The Nader-ator enters Presidential race!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: preCRT


Ignoring the pleas of Democrats who have asked him to stay out of the race, the veteran consumer advocate said he was running out of a strong desire to evict Bush from the White House.

"I've decided to run as an independent candidate for president," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." ...

Is this where Bush's large cache of campaign funding went to? Bribing Nader to cripple theDemocrats votes?

;)
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: preCRT
that jackass did it


Nader to Make Another White House Run in 2004
Sun February 22, 2004 09:41 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ralph Nader, whose third-party White House bid in 2000 was blamed by some Democrats for helping elect President Bush, said on Sunday he will try again this year, running as an independent.

Ignoring the pleas of Democrats who have asked him to stay out of the race, the veteran consumer advocate said he was running out of a strong desire to evict Bush from the White House.

"I've decided to run as an independent candidate for president," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." ...


There is now much rejoycing in the White House.
Four more years of the worst president since, well I don't know who, looks likely.
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
He will not effect the eventual outcome......unless it's extemely close like before.

He will get far fewer votes.....most of which will come from people who probably would not have voted anyways.

As a matter of fact of the people who get out and vote because of Nader....I would venture to guess that most of those new voters will vote for the Democrat.

But who knows for sure.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Ferocious
He will not effect the eventual outcome......unless it's extemely close like before.

He will get far fewer votes.....most of which will come from people who probably would not have voted anyways.

As a matter of fact of the people who get out and vote because of Nader....I would venture to guess that most of those new voters will vote for the Democrat.

But who knows for sure.

We will know for sure after the fact, but note that Dean WAS the opposition candidate for many. Now he is gone. Who to pick then? Nader. It worked for Bush the last time if you recall.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: preCRT
that jackass did it


Nader to Make Another White House Run in 2004
Sun February 22, 2004 09:41 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ralph Nader, whose third-party White House bid in 2000 was blamed by some Democrats for helping elect President Bush, said on Sunday he will try again this year, running as an independent.

Ignoring the pleas of Democrats who have asked him to stay out of the race, the veteran consumer advocate said he was running out of a strong desire to evict Bush from the White House.

"I've decided to run as an independent candidate for president," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." ...

Well, this Jackass agrees with that Jackass on the fact that our Government is Corporate Controlled.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,744
6,761
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: preCRT
that jackass did it


Nader to Make Another White House Run in 2004
Sun February 22, 2004 09:41 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ralph Nader, whose third-party White House bid in 2000 was blamed by some Democrats for helping elect President Bush, said on Sunday he will try again this year, running as an independent.

Ignoring the pleas of Democrats who have asked him to stay out of the race, the veteran consumer advocate said he was running out of a strong desire to evict Bush from the White House.

"I've decided to run as an independent candidate for president," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." ...

Well, this Jackass agrees with that Jackass on the fact that our Government is Corporate Controlled.

You'd have to be a jackass not to know that wouldn't you?

 

Nietzscheusw

Senior member
Dec 28, 2003
308
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not running would sort of be like admitting you were wrong and there is a difference between Bush and Gore and he personally was directly responsible for the Sepreme Coup's big chance to select a criminal team. That's kind of asking alot of the guy.

Clinton and Gore bombed Iraq for years. Clinton and Gore embargoed Iraq for years.
They may have killed more Iraqis than GWB.
If you compared the platforms of Nader, Gore and GWB, you would have clearly seen that Nader proposed many more deep changes than Gore and GWB. There were far fewer differences between Gore and Bush, than between Nader and Gore.
Same today: Kerry voted for the war, for the Patriot Act, for Nafta,...
Only if Kucinich were the democratic candidate would Nader not run, because Kucinich voted against the war, against the Patriot Act, NAFTA,...
Nader is in because he fights for real changes for the people, and Kerry clearly does not!
Kerry is just a little Bush. Different name, but few real differences: they both favour the powers that be over the people, the banks and multinationals over their clients.
Now the only way to get rid of Bush (or, more broadly, of the candidates of the billionaires: Bush and Kerry) is to vote for Nader.
Just dig it!
 

preCRT

Platinum Member
Apr 12, 2000
2,340
123
106
Voting for Nader is a waste of a vote.





