Ralph Nader Has Some Choice Words For Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul

During an interview with We Are Change, political activist Ralph Nader was asked for his opinion on the 2016 presidential favorites Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton. Nader offered his sincere and blunt opinion, not pulling any punches.

“Hillary is a corporatist and a militarist,” said Nader. “Do we want another corporatist and militarist? She thinks Obama is too weak. He doesn’t kill enough people overseas. So she’s a menace to the United States of America.”

Clinton tries to pass herself off as a true, liberal Democrat, but her track record illustrates the opposite. Clinton is widely known to have close ties with Wall Street and accept generous cash gifts from banks in the form of speech fees to speak at bank-sponsored events. She supports military intervention and voted in favor of invading Iraq over a decade ago.

Although Clinton’s militaristic tendencies run opposite to Rand Paul’s interventionist philosophy, which has garnered Paul some favor, such a difference appears petty in Nader’s eyes.

“He’s like his father Ron Paul,” said Nader. “He is against militarism, against the bloated military budget, against empire, and against these foreign military unconstitutional adventures – but Rand Paul is changing by the month as he wants the White House. He is beginning to say, ‘Well, what if we give more aid to Israel? The militarism there. Why don’t we keep this part of the military budget that has jobs in Kentucky.’”

Nader has keyed in on the thing that makes Clinton and Paul similar, which is motive. Clinton and Paul are puppets and sellouts. Clinton is a Wall-Street puppet who betrays true, liberal anti-Wall Street sentiments. By going back on isolationism, Paul has become a puppet to the mainstream Republicans.

It all boils down to doing what’s best for the People and the government. The People come first, and the government comes second. Neither Clinton nor Paul are what’s best for either. Nader sees it clearly, and the rest of the country needs to see it. America can ill-afford either of these two “favorites” winning the White House.