NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040915/ap_on_el_pr/nader

So just because the Democratic party doesn't want Nader on the FLA state ballot, the all of Florida's voters will suffer the consequences of not having a choice???

Liberal America, shitting on your rights one at a time ©

No, we have plenty of choices, Nader just can't follow instructions. Perhaps he was counting on the Palm Beach vote.... We still have Libertarian & Green, (which Nader was last time) as well as the Plutocrat Party under both (D) & (R) listings.
:sniper:

Same thing happening up in Oregon. The Democrat secretary of state invalidated thousands of signatures from the petition for getting Nader on the ballot when submitted, saying that they didnt follow the rules. Thing is, he changed the rules in the middle of the gathering of signatures.
Whole thing is going before the Oregon Supreme Court.

*puts up the "Don't feed the trolls" sign*

The Dems and Reps both have a history of keeping third parties out as much as possible.

Both are wrong for doing so but as underhanded as both sides are, what do you expect? There is nothing but corruption at the top and if you think otherwise you are living in a fairy tale. Especially if you call the democrats "liberal" lol. Good one if you were joking though.

if the Democraps wanted to leaglly take Nader off the ballot, they should have nominated him for VP. I guess they don't want to play fair though

*puts up the "Don't feed the trolls" sign*

The Dems and Reps both have a history of keeping third parties out as much as possible.

Both are wrong for doing so but as underhanded as both sides are, what do you expect? There is nothing but corruption at the top and if you think otherwise you are living in a fairy tale. Especially if you call the democrats "liberal" lol. Good one if you were joking though.
If it's a true allegation then it's hardly trolling. Any Democratic supporter that supports this move is as bad as Jeb Bush. Period.

wasn't the republican party doing some undrehanded things in an attempt to get him on the ballot in a lot of places too?

Nader has lost his mind, plain and simple. He doesn't even stand for any issues anymore. Even the Greens don't want to touch him. It's all about satisfying his ego now.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040915/ap_on_el_pr/nader

So just because the Democratic party doesn't want Nader on the FLA state ballot, the all of Florida's voters will suffer the consequences of not having a choice???

Liberal America, shitting on your rights one at a time ©
Old. The Republican party violated a court order and put him on the ballot anyway.

wasn't the republican party doing some undrehanded things in an attempt to get him on the ballot in a lot of places too?

the GOP was just trying to gaive all registered voters a choice, thats the differance.

if (probably not) Kerry is elected I am sure he will continue to fight to keep Nader off the ballot in 2008.

the GOP was just trying to gaive all registered voters a choice, thats the differance.

if (probably not) Kerry is elected I am sure he will continue to fight to keep Nader off the ballot in 2008.
By violating a court order and breaking Florida election laws?

*yawn*

You do know that Gore was the choice that a plurality of registered voters wanted, right?

the GOP was just trying to gaive all registered voters a choice, thats the differance.

if (probably not) Kerry is elected I am sure he will continue to fight to keep Nader off the ballot in 2008.

please, do you honestly believe that the republican party isn't acting in its own self interest?

and if nader had enough supporters then he'd get on the ballot.

No kidding--if Nader really were pulling voters from Bush, don't you think that Jebbie would have let the court ruling stand? Course he would have.

If it's a true allegation then it's hardly trolling. Any Democratic supporter that supports this move is as bad as Jeb Bush. Period.

trolling = "Liberal America, shitting on your rights one at a time © "

plus anyone who supports K Harris' purging of tens of thousands of Black democrat voters from the rolls is a racist.

Man, that is the worst sheep costume a wolf has ever put on. Aren't you guys even trying anymore?

Just for a quick update, Nader's off again. (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040915/D8548TE80.html)

Here's the deal. Florida law requires a candidate for the Presidency either be--the nominee of a party that conforms to state law, or receive enough signatures through a petition process to be included on the ballot. There are a number of minority parties that qualify for Florida's ballot every four years. The Reform Party does not fit the bill anymore. It doesn't exist outside of a P.O. Box and a bank account with less than a hundred dollars in it. At least, that's what the judge who heard the case ruled. Now if you want to argue whether or not the Reform Party still exists, that's another issue, but the judge in the case said they weren't.

That means that Nader needed to get the necessary signatures in order to get on the ballot. He doesn't have them, so he doesn't qualify. The only way this changes is if the Florida Supreme Court overrules the lower court, and they'll hear the case on Friday. A federal judge has already refused to hear the case.

It seems to me that Florida voters were deprived of a choice when thousands of black voters were taken off the rolls in 2000 for no good reason. Where was the outrage then?

Liberal America, shitting on your rights one at a time ©
Actually, the liberal (Nader) is the guy who is being shitted on by the conservatives (Democrats) in this case.

