digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Ralph Nader Sues Democrat Party For Rigging Election!

breitbart.com — Consumer advocate and 2004 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party on Tuesday, contending officials conspired to keep him from taking votes away from nominee John Kerry.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Rich711, on 11/06/2007, -15/+76...trying to rig the election you mean. Man, those dems can't finish doing anything.
    • NoStoppingUs, on 11/02/2007, -5/+16ha. very true. my bad!
    • 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
      • NotAllThat, on 11/05/2007, -1/+0Well.. think about it. Who controls most media? Liberals.

        It's squashed already.
    • OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 11/07/2007, -10/+5hopefully this lawsuit will get somewhere in time for the GOP to stop screwing ron paul
  • InRussetShadows, 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.
    • Rich711, 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?
      • 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.
        • fnaqzna, on 11/02/2007, -10/+11Spoken like a small stater.
          • 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."
          • fnaqzna, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2More like... "We large staters are offended that our presidential votes carry less weight per person than those cast by small staters."

            FWIW... the states can allocate their electoral votes in any way they please. It's not a Constitutional issue.
        • plainOldFool, on 11/01/2007, -4/+4maybe so, but even small staters should have a voice (and I am from Jersey)
          • s1mph0ny, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2Jersey IS a small state.
          • theblooms, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Physically, yes, population wise, which is what we are talking about here, with it's 15 Electoral Votes, it is NOT a small state. It is actually one of the biggest states in the Union.
        • Ekdog, on 11/07/2007, -5/+1"The Electoral College works, and works well."

          Really? Look at the crew we've got in the White House in spite of the fact that the majority of the American people have voted against them not once but twice.
          • Troika37, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2Um.. I guess you missed the part about Bush 43 receiving the first majority popular vote in 80 years...
      • 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.
      • ISIfunded911, on 11/01/2007, -8/+10The 2000 election was totally stolen by the criminal Bush family.
        But obviously you do not know that because you are a dumbass incapable of informing himself about what is really going on in his own ***** country.
        You are merely repeating the crap shot in your stupid brain by the evil manipulative people who control TV, and by the corrupt democratic party (except Kucinich and Gravel).
        Just type ELECTIONS in emule, download all the documentaries about election fraud. It is high time you educated yourself.
        Or type election fraud in googlevideo. Or do a search about the BBC investigative journalist Greg Palast who proved in 2000 that Jeb Bush canceled tens of thousands of black votes in Florida (censored by all the corporate media in the US, and by the stupid TV that brainwashed you into an pathetic digger). Or go regularly on www.blackboxvoting.org
        • Fragowell, on 11/01/2007, -2/+1And huzzah for digg double posts.
        • 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.
          • jcims, on 11/01/2007, -3/+4I'd say it's actually less than zero, how could someone with a rational thought process share this bile geyser's opinion? Makes me think the opposing position might have a more sane populace.
          • ISIfunded911, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2In a democracy, the failure to inform oneself about a massive election fraud that turned your country into a de facto dictatorship is equivalent to passive complicity in a huge crime. Hundreds of thousands of human beings died in Iraq and Afghanistan because people passively watched TV instead of revolting against the Bush crime family that was stealing the election. The Consitution is being destroyed because of people like Rich711 who are still blaming Nader instead of blaming themselves. This country is becoming a police state because of people like him. This administration fought against all the international policies to stop the increase of the greenhouse effect because of people like him. And you say I should be nice and polite with people like him. He deserves to feel some anger.
          • bluto36, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1so did you revolt or hide behind your keyboard and watch TV? yep game set match
        • hiikeeba, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Don't feel too superior, do you?
    • cattleprod, on 11/01/2007, -8/+3well said.
    • horatiolust, on 11/01/2007, -8/+9All Gore had to do was win his home state of Tennessee and he would have been President.
      What a frackin' loser
      • amoirae, on 11/01/2007, -8/+3Yeah... only *losers* win a Nobel Prize.
        • 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
        • hiikeeba, on 11/01/2007, -3/+2And real statesmen win Oscars.
        • bamapachyderm, on 11/01/2007, -1/+3Two words: Yasser Arafat.
      • Troika37, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Yes, the Nobel is indicative of such great things. Remind me again how many factual errors are contained in his film (for which he won the PEACE prize, by the way. Make that make sense to me.)
      • blakinc, on 11/02/2007, -0/+0Ah, but Gore did give us the Internet. Without him, this forum wouldn't exist.
    • sphira, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1Essentially, as I understand it, what the Democratic party did was challenge every single petition signature Ralph obtained as a requirement for getting on the ballot in almost every state if not every state.

