Nader's back, back again, 4%, tell a friend - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 02-20-2004, 10:11 PM

Ok that title was bad but...

Quote:

NEW YORK — Ralph Nader (search), the consumer advocate who ran for president in 2000 as a Green Party candidate, will enter the 2004 race for the White House as an independent candidate, advisers told Fox News on Friday.

A formal announcement by Nader is expected this weekend.

"He's felt there is a role for an independent candidate to play," Linda Schade, a spokeswoman for Nader's presidential exploratory committee.

The relationship between Nader and the Green Party (search) has not been smooth in recent years. Money and ballot access continue to be Nader's main concerns as he's mulled a run this year.

Nader's move came as John Edwards (search) threw down the gauntlet.

While spending Friday campaigning in states where he has a chance at beating John Kerry (search) for the Democratic nomination, the North Carolina senator awaited a response to his proposal to take on the front-runner in four one-on-one debates.

For more on the campaign, click to view Foxnews.com's You Decide 2004 page.

In addition to a debate in Los Angeles, the former trial lawyer sent a letter to the Kerry campaign Friday, saying, "I ask that we also give people in places like New York and Ohio the chance to see where we stand on the issues."

Edwards has called for debates in New York and Georgia -- states that hold primaries on March 2 -- while campaigning in those states. Kerry has already committed to the Los Angeles debate so long as Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich (search) and the Rev. Al Sharpton (search) are involved.

"My view is the people of this country deserve more than one debate," Edwards told reporters Friday. "We ought to have at least four debates so they know what each of us has to offer, what our differences are, and our vision for the country."

The Nader Factor

Some are wondering what effect, if any, Nader's entry into the race will have on the other candidates, particularly as Kerry and Edwards both try to attract independent voters. Nader's 2000 presidential run is blamed by many Democrats for tilting a close election in favor of George W. Bush.

"I don't think it will have a tremendous amount of effect," Edwards told reporters Friday. "I think if we have a candidate across the ticket that's appealing to independents, appealing to the kind of people that might be attracted to a Nader campaign, then we'll be fine. And I think I am exactly that kind of candidate."

In Savannah, Ga., on Friday, Edwards tried to court black voters, touting his commitment to civil rights issues. He then headed to Maryland and traveled on to Buffalo, N.Y., to kick off his campaign in upstate New York, where he says manufacturing jobs have been lost to free-trade agreements.

Kerry spent Friday in Boston to take a breather from public events.

Edwards won't be on the ballot in Vermont's March 2 primary, which means he won't have a chance to capture the state's 15 delegates.

Back in January -- when candidate had to decide whether to get on the primary ballot -- it was assumed former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (search) - the former front-runner in the race until the Iowa caucuses - would easily win that state.

Don't Duck the Debate

Edwards used his solid debate performance in Iowa and Wisconsin to catapult him to contention. Experts say it wouldn't be smart for Kerry to ignore debate challenges.

"John Kerry is positioning himself as a leader," said Democratic adviser Richard Goodstein. "I think that Kerry would be fine in debates against Edward but I think the appearance of trying to duck them would be very harmful to him."

Edwards' upbeat, relaxed style plays well on the debate stage and in states like New York and California - where campaign advertising costs an arm and a leg - debates will provide Edwards with free access to thousands of potential voters.

"Debates are important to John Edwards because he needs the opportunity to stand side by side with Senator Kerry and have people take the measure of them in that way," said David Axelrod, a media consultant for Edwards.

But the Massachusetts senator likely wants to make Edwards earn support with endorsements, paid media and big crowds - a greater challenge to a candidate with less money and a thinner national political organization who has been cherry-picking states in which to campaign.

Edwards insists he's running a national campaign.

"I don't set those kind of standards," Edwards told reporters when asked how many Super Tuesday states he would need to win to remain viable.

"I am running a national campaign, I am going to compete everywhere. There are some places that are obvious good places for me," including Maryland, New York, Ohio, Georgia and California, he added.

Taking on Trade

Edwards has been using the trade issue to highlight the main difference between himself and the Massachusetts senator as the clock ticks toward Super Tuesday.

Edwards casts himself as a leading opponent of deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (search) and others, a stance that Kerry disputes.

A statement issued by the Kerry campaign Friday said that Edwards delivered a "major economic address" last year in which he didn't mention trade.

"Apparently, cracking down on unfair trade practices and promoting fair and balanced trade was not a priority for John Edwards just eight months ago," the statement said.

