Democrats and Freedom

[GSTamral]

In New Mexico, a judge who had allegedly contributed $1000 to Kerry's campaign not only rejected an appeal to include Nader on the ballot, but further refused to remove himself from the trial when asked to do so because of conflict of interest involved. In Florida, Democrats continue to challenge a court ruling to include Nader on the ballot.

So, I guess it is ok to take away people's freedom to choose as long as you are doing it to remove from power the person who takes freedoms away, right? Has it ever occurred to some of these morons that while many people would rather not see Bush in office, maybe they don't want to be forced to vote for Kerry in order to voice their opinion? The Republican party, while upset with Ross Perot for running for the presidency, never filed lawsuits to keep him out of debates. They never filed lawsuits to keep him off the ballot.

It is so easy to pass blame on Nader for costing Gore the election, when in fact, had Gore simply done a better job in the debates and presented himself as a more likeable candidate, he would have won regardless. I don't hear too many Republicans using Ross Perot's name in vain for the time Clinton won his first election. I don't hear any Republicans clamoring over how he presented a more fiscally conservative approach in the election between Clinton and Dole, something that made much of the Republican backbone not go out to vote.

A person who is an environmentalist would rather have Nader in office than Kerry. Why is the democratic party trying to take away the basic freedom of the election process? As far as I see it, they are shooting themselves in the foot. They are taking away our first amendment rights, and then crying foul when homeland security acts compromise other parts of the First Amendment.

A person who favors alternative sources of power, or laws regulating corporate profits would rather have Nader in office than Kerry.

A person who is below the poverty line would be much better off fiscally under Nader's plan than Kerry.

A person who is lazy, has no job, and just wants a free ride would do much better off under Nader's plan.

A person who is in jail for a violent crime, or wants to commit violent crime for a living would be much better off in a Nader led society.

A person who favors isolationary tariff's, or wants to prevent more jobs from moving overseas, would be much more taken care of under Nader.

Why deny them that vote, Donkeys? Because right now is not the time for freedom because in order to do the greater good, you need to take freedoms away from people?
My my, how conservative of you…..

[Parkbandit]

Dear Tamral;

Gore won the election and the only reason he's not President is because George stole the election with his brother Jeb's help.

You are so stupid not to already know this.

[Keller]

Originally posted by GSTamral
[I]n fact, had Gore simply done a better job in the debates and presented himself as a more likeable candidate, he would have won regardless.

I agree with you, it's an atrocity that Nader is being taken off of balots. It's disgraceful and in poor taste. That being said.... Ummmmmm ..... not to beat a dead horse here but the facts, not the "spin", show us that Gore DID win, despite the Nader's pull from the democratic party.



[i]A person who favors alternative sources of power, or laws regulating corporate profits would rather not have Dubya in office.


[i]A person who is below the poverty line would be much better off fiscally under Nader's plan than Kerry.
And nearly everyone will be better off under boths economic plans than under Bush. Are you aware he's RAISED discretionary spending, 21% in 2001, 22% in 2002? He's like a kid who gets a credit card from his parents who foot the bill then quits his job because he doesn't "need" the money.


[i]A person who is lazy, has no job, and just wants a free ride would do much better off under Nader's plan.

Now, here's where you pissed me off. You really hit home here. My mom (I fucking DARE you to call her lazy, I'll drive to Duke and bitchslap your rich spoiled ass) raised my sister and brother on welfare because my dad left and she had no other choice. When my brother grew up and got out of the house
and my sister was old enough to look after me she went to work and proceeded to work three jobs to pay the rent and put food on the table. Although my sister never got the chance to go to college, she saved enough to allow me to go combined with the scholarship I got.

If you want to fix welfare, make all physically capable welfare recipients work 30 hours a week to receive their paycheck and health care. That will ensure that all those "niggers" aren't just "lazy". But you've got your finger shoved so far up your ass you still call that communism.

[Wezas]

First of all, a link would be nice.

After some research - it looks like the democrats are questioning the authenticity of some of the petition signatures.

Which is understandable because I've read a story or two about lawfirms being investigated about some of the petitions Nader has used to become elligible to be on the ballot in some states. The issue was with people signing Nader petitions that don't state Nader's name, only that the signer is in favor of having a "3rd party" option on the ballot.

In Colorado the issue is that Nader hasn't been part of the "Reform Party" for 1 year - like the law states he must be for him to be on the ballot.

