After serious consideration, Ralph Nader should be the concensus candidate for President 2008, of the R3VOLUTION
Posted June 16th, 2008 by R-Double
output
If you told me 5 months ago that I would be advocating that the R3VOLUTION vote for Nader in 2008, I would have said no way and laughed in your face. After serious consideration though, he is the best candidate remaining, who's own platform matches a large percentage of ours. I know many here at the DP are reactionary or misinformed and when they hear the name Nader they imediately go to the, "He's for huge government," line. That's what I thought as well until I really examined his platform and saw that the Freedom Movement could accomplish most of the things we all want done with Nader as President.
1) Ralph Nader is not for "huge" government. He advocates ending the War On Drugs, pulling our troops out of Iraq for good and leaving the middle east altogether. What does that mean all you fiscal conservatives out there? Ding, ding, ding! That's right, money saved. As Comander In Chief, Nader could do all of the things listed above. We're talking a savings of billions if not trillions of dollars. People worry and say, "what about all of the socialist style programs that he wants to implement? Well, do you think the majority of those programs will pass the house and senate? Probably not and neither would most of Ron Pauls proposals like getting rid of the income tax. With a Nader Presidency all that would probably happen are the things we want done anyways! Also newly elected C4L chosen Ron Paul Republican congressmen and senators will be there to provide balance! Isn't this starting to sound logical?
2) Why not vote for Barr, Baldwin, McCain or Obama? Well, let's see........
a) Barr/Root - Do you really trust these guys? Is Barr a reformed ex-CIA neocon? Doesn't it seem like their prpose is to split the LP and the Freedom Movements vote in general? My answers are as follows, no, no, and yes. Barr has a terrible voting record when it comes to civil liberties. He worked for a shady intelligence agency and is hardly a true libertarian. We all Know Root is a wannabe neocon attacking Ron Paul for his stance concerning the war on terror.
b) Baldwin - Seems like a good guy but lacks any real political experience or name recognition needed to succeed in a Presidential race. I'd like to see him run for a lower position like congressman or senator. With experience under his belt he could be a great choice down the line!
c) I thought I would put McWar and Oblahblah together because they are just differen't sides of the same globalist coin. Obama, a candidate who has top advisors known to be pro New World Order advocates. A man who LIES and says that he never heard his preacher talk about anything consiratorial during the 20 years he attended his church. Bullshit! McCain is Insane. Considered running as John Kerry's VP in 2004. Wants to keep the troops in Iraq for 100 years as long as the casualties are low. They will probably die of old age! Scariest of all he wants to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb/bomb Iran! Both parties are corrupt at the core and Ralph Nader has always opposed the two party system duopoly.
3) Nader continues to and will continue to fight to change ballot access laws and debate criteria! This is what America needs most, to actually be a real democracy. Ron Paul has always said the SAME thing. Hey look, now we have three major planks that they both agree on. ending both the war on drugs and Iraq, and ballot access. Sounding pretty good huh?
In closing, we as a Freedom Movement must decide on candidates by using LOGIC and REASONING and not by misinformed reactionary judgements that if researched turn out to be false or completely exagerated! We in the Freedom Movement need to stop all the bickering and in-fighting and maximize our votes worth come November. Remember, Nader has a lot of supporters out there! We can reach all these disaffected Democrats and hippy activists with our libertarian philosophy, hopefully bringing them over to the right a little more fiscally. We will not change anything in this country until there is some form of compromise between competeing philosophies. Many if not all of these groups support non-interventionist military positions and protection of civil liberties. We all must agree to disagree on some of the more sensitive political and social ideologies. States rights was put in the Constitution because the founders realized that everyone will not agree with everyone all the time. Even Dr. Paul, who is VERY pro-life, would not support a federal ban on abortion. Compromise is not a dirty word. It is a productive peaceful process that unites opposing ideologies in hope. This is not about voting for the lesser of two evils at all. Nader is NOT evil. He is just a man with his own philosophical beliefs on what a government should be, just like Ron Paul has his. We must recognize common ground and not let idelogical rigidity be our downfall. PEACE
Bookmark/Search this post with:
After serious consideration
Why doesn't Nader just join the CFL, as well as the other candidates if they have so much in common with Ron Paul and his message or could it be they don't? You know a Revolution can be from the inside or the outside it doesn't really matter as long as everyone is clear on precisely what we are fighting for.
If we voted Nader
He would definetly get more votes than if we voted for Barr. Becuase a lot of dems vote for him. Its not really a big step in our direction but its a step none the less. But ill vote however the Dr. tells me
After serious consideration...
