• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Nader enters in boon to GOP

chevydriver1123 said:
Well here we go, the man who possibly cost Gore the election in 2000 is officially back. God I love a good fight.

Nader enters in boon to GOP - Mike Allen and Ben Smith - Politico.com
Click to expand...

Somehow....I think he will be relatively Irrelevant in this cycle. Those who might actually be swayed by Naderism will likely find similar attitudes in both McCain, and Obama depending on issues...with the exception of the complete loony tunes he seems to get in spades.
According to a Wall Street Journal report, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama recently said that Nader's plans didn't concern him.

“I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference," Obama said in Ohio Saturday.

The WSJ article continued, "Obama responded to criticism from Nader, who has suggested that the Democratic hopeful lacks substance, by noting that Nader has reached out to his campaign. 'My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies thinks you’re not substantive,' Obama said, before praising Nader as a 'heroic' and 'singular figure in American politics.'"
Click to expand...

The Raw Story | Nader announces another Presidential bid, but Obama isn't worried
 
Nader is an idiot. He won't be a factor in this race at all. Every time he runs he gets fewer and fewer votes because people realize he's nothing more than an egomaniac.
I would be more concerned with Bloomberg entering the race than I am about Nader. Bloomberg scares me. Not because he has any chance of winning, but I think he very well could syphon off enough moderate votes from Obama to give McCain the victory.
 
He might take a few. How close it was last 2 go rounds it might be enough.



The Good Reverend endorses Naders canidacy for President of the United States of America.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
He might take a few. How close it was last 2 go rounds it might be enough.



The Good Reverend endorses Naders canidacy for President of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Nader got about .3% in the last election. Yes....in an extremely close election it could make a difference. But he is such a has-been he'll be lucky if he gets even 1/2 of that this time around.
 
from article said:
Democrats say they will work behind the scenes — and use court challenges, if necessary — to try to thwart his access to ballots.
Click to expand...

So much for the "party of the people".
 
Phoenix said:
So much for the "party of the people".
Click to expand...
i regret to inform you that you are in direct violation of the DP unspoken rule in which one can only point out the duplicity of the Republican party.:2wave:
 
I think that there is plenty of people on both sides that think both parties suck.:toilet:
 
we should force Nader down Commonwealth Ave. in Boston wearing a dunce cap, weights and signs proclaiming his recantance.

like this:

denunciation.jpg
 
Something smells fishy about this.
Nader knows full well that Bush / McCain are more directly against the things Nader claims to stand for.
Nader knows full well that he is helping Bush / McCain by running.
In 2004 we could assume he was just kinda stupid.
At this point we can no longer make that assumption because even stupid people learn from repeating the same mistake.

For me this is conclusive proof that Nader does not believe in anything he claims to and he is no more than a puppet for the Republicans.
 
John1234 said:
Something smells fishy about this.
Nader knows full well that Bush / McCain are more directly against the things Nader claims to stand for.
Nader knows full well that he is helping Bush / McCain by running.
In 2004 we could assume he was just kinda stupid.
At this point we can no longer make that assumption because even stupid people learn from repeating the same mistake.

For me this is conclusive proof that Nader does not believe in anything he claims to and he is no more than a puppet for the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Actually, Nader is offering voters another choice, and if Liberals don't happen to like that choice, they can always vote Democratic. Also, I don't ever hear you complaining about the Libertarian party taking votes away from Republicans. Kind of hypocritical of you, wouldn't you agree?
 
Perot elected Clinton in 1992 now hopefully he will help elect McCain in 2008..........What is good for the goose is good for the gander.....
 
they didn't vote for nader because they liked him they voted for nader because they were obnoxious "too cool for school" contrarians. they all deserve death. or Bush. whatever's worse.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, Nader is offering voters another choice, and if Liberals don't happen to like that choice, they can always vote Democratic. Also, I don't ever hear you complaining about the Libertarian party taking votes away from Republicans. Kind of hypocritical of you, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...


This really sucks.........I agree with you........
 
I believe in our system as a whole. But there are too many loopholes and problems that need to be closed.

In my opinion, anyone should be able to run for president from any party or from no party.

But... the final election that decides who it will be needs to be between only the top 2 candidates.
I do not say 2 candidates because we have 2 main parties.
I dislike both parties...
I say only 2 candidates because of simple math and common sense.

For example:
Obama, McCain, Nader, Lou Dobbs, and whoever else... have a run off.
The top 2 with the most votes then run against each other for the final election.

This would eliminate the problems caused by both Perot and Nader and every American would be the winner.
 
John1234 said:
I believe in our system as a whole. But there are too many loopholes and problems that need to be closed.

In my opinion, anyone should be able to run for president from any party or from no party.

But... the final election that decides who it will be needs to be between only the top 2 candidates.
I do not say 2 candidates because we have 2 main parties.
I dislike both parties...
I say only 2 candidates because of simple math and common sense.

For example:
Obama, McCain, Nader, Lou Dobbs, and whoever else... have a run off.
The top 2 with the most votes then run against each other for the final election.

This would eliminate the problems caused by both Perot and Nader and every American would be the winner.
Click to expand...

No, that would disenfranchise positions which are different than the top 2. The perfect solution would be a system known as instant run off voting. You vote for your choices in the order 1, 2, 3, etc. If the first choice comes in last, then the second choice is counted, etc. You keep on eliminating last choices and using the alternate choices until someone gets more than 50% of the vote. That person becomes the winner. Also, that way, every position gets represented. But, until that happens, Nader, as well as the Libertarian candidate, and all other third party candidates which meet the requirements to get on the ballot, have my blessing.
 
I think as long as someone wants to be on the ballot they get put on there. No requirements other than they have meet the requirements for President. If there are 100 candidates on election day so be it.
And no more state primary elections. If a party wants to decide on a candidate then they can have a convention and decide who will be the candidate will be and pay for themselves.
 
Phoenix said:
I think as long as someone wants to be on the ballot they get put on there. No requirements other than they have meet the requirements for President. If there are 100 candidates on election day so be it.
And no more state primary elections. If a party wants to decide on a candidate then they can have a convention and decide who will be the candidate will be and pay for themselves.
Click to expand...

The problem is in that case there wouldn't be 100 people on the ballot there would be thousands and along with that the cost of having to print off those thousands of names on the ballot.

There has to be some limits and requirements to be placed on the ballot.
 
danarhea said:
No, that would disenfranchise positions which are different than the top 2. The perfect solution would be a system known as instant run off voting. You vote for your choices in the order 1, 2, 3, etc. If the first choice comes in last, then the second choice is counted, etc. You keep on eliminating last choices and using the alternate choices until someone gets more than 50% of the vote. That person becomes the winner. Also, that way, every position gets represented. But, until that happens, Nader, as well as the Libertarian candidate, and all other third party candidates which meet the requirements to get on the ballot, have my blessing.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.
That would be the perfect system.
But because it is complicated and would require software, i do not think Americans would trust it. And maybe they shouldn't for a good reason because with that many variables it does open the door for potential fraud.
 
Nader disagrees with both partys why shouldnt he run why should he care if one party he slightly disagrees with a bit more gets in power?
 
Any of our Conservative contingents ready for the other shoe to drop……. Dr. Ron Paul?:confused:
 
I voted for nader last time around, but if obama wins the primaries I won't be this time. not because I'm worried about him giving the election to McCain, but because obama has the qualities that caused me to vote for nader in the first place.

as long as obama keeps up his winning streak, I really dont think nader will make much of a difference this election.
 
donc said:
Any of our Conservative contingents ready for the other shoe to drop……. Dr. Ron Paul?:confused:
Click to expand...


Haven't you heard? Ron Paul is busy trying to keep his seat in the HOR........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom