I'm voting for Nader

[bigkidpants]

Based on Peter Camejo's appearance on Washington Journal on Friday and Ralph Nader's address at the Reform Party Convention yesterday, I've decided to vote for the Nader/Camejo ticket in November by absentee ballot.

Kerry is not a democrat, he's an aristocrat -- and no longer a conscionable alternative in my mind. The bi-partisan political machine wants to trick you into voting for someone you don't really believe in out of either fear of terrorists or fear of George Bush. I insist on voting for a candidate who represents my vision for the future of democracy and describes the type of country I want to see. And doing so is NOT wasting my vote.

I challenge anyone and everyone here to offer a substantive difference between the major party candidates or a compelling reason why I should vote for either one of them. Otherwise, I'm voting for Nader (http://www.votenader.org/).

Who's coming with me?

[Funkaloyd]

Out of curiosity, why did you pick Ralph Nader over the Green Party's David Cobb?

[bigkidpants]

excellent question. it answers itself, really, once you ask yourself:

who the f%*! is david cobb?


camejo is a green and greens are still supporting his campaign, so it's not like a vote for nader is a dig against the green party anyway. not that i'd care if it was. there's something about an independent citizen getting signatures and getting on ballots that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

on the other hand, i hear cobb has his mom's endorsement.

[Gabriely]

Kerry is not a democrat, he's an aristocrat
i'm not american...but if u want to know my opinion:yes u are right kerry is not a good idea...but bush again is a worst idea...i like nader(one of ur best politics) but he gots no chances...it is time to the americans unite and press eject...

[ChrisLove]

I am also not American so my opinion here is somewhat academic but.....

For a while I was of the opinion that the main thing was to get rid of Bush and that a vote for Nader was wasted.I still think that to a certain degree but then if Nader can get say 7-8% of the vote then the main stream parties will realise that their is popular support for his policies and maybe will try and adopt some of them - or maybe not.

[TheWedge]

Very interesting.
You make several good points.
As long as you can live with 4 more years of Bush, go for it.
I wish I saw Kerry and Bush more as equal evils, but I just can't help seeing Kerry as a lesser.
If the downward spiral of environmental destruction, war, and ass-wiping with the constitution, was not as intense as it is at the moment, I would be right there with ya.
I think a change is necessary now. Even a small one.

[joice]

Very interesting.

As long as you can live with 4 more years of Bush, go for it.

THIS IS THE POINT...

[TheWedge]

THIS IS THE POINT...

Yes I know. It is also a fact that even if Nader gets enough votes to get politicians thinking about his ideas he still will not win. :(
Bush will. :mad:
I doubt Bush will listen to anyone. (n)
Honestly, I think it's great that people are going to vote Nader, hopefully, I'm wrong and he will get a good percentage of the votes and things will start to change. :)

[bilbo]

Nader will be lucky to get 3%. Many people that voted for him in 2000 will not make the same mistake again. If Howard Dean is supporting John Kerry in 2004, that's good enough for me.

It's time for Nader to quit crying about those big bad Democrats and go out and try to find some supporters, whether they're progressives, or the conservative money backers he has now :rolleyes:

[QueenAdrock]

Why do you think Kerry is a bad candidate? You say that the only reason not to vote for him is that's what the "machine" wants you to do. Maybe you've been subjected to too many any body but Bush people, that tell you to vote just because he's not Bush. Though I do believe that that's a great reason in itself, I'll tell you a bit about Kerry.

One of his major standpoints is for healthcare. Over 4 million people lost their health care under Bush, and Kerry has a plan to bring it back, aiming for at least 96% of the population to have some sort of health care. He's trying to get nationwide healthcare because he believes it's a right of all people, not just a priveledge for the wealthy.

He's for finding alternative fuel sources. He plans to fund research to find better, more efficient ways to burn gas, or alternatives. His goal is to be free from middle eastern oil within 10 years, so we'll never have to deal with sending people over to die for oil. He's also looking to instate a minimum MPG rule for all new cars, to save on gas consumption.

Education-wise, he plans to create at least 2 new scholarships for needy kids who want a college education. Tuition costs are rising, and he's going lower them. Kids who donate 2 years of their time to volunteering in their community will get the full 4-year tuition paid for.

Some might say this is impossible, where is he going to get the money? By rolling back the upper-class tax cuts. It's not right that the richest people in the country have to pay the lowest amount, and he's going to put a stop to this trickle-down bullshit that doesn't work. And he's NOT going to raise middle-class taxes, despite what smear ads might say.

I don't know what other reasons you need to think he's a good candidate. I believe in his vision for America, he has great ideas and a plan to fund them. George Bush is a liar, it's been proven; he says he's for the environment, yet is destroying it. Kerry is backed by several national environmental agencies. I guess all I'm saying is you gotta have faith in Kerry. Everyone knows that Bush is full of it, and all he spews is lies. Bush wants to be president to feed his swine friends more money. I believe Kerry wants to be President to do something positive. He wants to restore world respect with America, he wants to help out the American people, he wants to go down in history as one of the greatest presidents our nation has had.

That's why I'm voting for Kerry in '04. (http://www.johnkerry.com)

[Gabriely]

Nader will be lucky to get 3%. 3% can decide who ll be the next president...please guys, think about...

[bilbo]

Why do you think Kerry is a bad candidate? You say that the only reason not to vote for him is that's what the "machine" wants you to do. Maybe you've been subjected to too many any body but Bush people, that tell you to vote just because he's not Bush. Though I do believe that that's a great reason in itself, I'll tell you a bit about Kerry.

One of his major standpoints is for healthcare. Over 4 million people lost their health care under Bush, and Kerry has a plan to bring it back, aiming for at least 96% of the population to have some sort of health care. He's trying to get nationwide healthcare because he believes it's a right of all people, not just a priveledge for the wealthy.

He's for finding alternative fuel sources. He plans to fund research to find better, more efficient ways to burn gas, or alternatives. His goal is to be free from middle eastern oil within 10 years, so we'll never have to deal with sending people over to die for oil. He's also looking to instate a minimum MPG rule for all new cars, to save on gas consumption.

Education-wise, he plans to create at least 2 new scholarships for needy kids who want a college education. Tuition costs are rising, and he's going lower them. Kids who donate 2 years of their time to volunteering in their community will get the full 4-year tuition paid for.

