Michigan Republicans File 42,000 Signatures to Get Nader on Ballot

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Here's the one about Arizona:

Seems that the dispute was pretty valid...

Okay, on this one, I have to side with Nader. The dispute may have been valid by law BUT Nader's claim that there are too many technicalities to get on a ballot is valid in a LOT of States. The technicalities in some State laws can be as simple as not signing exactly as your name appears on the rolls, (your name is on the rolls with your middle initial but you don't use it with your signature) putting your address as a mailing address instead of a physical address (POB) or visa versa, or the rolls being incorrect and you putting current correct info in an address. The laws are riduculous and they do favor the major parties becasue 1) they have the money to challenge such things and 2) they have the experienced petition people to gather signatures themselves despite all these rules. (Though believe me I have seen Major Party petitions that could be thrown out if anyone had the money to challenge them - but ya don't). By the same token, when a secondary party petition is challenged they frequently don't have the money or legal resources to defend their petition even if they have a legitimate defense of it.

So, another stumbling block to changing the system and another reason why sadly, a secondary party is just a spoiler. (Think about it, knock the guy off in just a few states and how can this be a legitimate race if the name doesn't appear on all ballots?)

One more thought. The truth is.... at the local level the secondary party candidate is just the opposite of your initial post. It is easily manipulated as a cross endorsement opportunity and can guarantee a win.

Yes, the Dems got their attorney's to disallow the signatures because the man who collected them was an ex-con (who paid his debt to society, and is a registered voter), while at the same time trying to make sure the felons in Florida have a chance to vote, claiming the Republicans are preventing it. This is hypocritical in my view.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Yes, the Dems got their attorney's to disallow the signatures because the man who collected them was an ex-con (who paid his debt to society, and is a registered voter), while at the same time trying to make sure the felons in Florida have a chance to vote, claiming the Republicans are preventing it. This is hypocritical in my view.

Geez, this is what I am talking about. Are you saying the petitioner had the right to vote but not the right to petition?

As for Florida, Ex-felons may after they served their debt to society apply to have their voting rights re-instated. Again, it is a matter of paperwork and red tape (how many know this and bother too). But they are not forever out of the loop. By the way, how many ex-felons really care?

Exactly Relentless, but it is sad that the media has so much influence and the majority of people don't take the time to find the details. That is why I come here for my info and try to provide some news items when I find them.

I find that you have alot of bias here but it is easy to spot, and if you dig a little deeper the truth creeps out.

Honestly, I think both both parties are hypocritical. I see what you are saying about technicalities and such, and I do believe it is not right, but it is legal. Nader claimed in the first article he would be using legal action against what the Democrats were doing, which led me to believe that the Democrats were doing something illegal. I don't think its fair though to put the blame on one party or another in this case because both are only concerned with Nader for how much they could benefit/harm them. Nader tries to pass himself off as oblivious and has reduced to the mudslinging that other parties have done. At least, this is what we hear in the news. I really haven't heard much about the issues.

I'd like to see Nader take himself seriously as a presidential candidate and tell everyone where he would take America in its present state. I'm sure its buried somewhere though.

Anyway, I recommend my other thread here:
The Evolving Political Polarity

It seems now that Nader is getting himself involved in this war between the parties, and I disagree with his choice to allow the Republicans to manipulate him and his choice to negotiate with the Democrats. If his views overlap with each, so be it. But he is choosing to engage in the mudslinging over his pride.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Honestly, I think both both parties are hypocritical.

I believe we are in the same boat in this situation. We just have to keep our eyes and ears open and try to seek out the truth as we wade through the muck.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Yes, the Dems got their attorney's to disallow the signatures because the man who collected them was an ex-con (who paid his debt to society, and is a registered voter), while at the same time trying to make sure the felons in Florida have a chance to vote, claiming the Republicans are preventing it. This is hypocritical in my view.

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word hypocritical. You are hypocritical when your actions are contrary to your beliefs. Like when Republicans who disagree with Nader politically and don't want him to be elected President contribute time and money to help Nader get on the ballot.

If Arizona law says that ex-convicts are not allowed to collect petition signatures, then it is perfectly valid and legal to disqualify such signatures. There is no hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats here.

Would you care to explain how Democrats could arrange for ex-felons to vote in Florida, since I'm pretty sure ex-felons are not allowed to vote in federal elections? I don't believe the Democrats are claiming the Republicans are preventing ex-felons from voting. Care to document that?

Even if Democrats were trying to change the law to allow ex-felons to vote, where would the hypocrisy be? Remember, to qualify as hypocrisy, you must show that actions of Democrats are contrary to their beliefs. Comparing the situations in Arizona and Florida does not reveal any actions contrary to beliefs, especially since the ex-convict in Arizona is a registered voter. So even if the Democrats believe that ex-felons should be allowed to vote, where is the hypocrisy? Don't use big words when you don't know what they mean.