I take that back, it is worse, it IS a vote for GWB.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,744
6,761
126
Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not running would sort of be like admitting you were wrong and there is a difference between Bush and Gore and he personally was directly responsible for the Sepreme Coup's big chance to select a criminal team. That's kind of asking alot of the guy.

Clinton and Gore bombed Iraq for years. Clinton and Gore embargoed Iraq for years.
They may have killed more Iraqis than GWB.
If you compared the platforms of Nader, Gore and GWB, you would have clearly seen that Nader proposed many more deep changes than Gore and GWB. There were far fewer differences between Gore and Bush, than between Nader and Gore.
Same today: Kerry voted for the war, for the Patriot Act, for Nafta,...
Only if Kucinich were the democratic candidate would Nader not run, because Kucinich voted against the war, against the Patriot Act, NAFTA,...
Nader is in because he fights for real changes for the people, and Kerry clearly does not!
Kerry is just a little Bush. Different name, but few real differences: they both favour the powers that be over the people, the banks and multinationals over their clients.
Now the only way to get rid of Bush (or, more broadly, of the candidates of the billionaires: Bush and Kerry) is to vote for Nader.
Just dig it!
While I agree with what you say and feel the same way almost totally, I disagree in one principle area. Gore would not have been the tremendous disaster that Bush has been. Nader F*cked Armerica in the ass by helping Bush to be selected. Bush has been a disaster. The difference between Gore and Bush or Karry and Bush, while minor in one dimension, it huge in practical effect. I would have to classify you as an idealistic dreamer, an idiolog who would cut off your nose to spite your face. I think voting for Karry though distasteful is less insane that voting for Bush by voting for Nader. You are simply in denial, like Nader. Sorry. I will vote for better rather than best to prevent worst from winning. That is what IQ is useful for. I will be pure in heaven.

 

Nietzscheusw

Senior member
Dec 28, 2003
308
0
0
Originally posted by: preCRT
Voting for Nader is a waste of a vote.





I take that back, it is worse, it IS a vote for GWB.

Kerry voted for the war decided by Bush.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush!
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Voting for Nader is a waste of a vote.

Well actually, Voting for Nader is a waste of EVERY vote.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,744
6,761
126
Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
Originally posted by: preCRT
Voting for Nader is a waste of a vote.





I take that back, it is worse, it IS a vote for GWB.

Kerry voted for the war decided by Bush.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush!

A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. It becomes a vote for Bush if the voter is in a state that Bush wins.

The coward Karry voted for the war. That does not make him Bush. He wouldn't revoke environmental treaties, start wars for Haliburton, help Enron screw California or commit numerous other mafia crimes against the people of the US. Karry wouldn't also have started the war. People who see black and white are called colour blind.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
Originally posted by: preCRT
Voting for Nader is a waste of a vote.





I take that back, it is worse, it IS a vote for GWB.

Kerry voted for the war decided by Bush.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush!


There are many things I do not like about Kerry. There are more that I dislike about Bush.

Nader is not going to win. He is not.

Either Bush or Kerry have (maybe had) a chance. People who vote Republican in this race are NOT going to vote for Bush. Some who supported Dean probably will. If enough of those vote for Nader, Bush wins.

Kerry should not have supported this war, however I do not believe he would have started the Iraqi invasion. Giving Bush 4 more years where he does not have to worry about relection is a gift that those who vote for Nader may give the US.

Vote for whomever you wish, but you will be getting Bush or Kerry (assuming Edwards folds), and you will be doing part of that selecting.
 

