Let's face it people. Naderites want Bush to win...

[devilgrrl]

plain and simple.

Prove me wrong.

[richmwill]

1. Can't, because you're right (n/t)

[Forkboy]

2. Let's face it people.Some DUers are just like Hillary Haters

plain and simple.

Prove me wrong....please!

3. Naderites want Nader to win

believe it or not.

[qazplm]

I think Naderites

want Nader to win.

I think NAder knows he can't win, and blames the Dems because they dont pass his purity test, so he wants the Dem Party to be torn down and rebuilt in an image he approves of.

Problem is, only about 5% of the nation agrees with the image he wants approved.

[BurtWorm]

21. Less than 3%, if you consider last election's results.

It seems to me many more Greens have been saying they won't vote for Nader this year, and the leading candidate for the nomination in the GPUSA, David Cobb, is making explicit that if he wins (which he probably will) he will do what he can to see that Bush is defeated, including encouraging Greens in battleground states to vote for Kerry. His Web page even has "Why Not Ralph" and "Why John Kerry" pages (in addition to one on "Why David Cobb").

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

9. If wishes where horses....

....Nader would win.

[Snoggera]

12. Nader has Zero chance of ever winning anything

If someone wants to vote for him because they want him to win, they are deluded. Want to vote your conscience? Try voting for someone who can unseat the usurper, then integrate beliefs. Hell, try to integrate beliefs into the platform now.

Vote for Nader because one wants him to win?

Might as well vote for Santa Claus.

19. well, yeah; but so?

Is there a need to state the obvious?

They are deluded if they think he is going to win, but they are not deluded if they want him to win.

Big difference.

[Snoggera]

26. You missed the point

If one votes for him because they want him to win, yet know he won't win, and therefore will increase the likelihood that Bush will be elected, then they they are deluded. A person is deluded if they want Santa Claus to be president. A person is also deluded if they want Nader to be president, and vote for him. I understand, it takes a bit more logic to understand; not on a superficial level. One has to follow the logic to its conclusion, or not bother pretending to use logic at all.

32. what?

No I didn't miss the point.

The point was to say that Nader voters are delusional. etc.
To insult Nader voters.


By the way, I'm not voting for Nader, but I think that Nader voters really do want Nader to win and I'm certainly not going to insult them because I think they will be voting their consciences, something I highly respect.

[Snoggera]

37. I'm not insulting anyone

To vote one's conscience entails understanding what the results of that will be. If one votes for Nader because he stands for what they believe in, that is only one portion of the conscience coin. If one has a conscience, they look towards the results of their decisions. The result of a Nader vote is that it increases the chance of a Bush win. If it is believed that Bush and Kerry are one and the same, and will have no difference in the national direction, then they are seriously misinformed and/or delusional.

41. if someone told me I was delusional I'd consider it an insult

Maybe you aren't insulting anyone, but it sure looks like it to me.

I don't know how far I'm going to take this philosophical debate, but

voting one's conscience does not necessarily entail an understanding of what the results will be. Hopefully it does, but you could have a misunderstanding of the results.

I'm not a communist, but I'm guessing that a communist would believe that Bush and Kerry are essentially the same and they'd be right from their perspective. I think the argument goes that Bush is the iron fist and Kerry has a glove on the fist, something like that.
They're both died in the wool capitalists and nationalists. ETC.

I'm voting for Kerry. I'd much rather have him as president than Bush, but I am under no illusions or delusions about him being that markedly different from Bush. His only essential difference at the moment is that I don't think he is messianic the way Bush is, so I think his implementation of policies will be more rational & I think Kerry will be better for the environment.

But I don't know as most policies will be that much different, particularly foreign policy. There is evidence on both sides for this. I've read the debates on both sides that say Kerry will be markedly different & that say he will not be that much different.

I'll wait and see. and hopefully he will be President so I can see.

[Snoggera]

46. Your point is understood

I will also wait and see, and hope.

54. thanks

It's so rare on this board to get a point acknowledged.

So I'll acknowledge your acknowledgement in return.

