Third Party & Independents: Archives

This possible uneasy alliance would be between the Kerry and Nader campaigns. The Greens have not yet(and I hope won’t) endorse Nader and are likely to run Daivd Cobb www.votecobb.org, virtually unknown outside the GP. And some heavy weight demos have formed a 527 “The National Progress Fund” which is targeting progressive Nader voters to assimilate into the Dems. So don’t presume that even an alliance between Kerry-Nader would lead to the Lion lying down with the lamb or the donkey with the hippies.

This meeting is just what I suggested weeks ago, if Kerry had any sense; apparently, he does.

I though Nader was crazy when he said he would take votes from Bush, but the polls suggest that this is true!

Unfortunately, I still think he will take more votes from Kerry. Even if he campaigned only in “safe” states, that would not help Kerry because they are uncontested by definition.

Nader could help his progressive causes more by attacking Bush as a non-candidate. Getting a tiny percentage of the vote is not going to help him or anyone else (he doesn’t even have a party), and he is in grave danger of helping to reinstall Bush. Considering that Nader has a petition on his website to impeach Bush, it baffles me why he would want to help Bush get “re”elected.

I say all this as a recovering pre-2000 Nader voter.

A thought for potential Nader voters:

If you want to build a progressive political party, don’t settle for a futile symbolic gesture. Run for city council or the state legislature. Or if you don’t think you have the right skills, help someone else run. Alternatively, volunteer for an NGO. You might actually accomplish something.

Woody, I agree! I’ve stated this point on a number of occasions and still believe that the best way to establish a new party that can compete for the highest offices is to begin on the more local level. Build a base of support, a political infrastructure, and an track record for improving things. The build up towards running a legitimate candidate for president.

At this point, I think a patch of brown liquid could take votes from Bush.

All this fear of a man called Nader. All this short-sighted but endemic myopia of Americans, tsk! tsk! tsk!

Folks, the U.S. has been going downhill since the late 70’s and early 80’s. Working wage per hour buying power down steadily. Non-frivolous law-suits over white collar crime, up, up, and away! Deficits - largest in history. Debt - largest in history. Electorate - deeply split and hostile.

These folks, are long term systemic problems and require a far more flexible government system capable of responding to the majority choices of the American people and capable of reaching concensus which represents the welfare of most if not all Americans. This is what Nader stands for. Nader is pushing to NOT TO WIN, but to change the system so that it is more open to 3rd parties, more open and responsive to American needs and will, and to make it futile for party politics to exert its will against the will of the majority of Americans.

When is the right time to do the right thing? There is only one right time. That time when one realizes that there is a problem. It is absurd to state that this is not the right time for Nader to run, to sue states over unfair ballot access laws, to call corporate America and Lobby interests to account for the ills they have wrought upon our system, paralyizing it, and making it blind to long term problems and impotent in implementing and maintaining long term solutions.

It does not really matter for our children whether Kerry or Bush wins. What matters is whether we rectify the systemic blockades to good and responsive government, like the FEC, lobbyist revolving doors to Congress and the Whitehouse, and inordinately high impediments to third party access to ballots. In the long run, these are the issues that are important in 2004, 2006, 2008, and beyond, and Nader is part of the solution, and he needs our support.

Why is Kerry talking to Nader? Because Nader has forced the Democrats to do so. And rightly so. The Democratic Party has been losing constituency since Reagan, and a large number of their losses have gone to not voting, Independents, and the Green Party. Nader forces the Dem’s to face facts, the Democratic Party MUST win back those voters if it deserves to win back the Presidency or the Senate.

Nader is taking the long term view - He does not want to be President - he wants to open and correct the system such that the person who becomes President will be acutely aware that their future in politics depends not on money, lobbyists, or think tanks, but, on representing the interests of the American people.

So get a new pair of political glasses that will permit seeing the future and what needs to be done today so that the future can be a positive, productive, and peaceful one for us and our children, and their children.

