I find this whole "keep Nader off the ballot" thing by the Democrats despicable... how can anyone justify specifically trying to silence a political view?
If they could get away with it, they'd be trying to take Republicans off the ballot too.
<sarcasm type='liberal arrogance'> After all, all *intelligent* people vote Democrat anyway, so we shouldn't need all these confusing choices. </sarcasm>
Hey, all Nader had to do was get enough petitions signed in each state. He didn't. Regardless of what the Democrats think, say, or do, if enough people were in favor of Nader, he'd be on the ballot in 50 states, hands down.
It's easy to blame things on parties or liberals or conservatives, but sometimes a rose is just a rose. Nader didn't get enough signatures. He loses. That's it.
Well, considering that there were people getting into "collection" activities for Nader, only to later find out these same jokers were PURPOSELY "collecting" bogus signatures....yeah, I'd say that there were people actively trying to keep him off the ballot.
Getting someone on a ballot isn't playing dirty. Forcing them off a ballot is. Perot, Nader, LaRouche, whoever... doesn't matter. If these same groups could keep Bush off the ballot the same way, they would.
If conservatives were doing this to a liberal candidate, people would be screaming bloody murder. Same old far-left tactic.... Supress the voice of the people you don't agree with.
A policital party working to get another party's candidate on the ballot, simply to weaken their main opposition, is playing dirty. Trying to take someone off the ballot because they will weaken your position is equally dirty.
If conservatives were doing this to a liberal candidate, people would be screaming bloody murder. Same old far-left tactic.... Supress the voice of the people you don't agree with.
Swap liberal and conservative, change left to right. It's simple to make baseless attacks, isn't it?
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.
-- Peer
democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
If they could get away with it, they'd be trying to take Republicans off the ballot too.
<sarcasm type='liberal arrogance'> After all, all *intelligent* people vote Democrat anyway, so we shouldn't need all these confusing choices. </sarcasm>
Re:democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
It's easy to blame things on parties or liberals or conservatives, but sometimes a rose is just a rose. Nader didn't get enough signatures. He loses. That's it.
Re:democrats (Score:2)
Re:democrats (Score:2)
Re:democrats (Score:1, Flamebait)
Getting someone on a ballot isn't playing dirty. Forcing them off a ballot is. Perot, Nader, LaRouche, whoever... doesn't matter. If these same groups could keep Bush off the ballot the same way, they would.
If conservatives were doing this to a liberal candidate, people would be screaming bloody murder. Same old far-left tactic.... Supress the voice of the people you don't agree with.
Re:democrats (Score:2)
If conservatives were doing this to a liberal candidate, people would be screaming bloody murder. Same old far-left tactic.... Supress the voice of the people you don't agree with.
Swap liberal and conservative, change left to right. It's simple to make baseless attacks, isn't it?