The validity of Arizona's petition signatures had already been so in question that Nader was taken off the polls there.

[AnticorRifling]

Democrats are hippies. But most of them are cool, even if they are hippies.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by KellerUmmmmmm ..... not to beat a dead horse here but the facts, not the "spin", show us that Gore DID win, despite the Nader's pull from the democratic party.


:lol::lol:

Dear Keller,

Please take a class in American Election laws and come back and visit us again.

Buh Bye.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Keller
but the facts, not the "spin", show us that Gore DID winIt's impossible to win when you don't have more electoral votes than the other guy. Final score, year 2000: 271-266. Gore wasn't the guy with 271, Gore didn't win.

Something cool: The site I found with a list of electoral votes listed percentage of popular vote by state. Had we been working under a system where percentage of popular vote per state gave a percentage of electoral votes, Bush STILL would have won; by 2 electoral votes. However, they only gave percentages to two decimel places and I was doing it on a hand calculator, so it's entirely possible (if extremely unlikely) there's a margin of error that exceeds 2 votes.

[Keller]

As a poli-sci minor I know a fair bit about election law. So I'm back here to visit for you to tell me why I needed to know that, instead of just spouting off that I did. Please use some sort of argument in the future when you are trying to debate something.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Keller
As a poli-sci minor I know a fair bit about election law. So I'm back here to visit for you to tell me why I needed to know that, instead of just spouting off that I did. Please use some sort of argument in the future when you are trying to debate something.

Dear Keller,

You do not win an election via the popular vote. Go back to your Poli-sci professor and demand your money back for not introducing you to the Electorial College.

Thanks.

[Keller]

gd! Please refute that we live in a partisan world where daddys friends decided the 2000 election!! PLEASE stop being a moron.


I wish people would approach likes objectively and not bring an opinion to every circumstance, but it's obvious that is becoming less and less popular in politics. Arnold looks like the only person in the country who is able to do that.

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by Keller]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Keller
gd! Please refute that we live in a partisan world where daddys friends decided the 2000 election!! PLEASE stop being a moron.

[Slider]

And perhaps the Democrats should stop whining about how the election was "stolen"? As Latrinsorm pointed out Gore DID NOT have the electoral votes to win the election. As a poli-sci minor you should know this. But then again, it's so much easier for the Democrats to cry foul than it is to acknowledge reality isn't it? So tell me, even if Gore had won the electoral vote in Florida, would he have won the election? Nope, he still would have lost. Guess that blows your little conspiricy theory right outta the water doesn't it?

It seems that no matter what the argument, no matter how much proof is given, it all boils down to "the Republicans are lying, the Democrats are perfect".

Bah, forget it, it's not worth the effort. You go right on believing in your little fairy-tale world.

[Wezas]

Can we get back on topic - Nader and such?

We've had way too many of the "The election was stolen!" posts.

[GSTamral]

The real issue at hand is simple. Democrats trying to remove our freedom of choice (someone who has well over 2% of the national vote) in order to further their own agenda.

Takes away any of the sting in any of their arguments regarding anyone taking away freedoms from anyone. They are attempting to destroy the election process. While republicans never liked Perot running for office, they never whined and bitched as much, nor did they file all the lawsuits in order to bar him. They willingly let Americans choose their next president. They even had no issues with Perot being present during the debates, something they most certainly could have argued against.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by GSTamral
The real issue at hand is simple. Democrats trying to remove our freedom of choice (someone who has well over 2% of the national vote) in order to further their own agenda.


The democrats are saying "If this person has done the things he needs to do to be on the polls legally, we don't have an issue"(we can't do anything about it).

Nader is having issues because alot of the signatures on his petitions are being questioned. Especially if they thought they were just signing something that said they were in favor of a 3rd party option in their state - and the actual petition was to put Nader on the polls.

Also, "Democrats trying to remove our freedom of choice"? Seriously Tamral I thought you were a better man then that. You now rank right up there with Cheney saying that we will face the threat of another terrorist attack if we don't make the "Right" choice on election day.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by GSTamral
The real issue at hand is simple. Democrats trying to remove our freedom of choice (someone who has well over 2% of the national vote) in order to further their own agenda.


Damn. You're on to us!

Oh, but drop the emotional propoganda. No freedoms have been limited. No one is forced to vote for Bush or Kerry. The communist democrats are not out to destroy the world. You are still entirely within your rights to vote for whoever you want. It's called a write in vote. You can vote for yourself if you want, and no one is going to come crashing through your door to arrest you.

