Ralph Fucking Nader and The Green Fucking Party

[...of J.Temperance]

So I see that that fuckhead Nader and the fucking Green Party weirdos are going to run in this election AGAIN.

WTF? As is perfectly clear now, Nader and the Greens ONLY get involved in Presidential elections solely to assist the Republicans in winning.

Nader is a Republican hack and so are the Green Party. If Nader wasn't just in it to help the Republicans, he'd ONLY run in safe Democratic states and safe Republican states, he WOULDN'T run in crucial swing states.

Nader is running in Ohio for example, a CRUCIAL swing state, a state where Obama has a slight lead, but if like 1-2% of idiots decide to vote Nader, Ohio could go to McCain by a tiny margin.

There are STILL Nader apologists and Green Party apologists out there, which is unbelievable after the 2000 Presidential election, that ANYONE who disagrees with Republican policies would STILL merit Nader and the Green Party....Nader should have been Persona Non Grata years ago, but no, he's still hanging around and he still has his apologists.

Those who might say there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans....need to take a hard look at whats occured these past eight years, and then try and peddle the excuse to vote for Nader and the Greens that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

This election in November is VERY VERY important, it's imperative that we send Senator Obama to the WH, it's imperative that we keep hold of the Senate and the House of Representatives....it's imperative that we DON'T allow the Republicans to fuck with an ENTIRE generation by taking full control of the United States Supreme Court, it's imperative that we don't start shit with Iran that could very possibly result in a WWIII situation.

If there's ANYONE here thinking of cutting off their noses to spite their faces by voting for Nader and the Green Party PLEASE DON'T do it....THINK of what the consequences of your doing that will be....McCain and Palin in the White House.

If there's ANYONE reading this, that's thinking of coming here and praising Nader and the Green Party, then DON'T, this is a site for Democrats and for those who might be Independent but share common philosophical and political values with Democrats.

We don't want no Nader supporters and no Green Party supporters here during this CRUCIAL time, there are plenty of other sites for Naderites to go and join....this ain't one of them....this is a Democratic Party supporter site.

'Er, hopefully the Moderators will recognize the gist of my OP here and let it stand, I'm just saying that as Democrats we need to concentrate on Obama and the Democratic Party, we don't need distractions from Naderites trashing our candidate and helping to fuck things up for us AGAIN.


On Edit: I think this is an important message, it should really get votes to put it on the Main Page or whatever (all sorts of SILLY threads gets TONS of votes)....not that it will....I mean....it's written by a DLCer ie. me....and as we know, even though we'd cut off a LIMB to get Obama elected....we just ain't acceptable, we aren't considered Democratic enough, which is really pathetic actually....people need to grow up already.

I don't support Litmus Tests, neither should you.

[bluestateguy]

1. They're Communists

I know this because I have talked with some of them.

[...of J.Temperance]

143. Nader would deliver KEY state of Ohio to McCain/Palin, here's the poll:

Just posted, but I thought I'd post a link to that thread in my Nader thread here:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6931097

[depakid]

2. Oh boy- a Green bashing thread

:popcorn:

[...of J.Temperance]

3. I'm not bashing, I'm telling....

Say NO to Ralph Nader and The Green Party.

Vote Obama/Biden.

[MyUncle]

5. You are 100% correct if we want to win the ELECTION

A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. Period. Don't do it.

[trueblue2007]

20. Of course I give it a recommendation. Best thing to happen to Nader

Send him to the MOON. NOW. He can make it a green planet and stop messing around with Earth.

I have lost ALL respect for Nader.
If he can't WITHDRAWAL after knowing what McCain and Palin stand for, well then as far as I'm concerned, he is dead in politics. His views don't represent sanity.

[...of J.Temperance]

Nader is a liar, he pretends he's "Progressive", he's so "Progressive" he has no

Problem with letting McCain/Palin in....and if McCain dies, Palin takes the job and she's a fucking loon....and Nader AND Cynthia McKinney have no problem with this.

[depakid]

115. Basically, you don't know what you're talking about

and like others who can't wrap their minds around things or reason responsibly, you just drivel on.

There was a thread yesterday about this sort of thinking. Might be useful for you to review:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6888947&mesg_id=6888947

[...of J.Temperance]

117. I fail to see how that thread relates to my thread and it's subject matter

Sorry, try another straw to grasp at....that one just failed.

[depakid]

120. I know you fail to see

as did the people in Altemeyer's research.

[...of J.Temperance]

123. As I'm not a Right-Wing Authoritarian, your link and post is absurd

It relates in no way to my OP nor the subject matter of this entire thread.

If it's brainwashing or whatever that you're attempting to make a point about, it seems it's the Nader followers who are both brainwashed and disconnected from reality....they live in an alternate reality that tells them they didn't help put W in the WH....it must be nice for them to live in that Fantasyland.

The Nader apologists are the one's who would vote for him or McKinney this year as well....I can't see by their apologizing and excusing Nader and McKinney's behavior how that translates into them NOT holding out the possibilty of voting Nader or McKinney instead of voting for Obama.

They cannot be trusted, they fucked it up for Gore in 2000, they would happily fuck it up for Obama in 2008.

They have not given any other indication that they have learnt their lesson from 2000, they have not given any indication that Obama has 100% of their support and that the Democratic Party has 100% of their support.

[depakid]

125. You seem to "reason" like one

Being a Republican is not a prerequisite.

[...of J.Temperance]

127. Lol! Seems it's you who doesn't have a clue what you're talking about

You'd be hilarious if you weren't so pitiful.

I should ask, did you vote for Nader in 2000? Do you think Obama isn't "Progressive" enough for you this time?

Seems you're making an awful lot of excuses for Ralphie.

And I ask these questions, because my defending Obama and bashing Nader and McKinney is interpreted by YOU as "Republican" thinking....Lol! Talk about bizarro thinking, it's you with the bizarro thinking.

On Edit: Question

[depakid]

130. Proof positive

Go back and refelct on the material.

[...of J.Temperance]

133. Reflect on WHAT material? n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

134. Also ARE you actually a Democrat?

Do you support Democratic Party candidates for Senate, Congress and PRESIDENT?

[...of J.Temperance]

141. Read this, looks like I'M CORRECT and YOU don't know what you're talking about ya Naderite

Just posted....looks like I'M CORRECT afterall huh, looks like I know what I'm talking about and YOU don't know what the heck you're talking about....you must be proud of your boy Ralph Nader yes?

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6931097

[samsingh]

179. letting the repugs win another election is not going to help green or nader's causes

[Stellabella]

224. If Ralph is so progressive, why did he accept money from repukes?

Just try wriggling around that one.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. I see you have the popcorn. I brought the drinks. Share?

:toast:

[depakid]

8. Got the espresso machine cranked up

LOL.

[Dr. Strange]

138. Keep it cranked.

We may need it to keep us awake for McCain's one-hour speech.

:boring:

[depakid]

149. Someone got me to thinking about Larson's the far side last night

how the crowd at that convention looked... spot on observation.

Here's what I think about the prospect of McCain pandering even more to the fundies:

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. I haven't seen one of these since, oh, ten minutes ago n/t

[Obamarama]

135. Yup, it is. Do they deserve it? YES!

I can't believe this ignorant motherfucker and his dumbfuck supporters are going to try to pull this shit, AGAIN.

[...of J.Temperance]

6. 73 views and NO votes....those 73 views KNOW they agree with this OP

People need to grow up and stop being so PREJUDICED here....the D in DLC stands for Democratic, Jesus Christ on a FUCKING STICK.

They know this OP contains an important message....to vote Obama and send him to the WH and to say no to ALL of the Green Party hacks.

[elocs]

22. Well, I just gave it #5 and it's only been 7 minutes.

Didn't we learn anything from 2000. Nader may not have cost Gore the election, but how did he ever help? Clearly, he didn't and so we got Bush.

[...of J.Temperance]

37. Thank you :) I just thanked EVERYONE in this thread as well :)

I feel a bit embarrassed drawing attention to myself in this way, but I feel the OP contains an important message.

Apparently there are still people out there who didn't learn anything from 2000, which is just jaw-dropping.

[LynneSin]

7. Just as an FYI - Nader is NOT a member nor running on the Green Party ticket

that is Cynthia McKinney.

But yea, I'm pissed too

[...of J.Temperance]

10. Fuck Cynthia McKinney as well

Nader is running I read it on another thread.

[terrya]

9. Bob Barr is running for President also.

I think he will neutralize any appeal of Nader.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Chuck Baldwin is also running, and I bet there will be some write-ins for Ron Paul as well. All in

all I think this year the independents and smaller parties from the left and the right will pretty much cancel each other out vote-wise. (Although I have high hopes that their will be more votes for the conservative ones. McCain and Palin aren't exactly setting the right on fire, not like Obama is doing for the Dems, and left/middle/pissed at the Repub indepndents.)

