TV Schedule

Nader v. Obama


  3. Pwdrskir
  4. related topics
On Meet the Press on May 4, Senator Obama told Tim Russert that he was willing to debate with "any of my opponents about what this country means, what makes it great."

Well, Ralph is taking Barack up on his offer. Nader wants to discuss how the DNC and RNC have taken over the election process. His stance is based on open, public debates that strengthens democracy.

Currently, the Nader/Gonzalez campaign is busy trying to overcome the Democratic Party's ballot obstructionism in Senator Obama's home state of Illinois. Last time out (that would be 2004), the Democrats blocked Nader from the ballot in Illinois.
Pwdrskir

49 responses // Nader v. Obama

  • http://books.google.com/books?id=h5djdO1hMEQC&printsec=...
    Image...
    I'm not saying vote for the guy, but let him talk about how Democracy Inc. has taken over the election process.

    Ralph Nader wrote a book about this - Crashing the Party: Taking on the Corporate Government in an Age of Surrender.

    He gives a game plan on how to beat Democracy Inc.
    Pwdrskir
  • Nader is washed up.
    Julie_Soller
  • Julie, may you vote for one of those idiot Demos and live in misery for the next 8 yrs.
    keeesha
  • Yes, he does keep washing up on the shore line, just like that relentless tide...constantly trying to speak out against corrupt systems and getting shut down.

    Wouldn’t that be a fine democratic thing, to rid ourselves of corrupt government practices?
    Pwdrskir
  • The only problem I have with Nader is that he doesn't learn easily from the past nor does he seem to adapt well. I do think that he is a great individual who is very smart and also has some very good ideas about how United States industry should be handled. If he were allowed in the debates though it would be a dice roll, he could either shoot himself in the foot, or he could blow both main party candidates out of the water.
    Varex_Sythe
  • I would actually pay to watch a debate between Clinton, Obama, McCain, Nader, Paul, McKinney, Root, Gravel and Barr (I don't know who else I'm missing but they're invited too). Talk about opposing arguments.
    Hawkmang
  • ".......and also has some very good ideas about how United States industry should be handled. "

    Some of you may recall reading that Halliburton recently moved its corporate offices to Dubai. This is a reflection of globalization and highlights that there is very little "US industry" left. I do not advocate complete capitulation to corporate interests but I do recognize that there are limits to what corporate interests will put up with before looking for greener pastures, of which there are plenty from which to choose.
    seeker561
  • Reinstating tariffs on imported goods might slow them down. Tax breaks and subsidies to help them leave and no tariffs on their cheaply made products coming into the country, what's not for them to like? Other countries with healthy economies have tariffs to protect their citizen's jobs. We got rid of them, why?
    Marilynn_Murray
  • Barak Obama is the man
    Ro_Lew
  • Let Ralphie Boy get his usual 1% of the vote, and let's move on. It's not as though Nader is that huge a tremor in the force these days.
    96thdayofrage
  • I have a funny feeling that Obama will find a way to skip out on this offer. His idea of public speaking is reciting cute, cuddly phrases like, "We need change," "Everyone loves freedom," etc. Nader prefers phrases with actual ideas and solid meaning behind them. Barack wouldn't be able to respond to Nader using his typical, people-pleasing, empty lying pile of generic rhetoric.
    codygriffin
  • Agreed w/ Cody from Gryffindor. If people really wanted change, they would vote for a third party candidate. The two party system is wholly undemocratic, and this (potential) repeat Clinton-Bush regime is borderline hereditary monarchy/nepotism.
    sweetdeal
  • Obama's handlers in the 'party' probably won't allow it. It would make them look bad to be exposed for what they are on national television.That's why you never see any other candidates in debates but the big money two, and even then those running in those parties who just don't tow the line are excluded. Politics is about money, hype, white teeth, flashy smiles, skewed polls, thirty second soundbite ads, pretty speeches, and false promises. The thing the moneyed parties don't understand is that more people know that than they think, and we're tired of it.
    JanforGore
  • Agreed, JanforGore. Our political system has become just like American Idol...a dumbed-down public voting for the person who looks the prettiest, acts the cutest and performs the best on stage. But it's more dangerous than American Idol, because the ones we're voting for are killing people, economies, cultures, the planet...all in the name of money. Their policies revolve around horrifying corporate interests, and we, as the voting public, need to stand up for ourselves and stop all of it. The trick is pulling this mass of idiots AWAY from their tv, computer and cell phone screens and getting them to understand and care about what these poiticians are doing to us.
    codygriffin
  • Come on you guys, none of the candidates are all that good looking. Only two are exceptionally smart. Only one has a pleasant personality. American Idols they are not. Not everyone is voting on looks or personality. Some people have even researched all the candidates. They all have a platform it doesn't take a genius to read them to help you decide. Sit back and watch the vote, I expect people will chose the one with the best stated policies.
    Marilynn_Murray
  • Ralph Nader is sincere and qualified to lead this country,but his methodology is the worst of anybody I've ever seen. He does not have a realistic platform, and he shows up at a time that hurts the party he claims to help,and help the theparty that he's against, just like in the last two elections. His late arrival tactics help put George Bush in office twice.He needs to conform to the process and stop being a renegade.
    keithponder
  • keith,

