Nader calls out Obama and AIPAC

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

fuck

prytoj wrote:

chuck baldwin = the man

his statement was money

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

absolutely not. baldwin was given more time to think of an answer, and still came off as trying to be too "neutral" (which is bullshit), while Nader gave a truly respectable answer that called out Obama and McCain's blind support of occupations.

fuck

I honestly do not see how people can show Nader disrespect like this. While you may not agree with his policies (which is very odd), or you may not think he is "doing things the right way" (whatever the hell that means), his campaign is still the most respectable one when compared to the likes of Obama or McCain. When people say he does not "offer any practical solutions", that is just you trying blinding yourselves from it. So far, Obama and McCain's plans for Iraq is to sit around and draw out a timeline for withdrawal of troops, while helping the Iraqi govt become more.. legitimate (if that's wrong, feel free to correct me)... Nader's plan is the same way, only it involves a shorter timeline - six months - and reparations for Iraqi people. Obama's plans for Afghanistan and Pakistan are absolutely atrocious. Ending an occupation in Iraq to continue one in Afghanistan (and, while not likely, Pakistan as well), is god awful. His policy on Iran is too stern - if you want peace with the Iranians, treat them with respect, not as if they are already terrorists themselves and that you are "forced" to have to deal with them, by pushing for sanctions and stuff. Obama's policy on Israel/Palestine is just horrendous, and goes without said. I think Nader of all people would really give this country a respectable name, and his solutions will work. You guys claim if he were president, Congress wouldn't be able to work with this "radical" ideas - You guys DO realize that if he were president, that would mean the majority of America supports these "radical" ideas, and they would be forced to come into effect.

To say that you think you have to vote for Obama, or something - fine, I won't argue that right now. but to see people actually trying to undermine all the good work Nader has done is just plain absurd. He's a respectable candidate and runs an excellent campaign, whether you agree with "how he does it" or not.

blackredyellow

_outlaw wrote:

To say that you think you have to vote for Obama, or something - fine, I won't argue that right now. but to see people actually trying to undermine all the good work Nader has done is just plain absurd. He's a respectable candidate and runs an excellent campaign, whether you agree with "how he does it" or not.

Who is undermining all of his good work? And exactly how can someone run an "excellent campaign" and have absolutely no chance of winning. Isn't the success of a campaign based solely on how well the candidate ends up doing vote-wise? That's like saying a football team who lost 63-5 played a great game.

fuck

blackredyellow wrote:

Who is undermining all of his good work?

Many people in this thread.

Isn't the success of a campaign based solely on how well the candidate ends up doing vote-wise?

No, and seeing as how you don't know that, you clearly don't understand Nader's point.

prytoj

_outlaw wrote:

absolutely not. baldwin was given more time to think of an answer, and still came off as trying to be too "neutral" (which is bullshit), while Nader gave a truly respectable answer that called out Obama and McCain's blind support of occupations.

I'll buy that

what struck me about the Baldwin answer was his stance on globalization, which I didn't remember Nader addressing.

I think Nader is a bit naive in his world view (pretty rich i know)

And I agree with those wondering why the lack of respect for Nader. I disagree with him greatly on many things, but how can you not respect a guy who brought us safer cars, food nutrition labels, etc..

I believe he's improved our quality of life greatly

RolandTD20Kdrummer

blackredyellow wrote:

Who is undermining all of his good work? And exactly how can someone run an "excellent campaign" and have absolutely no chance of winning. Isn't the success of a campaign based solely on how well the candidate ends up doing vote-wise? That's like saying a football team who lost 63-5 played a great game.

more like saying that highschool team that went up against the steroids pumped NFL team and lost played a good game.