Nader v. Obama

Nader is a true American and stands for true American values so it makes sense that most Americans don't know shit about him but dislike him.
VOTE NADER! 08!

prspctv -
your point about intelligence is proven by comments like those of goolkasian.

No offense goolkasian, but everyone else's input so far has had substance and some open-mindedness behind it. Yours completely lacks in those areas, so try to be considerate and speak only when you have something to actually SAY.

This is what scares me about this country's elections...people vote without knowing anything, and those who know something are too disgusted to vote.

There is no such thing as free and fair elections in this country. An average citizen cannot run for public office. That is a fantasy akin to teaching kids about Santa Claus.

I remember when I was a kid of 5 and I said "I want to grow up to be president."

I now know that this idea is a big crock of cow dung.

Is open discussion and rational debate allowed under the PATRIOT Act?

prspctv, yes!
"DON'T GIVE IN TO THE POPULARITY GAME!"

i think alot of people are neglecting the intelligence that ralph nader commands on "government" "economics" and "foreign policy" ... several words that represent the most complicated aspects of our civilization.

he's a brilliant man and shouldnt be discredited. dont give in to the popularity game... anyone who bashes Ralph Nader because the nightly news casts him as a loser should pick up some literature to accurately assess his role in modern America.

Obama plays ball... and when i say ball, I mean Capital Hill politics. That is why he will get the nom, and Ralph Nader will continue to play kickball with academia.

Saying Nader is the reason Bush won in 2000 is ridiculous. If enough people knew their head from their ass there would have been a bigger difference in numbers between Gore and Bush. Plus, Gore failed to win his home state, Tennessee, as well as Clinton's, Arkansas. Gore also should have been more aggressive about voting fraud in Florida...which there was plenty of.

As for the above-mentioned Nader gets funding from Republicans, it's true. Here's a passage from SF Weekly:

"But Nader wasn't above taking money from major Republican Party donors four years ago. In July 2004, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that nearly one in ten of Nader's major contributors — those giving $1,000 or more — were Republican, and suggested the purpose was to hurt John Kerry's campaign. At the time, Nader defended the $23,000 in contributions as relatively small and mostly from Republicans he had worked with on a number of issues."

Appalled? Here's the next paragraph:

"Gonzalez' senior adviser Hansu Kim says raising the issue of individual donations from Republicans was ludicrous. "Republican executives for oil, pharmaceutical, energy, and finance industries are lavishing millions on Senator Barack Obama," Kim says. "I wonder if the San Francisco Chronicle will ask Obama to give that money back."

Full article: http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-04-30/news/party-crashers-08/1

Depending on how close this election is in my state, I'll probably vote for Nader. He's the greater. ;-) (Plus I think I have a crush on Gonzalez.)

I would think Obama's taking money only from individuals would steal Nader's wind.

@ Evmonk,

Thanks for that link to http://glassbooth.org/
Very interesting site. Here were my results:

Ron Paul 85%
Ralph Nader 74%
Mike Gravel 73%

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...

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'

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

Oh one final note about the Wobblies. Today they are known as the ACLU.

i agree with the hawkman.

lets debate, lets all debate, lets find new ways to do things, lets invite everyone

I'm with you jubal. Together were two, lol. that make about 0.00000001% of what we need. Who's with us!?

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.

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.

Hmm, this guy is still living?

I like the way you're thinking patsarts!

Obama for prez and Nadar for Vice prez?

Id like to see Nader v. Paul

How did Ralph get out again? Who's turn was it to watch him this time?

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?

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Barak Obama is the man

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?

".......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.

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.

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.

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?

Julie, may you vote for one of those idiot Demos and live in misery for the next 8 yrs.

Nader is washed up.