Attention WHORE

[Pherr the Dorf]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... l_pr/nader

Ohhh just STFU, Nader's Raiders won't ever back you again because you failed to keep your promise to back out if it was close, just slip away into obscurity where you now belong. There was a time you had something good to say, even if I didn't always agree, there needed to be someone like you out there, now it's just the same old tired crap, if I wanted to hear it I'd listen to that hack on Democracy Now, the two of you should go fucking bowling

[Avestan]

Seeing as how Kerry is leaidng, I am surprised he actually jumped in. I can see how if Dean or even Edwards was winning that Nader would have a stance, but Kerry is pretty far left and I figured his winning would keep Nader out. Regardless, Nader will not come close to the percentage he did 4 years ago, so it should not have much of an impact. I personally believe that Kerry will pick up the vast majority of the 2.7% Nader got in 2000, but he will lose a lot more in the middle.

[Kluden]

Nader will be getting my vote.

[Pahreyia]

If independants or Green Party or Libertarians actually had a following or could organize any better than a 3rd grade classroom, I would totally support their introduction into the mainstream of American politics. Competition breeds innovation and cooperation, and a 3 party system is desperately needed in America to balance out the power fluxes in the presidency and congress. However, being the backwoods, grass-roots campaigns that they are, I'd rather see those parties become vocal minorities in one of the existing two political caucuses. It just doesn't make sense to pour that kind of money into a political candidate that will get 1-2% of the total votes and may not even end up on the ballots of all the states.

[Deward]

If independants or Green Party or Libertarians actually had a following or could organize any better than a 3rd grade classroom, I would totally support their introduction into the mainstream of American politics. Competition breeds innovation and cooperation, and a 3 party system is desperately needed in America to balance out the power fluxes in the presidency and congress. However, being the backwoods, grass-roots campaigns that they are, I'd rather see those parties become vocal minorities in one of the existing two political caucuses. It just doesn't make sense to pour that kind of money into a political candidate that will get 1-2% of the total votes and may not even end up on the ballots of all the states.

It is hard to generate a following when the two party system passes laws that make it impossible for you to organize or get on the ballot in most states. It also makes it difficult when the major parties refuse to debate a third party because they are afraid of the truth. The media also makes it impossible to be a viable third party candidate because they refuse to give equal air time to the major third parties.

If people would give the same amount of money to the third party candidates as they do to the major parties then they would have a chance to get more than 1 or 2% of the vote. Unfortunately, third parties will never have the same amount of money as the major parties because they will not accept the special interest and PAC money.

[Winnow]

Perot screwed up Bush Sr on his 2nd term campaign. Thankfully, the democrats have more spoilers than the republicans.

We won't need any hanging chads this time! Thx Nader!

[Xouqoa]

I like what Nader has to say. I might just vote for him depending on what happens with Kerry and who he runs with.

I was really hoping the Greens would get the 6% of whatever they needed last election to become an 'official' political party.

[Vetiria]

The Green Party isn't supporting Nader this time.

[Xouqoa]

I know, but he ran for them in 2000, and that's when they needed to 6% to get recognition and funding.

[Pahreyia]

It is hard to generate a following when the two party system passes laws that make it impossible for you to organize or get on the ballot in most states.

I have little doubt that if a particular political party had a strong following they would find themselves on a ballot. It's when 200 or 2000 people in a state, say California, with 30 million or so voters try to formulate a political party.

It also makes it difficult when the major parties refuse to debate a third party because they are afraid of the truth.

What truth? That's the most asinine statement I've ever heard.

The media also makes it impossible to be a viable third party candidate because they refuse to give equal air time to the major third parties.

Again, 200,000 people who think that politics doesn't matter except to wield that power to save a forest probably don't have much more to say beyond that. We've heard it, let's hear the news.

If people would give the same amount of money to the third party candidates as they do to the major parties then they would have a chance to get more than 1 or 2% of the vote.

