Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
The presidential elections in the US, once again, provide an acid test of the integrity and consequential conduct of US intellectuals. If it is the duty and responsibility of the public intellectual to speak truth to power, the recent statements of most of our well-known and prestigious public pundits have failed miserably. Instead of highlighting, exposing and denouncing the reactionary foreign and domestic policies of Democratic Party candidate Senator Barack Obama, they have chosen to support him, ‘critically, offering as excuses that even ‘limited differences’ can result in positive outcomes,and that ‘Obama is the lesser evil’ and ‘creates an opportunity for a possibility of change.’
What makes these arguments untenable is the fact that Obama’s public pronouncements, his top policy advisers, and the likely policymakers in his government have openly defined a most bellicose foreign policy and a profoundly reactionary domestic economic policy totally in line with Paulson-Bush-Wall Street. On the major issues of war, peace, the economic crisis and the savaging of the US wage and salaried class, Obama promises to extend and deepen the policies which the majority of Americans reject and repudiate.
Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney
I know in many places he may not be on the ballots but I've always liked what Nader has stood for and here I agree with him.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Even knowing California is well in the Obama column and throwing my vote for an alternative party might help spur more discussion in the future (I've voted alternative parties for president before) ... and knowing there are a few nuggets of goodness in his thinking ... Nader's not the man I want leading this country.
edit - but I DO encourage everyone to read what he has to say.
"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
This should be Twelve Reasons to Reject McCain and Support Nader/McKinney. Then we can avoid 2000 all over again and still get the point across.
Votes for other parties are votes helping the McCain/Palin tkt and that's just to much to risk.
I c yer point tough....
Think more long term, and the perspective will follow.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Bingo. I'm all for third parties, but now is not the time.
Nader knows he won't win the election. Once again he's trying to get his 5% so that The Green Party can get the funding for 2012.
I love Ralph to death. The man has done great things and is an amazing consumer advocate. I was on board with him in 2000 because we do need a strong viable 3rd Party in the United States.
Nader's ideas are great and they're perfect for a 3rd Party platform to balance out the Right and Left.
But just like 2004, we have to get our priorities in order. We have to get Obama in the White House and that is where our focus should lie.
There is just too much at stake and there is too much that has to be done in the short term.
Many of Ralphs ideas are good. But they're just too radical "Washinton Standards" to be able to tackle right now.
Obama although not perfect, will provide enough change from the current administration to at least lay the groundwork to getting this country back on track.
Once that has been accomplished; then we can think about getting a third party the 5% required to compete.
Just my 2 cents.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Your freedom is irrelevant to you? Freedom from the bankers, military and corporations who have bought your country is not important to you?
You rights as a citizen of the US are not important to you?
Stopping more senseless, endless and extremely expensive wars is irrelevant?
naděje umírá poslední
Ron Paul & Ralph Nader
It's remarkable, isn't it? Very opposite sides, yet they sit together respectfully and discuss how they can work together on the things they agree on, rather than attacking each other for the issues they disagree with.
naděje umírá poslední
Look, a small percentage of voters is paying attention to these guys for the presidency. Do you think either one of these guys believes they can do anything other than qualify their respective parties for automatic funding? Instead of attacking each other they attack the more mainstream parties. There are no attacks on each other because they have no chance at winning. I voted third party in some state and federal elections. There isn't enough support for a legitimate White House run. I didn't vote third party for the presidency. Guess that means I'm a sheep or not edgy or uniformed. Whatever.
Do you really believe Obama will change the system?
No, it's a small shift. The four issues Nader and Paul are discussing in the video I posted above are important. They are in the best interest of the American people. They want real choice for the American people.
I think if you read Obama's policies he doesn't offer substantial change to the system. He operates within the same old corrupt system. The way he operates within it might be a little different, but the system's still in place.
And if you check out Obama's foreign policy, it's quite possible that the troops will still be in Iraq, and some might be in Iran or Syria or Pakistan by then. It's a war that cannot be won, at least not by fighting it.
Terrorists have repeatedly explained exactly why they do what they do. To paint them as a bunch of evil men who act soley out of baseless hatred is naive, ignorant and dangerous. Their resentment is real. It stems from that huge red white and blue dick that's been screwing them and their people over for decades. And of course the unconditional irrational support to Israel, a terrorist nation that has and continues to violate human rights and is illegally taking land that's not theirs.