“Nader is taking the long term view - He does not want to be President”

That seems to be a funny thing about Nader, while you, a supporter, says nader is not running to win, I remember hom saying in 2000 he was going to be the next president. He said this at least once that I know about (a campaing stop in minneapolis) but reality tells me he says it all the time.
If you think a canidate isn’t going to win why are you voting for them? I understand all you said about giving people a chance to vote for a 3rd party, but you are kidding yourself if you think it doesn’t matter to our children whether bush or kerry is prez!

It matters, but, far less than opening our system up to represent the people’s will and not that of idealogues heading two parties whose support added together only represents less than half of the eligible voters.

Math: 1/2 don’t vote, and 1/3 that does is Independent not choosing either of the major parties. In other words, the Dem. and Repub. Parties together don’t represent even a simple majority of the eligible voters.

That’s true, David. But that doesn’t mean that 1/3 is going to vote for Nader. Polls indicate that Nader is only taking, at best, 3%-5% of the vote. And some of those are Democrats and Republicans.

You guys need a candidate with a big idea with a broad demographic. End corporate influence in Washington? McCain already owns that one. Energy independence and green energy sources: Kerry. Environment: Kerry. Education? Dems and Reps both claim it. Fiscal responsibility? Perot gave us that one, but Clinton coopted it and Kerry owns it now.

How about a really bold foreign policy? A global project to completely eliminate world poverty or hunger? Or 100% literacy for the whole world? How about a vision of America’s role in the world other than as globo-cop?

To borrow some rhetoric from the Reps, just being anti-‘two party system’ isn’t going to get the votes.

American Pundit, see my my reply to Spencer’s article in the Republican column. It addresses your points with a counter-argument.

Greens and Libertarians have an overarching goal and need, to increase their power over the two major parties. This election represents a unique opportunity to do just that.

I am not going to let myself or others become pressured to vote Democrat( because if you vote for Nader it helps re-elect Bush). Im sorry but if there is a big difference between the Reps. and Dems. I just dont see it. It is time to fight for what you believe in, and I believe in Nader.

Right On, susan. The long term betterment and dare I say it, salvation, of our society depends on the Dem. and Rep. parties willingly or kicking and dragging, relinquish their stranglehold upon the political process which results in minority rule in America and utter complete failure to deal with long-term problems and solutions.

that’s right guys vote for nader, and when bush is still pres. don’t bitch about the enviorment, or other countries thinking we don’t mind having a tyrant as president, let’s continue to be citizens of this country of fools!

Martiniwitz, it’s ironic that you’d bleat about living under a “tyrant” while demanding that we vote for the One Official Party. Just thought I’d note that.

Ciggy, I wrote:
“OR OTHER COUNTRIES thinking we don’t mind having a tyrant as president”

And i would like to note: I demand nothing from you, I just wanted to note a likely outcome of nader getting a large number of votes.

martiniwitz, then let the Democratic Party tear down its tyrannical barriers to ballot access in all 50 states, let it abolish the tryannical FEC which prevents the majority of Americans voices from being heard through independent and third parties. Then let the tyranny of money in politics be removed from the Democratic Parties plans for the future of our elections.

The Democratic Party talks a good line, but, in action, it changes little. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are simply two sides the same pane of glass. There is tyranny enough to go around by both the major parties if tyranny is defined as intentional and deliberate actions to prevent full representation and participation in the voting system by all eligible Americans.

David:
Okay the dems, tear down all of what you want them to do and… the republican party kills them, because as you have written david they will win at any cost, if the democrats willingly give up some of their voters so third forth fifth party canidates can have a shot we will live with bush and cheney maybe we will have santorium or hasstard in the future, I for one want kerry as our next prez. and so do you david, else bush it is, and I know you don’t want that.

as you say it will take both parties to both parties to “relinquish their stranglehold upon the political process” to make ant real change.

martiniwitz, it is so difficult in this instantaneous culture to get folks to look beyond the moment, or this election cycle.

What is missing from your doom and gloom scenario is that should the Dem’s join with the Green Party or Nader in an alliance to tear down the barriers, a couple things happen simultaneously that will guarantee successful results in the longer term.

First, Greens and Naderites joining with Dem’s on key issues will make a majority voting interest group.

