Why is there so much anger directed towards Nader?

[TheUniverse]

In my opinion, I think everyone who wants to run should. After all we are the Democratic Party and should embrace democracy. My anger is towards people who undemocratically keep the current power system. I'm angry at politicians who help keep the two party system the de facto by keeping third party candidates off of debates and making all kinds of obscure rules to keep them off ballets. I'm angry at people who will not embrace an instant runoff election which would give third parties more opportunities. I'm angry at politicians in both parties who care more about the corporate lobbyists than the people. I'm angry at Supreme Court Justices who think they can overrule the voters of a state to appoint a president. I'm angry at the Democratic party insiders who created this superdelegate system.

I do not direct my anger towards a man who wants to run for president on progressive values just because he chooses not to run in one of two "acceptable" parties. Running for president is the American dream, so instead I will direct my anger towards people who step in the way of democracy.

[terrya]

1. Um, there was this thing called the 2000 election.

A lot of people blame Ralph Nader for the end results.

[TheUniverse]

2. I blame the supreme court and the 2 party establishment.

[tbyg52]

21. Them too

but Nader didn't help. But I *really* blame him for 2004, when we'd all had plenty of opportunity to find out just how bad W was and how badly we needed him out.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. Would've Never Made It There If It Weren't For That Piece Of Shit Nader.

And you sound like that ignorant braindead fucker when you say things like '2 party establishment'.

[TheUniverse]

52. LOL thank you for calling me an ignorant braindead fucker.

I appreciate the compliment. But are you denying there is a 2 party establishment?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. Are You Nader?

I called him an ignorant braindead fucker. I merely said you were sounding like him. Learn how to read.

[TheUniverse]

54. I agree with Nader on alot so yes, I'm gonna sound like him.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. Well Then I Guess You Are. My Bad.

[TheUniverse]

58. LOL, so which of Nader's policies do you disagree with?

[roguevalley]

105. I was wondering when Nader lovers would show up. When old

Ralphie shows me what's in his damned portfolio that he would lump dems into the shit pile with pugs and help them win (thus ensuring that his little money pile gets bigger) then I won't be sorry that I was in ASPIRG since 1971. He hasn't done shit in the past few for anyone but himself. the bastard.

[ORDem]

45. Simple: Nader is a self-righteous egotistical gadfly. His presence on the 2000 FL

ticket lost the election for Gore just so Nader could politically self-gratify himself. He really is not interested the common good, only his good. He is also power-hungry. Yes, he makes huge donations to causes he likes, but that's just so he can have the feeling of kingmaker.

:kick:

[applegrove]

60. He did it. His candidacy in 2000 allowed the GOP to steal the election.

Why shouldn't we be wary?

[conservdem]

79. I blame Gore for not carrying his home state.

[SoFlaJet]

3. Why is there so much hatred towards Nader?

because it's all about HIM and his gigantic ego. He is perfectly willing to sacrifice his progressive ideals and throw election to republicans to make a point. Narcissism thy name is Ralph Nader

[hfojvt]

73. He made quite a few bucks off it too

The Bush tax cuts were very good to him. Plus, he sent out millions of letters to liberal donors after 2000 "Help my organization stop this awful Bush administration". When I finally subscribed to "The Nation" I got regular letters from Public Citizen before they gave up on me.

[yourguide]

4. because he's a selfish f*ck

[mac2]

5. Nader's corporate reform hasn't been embraced by the

candidates so why not?

[Faygo Kid]

6. Here's why

[BootinUp]

7. your link

is broke...

[CJCRANE]

8. Who do you think is *really* backing his run? nt

[still_one]

9. The anger is because he knew how close the election was going to be in 2000

and his ONLY purpose was to be a spoiller

because unlike his motto that there was no difference between Al Gore and george bush, THERE WAS

He can run all he wants, he has made himself irrelevent, and rightfully so

He destroyed any legacy he had

The ONLY ones who will pay attention to him now, will be the MSM, the people could care less about nader

[TheUniverse]

16. But wheres the anger towards all the people I talked about in my first post?

You know, the people who stand in the way democracy by keeping third party candidates off ballets and dont support election reform. I think they are far more harmful than Nader. I wish I would see as much anger towards the undemocratic principals in our system as I see directed at Ralph Nader who I consider a decent man.

