Ralph Nader says he's interested in debating Ron Paul!

[Knightskye]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzUrUNhIj4c

7:20

He gave it a thumbs up, and the moderator said, "A lot of users were interested in that one." :D

[kigol]

wow, i'd love to see that

[Rhys]

that would be amazing

[mport1]

Ron Paul would destroy him.

[Perry]

NO!

Keep Ron Paul in the big leagues.
Ron Paul has absolutely nothing to gain from this debate.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

NO!

Keep Ron Paul in the big leagues.
Ron Paul has absolutely nothing to gain from this debate.

Agreed

[sophocles07]

I'd like to see that, but as posters have above said, he wouldn't "gain" from that. The kind of bullshit MSM produces: two free-thinkers can't even debate one another without it having an effect as to their "personas" as created by the press to the public.

[slamhead]

Just tell Ralph that communism only killed 100 million people...so lets give it another chance.

[Conza88]

Debate Him McCain You Pussy!

:D

[Joe3113]

NO!

Keep Ron Paul in the big leagues.
Ron Paul has absolutely nothing to gain from this debate.

Exactly. Please use your brains. I would love to see it too and it would be very interesting and intellectually stimulting, but the American Idol-watching public will perceive it in their own way. Look at the WHOLE situation before making decisions.

[IPSecure]

Hmmm.

[hillbilly123069]

With a substantial donation, of course.
On another note, Ralph Nader and Dr Paul have similar philosophies.Both are firm believers in the Constitution and limited government.Nader has been blacked out for years for the same reason as Dr Paul.

[limequat]

Exactly. Please use your brains. I would love to see it too and it would be very interesting and intellectually stimulting, but the American Idol-watching public will perceive it in their own way. Look at the WHOLE situation before making decisions.

I disagree. It's about spreading the message, and we need all the face time we can get.

[GodOfThunder]

It makes me cry that our Constitution is up for debate.

[jglapski]

With a substantial donation, of course.
On another note, Ralph Nader and Dr Paul have similar philosophies.Both are firm believers in the Constitution and limited government.Nader has been blacked out for years for the same reason as Dr Paul.

You really don't understand the Constitution or limited government, or you don't understand Nader if you think that's what he stands for.

You're lucky you don't own a Corvair without seatbelts, or else one of Nader's fascists might attack your property rights.

[acptulsa]

I disagree. It's about spreading the message, and we need all the face time we can get.

Each of them is just half-famous enough to draw a pretty big audience between them--and a different kind of audience from what the G.O.P. primary debates drew.

[PatriotOne]

If this happens, it may become the first intellectually stimulating debate of this election cycle. Rhetoric free. Battle of the intellect giants! I would derfinately like to see this become reality.

[FreeTraveler]

If this happens, it may become the first intellectually stimulating debate of this election cycle. Rhetoric free. Battle of the intellect giants! I would derfinately like to see this become reality.

Ralph Nader, an intellectual giant? ROFL! He's a socialist tool.

[Fyretrohl]

Amazing...

'McCain should debeat Ron Paul. The whimp'

'Ron Paul shoud not debate Nader. He has nothing to gain'

So, care to tell me exactly what McCain has to gain from debating Ron Paul? It is the same argument folks. Please, think things through before engaging your mouth. If McCain is a 'whimp' for ignoring Ron Paul, then Ron Paul would be the same for ignoring Ralph Nader. I don't happen to consider any of them whimps, just trying to connect your logics.

[weslinder]

If this would be covered by the mainstream media, I'd be for it. Nader may be a marginal candidate, but he is a populist, and Dr. Paul could use him as a proxy for exposing McCain and Obama's rhetoric.

[pacelli]

If it actually happened, you might see a recorded version played on C-SPAN at 2am. You'd see occasional video images played on the mainstream media channels with much laughing and a talk about how Ron & Ralph are trying to take votes away from McCain. Otherwise it would be a waste of the campaign's resources.

I'd love to see a 1-on-1 Paul-McCain debate, but that won't be happening either. Remember this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ1OB2iLxcY (not a rickroll).

[Akus]

NO!

Keep Ron Paul in the big leagues.
Ron Paul has absolutely nothing to gain from this debate.

Agreed.

[Kade]

Ron Paul would destroy him.

Don't be so sure about that...

[homah]

This is a debate I would like to see. I don't care what spin the media puts on it. I don't care how it is perceived by the sheeple. I don't care if it is only shown on CSPAN in the middle of the night.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Paul and Nader should immediately begin a barn storming tour debating on college campuses all around the country. I think the results would be surprising and profitable.

The results would be surprising somewhat like what happened in the early 1980's when G. Gordon Liddy and Timothy Leary went on a sort of debate/concert tour. This is documented in a movie "Return Engagement": Given the opportunity to get deep into their viewpoints and positions, Liddy often came across as the hedonistic out-of-control liberal and Leary appeared to be the more conservative/libertarian in his politics and moderate in his personal morality.

In a series of Paul/Nader debates, the big surprise would be their wide areas of common ground and also the formulation of harm-reduction oriented compromise policy approaches that they both could agree on.

