The W
Views: 139336913
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.12.18 0621
The W - Current Events & Politics - Good News for Republicans?
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.12
Pages: 1 2 Next
(1551 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 60 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.97
WASHINGTON - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader announced Sunday he will run again for the presidency, declaring that Washington has become "corporate occupied territory" and arguing there is too little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.

Nader, who will turn 70 this week, said he contemplated retirement but decided against that. "I've decided to run as an independent candidate for president," he announced on NBC's "Meet The Press."

"This country has more problems and injustices than it deserves," Nader said, bemoaning a "democracy gap." He said he needed to get into the race to "challenge this two-party duopoly."

"There's too much power and wealth in too few hands," he said. "They have taken over Washington."

"Washington is now corporate occupied territory," Nader said. "There is now a for-sale sign on most agencies and departments. ... Money is flowing in like never before. It means that corporations are saying no to the necessities of the American people. ... Basically, it's question of both parties flunking."

Asked if he would withdraw if he concluded his candidacy would merely ensure President Bush's re-election, Nader told interviewer Tim Russert, "When and if that eventuality occurs, you can invite me back on the program and I'll give you the answer."

Nader decided against running under the banner of the Green Party. His candidacy four years ago has been blamed by many Democrats for costing Al Gore the election against George W. Bush.

Last week, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe revealed that he had met with Nader several times urging him not to run.

Asked if he was getting into the race to be a spoiler, Nader replied: "A spoiler is a contemptuous term, as if anyody who dares to challenge the two party system .. is a spoiler, and we've got to fight that. You can't do that from the outside, ... You've got to fight that from the inside as well."

"Let me say, this is going to be difficult," said Nader, who planned a round of interviews after his announcement. "This isn't just our fight. This is a fight for all third parties ... They want to have a chance to compete. This is not a democracy that can be controlled by two parties in the grip of corporate interests."

Third party candidacies have been a greater part of presidential politics in recent years; businessman Ross Perot twice ran for president, winning 19 percent of the vote in his first try in 1992 against Bill Clinton and then-President George H.W. Bush.

"It's his personal vanity because he has no movement. Nobody's backing him," New Mexico Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson said Sunday in advance of Nader's announcement.

"The Greens aren't backing him. His friends urge him not to do it. It's all about himself," Richardson told "Fox News Sunday."

"Now, Ralph's made some great contributions to consumer issues over the years, but clearly it's not going to help us," he said. "I don't think he'll have a sizable impact, but it's terrible if he goes ahead because it's about him. It's about his ego. It's about his vanity and not about a movement that supposedly he headed for many years very effectively."

As the Green Party's nominee in 2000, Nader appeared on the ballot in 43 states and Washington, D.C., garnering only 2.7 percent of the vote. But in Florida and New Hampshire, Bush won such narrow victories that had Gore received the bulk of Nader's votes in those states, he would have won the general election.




I was once WOTD, and nobody bothered to tell me?
Promote this thread!
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 1997 days
Last activity: 1997 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.39
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    It's his personal vanity because he has no movement. Nobody's backing him," New Mexico Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson said Sunday in advance of Nader's announcement.

    "The Greens aren't backing him. His friends urge him not to do it. It's all about himself," Richardson told "Fox News Sunday."

    "Now, Ralph's made some great contributions to consumer issues over the years, but clearly it's not going to help us," he said. "I don't think he'll have a sizable impact, but it's terrible if he goes ahead because it's about him. It's about his ego. It's about his vanity and not about a movement that supposedly he headed for many years very effectively."








Doesn't anyone who runs for office do it slightly out of vanity? And, since he's running supposedly to win, why would he want his running to help the Democrats? I don't see a real movement for John Kerry, just pragmatism. Thus, shouldn't Kerry back out as it is for his vanity and not a movement that is causing him to run?
And yes, electoral math wise this helps the Republicans.



FIRE LARRY LUCHINNO.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 21 hours
ICQ:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.65
Maybe the Reform Party will take him. ;-)

Speaking of which....has Pat Buchanan given an official yea or nay to another run yet? Should I use Google and find out for myself? Yes, I probably should. :)



CRZ
Gugs
Bierwurst








Since: 9.7.02
From: Sleep (That's where I'm a viking)

Since last post: 2036 days
Last activity: 1164 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.42
I feel like some sort of nutcase. First I take a presidential match test that puts me 100% with John Kerry (back when 7 Democrats were running) and now I agree with Ralph Nader.



