Ralph Nader enters US Presidential Race...

[Toma]

May as well.... lol.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7261670.stm

[Antonito]

Cocksucker

[finboy]

silly old man

[Rat Fink]

.

[HondaRice]

Americans are stupid. his name sounds white enough when infact he is full lebanese ARAB and both parents where from lebanon. hes christian too but by american "standards" thres no fuss even in 96 nd 2000.

[Zephyr]

This just in: Americans Don't Care

He probably has a better chance of getting more votes in American Idol.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Zephyr
This just in: Americans Don't Care

He probably has a better chance of getting more votes in American Idol.

They cared enough in 2000 to fuck everything up.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Zephyr
This just in: Americans Don't Care

He probably has a better chance of getting more votes in American Idol.

I think if Nader's vote went to Gore, we didn't have to deal with GWB for 8 years.

But without GWB and the evil US empire, I don't think we'll enjoy our prosperity in Alberta right now.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Xtrema



But without GWB and the evil US empire, I don't think we'll enjoy our prosperity in Alberta right now.

GOD DAMN NADER :banghead: :banghead:

[alloroc]

Nader is a tool.

[mx73someday]

It's silly to blame Nader for Bush's election, why not blame the millions of Americans who actually voted for Bush, twice! The US needs more than two political parties, even if you think Nader is hopeless.

[finboy]

Originally posted by mx73someday
It's silly to blame Nader for Bush's election, why not blame the millions of Americans who actually voted for Bush, twice! The US needs more than two political parties, even if you think Nader is hopeless.

nader isn't the only cause, but he still shares the blame

[Antonito]

Originally posted by finboy


nader isn't the only cause, but he still shares the blame

Exactly.

And while I agree with having more than 2 parties, any idiot could see what was happening, and what the greater overall good would be.

[TKRIS]

The only thing more tired than Nader running for President is the asshole who criticize other people for voting for who they actually want running the country because they're "splitting the vote".

It's a bullshit argument, and it's that type of thinking that's resulted in the constant realisitic choice for a leader being, to borrow from South Park, between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich...

[finboy]

Originally posted by TKRIS
The only thing more tired than Nader running for President is the asshole who criticize other people for voting for who they actually want running the country because they're "splitting the vote".

It's a bullshit argument, and it's that type of thinking that's resulted in the constant realisitic choice for a leader being, to borrow from South Park, between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich...

so its good that nader helped get the neo-con's in to power? :dunno:

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by finboy


so its good that nader got the neo-con's in to power? :dunno:

"Good" or "Bad" is both subjective and moot.

The people voting for Nader because they thought he was the best suited candidate should not be ostracised because they didn't carry the Gore party-line, and it resulted in a Bush victory.

It's "The Enemy of my enemy" thinking, and it's baseless. The only way a free democracy maintains any credibility is if the people are free to vote for whomever they choose.
By your logic of "lesser evils", all one party would have to do to guarantee a victory would be to ensure that the opponent is suitably villified. By doing so, they should be elected on the perceived incompetence of their opponent instead of their own merit.

While understandable on the surface, this type of mentality allows government to undermine the public trust, and errodes accountability.

[finboy]

Originally posted by TKRIS


It's "The Enemy of my enemy" thinking, and it's baseless. The only way a free democracy maintains any credibility is if the people are free to vote for whomever they choose.
By your logic of "lesser evils", all one party would have to do to guarantee a victory would be to ensure that the opponent is suitably villified. By doing so, they should be elected on the perceived incompetence of their opponent instead of their own merit.



so pretty much what has been happening for a long time, while i can see nader's point of standing against this, and i don't oppose his viewpoint totally, the way in which he goes about it has cost america even more freedom, patriot act anyone?



While understandable on the surface, this type of mentality allows government to undermine the public trust, and errodes accountability.

and nader's methods have helped lead to one of the darkest times in american history. I can appreciate that their current 2 party system sucks, and something needs to be done about it, but nader is causing more problems then he is solving by taking last minute third party votes

[01RedDX]

.

[finboy]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Nader was also fully aware that his participation could get Bush re-elected yet he still chose to go ahead with his campaign.

exactly, i would even give him the benefit of the doubt with '00 (even though he should have seen some of the crap coming, being a politician and all), no one can predict the future, but after seeing what happened in the 4 years after, he STILL decided to run again.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Nader was also fully aware that his participation could get Bush re-elected yet he still chose to go ahead with his campaign.

04 is less of a problem. It's a war and everyone is behind the president. The Kerry doesn't have a good history to work on like Gore. Nader wasn't a factor in that one.

But now Democrat has a chance again, Nader may once again be the factor taking vote from Obama.