[Kahuna]

35. I actually don't mind Greens or Nader voters. I just wish they would..

leave us Democrats the hell alone. They are only trying to proselytize converts for their side. To do that, they pretend to want the same thing "we" want. Glad I'm not stupid enough to believe that.

[Zero Gravitas]

73. LOL

Good one!

[FlemingsGhost]

4. Actually the burden of proof is on you, girl.

Go to it ...

[Snoggera]

5. I like keeping it clear and simple also

Vote for Nader, and the chance of Bush being elected is increased.

Vote for Kerry, and the chance of Bush being elected is decreased.

Emotions and possibly ignorance may muddy the waters, but the above is true regardless of the argument made.

[Killarney]

11. Very true!

[info being]

65. Stick with the "status quo Dem party"

and the chance of real change is decreased.

See it isn't so simple.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

6. theres sort of a left-wing logic operating there, I think.

....which says that says a Bush win and 4 or more years of GOP rule would make things so bad that the voters would turn left...that they would be "radicalized", and support lefty candidates and causes.

[Cyrano]

7. I don't think they want Bush to win, but

there's the distinct possibility they have a missing gene that disables their ability to reason.

(Putting on my raincoat and waiting for the Naderite's spam.)

[Melodybe]

8. As a Nader Voter in 2000, I live in MS BTW, I totally agree.

I regret my vote in 2000 more than anything. I guess they feel like maybe if the shit totally hits the fan and America becomes a fascist state, we will all come to our senses and tell them how right they were.

I think that is complete BS. I wish that they would come to understand that under President Kerry, progressive ideas and beliefs would be allowed to flurish. Under for more years of *, they are very likely to be some of the first rounded up and put into re-education camps.

They are part of the extreme left and IMO they are just as bad as the riech-wing.

[Warpy]

10. The ones I know don't care which one wins

They have honestly convinced themselves that the two parties are identical (which they are, in many ways) and that Kerry will not make any changes at all from Bush's policies.

In some ways this is correct, since any incumbent is saddled with a massive bureacracy in the Pentagon and State Departments, plus a shadow government in the NSA, which are all resistant to any change.

However, they are sadly missing some of the highlights of Kerry's career in taking on the Bush family, both through his investigation into the BCCI scandal and his role in the Iran/Contra hearings. We may need him to face the Bush crime family head on and push for a full and complete investigation, indictment, trial and conviction of the whole rotten bunch.

It is for this reason that I tell them they're dead wrong. I may or may not have enough of an effect that when it comes time to vote, their consciences will push them to vote for the only guy with a chance of ousting Bush.

[info being]

62. If Kerry actually took a postion different from *...

it would make it a lot easier to convince Greens that they aren't the same.

[Jacobin]

13. They don't care but KNOW that it will help Bush* win

They are so disgusted with both candidates that they are throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

I understand the frustration, but in BushWorld, it is, IMHO, completely irresponsible behaviour. We are talking about the very survival of the country here.

[hlthe2b]

14. Idealism verus Pragmatism.... Some people have only one or the other

and it becomes very problematic either way....

[Cyrano]

18. In this particular case, an idealist can correctly be described

as an insane, irrational, irresponsible, ignorant, fucking imbecile.

[hlthe2b]

38. well, definitely misguided, IMO

[info being]

63. And sometimes pragmatism is the problem

You can pragmatically dig a hole for years and years and then find yourself pragmatically stuck in that hole without food and then die.

[hlthe2b]

75. that is true....

Thus, the attraction, I think for Nader idealists. But, change usually takes a combination of idealism and pramatism.... Pure idealism results in attempts for such rapid change, that the resistance is enormous...

[LuminousX]

15. They have to ask, will a 3rd party be able to blossom under Bush or Kerry?

It is obvious that Nader will not win. If anyone disagrees I really want to see the political breakdown of how it is possible.

Since he isn't going to win, those who support third party movements (which includes myself) have to ask under which President will a third party have a better shot of getting people elected into offices (note: a real third party movement starts local and moves national).

I think some of the Naderites really want to see the Democratic party killed off so a new party can be created in its ashes and they are willing to help the Republicans accomplish this.

[ulysses]

16. how about you prove the statement?

You made it, after all.

