HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Sic semper Naderus. (A re...

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:26 PM

Sic semper Naderus. (A response to the recent pro-Nader posts)

In response to the predictable attempts to rehabilitate Nader for the next election cycle (like this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4110265 ), I humbly submit the following rebuttal. It is packed with insights, insults, and links to facts (a thing often overlooked when this topic is "discussed" that buttress my case.

That case? Nader deliberately helped Bush to take the White House. Twice. And he said so himself. Deny it all you might, the facts support my thesis: http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/yes-ralph-nader-is-still-an-ahole/

The facts do not support my liberal use of proctological insults. But they do seem to fit.

135 replies, 18129 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 135 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sic semper Naderus. (A response to the recent pro-Nader posts) (Original post)
riqster Dec 2013 OP
Blue_Tires Dec 2013 #1
riqster Dec 2013 #5
Blue_Tires Dec 2013 #7
riqster Dec 2013 #9
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #44
Laelth Dec 2013 #71
riqster Dec 2013 #79
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #94
riqster Dec 2013 #101
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #111
riqster Dec 2013 #113
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #114
riqster Dec 2013 #115
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #116
riqster Dec 2013 #118
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #90
Laelth Dec 2013 #93
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #96
Laelth Dec 2013 #97
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #99
Laelth Dec 2013 #100
Jim Lane Dec 2013 #120
Laelth Dec 2013 #121
el_bryanto Dec 2013 #2
riqster Dec 2013 #6
MineralMan Dec 2013 #3
riqster Dec 2013 #8
libodem Dec 2013 #4
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #10
riqster Dec 2013 #12
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #14
riqster Dec 2013 #16
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #18
riqster Dec 2013 #21
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #24
riqster Dec 2013 #30
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #36
riqster Dec 2013 #43
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #49
riqster Dec 2013 #52
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #75
riqster Dec 2013 #81
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #85
riqster Dec 2013 #87
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #88
G_j Dec 2013 #23
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #25
riqster Dec 2013 #28
G_j Dec 2013 #35
riqster Dec 2013 #38
G_j Dec 2013 #41
riqster Dec 2013 #45
G_j Dec 2013 #47
nyquil_man Dec 2013 #42
riqster Dec 2013 #46
nyquil_man Dec 2013 #50
frylock Dec 2013 #92
riqster Dec 2013 #104
frylock Dec 2013 #119
Gothmog Dec 2013 #126
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #130
Gothmog Dec 2013 #132
progressoid Dec 2013 #20
KamaAina Dec 2013 #62
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #77
KamaAina Dec 2013 #78
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #80
LanternWaste Dec 2013 #129
Gothmog Dec 2013 #11
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2013 #32
Gothmog Dec 2013 #58
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2013 #64
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #13
Vashta Nerada Dec 2013 #15
riqster Dec 2013 #17
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #54
riqster Dec 2013 #57
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #59
riqster Dec 2013 #61
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #63
riqster Dec 2013 #65
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #67
riqster Dec 2013 #105
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #110
frylock Dec 2013 #95
riqster Dec 2013 #103
CorrectOfCenter Dec 2013 #19
nyquil_man Dec 2013 #22
riqster Dec 2013 #27
nyquil_man Dec 2013 #31
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2013 #34
Arkana Dec 2013 #26
riqster Dec 2013 #33
Capt. Obvious Dec 2013 #29
MADem Dec 2013 #37
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #39
riqster Dec 2013 #51
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #53
riqster Dec 2013 #55
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #66
Marr Dec 2013 #102
riqster Dec 2013 #123
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #127
riqster Dec 2013 #128
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #134
riqster Dec 2013 #135
freshwest Dec 2013 #40
riqster Dec 2013 #48
freshwest Dec 2013 #72
riqster Dec 2013 #74
freshwest Dec 2013 #84
riqster Dec 2013 #86
Rex Dec 2013 #56
Le Taz Hot Dec 2013 #60
pnwmom Dec 2013 #68
Avalux Dec 2013 #69
sagat Dec 2013 #70
riqster Dec 2013 #73
whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #76
Rex Dec 2013 #82
riqster Dec 2013 #122
Rex Dec 2013 #124
riqster Dec 2013 #125
riqster Dec 2013 #83
frylock Dec 2013 #98
Jamaal510 Dec 2013 #89
riqster Dec 2013 #108
RBInMaine Dec 2013 #91
riqster Dec 2013 #109
KG Dec 2013 #106
Celefin Dec 2013 #117
BlueToTheBone Dec 2013 #107
hrmjustin Dec 2013 #112
1000words Dec 2013 #131
riqster Dec 2013 #133

Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:32 PM

1. I can't tell if all of DU is infested with shit-stirrers, really bored or really drunk...

(probably all three)

Seriously? There are DUers with *nothing* better to do on 3 December 2013 than scrape off the scab from the 2000 election??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:45 PM

5. That scab is there because the wound never healed.

So, yeah, we'd best be dealing with it, 13 years later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:49 PM

7. Short of time travel, how do we "deal with it?"

I prefer living for the present moment instead of wishing I could change the past...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:55 PM

9. Actually, we agree.

Every election cycle, the Nader defenders try to justify him and his actions, and further promote using Naderism as a template for our actions in the upcoming election.

If we don't learn from the past, we'll repeat it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:50 PM

44. Actually, I think the best way to deal with it ...

 

is to avoid doing/allowing it to be done, again.

The Nader thing is/can be/should be a cautionary tale to be told to progressives that would have us believe that the path forward is for more progressives to run beyond the Democratic Primaries into the General Elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:01 PM

71. If the Democratic Party gives us a liberal candidate to support ...

[font size=18 color=blue] ... it WON'T happen again.[/font]

The answer seems simple to me.



-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:09 PM

79. Not sure about that.

There will always be people who don't find a candidate liberal enough, and if they work behind the scenes to help elect neocon Repubs, we could see this scenario repeated.

The best way to avoid repeating mistakes is to be aware of them. Truly progressive liberals will always get my votes...unless, like Nader, they are not real, just film-flam artists working for the other side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #79)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 06:59 PM

94. Well ...

 

Truly progressive liberals will always get my votes IN THE PRIMARIES ...unless, like Nader, they are not real, just film-flam artists working for the other side. IF THAT PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL DOES NOT SURVIVE THE PRIMARY ELECTION; THEN, THE (LESS THAN PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL) DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE WILL GET MY VOTE ... ALWAYS.


That, I think, is the more prudent course to chart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #94)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 08:04 PM

101. Well put.

I supported Kucinich in the 08 primaries, to keep the platform from going too far to the Right.

