Just saw a car plastered with NADER 2004 stickers...

Yup. Driving around on a lovely Saturday afternoon, plastered with Nader 2004 stickers.

Is it wrong to want to run a fellow "liberal" off the road?

How can this person sleep at night?

:bounce: :mad: :bounce: :mad: :bounce:


I have a neighbor who still has a giant sign in her yard from 2000 that says Don't Blame Me I Voted for Nader!

Is it wrong to want to light that sign on fire?

:bounce: :mad: :bounce: :mad: :bounce:


At long last, have they no decency at all?

And I don't care how you slice it.

But 2004???

Come on now. There's no excuse for that crap.

If the Democrats won't nominate a candidate that a voter feels comfortable with, they SHOULD make another choice. There's no excuse not to vote your conscience, imo.

There is also no excuse for anyone championing the right to vote to judge someone else's choice. The better path would be to wonder what the Democratic Party can do to draw the disenfranchised back into the fold.

Just my opinion, of course.

people here don't like to take responsibility for the last two Democratic losses. Nominating moderates is the only way to win, despite recent evidence to the contrary, and everything can be blamed on Nader. Forget the Gore strategy that ignored most states in the nation, including Tennessee, which would have made Florida unnecessary.

If those votes had gone to Gore our world would be a different place today.

And what the hell would lead someone to do it a second time in 2004?

Ralph did, including over 3000 from the heavily Jewish (can't remember the name) district. Face it, Nader is your straw man and you don't have a real argument. Donna Brazile, and the other incompetent 'handlers' that Gore picked, cost him the election and cost us our future. So instead of continually trying to blame Nader for what they did, how about working to ensure that it doesn't happen again?

and aren't half of American adults not even registered to vote? I mean, if 1000 of each of them voter for Gore or Kerry... Or if 1000 bush bots had voted for Gore . Kerry...

well...you just go on believing that. Nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise.:eyes:

It's just that that was the number used when all of the counting was stopped and the Supreme Court declared Bush the winner. If Nadar hadn't been in the race, maybe Gore would have actually been ahead in all of the preliminary vote tallies and the whole recount fiasco could have been eliminated.

I happen to believe Gore won Florida--if you're interested. The Bush cabal never wanted this fact to get out. They fought tooth and nail to keep the perception that Bush was ahead in front of the American people.

Quit playing with semantics and get real.

x(

:)

he funnneled sufficient votes from Gore such that Bush won those states. Gore would have only needed New Hamphire to win.

Was Nader the only factor for the close race? No, but subtracting the Nader factor from everything else would have just nudged Gore over the top.

Nader was of course not a factor in Kerry's loss, but it likely helped him win Hew Hampshire, and it certainly was a factor for increasing the victory margins in states like Oregon in comparison to those in 2000.

"increasing the victory"?????? "A little pregnant"????

There were so many issues contributing to 2000... and it sounds like you know them all too.

(but to say a couple, it seems a lacklusture campaign combined with questionable activity in Florida seems more important than a bloke who couldn't get 5% of the vote. In our LCD society, it's better to aim for the masses' common interests - or the lowest common denominator in order to pull in the biggest profits. Or, in this case, the most number of votes. Nader was a mosquito, and even more a stolid robot than Gore and Bush combined.)

:pals:

Complex events don't have just one cause.

Nader is a non-issue. Honestly, it'd just have been rigged differently.

They are liberal-minded, ostensibly intellligent people who voted against the best interest of the country on purpose. And I still have no idea what selfish and short-sighted desires led them to make that decision.

Obviously, they weren't convinced to vote for the D candidate, and voted otherwise. While I agree that it's a tough pill to swallow as to the 2004 show, already knowing how bad it was, but it's as true then as it was in 2000.

They placed their principles over the security of the country by allowing for one less vote against Bush. They knew full well that there was no chance for Nader to do anything beyond split the liberal vote, yet they chose to make a statement rather than ensure the national security of our country by at least attempting to oust Bush.