This is the system that Obama is not touching. It'll still be in the hands of the same rich fuckers in 2012 as it is now.
It think it's very likely that in the next elections people will again say "it's too risky", "it's a wasted vote", "there's too much at stake."
naděje umírá poslední
Look, you can drop whatever assumptions you have about me because they are wrong.
naděje umírá poslední
What fucking cowards they are.
The best time to support the truth or what is right, is in the most difficult times. If everytime something goes wrong or you are in a bad time..Then you give up on whats right, then what are you?
'Now is not the time ralph'...Now is the best time, let the dems know what they need to do. You support them now, you think they will ever truly change? They will have no reason too. Because each election you guys will say 'now is not the time ralph, 2012, we cant have Palin as president'. It will never end.
Obama already has ex clinton members running around his camp. But thats what you people want right? Those great clinton years, money in your pocket and a nice bubble around you.
Your priorities should not be selling yourself out, I mean if you sell yourself out now, what else will you sell yourself out for? When will it be enough?
Did the dems stand up and protest the Iraq war like they shouldve? did the protest the patriot act? the war on terrorism?
I disagree. I think they truly see that part of the reason why the election or system is rotten is lack of respect. You live in France, right? I'm your neighbour up north. There's one thing I kept reading about the government crisis here and that's older politicians who said the same thing: there's no respect. They faced the same problems years ago, all of them. They had heated arguments as well but at the end of the day the went for a beer and had dinner with each other. They were respectful and many were friends, despite radical differences in their views.
Of course they'll completely disagree, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd result to the tactics used by the great parties. You can say why you think someone's idea is absurd or useless or whatever and you can do this without the scare tactics and the smear campaigns.
They are indeed rooting for two radically different worlds but they're also rooting for one radical different world: a world in which politics isn't controlled by big money and outside special interest groups. A world in which open, honest and fair debate is possible. That's why I support Ron Paul as well despite the fact that I disagree with many of his views.
Because in the current system they cannot even promote their radically different ideas. It blocks them out. Once the playing field is leveled for all, we can discuss the matters they disagree on. Now, it's pointless. We need A first before we can have or even discuss B.
naděje umírá poslední
Yesterday I confirmed that I will go to the polls becuase there are some Michigan proposals that I need to support, namely Medicinal Marijuana, and Stem Cell research. And now I think in protest of The One and as a person who has never voted for a Republican for POTUS, I'll vote Nadar because I fucking want to, to make a point, and to keep my conscious clear.
thanks for this post.
First PJ Show: March 20, 1994 | Ann Arbor | Crisler Arena
I didn't say that.
What I said was that he offers enough change from the last administration; more so than John McCain.
Obama is not the 2nd Coming of Sliced Bread.
He's not going to change the world. No one in their right mind believes that. But he offers enough of a change in policy to at least lay the groundwork to getting this thing back on track and that's why I'm voting for him.
But I personally feel that a McCain/Palin Presidency would be an absolute disaster. And I'm going to personally do what I can to prevent those two clowns from taking office in January.
I'm sorry but as much as I'd love to see a strong 3rd Party in this country.
This is not the year to vote for a 3rd party.
There is a time to vote strategic...and this is the election.
I'm not gonna sit here in preach to you or tell you how to vote, but personally I think you will be wasting your vote by voting for a 3rd Party
Whether you are for Paul or you are for Nader, neither of these candidates have a chance in hell of getting elected.
Furthermore, both Paul and Nader offer "Giant Step Change" although it makes sense and it's on the level...They couldn't possibly get done in 4 years what they are proposing to do. It's impossible especially with a Democratic or Republican controlled House and Senate...None of these proposed policys will have a snowballs chance in hell of passing.
Obama at least offers small steps towards something progessive. And right now that's all we can ask for.
Change doesn't happen over night. There are a series of small battles that have to be won first.
I understand what you're saying. I don't think Obama will lay the groundworks, however. And like MrBrian pointed out; if the two party system stays - which Obama isn't even thinking about commenting on - there will be two people running for president in 2012 again. And one will be more evil than the other, and again you'll have to vote for the lesser because the two party system assures that only those two have a chance.
