I'll admit it: I worry about Ralph Nader.

[TheWraith]

I worry that the worthless Republican tool who put George W. Bush into the White House is going to die of old age before he gets what he deserves, which is a punch in the nose from every single person fucked over by the Bush administration.

If you include the Iraqis, that's one hell of a long line of people.

[elleng]

1. You mean Rover, of course. Or Atwater.

[DrunkenBoat]

2. Ridiculous.

[AverageJoe90]

3. I don't think Nader's a bad guy.....

...but yes, sadly, he truly was a complete tool for the GOP in 2000. The Green Party needs to get their act together ASAP.

[Luminous Animal]

7. The Green Party ran their candidate. It had nothing to do with the Republican party.

Ross Perot handed Clinton his win. Did you whine then?

[BzaDem]

13. Why do you keep saying that? Exit polls show that Perot took equally from both candidates. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

18. I prefer to go with the detailed analysis.

"A detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning more than $50,000 annually)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot#1992_presidential_candidacy

[BzaDem]

20. The VERY NEXT SENTENCE says that 38% of his voters would have voted for Bush, 38% Clinton, and the

rest would have stayed home! That is from the EXACT SAME exit poll survey that you cited, it is the very next sentence from the paragraph you partially quoted, and it is the only sentence in the paragraph that you chose not to include in your quote.

Are you actually claiming that the voters are lying about who they would have voted for, and that your income data (that shows NOTHING about who they would have voted for) somehow tells you more than actually asking them the qustion directly?

[Luminous Animal]

22. You need to learn how to read. The rest that would have stayed home were

liberals, conservatives, and moderates. Fortunately for Clinton, more conservatives who would have stayed home otherwise decided to get off their butts for Perot.

It's like this... people who would have voted any way

38% Clinton
38% Perot.

People who wouldn't have voted but decided to because Perot won were more conservative than liberal.

[BzaDem]

25. That doesn't imply what you apparently think it implies, and isn't even stated in the article.

If you allocate Perot's votes to voters' alternative choices (allocating those who stayed home to neither, since they, well, would have stayed home), Clinton still beats Perot by the same number of points. You claimed that Perot gave the election to Clinton. You are wrong, and nothing you quoted even pretends to claim otherwise. In fact, the article itself disproves your statement, in the only sentence in the paragraph you chose not to include in your quote.

Furthermore, the idea that the ones who would have stayed home consisted of more conservatives than liberals is not stated at all in the article you quoted. It doesn't break down those who would have stayed home at all (just the total Perot vote). For all you know, they could have been vastly more liberal, or vastly more conservative, or vastly more moderate. And it doesn't matter in any case, because they would have stayed home.

[Luminous Animal]

28. And yet, somehow. Only 20% of liberals voted for Perot and yet 27% of conservatives did!

[BzaDem]

31. 10% of liberals voted for McCain. 20% of conservatives voted for Obama. 60% of Moderates also voted

for Obama.

Your data on ideology says nothing about the votes, because the SAME DATA includes information on how they would have voted. The ideological data does not contradict the alternative choice data at all, and is entirely consistent with it, since moderates have always been more Democratic leaning than Repblican leaning.

It is as if you are saying that the sun doesn't exist by pointing to the sweltering heat, even though

a) we can all see the sun is up in the sky with our own eyes, regardless of the heat, and
b) the sweltering heat is not inconsistent with the sun being up, and in fact is ENTIRELY consistent with said fact.

[Luminous Animal]

32. Really? Moderates have always been more Democratic leaning? Then explain Reagan, Bush & Bush.

Explain the teabaggers. The designation "moderates" is meaningless. I will concede that I haven't made my case but neither have you. I will drop my Perot gave us Clinton upon further research (and believe you me, I will research).

[BzaDem]

34. Conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1. Republicans only need a small portion of moderates to get 50%

while Democrats need huge swaths of moderates to even have a prayer of hitting 50%.

It is technically possible for moderates to vote more Republican than Democrat. But any election where that happened would be a total landslide for the Republican. When the country is 20/40/40, all the liberals plus half the moderates would only be 40% of the vote, while all the conservatives plus half the moderates would be 60%.

In any case, none of this matters, because the very survey you cited asked the direct question, and even you aren't claiming that the respondents were liars or that the survey was invaid. It is literally the equivalent to disputing the implications of temperature data to prove that the sun doesnt exist, even though by a separate measure (i.e. our own eyes) it clearly does.

[Luminous Animal]

38. Quite simply. I disagree with you on how to read the stats. You are beating a dead horse.

Good luck in your every endeavor.

[eridani]

42. Wonder why 75% of all Democrats, Republicans and Independents--

--think cutting Social Security is a very bad idea? Isn't Social Security liberal?

[Rex]

4. That is sad.

The SCOTUS put GWB into the White House, but you keep on lying for the three people that still believe you! :eyes:

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Perhaps if Gore had not run on a Third Way platform, he'd have won

P.S.: Actually, Gore did win the election. SCOTUS stole it for Bush.

But it would have been helpful if Gore had won, say, his home state.

[BzaDem]

12. Would you still be saying that if Gore's home state was Utah? n/t

[Kahuna]

48. Gore was not an unknown entity. He was the VP for 8 years and

a darn good one. No Democrat had a legitimate reason to not vote for him. So that bullshit about if Gore...yada yada yada is just a lame excuse for helping to elect bushco.

[Luminous Animal]

6. I hope that the 500,000 Iraqi children who died because of Clinton get a chance to punch him in the

nose.

[Old and In the Way]

8. huh?

Which war did Clinton start where 500,000 Iraqi children were killed?

