Nader announces he will run for president again
-
Shog9 wrote: Actually... Voting for Ralph Nader is, basically, walking into a voting booth, marking a paper or otherwise indicating that Nader is your choice, and sliding the paper into a ballot box (or otherwise indicating that you have made your choice and it should be recorded). You forgot to mention it is the same as voting for Bush.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
"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."..." news[^] Yes! This will make things very interesting just as the Presidential race was starting to get boring. Last time I had heard he wasn't sure if he was going to run or not. Watching the actions of the CPD and how the mass media will never cover Nader equally will help pass my time.:suss::) < Democrats and Republicans use effective patriotic fear tactics such as this: "..."We can't afford to have Ralph Nader in the race. This is about the future of our country," Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told CNN. "We need Ralph Nader supporting the Democratic nominee, energizing people. George Bush has been a disaster on the issues that matter to him." He added, "I'm urging everybody to talk to Ralph Nader."... " http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/20/elec04.prez.nader/index.html[^] Basically they are always yelling around Presidential election time "Voting for third parties makes more votes for Bush and not the Democrats" which is just a load of crap, imo. Just keep your mouths shut and stop trying to control the system! Scared to lose a piece of the pie? :mad::doh: :blah: </rant> > Later, JoeSox "One must be a wise reader to quote wisely and well." - Amos Bronson Alcott joeswammi.c
Won't this mean less vote for the Democrats? I read that Nader will siphon votes from them, so I bet they are well pissed!
-
"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."..." news[^] Yes! This will make things very interesting just as the Presidential race was starting to get boring. Last time I had heard he wasn't sure if he was going to run or not. Watching the actions of the CPD and how the mass media will never cover Nader equally will help pass my time.:suss::) < Democrats and Republicans use effective patriotic fear tactics such as this: "..."We can't afford to have Ralph Nader in the race. This is about the future of our country," Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told CNN. "We need Ralph Nader supporting the Democratic nominee, energizing people. George Bush has been a disaster on the issues that matter to him." He added, "I'm urging everybody to talk to Ralph Nader."... " http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/20/elec04.prez.nader/index.html[^] Basically they are always yelling around Presidential election time "Voting for third parties makes more votes for Bush and not the Democrats" which is just a load of crap, imo. Just keep your mouths shut and stop trying to control the system! Scared to lose a piece of the pie? :mad::doh: :blah: </rant> > Later, JoeSox "One must be a wise reader to quote wisely and well." - Amos Bronson Alcott joeswammi.c
Vader running for president? :cool: BTW, is there a senator called Palpatine in the US btw? :~ -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
-
JoeSox wrote: Hasty Generalization. Thats's easy to say but I don't think so. Sure it the cynical view but I think the more realistic one. How many people actually think Raph Nader could walk away with the presidentcy(spelling?)? To me he's kinda like Al Sharpton, he gets free press and the right to say. "See these 10,000 people here who voted for me, they should tell you we need want change/insert issue here". Great but I'd rather take my vote and use it towards somebody who can make it into the white house. If I thought Ralph Nader was that guy I may vote for him(Have no idea where he stands on anything). He's quoted as saying "I am running for Americans outside the political mainstream." hmm okay... So what your saying is your appealing to the minority of Americans, good stragety! Here come the rolling eyes of "Oh another jaded Democrat" but the last election was the first election I was allowed to vote in. It taught me to important things. 1) In the presidental election the majority has no bering on who gets elected 2) You lucky if you vote even gets counted.... On the issue of #2 I remember watching the news talking about how they were hand counting all the ballots I also remember them talking about the deadline which didn't matter if all the votes were counted or not. How is this acceptable? How does this make me feel like "I can make a difference" Oh well I know I'm jaded but I did vote so that gives me full b@%#hing rights :)
Kluch wrote: 1) In the presidental election the majority has no bering on who gets elected Break out your high school text on government or civics (what ever they called it in your school) and read up on Electoral College. Kluch wrote: 2) You lucky if you vote even gets counted.... Bullshit. Kluch wrote: On the issue of #2 I remember watching the news talking about how they were hand counting all the ballots I also remember them talking about the deadline which didn't matter if all the votes were counted or not. How is this acceptable? If the deadline wasn't enforced they would still be counting, attempting to find that hanging chad that would have, if it could be found, have elected Gore. If it were a state election, it wouldn't have mattered but the arrogance of Gore, oh never mind. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times
-
JoeSox wrote: Hasty Generalization. Thats's easy to say but I don't think so. Sure it the cynical view but I think the more realistic one. How many people actually think Raph Nader could walk away with the presidentcy(spelling?)? To me he's kinda like Al Sharpton, he gets free press and the right to say. "See these 10,000 people here who voted for me, they should tell you we need want change/insert issue here". Great but I'd rather take my vote and use it towards somebody who can make it into the white house. If I thought Ralph Nader was that guy I may vote for him(Have no idea where he stands on anything). He's quoted as saying "I am running for Americans outside the political mainstream." hmm okay... So what your saying is your appealing to the minority of Americans, good stragety! Here come the rolling eyes of "Oh another jaded Democrat" but the last election was the first election I was allowed to vote in. It taught me to important things. 1) In the presidental election the majority has no bering on who gets elected 2) You lucky if you vote even gets counted.... On the issue of #2 I remember watching the news talking about how they were hand counting all the ballots I also remember them talking about the deadline which didn't matter if all the votes were counted or not. How is this acceptable? How does this make me feel like "I can make a difference" Oh well I know I'm jaded but I did vote so that gives me full b@%#hing rights :)
