Opus trying to pin more down on the republicans again?




You know we get it - Republicans are politicians. You've made that point clear to us. Now except that all politicans lie and are typically scum and you'll be over it.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Moore tried to help Nader but then Nader posted somewhere that Moore did not even invite him to this recent movie, so nader dislikes him.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Opus trying to pin more down on the republicans again? You know we get it - Republicans are politicians. You've made that point clear to us. Now except that all politicans lie and are typically scum and you'll be over it.

Sorry if I find this a little more "dirtier" than usual. I really thought that Bush supporters would have a little more faith in their leader. I guess not.

Of course I know ALL politicians are dirty, so here's a legitimate question that I honestly don't know the answer to - were there Democratic supporters who tried to push Perot's line in '92?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

i thought the democrats in '92 were just happy being able to push a strong candidate to office.

wait, i get it

Heh well it looks like liberals lack faith in their leader and don't believe that Kerry can win on his own merits either ...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._on_el_pr/nader

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Heh well it looks like liberals lack faith in their leader and don't believe that Kerry can win on his own merits either ... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._on_el_pr/nader

didn't the democrats already announce that they'd challenge these results? i can't blame them, Kerry isn't a strong choice.

But if it were a republican detrimental candidate, the signatures would have probably just disappeared.

Nader has had interactions with both sides, so before you chastize the Republicans for helping him, why not chastize the Democrats for getting him thrown off of the ballot in some states?

I think that's far worse in my opinion, because it's depriving people of the opportunity to vote for him, should they have chosen to on their own accord.

If Republicans had tried to get someone taken off of a ballot, the press would have raised hell, but since the Democrats did it, they don't seem to care much.

quote:

Nader Accuses Dems of 'Mini-Watergate' Friday, July 09, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125092,00.html WASHINGTON — Democrats could be participating in a "mini-Watergate" effort to get Ralph Nader (search) out of the presidential picture, the consumer advocate charged Thursday. "They're hiring lawyers to go up to technicalities in places like Arizona, they infiltrated our political convention," Nader, an independent candidate for president, told FOX News on Thursday. "I spoke to John Kerry and said 'you'd better look into it because it could be a mini-Watergate, possibly." Nader said he hasn't yet heard back from the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, who is hoping to oust President Bush from the White House in the November elections. "This is pretty serious, when you try to lock the civil liberties of American just to get on the ballot so people can vote for the candidate of their choice," Nader continued. Nader was denied a spot on the Arizona ballot and last Friday again accused the Democrats and Kerry of engaging in political "dirty tricks." Just hours before the developments in Arizona, Nader complained that the Democratic Party has "stepped up its obstruction tendencies" in challenging his ballot access. The consumer advocate said he had called the Kerry campaign three times last Thursday, asking to chat with the candidate.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Heh well it looks like liberals lack faith in their leader and don't believe that Kerry can win on his own merits either ... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._on_el_pr/nader

I'll answer this point along with Imukruok's (which is essentially the same story).

Coupla things. First, if this petition was done illegally, the Democrats, or anyone for that matter, have every right to challenge it, and rightfully so:

quote:

As a Maricopa County Superior Court judge prepared to hear arguments in the case, Nader campaign attorney Richard Mahrle conceded there were "technical errors" in the ballot petition and said Nader would not contest the lawsuit. Judge Mark Armstrong then issued an order that Nader be kept off the state ballot.

Second, as Dean pointed out to Nader in their NPR debate, over half those signatures come from Republican voters:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/10/debate

So here's my question - are you going to tell me with a straight face that conservative voters have a real interest in having Nader for President? If you can, I'll retract. Otherwise, it is nothing but a Conservative push to take votes away from the Democrats.

And I concluded from this that the only reason Conservatives are trying to do this in swing states is because they have not enough faith that Bush can win those states all on his own merits and strengths. Is my conclusion incorrect? If so, how?

As for the Democrats with Nader, of course it's no secret that they're trying to get him off the ballots - that's undeniable. I think, however, this stance is a little more justified that conservatives trying to push him onto the ballot, because for the most part Nader has taken millions of would-be Democratic votes away from Dems. in the past.

It is one thing to try to pursuade a guy and his voters back onto the ballot to help defeat the common problem. It is another for that guy and his voters to accept the primary adversary's help just so he can get himself onto the ballot (for nothing shy of egocentric reasons, IMO), which thus aides the primary adversary in winning the election in the long run.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Well first of all, the republicans are not doing anything illegal in a similar fashion as democrats. They can aid anyone they would like to get on the ballet. From your first post you were critical of the republican inability to rely upon Bush's own merits to win the election. We than see that you're not critical of democrat efforts to remove Nader from the ballot due to their seemingly lack ability to rely upon Kerry's own merits to win the election. I don't view either action as particularly different. In as much as you conclude, "the only reason Conservatives are trying to do this in swing states is because they have not enough faith that Bush can win those states all on his own merits and strengths," it is my conclusion that the democrats are trying to remove him from the ballot in an effort to capture swing states. Can you dispute this? If indeed republicans are the only people signing these petitions to include Nader on the ballot, than the democrats have NOTHING to worry about because when it comes time for the general election these republicans won't vote for for Nader they will vote for bush. If voters actually WANT to vote for Nader than for christ's sake let him on the ballot and let people vote for him. It seems quite silly to view this situation with shades of grey in attempting to justify one while condemning the other. Who cares if Nader is on the ballot? If he has a pursuading argument that sways voters than perhaps the democrat party should alter their party platform. I side with the republicans on this one, or rather view this as a none issue. If the democrats wanted to get Buchanan or Perot on the ballot than go right ahead ... it would regard it in a better light than trying to remove someone from the ballot.

___________________
Retro ...

I think it's terribly unfortunate how undemocratic and corrupt the US political system is.

In a parliamentary style government, Nader could have his meager percentage of the vote represented in parliament.

Then everyone could vote for whom they wanted to.

Still I think we can put in place some reforms - such as proportional representation or legislation allowing third parties to form coalition governments with one of the two main parties - that would make the system we have fairer.

I think the Green Party would help their cause more if they were to win some seats in the House of Representatives, and I believe if they had any competence whatsoever, they could in some more liberal congressional districts.

As for corruption, we have to end the practice of the revolving door between lobbyists and politicians.

For example, Reagan's former Sec of Defense Frank Carlucci implemented policies that greatly swelled the defense budget, and immediatly afterwards left his post to make millions off those same policies as chairman of the Carlyle Group.

http://www.informationclearinghouse...article3995.htm

We have to end that kind of corruption.

Last edited by DaveSZ on Jul-12-2004 at 05:55

Nader would tip Arkansas and Nevada to Bush if he were on the state ballots there.

I can see why the Republicans would be aiding him, but you could say the same for the guy running on the Constitution party ticket.

He'll probably tip Pennsylvania to Kerry as that's his home state.

State polls:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resour...leground04.html