RON PAUL!!!
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yup. Agreed!
I will write in Ron Paul on my New Hampshire ballot. Although it may not "count", it will be counted and reported.
It would be meaningful if Dr. Paul received a million or so write in votes across the country.
You Really Need To
investigate him more completely ....
he is totally for freedom of all religions or no religion ....
I don't get from CB that he is interested in making everyone
have to become a Christian -
He will of course be led by the Constitution and of course God
I'm sure - this to me is a strong possitive -
I would go to his site www.baldwin2008.com
watch some youtube videos of him on the issues -
and then catch him on revolutionbroadcasting next time he is on
and call in and ask him your specific question(s)
"Chuck Baldwin opens his mouth and Ron Paul falls out"
a very good thing, indeed!
Well,
I am an open minded conservative-libertarian. In tthe current election cycle there are indeed various points of agreement between Paul and Nader. Justin Raimundo was in 2004 describing Nader as an "Old Right", interestingly enough:
http://www.amconmag.com/2...
Why do you think has Nader this time decided to go Indy, and not on a party platform? On which issues does he disagree with the Greens? (Dr. Paul has some conservative Greens voting for him). Will he start with a new party, or is this out of the question.
Well, important difference is that he does not believe or see the problem with the Federal Reserve and printing of money, which is really enabling the welfare-warfare state. There is also difference regarding the Taft-Hartley law union law, not only with Paul, but also McCain and Obama. Taxes and affirmatice action are other points of disagreement.
One can in any case work together on similarities and hopefully persuade over time on a few issues, perhaps not Nader himself, but some of his youthful followers.
One wonders how Nader will poll in relation to McKinney and also Barr. The Barr team's ideal is to poll at 15% by September to participate in the debates. Yet with say Baldwin, Barr, Nader & McKinney poll combined 15% or more, it may be possible to lobby for perhaps the strongesty between Barr and Baldwin on the one side and Nader and McKinney on the other side, to both be included in the debates, to make it a four way debate. Obama will of course welcome a Barr participation and McCain would welcome a Nader or McKinney participation. This could be a major breakthrough in US politics to have a four way debate.
You're splitting hairs with
You're splitting hairs with speculative policy projection. For the most part we all know what Nader's pitfalls are. However, that is not the point. Election cycle after election cycle he's pulled what 6% maybe? The hope for Nader is that the number of voters openly supporting him reflects the number of possible voters not willing to support him because they are afraid of loosing to the Republicans. The DNC goes out of their way to blame Nader for Democratic losses.
So the thought is that he actually has more support from Dems voting the party line out of fear. If you could remove that fear and allow them to openly support Nader without fear of retribution from the DNC. Then Nader could double maybe triple his numbers. If this is true then he stands a chance at splitting the Democrats vote over two things. 1) distaste for Obama. 2) Vote security, meaning they can vote Nader knowing it won't hurt the DNC because they know RP supporters will not support McCain. For them, this is a safe vote.
Nader isn't going to nor can he siphon off Paul backers. He can however siphon off Obama backers which we should be encouraging.
American Patriot Party - http://www.oregonpatriotp...
Voters for none of the above - http://nota.org/
National Ballot Access - http://www.directdemocrac...
The Art of War
If you know neither yourself, nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.......Tzun Tsu
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
(Nader) (tyranny) (Nader)
You must play the cards you are dealt....
Don't just fold your hand because you didn't like the cards
I believe many of those who have done nothing but bark out 1 or 2 line emotional reactionary dismissals, will get over their intitial disgust and realize that some sort of Unity will be required, if either "side" is ever going to change anything important that will benefit us all as American Citizens.
Vote Pact - http://www.votenader.org/... PEACE
werd!
PEACE
American Patriot Party - http://www.oregonpatriotp...
Voters for none of the above - http://nota.org/
National Ballot Access - http://www.directdemocrac...
Nader is an enviromental
Nader is an enviromental wacho...who would prefer all the humans that are voting for him will die so the trees can live...no thanks.........
A vote for Ralph is a vote for socialism.
Thanks, but I'll pass.
A vote for ideology is a vote for misery.
Thanks, but I'll heal.
BwahaLOL
Nader again!
Nader is a butthole
He will not shrink government, he thinks government should 'protect' everybody, and we all know where that leads...
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
Ready to take....
a huge crap on the corporate establishment!!!
We All Know Where Shouting, Soundbites And Namecalling Leads...
...: Faux Fools.
