Ralph Nader Is Insane

I wonder how many more iterations it will take for people to realize that the 'democratic' lever-pulling system is a farce. Politicians (president, congress, senate) are nothing more than actors on a stage. The real power lies with the global elites, Rothschilds, etc., who control money supply through the central banks. The banks and the CIA (and other intelligence agencies) make the wheels turn. The president is a sock puppet.

Korplem said:

Prime Junta, I know you get a lot of flak around here, although it has lessened, so I thought I'd let you know that I have a great deal of respect for you. I sincerely hope that you are involved, at least a little, in your own government. It would seem almost a disservice to civilization for you to not be involved.

Click to expand...

I vote. Generally speaking. Somehow the people I vote for never seem to get elected, though. Does that count?

I did make an attempt at engaging in politics once, but I didn't have the stomach for it. Politics attracts people who are ambitious and who like power. I'm not and I don't, so that didn't work out.

But thanks, that was very flattering.

bkrueger said:

I still don't understand why. Only because he dares to be an alternative, possibly preventing the lesser of two evils from winning?

Click to expand...

There is that -- politics *is* about choosing the lesser evil. Someone who blocks that is not, generally speaking, a constructive force.

My main beef with Nader is that he could have made a genuine, patient, slow effort at building a viable third party -- you know, organizing at the grassroots level, attracting new political talent, making itself felt at the municipal and eventually the state level, that sort of thing. He has the name recognition, the resources, the program, and the organizational savvy. Yet somehow the Green Party always remains the functional equivalent of Nader barking from the sidelines every four years.

I don't know his motives, naturally, but it sure *looks* like ego-tripping to me -- and his high-minded speeches about it sound more like rationalization than ratiocination.

SacrificiaLamb said:

I wonder how many more iterations it will take for people to realize that the 'democratic' lever-pulling system is a farce. Politicians (president, congress, senate) are nothing more than actors on a stage. The real power lies with the global elites, Rothschilds, etc., who control money supply through the central banks. The banks and the CIA (and other intelligence agencies) make the wheels turn. The president is a sock puppet.

Click to expand...

Nope, that's not how it works either. It's a comforting fantasy, though.

SacrificiaLamb said:

I wonder how many more iterations it will take for people to realize that the 'democratic' lever-pulling system is a farce. Politicians (president, congress, senate) are nothing more than actors on a stage. The real power lies with the global elites, Rothschilds, etc., who control money supply through the central banks. The banks and the CIA (and other intelligence agencies) make the wheels turn. The president is a sock puppet.

Click to expand...

Long life to the communist party!

Seriously, I'm tired to hear that same kind of old conspiracy theory that put both the Nazi, the communists, and many other dictatorship in power. It serves as excuse for a handful of dictator to remain in power and prevent democracy from rising. Only difference now is that the jews are missing. Wait, Rothschild, that's a jewish family!

The rich of this world, the «global elite» are too many, too different of opinion, of interest to hold the true power. They try to influence and they are sometimes succesful, sometimes not. Sometimes they even get in jail no matter how many billions they have.

Prime Junta said:

My main beef with Nader is that he could have made a genuine, patient, slow effort at building a viable third party

Click to expand...

I agree - it was one thing when it was Ross Perot and the man *was* the party ... but Nader was supposed to be a leader of a movement. The need really hasn't abated, but he has done nothing to help it along.

Prime Junta said:

Nope, that's not how it works either. It's a comforting fantasy, though.

Click to expand...

Enjoy your delusion.

vanedor said:

Long life to the communist party!

Seriously, I'm tired to hear that same kind of old conspiracy theory that put both the Nazi, the communists, and many other dictatorship in power. It serves as excuse for a handful of dictator to remain in power and prevent democracy from rising. Only difference now is that the jews are missing. Wait, Rothschild, that's a jewish family!

The rich of this world, the «global elite» are too many, too different of opinion, of interest to hold the true power. They try to influence and they are sometimes succesful, sometimes not. Sometimes they even get in jail no matter how many billions they have.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should learn a little bit about the Rothschilds and company first.

