Why does Ralph Nader want to give another term to President Bush (what other reason can he have for running and dividing the voters as he may have done in 2000)? I just don't understand. I really wish he wouldn't and I hope that the Independent people (like me) don't throw away their vote!!
Ralph Nader Running?
by patio34 43 Replies latest social current
-
-
gitasatsangha
Because people have a right to vote for a candidate who best fits their issues. If the US elected presidents based on popular votes, the two-party system would dissapear. It would collapse the Republicans and Democrats both. Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, Natural Law, extreme right wing parties.. they'd all get a shot, and other parties that don't exist now as the main parties collapsed or simply became coalitions. There isn't really any provision in the Constitution for political parties.
Voting Third-Party or independant gives you the option to vote for a candidate that you want to vote for, rather then voting against another candidate. Many people seem to be in agreement that this election is coming down to how well the ABB (Anybody But Bush) factor will fare. The DNC is going to decide who their man is, and that person will apparently be the ketchup king. I don't like the Ketchup King, and I don't like the Shrub. Bush instigated the Patriot Act, Kerry voted it in. Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Kerry smilingly obliged. Bush takes a lot of special interest money. So does Kerry. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Personally I barely give a rat's ass if Kerry is elected now, or not. The only reason I would vote for Kerry now, is that I think the American government works a little better when the executive and legislative branches are not controlled by the same party. When people see through that they might vote for who they want, ignoring the worn out praise that says they are throwing their vote away. Maybe the Republicrats will even allow third party candidates back into national debates.
So back the DNC when they try and cajole and embarass Nadar from running. The Republican's keep a short leash on their own dissidents like McCain. Maybe they will all succeed. What you get will be the same result anyway: a broken democracy.
-
DanTheMan
Didn't Bush Senior blame Ross Perot for his loss to Clinton in 1992? What comes around, goes around.
I am still not sure whether I will be voting in this election or not. Kerry does seem to be pretty much of a Republicrat. But, at least with Kerry I'll have the comfort of knowing that Jerry Falwell will not be a frequent dinner guest at the White House. The religiosity of the current administration makes me *very* uncomfortable.
-
patio34
DantheMan,
It really does seem as if Nader's votes did take away from the Gore victory, thus it isn't just blame--it's factual. The numbers are:
That's all true, but the point is that the "Nader banana peel" was one that only Nader created, and if he hadn't run, Gore would have easily won Florida, where Nader drew 97,288 votes and Gore lost by 537. Without Nader, Gore also would have won New Hampshire, and George W. Bush would be only a historical footnote today.)
Gitasatsangha,
While I think your post has merits and may be a true theory, I would prefer to think--hope--it is not (because it's the only choice that a USA citizen has of improving the government's policies). If one were to subscribe to the grim theory you posit, then it seems that there's naught to do but forget about it and give up. Even if it is accurate (and it does carry some weight), it seems counter-productive to me to act as if it were. Besides, there have been improvements in the past under different presidencies.
Pat
-
Yerusalyim
Dan,
Not only did Bush Senior blame Ross Perot for the election of Clinton, most people recognize that as being the "real deal". Clinton didn't beat Bush...Perot did.
-
DanTheMan
OK Yeru, would you also say that Nader, not Bush, beat Gore in 2000?
-
DIM
I have no idea who I am voting for, or if I am voting.
-
simplesally
My dad, who is a regular voter, is probably not going to vote this year.............he can't stand any of the candidates.
-
patio34
Well, it's my feeling that voting is pretty important, especially this year. There's a lot at stake, and whether it'll change things much or not, it seems to be the only responsible thing to do is to participate. That's just my two cents. But it's also the two cents of many others.
Not to offend anyone, but I just don't understand how who is running OUR country is not important enough to vote to some people. What could be more important than that? Thousands have died because of the invasions this administration has started. Foreign policy has been changed. Etc.
It's more than just the quality our rights and our lives, it's our children's and grandchildren's quality of living. What is more important than that? In my opinion, nothing.
Pat
-
simplesally
Pat,
At this point, I have no idea what the candidates stand for. I am typically not a democrat.........more republican minded (I am not into social programs or higher taxes). Now, I don't like Bush, think he is pretty stupid, not happy about Iraq..........do understand Afghanistan, don't trust Bush to keep the economy going...........Now, I said typically not a democrat..........but I loved Clinton.....didn't care about Monica or Paula Jones......his business. Great economy and great leader.