Nader vote-swapping is a farce.

[LoZoccolo]

Recently a Nader vote-swapping site was acquitted of charges that what they were doing amounted to buying votes:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/internet-vote-s.html

However, Nader vote-swapping is a farce because there is no way to tell that the person with whom you swapped your Democratic vote for a Nader or Green vote will honor his or her side of the bargain.

I ask everyone this: do you trust someone who threatens to wreak havoc on this earth and put future generations at risk to vote for a Democratic candidate in a vote-swapping arrangement just because they said they would? I don't! These people - all of them - tried to give Nader legitimacy after it was he who spread the big green lie and now continues to use the terrorist tactic of threatening to unleash violence and destruction through the Republicans if his demands are not met. Their actions also attempted to get the Green Party enough votes to get extra federal benefits, which should not happen.

[RufusTFirefly]

1. Ever heard of honesty and trust?

Does everything have to be notarized for you?

Sorry to take your obvious flamebait.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Yeah. I just don't associate those words with Ralph Nader anymore.

Sorry.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Nader hired Republicans to run his state campaigns in '04, took Republican $$$. Why would anyone

trust that egotistical prick as far as they could throw him?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

5. And I'M the one who you think doesn't belong here? n/t

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

8. Yes I have.

I have argued against his position that there is no difference between the parties, and that voting for him will do anything but make it easier for the Republicans to get elected. The latter invalidates all his other positions because he doesn't have to deliver on any of them.

I have been a Dem since I was 6 years old and I was canvassing to get Tom Downey to be the youngest Dem congressman in the history of the country, so don't frigging tell ME I don't belong in the party!

Excuse me, you were the one saying that it was just as good as being in the Republicans.

But still, you must agree with Lieberman's general outlook or you wouldn't have been such a vociferous supporter.

Wrong. If you put any diligence in digging up those old posts (and it shouldn't be hard, just look for my posts from a few months before the primary with the word "Lieberman" in them), you'll find that I didn't argue for many of his positions at all, and that I wasn't opposed to Lamont for ideological reasons. I did think that Lamont supporters were being unreasonable in a manner that I think eventually cost them the general, but I'll leave it to you to find out my reasoning behind that because I think you need practice in actually reading my posts and making an effort to understand them. You're welcome to dig up anything that I said and try to argue with it, but only if you go back to the source. I'm not going to argue with your arguments against what you think I said.

[Bonobo]

10. Again, you duck, duck, duck the ISSUES.

And it's funny too.

You even ADMIT that you didn't support Lieberman on ideological grounds, so why should I waste my time.

SO... You weren't for Lieberman for issue-based reasons, you weren't against Lamont for issue-based reasons, and other than the pathetic oversimplified statement that Ds & Rs are the same, you cannot argue AGAINST any of Nader's issues.

It sure looks like you aren't motivated by issues/ideology.

So what makes you tick anyway, Mr. Zoccolo. Cause I'm damned if I can understand why you would vote for any reason BESIDES IDEOLOGY.

But I guess that is what makes us different. I want the Democratic party to represent ME. And you will represent the Democratic party no matter where their ideologies take them.

Do me one favor though, give up on hammering on that "no difference" line. It is SOOO pathetic. You know, I know and everyone else knows that it was said to represent a certain truth and not meant to cover every little lame ass topic you can bring up.

[Bonobo]

13. Chirp...chirp...

[Bonobo]

15. Squawk...Squawk...

[LoZoccolo]

17. Nader's positions are not credible due to the fact that he'll never have to deliver on them.

I'm not sure if you were around back then but I ran for President in 2004 as well, and my positions were even more ambitious than Nader's. If I were President, we would have completely weaned ourselves off of oil and petroleum by now; that was one of my positions. And you know why? Because I would have never gotten elected.

You even ADMIT that you didn't support Lieberman on ideological grounds, so why should I waste my time.

You tell me; you are the one that goes into my threads and keeps bringing this up.

It sure looks like you aren't motivated by issues/ideology.

