Nader is quietly making headway !!

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

If Nader was such a big issue back in 2004, shouldn't he be a
bigger issue now that he is on the CA ballot? CA is very anti-War and
anti-Corporate ? He was only one 34 state ballots then and this time he
might get on 45 state ballots!!
Yet the Mainstream (Corporate) new media is silent?

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/631963.html

[Condorman]

If he can't win a single state, it doesn't matter if he is on 5 states or 50 states.

[IndieVisible]

IMHO NO! I think Barr and the Green Party could/will get more votes. Nader makes McCain look young. He is truly a relic from the past. Want to talk about no experience? He has held NO POLITICAL OFFICE.

[Leslie]

omg, are people still talkin' about Nader? :shock:

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

If he can't win a single state, it doesn't matter if he is on 5 states or 50 states.

What if the state he could win he was not on that states ballot? Then it does matter!
Why do some many people just argue about the "Logistics" and "Strategies" of Nader's
race, but they never compare his policies to the policies of the REPS&DEMS ?

If McCain and Obama were not on the GOP or DNC ticket would you vote for them ?
You are defeating your own democracy before you even try to exercise it !!!

Look for the best person for America not JUST WHAT THE REP-DEM MONOPOLOY
FROCE FEEDYOU !!!!!!

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Here take a few note in courage ! And quit bending over for the REP-DEM Duopoly , and
bagging for more after the screw you !

[Condorman]

What if the state he could win he was not on that states ballot? Then it does matter!
Why do some many people just argue about the "Logistics" and "Strategies" of Nader's
race, but they never compare his policies to the policies of the REPS&DEMS ?

If McCain and Obama were not on the GOP or DNC ticket would you vote for them ?
You are defeating your own democracy before you even try to exercise it !!!

Look for the best person for America not JUST WHAT THE REP-DEM MONOPOLOY
FROCE FEEDYOU !!!!!!

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Here take a few note in courage ! And quit bending over for the REP-DEM Duopoly , and
bagging for more after the screw you !

Yeah, damn logisitics and statistics. I agree with Mickey Mouse more than anyone else, so I'm going to write his name in. Go democracy!

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

IMHO NO! I think Barr and the Green Party could/will get more votes. Nader makes McCain look young. He is truly a relic from the past. Want to talk about no experience? He has held NO POLITICAL OFFICE.

Yeah that's why the REPS&DEMS won't debate with Nader....
Nader has effected the lives of every America ! Without being in Office ! Nader has never
been in bed with lobbyists ! Nader is the only candidate (running) that has not moved away
from his princeples (Flip-Flopped)! Nader is the only one who will not keep Washington
intrenched in coporate corruption !

As we get closer to the Election McBama is starting to look and sound the the same bad
candidate ! Status Quo will stay the Norm !

[Stoner]

I hate to bring bad news but Paris Hilton has a better chance of winning a spelling B than Nader does of becoming POTUS.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Yeah, damn logisitics and statistics. I agree with Mickey Mouse more than anyone else, so I'm going to write his name in. Go democracy!

At least Mickey wouldn't give us a $9,400,000,000,000.00 debt !
I would vote for Mickey before I would vote to put another REP&DEM
in power, Because I "Know" the REPS&DEMS will do harm to America and its
constitution. But Mickey will be judged by his actions !

[IndieVisible]

I hate to bring bad news but Paris Hilton has a better chance of winning a spelling B than Nader does of becoming POTUS.

If I may be so bold as to say,

I have better chance of shagging Paris Hilton tonight then Nader has of even getting over 20% of the votes in just ONE freaking state!

[Stoner]

I have better chance of shagging Paris Hilton tonight then Nader has of even getting over 20% of the votes in just ONE freaking state!

If you do you damn well better post pictures (as well as get 20% off the video sales).

[Condorman]

If I may be so bold as to say,

I have better chance of shagging Paris Hilton tonight then Nader has of even getting over 20% of the votes in just ONE freaking state!

With Paris's record, that might actually be a high chance.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

I hate to bring bad news but Paris Hilton has a better chance of winning a spelling B than Nader does of becoming POTUS.

As long as Americans are willing to be oppressed by the REP&DEM Monopoly you're
probably right.

1992
Ross Perot got ~19% of the Pop Vote, the voting system is rigged so it gave him 0% of
the Electoral College vote!

B. Clinton ONLY got ~43% of the Pop Vote but 70% of the E.C. Vote !
(For those of you not good with math or logic, that's Not a majority)


The REPS&DEMS have the ability to make the system more accurate!
(No wimmer take all Rule, and or Instant Runoff Election) But they haven't !
And they don't want to ! Becuase that would give you more power in determining
your president ! They don't want you to have that power ! Because your DUMB !!!!
At first I thought that was wrong, but after seeing so many Americans fight to
keep these corrupt parties in power to screw you over, I've changed my mind!

