about all the nader bashing

[morgan2]

The people on this board have become so ravenous in the anti-Nader rhetoric its frankly sickening. The attempts at intimidation and coercion are getting a little over the top. I mean honestly there are so many states one could live in where voting a third party will defenitely have no effect on the outcome of the election. Why not just focus on the swing states in saying that it would be ridiculous to vote for Nader in? The one sided hatred and antaganism is just pushing me and I'm sure others to vote third party just to not conform to the battle cry. I haven't exactly decided who I'm going to vote for; the polls in my state will probably dictate that, but damn you all have to calm down on the hatred. This is like reading Anne Coulter.

[WillyBrandt]

1. Because I want Bush out of office and no invasion of Syria

or war with North Korea.

That's why.

[morgan2]

4. again

what will a vote for a third party candidate do in a safe red or blue state? NOTHING, it will have zero impact on the election. If someone chooses to take their vote and make a point let them. So quit with all the blind rage and wake up.

[WillyBrandt]

7. We need a total defeat for the far-right in this country

Or as far as we can take it, given how the game is fixed against progressives. As large a victory as possible is needed both in terms of house and senate seats, state victories, electoral votes, and the popular vote.

Monkeying around with third party baloney is a nasty distraction from the need to take our country back from the right wing loons.

[morgan2]

12. my goal is not to put the democratic party in power..

[WillyBrandt]

17. Then we're political rivals, and in this time of emergency common

political ground is therefore very scarce.

My goals are: rolling back the power of the right; making the Democratic party a more vibrant and progressive organization. The first is immediate and urgent. The second is urgent, but can happen over time.

[morgan2]

22. I do try to make the democratic party

more honest, but until I see the change my goal is not to put them in power. I do not think in terms of parties, I think in the terms of people. There are some democrats I like and I support them, but those that I do not like I do not support.

[Maddy McCall]

24. How benevolent of you.

I'll focus on getting rid of bush. No thank you for your help.

[morgan2]

27. there you go again acting like I will not help

read the thread. I said that if my state is close I will vote for the dem nominee. Such an angry boy.. Please try to read what I've said before criticizing me.

[Maddy McCall]

20. The truth ALWAYS has a way of surfacing...

Nice to know where the lines are drawn.

[aquart]

34. Obviously.

But it is ours.

[aquart]

31. That's what the Nader voters said the last time.

But it did make a difference.

And there is nothing blind about my rage. It is vividly clear. What it sees is the damage a self-obsessed self-righteous man can do.

I'm wide awake.

[morgan2]

35. thats nader's problem

but for my vote.. I am not in a swing state. I have the luxury of voting third party.

[roguevalley]

32. Who knows what is a safe or red or blue state in this election?

Conventional wisdom doesn't apply now. Do you want
to take a chance that your state is going to stay
whatever it is when the big unreadable seething
mass of people out there who haven't been asked are
probably jumping to regime change?

You are assuming that things are status quo and if
nothing in this election cycle teachs you that people
are making pragmatic, rather than personal choices,
vote Nader and probably find out that history doesn't
apply now.

No to Bush. Vote ABB.

[morgan2]

36. yes I am willing to take the

one in a trillion chance that in a safe state, the vote suddenly swings 10 percent and is decided by only one vote.

[chascarrillo]

2. You haven't decided who to vote for?

Do you want Bush out of office or not?

[morgan2]

6. of course I do

but there are other considerations. Again as I've said twice, a third party vote in a safe state means NOTHING.

[chascarrillo]

9. I'm sorry that your vote means nothing to you

I feel otherwise about mine.

[morgan2]

18. ya cause the difference between a

10% victory in my state over Bush and 10.0000000000000000000001% victory matters. I'd rather vote for a candidate I agree with on most issues, that means a lot more to me.

[Wonk]

19. "Safe State" being the relevant words you neglected to pay attention to.nt

[chascarrillo]

45. No state is safe from Bush (nt)

(nt)

[lcordero]

30. a third party vote does not mean NOTHING

A third party vote gives a third party and a lot of people some hope for the future.

As far as I'm concerned, the attack on a woman's right to choose is a BIPARTISAN attack.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll530.xml

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00402

[morgan2]

33. I meant nothing

in terms of who is going to win the election. Thanks for clarifying.