I love it how New Auburnland claims "Liberal America" is shitting on your rights while neglecting to note that Bush's campaign missed the deadline (http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/11/Decision2004/Did_Bush_camp_err_on_.shtml) to be on the Florida ballot, and yet will be on there anyway. Is the Republican party above the law? Should they not be required to follow the same laws as everyone else?

I hereby call on the Florida Republican party, in a show of solidarity with Ralph Nader and in defense of voting rights statewide, to withdraw from the race in the state of Florida, since they have neglected to meet the deadline. :D

I love it how New Auburnland claims "Liberal America" is shitting on your rights while neglecting to note that Bush's campaign missed the deadline (http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/11/Decision2004/Did_Bush_camp_err_on_.shtml) to be on the Florida ballot, and yet will be on there anyway. Is the Republican party above the law? Should they not be required to follow the same laws as everyone else?

I hereby call on the Florida Republican party, in a show of solidarity with Ralph Nader and in defense of voting rights statewide, to withdraw from the race in the state of Florida, since they have neglected to meet the deadline. :D
The article you cited notes that the Judge who ordered Nader's name to be kept off the ballot (only 50,000 overseas ballots btw, not the whole states ballots) heard the case without any lawyers from Nader or his running mate.

That seems pretty hokie to me.

And, while the article raises questions as to whether or not the Bush campaign made the deadline or not, it by no means states that Bush's name was going to be on the ballot illegaly. It simply states that the democratic party are choosing to not question it.

Well, whether or not the Democratic party chooses to challenge it--and I hope they don't, because it's a political loser--the simple fact remains that the Bush campaign did not meet the deadline, and by Florida law, should not appear on the ballot. Bush had the same problem in Illinois--it stems from the campaign's desire to have a late convention close to the 9/11 anniversary and to have a financial advantage over the Democrats in the last push to November 2. In Illinois, the state legislature actually had to pass a law allowing Bush on the ballot, and even though it's a Democratically controlled legislature and Bush has about as much chance winning there as I do of winning the silver in the woman's 400 meters, they did the right thing and put him on the ballot.

Well, whether or not the Democratic party chooses to challenge it--and I hope they don't, because it's a political loser--the simple fact remains that the Bush campaign did not meet the deadline, and by Florida law, should not appear on the ballot. Bush had the same problem in Illinois--it stems from the campaign's desire to have a late convention close to the 9/11 anniversary and to have a financial advantage over the Democrats in the last push to November 2. In Illinois, the state legislature actually had to pass a law allowing Bush on the ballot, and even though it's a Democratically controlled legislature and Bush has about as much chance winning there as I do of winning the silver in the woman's 400 meters, they did the right thing and put him on the ballot.
You are asserting something that isnt a fact. "The fact remains" that according to the Secretary of States office the deadline applies to the Governor and the list of presidential electors, not to the candidates themselves.

Of course it applies to the Governor and the electors--the Governor has to certify the candidate's application and the electors are the ones actually being voted for, not the candidate. You're playing semantics here.

But it's a useless argument, and I'm more than willing to drop it.

By violating a court order and breaking Florida election laws?

*yawn*

You do know that Gore was the choice that a plurality of registered voters wanted, right?

The President is not elected through the popular vote. This is an important point. If he were, then Texas, New York and Florida would be picking our President every four years and the rest of the people could just kick back and watch. Not a very good plan in my opinion.

It seems to me that Florida voters were deprived of a choice when thousands of black voters were taken off the rolls in 2000 for no good reason. Where was the outrage then?

I've heard this rot over and over again. Yet there were no court cases and when the several media agencies did investigations and recounts after the 2000 election, there were no witnesses who were willing to go under oath about it. This is all Democrat/Liberal propaganda. :headbang:

The President is not elected through the popular vote. This is an important point. If he were, then Texas, New York and Florida would be picking our President every four years and the rest of the people could just kick back and watch. Not a very good plan in my opinion.

Actually, I think it's more than fair to allow EACH person ONE vote. If the MAJORITY of individual citizens in this country prefer a particular candidate, that MAJORITY should rule. I don't see why people in some states should have a heavier voting right than people in others. If a state is more populus, maybe that state SHOULD have a bigger say... it's not like we let the most populus states vote and then throw away everyone eles's votes. Count. Who has the most numbers? That person should win. I think it's really very simple.

Oh, and regarding the "propaganda" of the dropped names, it's not just crap. To get the issue challenged, SENATORS have to sign the objections to the election. If all the SENATORS are worried about their own interests instead of justice, nothing gets done. Many members of the House of Representatives signed objections, but since no senators had the balls to step forward, nothing came of it.

The President is not elected through the popular vote. This is an important point. If he were, then Texas, New York and Florida would be picking our President every four years and the rest of the people could just kick back and watch. Not a very good plan in my opinion.
Congratulations on not understanding my post. Have a sticker.


