Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,301 posts, read 4,423,122 times
Reputation: 2397
Romney is not an option for me. He will be absolutely no different than what we currently have. If both of the main parties are hurt by Nader, the Greens, Libertarians, etc . . . . GOOD!!! The question we need to ask ourselves is if either one of these two are worth perpetuating the status quo? The status quo sucks. It has caused our problems (as a nation). I do not believe that the answers to these problems are found in those who caused them.
That surprises me. I would think there would be as much support for Jill Stein the Green Party candidate as their would be for the Libertarian. When Nader last ran he had more votes than the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates combined.
Wednesday's performance notwithstanding, Obama is a skilled speaker and debater,
Well, um, well, no, um, Obama really um, he really isn't that good of a, um, speaker. He is good at reciting well rehearsed speeches.
Funny, the article doesn't even state what the articles title says. They note that the independants candidates *might* hurt him. In their actual words......
The same goes for Gary Johnson, who may siphon enough votes away from Romney in key swing states to be the difference-maker in this presidential election, a la Ralph Nader in 2000.
Romney is not an option for me. He will be absolutely no different than what we currently have. If both of the main parties are hurt by Nader, the Greens, Libertarians, etc . . . . GOOD!!! The question we need to ask ourselves is if either one of these two are worth perpetuating the status quo? The status quo sucks. It has caused our problems (as a nation). I do not believe that the answers to these problems are found in those who caused them.
Well congratulations. You know more than 85% of the people in this forum. Now if you'd just drop the bizarre, fiscal libertarian nonsense you'd make one informed voter.
Nader had as much influence on the 2000 election as Perot had on the 1992 and 1996 elections, which is to say none at all. Neither Nader nor Perot received a single Electoral College vote, which is the only vote that counts when it comes to electing a President.
Wednesday's performance notwithstanding, Obama is a skilled speaker and debater,
Well, um, well, no, um, Obama really um, he really isn't that good of a, um, speaker. He is good at reciting well rehearsed speeches.
Funny, the article doesn't even state what the articles title says. They note that the independants candidates *might* hurt him. In their actual words......
The same goes for Gary Johnson, who may siphon enough votes away from Romney in key swing states to be the difference-maker in this presidential election, a la Ralph Nader in 2000.
Romney is going to win by at least 5-6%.
I truly detest post like this. Why do it? Just let the debate happen instead of trying to start a flame war
I truly detest post like this. Why do it? Just let the debate happen instead of trying to start a flame war
Don't post articles if you do not want people to discuss them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