If this debate tour got going and picked up momentum and popularity, perhaps by the conclusion of the Republican National Convention in September the Green, Constitution, and Libertarian presidential candidates would all be ready to transfer their respective parties' nominations to a Paul/Nader ticket (or Paul/Kucinich ticket to keep the ticket filled with current national office holders).

This could be the chance of a lifetime to get a national compromise or new New-Deal-style realignment, only compromising on libertarian grounds instead of the deals we always get that mix only the authoritarian positions of the left and right.

[Conza88]

Don't be so sure about that...

Maybe be hard suddenly debating someone with more than half a brain, instead of debating someone borderline IQ 80.

Kind of like going from debating Ryan McCool (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbQeMZgV3nk), to debating Noam Chomsky.

Albeit Nader ain't no Chomsky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI).. and wld have liked to seen Milton Friedman vs Karl Marx, lol.. or Hayek vs him. ehh... who'd you want to have debated who? [I'll be honest, the Buckley v Chomsky.. I've got to really concentrate to keep up, all the damn linguistics shroud the discussion imo... lol.. If there was a debate between them, on say economics.. You'd be able to understand Ron Paul, and not chomsky.. >.<]

Or.. lol. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro)

[acptulsa]

Paul and Nader should immediately begin a barn storming tour debating on college campuses all around the country. I think the results would be surprising and profitable.

Kind of like the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Let the public know how political discourse would sound if they pulled their heads out. I've certainly heard worse ideas in my time.

It's about education now, right? Right?

[OhioMichael]

Kind of like the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Let the public know how political discourse would sound if they pulled their heads out. I've certainly heard worse ideas in my time.

It's about education now, right? Right?

+1

[Theocrat]

Ron Paul would destroy him.

Agreed.

[Pauls' Revere]

Exactly. Please use your brains. I would love to see it too and it would be very interesting and intellectually stimulting, but the American Idol-watching public will perceive it in their own way. Look at the WHOLE situation before making decisions.

I concur.
MSM spins this as "The lunatic debate" thus empowers Obama/McCain as "moderates" or at least betters thier positions.
However, open it up so that Hillary,Obama,Barr,Paul,McCain,Nader ALL debated together would be awesome to watch.

:)

[fr33domfightr]

The idea of a one time debate between Nader and Paul wouldn't benefit Paul, as they'd both be marginalized and/or ignored by the media.

Although, I do actually like the idea of a college debate tour. It could be promoted as a learning opportunity for students, to learn about the respective parties and to debate ideas. This could go a long way in teaching things about politics many young people or many Americans don't understand.

Why do I think this is important?

Over the weekend, I heard an interview on Air America with the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. I think he was on to promote a new book, but besides that he did happen to talk about the Constitution. He actually said he's a firm believer in the Constitution and he talked about how the early government in 1776 wanted to help the new country flourish.

Perhaps this is where the thinking Democrats get about always wanting to help do things for people?? I'm not sure.

Either way, I think this needs to be fully understood for Americans to make reasonable decisions about the direction of our country. A college debate tour might help expose the differences between parties, and with some luck we might find what we really have in common, and which person or party might lead us in the right direction.

FF

[dannno]

Ralph Nader, an intellectual giant? ROFL! He's a socialist tool.

Actually for a Green he's got some pretty libertarian ideas. I'm not saying he isn't a socialist.. I'm just saying maybe you should look into him a little more.

I think this would be GREAT!!


There are a lot more Nader supporters than you think, they just voted Dem cause he "had no chance".

[Andrew-Austin]

Think I'll try and ask Paul what he thinks of this on Monday, if I even get to ask him at the book signing.

Personally think its a good idea.

[Kade]

Maybe be hard suddenly debating someone with more than half a brain, instead of debating someone borderline IQ 80.

Kind of like going from debating Ryan McCool (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbQeMZgV3nk), to debating Noam Chomsky.

Albeit Nader ain't no Chomsky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI).. and wld have liked to seen Milton Friedman vs Karl Marx, lol.. or Hayek vs him. ehh... who'd you want to have debated who? [I'll be honest, the Buckley v Chomsky.. I've got to really concentrate to keep up, all the damn linguistics shroud the discussion imo... lol.. If there was a debate between them, on say economics.. You'd be able to understand Ron Paul, and not chomsky.. >.<]

Or.. lol. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro)

Not many people could handle Marx, except perhaps Nietzsche and/or Rand.


Nader is a moron. I do find it ironic that once Paul is in the spotlight, we now demand that he gets bigger attention, yet it was Paul who was left out of the debates before...

Why doesn't Paul debate Nader? Nader received 2.8 million votes, including enough to take New Hampshire and Florida from Gore.

He is a national figure, and I would like to see a real policy debate, Paul would have a difficult time with populism in my opinion. They are wildly different men with different approaches, but they both passionately believe in them... and in my opinion, that is always a recipe for a good debate.

[Andrew-Austin]

Maybe the two of them can show people what a real debate is supposed to look like.