Some might say this is impossible, where is he going to get the money? By rolling back the upper-class tax cuts. It's not right that the richest people in the country have to pay the lowest amount, and he's going to put a stop to this trickle-down bullshit that doesn't work. And he's NOT going to raise middle-class taxes, despite what smear ads might say.

I don't know what other reasons you need to think he's a good candidate. I believe in his vision for America, he has great ideas and a plan to fund them. George Bush is a liar, it's been proven; he says he's for the environment, yet is destroying it. Kerry is backed by several national environmental agencies. I guess all I'm saying is you gotta have faith in Kerry. Everyone knows that Bush is full of it, and all he spews is lies. Bush wants to be president to feed his swine friends more money. I believe Kerry wants to be President to do something positive. He wants to restore world respect with America, he wants to help out the American people, he wants to go down in history as one of the greatest presidents our nation has had.

That's why I'm voting for Kerry in '04. (http://www.johnkerry.com)


(y) Good post

[bilbo]

3% can decide who ll be the next president...please guys, think about...

The point was that no third party Presidential candidate will ever be anything other than a spoiler. Ifany serious challenge to the two party system was going to happen that would have taken place after Perot '92. If people want to make a protest throw away vote. Knock yourself out.
:p

[Gabriely]

Why do you think Kerry is a bad candidate? You say that the only reason not to vote for him is that's what the "machine" wants you to do. Maybe you've been subjected to too many any body but Bush people, that tell you to vote just because he's not Bush. Though I do believe that that's a great reason in itself, I'll tell you a bit about Kerry.

One of his major standpoints is for healthcare. Over 4 million people lost their health care under Bush, and Kerry has a plan to bring it back, aiming for at least 96% of the population to have some sort of health care. He's trying to get nationwide healthcare because he believes it's a right of all people, not just a priveledge for the wealthy.

He's for finding alternative fuel sources. He plans to fund research to find better, more efficient ways to burn gas, or alternatives. His goal is to be free from middle eastern oil within 10 years, so we'll never have to deal with sending people over to die for oil. He's also looking to instate a minimum MPG rule for all new cars, to save on gas consumption.

Education-wise, he plans to create at least 2 new scholarships for needy kids who want a college education. Tuition costs are rising, and he's going lower them. Kids who donate 2 years of their time to volunteering in their community will get the full 4-year tuition paid for.

Some might say this is impossible, where is he going to get the money? By rolling back the upper-class tax cuts. It's not right that the richest people in the country have to pay the lowest amount, and he's going to put a stop to this trickle-down bullshit that doesn't work. And he's NOT going to raise middle-class taxes, despite what smear ads might say.

I don't know what other reasons you need to think he's a good candidate. I believe in his vision for America, he has great ideas and a plan to fund them. George Bush is a liar, it's been proven; he says he's for the environment, yet is destroying it. Kerry is backed by several national environmental agencies. I guess all I'm saying is you gotta have faith in Kerry. Everyone knows that Bush is full of it, and all he spews is lies. Bush wants to be president to feed his swine friends more money. I believe Kerry wants to be President to do something positive. He wants to restore world respect with America, he wants to help out the American people, he wants to go down in history as one of the greatest presidents our nation has had.

That's why I'm voting for Kerry in '04. (http://www.johnkerry.com)you are damm right....but i'm to afraid of bush to agree with you... :(

[ChrisLove]

Why do you think Kerry is a bad candidate? You say that the only reason not to vote for him is that's what the "machine" wants you to do. Maybe you've been subjected to too many any body but Bush people, that tell you to vote just because he's not Bush. Though I do believe that that's a great reason in itself, I'll tell you a bit about Kerry.

One of his major standpoints is for healthcare. Over 4 million people lost their health care under Bush, and Kerry has a plan to bring it back, aiming for at least 96% of the population to have some sort of health care. He's trying to get nationwide healthcare because he believes it's a right of all people, not just a priveledge for the wealthy.

He's for finding alternative fuel sources. He plans to fund research to find better, more efficient ways to burn gas, or alternatives. His goal is to be free from middle eastern oil within 10 years, so we'll never have to deal with sending people over to die for oil. He's also looking to instate a minimum MPG rule for all new cars, to save on gas consumption.

Education-wise, he plans to create at least 2 new scholarships for needy kids who want a college education. Tuition costs are rising, and he's going lower them. Kids who donate 2 years of their time to volunteering in their community will get the full 4-year tuition paid for.

Some might say this is impossible, where is he going to get the money? By rolling back the upper-class tax cuts. It's not right that the richest people in the country have to pay the lowest amount, and he's going to put a stop to this trickle-down bullshit that doesn't work. And he's NOT going to raise middle-class taxes, despite what smear ads might say.

I don't know what other reasons you need to think he's a good candidate. I believe in his vision for America, he has great ideas and a plan to fund them. George Bush is a liar, it's been proven; he says he's for the environment, yet is destroying it. Kerry is backed by several national environmental agencies. I guess all I'm saying is you gotta have faith in Kerry. Everyone knows that Bush is full of it, and all he spews is lies. Bush wants to be president to feed his swine friends more money. I believe Kerry wants to be President to do something positive. He wants to restore world respect with America, he wants to help out the American people, he wants to go down in history as one of the greatest presidents our nation has had.

That's why I'm voting for Kerry in '04. (http://www.johnkerry.com)
Its good to hear someone talking about whats right with a candidate for a change. I personally think the environment is one of the really important issues in this election. I am not sure about that whole thing of not needing middle eastern oil in ten years though? I guess he means they will get it from other places like Russia ( I am pretty sure the US can not sustain its own fuel needs), still be vulnerable to OPEC but less at risk from terrorist related supply shocks I guess.

Its good to here people setting tough ecological targets, it means they will have to impliment genuine changes to meet them.

[saz]

"There are two different errors that were made, and both of them have amounted to jettisoning the working class, so that the working class is no longer the central focus of the party. In the McGovern era they described this as the 'new politics.' The error of that was apparent at the time, because McGovern went down in flames. The idea was, we'll build a new coalition around students, feminists, environmentalists and so on.

The Democrats are forever trying to come up with some kind of demographic coalition that will get them to 51 percent. They talk about that all the time. That was one of the first efforts to do that, and it was discredited really fast. But the Democratic Leadership Council is, I think, a far more poisonous purveyor of this idea, getting rid of the working class. Or not getting rid of them, but no longer appealing to them as the center of the coalition, the bulwark of the party. Instead, it's suburban professionals or whoever.

Bill Clinton is, in their minds, the great success story for this strategy. He signed off on NAFTA, on welfare reform, on so many other Republican issues. He basically accepted the Reagan agenda on economic issues, whether it was deregulating the banks, doing away with New Deal farm policy, doing away with welfare, deregulating telecom, free trade. In all those ways, he was essentially a Republican. But he fought it out very vigorously on the cultural issues. And according to the New Democrats, this is the way to do it.

They point to Clinton and say, 'Look, we won the presidency! We won twice! Therefore this is a great strategy.' And I would point out that while they won the presidency, they are no longer the majority party, either in Congress or the nation. That is a staggering reversal. Look, when you and I were growing up, the Democrats were always the majority. It was the party of the working class. Duh! It was the party of the majority. I thought the day would never come that they were no longer in that position. Now, I believe Republicans actually outnumber Democrats in registration. That is staggering.

It has happened because of this strategy. You take people who would be natural Democrats -- because they work in industry, they're blue-collar people -- and you suddenly remove the economic issues from the table. You say, well, the Democrats are the same as the Republicans on those issues now. And all that's left for them to consider are the cultural issues.

I talked to several people in Wichita -- I quote one of them in the book -- who come right out and say, "When the Democrats went with NAFTA, they no longer had anything to offer me, and I started voting Republican." That is a catastrophe.

A friend of mine pointed out that when the Democrats decided they would no longer contest these elections on economic issues -- of course none of these blanket statements are 100 percent true. There are still Democrats who do fight it out on economic issues, and they tend to do all right."

How the Democrats lost the heartland (http://archive.salon.com/books/int/2004/06/28/tomfranks/index.html)

Kerry (http://www.guerrillanews.com/corporate_crime/doc4963.html) and the Imperial Democrats (http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc5053.html)

I insist on voting for a candidate who represents my vision for the future of democracy and describes the type of country I want to see. And doing so is NOT wasting my vote.

[NakedMoleRat]

Does anyone agree with me that Kerry should Have asked Nader to be his Vice President(not that nader would Have ever Accepted this invitation) but still, it would solve a Lot of Problems.

PEACE

[Gabriely]

Does anyone agree with me that Kerry should Have asked Nader to be his Vice President(not that nader would Have ever Accepted this invitation) but still, it would solve a Lot of Problems.

PEACEnader answer:NO!!

[bigkidpants]

The point was that no third party Presidential candidate will ever be anything other than a spoiler.
yes, this is a great point. And it's also the reason why we need real change that john kerry's band-aid for america will never be. the phrase "compassionate conservative" better describes kerry than bush, who's probably better described as a "nazi fascist". but what doesn't kill us makes us stronger and, as unpleasant as it may sound, somehow i think the united states will survive four more years of bush. maybe then, if confronted with that reality, all the voters satisfied with the lesser-of-the-two-evils will realize that this mindset is part of the problem and we can get to the real work of salvaging our democracy. i'm voting for ralph nader because i believe in a country where independent citizen candidates and third parties not only make a difference but they win and get proportional representation. where the government serves the will of the people and we don't vote for candidates we don't like just because there's no alternative.

i did a funny thing today. i went to kerry's website and bush's website and read all their issues. and you know what . . . there's really not that much difference. (anasazi also did a good thing posting some of the dirty underbelly of the democratic party no one wants you see). and then i went to nader's site and found a platform in which i truly believe.

i'm glad queen adrock is so passionately supporting the candidate that represents her views. all i want her and people who make dismissive remarks about wasting my vote to know is that i am just doing the exact same thing. being the change i want to see in the world. maybe if it was dean or kucinich or sharpton or edwards, it would be a different story, but it's not. i wanted to like kerry, but i just don't.

bottomline: nader did NOT cost gore the election and he won't cost kerry the election, either. if gore or kerry would stop being afraid of being called liberal and offer a real opposition, or a real voice for common people, then there would be no need for third candidates and they would get no votes. but there are and they do because these centrist pansycrats are not the real solution.

[bilbo]

Bush and Kerry aren't even remotley alike, but if you think so, more power to you. I wish you luck. I'm voting for Kerry.

[D_Raay]

Very interesting.
You make several good points.
As long as you can live with 4 more years of Bush, go for it.
I wish I saw Kerry and Bush more as equal evils, but I just can't help seeing Kerry as a lesser.
If the downward spiral of environmental destruction, war, and ass-wiping with the constitution, was not as intense as it is at the moment, I would be right there with ya.
I think a change is necessary now. Even a small one.
Man I've been saying that for weeks here.

It's too dangerous to have four more years of Bush. We HAVE to prioritize.
First get him out, then work harder than ever before to get our REAL candidates in a position where they can actually win. I'm right right there with Camejo and Cobb supporters but we are not there yet, and we are certainly not going to get any closer with the Bush administration still in power.
Oh and thank you Anasazi for bringing some truth out about the selling out of the Dems.

[paulk]

The only reason you started this thread is to show what a badass rebel you are. "Look at me, I'm sticking it to the two-party system!" What a dumbass.

Just kidding.

But how can anyone vote for Nader or Cobb or Camejo or whatever when Michael Badnarik is also running?

As for throwing my vote away, what's the point of voting if you don't fully agree with the platform of who you're voting for--especially when there are other candidates out there who better represent your views? I know this doesn't apply to everyone, because there are a lot of people who say George Bush or John Kerry be having their shit together n shit.

It's the Bilbo attitude that keeps the two party system running strong. The only reason that the Libertarian candidate only gets like 2% of the popular vote each election is no media attention (I'm not whining) and no open debates with the (pardon this silly word) Republicrat candidates (and here I am whining). If people knew more about other parties (knowing that they actually exist would be a good start) things would be on the road to change.

[bilbo]

It's the Bilbo attitude that keeps the two party system running strong.

No it's not. How can you expect to compete for the nations highest office when you have no congressional, state, or local support. If you want a viable third party, it's going to have to start at the grassroots.
Use your head :rolleyes:

[D_Raay]

Have to strongly disagree with you here paulk.

It's definitely not Bilbo who strengthens the two party system. It's the media plain and simple. If they went on all day about the various doings of the greens or the libertarians they WOULD be a viable candidate. It's got to be a grassroots thing that gets their attention and keeps it somehow.

[bigkidpants]

nader is not running for a third party or any party at all. nader IS grassroots.

it's true, though, that the media shapes perception and the media treats it as a forgone conclusion that nader can't win.




