If the Democrats are "for the voice of the people"...

Part of the "people's choice" is exercised in whether a person can get on the ballot or not. Nader didn't follow proper procedure in some cases (Florida), and in other cases, he wasn't able to get enough signatures. That's choice, and democracy at work. Actually, though, if the *rule of law* is important to Republicans, someone wanna explain to me how Bush is on the Florida ballot? He missed the submission date for his name by a day or two.

Jeb let 'im on anywa, like a good little brother.

But again, is that really the rule of law?

seppo
 
I agree totally.

The Democrats trying to keep Nader off the ballot is completely and absolutely unfair.
I happen to agree with the Republicans on this one; Nader should be allowed on the ballots. However, whereas they want him on the ballots because it servres their petty self-interest; I want him on the ballots because this is a democracy and if the people want to vote for Nader, they should be able to.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']... why are the systematically trying to shut down the people's choice to be able to vote for Nader in the upcoming election - in gestapo-like fashion no less.

Democrats sue, trying to keep Nader off Florida ballot

Democrats Sue to Block Nader From Ariz. Ballot

Arkansas Democrats sue to keep Nader off the ballot

Democrats sue to kick Nader off Nevada ballot

The list goes on and on...[/quote]

I love disengenuous Republican arguments like this regarding Nader.

Face facts, Scrubking -- you don't give two hoots about Nader. You just want him siphoning votes so Chicken George can be crowned King of America.

If Nader is so popular, and so deserving of being on the ballot, why do shadowy right-wing groups have to gather signatures for him? Groups that freely admit they wouldn't vote for Nader in a million years.

Such fraud deserves to be fought in court. And if the Dems were trying the same tactic, you know the Repubs would have the same response.
 
[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']I agree totally.

The Democrats trying to keep Nader off the ballot is completely and absolutely unfair.
I happen to agree with the Republicans on this one; Nader should be allowed on the ballots. However, whereas they want him on the ballots because it servres their petty self-interest; I want him on the ballots because this is a democracy and if the people want to vote for Nader, they should be able to.[/quote]

People can write-in Nader for president if they want.
 
I love it.

The Republicans think that they are all good and Godly, like they never do anything bad to try to win. All the parties are evil.

In this case though Nadar didn't get enough signatures to be on in some states and is on anyways, and worse in some cases they just made people up.
 
Yeah we did so much to discourage third parties that H Ross Perot on the ballot allowed Clinton to win with 43% of the populat vote in 1992 and 49% of the popular vote in 1996.

Sorry Dennis but Kerry's down 13 points in the Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll, and the CBS/New York Times poll he's down 50-41. It's the Democrats that are scared shitless of losing even 2 percent of the vote at this point.

Cry and spin it all you want.
 
PAD, you and your worthless polls. :roll:

Here's another poll from yesterday, the Harris poll, showing Kerry in front:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB109526872487418642,00.html?mod=todays_free%


"Methodology: This poll was conducted by telephone within the U. S. between Sept. 9 and 13, 2004 among a nationwide cross section of 1,018 adults. Figures for age, sex, race, education, number of adults, number of voice/telephone lines in the household, region and size of place were weighted where necessary to align them with their actual proportions in the population. In theory, with a probability sample of this size, one can say with 95% certainty that the results have a statistical precision of +/-3 percentage points of what they would be if the entire adult population had been polled with complete accuracy."

"The poll also found that a slender 51% to 45% majority doesn't believe that Mr. Bush deserves to be re-elected."

If you visit the Wall Street Journal online site you will find the latest Harris Poll data, which shows the Bush bounce is now completely gone. As of 9/16/2004. The Harris Poll was the most accurate during the 2000 election.
 
What most polls don't do is take into affect the swing states.

In all the polling I have seen for the electoral college Kerry is winning.
 
I dunno why everyone is bitching...Nader can't really take votes away from anyone. You see when you vote, you select the person you want to be president. If people really want Kerry to be president then they will vote for him, if not then they will vote for another canidate, Nader, Bush, or whoever. It's not like Nader is giving me anything to vote for him. To me this is just pointless whining from the democrats as they claw for all the ground they can possibly get at this point.
 