[PVnRT]

3. It's easier for them to spew hatred

and browbeat people than to actually discuss anything. After all, anyone who even entertains voting for Nader in their head is worse than Hitler and should be shot!

[Democat]

5. If you vote for Nader because you're trying to get back at DU posters...

That would truly be brilliant.

There are already people here on DU who want Bush to win - who are going to vote for Nader to punish Kerry for beating their candidate.

Now we are going to have some people who will vote for Nader because they don't like some of the posts on DU?

What happened to getting rid of Bush at all cost?

Suddenly ego is more important than the future of the country?

[morgan2]

8. subconsiously

people don't like to be told what to do. It would not be my reason for voting third party though. I said I would do it if come election time my state is safe, which it should be. I do not support the democratic party as a whole and would feel dirty voting for most people in the party, but I will suck it up if somehow my home state is a close contest.

[WillyBrandt]

14. Feeling dirty? Man!

This is a damn emergency we're in! It's no time for screwing around.

People don't like being told what to do? Tough. I don't like the idea that I might be drafted (yes, I'm that age!) if a bunch of do-gooders throw the election to Bush because they couldn't grasp the needs of the moment.

No screwing around. No leaving things to chance. We need Bush out.

[JVS]

44. My advice in an emergency: don't panic!

two reasons

1. Save it for Bush. The energy used screaming at potential 3rd party supporters must have more positive uses.

2. This stuff is scaring people away. Seriously.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. People like being told what to do when the pilot comes on and says

"We're making an emergency landing."

We're there.

[MurikanDemocrat]

10. It cuts both ways

About all the Democratis Party bashing.

About all the ABB bashing.

About all the Democratic nominee bashing.

About all the Kerry bashing.

If people decide to vote 3rd Party because of what others say on a message board instead of on the merits then there is not much use in trying to reason with someone like that anyway.

[corporatewhore]

11. but my vote in texas might sway it to bush ;)

:p

[lams712]

13. I TOTALLY AGREE

This is supposed to be a FREE country, where people could vote for whoever THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE!!!!

Lay off the anti-Nader stuff for a while.

[LandOLincoln]

53. "Lay off the anti-Nader stuff??" Not a chance. I've despised that

scheming, duplicitous son of a bitch for longer than you've been alive, and I WILL be heard. Y'all are being led down the garden path, and I think at least some of you suspect that, therefore the aggressive defensiveness in some of your posts.

So--if some of you are Greens, as I used to be, then I suggest you talk to someone in the Green Party leadership about St. Ralph before you line up behind the Pied Piper again.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

15. When Nader becomes a Democrat we can talk

*checking the name of the website* Yeah, that'd be a good time.

[Maddy McCall]

16. May I refer you to this thread? It's obliquely applicable.

You said: "The one sided hatred and antaganism is just pushing me and I'm sure others to vote third party just to not conform to the battle cry."

My response to third-party and anti-ABB threats (especially threats to withhold one's vote or vote 3rd party because of other DUers' posts) can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=370573&mesg_id=370573.

[morgan2]

23. link doesnt work for me

[Maddy McCall]

26. Try again, please.

[morgan2]

29. I read the original post

I don't see you addressing voting third party in a SAFE state.

[aquart]

25. When did I hear that waffling, lethal argument before? 2000.

What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result?

The blood of thousands is on Nader's well-washed hands. Maybe millions before we're rid of BushCo.

Remember when Nader said there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats? Well, Nader lied and Americans died.

Vote your conscience. Accept the consequences. God knows we've been living with them for four years.

[morgan2]

28. what proof do you have

that Gore would not have gone to war with Iraq? Clinton would have, thats pretty self evident. He had no problems with going to war. He even defended Bush saying he knew there were WMD. Just look at the IWR.. all the "viable" dems in the race voted for that war you condemn. Blind hatred can be so.. well blinding.

[aquart]

38. Clinton did NOT go to war with Iraq.

As for his horrible "no problems going to war" in Kosovo, I guess you mean? YEAH! And you know what, he was trying to get European cooperation for intervention in Bosnia years before that! But that was a case where men were being separated from their families and bussed off to be shot.

And that was war we belonged in. And I thank God for that intervention.

And not a drop of oil to be found. Damn that Clinton.

Some people can see distinctions between wars, between men, and between parties. Some can't.

