We are angry!

But we are tired of Nader - he is SO irrelevant and tainted!

All he could draw was a crowd size of 50? Hang it up Ralph!

The dems blamed Nader for losing the election.

But Al Gore was never meant to be President --- maybe pope of the environment.

Its a high calling and only a select few will get to be President.

Nader, I share you concerns but this office is not for you.

The presidency is a high calling.
You must aim high if you want to be president.
I, alas, alack, zounds, and forsooth have fallen short.
I shall confine myself to remaining high.
Eight miles high...approaching touchdown.
~TAKEITSEZ

That's 49 more than Al Franken drew at one of his events.

Nader is a dumb ass...

What McCain or Obama should have done Tuesday night was to come into the debate and start out by saying.

You know, I have been talking to a lot of people, and you all are mad. You know what? I am mad too, mad as hell. And here is what I promise you... If you elect me president my number one priority will be to get to the bottom of this. I will use all the powers available to me as the President of the United States to find out who is to blame and whenever possible put them in jail. I will make sure that congress puts in place oversight and regulation needed to make sure this will never happen again.

I know in my living room there would have been applause... Ha, if Obama would have said that, I might even vote for him... If he gets of his raising taxes thing.

"But we are tired of Nader - he is SO irrelevant and tainted!"

How can you be tired of one of the few people that have been talking about the actual issues for the past several elections and never gets mention anymore in the MSM (even though he's tracking around 5% in the polls that actually include 3rd parties) ?

Irrelevant and tainted? Have you followed his talking points at all? Yes- tainted as a fellow victim of a 2-party system- like we all should feel. I'm tired of more people not listening to the guy. The only reason he (or Barr etc...) are not getting more people to show up is because of their unfair exclusion from the 2-party political process and otherwise independent voters are afraid to 'throw away' their vote for the guy they actually believe has the best ideas in order to force the worse of two evils out of the office. Remember Ross Perot- also not 'presidential' but knew exactly what was coming for the country. The smartest people tend not to win popularity contests.

Of course Nader's not going to be the next president. Thank GOD he's still making some noise. Someone has to.

Nader is a jackass, but that doesn't diminish his argument. It just makes him unlikeable...

Nader stands up for the issues that all liberals supposedly care about, but none of their major party candidates ever give a shit about.

Single payer health insurance
Cutting the military budget
No nuclear power
Aggressive crackdown on corporate welfare
Open presidential debates
Carbon pollution tax
Reverse Middle east policy
Impeach Bush/Cheney

Etc, etc, etc. I hear liberals bleating on and on about these issues daily yet they all want Ralph Nader to go away. Pathetic.

Nader tends to be, policy wise, the unelectable "perfect" that split the vote of the "good", in the eyes of many libs.

Which is why I supported Hil instead of Kucinich.

If Newt Gingrich drew only 50 people, the Lefty assclowns here would be bleating with glee. But some marginal idiot like Nader does that and he get apologies, excuses, etc.

"But I could have told you Ralph, the world was never meant for one as beautiful as you."

when Bob barr draws 50 people, let me know.
and the clowns in the revolutionary clothes don't count.

cause they're just too wierd to think about.

Nader stands up for the issues that all liberals supposedly care about, but none of their major party candidates ever give a shit about.
Single payer health insurance
Cutting the military budget
No nuclear power
Aggressive crackdown on corporate welfare
Open presidential debates
Carbon pollution tax
Reverse Middle east policy
Impeach Bush/Cheney
Etc, etc, etc. I hear liberals bleating on and on about these issues daily yet they all want Ralph Nader to go away. Pathetic.

-------------

Because they are all talk corporate democrats(not liberals).

Yes, yes, let's laugh at and humiliate Nader. How about articles about his ideas? Not that I would agree with the guy, but it would be better if people argued about his ideas than laughed at him.

This is what's wrong with the corporate controlled media today.

"Because they are all talk corporate democrats(not liberals)."

That's only part of it.

The other part: they want to win.

If Nader can't see that Obama is the best candidate in his lifetime to get to this point, he has lost all sense of proportion.

Sadly, that happened some years ago.

Nader doomed the Corvair and I will never forgive him for that. The Monza Spyder was a truly cool little car.

That aside, for all I liked his politics he's as big a self serving politician as the others when he states both candidates are the same. Regardless of what anyone's opinion is about Bush vs Gore, it's a stretch to say they're the same. Is Gore further to the right than Nader? Absolutely. Is Bush further to right than Gore? Absolutely. I lost all respect for Nader when he started to repeat his "they're the same" mantra.

Whether you support the Iraq war or not, I think it's safe to say that we wouldn't be there under a Gore administration.

That's a big difference to me.