[Luminous Animal]

15. At least 500,000 Iraqi children died because of Clinton's illegal bombing campaign & sanctions

in Iraq. When Madeleine Albright was asked about this by Leslie Stahl, her response was, it was worth it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0WDCYcUJ4o

"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

[Rex]

17. I guess people don't ever think about the fact that

we never ended the Gulf War, just moved into a NFZ and sanctions phase until GWB could get his rocks off in 2003.

[GReedDiamond]

19. It was not a war, it was economic sanctions imposed on Iraq...

...in 1990, and which remained in effect all through the Clinton Admin and up until Bush Jr invaded.

Up to 500,000 children died due to lack of materials needed to produce medicines, etc.

Here is the Wiki link of an overview of the economic sanctions, etc, plus you can find more in-depth info on google very easily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

[joshcryer]

24. Saddam built 7 large palaces in that time frame along with the worlds largest *fresh* water pool.

Let's not kid ourselves. Cuba has been under sanctions even more severe at times and the people didn't die en masse.

[Luminous Animal]

29. Ah. So all those children dying was totally worth it!

[teddy51]

9. Sorry, but no he didn't... The election was stolen, just like the 2004 election.

And a big problem still remains that no one is addressing. 80% of America is voting on either ES&S or DieBold electronic voting machines that do not provide a paper trail. Guess who is going to be our next President? Hello President Perry, nice to know you... "NOT".

[flamingdem]

10. What a sleaze, he only helps himself and has nothing to add

where has he been all this time? He just shows up when his impact can be damaging.

[ClassWarrior]

14. Be sure to leave off your safety belt tomorrow when you get in the car. It's just more...

...selfish Naderism.

:eyes:

NGU.

[Luminous Animal]

16. Be sure that you add sewage to your water next time you swim in it.

And if you ever end up in a wheel chair, be glad that you can't get into the store.

He writes all the time but if you are looking for him on the corporate media, good luck.

[emilyg]

40. How uninformed to post this.

[cliffordu]

11. Jesus fukcng christ, is this the drubnk thread or what???

who are we mad at, again????

[Bonobo]

21. No, it's the deluded reactionary conservative sort of middle-of-the-road idiot thread. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

23. I will avoid name-calling and personal attacks per DU rules,

and simply say that I believe you are seriously misinformed and are cherry-picking your facts.

Is Ralph Nader perfect? Probably not, but he's done a hell of lot for the American consumer during the course of his life and I am grateful to him for that. We need MORE Ralph Naders, in my opinion. And, yes, I voted for him in 2000 and I make no apologies. Gore ran a lackluster and uninspiring campaign and Florida was stolen.

[BzaDem]

26. If you were the deciding vote that gave the election to Bush, would you still make no apologies?

In other words, if you had the choice to single handedly prevent Bush and all that came with him (Iraq, Roberts, Alito, etc), but you chose not to, would you still have no apology?

[Blue_In_AK]

30. I'll be honest with you and say I don't know what I would have done

in that case. We would have had no way of knowing in 2000 how dangerous Bush would be. Gore was uninspiring. Had he been more like today's Al Gore, I probably would have been more enthused, but he wasn't. I like to vote my conscience whenever possible, and in this case, I very well may have voted for Ralph Nader anyway. Knowing what I know now, no, of course I wouldn't have.

But that's all very hypothetical and not relevant to my own personal situation where I knew Alaska was going to go for the Republican anyway, no matter how I voted.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. How would he/she find out if it was the deciding vote?

Pick a vote at random and say "Aha! THE deciding vote!"? And, if Gore wanted the vote he should have convinced that particular voter to vote for him.

[BzaDem]

43. Gore is going to be fine regardless of whether he is President. For others, not so much.

So the real question isn't whether Gore should convince anyone of anything. The real question is whether the deciding vote wants Republican policies or Democratic policies, and Republican Supreme Court justices vs. Democratic Supreme Court justices.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Which "deciding" vote?

How many times has your vote decided the outcome of a federal election? Or, can you name anyone's vote that has?

[bluestateguy]

27. If he thinks I have forgotten about the 2000 election he is wrong

and any other Democrat over 30 will remember too.

[Luminous Animal]

39. Fortunately, for the Republicans, you've forgotten about voter intimidation...

Black box machines owned by Republican operatives, vote caging, and voter ID initiatives. While you stamp your little feet and shake your little fists at "Emmanuel Goldstein", all of this is still going on.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Still attributing the Democratic candidates' failures to Nader I see.

Political reality: You have to convince the voters to vote for you. Gore failed to convince enough leftist voters to vote for him. Whose fault is that?

[Warren DeMontague]

36. I worry about that creepy lazy eye of his.

Fuckin' freaks me OUT, man.

[Poll_Blind]

37. What an exceptionally malformed thought. Even for you.

PB

[emilyg]

41. unrec.

[L. Coyote]

44. REC

[OnyxCollie]

46. Ralph Nader didn't excuse torture committed by Bushco.

That would be the Obama administration.

Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.

WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain's torture probe
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html

MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:

Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.

Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.

Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!

US embassy cables: Spanish prosecutor weighs Guantánamo criminal case against US officials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177

The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.

Eric Holder got the message.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."

CIA Exhales: 99 Out of 101 Torture Cases Dropped
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/

This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. It’s one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.

Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to “preliminar review” whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that he’ll pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the “death in custody” of detainees, Holder said.

But just because there’s a further criminal inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holder’s decision on Thursday doesn’t actually end the Justice Department’s review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.

“On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agency’s history.”

[RandomKoolzip]

47. I voted for him in 2000. If a more progressive candidate existed, I'd vote for her/him as well.

[tawadi]

49. Ralph Nader is a joke. Nobody is listening to him anymore. eom

[mdmc]

50. silly

[mdmc]

51. This is what democracy looks like