Also, your analogy is flawed considering that it is the same way with the Electoral College. Try, try, try again.

If he missed the deadline/broke the rules, he missed the deadline/broke the rules. Sad, but there's nothing to be done about it. He should suck it up and stop whining that the rules should be bent just for him.

Meanwhile, anyone can run a "write-in" campaign and still get votes.

Here's the only real question: was Nader's cantidacy in complience with relevent and constitutionally valid laws in Florida?

Here's the only real question: was Nader's cantidacy in complience with relevent and constitutionally valid laws in Florida?
Nope.

Nope.

According to Circuit Judge P. Kevin Davey. Anyone have any cites that describe his ruling, and the evidence presented, in more depth?

But until such is presented, the answer is: no, if you trust the courts, and yes, if you don't.

Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood, who was appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, said she is opposing the Democrats' lawsuit "as an honest broker" to protect the state elections process

Now THAT'S the funny part! :)

According to Circuit Judge P. Kevin Davey. Anyone have any cites that describe his ruling, and the evidence presented, in more depth?

But until such is presented, the answer is: no, if you trust the courts, and yes, if you don't.
And according to the federal court judge who refused to hear Nader's appeal. Can't forget him.

Here's the only real question: was Nader's cantidacy in complience with relevent and constitutionally valid laws in Florida?
Nope.
We don't know that. What we do know is that the judge who ruled in this case did so without any input from a Nader campaign attorney.
Hard to make an objective opinion when you only hear one side of the argument.

We don't know that. What we do know is that the judge who ruled in this case did so without any input from a Nader campaign attorney.
Hard to make an objective opinion when you only hear one side of the argument.
http://199.44.225.4/courtDockets/pdf/04-ca2140/04-ca2140-05.pdf

Wrong. Nader and Camejo were both in the court (well, teleconferenced in)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040915/ap_on_el_pr/nader

So just because the Democratic party doesn't want Nader on the FLA state ballot, the all of Florida's voters will suffer the consequences of not having a choice???

Liberal America, shitting on your rights one at a time ©

Ooh! Ooh! I'm a random jackass preaching a radical and largely imaginary agenda! Me me me! I want to be on the ballot too!

plus anyone who supports K Harris' purging of tens of thousands of Black democrat voters from the rolls is a racist.
Keep believing this shit, it keeps you idiots occupied, much like this. http://thpsguy.tripod.com/idiot/id1.html

Liberal America, shitting on your rights one at a time ©
Wait a minute... isn't Nader considered a liberal- in fact, even more liberal than most of the Democratic Party? So it would be those who are more conservative than him that are doing that to your rights.

Keep believing this shit, it keeps you idiots occupied, much like this. http://thpsguy.tripod.com/idiot/id1.html

It's a proven fact. But I guess it's hard to believe anything you don't hear on FOX. Enjoy your blindfold George.

It's a proven fact. But I guess it's hard to believe anything you don't hear on FOX. Enjoy your blindfold George.
If it's a proven fact, then you wouldnt mind posting sources? Just curious

Whereas CNN is unbiased? They may as well comply with the "Truth in Advertising" laws and go ahead and declare themselves to be what they really are, the media wing of the democratic party.

As for the electoral college, it seems that you liberals hate it...........unless you actually happen to win, then its a darn fine system, right? Your double standards disgust me.

The President is not elected through the popular vote. This is an important point. If he were, then Texas, New York and Florida would be picking our President every four years and the rest of the people could just kick back and watch.
Those states only account for about 20% of the US population, which leaves a lot of room, IMO. I think that a direct election system, or at least a splitting of states' electoral vote would be better. Under the current system, Republicans in New York and Democrats in Texas remain completely voiceless.

Those states only account for about 20% of the US population, which leaves a lot of room, IMO. I think that a direct election system, or at least a splitting of states' electoral vote would be better. Under the current system, Republicans in New York and Democrats in Texas remain completely voiceless.
Not to mention Republicans in California and Republicans in Oregon.

The whole system has been hijacked by the two parties. they both do whatever they can to prevent another party from getting on the ballot. Do their candidates have to get petitions signed to get on the ballot? No. They are automatically placed there. The old adage "anyone can grow up to be president" has never been less true.

Down with the 2 party system and death to both the Republican AND Democrat parties!! Lets take our government back!!!

As for the electoral college, it seems that you liberals hate it...........unless you actually happen to win, then its a darn fine system, right? Your double standards disgust me.
Where do you get this one from?

I would guess liberals hate the electoral college system because it is biased in favour of the Republicans. It gives small, conservative states like Wyoming a disproportionate amount of voting power. This is also why reactionaries (sorry, "conservatives") like it, I'd guess.

I'm really sick of constantly hearing about how liberals are disgusting and vile and scumbags. Do you think you are helping to rainse the level of political discourse?