Nader to run for president.

Sanders eh? *thinks hard* I don't think I know this man. But thank you.

 

check him out Aristartle -- http://sanders.senate.gov/

 

Lieberman is another, although he should have run as a republican, they are the ones that got him elected.

 

Two of the reasons I would vote for him.

 

This ass knows he handed Bush the election and if he had any shame, he'd go crawl under a rock where he belongs. He's responsible for thousands of deaths in Iraq. Can he seriously say that there was no difference between Bush and Gore? I would hope that no one would vote for him this time around based on the results last time, but I see that he has supporters right here.

 

I hope you don't mean that H1-B visa thing. That's just nuts.

 

Double Post. A registered trademark of Lode. -Professional.

 

Newsflash: It's Al Gore's fault he lost the election.

It's Al Gore's fault he couldn't win his home state.

It's Al Gore's fault that he screwed up his verified petition in court and only requested that select counties be recounted.

If Al Gore would have petitoned for an statewide recount - from the beginning - he would be president.

It's George Bush's fault we are in Iraq.

And if anything, it's that perverted scum Bill Clinton's fault that the entire Democratic Party was shamed. If Bill Clinton, the despicable human being he is, could have kept it in his pants, faaaaaaaar fewer Democrats would have dropped off the line and voted for George Bush.

 

So gore lost the election because of a little piece of meat?That's a new one.

 

I believe he's from the Green Party (very pro enviroment) and is running as an independent. Green party, independent, and libertarian are all very different. Yes, they hold many of the same values, but are indeed different parties.

 

Gore did do everything he could to lose that election. Turning away Carvelles help is a bright shining example. He still won it but not by enough for it to be impossible to cover up. A certain wolf in sheep's clothing as Rat put it kept it from being too apparent. It hardly matters anymore, because it doesn't make a damn who or how many cast their votes. It's who's counting them that will crown the next king. If Nader gave half a shit about this country's immediate (and long term) future he wouldn't do what he has been doing. He and Paul are one in the same. Paul worked the "I'm sick of this bullshit" vote during the primaries. Now with Paul defeated the king himself steps in to ensure these neocon pricks move their agenda forward in the presidential election. Bush's puppetmasters owe a lot to Nader. In fact they're probably lined up to kiss his ass as i type this. I can't believe they're trying this tactic again, but I'm even more surprised that our memory of how things came to be this bad has faded so soon.

 

Could someone explain to me how Nader won't (didn't) divide the liberal vote?

Oh, and he's just in it for your tax dollars. Look up "Federal Matching Campaign Funds". He's already semi-admitted that he won't win:

"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form." - Ralph Nader

Oh, and he has millions invested in corporate stocks like Cisco Systems. Hypocrite?

BUT, I still love him. He has done some good stuff back in the day.

Also, It's tough to find any of his real positions on stuff like how to get out of Iraq, and other serious issues. You sorta have to look at his older material. This was interesting,
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ralph_Nader_Foreign_Policy.htm
I like the whole idea, but realistically....?

 

Mmm... I remember looking at his vote count back at the time of that election, and it was marginal at best. A star in the skies of the universe.

 

I plan on voting for Nader solely because I support his platform. I support neither big party platform or candidates, why should I feel compelled to cast my vote for one of them or against the other.

Gore lost for the same reasons Kerry lost, they were nominated by their party simply because they would lose. The voters have changed the majority voice in the congress, and has it made any difference. None that I can see.

 

Mr. Nader does enjoy the freedom of speech as do his followers.


The Nader Voter is not the type of person who votes mainstream anyway and if Ralph was not on the ballot might vote for Georgia Congresswoman Cinthia McKinney who will run for president on the Green party ticket.

Mr. Nader does act to pull Democrats in a leftward direction.

 

Let's get real and look at who the Democrats have running. It may be time for a woman to be president, but I know many people including women who would not vote for that one. She's shrill and strident, and was codependent in her husband's misbehaviors.

It may be time for a black male to be president, but from a marketing viewpoint alone, Obama has a name problem. And it's not going to be overlooked by a large segment of the voting population.

I find it hard to believe that they couldn't find more viable nominees to run against the Republicans. They are running a senior citizen hawk, it should have been easy.

Why should I waste my vote on one these party candidates when I can vote my conscience by voting for Ralph?

 

the name problem with obama is probably the stupidest objection to him I can think of. You probably know that, too...but I hope most americans also realize it. His name on its own is not bad, it's just reminiscent of a couple middle eastern guys who are "evil..." But good and evil have always come in similar packaging. I think Obama's name if anything speaks to his antithetical nature compared to hussein and osama. Either way, I believe much of the world will think better of us if we elect a person of color, even more so than if we elected a woman. I just remember how instantly bitterly the world thought of us when we re-elected bush. It's not entirely rational, but the very image of the person we put up has a lot to do with how the world sees us. I know that our image to the world is not everything, but it is a consideration, and I think an Obama admin would help that.

 

It may be stupid, but it will lose the election for the democrats. I don't think the people who will rule Obama out because of his name give a hoot about how the world views us, or they wouldn't have voted for Bush twice.

 

Are you kidding? Kerry was a bigger stooge than than Larry, Curly, or Moe. He and Bush were Bones buddies. I guess everypolitical analyst was wrong (including Nader's advisor's who advised him not to run in 04) about Nader screwing the American people by helping Bush get elected. His campaign is futile. Obama may have a name that is similar to 2 of our Frienemies, and that may work against him later on down the road, but Nader only appeals to the protest vote and the far left that would otherwize go with Obama. So don't say he's not stealing votes and getting huge kickbacks for doing so. For to say such a thing is the same kind of ignorance that got us in this mess we're in now. This isn't the bottom floor we're on now. The next president needs to have a strong foreign policy. Paul and Nader just sort of brush that whole issue off. Things need to change, but wasting your vote on No Chance Nader isn't the answer. Save gas and stay home on election day, or write in Chuck Norris. For the difference it will make it's all the same.

 

You don't think Gore belongs to the same ole boys clubs? You need to provide some proof of Ralph being on the take. I am not buying it. Gore couldn't even win his home state.

Sorry not going to stay home, like the McCain hating Republicans plan on doing. I plan on casting my vote for the candidate I find most genuine. If that hurts the democrats too bad.