Although Edwards has been trying to make trade the line-in-the-sand issue, some experts say that won't resonate with voters.

"The fact of the matter is, there's not all that much daylight between their positions on trade when all is said and done," Goodstein said. "If Edwards thinks he's going close the gap on one issue, I don't think that's going to be it."

And the Polls Say ...

A Fox News poll released Friday shows that 58 percent of Democratic voters favor Kerry over Edwards. Only 21 percent of voters would back Edwards if an election were held today. There was a 5 percentage-point margin of error.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112049,00.html

My guess is with Dean gone, and only Kerry/Edwards left, both big time political insider types (Edwards may be new, but the cloth is cut that way) Nader decided he should shake things up a bit. Now I'd like to be giddy about this, and do a bit of a 'ha ha', but I don't think he will be much of a factor this time. I think a good number of the far left figured out that the giant flushing sound that was their vote in 2000 is a part of why GWB is in office today, and their hatred of Bush will overcome their distaste for another status-quo Democrat. Nadar will become another Buchanan.

Then again, I could be wrong

Jizz-Fritter · 02-20-2004, 10:28 PM

I went to his website and registered to volunteer.

mystmarimatt · 02-21-2004, 03:27 AM

Hey, Nader, thanks in advance for fucking us over again. No, seriously, thank you.

I like Nader, I really do, but...sigh...

maximusveritas · 02-21-2004, 06:37 AM

Only a total moron would vote for Nader this time around. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Nader on alot of issues, but he has no chance of winning anything at all. He's not even running for the Green Party, so he can't use his "viable 3rd party argument". He's doing it only to feed his ever-growing ego. The only people supporting him are Republicans and I doubt he'll even reach his 0.5% mark of 1996.

Strange Famous · 02-21-2004, 06:57 AM

This is excellent news. Nader is doing this to force the Democrats to the left - if they ignore the issues that he stands on and just compete to be a second Republican part again - well, they saw what happened in 2000. The Democrats must create clear blue water between themselves and the Republicans.

Tophat665 · 02-21-2004, 08:17 AM

May he be run down by 10,000 Corvairs! May he be forcefed PhenPhen until his miniscule heart explodes. May a venemous myriapod crawl up his ureathra and devour his prostate!

That little bitch.

Wonder how much of his campaign funding can be traced directly back to Karl Rove.

shakran · 02-21-2004, 08:56 AM

i think the stupid sonovabitch needs to be smacked around. The only thing this can POSSIBLY do is help Bush stay in office - surely he doesn't want that. The guy did a couple of good consumer advocacy things way back before most of us were even born, and now he's trying to turn that into a political carrer so he can advance his whack-job ideas (federalize the top 100 performing companies in the US? WTF!).

He's taken himself from a respectable, even honorable consumer protection fighter (let's face it, the corvair WAS unsafe and if it weren't for Nader we'd be driving much more dangerous cars today) and spiraled down into a laughingstock that only attracts votes from the delusional far left - votes that COULD be going to kick King George out of Washington.

Strange Famous · 02-21-2004, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shakran
i think the stupid sonovabitch needs to be smacked around. The only thing this can POSSIBLY do is help Bush stay in office - surely he doesn't want that. The guy did a couple of good consumer advocacy things way back before most of us were even born, and now he's trying to turn that into a political carrer so he can advance his whack-job ideas (federalize the top 100 performing companies in the US? WTF!).

He's taken himself from a respectable, even honorable consumer protection fighter (let's face it, the corvair WAS unsafe and if it weren't for Nader we'd be driving much more dangerous cars today) and spiraled down into a laughingstock that only attracts votes from the delusional far left - votes that COULD be going to kick King George out of Washington.

Not everyone thinks that these ideas are "unrealistic" or "delusional" - I can think of no single policy carried out by any US president in the last 50 years that would do a tenth of the good for the country that state ownership (with no compensation for the capitalist owners) of the top 100 capitalist enterprises in America. This would be a wonderful policy that would do immeasurable good for the American people and American economy.

Nader will, if necessary, prove to the Democrat party that a Democrat cannot win the election when they stand on a Republican mandate.

theusername · 02-21-2004, 09:35 AM

Good point jizz i'll add in an edit.

The overwhelming majority of american "voters" are smack in the middle of the political spectrum. The majority of independent voters are actually slightly more conservative.

