If you favor anther run by Ralph Nader, do us both a favor........

[Stinky The Clown]

... put me on your ignore list.

[NMDemDist2]

1. Amen! K&N n/t

[AndyA]

2. Does anyone really believe Nader stands a chance of winning?

How many times has he run now? He's never even come close.

If a vote for a third party candidate increases the chances of a Republican in the White House in 2009, it's a foolish vote.

[Bucky]

9. I believe Nader won in 2000.

If he was actually running for president, obviously he didn't win. But in 2000 Nader did accomplish exactly the goals he set out to achieve. I call that winning. In fact, it's a catastrophic victory.

[blondeatlast]

12. You have a valid point. nt

[CTD]

14. While I agree that Nader only cares about Nader...

If we have a real nominee, he'd better not fucking get in the race. We cannot have a repeat of 2000.

But if Hillary is "our" nominee, I really couldn't care less what he does. Because he'll actually be correct that there is no difference between the parties. We'll get what we deserve for nominating her.

[corkhead]

3. anybody who hasn't already learned this lesson does not belong here. It is DU afterall...

[Nikki Stone1]

4. I'll say it again: Dancing with the Stars. If Nader really must remain in the public eye, he can

dance with Jerry Springer.

[Beelzebud]

5. If the Dems field a candidate that gives people a reason to vote, Nader won't be a problem.

Don't blame someone else for our own parties failures.

If they can't nominate a candidate that is worth voting for, they don't deserve our votes.

[Bucky]

6. Hey, Stinky didn't say "argue with me." He said "put me on your ignore list."

He's served his country. Can't you ignore this hero's wishes? What sort of monster are you?

:)

[riverdale]

7. Done

[bunkerbuster1]

8. I was gonna say "Move"

but yeah, I'll take some of your action.

[Perky]

25. I would not have been that politically correct. (eom)

[Bucky]

10. Hey, gimme a can of that stuff, Stinky.

If you put Husb2Sparkly on ignore, put me on your list too.

[blondeatlast]

11. Mine too--Bloomberg or Paul, too (I actually saw a post declaring

that the poster is planning to vote for Ron Paul. The post is gone, but the poster remains.)

Thank you for your consideration.

[frylock]

13. ralph nader - the du's clenis

[dmallind]

15. With the slight differences

a)he's a far bigger dick than the clenis

b) he actually caused harm to the country unlike the clenis. In fact I can't recall anyone that has caused much more harm to it. Jefferson Davis perhaps, but close,

[slick8790]

17. He's a far bigger dick for running on a third party?

Nader is NOT a democrat, nor a republican. If he believes he can run the country, then why shouldnt he run?

Whoever said before that it's not nader's fault is right. The people don't owe the Democratic candidate anything. It's his/her job to convince them.

And we forget all the good Nader has done for America:
(from wikipedia)
*"Unsafe at Any Speed" - Nader brings to light purposely unsafe vehicles
* Nader's Raiders (Federal Trade Commission)
* Vanishing Air (National Air Pollution Control Administration)
* The Chemical Feast (Food and Drug Administration)
* The Interstate Commerce Omission (Interstate Commerce Commission)
* Old Age (nursing homes)
* The Water Lords (water pollution)
* Who Runs Congress? (Congress)
* Whistle Blowing (punishment of whistle blowers)
* The Big Boys (corporate executives)
* Collision Course (Federal Aviation Administration)
* No Contest (corporate lawyers)
* Destroy the Forest (Destruction of ecosystems worldwide)
* Operation:Nuclear (Making of a Nuclear Missile)

Nader did not lose florida for gore. Nader didn't change the supreme court decision for the recount.

[petunia.here]

23. it's a terrible obsession thing around here

If you stick around, you'll see.

I'm not a Nader for POUS person or anything but I can't understand how so many people can't see how this is just petty, hateful tripe that does absolutely nothing to further the Democratic/progressive agenda, which I think is why were here. Right?

Whomever said it's DU's clenis is spot on.

Don't bother looking at what the Dems did wrong or could have done better or the fact that the supremes anointed King George or that the Rethugs committed massive election fraud. No, it's the small time third party candidate's fault. Amazingly obtuse, to say the least.

