Lets compare..Obama vs. Nader on Job Creation

_outlaw wrote:

Bill Clinton? are you seriously comparing Ralph Nader to Bill Clinton??

the whole point of the nation electing Ralph Nader would mean that they really are interested in REAL change. congress would definitely have to find ways to work closely with him.

you don't have to agree with his decision? that makes no sense. I asked you a question: do you support this "compromised" Patriot Act?
and there is no misinformation. he supported and voted for the Patriot Act. disagree with it all you want, but it's the truth. the only thing you're clearing up is "yes he voted for the Patriot Act, but it was a COMPROMISED version" which really doesn't mean much else...

and feel free to also answer any of these questions: http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5719870&postcount=49

i'm waiting for an Obama supporter to do so...

edit: given the recent thread, I'd like some logical answers to all questions... obviously, this is just me asking, and you guys doing whatever you'd like, lol.

Ok I'll bite.

Issue 1 Israel: Obama publicly supports our main Allies agenda. However he has also has pledged to bring resolution to the dispute and has met with the Palestinian President already. I don't care that he refuses to meet with Hamas as they engage in tourist like activities. Once they cut that shit out and are strictly a political party then I expect him to include them on the discussions. McCain will not even talk about or acknowledge Palestine. So there is a big difference there.

Issue 2 Iran: I've been over this so many times. Of course war should be kept on the table when you are negotiating with someone when it involves missile development. Why would Iran have any reason to listen to Obama if we say right off the bat that we will not go to War with you? He is not saying let's go to War. He's saying if there are no concessions from Iran we may end up in some sort of conflict. And no they are not a threat to the US but to our main Ally Israel.

Issue 3 Condi, Patriot Act, FISA: Bush appointed her not Obama. I have no problem him confirming her candidacy as she was more then qualified for the position even if I disagree with her 100%. Your boy Nader and my Boy Obama will both appoint many cabinet members that Republicans will despise but I doubt they will vote against them if they are qualified. The Patriot Act we have already covered. FISA I disagreed with him on and made that clear, but I respected his reasons he gave for his vote. I still disagreed with him on that one though. But no candidate is perfect.

Issue 4 Blank Checks for Iraq: Again you leave out that he was the first senator to introduce a bill for a mandatory pull out date for Iraq. Or that he was against the war from the beginning. Or that he has pledged to get the troops home in 16 months and has not wavered. Him voting to keep the troops properly funded does not bother me. Especially when he is running for president and there are a lot of easily manipulated people out there who would look at a vote against funding for Troops as an Anti-Patriot.

cornnifer wrote:

Like hell they would! Its called gridlock and its the biggest problem in our government. Nader would have to find a way to *gasp* COMPROMISE. But then he'd be a "flip-flopper". Holy sheesh.

100% accurate.

Strangest Tribe wrote:

good post...


some people around here don't understand compromise...

Nader is useless in politics, but brilliant in consumer advocacy. He should stay that way.

Again 100% accurate.

I don't know why Nader supporters want to constrain him to being President when he will continue to provide more influence outside the realms of Politics.

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Again 100% accurate.

I don't know why Nader supporters want to constrain him to being President when he will continue to provide more influence outside the realms of Politics.

influence = money/power... Nader along with the rest of US have been shut out. No?

inmytree wrote:

do you ever change or tailor your viewpoint after receiving new information...?

I know I do...I hope others do to...

when one "stands for" something, should they do so blindly...?

I guess if changing ones "stand for" position is a bad thing, I wonder why folks aren't upset at Mr. Nader for leaving he Green Party and going independent...I thought the he "stood for" something...

let's be objective here ... me deciding one day that green isn't so bad on me is a far cry from what the president of the united states makes decisions on ... honestly, it is not the concept of changing viewpoints that is disconcerting - it is that followers justify changes as compromise ... so, he could technically back out of every promise he makes in this election campaign and there would be no accountability ...

as for nader leaving the green party - that's a relationship issue ... he still stands for removing the corporate control over american domestic and foreign policy and that by far is the single most important change required ...

inmytree wrote:

I am being objective...I know I change my mind about things on a regular basis...often after gaining new information and new perspective...does that make me a bad person...?

I guess it comes down to this: do we want someone who is rigid and unyielding regardless of the evidence, or someone who is willing to look at the situation as it changes, which may or may not include changing one's position...?

again, do you change your mind or viewpoints when confronted with new information...?

absolutely i change my mind ... but if that information is from opinion polls - no way ...

people are voting for obama because of change no? ... is that not his primary sound bite? ... if that is the case - what is that change? ... it needs to be defined - who wants to vote for change without knowing what that is ... therefore, if he is going to make promises on subjects that he has had plenty of time to consider - he should have the fortitude to stick to those changes ...

again - i am not opposed to viewpoints changing ... try not to get hung up on the semantics ... what i am concerned about is that viewpoint changing a) because of opinion polls and b) to appease too many different people ...

the result inevitably ends up being that no change actually occurs

inmytree wrote:

this is the first time you mentioned polls in this discussion...anyhoo, I see it this way, if the majority of people support something, and the elected representative of the people supports what the majority of people want, then hoo-ray...I'm fairly sure that's how things are supposed to work...

by the way, I'm not voting for Mr. Obama based on his campaign slogan...I understand how many get caught up in the "change" thing since it's a subjective notion...

but polls are a funny thing ... bush convinced the majority of america that iraq was involved in 9/11 - and depending on who's funding the poll and how the question is asked - you could definitely alter that agenda ...

at the end of the day - you have your reasons for voting for obama that i would assume are based on issues he would act on - what if he doesn't do what he said he would do? do you chalk it to the ever-constant notion of changing viewpoints or compromise?