Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Ralph Nader emerges from hole in the ground, sees his shadow, announces intent to run for president again. It's official: four more years of President Bush   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 1124
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

7635 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Feb 2004 at 10:02 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1124 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-02-22 11:48:50 AM  
I like to think that the Americans voters won't make the mistake of voting for Nader again. But the far left might. I think a lot of voters that wanted Dean to win voting for Nader. Dean needs to back Kerry and tell his people to vote Democrat.

Yeah, I think Bush is very happy today. It's going to be a tight race even before Nader jumped in. Since I can't stand the idea of 4 more years of Bush, I find this disturbing
 
2004-02-22 11:49:11 AM  
mongosmash
You cant lay 2000 on nader unless you have a problem counting, there were plenty of other 3rd party or independant candidates who got votes. hell buchanon got thousands of votes in florida if he didn't run who do you think they would have voted for gore? yeah right. There is no saying that the voters who voted for nader would have voted at all.


Actually, most of those votes WERE for Gore. Buchanansaid so himself. It's true that many if not most of the votes for Nader would not have voted for Gore if Nader didn't run. But It's a fact that Gore would have won florida if it weren't for Nader. There were at least a couple of thousand voters that voted for Nader that would have voted for Gore. That would have made all the difference.

I'm all for third parties, but when the stakes are this high, and the nation is so divided, now is not the time. For the safety of this country and the world, get bush out of office NOW.
 
2004-02-22 11:49:13 AM  
"Shrubya" OMG that never gets old!11!!
 
2004-02-22 11:49:53 AM  
I forsee the lowest voter turnout in a few elections, just out of pure disgust. I for one ain't getting out of bed Tuesday or Wednesday or whenever it is.
 
2004-02-22 11:50:31 AM  
More war in '04
Bush/Hitler
Hooray for ignorance and fundies!
Can I get a hip...?
 
2004-02-22 11:50:44 AM  
Nader has clearly been paid off by Bush, and is working now for Dubya's reelection. After all those years toiling for causes, he's cashing in big time.

There's no other explanation, since his candidacy does absolutely nothing of any value to anyone else, even himself. His "third party" is completely non-viable, so it doesn't even serve the purpose of "breaking the 2-party stranglehold" in fact it only enhances it.

When you ignore the advice of your supporters to not run, then the only explanation is, you're working for the other side now. I'm sure this started in 2000, after all, he only attacked Gore, never Bush or the republicans. It's all pretty clear and undeniable now.
 
2004-02-22 11:51:09 AM  
I wouldn't vote for anyone who looked like they just crawled out of f*cking a coffin. For Christ's sake Ralph and John, try jumping on a treadmill once in a while to get the ol' blood flowing to the facial area, or get on a tanning bed.
 
2004-02-22 11:52:07 AM  
2004-02-22 11:49:53 AM TheOtherGuyFromWham
I forsee the lowest voter turnout in a few elections, just out of pure disgust. I for one ain't getting out of bed Tuesday or Wednesday or whenever it is.

then, after november 1st, consider yourself excused from any and all political discussions.
 
2004-02-22 11:52:12 AM  
Sadly, I may have to be a hypocrite this year. I truly believe Bush is creating a theocracy in our once great nation, and his removal is of the utmost important to me. But if Kerry gets the nod, oh well, I can't in good conscience vote for him. Bush and Kerry have some differences, but they both truly are whores to their corporate masters, regardless of what Kerry says. If Edwards pulls it off, I'll vote for him. He hasn't been in the system long enough to have become totally morally bankrupt. I hate Bush, I hate Kerry's two-faces. I refuse to vote for either of them regardless of what it will mean. So, Bush and Kerry? I vote libertarian. Edwards? Fine, democruds, I'll help you get rid of Bush.
 
2004-02-22 11:52:57 AM  
2004-02-22 11:43:15 AM thornhill

I voted for Nader last time, so it's not much of a stretch for me to do it again.
I felt really good about that vote too.

Your comments about his lack of ballot access/infrastructure are correct. He may not even be on the ballot in Florida. I'm thinking that the bushies are getting too giddy over this, and the bush-haters are getting too angry. Nader will not get as many votes as last time.
 
2004-02-22 11:54:09 AM  
zaphod,

there is no way to know that for sure, no matter who said what it's pure speculation. The point is that there were plenty of other 3rd party candidates. Telling them not to run because they might take away from the "real" candidates is a real asshat move.
 
2004-02-22 11:54:42 AM  
I wouldnt say Kerry has two faces. He consistently votes liberal. The flip/flop thing is what the Republicans are trying to paint him as, so dont believe everything you read.

Bush has flip/flopped issues more then anyone. Its hilarious watching the daily show when they clip together comments that completely contradict each other.
 
Tor
2004-02-22 11:55:12 AM  
If Edwards win the nomination, I'll vote for him, otherwise my vote goes to Bush. Not because of any real political reason but because some of the Democratic parties demographics........some liberals piss me off and it makes me feel like a big man to cancel out someone's vote.

It'll be interesting to see both parties clash over Ohio.
 
2004-02-22 11:55:20 AM  
2004-02-22 11:48:16 AM RubensHakkamacher
The U.S. won't survive another 4 years of King George's reign, if it makes it at all at this point.


I don't suppose you care to put your money where your mouth is and make a wager on that ridiculous claim.
 
2004-02-22 11:55:21 AM  
i voted straight green on my local and state ticket. where is the support for green/independent candidates from the ground up? this dark-horse shiate will never get any of them elected.
 
2004-02-22 11:56:00 AM  
You said it, Alyia. People, if you don't vote, keep your farking mouths shut about politics. You have NO right to biatch.
 
2004-02-22 11:56:10 AM  
NadaTooma- I know what you mean, sometimes after reading a political flamewar thread it is fun to go read democratic undergournd and rushlimbaugh.com and notice how familair all the comments seem to be. It's a lot of people throwing around catch phrases from their chosen talking heads.
 
2004-02-22 11:56:12 AM  
The problem in America is that you have a President. Since there can only be one President, if more than 2 people run someone will inevitable "steal votes" from someone else. Since the winner takes all, people who vote for the losing candidates subsequently have NO influence over the Executive branch (though, to be fair, neither do people who voted FOR the winner, once the election is over). The issues they raise mean NOTHING to the winner, who can then get on with keeping the 34% of people who voted for him happy. I think you should do away with the whole idea of "President" and have a system where the leader of the party with the most seats in the legislature is the "leader". Not to sound smug, but it works pretty well for us Canuckistanis.
 
2004-02-22 11:57:38 AM  
No, it really doesn't matter what happens, Bush is still a grinning idiot. The perpetually happy retard with a mouse in his pocket. The male cheerleader.

The recipient of Daddy's boy nepotism. No wonder he's such a pimp.
 
Tor
2004-02-22 11:58:01 AM  
Seriously though, independants need to focus on getting governorship and house/senate seats. Work their way up. Or maybe that's what they've been doing and I never noticed.
 
2004-02-22 11:58:37 AM  
acording to http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Nader only drew off enough votes in only 2 states, Florida and New Hamsphire, that went to Bush instead of Gore-assuming they would have voted for Gore, since Naders platform (and you would think supporters) is that the Dems are no different han the reps.
 
2004-02-22 11:58:56 AM  
MarkAnthony,
Please don't attempt to ignore Kerry's voting record. The man simply says what he thinks the people wanna hear, and moves on with his own agenda. More liberal than Bush, yes. Less two-faced than Bush, definitely. Bush is the biggest lying, sack of shiate, zealot this country has ever placed in office. But Kerry is nothing to be proud of. I've checked his voting record.
 
2004-02-22 11:59:06 AM  
News Flash: Sun. Feb 22, 2004 SETI HQ
Nope. Nothing here... Search elsewhere. Now.

/that is all
 
2004-02-22 11:59:25 AM  
Regardless of the politics involved,guys like Perot and Nader,who think they can just bypass the whole primary thing and just move to the head of the line really ought to be lifted right off their feet by a swift kick in the ass!
 