God forbid we self reflect a little as a party.

"It's Nader's fault, Nader's fault, Nader's fault!" *stomps feet, runs off to room to pout*

[slick8790]

27. Agreed,

I'm not a Nader fan by any means. He has some alright policies, and I greatly admire the work he's done that I listed in my previous post. I think it's just healthy to have more than 2 parties running at the same time, so people aren't voting against one by voting for the other. more competition would force these parties to stop pandering to everyone and really try and find a message that resonates with the american people if they want to win.

But this is 2007, who am I kidding? :eyes:

[dmallind]

29. Bullshit rationalization

If Nader had not gone on his vain Republican-funded ego trip and had not convinced 95,000 utter gullible morons in Florida (and hundreds of thousands elsewhere, but FL is the relevant one) that there was no difference between Gore and Bush, then the Supreme Court would a) have never gotten involved and b) be short two reactionary theocratic wackjobs.


Thanks Ralph. Thanks idiot sheep Ralphies. I blame the latter FAR more than Ralph himself. All he did wring was let vanity overcome common sense. The idiots who voted for him in swing states knew what the potential outcome was and still did their silly little Tweedle Dum Tweedle Dee no difference singsong prattling.

Answer me one question anyone who wants to defend these foos. NOW do you see the fucking difference between Gore and Bush?. Those of us who saw it at the time would at least have some sympthy if you'd answer that one honestly. It would grate a little less at least if the morons who fell for it at least admitted they were flat out, unquestionably, 100% proven in blood and poverty and eroding rights WRONG, but instead we see the fucking clueless Ralphies actually, in seriousness yet, talking about doing it AGAIN!

[slick8790]

35. This is so infuriating.

I NEVER SAID I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR NADER. Yes, I could see the difference between gore and bush. But you can't blame them for the loss of the election. that blame lies on (in order) the supreme court, katherine harris, and al gore.

[dmallind]

37. Yes it fucking is

That anyone intelligent enough to type does not place the blame first and foremost on the guy who siphoned off on a vain ego trip 180 times the votes needed to keep Bush out of office IS so infuriating I agree.

You can point at ANYTHING else and say "this may have affected the election" and you may even have some percentage of a valid point but we KNOW what actually DID tip the election and it was fucking moronic Nader voters. You can rationalize and pretend all you wnat but the facts remain. It came down to Florida. 95000 idiots voted for a vanity candidate rather than for what mattered. Bush became president because of, and ONLY because of this.

Anyone considering doing it again is either insane or stupid or traitorous. There is no other option.

[ProfessorGAC]

31. You Do Know. . .

. . .that at least three studies were done after the fact to establish that "unsafe..." was flawed and that the Corvair was no less safe than any other car of comparable weight? Right?

Now, that's not to say that i'm not glad that cars have become safer to drive, but the ends don't justify the means. He was wrong in that book.
GAC

[frylock]

18. get a grip..

place your blame where it should be placed; the Supreme Court and Kathlene Harris for starters. Hell, what did Gore do to help his cause? Ask the CBC.

[dmallind]

32. What if yadda yadda. We don;t NEED what if's. We KNOW.

What if Kerry hadn't taken a month off when the Swiftboat shit started?

What if he hadn't worn the fucking condom suit or tried to get the gunowner vote by being photographed in obviously brand new gear and breaking one of the 4 cardinal rules of gun safety?

What if Gore had let Clinton campaign for him?

Wht if he'd attacked back when crap about his "lies" started circulating?

What if Bob Shrum had not been born?


We can play what if till the cows come home but I deal in facts, and the facts are plain. The 2000 election came down to Florida. Gore campaigned hard in Florida. He came within a few hundred votes even in the rigged count. Another cabndidate whose supporters would have been FAR more likely to vote for Gore over Bush convinced idiots to the amount of about 180 TIMES the margin of "victory" for Bush to vote for him - a throwaway candidate with absolutely zero % chance of winning or enacting any of the policies they liked him for.

