What's disturbing about Nader, is that he himself would probably vote for Gore and for Kerry (if he was not running). But the consequence of his running is that Bush is in the White house. Everyone seems to understand this but Nader himself. No wonder, Republicans are helping him get on the ballots! The whole thing is screwing with democracy. If you have more than two candidates, you have to have a runoff election. Otherwise candidates who agree with the majority will split the majority and both lose. Imagine what would happen if some fiscal conservative/libertarian ran as the 4th party and took like 5% of Bush's vote? That would not be fair either. I am not saying the system should be changed. Normally the system works because people do not want to harm their own agendas. Seems to me that Nader gets a kick out of it, but he is unusual. If he did not run, and Gore won the last election, Nader's agenda would have been better served. I do not understand this strange man. :)

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

good article about Nader (in russian) http://www.izvestia.ru/world/article416758

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor: Imagine what would happen if some fiscal conservative/libertarian ran as the 4th party and took like 5% of Bush's vote? That would not be fair either.

---

that happened in the first clinton's election. Perot drew millions of votes away from the President George H.W. Bush, and allowed Bill Clinton to be elected with just 43 percent of the vote. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt bolted from the Republicans to run as the nominee of the Progressive Party. Roosevelt pulled in a whopping 27.5 percent of the popular vote, splitting the GOP and costing incumbent William Howard Taft the presidency. Taft got just 23.2 percent, and the Democratic challenger, Woodrow Wilson, won with 41.9 percent.

---

exactly Lionya. And don't get me started on the Buchanan-Bush butterfly ballot thing :)

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

will someone explain to me what kind of a policy towards Israel will John Kerry have and how he plans to support Israel, if he does plan that?

---

quote:

---

What's disturbing about Nader, is that he himself would probably vote for Gore and for Kerry (if he was not running). But the consequence of his running is that Bush is in the White house. Everyone seems to understand this but Nader himself. No wonder, Republicans are helping him get on the ballots! The whole thing is screwing with democracy. If you have more than two candidates, you have to have a runoff election. Otherwise candidates who agree with the majority will split the majority and both lose. Imagine what would happen if some fiscal conservative/libertarian ran as the 4th party and took like 5% of Bush's vote? That would not be fair either. I am not saying the system should be changed. Normally the system works because people do not want to harm their own agendas. Seems to me that Nader gets a kick out of it, but he is unusual. If he did not run, and Gore won the last election, Nader's agenda would have been better served. I do not understand this strange man. :)

---

Their used to be no Republican Party... the Republican Party was a sort of new Party just before the outbreak of the American Civil War. Perhaps somebody can build a viable new party for the future? The thing is, it has to get started somewhere and the beginnings of new, viable political parties are never easy going. Usually they have a rough start. I think you misunderstand Nader's strategy. Nader understands he will not win the presidency by running but chooses to run anyways... not to win... but to either force the democrats to pay more attention to voters or those voters who lean more to the left or to continue to build a new movement which could have the start of a new viable political party if democrats refuse to pay attention to the needs of the more left leaning voters or voters in general. So I view Nader's entry into the race as a postive. Perot's entry into the race in the early 90s was positive right up to the point that Ross Perot pre-maturely left the race. This was his mistake. He should have stayed tough and stayed the course and he could have had the strong potential to build a new party or to make a positive influence. So, even though I am a Bush supporter, I view the way Nader conducted himself as positive because he stays the course and he stays tough despite all his critics (just like Bush). I recognize that Nader will take away votes in favor of my candidate but that is not the reason why I view Nader's entry into the race as positive. I view it as positive because he brings more competition which forces the other political parties to meet the needs of voters and pay more attention to the needs of voters. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

quote:

---

will someone explain to me what kind of a policy towards Israel will John Kerry have and how he plans to support Israel, if he does plan that?

---

You can be rest assured that John Kerry will support Israel if he is president. Nader on the other hand is more critical towards Israel. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alla: will someone explain to me what kind of a policy towards Israel will John Kerry have and how he plans to support Israel, if he does plan that?