I them supported our candidates in the General election. All of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #101)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 11:22 PM

111. And THAT ...

 

is the message "progressives", e.g., Naderites and many DUers, refuse to hear, as losing with principled dignity is more important than a Democratic win ... because, in the words of Nader, "Do Nothing republicans are equal to Do Little Democrats."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #111)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 11:31 PM

113. I don't see it as having lost.

We got a dem in as Prexy, and then re-elected him. That ain't losing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #113)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 11:37 PM

114. That's because ...

 

we didn't have a nader-like progressive in either race to split the vote. If we had, we likely would have suffered through a McCain/Palin presidency and (if there was still a world left) a Romney presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #114)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 11:53 PM

115. Which is why these threads are necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #115)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 08:09 AM

116. Agreed ...

 

So long as it is focused on the cautionary 3rd Party tale, as opposed to allowing it to devolve into focusing merely on nader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #116)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 08:31 AM

118. Absolutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 06:53 PM

90. But it's NOT ...

 

the "Democratic Party" that is depriving us of liberal candidates to support ... it's the lack of liberal candidates that can/do survive the primary process that gives us the "less than (sufficiently) liberal" candidates.

Yeah ... Yeah ... I know ... "If the Democratic Party would only spend more money on progressive candidates, things would be different."

The sad electoral fact (based on Primary results) is ... those voting Democratic are far less willing to vote for that progressive candidate than progressive would have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #90)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 06:57 PM

93. Americans under 30 have a more favorable opinion of socialism than of capitalism.

The Democratic Party you know is dying. The new one is much more liberal, as are the American people. The sooner the Party establishment figures this out, the better things will be for all of us.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #93)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 07:02 PM

96. They will figure that out ...

 

when that "fact", shows up at, and in, the primary polls ... not before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #96)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 07:04 PM

97. I think the current Party establishment has a strong incentive ...

... to never figure that out.

Only time will tell.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #97)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 07:52 PM

99. Politicians are (largely) two things ...

 

if nothing else ... and the Party Establishment is made up of politicians:

1) (electoral) Followers, not leaders; and,
2) (electoral) Risk Adverse.

Both of these factors, suggest they will change when the primary results tell them to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #99)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 07:57 PM

100. I agree with your assessment about the nature of politicians.

And I don't begrudge them that learned behavior. That said, the establishment Democratic Party has a strong incentive to remain pro-Wall Street. As such, they will probably continue to marginalize the left and argue that no liberal can win in a national election ...

... even when it's not true. As such, I don't trust the "wisdom" of any Democrat who tells me a liberal can not win nationally. Demographics say we win in 2016 no matter whom we run. As such, why not run a real liberal?

(and the never-openly-stated answer to that question is simple--Wall Street money)

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #100)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 12:20 PM

120. 1StrongBlackMan keeps talking about PRIMARIES and you keep ignoring that

 

You're talking about the Party establishment as if it were all-powerful. It's been decades since that was true. The Democratic nominee for most offices is the winner of a primary in which any Democrat can run. For the Presidency, the Party establishment has some formal influence, through the superdelegates, but the vast majority of Convention delegates will still be chosen in primaries or caucuses.

I completely agree with you that the Democratic Party should nominate progressive candidates (although with due regard for the need to tack right in some states and districts). We have to face the fact, though, that our preferred progressives don't always win the primary. Even in those instances, the more conservative Democrat who does win is almost always far preferable to the Republican. A third-party challenge from the left in the general election can't accomplish anything significant except to help the Republican.

That's why saying that the Democrats should nominate liberals is accurate but incomplete. When they don't, if you decide to stomp off in disgust and vote for Nader or his ilk, that's your choice, but it's pointless to say that the blame falls on the Democrats who disagreed with you in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #120)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 12:58 PM

121. Admittedly, I ignore the argument that primaries are valid.

They're not, if by "valid" we mean that they reflect the expressed desires of the majority of Democrats.

The country is rapidly becoming far more liberal, yet we are supposed to believe that the primary system will produce a candidate that actually reflects a consensus among party members and likely Democratic voters? I don't think so. My goal is to head off another pro-Wall Street, corporate Democratic candidate for President. I do not believe that the Democratic primaries are fair, nor do I think they produce the best possible candidate that we could run. I'll live with the system, of course, because it's the only one we have, but I will not concede that the primary system produces candidates that are representative of Democrats, nor of the desires of the American people as a whole.

The Party establishment is not all powerful. With that I agree. On the other hand, the Party establishment is, still, very powerful, and my fear is that the establishment will hand us a candidate that does not advance the common interests of the American people. As I've argued before: 1) demographics say we win no matter what in 2016, so why not run a real liberal? 2) the Republicans are going to paint our candidate as the most liberal so-and-so since Lenin, so, again I ask, why not run a real liberal? These questions remain unanswered because the party establishment is as much in the pocket of big, monied interests as are the Republicans.

This can not continue if the Party wants to survive. The 3rd Way has got to go. The Democratic Party has got to start representing the interests of the people. Otherwise, the people will go elsewhere.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:32 PM

2. Hmmmmm. If the facts don't support them, why do they fit? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:47 PM

6. Probably because I am such a contumacious SOB. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:34 PM

3. Yah. He said it here:

-Interview, Meet the Press, June 25, 2000
MR. RUSSERT: Bottom line, it wouldn't bother you if your presence in this presidential race elected George W. Bush?

MR. NADER: Not at all. I mean, you're dealing with Democratic do-littles and Republican do-nothings.... You think anyone should lose any sleep about these two corrupt parties being stripped from their power over our government? http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/nadar.cfm

More at this link, for those who are actually interested in Nader's own words:

http://www.hereinstead.com/QUOTATIONS-FROM-RALPH-NADER.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:35 PM

4. You know the drill....

FUCK NADER!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:59 PM

10. Since Nader is running (sarcasm)

 

The sad part is you guys keep missing the point. The election was stolen by Kamela Harris, Jeb Bush, the guys in Sacks Fifth Ave suits and five older folks at the Supreme Court.

I guess an older man is an easier target.



Oh and lastly, define naderism. I cover politics and it's not a term used outside a very specific blogging site. This includes poli sci and history departments who are familiar with the five guys at the SCOTUS, as well as the suits and both the Governor and the SOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:11 PM

12. The reason it COULD be stolen was the margin.

Had the margin not been so narrow, it could not have been stolen.

A number of factors contributed to that's narrowness: voter registration scrubbing, other dirty tricks and suchlike. We all agree on those elements.

But for some reason, Nader's contributions are nonexistent? And his recorded statements unimportant? And his recorded actions insignificant?

Puh-leeze. Nader matters, just like the rest of those factors. And we need to keep them in mind as we approach 2014, 2016, and the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:17 PM

14. Explain all those elderly Jews voting for Buchanan

 

As part of the grand plan.

I have spoken to plenty of political scientists. That is what they do. The blame is in order with...

The ballot design. It was confusing, to the point Jews ended voting for buchanan, democrats for Bush and so forth.

Disenfranchisement of tens of thousands before the election, remember the felon list? That is your margin right there.

The near riot inside the counting of ballots by congressional staff...this led to courts getting involved even faster than they would otherwise.

The unprecedented decision of the United States Supreme Court to override the decision of the State Supreme Court. Elections are a state affair, until, well they are not. The vote count was later done by press, which found on a certain Sept 11 that Gore won.

At the bottom, and only one professor of many deigned give it any weight, and it was minor at best, as in a passing thought, was Ralph Nader.

It is time to grow up and deal with at least the first two points. Nader is nowhere near the top.

