The Democrat's Big Lie: A Vote For Nader Is A Vote For Bush

Every vote counts, no matter who you vote for, you know, maybe it is 1 party system, but say like Nader and the Greens get 8% of the vote all together and ruin it for the Democrats, that would be a good sign to the Dems that need to change and fast, or vice versa if say the Libertarians and Consitution party stole the vote from the Republicans.

 

I don't think you get what I'm saying... during the last election, Nader couldn't possibly have won, even if he got 100% of the states vote, NC didn't recognize the votes that went to him.

 

The Libertarian party may become a spoiler like Nader not too long from now, since the Republican party has drifted away from its traditional platform in the past decade.

 

It will be a slightly different game if, say, Greens and Libs start to each get 10% or more of the popular vote and cause the Dem or Rep candidates to not reach the 270 electoral votes needed for victory. Then the House of Representatives would determine the winner by having delegates from each state cast only one vote for each state (if I understand the electoral system correctly).

 

Our founding fathers would be sickened by what Bush has done with our gov't. However, I don't think what you want is what the founding fathers envisioned either (not to mention the fact that it is not even feasible right now). Here is an excerpt from "A People's History of the United States":

We have here a forecast of the long history of American politics, the mobilization of lower-class energy by upper-class politicians, for their own purposes. This was not purely deception; it involved, in part, a genuine recognition of lower-class grievances, which helps to account for its effectiveness as a tactic over the centuries.
In 1762, James Otis, speaking against the conservative rulers of the Massachusetts colony gave an example of the kind of rhetoric that a lawyer could use in mobilizing city mechanics and artisans:

"I am forced to get my living by the labour of my hand; and the sweat of my brow, as most of you are and obliged to go thro' good report and evil report, for bitter bread, earned under the frowns of some who have no natural or divine right to be above me, and entirely owe their granduer and honor to grinding the faces of the poor..."

You seem to have a problem with our class society and the rich elites, but it was almost always this way. You think Nader will wave a magic wand and change our course?

I despise fascism. He doesn't support the Patriot Act. What war on terrorism? What is that to you? To me it's meaningless, unless in the hands of Bush who uses it to take away our rights and to wage wars. Kerry has repeatedly separated the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

Well then, it's a simple matter of personal importance. You don't have a job and you aren't on welfare, so I would conclude from previous statements of yours that you are most likely supported by your parents. You're right then, you don't have to worry about going to bed hungry or not receiving vital health care.....sleep tight, mommy will tuck you in. NO WORRIES.

I don't think you know anything more than I do about it. I know enough about the Bush Administration to know that I don't approve of 4 more years. I don't think anyone here has said Kerry will be phenomenally better, just better.

I have an opinion of Kerry and you have an opinion of Nader. They differ. I'm sure your rejection of Kerry makes you feel like you're better than everyone else.

Or maybe the people just don't want Nader. Maybe. This is capitalism, people don't care for socialism here. It ain't changing anytime soon. Sorry.

Kerry has not shown himself to be as evil as Bush, I doubt if anyone could. Kerry doesn't love the Patriot Act! They don't have the same foreign policy either. Kerry will get our troops home sooner. Bush is committed to his war.

You believe the polls!? lol. That's funny. Not all polls show him losing anyways. The republicans have used rather shady tactics in order to garner support for Bush, fear mongering and lies. But you believe it because it's against Kerry, you're no better than they are!

You must appreciate Bush taking them away then.

I know you are, but what am I?
You aren't really in your twenties are you?

He wants to amend it to prevent abuses to civil liberties.

It was not meant to shape the constitution, which is what right-wing fanatics are attempting.

You try to make it sound like you know something most of us don't, but I don't care what irrelevant garbage you dig up on Kerry, I will still vote for him. I know the things you all mention- Skull and Bones, etc., but those are minor compared to the criminal offenses of the Bush administration. I'm not naive, I just am not convinced that those reasons are enough not to vote for Kerry. Why don't you get THAT through your head. I have weighed the two options and decided on Kerry. It is not because I don't know any better, it is because I know all too well the alternative.

 

The corporate media sure prefers Bush over Kerry. There must be something different between the two, or at least a perceived difference by corporate America.

 

That would be so hilarious in a way if all of a sudden... after all of the warfare between kerry and bush and all of the campaign funding spent and gas used for traveling and jet fuel for planes that Ralph Nader wins the election because people are tired of it...

 

So can anyone tell me why for the first time Ralph Nader is getting so much support from the republicans to get on the ballot?

 

I don't know if I would agree with that.

If you're referring to FOX News, I would agree.

But CNN and MSNBC appear to be giving much more coverage to the Kerry campaign.

 

Those aren't the only ones. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell much prefer Bush over Kerry. Something must be different between the two; otherwise, they would like Kerry just as much.