    Bush's cheating tactics, the Democratic Party's lack of substance, and the poor voting turnout helped put Bush in office twice. Nader is just running as a third party candidate, as are many, many others. If anyone wants to blame Nader for Bush winning both elections, they should also blame all the other third party people who ran those years.

    The Democratic party uses that tired argument to get votes, persuading voters to use the "least-worst" tactic at the voting booth. And, sadly, it works. (Why would you vote for the least-worst instead of the best, anyway???).

    If Nader were to "conform to the tactics," that would mean accepting campaign contributions from Big Business, using crafty rhetoric to lie, and paying his way to the TV screen. All of these these things go against what he stands for. He is simply trying to run for president in the purest, most democratic way he can, and if that puts him in a bad position, maybe the public should re-evaluate what it views as important in our so-called "democratic" process.
    codygriffin
  • Well our our so-called "democratic" process got us 20 years of Bush/Bush/Reagan out of the last 30 years, maybe democracy isnt what its cracked up to be eh?

    The fact remains that unless Nader takes the kid gloves off and plays with the big boys he wont have a snowballs chance in hell of becoming more than an amusing footnote, or maybe the system needs to be changed and it wont start with donating your tax stimulus to Naders campaign it will take a revolution to change the way we elect and run our so-called "Democracy"
    rabidlemur
  • why did it take so long for Nader to join the race? I think it was Feb 24 that he announced. Isn't that a little late in the game?
    stephenthomson
  • How did Ralph get out again? Who's turn was it to watch him this time?
    eldamon
  • Id like to see Nader v. Paul
    stephenthomson
  • Obama for prez and Nadar for Vice prez?
    patsarts
  • I like the way you're thinking patsarts!
    Pwdrskir
  • Hmm, this guy is still living?
    kushan
  • If Nader stood a real chance of winning and all the roadblocks were removed from the political process and the stangelhold the RNC and DNC have on the political process in this country.

    I would vote for Nader, no questions about it. He really does care about this country and it's freedoms that are quickly being erased.
    jubal
  • If Nader really were thinking about consumer issues he'd create a large multi-national consumer union that corporations would be forced to listen to.

    As for the political process, its really just American voter shallowness that should be blamed. If Obama one night accidentally spit on a crowd his numbers would probably fall by 20%. Half of this country would be in favor of nuking the rest of the world if it meant no more taxes for life.
    shbhanda
  • I'm with you jubal. Together were two, lol. that make about 0.00000001% of what we need. Who's with us!?
    NutLee
  • i agree with the hawkman.

    lets debate, lets all debate, lets find new ways to do things, lets invite everyone
    phillyphil
  • http://current.com/items/88797329_who_are_the_wobblies_...
    shbhanda wrote:

    If Nader really were thinking about consumer issues he'd create a large multi-national consumer union that corporations would be forced to listen to.


    This was attempted at the turn of the 19th to the 20th Centuries by a little known group called The Wobblies. They are little known because information about them has been suppressed and they were prosecuted and treated as Seditionists. They were labor union organizers and their goal was to form a multinational world wide labor union that every worker of the world could join and be empowered by.

    The Sedition Act of 1918 was passed in direct reaction to what was labeled as a "Socialist" movement within the United States headed by the Wobblies. Although the lie was that the Wobblies were such an organized and powerful force to destroy America was the propaganda of the day similar to the propaganda that we have today about terrorism. The Sedition Act was the Patriot Act of the day and also similar to the recently passed Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.