[Gom Jabbar]

17. How many 'Naderites' have you spoken to in order to confirm this?

I know a few Green people, and they'd rather die in a fire than see Bush elected. I think they look at politics from a perspective that maddens a lot of Democrats...because truth can be painful.

I don't have a problem with 'Naderites.' I am no fan of Nader himself.

[Az]

20. No reason to prove you wrong. You are right... but

It is not because they support Bush. It is because they do not see the Democratic party as working towards a solution. In the system we have been left with we are forced into a 2 party contest. There are many on the far left that see the Democrats as failing to represent their views. They see them becoming more and more like the republicans and taking the balance away from the system.

Because of this it is the Democrats that are the greatest threat in their book. The republicans are simply doing what they do. They represent the simple enemy. They wish to dismantle the progress of decades of progressive and liberal advances. This is simply who they are.

But the Democrats are supposed to be the champions of these advances. But they are falling down on the job. They have lost their way. Zell Millers and Joe Liebermans are becoming more the norm than one would want. In order to save the left they see the necessity of destroying the Democrats as the only viable way to procede.

Now not all liberals agree with Nader's tactics (obviously). Many still believe the fight can be made within the structures we have standing. We see the the destruction that the right could inflict as too great a threat. But at the same time we cannot abide the slide to the right of the Democratic Leadership any longer. If this is not corrected more and more will see the Democratic party as a roadblock rather than a force of good. And they will join with Nader and others that seek the destruction of the Democratic party.

[ibegurpard]

22. Bad headline; good post.

:thumbsup:

[yorgatron]

23. if you're for nader,yoiu're against US plain and simple

go start your own message board fuckers! :mad:

[Forkboy]

27. ah,the voice of maturity

28. you should read az's post more carefully

it says
"Now not all liberals agree with Nader's tactics (obviously). Many still believe the fight can be made within the structures we have standing. We see the the destruction that the right could inflict as too great a threat. "

That "we see " means az is part of the we that does not yet agree with voting for Nader at this point.

so Az is not against you pure and simple

[ibegurpard]

30. speak for yourself

It's not usually good form to criticize people based upon their post counts but I think you're WAY out of line with your 500-something posts telling people who have invested WAY more time AND money in this site than YOU to go start their own message board.

24. and if it continues with DINOs

the Democratic party will destroy itself.

[noiretextatique]

40. hello! but of course, that reality is far to real

better to whine about nader, the green, independents, the moon, etc.

[hiphopnation]

36. But

why are folks so quick to judge the party based on thier albeit pathetic response to a very concerted effort on the part of the right wing to organize and take over?

I would also argue with your point about the current administration just being "republicans doing what they do". I have to take it on faith that many dems didn't see this tidal wave of facism and corporate control of government coming; they, just like me, were completely broadsided by it.

Why so quick to jump ship and not see change from within as a viable alternative? :shrug: Just wondering.

edit: content

[hiphopnation]

55. Was hoping AZ would reply to this. n/t

[info being]

64. Way too much thought went into your post

I don't think it will sink in for the flame-throwers on this board. I agree with your pragmatic, green-leaning logic.

[Zero Gravitas]

77. Lieberman & Miller

How well did Smokin' Joe do in the primary? Who got the "Joementum" first? The Democratic party is not being taken over by status-quo DINOs. Constructive progressive voices have an impact on the party. Constructive voices. However this year the overwhelming majority of Democrats understand that priority number one is getting rid of Bush. All else is secondary.

Apparently the Naderites do not agree. they want to argue about minutiae of policy and if everything is not to their liking they will vote for St. Ralph and to hell with the rest of us. In addition they are not being constructive. Nader & his supporters have the gall to lecture us about what the Democratic party should and should not be doing who Kerry should or should not pick as a running mate, yet they are actively working against us and trying to take votes from Kerry. If they took the route of a Dean or a Kucinich and tried to be a constructive part of the system they would get much more of what they want.

Instead they work against us. So to hell with Nader, to hell with his blind arrogant supporters and to hell with his policies and ideas.

[leftofthedial]

25. that's why he is running

that's why the repukes are raising money for him and helping to get him on ballots.

