He is relevant in influencing the platforms of the other candidates and keeping them for going even further towards a centerist platform. If you had bothered reading the washington post piece I just posted you would know this.
He had an invitation to watch the debate, not be on the stage yet he was stoppped by police from being allowed in the building because the DNC didn't even want him on the grounds. I've posted this before, too. Guess you didn't bother to read it either.
It is very relevant in having a functional democracy that allows for choice instead of having the 2 main parties run unopposed. They either have to take on some of the issues Nader is or risk losing votes from people like me. That is very much relevant. But saying that Nader cost Gore the election is stupid when there was a libertarian ticket, socialist party ticket and others on the ballot, as well who got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush also. Second, it's just plain anti-democratic to say people were supposed to vote for Gore in the first place despite the fact that they chose not to based on their own beliefs.
the 2 main parties shouldn't run unopposed!?!?!?!?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Why did they sue to keep him off the ballot in 2004 ?? Maybe THEY thought he would be relevant, maybe they wanted him to follow the rules where suing wouldnt be possible?
Was he invited to be on the stage at that debate? If not then he had no business there. Perhaps they felt if he was in the audience he would be a distraction or perhaps cause a commotion such as flinging his poo at the candidates. Must have been quite an honor to be invited by FOX news.
Edit -- the Democrats didnt exclude him from the debates, the SPONSORS did...big difference. http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_16_02.html
So you guys say he had no affect on the Florida vote, you show numbers (up above) that support this contention.... yet you say he was/is relevant to the election. WHICH IS IT ?
disagreeing is not the same thing as elitism
what rules was nader breaking that they had to have a harvard law professor argue the case for them??
here is a clip on it that has been posted several times, not elitist to think you have seen it, just thought since you are arguing it maybe you have done a little more research?
yes, the sponsors, the commision on presidential debates, who own the democrats. it's like w/ the obama donations thing...is there really much of a difference between "exxon-mobil gave X to the dems" and "the execs of exxon-mobil gave X to the dems" ?
no, if not for nader i certainly wouldn't cast my vote for either of the 3. but the fect that they don't take up any platforms that are in tune w/ my beliefs and instead push what their SPONSORS want is what we mean
annnnnnnnd....if there was more of a choice many, many more ppl would vote...but that's one of the least of either parties concern
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
the 2 main parties shouldn't run unopposed!?!?!?!?
:mad:
but they are so good at it!!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,0,1843097.story?,page=1
oh, snap
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
disagreeing is not the same thing as elitism
what rules was nader breaking that they had to have a harvard law professor argue the case for them??
here is a clip on it that has been posted several times, not elitist to think you have seen it, just thought since you are arguing it maybe you have done a little more research?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=loKqri3QOOI
yes, the sponsors, the commision on presidential debates, who own the democrats. it's like w/ the obama donations thing...is there really much of a difference between "exxon-mobil gave X to the dems" and "the execs of exxon-mobil gave X to the dems" ?
no, if not for nader i certainly wouldn't cast my vote for either of the 3. but the fect that they don't take up any platforms that are in tune w/ my beliefs and instead push what their SPONSORS want is what we mean
annnnnnnnd....if there was more of a choice many, many more ppl would vote...but that's one of the least of either parties concern
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way