Judge Orders Nader Name Off Fla. Ballot

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-15 11:35pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote: But it wasn't illegal. Underhanded, yes, illegal, no.

And neither is the Dems lawsuit. Deal with it.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-09-15 11:44pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
StormTrooperTR889 wrote:God, the wankery. It hurts. The Dems can do no wrong, the Reps can do no right. How about we let people vote for whoever the hell they want? I'm sure SOME people really do want to vote for Nader, are you willing to deny them their rights as American citizens?
If the method by which his name was placed on the ballot was illegal... Yep. But hey, don't let that stop the 'OMFG COMMIES' nonsense that comes up because they're seeking to stop a practice which violates procedure.
But it wasn't illegal. Underhanded, yes, illegal, no.

You mean exactly like the lawsuit you're complaining about? It's 'Wankery' for the Democrats to try and get something tossed out legally, but if the Republicans twist the law for their own ends, not a word? Yes, I can clearly tell the flavour of this bias.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-09-16 12:03am

SirNitram wrote:You mean exactly like the lawsuit you're complaining about? It's 'Wankery' for the Democrats to try and get something tossed out legally, but if the Republicans twist the law for their own ends, not a word? Yes, I can clearly tell the flavour of this bias.

I was complaining about Durandal's wankery to the infalibility of the Democratic party.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-16 12:10am

StormTrooperTR889 wrote: I was complaining about Durandal's wankery to the infalibility of the Democratic party.

Provide a quote to substantiate this remark or withdraw it and shut the fuck up.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-09-16 12:13am

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:
SirNitram wrote:You mean exactly like the lawsuit you're complaining about? It's 'Wankery' for the Democrats to try and get something tossed out legally, but if the Republicans twist the law for their own ends, not a word? Yes, I can clearly tell the flavour of this bias.
I was complaining about Durandal's wankery to the infalibility of the Democratic party.

You have a curious definition of wankery. Most people wouldn't consider 'Yep, they're using a legal channel to try and get underhanded tactics overturned, what's wrong with that?' wankery, except maybe in politics, where the blinders come on and even the most calm debator starts throwing out Golden Means, Red Herrings, and anything else he needs.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-09-16 12:18am

SirNitram wrote: but if the Republicans twist the law for their own ends, not a word?

What law was twisted?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-16 12:27am

Phil Skayhan wrote: What law was twisted?

What exactly do you think an endorsment is? It's means that you endorse the candidate for President, even if you don't vote for him. The GOP conducted an organized campaign to put Nader on the ballot, even though none of their people that signed his endorsment in any way endorse his politics, nor would they want to see him in office. It isn't technically illegal, but it does violate the sprit of the process.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-16 12:57am

Going by the article, the Nader campaign didn't use any petitions to get on the ballot. Arguing about petitions in the context of the Florida suit is immaterial.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-16 01:19am

Glocksman wrote:Going by the article, the Nader campaign didn't use any petitions to get on the ballot. Arguing about petitions in the context of the Florida suit is immaterial.

Doesn't matter since they've used petitions to get on the ballot in other swing states that were boosted by the GOP. This is the Dems hitting back in the only way they can. That's politics I'm afraid; it's immoral but I think we're all used to it by now.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-09-16 03:13am

Ralph Nader (news - web sites) can stay on Florida's ballot, at least until the end of the week when the state Supreme Court will make a final decision on his attempt to run for president as the Reform Party nominee.

Wait, Nader is running for the Reform Party now? I thought he was an independent. Isn't that a shift to the other end of the political spectrum?

Maybe it'll be Bush that he "steals" votes from this time.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-16 03:27am

On an aside, the arrongence of the Democratic party on this issue is sticking in my craw. Recently I told a survey of the Democratic party that I intended to vote Nader for President (My state is very much red, so it's not like I'm hurting Kerry to much is it?). I found myself in a verbal knife fight over my theft of a vote. This person had the gall to believe that the Democratic party owned every non Bush vote.

Well the vote is mine, I merely rent it out to the canidate of my choice for a single election's use and I want it back promptly and fully gased up damn it. Bush couldn't do that so he doesn't get it this year.

I don't like the idea of the GOP using Nader has some kinda strawman to supposly drain off Kerry vote. I don't like the lawsuit either. The Democrats however have the legal right to sue and I won't tell they shouldn't. Even though Nader wouldn't matter if Kerry just get off his ass and DO SOMETHING!

However the Democrats should shut up about Nader stealing their votes, the Democrats don't own votes, no party does, the voters own the votes and can do whatever the fuck they please with them.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-09-16 09:48am

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
StormTrooperTR889 wrote:God, the wankery. It hurts. The Dems can do no wrong, the Reps can do no right. How about we let people vote for whoever the hell they want? I'm sure SOME people really do want to vote for Nader, are you willing to deny them their rights as American citizens?
If the method by which his name was placed on the ballot was illegal... Yep. But hey, don't let that stop the 'OMFG COMMIES' nonsense that comes up because they're seeking to stop a practice which violates procedure.
But it wasn't illegal. Underhanded, yes, illegal, no.

