Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney
Comments
-
Collin wrote:Do you really believe Obama will change the system? No, it's a small shift.
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.0 -
Gonzo1977 wrote: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 Partye
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.THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!
naděje umírá poslední0 -
The number one reason to reject Obama.....Joe "Hairplugs" BidenAll the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.0
-
MrBrian wrote:The most disgusting thing is when people clearly support Nader and believe in what he says the most. Yet wont vote for him saying 'This is not the time'.
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?
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.0 -
beachdweller wrote:the only reason needed to reject Nadar, he's irrelevant
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.0 -
Gonzo1977 wrote:First of all.
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.
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?0 -
Gonzo, you are missing the point. How about giving Nader votes, perhaps the dems seeing that they are losing votes or not getting enough votes...Perhaps then understand that they need to take on those issues/stances of the 3rd parties.
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.0 -
polaris wrote: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?
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.0 -
jimed14 wrote:Not this time. Not this election.
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.
You said it all right there..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull0 -
First of all, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I doubt, however the subject is touchy, that RP will start calling Nader a terrorist - these tactics are indeed the privilege of the big parties. But I do think their alliance would quickly leave place to major incomprehension on some subjects.Collin wrote:I disagree.
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?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.
This is where we disagree I guessThey 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.
[...] Now, it's pointless. We need A first before we can have or even discuss B.
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)0 -
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.0 -
MrBrian wrote:Gonzo, you are missing the point. How about giving Nader votes, perhaps the dems seeing that they are losing votes or not getting enough votes...Perhaps then understand that they need to take on those issues/stances of the 3rd parties
I understand your point. But I don't feel casting a vote for Nader is going to do anyone any good.
Ralph got nearly 5% of the vote in 2000 and it did nothing to change the Democratic party. In 2004 we had John Kerry who was an even shittier candidate than Gore.
If Nader, The Greens, The Libertarians, actually want to usher in some change and be a viable 3rd Party than they're going to have to mobilze and get some representation in Government.
They're going to have to win on the Local level first and build their way up.
For Example, If you get a 3rd party candidate elected Mayor and that 3rd Party Mayor completly kicks ass and makes a real impact on their Community. Then they now have a chance to get elected Governor or State Senator because their record is proven and they show that they can be successful.
You've got to build it from the ground up in every City and State.
But in the Here and Now
This race is between McCain/Pailn and Obama/Biden.
And right now a McCain/Palin Presidency is unacceptable.
This is the battle that has to be won.0 -
0
-
Gonzo1977 wrote: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.
well - if you think the current political landscape works - then by all means, vote for either party ... i for one thinks it needs to be blown up ... absolutely, 3rd parties need to start at the ground up ... there's no issue there ...
the point is tho that there needs to a mass overhaul of washington - palin's whole campaign is on the fact she isn't supposed to be a washington "insider" basically admitting that's how things are in dc ... so, if that's the case - is a democrat or republican going to change that?
edit: also - it is widely known that the majority of states are going to vote a certain way ... why not in those states vote 3rd party?0 -
Gonzo1977 wrote:I understand your point. But I don't feel casting a vote for Nader is going to do anyone any good.
Ralph got nearly 5% of the vote in 2000 and it did nothing to change the Democratic party. In 2004 we had John Kerry who was an even shittier candidate than Gore.
If Nader, The Greens, The Libertarians, actually want to usher in some change and be a viable 3rd Party than they're going to have to mobilze and get some representation in Government.
They're going to have to win on the Local level first and build their way up.
For Example, If you get a 3rd party candidate elected Mayor and that 3rd Party Mayor completly kicks ass and makes a real impact on their Community. Then they now have a chance to get elected Governor or State Senator because their record is proven and they show that they can be successful.
You've got to build it from the ground up in every City and State.
But in the Here and Now
This race is between McCain/Pailn and Obama/Biden.
And right now a McCain/Palin Presidency is unacceptable.
This is the battle that has to be won.
Very well said. I never understood why Nader seems to disappear and reappear every 4 years for the next Presidential election. I won't argue that the system is broken, but what Nader is doing now isn't going to fix it. Not even close. Imagine, if Nader or a viable 3rd party candidate had mobilized their efforts back in say 2000 and won a local election, and worked their way up to Governor or Senator as you stated, they'd have a much better chance to affect change at the Presidential level now.
Remember what a wise man once said?
"Change don't come at once
It's a wave... building before it breaks""If no one sees you, you're not here at all"0 -
-
polaris wrote:well - if you think the current political landscape works - then by all means, vote for either party ... i for one thinks it needs to be blown up ... absolutely, 3rd parties need to start at the ground up ... there's no issue there ...
the point is tho that there needs to a mass overhaul of washington - palin's whole campaign is on the fact she isn't supposed to be a washington "insider" basically admitting that's how things are in dc ... so, if that's the case - is a democrat or republican going to change that?
edit: also - it is widely known that the majority of states are going to vote a certain way ... why not in those states vote 3rd party?
Look.
I think we both agree that a 3rd Party is desperatly needed in this country.
Where we disagree is that you believe voting for 3rd Party President is how we usher in the desired Change.
I personally believe that more CHANGE will come by getting 3rd Party candidates elected at the State and Local levels as opposed to Comander and Cheif. That way they can work their way up.
I think this tactic would be the most sucessful approach to reforming the Government as opposed to throwing a vote towards a 3rd Party Presidential Candidate who doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the election.
You've got to build the 3rd Party from the ground up! By doing so, you'll have more of an influence in Government and have an actual chance of reforming the system.
You're not going to change the system right away. You've got to poison it first.
You do that by playing the game.
First gain The Kings trust,
Then get invited to the dinner.
Then sneak up behind the King and slit his throat.0 -
Gonzo1977 wrote:Look.
I think we both agree that a 3rd Party is desperatly needed in this country.
Where we disagree is that you believe voting for 3rd Party President is how we usher in the desired Change.
I personally believe that more CHANGE will come by getting some 3rd Party candidates elected at the State and Local levels as opposed to Comander and Cheif. I think this tactic would be the most sucessful approach to reforming the Government as opposed to throwing a vote towards a 3rd Party Presidential Candidate who doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the election.
You've got to build the 3rd Party from the ground up! By doing so, you'll have more of an influence in Government and have an actual chance of reforming the system.
You're not going to change the system right away. You've got to poison it first.
You do that by playing the game.
First gain The Kings trust,
Then get invited to the dinner.
Then sneak up behind the King and slit his throat.
right
but in a state like california or texas ... why wouldn't you vote 3rd party?0 -
whitepants wrote: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.
My mind set sort of, whomever gets in this office has a mountain of a job to do. I want to see them prove they CAN make a change.
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)0 -
polaris wrote:right
but in a state like california or texas ... why wouldn't you vote 3rd party?
Because the 3rd party won't win.
Get a 3rd Party Mayor, Governor, or Senator elected in Texas and California first.
Then you're on your way.
Afterall...You can't win the Superbowl if you don't make the Playoffs first Right?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help