Ralph Nader: Obamabush

[Karmadillo]

(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader11232010.html

Semper Fi, Barack!
Obamabush
By RALPH NADER

After nearly two years out, I can imagine George W. Bush writing his successor the following letter:

Dear President Obama:

As you know I’ve been peddling my book Decision Points and while doing interviews, people ask me what I think of the job you’re doing. My answer is the same: He deserves to make decisions without criticism from me. It’s a tough enough job as it is.

But their inquiries did prompt me to write you to privately express my continual admiration for the job you are doing. Amazing! I say “privately” because making my sentiments public would not do either of us any good, if you know what I mean.

First, I can scarcely believe my good fortune as to how your foreign and military policies—“continuity” was the word used recently by my good friend, Joe Lieberman—has protected my legacy. More than protected, you’ve proven yourself just as able—and I may say sometimes even more so—to “kick ass” as my Daddy used to say.

My pleasant surprise is darn near limitless. Your Justice Department has not pursued any actions against my people—not to mention Dick Cheney and I—that the civil liberties and human rights crowd keep baying for you to do.

(snip)

more...

[jpak]

1. Fuck Nader - GOBAMA!!11

yup

Oh yeah - what a stupid post

:rofl:

[WhiteTara]

2. STFU Nadir! You piece of "There's no difference" shit

I suppose we have this as news. But I can't stand that son of a bitch and what he has to say means nothing.

[FLPanhandle]

3. Nadar is dead to me.

Nadar only cares about Nader.

[flyarm]

6. where is one thing,, just one where he is wrong??????? I would appreciate your reply. eom

[FLPanhandle]

18. One thing.

"There is no difference between Bush and Gore".

If you don't think that's a wrong statement, then there is no sense talking to you.

[bluestate10]

61. Right on Bro, right on. nt

[ProudDad]

99. You're Right!

There's a major difference...

One of them lost the pResidential election of 2000

The other surrendered it...

Other than that -- not so much... :shrug:

[molly77]

217. Nadar is right. Just wish he would talk about the system more.

Well, he does in his books. But, Obama was not the first choice of TPTB. Hillary was. So we got a clinton administration with Obama as president. Does that seem a little suspicious? The system is fascist. One man will not change it. I still love Obama and his family. His wife and daughters do not look happy anymore. That bothers me. Every since Michelle planted her organic garden and found out the clintons had sprayed it with sludge/human manure...The clintons , of course, did not feel it necessary to relay that information to the Obamas.Not inviting them to his daughter's wedding was ignorance personified.

[creon]

148. yesterday's man

Nader is past his sell by date.

Nader took his chance of the big time in 2000. I guess that he was not satisfied with being a critic and wanted to be a politician.

The anti politician politician.

Now, writes this missive: a poor quality attempt at ridicule. He is not Jonathon Swift.

[Lorien]

244. Wow, it only took three comments to get to the predicted "attack the messenger"

BS. How about we talk about the message for a change? Oh, that's right-we have to DISTRACT from it by attacking the messenger! Michael Moore is certainly familiar with the tired routine as well.

[onehandle]

4. So can we assume that Nader will be running again in 2012?

Will he be returning to Florida to tilt the race to the Republicans again?

[DonCoquixote]

7. OH YES

And the same GOP that smoked cigars and blatantly bragged non-stop about how Nader got them the election will be ready to shovel money at Nader yet again, and true to form, Ralph will take every damned penny! It's already in the works, why else do you think the GOP convention is in Tampa, Florida, the beloved "i-4 corridor" that can rumble with New Orleans and Chicago for political corruption and crooked elections!

[defendandprotect]

161. So GOP slight of hand convinces you that it was Nader and NOT Supreme Court which put Bush

in White House -- Wow!!

:rofl: :rofl:

Power of right wing propaganda is mind-blowing!!

[leeroysphitz]

23. If he does the admin will have only itself to blame...

Liberals need somebody to vote for too.

[Arkana]

26. Yes, and Saint Ralph of Nader has always proven himself

to be more concerned with getting shit done than throwing verbal Molotov cocktails. Uh huh. Sure.

You don't speak for this liberal, buddy.

[Stevenmarc]

30. Yes he's really becoming a 21st century Harold Stassen

[Segami]

5. Duplicate Post

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9612846&mesg_id=9612846>

[sharp_stick]

8. Ahh I am so thankful for the opportunity

to add yet another FUCK NADER to a thread on the day before thanksgiving.

[NoPasaran]

11. Tradition is good

FUCK NADER!

[Greyhound]

9. LOL!

The replies are as funny as this piece.
:rofl::thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Yup. Still blaming Nader for Gore's inability to attract votes.

[txlibdem]

41. No. There you're wrong.

I hate Nader as much as the other posters on this thread but there is no question in my mind that he siphoned off enough independent and Democratic votes to cost Gore the election.

Nader knows a lot of the right things to say, but read till the end to see how he misses the point:

"RN: The problem is the nature of power, and the corporate entity controlling government, which Franklin Roosevelt, in 1938, called fascism… The global corporate model is all powerful, has no competition in terms of a model… They have nationalized the savings of the American people. They are too big to fail, so that they are bailed out, as Wall Street is bailed out. They have monetized elections, nullifying effectively people's votes. They select the politicians, put them in office, and when they retire they hire them and give them a half a million dollars or more a year as lobbyists. It is the most clever, dynamic, creative system of controlling power in the history of the world. And they give people entertainment, and they allow people to confuse personal freedom with civic freedom. So you've got a lot of people in this country who say, "what do you mean we don't live in a free country?" That's right, you have personal freedom, you can eat what you want, buy whatever clothes you want, date who you want, divorce who you want, choose the friends you want, pick the music you want, get the bicycle you want, get into a five-thousand pound vehicle and go three blocks and buy chiclets if you want. That is personal freedom. It's not civic freedom. Civic freedom is what's been shredded. As Cicero said "freedom is participation in power." What kind of freedom do we have by that standard?

… Right now we have a dystopia on the ground. It's called the liberal progressive intelligentsia and their flock. They think if they keep writing more books (the way Bill Greider and Bob Kuttner and Jim Hightower and Ralph Nader and others keep writing, exposing, proposing, diagnosing, denouncing and suggesting) that something is going to happen."

http://www.radioopensource.org/ralph-naders-flight-of-fantasy/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. I read the whole article and don't see your argument.

I said that Gore was unable to convince enough voters in Florida to vote for him. Which isn't Nader's fault for being better at winning leftwing votes than Gore. It's up to the politician seeking office to convince the voters to vote for him. Gore failed all by himself.

If you want to blame someone, blame the Independents and Democrats who voted for Bush that Gore also failed to convince.

[BzaDem]

59. Regardless of how you see fault, Bush would not be President if it weren't for Nader.

That statement is true regardless of how anyone finds "fault." Nader could have single-handedly allowed Gore to win, and he chose not to.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. So could have Bush. Your argument is ridiculous.

All 3 candidates were running against one another. If Gore wanted the votes of the left, he should have appealed to them instead of conceding them to Nader. Instead, he went after the votes of the "middle" and failed to get them.

[BzaDem]

77. "All 3 candidates were running against one another." Only naive, easily manipulated people could

possibly think that Nader was a viable candidate that had a non-zero chance of winning.

In reality, this was an election between Bush and Gore, with a vote for Nader being a vote for Bush. (Hence why so much of Nader's money came from Republicans.)

This is precisely why we need a top-2 primary system. Nader can run along with Gore and Bush in a jungle primary. Then, the top two candidates of that primary advance to the general. We need this to save people like you from themselves.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. Will I be "born again" if I'm "saved"?

We'll never break the stranglehold of the 2 (sort of) party system if we keep voting for the lesser of two evils and buying in to a corrupt system.

[BzaDem]

90. Why do you think NOT voting for the lesser of two evils (thereby enabling the greater of two evils)

does ANYTHING to break the stranglehold of the 2 party system?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. We'll just have to wait and see if the people finally get fed up with a choice between evils.

[BzaDem]

128. What makes you think most people see either candidate (let alone both) as evil? n/t

[defendandprotect]

168. Gore was DLC and tied to Lieberman ... presumably Gore didn't really know

who Lieberman was at that point though he had served in the Senate with him

for a decade or more -- !!

The corporate-DLC is poison within the Democratic Party -- and exists to move the

party to the right --

Much as Obama "New Dem" is doing!!

[BzaDem]

170. That has nothing to do with my question. n/t

[defendandprotect]

176. Did you ask why some Democrats mistrusted Gore?

That's the answer to it --

[BzaDem]

180. But that would be a problem with the Democrats who mistrusted Gore ... not with Gore.

After all, unless some Democrat trusted Bush MORE than Gore, there was no excuse for not voting for Gore (and thus enabling Bush).

[defendandprotect]

182. You evidently don't understand "voting your conscience" .... ????

Which is what those who vote third party often do --

however, when they're NOT in a safe blue state, they might then reanalyze

just how much they distrust the Democratic candidate ---

I've given you the reasons why Gore was mistrusted ---

Again -- you're also basing your presumptions on Bush having won -- he didn't --

Gore won, including in Florida --

This was a stolen election from the get-go having nothing whatsoever to do with Nader --

Of the alleged 537 votes that brought Bush his real time "win" justapose that with

300,000 "Democrats" in Florida who voted for Gore. -- and, eh ....

did you say "there was no excuse for not voting for Gore and enabling Bush"?

Tell that to those 300,000 "Democrats" who actually voted for Bush!!

There were also 600+ illegal military ballots also counted for Bush vs his "537 vote win" --

And, 3,000 votes for Buchanan on the butterfly ballot which were misdirected from Gore --

Therefore, your presumptions are wrong from beginning to end --

In the end, we had a GOP-sponsored fascist rally which stopped the vote counting in

Miami-Dade county mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court --

and the election tossed to the right wing Supreme Court by Bush -- and the Gang of 5

put him in the White House!

But very convenient for GOP and DLC Dems when all of that is ignored --

[BzaDem]

185. The purpose of elections is not to have people "vote their conscience."

The purpose of elections is to pick which candidate to actually govern. That is it -- there is no other reason.

In an election with only two candidates that have a non-zero chance of governing, not voting for the lesser of two evils is enabling the greater of two evils. That is all that matters -- all of this other BS ("sending a message," "voting your conscience," etc) are not reasons why we have elections.