Nader never appeal to Republicans so he never stole any vote from them. And if it comes down to Obama VS McCain, it'll be a very close call. Nader will once again become critical.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Xtrema


04 is less of a problem. It's a war and everyone is behind the president. The Kerry doesn't have a good history to work on like Gore. Nader wasn't a factor in that one.

But now Democrat has a chance again, Nader may once again be the factor taking vote from Obama.

Nader never appeal to Republicans so he never stole any vote from them.

he wasn't a deciding factor in '04, but it still spoke volumes about him when he ran. this time around, i can't see him being an issue with obama, but if its clinton, it could be '00 all over again. hopefully ron paul will run as an indie and counter nader

[TKRIS]

Just so I understand:
I should vote for your guy because my guy doesn't have much of a chance, and other guy is worse?

So I shouldn't vote for the guy I actually think is capable of running the country, but should instead limit my choice to Giant Douche, or Turd Sandwich, because all you guys are all going to vote for Giant Douches and Turd Sandwiches, so I'd better fall in line.

Then, when the Turd Sandwich wins, the Giant Douche's get to blame me for their loss?

What? Fuck off.

YOUR government is only going to work as hard as you make it.

You give your politicians no reason to do any more than the bare minimum, then complain when they don't live up to your expectations...

P.S. Just so we're clear: I don't like Nader. I think he's a Giant Turd-filled Douche Sandwich.

EDIT: Ron Paul would very likely "steal" more (net) democrate votes than Nader could ever hope to.

[finboy]

Originally posted by TKRIS
Just so I understand:
I should vote for your guy because my guy doesn't have much of a chance, and other guy is worse?

So I shouldn't vote for the guy I actually think is capable of running the country, but should instead limit my choice to Giant Douche, or Turd Sandwich, because all you guys are all going to vote for Giant Douches and Turd Sandwiches, so I'd better fall in line.

Then, when the Turd Sandwich wins, the Giant Douche's get to blame me for their loss?

What? Fuck off.

YOUR government is only going to work as hard as you make it.

You give your politicians no reason to do any more than the bare minimum, then complain when they don't live up to your expectations...

P.S. Just so we're clear: I don't like Nader. I think he's a Giant Turd-filled Douche Sandwich.

by avoiding voting for the "turd sandwich" or "giant douce", america is now stuck in iraq (illegal war), and afganistan, having thousands of their own people killed, and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of those who live in the occupied countries wiped out. the american economy doing terrible, they have had lots of their freedoms stripped away, their national debt is out of control, and the global opinion of their country is horrible, but hey, atleast nader voters stand by their principles. :dunno:

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by finboy


by avoiding voting for the "turd sandwich" or "giant douce", america is now stuck in iraq, and afganistan, having thousands of their own people killed, and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of those who live in the occupied countries wiped out. the american economy doing terrible, their national debt is out of control, and the global opinion of their country is horrible, but hey, atleast nader voters stand by their principles. :dunno:

Hmmm.
So it's the fault of Nader voters that Bush was elected.
Twice.
Interesting.

Personally, I'd suggest that the ~50.5 million people who voted for Bush in 2000 are more responsible for his being elected than the 275,000 who voted for Nader.

Especially considering that Gore won the popular vote by (according to Wikipedia) more than twice the total number of Nader voters...

Additionally, I'd like to point out that making blanket statements about all the trouble they're in because of Bush is intellectually dishonest, as you have no idea what shape they'd be in if Gore had won.
There's no way to know they wouldn't be at war with Iraq (or someone else) if Gore had been elected, and there's no way to know their economy wouldn't be fucked under Gore*...

*Arguments have been made by smarter and more informed than I that the crappy "Bush" economy was at least partially inherited from Clinton's administration. In other words, the "Clinton economy" wasn't sustainable, but it just didn't come to a head until after Bush took over the helm.

[mx73someday]

Ralph Nader said it best on Meet The Press this week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_O3MNJcls8
(4:00 in)

Bush is responsible for what he did, and the Bush voters are responsible for the past 8 years.

This kind of logic is like the people who say they want to support a smaller party in Alberta, but they know they don't have a chance, so they vote Liberal. If everyone voted based on a party or leader's positions and not by some kind of backwards strategic decision, we would have much different results at the end of our elections.

[Eleanor]

http://usversusthem.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/gwnaderthanx.jpg

[Antonito]

Originally posted by TKRIS
Just so I understand:
I should vote for your guy because my guy doesn't have much of a chance, and other guy is worse?

So I shouldn't vote for the guy I actually think is capable of running the country, but should instead limit my choice to Giant Douche, or Turd Sandwich, because all you guys are all going to vote for Giant Douches and Turd Sandwiches, so I'd better fall in line.

Then, when the Turd Sandwich wins, the Giant Douche's get to blame me for their loss?

What? Fuck off.