 

Well, Bush is phony Christian dispensationalist, so that's part of the reason.

The other part is that I am sure Robertson and Falwell are being paid by the Bush Administration, or receiving significant tax breaks at the very least. This is not unfathomable at all.

After all, this religious facade is nothing more than a front for Bush. I don't believe for a second that Bush is the devout Christian fundamentalist he pretends to be. It's simply his way of rallying the idiots around him, which is most of America.

The man is sick, that's all I know. But that still doen't mean I am going to just simply vote "the lesser of the two evils." They're both still evil.

 

What's the matter? Can't any of you republicans or naderites answer the question?

This is what Ralph says while he is accepting republican support to get him on the ballot. Talk about a lying sell out!!

 

So Nader isn't requiring a "loyalty oath" from campaign contributors...big fucking deal!

If the Democrats thought they could undercut Bush by funding the Badnarik campaign, you can bet your ass they would! But according to the latest poll, Nader is polling about 3X as high as the LP candidate.

If you and ther rest of the "ABB" crowd don't like Nader exposing Kerry (and Bush) as the corporate whores that they are, there is a simple step that the Kerry campaign could take that would eliminate the Nader threat overnight--ADOPT SOME OF HIS PLATFORM!

If Kerry would come out against the Iraq War, NAFTA/GATT/CAFTA, advocate for single-payer health coverage, and lead the fight against corporate crime, maybe those of us who care about these issues would consider voting for him. But Kerry would rather run as a "war hero", because he can't point to a SINGLE accomplishment in his 20 year Senate career that he can run on! Even if he would run on his (admittedly 30-year-old) ANTI-war record, he might pick up a few of Nader's supporters. But he is running away from his protest record as hard as Bush ran from National Guard service!

Nader is NOT taking corporate contributions of ANY type, AFAIK. He may be getting ($1000 max) contributions from INDIVIDUALS who are registered as Republicans, but that's a fuckload better than Kerry, who is raking in hundreds of thousands of $ from the insurance lobby, big media conglomerates, and lots of other corporate interests who have vested interests in the status quo. It explains why Kerry doesn't have the 'nads to say anything that might offend his "sugar daddies" on Wall Street, but don't try to make it sound like his campaign is more ethical than Nader's.

Democrats or Republicans--same shit, different steaming pile!

 

unfortunally i live in PA... which is not listed as a "save state" on either list...

 

With Nader's help, Bush will get another 4 years to keep us on the War Path.




You know I'm right.

 

And if Kerry gets elected, we will STILL be in Iraq four years later, same as with Bush.

If you want REAL change in the status quo, you aren't gonna get it from EITHER of the 2 corporate parties.

 

THE WAR AND OCCUPATION ARE NOT REASONABLE!

Kerry just says he can do what Bush did but better. Get all our white allies to help us globalize the world and control the economy, instead of doing it unilaterally.

only got to page 2 of this discussion . . read rest later.

 

If Nader is the answer, it must have been a really stupid question. Which party is he in now? The Greens don't want him so is he an Independent-Republican?




If John Kerry wins, there will be no draft. We can push him for an orderly withdraw. If Bush wins, Bush won't listen to a single fucking thing protestors say.

 

In some states, he is running as an independent, in some he is on the Reform Party line.

A majority of the rank and file of the Green party WANTED Nader as their candidate. Unfortunately, the party leadership has been hijacked by gutless limousine liberals from the church of "Anybody But Bush". See my posts here:

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16204
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14517
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15468

Why? Because Kerry says so?

Iraq shows no sign of going away any time soon, and Iran and North Korea could explode at a moment's notice. Kerry may have to choose between instituting a draft or continuing Bush's policy of "fighting a war on the cheap".

And Kerry will? Surely you jest....

Until the protest movement starts making the country ungovernable, the war machine will grind on no matter which of the 2 assholes gets elected in November.

 

I have something to say about that...KERRY DIDN'T take us to war..BUSH DID..and i dont know how or why you people insist on Bush and Kerry are the same people, we haven't had Kerry as president, who's to say he's like bush or not like bush? We have two choices for President..Bush and Kerry..I'm voting for Kerry..not becuase he's not Bush, but because i have listened to both parties, and I don't like what Bush says, I don't like the issues with the war..YES, Kerry agreed with the war but the BIG difference is, YOU need to implement a plan before you jump in head first..BUSH went in there head first..without a plan, he just thought we were gonna go in there and kick ass, this war is sad..and YES we will still be in war If John Kerry is president..but maybe he can get us out sooner..Bush is the war president..we need to get him out before we get involved in more wars, and this war is going downhill more all the time..Read this, because i seriously think you need to
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/iraq.senators/index.html
McCain: Bush not straight enough on Iraq

Senators of both parties criticize his picture of conditions there