Vote your conscience. Accept the consequences.

[morgan2]

39. Clinton only bombed them

for a month or so. He was the one who had the CIA infiltrate the UN weapons inspectors. He was the one who brought up the myth that Iraq expelled them, when he really withdrew them to start bombing Iraq. What on earth makes you think he wouldnt have gone along with the neocons after 9/11?

[NV1962]

37. ain't no Nader-bashing high enough

given Bush, the idea of Nader dabbling in elections again is sickening

venting is good, but if you prefer bashing Coulter, that can be easily arranged

[morgan2]

40. its funny all this harrasment

for thinking of voting third party. Not a single thoughtful reason why not to vote third party if my state is safe. If someone has one I'm here to listen because I do not see any.

[Piperay]

41. Self Deleted. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

42. Ahem...

Just a few points, some of which have already been made.

This is politics after all, and being ravenously, or rabidly, ant-Nader is part of the program. Everyone here has putting the Democratic candidate in the White House as a priority. If Nader, or anyone else-- even another Democrat, gets in the way of that, then they deserve every bit of venom this place can provide.

Voting third party simply because of what someone here says makes absolutely no sense. Anyone who does that is being led every bit as much as those who vote because of the way the consensus leans. If you don't want to be led in one direction, be careful not to be chased in another. Your choice is your choice alone, and not to be made on the basis of what others think of it.

You say somewhere that you will vote for Nader if your vote doesn't count. Well and good, but not only is it difficult to tell whether or not a vote will count, this flies in the face of all those years of being admonished that every vote does indeed count. The very thought
of tossing a vote away in such a manner trivializes the entire concept of voting.

As I keep repeating, this year is not one where we will have two good people competing for the office. It's not Ike and Stevenson now, or even Johnson and Goldwater, where we could argue that we could live with either one.

This is the year that we absolutely must get rid of the President-like object in the White House. For the first time in our history we have a combination of incompetence and corruption in Washington that threatens to bring the whole thing down.

[morgan2]

43. thanks for your comments

some follow ups..

to
>You say somewhere that you will vote for Nader if your vote doesn't count. Well and good, but not only is it difficult to tell whether or not a vote will count, this flies in the face of all those years of being admonished that every vote does indeed count. The very thought
>of tossing a vote away in such a manner trivializes the entire concept of voting.

I did not mean that my vote doesn't count. I mean that it won't matter as to who wins or not. It would be much more effective if people in my situation voted third party.

Also I have never said Nader, although he is a possiblity. I do believe the Green Party is going to be running a candidate. I do not know if Nader is running yet, but I will be interested in what he has to say on Sunday. He was the first politician I was ever interested in. I grew up with Clinton and never liked him, he really soured me to the Democratic party. Bush has shown me just how much damage a president can do. As I was studying in college and learning about economics, I started to see how the powerful screw society to enrich themselves. Soon after that Nader gave a talk at my school, I was already interested in him because of all the attacks on him. I heard right wing radio calling him a Communist and knew how stupid such remarks were. When the people in power try to dismiss you with labels like this you are generally doing something right. 2000 was the first presidential election I could vote in, and without Nader I probably wouldn't have voted at all. He was the only candidate who was honest about the problems facing society, and I still don't see that from Kerry or Edwards.

Sorry for the long description and going off your post TB, but wanted to add that Nader did get a lot of people into politics. At his speech at my school I even got my two drunkark roomates to join me. He has done more for this country than any person 99% of this message board has ever met. Just because you disagree with his tactics doesn't mean you have to be so vial. If people want to win over his supporters be civil and explain why you believe they shouldn't vote for him. Yes it gets repetetive, but there are many people to convince and many that simply disagree with you. The hatred and fearmongering is what the republicans do, don't stoop to that level.

[TreasonousBastard]

62. I don't hate Nader...

or anyone else, for that matter.

I do think, quite frankly, that he's a bit over the hill, and suspect his Presidential aspirations are more for self-promotion than public service.

Nader did have an effect. I remember when the book first came out, and the progression through the Nader's Raiders, and then the PIRG's. He is still an effective speaker, but his organizations were not as influential as he would have us all believe, and their influence seems to have been steadily declining. I would suggest he pay more attention to the kind of organising he was best at. Does he want his legacy to be as a succesful reformer or crank?