      States require a certain number or percentage of residents to sign a petition asking the state to place the name of the "non top tier party" (neither Republican/Democratic) candidate on the ballot.

      Everyone else (if you are not a Republican or Democrat) must get these signatures for access to the ballot.

      Usually 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands of signatures are required.

      The Democratic party challenged Nader's petitions, and in many cases each individual signature on the petition, effectively keeping Nader off the ballot in several states and forcing Nader to spend oodles of contribution money on legal fees and responses.

      Do you think that is right? Is it not a testament to the party's (either of them) dedication to free and fair elections?

      Now if you who commented above are proud that you only want Democrats and Republicans on the ballot then so be it. However, if you think that voting for either of the two (Republicans or Democrats) or only having the choice of the two is worse than, and more of a concern than all the petty social issues they keep people fighting about then vote Ron Paul. Incidentally, all those petty issues are quite dependent on the lock on power of these two monsters.

      Paul is the only option that is an option. The only one not sworn by blood to these two parties like all the other candidates. Paul has a dark horse chance if the election is fair. And brother, you better take that chance while it is here because it could be the last real chance for a long time.
  • daddynichol, on 11/07/2007, -33/+29I'm waiting Ralph to kick the bucket, then rise from the dead to sue the funeral business. Says Nader, "These caskets are deadly at any depth! Not only that, they need lights!"
    • Navigator7, on 11/07/2007, -17/+12LOL.....THAT WAS FUNNY!
      Worth the price of admission.
      I can't believe with all the Nader BS added to cars these days people still have wrecks and get injured and killed.
      If it were me back in the 60's.....I'da made sure people knew how to drive >before< they got behind the wheel of ***** corvair. Now, they pass out drivers licenses to illegal aliens like they were voter cards.

      • 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.
        • Navigator7, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2I believe Nader's efforts was a patch.
          Driver's licenses are passed out like bubble gum but the car makers are forced to pay for it all by government ant not by free market.
          Driving is a privilege not a right. It's a privilege in a constant state of abuse allowed buy the liberals for a vote.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 11/07/2007, -4/+6Don't forget those "death bells". Of course, if you are embalmed, then you are definitely dead.
    • sphira, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Funny,but there was once a time in the era after the Corvair that Ralph was your guy.

      Libs eat their own it is said. and that certainly seems to be true here.

      What is telling about Libs is when they have nothing important or on point to say, they resort to ridicule.
  • 13tongimp, on 11/08/2007, -50/+20The Democratic party should sue Nader for ***** up the 2000 elections and screwing over the entire nation by helping George W. Bush get elected.
    • Rich711, 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.
    • 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.
      • art42, on 11/03/2007, -14/+4Wonder why Nader hasn't sued the rethugicon party for ELECTION FRAUD...
        GregPalast.com
        BradBlog.com
      • 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...
    • cranium, on 11/07/2007, -2/+12The dems shouldn't have nominated Al Gore if they wanted a decisive victory.
      • mwolfzorn, on 11/03/2007, -1/+4Who else would have been a good nominee? The Vice President is usually a good bet.
      • scott2007, on 11/03/2007, -5/+2Yeah, Al Gore was such a terrible choice compared to Bush.

    • scott2007, on 11/08/2007, -7/+4It wasn't Nader's fault all the far-left nimrods screwed over Gore and gave the country to Bush. Nice going, folks!