[edit on 7/25/2004 by donguillermo]

[edit on 7/25/2004 by donguillermo]

Originally posted by donguillermo
You obviously don't know the meaning of the word hypocritical. You are hypocritical when your actions are contrary to your beliefs. Like when Republicans who disagree with Nader politically and don't want him to be elected President contribute time and money to help Nader get on the ballot.

If Arizona law says that ex-convicts are not allowed to collect petition signatures, then it is perfectly valid and legal to disqualify such signatures. There is no hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats heres.

Since you are the expert on hypocrisy, do you think that this qualifies?

JacKatMtn says

Since you are the expert on hypocrisy, do you think that this qualifies?

No, it does not even come close to qualifying. First of all, the group America Coming Together is not part of, or affiliated with the Democratic Party in any way. Yes, the group supports the Democrats. You cannot hold a political party responsible for the actions of a group that supports it. If so, then the Republicans better be prepared to accept responsibility for actions of Nazi skinhead groups and the Ku Klux Klan.

Second of all, the Arizona case involved collecting signatures on petitions. The Missouri case involved registering people to vote. I suppose you are going to tell me that collecting signatures on petitions = registering people to vote.

Third of all, even if the Democrats disapproved of the Arizona law prohibiting ex-convicts from collecting petition signatures, there is still nothing hypocritical about the actions of the Democrats in Arizona. How is it hypocritical to take advantage of a law of which you disapprove? Please explain. If it is hypocritical, then everyone who disapproved of Bush's tax cuts is hypocritical if they keep the extra money they received as a tax refund.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Since you are the expert on hypocrisy, do you think that this qualifies?

Pro-Democratic group paid felons for voter registration drive
JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri (AP) -- A political group working to defeat President Bush and aid Democratic candidates has paid felons -- some convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary -- to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in at least three election swing states.

America Coming Together, contending that convicted criminals deserve a second chance in society, employs felons as voter canvassers in major metropolitan areas in Missouri, Florida, Ohio and perhaps in other states among the 17 it is targeting in its drive. Some lived in halfway houses, and at least four returned to prison.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Good lord, this is just negligent!

Okay, I get it - there is a tax break to employers to hire people in this situation, but sending them door to door is downright insane. This is a total disregard for the safety of the public and no way can be explained away by any bleeding heart or suppossed good intentions to give people a second chance. NOT THE PLACE! INAPPROPRIATE!

Originally posted by donguillermo

You cannot hold a political party responsible for the actions of a group that supports it.

This is an old and tired excuse and an easy way for either party to use other groups or even create one to advance their agenda. At the least they should comment if the actions of the group are not what they represent, they should in fact come out and denounce it. I do have to give Bush credit for the fact that he was the first to acknowledge, these are my ads and I approve of them. At the very least we can ignore those without his endorsement. It is a MAJOR STEP in the right direction.

Originally posted by donguillermo
Second of all, the Arizona case involved collecting signatures on petitions. The Missouri case involved registering people to vote. I suppose you are going to tell me that collecting signatures on petitions = registering people to vote.

The activity needed to do both are similar. Approaching the public, often door to door. There is the the problem.

Originally posted by donguillermo
Third of all, even if the Democrats disapproved of the Arizona law prohibiting ex-convicts from collecting petition signatures, there is still nothing hypocritical about the actions of the Democrats in Arizona.

Okay, now I get why ex-felons though they may have the right to vote, should not be collecting signatures. It made no sense at first - brain blurb - sorry"

Relentless says

I do have to give Bush credit for the fact that he was the first to acknowledge, these are my ads and I approve of them.

Why would you give Bush any credit for this? He is required by the new McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to make this statement in every ad.

It is only a few words in the new McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, a rider first attached in the Senate by Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat. The new measure requires "an unobscured, full-screen view of the candidate" making the statement "that the candidate has approved the communication."

www.factcheck.org...

The link contains a link to an official government document in PDF format.

Originally posted by donguillermo
Relentless says

Why would you give Bush any credit for this? He is required by the new McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to make this statement in every ad.

Well, I stand corrected, I give credit to the law. It was just that I heard Bush do it first. I am glad such a law has finally been passed. This is definately a step in the right direction.

Originally posted by donguillermo

Why would you give Bush any credit for this? He is required by the new McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to make this statement in every ad.

Okay, now that I have brought myself up to speed on this... just for kicks can I give him credit for signing the bill?

Aw come on now

Alright Agent Clinton and Trinity Blue Eyes, enough, we are getting way off topic. woah.

The fact is both parties don't want Nader nor any other third party in office. They are both willing to turn to underhanded tactics to get their way. Not to mention Nader isn't sitting in this situation as a holy alter boy. He knows what the deal is, yet he'd rather sit on his ass, twidling his thumbs, waiting to see who supports his campaign and who doesn't. If he's got beef, he'll let you know. Nader needs to stick to the issues and to the grassroots campaign he is all about instead of getting caught up in this mess. He had the ability to refuse signatures, yet he didn't and it's not like he didn't know where they came from.