Your on the money when you say, "Nader is doing this to force the Democrats to the left." But if you move the Democratic party to the left it will lose touch with american voters. Instead of the Democrats picking and choosing important battles to liberals, it will lose all their battles, run more McGovern's, turn back the clock and once again become the joke of US politics, as leftist loonies.

And as an independent who pretty much likes to see an equal number of Democrats and Republicans in the house and senate, this would not be a good thing for US politics.

Thats just how i see it

Yes, I would like to vote for someone who's values match my own, but neither of these candidates do and if a 3rd party candidate did I still would not vote for him on the basis that I want my vote to count. I will vote for the person whos values are closer.

Jizz-Fritter · 02-21-2004, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theusername
The overwhelming majority of american people are smack in the middle of the political spectrum. The majority of independents are actually slightly more conservative.

If that was true, I would admonish you to say that the majority of voters are in the middle. And remember that a minority of Americans vote.

Nader is running, because if there is only two parties, you are have limited choice, and a lot of his efforts (like Dean's) bring new voters into the election.

If you are voting for someone, because you want them to win, that debases the whole voting system. It would be like instead of voting for someone, you are voting against someone.

I vote for people whose values match my own. [/me]

pan6467 · 02-21-2004, 07:31 PM

I voted for Nader in '00 and was proud to do so because I vote my conscience. I don't vote via any party line and I don't vote for someone just because I want someone else to lose, that can be suicidal to a country.

A few years ago I truly liked Buchanan's views, still do. Nader and Buchanan both have the #1 issue of mine (keeping good paying jobs in America) on thier platform and make it thier #1 concern, neither party truly takes a stand on the issue they sidestep it for filler and true non issues. I'd like to think a Buchanan/Nader ticket would work, highly doubtful. That's about as possible as a Hillary/Elizabeth Dole ticket.

Still wanting to Draft TRUMP for president,
Pan

JBX · 02-21-2004, 08:33 PM

The Dem's aren't going to like this. Not one bit.

Superbelt · 02-21-2004, 09:02 PM

Eh, I think that Nader will be nullified.

Course on the Republican side there is Perot (who I also think will be about as much a factor this time as Nader) who is thinking of running as an Indy and Ex-Judge Roy Moore contemplating a run on the Constitution party. Now THAT is a guy who can concievably siphon off ten percent or more in some states. Moore may even be part of a Moore-Keyes ticket.

Now that one would be devestating for the Republicans.

Ustwo · 02-22-2004, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467
I voted for Nader in '00 and was proud to do so because I vote my conscience. I don't vote via any party line and I don't vote for someone just because I want someone else to lose, that can be suicidal to a country.

A few years ago I truly liked Buchanan's views, still do. Nader and Buchanan both have the #1 issue of mine (keeping good paying jobs in America) on thier platform and make it thier #1 concern, neither party truly takes a stand on the issue they sidestep it for filler and true non issues. I'd like to think a Buchanan/Nader ticket would work, highly doubtful. That's about as possible as a Hillary/Elizabeth Dole ticket.

Still wanting to Draft TRUMP for president,
Pan

I have a hard time picturing someone who would vote for both Nader and Buchanan. One is a communist, the other a right wing isolationist.

Neither of course would keep jobs in America. Communists arn't known for 'good jobs' and Buchanan isolationism would drive up prices, cause other nations to do the same to us, and hurt the economy causing a net loss of jobs. Sounds good on paper though.

Stare At The Sun · 02-22-2004, 12:22 AM

It's pretty crazy that he would run again, the guy must have no ability to see what he is doing, really, he's shooting himself in the foot in a sense...

Ustwo · 02-22-2004, 12:59 AM

Did Republican's whine about Perot as much in 92 as the Democrats did about Nader in 2000?

I don't recall it, but then again 92 for me was lost in a haze of alcohol, sex, more alcohol, and more sex. Gotta love senior year in college.

Superbelt · 02-22-2004, 06:41 AM

Perot came in 2nd place I believe, in the 92 election. He beat George Bush. Clinton quite possibly would have beat Bush anyway as there were plenty of democrats and democrat-leaners who were also in Perots column. My democrat parents for instance, voted Perot in 92.
That wide chasm is a far cry from the hairs breadth that Nader denied the election to Gore. And denied it to Gore alone as I find it difficult thinking of any Nader voter having anything good to say about Bush.

mrbuck12000 · 02-22-2004, 08:04 AM

its official:

http://www.votenader.org/

mr b

Strange Famous · 02-22-2004, 08:24 AM

I dont want to be accused of trying to jack the thread, or change the subject, or repeating myself... but we have to make clear

Al Gore won the last election.

