NationStates Jolt Archive

Everyone knows that Nadar will not win the presidency either way. And everyone that votes for Nadar is very very against Bush. So Nadar followers, your votes are taking away from Kerry's votes and making it easier for Bush to win. Have some common sense.

This is my un-official 2004 Election slogan:

Think of it this way-It's not a vote for Kerry. It's a vote against Bush. Don't vote Nadar, thats voting for Bush.

Anyone else agree with me and my slogan?

Ok, I won't vote for Nadar (mainly because I'm not a US citizen )

C'mon, Green and Reformist partymembers. Follow your dreams, and vote for Nader. :D

the people who will vote for Nader are people who dont really care who actually sits in the white house. Rather they are people who for ideological reasons dont like Bush/Kerry or as Nared put it "The political Doupoly that exsists in washington"

the people who will vote for Nader are people who dont really care who actually sits in the white house. Rather they are people who for ideological reasons dont like Bush/Kerry or as Nared put it "The political Doupoly that exsists in washington"

Those people are ignorant.

that slogan has always sounded stupid to me. It's supposed to mean that to convince someone to vote for Nader instead of Kerry has the same effect as convincing someone to vote for Bush instead of null vote. The problem is that what the slogan actually says is too different from what it means

The slogan may not be wonderful, but it is appropriate. In key swing states in the year 2000, votes cast for Nader were enough to swing the state from Gore to Bush. It happened in my state. It happened in Florida. Those two states alone would have been enough to push the electoral votes to Gore.

There is an incredibly different difference between Bush and Kerry. Have a peek for yourself: http://www.damnedbigdifference.org/

that slogan has always sounded stupid to me. It's supposed to mean that to convince someone to vote for Nader instead of Kerry has the same effect as convincing someone to vote for Bush instead of null vote. The problem is that what the slogan actually says is too different from what it means

What do you mean it "always" sounded stupid. I just made it up.

It seems silly to tell people obviously unhappy with the Democratic party platform and/or Kerry to simply vote for Kerry anyway. You can't blame them for 2000. If the Dems seriously wanted their votes, then they should have moved towards the left. You can't expect to have a Democratic platform and pick votes up further to the left when they have a candidate that espouses their view more than the Dem. candidate. Its just as silly for the Republicans to blame the loss of the elections on 1992 and 1996 on Ross Perot & the Reform Party.

It would be funny if Bush supporters took this thread's title at face value and believed it :lol:

The slogan may not be wonderful, but it is appropriate. In key swing states in the year 2000, votes cast for Nader were enough to swing the state from Gore to Bush. It happened in my state. It happened in Florida. Those two states alone would have been enough to push the electoral votes to Gore.

There is an incredibly different difference between Bush and Kerry. Have a peek for yourself: http://www.damnedbigdifference.org/

Actually, Gore may have won Florida anyway. Sadly they stopped the recount. But that wouldn't have really mattered anyway if thousands of probable Gore voters hadn't been unjustly banned from voting because they had names or birthdays similar to convicted felons.

I don't agree with Gore on all the issues, or Kerry, (I'm pro-life unlike most other liberals, I opposed our invasion of Iraq, although I think we should probably keep our troops there now, I am far more liberal economically than either of them) but Gore should probably be President right now.

The interesting part is, they had a big lawsuit over it (the NCAAP and state of Florida), and after the settlement nothing really came of it. Maybe because the NCAAP was pandering to its liberal base and thats the reason they haven't picked up the cross and kept up the crusade against these "unfair" ballot removals.

i really like nadar... i just wished he had more support from people who could actually vote...

The interesting part is, they had a big lawsuit over it (the NCAAP and state of Florida), and after the settlement nothing really came of it. Maybe because the NCAAP was pandering to its liberal base and thats the reason they haven't picked up the cross and kept up the crusade against these "unfair" ballot removals.

It could also have had something to do with the fact that the governor of Florida is the brother of the president and the former person in charge of the Bush campaign in Florida was also Katherine Harris, the person in charge of the elections in Florida....now elected to the House of Representatives, with those same 54,000 voters disenfranchised.

The interesting part is, they had a big lawsuit over it (the NCAAP and state of Florida), and after the settlement nothing really came of it. Maybe because the NCAAP was pandering to its liberal base and thats the reason they haven't picked up the cross and kept up the crusade against these "unfair" ballot removals.

It could also have had something to do with the fact that the governor of Florida is the brother of the president and the former person in charge of the Bush campaign in Florida was also Katherine Harris, the person in charge of the elections in Florida....now elected to the House of Representatives, with those same 54,000 voters disenfranchised.
So now Katherine Harris decides what cases the NCAAP decides to persue? If there was obvious wrongdoing, there would have been obvious changes to the supposed thousands of wrongly stricken names. There's a reason the NCAAP and other liberal organizatinos haven't made a big fuss about the whole thing after the lawsuit was settled.

and don't forget about all the gore voters who accidentally voted for buchanan on the butterfly ballotts.

i really like nadar... i just wished he had more support from people who could actually vote...

i'm definitely with you on that one. i can't vote yet, and it sucks.

Saying that "voting for Nader is voting for Bush" is like saying "voting for Kerry is voting for Bush". In my opinion, Kerry hardly sounds any better then Bush, and in some ways, worse.

and don't forget about all the gore voters who accidentally voted for buchanan on the butterfly ballotts.
You mean the same ballots that were used multiple times in previous elections that the Democrats won and not a peep was raised?

and don't forget about all the gore voters who accidentally voted for buchanan on the butterfly ballotts.
You mean the same ballots that were used multiple times in previous elections that the Democrats won and not a peep was raised?

That was also bad, but Gore still should have won.

a vote for nader is a vote for nader. if you think (god help you) that ralph would make a good president then you really should vote for him. especially if the 2 mainstream candidates leave you so cold that you wouldnt vote for either of them

a vote for nader is a vote for nader. if you think (god help you) that ralph would make a good president then you really should vote for him. especially if the 2 mainstream candidates leave you so cold that you wouldnt vote for either of them

If you think Nader would make a good President AND you think Kerry wouldn't be signifigantly better than Kerry you should vote for Nader. When things are so close liberals in swing-states may want to vote strategically. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is still a lot better than the worse of two evils.

i really like nadar... i just wished he had more support from people who could actually vote...

Voting for Nadar takes away from Kerry's votes. And the majority of Nadar supporters would vote for Kerry if Nadar wasn't running. It's a useless cause to vote for Nadar because he has no chance of winning.

a vote for kerry is pretty much a vote for bush anyway. whatever you do, don't just vote (http://www.dontjustvote.com/).

i really like nadar... i just wished he had more support from people who could actually vote...

Voting for Nadar takes away from Kerry's votes. And the majority of Nadar supporters would vote for Kerry if Nadar wasn't running. It's a useless cause to vote for Nadar because he has no chance of winning.

However, if Nader gets enough votes then his positions on the issues can become more widely known and there can be change in the Democratic Party. But if he costs them the election they'll probably just get mad at him.

By the way, I'm not a Democrat. Or a Republican.

i really like nadar... i just wished he had more support from people who could actually vote...

Voting for Nadar takes away from Kerry's votes. And the majority of Nadar supporters would vote for Kerry if Nadar wasn't running. It's a useless cause to vote for Nadar because he has no chance of winning.

However, if Nader gets enough votes then his positions on the issues can become more widely known and there can be change in the Democratic Party. But if he costs them the election they'll probably just get mad at him.

By the way, I'm not a Democrat. Or a Republican.

It won't happen. Since he's left wing, he should have run as a democrat if he wanted any chance of winning.

Voting for Nadar takes away from Kerry's votes.

yes, because the democratic party owns people's votes.

fuck the fascist appeasers

I supported Nader and because I really dont think Bush is the "best" choice and Kerry is a senator from Mass..nuff said. Then.
I heard how nader would "pull our troops out in less than a month"

Nader is a good man, but he doesnt have a prayer and as for the "nader vote is a vote for Bush" I think thats a bunch of bull. the People who vote for nader dont like kerry. I sure dont, but nader isnt stealing votes from kerry, hes appealing to people who are tired of BOTH bigshot parties.

As for the "im a democract but i like nader", Nader isnt a democract. And whoever says that needs to buy a social studies book.