2004-02-22 11:59:30 AM  
The Democrats being "Pro-Choice" should happy that Nader is running. What could be so bad about having more candidates to choose from this fall? America is a Democracy after all! It's time for the Democrats to step up to the plate and support democracy. They can't pick and choose who can and cannot run for President.
 
2004-02-22 11:59:39 AM  
Zaphod42

The people who vote for the third party candidate who can't stand the person who eventually wins have only themselves to blame. It's called the lessor of two evils.

For voters interested in Nader, I think making a decision between Nader and Kerry (or Nader and Edwards OR Nader and Bush -- the concept is the same) is similarly a decision between two goods: voting for Nader promotes longterm health for the electoral process by stressing the availability of alternatives, while voting for Kerry or Bush promotes health right now -- although, again, at the cost of aiding the longterm dispellment of the two-party system. For this reason, I believe people who vote for Nader DO NOT have themselves to blame.
 
2004-02-22 11:59:59 AM  
remeber Bush supporters the election will be held in December. Nadar supporters im glad to see a 3rd person running but dont throw your vote away vote with the rest of the Dem's in Nov.

lifelong independent who hates Bush.
 
2004-02-22 12:00:24 PM  
[What about appointments, to courts and/or regulatory departments of the federal government?]

Not much too see there, really. Bush made couple of recess appointments that'll never get confirmed. And don't expect anything major in the way of the SCOTUS -- look at poppy's pick (Souter) for and idea of what junior will do. Every major EPA rule (arsenic, eg) made under Clinton was followed by Bush. Domestically, W is far more liberal than his dishonest, frenzied, hate-monger detractors care to admit.
 
2004-02-22 12:02:08 PM  
oh that reminds me i can't wait till people that have been citizen's for at least 20 years can run for prez....

AHNOLD in 08

Woot!!!!!
 
2004-02-22 12:02:25 PM  
Funny - the Republicans didn't scream this loud when Ross Perot supposedly gave us two terms of Clinton.

The part they never say is that many Nader voters would just stay home and not vote if he didn't run. The Democrats clearly can't just bank all those votes.
 
2004-02-22 12:02:43 PM  
Usually, I vote for the Libertarians b/c I hate big government. I will be voting Dem in this election, no matter who their candidate is. Dubya has got to go, period. Ralph Nader is a jerk off.
 
2004-02-22 12:03:02 PM  
Soy Bomb not all Dem's are pro-choice!
 
2004-02-22 12:03:37 PM  
What could be so bad about having more candidates to choose from this fall? America is a Democracy after all! It's time for the Democrats to step up to the plate and support democracy.

The problem is our voting system is flawed, and set up in such a way as to make it difficult for a third party to do anything but dilute votes. The 60/40 example given previously is a simple example of this. There are other methods of voting that are more democratic than ours.
 
2004-02-22 12:03:57 PM  
[remeber Bush supporters the election will be held in December.]

WTF?????????

/scans the horizon for diebold black helicopters
 
2004-02-22 12:05:18 PM  
The people who vote for the third party candidate who can't stand the person who eventually wins have only themselves to blame. It's called the lessor of two evils.

I'm a socialist/Green and I voted Liberal in the last Ontario provincial election to make sure the Conservatives didn't win again. It only took a few days after the election for the Liberals to start behaving just as badly as the Conservatives did before them. I've learned my lesson. The lesser of two evils is still evil (not to intentionally use a Bush-word), and I definitely have myself to blame for who got elected - I voted for them after all!
 
2004-02-22 12:07:12 PM  
Nader is an egomaniac and an asshat...but, his entrance into the race isn't the end of the world for the Democrats. Second run independent candidates usually have a much poorer showing because their novelty has rub off.

Remember Ross Perot? In 1992, he got 19% of the vote. Clinton won with only 43%. Without Perot in the race, there is a good chance (not an excellent one, however) that George Bush would have been reelected.

Fast forward to 1996. Perot's biggest assets: that he was a novelty, that he represented a real change from the status quo -- were exhausted. He managed only 8.4% of the vote (and made no difference to the race in any material way).

In 2000, Nader managed only 2.73% of the vote. And, there were only two states in which he made a difference: New Hampshire and Florida. Of course, had Gore won either state, he would have been the undisputed winner of the election.