All of your other distractions are just that -- distractions. Nader isn't absolved from blame because others were to blame as well. Nader could have single handedly prevented Bush from being inaugurated, and he chose not to.

[defendandprotect]

216. And you're saying you don't understand that for many their conscience prevented

them from voting for Gore?

And let me assure you that had Nader not run there would have still been a steal

just as there was in 2004 --

Computers are hackable -- and we have no idea just how many votes for Gore were lost

in the hacking --

[sendero]

114. For the first time I can remember..

... I agree with you. Nader was an asshole for not bailing out of that election and I will never forgive him for that.

OTOH, everything he's saying here is exactly correct.

[defendandprotect]

167. Nonsense ... Gore won the election, including in Florida ...

And Bush's alleged 537 vote "win" in Florida fades when you recognize

that 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida voted for BUSH --

that 600+ illegal military ballots in Florida were counted for BUSH --

that 3,000+ votes went to Buchanan because of the butterfly ballot which would

have offset the 537 vote BUSH "win" --

on and on --

Throw in the GOP fascist rally to stop the vote counting in Miami-Dade County --

180,000 votes which had not been counted up to that point -- and which did stop the

vote counting mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court.

And, then the tossing of the election by BUSH forces to the Gang of 5 on the Supreme

Court -- which put BUSH in the White House --


You've been given a scapegoat in Nader by both the GOP which wants to hide the actual

steal -- and by the DLC/corporate Democrats who want to get rid of a severe critic who

burns them on every outing -- and who wants to hide the fact that they did nothing then

and nothing since to protest the election steal!!

[defendandprotect]

165. Nader actually brought out voters who voted for Congressional Dems ....

helping the party there --

However, these voters only came out to vote for Nader -- and would NOT have voted

for Gore.

Still very active propaganda around that election to ...

#1 -- hide the fact that it was a steal by the GOP --

#2 -- that the Democrats made very little reply except giving supporters Nader as a scapegoat --

#3 -- and to divert attention from the Supreme Court's/Gang of 5 steal for Bush --

Meanwhile, of course, Gore won the election -- including Florida --

something a few here still have a problem with understanding!!


:)

[txlibdem]

75. Exactly.

By splitting the vote. Finally someone with a little smarts up in their noggin! Yay!

[de novo]

238. That is an absolute fallacy, which you cannot prove.

It has been repeated ad nauseum, but still has no validity whatsoever.

[defendandprotect]

274. Kinda ignores 111,000 or more "overvotes" which were discarded ....

numerous dirty tricks to prevent Democrats from voting --

"PURGE" of 50,000 voters in Florida taken off the rolls --

on and on --

If anyone wants more -- see my Journal --

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. Hey. Gore split the vote. Didn;'t he?

He went after the center and ignored the left, conceding it to the left candidate. The "logic" is that he failed to get enough votes to win the election. Nader ran as the leftist candidate, Gore and Bush both ran as centrists. They "split" the centrist votes and Bush got more of them.

[BzaDem]

93. False equivalence. Nader knew he couldn't win.

If Nader and Gore were getting roughly equal proportions of the non-Bush vote (or even if they were at ALL close), you might have a point.

But they weren't. Nader wasn't even registering, and Gore was getting 95%+ of the vote between them. Gore was the only one of the two who had a chance of winning. If Nader ACTUALLY cared about progressive values, he would have not enabled Bush to win.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. He cared enough about progressive values to challenge the system.

Rather than bend to the flavor-of-the-day pollsters and go along to get along.

[bluestate10]

124. Challenging the system.

Has led to thousands of dead soldiers, trillions of dollars lost, the elevation of some of the craziest right wing voices since McCarthy. Think I'll have the flavor-of-the-day, please, please, pleeeeeze!!! God, you just don't get it. But I must say that your persistence is admirable, misplaced, but admirable.

[BzaDem]

129. How did what he did "challenge the system" in any way?

All he did was enable the greater of two evils to get elected. Why do you think that is somehow related to a "challenge" to the system?

[Mimosa]

159. How DARE a citizen run for office? *rolling eyes*

[BzaDem]

160. No one's saying he didn't have the RIGHT to enable Bush's victory. Of course he did.

Similarly, no one is saying that Nader's voters didn't have the right to enable Bush.

Questioning the wisdom of enabling Bush's victory is not the same as claiming they don't have the right to do so.

[defendandprotect]

218. You have to acknowledge that Gore won, including in Florida and the roles played by SC ....

and the fascist rally where 180,000 Miami-Dade County votes were never

counted until AFTER the election --

After that ... you can make your other arguments re scapegoats --

There are also the computers to consider -- and hacking -- we have no idea

how many votes were lost to Gore in that way.

And the 2000 steal was followed by the 2004 steal --

[BzaDem]

221. I have acknowldged that several times, and NONE of that changes my point. n/t

[defendandprotect]

223. When you FIRST acknowledge Gore win and role played by STEAL ....

you really have no other point because it's impossible to say that the

537 alleged votes which put Bush over the top into a "win"

had to do with anything other than the steal --


Yes, you can try to suggest that Buchanan caused Gore to rack up 537 less votes --

or that "Democrats" who voted for Bush caused Gore to lose 537 votes --

or that 600+ illegal military ballots caused Gore to lose 537 votes --

but by the time you get there it is obvious that it's all meaningless and is simply

an effort to try to scapegoat Nader --


Again -- the GOP had a every reason to try to distract from the reality of the STEAL so

happily they would help the scapegoating along --

The DLC/Dems also had every reason to try to distract voters from understanding how

3,000 butterfly ballots could have been approved by the Democratic Party and so undermined

Gore's win in Florida --

and why overall with so many problems in Florida, the Democratic Party did so little to

protest what was happening. In fact, Gore sent Jesse Jackson home from Miami-Dade area

telling him to end the protest there!

The Democrats have still done nothing to truly attack the situation we face with computer

voting and the steals.

[BzaDem]

224. That's where you're wrong.

Your argument is that if cause A contributed a result, then cause B couldn't have possibly contributed to a result.

But that is false. Almost everything has multiple causes. The fact that the election was stolen does not AT ALL imply that Nader wasn't responsible for making the margin close enough to steal.

[defendandprotect]

227. No ... there is only one fact ... Gore won the election, including in FLORIDA .....

What you are seeking is to turn from the reality of the GOP steal

and to do so by scapegoating Nader --

The first two facts are that Gore won -- and a steal ensued ....

You might just as well argue that computers that were hackable were the source of

the Bush "win" -- in fact, at one point his "win" was down to 34 votes!

[BzaDem]

229. No need to turn away from the steal. The steal happened, but it wouldn't have happened had Nader not

ensured the margin was stealable.

[defendandprotect]

255. And, please show us how it was specifically ...

Nader who was responsible for ensuring "the margin was stealable."

How do you know the alleged 537 vote "win" by Bush didn't have something to

do with computer hacking -- ??

Or with the 3,000+ votes to Buchanan on the faux butterfly ballot?

or that those 537 votes weren't the fault of the 300,000 "Democrats" who voted

for Bush in Florida?

Please explain how you KNOW those 537 votes didn't have something to do with

the counting of more than 600 illegal military ballots for Bush?

Do you claim there is DNA/fingerprint evidence some how which proves to you that

the 537 votes have NOTHING to do with Buchanan votes, or military votes -- but

are solely traceable to Nader?


And you should also realize that the GOP STEAL would have happened no matter the

circumstances -- had Bush rather than Gore won the popular vote and Gore had won

the Electoral College vote they were equally prepared to challenge and steal the

election. Either way, it was going to be a GOP STEAL.

[BzaDem]

256. Assuming everything you mentioned happened, Gore STILL would have been inaugurated had Nader dropped

out, since the margin would have been at least 5 figures.

[defendandprotect]

260. How ...? Are you saying that Nader voters would have voted for Gore?

Or that the GOP, perhaps, would have given up its computer hacking ....

satisifed to let Gore have the win?


:eyes:

[BzaDem]

261. Not all of them. But Gore would have easily won if only 10% of them did (and the real percentage

would probably be higher).

[defendandprotect]

264. Surprised you didn't know this but NONE of them would have ... in fact, the voters Nader

brought out ONLY voted for Democrats for Congress BECAUSE they came out

to vote for Nader --

In other words, Dems did better in Congress because of Nader!

But now you're saying that Gore winning depended upon Green Party voters who should

have voted for Gore?

:eyes:

[BzaDem]

266. That's baloney. I think more than half easily would have voted for Gore, but it would certainly be

more than 10%.

They actually reported on polls at the time (immediately before the election) where they asked Nader supporters who they would have voted for if it were just a 2 candidate race, and over 60% said they would have voted for Gore. (I don't remember the makeup of the remaining 40%, but I think it was something like 10% would have voted for Bush and the remaining 30 would have stayed home.)

Just because YOU wouldn't have voted for Gore doesn't mean everyone else wouldn't have either.

[defendandprotect]

268. Nader won 97,421 votes in Florida .... how about you take half of them .....

48,710 votes -- and you only need 538 votes to beat Bush ....

OK -- now tell me how you know it was the Nader votes which defeated Gore and

not the 17,484 Buchanan votes?

Or the 16,414 votes that went to Libertarians?

Or John Hagelin's 2,281 votes?

In fact, 30,586 votes went to third party candidates OTHER THAN NADER --

Tell me again, how you know that the 538 votes needed to beat Bush were specifically

those cast for Nader????

Or the 180,000 Miami-Dade County votes that were never counted because of the GOP-sponsored

fascist rally to STOP the vote counting?

Also remember that while Nader got 97,421 votes .... THERE WERE 111,251 OVERVOTES which

were discarded.

And, again, 94,000 Florida voters removed from the voting rolls by the GOP "purge."



United States presidential election, 2000 - Wikipedia, the ...
Nominations|The general election campaign|Results|Aftermath... claimed that many of Nader's ... its treatment of Florida's presidential vote in 2000. ... Nader received 97,000 votes in Florida (for comparison, there were 111,251 overvotes ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/​United...presidential_election,_2000 - Cached


Now, here are also some very interesting reviews in regard to OTHER extenuating circumstances ...