[olddem43]

29. The real function of third party candidates has always been

to steer the debate and the position of the majority parties. The smart ones drop out after they accomplish some of their goals. They accomplish nothing if they merely throw a wrench into the process, or worse, end up electing their complete opposites. "My way or no way" doesn't work in politics. It's just an ego trip for some.

[gonefishing]

31. In 2000 Nader said "No difference between Gore v Bush"

I could not believe anyone thought that could be true then. How could any rational living thinking person remotely believe that to be true now!

I don't think you are going to change the minds of that 5%. Nader has to get out of this race this time - For the sake of Mankind!

BTW: I was in London the last few weeks and they have a show very much like SNL over there. They have this guy that does shrub great. I saw one skit where Shrub is in the oval office and you hear a banging on the door. Shrub answers "What". The other side of the door you hear a fatherly Yell "George, What are you doing in there" and Shrub in the voice of a little boy replies " Oh nothing dad"

[mzmolly]

33. EEK. I prefer to take up my issues with Nader himself personally.

:hi:

I really like most *Naderites* just cant grasp the rationale behind supporting him?

[Kahuna]

34. Whew! You think? Of course they do.

I've been saying that from day one. When I first came to DU, I used to see a lot of posters saying, we're part of the same family. We all have the same goals. Bull! We're not the same family and we don't have the same goals. The Greens want the destruction of the Democratic party. Even if it means enduring the fascism of the republicans. With friends like that...... Excuse me while I :puke:

[noiretextatique]

39. so greens want to "destroy the democratic party" and what

be the opposition party to: the republicans?!!???!!!! :eyes: do you really believe this fantasy?

[Kahuna]

42. The truth hurts, I see. I have seen many greens and I'm sure you have ..

too, state as their mission the destruction of the Democrats. If you haven't, you have no position with which to question my remarks. Other than, just cuz you could. :eyes: back atcha.

[noiretextatique]

48. that's ridiculous...it doesn't even make COMMON sense

if anything, the greens would want a more LIBERAL political environment in the US. that would not mean the destruction of any party, except the republican party. the greens came into being because of the Democratic party's strategy of drifting rightward and appealing to centrists. if that trend continues, it seems to be that the Democratic party would grow, not be "destroyed" as it acquires new members...liberal republicans who don't like the fascist rw, for example.
if anything...i think greens may see the Democratic party as REPLACING the republican party vs. wanting it's destruction. that seems to be what democrats want as well.

[Snoggera]

44. I can't answer for someone else,

but I am becoming more and more convinced that those who vote for Nader are not only attempting, unknowingly perhaps, to see Bush elected, but also see the democratic party hurt, if not destroyed. Voting Green locally is not so critical today. Voting Nader is critical today to the direction of this country. Vote for Nader and the vote will do nothing to change the country in a positive manner. It will assist in ensuring a complete fascist society takes hold in the US. That is the bottom line.

The US voter is not playing with the same old deck that was used before. If Kerry doesn't get a straight flush, then flush the constitution down the drain, and everyone who voted for Nader can sit back and wish they hadn't thrown their last chance for democracy in the garbage.

(don't mean to sound too harsh, but I have beliefs also)

[noiretextatique]

49. IF SCOTUS and the florida republicans

+ plus new, improved disenfranshisement schemes play a role in this election. will you still be blaming nader in 2007...again?

and let me ask you: if democrats were as outraged about florida, disenfranchisement schemes, and SCOTUS as they were about nader...would we even be having this converstation now? perhaps gore would have actually take the office he won.

[Forkboy]

50. They simply dont care about that stuff

Both the Dem party leadership and the DUers we see here.It's crazy,shortsighted,and self-destructive but they simply dont care :-(

[Snoggera]

53. I fear we are being trained to think only in either or terms

or, maybe, If this then that.

It's more than this or that.

I don't blame, I take information and make decisions based upon it. My understanding is that quite a few "broadsides" were taken by Gore in 2000; what you listed as well as more.

I believe democrats were just as outraged about Florida, disenfranchisement schemes, and SCOTUS as they were about the role that Nader took in creating the possibility and eventuality of defeat for Gore.

I'm not focused, however, on 2000, or Gore. I'm looking to the next election.