Oh and I am still waiting for you to define naderism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:27 PM

16. Math dictates otherwise.

Less than five votes gave the Repubes complete control of Ohio in the last statewide election. In one district. That is five votes out of the entire state.

Ignoring ANY factor, or (worse) tacitly endorsing its re-use, is a good way to lose.

For want of a horseshoe nail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:38 PM

18. Yup, why you keep ignoring

 

The tacit disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters. It is partisan, it is wrong, and wrong headed.

Or the fact that the ballot design led to people voting not for their chosen candidate.

It is quite partisan, and ignorant of the facts. This led to HAVA and black box voting, which directly led to the shenanigans of 2004 and OH and a certain central tabulator

Oh and still waiting, patiently, for what naderism stands for.

It sure is nice to see you blaming a minor factor in the scheme that stole two presidential elections and the computer code only knows how many others, added to gerrymandering, you are actually helping the crooks with that fixation.

Anyhoo, what is naderism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:53 PM

21. The fact is, you cannot put everything you care about into a single post.

With all due respect, I have been an election integrity activist since the mid-90's, and am engaged in the other factors of which you speak. This is a focused post on Nader.

I also note that you either can not, or simply do not refute the facts as they have been presented: that Nader took Bush money and assistance, worked with Bush, and actively expressed his desire for a Bush victory. That could form a concise definition of Naderism, if you like.

Either way, you can't refute it. Or if you can, you haven't yet. Just tried to deflect from it, via various time-honored rhetorical techniques.

Got facts to refute my points?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:59 PM

24. As I said, experts in political science and history I have spoken to

 

place Nader's role in the whole fiasco at the bottom. They do that for a living, and they are not partisan. I prefer to listen to those who have been working on this at an academic level, and have looked at all facts, including that, and continue to place Ralph Nader at the bottom. They give quite a bit of more importance to the fraudulent act of the SCOTUS, as well as the unprecedented, methodological, disenfranchisement of people using a felons list that was fraudulent. In the view of one of them, on those grounds alone the Florida election should have been disqualified en-toto.

And I am still waiting for you to define Naderism by the way, I will be patient, but it seems I can wait for that until hell freezes over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:09 PM

30. See post 21, where I did define it.

You know, the post that you just responded to.

Also waiting for you to refute my thesis with facts of your own: that is, prove that St. Ralph did NOT take Bush money and other assistance, and did not advocate for a Bush victory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:16 PM

36. What part of it does not matter are you purposely missing

 

if they had not disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters by declaring them felons a-priori it would never have been even close.

That is what you are purposely missing

If the SCOTUS had not ordered a stop to the count, overriding the State Supreme Court, which was and still is unprecedented in US Legal history, we would not be having this conversation.

Hell, I am betting if the ballot would have been clear and all those elderly jews who voted for Buchanan voted for Gore as they intended we would not be having this conversation. It was not just them, it was many voters who voted for not their intended candidate.

Political operators giving money to other operators it is Tuesday in American politics. It is as old as the Republic and has nothing to do with an older man who happens to be named Nader. The other items are not.

Sorry if I refuse to join you in your two minutes of hate.

Oh and where is the definition? I sure missed it

riqster (5,920 posts)
21. The fact is, you cannot put everything you care about into a single post.

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2013, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)

With all due respect, I have been an election integrity activist since the mid-90's, and am engaged in the other factors of which you speak. This is a focused post on Nader.

I also note that you either can not, or simply do not refute the facts as they have been presented: that Nader took Bush money and assistance, worked with Bush, and actively expressed his desire for a Bush victory. That could form a concise definition of Naderism, if you like.

Either way, you can't refute it. Or if you can, you haven't yet. Just tried to deflect from it, via various time-honored rhetorical techniques.

Got facts to refute my points?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #36)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:45 PM

43. The part which you just reposted.

You know, right before the "that could form a concise definition of Naderism"? That you cut and pasted into your very own response? Right, THAT definition.


Once again: I have not, and do not, said that we needn't consider all factors in the 2000 and 2004 elections. I have in fact affirmed that bit of rationality and common sense.

It is you that is insisting on not including all the factors, by trying to exclude Nader. And only Nader.

And you gave not presented Ounce One of evidence to refute my OP. Which leaves you with nothing to do but distract and obfuscate.

Nader worked for and with the Republicans to defeat Democratic candidates. That is my point. Address it or keep on talking about other factors, but until you can refute it (or at least attempt a rebuttal), you won't persuade anyone but the Nader Worshippers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:00 PM

49. You defined nothing, and you know why?

 

it does not exist, except in the imagination of those who like 1984 characters need their two minutes of hate.

You are full of it, and for that my friend I feel sorry for you.

I did not refute your point, because there is nothing to refute. He received money from a political operator, that is tuesday in US Politics.

The rest, you refuse to even acknowledge, except for the voter suppression, is not Tuesday. What is different in the voting suppression as well as unprecedented, was the a-priory disenfranchisement. But you know what? Having this talk with you is like talking with my table. It is as effective. I think my table at least shakes from time to time, but I have an explanation for that, I live in a highly seismic area.

Enjoy the two minutes of hate, GOLSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN!!!! This seems strangely apropriate here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:08 PM

52. So, you're OK with helping Republicans defeat Democrats,

Or at least, that seems to be what you are saying. Nader helped Bush steal two electives, and that is no big deal? Really?

Smh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:04 PM

75. You read that as you will

 

I recognize the reality that political operators (on both parties by the way) give money to other operators to defeat opponents. This has been going on since the Republic started well before the GOP was even conceived in 1852. Hell, in some cases it goes to well inside the Colonial period and the people's assemblies in Yankeedom.

It is not whether I agree or not, in an ideal world I want publicly funded elections with zero patrons participating in the process. But being shocked or surprised by something going back to at least the beginning of the Republic is disingenuous at best. It has just changed the forms it takes over the last two hundred plus years.

Hell, at one time those patrons became US Senators! Yes, I know, shocking but at one time Governors appointed them, and many a times they appointed friends who funded their campaigns. STOP THE DAMN PRESSES NOW!

On the other hand, you seem to be ok (on partisan grounds) with the SCOTUS interfering in State Elections. That was unprecedented, and you are ignoring that on partisan grounds, congrats. You seem to be ok, by ignoring it, with a priori disenfranchisement. And you are also ok with confusing ballots designed to get people to vote for the NON intended candidate, which are at a much higher order of responsibility for FL in 2000. You also are ok with proto riots by outsiders in Volusia county while the votes were getting counted, or at least you prefer to ignore all these, for your two minutes of hate.

There is a reason why I am repelled by deep partisans on both sides. They have a need to create a world view and all data that contradicts that world view, in this case the two minutes of hate, are ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #75)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:12 PM

81. Once again, you mistake omission with lack of concern.

I never said that the Supremes' violation of the Constitution was acceptable.

You, on the other hand, clearly said that Nader's actions on behalf of Bush were not important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #81)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:19 PM

85. I said, you need to learn how to read

 

that they are at the bottom of the ladder of responsibility, not at the top.