They steadfastly refused all offers to trade votes with Dems in safe states one way or the other so that the Greens would maintain national party status - the only tangible or even vaguely realistic possible good that could have come from his run - while not tipping the balance to someone who all but the most idiotic of the idiotic knew would be FAR worse than Gore for anything the Greens saw as important. No, purity and "conscience" were more important than actual progress on the environment or social justice.

If only those who puffed up their little chests about "conscience" voting actually had one, there would be no talk anywhere about doing it again.

Heck run a Green candidate - even Ralph - here in a safe Republican stste, and in safe Dem states to do the vain exercise in Democracy "anyone who wants to run can" demo and to try to keep major party status. I'll even vote for him if there is a cast iron guarantee that FL and OH and PA etc are left the hell alone.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. How Bout They Just Get Banned Instead. n/t

[MadHound]

19. Hmm, banning people who uphold the Constitutional right that allows Nader to run for office

Mighty un-democratic of you.

I've never voted for Nader, though I do agree with many opinions that he voices. I won't be voting for Nader in '08 because I think that his time has passed and he is no longer effective for many reasons. However I do support his, and any other person's right to run for any office they are qualified for. That's the beauty of democracy, and it is so sad to see that so many people here are intolerant of this basic Constitutional right.

If you feel that the Democratic party is somehow threatened by Nader or other independents then perhaps it is time that the party changed in order to better address the needs and wants of the people supporting these third parties.

[Beelzebud]

20. Some people like our 2 party system. It keeps things nice and simple.

With 2 parties you can have "right or wrong", "good or evil", "lesser of the two evils".

With more than that you have to actually pay attention to the issues.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. ...

:boring:

[Balbus]

22. This isn't "Democracy" Underground, it's...

Well, you know what it is. I just wanted to be the one to say it before the obligatory 900 other asshats who make a habit of saying it jump on your post.

[dmallind]

33. Trying to shift the argument again

I for one have no argument about Nader's RIGHT to run. I Just think it's a disaster if he does and anyone outside absolutely lock 15% margin of victory safe states who votes for him or any fringe candidate is either a drooling imbecile or someone who would rather see the country continue the cesspool direction it's on than use the common sense nature gave a duck and see that the greatest benefit comes from voting for the viable candidate who will do least harm.

[MadHound]

34. Yes, you're correct, you're trying to shift the arguement again,

But that's OK, I'll shift with you.

I'm happy to see that you don't contest Nader's right to run. But frankly I find this fixation on Nader by the Democratic party a bit disingenous. Rather than looking at why Nader runs,figuring out what vacumn Nader fills, and changing to meet that need, the Democratic party continues to swing to the right, demonizing those who dare to want more, and punching the strawman of Nader. That is a disservice to the party and an insult to those who want real change in their government and their country. Have you ever thought that people are getting tired of "voting for the viable candidate who will do least harm?" Sick of the lesser of two evils? That the American public wants somebody that they can vote for, rather than always having to vote against? If the Democratic party will give people more to vote for instead of simply setting itself up as the slighty less worse option, they wouldn't need to worry about elections ever again.

This is the meaning of the Nader vote, and the Dems would do well to heed it, otherwise a third party will rise up to fill that vacumn. It has happened before in this country and will happen again.

[dmallind]

36. More sanctimonious twaddle

What vacuum does Nader fill? The fucking 1-2% of gullible morons who see no differenec between Gore and Bush or Clinton and Romney. The sad fact is that in the electorate of today largely made up of either idiots or misinformed purist traitors, that 1-2% is enough to leave the path open to electing the likes of the idiot boy king. Once I can forgive (just) but pretending that it's even vaguely sane to do so again meqans you are at best a Vichy-style traitor and at worst a fucking room temperature IQ idiot.

[Richard Steele]

30. Damn right. nm

[librechik]

24. there was one of "those" threads here yesterday

and I thought Oh, Gee is it that time of year already? The threads are turning into a battle between the green and the blue, turning the threads RED with Flames!

[Louie the XIV]

26. Well Said

[TwilightGardener]

28. A-freakin'-men!

Nader stands for nothing besides disrupting the political process to gratify his own id--kind of like when my boys were toddlers, and my older son would jealously interrupt any display of affection toward his little brother. Look at ME! Love ME! I'M IMPORTANT! That he has ANY followers is beyond me.