Nader's chief mischief this time around is to perpetuate the notion that he is a spoiler (even though it's a statistical unlikelihood, bordering on statistical impossibility). The media will magnify his influence (as it is wont to do) and, thereby, take some shine off of the Democratic nominee. In all reality, Nader should be no more trouble for the Democrats in 2004 than Buchanan was for the Republicans in 2000. The best strategy is simply ignore him and treat him like the irrelevant attention whore he really is.

Long story short: Nader's candidacy is irrelevant.
 
2004-02-22 12:07:55 PM  
Tinian you must have missed the joke. thank you i will be here all week. remeber to tip the waitress.
 
Tor
2004-02-22 12:08:06 PM  
Wow, you can really see the difference in posts between the 18 year olds and the farkers in their 30's.
 
2004-02-22 12:08:28 PM  
I'm voting for Nader, cause he's not Shrub!

/totally didnt read any posts yet..
 
2004-02-22 12:08:40 PM  
fleener

I wouldn't be voting for Nader if the Democrats weren't acting like Republicans.

That philosophy is one of the main reasons why I voted for Nader in 2000. However, times have changed. The Democrats are not acting like Republicans.

Sure, the Democrats of 2004 are acting like the Republicans of 2000. But the Republicans of 2004 are acting far, far worse than the Republicans of 2000.
 
2004-02-22 12:10:24 PM  
Generation_D

The "D" stands for "Dumbass". No 3rd candidate in 1996? You're right. Perot didn't run. And Nader also totally didn't run.
 
2004-02-22 12:10:34 PM  
Gee, do you think this will help the Hillary 2008 campaign?
I wonder which prominent Democrats are happy that Nader is running? Hmmmm...

[image from andy.org.mx too old to be available]
 
2004-02-22 12:11:17 PM  
Who is the Green Party candidate this year?
 
2004-02-22 12:11:34 PM  
Florida votes in 2000
2,912,790 - Bush
2,912,253 - Gore
97,488 - Nader

Polls of Nader voters show that, if there were no third-party candidates running in 2000:
45% would have voted for Gore.
34% would have stayed home.
21% would have voted for Bush.

So, if Nader was not running:
Gore would have received 43,869 more votes.
Bush would have received 20,472 more votes.

Therefore, the final vote tally would have been:
2,956,122 - Gore
2,933,262 - Bush

As an interesting aside, if all of Pat Buchanan's votes went to Bush, the final vote tally would have been:
2,956,122 - Gore
2,950,746 - Bush

Conclusion: It is Nader's fault.
 
2004-02-22 12:11:57 PM  
This could be countered if everyone voting for the guy with a -D after his name threw their weight behind Nader instead.
 
2004-02-22 12:12:25 PM  
This article was initially printed in the Los Angeles Times. It should give pause to anyone who considers voting for Nader out of "principle."

A Nader Voter Sings the Bush Blues
 
2004-02-22 12:12:30 PM  
yes Ross did well in 92. i was one of the 19% who voted for him. i believed that if i had to vote why not give it to a guy who wont win. this way my conscience was clear of not having voted for slick willy or mistakling voting for bush in 88 as a young 18 yr old kid not clear headed on all issues and brain washed by my hard right dad
 
2004-02-22 12:13:10 PM  
YabboNatto:

Use of Shrub or Shrubya or any of the other mind-numbing variations people have been coming up with is completely moronic. It's not even remotely funny and it lacks any sort of bite. It must just be me, right?

...but "dumbocrats" or "demonicrats" or "botox boy" or any of the names people called Dean or maybe "slick willy" for Clinton... I'm sure those were all A-OK, huh? Hey, that's not fair! (Unless it's our party, then it's cool.)
 
2004-02-22 12:14:08 PM  
Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.


/butchering Simpsons dialouge and apologies if someone did this already. To lazy to read all posts.
 
2004-02-22 12:14:18 PM  
I think Nader can have the fringe vote and the Democrats will still win this election. Bush is not playing to fringe conservatives enough and also ignoring the core conservative group at the same time.
 
Displayed 50 of 1124 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report