[...of J.Temperance]

15. Bob Barr is a Right-Wing loon

So hopefully he'll take votes off McNutjob.

I'm bothered about so-called "Progressives" like McKinney and Nader running again, and taking votes from Obama/Biden.

This election is THAT important, and the past eight years have been such a clusterfuck, why on earth would ANY Progressively-minded person even THINK of NOT voting for Obama/Biden.

This is not a time to make some cosmetic vote by voting McKinney or Nader....doing that only lets McCain/Palin in....and he's old and sick and she's just plain crazy.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[SurfingAtWork]

51. I would have agreed that he would have neutralized the Nader/McKinney problem

But I don't think that is going to happen now. The repub base is very energized now. Alot of people who hate McCain and intended to either stay home, or vote for Barr are planing on voting for the Repub ticket now.

[City of Mills]

11. Ask the Republicans that you know (if any)

If they support the hijacking of the Republican party by the social conservatives and religious right, and remind them that the fiscal conservaties, the "real" Republican party, go by the name Libertarians. That should help shear off some votes.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. So actual democracy pisses you off? n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. People in power often don't want to share, even with potential allies.

[...of J.Temperance]

41. Nader and The Green Party ain't our allies, they're our enemies

They are no different than the GOP, the Greens and the GOP are both the enemies of the Democrats, if the Greens were our allies they'd be standing WITH us in this election, they wouldn't be getting themselves on the ballot in CRUCIAL swing states.

[TechBear_Seattle]

69. That attitude is exactly why the Green Party has so much influence

Rather than reaching out to progressives, liberals and other left-leaning folks, the Democratic Party insists on moving to the right, belittling those who still hold liberal values then condemns those who have had enough and begin organizing.

But as I observed before, you don't care about ideology, you just want a one-party state run by the Democratic Party. As with any totalitarian dogma, everyone who is not an enthusiastic supporter of The Party is an enemy.

[stranger81]

147. Exactly -- very well put. [n/t]

[alarimer]

160. I agree.

It's the DLC that is the problem (although hopefully their influence is waning), being basically Republican-lite. I think Nader makes some good points sometimes, especially as it relates to corporate influence on politics. Judging from the convention, the Party is entirely in bed with corporations. It is long past time to end that association. I suspect he will have very little effect on the election this time.

[G_j]

163. true words

thanks

[democracy1st]

192. Only problem I see is you guys wait til the Supreme Court is up for grabs to pull this BS

[Ripley]

200. Agreed, except for this part:

I don't think the Green Party has much influence on national politics in the US at all, except to be the whipping boy for the Dems.

Your second graf is right ON.

[TechBear_Seattle]

204. The Green Party has influence because the Dems have made them their whipping boy

Much in the same way that a sweater can turn into a monster in the closet. It is still just a sweater even while the monster terrifies.

[Ripley]

205. Heh.

Touche. Man our country sure has a lot of ignoramuses. When Mr. Nader becomes a Boogey Man and T-bone and BP become the real Green saviors.. we.are.doomed.

[glancingthefuture]

105. why is democracy so threatening to you?

[...of J.Temperance]

126. If McCain/Palin get in, then that's probably going to be the end of Democracy

Because this time they'll make sure that we never get in again.

Not a chance that's worth taking by voting Nader or McKinney, they will NEVER be in the WH EVER, but voting for them will take votes away from Obama and thus let McCain/Palin into the WH.

It's not that difficult to understand.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[tomp]

203. the democratic party fucked ralph nader and cynthia mcckiney.

the dems should have thought of the repercussions then.

[...of J.Temperance]

19. Yes if it means wasting votes on the Greens at the expense of Democrats

A vote for the Greens is a vote to help the Republicans.

There's only one voting option here, and that's to vote Obama/Biden....anything else just helps the Republicans.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. All right, so your real beef is with the election system and not with the Greens? If we had a system

that allowed for ranked voting or some way to vote both Green and Dem, would you then be cool with that?

[johan helge]

121. Calling yourself GreenPartyVoter is against the DU rules

- people who post here are expected to support Democratic candidates. Trying to make Dems vote Green means helping the Repubs. Why do you want to do that?

[GreenPartyVoter]

131. Interestingly the admins never took exception to my name. Perhaps because I don't

recruit for the Greens?

[...of J.Temperance]

140. You have already stated that you're voting for Obama and I've not seen

You bashing Democrats and whatnot....I think you'd be the sort of Green Party person that Democrats could work with, and we could unite around causes that we all agree on and work together in areas where we agree.

I think you're okay, I wish there were more like you :)

[GreenPartyVoter]

151. Thanks. :^) It is my hope that one day our government's election processes are

radically changed so that Greens can not only help Dems by voting for them, but get themselves elected to the Hill and work with Dems there as well. (Along with Socialists. I like them too.)

[...of J.Temperance]

154. Word, I'll second that :)

We do share many common values and philosophies, it's time we joined forces to defeat those who prefer to take things back to the Middle Ages ie. the Radical Republicans.

In Germany, the Social Democrats and the Greens have worked together hand in hand for years, I can't see why the Democratic Party and the Green Party can't join forces and work together.

We SHOULD be on the same side, not fielding candidates against each other in crucial states.

[GreenPartyVoter]

157. Yep, no fielding in battle ground states and then when the Dems are in power

they get to work on those election changes. :)

[...of J.Temperance]

158. I would support that

:)

[johan helge]

170. The admins should have done that (if they have seen it).

In both your name and your posts you advocate voting Green. This isn't difficult.

[johan helge]

171. The admins should have done that (if they have seen it).

In both your name and your posts you advocate voting Green. This isn't difficult.

[johan helge]

172. The admins should have done that (if they have seen it).

I read in a post that you'll vote for Obama. Good. But then you are not a Green Party Voter, are you?

[GreenPartyVoter]

175. I am a registered Green and I do vote for my party when I can, but sometimes

life requires compromises.

And yes the admins have seen it. I have been here for years. There's no way they could have ever missed it.

So, Johan of Oslo. Are you a registered Dem?

[johan helge]

185. I'd love to be, I admire the Democratic politicians so much

- but I'm a Norwegian citizen. Norwegian politics is ok, but US politics is much more fun, I can assure you. For me, US Presidential elections are what the Olympics are for sports fans. But liberals voting Green has the same effect as blacks not voting - it makes Karl Rove smile. So why do it?

[GreenPartyVoter]

213. For the same reason Catholics go to mass and not a Baptist service? They

are what they are and they shouldn't have to change to something different because someone else says so.

Anyway, have fun watching our political scene. I'll check out the Norwegian scene sometime and see if I can't give you a few pointers on how to vote over there.

[johan helge]

221. Several churches is no problem, but

several anti-republican parties is.

Pointers are welcome! In most elections, I've voted for the biggest Norwegian version of the Greens (we have several!).

[GreenPartyVoter]

226. Do you have a better election system than we do or do you also have to deal with

the "spoiler" effect?

There are a lot of reforms I would love to see made to our system: http://www.hostdiva.com/liberalchristians/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=29&limit=1&limitstart=1

[johan helge]

227. In Norway, all parties with at least 4 % of the votes

will be represented in the parliament (even smaller parties may also be represented). Now there are seven parties in the parliament. One of the things that make US politics so interesting, is (hope you are not offended!) how crazy it is. The most bizarre thing is (of course) voting machines without a paper trail - designed by Republican-leaning firms that (as I've understood it) can treat the programmes on the machines as business secrets. And you have to register to vote (and especially Republicans can do all kinds of dirty tricks with those registrations) - in Norway you just bring a card everyone receives in the mail or some ID, and you can vote. And hanging chads etc. that make lots of votes invalid. And lack of voting machines in Dem-leaning areas, police that stops traffic in Dem-leaning areas on election day, etc. And the electoral college that means it's almost pointless to vote in all states except the battleground states. And the "corruption" in Congress - you give my state a plant, I give you my vote on e.g. some education proposal. And the political TV ads that makes the debate into a game of half-truths ruled by money - that's (still...) forbidden in Norway and many other European countries. And that's just the system, then a right-wing party dominated by "crooks" like Bush and Cheney gets 50 % of the votes. In Norway, an insider trader like Bush wouldn't last long in politics. Don't get me wrong, Norway is far from perfect, but the US is fascinating compared to the "boring" common sense in Norway! So I can easily agree with your list of reforms. What I think the Democrats should do more, is shout loudly what they really think - that this (e.g. voting machines without a paper trail) is crazy. They are too polite, so people are not made aware of how crazy things are.