Another Great Depression, larger actually, and another World War are in the making. By the end of this year, it will be obvious to everyone. Giving up on the political system is the best thing that could happen, but obviously most prefer to remain inside the box, which works to the benefit of the powers.

By pure curiosity, I'm wondering what alternative do you propose?

I've always found the 'lesser of two evils' arguement odd, does anyone seriously content that 8 years of president Gore would have been the same as 8 of president Bush? And if you do do you really believe the establishment unified in opposition to change what difference could an independant president without party support in congress or senate hope to make?

SacrificiaLamb said:

Maybe you should learn a little bit about the Rothschilds and company first.

Another Great Depression, larger actually, and another World War are in the making. By the end of this year, it will be obvious to everyone. Giving up on the political system is the best thing that could happen, but obviously most prefer to remain inside the box, which works to the benefit of the powers.

Click to expand...

Yah, might as well nip out behind the back and shoot ourselves now, would save trouble later.

Anyway, I'll give you the depression -- or, at least, a very severe and protracted recession -- but not the world war, at least not in the traditional (i.e., WW1-WW2 sense of the word).

And no, it really doesn't work like that. There is no shadowy cabal pulling the strings behind the scenes, and you're not being very amusing, original, or even interesting with your really stale cryptic hints. You're only showing your own ignorance (and insecurity) about how the world really works by taking refuge in those comforting fantasies of yours.

V7 said:

I've always found the 'lesser of two evils' arguement odd, does anyone seriously content that 8 years of president Gore would have been the same as 8 of president Bush? And if you do do you really believe the establishment unified in opposition to change what difference could an independant president without party support in congress or senate hope to make?

Click to expand...

While we would have had a different 8 years, I don't know that it would have been much better or worse. It's projections at best, but instead of the Iraq war maybe we end up with a more significant terror problem resulting from Gore's expected lack of response.

dteowner said:

While we would have had a different 8 years, I don't know that it would have been much better or worse. It's projections at best, but instead of the Iraq war maybe we end up with a more significant terror problem resulting from Gore's expected lack of response.

Click to expand...

@dte, the Iraq invasion has nothing to do with terrorism. Surely you realize that?

Second, it's by no means a given that the military adventures of America post 9/11 have reduced the risk of terrorism -- in fact, the contrary may very well be true. Counter-terrorism work is difficult and takes brains and patience. The Bush administration has done just about everything wrong about it -- I can't see how Gore could possibly have done worse.

Edit: OK, that was a slight exaggeration -- the first part of the Afghanistan campaign was handled rather well, and succeeded in busting up Al Qaeda 1.0 (although not capturing or killing OBL & co.) Apart from that, though, it's been a pretty dismal job.

dteowner said:

While we would have had a different 8 years, I don't know that it would have been much better or worse. It's projections at best, but instead of the Iraq war maybe we end up with a more significant terror problem resulting from Gore's expected lack of response.

Click to expand...

Do you really believe Gore would not have gone into Afghanistan? Why do you think that? He was part of the administration that tried to take Osama out with the cruise missile. He certainly was no fan of the man before 9/11, and I haven't seen one iota of credible evidence that would lead me to believe that Gore would not have gone after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in much the same way Bush did.

Second point: do you really think the Iraq invasion has made us safer? Really? Every single indication, including analysis by the CIA and the military themselves, should lead any reasonable person to believe that we made ourselves more vulnerable to terrorism by invading and, more importantly, completely bungling the post-invasion occupation. I think any reasonable person would agree that, hindsight being 20/20, had Gore been president and not invaded Iraq, we'd be much, much better off than we are today. To draw any other conclusion is, well, mind-boggling, to put it mildly...

dteowner said:

While we would have had a different 8 years, I don't know that it would have been much better or worse. It's projections at best, but instead of the Iraq war maybe we end up with a more significant terror problem resulting from Gore's expected lack of response.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I really don't buy this. My speculation is that we would have had a more balanced and proper response to 9-11 had Gore been President. I would bet we'd have gone in to Afghanistan and more than likely would have addressed the real problem of Al Qaida by dealing with Pakistan.