Second, as you say, in Nov. the Repub’s would win handily. But, look down the road a bit. If the systemic problems are as bad as discussed in this 3rd party column, and they are, then the Repub’s by winning, will own those problems and the failure to solve them. Since, getting reelected will be their 1st and most important priority, they will not be able to address those systemic problems as a ruling party made up of a minority of Americans. They will not remain in office long against a united Green-Dem partnership to return government to the people.

In the long run, Democratic Party will inevitably return to power. But unlike the past, they would return with an agenda forged from an alliance between the Dem. party and Nader - Green Party supporters. And believe it, Naderites and the Green Party will hold the Dem. party to its alliance objectives when they do return to power. That will result in the Dem. party championing the people’s cause of greater representation and lowered hurdles to ballot access and far, far greater voter participation.

The boon to grass roots activism is difficult calculate, but it would be immense. And the American people would have the Democratic Party and its courage to embrace some of Nader and Green Party objectives to thank.

Look, the Republicans did not take control of the Congress and the Presidency in a single election cycle. They began working on that scenario back in the 80’s, forging new alliances, embracing new constituencies and their causes, and reshaping their image in accordance with a much greater populace than previously held. They provided the model the Democratic Party must now follow and the first steps are to build a partnership with Nader on third party access and overhaul of the FEC, with the Greens on divesting corporation influence over environmental policy, and with the Libertarians on certain aspects of the Patriot Act.

Coalitions is how majorities are formed. Kerry has without question taken the first step toward building the kind of new coalitions that will be needed to restore government to the people, for the people, and run by the majority of the people.

Second, as you say, in Nov. the Repub’s would win handily. But, look down the road a bit.

Good Lord! Four more years of this crap?

You know, if we can create a democracy in Syria all the other Middle Eastern countries will fall in line. Iraq was too big, we should have set our sites a little lower. Worried about blowback? Not a problem. We won the election. We have a mandate from the people. “It’s our due.” And the economy is going gangbusters. Completely eliminating the dividend tax and corporate taxes are just what we need. Budget problems? We’ll just cut first responder funding. That’s a state problem anyhow. And Social Security & Medicare, well, they shouldn’t have been there in the first place. And the environment? Yeah, that’s got to go.

No thanks.

Why don’t you guys get a candidate whose message resonates with a really large number of people? Why should we give you guys anything? All you’re doing is offering us a candidate who doesn’t even want to get elected. Why don’t you join us?

I don’t think your hostage threat is credible anyhow. I suspect the polling percentage for Nader, small as it is, is overinflated right now. When it comes time to vote, more than half the Nader votes will go to Kerry, because no abstract future possibility is worth a Bush victory. We all learned that last time.

On the other hand, if you guys can pull another Perot or Ventura out of the hat, you might get a little more traction. :)

let the Democratic Party tear down its tyrannical barriers to ballot access in all 50 states, let it abolish the tryannical FEC which prevents the majority of Americans voices from being heard through independent and third parties. Then let the tyranny of money in politics be removed from the Democratic Parties plans for the future of our elections.

And what’s with all this whiny victim rhetoric. Why don’t you guys just get referendums going in all 50 states? Why don’t you guys have a sympathetic liberal introduce some legislation? These aren’t issues that Democrats are against. Why don’t you do something constructive to make it happen. A Green/Democrat alliance makes sense to me. Why don’t you write Kerry a letter asking him to choose a Green as head of the EPA? Show some imagination.

Or just vote for some crazy crusader guy who’s pulling a stunt. Whatever. Like I said, I don’t think it’s a credible threat.

Martiniwitz,
“OR OTHER COUNTRIES thinking we don’t mind having a tyrant as president”

If Bush “wins” with only 30% of the popular vote (which could be possible if alternative parties make a strong showing), then the message that many of us don’t like Bush but can’t agree to an alternative candidate, would still get its point across to other countries. As it already is, my French friends do understand that Bush didn’t make it in by “popular” vote, and as such they tend to qualify their so-called “anti-American” venom for a more precision “anti-Bush” and “anti-Republican” venom. They know we’re not all assholes.