I am more lenient in my thinking towards 2000, because we didn't necessarily know how evil he was. But there's very little excuse for anyone who chose to vote for him in 2004.

Whether they would have still been able to steal the election without Nader's help is beside the point.
Why was Nader working to put (and keep) Bush in the White House in the first place.

Sounds more like a perception.

My point is that people voted how they chose. If the dems lost a lot of votes to a third party, then I'd ask why specifically they did so, and then how specifically can the dem party see that it doesn't happen again.

>>>When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush.">>>>

Look at what the dems have done to oppose bush. If the dems don't win in 2006, we should all jump to an opposistion party.

Bush is the anti-progressive. The dems are less anti-progressive. Nader is the progressive.

:shrug:

Nader voters were never voting for Bush, and there was zero chance in hell that he would win. So, all I can conclude is that they were making some sort of lame statement by voting against Kerry.

Whatever affection I have for the notion that Nader blew FL in 2K, it does not assume Nader voters were never voting for Bush.

I'd have a "zero chance in hell" of assuming that.

Vote for who you want to vote for? My god, what has this nation come to?!

Don't get me wrong, I'm one of the biggest anti-Nader people on the board, but I will say that their influence is waning. I do get upset that they try to influence others to do the same though, and waste our time here by getting us to argue with their illogical premises.

When I'm debating them, after a while it becomes less about convincing them (because they pretty much like to watch us blow up over them) and more about showing other people what will happen to them should they turn to that side.

I find that it's more productive to not give them the attention they are looking for, but don't think it doesn't cross my mind to ask them just what the fuck they are thinking.

And what's with the picture of the opposite side of the * coin as an avatar?
(Another trust fund boy with no discernible talent that has everything handed to him, and proclaims his right to tell others how best to live their lives. TPIAW "Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple" - Barry Switzer)

Or are you dissing Rob Reiner. I agree that his best moviemaking days may be behind him, but he still contributes a shitload to liberal causes.

You going after Ed Asner next?

and has had much success for exactly the same reason, his dad. Of course Carl Reiner is truly a genius whereas 41 is just another link in the chain of fascism.
And I like Ed Asner, he's frequntly wrong but doesn't pretend to be anything he's not and he is a good actor.

unthinkable for The Party to have simply adopted his most popular plank (really his whole platform) of ending corporate welfare and make him a non-factor?
I saw him speak at some church on wilshire in 2000 and I asked him if the Democrats did this would he drop out and he told me "yes", no equivocation or weaseling, just stop stealing money from the poor to give to the super-rich and he's gone. I don't believe I'm the only person to ask this, and I'm sure some of those others came from the Democratic Party, so what gives?

Never have and never will.

Nader likes the attention he gets by playing spoiler. The stakes are way to high to afford him the pleasure of distracting liberals from unifying.

He's a charlatan and an attention whore.

non-responsive.

I think Nader is an attention whore who sold out his principles for the spotlight long ago. I think he relishes the position of spoiler, and while I also believe that it would be nice to have more than a two party system, I don't think that this is the right time in history to fuck around with splitting the liberals.

We are dealing with perhaps the most devious and evil regime to ever rule this land, and if Nader had any conscience he would get that he is actually hurting the chances of getting rid of them every time he steps into the ring.

I don't trust him, I resent him, and I resent every short-sighted individual that chose to vote their priciples over the security of our country.

How's that for concrete?

Voting your principles is wrong because the other guy might win? Don't you see how dangerous that is? Would you be happy to vote for another shrubCo if he/she was a Democrat?
A left wing totalitarian government is just as bad as what we have, maybe worse because they would hide their true nature (after reading this maybe we already have one in place ready to go).

And you haven't addressed the original question, all the Dems had to do was promise to end corporate welfare and Nader would have dropped out, and even if he reneged, he would have become a total non-factor. So why won't they? Even today, with all the incredible looting that the corps have done, the Democratic Party won't even talk about ending corporate welfare. Why?

BTW just so you know I voted for Nader in 2000, but I lived in LA so it didn't make any difference, and I voted for Kerry in 2004.

