I CANT BELIEVE people are considering Nader

[Mobius]

:puke:
Lets just pack out bags for Canada now, and figure Jeb will be potus after Shrub.

[curse10]

1. I'm not surprised

people here will cut off their noses despite their faces all the time. (sorry for the cliche)

[HEyHEY]

2. I've got a mouse infested apartment I'll sublet ya.

:-)

[Mobius]

6. I have 3 cats and if shrub wins

they can earn my rent LOL

[HEyHEY]

9. Three may not be enough - I think the mice are starting to organize

:scared:

[RandomKoolzip]

3. No kidding.

I and many others have been amazed at the response Nadir is getting with his shtick. Why can't the rest of DU see through it?


Remember:

Third Party Vote = Republican Party Win

[EvilJam]

26. indeed.

this must be something like the 99th time he's run for Prez.
he must be funded by the Republicans and neo cons. - tom

[kalian]

4. I think....

that the real question that ALL Americans should be asking themselves
is: what have the two parties done to America since WWII?
Pat Buchanan stated it best when he said that both parties were
"xerox copies of each other." This was by an ultra-conservative who
saw his party hijacked by corporate interests.

We have to come to the realization that America needs to completely
revamp its political system. Its not a question of just getting
"one of our guys into the WH." Its way beyond that.

What I fear is that a vicious pendulum will continue to shred this
country to pieces. I think America deserves better than this.

So, what will happen when Kerry is voted into the WH (if he is even
permitted to do so...)? Will he bring our troops home? Will he
mend foreign relations? Will he continue to chace shrub's
boogeyman, OBL? Will he call for sweeping investigations into 9/11?

Think about that...what GUARANTEES do we, THE PEOPLE, have?
NONE...

[RandomKoolzip]

8. So the alternative is to vote for a paid agent provocateur...

who fucked it all up the last time. I know you have no "guarantee" that Kerry will be the end all be all liberal candidate, but fer crissakes, he'll make it a lot less scarier to watch the news every night.

Plus, this overhaul will take YEARS. You can't bring about a change like this in 2004, or 2008. Too many people are making too much money off of this system to make a sea change.

Take it from a guy who voted for Nadir in 2000....we can improve things with a Dem in the White House. At least a Dem will listen to us.

[Mobius]

11. And Nader provides us with that?

shure. Repubs gave him like $6million in free TV ads last time. Where do you think that money came from?(corporate interests...duh...) We will not affect change in this country by electing shrub, which is precisely what a vote for Nader will do. After 4 more years of Shrub, there may be martial law and no more elections. Then what? If a 3rd party wants to make change , they are picking the worst possible time to do it. Nader voters will win the election for shrub, and horribly offend supporters Nader could get if he waited till there was a Dem POTUS in office. The rethugs had no more attacks on the candidates left, in walks Nader. How utterly convenient.

[celestia671]

12. But he can't win!

What's the point of him even running? The only thing Nader will accomplish is to help Bush win the way he did in 2000!

Until today, I actually had some hope that a Dem would actually win.

[RandomKoolzip]

14. I know...

apart fom all the usual bickering in GD04 and hopeful signs in the media and out on the street, for a couple weeks ther, I really though that the Democrats, as a whole, were pretty united in their fight against Bush. Now, as soon as Nadir announces his candidacy, all of a sudden, it's "screw the fight, screw everybody - my special interest needs are more important than everyone else's." WTF? Where did this pro-Nadir shit come from? I thought we could all see through this asshole's lies?

WAKE UP! HE'S GETTING P A I D TO HELP BUSH WIN!

[kalian]

18. Good chuckle there...

rampant speculation. Where's the evidence? :shrug:

[RandomKoolzip]

28. Well, for one thing....

Michael Moore himself realizes that during the waning days of the 2000 campaign that the groups who have been setting up Nadir's speaking engagements have been RNCers. He writes about it in "Stupid White Men."

Also, there's this:

http://www.explorenader04.org


And where's the evidence that somehow Kerry or Edwards is going to be as bad as Bush? All the votes and policies that he voted for in accordance with Bush were all made in the days following 9/11, back before the evidence that the rationale for going to war was faulty. A lot of people, good people, were for the war back then. He really should have known better, I agree, but HE'S OUR ONLY CHANCE RIGHT NOW to thwart Bush's plans for the end times.

[krkaufman]

35. Yep, Nader seems to be criticizing Dems more than Bush/ROG...

... and is returning to his "no difference between parties" bullshit, which may be enough to sway the malleable middle, just beginning to loosen from the ROG's hold, back to Shrub.

[Atlant]

37. Taken literally, there isn't much difference between *THE PARTIES*

While their platforms differ (somewhat), not parties are two
animals cut from the same cloth. The main goal of both
parties is to dominate the political process and control
political power. And after our most-recent primary season,
you can see that both parties will use *ANY AND ALL MEANS
NECESSARY* to maintain control over their members, suppressing
anyone who might rock their respective boats.

And even when it comes to platforms, on the planks that
really matter to us, day-in and day-out, the two parties
are both full-time supporters of the Corporate State that
funnels largesse in the direction of the two parties.

Atlant

[blurp]

5. We should be asking

We should be asking why is it Nader won't or can't run as a Democrat.

Nader represents the principles of the party. Why does the party consistantly reject him?

[kalian]

7. Because he represents the OLD democratic ideals....

he's "too liberal"... :eyes:

[Dookus]

10. Of course he can run as a Democrat

he won't do so because he gets a lot more attention running as an independent.

