Ralph Nader, running for President in 2008, sat down with Red Tape Chronicles to talk about the current deplorable state of consumer affairs. The video kicks butt and reminds me why I get up in the morning. Highlights:
On the derailing of the consumer protection movement: Laws aren’t being enforced, not enough prosecutors on the corporate fraud beat.
On the other candidates: Their campaigns are based on law and order. Not one has put the words consumer and protection together in one of their speeches.
On unfair contracts: A common clause now says that the seller has the right to change terms of contract at any time, that’s the end of contract law.
On the sub-prime meltdown: It’s the government’s job to force credit rating settings. There should be a plain-language law mandating that mortgages are written in a language average people can understand
On education: Spend so much time teaching students to use computers but we don’t teach kids how to shop for their maximum health safety and economic well-being… what’s the point of earning money if you’re just going to lose it to corporate scams?
On activism: You want a better country, you’ve got to spend more of your time more time away from american idol, and more time on your members of Congress. We’re millions of people, but corporations don’t have a single vote, and members of congress are there because of our votes, so make those votes count.
Video inside.
Note: Anyone ranting off-topic in the comments about how Nader threw the election may get a visit from *~El Bandito~*
More From Consumerist
-
Wireless Companies Hope To Cash In By Pushing Everyone Into Unlimited Voice Plans
-
Nestlé Recalling Nesquik Drink Mix Because Chocolate Milk Shouldn’t Contain Salmonella
-
Elon Musk Extra Cranky At NYT Tesla Review After Losing “Hundreds” Of Orders
-
McDonald’s Franchisee Explains Why You Can’t Get Egg McMuffins All Day
-
Kate Spade Store Demands Proof I Didn’t Steal My Wallet Before Repairing It
The question remains “why does Ben have to put notes at the end of an article to NOT use the comments to make irrelevant and/or personal attacks?”
Much like many of Nader’s efforts, the goals of this site are hampered by the idiots that they are trying to help.
Where is the insightful commentary? Where is someone refuting a claim made in the interview? There are a few, but they are lost in the dross.
Why would you post if you have nothing to contribute?
Here is my contribution:
I have met Nader on two seperate occasions and each time he has impressed me with his passion, and what I believe to be a genuine concern for other people. Also, if you ever go to hear him speak add at least two hours to the specified time. The man has no sense of time when he starts talking.
I don’t know how many of you guys have actually read the Pacific Green Party platform, but there is some pretty pie-in-the-sky stuff in there:
Heebie-jeebies. Heebie. Jeebies. 10% is a monopoly now?
As to Nadar, I just wish he had a chance. What I said before still applies. He has some very good, consumer friendly ideas. But so does the Libertarian candidate (usually) and he/she usually gets enough state ballot presence to actually win the election.
I’d be happy if either Nadar or a Libertarian won the election. I just don’t want to see people waste their votes on someone who literally cannot possibly win.
@Bladefist-안녕:
Interesting how you take to defending one team against a post that maligns both.
When are the People going to learn that politics is not a football game, and stop supporting their team “the issues be damned?” This is not a game people. When the candidate from your beloved party no longer agrees with your values and ideals, stop supporting him/her. If the People would just follow that advice, we wouldn’t have most of the problems we do today.
I agree with George Washington: political parties are one of the biggest mistakes this country could ever make.
@petrarch1608:
I’ve got a better link for you:
[Google search: walmart small business]
Corporations are not designed to do good for anyone except those who own them. However, often they are forced to do good for others in order to do better for their owners. But make no mistake, if it were legal to forcibly require people to buy their products, a majority would, because it makes for an impressive bottom line when your income statements are insured by force.
@Wimpkins:
As to McCain, if you like socialized medicine, corporate bailouts with simultaneous restrictions placed on bankruptcy claims for the People, Video Games being government regulated, and US Soldiers dying on foreign battlefields, then by all means vote for him, or Hillary. So far it seems the only real difference between the two is genitalia.
…
Whew! What a post.
@DCGaymer: “Nader = Consumerist 1.0 … “Still available in analog!”"
Indeed. If Ralph wins any election, it should be the one for “new C-ist logo”
@rmz: “10% is a monopoly now?”
If it means a more consumer oriented and actually free (rather than technically free) market, then why not? Such a situation would require that companies get together and make consumer friendly standards or risk a wholesale collapse of their particular market sector. And they’d actually have to work for their market share rather than locking their customers into their products.
@rmz: What are you talking about, Nader is not the green party. Please get your facts straight.
[www.gp.org]
@Bladefist-안녕: Yes most politicians do lie. The difference is some lie about things that shouldn’t matter ( like getting a blowjob ) and other lie about things that result in thousands of people dying.
