Fortitudine Vincimus ([info]matic) wrote,
@ 2008-02-24 07:12:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
LOL, Nader is going to run again.

McCain is probably happy.

(6 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]ephemerality
2008-02-24 06:05 pm UTC (link)
why?  those who will vote for Nader are not "taking away" votes from whomever wins the Democratic nomination - no third party candidate does that.  what a third party candidate does do, however, is provide a voting option for those whose views and issues are not supported or hell, even addressed by the Republicans and Democrats.  Nader voters would not vote Democrat even if he wasn't running, they'd either find another third party (Greens?) or abstain from voting.

third party candidates are vital to democracy.  unfortunately, our political system has gotten so completely out of hand that third parties currently have little chance of success even on a local level.  Nader is the strongest person to fight that or at least bring it to national attention.  i find it disgusting how Democrats used extensive litigation to keep Nader (and others, such as Carl Romanelli - who ran for senate) off ballots and also sued for their incurred court costs.

of course, even if Nader received any significant support, he'd be shut down in the same manner that Kucinich and Paul were - in the form of corporate sponsored exclusion from national debates and media coverage.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]macguyver
2008-02-25 07:03 am UTC (link)
Um, except in florida. And these days, perhaps ohio.

I'd be happy to vote for third party candidates in a multi-party system for congress, instant runoff voting for president, etc., but the system isn't set up that way.

Just over 500 votes in florida in 2000 elected Bush. So much for habeas corpus, the war in iraq and 80,000+ documented civilian deaths, etc., etc., and I find that disgusting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ephemerality
2008-02-25 10:58 pm UTC (link)
Gore lost Florida for the following reasons:  1. Al Gore didn't ask for a statewide recount, just a recount of certain counties.  his argument of disenfranchised voters was then rendered invalid.  2. George W. Bush certainly had some great connections in Florida.  ...but most of all, 3. The Democrats consistantly offer up candidates who are increasingly Republican-lite, spineless and pandering, and in bed with big business - and that includes Al Gore.  had Al Gore been a better candidate and had run a better campaign any third party would not be a "threat".

Kerry lost the election because:  1. John Kerry was a poor candidate and ran a weak campaign to the point that it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he "threw" the contest (he was a Bonesman, afterall...).  2. Diebold.

Nader didn't "take away" any voters from losers who never won their vote to begin with.  the people who voted Green in 2000 would have voted for the Green party regardless if Nader was the Green's nominated candidate.  those who voted for Nader in 2004 wouldn't have voted for John Kerry no matter even if Nader wasn't running - as i said earlier, they'd either vote for another third party (such as the Greens) or would've abstained from voting altogether.

if a third party candidate had a vote from every yellow-bellied crybaby who whines about third parties not having much chance in the current system, there could actually be more than just two corrupt parties holding all the cards.  when you vote for the person who you think might have a better chance of winning against your opponent in such a system, rather than the person you think is truly the best qualified, with the most integrity and whom you feel represents the issues you feel are most important - you get what you deserve for perpetuating the corrupt system.  in this case, George W. Bush.

btw, i find it ridiculous that the Democrats have taken the Republican model of fear tactics and applied it to voting for third party candidates, in particular Ralph Nader, and yet so many liberals fail to see it and instead swallow it up.  if another candidate is that much of a "threat", why not take some honorable action and better your candidate's campaign rather than try to forcibly prevent a third party candidate from being part of the election process?  the Democratic Party simply refuses to be in any way accountable for their own failures.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]macguyver
2008-02-26 04:58 am UTC (link)
Nader's 92,000 votes in florida couldn't have *anything* to do with Bush winning? Bullshit, that's why nader is running again. That's the whole point of running - it isn't as if he'll pull in enough votes to win much less to create a viable third party.

There are a lot of dead people in the middle east who can thank nader for bush being in office. The fact that nader feels nothing about that - the fact that he seems to relish getting republican donations and backing, it all flies in the face of his claims of helping people. What will his running do to help anyone? Where is this third party he has failed to create years in a row? What's the point?

This isn't fear tactics, it's a simple game of political chess. And this isn't how you raise a third party.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]lgdizko
2008-02-24 06:38 pm UTC (link)
If you ever want to hear someone talk shit about Nader then you should talk to Rob's mother. I've never seen anyone speak so passionately about how much they hate a certain "political" figure hehe she will of course begin with how she lost her beloved car because of him. Then again Rob's mother has a natural ability to speak things will get the average person shot on the streets solely based on what comes out of her mouth.

(Reply to this)


[info]macguyver
2008-02-25 07:06 am UTC (link)
Depends. I think if Clinton gets the nod, she might not stand much of a chance anyway, and if Obama gets the nod, Nader may well not matter.

(Reply to this)

(6 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…