[TechBear_Seattle]

38. A vote for the Greens is a vote for the Greens

Also, Nader is running as an independent this time around, so a vote for Nader is not a vote for the Greens.

The fact is, you don't want real democracy or meaningful voter choice: you want a one-party state with the Democrats in charge. Other than your party preference, what distinguishes you from any other totalitarianist?

[...of J.Temperance]

43. Independent = Third Party....anyone voting Third Party isn't helping Obama/Biden

IF Obama/Biden don't win because just enough fools vote Third Party, then yes it WILL be a one-party state, a Republican one-party state.

This time, they'll put the last pieces of the jigsaw in place to make sure that the GOP are in forever....and the Third Party voters will have helped them.

[TechBear_Seattle]

74. And you want a Democratic one-party state rather than a Republican one-party state

That seems to be the gist of what you are saying: voter choice is bad, and all competition against the Democratic candidate is evil and will destroy America.

The ruling party in China makes the same claim, that despite being "an open and free democracy," any competition against the Ruling Party is evil, will destroy China and is proof that the people organizing against The Party is mentally and morally deficient. North Korea, Iran, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the old Soviet Untion... getting the picture yet?

[jbnow]

188. Yes we are clearly the Chinese Hussein for wanting

to get the republicans out of power this election, to not have Mr. "Bomb Iran and bully Russia" be our next president.

There is no difference at all between saying in swing states it is damaging to the greater good to have votes go to a 3rd party with no chance to win and being evil demons who want to destroy democracy.
Thanks for making that clear to me now.

[Forkboy]

56. Shhhh...don't make these people think.

It hurts them.

[...of J.Temperance]

67. It's a pity that MORE of the Green Party and Nader voters don't THINK more

IF they thought more, they would have voted for Gore in 2000....and IF they thought more, certainly after 2000 Nader and the Green Party would be lower than whale shit to them.

[TechBear_Seattle]

72. Gore lost 2000 all on his own

I mean, he couldn't even get his own home state. Any influence the Greens had in 2000 was far outweighed by out-and-out election fraud by the GOP, not to mention the well-documented fact that 11% of all self-described Democrats voted FOR BUSH in 2000, according to nationwide exit polling. Let me be crystal clear: more than one out of ten Democrats voted for the Republican candidate, not for the Green candidate. Barely 1% of self-described Democrats voted for Nader.

Not that facts are relevant or anything. :eyes:

[...of J.Temperance]

82. You're in denial....check how many votes your boy Nader took from Gore....Nader put W in the WH

Nader and the Greens are funded by the Republican Party, I just posted one link already in this thread that illustrates their funding....I'm posting more this afternoon.

[Lance_Boyle]

93. Nader never crossed out Gore's name and wrote in his own.

Nader never "took" anything from Gore. Gore was not entitled to Nader's votes in 2000, and Obama is not entitled to them this year. You seem to have a very warped sense of what Democracy is.

[Forkboy]

99. So what portion of the blame do the thousands of Florida Dems that voted for Bush share?

Did they help put W in the White House? What about SCOTUS? What blame do they share?

Do you think Gore won or lost Florida?

[stranger81]

145. More Democrats in Florida crossed over to vote for Dubya than to vote for Nader

but a scapegoat is so much easier to flog to death, isn't it. . . .

People will stop voting Green when the Democratic party returns to some of its liberal values and stops taking their votes for granted. It's that simple.

[Forkboy]

87. It's a shame that after '96 we Dems didn't think they would matter.

[...of J.Temperance]

91. Elaborate please

n/t

[Forkboy]

97. Sure

It was clear to any political junkie that there was a split forming between the left and the center of the Democratic party. This was already manifesting itself in '92, so by '96 no one should have been surprised that Nader attracted a little attention.

Now, instead of trying to appeal to many people who voted for the Greens (many of whom were Democrats first, and would be natural allies) we instead brushed them off and ignored the threat they posed to us further down the line. As Dems we did not even begin to analyze why the split was happening, and what to do about it. We just did what you're still doing...calling them names to make ourselves feel good, while accomplishing jack shit to help the Party.

So 2000 rolls around, and suddenly Nader is an even bigger player. And Democrats were actually surprised by this. They felt, as you still clearly do, that a person's vote is just owed to a Democrat. We don't have to actually earn it, they should just give it to us.

If we had paid attention in '96, and prepared a better message towards the left wing and, had we not picked Lieberman, Nader wouldn't have even been in the picture in 2000. Instead, we tacked to the right-wing, further alienating those would natural allies (the Green and Dem platforms share 90% of the same ideals) in an attempt to appeal to swing voters, people who share our ideals only when it's convenient for them to do so, not because they actually believe in what Democrats stand for.

And nothing has changed. We still just mock Nader instead of thinking about why he ran in '96 and 2000. We still act like we were owed those votes. We still have yet to address why so many thousands of Dems voted for Bush in Florida. We still excuse the SCOTUS for their role in the theft, and instead attack someone who was doing what any American should be able to do...run for President. Who is the real villian...SCOTUS for handing us a president who didn't win, or the people practicing their rights as an American?

Make no mistake, I don't like Nader. I respect what he did in the past, but he jumped the shark a long time ago for me. But, he has a right to do what he did, and we should have thought about the very real possibility that what happened was going to happen. We ignored it instead.

[Forkboy]

98. Sure

It was clear to any political junkie that there was a split forming between the left and the center of the Democratic party. This was already manifesting itself in '92, so by '96 no one should have been surprised that Nader attracted a little attention.

Now, instead of trying to appeal to many people who voted for the Greens (many of whom were Democrats first, and would be natural allies) we instead brushed them off and ignored the threat they posed to us further down the line. As Dems we did not even begin to analyze why the split was happening, and what to do about it. We just did what you're still doing...calling them names to make ourselves feel good, while accomplishing jack shit to help the Party.

So 2000 rolls around, and suddenly Nader is an even bigger player. And Democrats were actually surprised by this. They felt, as you still clearly do, that a person's vote is just owed to a Democrat. We don't have to actually earn it, they should just give it to us.

If we had paid attention in '96, and prepared a better message towards the left wing and, had we not picked Lieberman, Nader wouldn't have even been in the picture in 2000. Instead, we tacked to the right-wing, further alienating those would natural allies (the Green and Dem platforms share 90% of the same ideals) in an attempt to appeal to swing voters, people who share our ideals only when it's convenient for them to do so, not because they actually believe in what Democrats stand for.

And nothing has changed. We still just mock Nader instead of thinking about why he ran in '96 and 2000. We still act like we were owed those votes. We still have yet to address why so many thousands of Dems voted for Bush in Florida. We still excuse the SCOTUS for their role in the theft, and instead attack someone who was doing what any American should be able to do...run for President. Who is the real villian...SCOTUS for handing us a president who didn't win, or the people practicing their rights as an American?

Make no mistake, I don't like Nader. I respect what he did in the past, but he jumped the shark a long time ago for me. But, he has a right to do what he did, and we should have thought about the very real possibility that what happened was going to happen. We ignored it instead.

[johan helge]

129. Trying to win elections is not being a "totalitarianist".

The goal is not to win all elections (that means democracy isn't working), but to win as much as possible. The more Dem victories, the more both parties will move towards the left - the Dems because they want leftwards, the Repubs because they must leftwards to win elections.

Liberals voting Green has the same effect as blacks not voting at all - it helps the Repubs.

[...of J.Temperance]

136. Well said, very sensible comments, not that the Greenies will understand them

The goal is to win as many elections as possible, and we can't do that if so-called "Progressives" DON'T vote for the Democratic Presidential candidates.

I do have to question if these so-called "Progressives" are in reality just people who hate the Democratic Party in general.

[TechBear_Seattle]

144. Demanding that there be no competition in an election IS totalitarian

The attitude of "either you are with my party or you are the enemy" is also totalitarian.

Note the word forms:

Totalitarianism - noun, "centralized control by an autocratic authority" (according Merriam-Webster online.)

Totalitarianist - noun, a person who advocates in favor of totalitarianism

Totalitarian - adjective, relating to totalitarianism. Also used as a noun with the same meaning as totalitarianist.

Ridiculing people who seek meaningful choice at the ballots is fundamentally undemocratic. I have no moral problem with calling people out on their choice, but take up arms against those who want someone other than Corporate Shill One and Corporate Shill Two, and to claim that any and all candidates other CS1 are in cahoots with CS2, is to reject the core concept of democracy.

[johan helge]

174. In my home country Norway

a party needs, simply said, 4 % of the votes to be represented in the parliament. There are seven parties in the parliament.

In the US, there is only one party in the White House. A party needs, simply said, 50 % of the votes to be represented in the White House.

So in the US, you must be the biggest party to be represented. That's why splitting liberals into several parties is destructive.

