Here we go again

[serai]

.
Looks like Ralph Nader is "contemplating" another run. Christ, hasn't he done enough fucking damage? Somebody needs to throw a bag over that guy and lock him in a closet for, say, about a year.

Comments

[honeyandvinegar.livejournal.com]

Aaaaand history repeats itself. Over. And over. Again.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

The pigheadedness of this guy is unbelievable. It reminds me of the people who do their "Nyahnyahnyah I'm not gonna vote cause I don't like anybody in the race!" It's all about what THEY think and not about the actual pragmatic reality. You know, setting your sights on the ideal is awfully nice, but it can get you fucking KILLED. Why can't people see that???

[honeyandvinegar.livejournal.com]

It's great how he plugs his site 'vote nader' there, too, huh? *snarly-eyeroll*

This was my comment to someone in the vid: He's just doing this to prove a point, though. He's as arrogant as anyone else running for president, and what's *worse*, he's giving steam to people who should NOT be in power. I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to run--but as Maher put it, in his own words, SHOULD he? What is the importance of him running--proving a point, or winning? Winning, or bitching about when he DOESN'T to further the point *even more*? This country isn't his little "social experiment".

Sums up how I do.

[belleferret.livejournal.com]

I would hope the voters are too smart to fall for this a second time, after seeing what happened in 2000.

What am I saying?? Voters--smart??

*gets bag and some rope*

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Nader and Ron Paul are on two different pages - Paul is running as a Republican, which mean he'll get cut out at the primaries. But Nader is gearing up his asshole "independent" thing again, so he would pull votes away from the Democrats. Which is why I wish he'd go away already. He was a great consumer advocate, but as a potential politician, he's been nothing but a nightmare.

As a Democrat, I'm furious at the media for turning this thing into a farcical contest between Clinton and Obama, both of whom have the capacity to lose the thing simply due to the reaction from Republicans. According to several polls I've seen, Edwards is the only guy who really has a chance of defeating whatever asshat the Repugs decide on, but he's not getting any press or attention. It's that kind of shit that earns the MSM the label of right-wing sympathizers. I don't trust Hillary as far as I could throw her, and I don't believe Obama has a chance of winning in this country. I'm definitely voting for Edwards in the primary.

Michael Moore had an interesting idea. He said the best thing Democrats could do was register as Republicans simply so we could vote in their primary. That way we could throw our votes into weeding out the obvious lunatics. Although I think I could dance a little dance if Giuliani was chosen - he'd drive a hell of a lot of people away because he's BUGFUCK BANANAS. I hear Huckabee's not got much of a chance either, now that he's showing his crazy Dominionist colors. There are more Republicans who are horrified at the idea of a theocracy than one might think!

*sigh* Honestly, I don't think we'll get our country back. No matter who wins, we're on the downhill side here. It's going to take something drastic, like an actual revolution, to get back to where we were. After all, that's how we got America in the first place - moneyed, privileged power does NOT tuck its tail between its legs and go away. It has to be ousted with force, and I don't see anybody around right now willing to do that. Certainly not Hillary, who is quite comfortable with the status quo, and who I think would make only cosmetic "changes".

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Given that the majority of people can't be bothered even to understand how our government works, I can't see how things could really change. I've been bemoaning the selfishness and idiocy of voters ever since 1980, when Anderson's campaign succeeded in drawing enough people off to ensure Reagan's victory. Feh.