In 1996, exit polling showed 42% of the state were made up of voters older than 60 years old, thus making social security and Medicare the top issues in Florida. Polls showed older voters favored Gore 51% to 37%.<2>

In late October, one poll found that Gore was leading Bush and third parties with 44-42-4 among registered voters and 46-42-4 among likely voters.<3>

Recount Irregularities ...

Also noted was a purge of some 50,000 alleged felons from the Florida voting rolls, of whom nearly half were African-American voters. The majority of these were not felons and should have been eligible to vote under Florida law. Additionally, there were many more 'overvotes' than usual, especially in predominantly African-American precincts in Duval county (Jacksonville), where some 27,000 ballots showed two or more choices for President. Unlike the much-discussed Palm Beach County 'butterfly ballot,' the Duval County ballot spread choices for President over two pages with instructions to 'vote on every page' on the bottom of each page.**

<[>The actions of the Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, who was in charge of state election procedures, also came under fire, due to her status as a Bush state campaign co-chairman, her involvement with the "scrub list", and her behavior during the recount crisis. In particular, democracy advocates have taken issue with her antagonizing of Democratic lawyers, her dispatching of a lawyer to Palm Beach county to convince the voting board of voting down a manual recount (despite thousands of protesters within the county including 12,000 with affidavits), and in particular her collaboration with Republican party advisers (at one point housing them).


Democratic State senator Daryl Jones said that there had to have been an order to set up road-blocks in heavily Democratic regions of the state on the day of the election.<11[/i>


If you scroll down about half way in the article to "vote pairing" -- you'll note that

Wiki makes the same assumption you make ....

The vote pairing web sites tallied 1,412 Nader supporters in Florida who vote paired for Gore, and if only a few more of the 97,421 people who did vote for Nader in Florida had known about vote pairing, the election might have had a different outcome.

And "if only" .... but they could also say .... "if only there hadn't been a butterfly ballot,

Gore would have had the 3,000+ votes which went to Buhanan ... "

IN FACT, they do say that later in the article - here . . .

The number of votes that may have been mistakenly cast for Buchanan was well in excess of George W. Bush's certified margin of victory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000


Btw, Theresa La Pore -- an alleged Democrat -- was later found to have ties to the Republican

Party.







Final certified results

Federal official vote for the state of Florida (25 electoral votes)
Presidential candidate Vote total % Party
George W. Bush (W) 2,912,790 48.847 Republican
Al Gore 2,912,253 48.838 Democratic
Ralph Nader 97,421 1.634 Green
Patrick J. Buchanan 17,484 0.293 Reform
Harry Browne 16,415 0.275 Libertarian
John Hagelin 2,281 0.038 Natural Law/Reform
Howard Phillips 1,378 0.023 Constitution
Other 3,028 0.051 —
Total 5,963,110
Source: 2000 official presidential general election results




**Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, contracted with a new company (DBT Online Inc.), at an increase of $4.294 million to have the "scrub list"'s re-worked. Nearly 1% of Florida's electorate and nearly 3% of its African-American voters - 96,000 citizens were listed as felons and removed from the voting rolls. (For instance, many had names similar to actual felons, some listed "felonies" were dated years in the future, and some apparently were random.) In a vast minority of cases, those on the scrub list were given several months to appeal, and some successfully reregistered and were allowed to vote. However, most were not told that they weren't allowed to vote until they were turned away at the polls. The company was directed not to use cross-checks or its sophisticated verification plan (used by the FBI).<15>


Some other interesting comments at these sites --

http://cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

http://prorev.com/green2000.htm

http://maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Ballad%20of%20Mae%20Brussell.html


copy to Journal --

[BzaDem]

269. Do you understand the concept of an event having multiple causes?

Let's say on a 15 person neighborhood watch committee, a resolution fails 7-8.

That means every single person who voted against it is responsible for it failing. Person 1 is responsible. Person 2 is responsible. Person 3 is responsible. Person 4 is responsible. Person 5 is responsible. Person 6 is responsible. Person 7 is responsible. Person 8 is responsible.

Every single one of them is responsible for the failure of the resolution to pass. If any one of them voted differently, it would have passed.

You are trying to pretend that in this case, persons 1 (the Supreme Court/election steal/etc) is responsible, person 2 (the Buchanan votes) is responsible, person 3 (the 300k Democrats who voted for Bush) is responsible, etc etc etc, but person 8 (Nader) is somehow magically NOT responsible.

That is crap. Every single decisive cause is a decisive cause. The Supreme Court, Buchanan votes, 300k Democrats, AND NADER are ALL decisive causes of the inauguration of President Bush. You don't get to pretend SOME decisive causes aren't decisive causes just because you feel like it.

[defendandprotect]

270. Quite intelligent of you .... and where in the long list of "multiple failures"

would you put let's say the 111,000 votes that were discarded because of duplicate

votes?

Or the 180,000 uncounted votes in Miami-Dade County --

Or the 50,000 purged voters in Florida --

Where do they come in your calculations?

The overwhelming evidence of 2000 is that it was a GOP steal -- not in any one way

but in multiple ways--

[BzaDem]

271. Sure. They are all decisive causes. But the fact that there are a LOT of decisive causes

does not mean you get to exempt one of them (Nader) from being one of them, just because you feel like it.

[defendandprotect]

272. Okay ... you're now becoming disingenuous .....

that's my rule for putting anyone on ignore --

This info is now all in the records --

So I'll say goodbye to you now --

[BzaDem]

273. How is my post disingenuous?

I'm not saying anything that I haven't said multiple times before in this very thread, or that multiple other people in this thread have said.

It seems you want to "ignore" my posts because they are truthful and obvious, not because they are somehow "disingenuous."

[txlibdem]

125. You say potato...

Let's call the whole thing off!

[defendandprotect]

169. Actually, Gore did win the election, including in Florida ...

however, Gore did regret following the agenda of the DLC which he helped found --

and regretted cutting his populist messages recognizing that had hurt him.

2000 was a stolen election which both the GOP and the Democrats want to hide --

one because it doesn't want to be accountable, the other because it didn't try to

hold them accountable --

Dems only response was -- "Hey, Nader did it!" --

They couldn't have been more eager than to scapegoat the guy who was constantly

and correctly criticizing them for their corporate agenda.

[JackRiddler]

112. Nader cost Gore nothing. Gore won Florida. GOP stole it. Supremes intervened.

So after your country had an election coup d'etat, instead of blaming the tyrants who seized power, the court that terminated constitutional process, and the cowards on your own side who surrendered to criminals, you suppress your fear or sense of helplessness before the beast by scapegoating the small-fry who ran a small campaign for 2 percent of the vote. Unbecoming.

The number of Florida registered Democrats who voted for Bush far exceeded the total Nader vote. However, they didn't steal the election any more than Nader's voters did. Blame the criminals for the coup.

[defendandprotect]

164. Goie WON in Florida, yet a few here have a problem with that reality -- election was stolen...

PLUS ... 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida voted for Bush --

vs the alleged 537 votes that Bush "won" by --

600 illegal militry ballots were counted for Bush --

vs the alleged 537 votes that Bush "won" by --

3,000 votes went to Pat Buchanan via the "butterfly ballot" --

vs the alleged 537 votes that Bush "won" by --

and other third parties also took tens of thousands of votes --

vs the alleged 537 votes that Bush "won" by --


We also had a GOP/fascist rally to stop the vote counting in Miami-Dade Country which

was mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court -- it was successful and something like

180,000 votes which were not counted up that that time were not counted.


And the final act of the GOP steal happened when they involved the Supreme Court and the

gang of 5 in the election -- you recall that outcome, I'm sure --



This all also began when Jon Ellis/Fox News reversed the original call of Florida for

Gore based on MSM power to PREDICT and CALL elections and ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES --

FAUX News simply REVERSED those powers to push the election to Bush.

[Taverner]

105. No we're blaming Nader for pushing the BS Gore=Bush meme

And sick of him pushing the Obama=Bush meme too

What, does he WANT Sarah Palin to be president? I guess he does

[Renew Deal]

158. We don't just blame him.

We blame you.

[defendandprotect]

162. Gore actually said he was sorry he followed DLC advice on cutthing his

populist messages -- as a co-founder of DLC he should have understood the lies

behind it! Gore is amazingly slow witted at times -- like re Liebermann ...

evidently worked with the guy in the Senate for a decade and didn't know who he was!!

Also looks like the right wing has a number of DU'ers that the Supreme Court steal

didn't happen!!


:rofl:

[Mimosa]

231. Re: Supreme Court: Guess some people didn't see Recount, the excellent HBO movie?

One of my old acquaintances plays a major character in the movie Recount. It's pretty accurate in documenting the court actions.

[Lorien]

245. Still blaming Nader for the GOP and SOCTUS' collusion to STEAL the votes and Presidency

Gore had all the votes he needed, but they weren't counted because the SCOTUS stopped the count. Not placing the blame on the GOP and SCOTUS criminals gets them off the hook.

[Scurrilous]

12. @#$% Nader.

:thumbsup:

[Taverner]

104. +10000

[pokercat999]

13. OK 10 replies, still waiting for the first one to point out any

mis-statement of fact or lie in the letter.

You may hate the messenger but the message is true.

[emulatorloo]

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

http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-07-09/news/17435056_1_nader-voters-nader-s-campaign-presidential-candidate-ralph-nader

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.

===
That's all I need to know about Nader and his arguments, He was "Republican Funded". He may be "Republican Funded" now. He simply is not credible.

[pokercat999]

15. Still waiting.

[emulatorloo]

16. wait all you want.

"They are all the same" bullshit does not merit rebuttal, especially coming from someone who took funding from Republicans.

[bluestate10]

65. A TOTAL LIE!!!!!!!!!!!

There is a world of difference. Obama held banks responsible instead of just shoveling money at banks and letting banks sort things out the way GW Bush would have. Obama put the expense of the Iraq and Afghan wars on the budget, GW Bush hid that expense. The expense being seen cause even some sable rattling americans to take pause, even as death to thousands of our soldiers did not.

Ralph Nader is a charlatan. No sensible democrat would pay heed to a word he says. When Nader takes responsibility for bringing about 9/11, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, a ten trillion debt courtesy of GW Bush, then I will start listening to what Nader has to say. Until then, screw Nader

[JackDragna]

155. Ralph owes no one an apology for that...

..because he wasn't the president. Perhaps you weren't paying attention.

