|
06-05-2002, 04:37 PM | #31 |
Posts: n/a
|
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. |
|
06-05-2002, 04:50 PM | #32 |
Posts: n/a
|
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).] |
|
06-05-2002, 06:49 PM | #33 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
06-05-2002, 07:05 PM | #34 |
Posts: n/a
|
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?
|
|
06-05-2002, 07:48 PM | #35 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
06-05-2002, 08:06 PM | #36 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-05-2002, 08:36 PM | #37 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-05-2002, 08:51 PM | #38 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
06-05-2002, 10:55 PM | #39 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
bush 2004! http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/biggrin.gif ------------------ "i've heard of unisex, but i've never had it."-monty python. |
|
|
06-06-2002, 12:46 AM | #40 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-06-2002, 01:14 AM | #41 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
------------------ ~~Samantha~~ AIM: MercuryAdore http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|
|
06-06-2002, 01:23 AM | #42 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-06-2002, 01:25 AM | #43 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
------------------ ~~Samantha~~ AIM: MercuryAdore http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|
|
06-06-2002, 02:40 AM | #44 |
Posts: n/a
|
http://www.standup4democracy.org/ass...hite_House.jpg
------------------ ~~Samantha~~ AIM: MercuryAdore http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|
06-06-2002, 02:47 AM | #45 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-06-2002, 08:00 AM | #46 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-06-2002, 08:15 AM | #47 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-06-2002, 12:32 PM | #48 |
Posts: n/a
|
Nader would have been president now if all those dumbasses hadn't voted for gore or bush...
|
|
06-06-2002, 01:01 PM | #49 |
Posts: n/a
|
Do most of you really understand what the Green Party stands for?
http://www.greenparty.org/values.html NO. Some of that I agree with, but I think that most of it is pie in the sky PC bullshit and hyperbole. And the funny thing is that I'd always rather vote Green than Republican or Democrat. Call it a protest vote or whatever. It's still not voting what I believe and I don't think there are any politicians who are representing "me". The closest are the Libertarians and they are a fucking joke. I hate politics and I hate voting and I hate politicians. When I get thinking about how much I hate it I begin to thinking like Noyen who hopes for a mass eradication of human life throughout the world so we can start over. FUCK EVERYONE AND THEIR STUPID BELIEFS. Any party is going to have a hidden agenda. Those stupid Green hippies would be as corrupt as the rest in a matter of years. People involved in politics are fucking liars and they don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Even if they are doing things beneficial to others, it's an ego trip and they are getting something out of it. FUCK RALPH NADER. He's a liberal fucking panty waist. |
|
06-06-2002, 02:20 PM | #50 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-06-2002, 03:08 PM | #51 |
Posts: n/a
|
You're naive as hell if you think the two-party system is going to change anytime soon. Third parties in American politics make their mark, get their asses kicked in presidential elections, leave, and then after they leave, they generally get what they wanted in the first place.
The Populists/William Jennings Bryan were way more popular 100-110 years ago than Nader is today, and even then, the only way WJB could get close to winning the presidential election was by merging with the Democrats in 1896--and he STILL lost. The Populists dissolved soon after. If you think Nader is any different at his chances for legitimacy, you're wrong. I love the guy, but there's no way in hell it's ever going to happen. However--look at what happened after the Populists broke up. They wanted direct election of Senators; they got it in 1920 (I think). They wanted an eight-hour working day; they got it. They wanted pensions; they got them. They wanted civil service reform; they got it. They wanted immigration reform; they got it. That is how third parties make their mark on American politics, and that's how Nader is going to affect us 25 years form now. [This message has been edited by sawdust restaurants (edited 06-06-2002).] |
|
06-06-2002, 04:13 PM | #52 | |||
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[font color=black] [This message has been edited by professional wannabe (edited 06-06-2002).] |
|||
|
06-06-2002, 04:19 PM | #53 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-06-2002, 05:57 PM | #54 | ||
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
Unfortuantely, the system is not going to change overnight. So, unfortuantely, you need to consider other factors when casting your vote. I applauded Perot's presidential bids. I think he did a decent amount as far as bringing attention to 3rd party candidates, etc. And we can even sit here and argue that Perot helped take votes away from Bush and Dole. But, those elections were not that seriously close. Clinton would have won even if Perot hadn't run. And yeah, go ahead and vote for Nader. I have no problem with that. However, those who voted for Nader in key states essentially voted for Bush and perhaps should have considered other factos when casting their vote. Unfortunately, that's just how it is. *shrug* ------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
||
|
06-06-2002, 06:04 PM | #55 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Contrary to popular belief, I am actually not a Democrat and am a registered member of the Working Families Party of New York State. New York State is a great example of just what 3rd parties can do and the influence they can have. However, New York is unique in that it has a multi-ticket system. For example, in 2000, Gore and Hillary Clinton ran on the Democract, Working Families, and a bunch of other tickets. One of the philosophies behind choosing which candidate to run (for the Working Families Party anyway) is to choose a candidate that has a chance of winning. You cannot create the change you want unless you can win. So, for example, the amount of votes received by Hillary Clinton on the Working Families Party ticket was enough to make Clinton have to pay attention to us. If she doesn't, she knows that she will lose all the votes in the next election. Blah. Ummm...yeah. I just think New York State has a great system in place and it would be interesting to see more states adopt it. ------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|
|
06-06-2002, 11:21 PM | #56 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-06-2002, 11:52 PM | #57 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
06-07-2002, 02:19 AM | #58 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
------------------ ~*~Samantha~*~ http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg |
|
|
06-07-2002, 02:32 AM | #59 | ||
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
David |
||
|
06-07-2002, 04:17 AM | #60 | |
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
------------------ http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG |
|
|