Obama Vs Nader (Debate)

MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
edited September 2008 in A Moving Train
All Obama supporters i'm sure would be up for it right? I'd love to see Obama shut Nader down in a debate. All that 'hope' will crush Nader!

But sadly Obama who said earlier that he will debate anyone who's running against him has changed his mind :( He now only wants to debate McCain.

But just imagine, Obama beating Nader in a debate could pretty much end a Nader run. So why is Obama backing down? I guess it's easier to just tell Nader not to run than to go out and beat him in an open debate.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • jimed14jimed14 Posts: 9,488
    MrBrian wrote:
    All Obama supporters i'm sure would be up for it right? I'd love to see Obama shut Nader down in a debate. All that 'hope' will crush Nader!

    But sadly Obama who said earlier that he will debate anyone who's running against him has changed his mind :( He now only wants to debate McCain.

    But just imagine, Obama beating Nader in a debate could pretty much end a Nader run. So why is Obama backing down? I guess it's easier to just tell Nader not to run than to go out and beat him in an open debate.

    hoenstly, Obama has very, very little to gain with this ... I'm not saying it's right Nadar and Barr aren't included in the debates, just saying they have little to gain by going against them.

    I saw Nadar on CNN last week ... when pressed on military issues, he seemed a little out of his league ... his solution was seemingly "Bring everyone home now", isolationist ... sounded very terse, and just neglecting the fact we do have to do some recovery we're responsible for with all the mess that has been made.

    If he's got other views on these and I'm reading it wrong, I welcome them
    "You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91

    "I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
  • maybe bec. his office told him to conentrate on mccain
    the problem is you have a two party system
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    The lou dobbs 5 min Nader interview? I thought he was right on point, he made sense. More sense than Obama and McCain on that issue.

    I'll try and post a vid of it.

    anyway, my point is, why not have an open debate. If Obama really cares about america and democracy as much as he say's. An open debate with Nader could only help american politics. Of course the truth (as you said) is that Obama himself has nothing to really to gain. All Obama needs to do (and is doing) is ignore Nader. That's the sad part of American politics, to get ahead in it, you just need to be ignorant. Forget the facts, the truth, none of that matters.
  • jimed14jimed14 Posts: 9,488
    MrBrian wrote:
    The lou dobbs 5 min Nader interview? I thought he was right on point, he made sense. More sense than Obama and McCain on that issue.

    I'll try and post a vid of it.

    anyway, my point is, why not have an open debate. If Obama really cares about america and democracy as much as he say's. An open debate with Nader could only help american politics. Of course the truth (as you said) is that Obama himself has nothing to really to gain. All Obama needs to do (and is doing) is ignore Nader. That's the sad part of American politics, to get ahead in it, you just need to be ignorant. Forget the facts, the truth, none of that matters.

    ok, you had me for a while ... but ... I don't think Obama is "forgetting the facts, the truth and none of that matters"

    sadly, you can put this SAME ISSUE on McCain .. why wont he debate Bob Barr? or Let Ron Paul speak at the convention?

    I agree ... more voices is a good thing ....
    "You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91

    "I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    jimed14 wrote:
    ok, you had me for a while ... but ... I don't think Obama is "forgetting the facts, the truth and none of that matters"

    sadly, you can put this SAME ISSUE on McCain .. why wont he debate Bob Barr? or Let Ron Paul speak at the convention?

    I agree ... more voices is a good thing ....

    I tend to go after Obama more, even if the same thing can be said for McCain. I do that because to me it seems like many of the people who support Obama, really believe in him, really falling for his lines of 'hope' and whatever else.

    His supporters seem to be forgetting the issues, they are not demanding anything from him. They just 'hope'. To me that's very dangerous.

    Like they will say that Obama is for peace, how he's so different from everyone else. Yet you hear Obama speak about Iran? He sounds like McCain or Bush. Or the way he goes on about his love for Israel, does not even mention what causes the hardships for the people of Palestine.
  • jimed14 wrote:
    hoenstly, Obama has very, very little to gain with this ... I'm not saying it's right Nadar and Barr aren't included in the debates, just saying they have little to gain by going against them.

