Be a Supporter!

Poor Ralph Nader.

  • 1,455 Views
  • 47 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
snayk
snayk
  • Member since: Feb. 15, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Musician
Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-02 22:42:55 Reply

He's got nothing.

RedSkunk
RedSkunk
  • Member since: Sep. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Writer
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-02 22:53:04 Reply

I would of cared in '92, '96, or '00. In fact, that's how long my household has supported and voted for Nader.

This election is too important for Nader, however.


The one thing force produces is resistance.

BBS Signature
snayk
snayk
  • Member since: Feb. 15, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Musician
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-02 23:16:41 Reply

At 11/2/04 10:53 PM, red_skunk wrote: This election is too important for Nader, however.

Well, it's not like I was going to vote anyway (being a 16 year old Canadian - though I have dual citizenship meaning I am American as well).

Ralph Nader is a joke.

Poor Ralph Nader.

FUNKbrs
FUNKbrs
  • Member since: Oct. 28, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-02 23:17:44 Reply

HEY! I voted for Nader, fuckers!


My band Sin City ScoundrelsOur song Vixen of Doom
HATE.
Because 2,000 years of "For God so loved the world" doesn't trump 1.2 million years of "Survival of the Fittest."

snayk
snayk
  • Member since: Feb. 15, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Musician
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-02 23:19:30 Reply

At 11/2/04 11:17 PM, DrunkenFUNKen wrote: HEY! I voted for Nader, fuckers!

If I could have voted, I would have voted for him as well.

RedSkunk
RedSkunk
  • Member since: Sep. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Writer
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-02 23:34:39 Reply

You call him a joke, and then say you would of voted for him five minutes later?


The one thing force produces is resistance.

BBS Signature
GooieGreen
GooieGreen
  • Member since: May. 3, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-02 23:36:18 Reply

At 11/2/04 11:16 PM, snayk wrote: Ralph Nader is a joke.

This would be true

At 11/2/04 11:17 PM, DrunkenFUNKen wrote: HEY! I voted for Nader, fuckers!

I'm glad you wasted your vote on a sure thing.

Couldn't we paint his face to look like a clown? I think it would look good.

snayk
snayk
  • Member since: Feb. 15, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Musician
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-02 23:40:29 Reply

At 11/2/04 11:34 PM, red_skunk wrote: You call him a joke, and then say you would of voted for him five minutes later?

I would have voted for him because he is a joke. He makes me laugh.

AdamSessler
AdamSessler
  • Member since: Nov. 1, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-02 23:51:44 Reply

At 11/2/04 10:42 PM, snayk wrote: He's got nothing.

Well, that stoner deserves it. >:(

witeshark
witeshark
  • Member since: Feb. 25, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 00:43:36 Reply

In a way we can argue that he is a better leader. But no one can take that past the fact that he cannot collect the votes to be a meaningful candidate

SeizureDog
SeizureDog
  • Member since: Sep. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 01:22:21 Reply

Green party kicks ass. I wish it would become a more viable option instead of an *ahem* throw away vote.

witeshark
witeshark
  • Member since: Feb. 25, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 01:33:53 Reply

Yeah too bad all we have is

Poor Ralph Nader.

Oro
Oro
  • Member since: Mar. 23, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 02:03:04 Reply

Hehehe. 0 Electoral Votes for Nader! Who would have thunk it

GooieGreen
GooieGreen
  • Member since: May. 3, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 06:06:37 Reply

At 11/3/04 02:03 AM, Orodreth wrote: Hehehe. 0 Electoral Votes for Nader! Who would have thunk it

I thought he'd get Florida, too...

bambi-206
bambi-206
  • Member since: Nov. 2, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 07:17:45 Reply

I kinda feel sorry for you Americans, having basically a two teir system. Limited choice, crappy candidates. Isn't it kind of ironic that the leftist Democrats are madder at Nader than the Bush camp? Perhaps if people didn't think that they HAD to vote for either Bush or Kerry, then maybe Nader (who wants to create a good, sustainable, inhabitable world for our younger generation, which is, make no mistake, no joke) would stand a chance to do some actual politicing...

bambi-206
bambi-206
  • Member since: Nov. 2, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 07:20:00 Reply

Umm, wasn't the Honorable George W. Bush like all into cocaine and alcohol until he "found God"?

BAWLS
BAWLS
  • Member since: Apr. 18, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 07:21:31 Reply

At 11/3/04 07:17 AM, bambi_206 wrote: Isn't it kind of ironic that the leftist Democrats are madder at Nader than the Bush camp?

Um no. Not really. They've only brought up Ralph Nader when the news networks asked them too.

