Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney

g under p · October 2008

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

jimed14 · October 2008

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.

Speakers · October 2008

g under p wrote:

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

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.

Mrs.Vedder78 · October 2008

Unfortunately right now there is way to much at stake to waste voting on someone that we are 100% won't win.

Votes for other parties are votes helping the McCain/Palin tkt and that's just to much to risk.

I c yer point tough....

orig_long red · October 2008

Nader is a fucking tool. give it up! he should stick to what he knows, protecting consumers ... he is not qualified to be president. stop giving this jerk cause for running by voting for him every year.

PJ_Saluki · October 2008

I like Nader and what he stands for, too. I also don't like McCain and what he and Palin stand for more. This is not the time to tilt at windmills. Obama may not be perfect to those who religiously support third-party candidates, but just imagine a McCain-Palin White House. Twelve reasons not to vote for Nader or McKinney: 12 is the number of votes each will get in the general election.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · October 2008

long red wrote:

Nader is a fucking tool. give it up! he should stick to what he knows, protecting consumers ... he is not qualified to be president. stop giving this jerk cause for running by voting for him every year.

Think more long term, and the perspective will follow.

iamica · October 2008

Mrs_Vedder78 wrote:

Unfortunately right now there is way to much at stake to waste voting on someone that we are 100% won't win.

Bingo. I'm all for third parties, but now is not the time.

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

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.

Kann · October 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Think more long term, and the perspective will follow.

Tell me something Roland. You seem to back both Ron Paul and Nader. However the two are way more different in between each other than Obama and McCain could ever be. They actually both defend radically different world views - so how do you manage to back two so very different political perspectives?

blackredyellow · October 2008

I can't fathom one possible reason for anyone to vote for McKinney... Nader, I get... but McKinney??? The Green Party jumped the shark on that one.

beachdweller · October 2008

the only reason needed to reject Nadar, he's irrelevant

Collin · October 2008

beachdweller wrote:

the only reason needed to reject Nadar, he's irrelevant

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?

Collin · October 2008

Kann wrote:

Tell me something Roland. You seem to back both Ron Paul and Nader. However the two are way more different in between each other than Obama and McCain could ever be. They actually both defend radically different world views - so how do you manage to back two so very different political perspectives?

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.

PJ_Saluki · October 2008

Collin wrote:

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.

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.

Collin · October 2008

Gonzo1977 wrote:

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.

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.

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."

Collin · October 2008

PJ_Saluki wrote:

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.

Look, you can drop whatever assumptions you have about me because they are wrong.

MrBrian · October 2008

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?

Kann · October 2008

Collin wrote:

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.

Haha, I even agreed with them on their 4 points of problems to adress. But it doesn't change anything to my question, you may agree with their views on 3rd party, or their views on where the us army belongs but in the end they're both rooting for 2 fundamentally different worlds. I'm sure had the interviewer asked the question "well, what about health care plans, whose out of Obama and McCain sounds less ridiculous" you'd have seen that "respectfull discussion" fade very quickly.

Collin · October 2008

Kann wrote:

Haha, I even agreed with them on their 4 points of problems to adress. But it doesn't change anything to my question, you may agree with their views on 3rd party, or their views on where the us army belongs but in the end they're both rooting for 2 fundamentally different worlds. I'm sure had the interviewer asked the question "well, what about health care plans, whose out of Obama and McCain sounds less ridiculous" you'd have seen that "respectfull discussion" fade very quickly.

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.

whitepants · October 2008

g under p wrote:

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

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.

Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney

Comments

Categories