    I saw Nadar on CNN last week ... when pressed on military issues, he seemed a little out of his league ... his solution was seemingly "Bring everyone home now", isolationist ... sounded very terse, and just neglecting the fact we do have to do some recovery we're responsible for with all the mess that has been made.

    If he's got other views on these and I'm reading it wrong, I welcome them

    Let's get one thing straight, having our troops brought home is not isolationist in the least bit.
  • MrBrian wrote:
    I tend to go after Obama more, even if the same thing can be said for McCain. I do that because to me it seems like many of the people who support Obama, really believe in him, really falling for his lines of 'hope' and whatever else.

    His supporters seem to be forgetting the issues, they are not demanding anything from him. They just 'hope'. To me that's very dangerous.

    Like they will say that Obama is for peace, how he's so different from everyone else. Yet you hear Obama speak about Iran? He sounds like McCain or Bush. Or the way he goes on about his love for Israel, does not even mention what causes the hardships for the people of Palestine.

    I find it hard to disagree with this ... What is the real, honest-to-gosh basis of all this "hope"? It can hardly be Obama's policy statements.
  • MrBrian wrote:
    Like they will say that Obama is for peace, how he's so different from everyone else. Yet you hear Obama speak about Iran? He sounds like McCain or Bush.

    Yeah that whole "talk to those who we disagree with" approach is right in line with Bush and McCain.
  • jimed14jimed14 Posts: 9,488
    MrBrian wrote:
    I tend to go after Obama more, even if the same thing can be said for McCain. I do that because to me it seems like many of the people who support Obama, really believe in him, really falling for his lines of 'hope' and whatever else.

    His supporters seem to be forgetting the issues, they are not demanding anything from him. They just 'hope'. To me that's very dangerous.

    Like they will say that Obama is for peace, how he's so different from everyone else. Yet you hear Obama speak about Iran? He sounds like McCain or Bush. Or the way he goes on about his love for Israel, does not even mention what causes the hardships for the people of Palestine.

    ok, again, you're not really showing any difference between the two ...

    I agree that Israel has committed many disgusting acts of their own ... but, both Obama and McCain (and many other politicians) refuse to stand up, and continue suckle up to AIPAC's teet. I mean, you heard Palin on Charlie Gibson right? We should never question Israel's need to be aggresive with Iran ... never? really?

    I've stated over and over ... Obama does NOT have all the answers ... and whomever wins this election has such an enormous hole to dig out of, I find it hard to find how either can be overly successful. But, I do think McCain's policies and path for the future is FAR closer to going along with what has happened in the past 8 years under Bush, which, has been a fucking disaster and turly, a global embarassment ...

    I do think Obama has a much better handle over all on the issues we face now and in the future. I agree with his stance on taxation, choice, global diplomacy as well as others ...

    But, I'll break it to anyone that asks .... Obama is not a savior.
    "You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91

    "I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    Yeah that whole "talk to those who we disagree with" approach is right in line with Bush and McCain.

    ^^^^^^^

    A good example. Thanks.

    You support Obama, now you are bringing up how he want's to talk to the people/countries that he/america/mccain/bush disagree with. Now don't you wonder, why he even disagrees with them (these countries)in the first place?

    Also to add to that, indeed he will talk to them. But if they do not listen, 'all options are on the table'

    But please, hope all you want.
  • Why would Obama want to give Nader the fuckin time of day? This is stupid...Nader is stupid... Nader says he won't run for president if Obama addresses Middle East foreign policies, corporate regulations, health care and Isreal....

    So... has addressed these issues and even Ralph admitted he and Obama were real close on most of the issues he (Nader) just wanted Obama to clarify a few issues...

    WTF????? Ralph's only running because of ego...

    Fuck Him. .. Obama doesn't owe him shit.

    Nader's not even the best third candidate anymore...
    the Minions
  • MrBrian wrote:
    ^^^^^^^

    A good example. Thanks.

    You support Obama, now you are bringing up how he want's to talk to the people/countries that he/america/mccain/bush disagree with. Now don't you wonder, why he even disagrees with them (these countries)in the first place?

    Also to add to that, indeed he will talk to them. But if they do not listen, 'all options are on the table'

    But please, hope all you want.

    Are you suggesting that Obama SHOULD agree with countries like Iran on many issues?
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    Are you suggesting that Obama SHOULD agree with countries like Iran on many issues?

    No, but what are his reasons for having a problem with them in the first place? Really, why is he going around ready to attack Iran? Obama is just keeping in line with McCain and Bush. Is Iran really this great threat? No, I dont think so. Bush does, Obama does.

    That's not change, it's more of the same!!
  • MrBrian wrote:
    No, but what are his reasons for having a problem with them in the first place? Really, why is he going around ready to attack Iran? Obama is just keeping in line with McCain and Bush. Is Iran really this great threat? No, I dont think so. Bush does, Obama does.

    That's not change, it's more of the same!!

    Well, yeah ... Assuming that Obama would attack Iran, you're right. And that's kind of the point I was trying to make earlier. I am not slagging Obama. If I was American, he's probably who I'd vote for. But my decision wouldn't be based on the idea that he's chocolate to McCain's vanilla (sorry, couldn't resist!). They are really just different degrees of vanilla.
  • you can knock Obama all you want about hope and change and I guess as an Obama supporter I can only have faith in him doing like he says...

    But why would I ever consider voting for Nader... Now that's a flying monkey leap of faith...

    Besides, Nader's of Lebonese Arab decent... So of course we're really gonna get an impartial view of Isreal from him...ha ha get real with the Isreal shit it's not even being discussed...
    the Minions
  • digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    MrBrian wrote:
    ^^^^^^^

    A good example. Thanks.

    You support Obama, now you are bringing up how he want's to talk to the people/countries that he/america/mccain/bush disagree with. Now don't you wonder, why he even disagrees with them (these countries)in the first place?

    Also to add to that, indeed he will talk to them. But if they do not listen, 'all options are on the table'

    But please, hope all you want.

    I think the reason that we all blindly 'hope' is that many of us on this board and in this nation are more moderate than you are. They don't expect a President who would never consider military action as an option. They don't want someone who believes that war is never an option. You may disagree with these people, but many of them can hold that thought in their head at the same time as realizing that Obama is not a carbon-copy of McCain or Bush. That's just tired political rhetoric.

    This election is important to me; I am all for third-party candidates and hope to put my vote in the future to good use to bring a more diverse set of opinions into the mainstream political dialogue, but the country's in deep shit right now. Maybe it's been in deeper shit before, but it's in deep shit right now. And I don't feel that it could stand a McCain/Palin presidency. I don't think the country would collapse on their watch, but after eight years of identical policies to the Bush presidency, the damage would be irrevocable. I'll save my political vote for a later time. And your attitude here is also the problem I have with Ralph Nader as a candidate. It's not only that Nader speaks his mind on the issues, and there are people who agree and those who disagree. Anyone who disagrees with him and his platform, whether candidate or voter, is either sucking on the corporate teat or oblivious to the issues that face our country. Both of those are bullshit, especially the latter. I, and many other Obama supporters on this board and in the country, have a firm grasp on the issues and are voting for Obama based on those issues. I don't have to blindly hope, as you put it. That kind of arrogance is not at all appealing.
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    you can knock Obama all you want about hope and change and I guess as an Obama supporter I can only have faith in him doing like he says...

    I thought Obama had said he'd debate anyone running?

    :confused:
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • catch22catch22 Posts: 1,081
    MrBrian wrote:
    No, but what are his reasons for having a problem with them in the first place? Really, why is he going around ready to attack Iran? Obama is just keeping in line with McCain and Bush. Is Iran really this great threat? No, I dont think so. Bush does, Obama does.