It's not a matter of falling in line or selling out to the man or whatever you want to call it, it's about being realistic. Voting on principle is great when all you have is principle, but when there is an actual decision to be made that you can affect the outcome of, and realistically there is only 2 choices, are you going to actually make a difference that affects your life, and vote for someone that you think is better than the other real option, or are you going to stand in the corner and piss into the wind just to make a point?

I'm not trying to degrade third party politics or say not to try, but when the day comes, and if you know that your guy is going to be completely insignificant, and there is an actual chance to stand up for at least some of your beliefs in a meaningful way, rather than all you beliefs in a completely unmeaningful way, well, what does logic really tell you to do?

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by Antonito


They cared enough in 2000 to fuck everything up.

Not really, voting was still pretty low. Plus Georgey had the "OMG he's the former President's son! He has to be good." thing going on for him.



Originally posted by Xtrema


I think if Nader's vote went to Gore, we didn't have to deal with GWB for 8 years.

But without GWB and the evil US empire, I don't think we'll enjoy our prosperity in Alberta right now.

Yep. But this year media, and America is media driven, is so focused on the fact that there is a high chance for an African American president or female president. "Oh we're going to have a big change in history! Oh yea there's also McCain and that one Nader fella." Unless Nader turned gay, I don't think many Americans will care, as this time, the trend is about "voting someone different on the president seat (i.e woman or black dude).

There should be a lesbian African Jewish woman to run for president, that will stir things up a bit.

[01RedDX]

.

[finboy]

Originally posted by TKRIS


Hmmm.
So it's the fault of Nader voters that Bush was elected.
Twice.
Interesting.

Personally, I'd suggest that the ~50.5 million people who voted for Bush in 2000 are more responsible for his being elected than the 275,000 who voted for Nader.

Especially considering that Gore won the popular vote by (according to Wikipedia) more than twice the total number of Nader voters...

Additionally, I'd like to point out that making blanket statements about all the trouble they're in because of Bush is intellectually dishonest, as you have no idea what shape they'd be in if Gore had won.
There's no way to know they wouldn't be at war with Iraq (or someone else) if Gore had been elected, and there's no way to know their economy wouldn't be fucked under Gore*...

*Arguments have been made by smarter and more informed than I that the crappy "Bush" economy was at least partially inherited from Clinton's administration. In other words, the "Clinton economy" wasn't sustainable, but it just didn't come to a head until after Bush took over the helm.

though i do agree that we don't know what would have happened, you would think that seeing what DID happen would show nader that what he is doing does not help the process. the current neo-cons have passed many new laws that suppress the freedom of americans.

as per his results from florida, its still widely debated, but since you usually research most of your posts, you probably have checked out at least his wikipedia site, and posting more from the article in here would be a waste of bandwidth (for those interested go <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_nader">here</A> )

for the economy, the billions spent on the war and contracting everything out to private business probably didn't help, even if bush was faced with a bad situation from the clinton admin.

all i'm trying to say is, at what point to you say, my quest for the american's right for a free vote, cost the same citizens more then it benefits them? apparently ralph nader's answer is different then mine.


Originally posted by mx73someday
If everyone voted based on a party or leader's positions and not by some kind of backwards strategic decision, we would have much different results at the end of our elections.

that IS politics, its all strategy, why do you think the democrats are running an interesting person this time instead of john kerry, and the republicans are running a quasi-democrat?


Originally posted by Antonito


It's not a matter of falling in line or selling out to the man or whatever you want to call it, it's about being realistic. Voting on principle is great when all you have is principle, but when there is an actual decision to be made that you can affect the outcome of, and realistically there is only 2 choices, are you going to actually make a difference that affects your life, and vote for someone that you think is better than the other real option, or are you going to stand in the corner and piss into the wind just to make a point?

I'm not trying to degrade third party politics or say not to try, but when the day comes, and if you know that your guy is going to be completely insignificant, and there is an actual chance to stand up for at least some of your beliefs in a meaningful way, rather than all you beliefs in a completely unmeaningful way, well, what does logic really tell you to do?

exactly, to make a real change, do what the evangelicals have done in the states, lobby the fuck out of the party to get your way

:rofl:

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


Change candidate for 2012:

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070726/070727_whoppi_vsmall.widec.jpg

Oh snap! :rofl:

[Supa Dexta]

I've never understood why it's been proven there was vote rigging, people working for the voting company came out and even admitted it, it made a little news, and then was forgotten.. :nut:

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Supa Dexta
I've never understood why it's been proven there was vote rigging, people working for the voting company came out and even admitted it, it made a little news, and then was forgotten.. :nut:

Because by and large Democrat politicians are giant pussies. The fact that the Clintons aren't is almost enough to make me hope Hillary gets the nod, but I'm holding out hope that Obama has a mean streak we haven't yet seen

[finboy]

Originally posted by Antonito


Because by and large Democrat politicians are giant pussies.

:werd: