Do you think Nader will start using Hurricane Katrina footage in his ads next time?

[LoZoccolo]

It is clearly known that Nader has embraced a terroristic strategy of threatening Republican takeover of the government, and all the tragedy that will ensue should that happen. His 2000 run and the lies that it was based on has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, both in the Iraq War, and Hurricane Katrina. A similar strategy was encouraged by Stalin to communist voters in Germany, which eventually resulted in the election of Adolf Hitler.

Give Nader's terroristic strategy, do you think that he will stoop so low as to show footage of Hurricane Katrina victims in his political ads during this election cycle, in an effort to scare people into doing his dictates?

[rudy23]

1. Why don't you fault Gore for running a terrible campaign, and selecting Leiberman as his VP?

How about a little accountability for our Democrats? Maybe they won't take us for granted and sell us out next time.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Because it was stupid for anyone to vote for Nader, and they all knew it.

How about a little accountability for our Democrats? Maybe they won't take us for granted and sell us out next time.

I'm not willing to foist tragedy on innocent people in order to get that. It is like the Naderites want to torture people into compliance.

[elocs]

12. It was monumentally stupid to vote for Nader in Florida in 2000.

Nader was a part of the reason for Gore's loss in 2000. As we have seen in the last 6 1/2 years there IS a difference between Democrats and Republicans, especially in the nominees to the Supreme Court.

[Kahuna]

14. Nothing Gore did or didn't do should have made you think 2 OILMEN..

in the White House would lead to anything but catastrophe and lead to oil wars. Not to mention stacking the judiciary with Neanderthals.

[dsc]

22. because his horrible campaign gained 20 points

and did better than every single, solitary Democrat to run for office from 1948 to 2004 with the exception of Carter and Johnson in terms of percent of vote received.

[rudy23]

23. Sorry, but if an incumbent can't win 52% of the vote, against BUSH, that's a terrible campaign

Gore of 2000 blew it. It's the whiniest, least accountable thing in the world to blame Nader for that.

[dsc]

24. Then why didn't Clinton win 52% or Truman

both of who were incumbents running against what were lousy campaigners? Carter couldn't win 52% either against a man who pardoned Nixon, had never run outside of one Congressional district in MI, and had a terrible economy. And let's remember Gore wasn't the incumbent.

[rudy23]

26. Different circumstances. However you slice it, blaming the guy who took 1% of your vote is whiny,

unaccountable bunk, and none of the current Democrats are learning the lesson of 2000. It's going to bite us on the ass if the Democratic candidates can't satisfy us as their BASE.

[dsc]

28. Oh different circumstances

Go ahead illuminate me on the different circumstances that Clinton in 1996 faced that made his race harder than Gore's? I really want to hear this. Or even better tell me how much harder it was for Truman. Gore, if he had become President, would have been only the fourth man in history (Madison, Van Buren, and Bush the elder were the other three) to become President after running as sitting VP. Gore would have had the second largest comeback in history (only Truman's in 48 was bigger). Gore had the third highest percentage of the vote of any Democrat (winning or losing) running from 1948 to 2004 (only LBJ and Carter had higher percentages). People like you tell us stories you like but without Nader there would have been no Bush presidency it is that simple.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. Huh? Nader's terroristic strategy? Scaring people into doing his dictates?

Nader? Really?

:shrug: MKJ

[LoZoccolo]

4. He uses the Republicans as his snarling and growling pack of rottweilers.

He threatens to release them should he not get his way.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

5. Ah, so he's a metaphorical terrorist. Thanks for clarifying.

:hi: MKJ

edited to add: Yet, I'm still not terrified of his terroristic tactics, what's wrong with me?

[mzmolly]

6. And he took cash from the Swift Boat Vets and other Republican groups as well.

Yet he claims Democrats are "tweedledum?"

[LoZoccolo]

7. Yes, indeed. Thank you.

:hi:

[Capn Sunshine]

9. now that THAT is settled, can we just lock this thread

I hate these freaking Nader wars. Worthless waste of time and energy.

[LoZoccolo]

11. The Nader wars are a unifying factor amongst us.

We will be spending the nine months at least, fighting over who should be the presidential candidate. We will spend about the same amount of time not knowing who we will be up against. However, we are pretty sure we should all be enemies of Nader.

[ulysses]

25. heh.

You're a uniter. :D

[bluestateguy]

8. Nader wanted a Bush presidency

By 2000, he was worried that he had become irrelevant. He has always been a publicity hound, and loves nothing more than the sound of his own voice.

He spoke of building a grass roots party out of the Green Party, but never bothered to join their party, and abandoned them after the campaign.

In the end, I think Nader just wanted those Bush tax cuts, which people in his tax bracket would be receiving.

[mzmolly]

13. Not only that he had big money in Halliburton.

Many people don't appear "concerned" about his own corporate/financial agenda.

[lordsummerisle]

10. Thanks for the entertaining parody...

I would just add that any third party candidate should be and arrested and sent to Gitmo until at least the 2008 election is over...

[MadHound]

15. Umm, how was Nader's 2000 run responsible for Iraq and Katrina?

And please don't come back with that tired old canard that Nader cost Gore the election. I've had six years to dig on this one, and I've got tons of evidence that Nader didn't cost Gore a damn thing in Florida or elsewhere. Instead of continuing to fixate on Nader, why don't the Dems actually look at and correct their own faults? Yeah, I guess this is too painful.

And frankly the fact that you are trying to suppress third party voting, and by extension, the right of Americans to vote for whom they choose is not only un-democratic and un-patriotic, but it is a betrayal of everything that the Founding Fathers stand for. How dare you call their wisdom into question. I notice that you have never criticized Perot of his help in getting Clinton into office back in '92. I would say that his eighteen percent draw had a hell of a lot more effect on history that Nader's two percent. It is un-democratic sentiments like yours that is bringing our country down. How dare you compare the electroal system as set up in our Constitution with the tactics used by Stalin and Hitler, especially when that comparison is based on historical inaccuracy.

It is people like you, with your jack-booted lockstep thinking that are more of a facsist threat to our country than the third party voters. You are willing to tolerate death, destruction and agony just as long as it has the official imprenture of your party on it, thus giving up your morals to a political party. Can you even really think for yourself?

Rather than trying to wreck our basic mechanisms of government, the Democrats have to do what FDR did when faced with a third party challenge, adapt a couple of their planks as his own. Good thing he did too, otherwise Social Security and Unemployment Insurance would still be in the dustbin of history with its originators, the Socialist Party.

People like you are appalling. You are as lockstep as any 'Pugs, and are as willing as them to blindly follow your party off the cliff. And if Hillary wins, it is going to be mighty interesting around here to listen to people such as yourself continue to justify why we're still in Iraq.

Stop trying to tear down our democracy! The Founding Fathers placed third parties into our electoral system for a good reason, to keep the other parties honest. Rather than tearing down our Constitution, it would be better for the Democrats to take their third party opponents on on their own ground. But, oh, yeah, the Dems corporate handlers won't allow that, since it would allow in legislation that the people, not the corporations want.

[LoZoccolo]

16. Nader cost Gore the election.

And frankly the fact that you are trying to suppress third party voting, and by extension, the right of Americans to vote for whom they choose is not only un-democratic and un-patriotic, but it is a betrayal of everything that the Founding Fathers stand for.

I am keeping no one from voting for who they would like, only exercising my free speech rights, which is one of the things that the founding fathers stood for.

I think it is funny that the Naderites and their sympathizers condone a tactic of using the Republicans and all the problems they cause as a threat to the citizens of the United States, in a sense holding them hostage, but then when someone so much as speaks criticism of this strategy, that's considered some kind of affront to democracy!

[rudy23]

19. Or the accountable way to put it--Gore ran a terrible campaign.

I think he's learned his lesson by now. Why won't our current crop of Democrat candidates learn?

