To Ralph Nader who said their was no difference between the Democrats and repugs. Citizens United,

[still_one]

and The Voting Rights Act

Get lost Ralph

[onehandle]

1. Beat me to it. nt

[still_one]

2. 2000 changed everything

[Pab Sungenis]

3. To the Third Way Democrats who thought we had no place to go

we did.

Think twice before pushing more Conservadems down our throat.

[riqster]

6. Yes, and voting for 3rd party candidates helped cause this.

[Pab Sungenis]

9. It only accelerated it.

We already have a Democratic President who is further to the right than Nixon, and economically more to the right than Reagan. And that was with the backlash against Bush.

[still_one]

13. "more right than nixon, and economically more right than reagan" BULLSHIT

[leftynyc]

26. More hyperbolic bullshit

Getting tired of reading such juvenile nonsense on this board.

[cali]

31. that's patently false.

[Whisp]

32. what bullshit.

I am sure you will be much happier when a Paul is ruling your ass.

jeezus.

[Pab Sungenis]

51. How telling.

Four people call bullshit without saying anything more than dragging out a "hope you enjoy being under a Republican" straw man.

Well, by my standards, I'm already living under a Republican. A better Republican than the two Republicans he ran against, but a Republican none the less.

I want to have a Democrat in the White House, thank you, not just someone who calls himself one.

[99Forever]

52. True dat. n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. FIVE people call you on your bullshit because that's what it is: BULLSHIT!!!

[Pab Sungenis]

61. With nothing to back up your claims.

Show me how Obama is more liberal than Nixon.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

63. BULLSHIT requires no evidence. That's why it's BULLSHIT!!

[Pab Sungenis]

65. You're the one calling Bullshit.

Back up your claim.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

74. BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!

BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!

....ahhh, there you go!

Oh, and welcome to IGNORE!

[Pab Sungenis]

75. "It's so because I say it's so."

Sigh.

[DCBob]

98. +1

hehe.

[October]

101. Interesting that you want them to to substantiate THEIR posts, yet you didn't do that yourself.

[Progressive dog]

80. That is totally and completely false

[Pab Sungenis]

81. Are you going to back up your claim?

Are you going to show me how economically, environmentally, or on most social issues, Obama is to the left of Nixon?

Or are you just going to scream "BULLSHIT" like the other people who can't back up their beliefs with facts?

[Progressive dog]

83. Bullshit, see you make a claim you prove it

That is a pathetic response, you make a claim based on no evidence and expect a rebuttal. Best of luck with that.

[Pab Sungenis]

91. Under Nixon

the marginal tax rates for the highest earners were from 70-77%. Maximum tax rates on long-term capital gains were 36.5%. Under Obama they're 35% and 15%. And he's not only refused to let the fucking Bush tax rates expire to bring the highest rate back to more than half what it was under Nixon, he's lobbied to make corporate taxes even lower.

Nixon raised the minimum wage to $2.00 an hour, or $9.18 in 2012 dollars. With Obama it's still at $7.25 and has only been proposed to raise it to $9.00.

Nixon created the EPA. Obama cancelled the EPA's ozone rules.

Nixon used price controls to stop inflation. Obama has done nothing to lower the price of gasoline by ending speculation.

Oh, and Nixon's CHIP Health Plan was better than Obamacare. Teddy Kennedy killed it because it wasn't single payer and came to regret it later in life.

Obama's policies are better than we'd ever get from today's Republican party, but they would make him a Conservative Republican in the 1970's.

No bullshit.

Now, can you back up YOUR argument?

[Progressive dog]

95. Let's play the reality game

Marginal tax rates are not set by the president. Under Nixon, they stayed at where they started. Under Obama, they are higher than than where they started.

Obama does not set minimum wage. He has tried to raise it and he has almost 1/2 his Presidency left.

Nixon used WAGE and price controls to slow inflation and it didn't work. It did make most of us poorer. It did cause shortages. The price of gasoline should go up because usage must come down. Nixon did exactly the wrong thing.

Rivers were catching fire when Nixon took office. Obama DELAYED a planned 10 to 15% reduction in ozone emissions, the rules are still in place at 75 ppb rather than 60-70ppb.

Teddy Kennedy killed it. So now we move from accomplishments to proposals.

Nixon started from a different place, before 50 years of conservatives like Nixon. He moved the nation in a more conservative direction.
Obama is now moving in a liberal direction, but starting from a different place.
Obama is much more liberal/progressive than Nixon was.