Let's Think, Let's Talk
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Just say no
To Nader! Sorry, Ok guy, but just not in the right policies.
haha
I had a tough day...thanks for the humor I really needed it. Nader consensus choice of the revolution ha ha ha.
I think it was funny ,too
I don't think Nader would deregulate anything,.
Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips
Ha Ha
or let me put it this way -
HA HA
???
I thought artists were creative.
this post
brings me one step closer to being sure that the dailypaul has lost all intelligent thought.
One sentence.....
is far from intelligent thought or discussion.
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression." - Thomas Paine
Let it sink in.
Although I have respect for
Although I have respect for Ralph Nader's quest to make America safer through advancing consumer product protection (which is perfectly great to have in a free market economy), his solutions are other than free-market and hinges on more government control and management. He has also spoken several times in regards to mismanagement by the government and broken agencies so he asks for more government as a solution? Ralph Nader is not the ideal candidate for this movement and although I appreciate all he's done, I believe that his solutions are not logical or reasonable and I also know that if a company creates a defective product, we can hold them accountable for the liability that goes along with it.
One perfect example of this mess is the tobacco industry. Our Federal government advised the tobacco companies to put a warning label on their products. For decades, Americans continued to smoke cigarettes all in the while we were aware of the health risks in smoking. Then, during the 90's, our Federal government decided it wanted some additional monies and the tobacco companies appeared on their radar and were sued for producing a bad product and the tobacco industry settled.
What bothers me most is that the federal government advised the tobacco companies to put a warning label on their product, then they sued them for making a harmful product. What protections do we have as a business when the government says do this or that...and then they sue us later? What choices can we make to plan accordingly for our future if the marketplace is not stable by such inadequate means of governmental intervention?
Here in my state, they like to raise the tobacco tax as it is known as a "sin tax" and it's easier to raise these types of taxes compared to raising taxes on food or property. Well, what angers me the most is that they use this tax as a ruse as they proclaim their goal in eliminating and stopping smoking when the government never asks the manufacturers to eliminate nicotine which is the most addictive element in cigarettes (actually since the government's quest to go after tobacco companies, the nicotine levels increased by an average of 10% in each product).
Sure, some people have stopped smoking cigarettes while others have found other means to save money while feeding their addiction and if the government continues to raise the taxes, they will only drive the product into a black market which happened years ago and thus, it is now more profitable for criminals to rob and resell this product and/or go out and create their own products and bypass the excessive taxes associated with it. And as consumers, we are naturally inclined to save a buck whatever way possible...then a whole new breed of criminal action occurs as we will hear more and more about senseless police raids on private property because the person has untaxed cigarettes in their homes....
Therefore, in my understanding of economics, I am aware that the actions of the government may appear to have good intentions, but politicians are creatures of habit whereby they are more concerned with being re-elected than doing what's right. It's up to the people to take back their own lives and demand our government to only concentrate on their duties as described in the Constitution.
+1
Well said.
NO THANKS!
I will take my chance and write in Ron Paul 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
your vote
Your vote will be thrown out as Dr. Paul has suggested himself.
"The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."
Yep
if you want to vote for the RP Freedom Message -
look into Chuck Baldwin
listen to a live interview on this Thursday night at 7pm eastern
on www.revolutionbroadcastin...
stay informed ...
www.baldwin2008.com
see you in September
Minneapolis
Campaign for Liberty!
Baldwin....
would turn this country into a theocracy, which is contradictory to true freedom.
You Really Need To
investigate him more completely ....
he is totally for freedom of all religions or no religion ....
I don't get from CB that he is interested in making everyone
have to become a Christian -
He will of course be led by the Constitution and of course God
I'm sure - this to me is a strong possitive -
I would go to his site www.baldwin2008.com
watch some youtube videos of him on the issues -
and then catch him on revolutionbroadcasting next time he is on
and call in and ask him your specific question(s)
"Chuck Baldwin opens his mouth and Ron Paul falls out"
a very good thing, indeed!
Go to the Daily Ralph
You landed on the wrong site 2 weeks ago.
This post...
makes me want to Ralph!
Well
You're half way there since you're sucking your thumb for Paul.
American Patriot Party - http://www.oregonpatriotp...
Voters for none of the above - http://nota.org/
National Ballot Access - http://www.directdemocrac...
Nader is a marxist
he is also for NI4d
Stop with the $%#%$#% labels already!
We are already living in a SOCIALIST state! Even though I believe the free market is the best system, It will take decades to gradually switch to that system. Even Ron Paul says that he wouldn't get rid of medicare and social security! If we are to transition to a free market it will have to be a long controlled process that finishes out this semi-socialism probaly after were all dead and gone. Be a realist. We save money with a Nader Presidency!