Find an organization that (a) isn't a charity/charitable contribution organization that's willing to support your party (b) is a corporation that stands to gain from something your party can offer (c) has the support of more than 200,000 people, mostly from San Francisco (estimated at 764,069 in 2002) or Vermont (608,827). If you combine their populations you're still talking about less than 20% of their voters.

Unfortunately, third parties will never have the same amount of money as the major parties because they will not accept the special interest and PAC money.

...because they can't deliver on the promises they would have to make in order to receive the money.

All it's going to take for a 3rd party to gain standing in America is a smart basis for interpreting the constitution and how that applies to the lives of people. That's what separated the Dems and Reps way back when, and in the end, that's what most of politics is about.

[Lalanae]

I really like Nader and voted for him last time, but this time it's so important to me that Bush does not win, that I'm voting Democrat.

[Xzion]

Out of all the dems and Bush nader is by far my favorite canidate, but im really pissed off he chose to run, and as an independant at that. This will be a close-ass race, despite if it goes one way or another, and all he will do is make it harder for kerry. I doubt he will blow the election like he did last time (in which i actually supported bush over gore/leiber at least ), and he does have a point being that he will make controversial attacks against bush that democrats wouldnt have the "balls" to make.

[Tenuvil]

Unsafe at Any Speed!!11!1

Ralph Nader, shut the fuck up

[Winnow]

I really like Nader and voted for him last time, but this time it's so important to me that Bush does not win, that I'm voting Democrat.

Reasonable minds may differ...and I can be bought!*


Warp Core Warp Core Warp Core Warp Core Warp Core Warp Core

[Deward]

I have little doubt that if a particular political party had a strong following they would find themselves on a ballot. It's when 200 or 2000 people in a state, say California, with 30 million or so voters try to formulate a political party.

The Greens and Libertarians both have strong membership but in many states it can take an unusually high amount of signatures to get on the ballot. In Wisconsin, you have to get several thousand signatures which isn't a big deal but you also have to tell people that it is against the law for them to sign any other party's nomination papers at the same time. This scares people who would normally sign nomination papers away from signing anything.

What truth? That's the most asinine statement I've ever heard.

What's assinine about it? Major political candidates refuse everyday to debate their third party counterparts because they are afraid of the dirt that will be brought up. In Wisconsin at our last Governor's race, we had a very strong Libertarian candidate who was the brother of a big shot former Republican governor Tommy Thompson. Most polls had him at well over 10% of the popular vote. The Republicans and Democrats came right out adn said they would not attend a debate that also invited the Libertarian or Green party candidates.

Again, 200,000 people who think that politics doesn't matter except to wield that power to save a forest probably don't have much more to say beyond that. We've heard it, let's hear the news.

Third parties care just as much about the issues as the major parties but they are not given the air time to voice their opinions. I do agree that the Greens spend an inordinate amount of time preaching about environmental issues but the Libertarians speak about many different issues and have a well thought out platform for their beliefs.

Find an organization that (a) isn't a charity/charitable contribution organization that's willing to support your party (b) is a corporation that stands to gain from something your party can offer (c) has the support of more than 200,000 people, mostly from San Francisco (estimated at 764,069 in 2002) or Vermont (608,827). If you combine their populations you're still talking about less than 20% of their voters.

Maybe if the third parties had an opportunity at an equal media coverage and less strict government laws then they would get more support. This is circular door that neither of us has a right answer for.

...because they can't deliver on the promises they would have to make in order to receive the money.

So you are saying that third parties should prostitute their principles like the major parties have done so in order to gain more money and then start lieing about it in order to garner votes. That sounds familiar...

All it's going to take for a 3rd party to gain standing in America is a smart basis for interpreting the constitution and how that applies to the lives of people. That's what separated the Dems and Reps way back when, and in the end, that's what most of politics is about.

Wow! I can't believe you wrote this statement. What have the democrats and republicans done to actually interpret the constitution properly. I am by no means an expert on the constitution. Civics class was a long time ago. But I do know that it was written to protect the rights of Americans. The two parties have given us higher taxes and fewer freedoms than I am sure the founding fathers ever intended.

[Skogen]

Nader will be getting my vote.

please fucking die.

