Nader for president
 

http://www.khtk.com/nader.html

this is a good read

uh. words...

words...

words...

heh. use on wood.

bleh

------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

I wish nader wouldn't have been so successfull in the united states. Perhaps al gore would be president now if it wassdadwn't for him.

No. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Nader.

------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

I wouldn't even call the nader campaign successful since it didn't meet the voter requirement for funding

Al Gore lost in certain key states, particularly his own, simply because of NRA inflence. So, I wouldn't really fault the nader extremists for the hell we now live in.

------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

aw man, this wasnt a true political thread

Well, let's suppose that all the votes Nader got in Florida had gone to Gore (like they most likely would have)...



------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

damn...

fohgivahnis prease~!

------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

http://www.algoreisourpresident.com/...er00-thumb.jpg

------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Well, if Gore won certain states he would have enough electoral votes to bypass that florida fiasco bla bla bla

http://www.napanet.net/~lindarey/anger8.jpg

------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

http://www.napanet.net/~lindarey/anger8.jpg



------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

LMAO!!!



------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif


------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

I'm sorry, but this is just plain stupid. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Al Gore. The election was arguably his to lose, and he did. He and Bush agreed on so many different things (during interviews, debates, etc...) that most people could conceive no considerable difference between the two. You can't blame a failure as big as Gore's campaign on Nader. The difference he made was very small, but I'll grant that it could have made the difference in several states. Still, as someone mentioned, he lost his home state!. Is that Nader's fault too? Furthermore, can you blame Nader for the fact that he gave many voters what they felt was a better choice than two equally shitty candidates? I know I would have rather just abstained from voting than have voted for either Bush or Gore.

bleh!

http://www.machetemfg.com/Machete_Me...kers_lemmy.gif

If gore had been elected nearly everything would be the same as it is right now. It's a fine message to send to people: "Don't dissent, we need you to fight off someone using evil black magic against our dark-gray magic weilding wizard beard man! stop lollygagging around with that guy who could actually make all of this irrelivant"

It doesn't make me any less upset about the 2000 election, but Nader does indeed kick ass.

Bravo.

Samantha is the only person in this thread who knows what she's talking about. God I love that gal. The rest of you have the thinking capacity of a squid, and I love how all the closet-conservatives come out in threads like this. I'm surprised Affectation and Tweedyburd haven't graced us with their bullshit.

Ass Kicking #1:
Are you by chance going to Bob's College to earn your education? If so, you should ask for your $10 back. You clearly haven't learned shit. President Gore ran a stellar campaign and had thousands of volunteers working 24 hours a day for him. Samantha has it right. You are totally underestimating the impact of Nader. Had Nader not been involved, Gore would have won Flordia, Oregon, and New Hampshire, which would have given him 296 votes, and would have beat Governor Bush by 50 some electoral votes. Who cares if he lost his home state? The Lakers don't win every home game do they? Shit happens sometimes. This wasn't a race for TN governor.

Ass Kicking #2:
The reason for Gore's "loss" is simple: Idiot "liberals" like you (I could name 50 more on this board), who know nothing about giving up a little of your own selfish ideology for the good of the Party and think nothing about how the consequences of jumping ship far outweigh the benefits, seem to believe that you are really accomplishing something here. Well you're not, unless you think that putting Bush in office is an accomplishment, so stop with the theatrics you stupid shits.

Ass Kicking #3:
You want to claim that Gore and Bush are no different? Fine, go ahead. I've already made you look like an ass (quite easily might I add). But I don't seem to recall Gore's platform ******* killing a surplus and ringing up a huge deficit, opting out of environmental pacts, cutting rich people's taxes, and doing nothing for the millions of people who can't get access to health care. I'm sure there's more, but I've made my point.

Also, don't forget that this election was decided by 5 people: 3 old white men, an old white woman, and a confused black man who was appointed by Bush I. Not by the American people, who chose Gore by thousands of votes.

Again, I'm not singling you out. There are at least 50 other dumbasses on this board who believe the same way you do. I'm going back to work now.

i agree with your assertion, but the fact remains that if nader had not run al gore would be president of the united states and we'd all have microchips in our heads

the two things in your argument are not mutually exclusive

the US court system is powerless without the executive branch; if the executive decided not to follow the USSC's decision then it would not be unconstitutional; in reality, clinton could have said "no way" to the USSC just like the executive did in the early 1950's (brown decision)

this is a basketball thread dammit

It's not Nader's fault Gore lost. The people who would vote for Nader (like me) voted for him because, guess what? THEY DIDN'T WANT GORE TO BE PRESIDENT.

