Nader to Jump in Presidential Race

[snuffbox 0]

 

So, WHY, precisely, is he running?

Possibly, because he feels strongly enough about his ideals/beliefs/ideas that he will run for predident of the United States. He is a man of himself, not a polititian of one party or the other.

If he feels only one side is worthy of condemnation, then he's not a third-party candidate. He's just another Democratic nominee.

-=Mike

Did you watch Meet the Press tonight Mike?

This morning, actually, and Nader is the same boring, tedious, "Why the heck do hippies LIKE this guy" man he always was.

 

I'm referring to McAuliffe's claim that Nader swore to him that should Nader run for office, he won't criticize a Democratic nominee. If he only criticizes one nominee, then how is he independent?

-=Mike

...And many points off for that lame "Supreme Selected..." crack. Jesus, that is REAL weak

Mike, you of all people should know not to take McAullife too seriously.

 

Nader seemed to give the left and right nearly equal heat, Bush moreso as he is the sitting president. He truly seems to be a third-party choice, not a Democrat bastard candidate.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I hope we load up on a whole gaggle of useless independent candidates (Nader, Brown, Buchanan, Moore, etc.) so that when one of Kerry or Bush loses, we can hear 2000 v.2 with everyone on one side blaming some of these candidates for "costing" their guy the election, while ignoring any effect the other ones had on the vote. I'll make a prediction right now: one of Kerry or Bush will win the election with the difference in popular vote between them being higher than the percentage gained by all 3rd party candidates.

[NoCalMike 0]

To say Nader only attacks republicans is just plain false. He is almost as critical of Democrats. I don't even view Nader as a true politician anyhow, it seems he is more concered with discrediting the liars in washington then actually winning any presidential race anyway. He is really just a consumer advocate trying to raise issues that otherwise would never come up between a democrat/republican.

[Guest Cerebus]

To say Nader only attacks republicans is just plain false.  He is almost as critical of Democrats.  I don't even view Nader as a true politician anyhow, it seems he is more concered with discrediting the liars in washington then actually winning any presidential race anyway.  He is really just a consumer advocate trying to raise issues that otherwise would never come up between a democrat/republican.

If that's true why the fuck would the DNC say this?

 

"We are very disappointed at Ralph Nader's decision today. However, he has promised Chairman McAuliffe that if he were to run in this election, he would not criticize the Democratic nominee, but rather would focus on the failings of the Bush Administration. We take him at his word."

 

If what you say is true, then someone here (Nader or McAuliffe) is blatantly lying. Then again, Lord only knows what heavy drugs McAuliffe takes on a regular basis.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

To say Nader only attacks republicans is just plain false.  He is almost as critical of Democrats.

Yeah, and I've heard the old "Republicrats" arguement over and over and over again.

 

However, I think it's obvious while you can say that about certain issues and policies, the nation's standing worldwide as a leader of democracy took a plummet in disapproval in reaction to our conservative leadership, which everyone else isn't so fond of. Supporters appearantly have no reaction to that except for "Who cares what they think of us?" because, it would seem, the concept of "friends" is hard for them to understand.

 

IMHO, this country will be in an incredibly tight spot if we take another four years of the current trend. Instead of being loyal a third party, it is more important to be loyal to your country this year, and vote for someone who has the resources to be a threat for the imcumbent.

 

Although it's not a bad thing to help the Greens seek legitimacy, the conservative image people will have no problem marketing themselves as the "real" Americans, and their opposition (i.e. us) as some kind of Coulter-esque traitors. And then we're BOTH fighting uphill.

[Guest MikeSC]

To say Nader only attacks republicans is just plain false.  He is almost as critical of Democrats.

Yeah, and I've heard the old "Republicrats" arguement over and over and over again.

 

However, I think it's obvious while you can say that about certain issues and policies, the nation's standing worldwide as a leader of democracy took a plummet in disapproval in reaction to our conservative leadership, which everyone else isn't so fond of. Supporters appearantly have no reaction to that except for "Who cares what they think of us?" because, it would seem, the concept of "friends" is hard for them to understand.

I don't terribly worry about "friends" internationally. We did the RIGHT thing. We removed a dangerous dictator and will leave Iraq a MUCH better place than when we got there.

 

Europe is a continent laden with cowards.

