What will Nader Announce on Meet The Press?
- Thread starter rexcasual
- Start date
Dave NoCal
Superior Member
My guess is that he is being funded by republicans. There was a "green" candidate in the last election about whom that was revealed. As I recall, he pulled less than 1%.
Dave
Dave
Peter Camejo was the Green Party candidate in 2004; however, the candidate you're thinking of who accepted contributions from Republicans to stay afloat was ... Ralph Nader (source 2)
Principessa
Expert Member
He is not electable. However, if put on the ballot he will do exactly what he did before, which is to split the democratic vote. Thereby garnering a win for the damned republicans again. :12:
Agreed.
Dave NoCal
Superior Member
I think he does understand it and at this point I think he is fucking evil. I wish he would die.
With Nader in the race and Bloomberg also weighing an independent run, plus Obama and McCain resonating with independents, this may be the first election where the traditional democratic and republican voters may feel "left out"
Yes, because as a Democrat, I'll nevertheless vote for McCain over Obama, which I certainly would not do if Hillary gets the nomination (it's far from over, read the details about Texas and Ohio in NYT). He's the better man because not spending all of his time charming and bullshitting people
Stevens will be 88 at the beginning of the next president's term, and four other justices (Ginsburg, Kennedy, Scalia and Breyer) will be in their 70's. Among the "conservative wing" of the court -- Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas -- three will be 60 or younger.
Your vote is up to you, but the next president will probably get to replace at least two Supreme Court justices. If your distaste for Obama is so great that you can stomach the idea of John McCain making those nominations, well, it's your conscience.
Is this how Obama supporters want him to win the election? By resorting to emotionally blackmailing the people who might not vote from him? Is this the hope and change your candidate has been preaching? If Obama has such wide-spread support as his campaign is claiming he has than he does not need you to resort to such tactics on his behalf.
Oh, lord, get over yourself.
First of all, if you've followed my past posts, you'd know that Barack Obama was my third choice for the nomination; I'm an "Obama supporter" at this point largely by default.
Second of all, SCOTUS nominations are a constitutional responsibility, and every president except two (Jimmy Carter and William Harrison) has made a nomination to the court during his term. Suggesting that the next president will probably also nominate justices isn't "emotional blackmail"; it's part of his or her job.
You were not suggesting that the next President with make SCOTUS nominations but were suggesting that someone vote for Obama for the sole reason that the next President would be making SCOTUS nominations.
I said no such thing.
I certainly never said that SCOTUS nominations were the "sole" reason for casting a vote. But for someone who claims to be a Democrat (as did "becominghorse") it should be enough of a reason not to vote for John McCain.
The fact that John McCain once suggested the year 12008 (twelve thousand eight) for withdrawal from Iraq should also be enough of a reason, but it's not the one I happened to come up with first.
If you really want to discuss "blackmail", take a closer look at the post that says, basically, "if my Hillary doesn't get nominated, I'll vote Republican instead."
How stupid to call that blackmail. She's not 'my Hillary', I just don't think Obama is anything but a Presidential Dildo. McCain knows how to do politics too, but he'd govern. I could be swayed though, by the health insurance part. My vote useless anyway, New York is solid Blue. Obama is NOT a president. He is an imitator of all the old glamour-boys without much of the substance.
transformer_99
Experimental Member
I really don't know why people feel Nader is not electable, his body of work involves taking down GM and other corporations for simply producing products that are unsafe. Granted cars are by their very nature unsafe, but the one's he sought to attack were one's GM knew had design issues that made them more lethal. These vehicles, simply were manufactured and sold to consumers based on the risk factors for GM being sued. GM management accepted those risks thinking they could get away with it.
Perot, yeah he was corny, but let's face it, he had enough of afollowing that it wasn't an absurd idea that he run. His intentions were forthright, I perceive Nader similarly. Yes, he's old, but hey, we're all going to get there eventually.
I bet if someone you knew personally died at the hands of a GM product and it had nothing to do with the other motorists incompetence, you'd feel otherwise about Nader ? How many people have died because a drug company released a lethal drug into society that was sold as a cure ? Yeah, suing the company, the money doesn't bring anyone back, but it keeps them more honest, and when you've experienced a loss like that, money is all they've got to compensate for the loss.
Perot, yeah he was corny, but let's face it, he had enough of afollowing that it wasn't an absurd idea that he run. His intentions were forthright, I perceive Nader similarly. Yes, he's old, but hey, we're all going to get there eventually.