Bush and Kerry aren't even remotley alike false.

[bilbo]

nader is not running for a third party or any party at all. nader IS grassroots.






false.

False :rolleyes:

[QueenAdrock]

Kerry and Bush are NOT alike. Bush may have the same ideas as Kerry, like cleaning the air and having a great education plan - here's the difference: BUSH DOESN'T LIVE UP TO HIS WORD. Bush would be a good president if he said "Hey, we're going to fund hydro-electric cars" and "We're going to fully fund AIDS research for Africa" and actually DID. Like John Stewart once said, "Bush is an ideas president". He comes up with good ideas, underfunds them to pay off his rich-ass friends for more votes. THAT is why he's the devil.

I have faith in Kerry to do the things he says, because I believe in his character. I believe he loves America, wants to do something good for this nation. They may have the same standpoints on a lot of issues, the difference is, who is going to fulfill those issues? Bush certainly has shown that he doesn't give a rat's ass, he just talks out of his ass to make people think he cares. A lot of it IS just faith in who you think will live up to their promises. Bush has shown us time and again that he has not, why not give Kerry a shot?

And it's not just the media that says Nader can't win. The people who truly wanted to vote for Nader did last election. What did he get, 3%? My friend once asked me "Yeah, but who else out there would vote for Nader if they thought he had a chance?" My answer? Another 2%. This country is pretty moderate, that's why the whole "compassionate conservatives" shit worked. They believed Bush wouldn't be completely right-wing. And that's why Kerry has been saying he's not incredibly liberal, and why Bush has been trying to show that he is in smear ads. I believe in this country, people don't want someone too far right or too far left. They want someone middle of the road.

If you're voting for Nader this election because you wouldn't vote for either candidate if Nader dropped out, then by all means show your support. But if it's a decision between Nader and Kerry, I hope to god you make the right choice. Any other election I would be right there with you. I would be supporting someone more liberal than Kerry, because I am by heart, more liberal. I personally love Carol Mosely Braun, and if she runs the next election, I would definitely vote for her. However, this election is so important to vote for someone to get them into office, not to "make a point", just because of who the opposition is. We can't afford to have someone like George W. Bush in office. This is an election between two different routes the country can take - being hated throughout the world, or making a moderately positive impact. I believe those are the ONLY two routes we can take this election, since people have been saying for years to "vote for an independent candidate" and to "think outside the box" and yet we have never had a 3rd party candidate elected to office.

[bigkidpants]

False :rolleyes:
except for that it's true. nader is not running with any party affiliation and relies on volunteers nationwide to get signatures to be on ballots. nader IS grassroots. i'm not saying that the reason he can't win is because of the media, but the media treats him as a wierdo who can't win instead of seriously covering his ideas and therefore more people don't even get to consider what he's all about.

yes, QA, i am voting for nader because i would not vote for bush or kerry. i've given kerry the benefit of the doubt for the past several months, but i am totally disgusted with the man. again, i would not vote for kerry. he doesn't represent what i'm about. nor, by your own post, does he represent what you truly feel. regardless of what any of you want to think, there was not a single democratic primary candidate that was more like bush than kerry. and since i don't see kerry or bush as ultimately leading the country in distinctly different directions, and because i'm not convinced my vote down here in florida will even count, i'm voting for the person who i do support for real for real, even if there's no chance he'll actually win.even at the risk of re-electing bush. and i've already told you that i think that unfortunate occurrence could be a blessing in disguise if it forced a serious re-evaluation of our electoral process.

[bilbo]

LOL, His grassroots are planted in his conservative moneybackers trousers. :rolleyes:

[bilbo]

and relies on volunteers nationwide to get signatures to be on ballots.


Republican volunteers that wont vote for that "weirdo".

[QueenAdrock]

nor, by your own post, does he represent what you truly feel.

He represents more of what I truly feel than Bush does. I may not agree with all of his policies, but I agree with him enough to feel like he will do a good job as president. I agree with Liberatarian policies even more, but I don't see that as an actual option right now, so I go for second best. I wouldn't vote for Kerry if I didn't agree with majority of what he was running for.

[bilbo]

except for that it's true. nader is not running with any party affiliation

But it is false sport. Nader accepted the Reform Party nomination so he could get on the ballot in seven states, so I guess you aren't that informed on the matter, either that or you're lying. :rolleyes:

[Funkaloyd]

I doubt Bush will listen to anyone.

Some progressives are supporting Kerry because they believe that he'll be easier to lobby. I think that's one of the better arguments for Kerry, though for years Democrats have been adopting republican policies to appear tougher, and I doubt that they're going to try and prove that they're strong on peace any time soon.

i think the united states will survive four more years of bush. maybe then, if confronted with that reality, all the voters satisfied with the lesser-of-the-two-evils will realize that this mindset is part of the problem

It's more likely that you'll see a repeat of what's happened thus far this election; Democrats again screaming "anyone but the Republicans (or the Greens, or the Libertarians, or the independents)!"

First get him out, then work harder than ever before to get our REAL candidates in a position where they can actually win.

Kerry hasn't shown any more support for proportional representation or instant-runoff voting than Bush has.

I believe that the only way to get either reform is to destroy and replace the Democratic Party. No replacement for the Republican Party will be able to get democracy in place, as they'd have to rely on the support of "conservative America"—those ever supportive of the status quo. And I doubt that the Democratic Party will ever do it—they'd sooner let the Republicans win than give a third party or independent candidate a chance.

[DroppinScience]

Based on Peter Camejo's appearance on Washington Journal on Friday and Ralph Nader's address at the Reform Party Convention yesterday, I've decided to vote for the Nader/Camejo ticket in November by absentee ballot.

Kerry is not a democrat, he's an aristocrat -- and no longer a conscionable alternative in my mind. The bi-partisan political machine wants to trick you into voting for someone you don't really believe in out of either fear of terrorists or fear of George Bush. I insist on voting for a candidate who represents my vision for the future of democracy and describes the type of country I want to see. And doing so is NOT wasting my vote.

I challenge anyone and everyone here to offer a substantive difference between the major party candidates or a compelling reason why I should vote for either one of them. Otherwise, I'm voting for Nader (http://www.votenader.org/).

Who's coming with me?

Aw great, Florida goes to Bush... AGAIN. :rolleyes:

When Bush kills more innocent civilians in Iran, Syria, etc. in the next four years, don't come crying to us.