[LoZoccolo]

20. Explain to me this.

How is Nader's (and his sympathizers') strategy of summarily lying to people, saying that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the parties, such a great way of campaigning?

[MadHound]

27. How did Nader cost Gore the campaign, specifically?

As far as free speech, yes, you have the right to exercise it. However the fact that you use such loaded words as "terroristic strategy" is indicative that you are intellectually bankrupt on this issue.

And I find it funny that you somehow criticize the "tactic of using the Republicans and all the problems they cause as a threat to the citizens of the United States, in a sense holding them hostage," yet it is this very tactic that you and other members of the Democratic party use to keep people from bolting the Democratic party. So I suppose that your own tactics on this matter are also "terroristic"?

And again, you fail to answer the question as to why you are being so unpatriotic and trying to do away with the third party option. What, you're only in favor of third parties in our electoral system when you percieve that they benefit only the Dems? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

[dsc]

29. Gore would have won NH, which had a Democratic governor,

had Nader not run. That alone cost him the White House.

[MadHound]

31. Actually no, he didn't

Go read through the DLC "Blueprint" magazines at the time. Even Al From realizes that Nader was actually attracting more 'Pugs voters in NH and elsewhere.

Besides, if you go back and add up the totals in New Hampshire, there was a little over two percent of the vote that went to others besides Bush, Gore or Nader. Do you blame all of them too?:eyes: Besides, even if Gore had NH, it still wouldn't have mattered, NH wasn't enough by itself to win the election for Gore, he needed Florida. Yet Gore ran a horrible campaign in Florida, alienating nearly 600,000 likely Dem voters to the point where they voted for Bush, all over the issue of offshore oil drilling. That's but one of the many mistakes he made in Florida, and yet still and all, when the dust settled, Gore did win Florida, but failed to fight hard enough for it so that he didn't get cheated out of it.

[dsc]

32. that is flat out, gold carat false

Even Nader himself admitted that he pulled 1/3 of his voters from Dems and 1/4 from Republicans with the rest being non voters or other third parties. Using his own figures means Gore wins NH. And no, he didn't need Florida if he won NH. With Florida, Bush won 270 to 268 which is a margin of 2. NH has 4 EV. Gore would have had 272 and Bush 266 if Gore had won NH.

[MadHound]

33. And Nader didn't have the money to hire the exit poll expertise that From did

Frankly as much as I despise the guy, From does have the money and the expertise to find out down to the last vote what went where and why. From unequivocally stated in Blueprint magazine that without Nader in the race, those votes would break 2 to 1 for Bush, not Gore:shrug: Nader may be right on many things, but not on this.

As far as the electoral votes, you're wrong again. With Florida, Bush had 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266.<http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html> The four votes of NH wouldn't have made a damn difference either way, it was Florida that was where the battle was drawn. And Gore failed miserably. Hell, Greg Palast handed him the entire Votescam scandal on a silver platter, early in the recount, yet with this chance to not only win the election but also to banish your opponent and his family to the political wilderness forever, what did Gore do? Yes, he sat on this, allowing journalist to do the investigation, and by the by, violating his oath to defend the Constitution in the process.

[dsc]

34. I was wrong on the total but not wrong on the margin

The four votes switch from Bush to Gore. 271 - 4 = 267, 266 + 4 = 270. 270 > 267 so Gore would win. I was wrong on my original total but not wrong on the point.

[depakid]

17. Why not?

I have as of yet to see anyone really held accountable for the tragedy... and if things continue along as they've been going, we probably won't.

Does anyone (other than Lieberman) think that's acceptable?

[LoZoccolo]

18. The question really isn't whether he'll do it to raise issues of accountability. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. Did Nader actually run ads in his previous campaigns?

I don't remember any.

[DemBones DemBones]

30. Has Nader said he'll run? If not, why all the threads about him? nt

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

36. Don't EVER call me that AGAIN. n/t