[Pab Sungenis]

100. "So now we move from accomplishments to proposals."

Yes. Because the proposals are where you see the President's ideology at work.

Obama never even went near a progressive version of health care. He's never proposed bringing rates for the top 1% anywhere near where they should be. He's done nothing to curb speculation and control the price of gasoline, which is the main force behind most other price increases of the past four years.

And don't even get me started on Obama's spying, which puts Nixon's to shame.

The Democratic Party has constantly drifted to the right to "triangulate" the Republicans since 1988. As a result, the Republicans have been forced to move even further right. So the Democrats triangulate further to the right. Obama is just the latest example of this. We'll see even more of it as the 2016 race shapes up. The Third Way people will insist that we need a "moderate" candidate, who will be even further to the right than Obama, chasing a bloc of racist Southern voters who will never side with us no matter what we do.

The Democratic Party of Kennedy, Johnson, and Humphrey is dead. Our "liberal" Democrats today are to the right of the conservative Republicans of the 1960's. Hell, even Barry Goldwater "evolved" on gay rights faster then Barack Obama did!

And to deny that is willful blindness.

[Progressive dog]

109. The price of gasoline has nothing to do with Presidents

Nothing, nothing, nothing. If you subsidize stuff that pollutes, then you pollute more. If you subsidize stuff that is running out, then it runs out faster. The liberals back then knew this and didn't cave to the cheap political expediency as Nixon did, to buy votes with gas prices. That "Republican liberal"
You must be in favor of continuing the special tax breaks for oil companies, they help keep the price of gasoline down. I thought Obama's attempts to get them repealed were not opposed by many Democrats.

"The Democratic Party of Kennedy, Johnson, and Humphrey is dead. Our "liberal" Democrats today are to the right of the conservative Republicans of the 1960's."
"The Third Way people will insist that we need a "moderate" candidate, who will be even further to the right than Obama, chasing a bloc of racist Southern voters who will never side with us no matter what we do"
When Kennedy and Johnson ran they carried the racist south. Look it up.
When Nixon ran, he split the south it with Wallace. Reagan owned the south.

"And don't even get me started on Obama's spying, which puts Nixon's to shame. "
The notorious commie hunter, famous for not giving up on going after his liberal "communist" enemies becomes President. The first president to have a team of resident burglars, paid for by secret illegal donations. The President who directed IRS audits of his political enemies. He actually and provably used the secrets he illegally obtained against his enemies, and one of his enemies was this Democratic party of Humphrey.

[graham4anything]

4. Ralph Nader- THIS is YOUR LEGACY. I have two choice words for you .... ...

[Gothmog]

77. Agreed

Nader's run was a vanity exercise that gave us Bush and Roberts

[ProSense]

5. The Justices that Obama appointed dissented. n/t

[riqster]

8. Nonono, that makes no difference to the "Weft, Twooo Weft".

Dems = Reeps, they'll tell you that ad nauseum.

Even though it isn't the least bit true. Meanwhile, Ralph the millionaire who got his silver from Reeps in the 2000 election, sits comfortably, immune from the consequences of his actions.

[Scuba]

7. There is a difference ...

... just not enough of one.

[still_one]

20. Today's decision, and the Citizens United decision, more than demonstrate the difference

[Scuba]

43. A twice-elected Democratic President endorsed cutting Social Security ....

... to pay for the foibles of the very wealthy at the same time those very wealthy were paying historically low tax rates.

As I said, there is a difference, but it's not enough of a difference for me.

[we can do it]

10. Fuck Nadar,

and I will now add Fuck Libertarians

[still_one]

14. I will add the libertarians to my list also. One of the most selfish, self-centered ideologies

around. I got mine, and screw everyone else

[we can do it]

50. Yup self centered little bastards, just like the naderfucktards

[beerandjesus]

11. Al Gore ran an abysmal campaign

Must be nice to have Ralph Nader to blame though, so you can so conveniently absolve your guy for his failures!

Nothing like cheap sanctimony.....

[onehandle]

12. Yep. He did. But even with that, the math confirms that Nader won Florida for Bush.

Fuck Ralph Nader.

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. Shrub did not win Floriduh. The SCOTUS selected/appointed him. Read the facts,

shrub lost the election.