---

Alla, to my knowledge, Kerry has not talked about it very much. He has said that he is against the wall, and he also said another time he is for the wall. Other than that I have heard nothing. I also have heard nothing from Bush except that he is for the settlements and against the settlements. There is no clear policy in the US, and I do not think this will change regardless of who is president. Kerry may be more involved in the process however, because he sees the Palestinian/Israel problem as the root of our foreign policy. I think Bush would disagree. He says Iraq is the root. Hopefully this will be discussed in the debates. But I am not expecting any breakthroughs from either candidate. I agree with Mestiza that Kerry would generally favor Israel, as would Bush. Nader would not.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

Generally, both the democrat and republican parties have supported Israel. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/jewish_americans/strength_security.html At the forefront of the fight for Israel’s security throughout his entire nineteen year career in the Senate, John Kerry has built an impeccable pro-Israel voting record. Along with his colleague John Edwards, he has stood time and again for Israel’s security. John Kerry and John Edwards have never wavered in their commitment to Israel’s security, and they never will. John Kerry did not wait until he was running for president of the United States to visit Israel - he has traveled there throughout his public life. Through his meetings with Israeli political and military leaders – and especially with ordinary Israelis – he has gained a deep understanding of the everyday security threat the Israeli people face. His running mate, John Edwards, visited Israel in August 2001, meeting with Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that in uncertain times like these we must reaffirm and strengthen our special relationship with Israel, our most steadfast friend and ally in the region. Their commitment to a safe, secure, democratic Jewish state of Israel is unwavering. It comes from a shared personal belief that Israel’s cause must be America’s cause. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that anti-Semitism – often masked in anti-Israel rhetoric -- is a dangerous trend threatening both Israel and Jewish communities around the world. They have spent their careers standing up to prejudice in all of its forms, and they will continue that fight every day because America cannot remain silent when the voice of hate rises. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR AMERICA’S SUPPORT FOR OUR ALLY ISRAEL • We will never pressure Israel to compromise its security. • We will never expect Israel to negotiate for peace without a credible partner. • We will always work to provide the political and military and economic help for Israel’s fight against terror. • We will restore American leadership in the Middle East because Israel’s security is bolstered when we lead and America is safer. A BOLD PLAN: SUPPORTING ISRAEL, RESTORING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP Supporting Israel’s Right to Respond to Terrorism. John Kerry and John Edwards support Israel’s right of self defense to eliminate threats to its citizens, including actions taken by Israel against Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups. In spring 2002, John Kerry and John Edwards co-sponsored a resolution expressing solidarity with Israel’s efforts to provide security to its citizens by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in Palestinian areas. The resolution called for continued assistance in strengthening Israel's homeland defenses and reaffirmed a commitment to Israel’s right to self-defense. As Kerry said in April 2004, appearing on Meet the Press, “I believe Israel has every right in the world to respond to any act of terror against it.” Yasser Arafat: A Failed Leader Unfit to be a Partner for Peace. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that Yasser Arafat is a failed leader unfit to be a partner for peace. They support Arafat’s isolation. John Kerry and John Edwards will work tirelessly to ensure that new, responsible Palestinian leadership -- committed in word and deed to ending the violence, fighting terror and promoting democracy -- emerges. Supporting the Security Fence. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that Israel’s security fence is a legitimate response to terror that only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel. The fence is an important tool in Israel’s fight against terrorism. Kerry strongly condemned the International Court of Justice’s July ruling on the fence, and he has always made clear that he did not believe that the ICJ should even be considering the issue. John Kerry believes our nation is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes Palestinians. Israel’s own Supreme Court has looked at the very same issues and Kerry believes we should respect that process. Supporting Israel’s Withdrawal Plan and the Creation of a Palestinian State. John Kerry and John Edwards support Israel’s unprecedented plan to withdraw from the Gaza strip and they support the creation of a democratic Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. They believe that the creation of a Palestinian state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. They understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949—and they understand that all final status negotiations must be mutually agreed on. Maintaining Israel’s Military Superiority. In a Kerry-Edwards administration, America will continue to guarantee Israel’s military superiority. John Kerry and John Edwards support carefully restricting arms sales to Arab countries in the region. John Kerry opposed the sale of Maverick missiles and F-15 fighter planes to Saudi Arabia, and voted to prohibit the Department of Defense from awarding contracts to any foreign entities that cooperate with the Arab boycott of Israel. Supporting Aid to Israel. John Kerry and John Edwards have always voted to maintain critical foreign aid to our ally Israel, resisting any attempts to cut it over their years in the Senate. In the early 1990s, John Kerry fought President George H.W. Bush when Bush threatened to veto loan guarantees for the costs of resettling Soviet and Ethiopian refugees in Israel. As John Kerry said of Bush’s attempt to make guarantees dependent on Israeli concessions, “It would be highly unfair to hold Israel hostage to a peace process that it has no control over.” Kerry also co-sponsored legislation to provide the loan guarantees. Fighting to Move the American Embassy to Jerusalem. John Kerry and John Edwards have long advocated moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, Israel’s indisputable capital. In 1999, John Kerry and John Edwards signed a letter taking President Clinton to task for not moving the embassy. Standing with Israel in the UN and other International Organizations. John Kerry and John Edwards have always believed the U.S. must stand solidly behind Israel at the U.N. and other international organizations. They recognize that the U.N. must establish more credibility on Arab-Israeli matters, and John Kerry will never hesitate to wield a U.S. veto on the Security Council in the face of anti-Israel/anti-Zionist resolutions. As John Kerry said in opposing the U.N. General Assembly’s one-sided resolution regarding Israel’s security fence in July, “As president I will stand up for Israel’s security in the UN or any international organization.” Strengthening Israel’s Economy While Working Together to Secure Homelands. John Kerry and John Edwards will work to secure the U.S. homeland while simultaneously strengthening the Israeli economy. He will help to jumpstart Israel’s high tech sector by working to adapt many of the innovative technologies Israel has developed to combat terrorism and protect its homeland for U.S. use. Restoring American Leadership in the Middle East John Kerry and John Edwards believe that bringing security and stability to the Middle East is vital to American national security, to the security of Israel and other countries in the region, and to the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a viable Palestinian state. In a Kerry-Edwards administration, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be an afterthought, but a priority that will always get the consistent, high-level attention it deserves. John Kerry and John Edwards will bring determined leadership to ending the violence and developing a new Palestinian leadership - one that is committed in word and deed to fighting terror and meeting the needs of its people. John Kerry and John Edwards will work tirelessly to achieve a stable, lasting peace with security in the Middle East and ensure that American leadership is a source of hope in the region. Ending the Financing of Terror. John Kerry and John Edwards will demand accountability and action from all states, including Arab and European countries, to eliminate sources of funds that flow freely to terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Aqsa Brigade. Ending Iran’s Nuclear Program. John Kerry and John Edwards understand that a nuclear armed Iran poses an unacceptable risk to the U.S., Israel and the rest of the free world. As president, John Kerry will lead our allies in a comprehensive international effort that brings all available resources to bear on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability. Ending America’s Dangerous Dependence on Mideast Oil and Getting Serious About Saudi Support for Terror. John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to reduce America's dependence on Mideast oil over the next ten years because they know that only if we are serious about energy independence, can we finally be serious about confronting the role of Saudi Arabia in financing and providing ideological backing for Islamic fundamentalist jihadists. As John Kerry said in accepting the Democratic nomination, “I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation – not the Saudi royal family. And our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future -- so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.” Fighting Saudi Government Anti-Semitism. John Kerry and John Edwards have condemned anti-Semitic comments made at all levels of Saudi government. John Kerry has acted while George Bush remained silent in the face of remarks that call into question the Saudi commitment to fighting terrorism. In May, John Kerry condemned outrageous anti-Semitic comments by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, who blamed ‘Zionists’ for terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. Kerry said Abdullah’s statements raised “serious questions about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s commitment to combating terrorism,” and Kerry strongly criticized President Bush for saying nothing. “As president,” Kerry said, “I will never permit this kind of attack to go unanswered.” In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League in May, Kerry said: “With Saudi-funded hate speech littering the textbooks of children and the Saudi interior minister claiming that 'the Jews' were responsible for 9/11, our current administration thinks that our current relationship with this regime is acceptable. I do not – and I intend to be a president who holds Saudi Arabia accountable for its conduct.” Holding Syria Accountable. John Kerry and John Edwards are co-sponsors of the Syria Accountability Act, legislation to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East. In May, Kerry criticized the Bush administration for its delay in imposing sanctions on Syria.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mestiza: Their used to be no Republican Party... the Republican Party was a sort of new Party just before the outbreak of the American Civil War. Perhaps somebody can build a viable new party for the future? The thing is, it has to get started somewhere and the beginnings of new, viable political parties are never easy going. Usually they have a rough start. I think you misunderstand Nader's strategy. Nader understands he will not win the presidency by running but chooses to run anyways... not to win... but to either force the democrats to pay more attention to voters or those voters who lean more to the left or to continue to build a new movement which could have the start of a new viable political party if democrats refuse to pay attention to the needs of the more left leaning voters or voters in general. So I view Nader's entry into the race as a postive. Perot's entry into the race in the early 90s was positive right up to the point that Ross Perot pre-maturely left the race. This was his mistake. He should have stayed tough and stayed the course and he could have had the strong potential to build a new party or to make a positive influence. So, even though I am a Bush supporter, I view the way Nader conducted himself as positive because he stays the course and he stays tough despite all his critics (just like Bush). I recognize that Nader will take away votes in favor of my candidate but that is not the reason why I view Nader's entry into the race as positive. I view it as positive because he brings more competition which forces the other political parties to meet the needs of voters and pay more attention to the needs of voters. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation. -Reagan