Getting rid of the two party system is about the only issue where I agree with Ralph Nader. The Democrats and Republicans have the voting system so locked-up that it is nearly impossible for 3rd party candidates to run. It's about time that we, the people, took back control of our country from political hacks that have exempted self-interest as their primary political goal.

The problem with three viable candidates or more is that the concept of majority is lost. A candidate can be elected with 30% or less of the vote.

The other part: they want to win.

---------

Well, then if you have to be a dishonest cocksucker to win then there is something wrong with the people.

A candidate can be elected with 30% or less of the vote.

#18 | Posted by reebop at 2008-10-09 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag

You do know that this is not a democracy don't you? Popular vote doesn't count. Ask Gore.

You know what's fucked up. They have these debates and the only ones allowed to atend are Democrat and Republican Candidates. Whatever happened to equal treatment. I dislike Nader but He and anyone else of the candidates should have been at each Presidentil Debates. It's only right.

Larry

Nader tends to be, policy wise, the unelectable "perfect" that split the vote of the "good", in the eyes of many libs.

Which is why I supported Hil instead of Kucinich.

Wasted vote.

I wonder how much the rethugs are paying him this time to run?
All he could buy were 50 people?

Etc, etc, etc. I hear liberals bleating on and on about these issues daily yet they all want Ralph Nader to go away. Pathetic.

#8 | Posted by JOE at 2008-10-09 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just like many in your own party want the Lipsticked Secessionist to go back to Alaska.

Now THAT's Pathetic.....but I can understand why many in your party despise her.

Ralph Nader the boy who repeatedly cried wolf...when there repeatedly were wolves!!!

People like Nader, Paul, Buchanan, Perot and, going back a bit, Wallace cut through all the crap to tell it like it is but you need more than that to get elected. They decide who will win though.

Wallace handed the 1968 election to Nixon. Nader and Perot gave elections they otherwise wouldn't have won to Bush and Clinton. Buchanan did in a weird way too with the infamous "Jews for Buchanan" butterfly ballot in Palm Beach county, Florida in 2000. It's debatable how much effect Paul will have on McCain's chances this time round. There's so many other reasons why McCain is going to be swept away that the Paul factor may just get lost in the noise.

Some dumbass said:
If Nader can't see that Obama is the best candidate in his lifetime to get to this point, he has lost all sense of proportion.

As if Obama is a better candidate than Reagan or Clinton.

As if Obama is a better candidate than Reagan or Clinton.

#27 | Posted by 101Chairborne

I'd even be happy if Clinton was back. This is pathetic.

The problem with three viable candidates or more is that the concept of majority is lost. A candidate can be elected with 30% or less of the vote. #18 | POSTED BY REEBOP

If a majority to win was needed, that's where runoff voting could come into play.

#21 I dislike Nader but He and anyone else of the candidates should have been at each Presidentil Debates. It's only right.

Larry

It should have been McCain, Obama and you, Larry.

The problem with three viable candidates or more is that the concept of majority is lost.

Who cares? The problem with having 2 parties is that you live under an oligarchy.. I'll take a republic over a democracy any day!

2 parties leaves us going nowhere - pander to this or that, then do whatever the fuck you want when you get in office. With more parties, their policies would be focused on more, because there would no doubt be more overlap amongst the candidates on certain issues. It sucks if you only agree with a couple of things supported by candidate A, and a couple of things supported by candidate B.

My grandpa told me for the first time in history, he's not sure who to vote for. I told him to look to the 3rd parties like he did in '92 when he voted for Ross.

He can vote for Ross again if he can write, for all the good it will do him.

The problem with three viable candidates or more is that the concept of majority is lost. A candidate can be elected with 30% or less of the vote.

#18 | Posted by reebop at 2008-10-09 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's incorrect. If the people split their choices three ways, the winner of that competition still has a "majority". You don't vote "against" people in an election, you vote "for" someone. "More people like Jimmy then like Bob and Mary" takes precedence over, "Well, more people would rather have Bob or Mary, yet we're stuck with Jim?" It just doesn't compute.

I don't call you stupid or anything for saying what you did, because I believe I know what you are _thinking_. You're thinking that if you don;t vote for the lesser of two evils, then the greater of evils will gain office. I thought that way myself until recently. The breaking point was, for me, seeing the way Hillary and her supporters were, not just defeated by her party, but demonized and stabbed repeatedly in the back by her party. The Obama supporters actually started bringing up that "Clinton Body Count" crap again.

I hope sometime the tipping point hits you, and other people as well. When comes the point you realize that if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are STILL VOTING FOR EVIL. I don't fool myself into thinking a third party candidate will win anytime soon, but at least my conscience will be clear when I leave the booth.