[Skogen]

I really like Nader and voted for him last time, but this time it's so important to me that Bush does not win, that I'm voting Democrat.

You should have voted democrat the last time. Why in gods name did you vote for Nader?
Thanks for helping Bush get into office.

[Lalanae]

I really like Nader and voted for him last time, but this time it's so important to me that Bush does not win, that I'm voting Democrat.

You should have voted democrat the last time. Why in gods name did you vote for Nader?
Thanks for helping Bush get into office.

Thanks for expecting people to do what YOU think is right, rather than do what they want. I voted for Nader because I WANTED to. Novel concept, this "democracy" thing, huh? Maybe I'll vote for Nader again and "help" Bush get re-elected.

Why don't you try using your negative energy for something else?

[Skogen]

I really like Nader and voted for him last time, but this time it's so important to me that Bush does not win, that I'm voting Democrat.

You should have voted democrat the last time. Why in gods name did you vote for Nader?
Thanks for helping Bush get into office.

Thanks for expecting people to do what YOU think is right, rather than do what they want. I voted for Nader because I WANTED to. Novel concept, this "democracy" thing, huh? Maybe I'll vote for Nader again and "help" Bush get re-elected.

Why don't you try using your negative energy for something else?

You KNOW Nader doesn't have a fucking snowballs chance in hell of winning..this time as well as the last. Your vote is basically wasted. This in turn helped Bush get into office. But hey! You were exercising your democracy! Gratz to you.

[kyoukan]

Americans are stuck with their one-party-pretending-to-be-two system until they change that particular mentality about "wasting" their vote on other parties.

[Dregor Thule]

I really like Nader and voted for him last time, but this time it's so important to me that Bush does not win, that I'm voting Democrat.

You should have voted democrat the last time. Why in gods name did you vote for Nader?
Thanks for helping Bush get into office.

Thanks for expecting people to do what YOU think is right, rather than do what they want. I voted for Nader because I WANTED to. Novel concept, this "democracy" thing, huh? Maybe I'll vote for Nader again and "help" Bush get re-elected.

Why don't you try using your negative energy for something else?

You KNOW Nader doesn't have a fucking snowballs chance in hell of winning..this time as well as the last. Your vote is basically wasted. This in turn helped Bush get into office. But hey! You were exercising your democracy! Gratz to you.

Ignoring the fact that every vote the Green party could get counted as far as getting funding was concerned. Not to mention that Texas wasn't the closest of states as far as Bush vs. Gore. Compounded on that the fact that Gore won the popular vote anyways, so her vote didn't help Bush win that either.

[Skogen]

Americans are stuck with their one-party-pretending-to-be-two system until they change that particular mentality about "wasting" their vote on other parties.

ordinarly, I agree. However, when it comes to getting Bush out of office, forget all of that shit, and make your vote really count.


edit:
http://www.ralphdontrun.net/

[Pahreyia]

I have little doubt that if a particular political party had a strong following they would find themselves on a ballot. It's when 200 or 2000 people in a state, say California, with 30 million or so voters try to formulate a political party.

The Greens and Libertarians both have strong membership but in many states it can take an unusually high amount of signatures to get on the ballot. In Wisconsin, you have to get several thousand signatures which isn't a big deal but you also have to tell people that it is against the law for them to sign any other party's nomination papers at the same time. This scares people who would normally sign nomination papers away from signing anything.

That's a problem for 3rd party campaigns with the laws of the state. Amend the state laws if you want that fixed. It's not illegal, nor is it a national issue because of state's rights. At some point, the people of that state decided that it would be good to have people voting under their registered party and not unduly representing themselves. While it can make for an awkward registration process for, say, a republican who strongly believes in Kerry, that person could just register democrat for the election and cast the vote he wishes to cast. There's no gun to their heads.

What truth? That's the most asinine statement I've ever heard.

What's assinine about it? Major political candidates refuse everyday to debate their third party counterparts because they are afraid of the dirt that will be brought up. In Wisconsin at our last Governor's race, we had a very strong Libertarian candidate who was the brother of a big shot former Republican governor Tommy Thompson. Most polls had him at well over 10% of the popular vote. The Republicans and Democrats came right out adn said they would not attend a debate that also invited the Libertarian or Green party candidates.

That's one case in that state. I'm unaware of the issues at the time and the temperment of the 3rd party candidates. I can say that it's inappropriate for the republican and democratic

Again, 200,000 people who think that politics doesn't matter except to wield that power to save a forest probably don't have much more to say beyond that. We've heard it, let's hear the news.

Third parties care just as much about the issues as the major parties but they are not given the air time to voice their opinions. I do agree that the Greens spend an inordinate amount of time preaching about environmental issues but the Libertarians speak about many different issues and have a well thought out platform for their beliefs.

With a charismatic person representing them, I'm certain that Libertarians can get their air time on CNN or FoxNews or MSNBC. Just in reading http://www.lp.org however, I see that the Libertarian Party's platform is largely based on legalizing drugs. Personally, I have a problem with a party that uses that reasoning as a platform for an entire political party. Legalizing marajuana will not fix all our problems.

Find an organization that (a) isn't a charity/charitable contribution organization that's willing to support your party (b) is a corporation that stands to gain from something your party can offer (c) has the support of more than 200,000 people, mostly from San Francisco (estimated at 764,069 in 2002) or Vermont (608,827). If you combine their populations you're still talking about less than 20% of their voters.

Maybe if the third parties had an opportunity at an equal media coverage and less strict government laws then they would get more support. This is circular door that neither of us has a right answer for.

Granted

...because they can't deliver on the promises they would have to make in order to receive the money.

So you are saying that third parties should prostitute their principles like the major parties have done so in order to gain more money and then start lieing about it in order to garner votes. That sounds familiar...

Nothing's free in this world. Not even campaign donations. Don't be so naive as to think that it is.

All it's going to take for a 3rd party to gain standing in America is a smart basis for interpreting the constitution and how that applies to the lives of people. That's what separated the Dems and Reps way back when, and in the end, that's what most of politics is about.

Wow! I can't believe you wrote this statement. What have the democrats and republicans done to actually interpret the constitution properly. I am by no means an expert on the constitution. Civics class was a long time ago. But I do know that it was written to protect the rights of Americans. The two parties have given us higher taxes and fewer freedoms than I am sure the founding fathers ever intended.

"Properly" is a subjective term. I will not debate what is and is not a proper way of interpreting the constitution. You're also arguing that our taxes and freedoms are nearly opressive right now. I would offer that you check the current tax rates of nations like England, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Spain... Countries that are heavily industrialized and not too far removed from our own in terms of economic development. You may find that 30% is low for those countries. Unfortunately I don't have time to look them up myself, however I recall some of them being to the tune of 60% or higher. I'd wonder what specific freedoms have been limited that weren't done so in the interest of safety or preservation of human life.

[Kluden]

please fucking die.

Some day I'm sure I will...but until then, I will continue to vote for "party-line ruiners" like Nader. My vote may not win my chosen candidate a damn thing, but atleast it displays a 'want' for more choices/change.

And just to rebut the whole, "you lost it for soandso" case, if it wasn't for third party candidates, I just would not vote...hence, no democrat or republican lost my vote...because they never had it.

[Skogen]

please fucking die.

Some day I'm sure I will...but until then, I will continue to vote for "party-line ruiners" like Nader. My vote may not win my chosen candidate a damn thing, but atleast it displays a 'want' for more choices/change.

And just to rebut the whole, "you lost it for soandso" case, if it wasn't for third party candidates, I just would not vote...hence, no democrat or republican lost my vote...because they never had it.

absolutely no bitching about Bush from you then.

Not voting and voting for Nader have pretty much the same effect. Contributing to Bushes victory.

Like the old saying goes "United we stand, divided we fall"....

[Pahreyia]

It's sad that 3rd party candidates, who usually draw from a more liberal voter pool are being blamed for so much. If the democratic party put half the effort into addressing the issues that are important to those voters as they do bashing bush, they could probably pick up a good number of them.

[Sylvus]

absolutely no bitching about Bush from you then.

Not voting and voting for Nader have pretty much the same effect. Contributing to Bushes victory.

Like the old saying goes "United we stand, divided we fall"....

That's absolutely fucking preposterous. Voting for Nader has exactly one effect: voting for the person you want to vote for. Perpetuating democracy. The candidate that the most people (or Electors) want to win will win. If he's that fucking bad, he won't be re-elected.

And anyone who wants to can bitch about Bush, or anyone else they want to. If you remember back in 2000, Bush's platform wasn't centered around a WMD wild-goose chase. A lot of people who hated Bush in '00 loved him after 9/11, a lot of them who loved him and voted for him in '00 hated him after the whole Iraq fiasco. Opinions change, particularly regarding politcians.

You're being a tremendous douchebag in this thread.

[Kluden]

I bitch about Bush all the time...cause it is my job...although it is not my job to just blindly vote another party...they do not have the same effect, because I am exercising my right, to the angle I wish. I'm just saying that I did not lose Gore a God damn thing, he lost it himself for being a fucken twit.

If you vote, you can bitch...hence why I will always vote...BUT...if ever a day where there are only two names on the ballot, I will vote the "No Thank You" button...still allowing me to bitch

Have no fear though, if Gore had won the electoral vote, I'm sure I would have a large amount of Hate for him too.

[Skogen]

absolutely no bitching about Bush from you then.

Not voting and voting for Nader have pretty much the same effect. Contributing to Bushes victory.

Like the old saying goes "United we stand, divided we fall"....

That's absolutely fucking preposterous. Voting for Nader has exactly one effect: voting for the person you want to vote for. Perpetuating democracy. The candidate that the most people (or Electors) want to win will win. If he's that fucking bad, he won't be re-elected.

And anyone who wants to can bitch about Bush, or anyone else they want to. If you remember back in 2000, Bush's platform wasn't centered around a WMD wild-goose chase. A lot of people who hated Bush in '00 loved him after 9/11, a lot of them who loved him and voted for him in '00 hated him after the whole Iraq fiasco. Opinions change, particularly regarding politcians.

You're being a tremendous douchebag in this thread.

WTF cant some of you figure out the logic in this. RALLY BEHIND ONE FUCKING PERSON TO GET BUSH OUT OF OFFICE.

Jesus H. Christ....it's not hard!

[Truant]

Sko, cut back on the caffeine or something...you're fucking rabid today.

[Kluden]

Oh, I get it, your just not seeing what I'm saying.

I don't want Bush in office. I don't want Kerry in office. And I don't want Edwards in office.

Hence, I am not rallying behind any of those three. They are poopdicks.

[Pahreyia]

They're homos? Holy shit! Alert the press!

[Kluden]

Hence why all the talk on banning gay marriage...they are all homophobic of their own secret desires...I have tape to prove it!

[Skogen]

Oh, I get it, your just not seeing what I'm saying.

I don't want Bush in office. I don't want Kerry in office. And I don't want Edwards in office.

Hence, I am not rallying behind any of those three. They are poopdicks.

It's all about the lesser of evils. You may not like Kerry, but do you like Kerry better than Bush? Who would you rather see in office?
Times like this is where personal preference to candiates, and voting for your own wants & needs goes out the fucking window. Do what you think is good for the country, and not what you personally want. So fuck "exercising your democracy", and help get Bush out of Office.

Yes, I am rabid today. The fucking rain flooded my garage & living room, and kept me up all night cleaning. Just take everything I say with a grain of salt.

carry on...

[Pahreyia]

On a serious note, I would be seriously afraid to get an overly leftist president in the wake of how Bush has turned out over the last 3 years. Change like that may be desired with a lot of Americans, but a change that drastic just scares the hell out of me.

[Kluden]

Voting for the lesser of two evils is a concept I fight with very often. If they prove to me to be an actual better candidate, they will get my vote. But right now, nope.

[Lalanae]

I just don't think Skogen knows how to count past two.

[Fairweather Pure]

Voting for the lesser of two evils is a concept I fight with very often.

