Ralph Nader's America: Impeach Obama, decriminalize drugs, libertarians & progressives unite!

I agree! End the left/right paradigm! Stop the drug war! Take this country back!

“On Capitol Hill, I'm seeing more and more in Congress, left and right,” Nader told “The Fine Print.” “It was a vote in the House over a year ago over the NSA snooping, it almost broke through … so we're beginning to see formulations that once they click together, they're unstoppable.”

Nader was referring to a vote in July 2013 over a measure known as the Amash Amendment that would have curtailed the National Security Agency’s ability to collect bulk phone call data. The measure narrowly failed by 12 votes, in part due to a concerted White House lobbying effort on Capitol Hill.

“You want a dull campaign? Try Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton in 2016,” Nader said. “It'll only be exciting for people who are interested in dynasties and personalities.”

Link to article

The bit about the billionaires running, gag, disagree. But the rest of what is reported in the article gives me hope. Has anyone read the book?

Am I being naive? Are the masses waking up? Is it possible to turn this ship around?

Dynastic reign has no place in America.


The fact that the vote might be between a BUSH and a CLINTON, should have the people up in arms.

a reply to: raedar

He is an interesting character and a beneficial consumer advocate.

I don't necessarily agree that Elizabeth Warren is a unifying personality of course but, I do agree that some degree of unity is essential if we are to curb the excesses of government, be they internal bloating, cronyist subsidies, protectionism or corporate welfare policies.

I realize that many assume that business will get worse but, I am making the claim that it is the collusion between regulators and the biggest players of industry that creates and defends monopolies. Without the support of the state, artificial monopolies cannot compete and meritorious monopolies, if they arise, will have proven themselves. Of course, we will have to have transparency but, investigative journalism and corporate espionage have always produced the most effective deterrents and exposers of corruption.

While I agree 100% on your premiss. Obama hasn't done anything to be empeached. If he had the right would be moving forward on that as we speak. I'm not an Obama fan at all. Just being realistic. He's done plenty of things i don't like, but none were impeachable.


I started a thread a couple days on nearly the same subject. I agree with far more progressive policies , then I do conservative ones. However if rand wins the nomination I'll probubally end up voting republican. He is the only option on the table that is " claiming" to end the war on drugs. I just don't see hillarys neo con @$$ doing it and I think that would fix more problems then the tea party policies he has.

a reply to: ArtemisE

Here's his reasoning, and I agree.

"[Bush officials] were considered war criminals by many people. Now, Barack Obama is committing the same crimes," the former presidential candidate said. "In fact, worse ones in Afghanistan. Innocents are being slaughtered, we are creating more enemies, he is violating international law."

Link to article

a reply to: raedar


Flaw to the logic is we didn't empeach or prosecute bush. There was at worst a presedent set by the previous president.

a reply to: raedar


Plus tho I'm sure war crimes have been commuted on Obamas watch. He was gifted those wars. Bush started them. Major difference. Plus add in that Halliburton (the Vice Presidents company) got the rebuild contract for Iraq. I really don't think it's close at all on the war crimes scale.


That said bush is a state hero in Texas now... Not a federal criminal.

Elections can't get here fast enough.

Jeb and Hillary???

Burn with fire!

a reply to: ArtemisE

Flaw to that logic is to say Obama doesn't deserve impeachment because Bush was not impeached. Moving forward, I guess no president should be impeached is what I take from that.

a reply to: ArtemisE

And under Obama's watch DynCorp gets 96% of the funding to "rebuild" Afghanistan. Both parties are the SAME and you are proving it with your arguments. I mean no disrespect. Facts are facts. Left is Right. End the duopoly!

It’s not a secret that war and conflict lead to profit in certain industries. At least one company, a new report suggests, is entirely dependent on funding from the federal government for its involvement in Afghanistan. The company, DynCorp International, makes 96% of its revenue from government contracts, primarily in efforts to rebuild Afghanistan.

Link to article

originally posted by: benrl
Dynastic reign has no place in America.


The fact that the vote might be between a BUSH and a CLINTON, should have the people up in arms.

King Bush III has a ring to it don't ya think ?

originally posted by: benrl
Dynastic reign has no place in America.


The fact that the vote might be between a BUSH and a CLINTON, should have the people up in arms.

It's been there since the beginning. John Adams-John Quincy Adams, the Harrisons, Roosevelts, Kennedys (Bobby would have won in a landslide, Ted was a lifelong senator), Lincoln's son was in Washington in several roles, the Bush's, Ron Paul and his son...
Not all may have exclusively been chief executive, but it's been here since day one.

a reply to: raedar


I don't think Obama is co-owner of dynocorp. ( now I have to look up dynocorp......thanx....:p)

Plus I didn't say doesn't deserve..... I said won't happen. You can't freak out and empeach and prosecute a sitting president when his predecessor is not only alive, but opening baseball games at the astrodome, who has done worse.

They could snatch them both up. Send them both to court and dish out fair sentences.... Maybe actually bringing some accountability to Washington..... I personally give it about the same chance as a snowball in hell.

Nevermind...trying to add to the above.

originally posted by: the owlbear


It's been there since the beginning. John Adams-John Quincy Adams, the Harrisons, Roosevelts, Kennedys (Bobby would have won in a landslide, Ted was a lifelong senator), Lincoln's son was in Washington in several roles, the Bush's, Ron Paul and his son...
Not all may have exclusively been chief executive, but it's been here since day one.

And only proves people are Idiots, and apply correlation as causes.

His dad did well, he will, etc.

There is only one office of the President, it makes sense that at an earlier point in the nation, the odds of generational rule where higher. As we grew, this should of diminished.

You can easily see how human nature is open to manipulation, Make it a team, winner vs loser, my side your side.

Our biases are used against us all the time.

a reply to: ArtemisE

Lying under oath seemed to be enough for ol' Bill and he didn't even lie about something that even affected the country. Surely you don't believe that Obama has never lied under oath during his terms…right???

The American people will never fall for that again, common now, Bush or Clinton ! I'm sure the populace has learned from their past mistakes.

Did they ?

originally posted by: benrl
Dynastic reign has no place in America.


The fact that the vote might be between a BUSH and a CLINTON, should have the people up in arms.

Of course, unless there's a new cool gizmo or a great TV show coming out.

a reply to: RickyD

I'm sure he has. Could you name even one president that hasn't? Now is just the age of social media so it's instantly global and everything is recorded.

a reply to: ArtemisE

Well just because someone else did something wrong doesn't make it right because they got away with it. The buck is supposed to stop with the Commander and Chief. If I had proof that any president lied while in office I would call for impeachment just as if there was probable cause to believe they had I would call for investigation. If we took the attitude that because others got away with it those doing it now should get a pass for fairness then nothing would ever get better…wait that seems to be the path we have been on for decades.