Nietzscheusw

Senior member
Dec 28, 2003
308
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not running would sort of be like admitting you were wrong and there is a difference between Bush and Gore and he personally was directly responsible for the Sepreme Coup's big chance to select a criminal team. That's kind of asking alot of the guy.

Clinton and Gore bombed Iraq for years. Clinton and Gore embargoed Iraq for years.
They may have killed more Iraqis than GWB.
If you compared the platforms of Nader, Gore and GWB, you would have clearly seen that Nader proposed many more deep changes than Gore and GWB. There were far fewer differences between Gore and Bush, than between Nader and Gore.
Same today: Kerry voted for the war, for the Patriot Act, for Nafta,...
Only if Kucinich were the democratic candidate would Nader not run, because Kucinich voted against the war, against the Patriot Act, NAFTA,...
Nader is in because he fights for real changes for the people, and Kerry clearly does not!
Kerry is just a little Bush. Different name, but few real differences: they both favour the powers that be over the people, the banks and multinationals over their clients.
Now the only way to get rid of Bush (or, more broadly, of the candidates of the billionaires: Bush and Kerry) is to vote for Nader.
Just dig it!
While I agree with what you say and feel the same way almost totally, I disagree in one principle area. Gore would not have been the tremendous disaster that Bush has been. Nader F*cked Armerica in the ass by helping Bush to be selected. Bush has been a disaster. The difference between Gore and Bush or Karry and Bush, while minor in one dimension, it huge in practical effect. I would have to classify you as an idealistic dreamer, an idiolog who would cut off your nose to spite your face. I think voting for Karry though distasteful is less insane that voting for Bush by voting for Nader. You are simply in denial, like Nader. Sorry. I will vote for better rather than best to prevent worst from winning. That is what IQ is useful for. I will be pure in heaven.

Bush and Gore and Kerry and Clinton and Reagan: they all play in the hands of people much more powerful than them.
The presidential election is merely a show to entertain the idea that this is a democracy.
Capitalism is a global corporate gulag. Bush and Gore and Kerry and Clinton and Reagan are OK with it.
Nader is not.
Bush was no more a disaster than Clinton. Corporate capitalism is a disaster with fluctuations. The majority of human beings suffered just as much when the guy in the oval office was named Clinton. Capitalism enslaves people and makes them suffer more. Capitalism is about the pathological accumulation of dead objects and the exercise of sadistic power over life. What did Clinton do to revert that? What did Gore propose? Nader has valid proposals...and he should stay home and vote for Kerry who voted for the war and the Patriot Act?
You care too much about the short term.
You should be stronger and put the long term first.
Nader's proposals must be on the table because they are the best. His ideas must not stay in the shadow when there is full light on political ideas, once every four years.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,744
6,761
126
Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not running would sort of be like admitting you were wrong and there is a difference between Bush and Gore and he personally was directly responsible for the Sepreme Coup's big chance to select a criminal team. That's kind of asking alot of the guy.

Clinton and Gore bombed Iraq for years. Clinton and Gore embargoed Iraq for years.
They may have killed more Iraqis than GWB.
If you compared the platforms of Nader, Gore and GWB, you would have clearly seen that Nader proposed many more deep changes than Gore and GWB. There were far fewer differences between Gore and Bush, than between Nader and Gore.
Same today: Kerry voted for the war, for the Patriot Act, for Nafta,...
Only if Kucinich were the democratic candidate would Nader not run, because Kucinich voted against the war, against the Patriot Act, NAFTA,...
Nader is in because he fights for real changes for the people, and Kerry clearly does not!
Kerry is just a little Bush. Different name, but few real differences: they both favour the powers that be over the people, the banks and multinationals over their clients.
Now the only way to get rid of Bush (or, more broadly, of the candidates of the billionaires: Bush and Kerry) is to vote for Nader.
Just dig it!
While I agree with what you say and feel the same way almost totally, I disagree in one principle area. Gore would not have been the tremendous disaster that Bush has been. Nader F*cked Armerica in the ass by helping Bush to be selected. Bush has been a disaster. The difference between Gore and Bush or Karry and Bush, while minor in one dimension, it huge in practical effect. I would have to classify you as an idealistic dreamer, an idiolog who would cut off your nose to spite your face. I think voting for Karry though distasteful is less insane that voting for Bush by voting for Nader. You are simply in denial, like Nader. Sorry. I will vote for better rather than best to prevent worst from winning. That is what IQ is useful for. I will be pure in heaven.

Bush and Gore and Kerry and Clinton and Reagan: they all play in the hands of people much more powerful than them.
The presidential election is merely a show to entertain the idea that this is a democracy.
Capitalism is a global corporate gulag. Bush and Gore and Kerry and Clinton and Reagan are OK with it.
Nader is not.
Bush was no more a disaster than Clinton. Corporate capitalism is a disaster with fluctuations. The majority of human beings suffered just as much when the guy in the oval office was named Clinton. Capitalism enslaves people and makes them suffer more. Capitalism is about the pathological accumulation of dead objects and the exercise of sadistic power over life. What did Clinton do to revert that? What did Gore propose? Nader has valid proposals...and he should stay home and vote for Kerry who voted for the war and the Patriot Act?
You care too much about the short term.
You should be stronger and put the long term first.
Nader's proposals must be on the table because they are the best. His ideas must not stay in the shadow when there is full light on political ideas, once every four years.

No problem just as long as he says, 'however, don't vote for me, vote for Kerry'.
 

Nietzscheusw

Senior member
Dec 28, 2003
308
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
Originally posted by: preCRT
Voting for Nader is a waste of a vote.





I take that back, it is worse, it IS a vote for GWB.

Kerry voted for the war decided by Bush.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush!


There are many things I do not like about Kerry. There are more that I dislike about Bush.

Nader is not going to win. He is not.

Either Bush or Kerry have (maybe had) a chance. People who vote Republican in this race are NOT going to vote for Bush. Some who supported Dean probably will. If enough of those vote for Nader, Bush wins.

Kerry should not have supported this war, however I do not believe he would have started the Iraqi invasion. Giving Bush 4 more years where he does not have to worry about relection is a gift that those who vote for Nader may give the US.

Vote for whomever you wish, but you will be getting Bush or Kerry (assuming Edwards folds), and you will be doing part of that selecting.

I see things from a little bit higher: neither Nader nor Bush nor Kerry is going to win.
An election is between the powers that be and the people.
Is a puppet of the powers that be elected?
Or is someone willing to fight the powers that be for the people elected?
If you do not elect someone like JFK or Nader, you elect someone that will let the corruption proceed in Washington.
John Forbes Heinz Kerry voted for NAFTA and for the Patriot Act. He is a corporate fascist. Just dig it!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,744
6,761
126
Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
Originally posted by: preCRT
Voting for Nader is a waste of a vote.





I take that back, it is worse, it IS a vote for GWB.

Kerry voted for the war decided by Bush.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush!
Your vision isn't higher, it's narrower. You focus on a single facet of reality and get stuck there. As I said, you are an ideologue, a partisan absolutist. You see black and white because you are colour blind. Look at it like this. Nader is health, Kerry is radiation treatment, and Bush is cancer and the US has cancer. You are a Christian Scientist. I'm not going to even worry about health till I use the radiation treatment to kill the cancer. You are a dreamer who will die dreaming of remission.


There are many things I do not like about Kerry. There are more that I dislike about Bush.

Nader is not going to win. He is not.

Either Bush or Kerry have (maybe had) a chance. People who vote Republican in this race are NOT going to vote for Bush. Some who supported Dean probably will. If enough of those vote for Nader, Bush wins.

Kerry should not have supported this war, however I do not believe he would have started the Iraqi invasion. Giving Bush 4 more years where he does not have to worry about relection is a gift that those who vote for Nader may give the US.

Vote for whomever you wish, but you will be getting Bush or Kerry (assuming Edwards folds), and you will be doing part of that selecting.

I see things from a little bit higher: neither Nader nor Bush nor Kerry is going to win.
An election is between the powers that be and the people.
Is a puppet of the powers that be elected?
Or is someone willing to fight the powers that be for the people elected?
If you do not elect someone like JFK or Nader, you elect someone that will let the corruption proceed in Washington.
John Forbes Heinz Kerry voted for NAFTA and for the Patriot Act. He is a corporate fascist. Just dig it!

 

Nietzscheusw

Senior member
Dec 28, 2003
308
0
0
Moonbeam, would you have voted for NAFTA, for the Patriot Act, for the war?
No, you would not.
But you are ready to elect someone who did.
And you attack the candidate whose ideas are the closest to yours.
Instead of supporting him and his ideas.
Instead of supporting the best candidate defending these ideas all along your life.
You are dominated by fear. You lack confidence in your ideas.
What you should be fearful of is corporate capitalism.
Who you should fight are the puppets of corporate capitalism.
Capitalism is about death.
The grandfather of Kerry committed suicide. Kerry's father was devoid of life because of that. Kerry is himself boring to death.
Nader is about life.
You are choosing death over life.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
if nader siphons off potential democrat votes and we get a repeat of the 2000 election i would sort of expect something like what the populist party did at the end of the 1800s, with the dems working hard to incoporate that into their mainstream political platform.

of course, anyone who could tap the 50% of voters that don't vote would probably win
 

Nietzscheusw

Senior member
Dec 28, 2003
308
0
0
Moonbeam, do not forget that I am French!
I am not affraid of a revolution.
Four more years of Bush may well start a revolution.
Kerry only buys you more delusion; and forces you to repudiate your own ideas, your natural candidate, in favour of one flavour of corporate puppets you "prefer" to another.
Voting for Kerry is like inflicting yourself more pain in vain; necrophile capitalism will keep on ruling undisturbed with a supporter of war and NAFTA and the Patriot Act, which are not petty things but major attacks on life, working people and freedom to reinforce the sadistic destructive rule of the powers that be.
 

Nietzscheusw

Senior member
Dec 28, 2003
308
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
Originally posted by: preCRT
Voting for Nader is a waste of a vote.





I take that back, it is worse, it IS a vote for GWB.

Kerry voted for the war decided by Bush.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush!

A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. It becomes a vote for Bush if the voter is in a state that Bush wins.

The coward Karry voted for the war. That does not make him Bush. He wouldn't revoke environmental treaties, start wars for Haliburton, help Enron screw California or commit numerous other mafia crimes against the people of the US. Karry wouldn't also have started the war. People who see black and white are called colour blind.

Voting for Kerry is at best the equivalent of buying yourself a little pause on the road to hell. At the cost of disowning your own.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
Moonbeam, would you have voted for NAFTA, for the Patriot Act, for the war?
No, you would not.
But you are ready to elect someone who did.
And you attack the candidate whose ideas are the closest to yours.
Instead of supporting him and his ideas.
Instead of supporting the best candidate defending these ideas all along your life.
You are dominated by fear. You lack confidence in your ideas.
What you should be fearful of is corporate capitalism.
Who you should fight are the puppets of corporate capitalism.
Capitalism is about death.
The grandfather of Kerry committed suicide. Kerry's father was devoid of life because of that. Kerry is himself boring to death.
Nader is about life.
You are choosing death over life.

Ideas and actions are different.
Your actions don't necessarily represent your ideas.
Such is life.
Only the truly naive believe not!
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Here's a fun analogy.

Imagine you're in a coffee shop and you order tea. The waitress comes back and says they don't have tea but that they do have coffee and enemas.

You'd think most people would cut their losses and order coffee but I will guarantee that there are those who will say, "Well, I really wanted tea so just bring me whatever you feel like."

Anyhow...enjoy the additional four years of enemas ;)