What are you, some sort of critic?
AWArulz
Scrapple








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.60
    Originally posted by gugs
    I feel like some sort of nutcase. First I take a presidential match test that puts me 100% with John Kerry (back when 7 Democrats were running) and now I agree with Ralph Nader.


Gugs, don't worry about it 'til you line up with lyndon larouche



Rasslin' republicans - visit it soon
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2787 days
Last activity: 1242 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Nader won't have any more effect on the Democrat than Roy Moore will on Bush.



Liberals sometimes claim to believe in personal freedom, but their concept of liberty seems limited to matters related to sex....Yet outside the sexual realm, liberals are downright illiberal. They want to control every aspect of our lives: what we eat, what we smoke, what we drive, how we defend our homes and families, how much of our own money we're allowed to keep.
- James Taranto

RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 12 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.71
His candidacy four years ago has been blamed by many Democrats for costing Al Gore the election against George W. Bush.

Who in the hell is Ralph Nader? Everyone knows that the Gore lost 2K due to fraud, deceit and a vast right wing conspiracy in Florida. I HATE revisionist history.

FLEA



Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high...

FLEA - 1ryderfakin.com - IWC 100! And The Wrestling Dead Pool!!
Dexley's Midnight Jogger
Pepperoni
Moderator








Since: 10.10.02
From: New Hampshire

Since last post: 1780 days
Last activity: 1695 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.27
Not everyone who chose to vote for Ralph Nader four years ago would have automatically voted for Al Gore as a second choice. If Nader hadn't run, I had a couple other choices I would have picked before Gore, including a write-in candidate.
Whitebacon
Banger








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 12 hours
ICQ:  
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.37
    Originally posted by Dexley's Midnight Jogger
    Not everyone who chose to vote for Ralph Nader four years ago would have automatically voted for Al Gore as a second choice. If Nader hadn't run, I had a couple other choices I would have picked before Gore, including a write-in candidate.


In the commercial that I saw begging Nader not to run, they used a figure of 1 percent of Naders total in FLA would have swung the state to Gore.







In the context of baseball, the use of drugs hurts only the player. In the context of baseball, the use of alcohol hurts only the player. In the context of baseball, womanizing hurts whom? Maybe the wife of the player? In the context of baseball, felonies are crimes against society, not against baseball. In the context of baseball, gambling is the only crime against baseball.

Gambling, in the context of baseball, is a capital offense and Rose has richly earned-- hell, he agreed to-- his death sentence. Let him hang.

Bob Kohm, co-owner of Rotojunkies.com (rotojunkies.com) , and a large market kind of guy.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 21 hours
ICQ:  
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.65
    Originally posted by Whitebacon
      Originally posted by Dexley's Midnight Jogger
      Not everyone who chose to vote for Ralph Nader four years ago would have automatically voted for Al Gore as a second choice. If Nader hadn't run, I had a couple other choices I would have picked before Gore, including a write-in candidate.


    In the commercial that I saw begging Nader not to run, they used a figure of 1 percent of Naders total in FLA would have swung the state to Gore.


Certified Florida Results, 2000 General Election, Presidency

Bush/Cheney (R) 2,912,790
Gore/Lieberman (D) 2,912,253
Nader/LaDuke (G) 97,488
Buchanan/Foster (REF) 17,484
Browne/Olivier (L) 16,415
Hagelin/Goldhaber (NL) 2,281
Moorehead/La Riva (WWP) 1,804
Phillips/Frazier (CPF) 1,371
McReynolds/Hollis (SPF) 622
Harris/Trowe (SWP) 562
Chote/Lancaster (write-in) 34
McCarthy/Beifus (write-in) 6

Source (election.dos.state.fl.us)



CRZ
Dexley's Midnight Jogger
Pepperoni
Moderator








Since: 10.10.02
From: New Hampshire

Since last post: 1780 days
Last activity: 1695 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.27
Whitebacon,
That's understood, and a good point. However, that is asking those people not to vote for who they thought would have been the best president and vote solely to keep the one guy they didn't want out.

A third party candidate got on the ballot and some people fiercely believed in what he had to say and voted for him. While some who voted for him could have chosen Gore to keep Bush out of the white house, it still would have compromised their beliefs. I find that to be a lot more wrong than sticking with Nader.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 4348 days
Last activity: 4190 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
Now that the "Nader effect" has been demonstrated in as close to concrete fashion as possible, do you think any self-respecting, Bush-hating democrat is going to vote for him?



In Theo We Trust
Whitebacon
Banger








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 12 hours
ICQ:  
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.59
    Originally posted by Dexley's Midnight Jogger
    Whitebacon,
    That's understood, and a good point. However, that is asking those people not to vote for who they thought would have been the best president and vote solely to keep the one guy they didn't want out.

    A third party candidate got on the ballot and some people fiercely believed in what he had to say and voted for him. While some who voted for him could have chosen Gore to keep Bush out of the white house, it still would have compromised their beliefs. I find that to be a lot more wrong than sticking with Nader.


Believe me, I know, and I agree with your overall point completely. I could honestly care less who someone votes for, as long as they believe in that candidate and vote their conscience. I still think that there was probably at least 1% of the Nader voters that would have voted Gore if Nader wasn't running as a semi-viable candidate. Because, whether we like it or not, that plays into the decision making process of many people. I voted for Bill Jones for CA governor when he was running against Bill Simon for the Republican nomination against Gray Davis. I spent a couple of days debating on whether or not to do so, because I knew he had no shot to win against the deep(er) pockets of Simon. I'm just glad I get the chance to vote for him for the US senate this year.





In the context of baseball, the use of drugs hurts only the player. In the context of baseball, the use of alcohol hurts only the player. In the context of baseball, womanizing hurts whom? Maybe the wife of the player? In the context of baseball, felonies are crimes against society, not against baseball. In the context of baseball, gambling is the only crime against baseball.

Gambling, in the context of baseball, is a capital offense and Rose has richly earned-- hell, he agreed to-- his death sentence. Let him hang.

Bob Kohm, co-owner of Rotojunkies.com (rotojunkies.com) , and a large market kind of guy.
OndaGrande
Boudin rouge








Since: 1.5.03
From: California, Home of THE LAKERS!

Since last post: 737 days
Last activity: 301 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.76

It's about more than ego or the statistic potential to actually win. it's about every citizen having an equal voice and a choice. Jello Biafra (of the Dead Kennedy's) once said that a Democrat is on the inside what a Republican is on the outside. That's basically what Nader reiterated on Sunday, saying the 2 parties are more alike than different. Another point was made a few weeks ago by Christie Whitman (ex Gov of NJ,EPA director) on The Daily Show that the parties and politicians are touting more extremist policies to cater to those who are voting because most of the middle of the road public aren't voting.They feel disenfranchised by big corporation's and Special Interest's role in the political process, and feel their votes don't count or mean anything because no matter who is elected, they are going to be in the back pocket of big money anyway. Voting for your choice of candidate is really showing your opinion of what direction you want things to go,and the major parties need reminding that there are more than two opinions on matters of public interest. A vote for Nader (or anyone else running) is a protest against big party politics and career politicians.



LEARN IT, KNOW IT, LIVE IT!
kazhayashi81
Potato korv








Since: 17.6.02
From: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Since last post: 4219 days
Last activity: 4170 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.74
UNITED WE STAND

    Originally posted by redsoxnation
      Originally posted by StaggerLee
      It's his personal vanity because he has no movement. Nobody's backing him," New Mexico Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson said Sunday in advance of Nader's announcement.

      "The Greens aren't backing him. His friends urge him not to do it. It's all about himself," Richardson told "Fox News Sunday."

      "Now, Ralph's made some great contributions to consumer issues over the years, but clearly it's not going to help us," he said. "I don't think he'll have a sizable impact, but it's terrible if he goes ahead because it's about him. It's about his ego. It's about his vanity and not about a movement that supposedly he headed for many years very effectively."








    Doesn't anyone who runs for office do it slightly out of vanity? And, since he's running supposedly to win, why would he want his running to help the Democrats? I don't see a real movement for John Kerry, just pragmatism. Thus, shouldn't Kerry back out as it is for his vanity and not a movement that is causing him to run?
    And yes, electoral math wise this helps the Republicans.


Not necessarily. Someone might not vote in New Mexico or Florida for a third party because of how close it should be, but if someone in New York or California wants to vote Nader, it won't affect anything. Just like me voting Libertarian here in Texas. If it was just popular vote, then I might vote Bush, because I don't want Kerry in the White House. But, since it's not, I'll vote with my concience.





It is the soldier not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press

It is the soldier not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech

It is the soldier not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate

It is the soldier not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial

It is the soldier, who saluted the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag
-Anonymous
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 420 days
Last activity: 322 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.78
I voted for Nader in 2000 because while i thought he was wrong on alot international issues he was more right than wrong on domestic issues. And even though I am a Democrat I wouldn't vote for Gore. And I refuse to vote for someone to keep someone else from winning. You vote for the best candidate.

And in Kansas it wasn't like Gore would have won all our multitudinous electors.



Perception is reality
AWArulz
Scrapple








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.59
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I voted for Nader in 2000 because while i thought he was wrong on alot international issues he was more right than wrong on domestic issues. And even though I am a Democrat I wouldn't vote for Gore. And I refuse to vote for someone to keep someone else from winning. You vote for the best candidate.

    And in Kansas it wasn't like Gore would have won all our multitudinous electors.


Doc, no - really?. Surprises me. I always got you for a realist. I'm sure I don't understand how a seemingly rational person such as yourself would vote for someone with no chance to influence anything. It would literally have been better to not vote in your case, Look, in 1996, there was no way I wanted to vote for Dole. I felt like he was all but unelectable. But I grudgingly voted for him, because he was the best we had that had a chance of any sort to win. I voted for HW in 1992 as well, even though I thought the crazy man had better ideas (Perot).

This is obviously the time to find third-party people - I think Dean would do well as a third-party, Go ceneter with everything except Iraq and he could win.

But Ralph? No.



Rasslin' republicans - visit it soon
JoshMann
Andouille








Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 3810 days
Last activity: 3807 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.43
    Originally posted by CRZ
      Originally posted by Whitebacon
        Originally posted by Dexley's Midnight Jogger
        Not everyone who chose to vote for Ralph Nader four years ago would have automatically voted for Al Gore as a second choice. If Nader hadn't run, I had a couple other choices I would have picked before Gore, including a write-in candidate.


      In the commercial that I saw begging Nader not to run, they used a figure of 1 percent of Naders total in FLA would have swung the state to Gore.


    Certified Florida Results, 2000 General Election, Presidency

    Bush/Cheney (R) 2,912,790
    Gore/Lieberman (D) 2,912,253
    Nader/LaDuke (G) 97,488
    Buchanan/Foster (REF) 17,484
    Browne/Olivier (L) 16,415
    Hagelin/Goldhaber (NL) 2,281
    Moorehead/La Riva (WWP) 1,804
    Phillips/Frazier (CPF) 1,371
    McReynolds/Hollis (SPF) 622
    Harris/Trowe (SWP) 562
    Chote/Lancaster (write-in) 34
    McCarthy/Beifus (write-in) 6

    Source (election.dos.state.fl.us)


OR if my mother in Boca could have found the right spot on the ballot, along with half of Century Village that she lives 15 minutes away from.

The woman wears bifocals thicker than my winshield...there is NO WAY she found the right spot on it.



"Americas top dog is a big, slobbering, barking dog named Josh" [AP]
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 420 days
Last activity: 322 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.78
    Originally posted by AWArulz


      Doc, no - really?. Surprises me. I always got you for a realist. I'm sure I don't understand how a seemingly rational person such as yourself would vote for someone with no chance to influence anything. It would literally have been better to not vote in your case, Look, in 1996, there was no way I wanted to vote for Dole. I felt like he was all but unelectable. But I grudgingly voted for him, because he was the best we had that had a chance of any sort to win. I voted for HW in 1992 as well, even though I thought the crazy man had better ideas (Perot).

      This is obviously the time to find third-party people - I think Dean would do well as a third-party, Go ceneter with everything except Iraq and he could win.

      But Ralph? No.


    I am a realist but I could never vote for Gore and I didn't vote for Bush because he never demonstrated to me the ability to be President. A nice guy but not a President. I actually agree with alot the Libertarian philosophy but they are in left (right?) field on social issues. If I had lived in a state where my vote mattered I may have acted differently but in Kansas Jesus couldn't win as a Democrat.



    Perception is reality
Dahak
Frankfurter








Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 3544 days
Last activity: 3197 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.61
Or if Gore had won his home state of Tennesse he would be President now. Or was that also a right wing conspiracy?
Right or wrong the U.S. has an electoral college. There are good arguements on both sides but it's not like the rules changed in 2000. Everyone needs to move on already.



Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 6.12
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Bush/Kerry Skull & Bones connection
Next thread: Kerry, Edwards lead Bush in poll
Previous thread: PEAK OIL
(1551 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The W - Current Events & Politics - Good News for Republicans?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2018 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.061 seconds.