[TechBear_Seattle]

197. In Norway, only one party is Prime Minister

If you wish to draw comparisons between the government systems of the United States and Norway, start by drawing valid comparisons. There is absolutely no reason why the two houses of Congress -- that would be our equivalent to your Parliament -- could not be multi-party.

Also, please note that the people do not elect the President; the states do. The popular vote in a given state only directs that state on how to cast its electoral votes. The Framers of our Constitution clearly expected it to be rare for a candidate for President to receive a majority of votes on the first ballot. In that situation, the election passes out of the hands of the states to the members of the House of Representatives, making the election of the President almost the same as the election of a Prime Minister.

For various historical reasons, however, our country developed a Two Party system rather than a multi-party one. While this has made the US government more stable than most Parliamentary governments, it has also eliminated voter choice and allowed what are ostensibly two different political organizations to merge into two wings of a single Two Party aimed at a perceived "middle America." This has left a great many potential voters feeling disenfranchised, which is why the United States has the lowest voter turnout, by far, of any First World democracy.

Those who truly believe in democracy should not ridicule or deride efforts to get those non-voters involved, because the major parties certainly don't give a rat's ass about them.

[johan helge]

218. In Norway, small parties (above 4%) will be represented

in the parliament. In the US, a party of 4 % doesn't have much chance of being represented in Congress (unless most of those 4 % live in the same state). So not only regarding The White House, but also regarding Congress, it is best to have one big party fighting against the right.

[Forkboy]

54. Nothing like agreeing that Democracy pisses you off.

That's the spirit! :eyes:

[ronnykmarshall]

78. A Vote for Nader is a Vote for The Controller !!

[Forkboy]

90. LOL

How bad can they be though, if they live on a planet where Godzilla can do the "happy dance"? :)

[dana_b]

17. he's running at 8% in AZ and he claims to be near double

digits in some states. Not this time Ralph - please!!!

I'm not promoting the Greens or anyone, but I will say that there are some that feel that the Dems aren't progressive enough and they are complicit in what's happened this past 8 years. That's why people still vote for Ralph.

[blondeatlast]

27. Source? I'm an AZer and I need proof of that. nt

[dana_b]

137. sorry - it's actually new Mexico:

Time/CNN Poll: Nader at 8 Percent in New Mexico 08/27/08

When the field of candidates was expanded beyond the major parties, it's clear that Ralph Nader could again have a significant impact on the Presidential race—though in highly unpredictable ways. In Nevada, Nader was the choice of 6% of respondents, and his presence flattened Obama's lead into a 41%-41% tie. Yet in New Mexico, where Nader polled at 8%, he drew votes almost equally from both major candidates, while in Pennsylvania he siphoned off significant support from McCain; a three-way race there would give Obama 47%, McCain 38% and Nader 7%.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1836770,00.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. And so the OP post damns the greens and progressives,

instead of inviting them into our tent.

Good tactics.

[...of J.Temperance]

65. We tried once before, in 2000, and it didn't work, we asked Greens NOT to

Vote for Nader but to vote for Gore, and they refused and voted for Nader.

Tons of them voted for Nader in 2004 as well....and they'll vote for Nader or McKinney in 2008 as well, so why should we waste our breath on them anymore?

[greguganus]

18. When people stop sending Vader money, he will fade away. n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

21. Much of his campaign money comes from Republicans

We saw that from the records in 2000 and 2004, many Bush/Cheney donors were giving Nader and the Greens money as well....why? Because they love him on the ballot, because they know he helps them come election day.

[redqueen]

26. Can we get good sources for that?

There are too many Nader true believers still around.

Maybe if they see who's funding his sorry, selfish, spotlight-hungry ass... maybe if they see for themselves that ONCE AGAIN, he is nothing but a tool, acting as a spoiler for the right wing... mabye some will stop believing that he gives a damn about actually solving any of the problems he talks about.

[...of J.Temperance]

44. Yes I'll post it in this thread this afternoon

Stay tuned :)

[redqueen]

50. Thanks! I'll be sure to check back for it...

:hi:

[...of J.Temperance]

66. Cool

Have to go to a dental appointment now.

:hi:

[...of J.Temperance]

79. Here's a taster, GOP funding Nader article

More later, but here's just one article to be going on until this afternoon.

"GOP donors funding Nader
Bush supporters give independent's bid a financial lift

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader -- still not on the ballot in a single state -- has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party, an analysis of federal records show.

Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1, 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past.

The donations from wealthy Republicans -- combined with increasingly vocal Democratic charges that they represent a stealth GOP effort to wound Democrat John Kerry -- prompted Nader's vice presidential running mate, Green Party member Peter Camejo, to suggest the consumer advocate reject the money that doesn't come from loyal Nader voters.

-snip-

But Camejo's views differ with Nader's recent defense of the contributions.

-snip-

A statewide poll by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University released Wednesday indicates that if Nader qualifies as a presidential candidate on the California ballot, the former consumer advocate would steal support from the Democratic ticket almost exclusively.

"He would drain about 4 percent of Kerry's support, almost all of it from Democrats, while having a negligible impact on Bush's vote or his support among Republicans,'' according to Institute director Phil Trounstine.

Democrats are worried about Nader's influence because they believe as a Green Party candidate in 2000, he pulled votes that would have gone to Democratic Vice President Al Gore in key states, thus helping Bush win the election."


And the Nader motherfucker DID help W win the election in 2000, those who say he didn't are in DENIAL....the Nader pig PUT W in the WH....fuck off Ralph and rot in Hell....and fuck off McKinney as well.

Read the rest of the article, it's ASTOUNDING, Nader defending his accepting Republican money....and Nader's campaign spokesman trying to blame John Kerry!

Here's the rest of the article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL


On Edit: Fixed link

[redqueen]

181. A Nader-pusher told me today that the stuff about the RW funding him was all made up by Dems.

*sigh*

Thanks.

[...of J.Temperance]

195. Of course the Naderites think everything is a conspiracy by the Democrats against Nader

What should we expect? The Naderites don't live in the real world, they live in some strange Fantasyland.

[...of J.Temperance]

112. Here's another article on the GOP funding Nader from The Guardian

"Republicans fund Nader as decisive electoral weapon

Ralph Nader, the consumers' champion who became the scourge of Democrats for his determination to run for US president, faced a concerted challenge yesterday to his candidacy in a battleground state.
In two separate lawsuits, Democratic activists in Pennsylvania sought to keep Mr Nader off November's ballot.

The move intensifies the war between Republicans and Democrats over Mr Nader's candidacy, a conflict fuelled by the maverick's willingness to accept funds and help from some of George Bush's most ardent supporters.

Republicans are eager to see Mr Nader do well - not because of his stand on the environment or Iraq - but in the hope that he will tip the balance towards Mr Bush in the race against John Kerry, the Democratic challenger. But the Democrats have stood their ground, with activists harrying Mr Nader's effort to get on the ballot in several states.

-snip-

However, among Mr Nader's new supporters this election is the billionaire Richard Egan, who was appointed ambassador to Ireland after raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for President Bush. Campaign monitors say other big Republican donors have contributed as well. In Oregon, also poised for a tight contest, two conservative groups admitted telephoning supporters to help put Mr Nader on the ticket.

-snip-

But Democrats say that was Mr Nader's due when he decided to contest these elections, reopening the feud on the American left begun when Mr Nader drained off crucial support for Al Gore in the 2000 elections, handing Mr Bush his victory.

With memories of that defeat still rankling, even some of Mr Nader's closest associates were outraged when he announced his candidacy earlier this year.

That anger grew further when Mr Nader rebuffed a request from Mr Kerry to stay out of the race in key states."


Here's the full article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/aug/10/uselections2004.usa


NOT that ANY of these links confirming PROOF that Ralph Nader and The Green Party are funded by the Republicans and have been funded by the Republicans for YEARS matters, because the Naderites and the Green Party crowd are in DENIAL of the FACTS.

I guess the TRUTH hurts....the TRUTH being Vote Nader = Voting Republican and Vote Green Party = Voting Republican.

The Republicans love Ralph Nader and the Green Party, they love them so much, they fund them.

I've got a TON of other articles about Ralph Nader and the Green Party being in bed with the Republicans.



On Edit: Fixed link

[redqueen]

182. Thanks for these links.

If you'd care to PM me with any other info on his collusion with the GOP, it might help me to help some folks see the picture a little more clearly than they do now.

Thanks again.

[...of J.Temperance]

194. I will do my best to get around to PMing you more links today

It might be tonight though, as I have some things to deal with today.

:)

[blondeatlast]

24. Nader's irrelevant. Ignore him. nt

[SidneyCarton]

25. Nader isn't running as a Green.

The Green candidate is Cynthia McKinney. Last I heard she was requesting greens in Battleground states to vote for Obama.