The party has never rejected him - he's never run for ANYTHING as a Democrat.

[Old and In the Way]

30. Did anyone stop him from running as a Democrat in the primaries?

If he has such swell Democratic ideas, I'm sure he'd have run the table as a Democrat....right? So why didn't he run? Because he would have been absolutely rejected.

Much better that he had run as a Republican in the primary against Bush....didn't do that either.

[Scott Lee]

13. Sorry dude. Destroying Dean came with a price, I guess.

Suck it up and enjoy the horror.

[RandomKoolzip]

17. What does that have to do with anything?

Dean doesn't support Nadir; he's ABB. He sees through Nadir, like any smart person.

And this is coming from a rabid Dean supporter - he was MY GUY, and now he's gone from the race. First campaign I'd ever donated to. But now, we have to grow up and take stock and realize we have one hope, before Bush and his pals take us to the "end times." Bush WANTS armaggeddon! He's a fucking FUNDY, remember?!

[kalian]

19. Using your rational: "ABB"

why does it have to come from a "traditional" party...? :shrug:

[RandomKoolzip]

22. Coy. Very coy.

Dean's latest televised speech urged all his supporters to throw their effort behind the DEM frontrunner. Any sour grapes that could have come from Dean's mouth were dispelled by that speech, and the public statements of his campaign managers.

C'mon, this is getting stupid. We all know we have to beat Bush in this election or we'll be living in Pat Robertson's wet dream. So why the fuck are so many of us jumping ship and allowing it to happen? I thought we all knew how important this election was....

[Gore1FL]

32. Because ABB implies voting for for the guy running against him

Not someone who manages to get on the ballot in 6 states.

The strategy of ABB is to remove Bush, not to divide the Left vote between 6000 candidates.

Does this really need to be explained, or are you just parsing to parse?

[Gore1FL]

31. Huh?

Dean has asked his supporters not to support a 3rd party candidate.

It doesn't say much for his supporters if they don;t support him on sucha fundamental issue.

[TheWhitneyBrown]

15. Nader wants Bush to continue screwing things up so badly

During his second term that it will cause a progressive backlash, leaving an opening for a reform type party in 2008.
His goal, then, is to re-elect Bush, hoping to bring so much pain on to the country that even the Bushies turn Progressive. It's an idiotic plan.

[shivaji]

16. May be people are fed up of repug-lite & DLC

[kalian]

20. And that's why BOTH parties went into the defensive...

the repukes are downplaying the Nader "threat" and the dems are
accusing him of being a "provocateur". Interesting behavior if you
ask me...

[blurp]

21. Is this the best the country has to offer?

The primary process is seriously screwed up.

We have Bush with about $100 million and the Dems with maybe $50 million.

If that money had been used to simply search the country for good men and women that can lead, we'd be in much better shape.

With that much money and the whole country to choose from, I can see the presidential election becoming mostly party neutral. The nation would have someone most people could get behind.

The politics would shift into the congress where they belong.

[kalian]

23. The Congress is a joke!

just look at the way that they have behaved during these past
three years. WHERE was the senate when the "patriot" act was passed?
Why didn't they question shrub before he decided to invade a
sovereign nation?
Those people are a JOKE.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Congress is not a joke, it's just Republican controlled...

And essentially was during the vote on the patriot act. A 51-49 majority for either party is a majority for organizational purposes only. There's so many fringe senators that basically anything that makes the floor goes to the GOP.

[blurp]

25. Ok. Let me add proportional representation, too :)

[bowens43]

33. And nader is an alternative??

Your kidding right? Nader's entry into the race will benefit bush and Nader knows this. He can't possibly believe that he is a viable candidate. His only reason for running is to help ensure the election of the idiot. If Nader isn't working for bush, he should be.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Chatting with someone I know right now who was wanting to look into Nader.

I think I'm bringing him around, but we really should do our work in this area.

Oh fuck he just said he'd vote for Bush before Kerry. He was really liking Kucinich before, this makes no sense! I just don't understand him!

[feistydem]

29. Frankly the image of President Nader is a little creepy to me, even if he

could get elected (which he can't). I would not feel safe if there were another terrorist attack and Ralph were in office (for the record, Bush doesn't make me feel safe either).

He's like a one trick pony. I agree with him about the corporate influences in Washington destroying our democracy. But there's a lot more at stake right now than just that one issue.

Besides, isn't the guy getting pretty old for this?

[maddezmom]

34. Believe it n/t

[Atlant]

36. Before the primaries began, a lot of us told everyone that we wanted...

Before the primaries began, a lot of us told everyone that we
wanted a more progressive candidate, one stood for more traditional
"Democratic" values.

However, during the primaries, the plurality of Democratic voters
said that our views didn't matter and that they would prefer the
"safe" choice, the "more electable" choice.

So that's what you'll probably have to live with now.

But why should you be surprised that we who wanted a more progressive
choice won't now fall in line? After all, our views didn't matter
then so why do our votes matter now? If your guy is "electable",
then surely he's electable without us.

By the way, Nader's entry into the race shouldn't surprise anyone;
he told everyone exactly what he would base his decision upon: The
nomination of Kucinich or Dean, else he'd step in. Did people not
factor that in when they decided on Kerry? If the didn't factor
that in, then who made the mistake, the voters or Nader?

Atlant

(Probably not a Nader voter,
but *CERTAINLY* not a Kerry voter.
Add me to that list of traitors
that's being kept by someone.)