[Greyhound]

20. OK, but that doesn't answer the question.

I believe that is called 'talking past the point', an attempt to distract from the argument.

[emulatorloo]

22. No it is underlining the unreliability of the Source. He is no more credible than Glenn Beck

He has taken republican funding, he may be funded by Republicans right now. He is not credible. His argument therefore is not credible.

[Karmadillo]

32. According to you, Obama is no more credible than Glenn Beck.

"He has taken republican funding, he may be funded by Republicans right now."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/05/30/39067/former-bush-donors-now-giving.html

Former Bush donors now giving to Obama's campaign
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Beverly Fanning is among the campaign donors who'll be joining President Bush at a gala at Washington's Ford's Theater Sunday night, but she says that won't dissuade her from her current passion: volunteering for Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

She isn't the only convert. A McClatchy computer analysis, incomplete due to the difficulty matching data from various campaign finance reports, found that hundreds of people who gave at least $200 to Bush's 2004 campaign have donated to Obama.

Among them are Julie Nixon Eisenhower, the daughter of the late GOP President Richard Nixon and wife of late GOP President Dwight Eisenhower's grandson; Connie Ballmer, the wife of Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer; Ritchie Scaife, the estranged wife of conservative tycoon Richard Mellon Scaife and boxing promoter Don King.

Many of the donors are likely "moderate Republicans or independents who are dissatisfied with the direction of the country now and are looking for change," said Anthony Corrado, a government professor at Colby College in Maine who specializes in campaign finance.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/05/30/39067/former-bush-donors-now-giving.html#ixzz16E46NE7W

[emulatorloo]

37. "moderate Republicans or independents who are dissatisfied with the direction of the country""

Not the case with Nader, He took money from Republicans trying to damage Kerry.

If you enjoy Nader's warmed over BS, that's fine. It just does not work for me.

[Karmadillo]

40. Shifting criteria, there, huh? It's OK to take money from Republicans

if you transfer trillions to banksters, escalate a criminal war, protect the previous administration from its crimes, and mislead the American people on your stance on health care? Shame on Nader for failing to match this sterling record.

[Greyhound]

48. IOW, you have no argument.

And FYI Ralph Nader is one of the most devoted and credible people in America. Coming up on half a century of fighting for "average" people, the very people that these parasites prey upon, and that includes you.

Now go on and keep wondering why nothing can be accomplished...
:eyes:

[Lorien]

248. +1000

I worked for the Gore campaign in 2000 and I still have a great deal of respect for what Nader has done for the people-of course, I'm old enough to recall how he fought for us throughout the 70's and 80's!

[Lorien]

247. That's the most absurd thing that I've read here. Nader has devoted his life to

fighting on the people's behalf against the powerful corporations. I may as well accuse YOU of attacking the people and siding with corporate power because you've attacked Nader. Nader didn't steal the election in 2000. Gore had the votes needed to win. The GOP and SCOTUS stole the presidency outright, and by attacking Nader you're letting the TRUE CRIMINALS off the hook completely.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. You're quite right

The message is pretty much true.

The messenger can go fuck himself.

[ProudDad]

100. +1000

[pgodbold]

140. No errors pointed out because there are none. Obama is an accessory to the crimes of the Bush years

and Obama is the only reason they are getting away with MURDER.

Obama is a huge disappointed to me personally and he has failed the country and it's principals.

[Lorien]

246. It's sad when so many Democrats resort to kneejerk GOP tactics. Nader is right

attacking the messenger does not change the validity of the message. I'm from Florida. I worked for Gore in 2000. I so the votes being stolen first hand, went to the press, but the only person who listened to me was Greg Palast of the BBC. I DO NOT blame Nader for Gore's loss (most of my Nader voting friends would not have voted for Gore regardless). I blame the GOP and SCOTUS for outright theft because Gore had all the votes that he needed to win.

Gore may not have been the same as Bush, but too many of Obama's policies and attitudes ARE the same as Bush's. The question is; how do we turn things around from here? Will the Owners ever allow us to vote for a candidate that they haven't personally chosen?

[blondeatlast]

17. FN. nt

[frylock]

21. knr

the truth hurts, muthalickers.

[Fumesucker]

24. K&R, thanks for posting..

[Arkana]

25. Take your planet-sized ego and shove it, Ralph.

Without you, there would have been no Bush.

[Ikonoklast]

27. "All Hail My Giant Ego!"

I guess no one except the loony fringe true believers is still paying any attention to Ralphie much anymore, so he has to remind everyone that he's still alive.


Fuck Nader, who cares for nothing and no one more than Ralph Nader.

[johnaries]

28. And how did that "no difference" rhetoric work in 2000, Ralph?

Seems I remember Nader admitting to Gore that he was wrong. You'd think he'd have learned something.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. K&R

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Not false so far as I know, but arguably misleading.

He lists some similarities between Bush's and Obama's policies which - so far as I know - are accurate, but doesn't list any of the differences.

Just because Obama eats meat doesn't mean he's as bad as Hitler.

[ProudDad]

101. Hitler was a vegetarian...

:shrug:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

134. No, that's a famous misconception.

It's one of those things everyone believes but isn't actually true.

Partridge pie was one of Hitler's favourite dishes.

[ProudDad]

143. More "vegetarian" than not...

Maybe for the wrong reasons -- again, power relationships rather than ethical concerns...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism

[_ed_]

33. Can anyone make the argument

that Obama has done more for the country than Nader? For those of you whose memories don't go past the year 2000, you might start by googling "Nader's Radiers," then by looking at the history of the seatbelt, for starters.

[Karmadillo]

34. Alert!! Factmonger on the thread!!! Alert!!

If you have damaged anyone's construction of reality by your flagrant breaking of the rules, you will be held liable.

[_ed_]

35. Sorry,

I hate Nader because Al Gore couldn't win his home state. Nader's entire career is comprised of one run for President in 2000 where he had the audacity to run outside of the two-party system.

Better?

[ProSense]

36. Prior to 2000, the country was still fucked up. As for your question, the answer

yes, yes and yes

And those are the accomplishments of "Obamabush" the "conservative" "dud"

As always, fuck Nader.

[_ed_]

42. Impressive list

I'm sure my wife feels great about your "accomplishments" website since she can't get healthcare coverage until 2014 b/c of a pre-existing condition. Hope for change.

I'm in sheer intellectual awe of your flawless "fuck Nader" argument.

[ProSense]

123. "she can't get healthcare coverage until 2014 "

Oh, the irony. What's changing in 2014 and who is responsible: Nader or Obama?

A guy who continues to compare everyone to Bush and his atrocities, but refused to form a coalition to block Bush's election, thinks people should respect his dumbass?

Fuck Nader.

[ProudDad]

103. And USAmerica is just as fucked up today...

yes

[AlabamaLibrul]

38. but but but but.... FUCK YOU! I HATE NADER! HE'S MEAN TO THE P-PRESIDENT! *cries*

Nader's done more for "transportation safety" and Obama and his BULLSHIT "Homeland Security" Secretary could ever think to do.

Also: According to the mandatory fiscal disclosure report that he filed with the Federal Election Commission in 2000, Nader owned more than $3 million worth of stocks and mutual fund shares; his single largest holding was more than $1 million worth of stock in Cisco Systems, Inc. Nader owned no car or real estate directly in 2000, and said that he lived on US$25,000 a year, giving most of his stock earnings to many of the over four dozen non-profit organizations he had founded.

*THAT* is spreading the wealth around.

[Mimosa]

233. Nader always reminded me of a 'founding father' type.

Alabama Librul, maybe some people don't remember when car accidents were more dangerous and even deadly.

Nader has integrity.

[Taverner]

116. Hmmmm considering his "findings" on the Corsair were all FALSE

The Corsair was a perfectly safe car. Pinto - different story, but Nader didn't go after the Pinto did he?

[Mimosa]

166. 'Corsair'? Nevuh heard of it. Do you mean Corvair? n/t

[Lorien]

249. That would require some objectivity and thoughtfulkness of their part

ain't going to happen. They like to believe that everything is black and white, and the GOP loves it that they're still blaming Nader for 2000 while letting the real criminals off the hook. Hell, the big corporations are DELIGHTED that the Left is attacking Nader!

[immoderate]

39. I can't disagree with Nader. Obama has adopted nearly all of his policies.

--imm

[Karmadillo]

43. Arthur Silber: Hold Your Head High

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/11/hold-your-head-high.html

November 23, 2010
Hold Your Head High

Anyone who voted for Ralph Nader ever should be .

And so I say -- after emphasizing that I mean it with full and absolute sincerity, unlike the legions of morally and intellectually inert liberals and progressives who would have to examine their own miserable failings were it not for their fictitious Nader-devil:

THANKS, RALPH!

[Taverner]

117. Fuck Nader

He gives all Liberals and Progressives a bad name

[skip fox]

44. Nader is responsible for the Iraq War yet refuses to acknowledge

that his entry into the 2000 Presidental race harmed the country.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Nader opposed the Iraq war.

While many Democrats in congress voted for it.

[bluestate10]

69. Democrats would not have had to vote on the war if Al Gore was President.

There would not have been a war to vote on. Your logic is twisted. It is like you saying you hit someone over the head with a bat because someone else left the bat out. What utter nonsense.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Are you saying that Gore would have won if he had appealed to the Nader voters?

I guess we'll never know because he didn't.

Nor do I see any indication that Nader forced anyone to vote for him or that the candidate of one party is obligated to back his opponent.

[BzaDem]

81. Why should Gore have to appeal to Nader voters? Nader wasn't a viable candidate that had a non-zero

chance of winning. Given that Gore was the left-most candidate that had a non-zero chance of winning, why should Gore have to appeal to the left? Do people on the left honestly think that Bush would have been a more leftist president than Gore?

The problem is that our system ALLOWS people to vote for Nader at the expense of Gore -- not that Gore didn't "appeal to Nader voters." We need runoffs (preferably where the general election is the run-off).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

92. We "need" an alternative to the two corporate party system.

And, as long as we play in that fixed game we're going to lose.

[BzaDem]

94. What makes you think enabling Bush does ANYTHING to get you such an alternative? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

98. You mean like the Democrats who voted with Bush in congress?

Or, the ones who've been voting with the Republicans under the current administration?