And:
“the republican party kills them, because as you have written david they will win at any cost”

Is this kind of rhetoric really necessary? Do we want to put tin foil on our heads now and share the militia bunker space freed up by Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols? Because that IS the way they think. Throw in the words “Illuminati” and “New World Order” and you’d fit right in with this train of thought.

American Pundit:
“I don’t think it’s a credible threat.”

Then you have nothing to worry about for the fate of your precious Corporate Goon Kerry as some of us with a sense of principles actually vote our conscience instead of rubber-stamping the elite’s continued game of two-card-monte. Do you?

Sorry guys it just seems hard to imagine the frustration I would feel if we had four more years of Bush/Cheney and the like.

I am all for a nader/kerry alliance, but not if nader costs kerry the election anyway because people have to “vote for what they beleave,” rather than trying to oust someone they definatly DON’T beleave in.

Martiniwitz, four years of Kerry, with the exception of energy policy, would be very nearly identical to four more years of Bush, with the exception of how it will all be treated in the mass media. The soldiers dying will be “brave heroes falling” a la WWII instead of “wasted lives” a la anything Bush, but they’ll still be just as dead. Oh yeah, and they’ll be wearing cute powder-puff-blue hats too. Big difference.

I’d prefer not to vote for either mouthpiece of the war profiteers.

Ciggy-
except for energy policy, fine that would be a worthy exception for me. how about the way me as an americain will be treated when I am travling outside of this country? I know in another thread somewhere someone pointed out that people are accuatully anti-bush more than anti america, well.. doesn’t that seem to be a reason we should vote for some one that can beat bush? kerry will bring the u.s. back to a world community that will work with the u.s. Do you think that we will be more likely to receive help from countries if the bush admin didn’t reside in the white house? bla bla bla who cares right? you do ciggy, I beleive if you had a choice between kerry and bush you would choose kerry, am I wrong? well you have that choice, don’t blow it by letting third party canidates repeat the outcome of the 2000 election.

I think david r. said something about putting nader or a green in charge of the epa, I think kerry would be willing to do that if nader supporters would help him beat bush! I fact I will write a letter to be sent to nader and kerry saying just that.

wrong american pundit said it

some of us with a sense of principles actually vote our conscience instead of rubber-stamping the elite’s continued game of two-card-monte. Do you?

Crap! I just got done establishing my bona fides on this in another thread. Short answer: Yes.

Martiniwitz,
“how about the way me as an americain will be treated when I am travling outside of this country?”

I think you as an individual are more in control of that than your president. It’s a disservice to Europeans to say that they automatically hate you regardless of how well you carry yourself, just because they find out you’re an American. The Americans they typically hate are the ones screaming at the waiters in restaurants because they didn’t get their cobb salad the way it’s served at TGI Friday’s back in Duluth, or telling the hotel reception they want their money back for the room because they saw a cockroach in the bath tub. And to be honest, when I see assholes making a scene like that, I tend to hate them too.

Some people in France and England who are the most virulent critics of the Bush administration, I’ve been able to chat with in a very civilized manner and they’ve been very kind to me in spite of my being American. A lot of that is simply in the fact that I give them the respect that I hope to get from them, and it works. It’s not brain surgery.

“I know in another thread somewhere someone pointed out that people are accuatully anti-bush more than anti america, well.. doesn’t that seem to be a reason we should vote for some one that can beat bush?”

What it means is that if the opposition to Bush, however divided, is greater than the support, even if Bush wins by default, Europe will still know what we meant by it, and the analog dial of antipathy toward Americans as people will tend to go to the warmer side as a result. They themselves don’t have binary double-headed factions of One Official Party in their country, so the idea of ‘having’ to vote the candidate who would beat the front-runner, is foreign to them anyway.

“kerry will bring the u.s. back to a world community that will work with the u.s.”

Don’t delude yourself. Europe may like Kerry more and be warmer to him than to Bush, but that still won’t make France send troops to Iraq, no matter how you slice it. Friendship has its limits even in the best of scenarios. The real difference would probably be a few dickering items of trade agreements that might go more favorable to American corporations, which should make it obvious whom the American corporations are backing right now. George Soros is not exactly a Che Guevara.