The Supreme Court made Bush "President" not the electoral college.

Nader didnt cost Gore victory, The supreme court did, the election was close but Gore won Florida, and the result was the other way, and this turned the election.

But Nader stands for a portion of America, that may not be the majority right now, but is growing and is significant... it is incredible that people who support a party with the title "Democrat" wish to deny a man the right to stand for election on the principles that he feels other parties are avoiding.

Ustwo · 02-22-2004, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Perot came in 2nd place I believe, in the 92 election. He beat George Bush.

Ummm go check your history books.

If Perot would have beat the Republican nomine the party wouldn't be dead right now.

It was something like 44million to 39 million to 19 million if I recall.

theusername · 02-22-2004, 09:18 AM

Famous, maybe your right, (i dont agree, the Supreme Court gave Bush Florida, he still needed to win 29 other states.) The bottom line is if Nader did not run in 2000 there wouldn't have been any need for a recount. Gore would have the presidency in his "lockbox." Sorry couldn't resist.

Strange Famous · 02-22-2004, 10:03 AM

And if Nader runs again, I honestly think he will pick up about 5% of the popular vote, Bush about 25%, Kerry 70%

Nader cannot give this electon to Bush, no one can, the American people want a change.

Ustwo · 02-22-2004, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
And if Nader runs again, I honestly think he will pick up about 5% of the popular vote, Bush about 25%, Kerry 70%

70%........

Are you a betting man SF?

I'll even give you 5-1 odds.

Strange Famous · 02-22-2004, 10:13 AM

Ustwo, I'll take a bet that the next president is a Demorat, exact percentages are hard to quantify, 70% is a rough guess, but I am happy to make a small sporting bet in the US election (ie - an amount we can both afford to lose, and pride is the real loss)

Phaenx · 02-22-2004, 10:33 AM

Aaaaahhhhhh, man the reactions I've been hearing all day about Naders descision have been delicious!

Strap in for another 4 years boys and girls!

Strange Famous · 02-22-2004, 11:08 AM

Again, I must say, it is incredible to see a man like Nader vilified because he wants to stand for what he believes in.

zfleebin · 02-22-2004, 11:57 AM

Strange famous: I totally respect Nader thogh I dont share all of his views but someone needs 51% and after seeing what happened last time I dont think Nader is going to help us get Bush out of the whitehouse.

theusername · 02-22-2004, 12:42 PM

LOL! @ Bush about 25%, Kerry 70%

Boo · 02-22-2004, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
And if Nader runs again, I honestly think he will pick up about 5% of the popular vote, Bush about 25%, Kerry 70%

Nader cannot give this electon to Bush, no one can, the American people want a change.

SF - You have mentioned in other posts that you believe that you are in touch with mainstream America. Let me regurgitate my 41 years of mainstream for you.

Nader will not hurt GB, but he will hinder Kerry. Maybe enough to disrail his train. I believe that even fewer people will vote for Nader because of the job issue. Unemployed people don't vote for people that they believe will shut down industry and create more unemployed people. Jobs are tight right now.

Remember that just because you are 18 in America and CAN vote, does not mean you WILL vote. We have a large amount of people that will speak their mind, but will not vote their mind.

Kerry is not a Kennedy when only a Kennedy could beat GB.

People with family and friends in the military will remember that the military is treated better under republican leadership. (And that Clinton was NOT good for the military)

While there are alot of people that have true feelings for the values of Nader. They won't vote for him because they know that America is not ready for his agenda.

My current numbers: Bush 55%, Kerry 42 , Nader 3%.

After BL is captured and the economy continues to improve over the next 6 months: Bush 65%, Kerry 32, Nader 3%.

A little rant to end the post.

People may not agree with all the decisions that GB has made. Anyone who has taken on an undertaken with bad odds of success know that even the best laid plans can fail or not bring the intended results. Talk about a HUGE undertaking. Look what Bush was handed. Now look at what would happen if someone cane and changed it in mid-stream. What a cluster-fuck that would be.

Just my opinion.

Ustwo · 02-22-2004, 02:00 PM

If Bush can show Kerry for what he REALLY is then Bush 53% Kerry 45% and the rest going to 'other'.