      "Ironic" is too weak of a word for this.
    • 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.
  • 09vette, on 11/08/2007, -37/+18You dum fux just will not get over it-even the NYT did a recount and Bush won. Can you imagine mr. nobel pissing himself when the towers came down. Dems have lost the argument-11% approval rating in congress-you should be ashamed of yourself. Newt's army kept over 55% approval for years after slappin' the dem's butts in 94'. It's gonna happen again. You butt-heads had your chance and YOU f----d it up. Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy, Durbin, Kerry, Clinton, Schummer, Clinton, Carter, Edwards, Biden, ad-nauseum-the worst examples of Americans that could possibly be on center stage...corrupt to the core, filthy, cowardly, traitorous democRATS.
  • crazywarthog, on 11/08/2007, -19/+17I'll never trust a democrat again ! This is just shameful !!!
  • coltrane68, on 11/08/2007, -26/+16One more piece of evidence that Nader is an ass.
  • 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.
    • ClosedCaption, on 11/01/2007, -4/+5I think there needs to be more options. But dont pretend that Ralph has done anything over the years exceept peek his head out every election season. Has he tried to develop a third party off season? Has he brought canidates to ANY races that are third party? Has he done anything to make a third party successful or even a reality? The answer to all those is NO! Hes a fraud. Period.
    • Haohmaru, on 11/02/2007, -4/+8Vote For Nader! It's just like not voting!
    • bamapachyderm, on 11/02/2007, -1/+3I hate to break it to everyone enchanted with third-party politics, but even Teddy Roosevelt, who IS on Mount Rushmore (IOW, not a footnote President like some) and was a popular President, couldn't get back the WH after starting a third party. The two-party dominance is not new, and is not indicative of some current problem. And really, if most Americans wanted a competitive third (or fourth) party, we'd have one (or more). There's a reason why the Greens and Libertarians (and others) are still irrelevant except at the local level--it's because most people simply don't agree with their platforms.
      ("Most people" != "digg users.")
    • sphira, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Cattleprod is correct!

      You all have been brainwashed to defeat yourselves.

      Think about it!
  • MadJayhawk, on 11/08/2007, -21/+12Ralph Nader deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. The Democrats should have asked the auto industry about p***ing Ralph off. First, greedy HIllary taking $2,300 donations from poor Chinese dishwashers and now this. Which is the party of corruption now? They had to get Ralph out of the way or they didn't have a chance to win. I am just surprised he wasn't whacked.
  • irvman21, on 11/08/2007, -31/+12Bush would never have won Florida in 2000 if Nader wasn't running for the sake of his own ego.
    • EXreaction, on 11/08/2007, -8/+5Bush could have lost in every state and he would still have gotten in...
    • 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?
      • elvisjulep, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1I am absolutely positive that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000 (not some lie about election rigging). I am also positive that Perot cost Bush the election in 1992 and at least had an impact on Dole in 1996. I think Clinton wins 1996 with or without Perot, but he never would have been the incumbent without Ross in the first place. People forget that GHWB was ahead in the polls until Perot dropped out then re-entered.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 11/08/2007, -5/+4Yea, so this whole "free country" thing isn't really your cup of tea huh?
  • cashman57, 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.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 11/06/2007, -18/+15I can't laugh about your statements because they are so wrong headed. The Libertarian point of view is the most selfish and irresponsible point of view possible. As a Liberal, I would vote for a Republican (not Ron Paul) before I would ever vote for a Libertarian.
      • tehnico, on 11/06/2007, -6/+19Can you expand on what you mean by selfish and irresponsible?
        • cranium, on 11/03/2007, -13/+6Who the ***** cares what he means, he's an idiot.
        • 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.
        • MrWhite7, on 11/06/2007, -6/+4replace lucky with motivated and unlucky with unmotivated and your're correct.
          • 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.
          • 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.)
        • ZenMojo, on 11/02/2007, -1/+4If by motivated you mean "entitled by birth," then yeah. Good for them.
      • bamapachyderm, on 11/07/2007, -1/+3As a conservative, I would vote for Hillary or almost any of the Dems before I'd vote for Ron Paul. (I can't believe I said that.)
        • COINTELPROAgent, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2Don't worry, it won't come to that.
  • carterbaldwin, on 11/07/2007, -22/+9Oh Nader, how far you have fallen. This kind of stunt is just pathetic.
  • 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.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 11/08/2007, -13/+5Look at Ralph's actions, then come back and complain about the two major parties. If Ralph tried to disrupt the last two elections, and we got GWB both times. To me, I would rather have had Gore or Kerry in the White House than Bush. Hence, Nader ***** it up for everyone. And, if you voted for a third party candidate, then you helped ***** us up. Thanks.
      • 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?
    • ClosedCaption, on 11/07/2007, -4/+4Please tell what has Nader done to bring about a viable third party? Jumping in every fourth year isnt how you build a base or a party. What on earth has he done?
      • BigManOnCampus, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3That's a completely separate issue. The fact is that people *actually wanted to vote for Nader*, please read that again so it sinks in. People WANTED TO VOTE FOR NADER. That means that candidates who wanted to capture his votes should have listened to what he was saying and what his followers were looking for and compromised enough to sway people. That didn't happen.
    • bamapachyderm, on 11/07/2007, -2/+2Shorter BMOC: ***** you, I hate everyone because they don't share my political views!!!
      • BigManOnCampus, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1No, I just hate people that hate half of everyone else's political views. Which because people don't engage their brain or ears and simply let their mouth run when discussing politics, tends to be most of America.
    • kermit4karate, on 11/04/2007, -0/+2Everyone here isn't blaming third-party candidates for anything, at least I'm not. I have no problem with the notion of a third party or a third party candidate, but we're talking about Ralph Nader here. How many times does someone have to run for president pulling 2-3% of the vote before they realize that Americans just don't like them enough to be president??