The U.S. today is the direct result of a blatant judicial coup, but that fact is really icky and few want to face that and nobody wants to deal with the consequences of admitting that.

[onehandle]

30. That happened After the Ralph Nader effect.

38% of his 97,000 voters would have voted Democratic.

Well more than enough to to win it for Gore, before the recount.

[Egalitarian Thug]

38. Doesn't matter. You're trying to argue that Nader exercising his right to run was wrong, and

continue to ignore the Democrats refusing to exercise their duty.

So we exclude Nader from running. What about Pat Buchanan, do we exclude him as well?

No, this is nothing but a sad and desperate attempt to avoid the failings of the party. Gore's campaign sucked. He was pushed through by the Democratic power brokers, and Donna Brazile orchestrated a campaign designed to fail from the start.

[onehandle]

40. I thought you said SCOTUS selected him.

Time is sequential.

1 - The GOP skimmed the voter rolls and made it harder to vote.
2 - Gore ran badly.
3 - Nader cost Gore ten thousand+ votes out of 97,000, minimum.
4 - SCOTUS stopped the count.

Without Nader, no event four.

[Egalitarian Thug]

41. They did. Certification was still required and several House members stood up to object.

If any Senator had sufficient will to put the nation first, history would be quite different.

And why do ignore the first part, you know, the fact that Nader had a right to run?

[bluestate10]

55. Keep believing that if doing so floats your boat. Independent vote counting showed that

if the Florida vote counting had been allowed to continue, Bush would have STILL won by 1,000 votes. 97,000 people voted for Nader in Florida, those poor lost souls.

[Gothmog]

79. Gore would have won with over-votes

If the recount had continued, Gore would have won due to a large number of votes where the voter on OCR ballots both marked the Gore box and then wrote Gore's name in the write in slot. This form of over voting would have given Gore the election http://www.sptimes.com/News/111201/Lostvotes/Without_overvotes_Gor.shtml

More than 2,100 Florida voters who wanted Al Gore to become president tried to make doubly sure of their choice. So did more than 1,300 voters who backed George W. Bush.

They marked a ballot for their candidate and then wrote in his name for president, too. Or they circled the name, or tried to scratch out a mistake, or otherwise made a second mark to emphasize their choice.

Those votes could have turned the election for Gore. But the extra emphasis ensured they wouldn't count.

The correct legal standard is to determine voter intent and these over votes show the clear intent for Gore to win

[Gothmog]

78. Nader enabled the SCOTUS to steal the election

If Nader was out of the race, then the SCOTUS and K. Harris would never have had the opportunity to steal this election

[Egalitarian Thug]

84. This is what happens when those charged with doing the nation's business place their

own interests above the nation's. Democrats (and republicans for that matter) allowed this to take place without any resistance. You can try to blame a man exercising his right to run for office, or you can try to blame the voters for exercising theirs, but in the end the blame lies with the perpetrators and those that shirked their duty, and nothing anyone says, or screams, will change that.

[burnodo]

87. Nader won Florida? That's news to me

nt

[still_one]

17. He did just enough in Florida, but his view that their was no difference, history has shown that

there is a difference since 2000.

[Bonobo]

15. There is a difference.

It's just very small.

[Skidmore]

16. So how do you make the difference larger?

Whine? Denigrate and knee cap at every chance? Blow it all up? Or step up and contribute. That's the issue.

[still_one]

18. You fight and work for candidates, or run yourself. You are correct, there is too much bitching

and whining that goes on.

[Bonobo]

22. I try to get my viewpoint out and maintain the sense of what is right,

despite the blowing of the political winds.

I do not allow myself to be swayed by the mentality of "It is right if we do it and wrong if they do it".

I try to remain consistent. If everyone voted their conscience, we would have more progressive candidates and we would not be slouching to the right as we have been steadily doing.

[Skidmore]

23. You get more progressive candidates by engaging early on

when those candidates are chosen. And you get people to participate by educating them.

[Bonobo]

24. We agree on that. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. And in the wrong places. n/t

[bluestate10]

56. You must have and still have blinders on. The difference is fucking enormous. nt

[Bonobo]

69. So you say.

But is it getting larger or smaller or remaining the same?

[Major Hogwash]

19. Every time the crypt keeper crawls out of his tomb and goes on tv, I change channels.

I can't stand the sight of that a-hole!!!!

[hobbit709]

25. The difference between R and Blue Dog is one of degree, not substance.

[still_one]

27. Actually that is wrong on many issues. Food stamps is just one of them, but more than that, because

of the demographics of certain states, have a Democratic majority in both house is vital to get things done

[hobbit709]

28. Show me the recorded votes on all major issues.

[still_one]

33. Point taken. However, the party that controls the houses determine the agenda

[hobbit709]

35. And when it comes up for a vote?

I said show me the recorded votes, not whether or not it was on the agenda.

[still_one]

42. I said point taken. I also said you need to have the control to have the agenda, and if there are

Enough of a Democratic majority a lot of things can be done, even without the blue dogs. Not every blue dog is in a red state, and there is a better chance of challenging a blue dog in a purple state

[bluestate10]

57. Bluedogs helped approve Obamacare, helped stop the gross House Farm Bill, with it's

massive cuts to food assistance programs. Bluedogs helped pass civil rights legislation during the critical sixties.

[markiv]

29. we cant afford dissent in this party

every time you complain about a democrat, you elect a republican

do you really want that?

it's time to stop whining about small imperfections of democrats, nobody's perfect, stop expecting it

[hobbit709]

36. Oh really? BS

I can complain about who I want. So complaining elects an R? I didn't know that my D vote was changed to an R because I complained.

[bluestate10]

60. We can afford dissent. Good arguments enlighten. But we can't be blind.

We must pay attention to facts and vote accordingly, even if that means electing a bluedog because that person is the only one that can beat a republican in some districts or states.

[UTUSN]

34. R#10 & K nt

[mountain grammy]

37. But when Gore chose Lieberman as his VP, I was sick.

Like the Sarah Palin of the Democratic party, old Joe almost pushed me away. But I stayed strong and voted for the ticket because even old Joe would be better than what we ended up with. But I gotta say, if it wasn't a close election, I would have voted Green.
The extreme corrupt court is the legacy of the 2000 appointment of GWBush.

[Arugula Latte]

66. Gawd how I despise Lieberman.

One of the worse Veep picks in U.S. history ... and he only got worse as time went on.

Sickening, horrible creep.

[liberal_at_heart]

44. democratic politicians love Citizens United. It means they get lobby money too.

Where is the push to get rid of Citizens United? Why do so many democratic politicians take money from lobbyists? If they were really different than the republicans they would work towards repealing Citizens United and take up campaign finance reform. How many democratic politicians do you know of that are fighting for campaign finance reform? Here is my single issue. Education. The democrats suck just as bad at education as the republicans do. They go right along with whatever the republicans want. Want to decrease funds to public education? Sure. We can do that. Want to demand underfunded schools perform on standardized testing or lose even more funds? Sure we can do that too. How many democratic politicians demanded bankers be prosecuted after stealing money and homes from the American people and crashing the entire country's economy? There is no difference between democrats and republicans and you know why? Because both parties have been bought by the 1%.

[Arkana]

45. Without Ralph, Al Gore wins Florida.

If Al Gore wins Florida (by a margin too large to contest), there is no John Roberts or Samuel Alito.

Thus there is no Citizens United or this abortion of a ruling today.

Actions have consequences--I just wish people knew that.

[stevenleser]

49. + infinity

[bluestate10]

62. The blindness of so called progressives stuns me at times.

I don't think they have a fucking clue about when to rail and when to be disciplined.

[beerandjesus]

46. Context. Before there was Citizens United, there was Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

Let's not forget how the Democrats helped put us on the path to where we are today. Which is *why* Nader appealed to so many liberals.

[noiretextatique]

47. you need to blame the culprits, namely SCOTUS

since you are giving them a free pass for all their terrible decisions.

[bluestate10]

64. Wrong. The SCOTUS didn't elect Bush. Bush won Florida by 1,000 votes.

People, you have no idea of how much it pains me to write that. I wish instead that I could right about the eight great years of President Gore. But reality is fucking reality and we got eight years of a Bush disaster because 97,000 fucking people in Florida thought they were smarter and more pristine than anyone else.

[noiretextatique]

71. absolutely ridiculous

scotus stopped the recount. if they had not done that, gore would have won florida.

[NoPasaran]

48. Wendy Davis. Jodie Laubenberg

All the difference I need.

[Dawson Leery]

53. k/r

[bluestate10]

54. Anyone who still believes Nader is fucking hopeless. nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

58. The "tea party" is the Koch brothers' branch of government through the republicans

but not specifically of the republicans. The Kochs created "citizens united" as well as co-creating the "tea party" with big tobacco. And Democrats are only giving lip service to overturning the SCOTUS "citizens united" ruling.

[Cha]

67. Definitely, fuck off, nader. Not to mention

reality on Climate Change.. "Abortion rights, and same sex marriage? Food stamps? EPA, DOE, Iran?" thanks fresh..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3096829

[Marr]

68. If you lose an election, then you have-- by definition-- employed a losing strategy.

Conservative Democrats have dominated the national party for decades now. They set the tone and define the campaign strategies.

When they lose an election, they don't get to then turn around and blame the people who they've almost completely excluded from actual political influence-- and they certainly don't get to blame the voters. They need to look at their strategy and ask what exactly made it a losing strategy.

I'd actually say that lesson has been learned by our establishment Democrats, to some degree. It's the reason Obama sounded like a liberal when he was going after votes.

[DevonRex]

70. Yep. Fuck Ralph Nader. nt

[BuddhaGirl]

72. Yep - zealots are typically unable to view the bigger picture

n/t

[Armstead]

97. What you call "zealots" actually have a more accurate grasp of the "bigger picture"

How are those centrist policies of Bill Clinton in supporting deregulation, privatization and other gifts to Wall St. and Corporate Oligarchs working for ya'?

[BuddhaGirl]

113. LOL

Ross Perot or GHW Bush would have been better for the country.

Check.

[Armstead]

114. Typical false comparison.

One can criticize democrats without endorsing republicans.

To be honest, please tell me what -- in economic policies -- Bill Clinton did that was less corporate conservative than GHW Bush?

Telecommunications deregulation? "Free trade" con job? Deregulation of the financial sector? Welfare "reform"? Privitization of public services?

[RandiFan1290]

73. Nader Derangement Syndrome continues

[Rex]

76. I've been waiting to see if anyone would actually explain the current lovefest with Nader.

Don't forget DADT and Obamacare. The Repukes are STILL trying to repeal Obamacare.

[Hekate]

82. Argh. Ralphie, go home. nt

[burnodo]

88. and where is "Ralphie"?

Is he making the rounds on all the major newschannels and programs? Selling a book? Appearing in a movie?

[Hekate]

89. Dunno, but there has been a spate of Nader postings lately, with lots of responses...

That usually means he did something obnoxious.

[stevenleser]

85. Nader came close to making this latest SCOTUS ruling impossible. We won by one vote...

thanks to the jerks Bush was able to appoint to the SCOTUS thanks to Nader.

[Apophis]

86. WTF does anything have to do with Nader?

Has he been relevant in the last 13 years?

[stevenleser]

90. Thanks to the lifetime tenure of SCOTUS justices, screwing with one POTUS election can be a big deal

Many of us will likely not outlive some of Bush's SCOTUS picks. 30 years from now, we will still be paying the price for Nader

[still_one]

92. And saying that both parties are the same simply isn't so. For better or worse the Democratic Party

Today is truly an inclusive party consisting of a spectrum of left, right, and middle. The republican part excludes anyone who isn't far right. The very few moderate republicans are silenced

[Maximumnegro]

93. This has nothing to do with Nader

Jesus Christ. Get over it. Nader exercised his RIGHT to run 2000. You DO remember this is a democracy, right? Don't you see how pathetic it is to blame him for the party's failures 13 YEARS LATER?

And fact is in 2000, the two parties WERE more alike than not. That's the CRAZY thing with history and time - things change. The Republican party today is NOTHING like the party in 2000.

So sad the Dem obsession with tearing their own and refusing to learn from their mistakes. Even more disturbing is that Nader had the RIGHT to run. I mean that's what we're frickin' FIGHTING FOR tooth and nail now.

I don't hear the Republicans obsessing ENDLESSLY over Ross Perot from '92.

13 years later and still whining. Jesus. Pathetic.

[stevenleser]

94. I realize you don't want to accept the truth, but it is the truth.

If Nader doesn't run, Gore wins Florida even with all the Repug attempts to steal it.

You need to get over your denial of the truth.

[Rex]

102. Strange, you seem to be saying Al Gore lost the election.

When in fact he won! Did you not know that?

[stevenleser]

103. Nope, those are not mutually exclusive concepts. Gore won, Nader made it possible to steal. nt

[Rex]

104. Nader had nothing to do with it being stolen.

Sad that you fall into the same category as some here that hate democracy. Why do you hate us for our freedoms?

