Nader/Gonzalez Issues

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

if i haven't made myself clear already well i just don't know what more to say to help. especially with what you said in the first part above, we'll keep going in circles.

Fine by me because it seems you're not seeing the point in what I'm saying either.

You've said it has nothing to do with Obama's ability to win vs Nader's but I haven't gotten much else out of you besides that point. And I think our gov't could and would be able to work with Nader's ideas, especially considering how the people support them. And if they don't then they should lose their jobs for not representing us and for blocking much needed change that the majority is behind. If we keep simply accepting the fact that our govt works against our own best interests in the name of special interests as being 'just the way it is' then that mindset will ensure that nothing will ever change and it makes all the rhetoric that Obama keeps shouting about 'real change for a change' complete bullshit because even his supporters are saying how that's not even possible due to the way our system is set.

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

If you wanna sit here and pretend Nader gets anywhere even remotely close to the amount of coverage Obama, Hillary and McCain get then go right ahead..... He is known nationally, sure but certainly not by the masses in general and most often is associated with the negative spin the media loves to pin him with.

Even you were posting that Nader hasn't done anything but bring us seat belts, spoil the 2000 election and then disappear every 4 years between elections so you kinda made my point for me.

i am simply pointing out that he is basicly a household name, gets plenty of media coverage and has plenty of name recognition.

the point is people do not vote for him or supprt him because they choose not to, not because of some media conspiracy. the old "whoa as me ralph nader" pitty party doesnt hold water. the fact is, the media is not to blame for ralph getting 1-3% of the vote. the problem is ralph nader. but feel free to continue to blame people in dark shadows

here is a list of the corporate mass media conspiracy announcing Ralph Naders 2008 presidential bid

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/nader.politics/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319215/

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/nader-announces-vp-pick/

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/24/nader-says-he-will-run-for-president/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7261670.stm

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8655.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/ralphnader.uselections2008

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ralph_nader_running_again_impa.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2008

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/24/politics/main3869672.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4336298&page=1

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/24/nader_announces_run_for_president/

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/02/nader_hopes_third_presidential.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-24-nader_N.htm

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usdems255590663feb25,0,1644267.story

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed8/idUSN2465110920080224

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/nader-announces-run-for-p_n_88163.html



that is one hell of a conspiracy fueled media blackout against Ralph Nader :rolleyes:

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

i am simply pointing out that he is basicly a household name, gets plenty of media coverage and has plenty of name recognition.

the point is people do not vote for him or supprt him because they choose not to, not because of some media conspiracy. the old "whoa as me ralph nader" pitty party doesnt hold water. the fact is, the media is not to blame for ralph getting 1-3% of the vote. the problem is ralph nader. but feel free to continue to blame people in dark shadows

here is a list of the corporate mass media conspiracy announcing Ralph Naders 2008 presidential bid

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/nader.politics/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23319215/

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/nader-announces-vp-pick/

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/24/nader-says-he-will-run-for-president/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7261670.stm

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8655.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/ralphnader.uselections2008

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ralph_nader_running_again_impa.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2008

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/24/politics/main3869672.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4336298&page=1

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/24/nader_announces_run_for_president/

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/02/nader_hopes_third_presidential.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-24-nader_N.htm

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usdems255590663feb25,0,1644267.story

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed8/idUSN2465110920080224

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/nader-announces-run-for-p_n_88163.html



that is one hell of a conspiracy fueled media blackout against Ralph Nader :rolleyes:

You're the only one bringing up conspiracy in a weak attempt to discredit my points.


Yeah, that he announced he's running. That is SO comparable to the exposure the mainstreamers are given. You really got me there. :rolleyes:

VictoryGin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Fine by me because it seems you're not seeing the point in what I'm saying either.

You've said it has nothing to do with Obama's ability to win vs Nader's but I haven't gotten much else out of you besides that point.

which is not the point i was even making so i will just end here.

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You're the only one bringing up conspiracy in a weak attempt to discredit my points.


Yeah, that he announced he's running. That is SO comparable to the exposure the mainstreamers are given. You really got me there. :rolleyes:

nice try.

all i have heard for 8 years is how their is a media blackout on ralph nader fuled by a corporate conspiracy...and you have said the same thing, you just said the conspiracy was "blatant"

and these claims always come from Nader supporters... and it is bullshit. the media doesnt follow nader because ralph nader is not interesting news to 99% of the world.

thats all i am saying.


why do the Boston Red Sox get more national TV coverage then the Baltimore Orioles? because the Red Sox are a better team so more pople are interested, thats why. same thing.

people always blame the media, the media is just giving the public what they want. and the public wants shit, so they get shit. so please stop blaming the man behind the curtain.

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

nice try.

all i have heard for 8 years is how their is a media blackout on ralph nader fuled by a corporate conspiracy...and you have said the same thing, you just said the conspiracy was "blatant"

and these claims always come from Nader supporters... and it is bullshit. the media doesnt follow nader because ralph nader is not interesting news to 99% of the world.

thats all i am saying.


why do the Boston Red Sox get more national TV coverage then the Baltimore Orioles? because the Red Sox are a better team so more pople are interested, thats why. same thing.

people always blame the media, the media is just giving the public what they want. and the public wants shit, so they get shit. so please stop blaming the man behind the curtain.

yeah that's the same thing exactly...how insightful

the media is controlled by corporations and ran by their money. Things/people that don't fit into that agenda are not covered. This is nothing new and it's not a conspiracy.

Commy

seems the media outlets decide what 'news' is. When they decided Ralph Nader wasn't a story they made it harder for him to get his voice heard. The fact that he is even considered when people discuss the mainstream candidates shows just how powerful his platform is. They can only hide the truth for so long.

my2hands

Commy wrote:

seems the media outlets decide what 'news' is. When they decided Ralph Nader wasn't a story they made it harder for him to get his voice heard. The fact that he is even considered when people discuss the mainstream candidates shows just how powerful his platform is. They can only hide the truth for so long.

people blame the media, i blame the people for watching... TV sells what sells, period... if long drawn out detailed coverage of key political discusions got them ratings then they would all be running the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer... guess what, people dont watch that shit and dont want to.

news is 24/7 now... people want it as entertainment, sprinkled with a little info, so that is what is given to them...

not to mention that the internet is wide open for anyone, google ralph nader and you get about 8 million hits... you can see some links above

the media isnt hiding anything, the people are hiding it from themselves

stupidcorporatewhore

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I believe anything is possible if we demand enough from our gov't in place of our current policy of accepting nothing from them.

I completely agree.

Do you think that a better place to start would be the corporate media? We boycott their products until they agree to report accurately and fairly.

the media is little more than a mouthpiece of corporations which control politicians.

If we can get the corporations in line then we can control the politicians.

Electing nader is just a glorified "none of the above" choice.

which is not a choice. It's too little, too late.

Urban Hiker

my2hands wrote:

people blame the media, i blame the people for watching... TV sells what sells, period... if long drawn out detailed coverage of key political discusions got them ratings then they would all be running the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer... guess what, people dont watch that shit and dont want to.

news is 24/7 now... people want it as entertainment, sprinkled with a little info, so that is what is given to them...

not to mention that the internet is wide open for anyone, google ralph nader and you get about 8 million hits... you can see some links above

the media isnt hiding anything, the people are hiding it from themselves

Do me a favor and do a NEWS search on Google and see how many hits you get for each candidate.


Spoiler warning:
















Nader gets about 1% of the news coverage that either Obama or Hillary get. :cool:


Nader
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=nader&btnG=Search+News

Obama
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=obama&btnG=Search+News

Clinton
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=clinton&btnG=Search+News

Abookamongstthemany

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

I completely agree.

Do you think that a better place to start would be the corporate media? We boycott their products until they agree to report accurately and fairly.

the media is little more than a mouthpiece of corporations which control politicians.

If we can get the corporations in line then we can control the politicians.

Electing nader is just a glorified "none of the above" choice.

which is not a choice. It's too little, too late.

I saw we take actions on ALL fronts not just one here and there because they all need drastic change to compliment each other effectually.

stupidcorporatewhore

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I say we take actions on ALL fronts not just one here and there because they all need drastic change to compliment each other effectually.

again, I completely agree. I just don't believe you are realistic in terms of how it's going to happen. You are putting your socks on over your shoes.

Obama will be a stabilizing element. I'm not expecting much more.