      Nader and the Nader-ites have long hid behind arguments for/against a third party. I'm sorry, but they're missing the real problem. When people vote, they're casting a vote for an individual, not for some nebulous concept known as a "third party," and if the candidate doesn't have what it takes to appeal to enough voters, no amount of whining about third parties is going to change that.

      If Ralph Nader truly cared about a viable third party in America he would have stepped aside years ago and worked diligently to find a better candidate to support than he himself has proven to be.
      • Reci, on 11/16/2007, -0/+0That is the view of a lot of party line democrats: 2-3% of America is not important. Well Kermit 2% constitutes about 5 million people. I would say that is a lot. A couple hundred people could be construed as insignificant but millions! They do not vote for just the third party they vote for Naders stance on topics.
        Those 5 million people are a lot better read on their candidates that you party line koolaid drinkers.
  • satanatnmtedu, on 11/02/2007, -10/+17If he really had a case, then why wait until now? This is just Ralph grandstanding.
    • ferrariman60, on 11/01/2007, -3/+5Isn't that all ralph has ever done?
    • 5urr3al5am, on 11/01/2007, -4/+8It makes perfect sense, Democrats are frauds and he wants voters to remember it when voting...
      • Btzarro, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2And republican are sexually abused inbreds.
    • MorganMghee, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1because information that came to light in the bonusgate scandal provided the final details and facts to prove his case. it came out a couple months ago, and I'm sure it took some time to dig through the info and make the case.
  • 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.
    • Reci, on 11/16/2007, -0/+0Thank you. I will not vote for someone that goes into office with corporate interests in mind even if they call themselves Democrats and claim they are progressive. Actions speak louder than words.
  • 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.
  • alanr19, on 11/01/2007, -20/+3Hey Nader, STOP CRYING YOU LOSER
  • sycrim, on 11/02/2007, -4/+12Perhaps they meant "Democratic Party"?
    • houndeyex, on 11/01/2007, -4/+2Or it was a party full of democrats. Stupid segregation! Gotta let other people into the party.
    • malman4, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0Actually, it is the DEMOCRAT party.........
  • slashbot, on 11/06/2007, -5/+14hahaha, so true.

