Ralph Nader a differant choice

Realistically speaking he will do nothing more than siphon votes of off the democrats if this is a close battle between bush and more than likely kerry it could give enough lee way to bush so he could win again ( thats exactly what happened with gore, If gore had Nader's votes he would have won.)
This just means that it is more likely for bush to win with nader running since nader has no actual chance of winning. Would you like to see Bush win another 4 years? Because if you don't you should be against Nader running

So he is running then I assume?

yes unfortunately...

What I'd really like to see is the cycle of; If the dems win the people won't, and if the repos win the people won't.Broken.This is what people mean when they say there vote don't make a differance. What ever happened to the Americen wanting to make a change? at another ten years or so the way things are going there will be no chance to change.Its almost bought and paid for now.I say give Nader a chance.Who cares which party it hurts?--It might wake them up.-----charlie poore

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd think that Bush has paid Nader to help him secure the election!

For some interesting reading on Nader: http://realchange.org/nader.htm

As a steadfast Republican, I think the best thing to do is donate money to his campaign as much as possible.  .

I find it hard to believe that all the people who give money to his organization feel good about all the money he throws down the tubes every fours years.  I'm cool with it, though.  Odds are slim Bush supporters will vote for him.

running for election or not, the next decade will prove Nader to be right on virtually every issue and then America may finally wake up. the perceived kerry/ bush divide is merely one of the color of wallpaper in the background as the corporate fist rages on.

I think it's ridiculous to see all these dems attack Nader. He has done more for Americans then any of the candidates would ever consider. The Dems (of which I am one) keep trying to label him as a spoiler. That is only a sad excuse for a half-ass politician like Gore losing. I probably wouldn't have voted for Gore without Nader. If Kerry wins I won't vote for Kerry even if Nader wasn't running, so what difference does it make.

People who vote for Nader are people who are disenfranchised with politics. I would support Dean or probably Kucinich, I still may support Edwards (unlikely though)

Nader supporters are people who are sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. All of you who complain about him suck it up, and stand for what's right.
It's sad to see so many who are against our freedom.

Yeah just think about it if it were not for Naders interference in the 2000 election, Gore would have won.



Someone should have informed Al that it is just not too smart to stare into the barrel of a gun

The DU kooks are fuming.

Granted, I think it was a sad excuse for Gore losing, but the fact is Gore lost florida by 537 votes, and Nadar got 97,488, and nationally he got 2,882,955.

2000 OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

 

It's funny how those who don't want to vote for Nader are against "freedom." It seems that Nader-supporters believe true freedom is in having the same beliefs as Nader and nobody else. This is why I don't vote for Nader (well just one of the many reasons).

Nader supporters are people who are sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. All of you who complain about him suck it up, and stand for what's right.
It's sad to see so many who are against our freedom.

Nader supporters are people who are sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. All of you who complain about him suck it up, and stand for what's right. It's sad to see so many who are against our freedom.

Here! Here! Ghost Dancer75 !!

"It's sad to see so many who are against our freedom."

It's sad to see any kind of difference in opinion mischaracterized as an attempt to squash freedom.  You lefties like the empty, blanket catchphrases as much as anyone else, dontcha?

I supported Nader in 2000, but ended up trading my vote to someone in Georgia, and voted for Gore in my swing state of Missouri.
There is no way I'm supporting Nader in 2004. I think this change is because I have matured as a voter. (I also like the Democratic alternative better than I ever liked Gore.)

Anyone who supports Nader in 2004 might as well be a republican. In fact, a lot of his supporters probably are Republicans.

If you want to support third-party politics, or independents, start on the local level. A third-party will never break into the two-party system by a decapitation attempt at the presidency, no matter how many times you vote for someone who polls in the single-digits. Nader is no Teddy Roosevelt, and even Roosevelt ran as a Republican before founding his own party.

You certainly have the freedom to vote for Nader, and Nader has the freedom to run. But you're wasting your vote, and Nader, quite frankly, is wasting away any chance for change!