    The Wobblies were literally "run out of town on a rail", a term coined from the very events that took place. Their demands were for an 8 hour work day, they wanted to have weekends off, they wanted to have time to take a vacation, and they wanted strong laws against child labor. The Corporotocracy of the day were dismayed and disgusted that people would try to stop the wheels of progress in order to achieve their goals. The Wobblies advocated sabotage as a way to get the attention of the bourgeois elite. Sabotage was defined as a slow down of work, not stopping it entirely but slowing everything down to almost a stop.

    Of course this was labeled UnAmerican, Socialist, Communist, and the whole hysteria was ignited just like it is again today.

    Please watch the Wobblies it is available on video and on the YouTube. It will open your eyes to see what is coming. Each time we go around the Empire Merry Go Round, the victimization gets worse and the crimes and misdemeanors more heinous.
    jubal
  • Oh one final note about the Wobblies. Today they are known as the ACLU.

    jubal
  • Yawn, Nader is a hypocrite.
    goolkasian
  • http://glassbooth.org
    Image...
    Seems like there's quite a bit of support for independent candidates and more open presidential debates on here, which is heartening. Ralph Nader was recently added to the list of candidates on glassbooth.org, the popular vote-match site. It'd be interesting to see where his detractors stand with him on the issues.
    Evmonk
  • I would not say so much interesting as appalling. Nader claims to be such a devoted environmentalist, yet when we had a chance to have a President with a real conscience who cared about the environment, Al Gore, Nader siphoned off just enough votes with his failed and mendacious campaign to give us George Bush instead.

    Read The Assault on Reason by Al Gore before you get taken in by Nader's self-serving platitudes. BTW, I grew up in New Orleans, so I am all too aware of the consequences of the anti-environmental activities of the Bush family, and the Republicans in general. AND
    I strongly suspect that much of Nader's financing comes from those who benefit the most from his perennial candidacies: the Republican Party and the deep-pocketed ideologues who finance it.
    lloveras67
  • "I strongly suspect that much of Nader's financing comes from those who benefit the most from his perennial candidacies: the Republican Party and the deep-pocketed ideologues who finance it."

    Any evidence to back that up? Also, Gore was not nearly the environmentalist he is today back in 2000. Remember, he'd already been in a position of great power for 8 years -- look at what Cheney has done with that power. As far as I can remember, Gore did very little for the environment back then, though he has been an excellent environmental advocate since.
    Evmonk
  • Evmonk, I did go there and here is where it stands in comparison to candidates; my score.

    Candidates with similar views:
    Ralph Nader 93% similar answers
    Mike Gravel 90% similar answers
    Barak Obama 72% similar answers

    Issues:
    Health Care
    Civil Liberties and Domestic Security
    Medical Marijuana and Drug Policy
    Gay Rights

    What an interesting tool to make comparison with. Answer a series of questions in terms of a gradient of 5 from strongly opposing to strongly supporting.

    Really cool.
    Thanks
    jubal
  • Nothing has changed since the last time Ol' Ralph ran for Prez. America isn't ready for his brain and almost no one can relate to him.

    Don't throw your vote away on a one-legged horse in the Kentucky Derby. A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.
    mako2424
  • That glassboth.org site is very cool.

    Nader 73% at the top. Too bad hes is being shut out by Democracy Inc.

    I want someone who speaks TO the people, not AT them and Obama has proved he can do that verses others.

    HillBilly usually states, "When I get in the Whitehouse, I'll..."

    Obama brings us all into the discussion.
    Pwdrskir
  • Nader can get the usual 1% of the confused voters but thats it.
    He should stop wasting peoples money and time.
    Whatever statement he's trying to make is never going to get across. Its time for him to hang it up.



    Obama 08'
    Ice_cream_Man
  • deep-pocketed ideologues who finance it

    They play both sides of the field to control the outcome, they get what they want regardless of which side the coin lands...heads or tails.

    When you have a two party system that is what you get a coin that gets tossed in the air and lands. If you are rich enough you give money to both so you can control the game.

    With a three or four party system then you break up the monopoly and loosen the strangle hold. There is no way that the rich elite are going to be willing to finance so many diverse political agendas. Therein will lay the path to a better democracy. We must empower the individual in relationship to the corporation.

    Individualism is the third power in the triad of Government, Religion, and Individual power.

    What if we could all be superman, what a different world it would be...