    The party of choices has a history of working to limit them. Go Nader
  • 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. ;-)
  • 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.
    • ettin, on 11/02/2007, -1/+7Vote for the one with the most integrity. Thats all that matters in the end.
      • ummonk, on 09/10/2008, -0/+0All of them have integrity. These aren't cowards like the two major candidates. Vote for the one who represents you on the issues (Nader or McKinney if you are liberal).
    • s1mph0ny, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2Vote for Ron Paul, the republican candidate.
    • malman4, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0Waste your vote any way you see fit.
  • 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.
    • catesbysimpson, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Truest thing said on Digg in a long time. Nearly all candidates would play dirty, some just don't have the money to.
  • bimtott, on 11/01/2007, -3/+1Fine, whatever. Me? I'm worried sick about everything going on now, and the upcoming election, to think back about the past two embarrassing elections.
    • ReverendJon, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1I know what you mean I can't grasp he thought of a Clinton or any lib.in office! well maybe a Psyc. dr's office or a defence laywers office or well you get the point
  • 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.
    • bamapachyderm, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Uh, no he doesn't represent everyone. Sorry.
      • Reci, on 11/16/2007, -0/+0You are right he does not represent the top 5% of the country that own like 80% of the wealth.
        If you drive a car you would like to see what he has done for the automotive industry.
  • reed311, on 11/06/2007, -4/+17The Democrats and Republicans make me want to Ralph.
  • 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?
    • ReverendJon, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Kucinich, talk about someone that just won't go away! what a nitwit
    • MorganMghee, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1If all of the candidates made their stand, they could bankrupt the parties! WOOHOO!
  • 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.
    • ReverendJon, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Right for what ? Vote ReverendJon President
  • TeamRocket, on 11/01/2007, -4/+6Ralph is by far one of the greatest americans!
    • ubuwalker31, on 11/01/2007, -3/+1Ralph is a ***** that caused us to end up with George Bush. It is Nader's fault that we are in the mess we are in today. You can yell and scream "but I voted for him on principal" all you want, but your uneducated and non-strategic vote proximately caused us to end up where we are today. So, thanks!
    • ReverendJon, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Wow that's sad who is the other person you know?
  • shadowspawn, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Corporeal Radical Geshels are really upset about this in Axis City.

    /So obscure, I know...
    • bamapachyderm, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Yeah, obscure. I had to look it up.
  • DanOnTheMoon, on 11/01/2007, -7/+5Satanatmendu, why do you hate freedom so much? The Libertarian point of view is "selfish" and "irresponsible"? No, a Libertarian point of view is what this nation should be all about. Move to ***** Canada or Sweden or something if you don't want to see the USA as a free country. Pick up and go to some Socialist country, as if Socialism didn't control enough of the world already. You call yourself a Liberal? You sound like an authoritarian socialist.
    • Maarek, on 11/01/2007, -2/+5Dan,

      I think the Libertarian POV has merit in its emphasis on freedom, but there is a balance to be found between individual freedom and social responsibility. As a liberal it is a balancing act of wanting personal freedoms without setting up a system for a tyranny of the haves (which is where we almost is). Liberals can fall too far on the side of Social Authoritarian just in the same way that Libertarian's can fall too far on the side of Anarchy. I honestly think we are mostly the same kind of person who lean different directions on what we think Government's role should be. This isn't a small issue but since the main value is that of people being free the role of Government is one in which we could keep each other in check.

      The shame of course is that neither Liberals nor Libertarians are represented in government to any major degree. Instead it is the puppet on the left and puppet on the right (but wait it's the same guy holding both puppets..."Go back to sleep America"...thank you Mr. Hicks).
    • bamapachyderm, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Are you a parody of a Paulbot? 'Cause damn, could you get any more tired cliches in that comment?
  • Maarek, on 11/01/2007, -6/+3Someone should stop this Democrat Party!! Perhaps the Democratic Party can take them to court over having a name that might get them confused (I think it's close enough for Trademark infringement). I mean every time I see a Republican post a political news piece it's about this Democrat party and almost every time they immediately start pointing fingers at members of the Democratic Party as if they have anything to do with this Democrat Party. For your clarification: A Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party... a member of the Democrat Party (not sure who they are yet) apparently are called Dems (as abbreviated by Fox News and other fine news sources). As far as the Republican Party go from what I have seen the proper term for a member is "The Accused" which I admit is not what we called ourselves when I was a member but the times they are a changing I suppose.
  • cmwotring, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2I have to say that it seems a little fishy that he would wait till we're on the heels of an election four years after the fact. Does it really take that much time to figure out you didn't like what you saw, to gather evidence, or just strategy? I'd go with the latter. Seems a little funny for one who's trying to change our political process.
    • TantrooM, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2Maybe so that this year things will be different, and the lawsuit will still be fresh in the DNC and GOP's minds as they try and push people away from the polls.
    • 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.
  • perot9296, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3He should sue them for this year also. Mike Gravel was blacklisted in the ***** debates by ***** MSNBC
  • yyzken, on 11/02/2007, -2/+11We need more than two parties. Period.
    • bamapachyderm, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1We have more than two parties. Most people don't vote for them, and most don't vote for them for a reason (and it's not just because they're squeezed out).
      You see another party you like? Vote for them, and organize to get others to vote for them, and you won't have a problem. Ross Perot gave it a good shot, but he wasn't what most people wanted, obviously. The truth is, third parties do not appeal to most Americans. Deal with it.
      And everyone else crying about Nader "giving the election" to Bush, I remind you of Ross Perot's impact in 1992.
  • 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.
  • portwojc, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2The Democrats know the dangers of a third party candidate (or another of the same party) with weight first hand having benefited from it back when Clinton got elected because of Ross Perot.
  • scott2007, on 11/01/2007, -10/+4Ralph Nader: if you had a snowball's chance in winning and lost, sue the Democrats.