But equating the fact that they are all lying completely puts things in persepctive! /sarcasm
all politicians campaigns are based on relatively the same thing: trying to state your beliefs in a manner which encourages other people to believe you and agree with you. law and order is not necessarily it.
although i do agree about the rest of what he says here and the “corporate fascism” sum up.
apostrophe in there somewhere…
Nader is an American hero. I, for one, am glad that Democracy is alive and well, and that the process allows for people outside of the two major parties to run.
I hate George W. and everything he has done to this country, and others, since taking office. But blaming Ralph Nader and those who voted for him makes far less sense than blaming Al Gore, John Kerry, the DNC, and the mass of weak-willed democrats who are so caught up on what they think is “electability” that they hesitate to back a candidate with any integrity or appeal. Why don’t the supposed liberals who so love to attack Nader and his voters put half that energy into attacking Bush, the GOP, and the Republican voters?
Nader is running because it is his right to. It disenfranchises nobody. All of you Nader-Haters are the true enemies of democracy.
@JustAGuy2: “Had Nader not run, Gore would have won” is patently false. As I said before, if Gore had won Tennessee, the entire Florida debacle would have been a non-issue. Nader got less than 1% of the vote in TN.
@youbastid: Essentially, there were a number of reasons that Gore lost, and Nader is at the bottom of that list.
I wish people would stop using Nader as a punching bag/scapegoat.
His message has always been the same: there is little or no difference between the two parties in any of the issues that matter the most. Many of the reforms that he proposes are off the table for Clinton, Obama, and McCain. Take the issue of beefing up enforcement for consumer protection laws. Many states (and the federal government) have laws in place that protect consumers against predatory practices, but prosecutors lack resources to enforce the laws that protect consumers. This issue is a non-starter with the so called TWO party candidates. All of the major candiates are bought and paid for by corporations. This is an example of a form of fascism called corporatism.
@JustAGuy2:
And if Gore had won Florida & the White House, he never would have put hundreds of scummy right wing judges on the federal courts & those two extreme right wing piles of shit, Roberts & Alito on the Supreme Court, where they keep ruling in favor of thieving corporations.
Thanks a lot Ralphie Boy!
Rot in Hell!
@youbastid: While Nader took 3% of the national vote, everyone forgets that Pat Buchanan took another 3%. I’m not saying that something hinky didn’t happen in Florida. I’m just saying that blaming Nader for Bush is like blaming Bush for Osama bin Laden.
@dorkins:
Tucker Carlson beats the drum for a war he won’t fight in, even though he is of military age. Like Goering, he loves the big lies. His book on Liberal Fascism is just such as any reading of history is proof. And no, I am not a liberal though I far more respect liberals than the fascists who have taken over the conservative party.
@lincolnparadox: I’m sorry, but that is dead wrong. Buchanan garnered a paltry 0.4% of the popular vote, and not 3%.
I couldn’t help but laugh at the American Idol comment Ralph makes. I tend to use it myself quite a bit. But it bring up an important point. Shouldn’t the government regulate how products are presented to people in the media. Corporations continue to flagrently lie in ads on TV and in other sources. For instance, everyone knows that a McDonalds sandwich presented in a commercial looks nothing like the sandwich they actually receive. How can companies continue to get away with using instinct and psychology to falsely represent their products? That’s the real question here.
@HannerHearse: While I disagree w/ your comments about Bush, the rest I 100% agree with. We got Black and White in america, and a if you bring any other color into play, a lot of people get very hostile. I would vote him this election. I don’t really have a dog in this fight. And these 2 parties are off the hook. Everday there is big news about one or the other. They are out of control. And it’s okay because they both know they will both always exist.
Btw we are a republic, not a democracy. :’D
@fluiddruid: I think you’re thinking of Antonin Scalia.
There is a really good reason nobody takes Nadar seriously and it’s partly because of moronic statements like this.
i’m going to be brutally honest here. i don’t like ralph nader. i find him pompous, his arguments are scattered, & he caters too much to the fringe elements. he reminds me of a professor i had in college who thought pot should be legal b/c milk is a drug & it’s legal (i swear i’m not making that up).
but he’s correct about what he says (nader, not the crazy pot professor). why on earth do we allow our government to serve corporations instead of us? why do we stand by while our society becomes stratified? it is simply ridiculous.
corporations exist on a different legal plane that allows them to trade a portion of their profits for violating laws that would land any of us in jail. that is wrong. even when corporate officers are found directly responsible for wrongdoing, they serve a few months in jail & keep their assets. that is wrong.
& yet legally, they become more & more immune from the laws that govern you & i. if congress isn’t granting them more exemptions, then scotus is pulling judgments out of their ass to refrain from punishing them or to block regulation of them on the federal or state levels.
the worst part about this? american companies are becoming less american & more multinational. why does this matter? b/c it means foreigners have more rights in this country than you or i. & i’m not talking illegal immigrants hoofing it over the border here. i’m talking strategic moves by fatcats (foreign & domestic) to manipulate our government for their benefit. that pisses me off.
