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.

(Read 6 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[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)

(Read 6 comments) - (Post a new comment)

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