"But, you'd be pissed if Kerry's name wasn't listed!" Damn right I would. Why don't I care if Nader's is? He can't win. Anyone who really wants to vote for him still will. The only votes he won't pick up are the final "Crap, I can't choose between these two" votes.

Jorddyn

[GSTamral]

Wezas, it is precisely what they are doing.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY is filing the lawsuits. It's not the american people telling Nader not to run. It's not the state itself. The Democratic party is filing lawsuits telling the state not to let him on the ballot. These states have already put him ON the ballot. In some states, he's fighting to get on the ballot. He's not fighting the states at this point, he's fighting against the Democratic Party, who has taken the role of the big bully trying to push the little people away.

[GSTamral]

Jordynn, Ross Perot couldnt win either. That didn't stop more than 15% of america to vote for him the first time around, and more than 5% the second time. Had he not been on the ballot, I doubt he would have gotten anywhere near that much. But at least the Republican Party didn't bitch and moan like a bunch of babies to get him thrown off the ballot, even though they could have in many states due to his active financial interests within the state. The problem here is simple.

Some states have said they will allow him on the ballot.

Enter bitch and moaning Democratic Party stating they want to kick him off the ballot.

In states where he is not on the ballot and fighting to get on, enter bitching and moaning Dems again who are fighting the case against him.

If the state said no, its one thing. He's not fighting the states. The democratic party has actively picked up the ball to fight him to keep him off the ballot. Had it been a non partisan group that fought to keep him off for violations its one thing. But here you have lawyers who represent the Democratic Party actively trying to kick a name that is currently on the ballot off of it.

The reason is simple. The democratic party has calculated that if he is not on the ballot, many of those votes will go to Kerry, so by limiting their freedom to choose they may be able to come closer to winning.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Wezas, it is precisely what they are doing.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY is filing the lawsuits. It's not the american people telling Nader not to run. It's not the state itself. The Democratic party is filing lawsuits telling the state not to let him on the ballot. These states have already put him ON the ballot. In some states, he's fighting to get on the ballot. He's not fighting the states at this point, he's fighting against the Democratic Party, who has taken the role of the big bully trying to push the little people away.

Yes, the Democratic party is filing the lawsuits. But my question is - why isn't the Republican party doing the same thing? Or anyone else? If he's falsly aquiring signatures on his petitions, that's a problem.

The fact is, if he did nothing wrong, then he has nothing to worry about? And if the people from those states knew that he illegally had signatures on his petition - do you think they would have issues with that? I would, no matter which party I was with (except, of course, if I was with the Reform party).

Not to mention all the people who thought they were signing one thing, and turns out they were signing something that put him on the ballot. How do you think those people would feel if they knew?

[GSTamral]

Wait Wezas, how do you know that any wrongdoing has been committed? Many of these states have already had their own rulings on the matter, which resulted in the addition of Nader to the ballot. I'd like to see a link from a reputed news site that backs up these allegations you have regarding the ballot issue. I'm sure the Salon will say whatever it takes, let's see it on CNN or Reuters.

[GSTamral]

<<<
But the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the Florida Reform Party no longer met a requirement that it be affiliated with a national party holding a national convention to nominate presidential candidates because the Reform Party USA -- the remnants of a movement spearheaded by Ross Perot in 1992 -- no longer met that definition.

They charged that Nader should have been forced to qualify for the ballot under a more difficult process for independent candidates, which would have required him to gather petition signatures.

However, the state's highest court said that because Florida law provides no specific definition of the term "national party," the dispute "should be resolved broadly in favor of ballot access."

State law "is not sufficiently clear to put the Reform Party of Florida on notice that it could not qualify under its provisions" as a minor party, the Supreme Court majority said -- adding that the Legislature, which overhauled state election laws after the dispute over the 2000 presidential race, should address the problem "at its earliest opportunity."

A spokesman for the Nader campaign, Kevin Zeese, applauded the decision and said Nader is planning a nine-city tour of the state at the end of the month.

He also said Democratic efforts to keep Nader off the ballot in other swing states have caused him to step up his campaigning in states where the race is close between Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry.

"They have kept us off the ballots in other states, so he will spend more time in battleground states than originally intended," Zeese said. "We hope Democrats engage on issues and stop anti-democratic efforts to prevent voters from having a choice."

