Quote:
|
Originally Posted by atari 2600
True, we are supposed to vote for the person for president and the presidential ticket that we really believe in. I will never dispute that, at least in ideality.
As someone who volunteered for Nader/LaDuke, I certainly used to feel that very strongly.
Nevertheless, I don't see how it can reasonably be stated that Nader's presence in the race didn't affect Gore's electoral results negatively.
I just don't know if, at least in this day and age, adherence to an independent party is all that effective.
|
wendeme (my brother), its very simple. Nader did not cost Gore the race. Gore cost Gore the race. Gore could not even get his own states to vote for him. Nearly 10 million registered Democrats voted for Bush in that election. Did Nader cost Gore those 10 million votes? Of course not. Did Nader cost Gore Florida? Well yes technically, but as I said before, EVERY SINGLE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE RECEIVED MORE THEN THE 537 VOTES IN FLORIDA WHICH GAVE THAT STATE TO BUSH.... so again, did Nader really cost Gore Florida? No, Gore cost himself the election, Kerry too. The Democratic Party are as scary a bunch of motherfuckers as the Republicans.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by atari2600
True, there isn't a whole lot of choice. But I also do not agree that Kerry/Edwards was all that bad of a ticket. To write that Kerry/Edwards is no better than Bush/Cheney is bonkers to me.
If it comes down to Guiliani against Clinton, then shit, I guess I just gotta leave the country. You too can call me "an "unreasonable man," but unless something changes soon, and quickly, the shit is really going to hit the fan.
|
esemegena! (Thank you!)