[redqueen]

29. Didn't the Green Party give him his walking papers?

I wonder what the back story is on that...

[EFerrari]

31. Cynthia won their nomination. n/t

[depakid]

32. He was never a member of the Green Party in the first place.

[redqueen]

52. He didn't run as a Green in 2000?

[GreenPartyVoter]

53. He did but it was an alliance deal. He was never a member of the party

[redqueen]

60. Okay then I'm very curious about the relationship between him and the Greens

both prior to and after that agreement.

[GreenPartyVoter]

68. I have no idea what that's all about, why he ran with them and then why he didn't after. But

that's all right. The Greens have two women on their ticket right now and I am really proud of them for that, and I am also very sad I can't support them :( As much as I want to I can't take a chance on war mongers and theocrats getting into the WH. They are amenable to reinstating the draft and I have two little boys I refuse to give up to the war machine. x(

[SidneyCarton]

33. I seem to remember the same, but I don't know why.

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. I was able to vote Green in 2000 because I knew my state would go blue for Gore. But I definitely

would not recommend anyone try that in battleground states.

[...of J.Temperance]

47. Word, if it's a SAFE Democratic state, it doesn't matter, it's the Swing states

If you live in say Rhode Island or Washington State etc, then as they're safe Democratic states it doesn't matter so much.

If you live in Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Colorado etc, then it's CRUCIAL to vote Obama/Biden.

[...of J.Temperance]

63. So why is she running in Ohio then, which is a battleground state?

If she wanted Greens in battleground states to vote for Obama, she wouldn't be running herself in Ohio would she?

[eridani]

184. And that's how you build ongoing third party organizational structure

Contesting local elections, and strictly avoiding throwing elections to the Repukes on a national level.

[NoodleyAppendage]

28. Nader's old. With luck he will pass away and quit threatening the country with his presence. n/t

Nader's ego is all that matters, nothing else is important to him.

J

[...of J.Temperance]

34. Thank you for giving my OP sufficient votes for the Main Page, I don't often

Draw attention to myself in this particular way.

But I read that Nader and the Greens were sticking their noses in this election again, and it got me all wound up, to the point I felt the need to post this OP....and I didn't want it getting lost amidst a ton of other threads, because I wanted it on the Main Page, because IF the Naderites are even thinking of checking DU out I want them to read this OP and to get the message that we don't need them coming here trashing Obama/Biden and doing their distractions like they've done in previous election campaigns at DU.

This site is for those who want with EVERY fiber of their being Obama/Biden in the WH, this election is TOO important to let the Naderites mess it up again.

[chicagoexpat]

35. I would hope someone's doing Nader

He seems like he needs it

[...of J.Temperance]

36. Thank you for giving my OP sufficient votes for the Main Page, I don't often

Draw attention to myself in this particular way.

But I read that Nader and the Greens were sticking their noses in this election again, and it got me all wound up, to the point I felt the need to post this OP....and I didn't want it getting lost amidst a ton of other threads, because I wanted it on the Main Page, because IF the Naderites are even thinking of checking DU out I want them to read this OP and to get the message that we don't need them coming here trashing Obama/Biden and doing their distractions like they've done in previous election campaigns at DU.

This site is for those who want with EVERY fiber of their being Obama/Biden in the WH, this election is TOO important to let the Naderites mess it up again.

[stuntcat]

39. I thought I was "Green" ..

but I guess not "green" by any definition of that group lately.
I heard a interview the other day with someone representing the "Green" party and she didn't mention a single thing about science or saving animals' habitats or changing how we farm. Every word of the interview was about healthcare and workers' rights.. which is GREAT stuff, don't get me wrong, but it seemed like a chance to at least mention some big picture stuff like the actual fycking future of THE PLANET the upright moneys are busy raping.

[Kokonoe]

40. Don't worry, the media won't mention Ralph this year, because of Bob Barr

Bob barr is doing so much better attracting McCain's supporters, and poor old Ralph is not attracting anything.
.

[rabbits4love]

42. I blame voter fraud, not nader

i agree nader is full of himself... but you cant hand him the sole blame...

[Romulox]

45. "written by a DLCer..." nt

[...of J.Temperance]

48. Go away

My voting record:

1992 - Clinton (wasn't able to vote, but supported him and would have voted for him if I could have)
1996 - Clinton
2000 - GORE
2004 - Kerry
2008 - Obama

So what point are you stupidly trying to make?


On Edit: Stuff

[Romulox]

59. LOL. Like you weren't fishing for attention with that line! :P nt

[...of J.Temperance]

62. Sorry, who did you vote for in 2000 again?

Huh?

I wasn't fishing for attention, people know I'm one of the DLCer's here, and I specifically mentioned that in my OP because, I know that often people will agree with whats written, but then often are reluctant to publically agree for fear of being seen to side with a *gasp* DLCer.

The fact is, I have NEVER been disloyal to my party, I have always supported my party's Presidential nominee....unlike the Naderites who trashed Gore in 2000 and voted Third Party.

[The Stranger]

49. Roiling in the wake of Gidget the GOP Deity -- and you're here attacking Nader?

Get the fuck outta here.

[...of J.Temperance]

55. Not understanding your point

Nader and McKinney might result in McCain/Palin getting in, or can't you do the math....or maybe you like Ralph, I dunno.

[The Stranger]

108. Bullshit. Nader and McKinney will NOT result in McCain/Palin getting in -- Palin will result in

McCain/Palin getting in -- unless you haven't been keeping up with current events. Write a letter and send it to the year 2000. Our problem right now is not Nader (if it ever really was, considering even if he had "stolen" Democratic votes (what a fucking stupid notion), we would have been stuck with Republican Joe Lieberman in office), our problem is Palin.

[...of J.Temperance]

113. Our problem is McCain/Palin AND Nader and Cynthia McKinney

Nader and McKinney are problems too, considering they're sticking their noses into Swing States and are going to run on the ballot there.

AND in 2000, your comment is absurd, in 2000 Al Gore would have been in office, Holy Joe was bottom of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

Nader did steal Gore votes, it's not a "stupid notion", it's a fact, but I can understand those who voted for Nader in 2000 living in denial, because it must really suck to admit the truth that it was the Nader voters who helped put W the fuckhead in the WH.

[Forkboy]

58. Nader is the Dem's Clenis.

He helps us avoid having to actually look in a mirror and think about our own mistakes as a party.

[redqueen]

61. Have you heard people stumping for him?

After the last two elections?

He's kind of bringing this on himself, don't you think?

Don't you think if reform was really his goal, he'd get people working on electing greener candidates at lower levels, instead of just being a spoiler in GE battles?

Sorry, he's a charlatan and I can't stand him anymore. And I question the thinking skills of those who do NOTHING to change things EXCEPT vote for this spoiler once every four years. Yeah, that's the way to get real change! Be lazy except when you can help the RIGHT!

:woohoo:

[Solon]

77. Hmmm...Nader isn't worth two shits, and he isn't interested in helping the Green Party...

anyways, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, he's not a member. But, having said that, using Nader as an excuse for what happened in 2000 and 2004 is extremely weak. First off, the fact is the voter fraud was a much larger factor in determining either election than how many votes Nader gathered. In addition to this, the fact is that all those votes he did get were not guaranteed to go to the Democrats anyways, its just as likely that, if Nader wasn't on the ballot, those people would have stayed home.

There's a reason why voter turnout in recent years, excepting after Bush became president, has been declining. Mostly its because both parties are increasingly out of touch with the American people. Generally, both parties have been moving right, while the American people, in general, haven't been moving at all. Not only that, but both parties are seen as corrupt, to a certain extent, at least they have in the past, hell, the Nader slogan of "No difference between the parties" in 2000 wasn't even NEW, he didn't invent it, hell, I've heard the same thing from as far back as '96, when I first registered to vote.

Indeed, we should be thanking Bush for making the Democratic party seem like the shining light now, at least that has demolished the lie that both parties are the same, and has diminished the talk that Democrats are as corrupt as the Republicans. Now many voters are energized, that's true, but they are energized to vote against Republican policies, because they see the Democrats as a viable alternative, all we can hope for is that their hope isn't misplaced, that OUR hope isn't misplaced.

That's the problem with the the way the two party system works in this country, we have two political parties that more resemble coalitions, but also require vast amounts of money to field ANY candidate. This means two things, one is that alternative voices are shut out of the running, by default, and second that both parties require corporate backing to win elections. This means that the people who actually vote for them are less important than the funding they receive from big backers.

[redqueen]

83. Let me just ask you this: In our rigged, two-parties and two-parties only situation...

WHOM does the "no difference" lie help?

Cui bono?

