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?
While I'm voting for brand Y in this election (as opposed to the incumbent. brand X), I would agree. It's NOT right for one side to tell another that they can't be on the ballot.
Now for the expected counter arguement...
It's just as despicable and also unethical for republicans to falsely assert their choice for Nader just to have votes subtracted from their primary opponent.
But I assume the same thing happened when Ross Perot was running.
But I assume the same thing happened when Ross Perot was running.
A Bush reelection then would have been interesting. I figured that had to have at least promised him a cabinet post (Commerce?) or the ambassadorship to the Court of St. James to withdraw "for family reasons."
Please. The Republicans fought to keep Perot out of the 92 and 96 elections. In 96 they even threatened the Democrats that they'd get Nader into the debates if the dems didn't help them keep Perot out (personally I would've liked to see a 4-way debate). So both parties collaborated to keep all 3rd party condidates out of the debates.
This year Republicans are fighting to get Nader on the ballots! (even gathering signatures supporting him) If there's one thing slimier than trying to keep an opponent out, i
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?
Re:democrats (Score:2)
Now for the expected counter arguement...
It's just as despicable and also unethical for republicans to falsely assert their choice for Nader just to have votes subtracted from their primary opponent.
But I assume the same thing happened when Ross Perot was running.
Re:democrats (Score:2)
A Bush reelection then would have been interesting. I figured that had to have at least promised him a cabinet post (Commerce?) or the ambassadorship to the Court of St. James to withdraw "for family reasons."
Re:democrats (Score:1, Insightful)
This year Republicans are fighting to get Nader on the ballots! (even gathering signatures supporting him) If there's one thing slimier than trying to keep an opponent out, i