The Kerry campaign declined to comment on the Florida decision. Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement saying "the fact that Ralph Nader secured a place on the Florida ballot by means of the Pat Buchanan Reform Party speaks for itself."

"In state after state, Nader has become an extension of the Republican Party and their corporate backers," McAuliffe said. "Voters who care about affordable health care, the environment or corporate accountability should be supporting John Kerry in November."

In all, Nader is now on the ballot in 31 states, though some of those are still being challenged. Among the places where he has qualified are key battleground states such as Nevada, Iowa, West Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Oregon and Ohio.

Nader has filed enough signatures to get on the ballot in New York, Kentucky, Hawaii and Vermont, as well as in two battleground states, Wisconsin and Minnesota, but officials in those states have not yet certified him for the ballot.

He is also suing to get on the ballot in six states where he failed to qualify, including another swing state, Pennsylvania, where he was disqualified as an independent candidate, despite gathering enough petition signatures, because he accepted the national Reform Party endorsement.

Of the eight states where Nader failed to get on the ballot and has not mounted a legal challenge, only one, Missouri, is expected to be close enough for him to possibly have an impact on the outcome. In California, where his petition drive fell well short, his campaign is considering new ways to try to get on the ballot -- keeping the information close to the vest lest Democrats try to thwart him.

Nader's vice presidential running mate, Peter Camejo, is from California.

>>>


To me, in the florida case, referenced at the top, it sounds like they wanted to keep him off the ballot using a bullshit technicality. Sorry Wezas, the prosecution in Florida had NOTHING to do with signatures. They wanted him to collect signatures in Florida by means of technicality and BS about Party regulations, something that is not clearly defined in any state legislature, nor has it been ruled upon since Buchanan ran in 2000. Odd that the republicans didn't fight and whine and bitch and moan about Buchanan. They let the Dems act like little children instead.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Wait Wezas, how do you know that any wrongdoing has been committed? Many of these states have already had their own rulings on the matter, which resulted in the addition of Nader to the ballot. I'd like to see a link from a reputed news site that backs up these allegations you have regarding the ballot issue. I'm sure the Salon will say whatever it takes, let's see it on CNN or Reuters.

Issues with Nader's signatures?

Well Reuters doesn't have much in the way of Nader news (other then Florida)

Reuters (Oregon 200 few signatures, 700 "illegible" signatures) (http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6198027)

Reuters (Mass almost 2,000 signatures short of what he needed) (http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6126223)

Local ABC news station (MD State forced to accept 542 invalidated signatures by Court of Appeals (http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0904/174309.html)

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Jordynn, Ross Perot couldnt win either. That didn't stop more than 15% of america to vote for him the first time around, and more than 5% the second time. Had he not been on the ballot, I doubt he would have gotten anywhere near that much.

If you are not even willing to write someone's name on a piece of paper, then you're not exactly a staunch supporter.



But at least the Republican Party didn't bitch and moan like a bunch of babies to get him thrown off the ballot, even though they could have in many states due to his active financial interests within the state.

Of course they didn't. Popular belief was that Perot would harm the Democrats more than the Republicans.



The problem here is simple.


Yea, the problem is that he's getting thrown off the ticket in several states for not properly following the laws.



Some states have said they will allow him on the ballot.


And some judges have corrected them, because they should not have allowed him on the ballot.



Enter bitch and moaning Democratic Party stating they want to kick him off the ballot.


You do realize that intelligent debate is possible without childish and petty insults, don't you?



In states where he is not on the ballot and fighting to get on, enter bitching and moaning Dems again who are fighting the case against him.


Isn't it already past the deadline to get on the ballot? (I do not know the answer to this, I'm honestly curious).



The reason is simple. The democratic party has calculated that if he is not on the ballot, many of those votes will go to Kerry, so by limiting their freedom to choose they may be able to come closer to winning.


Again, of course Democrats are doing this because he's taking more votes from Kerry than Bush. You cannot claim that the Republican party would not do the same, given the reverse situation. Well, you can, but no one would buy it :)

Also, again, please drop the emotional propoganda. No freedoms have been limited. Everyone is still perfectly free to vote for whomever they choose.

Jorddyn

[GSTamral]

Jordyyn, if thats the case, why not take Kerry off the ballot and see if he gets anywhere near 30%, let alone 50% of the vote.