Nader would reform the voting system to not allow a monopoly like the one the REPS&DEMS
have ! That would help ALL AMERICANS !!!!! But you don't want that !!!!!
You want KNOWN CORRUPT PARTIES TO govern you and your country !

[Condorman]

Yes he would, if he actually won, he would keep the system that he won in, to give him the best chance of winning a second term.

[AlanC]

Actually, based on her youtube ad, I would say that Paris Hilton has a better chance of getting 10% of the vote for POTUS than Nader does.

How's that for depressing?

[AlanC]

1992
Ross Perot got ~19% of the Pop Vote, the voting system is rigged so it gave him 0% of
the Electoral College vote!




You don't know much of the history of the constitution and its principles do you?

We were never expected, designed, nor intended to have a president elected by the popular vote of the people. Initially, there was no vote for president other than by the electoral college.

There is still no provision in the constitution for it. It is not a system designed by republicans or democrats. It was in place long before either of them ever came into existance.

It isn't rigged, it works just as it was always supposed to do. To be elected, the president has to have the support of most of the state's electoral votes. If someone can't win those by the means defined by each individual state, they don't win. It is that simple.

[Stoner]

As long as Americans are willing to be oppressed by the REP&DEM Monopoly you're
probably right.



No one is being oppressed. You vote for who you want. Democracy is a great thing and it's not going anywhere.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

You don't know much of the history of the constitution and its principles do you?

We were never expected, designed, nor intended to have a president elected by the popular vote of the people. Initially, there was no vote for president other than by the electoral college.

There is still no provision in the constitution for it. It is not a system designed by republicans or democrats. It was in place long before either of them ever came into existance.

It isn't rigged, it works just as it was always supposed to do. To be elected, the president has to have the support of most of the state's electoral votes. If someone can't win those by the means defined by each individual state, they don't win. It is that simple.

Yes I do! The EC was great when it was crated, but now that we know more about our
Prez. Candidates than we do our next door neighbor the EC is not needed!
The States EC Votes are suppose to represent the people of that state ! When the EC vote
does not even come close to reflecting the Pop Vote there is something wrong!


The Winner Take all Rule was created so the less popular candidates would lose vote!
It is not in the Constitution to have or use the Winner take all rule ! Not having the
winner take all rule would Make America more democratic, having the winner take all
rule makes America more authoritarian!


And now you are justifying why the REPS&DEMS are taking away your freedom! Why?

All these precautions of the EC was so the populace would not be fooled by a bad
candidate that would get in to power and then Destroy America !!!!!!!!!!!

We got Bush !!!

It not working !!! We need to fix the system!

[Alonzo]

What if the state he could win

:madlaugh:

[bobbylien]

You are delusional.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

No one is being oppressed. You vote for who you want. Democracy is a great thing and it's not going anywhere.

So when 19% of America get 0% representation, when 43% is considered a Majority, and
when a Candidate with fewer votes, wins the Presidency You call that a Democracy?
Maybe Democracy is gone and they are just letting you pretend you have a choice!
If you can vote for "ANY ONE" yet it is ~ Impossible for any one out side of the
GOP & DNC to win, do you think that might be a scam?

The sad part is the Majority of Americans think like you and are wrong!

That's why our politicians can lie, steal, cheat us and then get put back in power !!
No questions asked, no expectation of doing a good job ! Just the Lesser of 2 two evils !?!?!?

Ignorance is Bliss and Stupidity Reigns Supreme !
(That's why America has a $9,400,000,000,000.00 debt, and growing)

[IndieVisible]

Ross Perot showed that it is possible for a third party to win. He broke records and actually achieved relatively high appeal! We just have not had any third party candidate to do better then that. Ross Perot crossed party lines he was a serious candidate. So I don't think you can say the dems and reps have it all rigged. they do not. They call third party candidates spoilers because they know they take a pinch out of their votes. Its only a matter of time before there is another Ross Perot and one that will do better and come in second or even win. It's not so much the system. If not enough people are voting for them you can not blame the system.

[william the wierd]

Ross Perot showed that it is possible for a third party to win. He broke records and actually achieved relatively high appeal! We just have not had any third party candidate to do better then that. Ross Perot crossed party lines he was a serious candidate. So I don't think you can say the dems and reps have it all rigged. they do not. They call third party candidates spoilers because they know they take a pinch out of their votes. Its only a matter of time before there is another Ross Perot and one that will do better and come in second or even win. It's not so much the system. If not enough people are voting for them you can not blame the system.
This is so true but when president Obama like Moses leads his people the liberals into the wilderness for 40 years that will change.