[Solon]

96. Theoretically it should help neither party....

but in reality it helps the Republican party because, generally speaking, most people who are newly registered to vote are more likely to vote Democratic over Republican, so its in the Republicans best interest to use all techniques at voter suppression. This is, of course, generally speaking, in some localities, voter suppression would favor Democrats over Republicans.

There's also the problem of party discipline, the Republicans have it, the Democrats don't. Compare the 6 years Clinton had to compromise with the Republicans in Congress, who did everything they could to act as obstructionists, and it didn't cost them a damn thing, compared to what the Democrats have done in the 2 years they held Congress. The Democratic party is perceived as weak when behaving as an opposition party, with good reason, I might add, because the moderates in the party are more likely to vote for Republican policies, versus Republican moderates voting for Democratic policies.

The lie that there is no difference doesn't come from NO evidence, but rather because its an unfair generalization. In some cases, its actually true, or the differences between the parties are so slight, on local or state level, as to make no difference on a practical level. This also leads to general apathy in regards to how either party is perceived, frankly, both parties are at fault for helping to propagate this meme, and Nader isn't helping either.

[redqueen]

104. "in reality it helps the Republican party"

Yes, it's an unfair generalization. Not to mention overly simplistic and just plain WRONG.

Now... spreading it around... while knowing it helps republicans... why would anyone do that?

I disagree that 'both parties' are helping to propogate the meme. The parties aren't entities. They are made up of individuals and some feed into that and some don't.

Overly-simplistic thinking is killing us.

[Solon]

180. Just a question, did you read beyond the first two sentences of my post?

because you basically echoed what I said, just using briefer words, I'm long winded, sure, but not so much so that the meaning is lost, I hope. Specifically the part about party discipline, I think that applies the most to what you said.

[redqueen]

202. I did, yes...

and yes party discipline is the thing we agree on.

I'm not sure we agree on why people might be interested in spreading the "no difference" meme... especially liberal people.

[Forkboy]

85. He jumped the shark in 2000.

And I didn't even like him much in '96 either.

Yes, I think he brings some of it on himself. But I've also watched for almost 8 years as we Dems have blamed him, literally, for every bad thing that's happened since 2000. That let's us off the hook at analyzing why he ran in the first place, and why many people who normally had voted Democratic voted for him instead. It also ignores the thousands upon thousands of Florida Democrats that voted for Bush. In almost 8 years here I've yet to see a single serious discussion about them and their share of blame of what went down, and whether or not there's any way to avoid such things in the future.

Why are we so scared to look within and ask some tough questions of ourselves as a party, and why heap so much blame on someone while giving a pass to so many others just because they are Democrats? Isn't that what we expect from Republicans, and don't we constantly harp on them for their hypocrisy? Why then do we ignore our own so readily?

99% of the time here on DU the Nader threads are just what I say they are. A way to scapegoat someone for problems we should be addressing ourselves, but are too scared to really try. So we resort to simplistic name calling of Nader. It's easy because he is a tool...but it also doesn't help us in the slightest bit. It's mental wanking, nothing more.

[redqueen]

95. My perspective on it is different.

I do see some of what you're saying - people using him as a scapegoat... but I also see where his funding comes from, and know what he is.

If he didn't have a measurable impact on election results, the right would not be throwing money at him.

Most people on this board have NO PROBLEM criticizing our own party and its failings. FAR from it.

[Forkboy]

100. Ok

If he didn't have a measurable impact on election results, the right would not be throwing money at him.

Why did/does Nader have such an impact that the Repubs feel they could use him?

[redqueen]

103. People like to take the easy way out.

It's easy to just say there's not enough difference, throw your hands up, and just vote for a no-chance "principled" candidate.

You get to pat yourself on the back as not being "part of the problem" when in reality you're doing next to nothing.

Now please note I'm not talking about all his supporters... some of them actually do some activism between election years... but when I was working for the Kucinich campaign in 04 I ran into far too many 'purity' types who didn't seem interested in doing jack shit besides holding meditation circles and bitching. Fucking pissed me off.

Yeah, having a meditation circle is great... but can we canvas FIRST?

Sorry... bad memories.

[Forkboy]

107. Taking the easy way out is exactly my complaint with most of the Nader threads.

;)

[eridani]

186. Brings back some memories, for sure

I've about had it with people who are more interested in their supposedly "clean" consciences than in organizing during non-election years.

[redqueen]

201. Hah... I knew someone had to have

experienced that same frustration.

*sigh*

:hi:

[vaberella]

57. Added to the fact that Bob Barr is running; Ron Paul will be the favorite write-in for Repubs. n/t

[monomach]

64. I refuse to vote for the DLC in all its forms...So no rec for you.

But I do think Nader is a Republican puppet and should be hit by a meteor.

[...of J.Temperance]

70. "I refuse to vote for the DLC in all its forms...So no rec for you."

How sad.

Considering we're Democrats too, and that I've been 100% loyal to this party....I really feel sorry for you, that your discrimination blinds you.

Whatever.

[monomach]

110. You mispelled "Republican-lite."

It doesn't start with a D.

[...of J.Temperance]

111. NOT that I expect you to understand this

Considering you're probably still in Kindergarten, you must be to use such juvenile terms as "Republican-lite"

BUT one day you MIGHT realize and understand the simple concept of....that if DLCers like me were purged from OUR own political party ie. the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party would be permanently reduced to a Minority political party forever.

I mean WHERE are the Litmus Test crowd like you going to make up our purged votes from? You won't get the votes from the so-called "Progressives" who love the Green Party and Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney....because the Nader/McKinney voters vote AGAINST the Democratic Party and help the Republican Party.

Also who the heck are you to decide who gets to be in the Democratic Party, who appointed the Litmus Test crowd God Almighty?

Nobody that's who.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[Politicub]

71. If any greens are reading this, take a real hard look at Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin

And honestly ask yourselves, which ticket would be better for our country? The reality is one of these tickets will win in November. Would you rather be in a world handed over to the right, led by Palin, with 72 y.o. geezer in tow? Or - take a chance on Obama/Biden who is honestly inspiring millions of people to help our country move towards becoming a more perfect union.

Think of your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers -- would they be better off with McCain/Palin? I know the answer for me is resoundingly no. I believe if Nader gave a damn and had a conscience, he would throw his support behind Obama/Biden and give up his race to be a spoiler.

[mainegreen]

73. Almost all the greens I know are voting Obama.

The rest are sitting out the presidential vote.

No way in hell I'm voting dem for city council though. Green all the way. Our local city dems are as bad as the republicans. Well, maybe not as bad, but they're worse than the greens on city council.

[GreenPartyVoter]

80. I'm voting for a lot of Dems this year. Obama, Allen, Schatz. I wish

I could vote Green but right now I'll take a moderate WH and Hill if that's all I can get. And who knows? Maybe Obama's sense of fair play and unity will get put to good use for election reforms, and we'll finally see a political process that is truly open to all parties rather than just the big two.

[mainegreen]

81. I long for the day of instant runoff voting.

I'm not optimistic though. Those in power have nothing to gain, and freedom of choice for the peoples vote has never been a concern of politicians.

[GreenPartyVoter]

86. Those in power really don't have anything to gain, and also IRV may not

be the answer because it still has a spoiler effect of its own. We may need to look for a different ranked voting system or maybe try approval voting, although I am not sure how often that would result in a tie.

http://www.hostdiva.com/liberalchristians/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=29&limit=1&limitstart=1

[...of J.Temperance]

84. Good! As long as they vote Obama for President

It doesn't really matter about the City Council's, vote Green, vote Independent.

What DOES matter is that Obama needs as MANY votes as possible in this Presidential election, EVERY vote counts.

[GreenPartyVoter]

89. And the Hill, don't forget we have to turn the Hill Blue too or Obama will be

limited in what he can get done. (Unless he takes **'s playbook and uses it. But I'd like to think he has more integrity than that.)

[...of J.Temperance]

92. Yes, I already mentioned that in my OP :)

We need to keep control of the Senate and the House.

On the crucial races, President, Senate, Congress, people should vote Democratic, like I said EVERY vote counts....and those are the races that change peoples' lives, and also change the lives of people across the world.

[Kajsa]

75. K & R.

This is all we need right now!

This man really doesn't give a damn about
anything or anyone other than himself, does he?

Thanks, Nader- siphoning votes so the Repubs
have a stronger chance.

:(

[...of J.Temperance]

94. Well said, truthful words

And thanks for the K&R

:thumbsup:

Lets go get those Republican Motherfuckers! United and ready for battle!

[Kajsa]

122. Yep- time to take off the gloves.

Thanks for the kind words,J. Temperance.

:)

[...of J.Temperance]

132. Yep, especially after Palin's vicious, lying speech last night

I want these bastards SMASHED into pieces, so many pieces it takes them a generation to recover....if ever.