If Kerry can pretend to be a moderate and the press lets him get away with it (we know who they are pulling for, most of the press core votes Dem) it will be VERY close, 2000 close.

Seaver · 02-22-2004, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Al Gore won the last election.

Quote:

The Supreme Court made Bush "President" not the electoral college.

Lies like this make baby jesus cry.

The electoral college chose Bush. It was lawsuites post-election period from Florida which called into question which candidate the college was supposed to vote for. The state law of a timeperiod which this was supposed to occur was hit, and passed. The Supreme Court looked at the law, looked at the situation, and called it to a close.

Please learn how the US government works before spewing "facts".

Gore won the popular vote, while Bush won the electoral college. You can complain all you want but I didnt see any Democrats whine about that when Clinton failed to win the popular vote... 2 elections back to back for the presidency.

Sparhawk · 02-22-2004, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
Gore won the popular vote, while Bush won the electoral college. You can complain all you want but I didnt see any Democrats whine about that when Clinton failed to win the popular vote... 2 elections back to back for the presidency.

1996
Clinton: 47,402,357
Dole: 39,198,755

1992
Clinton: 44,908,254
Bush: 39,102,343

Tell us again how he didn't win the popular vote?

shakran · 02-22-2004, 05:27 PM

Quote:

it is incredible that people who support a party with the title "Democrat" wish to deny a man the right to stand for election on the principles that he feels other parties are avoiding.

None of us are denying him the right to do anything. We do feel, however, that he's stupid to do it. Listen, the goal this election for the non-bush supporters is to get bush out. It's a more pressing goal this time than ever before because Bush has done more damage to the country and the world than any previous president. Why Nader would choose to "stand up for what he believes in" by engaging in yet another lost cause that can do nothing but help Bush in his quest to stay in office - and therefore do MORE damage to the country and the world - is beyond me. Responsible people pick their battles, and they try to pick battles that won't hurt the people they're fighting for. Nader is not acting responsibly, whether he's within his rights or not.

And btw, the policy of "if your business is too successful we're gonna steal it for the government to run" has a shorter name. It's called communism.

Jizz-Fritter · 02-22-2004, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Again, I must say, it is incredible to see a man like Nader vilified because he wants to stand for what he believes in.

Nader and the 'spoiler' issue on Meet the Press:

"That is a contemptuous statement against democracy, against freedom, against more voices and choices for the American people. You'd never find that type of thing in Canada or Western democracies in Europe. It is an offense to deny millions of people who might want to vote for our candidacy an opportunity to vote for our candidacy. Instead, they want to say, "No, we're not going to let you have an opportunity to vote," for our candidacy."

Scipio · 02-22-2004, 09:20 PM

Well, at least this time he doesn't have that political machine that is the Green party backing him up...

could be decisive...

hmm...

Superbelt · 02-23-2004, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Ummm go check your history books.

If Perot would have beat the Republican nomine the party wouldn't be dead right now.

It was something like 44million to 39 million to 19 million if I recall.

You're right. Oops. Dunno why I had it in my head that Perot beat Bush the First. Had a really good showing though, didn't he?

james t kirk · 02-23-2004, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
1996
Clinton: 47,402,357
Dole: 39,198,755

1992
Clinton: 44,908,254
Bush: 39,102,343

Tell us again how he didn't win the popular vote?

Score one for Sparhawk.

Sparhawk · 02-23-2004, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
Score one for Sparhawk.

*grin*

As for the topic, in Howard Dean's words:

Quote:

If George W. Bush is re-elected, the health, safety, consumer, environmental and open government provisions Ralph Nader has fought for will be undermined.

Ustwo · 02-23-2004, 05:34 PM

You know something just dawned on me.

Whenever a conservative type says he doesn't want to vote for GWB certain liberals on this board who shall remain nameless are very quick to point out alternatives such as the libertarians and the joy of an independent vote. It always struck me as phony as we know the *ahem* nameless one keeps bringing up other conservatives as potential election breakers, with glee and hope.

Why do I think those same liberals don’t' think those on the left should do the same with Nader?

Now you know I thought I should do a little Eminem parody but it turns out at least this part requires no change and still fits Nader perfectly.

Quote:

Now this looks like a job for me
So everybody, just follow me
Cause we need a little, controversy
Cause it feels so empty, without me
I said this looks like a job for me
So everybody, just follow me
Cause we need a little, controversy
Cause it feels so empty, without me.