[Stoner]

when president Obama like Moses leads his people the liberals into the wilderness

Hopefully they'll get attacked by grizzly bears.

[william the wierd]

Hopefully they'll get attacked by grizzly bears.
At 32 years and counting they've already exceeded their own post-civil war futility record of 24 years without a Dem winning both a popular and electoral college majority. According to the Bill Clinton definition of presidential success: a two term president succeeded by his party's new leader winning the presidency; the Dems have gone 168 years without a successful presidency. (Truman barely won in 48 and he completed a dead president's term to run as an incumbent president, a much easier task than running as an incumbent VP like Gore or Nixon in 1960.) In short 4 years in and at least 40 years of being unable to get a clear win is the correct betting line on Obama and the jackasses.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Ross Perot showed that it is possible for a third party to win. He broke records and actually achieved relatively high appeal! We just have not had any third party candidate to do better then that. Ross Perot crossed party lines he was a serious candidate.So I don't think you can say the dems and reps have it all rigged. they do not.
Perot showed us that 19% doesn't count for crap in our system!!!
How does that show a 3rd party can win ????

Clinton 43% Pop = 70% EC
Bush Sr. 38% pop = 30% EC
R. Perot 19% pop = 0% EC

How does that show anything but a rigged system?
If all you REPS&DEMS are ok with this then system every pay period send me 19% of your
income check and we can say it really count for nothing, and we'll just make your
remaining 81% count as 100% ! You all seem to like the logic of this system!

They call third party candidates spoilers because they know they take a pinch out of their votes. Its only a matter of time before there is another Ross Perot and one that will do better and come in second or even win. It's not so much the system. If not enough people are voting for them you can not blame the system.

You still don't get it ! The Votes of the American People ARE NOT guaranteed to anyone
or any party. We are not obligated to vote for the REPS or DEMS ! The system is rigged
so if you don't vote for a REP or DEM your vote will be stolen and GIVE to a REP or DEM!
Thus the concept of a rigged system ! And after so much time most Americans have
seen how impossible it is to get any other party in to power they have succumbed to the
indirect blackmail of voting for the lesser of two evils! You vote out of fear of the party
you see as the greater Evil, not because you like the candidate or you truly think he will
do a good job!

Ask yourself:
1) If McCain or Obama were running as a third party (or not on the REPSor DEMS Ticket)
would you vote for them?

2) Do you think the REP or DEM parties will stop the corruption in Washington, fix the US's
financial problems, re-institute the Constitution and follow it, Stop pandering to Lobbyist,
pass legislation with out sneaking in Earmarks, stop allowing Pork barrel Projects.....

3) Why do youwant these parties to stay in power?

[AlanC]

The Winner Take all Rule was created so the less popular candidates would lose vote!
It is not in the Constitution to have or use the Winner take all rule ! Not having the
winner take all rule would Make America more democratic, having the winner take all
rule makes America more authoritarian!


And now you are justifying why the REPS&DEMS are taking away your freedom! Why?

All these precautions of the EC was so the populace would not be fooled by a bad
candidate that would get in to power and then Destroy America !!!!!!!!!!!

We got Bush !!!

It not working !!! We need to fix the system!

Wrong! The electoral collegs system is in place because the election of a chief executive is left up to the individual states. The Constitution empowers the individual state's legislatures to determine how they vote for president. They are not required to even "ask" the people for input, which is what you are doing when you cast your vote for president.

If a winner take all approach is in place, it is because your state legislature has deemed it so. The same legislature can also decide to divide your state's votes proportionately if they want. They could also decide to just hold a meeting of the legislature and decide among themselves who they will cast the state's votes in support of. It is all up to them.

If you don't like the way your state does it, petition to have it changed. If your state wants to change it, they can and will. If they don't, then a majority of your fellow citizens will have rejected your idea. THAT is democracy.

But as an aside, any state that did that would be marginalizing itself in terms of National elections and guaranteeing itself a place in the back of the bus as far as presidential politics goes.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

You are delusional.

Why then do the Democrats try to keep him off so many states ballots????
Are they Delusional ??????? or just pathetic and Corrupt ???????
The latter sound more correct but the former does ring true too.

Have a nice day!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d8sjpdkg1&show_article=1
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/31/ralph_nader_files_lawsuit_accusing_democratic
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/01/uselections2004.usa

[Osborn F. Enready]

As usual among partisans..... people want to debate his "chance of winning" more than what he stands for, his politics, his goals, his ideas, his character, his morality or any other aspect of HIM.....

The depth of blind partisan loyalty in this country may well be too far gone to save.....

