Ralph Nader is a war criminal more aggresive than George Bush.

[Stuart G]

Nader has never taken any responsibility for anything that happened in the year 2000. Most people who do things that
are wrong, at least admit some responsibility. Nader never has, neither has Bush or Romney. But in a way, Nader is worse because of his reputation for doing good in other areas of life. So, he used that reputation to promote evil, and in the end created more
evil than anyone could have imagined. Using that reputation for good to promote evil is why he is what he is.

[still_one]

1. Ralph only cares for Ralph. /nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. What war crimes has he committed?

He has never really been in charge of much, and never military people.

Is running for office now a war crime?

He has played the role of a spoiler recently but is that a war crime?

He is egotistical. Is that now a war crime?


War crimes is a very serious allegation and should not be made frivolously. Citations if you have any.

[Sherman A1]

63. Agreed

Calling him a war criminal reaches rather high on the silly factor.

[cprise]

104. I alert-ed this thread

Crazy-talk and hate speech:

"Post is saying Ralph Nader is a war criminal for running against a Democrat. It implies any candidate other than a Democrat is evil because they might 'cause' a person like GW Bush to get elected."

[joeybee12]

3. What happened in 2000 is Bush stole the election...SCOTUS let him do it...

And Dems were too spineless to fight it.

Unrec

[bluestate10]

13. The election would not have been in doubt for the SC to steal, save the 97k Nader votes in Florida.

I want to see one 2000 Nader voter say that he or she fucked up and took the country with them.

[joeybee12]

17. I didn't vote for Nader, so I'm not the one to say it...

Besides, it was Bush and SCOTUS that stole...Gore got more votes than Bush...not Nader's fault. Why don't you blame Broward Country where those 15,000 votes went to pat Buchanan because the optical screen did not take into account elderly eyes?

[Luminous Animal]

23. The election would have not been in doubt if 300,000 Democratic Floridians had not voted for Bush.

[bluestate10]

68. Yep, got a quote right from Ralph. FRN. nt

[robinlynne]

55. bullshit. The election was never "in doubt!" gore won. Every way it was counted. And it was

counted using several different methods.

[Sherman A1]

65. That is the same Gore who won his home state?

or perhaps he did not?

[bluestate10]

73. No, that is the same President Gore.

That prevented 9/11 by listening to briefing reports. That was the same President Gore who realized that Saddam was about to fall fucking dead and didn't start a costly, human being wasting war. We should wish for a President like that President Gore to come along again. That was the same President Gore that won his first term because a bunch of fucking idiots didn't waste their votes.

[Samantha]

96. Well, we will never know, will we since 3 of the 21 instances of election irregularity the DOJ

decided to investigate happened in Tennessee. It was ALWAYS Karl Rove's intention to make sure Tennessee went Republican because he was determined to embarrass Gore.

Several of the problems were publicly exposed, but while many of those were obviously in Florida, Tennessee was plagued with exactly the same type of criminality. That was not a coincidence.

Sam

[bluestate10]

69. Gore won.

And President Gore stood there on January 21, 2009 as Barack Obama was sworn in. Shit, I missed that!

[robinlynne]

81. Did you miss the supreme court? And the vote count done later by the U of chicago?

[dflprincess]

72. Assuming, of course, that some of those 97K wouldn't have voted for Bush

and that they would have shown up at all if their only choice had been Bush or Gore.

In the long run, it was the Democrats refusal to fight that caused the problem and led to the Republicans blatantly stealing Ohio in 2004 - and again the Democrats rolled over.

[Luminous Animal]

26. And, unfortunately, people have wasted the last 12 years dreaming of fucking Nader.

Meanwhile, the infrastructure to steal any election has become more sophisticated and entrenched in our system. We still have black box voting, we still have illegal caging, and the voter ID movement that will disproportionately throw Democrats off the voting rolls is in full swing.

[joeybee12]

31. They need to get over Nader and focus on what you mention...

Nader is simply an easy punching bag...he wasn't in 2004 in Ohio and that was stolen, too.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

118. Nader has been irrelevant for 12 years, but he makes a convenient excuse

for the Democrats' inaction on voter suppression, dubious counting procedures, and crooked voting machines, as well as for Gore's timid campaign and the Dems' failure to support the Congressional Black Caucus when they protested voter suppression.

Furthermore, I'm old enough to recall that Gore was a founding member of the DLC and supported nearly everything Reagan did in the 1980s, including the Contra War in Nicaragua. With his vague, bland campaign, who really knows what he would have done? I canNOT state with certainty that he would not have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

I do not hold to the view that all would have been sunshine, lollipops and roses if Gore had won. I have felt this way about all Democratic candidates since Clinton: the country is like a car headed for the edge of a cliff of militarism, concentration of wealth, and environmental degradation. The Republicans want to head for the cliff at 60mph, while the Democrats want to slow it down to 30mph, which is better than 60mph, but which is still far worse than veering away from the cliff entirely.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Utter nonsense.

[Stuart G]

8. You think what you think..

I believe that he put George Bush in. What surprises me the most, having followed him since he wrote "Unsafe at Any Speed" in the 70s, is his failure to accept any responsibility at all for Bush's election. That 60,000 votes made quite a difference in Florida. That failure to accept responsibility in any way..yes in any way, is why I think he is so bad. Even Bush accepts responsibility for Iraq although he lies about why. Ralph did no wrong and if you listen to him, the Democrats should have won without that 60,000 that he got.

[Luminous Animal]

21. 300,000 Democratic Floridians voted for Bush. Perhaps you should save a bit of that vitriol for

members of the Democratic Party.

[frylock]

50. there is never, ever a response to this when it's posted..

all you'll get is la-la-la-la i can't hear you.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. Still not war crimes, not matter how you spin it

[cherokeeprogressive]

45. Please explain how you think you can spin this into a war crime. n/t

[robinlynne]

56. no it did not make any difference. Gore won by a large margin anyway.

[bluestate10]

24. Really? Nader's words quoted and my arithmetic.

From Wikipedia

In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."[20] (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.) When asked about claims of being a spoiler, Nader typically points to the controversial Supreme Court ruling that halted a Florida recount, Gore's loss in his home state of Tennessee, and the "quarter million Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida.

Now for my arithmetic. Bush won by 537 votes. If the 25% Nader votes had gone to Bush and the 38% Nader votes had gone to Gore, Gore would have won by over 12,000 votes, making US Supreme Court involvement moot . Nader covered his ass more by blaming democrats for voting for Bush. Real fucking classy Ralph.

Fuck Ralph Nader.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Then Gore should have sought out the votes of the left that he didn't appeal to.

[Bonobo]

71. Gore picked Lieberman, the ABSOLUTELY WORST human being among the Dems...

What the fuck was that? Has anyone from Gore's people ever addressed THAT?

Does the candidate himself deserve any blame for that?

It was a clear FU to all Progressives and it cost him my vote.

I don't think a worse choice was possible. It may have cost him the election.

Gore and Lieberman deserve lots more blame than Nader.

[zappaman]

123. All true

Not to mention distancing himself from Clinton and all the good work he did.
One of the worst run campaigns ever...until Romney.
Oh, and fuck Joe Leiberman!
I never pass up a chance to say that.

[bluestate10]

75. The demand for the perfect.

Gives us a George W Bush.

[Bonobo]

89. Who demanded perfection?

Your opinion is that Nader was perfect?

Or that people voted for him because THEY thought he was "perfect"?

I don't think your really mean that...

Why don't you think about what you really mean to say and try saying that?

[Arctic Dave]

5. The frenzy of Derp has reached critical mass.

How will you blame him if Obama loses?

[Indydem]

7. THIS

Derp derp.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. I think it was a mistake for people to support Nader 2000 - that is hardly being a war criminal

If Eugene Debs and the Socialist Party had never run for President more Democrats would have won office. But there would have never been a New Deal or a Great Society. I don't think that at this juncture the Greens are in a position to play the role that socialist, anarchist and communist played during the early part of the 20the Century. But I can see how many of them could think that they do have that capacity. Especially when the Democrats for the last few decades have essentially taken over the role of the moderate wing of the traditional Republican Party and a progressive agenda simply is not available in any major party on the national level. I would still support the Democrats because the alternative is worse. But it would be intellectually dishonest not to be able to conceive how someone might see things differently.

[Stuart G]

14. Not the same as Debs..looks the same, sounds the same...not the same..

Why? Nader was so egotistical that he did not see any danger in what he did. Of course not, just ask him. I think, although I do not know, and I am saying this here, that some of his funding came from Bush. Who knows?
...I have noticed around the country, occasional thrid party funding that excludes the chance that a demorat can win. in 2010, Terril Clark really had no chance to win against Bachmann because there were legitimate candidates in addition to her. This time against
Graves, there are no other candidates. He has a chance...

...In Illinois, Governor Quinn, in 2010, won by 20,000 votes against a teabagger asshole. An independent candidate, funded from who knows where..got 3 percent of the vote. My guess is that that third party goon was funded by pukes..can I prove it? No. That strategy worked with Nader, and worked elsewhere. Nader it seems doesn't have a clue..Just like Romney..It is not the same as Debs in the 30s.. At least in my opinion.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. no he is not the same as Debs and the historic conditions are not the same. but that does not make

him a war criminal. That is a stretch to put it mildly.

[GoneOffShore]

9. Teh stoopid is strong here. Derp!

[ArcticFox]

10. What's with all the attacks on Nader lately?

As far as I'm concerned, anybody meeting the Constitutional requirements can run for President, without apology.

Get a life, man.

[MuseRider]

16. This!

That and if you can't get enough votes to win (and Gore did) then that is your problem.

[TDale313]

33. +1 n/t

[Scootaloo]

11. Wow. That's some high-quality nonsense

You could grow tomatoes in this bullshit.

[bluestate10]

12. Nader is an anal retentive asshole. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Which is why Karl Rove held the money strings on his 2004 presidential run. He's a phony and a sham.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/GOP-donors-funding-Nader-Bush-supporters-give-2708705.php

[Luminous Animal]

20. Republican Contributions: $10.7 Million for Kerry vs. $111,700 for Nader

Kerry should have returned those donations. What do you think?


Today, the Independent presidential campaign of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo released the preliminary findings of research conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics. The findings demonstrate that Senator John Kerry has thousands of contributors who have supported the Republican Party. Kerry has more than ten million dollars donated by Republican donors.

....

But the reality was only 700 Republican contributions (no individuals, but individual contributions) had given donations to the Nader campaign and most of the contributors were people Nader had worked with on justice issues in the past. Even among these 700 the Democrats received more money than Nader-Camejo — $111,700 to $146,000. But, the Democrats continue to use the Big Lie ­ despite the facts.

....

Preliminary CRP results: 50,000 contributions who have given to President Bush or the Republicans have given $10,697,198 in large contributions to Kerry. This means 100 times more Republican money has been contributed to the Democrats campaign than to the Nader-Camejo campaign. That amount is five times the entire budget of the Nader Presidential campaign![/div]


http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/10/19/republican-contributions-10-7-million-for-kerry-vs-111-700-for-nader/

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Bogus argument. When Republicans gave money to Kerry, they were trying to put Kerry, a DEMOCRAT, in

the White House.

When Republicans gave money to Nader, they were trying to put BUSH back in the White House.

Surely you can comprehend such a simple, obvious proposition.

And Nader knew that, and as such he was a PAID REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE.

Pure and simple. And frankly, the 12 year pathetic defense of his bullshit on DEMOCRATIC Underground is way past its expiration date.

[Luminous Animal]

27. Really. Then why did many of them also donate to a REPUBLICAN in the same elections cycle?

[Warren DeMontague]

28. We are talking about the Presidential race. Do you understand that Nader was actively,

Knowingly and deliberately assisting Bush's reelection effort? Taking donations to do so?

Is the argument that Nader is too stupid to figure it out? Because these are the only options: either he is a blithering fucking idiot, or he knew he was being paid to give Bush four more years.

That is UNCONSCIONABLE and INEXCUSABLE. He and his moronic fucking supporters should just fuckng apologize already. They were WRONG and they owe this nation a giant fucking apology.

Not that we'll get one.

[frylock]

52. answer the fucking question

[bluestate10]

79. Read my fucking answer to the fucking question. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Excuse me?

[frylock]

121. did i stutter?

why is it a-ok for dems to take money from republicans, but ol ralph nader can't? please do explain the justification for your double standard.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. I explained it. Republicans contributing to Kerry wanted to put KERRY in the White House

[font size=4]Republicans contributing to Nader wanted to put BUSH back in the White House.
[/font]
It's not a real complicated concept. I'm relatively sure you can figure it out.

Beyond that, if you want to order me to "answer the fucking question" because I'm insufficiently in awe of Ralph Nader and his bullshit sell-out act, his bloated ego, and his goober fucking followers, well, good luck with that line on Democratic Underground. Am I gonna not give two shits about your tantrum? You Better Believe It!

PS, 4 More Years!

[Bonobo]

74. Nope, I will never apologize for voting with my conscience.

I will never give my vote to someone who sponsors wars or threatens to.

I will also withhold my money and support from a country that does the same.

Anything else would be immoral.

[bluestate10]

78. Really?

Then explain the two deadly and costly wars that George Bush started because you voted as you did. Claiming the moral high ground can be a slippery slope.

[Bonobo]

84. George Bush did not start wars because of how I voted.

I was in Massachusetts, but even if I had been in Florida and had voted for Nader, I think it is dishonest to blame people for voting their conscience.

If everyone had voted for Nader instead of splitting the vote by voting for Gore/Lieberman, Bush would not have been able to steal the election.

See how easy it is to turn it around?

Gore was to blame for bringing in a war-mongering bastard as his choice. It was a clear signal that war would surely follow in his admin as well. He is to blame and voting for moral high ground is in no way a slippery slope.

Do you want to know what a REAL SLIPPERY SLOPE is as opposed to the bullshit one?

A REAL SLIPPERY SLOPE is forgiving immoral acts because they are carried out by your side. By being so adrift that you would condemn the same action if done by the opposing party and then overlook it if done by your side.

THAT...is a slippery slope.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Ralph Nader was working for the GOP in 2004.

Sorry if you've been had.

[Bonobo]

90. No, I don't think that's true.

In fact, it is a ridiculous assertion that you make solely because he received some money from the right wing.

If that is the sole condition needed for being determined to be "working for the GOP", we would have to declare that everyone is "working for the GOP".

[Warren DeMontague]

93. He knew what he was doing, and he had plenty of opportunity to change course.

I remember Michael Moore getting on his knees and begging him to drop out of the race. He didn't.

I don't know what his fucking problem is. I used to respect the guy, I really did.

[Bonobo]

98. Yeah, but that doesn't mean he was working for the GOP as you said, Warren.

If your respected him once, it is still possible that he is right. Maybe not, maybe yes.

The question is really "how late is it?". How close are we to the edge, to a ruin so complete that half-measures and compromises with corporate greed-mongers and environment destroyers is no longer acceptable?

Sometimes you have to do crazy shit to wake people up -especially if the bed is on fire.

But "working for the GOP"...? You don't believe it either. It is just hyperbole and I think you're too smart for it.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. In 2000, I could accept that he was just misguided.

However, by 2004 he was not just openly taking money from Republicans who were saying "this is to help Bush win", he was even letting Right-Wing Republicans manage some of his state campaign organizations.

Maybe he's just a combination of deluded and egotistical, instead of a craven sell-out. I don't know. Still, the guy has lost my respect, for good.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0720-15.htm

it's no surprise that pro-Bush forces have rushed to Nader's side. What is a surprise is the brazenness of their support. And, how readily Nader has accepted the right-wing help.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/us/campaign-2004-independent-republicans-help-push-nader-close-spot-michigan-ballot.html

With the apparent assistance of the state Republican Party, Ralph Nader appears likely to secure a spot on the Michigan presidential ballot. But Democrats are calling for him to withdraw and are threatening to file a complaint against the Republicans, charging that they contributed illegally to the Nader campaign.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0714-11.htm

Congressional Black Caucus: “We were particularly offended by Nader’s exhibitionism, his selfishness and egotism", Nader is an "egotistical maniac"

Howard Dean to Ralph Nader on his alliance with the "Oregon Family Council": "The Oregon Family Council, which is virulently anti-gay, right-wing group, called up all their folks to sign your petition. I don’t think that’s the way to change the party. I agree with much of what you say, but the way to change the country is not to do it with any means to the end, the way to change the country is not to get in bed with right-wing, anti-gay groups to get you on the ballot. That can’t work. I think there’s a big difference between the Democrats and the Republicans."

[bluestate10]

77. Simple. McCain, when he still had full morals ran against Bush

in primaries. Other republican insurgents ran during primaries. People that gave McCain, circa 2004, and other insurgent republicans money could have sent that money to Kerry once Bush took the nomination.

[sabrina 1]

106. No, they were merely hedging their bets. They were working hard to get the Republican

elected, but just in case they failed, they wanted to be sure they had paid for a little influence. Which is Way worse than throwing a few dollars to Nader. Buying influence is the poison that has destroyed our political system.

Nader did nothing wrong, this OP is probably one of the most ridiculous (and embarrassing for DU) OPs I've ever seen on DU.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Nader is an ass who sacrificed his moral authority to feed his ego.

Nothing will change that, but the good news is, the Democratic Party survived- and we have a well-supported Democratic President who has the enthusiastic support of Democratic Underground going into this very important election.

And Ralph Nader is nothing but a lame footnote to a crappy era that is in the past.

[sabrina 1]

111. It must be hard to have to deal with this much anger. I can't relate to it at all, especially

when it is such misguided anger.

The interesting thing is your lack of anger at the five Republicans who committed an act of treason and stole an election from the Democrat. I always wonder about those who have no anger for those Republicans but who are consumed with anger for a man who had nothing to do with the theft of that election. I have some theories though.

Gore won the 2000, making it impossible for Nader to have had anything to do with the loss, he WON. THEN that victory was stolen by five Republican Felons on the SC.

No matter how many times you and the other few people in this country try to distract from that fact, it simply won't work.

I would try to be less angry at the one who had nothing to do with the crime, and try to conjure up some anger for those Republicans.

[Warren DeMontague]

115. I'm angry at everyone responsible. I'm angry at the SCOTUS. I'm angry at the media. I'm even angry

at Gore, for running such a lame campaign and picking Joe Lieberman.

So where the fuck do you get that I have "no Anger"? Yeah, I spent the Bush years not arguing against, or angry at, the Republicans. Right.

(And on that note, let's hear about your "theories", shall we?)

But the denial on the part of the erstwhile Nader defenders, to pretend against all evidence that, unlike the SCOTUS, unlike Jeb Bush, unlike everyone else, Nader was somehow pristine and blameless and even admirable- when it's clear that if he had done the right thing and gotten the fuck out of the race the theft of Florida would have been numerically impossible;



like I said, it's sad. But then, clarity of thought was never a hallmark of the Nader crowd, now dwindling and even more out of touch than they were 12 years ago... Really, most of America doesn't give half a shit about Ralph Nader, a few pompous navel-gazers' delusions to the contrary.

[Blue_In_AK]

19. Blah, blah, blah

[MerryBlooms]

25. This may be the strangest, post I've read on DU... but I think I get what you're saying.

Is it kind of-
"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48 ?

[obamanut2012]

29. Nader did not cause Bush to become President

Both the USSC and the shenanigans in Florida did. Blame the people who voted for him if you want, although that is also ridiculous. People forget that Al Gore WON the 2000 election. I consider Nader an attention monger and often a jerk, but saying he stole the election for Bush and/or that he's a war criminal is ridiculous.

Also, anyone who meets the requirements can run for President. I do not begrudge him running.

I have no beef with the Green Party, and wish we had a parlimentarian system here, as I think it's fairer. We don't. I do think Jill Stein is a better rep for the Greens.

And, why does anyone give a damn what Nader says? Quit giving him attention! And quit giving him so much undeserved power concerning the 2000 election.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!!!!!

[northoftheborder]

91. "Al Gore WON the 2000 election" : Absolutely true.

The full recount by the group of publishers (even by the most conservative way of counting) showed that Gore had more votes. This finding was published the next September 10, 2001, and ignored and forgotten in the tragedy which followed the next day. Regardless of Nader, the election was wrested, snatched, stolen from Gore. I'll never forget that. A greater tragedy than September 11 in many ways.

[SidDithers]

30. Leave Ralph alone!!!...

/Crocker

Sid

[robinlynne]

57. good one!

[sabrina 1]

114. Why? He can handle the few in this country who want to give a pass to the

five Republican Felons who stole the election. I doubt it bothers him in the least. He has done more for this country than the two or three dozen left-behinders put together who are still trying to protect the Felonious Five for whatever reason.

Nader threads are the best. I might start one myself, with the FACTS.

'War Criminal' for running for public office! And it actually got a few recs!

[jorno67]

32. Nader is a Jackass NOT a criminal

Let's get real people...

[raw raina]

59. He's not a jackass either, Zippy.

He's spot-on and these other characters have so much to answer for!

[Robb]

60. Welcome to DU!

[raw raina]

62. Back atcha!

[jorno67]

67. oh...well, you convinced me.

you are very persuasive.

[bluestate10]

80. Right.

Nader is neither a criminal or a jackass. He is a self important, clueless asshole.

[jorno67]

117. Funny argument

So Ralphie was right about seat belts so he can't be a Jackass or Asshole? If you were ever right about something then you get a free pass for the rest of your life? I s that how it works? Truth is Ralph was a great advocate for the people until he decided that his shit lost its stank. So the current state of Nader is - in my most humble opinion - He's a Jackass.

[renie408]

34. I am not particularly a Nader fan, but this is bullshit.

Look, Nader ran in 2000 to make a point. Honestly, Gore had some of the same problems in his campaign that Romney has in his. Gore just isn't a warm and fuzzy guy and he made it easy for the Bush campaign to paint him as out of touch. He ran from Clinton, a huge mistake, and he paid for it. Nader couldn't have known that his tiny little percentage of the vote would be an issue. He ran on principles and I doubt he sees himself as having done anything wrong. THAT'S why he hasn't acknowledged such.

[msongs]

36. umm al gore lost the election by himself for running a crummy campaign. nice try tho nt

[DerekG]

37. This is as bat-guano insane as anything by a right-winger

Instead of blaming...

The Bush regime.

The Pentagon.

The CIA.

The majority of Congresswo/men (including a good number of Democrats).

Five members of the Supreme Court.



You blame a third-party candidate?

[wtmusic]

40. Of "war crimes", nonetheless.

[Downtown Hound]

43. I think it's an oversimplification to call Nader a war criminal

But to deny that Nader had a major hand in contributing to the horror that was the Bush administration is denying reality. And let's not forget that even after the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, 9-11, and a whole host of Bush monstrosities were enacted, Nader chose to run again in 2004 and had no problems with Republicans campaigning for him to split the Democratic vote.

Is Nader a war criminal? Nah. Is he a colossal ass and a selfish prick who would let countless people die just so he can make himself feel important? Yes.

[DerekG]

94. If you want to go that route, we're all responsible

Our taxes fund these bloodbaths.

But anyway, blaming a third-party candidate for the crimes of two political parties makes about as much sense as condemning the Ford's Theatre manager for Lincoln's death.

[Downtown Hound]

103. Yeah, we're all responsible

Just that some of us are A LOT more responsible than others, like Nader.

[Bonobo]

99. You have no reason to think it was "so he could feel important".

Bottom line is that you are being an armchair psychologist when you say that.

I don't think that was his motivation and I really don't see why people assume that.

[Downtown Hound]

109. You're right

I'm sure Ralph ran a straight from the heart campaign in both 2000 and 2004 in which he had no chance of winning and in which the only result of his candidacy is that it could help deliver the presidency to a pampered, frat boy, sociopathic, fascist because Ralph really cares about the little guy and all the terrible things that will happen to him when said fascist wins the White House.

Yeah, that's it. In no way could his ego have anything to do with it.

[Bonobo]

110. I didn't say "no way" cause I don't play fast and loose with unknowns.

I don't make unsubstantiated armchair pop psychologist judgments.

Could it have been ego? Sure.

Was it ego? I don't know.

Could it have been genuine concern that both parties are owned by corporations and the country is headed towards destruction stuck in a 2 party system that is less and less concerned with the poor and defenseless? Absolutely.

Was it? I don't know.

[Downtown Hound]

116. And the result of Ralph's "concern" that corporations own both parties?

An illegal war resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Millions of American jobs lost.
A lost decade to do anything about global warming
Millions of Americans losing their homes.

Gee, thanks for your "concern" Ralphie.

I could forgive Nader for his 2000 run had he ended it there once the disastrous repercussions of the Bush administration became known. But I will never forgive him for running again in 2004 and accepting Republican help. Why is it okay for him to accept Republican help but not for Democrats to accept corporate cash? At the end of the day, both Nader and the Dems are sellouts. Michael Moore, Randi Rhodes, and countless others all BEGGED Nader not to run again, but he did, proving he really doesn't give a shit about the people he claims to care about.

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. ^^^ THIS ^^^!!!!

[fascisthunter]

41. lol...

[Comrade Grumpy]

42. This is even stupider than the usual Nader bs.

[Egalitarian Thug]

44. Just can't get over the fact that the Democratic Party leadership torpedoed Gore's campaign

trying to out-fellate corporate interests, can you? And just who was the genius that determined running away from Clinton was the ticket to victory?

[ibegurpard]

46. oh, what did Nader say today?

nothing I expect...just a transparent, lame attempt to stir up some discontent here (which will not work I assure you).

[Bucky]

47. You broke logic for good. Please come fix it.

[Marr]

48. God, the Nader-Haters are insane.

[frylock]

49. argle bargle!!1

[Bonobo]

51. A singularly deranged and irrational OP.

Sounds like the logic of a 10 year old.

[Snotcicles]

53. I like the posts that say how irrelevant he is or how nobody cares about him anymore,

and then you look and see there are triple digit replies.

[robinlynne]

54. He has NO repsosnibility for anything that happened in 2000. You and I have more

responsibility. I know it's nice to find enemies, but it was stolen with every one of us watching and doing nothing.
except for the black caucus, and barbara boxer.

[robinlynne]

58. oops black caucus and boxer stood up in 2004. correction.

[NYC Liberal]

97. Black caucus did stand up in 2000.

They needed a senator to sign on to the objection and not one single senator had the guts to do the right thing.

[robinlynne]

119. Yes. you're right.. In 2004 we got one senator to stand up.

[lordsummerisle]

61. War criminal?

This Nader bashing is out of control, what's next, Nader is worse than Hitler?

[TransitJohn]

64. lulz

Self-aggrandizing and detrimental to the Democratic Party? Most certainly. War criminal? Vacuous hyperbole.

[tabasco]

66. What a sorry fucker

"ol Ralphie Boy has become.

[Nye Bevan]

70. Wow. Congratulations. I never thought I would defend Ralph Nader.

But your OP is ridiculous. He is a vain, egotistical, attention-seeking asshole, but he is not a war criminal.

[hughee99]

76. I always enjoy seeing hyperbole used to redefine a term.

Hurray for hyperbole, a cogent argument's worst enemy!

[morningfog]

85. Same old tired shit. So old.

And still so inaccurate.

[nmbluesky]

86. He who ruined Green Party.

I was Green Party supporter.. Now he ruined it.. Thank a lot
He made bush won and destroy America

[rudycantfail]

92. The OP

demonstrates the stupidity problem we have here at DU.

[Bonobo]

95. It's funny, but it's also terribly sad and terribly true.

If we act as stupid as the other guys, we're done.

If we give up our beliefs and morals because we are confronted with an increasingly crazy opposition that scares us, how much damage have we done to our cause?

How do you return once you have invited in teh stupid?

[rudycantfail]

100. It's hard to believe

some of these points are being seriously argued here. It's a fucking joke. I find I have as little in common with centrists here as I do with hardcore Republicans.

[xocet]

102. Have you ever thought of becoming a FoxNews news actor? If you truly believe what you wrote....

Rupert Murdoch might want you.

[Fire Walk With Me]

105. The Supreme Court stole that election.

"Nader is evil", aside from being ridiculous, utterly ignores those truly at fault, and Bush's part in malfeasance in certain states. Remember a little line seen in "Fahrenheit 9/11" where while sitting with Brother Jeb, governor of Florida, W says Imma win in Florida, you can bet on it?

[sabrina 1]

107. You don't like Democracy? You equate the democratic electoral process

Last edited Thu Sep 27, 2012, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)

with war crimes. This has to be one of the most ridiculous assertions anyone has ever seen on a political forum.

Nader had nothing to do with the theft of the 2000 election. Stop covering for the treasonous criminals who stole that election by trying to distract from the real crime.

Why are you interested in protecting the Five Felons on the SC who committed an act of treason in 2000 and gave us eight years of George Bush? Where is your anger towards the actual criminals who stole that election?

It's interesting this Nader hatred on DU. And the lack of anger at the five Republican SC justices who committed treason when they interfered on behalf of Bush in that election.

It always make me wonder, it is so misdirected. Especially the lack of anger at those Republicans.

[cprise]

112. Also something to wonder about:

Do Republicans denounce Libertarian candidates in such an extreme fashion... just for running?

Maybe without realizing it, the OP is a call to goose-stepping obedience to the Party brand. Neocons tend to specialize in that kind of thing.

[sabrina 1]

113. Well I have wondered about this for a long time. The sheer hatred for someone who

no matter how they try to twist it, had nothing to do with the theft of the 2000 election. I know it is a small minority, most rational people understand what happened and respect the right of any American to run for office.

Re your question regarding Libertarians, or even Republicans. I was wondering about that also. Eg, did Republicans develop this kind of sheer hatred for Ross Perot who definitely lost the election for Bush Sr. unlike Nader who had zero to do with the loss for Gore? I don't remember ever seeing that kind of anger directed at Perot. He had a right to run too, so too bad. That is how the game is played and anyone who can't stay in the game, loses. Unless the game is rigged of course, as it was for Gore, by the five Republicans on the SC.

What I notice in all this hatred is how little anger there is for those five Republicans, the actual thieves of that election. I'm sure they are very thankful to those who try, mostly unsuccessfully, to blame it on Nader.

[TheKentuckian]

124. The problem is bucking the establishment not "helping Bush win".

Never is an ill word spoken about the Democrats that directly voted Bush, those folks are ALWAYS welcome.

No such level of ire is given to even the Supreme Court.

Of course the very concept of a major party candidate not earning votes is beyond possibility.

They get testy about Perot at times too, despite the high probability that the Raygun Revulsion wouldn't have slowed without him. It isn't even in the neighborhood of the Nader hate but it is there and the problem is any serious questions or even token challenges of the establishment. The same cotton picking jokers have "concerns" about Occupy, getting a bit foamy about the piehole about Wikileaks and especially Assange, and have a litany of sadsack excuses for robberbarons, bankers, sell out politicians, Big Oil, Big Gas, the extraction industry, and military adventures.

I voted for and put in work for Gore but I made that choice and Al wasn't entitled to my vote at all and I kind of regret not doing more to help Nader and voting his way because our party needed and still needs a wake up call and the number has to be significant enough to make moving right a non-starter option.

I'm hoping that with the time we hope to buy with this election that we can move as one toward a path that doesn't require such harsh actions but there are far too many trying to find a corporatist to get behind early, especially a Clinton if one can be found.

[GeorgeGist]

120. Have a nice life.

[TheKentuckian]

125. The OP expresses a sentiment soooo goofy, I'm left wondering if those that share it

consistently have the horse sense to piss on themselves if their crotches are on fire.

War Criminal? Are you serious, and do you even grasp how far beyond hyperbole such a statement is?

It seems damn near a cry for help.