I supported Nader and because I really dont think Bush is the "best" choice and Kerry is a senator from Mass..nuff said. Then.
I heard how nader would "pull our troops out in less than a month"

Nader is a good man, but he doesnt have a prayer and as for the "nader vote is a vote for Bush" I think thats a bunch of bull. the People who vote for nader dont like kerry. I sure dont, but nader isnt stealing votes from kerry, hes appealing to people who are tired of BOTH bigshot parties.

As for the "im a democract but i like nader", Nader isnt a democract. And whoever says that needs to buy a social studies book.

Wrong. If Nadar wasn't running, then all the would be Nadar supporters would vote Democrat.

Wrong. If Nadar wasn't running, then all the would be Nadar supporters would vote Democrat.

haha, no.

kerry voted in favor of most of the worst bullshit bush has pulled. two sides of the same damn coin.

All the Nader supporters would probably either be registered Socialists or some other marginal party (in the USA), or just not vote at all. Somewhere around 2-3 million evangelicals were thought to have not voted for Bush. There's on reason that a decent amount of Greens, obviously unhappy with both of the major parties' platforms, wouldn't vote either.

I absolutely disagree with your statement. A vote for Nader, or in my case, Libertarian candidate Michael Banarik, is not a vote for Bush, or Kerry. This is FACTUALLY true (again, in my case) because I find both Bush and Kerry to be completely revolting and if they were really my only options (and trust me, they're not) then I would have to abstain. Voting for evil is supporting evil, whether there's worse around or not.

Wrong. If Nadar wasn't running, then all the would be Nadar supporters would vote Democrat.

haha, no.

kerry voted in favor of most of the worst bullshit bush has pulled. two sides of the same damn coin.
oh no, on the first page, someone posted a link to a very informative, impartial website displaying the big damned difference :roll:

Wrong. If Nadar wasn't running, then all the would be Nadar supporters would vote Democrat.

haha, no.

kerry voted in favor of most of the worst bullshit bush has pulled. two sides of the same damn coin.
oh no, on the first page, someone posted a link to a very informative, impartial website displaying the big damned difference :roll:

Look at the facts. Bush is right wing. Kerry is semi-left wing. Nadar has far left views. If Nadar wasn't running, his would be supporters would vote for Kerry (like him or not) because his views are closer to Nadar's than Bush's are.

Wrong. If Nadar wasn't running, then all the would be Nadar supporters would vote Democrat.

haha, no.

kerry voted in favor of most of the worst bullshit bush has pulled. two sides of the same damn coin.
oh no, on the first page, someone posted a link to a very informative, impartial website displaying the big damned difference :roll:

LOL....its not my fault the website I put up was biased in favor of Democrats. They were merely pointing out the difference from their point of view.

http://www.bartcop.com/naderz.gif

that slogan has always sounded stupid to me. It's supposed to mean that to convince someone to vote for Nader instead of Kerry has the same effect as convincing someone to vote for Bush instead of null vote. The problem is that what the slogan actually says is too different from what it means

What do you mean it "always" sounded stupid. I just made it up.Sorry, but you didn't. That meme has been around since, well, before the 2000 election. Some Gore supporters were making the same warning then, but few people listened. I don't think Green supporters realized just how bad this president would turn out to be.

If Bush wins again in November (God forbid that happening), and we find out that Nader pulled enough votes away from Kerry for Bush to win the election (like he did in 2000)..well, I don't wanna think about what some of the disgruntled Democrats will do to Nader...

Voting for Nadar takes away from Kerry's votes.

yes, because the democratic party owns people's votes.

f--- the fascist appeasers

Democratic party owns people's votes? :shock:
When I first read that response I thought it was a joke! Dear lord, if you think the Democratic owns peoples votes you must live under a rock. The entire PROBLEM, with the Democratic party is that it can't rally together enough people with similar beliefs to a cause, namely, the election. Republivans vote for a Republican candidate whether or not they agree with him, no argument. Bush practically owns HIS supporters, the oil industry, which he was until recently a part of. Get your facts strait.

Also, vote for Bush is a vote for Bush! Seriously! Ok enough of that. I think a vote for Nader is not really a vote for Bush, but it is just a vote for Nader. And nothing else.

If Bush wins again in November (God forbid that happening), and we find out that Nader pulled enough votes away from Kerry for Bush to win the election (like he did in 2000)..well, I don't wanna think about what some of the disgruntled Democrats will do to Nader...

why don't the democrats stand up for themselves and continuously point out that a majority of the country is left of the republicans, no matter who wins any particular seat. make a minority president rule like one. stop fucking kowtowing and licking his goddamned boots. and for non-existant-god's sake stop fucking voting in favor of his idiotic and authoritarian laws.

Ohhhh ok!

So the fact the demos give us crappy candidates, we have to vote for them because we don't want to see a crappy Republican President get re-elected.

Sorry but as an American I can vote for whomever I want!

Here is a newflash! If Gore and Kerry and any ability they would have blown away the Shrub! The Shrub is an idiot and yet they can't seem to beat him.

Nader is simply a scapegoat.

Gore couldn't even carry his own state so what does that say for him.

Kerry? I don't like him. He is nothing more the The Shrub Lite.

I really hate this election.

We have one silver spoon saying he knows more about the suffering of the middle-class and poor then the other silver spoon.

I will not vote for the shrub as his policies only benefit the upper class.

Case and point. I am higly allergic to just about everything. I really got the shaft in that area. I am alergic to DUST, mold, grass, trees,.....

The Shrubs drug policy was supposed to lesson the costs on the middle-class(me). Before his policy, I was paying 17 cents a pill. After his policy, I am paying 65 cents a pill. The insurence bastards canceled payouts on everything since "Cariden" is over the counter. I have to fill out paperwork on why the over the counter candy will not work for me, every fricken time I need a refill

Thank you shrub but you have to go! Rat Bas....!

I agree here. Bush is already ahead in votes, metaphorically, it's only natural that the waste of votes on Nader, and not for Kerry, would help his cause of recapturing the Presidency.

Wrong. If Nadar wasn't running, then all the would be Nadar supporters would vote Democrat.

haha, no.

kerry voted in favor of most of the worst bullshit bush has pulled. two sides of the same damn coin.
oh no, on the first page, someone posted a link to a very informative, impartial website displaying the big damned difference :roll:

Look at the facts. Bush is right wing. Kerry is semi-left wing. Nadar has far left views. If Nadar wasn't running, his would be supporters would vote for Kerry (like him or not) because his views are closer to Nadar's than Bush's are.
How many people do you know that are voting for Nader? I'm sure that plenty are doing it because they just want to make a statement (stupid angsty teenagers) But a lot of them are doing it because THEY DON'T AGREE WITH KERRY!
Seriously though, do you know anyone who is planning on voting for Nader, or any 3rd party this year?
Anyway, since you obviously didn't read the post right before this one:
I absolutely disagree with your statement. A vote for Nader, or in my case, Libertarian candidate Michael Banarik, is not a vote for Bush, or Kerry. This is FACTUALLY true (again, in my case) because I find both Bush and Kerry to be completely revolting and if they were really my only options (and trust me, they're not) then I would have to abstain. Voting for evil is supporting evil, whether there's worse around or not.
Also, last election, my dad apparently voted for Nader...It shocked me when I found out, because he is Libertarian (doesn't exactly agree with Green Party values) But he explained that the way he saw it, he couldn't vote for Gore or Bush because he didn't want to waste his vote. Voting for a slimeball just to keep a different slimeball from winning doesn't help anything. Nothing changes for the better. But he knew he wouldn't have to worry about Nader winning, so instead of not voting at all, he voted in a way that would have an impact. And it obviously did...we're still talking about it.
(actually, I think I'm making my dad out to be more philosophical than he actually was when he explained it to me...I filled in a lot of blanks)

I agree here. Bush is already ahead in votes, metaphorically, it's only natural that the waste of votes on Nader, and not for Kerry, would help his cause of recapturing the Presidency.

Exactly. The fact is, even if you vote for Nadar, he won't win. I personally don't like Kerry. I would much rather another Clinton. But Kerry is the only chance against Bush. So i'm voting Kerry because Nadar has no chance of winning. I like Nadar better, but I know that by voting Nadar, it's helping Bush out. And I am extremely anti-Bush.

I agree here. Bush is already ahead in votes, metaphorically, it's only natural that the waste of votes on Nader, and not for Kerry, would help his cause of recapturing the Presidency.

Exactly. The fact is, even if you vote for Nadar, he won't win. I personally don't like Kerry. I would much rather another Clinton. But Kerry is the only chance against Bush. So i'm voting Kerry because Nadar has no chance of winning. I like Nadar better, but I know that by voting Nadar, it's helping Bush out. And I am extremely anti-Bush.

bump

Now, this idea that support for a third party is wasted since they have no chance of winning has always interested me. Granted, I'm not American, and I lay no claim to understanding the subtleties of the political process, but... If a great many people vote for Nader, then wouldn't Nader then become President?

Now, this idea that support for a third party is wasted since they have no chance of winning has always interested me. Granted, I'm not American, and I lay no claim to understanding the subtleties of the political process, but... If a great many people vote for Nader, then wouldn't Nader then become President?

it only works if there is some kind of crisis that destroys one of the other parties. it really flows from our system of voting. single member plurality districts will tend to create just two competitive parties in any given region.

Let's look at this for a minute. A vote for Nader is a vote... for NADER. People say Nader cost Gore the election by running. Actually, by running, BUSH cost Gore the election. :D

I think instead of lamenting the fact that third party candidates could possibly pull votes, we might want to lament the fact that the only people with a prayer of winning are the ones who receive backing from parties with a lot of money. Joe Average can't become president unless he has a lot of money on his side.

The fact is, even if you vote for Nadar, he won't win. I personally don't like Kerry. I would much rather another Clinton. But Kerry is the only chance against Bush. So i'm voting Kerry because Nadar has no chance of winning. I like Nadar better, but I know that by voting Nadar, it's helping Bush out. And I am extremely anti-Bush.

How sad is that? We can't even vote for who we want! Now I do enjoy this website www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com (http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com) but I rather don't like the fact that people are voting based on who they DON'T want to win. You can call me stupid, but when I vote for Nader, I don't care if he has a chance or not. The fact is that I'm going to vote for him because I support him.

voting for nader is only voting for bush if you would otherwise have voted for kerry. if you would have voted for bush, then its a vote for kerry. if you would have voted for another small party candidate, or you wouldn't have voted at all if not for nader, then a vote for nader is exactly that, a vote for nader. :roll: :wink: :P

A vote for Nixon is a vote for honest government!

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush! All you compassionate conservatives out there, Vote Nader! At least he's not Kerry!

voting for nader is only voting for bush if you would otherwise have voted for kerry. if you would have voted for bush, then its a vote for kerry. if you would have voted for another small party candidate, or you wouldn't have voted at all if not for nader, then a vote for nader is exactly that, a vote for nader. :roll: :wink: :P

Nobody that votes Nadar would every consider voting Bush.

Bush=conservative right wing
Nadar=Far Far Left Wing

If Bush wins again in November (God forbid that happening), and we find out that Nader pulled enough votes away from Kerry for Bush to win the election (like he did in 2000)..well, I don't wanna think about what some of the disgruntled Democrats will do to Nader...

why don't the democrats stand up for themselves and continuously point out that a majority of the country is left of the republicans, no matter who wins any particular seat. make a minority president rule like one. stop f--- kowtowing and licking his goddamned boots. and for non-existant-god's sake stop f--- voting in favor of his idiotic and authoritarian laws.Actually, Democrats do that all the time. But you never hear about it on the news. Funny how that liberal media works, huh.

People have made the argument time and agains that on the issues, individually, people support the Democratic view 70% of the time. So why don't they vote Democratic? If I could tell you that, I'd have Carville's job, I guess, and I'd be doing a better job than him.

Good point Japaica.

Good point Japaica.

Thank you. :D Glad some people see it my way.

after the last election, the only people who will vote for nader are those who wouldnt ever vote for kerry or bush.
people voted for nader last time because he was the green party candidate and they were hoping to get the greens into the federal funding program by them getting enough votes

bush has been such a disaster, at least to those who would ever consider voting for nader, that none of those people will vote for him. they will bite the bullet and vote for kerry

...but Nader is better than Bush or Kerry.

after the last election, the only people who will vote for nader are those who wouldnt ever vote for kerry or bush.
people voted for nader last time because he was the green party candidate and they were hoping to get the greens into the federal funding program by them getting enough votes

bush has been such a disaster, at least to those who would ever consider voting for nader, that none of those people will vote for him. they will bite the bullet and vote for kerry

Let us hope.

Huh, and I thought that a vote for Nader was a vote for Nader.

I must be stupid or something :roll: :lol:

Huh, and I thought that a vote for Nader was a vote for Nader.

I must be stupid or something :roll: :lol:

obviously :roll: :lol:

Huh, and I thought that a vote for Nader was a vote for Nader.

I must be stupid or something :roll: :lol:

no, just ignorant. don't kid yourself jimmy. if nader ever had the chance he'd eat you and everyone you care about.

Huh, and I thought that a vote for Nader was a vote for Nader.

I must be stupid or something :roll: :lol:

no, just ignorant. don't kid yourself jimmy. if nader ever had the chance he'd eat you and everyone you care about.

No. Then he would become fat. And that can't be good publicity. :lol:

Huh, and I thought that a vote for Nader was a vote for Nader.

I must be stupid or something :roll: :lol:

no, just ignorant. don't kid yourself jimmy. if nader ever had the chance he'd eat you and everyone you care about.

No. Then he would become fat. And that can't be good publicity. :lol:

Are you sure you're not thinking of Cthulhu? He's running too.

Huh, and I thought that a vote for Nader was a vote for Nader.

I must be stupid or something :roll: :lol:

no, just ignorant. don't kid yourself jimmy. if nader ever had the chance he'd eat you and everyone you care about.

No. Then he would become fat. And that can't be good publicity. :lol:

Are you sure you're not thinking of Cthulhu? He's running too.

Who the penis is that?

Huh, and I thought that a vote for Nader was a vote for Nader.

I must be stupid or something :roll: :lol:

no, just ignorant. don't kid yourself jimmy. if nader ever had the chance he'd eat you and everyone you care about.

No. Then he would become fat. And that can't be good publicity. :lol:

Are you sure you're not thinking of Cthulhu? He's running too.

Who the penis is that?

Guy out of Lovecraftian Literature. And what's up with the penis *pun intended*? Are you trying to be deated?

Huh, and I thought that a vote for Nader was a vote for Nader.

I must be stupid or something :roll: :lol:

no, just ignorant. don't kid yourself jimmy. if nader ever had the chance he'd eat you and everyone you care about.

No. Then he would become fat. And that can't be good publicity. :lol:

Are you sure you're not thinking of Cthulhu? He's running too.

Who the penis is that?

Guy out of Lovecraftian Literature. And what's up with the penis *pun intended*? Are you trying to be deated?

You can't say f***. So I used a substitute.

To mods: please don't delete me. I'll stop if you want me too.

I think it's okay. It's not like we have any three year old girls on.

You're to old to be deated.

I think it's okay. It's not like we have any three year old girls on.

You're to old to be deated.

Hey. Ur6 got busted for his huge spam campaign. Which was funny as hell.

bump

bump Last time, I swear :roll:

Nader is very different from Bush or Kerry - he will attract the disenfranchised who would otherwise not vote.

He also stands to take votes from Bush.

Send him money, give him a vote - show your dissatisfaction with both.

Afterall, Kerry is nothing but a corporate stooge dressed up as a liberal. Look at who his wife is, look at how many cars he owns, look what Heinz does to their employees.

Do you REALLY think he's going to be that different from Bush???

Nader is very different from Bush or Kerry - he will attract the disenfranchised who would otherwise not vote.

He also stands to take votes from Bush.

Send him money, give him a vote - show your dissatisfaction with both.

Afterall, Kerry is nothing but a corporate stooge dressed up as a liberal. Look at who his wife is, look at how many cars he owns, look what Heinz does to their employees.

Do you REALLY think he's going to be that different from Bush???

Puts on Lil Jon voice: WHAT