Obama Vs Nader (Debate)

fuck

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.

fuck

Strangest Tribe wrote:

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".

fuck

Strangest Tribe wrote:

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.

fuck

flywallyfly wrote:

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.

fuck

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.

Anon

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?

MrBrian

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!

ledvedderman

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.

digster

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.

Urban Hiker

_outlaw wrote:

No, in fact he's gotten on the ballot in 45 states.

Which is more states than back in 2000!

Its Evolution Baby

_outlaw wrote:

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.

Where's this money coming from? Like most of Nader Ideals he has no plan on how to get funding or approval from Congress.

That's why its easy for him to make all the claims he does. He has no chance of winning and he knows it so he can promise the moon and ever get called out on it.

Its Evolution Baby

digster wrote:

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.

Exactly. Just because you are a Nader supporter doesn't mean we are all ignorant sheep.

Maybe we aren't as far left as you. Maybe we have different issues that matter to us.

Maybe we have different opinions on how to get this country back.

We will demand a lot from him once hes President but right now hes campaigning and I'm not naive. You have to play the game to win it and Obama has to seem tough enough to Middle America or he will get creamed by McCain.

I would rather him talk tough now and win then to stick to his ideals and lose like Nader does every year.

Strangest Tribe

Nader has no plans that go beyond high ideals. There's no compromise to his platform. Nader reforms are just plain silly. He's a consumer advocacy lobbyist therefore most of his ideas are not grounded in reality.

hailhail82

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Where's this money coming from? Like most of Nader Ideals he has no plan on how to get funding or approval from Congress.

That's why its easy for him to make all the claims he does. He has no chance of winning and he knows it so he can promise the moon and ever get called out on it.

Nader has consistently called for a citizen-led Congress "watch dog" system that will hold them responsible for bringing about reforms that the majority of Americans want: like single-payer health care and a crackdown on corporate crime.
After appealing to congress for the past 8 years, warning them of the upcoming bank crisis, we are now dealing with the consequences of their ignoring of said warnings. Nader is now urging Henry Paulson to ensure his office curbs the damage still happening and making sure the CEOs of Fanny and Freddie aren't making off with unjustly gross salaries while we, the taxpayers, pay for their screw-up.

fuck

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Where's this money coming from? Like most of Nader Ideals he has no plan on how to get funding or approval from Congress.

That's why its easy for him to make all the claims he does. He has no chance of winning and he knows it so he can promise the moon and ever get called out on it.

If we have money to fund more than one war at a time, and give Israel billions in aid, then we certainly have money to pay reparations to people we dispossessed and for people we killed, as well as reconstruction.

Anon

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.

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!

People like me? Mmm hmm. Cause you know me so well. You have no clue hunny bunny so quit with the assumptions already. One day when you have nothing better to do than read donkey stories, check back through my posting history and you will see i am quite outspoken on why i support obama and i even talk about his policies that i am not happy with...gosh.

Maybe we could just ignore each other. That works for me.

MrBrian

Pj_Gurl wrote:

People like me? Mmm hmm. Cause you know me so well. You have no clue hunny bunny so quit with the assumptions already. One day when you have nothing better to do than read donkey stories, check back through my posting history and you will see i am quite outspoken on why i support obama and i even talk about his policies that i am not happy with...gosh.

Maybe we could just ignore each other. That works for me.

I'm sorry. I understand your point, trust me. But you don't get mine. I don't want to ignore you at all. Infact it's really good that you are passionate about all this. Infact that makes me happy! and I respect you as a poster even more. So it's all good, no worries.
---

Now, would you like to see Obama debate Nader? Do you think it would be good for american politics?

my2hands

i love when canadians are more involved in our election then their own...

fuck

my2hands wrote:

i love when canadians are more involved in our election then their own...

well, our election affects them just as much

Anon

MrBrian wrote:

I'm sorry. I understand your point, trust me. But you don't get mine. I don't want to ignore you at all. Infact it's really good that you are passionate about all this. Infact that makes me happy! and I respect you as a poster even more. So it's all good, no worries.
---

Now, would you like to see Obama debate Nader? Do you think it would be good for american politics?

I'd love to see Nader on the spot. He says all the right things, and he talks about what we should do, but i honestly don't think he has any plan as to how he would follow through with what he is saying. Anyone can come out and say 'we should do this', but i want to know how he would. The worst thing about Ralph Nader is that he has become irrelevant. He has done nothing to create a viable political alternative to the GOP and Dems, nor to build support for his positions among the electorate. Anyone could have predicted his position on the war, and nobody cared, because he has no effective base of support. His is simply a vanity campaign,his positions on the issues, no matter how good they sound, are useless because he has done nothing to achieve the power to implement them. After this news cycle he will be ignored, and he will get his usual small percent in the general election. The saddest thing is that, instead of being remembered for his great consumer advocacy, history will recall him as the guy who made the 2000 and 2004 presidential races close enough to steal.

If they do get to debate then maybe obama can also ask Nader exactly what he meant when he accused obama of 'talking white'. I lost so much respect for him after that.

I used to give the benefit of the doubt to Nader, and believed his intention of entering the election was primarily an attempt to structurally change the electoral process from a two-party system to a multi-candidate type of system.

The problem with Nader, and what makes it impossible to take his candidacy seriously, is that he himself puts forth the image that he just wants attention for being a spoiler rather than a serious candidate. He does this because, in the time between one election and the next, just what exactly does he do that shows he's a serious candidate? We never hear a peep from him; he's not out making headlines in any way (not even in the way we know him best, and that's consumer protection). If he's out there inspiring anyone, taking on a cause, why don't we hear about it? He says the media fucks him over, there are other ways to get your voice heard. If he's doing these things, then he's not drawing any attention to them in the same way he can draw attention to himself simply by announcing that he's yet again running for president. For all the accolades he get's for his progressive views, what good are they if he doesn't even make them known? He does nothing for the progressive cause as far as I can see, and instead works against it with these so-called presidential bids. And maybe that's his real failing, in not being able to gain himself any publicity unless he's making himself a last minute candidate for president.