All the gnashing of teeth, blame-shifting, and weaseling doesn't hold a candle to the policiy issues.

to wrestle with, yet not one peep out of them.

For Greens, I reach out across the aisle to shake their hands and pull them aboard.



For the GOP, I reach out across the aisle to slap them upside the head.

Nader are maddeningly close to logical, but there's just a missing screw that keeps them from doing the right thing.

Maddeningly frustrating.

PLEASE!

Read the GAO report, read Mr. Conyers' report, read Mark Crispin Miller's book.

Stop blaming Nader because it won't get you anywhere. Besides the fact that your neighbors have the right to vote as they see fit, you seem to know nada about our federal elections.

OUR ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED. And if you don't know that, you need to learn it NOW. NOW.

Blame Nader? That's just nuts.

Blame the machine that stopped thousands of democrats from voting in FL, in OH, in NM, in so many states.

Follow the evidence, and for God's sake, STOP BLAMING NADER because our elections hang in the balance and NADER has NOTHING to do with this.

You want to elect a Democrat? Get off your ass, get busy. The Thugs are rigging our elections as I type.

What are you going to do about it?

.....want a major flame war. Haven't you figured out yet that Nader with his rethug contributions is god around here.:wtf: At DU it doesn't matter that with Nader's votes Gore would be setting in the WH right now.:sarcasm:


edited for spelling check

OUR FREAKING CORRUPTED ELECTIONS.

HELL0! MCFLY!

different day

but when I volunteered to campaign for kerry, I met a lot of people who hated *, but who weren't fond of Kerry. My argument was, if you don't vote for kerry, you are basically voting for *. I understand that not everyone is going to be in absolute love with the Democratic nominee the way I was, but there is a strategy to voting sometimes. You have to look at the overall picture. In the case of * and his murderous dominions, this was the time to be very strategic with your votes. I always wondered if enough of these people had held their nose and voted for kerry, if the difference in % of the vote would have been too great for the rethugs to change the outcome.

Like I said, this was just a thought I've had since I started going to swing states during the election.

.....wisdom in your words but, unfortunately, it won't happen.:shrug: I'm not sure if some people find pleasure in throwing a vote away on someone that can't possibly win or whether they are doing it for spite.:puke: Either way, the result is the same - every split vote on the left is actually a vote for the right.:freak:

with the Wastikas we should be more angry about. luckily absolutely no Nader 04' BSs in this neck of the woods.

and i think we can say there IS a difference between Gore and Bush.
hope nader is run over by a pinto.

 

Btw, Nader was not on my PAPER ballot in 2004.

:shrug:

Eh?

YOU have no decency at all...you make me sick!!!

Oh, nevermind.

being offended by people exercising their democratic rights and voting for Nader (or whomever).

If it wasn't for Nader none of this would have happened. What a stroke of luck for the Bushies.:banghead:

I assume that since I am on Democratic Underground that the goal is to elect Dems, right? So, I shouldn't resent some bastard who chose to vote for his lala-land fantasy of Nader over the concrete notion of ousting Bush for the safety of the country?

Sorry, not gonna happen. Just the idea of it pisses me off. It's incredibly selfish, and I can't see how it could possibly be justified.

can be justified? Wow, those are some "democratic" values there.

No one needs to justify their vote to you.

Do you really believe that stealing the 200 election depended on Nader votes? I'll let you ponder that.

On the question of "resent some bastard who chose to vote for his lala-land fantasy of Nader over the concrete notion of ousting Bush..." I'll let that comment stand on its own and let you evaluate what it means to be a progressive thinking person.

As far as your being pissed off, there's really only one person that's having an effect on.

I KNEW Bush winning the state I was living in during the 00 election was a foregone conclusion (KS--a state that Bush won by 30 points without even setting foot in it during the campaign trail)...

The way the electoral college is set up, please tell me how things would be different had I voted for Gore?

FWIW I voted Kerry in 04--I was living in RI at the time.

establishment's head.