Check out poor Ralph in this picture!

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,641158,00.html

ALMOST makes me feel sorry for him...HAHA Yeah right. That's what happens when alienate so many people!

He's pulling a solid six percent by most polls.

(I wonder how many lives have been saved by seat belts and airbags?)

I wonder how many elections will be fouled up because of Ralph?

I give him credit for the consumer advocacy achievements, but that's about it.

That is one sad little sign taped to the wall behind him.

"I wonder how many elections will be fouled up because of Ralph?"

Nowhere near as many as will be fouled up because of corporate "donations."

Think about it -

Who is more responsible for W's rise: Ralph Nader, or Enron?

Nader is a convenient whipping boy, but the real problem is a system that fuels fuckups like W with hundreds of millions of bucks.

...to get away from this stuff.

I thought this was a Democrat site.

And, yes, I remember the goodbye thread you had that went on for days and days.

And I'm here to talk to Democrats about how to beat Bush and clean up the wretched system that gave birth to him and Clinton. If you don't like what I write, use your "Ignore" option and carry on.

had Nader not run in 2000.

He had no chance of winning in 2000 and his chances are nil in 2004, too.

Looking forward to beating Bush and Nader in November's election.

against Status Quo, if Ross Perot were running would you still complain ?

Your choice to vote for a candidate who actually has a chance in hell of ousting the shrub, or to waste your vote on a candidate who has absolutely no chance of winning...? Is that the choice you speak of?

I'm voting Dem at the federal level this year, but I am still making as much noise as I can about election reform. It IS possible to change the system, and the sooner we do it the better.

"Kerry's allies are laying plans to take on Nader more directly. This week a group of Democratic strategists who previously worked for failed Democratic candidates Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt and Wesley Clark will start airing ads in Arizona and Wisconsin featuring a regretful 2000 Nader voter who laments, "I feel I made a mistake. By supporting Ralph Nader, I actually helped George Bush." Kerry himself is getting blunter too: "A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George Bush," he told the Associated Press."

So fine. Be pure. Vote your "conscience." There's no difference between Dems and Pubbies, after all. The last 3.5 years have made that plain, haven't they? /sarcasm

:shrug:

Popular Vote Totals for 1992

Bill Clinton: 44,909,806

George Bush: 39,104,550

Ross Perot: 19,743,821

4 years later, less people voted for Perot, the repuke candidate got about the same number of votes as in 1992, but President Clinton picked up over 3 million new votes (Perot votes, IMO). Plus, Ralph Nader ran in 1996 which took away votes from Clinton. So those who voted for Perot in 1992 obviously did not want Bush to win, so if Perot hadn't have ran, most of those votes likely would have gone to Clinton anyway. If Perot hadn't have ran in 1992, Clinton would have trounced Bush even WORSE than he did. bwaahahahahah!!

Popular Vote Totals for 1996

Bill Clinton: 47,400,125

George Bush: 39,198,755

Ross Perot: 8,085,402

Ralph Nader: 685,297

...though it's OT...I love your collage.

:spank:

Nader is not a serious candidate, he is not offering another "choice". Nader has a 0% chance of becoming President. The only choices (like it or not) are Kerry or Bush... & Nader is working hard to narrow that choice down to Bush or Bush by siphoning votes from Kerry. If he was a serious candidate who truly wanted to offer an alternative he would have spent the last 4 years trying to build a political organization, but instead he spent the time lining his own pockets.

... but man. D'you think somebody could have found something other than fingerpaints to do the sign on the wall behind him? Looks like Mrs. Reynolds's first-grade class competed and the winner got to do the 'Nader For President' sign!

That's all I was trying to say...at first. Then I got sucked into another Nader vs. Kerry argument on a new site that, due to it's name, I had hoped not to encounter these sorts of arguments on.

In General Discussion though...

I refer to these topics as grenades and try to avoid them.

Find something amusing? Or voice an opinion?

Edited later to ask: Is there any reason you chose to single me out? Clearly I'm not the only one amused or holding a strong opinion here. Nor am I the only newbie.

If you are a moderator and I don't know that, then I apologize. But I feel the slap was undue, even if you are a moderator.

If the potential Nader voters are so important, why doesn't Kerry address a few of their issues? Does he really think that straightening out the BIA is going to cost him swing votes? Does he think that fighting predatory lending is going to alienate anybody? Does he think that higher CAFE standards will cost him the election?