This is all about strategy. It's a game that we have to play for the time being. Do you really want Obama winning a landslide election on the globalist left? That will be the end of Freedom as we know it.
That's the first thing
That's the first thing you've said that I agree with. We're essentially stuck, but it's a double-edged sword. Whichever of the two globalist traitors wins--he inherits a tiger by the tail and essentially destroys his own party.
What I suggest is voting your conscience instead of supporting Nader, who, I think may be well meaning, but is still a Leftist loser.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Haven't got time to read the whole thread but
this may give the pro Nader people something to think about.
http://digg.com/politics/...
Chuck Baldwin isn't faking it!
Don't believe these liberal liars!
Who said Chuck Baldwin was faking it?
I said Baldwin would be a good choice down the line,if he gained some experience first. Also, I am a libertarian conservative. We in the Freedom Movement, if we are to succeed, must stop sounding like FOX Noise Network with the America DIVIDING use of the terms "liberal and "conservative." Liberals may not share my philosophy on Government, but that doesn't make them evil. They are American citizens like me and you! FREE to think for themselves in a free country. If we don't unite both sides that are opposed to the establishment, then both sides will lose their freedoms. Comunication and compromise just like Dr. Paul advocates with foreign policy!
What Nader is doing is the
What Nader is doing is the same thing Bob Barr and other pretenders to the Throne are doing: Acknowledging the power and energy of our movement!
We're winning.
Rather than follow these Johnny-come-latelies, we should take (friendly) control of the Constitution Party, or even create a new Third Party of our own. We have the power.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
I'm for the creation of a new party.
Found this on APP website. I like a lot of what the party is about but not totally agreeable on everything. Particularly if we are going to try capture the essence of the RPR. Still though they make great arguments.
The Constitution Party has a close relationship to the American Patriot Party in that they wish to return the country to the principles it was founded on;
The difference is that they do not go far enough in their understanding of the Originating Founders intent of states rights. It is a mis conception that the Constitution "gives" Americans Rights through the Bill of Rights; The Constitution simply "limits" the "Federal" government from taking away rights that "by God" you "already possess" even those rights that are not presented in the Bill of Rights - See Mr. Marshall's Statement Below in this segment. And which even you cannot give away or sell to others as this would be voluntary slavery; nor can you be taken by "involuntary servitude".
The differences of our two parties become wider when the issues we both hold come into the arena of how the American Patriot Party intends to make those changes. These differences will be presented on our Party Comparison Page ("Compare" page) in the near future. Please check back.
It is our view that the Constitutional Party hopes to make changes to come more from the federal government in areas the federal government has no Constitutional powers to establish.
The American Patriot Party along with proposing major federal limitations in powers and bureaucratic reductions, directs the states and counties to take hold of the powers they already possess to make changes in their state; and with this power, make additional state reductions and limitations as were intended by the founders in the states relations with the federal government.
Further, we hold that the Constitution is very limited in its powers and is subject to earlier oaths, retained rights and definitions, and cannot be applied as a sole foundation in which to derive law:
Declaration of Independence: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Constitution: Article VI: All Debts contracted "and "Engagements" entered into (Oaths and Declarations), before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United Sates under this Constitution as under the "Confederation". This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be "made" in >>>"pursuance thereof"<<< ; and all Treaties (Oaths and Declarations) "made", or which shall be "made", under the Authority of the United States, shall be supreme Law of the Land ...."
Declaration of Independence:
37th Grievance: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these united colonies are, and "of right" "ought to be", free and "independent" states;"
39th Grievance: "and that "as" free and independent states they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of "right" do."
Constitutional Debates: MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.] (See the Division of Power News Letter for this debate):
George Nicholas: "Let him show us that those rights are given up by the Constitution. Let him prove them to be violated. He tells us that the most worthy characters of the country differ as to the necessity of a bill of rights. It is a simple and plain proposition. It is agreed upon by all that the people have all power. If they part with any of it, is it necessary to declare that they retain the rest? Liken it to any similar case. If I have one thousand acres of land, and I grant five hundred acres of it, must I declare that I retain the other five hundred? Do I grant the whole thousand acres, when I grant five hundred, unless I declare that the five hundred I do not give belong to me still? It is so in this case. After granting some powers, the rest must "remain with the people".
George Mason: "The government of Virginia, he remarked, was drawn from the people; yet there were certain great and important rights, which the people, by their bill of rights, declared to be paramount to the power of the legislature."
