Would-be Naderites on DU, beware of what you're getting into

[mot78]

(This serves as a warning to any DUer who is considering supporting Nader this year, because they buy into that 2000 notion that there's no differance between Repugs and Democrats. If you support Nader, you are working with the Freepers!)


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1077969/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1078015/posts



I will support Nader's campaign any way possible.
We ought to form a group that pretends to swap votes between states. We could pretend to be Nader voters in tossup states willing to swap with Kerry voters in blowout states. We'll vote for President Bush but cause Nader's popular vote to go up and Kerry's popular vote to go down nationwide.


4 posted on 02/14/2004 2:07:44 AM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)


To: jagrmeister
His "exploratory" website is at www.naderexplore04.org . (DON'T CLICK! I intentionally left off the http prefix to keep this from being a link. Cut-n-paste the address into your browser's address bar rather than clicking on a link, lest Nader's sysadmins see a pile of Free Republic referrer log entries).

He is recruiting campaign volunteers at www.naderexplore04.org/volunteer.html . His decision on whether or not he'll run will be partially based on how much volunteer support he receives.

I recommend not only volunteering under several assumed identities, but to also actually volunteer as your real self. We want this guy to do very, very well. Most importantly, we don't want him entering the race and then dropping out when he realizes his support is a sham.

Nader will paint Kerry as the limousine liberal that he is. He will point out Kerry's special interest record, and vilify him for his wife's riches. In other words, he'll alienate the Far Left from Kerry, something which the Bush team could never do on their own because they don't speak the Far Left's language. This man will do a great deal of good by being in this race.

5 posted on 02/14/2004 2:18:13 AM PST by Omedalus
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies >
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies >

[w4rma]

1. I fully agree, mot78. (n/t)

[Madrone]

2. Freetards.

Can't do ANYTHING without cheating.

I want OUR guys to win too, but I'm not going to cheat or be slimy to make it happen.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Why should we care about what is posted in Free Republic?

Who cares what they say?

Free Republic is right alongside the DLC in my shit list.

[oasis]

4. ABB&N. chisel that on granite.

[poskonig]

5. LOL!

ABB ... &N!!!!

[mot78]

6. Damn straight!

Nader needs to consider the implications of running again, especially if all of his grassroots supporters are Freepers incognito.

[Terwilliger]

8. wow....anybody but bush AND nader? can democrats derive the meaning...

of the word "anybody"?

I guess that's not what you meant, right?

[lcordero]

7. Nader isn't an option anymore

He isn't helping to build a third party.
Kerry has already alienated the far left, why are you shifting blame?

[teach1st]

9. With more and more Conservatives becoming disenchanted

With more and more Conservatives becoming disenchanted with Bush, what are the chances that a Nader campaign would draw suck votes from Bush than from the Democratic candidate?

[ozone_man]

10. Who is the progressive alternative to Kerry?

I will probably write a vote in for Dean, don't think I'll vote for Nader this time, although the debates that he might bring will be welcome to the boring Bush and Kerry debates, if that's how it unfolds.

If Dean and Kucinich drop out, there will no longer be an anti war advocate. So, I think many of those that opposed the Iraq War will not be voting for Kerry. they will have to make votes of conscience in one form or another.

[QC]

11. Well, if those "votes of conscience" put BushCorp back in the White House

then the Iraq War will be only the beginning. On to Syria, Lebanon, Iran, etc!

I'm no big fan of Kerry either, but I don't think he has a list of five or six countries he plans to invade as soon as possible. That's why I will not be making a lovely but meaningless gesture this November, and further, I think that anyone who enables Bush, no matter how noble their intentions, will be as much to blame as Bush himself for what happens.

[ozone_man]

That's the standard argument

for not voting 3rd party in this two party system of ours. And for that reason, we are not likely to ever change it. It's an effective argument BTW and I've used it myself many times. I just find myself at a real turning point here and feel that it really is time to put my foot down and not vote for a candidate who has rubber stamped Bush's initiatives. I'd rather hold out for real change, even if it means going through some more pain. The Democratic Party is merging with the Republican Party, so the argument that one is voting for the lesser of two evils does not really work anymore, especially when they both vote the same way (IWR, Patriot, NCLB, deficit spending, etc.).

[DemBones DemBones]

13. Voting for IWR simply PALES beside being

the man who cooked up the idea and lied to get his way.

Please, think of not only Bush and Cheney but Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, and all their friends at PNAC and AEI. Ashcroft as AG.

The words 'Jim Baker' really should be enough to make you vote for the Democrat, whoever he is. :shudder:

[Brian_Expat]

16. Not really

Frankly, someone who voted for the IWR who then complains that Bush was for the IWR is pretty silly, in my view.

The "appeal" of Nader is primarily a result of the Democrats' actions (or lack thereof), not Nader's activities.