When education, the environment, etc. are gutted completely in the next four years, again, don't come crying to us.

Nader may be campaigning for the best of intentions, but he's doing so as a pawn for the GOP (check what the CSE is doing).

[DroppinScience]

regardless of what any of you want to think, there was not a single democratic primary candidate that was more like bush than kerry.

Nope. Joe Lieberman was the George W. Democrat of the primaries. Lieberman should be running in the GOP primaries come 2008. And send Zell Miller there with him. :rolleyes:

[Funkaloyd]

When Bush kills more innocent civilians in Iran, Syria, etc. in the next four years

What makes you think that Kerry wouldn't?

[Jasonik]

When Bush kills more innocent civilians in Iran, Syria, etc. in the next four years

What makes you think that Kerry wouldn't?

Kerry is going to fight a more 'sensitive' war, that's why. And you have to figure with all the UN oversight that'll be on the battlefield, you know, to make sure no aspect of the Geneva Conventions are violated, our armed forces and all the troops from our expansive multilateral coalition will be on their best behavior.

[bilbo]

Kerry is going to fight a more 'sensitive' war

Maybe Kerry will use a more effective type of sensitivity :confused:

BUSH: "We help fulfill that promise not by lecturing the world, but by leading it. Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself. We pursue our goals, we will listen to others. We want strong friends to join us, not weak neighbors to dominate. In all our dealings with other nations, we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength." (Bush Remarks at USS Reagan Ceremony, 3/4/01)

BUSH: "Now, in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that." (8/6/04)

CHENEY: "We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We're not insensitive to that." (4/13/04).

RUMSFELD: "We have to be sensitive to the threat of terrorist attacks outside of Iraq. To the point the world thinks the United States is focused on the problems in Iraq, it is conceivable that someone could make a mistake and believe that that is an opportunity for them to make, to take an action which they otherwise would have avoided, and we have to see that we are arranged, and it is clear to the world that that isit will not be an opportune time."(2/5/03).

ASHCROFT: "The United States is very sensitive about interfering in the internal politics of other countries." (4/28/03).

[bigkidpants]

nader's speech at the reform party convention is one of the factors convincing me to vote for him. the reform party is a grassroots movement (you can tell from their convention) and yet, nader's not even running as a reform party candidate. yes, nader has received money and support from individual republicans that want to use him as a spoiler, but this is by far a minority of his campaign that is only being exaggerated by jealous democrats who think liberal votes should go to kerry even though he's afraid of the word liberal.

It's more likely that you'll see a repeat of what's happened thus far this election; Democrats again screaming "anyone but the Republicans!"

this will ever be the democratic mantra, but look at all those people marching in new york. will they keep falling for it? if king george hadn't been so cruel to the colonies, we'd still be part of britain.

and no, i don't believe lieberman was more bush-like than kerry, though it'a a pretty close call. when kerry is elected feel-good president of the decade, but we still have troops in iraq and new wars for israel, corporate government and massive deficits, poverty and a disproportionate tax burden on the middle class, don't come crying to me.

[jegtar]

If anyone is truely against the war why would anyone vote for Bush or Kerry? Kerry want even talk about Iraq, what makes you think he is going to do anything different? He is a babby killer from wayback, and proud of it! The way I see it if you vote for either of the two you have blood on your hands. Go Nader.

[QueenAdrock]

Uh-oh...this couldn't be a flip-flop (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5685179/), could it?

Maybe Kerry will use a more effective type of sensitivity :confused:

BUSH: "We help fulfill that promise not by lecturing the world, but by leading it. Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself. We pursue our goals, we will listen to others. We want strong friends to join us, not weak neighbors to dominate. In all our dealings with other nations, we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength." (Bush Remarks at USS Reagan Ceremony, 3/4/01)

BUSH: "Now, in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that." (8/6/04)

CHENEY: "We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We're not insensitive to that." (4/13/04).

RUMSFELD: "We have to be sensitive to the threat of terrorist attacks outside of Iraq. To the point the world thinks the United States is focused on the problems in Iraq, it is conceivable that someone could make a mistake and believe that that is an opportunity for them to make, to take an action which they otherwise would have avoided, and we have to see that we are arranged, and it is clear to the world that that isit will not be an opportune time."(2/5/03).

ASHCROFT: "The United States is very sensitive about interfering in the internal politics of other countries." (4/28/03).

[QueenAdrock]

and no, i don't believe lieberman was more bush-like than kerry, though it'a a pretty close call. when kerry is elected feel-good president of the decade, but we still have troops in iraq and new wars for israel, corporate government and massive deficits, poverty and a disproportionate tax burden on the middle class, don't come crying to me.

Actually, when Bush continues to do these things when he's re-appointed, don't come crying to us. Kerry plans to slash the deficit, fight a more sensitive war in Iraq and wrap it up so we can get the fuck outta there, roll back the tax cuts for the rich at no expense to the middle class which will pay for majority of what is needed in this country. I'd hate to hear Bush-bashing if there was a way to stop him from being in the White House, and replaced with someone with a vision for a better future that went ignored.

[bilbo]

nader's not even running as a reform party candidate.


False. He accepted their nomination and thus will reap the benefit of being on the ballot in several states he wouldn't have otherwise. If you're going to talk from both ends it's going to be difficult to take you serious. :rolleyes:

[bilbo]

He is a babby killer from wayback.
If you post something here you should try your best not to be an idiot.
It doesn't do a lot for your Nader cause when this is your best offering.
:rolleyes:

[jegtar]

It doesn't do a lot for your Nader cause when this is your best offering.:

If you are going to try to insult people's intelligence in here maybe you should learn the language, this doesn't make any sense. Stick to the subject/verb types of sentences next time please.

[bigkidpants]

you might think i'm talking from both ends, but you're talking out of your ass exclusively. big difference between 'endorsement' and 'nomination'.

Nader Wins Endorsement From Reform Party (http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-nader13.html)
By SAM HANANEL
The Associated Press


WASHINGTON - Independent Ralph Nader, reviled by some Democrats for his presidential bid, was endorsed Wednesday by the national Reform Party, giving him ballot access in at least seven states, including the battlegrounds of Florida and Michigan.

Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said the candidate welcomes the support but plans to continue running as an independent. He said Nader would decide on a case-by-case basis whether to accept the Reform Party's ballot lines in each state, or try to gain ballot access through other means.