Yes, we have to be vigilant and actively responsive to any attacks on the rightful results of the next election.

I just hope that people don't feel that because of SCOTUS, or disenfranchisement, or intimidation they may discard the part that Nader will potentially play in another coup/theft.

[noiretextatique]

59. nader is not doing anything "illegal"

like what the republicans did in florida, or tresonous, like what the supreme court did. sure, we can disagree with his STRATEGY, but to compare a power-grab and coup, all accomplished by brute force, or the threat of it, to bad strategy is truly missing the big picture.
outrage...sure, that's GREAT. but that outrage did nothing to stop the republicans from streamrolling over the constitution to install bush.
so...what's to stop them in 2004? outrage? bitching about nader?
if we look at the 2000 example, that outrage will be directed at nader, and we will be bitching about another bush presidency for four more years.
i pray the outrage, this time, will be forceful enough to stop them. i pray that kerry will live up his words to take a close look at florida, and not cave the way gore did.

[Snoggera]

66. I'm not comparing, and don't especially compare the legal with the "illega

I am looking at the big picture, and wishing others could do so also. I realize others big picture isn't the same as mine, but to take pieces of a logical argument to ignore, and others to misinterpret, well, that just seems so, so...........

Remember, there are many pieces that will make up the win or loss of the election for whoever. Some may indeed blame it all on Nader. I won't. I'll blame it on the confluence of events, of which Nader is one part.

[noiretextatique]

78. pieces?!?!? you are right...we don't have the same picture

in my view, disenfranchisement and other election tampering orchestrated and executed by ONE PARTY trumps everything else. because...if they hadn't done what they did: nader have been, and would be irrelevant.

[LuminousX]

45. Nader doesn't have the backing of the green party

But I do believe he hopes to 'kill' the Democratic party and then father the new opposition party to the Republicans.

[mzmolly]

57. That *is* the goal IMHO.

But, were not supposed to criticize him because he's a *real* progressive :eyes: I've got an issue with that thought process myself.

Nader makes statements about Tweedledee and Tweedledum, he criticizes Dems in office, he says he is an opposition party, yet were supposed to play nice with him? OOOOK?

[info being]

67. Nah, the Greens want a *better* Democractic Party

We want to destroy the Democratic Party as it stands today.

43. the question to ask then is why they want this destruction?

I think they want it because they fear it is becoming another Republican party.
If DINOs really do become the majority in the Democratic party, I'd want it to be destroyed also.

[info being]

61. Greens want systemic change to bring about a better future

If that means the destruction of the Democratic Party, so be it. If the Democratic party can change instead, great.

Of course the problem is that the population is too brainwashed to think about how we're destroying our planet and our way of life...and so the Democrats would have little support even if they did change.

The problem is systemic and the system doesn't permit what the Greens want. The system is a cancer and the Green's medicine is ineffective.

[cookiebear]

69. No they don't.

Not if they're honest.

True, the Greens I know are very upset over what's happened and all are voting for Kerry this time around. But they're honest, both about what's now happening and what part they played in our current situation.

The ones who keep clinging to Nader and whoever the Greens offer up this time around, though, are either totally out of touch with reality or Republicans in disguise.

[info being]

71. You'd have a hard time proving the "Republicans in disguise" thing

Out of touch with reality? Perhaps. Or perhaps the other 95% of us are out of touch with reality.

[noiretextatique]

84. lowered expectations of what government can and should do

is what most americans are suffering (literally) from.

[newyawker99]

79. Hi cookiebear!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Zinfandel]

47. Nader is pig shit. A tool being funded by the republicans!!!

Just like last election!

Nader, a complete fraud, an egoistic lying pig shit!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. "lying pig-shit"

Really? Of course you can back up your "truthful statement" about Nader being funded by republicans? Which republicans would that be?
I know Democrats who contributed to Nader's campaign in 2000. So, does that mean that Nader was funded by Democrats?

[amjsjc]

51. Oddly, I think they're mostly just in denial...

At my college campus if I make some statement along the lines of 'Nader cost Gore the election' (happens rather frequently when I'm talking politics with friends) often times onlookers will jump in and try to argue the point. (They generally don't get far once I mention the fact that Nader got 97,000 votes and Bush 'won' by 537...) I don't know about Nader himself, but I think a lot of his supporters are just not very knowledgeable about the realities of politics.

