The dumba$$ announced he is running again.
I cannot BELIEVE this idiot is pulling this now. I mean, he practically HANDED Bush the White House last time around. His running may have shifted the margin of victory to Bush by stripping Gore of voters. The really horrific part is that Nader was running on a platform that was almost completely encompassed by Gore'* environmental agenda.
Somebody needs to slap the p*ss out of him and tell him to get over himself.

LOL!!!! I laughed when I saw the title to this thread.

Yeah hes pretty messed up in the head at this point, but I believe his last margin of people supporting him was 0.5%.

0.3% according to the press, as believeable as they are.

i don't see eye to eye with Nader on several issues and don't plan to vote for him but this is america and a country that people have the freedom to run for president

Sure, they have the freedom, but we're a two party system, so pick the lesser of two evils. People that vote for him are either doing so on principle, or morons. I wish we weren't a two party system, or a winner takes all, but that'* the way it is. Majority rules. :?

Maybe he'll debate with the dolls again this time.

on the whole two party system and picking the lesser of two evils subject:

why would one pick the lesser of two evils, one would still be voting for evil

hypothetical question, what if not one person voted? what would they do? how would they decide? what if the american people stood up together and said they wont vote for the lesser of two evils, they will only vote for the good? what if somebody came around who wasn't a politician? somebody who hadn't sold their morals and beliefs to the highest bidder. why must morality and politics be separated? religion has no place in government but neither does profiteering. religion at least encourages people to behave in ways that work toward a common social good. profiteering is only good for the man taking in the money? these men have bought our current politicians off to vote for their common good but everyone elses common bad.

dont get me wrong, I'm about as patriotic as they come. still waiting on my orders to deploy, but i cant vote for the lesser of two evils, it still an evil.

Your premise doesn't really work. A politician is effective because of his sway on other people. If they don't pander to other people'* whims, they will not be able to get anything done. Nothing in Washington is the product of 1 man, it'* the product of a collection of efforts. Nobody is perfect, so even the most ideal candidate would not fully share your ideals. Religion may work towards a "social good," but that is the social good for that religion. It is wrong for religion to have control of a nation, because it would mean that someone needs to be that religion solely because of their geographic location. I am not a Christian, and it would offend me for a Christian to take office and start promoting Christian ideals. In fact, I would probably just leave the country. Religion should have no place in an institution which has the power to control and enforce. Ideally, I would like to vote for the perfect candidate. Obviously, that would get me nowhere. I vote for the candidate that I think will give me the best "bang for my buck." I may not agree completely, but I agree with them more than the next likeliest candidate. For example, it would be stupid to vote for Nader and thereby let Bush win (not that I would have voted for Nader). It would have been better to vote for Gore because he more closely resembles Nader, and is a likely candidate to win.

Run Ralph, RUN!!!!!

Haha, nooo. Don't forget about Perot.

I've decided I'm voting for.........