DrkBlueXG
DrkBlueXG
  • Member since: Mar. 24, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 07:48:30 Reply

Ralph Nader is, IMO, the best choice to be the president.

Jack-Lost
Jack-Lost
  • Member since: Feb. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 10:58:21 Reply

At 11/2/04 10:42 PM, snayk wrote: He's got nothing.

Don't worry about Nader he'll be back next election and the next election, he'll keep running till the earth explodes....And I think it is a good thing he isn't getting a lot of votes, even though I agree with him on a lot of his views, but this election cannot be a thrid party election. GO NADER!!!

BigBoulette
BigBoulette
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2000
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 16:46:31 Reply

You say poor Ralph Nader, but does anyone know that there was a 4th party? The libertarian party, with... err... what was his name?

swive
swive
  • Member since: Aug. 30, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 16:49:27 Reply

Ralph Nader is going to die soon. Don't worry.

InsaneWarlord
InsaneWarlord
  • Member since: Apr. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 16:51:45 Reply

Badnarik.

Kev-o
Kev-o
  • Member since: May. 8, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 17:37:51 Reply

At 11/2/04 11:51 PM, Mrs_Mom wrote:

Well, that stoner deserves it. >:(

Fuck you, stupid noob. Ralph Nader has very good beleifs, Im sure he would win if he ran as the Democratic canidate. He want's to change America, and it's people like you who fuck it all up.


"We anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves."-Errico Malatesta

BBS Signature
RedSkunk
RedSkunk
  • Member since: Sep. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Writer
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 17:54:43 Reply

At 11/3/04 05:53 PM, MuyBurrito wrote: The Green Party's main objective (currently) is to get at least 5% of the US popular vote so they will have governmental funding for the next election.

Nader didn't run on the Green platform, my dim-witted friend.


The one thing force produces is resistance.

BBS Signature
subpar
subpar
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 18:01:01 Reply

Ralph Nader got 1%. That's more than any other third party can say this year.

If I were older I would have voted for Nader, for the sake of breaking the two-party system that is ruining our country. Switching between Republican and Democrat isn't enough.


I am not responsible for the content of the post above.

BBS Signature
RedSkunk
RedSkunk
  • Member since: Sep. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Writer
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-03 18:06:28 Reply

At 11/3/04 05:58 PM, MuyBurrito wrote: meh.

It's ok, honey.

At 11/3/04 06:01 PM, subpar wrote: If I were older I would have voted for Nader, for the sake of breaking the two-party system that is ruining our country.

And please tell me how getting 1% of the vote, and no electoral votes, "breaks" the two-party system?


The one thing force produces is resistance.

BBS Signature
bambi-206
bambi-206
  • Member since: Nov. 2, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-05 02:19:36 Reply

I don't think that is what our young friend intended. 1% certainly isn't enough to break the two teir system, but next time it might be 4%, then 6%, then 8%, then 11%, and so on until the Green Party is actually considered a viable choice. If millions of people voted for Nader, that in itself should send a message to the administration that not everyone agrees, and they shouldn't act so strongly without considering the "special interests" of a large chuck of its population...

bambi-206
bambi-206
  • Member since: Nov. 2, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-05 02:23:49 Reply

Quite right, they didn't allow him to run as a Green Party candidate, they forced him to run as an independent (where's the freedom in that?), because they wanted to keep him out of the Presidential debates (now, why he'd want to be at those petty name-calling sessions, I don't know...).

RedSkunk
RedSkunk
  • Member since: Sep. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Writer
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-05 10:14:06 Reply

At 11/5/04 02:23 AM, bambi_206 wrote: Quite right, they didn't allow him to run as a Green Party candidate, they forced him to run as an independent (where's the freedom in that?),

The Green Party can choose who to run as their candidate. It's their party, their choice.

because they wanted to keep him out of the Presidential debates (now, why he'd want to be at those petty name-calling sessions, I don't know...).

What are you, stupid? The Green candidate got arrested doing civil disobedience because he wasn't allowed into the debates. Whether or not the Green candidate had access to the debates had nothing to do with how Nader ran. Nader wanted to run in every state, while the Greens wanted to pursue a safe state strategy.


The one thing force produces is resistance.

BBS Signature
scramlaz
scramlaz
  • Member since: Dec. 20, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Poor Ralph Nader. 2004-11-05 17:30:23 Reply

Did Nader ever actually conceed in the election yet? It could in theory be possible for the electors to vote for him if he hasn't yet. Which, in theory, could mean Nader could, in theory, win. I'm not sure if I should be hopeful or appauled.