[sendero]

56. People...

... on the fringes of the left and the right are not very sensible about anything. They are windmill-tilters. They imagine that if they wish upon a star....

There is no conceiveable way Ralph Nader will ever get elected to any high office. Wasting a vote on him is, well, wasting a vote.

Some feel like cutting off their nose to spite their face is an honorable action. It really just screams "I can't deal with the realities of life".

[Proud2BAmurkin]

52. The ones I know are bedwetting weirdoes.

They want Bush to win.

[DaveSZ]

58. Here is my theory

Nader believes that in order for the country to become more progressive again, it has to go through a period of horrible conditions (similar to when the Republicans brought on the Depression in the late 20s and 30s).

His vehicle for this is Bush, and thus he wanted Bush to win the last election.

I believe he truly wants BUsh to also win this election.

He knows that his being in the race hurts Kerry more than *.

[info being]

60. It has to get worse before it can get better

Its actually a legitimate point of view. Clinton was about the best we could hope for w/ regard to someone who could work within the system to represent us. He did ok, but not great. He did little to improve quality of life and slow the destruction of the world.

I don't know, most Progressives believe the problems are systemic, and not necessarily about any particular group of individuals. The fact is, it is the system which allowed someone like Bush to do what he's done.

So, the logic goes, if it gets bad enough perhaps people will wake up and demand REAL change as opposed to the surface changes someone like Kerry would provide.

This message is difficult to embrace because we all have a vested interest in a livable status quo...and most of us aren't willing to make the tradeoff...but some people are. Some people actually care more about the planet our grandchildren will inheret than whether we can afford a new car today. It is those people who support candidates like Nader and I have a hard time disagreeing with them.

I'm voting Kerry but sympathize with Naderites. Ho-hum.

[DaveSZ]

68. That's exactly the problem

I agree with Nader's positions more than Kerry's, however I still have to live in this country for better or worse.

Bush's re(s)election would probably take our country to a point nearing a fascist police state.

Ashcroft is essentially a neofascist, and so are Scalia and Thomas.

It is our system that is the problem.

I wish I could vote my conscience in a multi-party democracy.

[info being]

70. Its kind of like a forest fire

Things are destroyed now and then grow back even Greener.

Haha: Green Party as a forest fire has some nice imagery to it.

Yeah, I'm not really willing to live in a place that is any more Fascist than it already is. Maybe its kind of selfish, dunno.

[DaveSZ]

72. Kerry can do with Nader what FDR did with Norman Thomas

http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_297.html


On May 9, 1948, at the Socialist Party Convention, Norman Thomas was nominated for the presidency for the sixth consecutive time. Thomas, a Union pastor and outspoken pacifist, joined the Socialist Party in 1918. During the 1920s, he was an editor of the influential liberal newspaper, the Nation, and was one of the founding members of the American Civil Liberties Union. With the death of Eugene Debs in 1926, he assumed leadership of the Socialist Party and was nominated for the presidency for the first time in 1928. In 1932, with America in the grip of the Great Depression, Thomas won nearly 1 million votes in the presidential election--the most he every polled. The victor that year--Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt--incorporated many of the Socialists' ideas into his New Deal, and public support for the Socialist Party steadily declined. In his final run for the presidency in 1948, Norman Thomas received only 140,000 votes.

[info being]

74. Too bad today's Dems aren't as politically savvy

Kucinich brought me back to the Party, but I realize he was really just kind of a "trick" to reel us in...the Party won't actually adopt his platform.

[Lindacooks]

76. You're right.

[ShaneGR]

80. Personally..... I think it won't matter

No matter how much Republican money Nader gets it's not going to be enough to swing the election this time. Bush is toast, no matter how much the Repugs want to prop up Nader.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. Yet another attack the left post.

"Naderites want Bush to win..."

Heard the same sort of crappola back in '68 about McCarthy wanting Nixon to win.

[JustinF]

83. I want Nader to win

Among the candidates who are polling higher than 1%, I'd have to go with Nader as my main choice.