Kluch wrote: So what your saying is your appealing to the minority of Americans, good stragety! Not minority, the majority of Americans don't even vote. This country's freedoms depend on the correct distribution of power. The Republicans and Democrats have plenty. It's just a checks and balances thing. I just want America to stop being the world fascist dictators. Republicans and Democrats do not plan on changing anything soon. The majoriity of Americans don't even think their vote counts. Why? :omg: It can't be because of the D & R! They are heaven sent!:doh: Later, JoeSox "One must be a wise reader to quote wisely and well." - Amos Bronson Alcott joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
Vader running for president? :cool: BTW, is there a senator called Palpatine in the US btw? :~ -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Vader running for president? I think Jar Jar is in the Oval Office right now.:) Later, JoeSox "One must be a wise reader to quote wisely and well." - Amos Bronson Alcott joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
Kluch wrote: Sorry but it's true, Voting for Ralph Nader is basiclly walking into a ballot box taking your vote crumpling up the piece of paper and throwing it away. Actually... Voting for Ralph Nader is, basically, walking into a voting booth, marking a paper or otherwise indicating that Nader is your choice, and sliding the paper into a ballot box (or otherwise indicating that you have made your choice and it should be recorded). (don't feel bad, it's a subtle difference, and a lot of people have confused them before. :) )
--- the work, which will become a new genre unto itself, will be called...So if an overwhelming number of people vote for Bush, via voting for Nader, then Nader would actually be president and not Bush? I think I'm catching on to this...:-D BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
So if an overwhelming number of people vote for Bush, via voting for Nader, then Nader would actually be president and not Bush? I think I'm catching on to this...:-D BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Vader running for president? I think Jar Jar is in the Oval Office right now.:) Later, JoeSox "One must be a wise reader to quote wisely and well." - Amos Bronson Alcott joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: I think Jar Jar is in the Oval Office right now. Sad but true :):)
-
Kluch wrote: 1) In the presidental election the majority has no bering on who gets elected Break out your high school text on government or civics (what ever they called it in your school) and read up on Electoral College. Kluch wrote: 2) You lucky if you vote even gets counted.... Bullshit. Kluch wrote: On the issue of #2 I remember watching the news talking about how they were hand counting all the ballots I also remember them talking about the deadline which didn't matter if all the votes were counted or not. How is this acceptable? If the deadline wasn't enforced they would still be counting, attempting to find that hanging chad that would have, if it could be found, have elected Gore. If it were a state election, it wouldn't have mattered but the arrogance of Gore, oh never mind. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times
Mike Gaskey wrote: Kluch wrote: 1) In the presidental election the majority has no bering on who gets elected Break out your high school text on government or civics (what ever they called it in your school) and read up on Electoral College. I'm not sure if you are agreeing with him or not but I believe by breaking out the high school text it proves he was correct in his statement that the majority doesn't always win the presidential election.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Kluch wrote: 1) In the presidental election the majority has no bering on who gets elected Break out your high school text on government or civics (what ever they called it in your school) and read up on Electoral College. I'm not sure if you are agreeing with him or not but I believe by breaking out the high school text it proves he was correct in his statement that the majority doesn't always win the presidential election.
Avery Moore wrote: I believe by breaking out the high school text it proves he was correct in his statement that the majority doesn't always win the presidential election. Of course. My point was that this is a fact that exists by design. Otherwise California, Texas and New York would alone elect the president. The Electoral College concept is similar to the idea of 2 senators from each state, regardless of the popultion of the state. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times
-
Won't this mean less vote for the Democrats? I read that Nader will siphon votes from them, so I bet they are well pissed!
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Won't this mean less vote for the Democrats? If there is a God. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times
-
Shog9 wrote: Actually... Voting for Ralph Nader is, basically, walking into a voting booth, marking a paper or otherwise indicating that Nader is your choice, and sliding the paper into a ballot box (or otherwise indicating that you have made your choice and it should be recorded). You forgot to mention it is the same as voting for Bush.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: You forgot to mention it is the same as voting for Bush. One of the reasons I'll donate to Nader's campaign. Well, THE reason. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: You forgot to mention it is the same as voting for Bush. One of the reasons I'll donate to Nader's campaign. Well, THE reason. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times
Mike Gaskey wrote: One of the reasons I'll donate to Nader's campaign. Well, THE reason.
Jeff Spicoli says:
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
"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."..." news[^] Yes! This will make things very interesting just as the Presidential race was starting to get boring. Last time I had heard he wasn't sure if he was going to run or not. Watching the actions of the CPD and how the mass media will never cover Nader equally will help pass my time.:suss::) < Democrats and Republicans use effective patriotic fear tactics such as this: "..."We can't afford to have Ralph Nader in the race. This is about the future of our country," Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told CNN. "We need Ralph Nader supporting the Democratic nominee, energizing people. George Bush has been a disaster on the issues that matter to him." He added, "I'm urging everybody to talk to Ralph Nader."... " http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/20/elec04.prez.nader/index.html[^] Basically they are always yelling around Presidential election time "Voting for third parties makes more votes for Bush and not the Democrats" which is just a load of crap, imo. Just keep your mouths shut and stop trying to control the system! Scared to lose a piece of the pie? :mad::doh: :blah: </rant> > Later, JoeSox "One must be a wise reader to quote wisely and well." - Amos Bronson Alcott joeswammi.c
If Nader gets Dean supporters then Bush is going to win this election hands down.
Promise only what you can do. And then deliver more than what you promised.
This signature was created by "Code Project Quoter". -
Mike Gaskey wrote: Kluch wrote: 1) In the presidental election the majority has no bering on who gets elected Break out your high school text on government or civics (what ever they called it in your school) and read up on Electoral College. I'm not sure if you are agreeing with him or not but I believe by breaking out the high school text it proves he was correct in his statement that the majority doesn't always win the presidential election.
Avery Moore wrote: I believe by breaking out the high school text it proves he was correct in his statement that the majority doesn't always win the presidential election. Well, your belief is utterly unrelated to what Mike said. Mike never said that the majority ALWAYS wins the presidential race. When he said "bullshit", he was replying to what you, yourself quoted. namely: Kluch wrote: In the presidental election the majority has no bering on who gets elected This statement is so obviously false that anyone who wanted to retain a shred of dignity on this forum would quickly disassociate themselves from it. In the history of the United States of America, there have been only a tiny handful of general elections in which the elected president failed to also win a popular vote victory. Thus, anyone who claimed that "The majority has no bearing on who gets elected" would have to be an absolute idiot. And for you to say that Kluch was correct leaves you with a few unenviable choices: 1) You utterly failed to parse what Mike said (ie Mike never said the majority always wins 2) You actually agree with Kluch - that the majority has no bearing on who gets elected
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Avery Moore wrote: I believe by breaking out the high school text it proves he was correct in his statement that the majority doesn't always win the presidential election. Well, your belief is utterly unrelated to what Mike said. Mike never said that the majority ALWAYS wins the presidential race. When he said "bullshit", he was replying to what you, yourself quoted. namely: Kluch wrote: In the presidental election the majority has no bering on who gets elected This statement is so obviously false that anyone who wanted to retain a shred of dignity on this forum would quickly disassociate themselves from it. In the history of the United States of America, there have been only a tiny handful of general elections in which the elected president failed to also win a popular vote victory. Thus, anyone who claimed that "The majority has no bearing on who gets elected" would have to be an absolute idiot. And for you to say that Kluch was correct leaves you with a few unenviable choices: 1) You utterly failed to parse what Mike said (ie Mike never said the majority always wins 2) You actually agree with Kluch - that the majority has no bearing on who gets elected
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: In the history of the United States of America, there have been only a tiny handful of general elections in which the elected president failed to also win a popular vote victory. Thus, anyone who claimed that "The majority has no bearing on who gets elected" would have to be an absolute idiot. Ah, the acceptance of mediocrity. No smell is quite so sweet. Ever thought of getting a job with Microsoft? Then you can say "That bug appears in only a tiny handful of situations." You have a long career in front of you in marketing.
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: In the history of the United States of America, there have been only a tiny handful of general elections in which the elected president failed to also win a popular vote victory. Thus, anyone who claimed that "The majority has no bearing on who gets elected" would have to be an absolute idiot. Ah, the acceptance of mediocrity. No smell is quite so sweet. Ever thought of getting a job with Microsoft? Then you can say "That bug appears in only a tiny handful of situations." You have a long career in front of you in marketing.
So you are stating that the majority has no bearing on the election? Because if not, then your picking apart my posts is perplexing to say the least.......
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
So you are stating that the majority has no bearing on the election? Because if not, then your picking apart my posts is perplexing to say the least.......
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!The electoral college is the problem I have with things. The majority usually does win the election but shouldn't the majority win every election? What's the point of democracy if the voice of the people is ignored?
-
The electoral college is the problem I have with things. The majority usually does win the election but shouldn't the majority win every election? What's the point of democracy if the voice of the people is ignored?
All I did was point out that Mike never said the majority always wins. he merely pointed out that kluch's statement that the majority has no bearing on the election was false. I agreed with Mike. You are raising interesting side issues that fail to address my point. Since you can read, I can only assume you agree with me but would rather not come out and say it. In a confederated republic, the simple majority would result in presidents that did not represent the population as a whole. If it weren't for the electoral college, 2 or 3 states would consistently elect the president. Candidates would not bother to even campaign in the other states.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!