Home | About | Donate

Trump–Betrayer in Chief


#1

Trump–Betrayer in Chief

Ralph Nader

Let’s say you’re inclined to vote for Donald Trump largely because you dislike Hillary Clinton and are fed up with government messing up and serving Wall Street over Main Street. You’ve heard all the things said about Trump and it doesn’t make any difference because he says with absolute confidence that he is going to shake up Washington and “make America great again.”


#2

I'm a fan of Ralph, but this article is less than enlightening. Anybody with a brain knows that Trump is a despicable person and a terrible candidate. Ralph also knows that Hillary is a disaster waiting to happen. Ralph should spend more time stumping for Jill Stein, who is in the same position he was in in previous elections.


#3

Yes, yes, but remember, Donald does not pussy foot around. He grabs what he wants. He's a true leader. He could both well serve the Mafia and the Taliban. Don't sell him short. Putin will lend him money.


#5

I wish Nader had thought a little bit harder about who George W. Bush was in 2000. Maybe we would have saved a lot of people from dying in the Middle East and saved trillions of dollars as well. Nader still will not take any blame for the outcome of that election. Here we are 16 years late and Nader does seem much wiser. He continues to support the need for third parties but I get the sense that he feels it is important to put that aside temporarily for this election to make sure Trump is not the next president.


#7

I'm not sure this piece - written for Ralph's own blog at Nader.org was just geared toward people who already realize Trump is a "despicable person and a terrible candidate". Ralph does also go after Clinton of course - and always is supportive of the importance of an alternative political party. For example, here's an article from a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper a couple of days ago:


#10

Stein will get a fraction of Naders vote. That is not Naders fault. She has a fraction of his record.


#11

Groper Gate might end the Trump campaign, Pence, and fill in the blank in 2016.


#13

yes, 'skippy' i get so tired of everyone left, right and center telling me what i can plainly see that trump is an immature buffoon. i checked into this article just to see if nader would show an iota of support for the stein/baraka ticket. ralph, as well as many other "hold-your-nose" opinion writers, can find nothing good to say for hillary so oddly choose to say little about her. almost seems like a conspiracy to promote clinton on the grounds, "she's not trump!" perhaps nader would feel differently only if he were the green nominee?


#14

andrew, I've never heard of those "capitalist bribes" that Hillary takes. How about some documentation?


#15

He may be a leader, in a sociopathic sort of way, but he is not true. Besides, he is already involved with the Mafia, Russian oligarchic vultures, and every fraudster on Wall Street.


#18

Check out Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, before assuming that Nader had anything to do with Gore's "loss".


#19

Oh no! Now even Nader is shilling for the evil Killary-Hillary!

Stein-Trump-Putin 2016!

http://russia-insider.com/en/heres-who-sat-putins-table-rt-dinner-photo/ri11855
(note: Michael Flinn, sitting next to Putin at the table with Stein - is now a high-up in the Trump campaign)


#20

yes, i watched that democracy now! broadcast. i still wonder why nader doesn't comment on this year's green party platform?


#22

And I wish voters in 2000 thought more about whether Nader or Gore would have made a better president, rather than who the media told them could and could not win.


#24

I love this comment, it's so incredible. This sums up so well the baffling atmosphere on these forums during this election.

Ralph Nader is outspokenly and regularly promoting Stein. He was on Canadian radio last week talking about third party candidates and how he believes voting for them can break the duopoly. He writes articles about it. His position is obvious: he wants people to vote for third-party candidates.

But the MOMENT he writes an article that criticizes Donald fucking billionaire racist build-a-wall Trump, you can dismiss him as being "less than enlightening" and failing to promote the right candidate.

Because somehow criticizing the worst presidential candidate in history has now become equivalent to support for the Democratic party, or support for the MIC, or support for mass incarceration, or support for capitalism, or a deep personal affection for Hillary Clinton or whatever. Even when it's coming from the most famous third-party candidate since Theodor Roosevelt.

It's reactionary, people. The only acceptable words are STEIN2016 or you immediately fail the test and are out of the club.

Don't forget that this forum does not reflect society at large. Not by a long shot. To many people, Trump is not self-evidently a terrible candidate. To many people, the idea of an anti-Muslim misogynist president is not a joke but an actually desirable outcome. It is actually possible for someone to not want Trump to win the election and to say so without "shilling" for Clinton.


#25

I think the piece is targeted specifically at progressive/liberal Trump supporters (although 'progressive Trump supporter' is an oxymoron). He isn't addressing who they should vote for, just that it shouldn't be Trump.

Vote Sane: Vote Green.


#27

I was a BIG supporter and canvasser for Nader in 2000, 2004, 2008, and for Stein in 2012. But sorry to say even the savage war-criminal Bush (who the commenters her seem to think has undergone a sex-change operation and renamed himself "Hillary") cannot be compared to the fascist Trump and particularly his fascist "Alt-Right" followers.

So, if you are in a closely contested state, as I am, this is not the time to cast a protest vote. This is a time to cast a vote for the enemy against whom we can mount a fight against rather than a half-vote for the one whose thugs will imprison or kill us.

Please read history, folks; read history.


#28

Yeah well that's a paraphrase of Winston Churchill who is PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR KILLING MILLIONS DURING WORLD WAR TWO BECAUSE HE WAS A BLOODTHIRSTY PSYCHOPATH BABY EATER so we know you're obviously a shill for bloodthirsty psychopaths and it therefore follows that you love Clinton the Anti-Christ.

Reading history means you're a secret right wing plant funded by ALEC and trained by the CIA to further the Clinton Foundation's agenda to use children as fuel for the machine that will drive the Earth into the Sun, Libya first.


#29

Could y'all at least concede the point that Trump becoming president is something that it would actually be rational to fear? Because once you've accepted that, it's really not that difficult to see why Sanders would choose the strategy he chose.

This is a guy who encourages his followers to attack actvists. This is a guy who openly is endorsed and endorses the 'alt-right' movement, which is a cutesy term for a bunch of bigoted fascists who proudly wear their abusiveness as part of their aesthetic. Take a look at Twitter and you'll get a sense of the political movement Trump represents. These are not nice people. Look at the comments on Breitbart and see how long it takes for you to find a guy talking about "putting bitches in their place".

Is it more important that the Green party gets 5 or 6 or 7% of the vote, or that Trump the outspoken racist, misogynist, authoritarian billionaire not become president? This is actually the question that progressive voters have. There is no "Green Party wins the 2016 election" option. That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't support them, but it seems to me most people on this site consider it blasphemous to even point out what the situation in fact is.

If you live in California, go ahead and vote Green. If you live in Pennsylvania or Ohio? Think hard about it.

Your use of the term "real electoral politics" intrigues me. I don't know at all what you mean by it. Where is the "real" electoral politics? Are you talking about Denmark or something?


#30

Gore received half a million more votes than Bush so the majority of voters thought Gore would be the best president. If you think the media was on the side of Bush then the voters didn't listen to the media. But because we have the electoral college the majority doesn't always win and in this case the minority won.