/rant
I like Nader because of his socialist ideals. I’d like him even more if he’d do something for them, but he doesn’t, like the Democrats.
Teaching our children to fight against corporate greed and fiscal responsibility? Right on! I learned about fiscal responsibility the hard way, with a crappy allowance.
Ah yes. I refuse to believe that Nader stole the popular votes from Gore, making him lose the election. The pop vote doesn’t actually mean anything in our system, as we have a freakin’ electoral college to take care of it. They’re the deciders!
href=”#c4921846″>lincolnparadox:
I actually ran the #s on this back in early 2001, because I was curious. If you assume that
(a) all Nader voters went to Gore
(b) all Buchanan voters went to Bush
Then only two states change hands: Florida and New Hampshire switch from Bush to Gore, and Gore wins.
While it’s true that, if Gore had run a better campaign, it wouldn’t have mattered, the fact remains that, had Nader not run, Gore would have won.
@Angryrider:
Do you actually know how the electoral college works? Your post really sounds like you don’t. See my post above; without Nader in the race, Gore wins.
@JustAGuy2: It’s plain dumb to assume that all Nader votes would have gone to Gore. Nader mobilized a large number of people who wouldn’t have voted anyway. Gore won the popular vote regardless of Nader’s participation.
@mac-phisto: “i don’t like ralph nader. i find him pompous, his arguments are scattered, & he caters too much to the fringe elements….” “but he’s correct about what he says”
So you hate him because hes confusing and pompous. Although you say hes right?
People with average intelligence will always have a harder time understanding complexities that may never be apparent to them. To you then he may appear to be a “pompous ass”. Look, there are going to be people smarter than you in the world, and more dedicated. Realize this.
Its a sad fact that, to most, an easier to understand person who is more charismatic will appear a better candidate to run a country.
Wow, did anyone read Ben’s last line, (that he now bolded just in case you missed it)
Note: Anyone ranting off-topic in the comments about how Nader threw the election may get a visit from *~El Bandito~*
You really don’t want the banhammer comin down on ya, now do ya?
Yeah, Nader’s definitely brought up some interesting issues, but I’d never vote for him.
@youbastid:
Gore won the popular vote. Without Nader in the race, Gore would also have won the election.
How about this set of assumptions, then, since my previous ones were so “dumb”:
1. Assume all Browne (Libertarian) voters would have gone to Bush – in reality, some Bush (economics), some Gore (social), some not vote.
2. Assume all Buchanan voters go to Bush (in reality, some Bush, some not vote).
3. Assume 1/2 of Nader voters vote for Gore, the other 1/2 just don’t vote.
Under these assumptions, which clearly underestimate the benefit Gore would have gotten if Nader hadn’t run, Gore STILL WINS FLORIDA.
To believe, as you seem to, that Nader didn’t cost Gore the election, you have to believe that:
1. More than 65% of Nader voters would have stayed home rather than vote for Gore.
2. None of the Libertarian and Buchanan voters would have stayed home rather than voting for Bush.
That, frankly, is dumb.
Nader isn’t exactly my favorite person but damn if he didn’t just tell the truth right there.
Nader speaks the truth, too bad as of late he hasn’t seemed to do much of anything about it.
However, I don’t think we’re quite to the point of corporate fascism. However, we DEFINITELY need to rethink how we punish corporate entities for mis-deeds. As of right now all the government does is fine them, but not enough to really make it matter. The founding fathers intended for civil courts to punish business entities for misdeeds. However, it seems these days that most all large companies put money aside for government fines and lawsuit settlements. It’s in their annual budget that they will pay $X in fines, and $X for lawsuits. Granted they’re estimates, but this makes fines and verdicts for Plaintiffs into a simple cost of doing business. Lawsuits and government fines are like paying the Electric bill to large companies any more rather than the punishment they were originally intended to be.
I mean, the whole reason we have a government in the first place is to be the enforcer of society’s rules and laws isn’t it?
@JustAGuy2: Still dumb. Saying “If Nader hadn’t run,” is like saying “If JFK ducked he would still be alive today.” If Nader hadn’t run, any other combination of events could have led Gore to still lose. In my mind, the best a third party candidate can hope for is to garner enough support from the public so as to make the 2 big guys actually have to deal with some of the issues the 3rd party is raising. Nader did that, and it was a good thing.
Had he not run, who’s to say that the hanging chad issue, the Katherine Harris issue, the Bush family connections to the Fox newsroom issue, the black box voting issue, and the Supreme Court issue wouldn’t have done Gore in anyway? They would have figured out a way to throw out 90,000 more votes for Gore, easily.
True. But Nader is the guy that gave us W.
@Stan LS: And you’re a jerk. There is nothing he said that wasn’t common sense or a good idea. He is an educated man, and he gives a damn about our general economic welfare.
Do you have nothing better to do than slamming people doing good work with meaningless one-word insults?
@marchhare22:
first, that’s a perfect example of what i was saying when i said pompous! i’m pretty sure the “average american” understands that we’re getting shafted. you don’t have to talk down to them to relate that point. second, i didn’t say he was “confusing”. i said his arguments were scattered.
the following videos are from what i believe is one of nader’s best interviews. tim russert asks the tough questions & nader gives great answers. however, here’s the problems with his presentation:
1) unless you took some college-level polisci courses, you have no idea what the hell he’s talking about when he says “democracy gap”, “liberal intelligentsia”, “military-industrial complex”, etc. this is all jargon – it really has no place in his argument other than to prove he “noes teh lingo”.
2) he tries to run thru his entire platform & everything that’s wrong with politics in america in under 1/2 hour. it dilutes his main talking points; makes him appear scatter-brained.
3) as you stated, he’s not very charismatic. there’s not emotion in his words – just cold, dry facts. in politics, charisma is more important than intelligence when you’re running for office. look at the great leaders of this nation – washington, adams, jefferson, lincoln, roosevelt, kennedy, reagan – they weren’t necessarily the smartest men of their times; but they were greatest. would you consider nader one of the greatest men of our time?
i’m glad ralph’s still on our side. i just wish he was intelligent enough to realize that his role is to be an advocate for change, not the h.d.i.c. it’s his vanity that constrains him.
Thank goodness someone on this site speaks on behalf of everyone losing their homes because of predatory lending tactics and those atrocious adjustable-rate mortgages.
Nader has made it his life’s work to give a voice to everyone who sends letters to Consumerist — shouldn’t the O in the title be replaced with his face already? It’d be a fitting homage to the site’s spiritual leader.
I fear that the crisis is already upon us. Climate change means our food supply is shrinking. There may be no time to mitigate this disaster, but I always believe that there is always time to start doing the right thing.
The destruction of the planet will not be abated as long as corporations control the decision-making process. Short-term business models continue to the trump long-term common good. If we fail to act then it will be Katrina writ large- only the priviledged elite will survive.
Voting for a corporate Democrat or Republican is like chickens electing their new fox. We have to do something drastic to change the equation. In the electoral realm voting for Nader is the better alternative to not voting.
We need to be in the streets demanding change before we’re in the streets begging for food.
It used to amaze me how many times, on every site I have visited where Nader’s name has come up, the “Nader gave us 8 years of Bush” with additional insults, condemnation, etc. arises, especially in light of how thoroughly this idea has been debunked; in ’04 he wasn’t even arguably a factor.
But when you realize whose purpose this claim serves, it is not so surprising. Nader, and Kucinich before him, are the biggest potential threats to the hegemony of the corporate stranglehold on more and more facets of our everyday lives. If one can, with ad hominem remarks, effectively poison an opponent in the sight of the average person, one doesn’t even have to address that person’s legitimate critiques or arguments. In this case Nader’s critiques, charges, claims, etc. are so devastating, so well documented and so in sync with the average person’s everyday observations that they would be quite damaging indeed to the political aspirations of both parties if actually allowed “time on the stage”. Hence the “shoot the messenger” tactic employed to deny them a legitimate hearing and force a legitimate debate. By blaming Nader for Bush, one can so thoroughly arouse the ire of so many that their minds immediately close to anything he might say. And, as icing on the cake, critiques that they may have come to on their own are now discredited by being advanced by “such a terrible fellow”! Voila! Corporate America, Mission Accomplished!
So now when I see those “Nader gave us Bush” rants I can only conclude that they are inspired by a desire to maintain the corporate status quo – by both the Rep.s AND the Dem.s as represented by the “major” candidates. The only thing the Rep.s and the Dem.s are really fighting about is who gets to collect all the percs that go with being “in charge”.
No kidding Raplph. Thanks for the insight.
If Gore hadn’t hugged the center (and center-right) and ignored and discarded the progressive base, we wouldn’t be talking about Nader this and Nader that in 2000.
Obama doesn’t put the progressive base in the landfill, and that’s why Nader isn’t going to be a “problem” this year for the Democrats. This time we have a person who shows respect to the progressive base instead of trying to wish it away.
The Democratic Party is supposed to be the left party. But Gore was not a left candidate. In contrast, Nader was.
And Bush was nothing more than a useless ineffective poster boy for name-recognition until he picked up the neocon banner *after* 9-11. (Lacking any ideas of his own, he had to jump on somebody’s bandwagon.)