Ralph Nadar to Run again!

PHB

Can anyone who pupports this idea that Bush was elected illegally show me some evidence?

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
Just wondering where they differ outside of rhetoric....

There isn't much and that's the failed logic in the DNC's "electability" (and repeated by many well meaning progressive Democrats) argument.
That will do more to get Bush another 4 years than any supposed "spoiler" candidate.
As far as degrees of corruption. The Bush regime far exceeds Kerry in that respect, much less the average Republican pol.

sovtek

Originally posted by Earthman
A vote for nader helps the status quo as nader wont win.

A vote for Kerry IS a vote for the status quo. Many Demo's are applying the failed logic that he is "more electable" than Nader even though the majority of them like Nader better then Kerry.
If anyone will be to blame for Kerry loosing it will be the DNC and these people for voting for a person that isn't that much better than Bush rather than someone who is true political opposition to Bush.

The number of people who vote for Nader could topple Bush though if they voted for Kerry instead of Nader.

If the number of people who actually say that Nader, Kucinich or Dean are better than Kerry would have voted for them in the primary...then Kerry wouldn't be there in the first place and Nader wouldn't even be in the equation.

Would that be a bad means to an end?

It's questionable how much better Kerry is going to be in the first place. Secondly Nader actually help get Kerry elected if he starts adopting more of a true political opposition...which many Demos are yearning for.
Again the only person to blame for Kerry loosing is Kerry.

Is that what you want, when you have the power to help do the opposite??

By supporting someone who might not win because they aren't that much different?

Which is effectively what a vote for nader would do if the vote is split tight enough between Kerry and Bush.

If the vote is that split it's because Kerry hasn't had a stance that would bring enough support. Again...it will be his own fault not Nader's.

There is a sadistic side of me that thinks that maybe the majority of my fellow Americans need 4 more years of Bush to see how really ****ed he is. Then we wont' be having this argument again in 2008. By then the seriously failed policies will be so apparent the media won't be able to spin them any more and truly democratic reform might start to happen. Kerry doesn't represent that hope.

shotamoose

Originally posted by sovtek
A vote for Kerry IS a vote for the status quo.

No it isn't. Before the last election I might have agreed with you, as I didn't see much difference between Republican and Democrat. Now I think that Kerry would make a big change. Not because he's particularly progressive or different from other Democrats - he's not - but because it has only become clear in the last couple of years just how extremist the Bush regime is. Even if you look only at domestic policy, the Bush government is by turns incompetent, deceitful, bigoted, and just plain bad. They seem to want to bring the country to the brink of bankruptcy as a political strategy to destroy the welfare state, ensuring the continuance in power of a ruling class composed of millionaires, idiots and criminals.

The status quo is a train-wreck. The status quo is completely insane. Kerry is dull, and Kerry is conservative, but he is not that bad.

There is a sadistic side of me that thinks that maybe the majority of my fellow Americans need 4 more years of Bush to see how really ****ed he is. Then we wont' be having this argument again in 2008. [/B]

I've seen this view bandied about a bit, but I don't think the Democrats should join the Bushies in playing chicken with the country's future. 4 more years of Bush is too horrible to contemplate.

sovtek

Originally posted by shotamoose
No it isn't. Before the last election I might have agreed with you, as I didn't see much difference between Republican and Democrat. Now I think that Kerry would make a big change. Not because he's particularly progressive or different from other Democrats - he's not - but because it has only become clear in the last couple of years just how extremist the Bush regime is. Even if you look only at domestic policy, the Bush government is by turns incompetent, deceitful, bigoted, and just plain bad. They seem to want to bring the country to the brink of bankruptcy as a political strategy to destroy the welfare state, ensuring the continuance in power of a ruling class composed of millionaires, idiots and criminals.

So in your own words Bush is an extremist, but Kerry isn't the status quo?
And what if Nader's true progressive policies bring out more people...Kerry sees this and has to adopt a more progressive stance...possibly bringing more voters to his side.

The status quo is a train-wreck. The status quo is completely insane.

That's usually known as extremist.

Kerry is dull, and Kerry is conservative, but he is not that bad.

No he's definetly better than Bush... but many people of the Democratic variety voted for him in 2000 (that's Bush not Kerry). Now many people might not vote for Kerry because of him being "dull and conservative". That's not Nader's fault.

I've seen this view bandied about a bit, but I don't think the Democrats should join the Bushies in playing chicken with the country's future. 4 more years of Bush is too horrible to contemplate.

I agree and I don't really want to test my theory.

shotamoose

Originally posted by sovtek
So in your own words Bush is an extremist, but Kerry isn't the status quo?

You misunderstood. Bush is the status quo, as he is the present incumbent. Bush is an extremist. So the status quo is extremism.

