Nader calls out Obama and AIPAC

RolandTD20Kdrummer

The truth hurts eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpYl_rPR47o

fuck

Absolutely great... not surprising coming from Nader though.

beachdweller

I call out Nadar on competence. He is so far removed from being relevant...my opinion, I know many love him, but his VP mate is more competent, and would be far more successful getting attention that Nadar has been.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

beachdweller wrote:

I call out Nadar on competence. He is so far removed from being relevant...my opinion, I know many love him, but his VP mate is more competent, and would be far more successful getting attention that Nadar has been.

Nader not being competent?

Incompetent at what exactly?

Trying to pull off a third party that nobody in the US seems ready to accept in the first place?

fugawzi

Geeze a moderator who doesn't say "uh" so many times would be nice. I'm not familiar with AIPAC so I will have to reserve comment until I read up on it. I'll just say I'm glad Nader's going away for the next 4 years. Sorry Ralph and supporters alike. I agree with many of his proposals but until he can organize a legitimate campaign it's useless. No need to chew me out guys I do like Nader it just seems to me he's a lost cause and many people agree.

edit: it sounds like he's calling McCain out too, not just Obama.

godpt3

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Nader not being competent?

Alzheimers is a bitch.

Anon

Most of the respect i had for Nader was lost when he opened his mouth with his infamous 'Obama's talking white' comment. Nice work Ralph.

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.

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

fugawzi wrote:

Geeze a moderator who doesn't say "uh" so many times would be nice. I'm not familiar with AIPAC so I will have to reserve comment until I read up on it. I'll just say I'm glad Nader's going away for the next 4 years. Sorry Ralph and supporters alike. I agree with many of his proposals but until he can organize a legitimate campaign it's useless. No need to chew me out guys I do like Nader it just seems to me he's a lost cause and many people agree.

edit: it sounds like he's calling McCain out too, not just Obama.

You mean organize a "legit" campaign that nobody is willing to accept in the first place?

Not wanting to hear the counter argument. Silence Nader's free speech. I see what you mean.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

godpt3 wrote:

Alzheimers is a bitch.

So the medical community has concluded. People just start forgetting stuff I hear.

fugawzi

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

You mean organize a "legit" campaign that nobody is willing to accept in the first place?

Not wanting to hear the counter argument. Silence Nader's free speech. I see what you mean.

Ok you're putting words in my mouth. Who's fault is it that nobody is willing to accept him as a presidential candidate? Maybe you should get off Nader's balls for one second and listen. By legit campaign I mean one where he actually stands a chance of getting elected. A campaign where he's going to get more than 5 to 10% of the vote. A campaign where could actually get at least 50% percent of the vote. He's only been trying since the '80s! I don't know how he can do that, I'm not suggesting how, I'm just saying until he does that will be a lost cause as a presidential candidate.

If his anti-corporate views or other views are stopping him from doing that then I don't see how he expects to actually get elected. He can play by the rules (as fucked up as they are) or not and just keep failing as a candidate. He doesn't have to run for president to get his message across. To me, his best work is as a consumer advocate.

I listened to the video you posted so I did hear his argument and I'm not silencing his free speech at all.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

fugawzi wrote:

Ok you're putting words in my mouth. Who's fault is it that nobody is willing to accept him as a presidential candidate? Maybe you should get off Nader's balls for one second and listen. By legit campaign I mean one where he actually stands a chance of getting elected. A campaign where he's going to get more than 5 to 10% of the vote. A campaign where could actually get at least 50% percent of the vote. He's only been trying since the '80s! I don't know how he can do that, I'm not suggesting how, I'm just saying until he does that will be a lost cause as a presidential candidate.

If his anti-corporate views or other views are stopping him from doing that then I don't see how he expects to actually get elected. He can play by the rules (as fucked up as they are) or not and just keep failing as a candidate. He doesn't have to run for president to get his message across. To me, his best work is as a consumer advocate.

I listened to the video you posted so I did hear his argument and I'm not silencing his free speech at all.

Ok so what exactly do you think it would take get get a third party then? I'd love to hear it.

fugawzi

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Ok so what exactly do you think it would take get get a third party then? I'd love to hear it.

I don't know Roland, I said I'm not making a suggestion on how he can succeed as a candidate. Obviously what he's doing and has been doing since the '80s isn't working. I asked someone this the other day and never got an answer. If a candidate is not a third party candidate then they must be the "lesser of two evils"? Some of our best presidents have been of a major party. Name a recent third party candidate who was actually elected.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

fugawzi wrote:

I don't know Roland, I said I'm not making a suggestion on how he can succeed as a candidate. Obviously what he's doing and has been doing since the 80's isn't working. I asked someone this the other day and never got an answer. If a candidate is not a third party candidate then they must be the "lesser of two evils"? Some of our best presidents have been of a major party. Name a recent third party candidate who was actually elected.

That's the point I'm making. Nobody seems to want it, it's not that Nader is incompetent. He's a highly accomplished individual, and he's listed as one of the top 100 most influential figures in American history. No matter what anyone thinks they know or wants to think they know, you have to admire someone that takes that much out of their life to help other people regardless of how receptive they are.

fugawzi

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That's the point I'm making. Nobody seems to want it, it's not that Nader is incompetent. He's a highly accomplished individual, and he's listed as one of the top 100 most influential figures in American history. No matter what anyone thinks they know or wants to think they know, you have to admire someone that takes that much out of their life to help other people regardless of how receptive they are.

