He's taking advantage of his democratic right to run for presidency, and everyone who mocks his run because he won't win is mocking American liberty.
You agree with his policy? Vote for him. You don't? Don't vote for him.
It's shameful to see people trying to make a fool out of him for wanting to make America a better place for all. He can't "steal" votes from either side, he can only give potential voters a voice better in tune with their opinions than the democrats and republicans.

I wish we had a parliamentary system so people like Nader and Paul could have a place at the table.

Downvote for the guy who's going to help elect John "eternal war" McCain. Nader should have made a stand in the democratic primaries. If the GOP could pay Nader to run, they would.

Kreegath, the winner takes all system distorts the effect of votes. The only actual effect of Nader's run, besides publicity, will be to make it more likely for McCain to win. In a parliament with proportional representation of parties this would be much less of a problem. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives
The USA's electoral system flagrantly fails that criterion by imposing winner-takes-all state elections without runoffs.

Oh come on. Nader makes a huge difference, ok sure. Let's look at some numbers, shall we?

2004 Election: Nader Popular vote is 463,655 (0.38%). Seriously, if you think a third of a percent made any difference in that war, than we can talk.

Now, 2000 was a different story, but maybe not as much as you might think. Nader had 2,883,105 votes (2.73%). If ALL of Nader's supporters had voted Democrat instead of Green, Gore would have won New Hampshire and Florida. New Hampshire is only worth 4 electoral votes. Florida? Who know what really happened there....Ron Paul probably won and the vote counters had heart attacks and died.

My point here is not that 2000 would have been the same w/o Nader. My point is his support tapered off DRASTICALLY by almost 2% of all Americans. I would expect to see the same decline in 2008.

source

I like your point Kreegath. Nader is standing for what he beleives in. I'm not going to vote for him mind you but I definitely respect ANYONE's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to run for president and try to change things.

In Nader's opinion, there isn't a "better" candidate from either party. Claiming that he's being selfish has to do with someone's own motivation and their own choice for their candidate.

Moving this video to hoju's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 3 days.

*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by original submitter hoju.