doubt about that — the way they went about this, just throwing the money out there in hopes that that would get the economy going, is not really what this was all about. There were just a handful of institutions that were terribly weakened. AIG the insurer, Bank of America, Citigroup, those three were clearly in very weakened form. So, many of the other big banks were not. And the best example that they didn’t need this money in the beginning was that many of them, within just a very few months, paid everything back.

AMY GOODMAN: Don Barlett, this meeting of the big nine, with Vikram Pandit of Citigroup, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, Kenneth Lewis of Bank of America, Richard Kovacevich of Wells Fargo, John Thain of Merrill Lynch, John Mack of Morgan Stanley, Lloyd Blankfein, who succeeded Paulson as head of Goldman Sachs, Robert Kelly of the Bank of New York Mellon and Ronald Logue of State Street Bank, went to the secretary’s conference room. It was even difficult to find this information out. But what did he lay out for them there? And how does Paulson, who was former head of one of these banks, fit into it, as well?

DONALD BARLETT: Well, reduced to its simplest terms, he laid in front of them, each of them, a sheet of paper and saying, “Write on this the amount of money you’re going to take, and you are going to take it. Otherwise,” the implication was, “regulators will be looking at you and finding something wrong there. This is one of those areas in which you have no choice. By the end of the day, you will sign that you’re taking this amount of money. You know, call your boards, do whatever you need to do, but you will take the money.”

JAMES STEELE: Amy, this is one of the most astonishing things to us as part of this whole investigation. Here you have these people signing by hand their names, the date of the meeting, and filling in with a felt-tip pen how much money they wanted: $25 billion in one case, $15 billion in another, $10 billion. A one-page piece of paper. Wouldn’t we all like that the next time we take out a mortgage or a car loan or anything like that?

 

[Unkotare]

No matter how much you stump for Nader, in the end he's unelectable, Merrill. When he has run in the past he was unelectable and nothing has changed with him.
Nobody has denied Nader any opportunity, he just isn't electable.

Nader has been denied access to debates which is not democratic in principle. Voters deserves to hear from all candidates no matter what.

He would be an excellent participant in the campaign because he could keep the other candidates on the issues instead of getting caught up in matters of nonsense such as sex and
abortion.

You're a sad, pathetic creature, but your deep disappointment is pretty entertaining.

 

[Unkotare]

No matter how much you stump for Nader, in the end he's unelectable, Merrill. When he has run in the past he was unelectable and nothing has changed with him.
Nobody has denied Nader any opportunity, he just isn't electable.

Nader himself never once believed he would actually be elected president.