    150,000,000 Americans should sue Ralph Nader for screwing over Al Gore and giving the country to President *****.
    • horatiolust, on 11/01/2007, -3/+2Gore wins Tennessee, and he's Pres.
      Nader didn't matter
  • mrogi, on 11/01/2007, -5/+3If the Republicans are smart they will finance a Ralph Nader presidential campaign. Nader will siphon off enough far left votes to sabotage the Democrat nominee. Nader has done it in the past and he can do it again; all he needs is the cash.
    • bamapachyderm, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1I'm pretty sure the GOP wants to put their money into Republican candidates. Just sayin'.
  • flink405, on 11/01/2007, -2/+1Nader definitely got the shaft by the Dems and Kerry.
    It will be interesting how this turns out.
    Out of court settlement, maybe? All files deep-sixed until the year 2207 in exchange for Ralph getting a cabinet spot in the next Democratic Presidency?
    • MorganMghee, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1if he were willing to compromise, I think he'd have done it long before now.
  • aringarosa, on 11/01/2007, -3/+1Avoid voting for Democratic and Republican candidates, whose parties represent two sides of the same military-industrial system.

    Support independent candidates.I

    f there are none where you live, vote only for those who demonstrate independent thought AND action counter to this system.
  • Treoinmypocket, on 11/01/2007, -3/+6Good for Ralph. I don't like him much, nor the Democratic Party these days but, both parties do what he describes and it needs to be dealt with in court.

    The same thing was done to Ross Perot. He sued BOTH parties to get into the debates.

    The parties are only interested in control, they aren't interested in what is best for this country.
  • 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.
  • chicoer2001, on 11/01/2007, -2/+4We have third parties, I just happens that no one votes for them.
    • bamapachyderm, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3It figures people would digg down such a true statement.
  • andnever, on 11/01/2007, -3/+2i thought bush rigged the election?
  • unfairunbalance, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2Easily hacked Dieboldt Voting machines.
  • ZenMojo, on 11/01/2007, -4/+2I think Nader's a petty little bastard, particularly for saying Al Gore was worse than George W. Bush (I almost ***** myself when I saw his little speech on television when he realized he wouldn't win). I have very little respect for Ralph Nader after that, but I in no way feel upset that he ran for office. Everyone should vote for who they believe should win, we should have an army of voices, and we should go back to the guy who gets the second-most votes being the vice-president (Hey, remember that?) You see, a two-party system wouldn't piss people off nearly as much if both parties were in the Executive Branch watching each other constantly. They'd be quick to sell each other out on the slightest indiscretion.
    It all comes down to the consolidation of power in huge voting blocs and the subsequent drive to secure this power through corruption, bullying, and fraud.
  • spinlock99, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2I love all of the comments asking what Nader is doing between elections to support Third Parties in reply to an article reporting what Nader is doing between elections to support Third Parties.

    We need to invent a new word that almost means ironic but implies that the speaker is oblivious to anything but the literal interpretation. Basically, I want a new word that says, "wow, that would be really funny and ironic if you were smart enough to have done it on purpose."
  • John47, on 11/03/2007, -4/+2So then, the grumpy old man in the rumpled cheap suit wants to be taken seriously? That guy was the spoiler for the Democrats on 2004, and now he wants to do so again. I wonder how much money the National Republican Party will stick into Ralph's campaign this time!
  • Sitv, on 11/08/2007, -3/+2If there is one thing you can't accuse Nader of, Its trying...
    He's like that adorable little engine that could...
    except he cant.
  • skews13, on 11/01/2007, -3/+2what a ***** stupbo
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.