Sure I am. But none of it matters if it can't be done. And doing it requires getting elected. And you and I both know that:

- Lieberman was a 90% Democrat based on his voting record, not a Republican.
- The last polls before the primary indicated that Lamont would leave a hole big enough for Schlesinger to walk through in a two-way race.
- Lieberman had said he might run third party anyways.
- The contest was then turned into one where lots of money from all over the country was needed just to win a seat that was safe before the primary challenge, money that could have gone to other races to gain seats.
- The blogosphere's disingenuous characterization of Lieberman as a Republican just gave him more appeal to Republicans (for free), and possibly won him the general election.

And that's the difference between your point of view and mine. You aim to do what makes you feel good even if it fails and causes more problems, while I aim to do the best thing possible in a given situation, which requires strategy and forethought.

I want the Democratic party to represent ME.

It never will, so long as it has to represent everyone else within it as well. And it won't represent any of us in any official sense if it does not win any offices.

Do me one favor though, give up on hammering on that "no difference" line. It is SOOO pathetic.

I will for at least as long as it takes for people to stop spreading it.

You know, I know and everyone else knows that it was said to represent a certain truth and not meant to cover every little lame ass topic you can bring up.

So you admit that it is not true?

[Bonobo]

14. Busy I see.

So what was it?

Was it me suggesting most dems and repubs in office have been bought and paid in their pursuit of said office?

Was it my agreeing that, substantially, Nader was right when he said that Dems and Repubs are the same?

Is that what was so offensive that they were deleted? Wow, dangerous messages there. Better remove them.

[LoZoccolo]

18. I did not alert on any of your posts in this thread.

Regardless, I cannot get your posts deleted unless they violate the rules to begin with, and that is your choice.

[jenmito]

7. What does Nader do between election cycles?

Isn't it strange that he just pops up every 4 years threatening to run if the Dems. don't run on certain things? And hasn't he broken his word when he said he wouldn't compete in battleground states? Wasn't he hypocritical to take money from the Swiftboater guys?

[Bonobo]

9. I'll be happy to answer those questions.

1. Isn't it strange that he just pops up every 4 years threatening to run if the Dems. don't run on certain things?

I don't think there is anything strange about that at all, unless holding Dems feet to the fire by offering himself up as an alternative, is strange in your mind. Makes perfect sense to me. Do YOU think a person should run for office for 4 years?

2. And hasn't he broken his word when he said he wouldn't compete in battleground states?

Nader spent the last few months of the campaign in uncontested states. Check the record yourself instead of swallowing that one. Nader spent very little time on Florida and Tennesee in fact.

3. Wasn't he hypocritical to take money from the Swiftboater guys?

No, in an unfair fight like he was in, he should take MORE of their money and then piss on them when he gets a chance. All money is the same color and it is only a problem when favors are exchanged for that money. Is that what you are saying happened?

[jenmito]

12. Response...

1. I don't think there is anything strange about that at all, unless holding Dems feet to the fire by offering himself up as an alternative, is strange in your mind. Makes perfect sense to me. Do YOU think a person should run for office for 4 years?

I think it's VERY strange that he wants to be president yet he disappears for 4 years at a time. If he was serious, he'd be doing things to further the causes he believes in.

2. Nader spent the last few months of the campaign in uncontested states. Check the record yourself instead of swallowing that one. Nader spent very little time on Florida and Tennesee in fact.

Did he have to have his name on the ballot in the battleground states?

3. No, in an unfair fight like he was in, he should take MORE of their money and then piss on them when he gets a chance. All money is the same color and it is only a problem when favors are exchanged for that money. Is that what you are saying happened?

His favor was to take votes away from the Dem. candidate. He complained about Dems. taking money from lobbyinsts and other "dirty money" and then HE goes on to take money from people who were proven liars?

[Old and In the Way]

11. You mean, like NH in 2000?

No Nader spoiler there, Florida doesn't matter....Gore wins.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. I think most Greens are foolish, not malignant; I'd trust them provided no thought was required

My impression is that most of Ralph Nader's supporters are decent, honourable idealists who just aren't very good at working out what the consequences of their actions would be.

I see no reason to suspect them of breaking their words.