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. I knew Bush was lying

about the Iraqi war. If "I" knew he was lying and hundreds of thousands of anti-war activists knew he was lying...John Kerry sure as hell knew he was lying. He voted for the IWR to save his political ass. He knew he would be running for president and the RWers would have made him out to be "unpatriotic", "he doesn't support our troops", he cowered to the RW rhetoric instead of standing up for what was the right thing to do. Now, we have over 500 dead American soldiers and 1000's of innocent dead Iraqi citizens. Not to mention all of the injured and maimed soldiers. How does that make John Kerry any different than Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Perle? Give me a break. He knew Bush was lying and voted for the war anyway.

[QC]

14. I see your point, and agree that the parties are too much alike.

The problem, I think, is that too many progressives believe that changing the system is just a matter of voting for some doomed vanity candidate every four years and then going back to life as normal.

If we want to pull the party in our direction, it will take a consistent, sustained effort. The Religious Right managed to do it with the GOP by getting in the trenches and fighting. Ironically, they used many of the strategies that we on the Left pioneered but later forgot about--grassroots activism and the like.

[DemBones DemBones]

12. You speak the truth, QC. The only way anyone

should even consider voting for Nader is if the last poll before the election shows Bush polling 95% in their state.

If there is the slightest chance of the Democratic nominee winning your state, vote for him.

No matter who you fell in love with in the pre-primary/ primary campaign, fall in line behind the Democratic nominee and get out and vote for him.

This is my tenth presidential election as a voter and is absolutely the most crucial of my lifetime. More crucial than Goldwater running against LBJ. Goldwater was an old-style Republican, not an unprincipled imperialist. Hell, I'd welcome Nixon at this point, bad as he was.

Bush MUST be defeated.

[Guaranteed]

21. There's no room for doing the right thing when there's such a bad guy

in office.

[Alinsky]

15. Some Nader voters voted for Gore in 2000

http://votetrader.org/results/
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/nader.htm

Some 16,000 people traded votes in swing states in 2000.

I don't understand how Limbaugh gets away with ranting and raving about the liberal Democrats. Before the 2000 election I always voted the Democratic Party line, because they were somewhat more tolerant of liberalism then conservatives. I even voted for Clinton twice even though he was a Republican Democrat sellout like Kerry.

But in 2000 I traded my Gore vote in a swing state with a Nader voter because in New York my New York vote would not of counted because Gore won the NYC vote by 80% or more over Bush. And I think that liberalism is the answer to solve our social injustices so in 2000 by voting for Nader I was actually for once able to vote my conscience.

Some 16,000 people traded votes in swing states in 2000 Here are the numbers.

http://votetrader.org/results/
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/nader.htm

[John_H]

17. Think Nader Supporters give a shit

about facts so obvious even a freeper can apparently understand them?

They WANT four more years of bush.

[Terwilliger]

19. You know it!

That's me baby! I love Bush! He's a great man! He's wondereful. I'm gonna be JUST like the Democratic party and do more tro support him than to oppose him.

AFTER ALL, I'm being just like Democrats! What a scumbag I must be, eh?

[anti-NAFTA]

20. I hate Nader, but maybe we should think about

whether we really should nominate someone like Kerry who would incite Nader-votes.

[bushwakker]

22. The Nader Raiders want AWOL to win

That way when things get really, really, really, really, really bad the rest of the country will wake up and see that Ralph is the true pathway to freedom. They know they're being used and they love it.

[Meldread]

23. This is a Fallacy! (READ THIS)

The following statement is a fallacy: "If you support Nader, you are working with the Freepers!"

Fallacy: Guilt By Association
Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy

Description of Guilt By Association
Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
2. Therefore P is false

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.

Read more http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html">here. Have a nice day. :)

[Dr Fate]

24. But its true. Distinguish "fallacy" from "reality"

...you gave us a fancy-pants word game about how this is a logical fallacy.

I'm more interested in whether it is a REALITY that Nader will drain votes from DEMS.

Is THAT a fallacy, or a reality???

[Meldread]

25. But that isn't the question.

...or rather the statement made was that if you support Nader then you support/are one of the Freepers. That is false.

Will Nader drain votes from the Democratic Nominee? Possibly. However, he will also drain votes from Bush. He will also draw votes of people who would have otherwise stayed home.

I am inclined to believe that someone who votes for Nader is a registered voter who would have stayed home rather than vote for the Democratic Nominee. Therefore in truth the votes lost are extremely low and inconsequential. You are acting on the premise that someone who would vote for Nader would vote for the Nominee instead had Nader not run, and that is not the case.

I will take myself as an example. I have a 30% chance I'll vote for Kerry. If Kerry does not answer my critical questions (posted here) then I will not vote for him. That vote will likely go to Nader. However, if Nader decided NOT to run I would have written Dean in onto the ticket. So Kerry would have lost my vote either way -- therefore his net gain (from me) would still be zero.

So the answer to your question? The votes Kerry will lose will be small and inconsequential. If you factor in how many Republicans would have voted for Bush and how many Democrats would have voted for Gore in 2000, then factored in how many would have stayed home Gores net gain of votes still wouldn't have changed the outcome. So to put it simply: The answer to your question is no.

[Dr Fate]

26. Vote Democratic in 2004...Bush, or a better man? Simple choice.

Bush, who shares ZERO beliefs with me, or a better man, who shares many of my beliefs. Simple choice for me.