[stevenleser]

105. Sure he did. The tactics by Republicans made them x closer to Gore, Nader's siphoned votes got them

the rest of the way. Simple.

[Rex]

107. Okay, I see democracy is only good when it is convenient for some here.

Otherwise it just gets lip service. Fine. Believe whatever fantasy you want to.

[stevenleser]

108. Our electoral vote system only supports two viable candidates at a time. Them's the facts. You need

one more than 50% of available electoral votes to win. If no candidate gets that, the House of Representatives chooses the President.

If three or four or more candidates start splitting electoral votes, the chance becomes less or less that the people will in fact choose the President. Until you can muster up a constitutional amendment to change that, those are the facts of the situation.

Nader and any potential third party candidate and those support them knowingly raise the risk that the House of Representatives will choose the President instead of the people. In this case, a Republican House of Representatives would have chosen the President.

Either you accept the reality that our current electoral vote system is what it is or you don't. I choose reality. I would prefer a popular vote system with instant runoff voting, but we don't have that.

[Armstead]

99. You hit the nail on the head

[Armstead]

96. Yes let's shoot the messenger

Individually, Nader is beside the point. His message was and is absolutely accurate.

On many of the core issues that matter -- especially in the realm of economic justice and corporate power -- Nadert is absolutely correct.

The real differences between the Democratic are often negligible.

Democrats are just reluctant to upset the applecart of the entrenched elites and the power of the Oligarchs.


Deal with it.

[Gothmog]

110. I disagree with your position

There are real differences between Al Gore and Shrub. Gore would not have ignored Richard Clarke's warnings about Bin Laden. Gore would not have appointed Roberts or Alito to the bench and we would not have Citizens United.

I live in Texas and now we have to live with voter id and voter suppression without the protection of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Without Roberts and Alito, Texas and the South would not be facing massive voter suppression and voter id laws.

There were real and meaningful differences between bush and Al Gore and we are now seeing the effects of these differences.

[Armstead]

111. Yes there are differences -- Just not enough

Obviously there are big differences.

However, in terms of the issues of corporate power and economic justice the Centrist Democrats are not much better.

On economic policy and "shrinking government" Bush and Clinton had a lot more in common than there should have been.

Unfortunate, Obama and many of the present crop of Centrist Democrats are still far too cozy with the Corporate Elite than they should be and/or are too timid to take on the GOP.

[Gothmog]

112. The fact remains that these differences are important

Citizen United came about due to Nader's vanity project. We could have flipped the SCOTUS and been able to appoint the CJ which is a major source of power. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is gone due to Nader and now people like me have to deal with voter id and other forms of voter suppression.

These are important differences and these differences matter.

[Armstead]

115. I agree they matter

Wanting Democrats to be better and more responsive on core issues does not is not the same as saying Republicans are not worse.

[Gothmog]

116. Nader's run was a vanity exercise based on a flawed premise

Nader siphon enough votes to allow Bush to win in 2000 based on a flawed premise that there were no meaningful differences between bush and Al Gore. There were key differences between Al Gore and bush and these differences are important and were obvious to most people in 2000.

A large number of people in Texas are going to lose the right to vote due to Nader's vanity project. The election of bush directly lead to the elimination of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Citizen United would not be the law of the land if Nader had not done his best to cause bush to win the 2000 election. There are real consequences to actions.

There are issues that I wish could be addressed by the Democratic party and candidates but the policies of the Democratic party and democratic leaders are better than the policies and leadership of republicans. We are seeing the consequences of these differences now. I do not like the concept of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[Armstead]

117. Hpowe about the better as an improvement over the "not quite as bad"

Had the Democrats been able to mount an even slightly more compelling campaign in 2000, Nader would not have made any difference.

It has been frustrating to many of us for years (decades) how the Democrats gave up so completely on the notion of progressive populism -- real liberalism -- and embraced the Wall St./Corporate crowd.

That dissatisfaction (plus the major muck-up in Florida) ius why Nader was able to hasve even the tiny influence on the loutcome that he had.

There are, I should note, worthy exceptions, such as Sherrod Brown et.al. But people like that should be the mainstreasm of the Democrats instead of worthy exceptions.

[proud2BlibKansan]

106. Citizens United benefits unions also

Point taken on Voting Rights Act. But Citizens United is helping BOTH parties.