[idiom]

+1 For a Debate Tour.

[freedom-maniac]

Nader and Paul:

Anti-War

Anti-Interventionist

[Grandson of Liberty]

only if Nader brings McCain along with him.

[arKangel]

Originally Posted by mport1
Ron Paul would destroy him.
Agreed.

Marx was a reject of low intellect telling lies that appealled to other intellectually deficient rejects. Marxist don't engage in debate for a reason, they always lose.
Marxists prefer to use rhetoric, ad-hominism attacks, or outright violence.


I would pay $$$ money to see an honest debate between Shrillery, Oprah-bama, McInsane, Barr, Nader, and Dr. Paul.

[tnvoter]

Lol Gravel wanted to debate Ron also.

[westmich4paul]

I have no problem with a debate but I want all of them on stage and I want equal speaking time between them all.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

I heard Gravel interviewed by libertarian Scott Horton on Anti-War Radio and Gravel was completely uninterested in the idea of limited government. After hearing that interview with Gravel, I doubt any libertarian could get any kind of a good dialogue going with him that would amount to anything. I would bet you that Gravel thinks that the perfect global democracy would have us all voting instanteously with our TV remote controls on every issue under the sun.

But Ralph Nader might be different. I've always wanted to hear a purist libertarian take on Nader over the issue of the evil "corporations" which Nader has made his name opposing and promoting massive federal and state government intervention against in the "marketplace."

A great libertarian compromise that an opposing debater could offer Nader would be to first point out that only the libertarians--and not the Naderites--criticize and make a big issue about the government grant of limited liability to corporations. The Naderites seem to relish the idea of big businesses being government creatures and democratic "partners" with the power to be wreckless and held blameless for their damages against individuals as long as the corporations serve the interests of their part-"owners": the democratic voters.

Then after pointing this out, a libertarian like Ron Paul can offer this compromise to Nader: How about if we conservative free market libertarians allow all of the heavy state regulation and taxation on corporations that you Naderites want, and then--in exchange--you Naderites call for the abolition along with us of the regulation and taxation on private sole proprietorships where the owners are held personally responsible for damages caused by their businesses.

Hopefully Nader would be capable of a dialogue along these lines. Ron Paul has already offered interesting compromises on Socialist Security and the Federal Reserve that Nader should be open to discussing.

There are good libertarian ideas that a global democracy nut like Gravel should find interesting such as jury nullification--if Gravel really wants to give power to "the people"--but after hearing that interview with Scott Horton, Gravel just seemed too pig-headed to open his mind up to anything.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

I want all of them on stage and I want equal speaking time between them all.

I don't think so. We've already seen those cognitively dissonant assholes in enough debates to know they are completely incapable of even addressing anything interesting that Ron Paul might bring up.

A Paul/Nader speaking tour from now til November would be an interesting contrast to the CIA-engineered B.S. debates that we've seen and will see with the company owned candidates.

I'll bet you Ron Paul could make this happen if he wanted. Since RP won't be running for President and Nader will, it should be billed as a what a Presidential debate should be like, but isn't. Part of the debate tour's purpose should be to show how the whole tone and high level of critical examination is way over what you get with the filtered candidates and is much more interesting.

[Knightskye]

They both know there's something wrong with the government. I think the audience would benefit from the debate. We shouldn't just think about which candidate benefits.

[ThePieSwindler]

Not many people could handle Marx, except perhaps Nietzsche and/or Rand.


Keynes would destroy marx - he might be for some economic intervention, but he is certainly still a capitalist, and was supposedly one of the best debaters around - hayek attested to such, and bertrand russell called him the smartest man he had ever known - . Hayek or Popper might be sweet too. He might be wrong on many things but he was still brilliant, just had narrow biases. Its not like i agree with marx either, obviously, but itd be intellectual candy!

[SweetMona]

If Nader and Paul have similar philosphy then it's useless to put them on debate floor.

If Paul's selected as US president then I'd like for Nader to be part of House of Rep/Senate. I've know Nader for a long time. He's my cousin. Smart man, I'm telling ya.

[Tarzan]

Ralph who???

Seriously though... Nader appears to have either not read the constitution; or has no regard for it. He is a screaming socialist in desperate need of some publicity. He is being ignored by the media and would probably jump at any chance for some press.

I wonder if he got his drivers license... yet???

[H Roark]

I'd like to see that, but as posters have above said, he wouldn't "gain" from that. The kind of bullshit MSM produces: two free-thinkers can't even debate one another without it having an effect as to their "personas" as created by the press to the public.

Thats how I felt too and you're exactly right, but haven't we learned that Paul is not in it for political gain? He's proven time and again that he's out there to educate. I am sure that there are many people out there who have heard of Nader and not Paul, this is a chance to introduce Paul's philosophy to people who are able to think critically (well... haha). If this got decent coverage, I think it would be worth it.

[Knightskye]

If this got decent coverage, I think it would be worth it.

C-SPAN not decent enough, eh?

I think CNN would consider it. They re-aired their debate the night FOX News shunned him from the New Hampshire debate.