I think we've just been lucky that we haven't been struck again. What has the shrub really done to protect us from terrorists? Our ports are still vulnerable, nuclear power plants are un-secure, our borders are still porous (especially Canada where some actual terrorists crossed into the US), airport security is a placebo, intelligence is collecting so much data they can't parse it all, and we've stirred up the hornet's nest with our "diplomacy" towards the Middle East. Good lord, I don't see how anyone could think Gore could have handled it worse.

Eliaures said:

I think we've just been lucky that we haven't been struck again. What has the shrub really done to protect us from terrorists? Our ports are still vulnerable, nuclear power plants are un-secure, our borders are still porous (especially Canada where some actual terrorists crossed into the US), airport security is a placebo, intelligence is collecting so much data they can't parse it all, and we've stirred up the hornet's nest with our "diplomacy" towards the Middle East. Good lord, I don't see how anyone could think Gore could have handled it worse.

Click to expand...

Or even as bad.

The problem with the whole "making us safer" bent we're on is that we're going about it the wrong way. We simply can not make ourselves safer from any serious terrorist threat, which Al Qaeda obviously is, buy hiring tons of people to check ID's that can easily be faked, buying hugely expensive X-ray machines that will probably never catch a bomb in my lifetime, and building hugely expensive towers in the middle of the desert with hugely expensive cameras mounted on them that can easily be avoided like all static defenses throughout the history of man. It's all foolishness. And plays right into their hands by wasting tons of money on ineffective methods thus dragging us down further economically while accomplishing nothing. They must laugh there asses off when they read about the latest boondoggle the Bush administration touts as "making Americans safer".

There are only two things that will make a real difference: good intelligence operations and a foreign policy that ultimately contributes to the regular people around the terrorists deciding they're better off not supporting and maybe even turning them in or fighting them themselves than they are supporting them, whether actively or passively.

dteowner said:

While we would have had a different 8 years, I don't know that it would have been much better or worse. It's projections at best, but instead of the Iraq war maybe we end up with a more significant terror problem resulting from Gore's expected lack of response.

Click to expand...

I wasn't intenting to make a claim as to better or worse, as you quite rightly point out its all speculation at this point. However reguardless of which way you lean politically I think we can all agree that the choices made in the elections (and especially Bush/Gore given everything that happened after) made a real difference, contary to the cynical posturing of the Nader camp.

bkrueger said:

I still don't understand why [Nader's insane].

Click to expand...

Nader's an extreme pragmatic who's sometimes comfortable ignoring facts that shouldn't be ignored. His causes for the greater good are sometimes done at the expense of others whose suffering doesn't seem matter enough to him. It's out of whack.

I don't know about you, bkrueger, but I'd have trouble sleeping at night if I had ignored warnings and was responsible for having put George W. Bush into office. Nader shrugs it off. He's nuts.

chamr said:

There are only two things that will make a real difference: good intelligence operations and a foreign policy that ultimately contributes to the regular people around the terrorists deciding they're better off not supporting and maybe even turning them in or fighting them themselves than they are supporting them, whether actively or passively.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, some application of lethal force is also necessary. The difficult bit is to know how much and when. Too much and in the wrong place will simply create cycles of violence that make the problem worse. For example, the early part of the Afghanistan operation was undeniably effective, whereas the Israeli operations in Gaza are obviously going nowhere.

Prime Junta said:

Unfortunately, some application of lethal force is also necessary. The difficult bit is to know how much and when. Too much and in the wrong place will simply create cycles of violence that make the problem worse. For example, the early part of the Afghanistan operation was undeniably effective, whereas the Israeli operations in Gaza are obviously going nowhere.

Click to expand...

I was assuming the occasional use of force in the "operations" part of intelligence operations. I'm assuming that action is taken on the intelligence, thus the "operations" part, and sometimes that action will be the selective and, hopefully, necessary and wise use of lethal force.