[bluestate10]

113. You are using shifting logic.

That is normally a right wing tactic, but since you insist upon using it, I'm game. If there was no Bush, there would NOT have been an Iraq war vote. If Gore had won the Presidency, it is highly probable that the nation would be so prosperous today that only a fool would contemplate voting for or with republicans.

[BzaDem]

130. You didn't answer the question. What makes you think anything Nader did helped get

a "viable alternative?"

[bluestate10]

110. So you cut your throat and the throat of the nation and somehow

arrive at the conclusion that you made a difference? Incremental change is far superior to the giant step backward that the nation took under Bush. Nader like voters would have cost my State an exceptional Governor had not Moderate democrats, Independents and many Liberals stepped up on election day and shouted, HELL NO!!! Had the election come down to a few thousand votes, a good candidate and a person that has been very good for my State would have likely lost. The Green candidate who bolted after failing to make the democratic primary, drew 1.6% of over 2 million votes. Until this day I think "what in the hell was that 1.6% of voters thinking seeing how close the election was coming into election day". Fortunate for me and my State, we will not have to torment ourselves over our State vote like I do over the Florida 2000 results and the national disgrace and disruption that a small group of "I want it all or else" people brought upon our nation.

[_ed_]

49. This is the stupidest thing I've seen all day

"Nader is responsible for the Iraq War." What a joke.

You could just as easily say that Al Gore is responsible because he didn't win his home state. But, of course, that would be a fucking stupid thing to say.

[bluestate10]

70. I say Nader is responsible, Nader cost Gore Florida and the Presidency.

States have voted against their natives before, that it occurred in Tennessee was no surprise. Winning Tennessee without Florida would still have cost Gore the election. Nader cost Gore Florida and as a consequence stands just behind Bush and Cheney in the responsibility hierarchy for the Iraq war.

[Taverner]

108. bluestate10, agree 100%

[Lorien]

250. Yep. Obviously that poster is shilling for corporate power

because attacking Nader allows the true criminals to walk free.

[Taverner]

107. Exactafuckingmundo

His pushing of the Gore=Bush meme, that alone, cost Gore the election

Many lefties sat out that one as a result of Mr Republican Nader

[Vickers]

47. He may be right sometimes, but he's still a shitbag. Unrec for the earhair. n/t

[_ed_]

50. Next time you drive a car,

you might want to figure out who is responsible for US cars having seat belts, saving hundreds of thousands of lives over the years. Can you guess who it is?

[Vickers]

53. Oh, I *know* his work from FORTY FUCKING YEARS AGO.

:eyes:

But thanks for the condescension!

:loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:

[_ed_]

56. Yeah, hundreds of thousands of lives saved,

no big deal.

[BzaDem]

58. Does that make up for the hundreds of thousands who wouldn't have lost their lives in Iraq if it

weren't for Nader?

[_ed_]

62. Or Al Gore?

Couldn't even win his home state. If he were a better candidate, all of those hundreds of thousands of lives would also be saved, right?

No - because that's a very stupid fucking way to look at it.

[BzaDem]

67. If Al Gore were from Utah, he probably wouldn't be able to win his home state either.

There was nothing Al Gore could have single-handedly done to ensure he won.

There was something Ralph Nader could have single-handedly done to ensure Gore won.

[Mimosa]

232. You blame NADER for Iraq?

That's pathetic.

[BzaDem]

258. I mean, Iraq wouldn't have happened if Nader stayed off the ballot

pretty straightforward.

[Vickers]

127. Yes, he did it ALL BY HIS LONESOME!!!!!

:rofl:

Man, the Nader-shits around here suck my fucking ass hair.

[Laelth]

51. Truth hurts. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[Little Star]

52. I was just going to say that!

[lutefisk]

85. Sadly, Ralph's's right. Why all the anger?

Isn't it acceptable to criticize our elected representatives?

:patriot:

[proteus_lives]

54. Fuck Nader.

[Itchinjim]

55. Fuck Nader.

[ncteechur]

57. Nader has jumped the shark.

[bluestate10]

60. Voters that voted for Nader in 2000, should blame themselves for

9/11 and two wars that did not have to be fought. And the enormous economic damage from the three GW Bush delivered tragedies. If I sound brutal to Naderites....I want to be just that. None of you have any sense of what really is important and like petulant little children, you want everything that you want, NOW!! Why do I blame you for 9/11? Because the man you elected ignored intelligence that he was getting warning of an imminent attack and failed to make one attempt to prevent that attack. No 9/11 would have meant no Afghan war. No GW Bush in the White House would have meant no Iraq war. Nader votes at a crucial time has cost the lives of thousands of brave US soldiers, the lives of allied soldiers, the lives of tens of thousands of civilians, grotesque damage to USA international standing and internationals sense that the USA stood for the best, trillions of dollars in national debt, creation of creatures like Sarah Palin and tea partiers. When you sip your wine tonight, congratulate yourself for the Fing mess you and Ralph Nader caused.

Massachusetts had a Ralph Nader wannabe during the election for Governor. Jill Stein, the Green party nominee stood for the democratic nomination, did not even get enough votes to make the democratic primary, then launched a bid under the Green banner. The election was coming down to the wire close, Stein still attacked the sitting democratic Governor. Fortunately moderates, independents and most liberals held firm and re-elected the Governor so that he could continue a body of impressive governance. Stein ended up getting 1.6% of over 2 million votes, I shudder to think what would now be in place had the election come down to 1,000 votes one way or the other like it did in Florida 2000, with 3500 people wasting their votes on Nader.

Like one other poster posted, F... Ralph Nader. I add, F... Ralph Nader lovers.

[_ed_]

64. Idiotic

How many Democratic lawmakers voted for the Iraq war? Nader opposed it.

9/11? Your hate for Nader is making you stupid. Only a complete fool would blame Ralph Nader for fucking 9/11 when REPUBLICANS were in office.

[BzaDem]

68. "How many Democratic lawmakers voted for the Iraq war?"

Isn't the proper question, would there have been an Iraq war to vote on in the first place if Nader dropped out?

[girl gone mad]

133. They had to vote for the Iraq war because Nader got 2% of the vote in Florida?

That is some twisted ass logic you've got there.

[BzaDem]

181. Again, there wouldn't have been an Iraq war to vote ON if Nader dropped out in 2000. n/t

[Catherina]

188. And if Bush hadn't been born, there would have been no vote too. Your argument is nonsensical. n/t

[BzaDem]

189. So? Sure -- Bush's being born is to blame for the Iraq war. So is Nader. Duh. n/t

[Catherina]

210. Duh? Ok, that explains things thoroughly. n/t

[BzaDem]

220. Duh generally is an expression that something is obvious.

For example, if I were to say that the Earth is round, I could say "the Earth is round, duh." I would not need to get into the reasons we know why, since it is an accepted fact and is obvious.

In this case, you pointed out that if Bush weren't born, Bush wouldn't have been inaugurated. I agree with you. Your statement simply means that Bush's inauguration was caused by BOTH his being born AND Nader. The fact that there is an additional decisively-contributing cause does not imply that all other decisively-contributing causes are somehow not causes.

[bluestate10]

71. Nader enabled them by costing Gore Florida.

Don't raise the Tennessee shit again. If Gore had won Tennessee and lost Florida, Bush would have still won because Nader caused Gore to lose Florida by 1000 votes. Prepare to be constantly ticked off, I will write this again in reference to Nader. And, I blame Nader for 9/11, the Afghan war, the addition of 9 Trillion to the national debt. I am a very intelligent person and have proved that over and over, you calling me an idiot means shit to me, so go ahead, call away until you pass out if you want to.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. If Gore failed to appeal to the left and didn't get their votes who's fault is that?

Gore went after the "center" and ignored the left. And, lost both.

[BzaDem]

80. Why should the left need to "be appealed to?" Did they really think that Bush was more to the left

than Gore?

Given that Bush and Gore were the only two candidates that could possibly win, and given that we vote for candidates to govern (not to "send a message," "soothe your conscious," or some other such bullshit), any person who claims to be on the left should not have to think very hard over whether Gore or Bush would be more to the left. Given that there are actually only two viable choices, the whole notion of "appealing to the left" in a general election is ridiculous.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Hell, why should candidates bother to appeal to voters at all?

Maybe, they should smile at them and wave pom-poms.

Or, just save time and let the corporate CEO's decide without all that silly campaigning.

If you're not voting "your conscience" what are you voting for? Don't we all vote our "conscience", our "self-interest", our "principles"? Unless you're selling your vote, I would imagine you're voting for some reason other than as a pastime.

[BzaDem]

83. "Don't we all vote our "conscience", our "self-interest", our "principles"?" No. We vote for the

candidate who we want to govern us, out of the viable choices available. That's it. That's why we have elections. No other reason.

That is, after all, the purpose of an election. We have elections to elect candidates to govern. Not to "send a message" about our "principles." If you want to "send a message," log into AOL and click "compose."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

95. I always vote the candidate I would prefer to "represent" us.

If they fail to offer to represent what I believe in they can look elsewhere for their votes.

I know that democracy is a quaint notion overridden by "practical" politics but I still like the ideas that these guys had.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[bluestate10]

118. Both served as our nation's President.

Which means that people that did not completely and even in some case only partially agree with their views voted to elect them because the alternative was judged by those voters to be worse. I don't get the ideological bent you're on. I am a practical voter, I have values that I don't compromise on, but if one candidate holds one or more of those values and a second candidate has values that are antithetical to my values, you can bet a fortune that I will pull the lever for the first candidate if that candidate was one of two that could logically win. Nader did not have a prayer in Florida, he was there to send some mysterious message. Nader must admit that he screwed up, cost the nation thousands of lives and several fortunes from it's Treasury.

[BzaDem]

131. What makes you think there will ever be a viable candidate that represents you?

Of course, your quotes all come from the short period in US history prior to the inevitable formation and entrenching of two factions. Ever since then, we have had a party system, and if Jefferson/Adams knew of our current system, they would easily retract their statements.

[defendandprotect]

226. Gore won the election, including in Florida .... and a GOP STEAL ensued ....

anything else you have to say comes AFTER That fact --

[ProudDad]

106. I didn't vote for bush -- did you?

:eyes:

[bluestate10]

120. I voted for Gore. Gore won my State handily.

If you tone was derision, I tell you that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.