My concern is more toward the idea of protest voting. The examples of Teddy Roosevelt, George Wallace, John Anderson, and Ross Perot running on third parties should have given everyone pause long before they thought of voting for Nader in 2000. The effects of third parties and the votes they attract have not always been positive.

It could be argued forever whether or not Nader actually did have an effect in 2000, but the Nader votes back then were in protest against the "Republicrat" litany and the idea that both parties are identical. This has proven to be not at all the case. Even though there is an argument that the Democratic party has swung a bit too far to the center, there is should be no disagreement at all that any centrist Democrat is far better than what we have now.

[RC]

46. Why is Nader running in the first place?

[Iverson]

47. It's supposed to be persuasive.

Thank you for noticing.

[mmonk]

48. Of course we disagree profoundly

Voters have only three choices in this election which narrow down to two. The two are to have bush re-elected or to elect someone else. The three choices voters have that lead to these two are; Vote for bush, vote for a third party candidate to enable a bush re-election, or to vote for the Dem nominee to defeat bush. Those are the only real and viable choices in this election.

[union_maid]

We can't calm down

Nader not only helped put Bush in the White House, he betrayed a lot of people doing. He turned his back on the real base of the Democratic party, which is not entirely made up of white college students and academics. He betrayed minorities and working people, the disabled and the elderly, because unlike some of those college students he gathered to his cause, he knew perfectly well the differences between the two parties. And he backed down on his most important promise which was not to campaign in swing states. Then, when the election turned out the way it did, he refused to take his share of the responsibility. He did exactly what every politician does and blamed everyone else. He's He's earned our hatred. He's earned our disdain. He's earned every bit of vitriol hurled at him.

He is an opposition candidate if he runs, just as much as Bush, and his candidacy will serve no cause other than the Republican one.

[Forkboy]

49. Nader Haters = Hillary Haters

same vapid mentality,same ugliness,same hate.

I don't even really like the guy but seeing the bile spewed towards him reminds me of FreeRepublic everytime.

[union_maid]

50. Hillary is a Democrat

She has never run against a Democrat in major or even minor election. She has never deliberatly encouraged a course of action that would help to elect one either. There is no comparison.

[Forkboy]

51. Oh yes there is

[mobuto]

58. Hillary didn't give us George Bush

Hating Nader, if that's what you want to call it, is purely rational. It has to do with the deep desire to see President Bush out of office. Most of us agree with him on most or all of the issues, but are strongly opposed to his candidacy because it makes it much more likely that Bush will be reelected.

[LandOLincoln]

52. Nice. Compare those of us who've bothered to look past

Nader's rhetoric to the real--and totally unsavory--politician behind it, to an opportunistic nutcase like Anne Coulter. 'Preciate it. Honest.

It has been established time and again that the real Nader is not even close to the image he's been hiding behind all these years. Why are so many of you so willfully blind?

Once again: the Green party won't touch this guy this time around. Not with a ten-foot pole, not with Dubya's ever-lengthening nose.

Yet most of you are still blaming (take yer pick) the DNC, the DLC, the media, and/or the phases of the moon, for the genuine and justified Nader hatred the very mention of his name engenders in so many of us. You're blaming everything but the avowed and unrepentant Bush-enabler himself.

WTF??

[MoonRiver]

54. And are you similarly outraged about all the venomous anti-Kerry posts?

Or is that 'different'?

[molly]

55. This is a DEMOCRATIC board

you have options.

[Iverson]

56. darn right!

One of my options is pressing the CAPS LOCK key on my keyboard. Another is reading the rules about how progressives are supposedly welcomed.

However, I sure have been put in my place now. Suddenly war is good and social justice is bad.

Sheesh!

[MoonRiver]

57. Huh?

"Suddenly war is good and social justice is bad."

Not according to anybody on this board. Please offer a link to somebody making that statement in earnest.

[Iverson]

60. huh?

One need not cite an exact quote to understand a little something called "subtext."

[mobuto]

59. War is Good

That's the line from the White House, and it will continue to be the line if the Left splinters and Bush gets reelected in November.

Your choice.

[Iverson]

61. the only permissible choice

We had better all support someone who sees nothing intrinsically amiss with preventive war, just with the particular way Bush has done it.

No choice.