---

Mestiza, I understand the intent of Nader is to create some sort of an ultra-socialist, politically isolationist, populist movement. This is very different from your example of how the Republican party was born. Nader hijacked the "reform party" which did not share any of his views (remember--this was the oil lobby party of Ross Perot). These people have left the party long ago and now support Bush. The Green party members from 4 years ago have used the ballot presence won by the reform party for their subjective needs. There is no national outcry for this, it is done behind the scenes by power hungry and angry extremists. But even if you can convince me that this is a noble cause, the fact is is that they are hurting this cause by helping reelect Bush.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lionya: http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/jewish_americans/strength_security.html

---

Good information, Lionya, thanks for posting. Generally Kerry/Edwards would be much harsher with countries that justify organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. Countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran. On the other hand they would be softer with some other countries that support palestinians, but not Hamas. (namely Europe). So the overall effect would probably be mixed. But I do think this is the way to go.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

You guys are funny!! "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion." - Jed Babbin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: You guys are funny!! [img]

---

we are here to entertain you :)

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

bush doesnt have a clear opinion about the fense.. moreover with everybody saying that liberals are "too sensitive" ... Bush seems to be sensitive towards palestines and is not picking the israel side (or any side for that matter). http://www.bushforpresident.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=1977 Question: Mr. President, what do you expect Israel to do in practical terms in regarding the separation fence that you call the wall? Due to the fact that this is one of the most effective measure against terrorism, can you clarify what do you oppose -- the concept of the separation fence, or only its roots? And with your permission -- (asks a question in Hebrew.) PRESIDENT BUSH: -- an international problem. (Laughter.) Q (continues to ask in Hebrew.) PRESIDENT BUSH: Me? Okay. First, the most effective way to fight terror is to dismantle terrorist organizations. I fully recognize that. And we will continue to work with all parties to do just that. I mean, I fully understand that the most effective campaign to enhance the security of Israel, as well as the security of peace-loving people in the Palestinian territories, is to get after organizations such as Hamas, the terrorist organizations that create the conditions where peace won't exist. And therefore, I would hope in the long-term a fence would be irrelevant. But, look, the fence is a sensitive issue, I understand. And the Prime Minister made it very clear to me that it was a sensitive issue. And my promise to him is we'll continue to discuss and to dialogue how best to make sure that the fence sends the right signal that not only is security important, but the ability for the Palestinians to live a normal life is important, as well.

---