Ralph Nader Praises Donald Trump as “Breath of Fresh Air”

Consumer advocate and four time Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader appeared yesterday on Fox Business Network calling Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump a “breath of fresh air,” explaining that he was “delighted” by Trump’s refusal to rule out a third party bid.

“The two party tyranny that blocks voter choices and dominates the political scene on behalf of big business needs to be broken up and Trump is the one to do it,” said Nader to host Deirdre Bolton, “it takes a billionaire. Ross Perot got 19 million votes as an independent candidate in 1992.  And Trump has every possibility of doing the same, and by the same token, opening up opportunities for multi-party systems; more voices, more choices.”

Nader praised Trump’s views on trade and corporations and referred to him as the “nightmare of the corporate Republican establishment.”  He said Trump was “punctuating the progressive agenda” by discussing how he used bankruptcy laws to his advantage and campaign donations to gain corporate favors.

However, Nader said he would not vote for Trump because he opposes many of Trump’s views.

See video of the interview below:

20 thoughts on “Ralph Nader Praises Donald Trump as “Breath of Fresh Air”

  1. Jim

    It’s quite understandable that Nader would be in favor of a Trump third-party run, because that would certainly throw the election to the Democrats’ candidate. This differs greatly from 1992, in which Perot probably took votes nearly equally from Clinton and Bush 41.
    However, if there were a method of voting in which people would vote their first choice, and then their second choice, presumably most pro-Trump voters would list their second choice as being for the Republican candidate, meaning that the system wouldn’t throw the election to the Democrat.

  2. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    It’s quite understandable that Nader would be in favor of a Trump third-party run, because that would certainly throw the election to the Democrats’ candidate.

    I doubt Nader cares all that much whether the Democrats beat the Republicans. If he did, he would not have run against Gore in 2000.

  3. paulie

    It’s quite understandable that Nader would be in favor of a Trump third-party run, because that would certainly throw the election to the Democrats’ candidate.

    So how do you explain his own runs for president in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008, or the many left leaning independent and alt party candidates Nader has endorsed and campaigned with and for ove the years, or do you think he helped the Democrats with those (one could make a case… but making that case would tend to indicate logically that Trump as he has currently positioned himself would help Republicans rather than Democrats).

  4. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Furthermore, one reason Nader lost the Green Party nomination in 2004 was because he promised to run a vigorous campaign in every state.

    Instead the GP chose, Cobb, who said that he would emphasize campaigning in states that were solidly red or blue, and avoid swing states: http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/08/06/the-greens-amp-the-politics-of-mendacity/

    From the article:

    So Cobb has publicly announced that he will not actively campaign in swing states even if he is on the ballot, although he will work in those states for other Green hopefuls.

    “[In swing] states, I’m acknowledging that there is a profound responsibility on the citizens,” Cobb told Curwood in the NPR interview, “and they should weigh their options and decide how to spend their very precious vote.”

    Could you imagine John Kerry or George Bush mutter such feeble words: “Weigh their options?” I am no weathered campaign advisor, but I can imagine that it is a bad idea for any candidate to advise potential voters that they have a viable alternative to your own party’s ticket. … instead of fighting for the Green Party, he has oh-so-slyly admitted he sees quite a difference between Bush and Kerry. On what grounds he hasn’t made clear.

  5. Bondurant

    I hadn’t known this about the Green Party. They’re nothing but controlled opposition. Pathetic.

  6. paulie

    They’ve since then moved away from the disastrous 2004 safe states strategy and the equally disastrous 2008 intentionally ignore corporate media strategy. Jill Stein campaign was and is on the ball strategically.

  7. Deran

    Yes, as soon as I saw in the Google News feed that Trump and Stone are kaputt, I came to IPR.

    I had sort of assumed Stone being on Trump’s team was at least in part because Stone has experience with non-major party campaigns, and he could be of help to Trump should The Donald actually do that.

    The news says Stone was unhappy with Trump’s lack of substance and the emphasis on getting Trump talked abt in the news for whatever reason, rather than for reasons of issues.

    All that made me wonder is maybe Trump isn’t serious abt the GOP or the idea of an independent run. That Trump is just seeking face time on TV?

    Or is Trump’s lack of interest in substance more of his demagogue routine he could use as an independent?

    I also noticed that something called “RedStates” conference disinvited Trump.

    It seems to me that Trump is either pushing the GOP and the Right to disrespect him and create the excuse to run as an independent or on the other hand more proof Trump really is just in this for the shenanigans and potential ongoing media presence it builds for him personally?

  8. Douglas(s) Durham of the American Indian Movement (FBI branch)

    Bondurant, wrote:

    I hadn’t known this about the Green Party. They’re nothing but controlled opposition. Pathetic.

