What is Digg?197 Comments
- inactive, on 11/06/2007, -11/+76Although I haven't seen the evidence that Nader has furnished, I suspect quite strongly that he has enough to win in a fair trial. Both major parties have played dirty tricks to keep independents and other parties off the ballot through the years, and the Dems do fear Nader's pull in a tight election.
- inactive, on 11/06/2007, -15/+76...trying to rig the election you mean. Man, those dems can't finish doing anything.
- inactive, on 11/07/2007, -12/+32I have to laugh.
This type of thing has been going on for a very long time. I have watched as the Republicans in Oklahoma changed the rules to deny ballot access for Libertarians and others. I have seen the political machines from both the R&D parties and their friends in the media try to decide for America which was the lesser of the two evils they brought forth for us to vote on.
I have been a supporter of the Libertarian Party for years and hope to see the day when the majority in Congress are Libertarians.
Ralph has a fortune tucked away from his book sales and speaking tours and his life is not dependent on the value of our dollar or the state of our politics.
We are seeing the same things all over the world from failing governments and failing policies. They have fuel shortages in Iran and China that have led to unrest in both places and there's no end in sight.
Here in the States we have watched the price of fuel increase faster than out ability to pay for it. The dollars in the bank have lost value. Banks are closing because of their loan practices and we bail them out through the FDIC.
The Dems have sunk to new lows in trying to rig elections. In the last election the Democrats in one state slashed the tires of the minivans the Republicans had planned to use to ferry voters.
From small to large we have definitely been victims of the dirty tricks of the D&R gang. - hockachu, on 11/03/2007, -4/+21The Dems cost the Dems the election. The only reason anyone voted for Nader is because the Dems were no appealing enough.
- natedouglas, on 11/10/2007, -6/+23I don't always agree with Nader, but there's no doubt in my mind that he's absolutely right.
***** the two-party system. - BigManOnCampus, on 11/08/2007, -8/+23These posts are proof positive enough to me why there is no longer any compromise in America. Everyone simply blames third party candidates for screwing with "their" candidates chances of victory instead of accepting that those third party candidates are speaking for a large portion of the American people. Given that people will follow these third party candidates, it makes far far far more sense to ACTUALLY LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY and try to reach compromises to please those people than to blame them and the people who voted for them.
Jesus Christ, you people are still arguing about bullsh*t that happened nearly 7 years ago now. Instead of accepting that people feel differently from you, you still hang onto your own feelings of being slighted by a 3rd party candidate.
Noone listens to anyone else in this country anymore, everyone just hears the ***** that the news organizations spew out and they become f-ing sounding boards for whatever talking-points are in-vogue. God Damn all of you, every last one of you, who would hang on every word of your favorite talking-head instead of stopping and listening to what other people think about this country. ***** all of you, it is YOU who are ruining this country. - Scumbunny, on 11/03/2007, -8/+21I'm a Republican, and even I know Democrats have no monopoly on corruption, cowardice, and allegiance to money and special interests. The majority are career politicians with only one interest in mind: Themselves. One would hope you're not just a Rush-blo Bush-bot and that you do read more than Wikipedia and watch YouTube.
- inactive, on 11/03/2007, -13/+26He totally cost them the 2000 election with even the small amount he got in Florida. It'd funny because Perot probably cost Bush Sr. the election. If I remember correctly didnt he pull something like 10% of the vote in certain states that then went to Clinton?
- tehnico, on 11/06/2007, -6/+19Can you expand on what you mean by selfish and irresponsible?
- reed311, on 11/06/2007, -4/+17The Democrats and Republicans make me want to Ralph.
- whatthefu, on 11/02/2007, -3/+15Both parties are so lame when it comes to elections. They both try to find loopholes so they can "rig" elections without technically breaking any rules. I hate it.
- NoStoppingUs, on 11/02/2007, -5/+16ha. very true. my bad!
- cattleprod, on 11/08/2007, -20/+31God Bless You Ralph! The Dems and Republicans should not have a monopoly on elections. Screw Diebold! Google Hacking Democracy.
- theblooms, on 11/02/2007, -11/+21"...Perot probably cost Bush Sr. the election."
Possibly. Bubba never received a majority of the votes in either election, his best showing was '96 when he garnered 49%. That said, please remember that the popular vote means NOTHING. The Founding Fathers wisely set up a system where small states could be protected from being dominated by the politics of big states. The Electoral College works, and works well. - cranium, on 11/07/2007, -2/+12The dems shouldn't have nominated Al Gore if they wanted a decisive victory.
- Ghazi, on 11/07/2007, -0/+9George Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 543 votes. BUT:
- 12% of Florida's registered democrats (over 200,000 of them) actually voted for Bush (according to San Francisco Chronicle - Nov. 9, 2000)
- If 1% of those stuck with their party's candidate and voted for Gore, he would've won.
Of course it's easier for the democratic party to scapegoat Nader instead of admitting their own shortcomings. - OverlordXenu, on 11/02/2007, -5/+14I love Ralph Nader. I can't decide who I should write-in next year, him, Ron Paul, or Stephen Colbert.
- yyzken, on 11/02/2007, -2/+11We need more than two parties. Period.
- Anub1s, on 11/03/2007, -5/+14Is it just me or was this idiots tirade nearly impossible to read for anyone else?
- slashbot, on 11/06/2007, -5/+14hahaha, so true.
The party of choices has a history of working to limit them. Go Nader - Fragowell, on 11/02/2007, -2/+10If you were able to communicate in a less hostile, more educated manner, you'd have a better chance of convincing people of something. Right now, you're at about zero percent.
- yutt, on 11/02/2007, -2/+10So you are saying people should vote for a candidate they do not want in office (Gore), over a candidate they do want in office (Nader).
Only in America. - yutt, on 11/06/2007, -5/+13I believe he means purist libertarianism (especially unregulated capitalism) is inherently selfish. Which it is. It is personal freedom at the expense of the less fortunate. It rewards the lucky, and leaves the unlucky to beg for handouts.
I have libertarian leanings myself, but that's just the reality of it. - MoClippa, on 11/02/2007, -1/+9I don't like Bush either... but being angry at a person for simply running in a democratic race is... well.. undemocratic of you. On the other hand I see your point, but would argue that its the system that is flawed, not the candidate.
- ChaosMotor, on 11/02/2007, -5/+13Maybe the Bush fiasco and the Dem's inaction can put a sword through both parties' evil hearts - which, seeing as how they are a two-headed snake and truly the same party (that of totalitarian pathocratic fascism), can be struck in a single blow.
Kill the parties! They help no American! A vote for someone you truly support is never wasted. A vote "against" someone else, a vote for the "least bad" choice is ALWAYS WASTED. - Stryder81, on 11/02/2007, -5/+13O Man is this some *****. Ralph Nader doesn't need the attention you knuckle heads, this man represents every hard working man in this country. I hope there's alot of light onto this.
- 5urr3al5am, on 11/03/2007, -8/+16I think Nader is doing the right thing here... lets just see if this story actually hits the news media or gets squashed
- sycrim, on 11/02/2007, -4/+12Perhaps they meant "Democratic Party"?
- satanatnmtedu, on 11/02/2007, -10/+17If he really had a case, then why wait until now? This is just Ralph grandstanding.
- johndi, on 11/07/2007, -3/+9In other words... . "We large staters understand that we needed you small states to form the country, but we don't care about you anymore. We would like to renege on our agreement, and are willing to use unconstitutional backdoor means to do it. No you aren't allowed to leave, it is our intent to dominate you."
- horatiolust, on 11/03/2007, -1/+7True, given that the Nobel Peace Prize is a totally political award, and what Gore and the UN Committee did has nothing to do with war and peace
- pintomp3, on 11/07/2007, -16/+22nader didn't screw up the elections, diebold, katherine harris, and illegal voter block lists did. despite all that, gore still won. gwb was selected by his dad's friends on the supreme court.
- ettin, on 11/02/2007, -1/+7Vote for the one with the most integrity. Thats all that matters in the end.
- dunderballer, on 11/02/2007, -2/+8I hope we see several third party candidates for this election. And not only liberal 3rd parties--the Christian right is considering running their own candidate. There is another "Republican" that said he wouldn't run as a third party candidate, but I am hoping he would change his mind. ;-)
- Troika37, on 11/03/2007, -0/+6I guess you missed the part about ACORN pleading guilty in the largest case of voter fraud ever... By the way, they worked for the Dems...
- Rizaus, on 11/08/2007, -3/+9Are you people so sure of this? Whos to say the people who voted Nader would have even voted if he wasn't running?
- bfcnet, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6This is the way politics has worked in this country for hundreds of years. The only difference is that Nader can't hire a thug army to take on the Dems' thug army like he might have if this were the 1800's. He has to sue and good luck with that.
- Firehed, on 11/02/2007, -2/+7Only in America do we sue each other over rigged elections rather than take it to court. You're supposed to be arrested for those kind of shenanigans, not fined.
- inactive, on 11/03/2007, -14/+19Isnt it this "the ends justifies the means" attitude what the article is talking about. Figures you're a democrate. Our rights wont be taken by neo-con strong arming us but liberals telling us it's for our own good or worse for teh children.
Funny, isn't "What about the children!?" what the religious fanatics on "The Simpsons" is always yelling now it's Nancy Pelosi mantra. - DanOnTheMoon, on 11/02/2007, -4/+9Maybe the Republicrats will get sued by Ron Paul for muscling him out - It'd be really nice to see the major networks give him equal time.
Anyone notice how they kept silencing Kucinich on last night's debates? - Beatmiser, on 11/03/2007, -2/+6It's been plaguing me a lot lately, the thought that our government has essentially been taken out of our control. When groups like Diebold promise the election to a President...or Katherine Harris does the same -and we all know it-. And the proof of popular vote isn't enough to win an election "We the People" just take it with our thumbs up our asses. I know i'm a little inarticulate on my feelings about this, sufficed to say there is just this overwhelming feeling of more bad times ahead until we Americans take back our rights and as a populace assert our will on the government that is meant to protect us and listen to our interests.
The Republic is broken. Much as I dislike Nader, at least he is trying. - Haohmaru, on 11/02/2007, -4/+8Vote For Nader! It's just like not voting!
- cranium, on 11/12/2007, -5/+9Democrats should have nominated someone more reasonable, they made the same ***** mistake twice and you want to blame it on Nader?
- 5urr3al5am, on 11/01/2007, -4/+8It makes perfect sense, Democrats are frauds and he wants voters to remember it when voting...
- TeatimeGrommit, on 11/07/2007, -3/+7Um, the point wasn't to make cars be made out of foam and plush and go 5 mph. The point was to reduce pedestrian impaling deaths and crumpled human bodies being pried out of otherwise barely damaged steel death traps. This was done and now we consider it a freak accident if someone dies in a less than 40 mph / 60 kph collision.
- bamapachyderm, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3It figures people would digg down such a true statement.
- yutt, on 11/06/2007, -2/+5Except motivation or lack of motivation have nothing to do with it, I was completely accurate in my assessment, and you are ignorant and denying reality.
Paris Hilton is rich because she is motivated, skilled and intelligent? No. Equal effort or talent has little or nothing to do with wealth accumulation in the United States. - ZenMojo, on 11/02/2007, -1/+4If by motivated you mean "entitled by birth," then yeah. Good for them.
- cranium, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Clearly, Nader has a vendetta against the democratic party for being too centrist, and is punishing them accordingly. Ironically, if the democrats would have nominated more of a centrist instead of Kerry or Gore, they would have won hands down because of the swing voters.
- bamapachyderm, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3@yutt: Thank you for the Paris Hilton example. Nail, head.
MrWhite: Careful how much you take for granted, Junior. Life can deal even the most motivated, ambitious people some strange twists. Sounds to me like you need to walk a mile in someone else's shoes for a bit. But that's OK, you'll grow out of that Libertarian utopianism when you get older and have lived life a little. (Unless you're ***** crazy like older Libertarians.) -
Show 51 - 100 of 194 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is