IMHO, this country will be in an incredibly tight spot if we take another four years of the current trend. Instead of being loyal a third party, it is more important to be loyal to your country this year, and vote for someone who has the resources to be a threat for the imcumbent.

What'll happen that will place us in such a tight spot? The UN won't like us? Ouch. I'm all for pulling out of that useless body as it is. Canadian citizens will hate us? Not exactly a bad fate.

 

The rest of the world doesn't like conservatism. So be it. Their brand of liberalism requires no courage whatsoever.

 

Bush has done the right thing in office internationally. If the world is too gutless to ever take a stand for the right thing -- that is a condemnation of them. Not of us.

Although it's not a bad thing to help the Greens seek legitimacy, the conservative image people will have no problem marketing themselves as the "real" Americans, and their opposition (i.e. us) as some kind of Coulter-esque traitors. And then we're BOTH fighting uphill.

You know, I hear this "conservatives paint all people who disagree as traitors" --- but I don't hear conservatives saying that.

 

It's becoming a running joke like John Kerry's bitching that his Vietnam service is getting attacked by questioning his voting record.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't terribly worry about "friends" internationally.

Yeah, I kind of figured that out.

 

We did the RIGHT thing.

 

But how we did it is going to impact us for years to come.

 

We removed a dangerous dictator and will leave Iraq a MUCH better place than when we got there.

 

Assuming we ever leave.

 

Europe is a continent laden with cowards.

 

And the Middle-East is a region that has no hestitations about going to war with each other or anyone else. Guess which crowd I'd sooner want to fit into?

 

What'll happen that will place us in such a tight spot? The UN won't like us? Ouch.

 

Actually, I was talking about everything. Economically, socially, diplomatically, you name it.

 

The rest of the world doesn't like conservatism. So be it. Their brand of liberalism requires no courage whatsoever.

 

And Bush's brand of conservatism, unlike Reagan's, requires no brains whatsoever. The doubts about Iraq intelligence now are not shocking to some of us, because we kind of figured that was going to happen all along.

 

Bush has done the right thing in office internationally.

 

We're just going to have to disagree about it there. It's not just what he's doing, it's how cocky and stupidly sure of himself that he's doing the right thing based on sketchy intelligence. It's like he's the reincarnate of Nixon.

 

If the world is too gutless to ever take a stand for the right thing -- that is a condemnation of them. Not of us.

 

Look, you can sit and blow hot air about how much better we are than the rest of the world as much as you want, because in the end it's all politics. But the evidence isn't there that we needed to justify a full-scale invasion. Perhaps firing Tomahawk missiles isn't just a method to distract people from your blowjob scandal. Perhaps it's a good way to respond to sketchy threats with no solid intelligence without going in and turning over the entire government and creating a terrorist haven.

 

You know, I hear this "conservatives paint all people who disagree as traitors" --- but I don't hear conservatives saying that.

 

I guess you're not paying attention the windbags. Like 'em or not, they are responsible for influencing a lot of mainstream opinion. And it's pretty obvious that our leadership is pretty ignorant or uninterested in the dissenting opinion.

 

During the time of war, more than a few people believed that the US flag was somehow a statement in support of the war.

 

And it's pretty obvious that the GOP doesn't mind the windbags shouting over the air about how all the Democrats and liberals are just red traitors comitting treason by trying to turn the US into a subsidiary of Europe. And they don't mind that their position is the only one that's able to get ratings.

 

 

Let's just be honest here. Your guys are on a hot streak in just about every way right now. My guys are on the outside looking in, made impotant by the sheer numbers of your guys and usually unable to make any kind of an effect on decisions.

 

Now, if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd actually want to get a victory, too. You wouldn't decide that half a loaf with the other party running everything was somehow better than no bread at all.

[NoCalMike 0]

Oh and btw, Nader is running as an independent, not Green Party member, this time around.

[Guest Brian]

To say Nader only attacks republicans is just plain false.  He is almost as critical of Democrats.  I don't even view Nader as a true politician anyhow, it seems he is more concered with discrediting the liars in washington then actually winning any presidential race anyway.  He is really just a consumer advocate trying to raise issues that otherwise would never come up between a democrat/republican.

If that's true why the fuck would the DNC say this?