Mr. Marshall: "He then concluded by observing, that the power of governing the militia was not vested in the states by implication, "because", being >>>possessed of it<<< antecedent to the adoption of the government, and >>>not being divested of it<<< by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as >>>fully possessed of it as ever they had been.<<< And it could not be said that the states derived any powers from that system, >>>but "retained" them,<<< >>>though "not acknowledged" in "any part" of it".<<<"
(See also Foundations of Freedom)
Our stand is that the states and local communities are not using the powers they already, and will continue to, possess.
The differences here are similar to the Anti Federalist and Federalist debates and the limitations that should be placed upon the federal government and their involvement with the states. We believe if the Constitution party would embrace a stronger states rights position and not try to rule the entire country from the national pulpit; or through establishing laws or prescience in law through doubtful or undeligated Constitutional or federal powers. That by taking a stronger states rights solution, the communities they wish to protect would have the power to protect themselves; This stance will encourage stronger local community and county powers over even state powers for solutions to local issues to reduce state born burdens of state bureaucracies and adverse effects of distant legislatures (see link) even within the states.
The stands on issues that the American Patriot party Presents are in no way entirely new. And go back before the federalist and anti federalist issues in the conflicts between individual freedoms and States Rights verses Federal styled Nationalism.
The American Patriot Party foundations are those established in the original intents of freedom as it was defined during and before the Revolutionary War. They are what every patriot of freedom fought for and establish through the Declaration of Independence.
American Patriot Party - http://www.oregonpatriotp...
Voters for none of the above - http://nota.org/
National Ballot Access - http://www.directdemocrac...
"no free government, or the blessings of liberty"...
... can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence ... and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
no need to take over anything they line up to Dr pauls platform
all the way around including G D! this constitution party has it all,and soon the republicans wil also by conquest or consent 1 way or another we will take bake our freedoms! Funck paul warburg! we got RON PAUL!
Yes, I agree on the
Yes, I agree on the Constitution Party, it's a good choice.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
collectivism???
scary things,scare me
Nader?
Screw the socialist pig!
No way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
www.ronpaul2008.com
There is life at the end of the tunnel my friends!
Getting the write in vote to work
I don't think a vote for Nader would be very productive either but on the other hand for those of us who want to vote to have some meaning to us anyway the write in vote is a option if nothing else to show a display of numbers.Dr. Paul may not think it to be productive but we are the ones who will be voting and we deserve a chance to voice our opinion and hopefully we can persuade Dr. Paul to let us.
Some have said that a write in vote is never counted,so I wondered why...I mean it is a legal vote after all. So I did a little researching and came up with this.A candidate has to file as a write in candidate for President.
I got this from the Texas legal site.
Write-in candidates file a declaration of write-in candidacy with the Secretary of State. The declaration may not be filed earlier than July 27, 2008, or later than 5:00 p.m. of August 26, 2008. The declaration must also be accompanied with information about the vice-presidential running mate and the names and addresses of the presidential electors. Written-signed statements of each individual’s consent to be a vice-presidential candidate or elector must accompany the application. Texas has 34 presidential electors. Forms may be obtained from the Secretary of State’s office.
Also there is a protocol for writing in a candidate when you do.......The name of the person first and then the office to be elected to.
Spread this around,we don't have to vote for the puppet candidates,if we can get our candidates to file for write -in status. We can vote for who we want .The write in vote can work.
I would have written in Ron Paul too
but in my state you can't run for any office that you lost a primary for. Stupid rule huh? We need to work on ballot access laws.
Some states don't allow
Some states don't allow write-ins for the POTUS. Other's do not allow write-ins for candidates that have lost primaries. Dr. Paul knows this and will not file as a write-in.
If Texas laws are the only laws you examined to establish precedence for your thought process. You really should examine the laws of at least 49 other states.
American Patriot Party - http://www.oregonpatriotp...
Voters for none of the above - http://nota.org/
National Ballot Access - http://www.directdemocrac...
That may be the case
Some states don't allow it,but some do and we should have the right to do so.I would not want to vote for a candidate that has no meaning and we have supported Ron Paul and we should be allowed to vote for Ron Paul and have it counted if nothing else for a show of numbers.It wouldn't be a wasted vote,that would be voting for something other then the candidate you've supported.Also though it's not Dr. Paul's idea there should be some of the pledged delegates educated to rally for the Constitution and either abstain in voting or standing with Dr. Paul,it is legal and Abraham Lincoln went to his nomination with just a handfull of delegates also.A large majority has not voted yet and they should be allowed to and have their vote count so a write in vote should also be a option.