“I beleive if you had a choice between kerry and bush you would choose kerry, am I wrong?”

That’s like saying, ‘do you prefer cancer or a heart attack?’ Can’t the answer be ‘neither’?

“you have that choice, don’t blow it by letting third party canidates repeat the outcome of the 2000 election.”

I’ve been assured by DNC operatives that alternative party candidates have absolutely no chance of garnering support this electoral cycle. That ought to keep you sleeping well at night in your binary partisan bunker, I’d imagine.

I’m still going to vote my conscience, even if I’m the only one to do so.

Ciggy-
I don’t know how to spell it but:
2 shay

“I think you as an individual are more in control of that than your president”

that was my favorite retort, I wish you used it someone else though :)

The phoenetic “2 shay” is from the French, “touché”, which indicates a “touch” in fencing, allegorized in verbal conversation as, “you have a point” (no pun intended there either).

My epiphany on this was in reading Dumas’ “Les Trois Mousquetaires” in the original French and kept reading “touché” in the swordsmanship training scenes. I realized that’s what we say in English when somebody has… a point. ;)

My French Literature teacher at the Lycée d’Uturoa in Tahiti would have preferred that I pick up more on the themes of exotism in the writing of that period (such as references to America as an exotic wild place full of “noble savages” and not always referring to American Indian tribes—partly explaining how LaFayette got all starry-eyed about the American cause), but I was young and liked the swashbuckling more. ;)

well touche then (i have no way to make the doodad over the e) but ciggy, I am still voting for kerry, fool me once shame on you…..

I think you as an individual are more in control of that than your president. It’s a disservice to Europeans to say that they automatically hate you regardless of how well you carry yourself, just because they find out you’re an American.

I’m in SE Asia living in a sea of Muslims. Your solution only works to a certain extent, and mostly only in a one on one situation.

martiniwitz, you’re right about the way Americans are treated outside the US.

Engarde! :)

I know I have been all over the world and some countries are worse than others but ciggy is right that it doesn’t really matter who is president; americans are seen as arogant, and lots of us are.

not me though, I am as humble as they come ;)

The nature of American policies vis a vis a given country in question can certainly have an effect on the way a host nation’s police and government officials treat you (for example, if you’re travelling in Iran). And on an individual level you will always find some who fall into the racist/xenophobic fallacies of painting all people of a particular ethnicity with the same broad brush. Even in America, or especially here. But I do know that in the mainstream of European intelligentsia, they do make distinctions between “good Americans” and “bad Americans”, and expecting a change of presidents to cure all intercultural ills with the instant sweep of a penstroke, is fantasy.

“expecting a change of presidents to cure all intercultural ills with the instant sweep of a penstroke, is fantasy.”

I am not asking it to cure ALL ills.
Ciggy you know if kerry is the next president an immedite change will be felt towards us from around the world.

I am a Nader supporter until John Kerry makes a complete turn around and opposes this occupation in Iraq. Sorry, Kerry is too much like Bush on too many issues. He is a staunch supporter of Israel so I don’t expect him to be anti-war anytime soon. Why didn’t the Dems put up someone who could galvanize voters on this very important issue? They’d win this election by a landslide. What’s up with these Dems? I’ve been around for a long time, long enough to have witnessed the continual sellout of the Dem party. Both parties are engines for corporate control of the globe. We all know this, right? I recently read an article on CommonDreams website. The author was begging John Kerry to bring the party back into the progressive fold so that she could be proud to vote for him. She said if he didn’t come back to the core constituants of the party then, by god, she and others will hold him accountable. Oh, really? What does that mean, exactly? When (or if)Kerry sends 40 thousand more troops to Iraq, which is what he proposes, she will wag her finger at him; that’ll punish him good. She means business! The Dems and Repubs are workin for the corporations, not us. Both parties are against election reform. (Why should they be for it? duh.) They (the corporations and their PR candidates)think they have it all wrapped up. They have stolen our right to honest political discourse. They are extremely un-democratic, perhaps fascist.