And I agree, neither Ron Paul or Ralph Nader will be able to bring the change they want to see. But I think both guys have made it quite clear that the change won't come from them, but from the people. History has proven that the people can make a difference.
From Václav Havel's address to the nation, 1990:
"When I talk about the contaminated moral atmosphere [..] I am talking about all of us. We had all become used to the totalitarian system and accepted it as an unchangeable fact and thus helped to perpetuate it. In other words, we are all - though naturally to differing extents - responsible for the operation of the totalitarian machinery. None of us is just its victim. We are all also its co-creators.
We cannot blame the previous rulers for everything, not only because it would be untrue, but also because it would blunt the duty that each of us faces today: namely, the obligation to act independently, freely, reasonably and quickly. Let us not be mistaken: the best government in the world, the best parliament and the best president, cannot achieve much on their own. And it would be wrong to expect a general remedy from them alone. Freedom and democracy include participation and therefore responsibility from us all."
It's about a slightly different regime, but I'd say it sums up the problem (and solution) quite well.
edit: I won't vote. I'm not American, if I could I would undoubtedly vote for Nader.
naděje umírá poslední
Look.
If Nader or Paul actually defied all odds and magically won the election. They would'nt have enough representation in Government to actually follow through on any of ideas and policy changes that they promise.
They'd basically be lame ducks sitting in the oval office without any power to get anything accomplished.
It's not being a Coward. It's about being a Realist.
They don't have a chance at the Presidency. You have the work within the system first before you bring forth the change that you're talking about.
You first have to start at the ground level. Vote some Green Party, or Libertarian folks and get them elected to office.
Balance out the House and Senate first. That way you have a balanced Goverment with a viable 3rd Party argument and check and balance.
Vote for your Green Party candidate in your city, your state and local level. Get them in there first before you start thinking White House.
Change doesn't happen over night.
Ralph offers a utopian perfect world that just isn't going to happen in 2008.
It's not possible yet.
If you want that change you've first got to start on your local level. It's a long and bloody battle to the top...but it starts there.
I wouldn't say Nadar is irrelevant. Maybe not a presidental contender but as a lobbyist he has been relevant for many years.
That being said, I love Nadar but I feel like I can't waste my vote on him this year. This year is different. There is so much more at stake.
nader isn't running for the greens ... mckinney is ... 5% has nothing to do with his running ...
forget about whether he can win or not ... the issue here is what kind of person do you want leading your country? ... the kind of people that are basically working for all the big multi-nationals or someone who governs for the people?
Otherwise they will remain too close to the republicans. They will remain just a small change, (like you say)
What reason do the dems have to really change if people are voting for them anyway? If a car company builds shit cars, and people still buy them, why would the company change and build higher quality cars? The consumer has to stop buying from them and then the company says 'We really need to change our direction and build better cars'
Now is the perfect time, now is the best time to use your vote and the only wasted votes in this election is the ones for McCain and Obama.
So what the hell do you expect Nader, Mckinney, or Paul to do with absolutley no representation in government?
Even if they were by some "I Dream Of Jeanie" magical miricle get elected. They'd be fucked because they wouldn't have enough of their party represented to get anything passed.
If you really want this thing to happen, you've got to vote these kinds of politicians in on the local level. Build it from the ground up.
These 3rd Parties in America have got to get their shit together in order to get what they want.
It's doing nobody any good having like 30 different guys all running on the Independent, Green, or 3rd Party ticket for President.
It's a losing battle and it's a pointless vote.
You may as well write Mr.T on the ballot.
You said it all right there..
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull
I understand that. My parents told me, years ago after a heated debate between the 2 president wannabees a cameraman had left the mic running. The conversation was basically "so you're still coming over to dinner tonight etc". Our last election was just filled with hate, insults and contempt. I agree that 2 people can disagree and discuss politely, whatever their views of the world. But isn't that a little outside the subject?
This is where we disagree I guess
I understand how they want the same thing, and 3rd parties are the only guarantee to democracy we have. But I think some ideas and some people are very dangerous and I'd go for B in emergency hoping we can get to point A when the problem is dealt with.
I can only hope Nader will be true to his words and lobby for his (and his voters) ideas if Obama is elected.
(And I disagree to much with RP to hope Nader will actually listen to him)