Thanks for the kinds words too Kajsa :)

[Better Believe It]

142. So Are We Suppose To Mainly Go After Nader Now And Not McCain?

[Kajsa]

146. No,

who said that?

[...of J.Temperance]

153. No, we hammer McCain/Palin AND we hammer Nader and McKinney

McCain/Palin AND Nader and McKinney....if the latter two INSIST on getting into this Presidential election, then they've asked for us to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

[Better Believe It]

173. That Would Be You And Perhaps 10 Other Confused People

Obama, unlike Kerry in 2004, isn't "hammering" Nader or McKinney or any of the several socialist candidates for President.

Do you know why that is?

Probably not.

In 2004 the Kerry campaign spent a ton of money and a lot of human resources against Ralph Nader's campaign.

And it was successful!

John Kerry defeated Ralph Nader for President!

Only problem is he lost to George W. Bush. Kerry would have probably won that election if those resources had been used to defeat George W. Bush rather than Ralph Nader.

So how much time will you be spending between now and November to defeat Nader and McKinney?

[rabbits4love]

76. what? you attack a 'liberal'(atleast in his past)

and then get upset when people attack you cause u like the DLC?

kinda a double standard there dontcha think?

dont dish out anything you cant receive back atcha ;)

[...of J.Temperance]

88. Sorry you only joined 3 days ago....so I'll wait a while to see

What you're about.

You might be kosher, but we've been burnt in the past, so apologies for being sceptical.

Nader ain't a liberal in ANY form....he's a Right-Wing enabler.

I'm a Social Liberal and proud of it.

[Occam Bandage]

101. Fuck Nader. Fuck the Greens. And fuck their defenders.

[Forkboy]

109. I love you, too.

:loveya:

[Better Believe It]

118. And fuck you!

I'm just bringing myself down to your level.

I have no interest in having intercourse with you.

[mvd]

102. As a liberal (left wing in this country, but more..

moderate according to DU,) I like some things Nader says, but think he's out for himself. I support the existance of third parties, but have no interest when they can't win at the moment - and I will not risk having a McCain/Palin Presidency/VP.

[...of J.Temperance]

114. Thank you

Why would anyone want to vote for a Third Party when they don't even have a chance of winning....all they'll do is let McCain/Palin in....and WHO in their right mind wants those crazy people in the WH, the past eight years of having crazy people in the WH have been enough.

[happydreams]

106. RUN NADER RUN!!

:applause:

And fuck any Nazi son-of-bitch that tries to stop ANYBODY from running for president.

[Faygo Kid]

139. Let him run, fine. And fuck the SOB.

I for one neither forget nor forgive.

Nader's ego is extraordinary. After what he did to this nation in 2000, you would think he would have the tiniest bit of class, and endorse Obama.

But no. It's all about Him. McCain-Palin? Fine with Ralph. Fuck the SOB, and anybody who backs him.

[happydreams]

215. Do you know one goddamn thing about Nader? Have you ever

heard of "Unsafe at any speed"? Start there and come forward.

See you in a year or so and then tell me he's been on an ego trip for nearly 50 years working his ass off to make the world a better place.

Attack the political aspect of his running but do not call him an ego maniac.

[Better Believe It]

116. The Same Old Nader Character Assassination Campaign Talking Points

Try something new!

Perhaps you need to use the work fucking a lot more to demonstrate your intellect!

[...of J.Temperance]

119. Nader has NO character....he's a putz, plain and simple n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

124. So far Nader (and Barr) split the WHITE vote with McCain. No word on what

McKinney does. I am guessing she will get the Green vote and whatever Democratic vote the GOP decides to award her by electronic vote fraud.

So, I am not worried by Nader, since McCain's vote is the one that goes down when Nader's name is added to the polls.

[Better Believe It]

128. Kerry Defeated Nader In 2004! Are You Trying To Repeat That Great Victory?

If the DLC'ers had worked as hard to defeat George W. Bush as they did to defeat Ralph Nader, it's likely that John Kerry would have been elected President in 2004!

So will the "centrist" DLC'ers once again been devoting considerable time, money and effort to defeat Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate and all of the socialist candidates for President this year?

They're more angry with Nader than George W. Bush!

Well, I guess we have a few nut jobs within our own ranks .... nothing we can do about that except humor them.

[Kajsa]

148. To all the responders who have missed this---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html


Here's Rule No. #2 of DU.

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

Any questions or problems with this?

Take it up with Skinner and the Admins.

[...of J.Temperance]

150. Thank you for posting that, it's a fine rule as well and isn't this what

Brought us to join Democratic Underground in the first place?

That we are generally supportive of Progressive ideals and that as Democrats we support Democratic candidates for political office.

[Kajsa]

152. Absolutely!

:thumbsup:

you're welcome!

;)

[...of J.Temperance]

155. Yep

:thumbsup:

:)

[TechBear_Seattle]

159. What part of supporting Democrats requires trashing democracy itself?

Are we not allowed to speak out against those who find democracy a threat to The Party?

[Kajsa]

162. TechBear, I usually agree with you.

However- people who speak out against Nader are not necessarily against
democracy.

Objecting to Nader is not "trashing democracy".

Nader, a now narcissistic,self absorbed man who cares not that he
hands the election to the most undemocratic party in existence,
the neocons, is an enemy of democracy, imho.

This is a private website owned by Skinner, a Democrat.

If you have a problem with DU rule #2, then write
to him, OK?

[TechBear_Seattle]

198. The OP was not merely objecting to Nader

He was objecting -- very vociferously and in gutter terms -- the very thought that anyone would dare to challenge the Two Party's hegemony.

The huge problem has been that the Democrats absolutely refuse, in any way, shape or form, to address the issues that the Green Party brings up. If the Democratic Party made an effort, even a half-assed one, to address the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the off-shoring of American jobs with the resulting unemployment and poverty, the hundreds of millions of Americans with no health coverage, basic civil rights for GLBT folks, the criminal activities of the Bush administration then maybe -- just maybe -- potential voters who have felt shut out would be willing to support the Democratic Party. But the Dems do not do this. In fact, partisan Democrats (here at DU, at least) go out of their way to ridicule, demean and drive away those who do bring up these issues. Don't get angry at those who feel their only choice is between organizing a political party that will raise their issues, or giving up on politics altogether. REACH OUT TO THEM, listen to them and try to hear and understand what those issues are. STOP bending over backwards for corporations. STOP passing laws at the behest of the pharmaceutical companies and tobacco companies and mercenary companies and "defense" contractors. START holding those in power responsible for their actions and inactions. Then, and only then, will the Green Party and other third parties become irrelevant.

If you really wish to support the Democratic Party, stop excluding those who do not represent "the center" and "middle America." Stop ignoring those whose issues are outside of your own personal issues. And for crying out loud, STOP feeding the persecution complexes of those who already believe -- with good reason, to be honest -- that the party just does not care about them.

[Kajsa]

207. You make several good point here, TechBear.

And I happen to agree with you that these are very pertinent issues that must be addressed.

I look at it differently however, and find that there are a number of Democrats, here at DU also
who agree with us- these are the things we are fighting for.

A stronger majority in the House and Senate will make a difference too.

One of my Senators, Barbara Boxer replies to my e-mails ( as does Senator Feinstein)
mentioning the roadblocks of the 2/3 majority.

It's hard to get anything done with one hand tied behind your back.

Yet again, we need to stand up and FIGHT for our goals and take our country back.

The wicked witch has landed and her name is Sara Palin- she will stop at nothing
but the best planned efforts to derail her deceptive, false front campaign.
What you see is not what you get with her.
What comes out of her mouth?- Forget about it- it's all window dressing.
Imagine the opposite of what she says and you have her true positions on the issues.

I'm one ticked off mom of a disabled child who is HIGHLY offended by her false remarks
that she is my "friend". Pardon?- not after cutting Alaska's budget for Spec. Ed. services
by 62%, lady! Don't get me started on national security( does she know what THAT is?)
oil and our wildlife!

Thanks for letting me vent,TBear.

That's just my humble opinion, but yes, I do agree with you that we need to reach out
more and YES- LISTEN to people. Listening is a skill many people don't have.

Take care, TBear.

[bananas]

190. So trashing progressives would violate that rule, right?

The Democratic candidate is a right-wing authoritarian.
He's much less of a right-wing authoritarian than the Republican candidate,
so a lot of progressives will vote for him, but he's still a right-wing authoritian.
Nader, McKinney, and the Greens are much more progressive than Obama, Biden, and the DLC.
Trashing Nader, McKinney, and the Greens is not being "generally supportive of progressive ideals".
Saying "Screw the Greens! Screw McKinney!" is not being "generally supportive of progressive ideals".