[jhrobbins]

82. I actually disagree with you about Nader, but I'm not going to call you

an ignorant , braindead, etc, etc.,. Isn't there some place where rational people can dialogue and disagree without it descending into a name calling fest - cuz it surely isn't on this site.

[RuleOfNah]

86. If they didn't understand 2000...

how would they understand your question about the missing outrage?

:shrug:

[galadrium]

10. If he actually believes what he says he stands for he NEEDS to step aside

Nobody is questioning his right to run, just his judgment. Its proven he hurts the Democratic nominee.

[high density]

11. There's no reason for his candidacy except his own ego

If he were truly concerned about these issues he'd be talking about them more often than every four years.

[mtnester]

12. Ralph Nader is not running as a Democrat

and the rules of this board say no advocating candidates that are not Democrats.

There are other forums someone could go to do that. Just not here.

[MoJoWorkin]

15. Exactly!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

13. Nader appears to be an opportunist who looks for divides in the Democratic party and exploits them.

If he was that "passionate" about establishing a credible third party, like building the Green party from the grassroots up and devoting his time to actually making it a reality. he could have been active in that role since 2000.

Instead, he seems to hide out and then pop up every four years and demand to be taken seriously as a candidate. His platform, "They're all a bunch of crooks, the whole lot of them." Very inspirational.

Imagine what he could have done to help create a true third party alternative over the last eight years. Helping to put Greens into city councils, state legislatures and maybe even into the US Congress.

He talks the talk, but he hasn't walked the walk for a long time.

[cooolandrew]

14. Yep, that's just right if nader runs he is allowed we just have to work to earn his voters too.

It's like saying you have democracy but it's only allowed for Democrats and Republicans that is illogical. True Democracy is more than a 2 party system I could live with a whole senat of independents like Bernie Sanders myself.. If it came down to 1 party would we call that democracy, no as there is only one choice. in democracy the more chois the better. As great as Gore is he didn't campaign in his home state to get votes you got to work for them. Blaming Nader seems a bit odd to me.

A lot of the progressive agenda was first highligted by Nader on things like coprorate welfare and even more safety in car use. I can't really see him as a bad guy myself.

[TheUniverse]

17. Thank you, I wish more people would see it like this!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

20. Yeah, except he's done NOTHING to insure that there is a viable third party. NOTHING.

He could have started eight years ago working with Greens or whatever other party, build a coalition and platform and begin by electing representatives to various governmental entities. Instead, he just complains they're all crooked.

He is as selfish as they come. He's welcome to run, just like Lyndon Larouche and Ross Perot and whoever, but he had the collateral to energize a true third party movmement and he squandered it for his own aspirations.

[0007]

28. Predators make the prey ten times sharper. I think!

[sellitman]

18. The MFer disappears for 4 years.

Then crawls out from under his rock just to piss on the Democrats at election time.

And then you wonder why we hate his guts?


:crazy:

[smoogatz]

19. Watch the news much, the last seven years?

The Bush misadministration wouldn't have happened if not for Nader and the dumbasses who voted for him. That's why.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. how new are you to democratic politics?

[paperbag_ princess]

23. irony

I find it highly ironic that no one is allowed to be upset that Obama is derailing Hillary's nomination....but everyone throws a hissy fit because of the minute possibility that Obama's candidacy could be derailed by a third party progressive.

:shrug:

hypocrisy anyone? It is either democracy or it isn't

[dansolo]

63. Obama is a Democrat, Nader is not

If Nader ran in the Democratic primaries, no one would care. That is the difference--it is not hypocrisy.

[paperbag_ princess]

64. I can see your point

it is still about working within the system that we have..and there is no reason why he shouldn't run if he wants to...

no one should piss and moan about it

[Stuckinthebush]

24. Yes, that's the high school text book view of elections in the US

We all have a right (and many a dream) to run for president. We should have that right and dream because we want to do what is good for the country.

Now the reality is that we are forever locked in a two party system. There are two different streams of voter - the conservative or leaning conservative and the progressive or leaning progressive. The two parties are designed to appeal to each of these streams of voters. If a far right or far left candidate comes in then it is like putting a hose into one of those streams to siphon out some water. This leaves less power from the larger stream. This eventually hurts everyone in a general philosophical category.

If we had a parliamentary system then we could have multiple parties who then work out deals to consolidate power. Our system is very flawed in that regard.