    That's not change, it's more of the same!!

    because he's got to talk tough to get elected. he needs to show redneck america he's willing to blow people up if it comes to that. doesn't mean he's going to do it. and i don't think he will. he certainly will be far more reluctant than mccain to attack iran.

    this is the same bullshit i used to spout for nader in 2000. sorry, mccain and obama aren't the same. they were saying the same about bush and gore in 2000 and it was dead wrong. the fact that they both say they'd fight iran if needed doesn't mean shit. because their defintions of necessity are so vastly different it's absurd to even be discussing this.
    and like that... he's gone.
  • its a felony that he isnt allowed to debate.
  • I think Nader dropped out of the race a few months ago because of lack of interest.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    jimed14 wrote:
    I saw Nadar on CNN last week ... when pressed on military issues, he seemed a little out of his league ... his solution was seemingly "Bring everyone home now", isolationist ... sounded very terse, and just neglecting the fact we do have to do some recovery we're responsible for with all the mess that has been made.
    actually, Nader has been one of the only candidates who has mentioned reparations to the Iraqi people, reconstructing their infrastructure, etc... meanwhile, all other candidates are very vague on what they plan to do for the Iraqi people specifically. Nader, above all, knows the U.S. is responsible.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    Why would Obama want to give Nader the fuckin time of day? This is stupid...Nader is stupid... Nader says he won't run for president if Obama addresses Middle East foreign policies, corporate regulations, health care and Isreal....

    So... has addressed these issues and even Ralph admitted he and Obama were real close on most of the issues he (Nader) just wanted Obama to clarify a few issues...
    You calling Nader stupid just reflects upon your own ignorance.

    And Nader and Obama are ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY not "real close on most of the issues"... that's just pure insanity.
    WTF????? Ralph's only running because of ego...
    Calling Ralph Nader would be like saying Barack Obama is 100% white.
    Nader's not even the best third candidate anymore...
    Cause you know, at this point, I'm so interested to know who you think is the "best candidate".
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    you can knock Obama all you want about hope and change and I guess as an Obama supporter I can only have faith in him doing like he says...
    Not completely. For example, doing what Israel wants 100% is not somethign I hope Obama keeps his word on.
    Besides, Nader's of Lebonese Arab decent... So of course we're really gonna get an impartial view of Isreal from him...ha ha get real with the Isreal shit it's not even being discussed...
    impartial? how is Nader not impartial? him condemning the occupation makes him not impartial? him condemning the oppression on the Palestinian people makes him not impartial? him wanting a PEACEFUL, two-state solution makes him not impartial? please, tell me why he is not impartial, other than the irrelevant fact that he's half Lebanese.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    I think Nader dropped out of the race a few months ago because of lack of interest.
    No, in fact he's gotten on the ballot in 45 states.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    catch22 wrote:
    because he's got to talk tough to get elected. he needs to show redneck america he's willing to blow people up if it comes to that. doesn't mean he's going to do it. and i don't think he will. he certainly will be far more reluctant than mccain to attack iran.

    this is the same bullshit i used to spout for nader in 2000. sorry, mccain and obama aren't the same. they were saying the same about bush and gore in 2000 and it was dead wrong. the fact that they both say they'd fight iran if needed doesn't mean shit. because their defintions of necessity are so vastly different it's absurd to even be discussing this.
    Al Gore in 2000 is not the same as Al Gore in 2006. While he would not have been as bad as Bush, he still would not have been good at all. I love how people conveniently ignore the fact that Lieberman was his VP candidate.
  • AnonAnon Posts: 11,175
    MrBrian wrote:
    I tend to go after Obama more, even if the same thing can be said for McCain. I do that because to me it seems like many of the people who support Obama, really believe in him, really falling for his lines of 'hope' and whatever else.

    His supporters seem to be forgetting the issues, they are not demanding anything from him. They just 'hope'. To me that's very dangerous.