In an interview with Associated Press Radio, Nader said he is counting on Reform Party members to help him get on the ballot in other states. "We'll get a greater get-out-the-vote drive - there are tens of thousands of Reform Party people in California alone," he said.

Nader won the Reform Party endorsement shortly after midnight Tuesday, when more than two-thirds of its national and executive committee members who participated in the vote chose the consumer advocate, said party chairman Shawn O'Hara, who called Nader "a man of peace."

[D_Raay]

Do you realize what bullshit you are spouting?

Oh ok, I ACCEPT their support but I am running as an independent?
He IS getting on the ballot because of them is he not?
Just because he is not running as a reform party candidate or a republican for that matter doesn't mean he is not benefitting from them.
If he were really an independent shouldn't he decline any support from any other party? He is no better than the Dems. or Reps.

We need change in this country and I am sick of all this arguing over inconsequential bullshit. A reasonable person would see the only viable route for us to take is to vote in force for Kerry. And I mean in FORCE. All you Nader voters please don't play into W's bloody little hands. I mean Florida is shaping up like it was in 2000. The Bush administration feeds off all this backwards bickering amongst the other parties. Don't be fooled.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=366&row=1

[GreenEarthAl]

That was the problem with the Green Party also. The Greens asked Nader for the last three years to accept nomination as the Green Party candidate again. Then just before the convention he sought their nomination in order to have ballot access in those 22 states --or at the very least, access in California. California is the largest Green Party by FAR and they voted for Peter Comejo who was running as a stand in for Nader. But they all got overruled so David Cobb is the endorsed GPUSA candidate. Nader is running as an independant, no party stands to benefit all that much from his run this year.

[bilbo]

you might think i'm talking from both ends

You are, why not admit you're wrong like a big boy and move on to a subject you have a better grasp on. You've been proven to be incorrect.

[bilbo]

If you are going to try to insult people's intelligence in here maybe you should learn the language, this doesn't make any sense. Stick to the subject/verb types of sentences next time please.


Care to elaborate brainiac? :rolleyes:
As far as insulting intelligence, you did that all by your lonesome "babby" :D

[bilbo]

Nader is running as an independant, no party stands to benefit all that much from his run this year.

You are right, the Reform Party will not reap any benefits , but Ralphie stands to benefit immensely from the Reform Party endorsement.

[bigkidpants]

there's a tremendous difference between candidates like bush or kerry who are longtime members of a party and run totally on the support of these massive party frameworks and nader who was out there getting signatures and happened to have gotten the support along the way of a minor party that is a pretty grassroots organization itself. there's a world of difference.

i seriously despise bush. and i still don't like kerry enough to vote for him.

[greedygretchen]

i seriously despise bush. and i still don't like kerry enough to vote for him.

Agreed...i still can't put the fact out of my head that Kerry or at least one Democratic senator did not support the Representatives that were petitioning against the Supreme Court decision to put gw into office in the first fucking place!!! (as seen in F911) This really undermines my view of the Democrats as the "lesser of the two evils" and as i've said a million times before i am absolutely sick and tired of having to vote for the "lesser of two evils"-oh, you're the lesser of two evils? big fuckin' whoop :mad:

[EN[i]GMA]

Lesser of two evils will never solve our problems. Only exacerbate them to a lesser degree. As lond the Dems know they can run a person slightly less heinous than the Republicans do, they have a platform.

[Funkaloyd]

if king george hadn't been so cruel to the colonies, we'd still be part of britain.

But what could Bush do that would get people pissed off at the Democratic Party, or the entire system? The Crown didn't have patriotism and the illusion of freedom/choice going for it in America.

[baltogrl71]

I am also not American so my opinion here is somewhat academic but.....

For a while I was of the opinion that the main thing was to get rid of Bush and that a vote for Nader was wasted.I still think that to a certain degree but then if Nader can get say 7-8% of the vote then the main stream parties will realise that their is popular support for his policies and maybe will try and adopt some of them - or maybe not.
I think last election 75% or more of the city i lived in voted for nadar and i think he is great he will never win this country is trained to follow not think so 40%will follow bush and 40%kerry and the restr will go green or not at all, but neither kerry nor bush would ever ever try to adopt anything they both have their own agendas and thats all they care about so they will keep lying and americans will keep accepting the bullshit.

[DroppinScience]

I think last election 75% or more of the city i lived in voted for nadar and i think he is great he will never win this country is trained to follow not think so 40%will follow bush and 40%kerry and the restr will go green or not at all, but neither kerry nor bush would ever ever try to adopt anything they both have their own agendas and thats all they care about so they will keep lying and americans will keep accepting the bullshit.

No matter how this election will be, 20% of America will not plug their votes for Nader. If it was 20% Nader, he'd probably choke on his chicken soup as he's informed of the news.

[bigkidpants]

Agreed...i still can't put the fact out of my head that Kerry or at least one Democratic senator did not support the Representatives that were petitioning against the Supreme Court decision to put gw into office in the first fucking place!!! (as seen in F911) This really undermines my view of the Democrats as the "lesser of the two evils" and as i've said a million times before i am absolutely sick and tired of having to vote for the "lesser of two evils"-oh, you're the lesser of two evils? big fuckin' whoop :mad:
could not have said it better myself (y)

[jegtar]

Before long it is going to be Rebublican vs. Republican for Prez. I think we are pretty much already there. Kerry just poses as a Dem. There is really not much difference in the two.

[D_Raay]

Ultimately, It's nothing more than which guy can successfully fuck America in the ass WITHOUT the courtesy of a reach around.

[bilbo]

There is really not much difference in the two.

When are you going to correct my erroneous sentence? :confused:

[DroppinScience]

Ok, here's one thing I will NOT let Nader off the hook for. Ever. And it shows what a damn hypocrite he is.

Lemme explain to you Americans.

Back in June us Canadians had a federal election (just like you Americans will in November) and since 1993 the Liberal Party has been running Canada, but as of late they've been looking really bad (with something called a sponsorship scandal, do ask if you want to know more about that).

Because of this, many previous Liberal-supporters strayed from the party to plug votes for the New Democrat Party (which is left of the Liberal party). At the same time, the Conservative Party (equivalent to Republicans) was gaining a lot of ground (as they are the official opposition), which of course scared the shit out of the Liberals (so they ran attack ads that Conservatives are a bunch of fascists... in a matter of speaking ;)).

So here comes Nader to send a message to us Canadians about how we should be voting.