<3

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/biggrin.gif



------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

So, in other words, they wanted Bush to be president? A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.



------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

wow. that's a lot to read. i don't like you that much.

I can't believe people are still so bitter about an election that happened over 18 months ago.

I voted for Nader because I agreed with his policies the most. Gore's campaign was so poorly run that, even without Nader, he would have been running neck and neck with Bush. You guys can remain in denial, but ultimately it's Al Gore's fault for not winning that election. You can blame Nader if it makes you feel better, but come on, Gore blew it. Let's move on.

I still think it's a little short sighted to believe that Nader is the main reason why Bush is in office today. There are many reasons why Gore lost ranging from the NRA party ("A Bush win will be akin to having the NRA in the office") to Gore's personality, which seemed to be a key issue among the undecided- which was something that drove me absolutely nuts. Nader is just a scapegoat.

I think it's a common misconception that a vote for Nader translates to a vote for Gore if Nader wasn't in the election race.It's not guaranteed that those who voted for Nader would have even voted in the first place. It would've been a silent protest to the country's two party system. In regards to Florida, it's still a republican territory: its governed by the Bush family; and has a strong Cuban American republican demographic.

Even so, I still regard the belief that Gore didn't lose the election, he had it taken away from him- by the powers that be. Finding a scapegoat for that sad fact is alot harder than just lazily pointing at Nader.

Also, running a flawless campaing isn't exclusive to a diligent staff working 24-7. Gore ran a poor campaign, and consequently lost most of the Democratic party's confidence. That's why Daschle, and even Lieberman are now considered as candidates for 2004.


------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

[This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-05-2002).]

Presidential campaigns are tough. There is no set of guidelines that will work everytime. What helped one guy win one year could cause another guy to lose another year. Bush's campaign certainly wasn't well run either. Based on the numbers, though, the fact remains that, while it still would have been close, if Nader had not run Gore would have won.

And Daschle most likely won't run for the presidency. Neither will Gephardt. They are too focused on being leaders in Congress. The current front runners for the Democratic nomination are John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina.

After the election this November, Democrats will control both the Senate and the House. And the war on terror will take its toll on Bush's popularity. And we will see a Democrat elected president in 2004.



------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

See, the idea about demorcracy is that you vote for the person and the party who best represents your ideals and views, not voting for the person you dislike the least out of the two main parties. Like people have said, some voters rejected the 2-party system, and voted for their candidate, and you can't automatically assume everyone who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been an option. Stop using Nader as a scapegoat for the election results - since he won anyway, shouldn't you be more concerned by the fact Bush managed to get into power, not that Gore winning Nader's votes would have made such a manipulation more difficult?

Ok, I owe you a coke.

But Daschle said in an interview on Meet the Press that the only determining factor regarding his decision to run for election is his family.

I really don't care who runs as long as the republican party is out of office, and before this turns into another 'me' decade.

------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

That's fucking ridiculous. People shouldn't vote with idiotic ideas like that in their head, they should vote for who they want to be president. I acknowledge the huge difference between Gore and Bush and would have rather had Gore in office, but I wanted to vote for Nader, because I'd rather have him in office over Gore. I don't care if voting for Nader didn't accomplish anything, it certainly wouldn't have accomplished anything if everyone who would have voted for him voted for someone who didn't represent their ideals.

voting shouldn't be a choice between the lesser of two evils. it's because of people who think like this that we're stuck in this two-party system.

Exactly....

Besides, I'd love to see the stats on the other tiny parties vote tallies. People are so quick to assume that Nader is the only voter that changed things, but there's about 10 different parties out there, whose votes could have equalled Nader's.
It bothers me so much to see Nader being blamed for the faults of Gore's campaign. So what if a campaign is run well 24/7? In the end, it all comes down to ideals. Jello Biafra ran for president....he could have had the most flawless campaign in history, and he still wouldn't have gotten in.
It frustrates me to see that the country requires 5% for govt campaign support....its frustrating b/c its such a small amount, yet so unattainable b/c angry liberals who are still bitter over the election put blame on other parties, and slow progress.
I am very interested to see who will be running in 2004. 2000 for me was quite boring.

------------------
http://www.wsu.edu/~swinn/sex.gif
You want to sleep with common people like me

i doubt it. i think the way that bush has been handing the situation may get him another term.

bush 2004! http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/biggrin.gif



------------------
"i've heard of unisex, but i've never had it."-monty python.

Hurray for those who make my posts very short. Please keep spurting my opinions so I can lazily nod my head in agreement.