If Ralph Nader decides to run for President, do you think that can give Shrub another 4 years?

This time, however, un uh. Have to make sure that certain people get out of office, first.

(And I did vote for him last time as the (way) lesser of two evils, so BBT, your wife is in a group of 2. Not that it made a damn bit of diff against the Bush Blitz.)

Nader hasn't begun to try to get on the states' ballots yet, so he's got a long road to hoe if he chooses to run as an indie.

The good news I heard was that Judge Roy Moore of Ten Commandments fame is thinking of running for prez with the Constitutional Somethingorother Party.

http://www.rosettirosetti.com/

Typical Princeton grad! (hides from Jordan)

..of course, he's running for the REPUBLICAN nomination this year, but hey, pobody's nerfect.

I think that was supposedly Moses. Or some freak named JHWH.

"J.....*CRUNCH*"

"...oh dear."

...and we all saw how well THAT worked out for us, didn't we?

:rolleyes:

... while i'm not enthused w/ john kerry, i'd sooner stick my penis in a furnace than vote for nader (OR bush).

Now that's jobbing the process. I don't think that Naderites deserved that in 2000, but I might be persuaded to a different opinion now.

I've had blank t-shirt iron-ons sitting around for a couple of years, but if (or when since from some other news stories I've read it's a sure thing) he jumps in I'm going to be making up a shirt Sunday night that says FUCK NADER in nice big bold letters.

I am not a fan of Ralph Nader and his self righteous delusions, but at least he got some people to vote third party. Which I will now urge you all to do in this very thread. FUCK Bush and Kerry they are both pieces of shit and I'd feel like one by association if I voted for them. Please considering voting for anyone else. Or call me NAIVE and I will assume you are perpetuating the state of the state we now live in that starts wars, subsidizes large corporations, doesn't let certain human beings marry each other or consume certain substances etc. etc. etc.

info@naderexplore04.org

this doesn't reflect on Nader in any way. Nader (and any other third-party candidate) never had a chance to get into the televised debates (and was actually physically barred from even ATTENDING them, which is fucking outrageous) because of the CPD's (Commission on Presidential Debates) arbitrary decision that no candidate without at least 15 percent poll support could participate in the debates, despite the fact that many polls showed that the majority of the public wanted to see Nader and Buchanan included. this 15 percent rule would have excluded Ross Perot from the 1992 debates (according to this article, he was included primarily because "both major parties calculated it would benefit them").

According to the opendebates.org rep on C-SPAN last night, the CPD is a bipartisan commission that is designed to cater specifically to the Democratic and Republican parties, and that those parties' candidates basically determine the rules of the debate to a very specific degree. They can include or exclude whoever they want, and can also determine what questions will be asked and whether or not candidates can talk to one another and so forth. Bogus.

Also, as repugnant as Bush may be, I certainly can't imagine for a minute that Gore would

a) have been a better president
b) not have started a war somewhere if it helped him in some way
c) not have subsidized some big corporations, even, gasp, Halliburton, or a tobacco firm ("I'm a tobacco farmer" -- Al Gore)
d) not have been the same kind of sniveling, wooden hypocrite he was as vice president

problem is, as usual, our stunning lack of choices for president.

i also agree that gore would have done some shitty things if he had won in 2000 such as the patriot act, blown up afghanistan, coddled corps and lawyers but i also think that if he would have become pres he wouldnt thrust a radical agenda on the population he narrowly carried, complety ignore scienctific fact in legislation, and make scores of just flat fucking LIE to justify every move of his administration.

I question the 45 - 50% popularity ratings. Answering question on the phone isn't the same as voting for president, or even for a presidential candidate. Just ask H. Dean. I think Bush's victory margin is quite large. Also, people just tend to support the president. Whoever it is.

I don't think right now that any Dem can beat Bush, but among the current choices, Edwards appears to me to be the most daunting candidate, even though he rarely beats Kerry.

i don't want to rehash election 2000. i've violated that wish on this very thread, true. but it's pointless at this point ... i really think that anyone who STILL thinks that, to quote nader, "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between gore and bush, or even kerry and bush, just isn't going to come around to my way of thinking at this point. so i'll let it go, if for no other reason than (a) even if he runs, i doubt that nader will be a factor this election; and (b) as i said before, the REAL problems will be beltway dems and kerry reverting to pre-howard dean form and acting like weenies against bushco.

1. That, following a major terrorist attack (a reprisal for his Iran invasion) Bush declared martial law in 2007 and the electoral process was suspended indefinitely, effectively making him a lifetime dictator.
2. That India and Pakistan, encouraged by the US strike against North Korea, engaged in a limited pre-emptive nuclear war with each other in 2009, killing millions.
3. That Bush only won in 2004 because of Nader.

So now you're in the conference hall where Nader is addressing his supporters. You have your humane, ecologically-sound liquidation gun pointed at him. Just one little squeeze and he's gone. It's murder, but you know for sure it will save millions of lives. Do you pull the trigger?

I voted for Nader in 2000, but ain't no way I'm voting for anybody but the eventual democratic nominee this year. Hell, I gave money to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this year!

I don't understand Skottie's last two posts at all.

Lieberman, OTOH, can go fuck a gigantic incontinent porcupine.

the bush tax cuts = DEFINITELY not. there MAY have been some short-term tax cut to stimulate economic growth during the recession. but anyone who thinks that gore would've had a captain queeg-like obsession with cutting taxes, each and every year AND cutting the taxes of the extremely wealthy (e.g., the estate tax and taxes on dividends), is smoking crack.

it's also an open question as to whether 9/11 would have even happened. which may mean that there might not have also been a war in afghanistan. and, since mr. o'neill has accused bushco of being obsessed with going to war w/ iraq even BEFORE 9/11, it's also unlikely that we'd be in iraq right now. can everyone safely agree that at least the "freedom fries and freedom toast" nonsense wouldn't have happened?

All the experts agree: the gunman worked alone.

Yeah, but Bush unblushingly calls himself 'a war president' now! He might as well call himself 'the killing president'. And Nader, whatever he believes in, is only helping to hand Bush four more years in which to kill another 10,000 (estimated Iraqi civilian deaths due to Bush's pre-emptive war) or more.

his speech tonight was very good -- occasionally veering into "okay, what he's saying isn't QUITE true but the sentiment is OTM" territory as well as the usual alarmist (but again basically OTM) radiohead-ish stuff about the corporate stranglehold over our lives, but mostly saying very endorsable things about people's civic duty and how if we let our twenties go to waste, we'll just keep making excuses (e.g. all-consuming career & family obligations) for our political inaction from our thirties up until the day we die. we can make a difference, but we have to actually get that shit going while we're still young and free enough to make those commitments. (nb: i'm about to turn 30 and i feel more political and civitas-minded than ever.)

+i. wtf, i need sleep.