Nader knows what he is doing. He hopes that he can play our system into a pseudo-parliamentary system where his philosophical companions can wield some power. The problem is that those who vote for him would otherwise vote for the Dem nominee, thereby, increasing the total number of votes for a state for a viable candidate. By running, he actually diminishes his power by diluting the power of the progressives.

If he really cared about the progressive cause he would work inside the party instead of playing this dangerous independent game.

[TheUniverse]

25. We dont have to be forever locked in a 2 part system.

For example just using an instant runoff election can change everything. There have also been a handful of third party candidates (Perot Roosevelt) who were very successful.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

29. Right. But guess what. Building another party actually entails work.

Something which Nader eschews. If he'd put his money where his mouth is, he could have been instrumental in a third party's creation and success, and we're not talking the Presidency. Haven't you heard, all politics are local?

This isn't about whether the two party system works, or doesn't. He runs against the "system" but does nothing to change it from the grass roots up.

All talk, no walk.

[Stuckinthebush]

41. Perot lost

He never was a viable candidate. He was good for the Dems because he siphoned votes away from the GOP.

Sadly, we can not change the two party system. It is part of the US democracy now. We either rewrite our constitution so that we are a parliamentary system or continue in this two party mess. I don't see us changing our constitution.

[TheUniverse]

44. We don't have to switch to Parliament.

Switching to a numbered voting system or a instant runoff would be good enough. I believe that for the Senate, it would be a state by state issue so that probably wouldn't require an amendment. For the president, yes it will probably require an amendment which would be tough. But you know what, all amendments are tough and they all seemed like a distant dream 10 or 20 years before they were passed. The important thing is to start a movement for election reform, which I think is far more beneficial than bashing third party candidates.


And if I remember correctly Perot did lead in a few polls and would have been a viable candidate if he didn't start acting crazy towards the end.

[Stuckinthebush]

47. Perot was acting crazy at the beginning

and I don't remember him ever leading in the electoral count ever.

But you are correct about the instant runoff. It would help.

[LoZoccolo]

26. He lies and says that there is little difference between the two major parties. n/t

[stahbrett]

27. Our voting system lets a 3rd-party candidate screw up the results

We should focus on implementing something like:
Range Voting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting
Approval Voting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
Instant Runoff Voting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[TheUniverse]

30. Yeah thats what Im trying to say in my first post.

I see so much anger directed towards a progressive candidate running for office, yet I see hardly any anger at the people in both parties who keep the status quo.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

32. Ahhh, the anger towards Nader upsets you? Bill Maher and Michael Moore got on their knees and begged

him not to run, when he was a guest on Maher's show in 2004. He does much more damage to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

Sorry, you are in the wrong place to look for love for this egotistical person who once commanded much respect from me and millions of others.

[TheUniverse]

33. When did I say I love him?

I am planning to vote for Obama BTW. Im just not gonna get in on the bashing of a candidate because he takes votes from so in so. The way to win is to have the superior message.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

35. Keep defending Nader here against so called bashing. We've seen this song and dance before.

:hi:

[H2O Man]

78. You can say that again. n/t

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

110. OMG, I was hoping this would go

unremarked upon. :blush:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

36. Keep defending Nader here against so called bashing. We've seen this song and dance before.

:hi:

[uppityperson]

97. You can say that again. n/t

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

37. Keep defending Nader here against so called bashing. We've seen this song and dance before.

:hi:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

38. Keep defending Nader here against so called bashing. We've seen this song and dance before.

:hi:

[tekisui]

31. He takes money from Rich Repukes to fund his runs.

He then siphons Dem votes and helps put a Puke in the WH.

[mindfulNJ]

39. Thats it in a nutshell.

:)

[burythehatchet]

74. So does Sen. Clinton. n/t

[Orangepeel]

34. because his actions work against what he says he wants

I think that he went from an idealist with too much of an all or nothing mentality in terms of what he wants to an ego driven bag of hot air. Also, his political judgment sucks.

[DFW]

40. Nader belonged in the Weimarer Republik

Chaos ruled there with their numerous parties. Hitler was elected
Reichskanzler with 33% of the vote. Long live splinter parties.

His 2000 run COULD have been a noble gesture if he had really been in it
to call attention to issues he wanted addressed. All he had to do was pull
out right before the election, and say, OK, now let Al Gore put up or shut up.

His ego was way too large, and he preferred to be the spoiler. What did he
personally have to lose? all he had to do was say that it was Al Gore's fault
for not getting so many votes that he won despite Nader. If the election had
been tallied completely fairly, HE DID. But it was not, and Nader's presence
was enough to allow Florida (for one) to go to Bush (with a little help from
Jeb and Kathy Harris). He never refuted his "no difference" line, even though
probably the only ones who ever swallowed it was Slobodan Miloševič, and a few
bottom-feeding crustaceans at the deeper part of the Marianna Trench.

[eleny]

42. Because he's a threat

He espouses policies that we here at DU have been wanting for years. But now he's a threat because he could take votes away from our candidate - because he espouses policies that would benefit the majority of Americans.

I believe that if he were an anonymous DUer, his postings would probably garner more "Recommends" than the most popular members.

[Occam Bandage]

43. Because he's a self-absorbed RW-funded fuckwit who exists only to enable Repukes.

[Liberal Veteran]

46. I don't suffer tools or fools gladly.

And Nadir is both a toolish fool and foolish tool.

[cloudythescribbler]

48. Much anger toward Nader is displaced from the POWERFUL to him as a convenient target ...

the 'ethos of the bully'. And I say that as someone who has ADAMANTLY opposed ALL of Nader's runs for the Presidency, including in 2000, when many of my progressive colleagues were fashionably backing him.

You don't hear people asking -- Didn't Bill Maher in 2000 endorse Gore before he switched and supported Nader, without an explanatory comment acknowledging the switcheroo? And what TV execs were behind THAT???? After all, it was reflective of 'doing the job' (like justifying the lying when W didn't know the names of the heads of state of India and Pakistan) and THAT is NOT a convenient target. Nader is used as a 'permissible enema' for cowardly liberals who are afraid to deviate from the beaten track on issues like the Maher one I just raised.

Another unaddressed issue: Why didn't ANY ATTORNEY IN THE US file a class-action lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act and other laws on behalf of all black voters disenfranchised in the 2000 election. The Voting Rights Act was on the chopping block and everybody (in particular including those liberals who selectively 'hate Nader') was too cowardly ("grown up") to really go against the system.

That said, as I have noted in other threads I am and have been VERY VERY critical of Nader's campaigns, in analytical detail.

[Eurobabe]

49. Nader is a has been, most people won't be stupid enough to vote for him n/t

[DaDooRonRon]

81. Hillary Clinton is a corporate wet dream

Would you vote for her?

I'll bet if Ralph put a (D) next to his name and ran for Congress against a Republican you'd fall over backwards touting his accomplishments.

It's all about the alphabet, isn't it??

[provis99]

50. the fact is, most on DU prefer the two-party system

they're not just mad at Nader; they're mad at Anderson, Perot, Theodore Roosevelt, or any other politician who went against the two party system. Its odd that people who support the "Democratic" party are so opposed to democratic values, but there it is. No surprise then that we time after time see centrist candidates chosen by the Democratic party; in a two-party system, that's exactly what you'd expect.

[yellerpup]

67. Will everyone who is still mad at Teddy Roosevelt please check in? eom

[sampsonblk]

55. Fear of our own party's weaknesses.

Instead of worrrying about our own weak points, some would rather tremble in fear over who might point them out.

[saltpoint]

56. Ralph Nader has positioned himself as an enemy of the two major

political parties and makes the claim that there is no difference between the two.

Some of us beg to differ.

[rasputin1952]

59. Nader is for Nader, nothing more, nothing less...

he is trying to bring back the "glory days" of his popularity of the 60's.

Nader thinks of little more than the "genius of Nader", and is foolish enough to actually believe he has the answers for "everything that ails the nation". He took a lot of votes away from Gore in the 2000 election, and never accepted responsibility for helping to place bush in the WH in the first place. It was the "fault of those who could not see his vision", something he never really articulated anyway. Listening to Nader in 99 all one got was how he knew how to fix things, but never offered anything to back it up, because he had nothing.

Nader is an egotist, he knows he cannot win, we're not talking Teddy Roosevelt 3rd party here, we're talking about someone who could care about nothing other than his own perceived "genius".

[DaDooRonRon]

87. Let us put your theory to the test

Nader drops out, but another individual who shares his beliefs takes his place.

Does this individual "have nothing" as well? If he/she gets votes, will he/she be responsible for helping someone you don't like get elected?

If this person knows he/she "can not win", but still continues to run to bring forth his/her issues, is that OK?

What if a DooDah Party candidate gets enough votes to tip the applecart - are they now (pick one) evil/self-centered/egotistical/responsible for the death of America as we know it?

I argue that it is not the name "Nader" you are incensed at, but rather the gall that ANYONE has to run against convention and risk killing the golden goose that is two-party politics.

Not a real progressive stance, but I think that for many here "progressive" means little, while winning the contest means everything.

But I guess winning and finding out you've been lied to yet again just gives you more "energy" to make sure it doesn't happen to you next time, even though that by behaving as you do you ensure it always will.

[rasputin1952]

91. Ahem, my post was about Nader, not some entity you have...

dreamed up.

Nader is an egomaniac, do you deny this?

[DaDooRonRon]

94. You didn't answer my question,

which does not surprise me.

ALL pols are egomaniacs - good grief, even listen to Biden?

The question remains - is it Nader or is it third parties?

If it is indeed third parties - why? Surely you don't think that a regimented bought and paid for chosen for you before it even begins candidate pool is democratic, do you?

[rasputin1952]

96. An answer for you...DU does not support 3rd Party candidates...

I thought I made that obvious in the Opening Post.

However, thank you for your concern, and I hope you understand this.

[DaDooRonRon]

104. My mistake

I am trying to discuss something with a mod, fer crying out loud.

I should have known better. :)

Perhaps we can "meet" on some other board someday where we can have an open discussion.

I visit on a lot of other boards - sometimes I get confused. :hi:

[RuleOfNah]

88. I would counter your flimsy arguments.

But you carry the Mod stick, so I must cower or die.

Actually, I think I'll politely leave. Please delete my DU account. Thanks.

(edited to add this post as my last journal entry)

[dansolo]

61. Because he is funded by Republicans

He is a plant, supported by Republicans, with the sole purpose of trying to siphon votes away from the Democrats. If he was genuine in his concerns about all of these issues, then he would do more than crawl out from under his rock every four years to attack the Democrats. Notice how he is nowhere to be found when it isn't an election year.

[stevenleser]

62. The blood of all those in the Iraq war is on his hands.

Gore would not have done this and Ralph gave us Dumbya.

And you are on ignore

[TheUniverse]

66. LOL, you are ignoring me for basically showing support for an issue our candidate (Obama) supports

Obama supports election reform and an instant runoff vote. http://www.fairvote.org/irv/ This thread wasn't meant to be campaigning for Ralph Nader, instead Im just questioning the anger towards Nader and not the corrupt system. If that is too much for you to handle, well I apologize.

[PurityOfEssence]

65. Oh, I can think of about 97,488 reasons...

That was his count in Florida in '00...

[opihimoimoi]

68. The man is an egotistical selfish greedy asshole who ran not to win but to spoil it

sho nuff, the GOP stole the sob election with help from Jeb/Spunky/and Moxie

Nader is a POS....may he rot somewhere far away from America Soil.....

Just think what Gore would have accomplished in these 7 years....Damn....

[Fire Walk With Me]

69. "My anger is towards people who undemocratically keep the current power system."

My point as well. I'll vote for whoever is actually against the continuation of what Bush and friends have installed. Which is why I've been adamant here regarding our candidates taking a stand of any sort on these issues.

[GoneOffShore]

70. Are you a Democrat?

Or a Naderite? If you're a Naderite you're on the wrong board.

[TheUniverse]

71. I voted for Obama in the primary!

[GoneOffShore]

75. Yes and so you possibly should be as angry at Ralphie as anyone else here.

You just being provocative?

What's your deal?

Sure the system doesn't work the way we'd like it to. Which means it's time for some changes. Those changes have to start at the grassroots level, with local party machines. Change the way candidates are perceived and marketed and elected. Get more progressives into the local party so they can move up the food chain.

Let's not encourage some egotistical whack job to disrupt the Democratic Party.

[TheUniverse]

80. The thing is I cant be angry at a man for running for office.

That would seem to go against everything I believe in, and I feel its part of the corrupt system which needs changing. I believe a national Instant Runoff election which my candidate, Obama, supports would be good. I just see many people here on DU angry at Nader, and believe that the anger could be much better directed at some corrupt elements in our election system, which get little notice here.

[GoneOffShore]

85. Those elements get plenty of notice,

But maybe you haven't been around long enough to have that on your radar.

[jerryster]

72. I can tell you why I'm so angry.

It may be a minority opinion, but I believe Nader prefers that a Republican win the Presidency. He stayed in the race in 2000 KNOWING it could only hurt Gore's chances. Now here we are with a great chance to regain the White House and what does Nader do? He decides to run. Did he even run in 2004? If he did he wasn't on the radar. He figured Bush to win and he didn't need to help W out.

I am not normally a conspiracy theorist, but this narcissistic ASSHOLE
knows he can't win (just like he knew in 2000). So why is he getting in the race? It has to be to thwart the Democratic candidate. What deals has he made and with whom? It sure as hell isn't the Democrats. As I said, he prefers a Republican in the White House. Why, I have no idea.

[VolcanoJen]

76. By far, the most puzzling, jaw-gaping, shocking subject line I've ever seen on an OP.

Wow. I mean... there are no words.

[goldcanyonaz]

77. Because he runs just to be a spoiler. He's all ego.

[madfloridian]

83. Because he is taking GOP money to run and disrupt the Democrats.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/33

Read it. There are conservative groups that openly worked for and with Nader.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/907

In that post Dean called Nader out on his corporate right wing ties.

And this article from Salon about the Nader culture of denial.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/07/14/naderphonecall/

[TheUniverse]

84. Thanks for bringing this up

""you accepted the support of a right-wing, fanatic Republican group that is antigay in order to help you get on the ballot in Oregon" -- a reference to the Oregon Family Council, which produces a "Christian Voter Guide" and campaigns against gay marriage.
""


I did not know about this, and I will look into it.

[ecstatic]

89. You really think he cares about progressive values?

Are you REALLY that f*cking stupid?

[CTyankee]

90. Now that you have had your fun, please leave.

Go start your own pro Nader website.

I would appreciate it if I didn't have to see you presence on DU. You are not welcome here.

[TheUniverse]

93. lol you're a great person.

I bet you didnt even read all my posts.


"I would appreciate it if I didn't have to see you presence on DU. You are not welcome here. "


That sounds like something someone would only say behind the safety of their computer. Isn' it amazing how people are so much meaner when they are anonymous? And besides you are completely inccurate because I am an Obama supporter.

[CTyankee]

95. I said what I said because I am not a crude person and I don't post

personal insults with obscene language.

I wish that you would go and tout your message "for" (or whatever you call it) Nader elsewhere, where it can be better received. I don't care one bit that he has a right to run. Fine. But it goes without saying, doesn't it?

[TheUniverse]

98. are you saying DU does not support Democracy?

Because that is the message my post here is presenting, and I don't see how anyone can see this as being a campaign post for Nader. But whatever dude, maybe you failed reading comprehension so I'll give you a pass.


And I dont know if you know this or not, but some people like myself find the phrase "You are not welcome here" to be even more offensive than obscene language.

[CTyankee]

99. Of course you do.

It was an icy rejoinder I learned long ago to be quite effective.

[TheUniverse]

100. So you spend your time trying not to just be a dick, but to be a stupid dick.

You're a dick because you post things like "you are not welcome here" to make people feel like trash when there is no reason for that. You're stupid because you don't even know the position I'm advocating and assumed I'm advocating voting for Ralph Nader before you even read all my posts. I have supported two candidates here, Kucinich and Obama, and this thread is advocating Obama's position of an instant runoff vote. Maybe you could take the time to read my posts before being such a stupid dick.

[CTyankee]

101. Thank you. Goodbye.

[TheUniverse]

102. You have lost your soul and your conscience.

Remember that when your typing your crap from behind a computer.

[mzmolly]

92. Why is there so much anger directed towards Bush?

Same reason.

[OnionPatch]

103. Because he's not helping the causes he says he champions!

Sure he has a right to run for president. I'm not saying he doesn't. It's his strategy that I am questioning here. I happen to believe he is sincere in wanting to stop the corruption. But over and over again it's been pretty clear that his strategy has only made things many time worse by helping the very criminals he claims to want to disempower. If Ralph really wants to make America better, he needs to find a new strategy.

[ellisonz]

106. "Running for president is the American dream"

No it is not.

[Rosemary2205]

107. Oh poo - I missed popcorn again.

[NastyRiffraff]

108. Yep, he has the right to run

So does any idiot who wants to. I could run, too, but my momma told me that just because you can do something doesn't automatically mean you should.

[AnOhioan]

109. K&R

Though I doubt you will find many friends here.

I do think Obama would be in your corner, as am I.

Obama: “I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference.”

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/02/24/army-of-whiners-rises-again-to-fight-nader/