Nader
^^
||

vapusforever · 02-23-2004, 10:23 PM

Nader is the cause of all the problems we are facing now, if their will be another Bush administration running until 2008, Nader will be the reason why. He is, after all, the reason we are in this Bush mess in the first place. If he truely is as strongly against Bush as he claims, he will drop out of the race and tell Americans to vote Democrat.

02-21-2004, 03:27 AM	#3 (permalink)
mystmarimatt Omnipotent Ruler Of The Tiny Universe In My Mind Location: Oreegawn	Hey, Nader, thanks in advance for fucking us over again. No, seriously, thank you. I like Nader, I really do, but...sigh... __________________ Words of Wisdom: If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

02-21-2004, 06:57 AM	#5 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	This is excellent news. Nader is doing this to force the Democrats to the left - if they ignore the issues that he stands on and just compete to be a second Republican part again - well, they saw what happened in 2000. The Democrats must create clear blue water between themselves and the Republicans. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-21-2004, 08:17 AM	#6 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	May he be run down by 10,000 Corvairs! May he be forcefed PhenPhen until his miniscule heart explodes. May a venemous myriapod crawl up his ureathra and devour his prostate! That little bitch. Wonder how much of his campaign funding can be traced directly back to Karl Rove. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

02-21-2004, 09:35 AM	#9 (permalink)
theusername Insane	Good point jizz i'll add in an edit. The overwhelming majority of american "voters" are smack in the middle of the political spectrum. The majority of independent voters are actually slightly more conservative. Your on the money when you say, "Nader is doing this to force the Democrats to the left." But if you move the Democratic party to the left it will lose touch with american voters. Instead of the Democrats picking and choosing important battles to liberals, it will lose all their battles, run more McGovern's, turn back the clock and once again become the joke of US politics, as leftist loonies. And as an independent who pretty much likes to see an equal number of Democrats and Republicans in the house and senate, this would not be a good thing for US politics. Thats just how i see it Yes, I would like to vote for someone who's values match my own, but neither of these candidates do and if a 3rd party candidate did I still would not vote for him on the basis that I want my vote to count. I will vote for the person whos values are closer. __________________ ? Last edited by theusername; 02-21-2004 at 03:09 PM..

02-21-2004, 07:31 PM	#11 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I voted for Nader in '00 and was proud to do so because I vote my conscience. I don't vote via any party line and I don't vote for someone just because I want someone else to lose, that can be suicidal to a country. A few years ago I truly liked Buchanan's views, still do. Nader and Buchanan both have the #1 issue of mine (keeping good paying jobs in America) on thier platform and make it thier #1 concern, neither party truly takes a stand on the issue they sidestep it for filler and true non issues. I'd like to think a Buchanan/Nader ticket would work, highly doubtful. That's about as possible as a Hillary/Elizabeth Dole ticket. Still wanting to Draft TRUMP for president, Pan __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-20-2004, 10:28 PM	#2 (permalink)
Jizz-Fritter Crazy Location: Bowling Green, KY	I went to his website and registered to volunteer.

02-21-2004, 06:37 AM	#4 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Only a total moron would vote for Nader this time around. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Nader on alot of issues, but he has no chance of winning anything at all. He's not even running for the Green Party, so he can't use his "viable 3rd party argument". He's doing it only to feed his ever-growing ego. The only people supporting him are Republicans and I doubt he'll even reach his 0.5% mark of 1996.

02-21-2004, 08:56 AM	#7 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	i think the stupid sonovabitch needs to be smacked around. The only thing this can POSSIBLY do is help Bush stay in office - surely he doesn't want that. The guy did a couple of good consumer advocacy things way back before most of us were even born, and now he's trying to turn that into a political carrer so he can advance his whack-job ideas (federalize the top 100 performing companies in the US? WTF!). He's taken himself from a respectable, even honorable consumer protection fighter (let's face it, the corvair WAS unsafe and if it weren't for Nader we'd be driving much more dangerous cars today) and spiraled down into a laughingstock that only attracts votes from the delusional far left - votes that COULD be going to kick King George out of Washington.

02-21-2004, 08:33 PM	#12 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	The Dem's aren't going to like this. Not one bit. __________________ "Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

02-21-2004, 09:02 PM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Eh, I think that Nader will be nullified. Course on the Republican side there is Perot (who I also think will be about as much a factor this time as Nader) who is thinking of running as an Indy and Ex-Judge Roy Moore contemplating a run on the Constitution party. Now THAT is a guy who can concievably siphon off ten percent or more in some states. Moore may even be part of a Moore-Keyes ticket. Now that one would be devestating for the Republicans.