Sorry, Kerry is too much like Bush on too many issues.

peggy, by “too many”, do you mean more than just the two you mention? As far as I can tell, those are the only two issues they’re actually close on, and if you listen to both of them speak, rather than listen to the press coverage of them speaking, they’re not really very close.

Both parties are engines for corporate control of the globe. We all know this, right?

Apparently not. It’s news to me.

The author was begging John Kerry to bring the party back into the progressive fold so that she could be proud to vote for him.

I don’t think the Democratic Party was ever as “progressive” as she seems to think. Certainly they were never anti-war.

Both parties are against election reform.

There are people working on changing that in both Parties. Sending an email to your representatives in Congress and the President will help. If you see a petition, sign it. It’s not going to change unless we make them.

Martiniwitz,
“you know if kerry is the next president an immedite change will be felt towards us from around the world”

No, I don’t ‘know’ that. You see, when Clinton was President, foreign leaders may have loved him with starry-eyed teen girl crush sentiments, but that was a love for CLINTON, not necessarily a love for the U.S. Similarly, they hate Bush, and it’s a hatred of Bush—the sentiments about the American people are about the American people, and those about the president are about the president. In Europe, anyway, they are clear-headed enough to make such distinctions. I can’t speak for Indonesia or the Arab world, where they may bog their minds down into some xenophobic hysteria based on a single man.

What Europe will probably do with a President Kerry is respect him, negotiate with him in good faith, and the net difference at the end of the day will be better deals for U.S. corporations. Individuals at the checkout counters of hotels screaming for a free room because there was a stain on a bath towel, those were always hated and always will be hated. And they should be. Arrogance is arrogance.

Peggy, what’s even worse is that some of Kerry’s staunchest supporters are also clammoring for a return of the draft, as if that will solve all ills in foreign policy. How could I possibly vote for such idiocy with a straight face? Did the “mainstream” left just get a case of amnesia from the ’60s here?

“The Dems and Repubs are workin for the corporations, not us”

Pretty much sums it up for me.

AP,
“you mean more than just the two you mention?”

The only substantive issue where I can see any credible difference at all is in energy policy—and even there I could easily foresee a Kerry flip-flop once he gets in office. It isn’t like he hasn’t reversed course in the past, y’know. “I am a war criminal. No, wait, I am a war HERO.” Who knew that in those early ’70s protests he was just being a chest-thumping war hawk GLOATING about having violated the Geneva Convention (according to his personal interpretation of the Geneva Convention). I think if his fellow protesters would have known how he’d later boast of what he held in shame at the time, they’d be throwing HIM on the white house lawn, and not just his medals. Just another Pig in disguise. He was only in “the movement” to get chicks, apparently.

Looks like my post got well and truly eaten this time, so if this comes up as a repetition of a later post, the dog ate it.

Martiniwitz:
“you know if kerry is the next president an immedite change will be felt towards us from around the world.”

Now, I don’t. Europe loved Clinton and they hate Bush, but their attitude toward Americans as people has a lot more to do with Americans as people, than it does their presidents at any given time. You see, too many who hail from here tend to scream at hotel reception desks for a free room because of a stain on a bath towel, for one guy in Washington, D.C. to magically make the tendancy of animosity towards us go away. The more intellectual of Europeans will say people are people, and will take each of us individually on our merits, and the less intellectual of Europeans, they’ll need to see substantive reform of how our tourists behave when they’re over there, before they start changing their tune.

Peggy:
“The Dems and Repubs are workin for the corporations, not us”

You, at least, seem to get it. Maybe I’m not the only American to see this after all.

AP:
“do you mean more than just the two you mention?”

There’s only one issue where I do see substantive differentiation, and that’s energy policy—and there, what’s to prevent yet another flip-flop? He’ll vote for it before he votes against it, right? He was, after all, a war criminal before he was a war hero, and that’s a pretty stark about-face of attitude. To hear it from him today, he was only in the war protest movement to pick up chicks, because now some of his closest supporters are not only supporting Vietnam-style wars, but also talking of REINSTATING THE DRAFT. Had his fellow protesters known this back in the early ’70s, that he’d back-stab everything the movement stood for, they’d throw HIM on the White House lawn.

