Nader announces his candidacy - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By pwilliams
#108833
And people wonder why we are stuck in a 2 party system. With an attitude like that we will never have another major party. And shame on you for blaming a guy, who believes that his policies are right for this country, for running for president. It appalling that you would shift the blame from the real source the Democrat Party to a third party. The only reason that a candidate will not get elected is because they would be unable to convince the voters that their way is the right way.

Just because he has a different view of how the country should be run and can convince a significant amount of people that his way is correct is no reason to blame him when you can get your candidate elected. The ones to blame are the candidate and the Party.
By briansmith
#108872
I said a while ago in another thread that Nader wasn't going to run. As it turns out that I was wrong, this post is my mea culpa.

I will find it difficult not to vote for Nader because I agree with him, but I could not bring myself to support him in 2000 with all that was on the line, and I certainly cannot bring myself to vote for him in 2004 either.
By pwilliams
#108939
It saddens me that you can't vote for the candidate that you feel is the best suited. Its partially the systems fault and yours to. b/c most people feel the same way you do, and act the same way too.
User avatar
By Comrade Joseph
#109157
The DLC is just as bad as the GOP, so I could care less.

Ralph Nader is the real "lesser evil" I think.
By Boris
#109184
Nader has my vote, since I am not in a swing state...
By bach
#109240
The electoral base of the Bush and Kery's campaings are old americans, the majority of whom vote republican and in a somehow less representative amount democrat. Not to mention, being that the reason why the Clintons did not run this time, because the democrats needed a candidate that could win the republican swing vote.

However, Nader attracts other type of voters, that is the younger americans, most of whom are not taking seriously by either of the two parties, in fact they are only important when the elections time comes.

The democrats are crybabies, who know that their party existance is in danger, sooner or later the democratic party will split, trowing its harliners to the republican side, and its softliners to the new party, most likely the green. After all, what would be the oint of having a democratic party, after seeing the rise of a new left.

Bad for Nader, because at the end, still there wont be a multiparty system.
User avatar
By Todd D.
#109271
As AmericanPride said, it's a fact that in a winner-take-all system, two-parties are inevitable. What Nader is doing is saying "I don't like that, so I'm going to change it". That's admirable, but it's almost like saying "I don't like the law of supply and demand, so my fiscal policy is just going to ignore it." It's just not going to work in the long run. I will be very suprised if he makes it to November
By Josh_953
#109906
Why is Nader running?
He is just helping Mr. Bush get elected(not re-elected, as Bush was appointed by the supreme court because he lost the popular vote), a man who has completley different views to Nader.

In a poll of Nader voters in 2000:
30% said that they would not have voted if Nader Had not run
22% said that they would have voted for Bush
48% said that they would have voted for Gore

I feel the utmost contempt towards Bush's good friend, Ralph Nader
User avatar
By Agent Buckwalter
#109944
Two sweetest words in the english language: Ralph Nader 8) 8)

W will win anyway, but every little bit helps.

Four more years!!
Last edited by Agent Buckwalter on 24 Feb 2004 01:06, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Comrade Ogilvy
#109945
Josh_953 wrote:Why is Nader running?
He is just helping Mr. Bush get elected(not re-elected, as Bush was appointed by the supreme court because he lost the popular vote)
The US electoral system is designed to skew results in favor of the states, not to give the vote to the will of the people per se. You could, of course, argue that Bush "stole" Florida, but that's a whole different can of worms. In any case, Bush is certainly not the first President to be elected while losing the popular vote.
By clownboy
#109953
Daovonnaex wrote:The US electoral system is designed to skew results in favor of the states, not to give the vote to the will of the people per se. You could, of course, argue that Bush "stole" Florida, but that's a whole different can of worms. In any case, Bush is certainly not the first President to be elected while losing the popular vote.

Not to mention the fact that Florida is not one of the states that require electors to follow the will of the popular vote when committing their votes.

Even IF Gore had won the popular vote in Florida, what noone mentions is that the electors may have still committed the votes for Bush.
User avatar
By Todd D.
#109982
Clownboy, that would have never happened. If Florida had gone the opposite way of the popular vote in that state, they would have had so many voter fraud lawsuits on their hands it would be unprecedented. Possible yes, but it was never going to happen.
User avatar
By Comrade Ogilvy
#110012
Todd D. wrote:Clownboy, that would have never happened. If Florida had gone the opposite way of the popular vote in that state, they would have had so many voter fraud lawsuits on their hands it would be unprecedented. Possible yes, but it was never going to happen.
It's happened a number of times before in US history.
By pwilliams
#110036
Yea Joseph, the supreme court didnt install Bush as the president it merely upheld the Constitution and under the constitution President Bush was elected and not gore. The electoral college has many benefits such as bring worth to the smaller states and others. There has been much written about it.

So please stop whinning about the 2000 election and move on. If you dont like the system. Contact your representative or Senator. Get them to amend the Constitution.
By briansmith
#110892
This is amazing.

One second, Nader is meaningless and has no effect on anything.

The next second, the Republicans ought to be celebrating victory in FEBRUARY because Nader is in the race.

What gives? I swear, some of you are so hypocritical and defeatist sometimes. The Republicans would throw a fit if you spoke this way about the WAR ON TERRA. :eek:
By Dr. Rock
#111081
The Democrats are on the inside what the Republicans are so arrogantly on the outside.
There will still be war, economic disparity and all of that heartwarming stuff with both parties.

Ive always had a problem with strategic voting...why pick the lesser of two evils? pick the good one and rest your conscience. Youre voting for asshole one or asshole two. same shit different platter. In continuing to vote for the best "viable" option, you ensure that democracy stays where it is- in the grave.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]