[GSTamral]

From your article

<<<
The shortfall came after Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, a Democrat, ordered officials to invalidate about 700 "illegible" signatures and some 3,000 signatures were disqualified on a technicality over page numbering.

>>>

Newsflash : many people have illegible signatures, that does not mean they are not qualified to vote.

Newsflash: 3000 disqualified votes over "Page numbering"? Please. He broke the law because of "Page Numbering". Are you seriously kidding me here?

Whining about Page Numbering is precisely the bitching and moaning I am talking about here. Thank you for presenting an article that COMPLETELY validates my point.

Furthermore, in Florida, the argument had nothing to do with "page numbering", toilet seat position, or whatever else you want to use as a technicality. It is regarding the same procedures Pat Buchanan used to get on the ballot (something to which the Republicans did NOT fight or whine or bitch or moan), but now the democrats suddenly find it unfair.

Sorry Jordyyn, Wezas, but your argument is null.

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by GSTamral]

[Ravenstorm]

The Democratic Party doing whatever they can within the law to keep Nader off the ballots is pretty much comparable to the Republican Party doing whatever they can to put Nader on the ballots. It's as simple as that.

Raven

[Wezas]

Originally posted by GSTamral
From your article

<<<
The shortfall came after Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, a Democrat, ordered officials to invalidate about 700 "illegible" signatures and some 3,000 signatures were disqualified on a technicality over page numbering.

>>>

Newsflash : many people have illegible signatures, that does not mean they are not qualified to vote.

Newsflash: 3000 disqualified votes over "Page numbering"? Please. He broke the law because of "Page Numbering". Are you seriously kidding me here?

I did not mention the 3000 disqualified votes because that seems rediculous to me as well. However it's odd how you left out the fact that he was 200 votes short overall.

Also, here's another from Virginia, however it's a "Washington Post" link so I doubt you'll give it much credit.

Virginia - thousands of signatures collected illegally by people who do not live in Virginia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2188-2004Sep7.html)


Questions about the validity of signatures and allegations of fraud have prompted challenges in Michigan, Maine, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa and Oregon.

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by Wezas]

[GSTamral]

<<
Oregon officials ruled last week that the Nader campaign turned in about 200 fewer signatures than were needed to place the consumer advocate's name on the ballot.

The shortfall came after Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, a Democrat, ordered officials to invalidate about 700 "illegible" signatures and some 3,000 signatures were disqualified on a technicality over page numbering.

>>>

Sorry, it was teh disqualification of 3000 page numbering signatures and 700 illegible ones that caused him to fall 200 short.

[Wezas]

Now that I re-read that article, Tamral, I do agree that I must have read it wrong the first time. Page numbering shouldn't be a reason to have someone off the ballot. However...

Oregon:
Political State Review - Oregon (http://www.polstate.com/archives/005935.html)



Last night, right here at Political State Report, we broke the news of the SEIU fraud and forgery investigation into Nader's petition for the Oregon ballot. At a press conference this morning, SEIU released more evidence. The key item: SEIU Local 49 contacted 269 people whose names were on petition sheets - and only 32% report that they actually signed the Nader petitions. The key quote, from SEIU veep Alice Dale: "This fraud is too pervasive to have been committed without at least the complicity of the signature gatherers."


Arizona:
Political State Review - Arizona (http://www.polstate.com/archives/005735.html#005735)


Nader's campaign had submitted more than 22,000 signatures to Arizona election officials June 9 -- far more than the 14,694 valid signatures required by state law to compete


"We withdrew after elections officials came out with us being 550 signatures short," said Zeese (Nader Campaign spokesperson)

So 35%+ of the signatures were invalid.


Tamral, there's shady-ness all around his petitions. Those states that do have plenty of signatures - the majority are from people who are registered republicans. How is putting someone on the ballot you have no interest in voting for any worse then trying to take someone off the ballot who doesn't belong there (not enough signatures from people who actually consider voting for him)

[Edited on 9-20-2004 by Wezas]

[Back]

The Repubs may be selflessly helping Nader get on the ballot in as many states as their kind hearts can, but you sure as hell won’t see him debate.

[GSTamral]

I wouldnt mind seeing Nader debate. I was one of the people who "cost" Bob Dole the election in 1996 when I cast my vote for Ross Perot. Nader should be allowed to debate. Nader should be allowed to make his points, however wrong I find them. I voted for Perot not just because I wanted Clinton out of office, but also because I agreed with what he had to say. If people had the opportunity to hear what he had to say, something Dems are blocking in every regard, then perhaps people would have another option for president.

Using technicalities like illegal page numbering to prevent people from having that right is no different than what staunch Dems are blaming republican policies for doing. Taking away our freedoms.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
"But, you'd be pissed if Kerry's name wasn't listed!" Damn right I would. Why don't I care if Nader's is? He can't win.I hope the Democratic Party doesn't take that stance, because it'd be pretty cheeky of them to claim to speak for everyone in America.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Jordyyn, if thats the case, why not take Kerry off the ballot and see if he gets anywhere near 30%, let alone 50% of the vote.

Refer to my former post. Here, I'll even quote it for you.



"But, you'd be pissed if Kerry's name wasn't listed!" Damn right I would. Why don't I care if Nader's is? He can't win. Anyone who really wants to vote for him still will. The only votes he won't pick up are the final "Crap, I can't choose between these two" votes.



Originally posted by GSTamral
Sorry Jordyyn, Wezas, but your argument is null.

Wouldn't it be nice if just saying that made it so? However, until and unless your rear is seated on the proverbial bench, our opinions are just as valid as yours.

Jorddyn

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Jorddyn
"But, you'd be pissed if Kerry's name wasn't listed!" Damn right I would. Why don't I care if Nader's is? He can't win.I hope the Democratic Party doesn't take that stance, because it'd be pretty cheeky of them to claim to speak for everyone in America.

I don't claim to speak for the entire Democratic party, only for myself. If I felt Nader had the slightest chance of winning, my opinion might be different.

However, at least I'm honest about my views, and not trying to cover them up in rhetoric. I don't want Nader on the ballot because it hurts Kerry's chances of beating Bush. More power to the Democratic party if they can find legal reasons that he shouldn't be on the ballot. At least it isn't a bloody debate over dimpled chads and hanging chads again :)

I feel the need to repeat - Anyone who wants to vote for Nader still can. If that weren't the case, my opinion would likely be different as well.

Jorddyn

[Keller]

:no::no: I agree with Tamral on this. :no::no:

[longshot]

Tamral, the extra money you save in taxes from Bush winning will not make you cool.

[Keller]

But it will make him wealthier, which is his goal. People have different priorities in life, usually based on what they see as their purpose in life. Tamral's is transparent.

[Parkbandit]

Dear Jorddyn;

The probability that you could be elected President has no bearing on whether you should be on the ballot or not. The Democrats are lobbying H-A-R-D to keep him off the ballot.. not because people couldn't read 200 signatures.. but because he might take some votes from their candidate.

No other reason.

It's just another example of how we will never have a viable 3rd party in this country.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Dear Jorddyn;

The probability that you could be elected President has no bearing on whether you should be on the ballot or not. The Democrats are lobbying H-A-R-D to keep him off the ballot.. not because people couldn't read 200 signatures.. but because he might take some votes from their candidate.

No other reason.

It's just another example of how we will never have a viable 3rd party in this country.

I'm not saying you are incorrect about why it is being done. I am saying that if Nader can legally be removed from the ballot, I have no problem with it. In fact, I fully support it. If our system was different, and those who want to vote for Nader could not write him in, I would likely change my point of view. However, in this country, you can write in anyone you choose. Anyone who wants to vote for him still can.

I am also saying that while some Republicans are all up in arms about it, I firmly believe that they would be attempting the same thing if they felt that Nader was more of a threat to them than the Democrats. Since they feel he will help the Republican cause, they are instead out gathering signatures, many from those who would never vote for Nader anyhow.

Jorddyn, at least I'm honest :)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

I am also saying that while some Republicans are all up in arms about it, I firmly believe that they would be attempting the same thing if they felt that Nader was more of a threat to them than the Democrats.

Since the same thing happened in 1996 with Perot and the Republicans didn't do this.. your belief is incorrect and unfounded.

Thanks for playing.

Edited out an extra quote that made the whole thing look goofy as all get out.

[Edited on 9-21-2004 by Parkbandit]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
I'm not saying you are incorrect about why it is being done. I am saying that if Nader can legally be removed from the ballot, I have no problem with it. In fact, I fully support it. If our system was different, and those who want to vote for Nader could not write him in, I would likely change my point of view. However, in this country, you can write in anyone you choose. Anyone who wants to vote for him still can.