Whoops, it wasn’t eaten after all. Oh well, you got the same thoughts worded two different ways.

Sorry ‘bout that.

There’s only one issue where I do see substantive differentiation, and that’s energy policy

How about health care? Bush’s and Kerry’s plans are pretty distinct.

How about naming something other than Iraq and Israel where you think their policies are the same.

I’d even argue that their Iraq policies are different - the only similarity being that neither will pull US troops immediately. One is actively seeking international involvement, the other is being dragged kicking and screaming toward it.

And, Ciggy. I can’t believe you’re buying into that “flip-flop” crap.

Stopping Nader from running only puts us a small step above the Communist Party of China.
I like Nader’s saying “more choices, more voices” because both the Dems
and Repubs always offer a lesser of the two evils as opposed to the better of the all.
Who are the Europeans to talk of U.S. Imperialism with the infamous Berlin Conference of 1884-85?!
And who are any of you as Americans to explain yourself to your French friends? If you all worry about Europe so much its only natural
you look away from Vichy France and France’s legendary medlings in Africa.
You look away with how the French completely cut Guinea off in 1958 and acting like nothing less of an eight year old.
You see how they brived their African colonies into joining their groupsd in exchange for aid and French controlled trritory.
See how they supported the dictators of Gabon crippling those Africans of home. See how France aided the debacle of the Central African Republic turing into the
Central Africa Empire, another fiasco. See how France screwed the ex-German colonies of Africa arguable one of the worst one upiings in African history.
Took advantage of the crooked League of Nations by turning German Togoland/Togo back into a colony and Kameron/cameroon likewise while the countries of europe were alowed to regain
independence. what does France say of that?
Ciggy how would Europe liked it if we stopped coming? Like they say beggers cant be choosers and Europe is pretty mutch silently begging for our buissness. Also say
your kids are forced to go to a school because districts changed and they had to transfer. say the school was run down and the US flag still had 48 stars! Would you complain about having your kids forced to go
to something 4th rate by no choice of your own or would u demand better?
We dont need to see franquis’ ejackulation (sp?) stains from that crazy weekend so i cant see why Americans shouldnt want the best or at least dessent.
The Europeans who dragged us into WWII have sense 1945 and at full force sense 1989 have rambled and spaatand whinned and have been in constance conflict with us even thought they
insist on sending their second rate nationals here. For further details on that topic look into Ellis Isle footage circa 1923. Why should we change just to get their approval. Like it or not Bush is a catch 22 now.
Dispose of him and we’ll just being trying to suck up to Europe leave him
and he’ll aledgely ruin this country and cause more of a World backlash or
World meaning Europe from a white American’s perspective.
Also dont confuse the Green Party as just another inviromentest uprising for the Green are more then just that. They are reformers and the EPA
is a little but to small to meat their full scale of needs. Thats why Nader has to run and Nader needs to try and appeal to Blacks and Latinos and farmers and the poor
and colledge students and others who need help. He has to move and ive agreed to help get him on the Tenn. St. ballod but he really does need to start doing stuff and soon. He needs to try to get
a few states with a majority or close to being shunned or continously screwed by both parties every 4 years. If he is a spoiler i say ye an autocrat.

Nader doesn’t really give answers i am not satisfied with him at all NADER SUCKS!!

The Food Stamp Program needs to be a long term solutions in this Country. There is a growing populations of hunger and poverty in America. That include high enmployment and lack of public transportations services in this Country. There are 77% of those with disabilities faces higher unmployment or underemployment in New Hampshire and the rest of the nations. Today the food stamps is the best solutions to end hunger in America. Food Pantaries and soup kitchens does not do much to end hunger in America. Food Stamps gives people with disabilities and people without disabilities more choices of food they choices to buy. I urge you to changes the federal food stamp guidline rules to make accuess for people to receive so they can have planty of food to eat for with their familitis.