[ProudDad]

135. No, it was a vote FOR Nader...

No matter how much the irrational may twist things... :puke:

[bluestate10]

175. Shows how unaware some people are.

I am proud to be able to understand the difference between a person who I have some disagreements with and a person that it 100% harmful to everything I view as important. Nader voters did not have that sense and anyone that still support anything Nader stands for is deluding themselves into thinking that listening to Nader will not lead to great harm to our nation and way of life.

[Zoeisright]

275. You're exactly right. I hate Nader with every fiber of my being.

He's right there below Cheney and Bush as evil scum that helped ruin this country.

[nmbluesky]

63. Fuck Nadar

he who ruined our Election in 2000..he helped Bush to won

[LWolf]

66. Nader's right. nt

[CrawlingChaos]

72. K&R for the much-needed TRUTH (n/t)

[AJD48]

78. Ad Hominem: defense of choice against unpleasant facts

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Electric Monk]

86. I love this thread

[Catherina]

87. Rec'd. Nobody forced Obama to do any of those things. n/t

[bushisanidiot]

88. Sounds like Nader is taking republicon money again to stir up sh*t

in the Democratic Party.

SCREW YOU, RALPH!! WE AREN'T BUYING THE BULLSH*T YOU'RE SELLING!

[Imagevision]

91. Fuck Nader, he helped allow Bush in and he's running his mouth off now! fuckem!

[Taverner]

102. Yeah Ralphie? Still peddling that same bullshit - you're the best friend a Republican ever had

FUCK YOU NADER!!!!

[ProudDad]

111. Nope. The best friend the republicans currently have

would be this guy...

[Taverner]

115. Look, Obama has been a dissapointment for many of us

However - do you really think the "Speed Foreclosure" bill would have been vetoed by Bush?

Obama vetoed it.

[bluestate10]

121. I agree with you Travener.

Obama has disappointed me significantly, but he is hands down better than a McCain/Palin Presidency. Try as I might, I just can't see any logic in the votes that people in Florida 2000 cast for Nader. Nor can I see any logic in thinking that one word Nader utters is worth a pimple on a person's behind. Maybe it's the thousands of dead young men and women of our armed forces, or the thousands of damaged families, or the 9 trillion in national debt that we could have avoided, but now must face down. I will admit that I do not have a principled vote when faced with a clear choice, but if voting principle means voting for a person that has been as costly to his nation in lives and Treasury as Nader has, I will take a pass on principle until hell freezes over, if necessary.

[ProudDad]

145. So the Truth is only the truth

when someone you like says it, eh?

How wonderfully shallow...

[bluestate10]

179. I come from the school of reasoned choice.

I obviously find it easier to agree with someone whose views on an issue mirror my own. But I do not stick my head in the sand. Nader is bad for the democratic party and as a result, bad for the nation. The republican party is an extraordinarily extreme party and was even during the 2000 election. As a reasoning democrat, I will not allow the 40% of issues that I may not agree with a democrat on cause me to help elect a republican that I have 0% agreement with, that is what distinguishes me from people like you, I make no apologies for that.

[ProudDad]

240. WOW!

That's a fucking amazing statement!!!

What's "bad for the democratic party <is> bad for the nation"...

Wholly bat-crap, batman!

My reasoned choice was to vote for the guy who was 90%+ congruent with my values and beliefs instead of someone who was maybe 20% or another who was about 5% congruent...

To do otherwise would be cowardice...

I make NO apologies for that...

[ProudDad]

137. And "Democrats" passed it...

So what's your point...

I'm supposed to embrace the democrat party now? :eyes:

[Lorien]

251. actually Nader is the best friend the PEOPLE ever had, and the corpoate elite's worst

enemy-but keep on shilling for corporate power and shooting yourself in the process.

*Doubt me about Nader? Try Google and get a little historical perspective pre-2000.

[BzaDem]

262. Not really. Nader's enabling of Bush's victory was a huge bonanza to the corporate elite.

Not only did it greatly help the corporate elite for the short term (the 8 years when he was in power), but Bush's supreme court appointments changed the campaign finance system for generations to strongly favor the corporate elite. The corporate elite literally couldn't have asked for a better friend than Nader.

[ProudDad]

109. Don't you love the smell of ignorance and bile in the morning?

Nader's been so right for so long...

It's amazing the hate and bile the ignorant display whenever Ralph says something true -- again...

They just can't handle the truth...

Anyway, it was Monica Moorehead and Pat Buchannan who "stole" the election of 2000... :rofl:

The TRUTH is that Gore surrendered!

[bluestate10]

122. What more can I write? Thanks god for the other "Reality Based Intellectualist" voters. nt

[BzaDem]

132. Why do you keep bringing up Pat Buchannan/Scotus/etc when you WANTED the Democrat to lose?

I could see someone who deeply regretted voting for Nader defending his actions by blaming what happened on people other than Nader. They would obviously be wrong, but at least their wrong argument is internally consistent.

But you proudly announce that you voted for Nader multiple times. The Democrat losing isn't an unintended consequence of your actions -- it is your GOAL. So why do you try to blame Democrats' loss on people other than Nader, when you proudly and intentionally vote for Nader to try to get the Democrat to lose?

[ProudDad]

136. I defy you to go through my 12,000 plus posts

and find ONE where I say or even HINTED that I "wanted the democrat to lose" in 2000...

You can't, because just like the meme that Nader intended to give the election to bush, it's more low grade bullshit you haters manufacture to cover up the gore/DLC failure!!!

I'm still allowed to vote my principles and values no matter what stream off innuendo and lies you sore losers spew against my rights...at least for a little while longer...

And I have NO REGRETS for voting my conscience twice by "pulling the lever" for Ralph Nader instead of Tweedledee or Tweedledumber...

=================================================================

In 2000...

The bushies set things up to steal the election and then finally

Gore SURRENDERED!

What fucking part of that don't you understand?

[BzaDem]

149. Even if that were true (and it isn't), it doesn't really matter to you. You still would have voted

for Nader even if you knew that it would be the deciding vote that allowed Bush to become President.

That's what I don't understand about your position. You now CLAIM you didn't want the Democrat to lose. But even in an election in a state where recounts would be held, you would still proudly cast the deciding vote for Nader (and against Gore) that would allow Bush to win. Isn't that wanting the Democrat to lose by definition? If you are given a choice (between voting for Gore and seeing Gore win, and voting for Nader and seeing Bush win), and you choose the latter, how is it any different?

[ProudDad]

242. More bullshit

do you have a farm producing this crap?

WHERE, OH WHERE in my posts do you find this SHIT???

"But even in an election in a state where recounts would be held, you would still proudly cast the deciding vote for Nader (and against Gore) that would allow Bush to win." Total crap...

"If you are given a choice (between voting for Gore and seeing Gore win, and voting for Nader and seeing Bush win), and you choose the latter, how is it any different?"

THAT WAS NOT THE CHOICE!

"you knew that it would be the deciding vote that allowed Bush to become President."

Number one, probably not -- I knew who bush was long probably long before you did...

And the only vote that counted was that of Sandra Day O'Conner...

Your blind hatred is making you stupid...

[BzaDem]

257. So just so I inderstand you fully -- if you knew the election would have a 1 vote margin in your

state without your vote, you would have voted for Gore/Kerry/etc?

[TheKentuckian]

142. People have a right to vote for who they wish and if enough people join them then their candidate

wins.

That's it.

No one is entitled to a single vote, not even their own as they are free to run and vote for another candidate if they choose.

I voted Gore but certainly not because he was entitled to my support but because it was given because I thought he would broadly be an upgrade on Clinton and was still hanging on to faith in our failed economic system. Your version of Democracy is little different than Saddam being on a ballot every once in a while.

At some point every person has their limit, I think Bob Dole is closer to my beliefs than Newt Gingrich but I'd never vote for either and would be writing in if no better option existed.
Neither party serves the majority of people and as such deserve little loyalty.

[BzaDem]

147. Do you believe California's top-2 primary system is "little different than Saddam being on a ballot"

To paraphrase an above poster, you have a naive, cartoonish view of what an election actually is. Not voting for the lesser of two evils simply enables the greater of two evils (regardless of whether you don't vote at all or vote for a candidate that can't win). You can wax poetic about what you think democracy is till the cows come home, but none of your platitudes change any of that.

The way California will deal with it (and the way WA and LA already deal with it) is the ONLY candidates on the ballot in November are the top two candidates of a previously-held all-party primary. Do you believe that is a dictatorship?

[TheKentuckian]

153. Yes I do, the parities have zero constitutional role and your preferred system locks them in as our

"options".

In fact, there is even a chance such a requirement will enable one party rule.

[BzaDem]

154. Perhaps you misunderstand my question? The California system has NOTHING to do with parties.

ANYONE can run in the jungle primary. They could be a part of any party or no party.

All the system does is take the top two winners of that primary and put them on the ballot in the general. If a person without a party (or a member of a third party) wins first or second, they go to the general.

The system actually has less to do with parties than the normal system -- there are no longer any party primaries (like there are in most states). Just one open election where anyone can run, and the top two (regardless of claimed party preference or whether there is ANY party preference) advance to the general.

[TheKentuckian]

163. Only if the party structure and money is banned, otherwise it is a distinction without a difference.

But with conditions, I could support this idea.

[BzaDem]

172. So you'll only accept a party-neutral primary process if freedom of association is abolished?

In other words, you know very well that if Nader were subject to a party-neutral top-two primary (where everyone can participate, party or no party), he would lose by a landslide and wouldn't further be able to enable Republicans in the general. So, in order to preserve his ability to enable Republican victories, you want to ban the right of candidates to announce what party they identify with, and the right of people and candidates to associate with parties. Only THEN would subjecting Nader to an honest process where he would actually have to come in first or second place in a primary be "democratic" to you.

Basically, to you, any election system that DOESN'T allow Nader to enable Republicans is anti-Democratic to you. Instant run-off voting with parties (present in many countries)? Undemocratic. Actual run-off voting? Undemocratic. Any system that limits the damage spoiler candidates can do (which most countries have)? Undemocratic.

That's pretty hilarious.

Luckily for most, the system I am talking about is gaining steam. Eventually, the ability of Nader (and his "progressive" supporters) to enable Republican victories will be quite limited, since he will either win a top-2 primary (indicating they suddenly found actual support among the public and might actually have a chance of winning) or won't be on the general election ballot.