[Kajsa]

208. Ask Skinner and Elad, Bananas.

And please explain how in the hell ( graph or no graph)
anyone arrived at that conclusion regarding Nader.

I don't find narcissistic.self absorption to the detriment of others
progressive at all!

Remember, it's Skinner's private website- DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[blue_onyx]

156. I agree that Nader could swing a few states

but I don't think it would be his fault if Obama lost. Obama needs to win the election and convince people he's the best option. Gore, who actually won the 2000 election, deserves responsibility for allowing that election to be as close as it was. There should have been no confusion about how much better Gore was compared to Bush. But he went to the middle and allowed lies to be told without defending himself (ex: I invented the Internet). If it was me, I wouldn't run because a worse option could win. But Nader has every right to run for president. It's up to Obama to win over anyone thinking of voting for Nader, which I think he will by November.

[mdmc]

161. democracy sucks, I guess

:shrug:
perhaps there should be a law...

[WinkyDink]

167. Hey, I hate Republicans, too, and THEY are part of this democracy. It's not the system, my friend.

[mdmc]

210. stop hatin

lets all work together to solve America's problems.

Peace and low stress.

[Nikki Stone1]

164. He's running in 38 states

http://www.votenader.org/

Asswipe!

[sniffa]

165. Don't even get me started on the Constitution Party

and Libertarians, and the Communist Party, and the Right To Life Party. They only run to spoil one side or the other. How fucking dare they!?

[GreenPartyVoter]

178. This is largely as I expected except that

the Silly Party won.

[WinkyDink]

166. Nader must have more money than I thought.

[blues90]

168. Right like the Repubs and the enabling Dems have do such a

great job . Neither party has done one thing to support the people.

Now it's suddenly going to change?

Since Obama has so much money and people feel he will make a change then he should have no trouble winning so why worry about Nader or the green party.

I am sick of both parties and their lies and games. They don't represent anyone but themselves.

Bring in some old party corrupt freak like banker war supporter Biden and you really have raised the stink of the room .

[mmonk]

169. Hard truth. Our representatives did not stand and hold their ground

in Congress, especially in the House. The Green party does not have enough presence to really affect elections as much as people make out. In fact, the republicans have their own problems with Barr and Paul. But two parties really control what happens in America.

[flamingdem]

176. I believe in nonviolence BUT someone should f*ck Ralph Nader up but good nt

[flamingdem]

177. The only GREEN about Ralph Nader is the dirty money he accepts to act as a spoiler nt

[Better Believe It]

223. No You Don't!

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

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

[...of J.Temperance]

193. Wow! Wishing DEATH on Democrats now....how totally disgusting of you

"....let me take this opportunity to ask you and all your goose-stepping partisan friends, to find a nice large knobby pole and use it to fuck yourselves to DEATH!"


There's a TON of people here at DU who are doing their best to help get RID of the Radical Republicans out of the WH, and elect some decent people called Barack Obama and Joseph Biden to the WH instead....and also help our party retain control of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

And YOU have the gall to have a problem with Democrats like this? To the point where you wish DEATH on Democrats....to hate as much as you do must really suck.

I pity you.

Oh and I see you announced you're leaving, don't let the door hit you on the ass.

[fujiyama]

187. At this point, it's just not worth worrying about him

The people supporting him just do not care. They are not in it to make an actual meaningful difference. They are just bitter and cynical. At this point, I don't think you can get through to them, and whether they vote for Nader or sit it out, it just doesn't matter.

I say, Obama just has to keep campaigning as he has and just hit McCain hard for being clueless and supporting the Bush agenda.

[Political Heretic]

189. Nope. I will vote for Obama but I support an open-party system.

Two establishment parties dominating politics is part of the broader problem.

[cabbage08]

196. I agree, it isn't perfect but it is what we got for now

[democracy1st]

191. great post thank you I agree with you ...K & R

[wvbygod]

199. Maybe blame Carter or Clinton?

Either one could have appointed Ralph to some high level position where he could have
helped promote his agenda. They did not. Maybe Obama will?

[mdmc]

211. That really was a missed opportunity for Carter

If he had made Ralph Nader, at the time one of America's most trusted people, AG, our country, and the world, would be in much better condition then we find it now.

[messiah]

206. I see a bunch people believing their

belief system to be apart of themselves but a belief is just a belief.
People believe in make beliefs that start wars ie: Liberal-Conservative and Muslim-Christian and yet many don't realize it.
Do people realize that they're stuck in a system that breeds conflict?. :shrug:

[TransitJohn]

209. Yes!! Democracy sucks!!!

Look, if Democrats can't win votes on issues, what's the point?

[romulusnr]

212. go fuck yourself

Really, there is nothing more to say to someone who paints America's most progressive political party as evil.

Maybe the FUCKING DEMS should FUCKING ADOPT some TRUE progressive policies instead of namby-pamby centrist pandering BULLSHIT.

Someday we can vote for REAL progressive policies without living in fear of the Repugs. That's my dream. Either the Dems will step the fuck up and quit being moderate ass-kissers, or third parties will become viable. Or the Greens and Dems could work together, how about that? In SOME more enlightened countries, they have multiple-party coalition governments.

Every Green-bashing a Dem does risks a Dem vote out of spite. Every time the Dems abandon the progressive left -- including Green-bashing -- they lose.

Greens and Dems should be friends, but the Dems are too busy trying to give head to centrists and corporations. Every time the progressives have played ball and thrown in with the Dem candidate, they've seen progressive goals get royally screwed.

Someday today's center will have moved rightward and we can finally have a progressive nation.

[redqueen]

214. If people are so childish that they would vote against their best interests out of spite

that makes them the intellecutal equal of the repukes, doesn't it?

Third parties won't magically become more viable. We need Instant Runoff Voting if they're to have a chance of making any real progress.


As for the center moving rightward... WTF?

The whole reason the Dems chase after center votes is because there are more of them that can be counted on than far lefty votes.



I really wish liberals would learn the lesson that France should have taught us ALL with LePen.

"Experience keeps a dear school, but it's the only place fools will learn."

*sigh*

[happydreams]

217. Exactly. Welcome to DU. The pressure on the neo-liberal dems needs to

be constantly applied. They need to understand that progressives will not shut and go away.

[happydreams]

216. You don't know one damn thing about Nader.

Read: "Unsafe at any speed" and all he's done since.

[bleuvixen]

219. I can't stand them

when they do it for one sole reason... get some support before just trying to ruin things.

[mattstat]

220. Not much of a chance of a spoiler

Nadar is almost an unknown. And he'll not likely to garner many votes or support.

[TheKentuckian]

222. Slice and dice however you'd like but the Republicans

are the clear threat to anything productive ever happening in this country and until their grasp on the wheel is loosened then nothing progressive to ANY degree is going to happen.

Help us to cripple them and it will open up space at the table but right now any vote not for Obama is a vote for McCain, especially now that his base is mobilized. The Barr vote will be weak, the nutcases prefer Dick Palin to Bob Barr.
The fact is that all the small real players with any impact are on our side of the spectrum and so we are to whatever degree, splitting the vote.
No Green, Socialist, or Nader supporter is a GOP defector. That's just silly to even think.

WIPE OUT REPUBLICANISIM IN OUR TIME and other viewpoints can see the light of day. Politicians like Obama and the Clintons will no longer be portrayed as liberals. Do you guys see how hard it is for Democrats to combat to corporate fascists, the war mongers, and the ocrats? Yes, it makes a difference when these groups bleed even one percent.

The problem with America is everyone focuses on the trees while the forest burns. Whatever differences we have that gulf is immeasurably wider with the GOP. The issue is that the "third parties" do not see it that way. They either have single issue focus or see the major parties as two sides of the same coin. The folly of that view is clear, God knows you guys have nothing you share with the GOP save the Libertarians and even that is lip service.

Everyone should focus on getting rid of the loons on the right so we can even discuss issues in a substantive way and that means a coalition. Look at the world these monster want to create, listen to their hateful rhetoric, hear their disregard for our planet, see the disregard they have for our Constitution.

[Better Believe It]

225. John Kerry Defeated Ralph Nader For President! Want To Repeat That Victory This Year?

Obama, unlike Kerry in 2004, isn't "hammering" Nader or McKinney or any of the several socialist candidates for President.

Do you know why that is?

I do.

In 2004 the Kerry campaign spent a ton of money and a lot of human resources against Ralph Nader's campaign.

And it was successful!

John Kerry defeated Ralph Nader for President!

Only problem is he lost to George W. Bush. Kerry would have probably won that election if those resources had been used to defeat George W. Bush rather than Ralph Nader.

So how much time will you be spending between now and November to defeat Nader and McKinney?