He says to vote for the Liberals, "the lesser of two evils" and not to worry about the sponsorship scandal at all when basing your decision (keep in mind, this is basically our equivalent to Watergate!). The Liberals will sort that out themselves and voting for the NDP won't solve anything (as they would be the spoiler candidates).

Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me, Nader. But you're hardly in a position to tell the Canadian people to vote for "the lesser of two evils" when you're urging the American people to not do the same thing. So he wants America to vote with "their heart" and Canada to do strategic voting? Now where the fuck does he get off saying such stupid shit?

Here we have a candidate who could very be a spoiler for the Democrats, "the lesser of two evils" and if Nader succeeds, he's going to be an accomplice on allowing Bush to be re-elected and continue his dangerous agenda on the world. And he wants Canadians to vote strategically? WHAT... THE... FUCK... :mad:

Would the Republicans have handled Watergate all by themselves? Doubt it.

Anyways, the results of the election were the Liberals winning (very close tho), but they were knocked down a peg for sure. Myself, I voted NDP. But if we all followed Nader's advice, the Liberals would've continued to stay cocky, drunk on power and waste our tax dollars some more. They need accountability, and they certainly got it. I'm glad Canada told Nader to "shove it" come election day.

[GreenEarthAl]

Yeah!

(Where and when did he say those things by the way. Is there any linkness?)

[DroppinScience]

Yeah!

(Where and when did he say those things by the way. Is there any linkness?)

Oh, sorry. Here ya go:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/24/canada/nader_letter040624

[DroppinScience]

He's absolutely right about the conservatives, but don't "overreact" to the sponsorship scandal? C'mon, I don't like it when the party I've been sympathetic to for years pulls that shit.

[saz]

hypocrite eh? nice try (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2004/06/25/514206-cp.html)

Nader rocks the house

[DroppinScience]

hypocrite eh? nice try (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2004/06/25/514206-cp.html)

Nader rocks the house

Well I stand corrected, but this doesn't change the fact that he's working for Bush's re-election.

[saz]

whatever....keep telling yourself that, and forget all about how Republicans were crying about Perot, while the Dems had no qualms about a third candidate in '92 and '96.

[QueenAdrock]

Nader's just a puppet of the Republican party.

And yeah, Perot was a puppet of the Democratic party. That's the way shit works, but if people think they're gonna vote for the alternative to make difference, they're playing into the hands of the power that be.

[bilbo]

whatever....keep telling yourself that, and forget all about how Republicans were crying about Perot, while the Dems had no qualms about a third candidate in '92 and '96.


What Dems are crying? Are they imaginary? The only person I have heard whining is Nader himself. Everytime he's on a show he complains about the big bad Democrats keeping him off ballots. If he can't meet the various ballot requirements he has no one to blame but himself and his lackluster supporters. :D

[EN[i]GMA]

And the Dems keeping him off balots.

[bilbo]

GMA']And the Dems keeping him off balots.


How are they doing that? By not signing the petitions? Damn those meanies.

[bigkidpants]

How are they doing that? By not signing the petitions? Damn those meanies.

this shouldn't be difficult for you to understand. small-minded democrats are acting just like you and harrassing potential nader voters, calling democrats who signed petitions to get nader on the ballot and telling them not to waste their vote, that what they believe in doesn't matter -- essentially saying vote kerry or else!

type 'nader democrats' into your search engine and you'll see that at least three democratic state parties have filed lawsuits against ralph. obviously they think they have something to lose. but they should have thought of that before they alienated the left wing of their base.

[bilbo]

this shouldn't be difficult for you to understand. small-minded democrats are acting just like you and harrassing potential nader voters, calling democrats who signed petitions to get nader on the ballot and telling them not to waste their vote, that what they believe in doesn't matter -- essentially saying vote kerry or else!

type 'nader democrats' into your search engine and you'll see that at least three democratic state parties have filed lawsuits against ralph. obviously they think they have something to lose. but they should have thought of that before they alienated the left wing of their base.

What are the lawsuits based on? Could it be an existing law, or are these ones that the big bad Democrats quickly wrote and enacted into law. Such misguided anger you Ralphites have.....:rolleyes: Why not do something about the system if you don't like it? I know it requires more work than sitting on your fat ass, bitching on a Beasite Boys message board, but surely it will yield more results. :eek:

[saz]

but if people think they're gonna vote for the alternative to make difference, they're playing into the hands of the power that be.

Nah, you're wrong.....people are voting for Nader because they're voting for what they believe in, and not Kerry and the Democratic establishment, who are pretty much moderate Republicans.

[EN[i]GMA]

"Do something about the system". By that you mean? Vote for Ralph Nader? Protest? Overthrow the Governement? People just want to vote for whomever they like but when a party tries to prevent you that right ( http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4671289/ http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0604/154738.html http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/24/assailed_by_democrats_nader_hits_trail_fights_back/
) you have a right to become indignant. I just don't see how anyone can support this assailing of Nader. If the Dem's don't think they can win with Nader in the race, what the hell are they doing even running? If Nader is going to stop them from taking out a patent idiot, there are deeper troubles than a 3rd party candidate. Just like in 2000.

[bilbo]

GMA']"Do something about the system". By that you mean? Vote for Ralph Nader? Protest? Overthrow the Governement? People just want to vote for whomever they like but when a party tries to prevent you that right ( http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4671289/ http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0604/154738.html http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/24/assailed_by_democrats_nader_hits_trail_fights_back/
) you have a right to become indignant. I just don't see how anyone can support this assailing of Nader. If the Dem's don't think they can win with Nader in the race, what the hell are they doing even running? If Nader is going to stop them from taking out a patent idiot, there are deeper troubles than a 3rd party candidate. Just like in 2000.

Where did the Democrats say they couldn't win with Nader running? All Nader's 3% will do this year is make it closer than it should be.
Nobody is stopping anyone from writing Ralph Naders name in on any states ballot.

[EN[i]GMA]

The Democrats seem to be saying this by berating his running at every oppurtunity.

"Should be"?

[bilbo]

GMA']"Should be"?

I don't understand your confusion? You'll have to help me out. I think "should be" is fairly self-explanatory. :confused:

[bilbo]

GMA']The Democrats seem to be saying this by berating his running at every oppurtunity.

Where?

[EN[i]GMA]

Read the story about Dean telling the Dems that a vote for Nader is a vote for GW.

[bilbo]

GMA']Read the story about Dean telling the Dems that a vote for Nader is a vote for GW.