I bet if someone you knew personally died at the hands of a GM product and it had nothing to do with the other motorists incompetence, you'd feel otherwise about Nader ? How many people have died because a drug company released a lethal drug into society that was sold as a cure ? Yeah, suing the company, the money doesn't bring anyone back, but it keeps them more honest, and when you've experienced a loss like that, money is all they've got to compensate for the loss.
This is the weirdest thing I've read in a while. Yes! Nader will surely not only fuck up the election again, but will even win this time...the lovely toad...
transformer_99
Experimental Member
I don't think what I posted is the least bit weird, all of it has merit. There are certain individuals that are always going to be the butt end of perception and jokes. I hear people ask what Obama's real solutions are and he has yet to lay them out, perhaps even for himself, much less anyone else that may have cast a vote for him ? At least Nader has simply come out and stated he's pro consumer, which is a majority of this nation. The capitalistic system we have only works if the majority of us get bent over and grab our ankles, pay thru the nose for someone else's free ride. That's just the way it is. Maybe Nader brings back some of the ground so many have lost over W's 2 terms ? To be honest, the best we could hope for from the Democrats is something economically similar to Clinton's 2 terms, whether it be HRC or Obama (yeah, I was going to type BO, but somehow that didn't seem right to do). McCain, it's doubtful his policies will be any different from Bush's, he's running on a "stay the course" mentality.
And that's why even with Obama's rhetoric, despair over this election supercedes any hope. If it gives a general idea of my age, I've lived thru Carter to "W". During Carter, I was too stupid to grasp what was going on. College and early career years was Reagan and Daddy Bush. Boy were the 80's an eye opener with those 3 terms. Reagans 1st wasn't much different than Carter to be honest. But Reagans 2nd term, the wheels started to fall off this nation and by the time Daddy Bush was done with the "raping of America" (as opposed to the network that used to run those news stories on the "fleecing of America"), Clinton and the dot com economy really made America a better and more hopeful nation. Then "W" came along and if his Dad's term wasn't the shittiest time I've lived thru in America, the past 7+ years are right there with it. The game's over for whoever thinks they can convince me that the American dream is even remotely attainable without becoming a fraud and ripping consumers off.
Check this news story out, these f*cking @ssholes got what they deserved:
"http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt_top.jsp?news_id=ap-d8v1iu5g5&"
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-Serif]Five Former Insurance Execs Found Guilty
[/FONT]See what I mean[FONT=Verdana,Sans-Serif] ? Want the American dream, this is what you have to essentially become. I hope it was worth it and I doubt they were the only insurance group pulling this crap, because during that same time period, my automobile insurance rates went from $ 400 to $ 1200 a year on 2 used/modest vehicles I owned outright. Anyway, you can see my gripe, under "W", gas has gone up from $ 1.30-1.50/gallon we paid under Clinton to $ 3.20/3.50/gallon today. And I don't even live in California. Some would say we weren't paying enough for it. Somehow I have to believe the one's saying it were like these execs or offspring of those execs getting the perks and benefits in the energy industry ? Enron seems a while back, but the ricocheting power schemes to overcharge consumers, somehow Ken Lay dieing before his sentencing doesn't satiate my own personal disgust of a human being that I feel Hell itself, would be Club Med for him. Of course they wouldn't bitch about paying $ 3/gallon, they gave themselves such wonderful incomes/raises and then trickled on the rest of us and all along the way told us how much better it was getting ?
So do I hold my breath for Nov 2008, even innauguration day in Jan 2009 ? Well, if it gets better, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. But it would have to be my bottom line getting better and not just someone else with lip service telling me that it was better without tangible evidence, like we're all too stupid to know the difference.
[/FONT]
Nader won't get much airtime for the same reason that Kucinich and Ron Paul were largely ignored: they've got something to say. They'll say things that will actually CHANGE the way Washington DC business is run, if elected. Or at least they would try.
So they musn't be elected. Personally, I don't understand why some people venerate Nader. From what I've read he's a rather arrogant cheapskate hypocrite. Last time he ran as a Green. He's got a fascistic view of the Presidency and the role of the govt in controlling all American businesses. I think he's scarier than McCain. Or Hillary.
Oh, they all suck.
So they musn't be elected. Personally, I don't understand why some people venerate Nader. From what I've read he's a rather arrogant cheapskate hypocrite. Last time he ran as a Green. He's got a fascistic view of the Presidency and the role of the govt in controlling all American businesses. I think he's scarier than McCain. Or Hillary.
Oh, they all suck.