Is this clear for you now? The rest of them precede them in the higher order since without them you would not be talking about Nader right at the moment. Only in the mind of partisans is Nader that critical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #85)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:26 PM

87. Oh, I read it all right. I just disagree.

The best analogy would be a bank robbery: if we happen to like or admire one gang member, hey, we'll give him a pass. And we will whup the crap out if the crooks we dislike.

Nope. Not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #87)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:29 PM

88. Since you are comparing an illegal act with a legal act

 

and ignoring the rest that were illegal, as I said, my table shakes at times in acknowledgment. At least I know the cause.

Partisans are predictable, no matter which party.

Now I really need to get to work on a tad of dirty poo, real dirty poo. I promise, no Nader in this production.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:57 PM

23. one glaring fact that is NEVER addressed

by the Nader haters.

In fact, the ONLY Dems who cared at all were the Congressional Black Caucus, who were COMPLETELY hung out to dry.

The Nader haters don't seem to really care that ten of thousands of minority voters were disenfranchised. They would prefer to attack others on the left and let the racist Floridian republicans slide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:01 PM

25. Oh absolutely

 

I have had talks with folks in the minority community, who have not forgotten. They do not expect help from the main stream party anymore in this arena. One reason why the NAACP is far more active in voting integrity anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:05 PM

28. Got facts to support that claim?

I supported mine with facts. I'd love to see proof of how I and others did not exist in 2000 and 2004. I mean, I am not a member of the CBC...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:14 PM

35. for starters

They were effectively ignored by the rest of the Democrats. That, and the racial purging is what really pissed me off, and why should we "suffer" forgetters?

Please excuse the long post, but this is so tragic, and must be remembered .

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/06/se.02.html

Special Event

Congressional Black Caucus Protests Electoral Vote Count

Aired January 6, 2001 - 2:00 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: And if you're just joining us, we're going to go straight to the press conference we told you about with the Congressional Black Caucus with regard to the -- all right, we're working on getting audio for you in just a moment. And while we're doing that, I will recap just a bit.

If you're just joining us now, you are looking at live pictures of a Congressional Black Caucus press conference, with Eddie Bernice Johnson, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, active member of the Congressional Black Caucus, talking about why she objected not long ago, within the past half an hour, to -- or rather in the joint session with Vice President Al Gore, as they were counting the presidential votes for one last time.

We have audio. We're going to listen in.

REP. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (D), TEXAS: ... black caucus, and I'm going to ask Mr. Hastings to give his opening statement, and I'll return.

REP. ALCEE HASTINGS (D), FLORIDA: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Today was a very solemn day, and the remarks are that many of us were not permitted, regretted by us all. Had I been given an opportunity to go forward with an appropriate objection, I would have indicated that because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout by unlawful means, I felt the necessity -- as do my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus, and other members of the House of Representatives -- to object to the kinds of errors against democracy, the holy grail of democracy, that were permitted in the state of Florida.

And we felt that they should not be tolerated, as they would not be tolerated in other countries. Indeed, we should not tolerate them in America.

I would have said to Vice President Gore that Harry Truman once said that what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. What we were doing here today is right. I hope all of our colleagues and the American people see it that way. And that is why we raised our objection. And it's a proud moment for the conscience of the House of Representatives, for those of us that are representing the entirety of the Congressional Black Caucus, in the presence of our chairlady, and the members here assembled, we stand proudly to say that we did what was right.

JOHNSON: Forty years ago, during the civil rights movement, I marched for justice with a firm belief that my son would not have to march, in order to utilize his voting rights. Much to my dismay, 40 years later, I find myself marching again, but this time for my grandchildren, so that they will not have to march in order to be afforded the same rights.

How long will we settle for injustice in America? How long will we have to fight to perfect the 15th Amendment? How long will we have to struggle for something that should be every American's birthright? On election day, 100 million Americans went to the polls to make their voices heard. Those voices want to be heard still. No hyper- technical manipulation of election laws should derail the intent of the voter.

We cannot sweep under the carpet the claims of first-time college voters who say they registered to vote, had voter registration cards in their hand, but when they were not allowed to vote at the polls, because their names were not on the roll, the lines were busy all over the country, where they tried to call to clarify their registration.

We cannot sweep this under the carpet, the cries of those who were incorrectly removed from the polling places in Florida by an inept Texas company hired by Mr. Bush's brother.

We cannot ignore believable stories of police intimidation, questionable activities by poll workers and simple ineptness by volunteers at the precincts. We cannot ignore what we saw with our own eyes on television: polls closing on voters in St. Louis, un- American voting lines in Pennsylvania and incredibly complex ballots in South Florida.

There is overwhelming evidence that George W. Bush did not win this election, either by national popular vote or the Florida popular vote. As members of Congress charged with defending the constitutional principles of this country, it is our duty to challenge this vote.

The vice president, in an incredibly statesmanlike effort to take the high road, has ruled against our challenge, so George W. Bush has managed to ascend to our nation's highest office. But he should be on notice that without justice, there can be no peace.

And we will ensure that there is no peace in this Congress until he truly reaches across party lines and corrects these wrongs. He must reach across party lines, racial lines, and philosophical lines. We see what's going on. There will simply be no peace until these problems can be corrected.

<snip>
--
Congressional Black Caucus press conference and listen in once again.

REP. CARRIE MEEK (D), FLORIDA: We dare not have it repeated. We dare not have the Tilden and the Rutherford Hayes situation repeated again, because it disenfranchised our people at that time.

This will disenfranchise -- it already has -- our people. We don't want that continued. We will always come out. We will always fight. We don't care who is it there.

We are very disappointed that our senators did not stand up and support us today. We helped to elect those senators. They will hear from us again, because we feel very disappointed that they didn't say we want our African-Americans, and our disjointed people who were not able to vote, to have someone in the halls of Congress to say, yes, give them a chance to debate this issue, so that the world could see what is happening here.

We have had our votes nullified. That's why we're so sad. They were nullified by defective voting machines, nullified by discriminantly distributed and targeted machinery, election machinery, in our neighborhoods. The votes were nullified by a purge of voting lists, undertaken by direction from a campaign that retained the equivalent of electoral thugs.

,
, one after the other, rose to their feet to object to the votes from Florida.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutsch, arise?

REP. PETER DEUTSCH (D), FLORIDA: To make point of order.

GORE: Gentleman will state his point of order.

DEUTSCH: Mr. President, we have just completed the closest election in American history. There are at least...

GORE: The gentleman will suspend. The chair is advised by the parliamentarian that under section 18 of title 3, United States Code, no debate is allowed in the joint session. If the gentleman has a point of order, please state the point of order.

DEUTSCH: Mr. President, there are many Americans who still believe that the results we are going to certify today are illegitimate.

GORE: The gentleman will suspend. If the gentleman from Florida has a point of order, he may state the point of order at this time. Otherwise, the gentleman will suspend.

DEUTSCH: I will note the absence of quorum and respectfully request that we delay the proceedings until quorum is present.

GORE: The chair is advised by the parliamentarian that section 17 of title 3, United States Code, prescribes a single procedure for resolution of either an objection to a certificate or other questions arising in the matter. That includes a point of order that a quorum is not present.

The chair rules on the advice of the parliamentarian that the point order that a quorum is not present is subject to the requirement that it be in writing and signed by both a member of the House of Representatives and a senator. Is the point of order in writing and signed not only by member of the House of representatives, but also a senator?

DEUTSCH: It is in writing, but I do not have a senator.

GORE: The point order may not be received.

HASTINGS: Mr. President, and I take great pride in calling you that, I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud and an attempt to suppress...

GORE: The chair...

HASTINGS: ... voter turnout.

GORE: The chair must remind members that under session 18 of title 3, United States Code, no debate is allowed in the joint session.

HASTINGS: Thank you, Mr. President.

To answer your question, Mr. President, the objection is in writing, signed by a number of members of the House of Representatives but not by a member of the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. President.

WATERS: I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electoral votes.

GORE: Is the objection in writing and signed by member of the House and a senator?

WATERS: The objection is in writing, and I don't care that it is not it is not signed by a member of the Senate.

REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: I have an objection to the electoral votes from Florida.

GORE: Is the objection in writing? Is it signed by a member of the House of Representatives and a senator?

FILNER: No, it is not in writing, but I rise in solidarity with my colleagues who have previously expressed their objection.

GORE: The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois, but -- hey.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACK: There were 13 objections in all, 12 from minority group members in the House of Representatives, last one saw was Bob Filner, who's a Democrat from California, a former professor, a big supporter of Al Gore, and clearly was just moved by the emotion of the moment.

They were all gavelled down. It was a great irony for the vice president. Here were some of his biggest supporters in the House of Representatives. He was clearly sympathetic, understood what they were trying to do, but he went right by the book. There was no debate allowed under the law that governs this joint session. There is also -- no objection can be heard unless it is signed by a House member and a senator.

Not a single senator would join members of the Congressional Black Caucus, much to their dismay. About a dozen members of the caucus walked out in protest, to protest the Florida vote, and then had a press conference in the gallery.

<snip>

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:22 PM

38. That proves that the Caucus and the minority community were fucked over.

It does not support your claim of ONLY that community being involved or impacted throughout the election process.

And it most certainly does not refute my OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:30 PM

41. The Great Florida Ex-Con Game

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-great-florida-ex-con-gamernhow-the-felon-voter-purge-was-itself-felonious/


The Great Florida Ex-Con Game

Friday, March 1, 2002
by Greg Palast for Harper's Magazine

In November the U.S. media, lost in patriotic reverie, dressed up the Florida recount as a victory for President Bush.
But however one reads the ballots, Bush's win would certainly have been jeopardized had not some Floridians been barred from casting ballots at all. Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protegees of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.)

A portion of the list, which was compiled for Florida by DBT Online, can be seen for the first time here; DBT, a company now owned by ChoicePoint of Atlanta, was paid $4.3 million for its work, replacing a firm that charged $5,700 per year for the same service. If the hope was that DBT would enable Florida to exclude more voters, then the state appears to have spent its money wisely.

---snip--

Johnny Jackson Jr. (4), thirty-two, has never been to Texas, and his mother swears he never had the middle name "Fitzgerald." Neither is there evidence that John Fitzgerald Jackson, felon of Texas, has ever left the Lone Star State. But even if they were the same man, removing him from Florida?s voter rolls is an unconstitutional act. Texas is among the thirty five states where ex-felons are permitted to vote, and the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids states to revoke any civil rights that a citizen has been granted by another state; in fact, the Florida Supreme Court had twice ordered the state not to do so, just nine months before the voter purge. Nevertheless, at least 2,873 voters were wrongly removed, a purge authorized by a September 18, 2000 letter to counties from Governor Bush's clemency office. On February 23, 2001, days after the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights began investigating the matters, Bush's office issued a new letter allowing these persons to vote; no copies of the earlier letter could be found in the clemency office or on its computers.

Wallace McDonald (5), sixty-four, lost his right to vote in 2000, though his sole run-in with the law was a misdemeanor in 1959. (He fell asleep on a bus-stop bench.) Of the "matches' on these lists, the civil-rights commission estimated that at least 14 percent - or 8,000 voters, nearly 15 times Bush's official margin of victory - were false. DBT claims it warned officials "a significant number of people who were not a felon would be included on the list"; but the state, the company now says, "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified." Last May, Florida's legislature barred Harris from using outside firms to build the purge list and ordered her to seek guidance from county elections officials. In defiance, Harris has rebuffed the counties and hired another firm, just in time for Jeb Bush's reelection fight this fall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:50 PM

45. Also a factor. In fact, Rick Scott is trying to do it again.

And again, I am not saying these are not important factors.

I am saying that Nader actively tried to get Bush elected. That needs to be remembered, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:55 PM

47. I don't see why

he is not even a factor anymore.

Voter disenfranchisement is alive and well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:42 PM

42. You forget this, though:

Gore got over 51 million votes. That's 3.6 million more than Clinton received in 1996. In fact, it was the highest number of votes a Democratic nominee had received up to that time.

Had Clinton received that many votes in '96, he would have won 53% of the popular vote. Gore got more votes than Clinton in 37 states and in DC. That includes Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, and several others which could have swung the election.

He brought at least 3.6 million new Democratic voters to the polls. The problem? Bush got more votes (about 11.3 million) than Dole in all 50 states, mostly from ex-Perot voters. That helped make the election close enough to steal.

There's an argument for Nader as spoiler, but it's not the only argument. I'm not even sure it's the main argument. Those Perot voters were a major factor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:53 PM

46. Oh, no argument there.

But to say (as some do) that Nader was correct in acting as he did, or that he did not do what he did...that is what I am addressing in this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:01 PM

50. I just don't have a whole lot of use for Nader as a candidate.

As a consumer advocate? Sure.

But when we overinflate his importance as a spoiler, we're playing into his own hype. Let's face it. The man hasn't gotten 1% of the vote in over a decade. He sat out the 2012 election and threw his support behind candidates who couldn't do any better than he did.

He's not a major player on the political scene, either as a candidate or as a kingmaker. He probably never was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 06:54 PM

92. yet throughout this thread, you fail to address the culpability of 200,000+ registered dems..

that made that margin so close by actually VOTING for bush. nope, it's all nader's fault. also, didn't gore have some shit bag neo-con DINO as his running mate? whatever became of that fine fellow? you suppose that had anything to do with people opting for nader, or....?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #92)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 08:20 PM

104. Because you can't cover everything in a single post.

I said repeatedly that there were many factors, of which Nader is but one.

And of course, you do not address my facts. Just tried to change the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #104)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 11:38 AM

119. nader was the least of the issues leading up to that theft..

and if democrats would focus their energy on addressing those issues rather than engaging in their two-minute hate, then just MAYBE something like that can be prevented from happening ever again. in any case, remind me again of what democrats have done to ensure that something like that never happens again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #119)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 05:25 PM

126. The Democrats are and have been trying to address most of the issues that caused the 2000 theft

It is not that easy but steps have been and are being taken. In 2004, I was one of 3,000 out of state attorneys who went to Florida as part of the Kerry Edwards voter protection team. We had attorneys at most of the key precincts throughout the state. The theory was that if we had a similar force on the ground in 2000, someone could have got an injunction for the butterfly ballots or at least been there to pass out instructions on how to deal with that ballot.