Attempting to discredit Nader when he does attack, and trying to paint Bush as the ultimate bad guy.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh and btw, Nader is running as an independent, not Green Party member, this time around.

Okay then. Doesn't change what I was saying about the importance of an administration change and how it will help everyone left of center.

[Guest Cerebus]

To say Nader only attacks republicans is just plain false.  He is almost as critical of Democrats.  I don't even view Nader as a true politician anyhow, it seems he is more concered with discrediting the liars in washington then actually winning any presidential race anyway.  He is really just a consumer advocate trying to raise issues that otherwise would never come up between a democrat/republican.

If that's true why the fuck would the DNC say this?

Attempting to discredit Nader when he does attack, and trying to paint Bush as the ultimate bad guy.

I doubt that even the DNC would so flagrantly lie. Nader must have promised SOMETHING to prompt that statement.

[NoCalMike 0]

To say Nader only attacks republicans is just plain false.  He is almost as critical of Democrats.  I don't even view Nader as a true politician anyhow, it seems he is more concered with discrediting the liars in washington then actually winning any presidential race anyway.  He is really just a consumer advocate trying to raise issues that otherwise would never come up between a democrat/republican.

If that's true why the fuck would the DNC say this?

Attempting to discredit Nader when he does attack, and trying to paint Bush as the ultimate bad guy.

I doubt that even the DNC would so flagrantly lie. Nader must have promised SOMETHING to prompt that statement.

well I don't see how it could be true, when it would completely contradict some of things that Nader has already said in public and on tv in the last few days.

[NoCalMike 0]

Oh and btw, Nader is running as an independent, not Green Party member, this time around.

Okay then. Doesn't change what I was saying about the importance of an administration change and how it will help everyone left of center.

maybe so, just maybe so, but that still doesn't change the fact that you should be voting for who you truly agree with the most, and not vote based on "what could happen" I mean if the media came out with open arms for Nader, and by some miracle he actually started gaining steam and was neck and neck with Kerry, does that mean now all of the sudden it is ALRIGHT to vote for him, yet if he is doing poorly in the polls, suddenly you aren't allowed anymore? Everyone can choose how they wish to vote, me personally, I vote for who I agree with the most on issues.

[snuffbox 0]

Oh and btw, Nader is running as an independent, not Green Party member, this time around.

Okay then. Doesn't change what I was saying about the importance of an administration change and how it will help everyone left of center.

maybe so, just maybe so, but that still doesn't change the fact that you should be voting for who you truly agree with the most, and not vote based on "what could happen" I mean if the media came out with open arms for Nader, and by some miracle he actually started gaining steam and was neck and neck with Kerry, does that mean now all of the sudden it is ALRIGHT to vote for him, yet if he is doing poorly in the polls, suddenly you aren't allowed anymore? Everyone can choose how they wish to vote, me personally, I vote for who I agree with the most on issues.

America is loosely labeled 'the home of the brave'. It isnt very courageous to sellout your beliefs just to vote for a popular candidate.

[Guest Cerebus]

Oh and btw, Nader is running as an independent, not Green Party member, this time around.

Okay then. Doesn't change what I was saying about the importance of an administration change and how it will help everyone left of center.

maybe so, just maybe so, but that still doesn't change the fact that you should be voting for who you truly agree with the most, and not vote based on "what could happen" I mean if the media came out with open arms for Nader, and by some miracle he actually started gaining steam and was neck and neck with Kerry, does that mean now all of the sudden it is ALRIGHT to vote for him, yet if he is doing poorly in the polls, suddenly you aren't allowed anymore? Everyone can choose how they wish to vote, me personally, I vote for who I agree with the most on issues.

It may not make much of a difference when Nader does run however.

[snuffbox 0]

The Dems opinion of Nader = Republican opinion of Tom McLintock in Cali last October.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The Dems opinion of Nader = Republican opinion of Tom McLintock in Cali last October.

McClintock was pretty much there representing the party establishment. Cali Republicans are/were divided and the guys that simply wanted to win were the ones pressuring McClintock.

 

But the party still won that one anyway, so maybe I shouldn't quibble.

[Guest MikeSC]

well I don't see how it could be true, when it would completely contradict some of things that Nader has already said in public and on tv in the last few days.

Go back and look at his statements.

 

None say anything negative about John Kerry. The Democratic party, but not the candidate.

 

Which is what McAuliffe claimed he promised.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

well I don't see how it could be true, when it would completely contradict some of things that Nader has already said in public and on tv in the last few days.

Go back and look at his statements.

 

None say anything negative about John Kerry. The Democratic party, but not the candidate.

 

Which is what McAuliffe claimed he promised.

-=Mike

Nader said today that Kerry has tapped into many of the same corporate funds that Bush has. He also called Kerry a work in progress. While not outright BASHING Kerry, I wouldn't say those comments are very flattering, and this is only what, the 2nd day since his announcment to run? It doesn't matter though, unless Nader is allowed some debate or one-on-one time vs. the candidates, the media will do it's damndest to silence him or just to try and convince people that him running is for his "EGO"

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Nader said today that Kerry has tapped into many of the same corporate funds that Bush has.

He called out Kerry on special interests?

 

Good lord, Nader spent much of his time actually BEING a special interest.

[Guest Cerebus]

Nader said today that Kerry has tapped into many of the same corporate funds that Bush has. He also called Kerry a work in progress. While not outright BASHING Kerry, I wouldn't say those comments are very flattering, and this is only what, the 2nd day since his announcment to run? It doesn't matter though, unless Nader is allowed some debate or one-on-one time vs. the candidates, the media will do it's damndest to silence him or just to try and convince people that him running is for his "EGO"

I've voted for Nader before. It's not all it's cracked up to be; kind of a let down, too, cause then he doesn't win, and you look back on it all and realize that you should have known he wouldn't win, but you got carried away by the moment. Same thing happens with me and lottery tickets.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Nader had promised not to run if Dean was the nominee, if I'm not mistaken. I remember a quote from him a few months back praising Dean and declaring his intention not to run if he won. So, he didn't, and he is.

 

Again, it won't really matter if Roy Moore does, in fact, run a third party ticket as well.

[sfaJack 0]

[Guest Just Looking]

maybe so, just maybe so, but that still doesn't change the fact that you should be voting for who you truly agree with the most, and not vote based on "what could happen" I mean if the media came out with open arms for Nader, and by some miracle he actually started gaining steam and was neck and neck with Kerry, does that mean now all of the sudden it is ALRIGHT to vote for him, yet if he is doing poorly in the polls, suddenly you aren't allowed anymore? Everyone can choose how they wish to vote, me personally, I vote for who I agree with the most on issues.

That's very idealistic of you. However, the reality is that Nader can't win (and I really like Nader). And ultimately, the question is this: if I vote for Nader and Bush wins, will that make me as happy as if I vote for Kerry and Kerry wins?

 

For me, the choice is simple. I'd rather vote for Kerry and see him win then vote with my heart just to have 4 more years of who we have now. And I think that in the state we live in (California, for those who don't know me), we need to give Kerry all the votes he can get just to be safe.

 

If I were still in New York, I'd give a vote to Nader. But not here, and not now.

[NoCalMike 0]

maybe so, just maybe so, but that still doesn't change the fact that you should be voting for who you truly agree with the most, and not vote based on "what could happen"  I mean if the media came out with open arms for Nader, and by some miracle he actually started gaining steam and was neck and neck with Kerry, does that mean now all of the sudden it is ALRIGHT to vote for him, yet if he is doing poorly in the polls, suddenly you aren't allowed anymore?  Everyone can choose how they wish to vote, me personally, I vote for who I agree with the most on issues.

That's very idealistic of you. However, the reality is that Nader can't win (and I really like Nader). And ultimately, the question is this: if I vote for Nader and Bush wins, will that make me as happy as if I vote for Kerry and Kerry wins?

 

For me, the choice is simple. I'd rather vote for Kerry and see him win then vote with my heart just to have 4 more years of who we have now. And I think that in the state we live in (California, for those who don't know me), we need to give Kerry all the votes he can get just to be safe.

 

If I were still in New York, I'd give a vote to Nader. But not here, and not now.

oh please, Bush aint winning CA. Hell Arnold already almost locked that up when he went on Meet the Press and pretty much demanded Bush give CA money and pointed out, IF he does the people will remember because it is "election year" Hahaha, way to go Arnold, in case you forgot, Bush gives a damn about this state.

[Styles 0]

Awesome.