And as long as we are being honest.. you are a complete moron for believing that anyone can effectively run a "write in" campaign.

Thanks once again. Here is your consolation prize:

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Jorddyn

I am also saying that while some Republicans are all up in arms about it, I firmly believe that they would be attempting the same thing if they felt that Nader was more of a threat to them than the Democrats.

Since the same thing happened in 1996 with Perot and the Republicans didn't do this.. your belief is incorrect and unfounded.

Thanks for playing.



Radio Ad Attacks Nader Over GOP Support
Group run by Democrats says "right-wing Republicans" and "extremists" aid Nader to help Bush. Characterizations aside, they've got a point.


http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=216

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Jorddyn

I am also saying that while some Republicans are all up in arms about it, I firmly believe that they would be attempting the same thing if they felt that Nader was more of a threat to them than the Democrats.

Since the same thing happened in 1996 with Perot and the Republicans didn't do this.. your belief is incorrect and unfounded.

Thanks for playing.

Edited out an extra quote that made the whole thing look goofy as all get out.

[Edited on 9-21-2004 by Parkbandit]

Perhaps because they believed Perot would harm Clinton more than Dole?

From CNN, before the 1996 election -

If the election were held today, 55% of all
registered voters would choose Bill Clinton over
Bob Dole; 41% would pick Dole in a two-man race.
With Ross Perot in the race, Clinton's
margin drops to 47%-36% over Dole, with
Perot winning 13% of the vote.

from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.time.election/032896.shtml

For similar polls, closer to election time:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/tracking/

Jorddyn

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Jorddyn
I'm not saying you are incorrect about why it is being done. I am saying that if Nader can legally be removed from the ballot, I have no problem with it. In fact, I fully support it. If our system was different, and those who want to vote for Nader could not write him in, I would likely change my point of view. However, in this country, you can write in anyone you choose. Anyone who wants to vote for him still can.

And as long as we are being honest.. you are a complete moron for believing that anyone can effectively run a "write in" campaign.


Why is it that intelligent people resort to petty insults that do nothing but remove all credibility from their posts? The point of debate is not to piss people off, but rather to get them to see your viewpoint, even if they don't agree.

That said, this will be my last post in response to you in this thread.

1. I never said that a write in campaign was effective.
2. Since Nader has no chance of winning anyway, his campaign has not exactly been effective to begin with.
3. Since people who fully support Nader tend to be more politically aware than those who just pick one of the big two, they should be aware that they can write him in if they so choose.
4. I don't buy for one second that the majority of Republicans want Nader on the ballot in order to preserve political freedoms and not to further their own party.

Jorddyn

[DeV]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
Why is it that intelligent people resort to petty insults that do nothing but remove all credibility from their posts? The point of debate is not to piss people off, but rather to get them to see your viewpoint, even if they don't agree.
Well said.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
Why is it that intelligent people resort to petty insults that do nothing but remove all credibility from their posts? The point of debate is not to piss people off, but rather to get them to see your viewpoint, even if they don't agree.

That said, this will be my last post in response to you in this thread.

1. I never said that a write in campaign was effective.
2. Since Nader has no chance of winning anyway, his campaign has not exactly been effective to begin with.
3. Since people who fully support Nader tend to be more politically aware than those who just pick one of the big two, they should be aware that they can write him in if they so choose.
4. I don't buy for one second that the majority of Republicans want Nader on the ballot in order to preserve political freedoms and not to further their own party.

Jorddyn

You called me intelligent. :) You really really like me!! And yes, I tend to be rather.. umm .. harsh? But hey.. love me or hate me, that's the way I tend to be. :)

To your points:

1) While you never said it was effective, you did say that we could still write him in.. making your readers believe that it was almost as equal. A write in candidate for President of the United States has ZERO chance of winning.

2) Agreed.. but that is because Nader is ineffective and an egomaniac. What would happen if there was a viable candidate in that same position? The Democrats would be working twice as hard to stop him from running.

3) You are just being stupid and silly now. Again, a write in candidate has ZERO chance of winning such a big election.

4) Perhaps.. and I won't disagree with you, although it's not based on facts. The Democrats have shown that they will resort to lawsuits to keep others off the ballot.. and the Republicans should use this information to put them in a bad light. Would the Republicans do the same? Probably..

[longshot]

Parkbandit, was that a lifetime supply of Turtle Wax?

Hehhehehe