פרסומים אחרונים במדור "פוליטיקה"

php.net && new.php.net

--- THIS IS JUST A SAMPLE - CUT & SAVE ---

--- THIS IS JUST A SAMPLE - CUT & SAVE ---

Nader is a very problematic choice for the American Voter.

1) Many liberals don't necessarily support the "Green" enviromental views that Nader purse quite aggressively. We think that more research need to be done on many topics, that almost every enviromental topics is still debateble, and since our technology and industry is so important, this is definetly a case where we need to think and get more data before we do anything.

2) Nader himself is known for his problematic / aggressive personality, which makes him a bad choice for many liberals. Not to mention his chauvinist views that he tried to cover for his campaign.

3) Lesser Evil: Bush is Evil, in too many ways. His goverment will harm many people for a long time. Voting Nader will increase the chance of Bush winning, and our suffering for the next 4 years. Why would I want to do something like that? I want the best president I can find, Nader can't be a president, he can't win, so obviously the best president I can get is Gore.
Not to mention the fact that Gore is far from evil.

research, my friend, research.

I'll also expose my own sources:
http://www.speakout.com/Election2000/President/Nader...

By the way, a presidential write-in candidate (what Nader was in 1992) is a person whose name doesn't appear on the list of candidates but can be written by hand on the voting form. I guess this means in 1992 he was participating as a pure act of protest.

More stuff:
http://www.envirolink.org/greens/rn/concord.html

and, least reliable of all, the official biography:
http://www.votenader.org/biography.html

The 1996 elections were easily won by Clinton:
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/summ.htm

Enjoy the research...

need I say more?

public citizen

www.pga.org.il

My claims are:
1) Nader proved he is just another politician.
2) as such his actions qualify him as a lousy one.
3) Nader is not to blame - just his Florida voters.
4) Florida: In democracies, the losing parties usually have just themselves to blame for irregularities.

1) Nader is just another politician (egomaniac)

Nader led a good campaign and raised the needed concern for important issues. A man of principles, at this stage, would realize that his candidacy stands no chance, and since the two candidates really differ on these issues, it would be best if his supporters choose the better (or lesser evil) of the two. A politicians would prefer matching funds to his party at the cost of oil drilling in Alaska. An egomaniac would prefer getting a million votes more, and the presidency determined by his voters over advancing his issues by having a president closer to them.

2) Nader is a lousy politician

imagine that a few days before the election Nader would've said: "My supporters are better informed than the average voter. I therefore encourage my voters in florida etc. to vote for the one they think is better among the 'two evils'. I also encourage my supporters in California, NY, Texas and other determined states to act according to their heart and vote for me". Such an act could have resulted in him getting more votes, while more battleground states would have gone with Gore: 2-0.

3) Nader is not to blame it's his voters

They knew their state is undecided and yet prefered this "moral" act (the quotes are for prefering the aestethic over the useful).
Gore is also to blame (see also the next point): He could have made a similar call to the one I suggested to Nader. battleground voters: you have just two choices, other voters: vote for the best candidate (and he would have still got 90+% of his voters).

4) Lousy organization loses more democratic elections than frauds

In 1996 frauds in "haredim" precincts helped Netanyahu. Who's to blame: "ha'avoda" which didn't put observers there. In Florida, good organization would have sent volunteers to every ballot in Palm beach to inform voters of the confusing ballots, and stop losing votes.

I will diverge from the discussion inorder to explain something important:
If I would see cutting evidence that the earth is infact warming, I would think we should do everything to save it. But there is no such evidence. Earth warming has to do with natural weather cycles as much as with human actions. Once Europe was covered with Ice, Once the Saharah had water, once the hudson was frozen. Weather change over the centuries, this is something that we must take into accout. Earth had warmer weather many times in the past. The thing that we must worry about is the human future - but if our Earth is warming from natural causes - starting to bike isn't gonna help. Europes ice melted when the cave people didn't have cars.

http://fecweb1.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

***

‏¹ http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART/979/959.html
‏² http://www.now.org/issues/judicial/roberts.html

Crashing the Party: How to Tell the Truth and Still Run for President

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/elec04.pre...

b. Boxing. An inferior fighter who sets out to disrupt his opponent's style.