Kerry is not extremist. So if he won, he would change the status quo.

Unless you mean that Bush's election hasn't changed the status quo - that is, that the US government hasn't changed much since Clinton? If you do think that, I suggest you look again.

Zombrex

Originally posted by PHB
Can anyone who pupports this idea that Bush was elected illegally show me some evidence?

There is a ton of evidence. It was investigated and report on by most of the major US newspapers, along with the BBC and a load of European news agencies. There is no cover up, no conspiricy. The paper trail is all out in the open, all the information is freely available.

The thing is in the US no one gives a sh*t anymore. It was reported and reported by the press, about how thosands of voters were taken off the register, how ballot papers were badly laid out so people voted for the wrong person etc etc. But nothing was done. No one in power cares.

TomF

"In 2003, US citizens living in the state of Florida were asked who they voted for in the 2000 Election as part of the Statistical Abstract Census. The results showed President Bush receiving more than 1000 votes more than former Vice President Gore."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000

Seaneh

I'm going to give you the two biggist reasons Kerry won't win.

1. Gay Marriage.
2. Tax rases

And just for kicks...
his plans to cut the inte;igence budget.


1 and 2 are the main reasons though.

Most Americans are conservitive, and have either christian based morals or are strongly christians, espically in the mid-west and the south, and to a lesser degree in the north-east.
Kerry will win Cali and vancuver, and a few others, but is the democrat party pushes the gay marriage issue, which they most likely will, then bush will have an easy victroy, and if the democtars don't, then bush's people will.
Basicaly Kerry is screwed because of Howard Deane and The mayor of San Diego.


And on the Taz rases, he is comitted to them, even though him, me, you and the rest of the world knows it would really hurt the american econmey right now, also, he has already contradicted himself 37times on a verious issues of reasionable importance in the last few months.


Top that off with the personality of a carrot, and you have a bad candiate.

The Democrats would have been better running Hillory Clinton or Al Gore.
Edwards would have been thier best bet from this years bunch, atleast he has some sort of presence about him.

BarryFry

"Sooner or later, you're gonna listen to Ralph Nader" quoth the Buzzcocks in 1978.

They were wrong.

Which is why you should never listen to rock stars.

They don't know sh*te.

kanurocks

What about Carter he was a rock star and a president?.........."ouch";)

sovtek

Originally posted by BarryFry
"Sooner or later, you're gonna listen to Ralph Nader" quoth the Buzzcocks in 1978.

They were wrong.

Which is why you should never listen to rock stars.

They don't know sh*te.

And he's the reason every car (in the US at least) has a seatbelt and a collapsable steering column.
The media might not be listening, but people definetly are.

sovtek

Originally posted by Seaneh
I'm going to give you the two biggist reasons Kerry won't win.

1. Gay Marriage.
2. Tax rases

Eh no.
The only people that are really concerned about gay marriage (at this day and time) are Bush, the right wing, gays and the media.
Tax raises are high up on the list...the economy being no. 1 and Iraq being second.

And just for kicks...
his plans to cut the inte;igence budget.

It needs to be. Spying on your own people and law abiding immigrants isn't going to do a bit of good.

Most Americans are conservitive, and have either christian based morals or are strongly christians,

Ummm not necessarily.

Kerry will win Cali and vancuver, and a few others, but is the democrat party pushes the gay marriage issue, which they most likely will, then bush will have an easy victroy, and if the democtars don't, then bush's people will.

I think alot of people actually don't care one way or the other. The only people that are making an issue at the moment are Bush, gays and the media. The latter making the bigger stink.

Basicaly Kerry is screwed because of Howard Deane and The mayor of San Diego.

Dean actually helped Kerry get a better message out than the one he had. It's the only thing that has given the DNC any balls.
Nader will also help further that.

And on the Taz rases, he is comitted to them, even though him, me, you and the rest of the world knows it would really hurt the american econmey right now, also, he has already contradicted himself 37times on a verious issues of reasionable importance in the last few months.

As has Bush.
If you are talking about voting against "every weapons system" in '91 that's RNC spin spouted by the media. Cheney and Bush Sr. also voted the same way.
I suspect the other 37 times are probably also RNC spin that seems to somehow get picked up by the "liberal"WP and NYT

Top that off with the personality of a carrot, and you have a bad candiate.

That's also media spin originating from the RNC. It's sounds hauntingly familiar to "he's so stiff...he said he invented the internet...he's a liar...he's now wearing earth tones....he must be insecure".

The Democrats would have been better running Hillory Clinton or Al Gore.

Maybe Gore but Hillary defo not. Alot of people seriously dislike her. She's not much different than Leiberman.

Edwards would have been thier best bet from this years bunch, atleast he has some sort of presence about him.

So much for substantive issues being considered in a presidental campaign.