Bring on the revolution if the people fail to value debate, logical respectful discourse, or allowing the BALLOT to make a difference....

When you close the ballot (or allow the bi-partisan monopoly on power to do it) you are closing the concept of self-government, and removing the ballot as a viable means to change the corruption.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Wrong! The electoral collegs system is in place because the election of a chief executive is left up to the individual states. The Constitution empowers the individual state's legislatures to determine how they vote for president. They are not required to even "ask" the people for input, which is what you are doing when you cast your vote for president.

If a winner take all approach is in place, it is because your state legislature has deemed it so. The same legislature can also decide to divide your state's votes proportionately if they want. They could also decide to just hold a meeting of the legislature and decide among themselves who they will cast the state's votes in support of. It is all up to them.

If you don't like the way your state does it, petition to have it changed. If your state wants to change it, they can and will. If they don't, then a majority of your fellow citizens will have rejected your idea. THAT is democracy.

But as an aside, any state that did that would be marginalizing itself in terms of National elections and guaranteeing itself a place in the back of the bus as far as presidential politics goes.

Yes the States do pick the President, but astate is not an entity unto itself. It is a
state of the people, it is suppose to give representation for it's populace. The State was
given sovereignty so it would not be oppressed or marginalized by other bigger states! Not
so it could be an authoritarian entity against it's populace! If what you said was true, why
would the citizens of America be allowed to vote? It's a waist of time and money! If the
States vote independently from the "Will of the People" why let the people vote? Is it a trick
to fool the people in to thinking we live in a Democracy????
Whether you're right or wrong you are still making the case that our voting system is not
what it should be!
Remember a government "of the people, by the people" .

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

As usual among partisans..... people want to debate his "chance of winning" more than what he stands for, his politics, his goals, his ideas, his character, his morality or any other aspect of HIM.....

The depth of blind partisan loyalty in this country may well be too far gone to save.....

Bring on the revolution if the people fail to value debate, logical respectful discourse, or allowing the BALLOT to make a difference....

When you close the ballot (or allow the bi-partisan monopoly on power to do it) you are closing the concept of self-government, and removing the ballot as a viable means to change the corruption.

It's because most Americans vote out of fear, and not for the best candidate!
That's why they (GOP&DNC) won't even debate some one like Nader, and the REP&DEM
voters won't require their party to debate some one like Nader!

If the GOP&DNC candidates are truly better than Nader a debate will show that!
Destroy Nader on his policies and ideas, not on the fact that the US voting system is
rigged to not let people out side of the GOP&DNC compete fairly!

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

This is so true but when president Obama like Moses leads his people the liberals into the wilderness for 40 years that will change.

Obama is not at all "The Chosen One-ish" !
It's just that US Politicians are soooo screwed up, that anyone is better then a corrupt
politicians! And Obama has just not had enough time to become as institutionally corrupt
as McCain and Hillary etc...

He's been chanting "CHANE" and now he's starting to sound more and more like McCain,
who sounds like Bush, who is the biggest screw-up in US history !!!!

Thus the Lesser of two evils leads us to best part of the bottom of the barrel!
Because of the REP-DEM Monopoly Americans get to feel good, because we are getting the
"BEST" scraps from the garbage!!!!
Support corrupt parties and you will have a corrupt country it's as simple as that!

[william the wierd]

What is happening is a thorough purge of the socialist/fascist remnants in US politics like Germany after WWII. While a clean and quick sweep would be nice, for the most part such storybook endings as in Poland or the Baltic states are in reaction to occupation. Yugoslavia, Russia, Romania, Albania and China are more typical results. Obama is the high tide mark of the regulatory Peronist state while McCain is imperial overstretch personified.

This is a good opening but as long as the advocates of freedom fail to go back to first principles (Rand/Rothbardites) or engage in fantasies about the past (Barr/Baldwin) then this gambit cannot be exploited. My old LP candidate Phillies, who I did volunteer work for in the run up to Denver, is one of two Boston Tea Party candidates for president. That explains why I am going LP instead of BTP despite my ideological leanings: the BTP makes the LP look organized. So does Baldwin and the CP: their goal is to get on the ballot in 40 states because they have zero probability of getting on all 50 ballots.

With the usual funneling of money to 3rd parties and the terrible candidates put up by the majors 20% of the ballots this time may go third party but I would expect the LP to break 5% and either the Greens or the CP to join them but no one else. In 2010 if Obama is elected I would expect 20-30 representatives and at least 2 senators from 3rd parties but no real breakthroughs until 2014 after a moderate rep is elected in 2012 and fails in turn. I do not expect anything resembling stability until 2024 at the earliest.