I guess, I could add to this very old thread, since history is repeating itself.
Now, I don't want to start the "did Nader cause the Democrat lost in 2000 and give us Bush as a consequence?" or not, simply because I'm a
QuĂŠbecois (Canada), and I don't vote in that coming U.S. election (it is your country, even if this has some impact on the rest of the world, it
remains your country, and you are free to screw it up, anyway you can, you don't need foreign help for that).
I saw Ralph Nader once (in a conference given in MontrĂŠal, few years ago), I'm obviously impress by his early career (car safety advocate, taking on
General Motors and winning, quite a feast for a young layer, I take lot of guts to do that, for sure).
My real question, is:
Assuming R. Nader is incorruptible (maybe, he is not, maybe he owe too much to some pressure groups, unions, etc.), pick anyone Ron Paul some
candidate that does not exist.
If a candidate that owe nothing to nobody is elected (Nader or someone else), and start a reform, as he/she fit (forcing a real change on pollution
target, car consumption, reshaping big business, etc., etc., etc.). Do you thing the USA will take that challenge, or that President will end up, 6
feet under in no time at all.
I like the sub-title of the movie made on R. Nader "An unreasonable man", a quote by George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903):
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."