    Like they will say that Obama is for peace, how he's so different from everyone else. Yet you hear Obama speak about Iran? He sounds like McCain or Bush. Or the way he goes on about his love for Israel, does not even mention what causes the hardships for the people of Palestine.
    Been over this with you before and i've posted numerous times why i support obama, so i'll just say this. You say you are worried that obama supporters are blindly following obama. Some may be, same as mccain and nader supporters. You get that in anything in life, people getting on the bandwagon, it happens in sport, hell it happens anywhere. Of course it sucks but it's a fact of life, it happens. What exactly do you hope to achieve by just going after obama?

    If, as you say, obama is just the same as we already have (which i don't agree that he is), but just for arguments sake say he is....

    then.....

    we aren't gonna be any worse off than we already are if he's elected right.

    agree???

    Or do you really think mccain/palin are the better candidates. Come out and say it if you do. You are admitting that you go after obama more when you think the same of mccain. Like it or not, one of them will be the next president of the US. Who do you think will do a better job. You are voting right?
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    If, as you say, obama is just the same as we already have (which i don't agree that he is), but just for arguments sake say he is....

    then.....

    we aren't gonna be any worse off than we already are if he's elected right.

    agree???

    Or do you really think mccain/palin are the better candidates. Come out and say it if you do. You are admitting that you go after obama more when you think the same of mccain. Like it or not, one of them will be the next president of the US. Who do you think will do a better job.

    No, Obama is not different enough. What exactly don't you get? The problem is that people like you are happy with that.

    You don't really want big change, just nickels and dimes.

    I have said enough times that Obama would make a better president than McCain, but my worries is that his supporters are not demanding anything from him, not even that he writes his own speeches.

    You excuse his mistakes, even if they are in line with Bush!
  • digster wrote:
    I think the reason that we all blindly 'hope' is that many of us on this board and in this nation are more moderate than you are. They don't expect a President who would never consider military action as an option. They don't want someone who believes that war is never an option. You may disagree with these people, but many of them can hold that thought in their head at the same time as realizing that Obama is not a carbon-copy of McCain or Bush. That's just tired political rhetoric.

    This election is important to me; I am all for third-party candidates and hope to put my vote in the future to good use to bring a more diverse set of opinions into the mainstream political dialogue, but the country's in deep shit right now. Maybe it's been in deeper shit before, but it's in deep shit right now. And I don't feel that it could stand a McCain/Palin presidency. I don't think the country would collapse on their watch, but after eight years of identical policies to the Bush presidency, the damage would be irrevocable. I'll save my political vote for a later time. And your attitude here is also the problem I have with Ralph Nader as a candidate. It's not only that Nader speaks his mind on the issues, and there are people who agree and those who disagree. Anyone who disagrees with him and his platform, whether candidate or voter, is either sucking on the corporate teat or oblivious to the issues that face our country. Both of those are bullshit, especially the latter. I, and many other Obama supporters on this board and in the country, have a firm grasp on the issues and are voting for Obama based on those issues. I don't have to blindly hope, as you put it. That kind of arrogance is not at all appealing.

    Great post.
  • digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    MrBrian wrote:
    No, Obama is not different enough. What exactly don't you get? The problem is that people like you are happy with that.

    ..but my worries is that his supporters are not demanding anything from him, not even that he write his own speeches.

    It's this exact kind of condescending arrogance that is such a turnoff for me for Nader, his campaign and his supporters. People have been ably stating why they will vote for Obama, and to you they are not merely voters who disagree; they are complacent sheep. No offense intended, but get over yourself; the people who have decided to vote for Obama have done so coherently and with purpose.

    And I don't know where you get your facts from, but Obama has written every major speech of this campaign that he has given and has a hand in writing every one of his 'stump' speeches. Looks like we don't have to "demand" that of him because he's got it covered.
  • _outlaw wrote:
    No, in fact he's gotten on the ballot in 45 states.

    Which is more states than back in 2000!
    Walking can be a real trip
    ***********************
    "We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
    ***********************
    Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Sign In or Register to comment.