[TheKentuckian]

237. I have never voted for Nader and have no intention of doing so going forward

You are the one fixated on Ralpie boy, not me.

I didn't say the people could not belong to a party, if they choose. I said I don't want it as part of the process. I don't want the money and I don't want parties recognized on the ballot.

I wish to remove party control of the electoral process. I increasing agree with a portion of our founders who believed they are a hijack the will of the people and dictate the process well beyond what is beneficial.

Voting on positions rather than fixing on a letter with no constitutional role would be a good thing, in my eyes.

[tabasco]

119. Fuck you Ralph Nader.

Nuff said.

[Snotcicles]

126. Gotta love the old "Nader Bomb" the perfect tool to build a trolls post count. nt

[ProudDad]

138. ...

:evilgrin:

Yep, those Nader-haters are pretty easy...

[SidDithers]

139. Fuck Ralph Nader...nt

Sid

[spanone]

141. is this from ralph, the guy who helped bu$h* get elected?

[JTFrog]

144. Fuck Nader.

[creon]

146. had his shot

Nader had his shot at the big time. We, and he, would have been better if he had remained a social critic. Nader was an outstanding gadfly/social critic. He took the decision to try politics.


Judging by this attempt at ridicule, he has lost his touch at criticism. Sad.

[Hippo_Tron]

150. I'm going to make an attempt at some constructive debate on a Nader thread

Question for people who believe Nader should have run in 2000:

Lets say hypothetically that Ralph Nader had a crystal ball in October of 2000. This crystal ball told him that his margin of victory would be smaller than the difference between Bush and Gore in two states (New Hampshire and Florida) with enough electoral votes to swing the result. This crystal ball also told him that should George W. Bush be elected he would take advantage of a terrorist attack to lead the country into an unnecessary war in Iraq. Should Ralph Nader have dropped out and endorsed Al Gore under these conditions?

Question for people who believe Nader should not have run in 2000:

Obviously Ralph Nader nor anybody else had a crystal ball. Was there some way he should have known that George W. Bush was going to take advantage of a terrorist attack to get us into an unnecessary war in Iraq? Furthermore, was there a way he could have known that his margin of victory would be larger than the difference between Bush and Gore in two states each with enough electoral votes to flip the election?

[BzaDem]

151. As to the latter question

the neocon elements of the Republican party have been clamoring for war in Iraq since the 90s. So yes, I don't think it would have taken a rocket scientist for someone to realize that there was at least a chance of that happening (9/11 or no 9/11). Some unapologetic Nader voters don't even claim the "we couldn't have known" crap. Instead, they make up some story about how GORE would have gone to war in Iraq just like Bush did. No joke.

As for his margin of victory, any 5 second glance at any historically reputable poll before the election would say that if Gore lost, it would be by less than Nader pulled in. Polls had Nader at around 3%, and there was very little chance either candidate would win the election by more than 3%.

But he should have dropped out regardless, given that he knew he wasn't going to win. The only POSSIBLE way he could have affected the election is by handing the election to Bush. It doesn't matter that he didn't know that he would do so with certainty.

[defendandprotect]

173. As we saw in '93 with the World Trade Center bombing and the pressure on Clinton

to bomb Iraq at that time by the PNAC'ers ....

this then ....

Some unapologetic Nader voters don't even claim the "we couldn't have known" crap. Instead, they make up some story about how GORE would have gone to war in Iraq just like Bush did. No joke.

becomes largely presumption. Whether they needed Bush in the White House to pull off 9/11 is

speculation -- they might have done it anyway and then pushed Gore to attack Iraq.

Meanwhile, let's not ignore that Gore also had life-long-career support from one of the oil

companies.

And, then there was Lieberman ... quite a TROJAN HORSE there had something happened to Gore!

[BzaDem]

177. For the reality-based out there, the above post is a perfect example of my point. n/t

[defendandprotect]

184. For those who don't prize insult-based debate .....

You do understand the '93 bombing of WTC, I presume -- and the FBI involvement in it?

And presume that you are not denying the pressure on Clinton to bomb Iraq at that time?

Had 9/11 happened during a Gore presidency, are you suggesting he would not have been

pressured to act?

Or are you saying that Gore wasn't supported his entire Congressional career by an oil

industry company?

Or are you a Liberman fan?

PLEASE ... tell us what your "reality" is -- !!



-----------------------------------



As we saw in '93 with the World Trade Center bombing and the pressure on Clinton
to bomb Iraq at that time by the PNAC'ers ....

this then ....

Some unapologetic Nader voters don't even claim the "we couldn't have known" crap. Instead, they make up some story about how GORE would have gone to war in Iraq just like Bush did. No joke.

becomes largely presumption. Whether they needed Bush in the White House to pull off 9/11 is

speculation -- they might have done it anyway and then pushed Gore to attack Iraq.

Meanwhile, let's not ignore that Gore also had life-long-career support from one of the oil

companies.

And, then there was Lieberman ... quite a TROJAN HORSE there had something happened to Gore!

[Mimosa]

234. The worst game of 'what if' ever, eh? n/t

[defendandprotect]

171. Your questions are based on ridiculous assumptions ....

#1 Gore actually won the election -- including in FLORIDA --

#2 -- Justaposed against Bush's alleged 537 vote "win" in Florida you have ....

300,000 "Democrats" in Florida voting for Bush --

3,000 "butterfly ballots" cast in error for Pat Buchanan instead of Gore --

600+ illegal military ballots counted for Bush --


What's really frightening is that so many here evidently don't know that the

recount by the journalists shows that Gore won, including in FLORIDA --

Nor do they seem to understand how scapegoating Nader worked for both the GOP

who wanted to hide their the fact of the stolen election --

and for the DLC/Dems who wanted to hide the fact that they didn't protest the

stolen election --


How many even recall the GOP-sponsored fascist rally to stop the vote counting in Miami-

Dade County? How many even understand the role the Supreme Court played in the steal?

Amazing!!

[BzaDem]

178. How is the SCOTUS relevant to this question? If Nader dropped out, there wouldn't have been a case

in the first place. Gore would have won by tens of thousands of votes. The fact that there were other factors involved doesn't mean Nader couldn't have single-handedly allowed Gore to win (and chose not to).

[defendandprotect]

186. Your question is based on NOT knowing Gore won, including in Florida ....

and it is based on a presumption that the scapegoating of Nader was on the level --

Nader had nothing to do with Bush's win --

the alleged 537 vote "win" by Bush would have easily been overcome by 300,000 "Democrats"

in Florida who voted for Bush --

and/or by the 3,000 votes taken by Buchanan obviously intended for Gore --


2000 was a GOP steal -- via a fascist rally to stop the vote counting of 180,000 votes

not previously counted -- and via a right wing Supreme Court which put Bush in the White House.


The steal quite well hidden by GOP propaganda and DLC propaganda --

and scapegoating of Nader and Green Party.

[BzaDem]

187. Gore was not inaugurated as President. If Nader dropped out, he would have been inaugurated.

Nothing in your post changes the above sentence.

[defendandprotect]

192. Gore was not inaugurated because 2000 was a steal by the GOP ....

Nader had nothing to do with stopping the vote counting in Maimi-Dade county --

180,000 votes --

nor with the Supreme Court decision made by the Gang of 5 --

The steal began with Jon Ellis/Fox News and ended with the Supreme Court --

[BzaDem]

193. The steal wouldn't have happened if Nader dropped out. n/t

[defendandprotect]

195. Had 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida NOT voted for Bush... the steal couldn't have happened ....

[BzaDem]

196. So what? The 300,000 "Democrats" are to blame. So is Nader. n/t

[defendandprotect]

200. The steal is to blame and you're still running away from it --

the steal was run by Jon Ellis/Faux News all the way down to our now SC Justice

Roberts who managed the legal aspects of the steal -- including the GOP fascist

rally to stop the counting of 180,000 votes -- never counted until AFTER the election.

Again -- Gore won in 2000, including in Florida --

[BzaDem]

201. I'm not running away from it at all. Your factors (steal, 300k "Democrats") AND NADER are to blame.

You are the one trying to blame the steal, 300k "Democrats," etc, but NOT NADER. That is crap. ALL are to Blame. Nader could have single handedly allowed Gore to be inaugurated, and he chose not to.

[defendandprotect]

204. Again -- Gore WON the election, including in Florida .....

are you still arguing against that?

The Bush "win" in Florida was based on 537 votes -- repeat 537 votes.

Yet, you are saying this has nothing to do with 300,000 votes by "Democrats" which

went to Bush?

Or, nothing to do with 3,000+ butterfly votes which were misdirected to Buchanan

which would have gone to Gore?

Nader had nothing whatsoever to do with the fascist rally to stop the counting of 180,000

votes which were never counted until AFTER the election was decided.

Nader had nothing whatsoever to do with the Gang of 5 on the Supreme Court putting Bush

in the White House and negating the mandates of the state of Florida.

Remember, it was a matter of an alleged 537 votes -- and you want to blame Nader for that?

[BzaDem]

205. I'm not arguing that Gore didn't win -- I'm arguing that he wasn't inaugurated.

And he would have been inaugurated if it hadn't been for Nader.

Your continual changing the subject back to a point I fully agree with (the fact that the SCOTUS was to blame as well) is fooling no one.

[defendandprotect]

208. OK ... so we now agree that GORE won in Florida ....so there was a steal .....

Now -- are you saying that it wasn't the GOP that stole the election?

You're also somewhat acknowledging now that the Supreme Court played a role in the STEAL.

How about the fascist rally to stop the counting of 180,000 votes in Florida which were

never counted until AFTER the election ...

Do you agree that also helped the GOP STEAL the election?

[BzaDem]

209. Of course the GOP stole the election. That doesn't change the fact that Nader allowed the margin to

be stealable.

[defendandprotect]

213. You agree Gore won the election, including in Florida ... and

you agree that the election was STOLEN by the GOP --

but you still need a scapegoat -- and Nader is it?

Because Nader had the nerve to run and try to wake up Americans --

Try blaming 300,000 Demcorats who voted for Bush in Florida --

or faked Butterfly Ballots --

Or the computers which were hackable --

All of these issues unaddressed still by the Democratic Party which has

never appropriately responded to the 2000 STEAL -- nor, btw, the 2004 STEAL ...


Meanwhile, I think it's been a long discussion -- and thanks for not being disingenuous.