02-22-2004, 12:22 AM	#15 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	It's pretty crazy that he would run again, the guy must have no ability to see what he is doing, really, he's shooting himself in the foot in a sense...

02-22-2004, 12:59 AM	#16 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Did Republican's whine about Perot as much in 92 as the Democrats did about Nader in 2000? I don't recall it, but then again 92 for me was lost in a haze of alcohol, sex, more alcohol, and more sex. Gotta love senior year in college. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-22-2004, 06:41 AM	#17 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Perot came in 2nd place I believe, in the 92 election. He beat George Bush. Clinton quite possibly would have beat Bush anyway as there were plenty of democrats and democrat-leaners who were also in Perots column. My democrat parents for instance, voted Perot in 92. That wide chasm is a far cry from the hairs breadth that Nader denied the election to Gore. And denied it to Gore alone as I find it difficult thinking of any Nader voter having anything good to say about Bush.

02-22-2004, 08:04 AM	#18 (permalink)
mrbuck12000 Psycho Location: wisCONsin	its official: http://www.votenader.org/ mr b __________________ "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002

02-22-2004, 08:24 AM	#19 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I dont want to be accused of trying to jack the thread, or change the subject, or repeating myself... but we have to make clear Al Gore won the last election. The Supreme Court made Bush "President" not the electoral college. Nader didnt cost Gore victory, The supreme court did, the election was close but Gore won Florida, and the result was the other way, and this turned the election. But Nader stands for a portion of America, that may not be the majority right now, but is growing and is significant... it is incredible that people who support a party with the title "Democrat" wish to deny a man the right to stand for election on the principles that he feels other parties are avoiding. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-22-2004, 09:18 AM	#21 (permalink)
theusername Insane	Famous, maybe your right, (i dont agree, the Supreme Court gave Bush Florida, he still needed to win 29 other states.) The bottom line is if Nader did not run in 2000 there wouldn't have been any need for a recount. Gore would have the presidency in his "lockbox." Sorry couldn't resist. __________________ ?

02-22-2004, 10:03 AM	#22 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	And if Nader runs again, I honestly think he will pick up about 5% of the popular vote, Bush about 25%, Kerry 70% Nader cannot give this electon to Bush, no one can, the American people want a change. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-22-2004, 10:13 AM	#24 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Ustwo, I'll take a bet that the next president is a Demorat, exact percentages are hard to quantify, 70% is a rough guess, but I am happy to make a small sporting bet in the US election (ie - an amount we can both afford to lose, and pride is the real loss) __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-22-2004, 10:33 AM	#25 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Aaaaahhhhhh, man the reactions I've been hearing all day about Naders descision have been delicious! Strap in for another 4 years boys and girls! __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

02-22-2004, 11:08 AM	#26 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Again, I must say, it is incredible to see a man like Nader vilified because he wants to stand for what he believes in. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-22-2004, 11:57 AM	#27 (permalink)
zfleebin Addict	Strange famous: I totally respect Nader thogh I dont share all of his views but someone needs 51% and after seeing what happened last time I dont think Nader is going to help us get Bush out of the whitehouse.

02-22-2004, 12:42 PM	#28 (permalink)
theusername Insane	LOL! @ Bush about 25%, Kerry 70%

02-22-2004, 02:00 PM	#30 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	If Bush can show Kerry for what he REALLY is then Bush 53% Kerry 45% and the rest going to 'other'. If Kerry can pretend to be a moderate and the press lets him get away with it (we know who they are pulling for, most of the press core votes Dem) it will be VERY close, 2000 close. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 02-22-2004 at 02:03 PM..

02-22-2004, 09:20 PM	#35 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	Well, at least this time he doesn't have that political machine that is the Green party backing him up... could be decisive... hmm... __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

02-23-2004, 10:23 PM	#40 (permalink)
vapusforever Tilted Location: Your Imagination	Nader is the cause of all the problems we are facing now, if their will be another Bush administration running until 2008, Nader will be the reason why. He is, after all, the reason we are in this Bush mess in the first place. If he truely is as strongly against Bush as he claims, he will drop out of the race and tell Americans to vote Democrat.