It's more like choosing the evil of two lessers when it comes to Politics.

[Skogen]

Voting for the lesser of two evils is a concept I fight with very often. If they prove to me to be an actual better candidate, they will get my vote. But right now, nope.

...and George W. Bush sits in the Oval office. Fine, if you think Bush is better than any other option. If not, vote for a democrate, at least this time around. Put your own personal agendas aside, and go for Kerry if his agenda is aligned more closely your own than Bush's. If you don't, thats one more vote for Bush.

[Skogen]

I just don't think Skogen knows how to count past two.

Whats your stance on Abortion? If you are strongly pro-choice, you should *really* think about letting your own personal voting agenda step aside, and vote Kerry.

[Pahreyia]

I probably would have voted Dean, had that slack-jawed clintonite yokel Kerry not been so damn popular with the uneducated, displaced and borderline psycotic democrats.

Edit: Dean, not dead. Spelling > me

[kyoukan]

wow, a bush supporter calling kerry slack-jawed. now I've seen everything. next you'll call him a coward for getting his rich daddy to weasel him out of the vietnam war.

[Keverian FireCry]

Pahreyia you are a fucking idiot

[Pahreyia]

wow, a bush supporter calling kerry slack-jawed. now I've seen everything. next you'll call him a coward for getting his rich daddy to weasel him out of the vietnam war.

I'm not a bush supporter. I'm just less of a Kerry supporter.

Kev, that goes for you too.

[Dalmoth]

Does anyone else find it simply preposterous that Democrats and middle of the roads compromise their beliefs and ideals just to vote Bush out of office?

What I saw early in the Democratic Primaries disgusted me, vote for the most electable candidate, not the one that I believe represents me and my ideals.

Skogen, you should head your own words. If you believe in something vote for the candidate that believes in that also (if you can be convinced they believe it, I'm normally very skeptical). You are telling people to vote for who they think is right while seemingly saying you are voting for anyone the Dems put up there regardess of their personal stance.

Rheortic is one thing, but advocating to someone that voting for 3rd party candidates is wasting your vote is tantamount to saying democracy is dead. There are quite a number of people that feel that REAL change is needed and that it can ONLY come from the introduction of a real third party.

Democrats pander to the liberals and republicans pander to the conservaties, it is HIGH time moderates in this country made their prescence known and not just as spoilers but as a true political entity. However, both the parties now fear this as it will diminish their power as likely they will be forced to comprise even more than they do now. Both parties fear not being able to ram their policies thru congress and the white house unchecked. I greatly fear seeing any party with that ability.

[Pahreyia]

Does anyone else find it simply preposterous that Democrats and middle of the roads compromise their beliefs and ideals just to vote Bush out of office?

Very well said.

[kyoukan]

I'm not a bush supporter.

ahahahahah.

Does anyone else find it simply preposterous that Democrats and middle of the roads compromise their beliefs and ideals just to vote Bush out of office?

For a lot of people, their ideal is to get Bush out of office. The man and his cronies are a threat to your freedom, certainly he is a disaster for your economy and to the entire planet's stability. I honestly do not think you have had a worse president.

[Siji]

Does anyone else find it simply preposterous that Democrats and middle of the roads compromise their beliefs and ideals just to vote Bush out of office?

For a lot of people, their ideal is to get Bush out of office. The man and his cronies are a threat to your freedom, certainly he is a disaster for your economy and to the entire planet's stability. I honestly do not think you have had a worse president.

Exactly. Sometimes there are more important things that need to get done than perhaps what you'd like to do by preference in a normal situation. Getting Bush the fuck out of office is one of those things. Whatever it takes.

[Siji]

I probably would have voted Dean, had that slack-jawed clintonite yokel Kerry not been so damn popular with the uneducated, displaced and borderline psycotic democrats.

Edit: Dean, not dead. Spelling > me

A. Psychotic
B. Kerry uneducated? Compared to the bumbling idiot that is Bush?
C. Sorry, have to agree with Kyoukan.

[kyoukan]

BUSH WENT TO HARVARD