Maybe at some future time we'll try it again --

:)

[BzaDem]

214. I don't need a scapegoat. I simply choose to blame all blameworthy parties, while you choose to only

blame some of the blameworthy parties.

[bluestate10]

183. I am in group two, so I will answer the group two questions.

Every politician has a footprint in an election. George W Bush's footprint was that he was a conservative that believed in force first to resolve conflict. Nader did not need a crystal ball to at least project what could happen in a Bush Presidency.

Polls were accurate enough in 2000. With two weeks to go, polls in Florida ware predicting a razor thin race, in low single digits difference between Bush and Gore. Polls remained razor thin the week before election day. An aware voter that favored on party and did not have an agenda should have realized that their vote WOULD be deciding in determining the winner. The issue then came down to whether they would prefer a winner that they had somethings in common with, or a winner that they had nothing in common with. Nader voters in Florida chose to ignore shared values with other democrats in favor of sending an as of yet, unexplained and unfathomable "message".

[defendandprotect]

190. And what of the actual Gore win, including in Florida?

Are you unaware of that?

Blaming Nader for any of this takes a lot of ignoring --

180,000 votes were not counted in Miami-Dade County because of the GOP-sponsored fascist

rally to stop the counting.

PLUS, given Bush's 537 vote "win" in Florida -- it's not difficult to see that had

300,000 "Democrats" in Florida not voted for BUSH there would have been no alleged Bush "win."

Or, had the butterfly ballot not stolen 3,000+ votes from Gore there would havebee no

alleged Bush "win."

537 votes .... vs 300,000 and 3,000+

You don't need a caluculator to get it --

But it was convenient for the GOP which wanted to hide the steal ---

and for the DLC which wanted to hide that they did nothing to prevent or respond

to the steal -- that Nader and Greens were scapegoated.

[BzaDem]

191. You keep acting under the premise that Nader can't be blamed unless he was the SOLE cause.

But that is of course false. Of course Nader wasn't the ONLY cause. But that doesn't mean he wasn't A cause, or that he couldn't have single-handedly prevented Bush's inauguration.

[defendandprotect]

194. You're acting as though 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida didn't vote for Bush ....

would those votes have changed the election towards a Gore win by any chance?

Rather it is you who are seeking to make Nader not only a cause but the SOLE cause --


:eyes:

[BzaDem]

198. Sure, they are to blame as well. But so is Nader. I NEVER claimed Nader was the sole cause.

All I stated was that Nader could have single-handedly prevented the election from being stealable and Bush being inaugurated, and he chose not to.

[defendandprotect]

202. You're saying then that there were MANY reasons for Gore's alleged defeat .....

the next step is to recognize that Nader was "scapegoated" because it suited

the purposes of the GOP and the DLC --

Nader had nothing to do with Gore's loss -- because Gore actually won, including in Florida.

Conclusion: GOP steal -- with help of fascist rally to stop the vote counting --

and Poppy's pals on Supreme Court --

[BzaDem]

203. Of course there were many reasons. Nader was one of them. He wasn't "scapegoated" at all.

He deserves all the blame thrown at him, just like the SCOTUS does. It is a statement of fact that if he dropped out, the election wouldn't be stealable.

[defendandprotect]

206. You're just reluctant to give up the favorite scapegoat ....

Again -- this was a matter of 537 votes -- and you want to blame Nader for that?

3,000+ butterfly ballot votes went to Buchanan instead of Gore --

Had that NOT happened -- and it was a Democratic Ballot set up by Theresa La Pore --

later connected to the GOP -- Bush could NOT have claimed any kind of victory in Florida.

Again -- 537 vote "win" by Bush -- vs 3,000+ Gore votes misdirected to Buchanan!!

[BzaDem]

207. So? The Buchanan votes were to blame, and so was Nader.

Not sure why you keep pretending that OTHER, ADDITIONAL causes somehow absolve Nader. You could mention ten million additional causes, but none of them logically absolve Nader. They just add additional causes.

[defendandprotect]

211. So now you're blaming Buchanan votes and Nader votes ...

The Bush lie is that he won in Florida by 537 votes ---


300,000 "Democrats" voting for Bush --
3,000 Gore votes misdirected to Buchanan --
180,000 Miami-Dade county votes UNCOUNTED --
600+ illegal military ballots for Bush --

That's er . . . 304,860 votes -- which of them again is responsible for the faked

Bush 537 vote "win" ????

[BzaDem]

212. Sure. All of those factors were to blame. So was Nader.

I bet you really wish you were arguing against someone who claimed Bush legitimately won. You wish this so much, that you are actually PRETENDING that I'm arguing that Bush legitimately won, and then mercilessly slaying the straw man you have constructed.

But that doesn't work, because I'm NOT ARGUING THAT. No matter how many times you falsely claim that I am arguing that Bush legitimately won, it isn't true, because that isn't what I'm arguing.

I'm simply stating that all of the factors you mentioned, AND Nader, were to blame for the inauguration of Bush instead of Gore. Nader could have single handedly negated ALL the other factors and allowed Gore to be inaugurated, but he chose not to.

[defendandprotect]

215. Many factors were to blame in the STEAL ....

so then, why should Nader have been scapegoated by the DLC Democrats?

Obviously, because he is one of their most severe critics --

and because they did nothing about the steals, either in 2000 or 2004!

And, presumably you are now saying that Gore won, including in Florida?

If so, that acknowledges that there was a GOP STEAL.

Nader's voters had nothing to do with the alleged Bush "win" --

In fact, Nader's voters helped the Democrats win Congressional seats because

while they wouldn't have voted for Gore, they were willing to vote for a Democratic

Congress.



Again -- thanks for remaining civil --

Maybe the next time we take this around in future -- we will both be more convincing?


:)

[BzaDem]

219. If A and B both caused something to happen, then you can't claim B didn't decisively contribute just

because A decisively contributed to the result as well.

In this case, A was the steal (or the Buchanan votes, or the 300k "democrats," etc), and B was Nader.

[defendandprotect]

225. The first facts are: Gore won ... and a STEAL ensued ....

Your A and B come AFTER those facts ....

[BzaDem]

228. Nope. A contains everything you've said (including the steal), and B is Nader. n/t

[ProudDad]

241. I would add the fact

that in the face of republican mobs trying to short-circuit vote counting in FLA and an activist republican SCOTUS making the final "decision", would Nader's bowing out of the race made any difference?

Thanks for a relatively rational post :hi:

[great white snark]

152. Thanks for Roberts and Alito, Ralph.

You were wrong then and still wrong now.

[BzaDem]

156. +1

It's ironic how Nader's actions resulted in a Supreme Court ruling that exponentially increases corporate influence over all future elections, lowering even further the chance that anyone like Nader will ever get elected.

[defendandprotect]

174. Thanks for Clarence Thomas, Joe Biden ....

[bluestate10]

197. Nader does not have a conscience. The man's ego is huge.

That anyone will listen to a word that he utters is weird to me. I am really starting to dislike nader people. I tried not during the race for Governor in Massachusetts, but I harbor some dislike for the people that supported Green party candidate Jill Stein. We had what was looking like a close race in the Bay State, Jill Stein voters somehow had issue with our effective and progressive Governor, some of them even indicated in polls that they would vote for the republican if push came to solve. The republican had a gay running mate, but a platform that was decidedly anti gay. The republican demonetized poor people that needed state assistance at every chance, even campaigning against a debit card system that he had set up to channel funds to poor people to buy life essentials. Our Governor refused to demonetize poor people and struck at every chance against the anti gay agenda of his opponent. I an a straight, fairly well off, moderate democrat, so I did not have much to gain or lose if either candidate won, EXCEPT the values that I hold as a democrat, which to me would have been a terrible loss if the progressive, effective and forward looking democratic governor had been defeated. Fortunately moderates, independents and non Jill Stein loving liberals came through and gave our outstanding governor a 6.5% margin of victory. Jill Stein got 1.6% out of a vote total of around 2.3 million, sometimes I wonder what would have happened, if as polls predicted, the race had tightened to a fraction of a percent. When I have that last thought on the tight polls and knowing what some Jill Stein supporters said to pollsters, I can't help but have disgust and dislike for them creep into my heart. I feel the same way about Nader 2000 voters and anyone that takes Nader seriously today.

[creon]

236. not a force

Nader had his moment in 2000. That was the 'high point' of his career.

[OnyxCollie]

239. I don't recall "Senator Nader" being at Roberts' and Alito's

confirmation hearing.

I guess that absolves the Senate Dems of any responsibility/culpability.

"Filibuster? We can't filibuster. NADER!!!"

More irrational anger from those who will use any excuse to protect their "team."

[BzaDem]

267. The Senate would not have had Alito/Roberts to vote on in the first place if Nader dropped out. n/t

[OnyxCollie]

276. And the Senate could have filibustered their nominations.

But they didn't. Is Nader responsible for that, too?

It's amazing that a man could have such an affect on the political landscape, yet be insignificant at the same time.

Nader/Kucinich 2012.

[quaker bill]

157. Ralph Nader

is certainly not an Obamabush hybrid.

[bluestate10]

199. No. Nader a pure bred male donkey. nt

[SeattleGirl]

222. Oh shut up, Ralph!

Go crawl back under your rock.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

230. DU has become the Green Party Underground. Sad...

[JTFrog]

253. So true. n/t

[mdmc]

235. ..

[4lbs]

243. Ah, Nader. The reason we got Bushie in the first place.

[Lorien]

252. So the GOP and SCOTUS had nothing to do with it, even when Gore had all the votes he needed?

Wow, historical revisionism at it's finest. Fox News couldn't have done it better! The true criminals thank you for the misdirection against a guy who has fought against corporate crime for half a century on YOUR behalf.

[BzaDem]

259. If Nader dropped out, there wouldn't have been a Supreme Court case in the first place. n/t

[wildbilln864]

254. Thank you Mr. Nader!

The truth really riles some people but it will stand forever. :patriot:

[Name removed]

263. Deleted message

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

[patrice]

265. Which one is IN the position as president: Obama? or Nader? & Mr. Nader, please tell us

how many of which demographics your are willing to see hurt in what manner in order to see what you think should happen made possible and also give us a rough estimate, assuming plausible circumstances efficacious to your desired goals, what is the probability of your goals being acquired?