Here in WV, some of the petition takers reportedly tried to conceal what te petition was for. It's being taken to the Supreme Court to decide if Nader's name will stay on the ballot or not.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-09-16 11:23am

The Kernel wrote:Which is the entire reason behind this lawsuit, bogus signatures given by people who have no intention of voting for Nader and only sign to ciphon votes from Kerry.

That doesn't make any sense. If no one intended to vote for Nader, his presence on the ballot would be irrelevant. Sure, the Republicans have an ulterior motive for having him on the ballot, but that certainly doesn't excuse the Democrats' campaign to DENY voters the option.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-16 11:31am

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:
SirNitram wrote:You mean exactly like the lawsuit you're complaining about? It's 'Wankery' for the Democrats to try and get something tossed out legally, but if the Republicans twist the law for their own ends, not a word? Yes, I can clearly tell the flavour of this bias.
I was complaining about Durandal's wankery to the infalibility of the Democratic party.

Oh yeah, because lord knows that I've never criticized anything the Democrats have done, especially during Kerry's campaign.

Why don't you learn to live with it? If your boys on the Right can play dirty politics, then the Left can too. If the Republicans want to dupe voters into signing petitions to get Nader on the ballot in swing states to siphon votes away from Kerry, then the Democrats can and should respond accordingly by taking the ballot to court and getting Nader's sorry ass thrown off on a technicality. Hell, I'd be criticizing them if they just sat on their asses and let the Republicans get away with it.

But oh no, I'm an eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil liberal, and I don't give a shit whether or not people are allowed to own assault weapons, so what do I know? Fucking blow me, dick-muncher.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-16 11:40am

Is there any good reason why Nader shouldn't be on the ballot?

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-09-16 11:41am

Joe wrote:Is there any good reason why Nader shouldn't be on the ballot?

Apparently, it's because people might vote for him.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-09-16 11:45am

Joe wrote:Is there any good reason why Nader shouldn't be on the ballot?

The thought is:

"He CAN'T win. Can't possibly. but the people who WOULD vote for nader WOULD probably vote for Kerry if nader wasn't on there. So, [daffy duck as duck dodgers] Off ya go! [/daffy duck as duck dodgers]" the GOP wants nader on because it siphons votes from Kerry, the dems want him off for that same reason, obviously.

Soooooooo...

Good reason is:

He Can't win, so he shouldn't run. We will look for a technicality to remove him from the ballot.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-16 11:57am

I said a good reason, not "we want more votes for our guy."

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-16 12:53pm

Joe wrote:Is there any good reason why Nader shouldn't be on the ballot?

Why should he be? It's a two-party system, and nothing's stopping people from writing him in.

EDIT: Oh and apparently the Reform party didn't follow proper petition and nomination procedures, which casts doubt on their status as a national party.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-16 12:57pm

Durandal wrote:
Joe wrote:Is there any good reason why Nader shouldn't be on the ballot?
Why should he be? It's a two-party system, and nothing's stopping people from writing him in.

The system is set up to favor 2 parties, but we're not legally a two party system. Subtle but important distinction.

Two party system is beside the point, Florida already has more than 2 parties on the presidential ballot.

It's a transparent effort on both the Repubs and Demos side for political advantage. Principle has nothing to do with it.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-16 12:59pm

Glocksman wrote:It's a transparent effort on both the Repubs and Demos side for political advantage. Principle has nothing to do with it.

I agree. I'm just routing for Kerry, so I'm hoping that the Democrats' dirty politics wins out over the Republicans'.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-16 01:08pm

Durandal wrote:
Glocksman wrote:It's a transparent effort on both the Repubs and Demos side for political advantage. Principle has nothing to do with it.
I agree. I'm just routing for Kerry, so I'm hoping that the Democrats' dirty politics wins out over the Republicans'.

I'm voting 3rd party so my sympathies are with Nader.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-16 01:09pm

Don't you people understand? The reason why it's critically important to get Nader's name off the Florida ballot is that they're worried people will vote for him by mistake.

Remember: the more names you have on a ballot, the more easily confused the Florida voters will become.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-09-16 01:22pm

Darth Wong wrote:Remember: the more names you have on a ballot, the more easily confused the Florida voters will become.

Obviously, the solution is clear:

NUKEY NUKEY NUKEY

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-09-16 01:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:Don't you people understand? The reason why it's critically important to get Nader's name off the Florida ballot is that they're worried people will vote for him by mistake.

Remember: the more names you have on a ballot, the more easily confused the Florida voters will become.

This seems to fit.

Rob Cordry wrote:Where am I? Is this a voting booth? I'm old! BEEP! Oh no, I voted for Bush. Again!

MKSheppard wrote:
Obviously, the solution is clear:

NUKEY NUKEY NUKEY

In 2008: No one will accuse Presidential Candidate MKSheppard of the new TBO Party of flip-floppiness!