The CNN/Gallup poll is actually pretty heavily skewed in favor of the Republicans - as per Gallup's own admission, they're polling 33% dems, 40% Repubs, and the rest indie/undecided. However, this doesn't even *remotely* match any electoral data ever collected, in terms of R/D balance, and as a result, is skewed quite heavily in favor of Republicans. Turns out the CEO of Gallup is a staunch GOP supporter. Big surprise, eh?

seppo
 
Oh, and as for whether Nader can take votes from anyone... of course he can. You assume that people vote in a vacuum, but that's not the case. A vote has an opportunity cost, since we only have single-vote elections, and not approval-style voting methods. As a result, if Nader is on a ballot, there will be people who are *incapable* of making opportunity cost judgements, and will vote for Nader out of some shortsighted stupidity, or genuine naivete.

But yes, Nader can take votes from Kerry. He didn't follow the proper procedures on the Florida ballot, and has no realistic right (regardless of the Florida Supreme Court) to be on the ballot in that state. Neither does Bush, due to his gaffe in submitting late. But whatever - I don't seriously expect laws to be followed re: elections in Florida.

As a result of this decision, Nader voters, whose politics often align much more closely with the Democrats, will be given an option to vote for Nader that shouldn't have existed. If Nader were (properly, IMO) not on the ballot, those votes are much more *likely* to have gone to Kerry, since Bush's policies are anathema to much of what Nader supposedly stands for (though the guy's such a fucking sellout, he's taken signatures from Republicans, and *money* from GOP supporters to scratch and claw his way onto the ballot in several states - I'd much rather not vote for someone who runs on a platform of righteousness selling out at the first chance he gets...)

seppo
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Yeah we did so much to discourage third parties that H Ross Perot on the ballot allowed Clinton to win with 43% of the populat vote in 1992 and 49% of the popular vote in 1996.

Sorry Dennis but Kerry's down 13 points in the Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll, and the CBS/New York Times poll he's down 50-41. It's the Democrats that are scared shitless of losing even 2 percent of the vote at this point.

Cry and spin it all you want.[/quote]

Did the Democrats work to get Perot on the ballot, knowing they would never support him?

Or did Perot get on the ballot because he had true supporters who worked their asses off to get him there, truly believed in him and cast their votes accordingly?

There is a big difference, PAD. One involves cynically gaming the system, and the other involves true democracy. I hope you learn the difference in your lifetime.
 
there may be a difference in the intent, but not in LAW. Signatures on petitions are the requirement to achieve ballot status in every state. If no one wanted Nader on the ballot, then they shouldn't have signed the petitions.

Regardless of who is responsible for "gaming" the system. The PEOPLE petitioning have spoken, and democrats who attempt to deny them the choice tell us they are not truly respectful of freedom, only of gaining power for themselves.
 
You know what? I'm sick of this horseshit, you Republicans are just as much of fucking hypocrites as the Democrats are. Don't delude yourself into giving a shit about Nader because we both know you don't. If you are honest and truly believe in consistency on both sides then I respect you for that.
Scrub you need not to be talking this shit. I have a feeling you have NO problem with D-Bolt and no problem with NOT having paper ballots for those machines even though they can crash.
Bottom line I think Republicans need to do what they critisize Democrats on: Be consistent. The same goes for the Democrats as well.
 
When you think about it, this kind of crap is really scary. If the dems are willing to bully a candidate from even being on the ballot what the hell will they do next?

First they lost an election and tried to bully their way to victory by trying to count votes that have never counted in the history of voting in Florida.

Next they shadow Nader and try to stop his every move to even get on the freakin ballot.

What's next? Bombing buildings or holding people hostage to get your way?
 
Even though there's still that suspicion of African Americans kept off the rolls by Republicans in Florida? Please, be consistent.
What about that woman at the gathering where Laura Bush was speaking and she asked her about getting our troops out of Iraq or something like that and the police accused her of "trepassing" even though she had a ticket. Unless you decry these acts as well you're a hypocrite, just admit it.
 
There is no "suspicion" just baseless accusations by dems who are sore losers and tried to play the race card to gain the whitehouse.

And since you people keep throwing political parties around: I am not a republican.
 
You would seem that way with the way you're pointing the finger at Democrats. If you're not Republican you're at least Conservative or lean to the Right.

"Next they shadow Nader and try to stop his every move to even get on the freakin ballot.

What's next? Bombing buildings or holding people hostage to get your way?"

Well that attitude makes it sound like you're a Neocon.
 
No, he's an Ann Coulter Republican. That is, he's batshit crazy.

"First they lost an election and tried to bully their way to victory by trying to count votes that have never counted in the history of voting in Florida."

Funny you should mention that. Gore really fucked it up in Florida, but you've gotta love the fact that if a proper, legal recount by Florida law had not been stopped by the Dems *or* the Republicans, Gore would have won, if a full vote count was redone. He'd have lost if he'd gotten what he asked for, but what he asked for was not a full vote count. If a full vote count had taken place, according to Florida law, Gore would have won. Period. That's not in question anymore.

"Next they shadow Nader and try to stop his every move to even get on the freakin ballot."

Are you stupid or something? Seriously. Should my name be on the ballot, to give people the "freedom" to vote for me if they want to? Should yours? No - they shouldn't. There are rules in every state as to what a person/party needs to do to get on the ballot. In the cases where Nader has been challenged, he has been challenged because he did *not* fulfill those rules. Whether it's that the Reform Party isn't a legitimate Federal party anymore, or whether it's that he submitted too few signatures, or submitted them too late - it's all according to the "rule of law" that he's being challenged in those states. It's not the Democrats hounding him out of some desire to jackboot the election, though they certainly have more to gain from Nader not being on the ballot.

But come on - the "bombing buildings" or "holding people hostage" lines should make it clear - you're a typical pseudo-"independant" right wing moron, of the same ilk as "bomb the NYT building" Coulter, or "Round up all the Arabs" Malkin. Congratulations! You've stamped yourself with the complete fucking idiot label.

Good job!

seppo
 
[quote name='Scrubking']There is no "suspicion" just baseless accusations by dems who are sore losers and tried to play the race card to gain the whitehouse.

And since you people keep throwing political parties around: I am not a republican.[/quote]

Not really baseless accusations. You do know that Jeb Bush -- you know, the president's brother -- had to throw out the Florida felon list for this year's election because it almost exclusively listed blacks but hardly any Hispanics.

Let's see. Blacks tend to vote Democratic, Hispanics tend to vote Republican....hmmm....and it was a Republican administration that drafted the list that would exclude felongs from the rolls.....mighty fishy.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']there may be a difference in the intent, but not in LAW. Signatures on petitions are the requirement to achieve ballot status in every state. If no one wanted Nader on the ballot, then they shouldn't have signed the petitions.

Regardless of who is responsible for "gaming" the system. The PEOPLE petitioning have spoken, and democrats who attempt to deny them the choice tell us they are not truly respectful of freedom, only of gaining power for themselves.[/quote]

Even if the people who signed the petitions were Repubicans, trying to get useful idiot Nader on the ballot?

I think that cynical attempts to game the system like this are a hell of a lot more detrimental to American freedom. If your cause is so just and your candidate so worthy, why do you have to partake in these gutter tactics?

It's sleazy and wrong, and if Democrats were doing it you'd be raising hell, and properly so.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Even if the people who signed the petitions were Repubicans, trying to get useful idiot Nader on the ballot? [/quote]

Yes, becuase you, or anyone else has no way to judge whether or not a signer of a petition has a party affiliation, nor should it be anyone's business to discriminate against them with basis in law if they do. Perhaps most of these people actually wanted Nader on the ballot? But, of course, it MUST be just a republican dirty trick.

I think that cynical attempts to game the system like this are a hell of a lot more detrimental to American freedom. If your cause is so just and your candidate so worthy, why do you have to partake in these gutter tactics?
Click to expand...

Again, you have no way to know, jusge, or pass sentence on someone elses intent The only issue is with the letter of the law. The shame is on your shoulders for thinking the freedom of others to petion their government should be infringed for ANY reason. In a free society, sometimes we must tolerate ideas that are unpopular. Fortunately we don't live in the ideallic fascist regime you so desperately desire.

It's sleazy and wrong, and if Democrats were doing it you'd be raising hell, and properly so.
Click to expand...

And if the democrats were doing it I'd bet money that you would have no problem with the procedure, or the outcome. State constitutions are the basis for ballot requirements. If you feel it's unjust, then lobby your State congressperson or representative. This is how things are done in civilized american society.

Obviously you think democrats are just stupid and would vote for Nader just for the hell of it because he's on the ballot, or perhaps by mistake. I'm glad to se you hold your commrades in such high regard.
 
My answer to this is I would sign a petition for anyone to get on the ballot. I don't care if it's a Communist, Nazi, Green or a militant black or hispanic party. Everyone has the right to run for office if they meet the legal constitutional qualifications. I don't care about their money, funding, politics or the like. If there were a Muslim party that wanted to run on changing the US constitution to make the US an Islamic state I'd sign their petition to tget them on the ballot.

Why? They'd never win.

Freedom of speech and political affiliation is the greatest gifts this country bestowes on its people. The fact that anyone fights to keep people off the ballot is an absolute disgrace to principled democracy. Let alone by the party that claims to be the true mantle of American freedoms.

Nevermind what people say, pay attention to what they do. The fact that Democratic state committees around the country have fought to keep Ralph Nader off of state ballots tells you more volumes of information about what this party really is as opposed to the campaign speeches and rallies where they put on their dog and pony show.
 
THEY fuckING DID THAT BECAUSE HE DOES NOTHING. He will never win, all he does is take votes away from Kerry. The green party, being close to that of the democrat party, has Nader running. If he wasn't running those people who would vote for him, would vote for the Democratic canidate or Kerry for those of you who are slow. WHY? because the democratic party is the closest thing to the green party......he is just taking extra votes away.

The petitions, i know, are being signed by Republicans. They all know that this will be one more thing to slow down Kerry. They want Nader on the Ballot.

Its kind of too bad that this is happing, becuase it keeps a fair election from happining, especially when Republicans like you, who think he should be on the ballot, are pushing to get him on so that Kerry get less votes. Then try to tell us you think its unfair hes not on the ballot, when, again, you just want him on so its that much more of an advantage to "The Bush" (hehehehe)
 
[quote name='stocker08']THEY shaq-fuing DID THAT BECAUSE HE DOES NOTHING. He will never win, all he does is take votes away from Kerry. The green party, being close to that of the democrat party, has Nader running. If he wasn't running those people who would vote for him, would vote for the Democratic canidate or Kerry for those of you who are slow. WHY? because the democratic party is the closest thing to the green party......he is just taking extra votes away.

The petitions, i know, are being signed by Republicans. They all know that this will be one more thing to slow down Kerry. They want Nader on the Ballot.

Its kind of too bad that this is happing, becuase it keeps a fair election from happining, especially when Republicans like you, who think he should be on the ballot, are pushing to get him on so that Kerry get less votes. Then try to tell us you think its unfair hes not on the ballot, when, again, you just want him on so its that much more of an advantage to Bush.........[/quote]

Nader is running Independent. Seriously he didn't get the Green Party's nomination, McCobb did.
 
Stop confusing him with the truth.

No one is "entitled" to votes. Whether they are left leaning third parties like the greens or right leaning parties like the Libertarians. Nader running as an independent doesn't steal votes from Kerry. Besides, if Kerry is so damn good and great why does he have to worry about a third party candidate?

Perot and Bush won 57% of the popular vote in 1992. Did the people throw their vote away that voted for Perot? No, they felt principled in their choice. Why do Republicans or Democrats feel entilted exclusively to the voters choices? I would vote Libertarian all day long if they were a political force.

That being said I vote with the choice most likely to win and closest to my personal beliefs.
 
You shouldn't be talking about election law, PAD.

Bush missed the deadline for the Florida balot, but his brother was more than happy to break thee law for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top