Unfortunately, the election was different 2004 and Bush got lucky with the Bin Ladin tape the Friday before the election. I was in the war room in Broward county where reports from the early voting over the last weekend indicated that the tape was having an effect.

In 2008 and 2012. I volunteered for the Obama voter protection team and over all the Obama team did a good job of blocking vote caging and some of the GOP tactics.

Right now, Democrats are fighting voter id laws and gerrymandering efforts. Democrats are not rolling over. I have been following the pleadings in both the Texas redistricting and the Texas voter id cases. I can assure that every effort is being made to combat these voter suppression efforts.

I followed the recount efforts in Florida and it is clear to me that Bush won because of Nader. I heard the same thing from the Florida legal team when I was in Florida in 2004 (there are some outstanding Democratic lawyers in Florida). I am not going to forget what happened in 2000 and I will not forgive Nader for his actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #126)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 09:07 PM

130. You are of course familiar with the report issued on that Sept 11

 

Stating that Gore actually won, released by a news consortium that actually completed the stopped vote count right? If you are not, I forgive you, something really minor happened that Sept 11, google is your friend.

Here, one of many links.

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #130)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 10:09 PM

132. Yes, Al Gore was the real winner of 2000 elections

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:49 PM

20. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:37 PM

62. Katherine Harris

 

Kamala Harris is the current Attorney General of California. She would never do such a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:05 PM

77. Are they related?

 

Harris is a pretty common last name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:08 PM

78. I seriously doubt it

 

Katherine:



Kamala:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #78)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:11 PM

80. I doubt it too

 

Now I need to get my paws on the writing for some dirty poo in california by non other than the lovely state GOP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 08:58 PM

129. I am compelled to agree with you.

 

I am compelled to agree with you.

Overselling, and then focusing on the role of man who received fewer votes in FL than there were disenfranchised voters in FL is akin to giving blame for the sinking of the Titanic on the evening dinner glasses being a wee bit too full.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:05 PM

11. Good article

I am tired of people trying to rehabilitate Nader. Nader is an asshole and we have to live with Roberts and Alito on SCOTUS and a host of nut cases on the lower courts including Priscilla Owens and Janice Rogers Brown. Because of Nader, we have Citizens United and Shelby County

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:11 PM

32. And let's not forget Iraq. Iraq would never have happened under Al Gore, but some fell for the...

"Gore=Bush" bullshit ladled out by Nader. Nader is fuckin' huckster who took Republican money to sabotage Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:32 PM

58. A great deal would be different

Under Gore, the warnings of Richard Clarke would not have been ignored and there is no way that Gore would have ignored the August 2011 PDB on Osama Bind Laden determined to attack America. We also would not be dealing with the bush tax cuts and the concept of trickle down economics.

Nader was an asshole who wanted to destroy the Democratic Party and replace it with a party made in his image. We will be living with the consequences of Nader's vanity and arrogance for a long time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #58)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:39 PM

64. He and his supporters have blood on their hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:12 PM

13. If the Democrats want the votes of the left it should trying to appeal to the left.

 

Blaming the voters for the failure of the party to win their votes is rather pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:22 PM

15. This.

 

Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:33 PM

17. Nader didn't just run FOR Liberal votes.

He also worked for, and with, Republicans.

Contrast him with Dennis Kucinich or Marcy Kaptur, who DID run in an appeal to Liberal voters. They didn't try to elect the Shrub.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:21 PM

54. And, the Democrats who voted for Dubya far outnumbered the Nader voters.

 

But, if the Democrats continually run 3rd Way "moderates" what can they expect from liberals/progressives/radicals? That we should vote for them because their "not as bad" and have a (D) behind their name?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:30 PM

57. The point is, be honest.

Denny Kooch was a stalwart liberal throughout his career. He never tried to elect a Repub. That is honest.

Nader tried to get a repub elected, and claimed to be a liberal. That is dishonest.

Yes, we need more progressive candidates: but that does not excuse Nader's perfidy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #57)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:35 PM

59. Democrats accept support from Republicans every election.

 

Why do you think that voters voted for Nader if he's so "perfidious"? Because they wanted Bush? Or, because Gore, Kerry, and Obama failed to get their votes because they were too moderate/centrist/dlc/ 3rdWay?

Nader campaigned against the one party/two wings establishment. Which was/is both parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #59)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:37 PM

61. With the avowed intent of getting Bush elected. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #61)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:39 PM

63. And, that's why voters voted for him?

 

If that were the case, why didn't they just vote for Bush.....like a helluva lot of Democrats did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #63)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:43 PM

65. Each of us is accountable for our own actions.

Including our votes. I am not attempting to analyze the motivations of millions of voters.

I am talking about the actions of one man who helped pull off the crime of the century: the theft of the Presidency. The fact that it was not solely his fault does not absolve him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:48 PM

67. He's also responsible for letting the Democratic party know it has a left wing to contend with.

 

And, it ignores it to their peril.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #67)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 08:48 PM

105. A left wing of the party should be paid attention to.

Nader was not, however, in that group. So he would not have taught that lesson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #105)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 10:16 PM

110. You may be right...the party is still ignoring the left and running right.

 

To its peril.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #61)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 07:02 PM

95. avowed intent would be nader saying "i'm doing this to get bush elected"

what you posted was more of a "yeah, i'm running, and if bush gets elected, I don't care." quit shitting in our mouths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #95)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 08:11 PM

103. Read more of the source material. He said it.

And as to your expression: that is gross.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:44 PM

19. I get real sick of people trying to rewrite history.

 

Nader was a damn fool and so was anyone that voted for him.

They are as responsible for Dumya than Karl Rove himself and they can go fuck themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:54 PM

22. Is there evidence he's even running?

All I've seen is some talk from him about running somebody else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:02 PM

27. Someone else who would do what Nader did.

Nader isn't the only politico who can act in such a manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:09 PM

31. When this Naderesque generic has a name, I'll worry.

Until then, Ralph's not even a speck on the radar to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:14 PM

34. We'll probably see a repeat of this one:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:01 PM

26. People still cast ballots for Ralph?

Was he even on the ballot last time out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:13 PM

33. No, but his disciples pop up like dung heap mushrooms after a rain every cycle.

And need to be refuted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:05 PM

29. Am I the only one who doesn't read the Nader threads?

I just give it a quick glance if anything to see if it's "FUCK NADER" - always a winning argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:16 PM

37. It's trolly, that kind of Nader-touting shit. Plus, the guy is pushing eighty.

It wouldn't surprise me if he tries to muddy the waters yet again, assuming he has good health in the years ahead--the only question will be which arm of the GOP (the Tea Party or the rank-and-file) gives him money to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:27 PM

39. LMAO! You're still compelled to evade the blame and makes excuses for

 

what was the worst campaign since Tsongas, no, I take that back, the Paul Tsongas campaign had entertainment value.

If you want to place the blame, look below. These are the people that accelerated the nation down this disastrous course in 2000.



?key=1266454676

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:03 PM

51. Another post that does not address the OP.

And is BS on its face: Gore outpolled Clinton's numbers in the previous election, which Clinton won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #51)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:16 PM

53. Sad and pathetic. Gore won the election as well, how'd that work out?

 

If you're not prepared to lay the blame where it belongs and demand that the crimes are prosecuted, quit whining and move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:25 PM

55. I am not prepared to accept the betrayal of Nader.

If you support alleged liberals who actively work to elect Repubs and defeat Dems, hey, that is your free choice.

But it will never be mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #55)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:46 PM

66. There was no betrayal, Nader is not a Democrat. The ubiquitous selective memory

 

that this silliness requires is a recurring problem with the "party over all" faction in both parties.

No party owns anyone's vote or allegiance, they have to be earned every election cycle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #66)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 08:06 PM

102. +1, well put.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #66)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 02:46 PM

123. Substitute "Left" for "Democratic", if you prefer.

Because by helping Bushies to steal multiple elections, he hurt everybody BUT the MIC, PNAC, and other right-wing organizations.

Party or not, Nader fucked our shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #123)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 08:05 PM

127. No, the Democratic Party fucked our shit up, by first failing to earn enough votes and then,

 

by accepting the criminality of the republican party. IOW, they threw us overboard to preserve the status quo that so many people voted against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #127)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 08:42 PM

128. Uh-huh.

So you support Bush's occupation, that Nader helped arrange, because you hate the Dems?

That sounds a lot like what you're saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #128)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 05:00 AM

134. That's absolutely not what I said and you know it.

 

You've obviously run out of anything to say, so I guess you think its time to try the time honored technique of arguing with and argument you wish were made. Please return to trying to blame someone, anyone other than the people that failed.

Carving up and hollowing out the nation has been accomplished by a single group that bought both parties a long time ago and that's why radical change to the right happens immediately and consistently, while any movement to the left takes decades and only after bleeding us even more.

And that BTW, was the point of Nader's campaign. Because the Democratic Party refuses to stand up for working people and the weak, we have only one party with two right wings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #134)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 07:22 AM

135. If you support Nader's actions, my statement is a reasonable one.

Because that is what he did. You can ascribe motivations to it all you want, but no one has yet disputed the actions themselves. And that is telling. Even you don't try to argue the facts presented. So you know that he took Bush money and campaign assistance, and verbally supported a Bush victory. Truth. And you DO seem to support it.

As to your "justification" of his actions ("one party with two right wings", that is not exculpatory. Nader wanted things to get so bad for the marginalized and dispossessed that a new political party (including himself at its head) could take over. Frankly, that is despicable and inhumane, to deliberately increase the sufferings of an Other in order to accomplish one's political agenda.

And if you support that kind of abusive approach to politics...well, you aren't much different from Bush the lesser, because that is exactly what he did. With Nader's assistance and expressed support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:27 PM

40. HIs statement here is my answer to dilettantes who blithely call for destroying everything:

'...Never mind the many thousands who would suffer or die as a result of his actions: Nader wanted a Bush presidency that would be so bad, so destructive, so injurious to the populace that Naderís own political fortunes would be enhanced. And he got the cataclysm he wanted. In fact, we all got that cataclysm, even though the rest of us didnít want it (because WE suffered, while his wealthy, privileged a** suffered not one bit).

For all the mealy mouthed complaints about things that are imperfect, or insufficiently doctrinaire, the ones who are helpless in the midst of the mayhem are accounted as 'collateral damage' to the greater good. I mean that in the same way the MIC does. Those are real people, we are real, too.

Part of the deception is in labels. The terms Left and Right are from a period in the times of the French Revolution. Excesses and injustices that were cruel and barbaric, were committed before, during and after that time. And the people ended up with an Emperor who was an imperialist and took his nation to war against what he thought were the enemy to his order, and anyone who wants to argue that with me can talk to the hand, because those were the short term results.

That can happen again and often does. Did it iron itself out in time? Surely. But woe to those in the middle. And in some cases, they will never rise again, because they are dead, impoverished or democracy has disappeared, their nation ruled by those who are the new bosses under the new, improved label, that everyone must agree with or else, the same as they had to bow to the monarchs before them.

People confuse captalism, socialism and communism as being more than what they are. We get fooled by calling them Left or Right. Totalitarian or authoritarian forces don't need a government to create those conditions, all they need are organized groups, be they corporations, churches, militias or sports, to steal the freedom of mind from those who don't agree with them. It's the results that matter in human terms that is important, not the labels.

Not just from this OP, but others, I have lost espect for Nader. It hurts to see him as something other than what he was respected to years ago, as a consumer advocate, and diligent on the rights of workers. I don't believe it was all a sham, and I respected him as true eccentric.

The presidential election debate corporation, which he railed about, was privately owned, instead of having the League of Women Voters moderate as had been done for years. Its privatizaation was and is a terrible disservice to the nation. The debates with more voices in the nineties were able to shift or define the positions of the better funded candidates and answer the needs of real people. But force was applied to stifle them.

AFAIK, it was under the influence of Clinton and Edwards, that others were shut out of the 2008 debates. The way the debates were handled in 2000 and 2004 were too exclusive. 2008 was worse when they shut out Dennis and others as 'minor' candidates. Those 'minor' candidates still represented millions. Their voices needed to be heard to push the 'major' candidates. (and it's wrong to judge who is 'minor' and 'major' by money) to get them closer to human concerns that needed to be heard.

It was Barack not being arrogant or dismissive of the 'minor' candidates that got him my vote. Even though he was not as 'liberal' as I would have liked, he showed he had an open mind, and not the egoism of some of the other candidates. But I would have voted for whoever was against the GOP in the general election.

But now Nader comes across like so many others, as a nihilist, a B&W thinker who can afford purity. Many Americans are not offered such a lofty position in life as to play that game. And I have no respect for them, as they have none for those who suffer, except to use the sufferings of others as justification for their ideology.

I don't usually comment on the Nader threads, don't read them. Now he is going to just be another pundit paid to destroy civil society for the benefit of an older, uptrending conservative and privatized country. And now to add Nader to my keywords to ignore...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 03:57 PM

48. Damn. This should be an OP.

Better than mine, that's for damn sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:01 PM

72. You're welcome to steal any or all of it. The ideas and results matter, not sources or labels, IMO.

But to clarify, I also don't support the 'No Label' movement that was used to peel off Democrats, with false claims that 'both parties are the same.' That's the Libertarian party mantra to make themselves higher than the two major parties. It is not serious thinking, it's self serving, deliberating misleading, dishonest and intellectual laziness.

I'm talking about the meanings. There was a quote from years ago, but I didn't file the exact wording. It read, in my own words.

'Do not seek to imitate the answers your fathers found when seeking the truth (god, reality, etc.) and accept it as the last word on the subject. Seek instead, what they sought.'

That intent disposes of dogmas and parroting. Ideology is great for gathering a group. But individuals in that group need to remember that the group is not the end or the solution. It's just the beginning.

FDR had many failures but kept trying. He said, 'It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.' This is what I see in Obama, that same method, applied to our time and circumstances. Many of the people that supported FDR and the New Deal would be anathema to the Democratic Party of today, partcularly those who believe in equality for all.



Another one from FDR, 'The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'

This is the core of Obamacare. The complaints come from those who have much, and the praise from those who have had too little for too long.

For persistent naysayers, so quick to criticize, FDR said, 'The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.' Obama is an idealist, not an ideologue.

Skepticism taken to the extreme is a dead end road, as well as some of the conspiracy language. 'It's all hopeless, all pre-ordained, unless something comes to save us.' To which I say nothing is that way and no one is coming to save you.

That is how I see the phrase, 'We are the ones we have been waiting for.' The source of it is the Hopi Elders and it means much more than what I say.

Cynicism always supports the status quo no matter what label it wears. Those advantaged by the status quo will tear down every attempt to change it, and call themselves wise or principled, like Nader was, unwilling to 'settle for less than the best.' Those in dire straits aren't afforded such a luxury, and are called names for not having lofty goals. But survival is good enough to have the chance to make a better future.

Yet another quote, since I love FDR so well, think of this process, 'Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.' Instead of sitting back and living in the past that we scarely know, a future we can only guess, and ignoring those around us.

Feel free to steal at leisure. To attempt to own a thought or words, is to deny that many of our thoughts are shared and should be as freely returned to others as they gave them to us, JHMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #72)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:04 PM

74. Do you blog?

The world beyond DU would be better for it.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #74)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:18 PM

84. I've been asked to, but have no interest in learning another format and need to do other things.

Thanks for the kind words, though.

As I think I said (I edited that post while you were replied) the words that flow through me are what are flowing through all of us.

IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #84)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:22 PM

86. Billy Gibbons said something similar.

He described us as "antennas". We pick up and pass along. Works for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:26 PM

56. If only some Florida Dems would not have become traitors and voted for Bush

 

we wouldn't be having this discussion, but steady on...cherry picking is easy to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:35 PM

60. Ah yes,

the DU dogwhistle. The hatred for Nader by some on this side borders on psychotic. Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:51 PM

68. And Nader had a vested interest in the Rethugs being elected,

since his public interest group is dependent on donations from outraged Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:54 PM

69. I can't believe there are DUers who are still defending Nader. WTF??

If you lived through it, you know why. If you didn't and have somehow romanticized the idea of Nader, you're a fool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 04:57 PM

70. Great post.

SMH@the Nader apologists on this Democratic website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sagat (Reply #70)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:01 PM

73. And one whose TOS calls for electing DEMS.

...not helping elect Repubs. Which Nader stated as a desirable outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:05 PM

76. bluntandcranky is giving The People's View a run for its money

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2013, 09:55 PM - Edit history (2)

as most shit blog on the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:14 PM

82. Really? There is something worse than The Peoples Spew?

 

Look, if you do not blame Nader for the SCOTUS ruling that handed Bush the election in 2000 (nevermind the thousands of Dems that voted for Bush) you are helping the Evil Doers! Donchaknow!

Nader caused global warming, all global economic crashes and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 02:03 PM

122. Nope, all Nader did was pretend to be a liberal while he helped Bush steal elections.

But that alone is pretty revolting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #122)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 03:30 PM

124. You got your 'two minutes of hate' out of this thread.

 

How proud you must be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #124)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 04:26 PM

125. I certainly got a lot of hate from the Nader contingent.

Sadly, no attempts to debate or refute my OP. Just distraction, obfuscation, and the usual ad hominem BS.

I am neither proud, nor surprised. I am disappointed with a few of the denizens of DU for supporting not just Nader, but his actions. Those actions included the active attempt to defeat a Democratic nominee and elect a Republican nominee. And let me say again: no one has even attempted to disprove the case presented, that Nader acted in that manner.

This is disturbing for a number of reasons:
1) If people here support such actions, why are they on DU? Read the TOS: actively trying to defeat Dems is not allowed. Plus, it undermines trust within a community when a faction within it either actively or tacitly supports electing Republicans and defeating Democrats.

2) Nader is not the only person out there who could pull this type of stunt. If we support person A when they stab the Left, the party, and the nation in the back, we are telling Person B to do the same.

3) People who refuse to recognize and learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We need to be honest with ourselves and each other, because the next time we have a liberal third-party candidate, we damned well need to make sure that they are ALL about supporting the Left, and not also about giving support to the Right.

Oh, and by the merest of chances, we DO have a Left politico considering a third party run in 2016. So this is NOT an idle topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:15 PM

83. At least I know how to use an apostrophe.

Probably the only "trophy" I'll ever get, but hey, it's something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #83)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 07:08 PM

98. you should be real proud

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 06:41 PM

89. About Nader (and the Green Party in general),

I don't get why they falsely equate Democrats and Republicans. Just because they may not agree with every part of the Democratic agenda doesn't make our party the same as the GOP or the "lesser of 2 evils". For example, Republicans start wars, and Democrats have ended them. Republicans want to lower top tax rates, while Democrats want to raise them. Republicans don't like expanded health care, but Democrats are embracing it. Republicans want control of the personal lives of gays and women, while the Democrats could care less about people's personal lives. And so on. In addition to this, I saw a video of Jill Stein last year, and she seemingly went after Obama more than Romney, even though Obama is much closer to her political leanings. To me, that looked kind of weird and didn't sit too well.
Considering all the differences between the 2 parties, anyone who tries to say that both parties are similar is either short-sighted or a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 09:53 PM

108. I'm thinking the second option for some, the first for all too many. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 06:54 PM

91. Nader is as old as the crust on Rush Limbaugh's underwear.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Reply #91)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 09:55 PM

109. Both are toxic, even in small doses. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 09:05 PM

106. almost 40,000 people voted for someone other than bush, gore or nader in fl. gore lost by 154

but somehow, the dem party's failure to turn peace and prosperity in to a walk-off win is all naders fault.

but for the monumental incompetence and political cowardice of the dem party leadership, the repubs should be a permanent fringe party.

Presidential candidate Vote total % Party
George W. Bush (W) 2,912,790 48.847 Republican
Al Gore 2,912,253 48.838 Democratic
Ralph Nader 97,488 1.635 Green
Patrick J. Buchanan 17,484 0.293 Reform
Harry Browne 16,415 0.275 Libertarian
John Hagelin 2,281 0.038 Natural Law/Reform
Howard Phillips 1,371 0.023 Constitution
Other 3,028 0.051 ó
Total 5,963,110

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #106)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 08:23 AM

117. But it makes for a good narrative in black and white.

Good post, KG.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 09:28 PM

107. Fuck Nadir!

He is lower than dirt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 11:24 PM

112. I am not a fan of Nader.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 09:38 PM

131. You want "blunt and cranky?"

 

These kind of posts are a steaming pile, and I'm putting you ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1000words (Reply #131)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 10:11 PM

133. That is your right.

We all can speak freely, and ignore each other in the same manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread