http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader
Nader has announced he will run for president. His speech was the usual, he will bring down corruption war profiteers, give medical care and 2.5 cookies to all, end poverty and all the rest.
Putting aside whether or not he could deliver, my question is, mostly to all americans, if either of you ever considered to vote for him. I mean most republicans complain about hillary and obama, some democrats complain about mccain and a huge number complain about all and say they will not vote. But has anyone considered naderas president? or america is doomed to having to choose either a republican or a democrat for president?
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe last time Ralph Nader ran for president, he aimed for five percent of the vote in certain states and zero percent in others. He does not, and never will have, a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the president. This does not mean that I wouldn't vote for him - but I would be using my vote as a protest against the two party system, not as a tool to elect someone.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader
Nader has announced he will run for president. His speech was the usual, he will bring down corruption war profiteers, give medical care and 2.5 cookies to all, end poverty and all the rest.
Putting aside whether or not he could deliver, my question is, mostly to all americans, if either of you e ...[text shortened]... ident? or america is doomed to having to choose either a republican or a democrat for president?
I know, I know. I'm not American. I did live there for thirteen years though. I was there for Bush one, Clinton, and Bush two. Anyone who believes that there is a difference between the democrats and the republicans should spend a little time looking at the Clinton administration and some of the "liberal" results of his tenure in the White House. A good beginning is Michael Moore's (I know he's an idiot, but he raises good questions sometimes) book "Stupid White Men."
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo were aren't 'doomed' to voting for one party or the other. I think a third party will arise sooner or later, we saw a glimpse of that with Ross Perot.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader
Nader has announced he will run for president. His speech was the usual, he will bring down corruption war profiteers, give medical care and 2.5 cookies to all, end poverty and all the rest.
Putting aside whether or not he could deliver, my question is, mostly to all americans, if either of you e ...[text shortened]... ident? or america is doomed to having to choose either a republican or a democrat for president?
However, Nader is simply the 'Edwards on steroids' candidate. He is even more anti-corporation than Edwards and believes all corporations are inherently evil.
In his previous runs, Nader got 2.4% of the vote and in 2004, got something like .3% . So this indicates to me that he attracts the very far out fringe
Maybe he should ask Ron Paul to run with him, now there be a ticket to worry about
since 1850 all presidents were either republican or either democrat. and since george washington no president was independent.
so that is why i asked. what party (other than the dynamic duo ) do you think would have the chance of supporting a president that would get more than 10%(lets not aim for the sky: a seat in the white house)
Originally posted by ZahlanziI see ... so Nader wants a Rep to win the White House ..... again ....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader
Nader has announced he will run for president. His speech was the usual, he will bring down corruption war profiteers, give medical care and 2.5 cookies to all, end poverty and all the rest.
Putting aside whether or not he could deliver, my question is, mostly to all americans, if either of you e ...[text shortened]... ident? or america is doomed to having to choose either a republican or a democrat for president?
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf we had a parliamentary system, with proportional representation, I would vote for Nader in a heartbeat. But as we have neither of those things, I honestly wish he'd just go away. Or make his point in some other way than helping idiots like Bush get elected, which was all his 2000 campaign accomplished.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader
Nader has announced he will run for president. His speech was the usual, he will bring down corruption war profiteers, give medical care and 2.5 cookies to all, end poverty and all the rest.
Putting aside whether or not he could deliver, my question is, mostly to all americans, if either of you e ...[text shortened]... ident? or america is doomed to having to choose either a republican or a democrat for president?
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt's not a matter of the typical american attitude being fixated on the Ds and Rs. The system itself is fixed in such a way that it is extremely hard to have any practical success with a third party. In many states it is very costly for third parties to get on the ballot (with parties often having to sue for ballot access), and this dwindles away much of the little funds they have to campaign on. Also the winner take all system means that third party will be seen as a spoiler unless one of the major parties makes monumental mistake (the whigs on slavery).
in my opinion the american is so entrenched into thinking either republican or democrat that he would rather not vote at all than even consider another candidate
But third parties can have a positive impact on elections by forcing the major parties to appeal to a neglected portion of the electorate. I think that the ramped up populist rhetoric we've heard from the Dems this time around is partly a result of Nader's past campaigns.
I voted for Nader in 2000 and stand by my decision. The Clinton Administration and the DLC shifted the political debate in the US so far to the right that the democrats weren't really an opposition party.
Originally posted by rwingettRalph Nader ... the secret weapon of the Republicans.
If we had a parliamentary system, with proportional representation, I would vote for Nader in a heartbeat. But as we have neither of those things, I honestly wish he'd just go away. Or make his point in some other way than helping idiots like Bush get elected, which was all his 2000 campaign accomplished.
Originally posted by ivanhoeOh please...don't make me laugh. He is so much anti republican it hurts the brain to think about it
Ralph Nader ... the secret weapon of the Republicans.
If Democrats are worried about Nader splitting the Democratic party in the general election, then maybe Obama isn't as good as he thinks he is....
Obama worrying about Nader is akin to Nixon worrying about McGovern
Originally posted by ZahlanziI've voted for Nader in the last three elections. Quite frankly, on issues of foreign policy and most domestic ones, he's a lot closer to the ideals of the traditional Democratic Party than the DLC candidates we've been getting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader
Nader has announced he will run for president. His speech was the usual, he will bring down corruption war profiteers, give medical care and 2.5 cookies to all, end poverty and all the rest.
Putting aside whether or not he could deliver, my question is, mostly to all americans, if either of you e ...[text shortened]... ident? or america is doomed to having to choose either a republican or a democrat for president?
But I won't be voting for him this year. His last minute intervention in the Schiavo case where he tried to make the issue one somehow related to corporate greed rather than the personal autonomy issue it was is a tipping point for me. I'll see what happens and what Obama (presumably) says in the general election; I wouldn't vote for Hilary because of her vote for the war and one-sided foreign policy, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Actually the USA has have in the past had more than just two parties run. Please look up Gus Hall in Google. He was born Arvo Gus Halberg and died at 90 years of age. The four-times candidate for the White House was Secretary-General of the Communist Party of the United States between 1959 and 1987, when he became the President of the Party, the post he occupied until last March. Gus Hall was born in Minnesota, the son of a Finnish immigrant family, and began working in the forestry industry. When he was only seventeen years old, he was the Communist Party candidate for the Town Hall of Youngstown, Ohio. In the 1930s, he was an activist in the Metalworkers’ Trade Union. "
He never had a snow ball chance in H... to win, but in the USA you can run for the big job if you got enough money and will power to run.
In regards to Mr. Nader great for the consumer, but with his help we got Buba