For the second time my question wasn't answered. People do want it. I wouldn't say Nader is incompetent. He and his campaign staffers are just going about it the wrong way. I think a lot of what hurts Nader are his ideas and his refusal to bend on them. That IS admirable. I do admire Nader. If you look at my first post in this thread you will see I said "I like Nader." The thing is it takes more than admiration to be elected.

Ms. Haiku

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Most of the respect i had for Nader was lost when he opened his mouth with his infamous 'Obama's talking white' comment. Nice work Ralph.

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.

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.

I haven't been following Nader recently, but I'll never think the country is supposed to be a 2-party country because of him. I voted for him twice, and don't regret a single time. Candidates like him keep the box for opportunity open.

When I read your post I wondered, "What new technology has Nader relied on to distribute his information within the past 4 years?" I'm sure he has used multiple technological avenues, but I haven't become aware of them. I usually only hear of him every 4 years. You bring up some good points.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

fugawzi wrote:

For the second time my question wasn't answered. People do want it. I wouldn't say Nader is incompetent. He and his campaign staffers are just going about it the wrong way. I think a lot of what hurts Nader are his ideas and his refusal to bend on them. That IS admirable. I do admire Nader. If you look at my first post in this thread you will see I said "I like Nader." The thing is it takes more than admiration to be elected.

Some do, just not in any substantial numbers which seems apparent. A lot of policies that were echoed in Kucinich and Ron Paul also seemed to go nowhere in the primaries, so I'm wondering how far the admiration factor actually plays in as a whole.

fugawzi

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Some do, just not in any substantial numbers which seems apparent. A lot of policies that were echoed in Kucinich and Ron Paul also seemed to go nowhere in the primaries, so I'm wondering how far the admiration factor actually plays in as a whole.

I love me some Kucinich. Paul's ok too. All these guys have their pros and cons.

Anon

fugawzi wrote:

I love me some Kucinich.

Much respect for Kucinich. Love him.

Commy

At least someone is talking about these issues. support for Israeli oppression isn't even discussed in presidential elections, it almost a requirement. it wouldn't be mentioned if it weren't for Nader. he is far from irrelevent.

beachdweller

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Not wanting to hear the counter argument. Silence Nader's free speech. I see what you mean.

let him speak, the crickets will listen, them and a percent or two of America

beachdweller

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Ok so what exactly do you think it would take get get a third party then? I'd love to hear it.

whatever the answer is, it ain't Nadar

beachdweller

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That's the point I'm making. Nobody seems to want it, it's not that Nader is incompetent. He's a highly accomplished individual, and he's listed as one of the top 100 most influential figures in American history. No matter what anyone thinks they know or wants to think they know, you have to admire someone that takes that much out of their life to help other people regardless of how receptive they are.

let me state that my knock on Nadar is him now, it's past him being able to be the point man. He doesn't communicate well. It's not enough to say this is wrong, you have to provide an answer to. Most of the problems I agree need changing that Nadar and Ron Paul have talked about, are things that need massive change, like break and rebuild, and there will be a lot of pain in doing this. Much more than most are willing to go through.

In saying this, to my it means the bar is far higher for a third party, forget the simple facts of how our current political system is built to ensure that the two parties stay in power, even harder now than when Perot ran, you'd need a hugely popular figure to head this run at the Presidential level. Michael Bloomberg or Arnold Swartzenegger (yes I know he can't run), a hell of a lot of money, and a well defined message on what it will take to fix things.

With all that has happened the last 7 years, and the last 60 days, a third party hasn't broken through. That says plenty in itself.

beachdweller

I like Ron Paul's idea's about pulling all troops based abroad back stateside, let Europe police the world.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

beachdweller wrote:

whatever the answer is, it ain't Nadar

Saying this shows you don't fully understand what he is doing...or why.

one man completely misunderstood.

beachdweller

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Saying this shows you don't fully understand what he is doing...or why.

one man completely misunderstood.

no it doesn't, it means I don't believe in him

pjfan020

I don't know much about nader...i've only heard good things about him, but like other people said, it seems like his name only surfaces come election time.

blackredyellow

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Saying this shows you don't fully understand what he is doing...or why.

one man completely misunderstood.

I do understand what he is doing, and why... but what he (and his supporters) don't understand is that he is going about it the complete wrong way.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

beachdweller wrote:

no it doesn't, it means I don't believe in him

It's more of an ideology rather than a specific person people like or dislike at this point.

MrBrian

Bush won the second election, that had nothing to do with Nader, the dems lost that one fair and square. They also wouldve won the first won by more votes if they took on Naders issues.

Does it make sense to anyone that the dems complain about Nader taking away votes from them, yet they do nothing to earn these so called votes they lose to Nader?
Why dont the dems take on those issues? Speak about those subjects? Because they are too busy moving to the right wing side.

The only reason Nader has issues building a strong enough base is because the american attention span seems to be too short.

Nader also explained his 'talking white' comment. Did anyone listen to the explanation or did you all just go into a knee jerk reaction of "how dare he!"

It's a shame that he is not allowed to debate, it's a shame that he get's taken off the property for even showing up with a valid ticket to watch the debate!

When it's not election time, Nader is doing things to help this country and what he has already done has saved many lives.
Yes it's sad that the only attention he gets from the mainstream news is during election time when people get scared he's going to spoil the party.

prytoj

chuck baldwin = the man

his statement was money

though I believe that McCain is much more of a constitutionalist than given credit for.

Urban Hiker

Nader barely gets an media attention when he's running for President, why would the media cover him between elections?

If anybody would like to know a few of the things he's worked on between elections, he keeps a blog @ http://www.nader.org