I have already read it, as Dean was the candidate I voted for in the primary...but let me guess, Dean is just another "Republican" :rolleyes:

[Funkaloyd]

Why shouldn't the race be closer? Would the race ideally be only between Democrats and Republicans?

[bilbo]

Why shouldn't the race be closer? Would the race ideally be only between Democrats and Republicans?

What's your point Floyd? Is it your contention that Bush has done a satisfactory job in his first term?

[saz]

for fuck's sake....I thought America was supposed to be a 'democracy'. The more candidates, the better. Man, the Democrats should've defeated Dubya in 2000. The fact that they didn't speaks volumes..and the fact that Gore couldn't even win Tennessee. And now that they're crying over Nader's candidacy is pretty sad. If they're all wound up over Nader, why don't they do more to promote the Libertarians?

[bilbo]

for fuck's sake....I thought America was supposed to be a 'democracy'. The more candidates, the better. Man, the Democrats should've defeated Dubya in 2000. The fact that they didn't speaks volumes..and the fact that Gore couldn't even win Tennessee. And now that they're crying over Nader's candidacy is pretty sad. If they're all wound up over Nader, why don't they do more to promote the Libertarians?


What sense would it make to promote another spoiler?
Honestly:confused:
It's like a broken record with you Nader whiners.

[Jasonik]

In the meantime, bilbo shames and wags finger at Nader supporters for not supporting the Democrat's lackluster candidate.....

[bilbo]

In the meantime, bilbo shames and wags finger at Nader supporters for not supporting the Democrat's lackluster candidate.....

When did I do that? There is really no need to make things up Mr Newsmax.

[saz]

What sense would it make to promote another spoiler?
Honestly:confused:
It's like a broken record with you Nader whiners.

A strong Libertarian candidate could take millions of moderate Republican votes and states away from Bush II.....nah, I'd say it's more like a broken record with you people who back corporate, moderate Republican-wannabe Dems.

[bilbo]

A strong Libertarian candidate could take millions of moderate Republican votes and states away from Bush II.....nah, I'd say it's more like a broken record with you people who back corporate, moderate Republican-wannabe Dems.

Better than backing self obsessed fatuous ass who doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell. :rolleyes:

[DroppinScience]

The more we on the left fight (whether pro-Nader or pro-Kerry), the happier the right is to see this.

The Bush administration thank you for your assistance, guys!

Four more wars! Four more wars!

[Bob]

I am the owl
I seek out the foul
Wipe 'em away
Keep America free
For clean livin' folks like me

If you demonstrate
Against somebody we like
I'll slip on my wig
And see if I can start a riot
Transform you to an angry mob
All your leaders go to jail for my job


oh dead kennedys we need more like you

[D_Raay]

We are arguing amongst ourselves when what we really should be doing is figuring out how to promote real change in our government. You guys are all strong willed and minded (obvious exceptions aside) and the point of this forum should be to love the Beastie Boys and to work toward a better future together by sharing our ideas and opinions not arguing. I for one did not join this forum to argue with anyone although I've been guilty of it myself at times. So if we vote for anyone we should all agree through discussion who that is going to be. I mean we can somehow all agree on this can't we? If not W wins and we may as well all log off for good.

[Funkaloyd]

The more we on the left fight (whether pro-Nader or pro-Kerry), the happier the right is to see this.

But what are we to do, change our beliefs one way or the other to spite Republicans? I'm sure that you're no more willing to do that than me.

[haelo]

The only way the majority is going to vote their true beliefs and get somewhere is Instant Runoff Voting. We have do away with this two party farce.
I want Bush out, and tried for war crimes, alas, I will not see this happen.
War on Terror? We are in the wrong country! We have more cops protecting the GOP than troops sent in after Osama. And now we have started a Jihad.
Heaven help us!

[Scotty-C]

Whatever it takes to get Bush out, I'll do. I'm voting Kerry. Bush is everything I do not respect. The fact is that it really does not matter just HOW good Kerry is, he's better than who's in now. You can talk all day long, but when it comes down to it, when you want Bush out, there's only one box to check on the ballot....Kerry. I'll worry about how good Kerry is after Bush is out, and I'll see next election if anyone's better than Kerry.
It takes time to build!

[Funkaloyd]

Instant-runoff voting would be great, in that it wouldn't require a major overhaul of the current system, but I think that proportional representation is better.

[FateMaster]

Ralph Nader he just wants campaign money. Dont believe me? Please watch this, it maybe silly on the surface but it has a very serious undertone..

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?player=realplayer&type=v&quality=high&reposid=/multimedia/tds/helms/helms_9018.html

:mad:

[ASsman]

"Voting for him won't do anything", obviously because everyone thinks that. That simple. Not here to argue his platform or politics. But yes a person who is running third party is probably running for money.

[yeahwho]

Re: I'm voting for Nader

Sure why not, masturbation is under-rated.

[Ali]

Big up for one of the best posts I've ever seen on dis board. (y)

You are sooooooooooo right! The only reason a lot of people will vote for Kerry is because he's not Bush. He's a jerk, a politicking, scheming, lying, gold-digging, wanker. But he's not Bush and that's why I'd vote for him (If I could).

If all candidates were given the same amount of money (by the government, NOT pivate or corporate donors... that's where it all goes wrong!) to go on the campaign trail, you can be sure Nader would get most of the votes that are going to Kerry, because he really does have the best interests of the US and the world at heart. He is a principled man, determined to stand by his convictions (exemplified by his reluctance to run as a Democrat). If he were in charge, the US and the world would be a much better place.

I've not read any further in this thread than this post, but I felt I had to congratulate bigkidpants on this epic post (and the cool spumco avatar, George is my fave! :D ).

Edit: Just remembered... saw Kerry on TV buying a HUNTING LICENSE! So he's sucking up to the NRA for votes. What a cnut. But still better than GWB.

I think that the real reason Nader won't ever win is because the US is full of gun-totin', nigger-hatin, reneck trailer trash, like GMsisko. The minority are people with a bit of intelligence, who would vote for Nader.

And to the people criticising him for trying to raise campaign funds... WHERE THE FCUK IS HE SUPPOSED TO GET THE CASH FROM, HUH?! Cricicise the system which forces him to have to do this. It's like having a car race where the skill of the driver has nothing to do with whether he wins or not and the amount of money the team has is the only thing which makes him win. GWB has more money than Kerry and Nader and that's the ONLY reason he's going to win.