    Bondurant, you are correct, the GP is “controlled opposition.” As is the Libertarian Party. As is the Constitution Party. As are most “independents.” As was AIM under the influence of Douglas(s) Durham.

    America lacks the intentionality once seen in the Free Soil Party, because the government-run American schools discourage every character trait responsible for creating independent voters, candidates, and agitators. Without such individuals, there is no significant opposition to incumbent power. The incumbent totalitarians have everything just the way they like it: lots of opposition, none of it serious.

    That portrays them as a legitimate choice. They are seen as even more legitimate because of the presence of large numbers of 100% ineffectual and disengaged people who call themselves anarchists (who don’t participate electorally, and even advocate “political relinquishment“). Political relinquishment is very similar to the prior linked “technological relinquishment.” In fact, because political technology determines who will win a political contest, “political relinquishment” (sometimes called electoral nonparticipation or, more stupidly, “principled nonvoting”) is a subset or form of “technological relinquishment.”

    There’s a legitimate way to fight for freedom, but it doesn’t exist behind a keyboard, and it doesn’t exist at the level of people who want the government to take care of them (too many in the ” #BlackLivesMatter ” movement).

    The solution to the problem is to talk about the essay I link as “my website,” (actually Clay Conrad’s writing, on FIJA’s website) and resolve to do the maximum to never allow yourself, or any loved one, to allow an innocent person to be successfully prosecuted for a victimless crime. Only support politicians who encourage this strategy, or, (far weaker) candidates whose platforms are at least compatible with this strategy.

    The prior paragraph summarizes the portion of the small-L libertarian movement in the USA that is not controlled opposition. All else is.

  9. Election Addict

    Nader’s pretty much correct. The bad side to what he says: Trump will be viewed as crazed and future competent third party candidates may or may not be brushed off as such, too.

    On the other hand what does that matter. Every important perspective is considered crazed these days.

  10. Useful Idiot Brigade

    Green Party “solutions” are about as constructive as Hitler and Stalin’s “solutions.” The GP doesn’t question the legitimacy of the regulatory apparatus, just who should be in control of it. …Them, of course.

    Administrative Court (no jury) or Risk a Legalized “Cruel and Unusual” Punishment(with a rigged jury). …Of course, many Green Party stooges at lower levels can’t think logically enough to think this through and realize this is what they’re pushing for.

  11. paulie

    EA

    Nader’s pretty much correct.

    I don’t think so. For starters the air around Trump is the opposite of fresh.

    No doubt breaking up the duopoly is a truly worthy goal, but if the only way to do it is by shoving a foul megalomaniacal billionaire riding a wave of bigotry, ignorance and hate into the mix, what have we really gained? Ideologically motivated, long term efforts such as LP and GP will be shoved even further to the sideline by the illusion of an anti-establishment option in the service of Trump’s limitless yet insecure ego.

    And given that, as Nader says, the duopoly works on behalf of big business, Trump is what, a small businessman?

    Nader writes “Ross Perot got 19 million votes as an independent candidate in 1992. And Trump has every possibility of doing the same, and by the same token, opening up opportunities for multi-party systems; more voices, more choices.”

    How exactly did Perot open opportunities for other alt parties during or after his run? I know Richard Winger can point to some ballot access lawsuit victories that have lasting impact by Perot, but aside from that, how did his run help the LP, GP et al from 1992 on?

    “Nader praised Trump’s views on trade and corporations and referred to him as the “nightmare of the corporate Republican establishment.” He said Trump was “punctuating the progressive agenda” by discussing how he used bankruptcy laws to his advantage and campaign donations to gain corporate favors.”

    All areas where both Nader and Trump would make public policy even worse than it is now if they had their way.

    What Trump will accomplish, if he gets in the debates, will be to allow the CoPD cartel to more credibly claim they really are open to non-duopoly candidates if they have enough support.

    Alternatively, he may provide just the excuse they need to not make the debate inclusion criteria more reasonable or to make them even less so.

    And that is if he doesn’t actually take the NSGOP nomination. If he does, he certainly won’t be cracking the duopoly unless it’s to send country club Republicans off to start a new party that sucks just as much as the existing Big Two, something along the lines envision by the Americans Elect bunch. Again, that would be no improvement at all over what we have now.

    If he either wins the NSGOP nom or runs a Perot style independent campaign, he could actually win. And that would be really, really bad. With his itchy trigger finger on the nuclear button, the temptation will prove just too great for Trump to spell TRUMP in giant letters made of nuclear bomb craters on the side of Planet Earth to be prominently viewable from outer space after the first time some foreign leader pushes his buttons.

  12. Pingback: TRUMP in giant letters made of nuclear bomb craters on the side of Planet Earth to be prominently viewable from outer space? | American Third Party Report

  13. paulie

    Comments on A3PR post:

    Saturn posted the famous Daisy ad used against Goldwater. I said, difference is in this case it is not hyperbole.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *