To critics of Nader. Do you seriously think thirdway dems will challenge corporate personhood?

[betterdemsonly]

Remember that is the idea that this ruling is based on. I am really curious to know.

Question 2 Do you seriously think mushy middles are going to put up a fight to defend anyones rights, therefore you can say "Fuck you! to all of Nader's idealistic voters. People who fight rather than attempt to build consensus with reactionaries. The right=kill puppies. The left=don't puppies. The middle=punch puppies in the face.

[leftstreet]

1. Do not mess with the forces of natu...nader

[el_bryanto]

2. I don't expect that Nader or his supporters will get a chance to do anything

as they are unelectable. So I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what he might do if he wins an election.

I would rather support a more liberal Democrat in the primary, but if Hillary Clinton is our nomination, I certainly won't make the mistake of believing that there's no difference between her and a republican.

Bryant

[betterdemsonly]

8. That seems to a be a response to a question not asked.

Why say fuck off to their voters?

[Maedhros]

23. That's fine; if the Democrats don't want to address my issues, then I won't vote for them.

It's a simple as that.

Rank-and-file fools yelling "Fuck Nader!" just serve to convince me I was right for leaving the Party.

[leftyohiolib]

31. but yet you hang around in a democratic forum

if the Democrats don't want to address my issues, then I won't vote for them. sounds like 2010

[Maedhros]

42. I voted primarily Democratic in 2010.

But then again, I'm from Oregon and our Democrats are usually a bit better than most

[el_bryanto]

79. I didn't say fuck off

I said that they aren't likely to win.

Bryant

[daleanime]

83. I say 'tomato'......

You say 'tumato'......





Why don't you just call it off.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. What makes anyone unelectable is the self-fulfilling prophecy that they are unelectable.

That's not to dump on you or anyone else but we spend a lot of time talking ourselves out of better candidates. I'm not speaking just to Nader, but in general terms.

As to the OP, there is a point. If we vote for compromisers then we shouldn't look surprised when our principles are being compromised. In fact, we should applaud ourselves for getting exactly what we voted for.

[el_bryanto]

78. The distinction though is that I would rather see us get better candidates within the

democratic party - I agree that we settle too easily for the Clintons and Obamas (sorry) - but think that going outside the party isn't likely to be a successful strategy.

Bryant

[HERVEPA]

3. They probably won't take Rethiglican money like Ralph did.

[betterdemsonly]

5. The Koch brothers sat on the board of the dlc

Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

and contributed lots of money to it. Goldman Sach's and Citibank were major contributers to Obama's campaign. Pretty easy to disprove since most of centrists are funded by republican corporations.

[MohRokTah]

24. FALSEHOOD ALERT!!!

Goldman Sach's and Citibank EMPLOYEES were contributers to Obama's campaign.

FIFY

On another note, they were capped at how much they could each contribute to the campaign.

[truedelphi]

59. So I guess then that Obama simply appointed GS guy

Tim Geithner to the top post at Treasury out of the goodness of his heart.

[MohRokTah]

61. Lots of factors went into the decision, I'm certain.

I disagree with the decision, but Goldman Sachs as a corporation donated precisely NOTHING to the Obama campaign as that would eb illegal.

[Luminous Animal]

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

Oops.

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

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.

[hrmjustin]

4. Sorry but Nader is not blameless here.

[leftstreet]

7. Is Ross Perot to blame for Clinton's win?

[hrmjustin]

9. That is debatable but many rwers do blame him.

[MohRokTah]

27. That's a really tough call as many Republicans AND Democrats voted for Perot.

Not oo many Republicans were going to go for Nader.

[jeff47]

38. He was a significant factor.

"to blame" implies a single cause. Perot was a factor in the election, but not the only one.

[betterdemsonly]

10. Seems really destructive since if the party loses those voters they lose

also if they abandon all of Nader's causes there is noway to gain the field from the right. For instance most dlc/thirdway types do defend corporate personhood.

[Jim Lane]

91. Don't worry. It's Nader who lost those voters.

More than 80% of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 abandoned him in 2004, including his own Vice-Presidential running mate, Winona LaDuke.

I applaud those two million or so Nader voters who, after seeing Bush in action, realized that they had made a ghastly mistake. Better late than never.

[betterdemsonly]

92. Kerry wants more war, with Syria and Iran,

so had he won, it would have burnt those voters badly, presuming what you say is true.

[Jim Lane]

94. Busted! Kerry, if elected, would have made some decisions that ticked off some people on DU.

Well, I guess that certainly shows that no true progressive should even consider voting for a Democrat.

OK, back to the real world -- neither of us can prove a hypothetical but if we could then I would bet large sums that a Kerry win in 2004 would not have resulted in war with Syria or Iran.

The general point is that, when you vote in an election, you never know exactly what will happen in any of the possible scenarios. It's absolutely certain that, had Kerry won, he would have done some things that some of his voters didn't like, and they would have felt burnt. The same, BTW, would have happened if Nader had won. Voters just have to make the best guess they can. Consider what the candidates say, what their records are, who advises them, etc., and hope to get it right.

The good news is that, although you generally won't know exactly what your candidate will do if elected, you can get a good enough idea that you can be confident in your choice. I feel "burnt" in some respects by Obama, who's been even more conservative than I'd expected, but if I had 2008 or 2012 to do over again then I would unhesitatingly vote for Obama again.

[leftstreet]

11. Very good point

Imagine the GOP disarray had they spend almost TWO DECADES blaming Ross Perot for...uh what was his name again's?....loss

[JI7]

12. Nader Voters are mostly ignorant and seek attention

i don't think they care about the issues at all.

Nader claimed Democrats bringing up the issue of abortion and supreme court was a Scare Tactic .

Nader also tried to avoid supporting Paul Wellstone and only just before his death he gave some weak ass support.

was Paul Wellstone Third Way ? why couldn't he have supported Wellstone from the start ?

[betterdemsonly]

13. They do use fear of loss of abortion to make you vote for

centrists. Meanwhile centrist defend things like corporate personhood,, which is the basis of the Hobby Lobby decision. Yet, you constantly ignore that and focus only on Nader.

[JI7]

14. you are the one who started a Thread about Nader, and i'm pointing out his dismissing women's rights

i know some don't care about these issues and still claim to be the left . but i don't consider them as such.

you want to support nader, go ahead, support and vote for whoever the fuck you want. but i will call out lies .

[leftstreet]

15. No, the OP started a thread about Third Way Dems

And it's always telling when their supporters try to change the subject

[JI7]

17. the OP mentions Nader, i guess Paul Wellstone was a third way Dem, which is why Nader

was so reluctant to support him and only did so in a weak ass way just before his death.

[leftstreet]

19. No, Nader critics

Of which there are many...only on DU, where apparently Bush v Gore happened last week

[JI7]

29. exactly, the OP mentions Nader

[betterdemsonly]

20. He is not a dem

nor a Minnesotan, so who cares, whether you deem his support insufficient. Wellstone, never lost, was not losing when he died, and Nader played no role in his death.

[JI7]

25. one doesn't need to be from Minnesota or a Dem to realize Paul WEllstone was for the people and

against corporations.

[betterdemsonly]

34. He was the best

I don't care whether Nader supported him though.

[JI7]

36. i think it matters whether one who claims to give a shit about fighting corporations supported

PAUL WELLSTONE.

because it shows they are a fraud, fake and don't really care about it at all.

[betterdemsonly]

16. but you admitted in another thread that

democrats who don't support things like card check, and want to privatize social security aren't left wing either, so why does it matter whether nader fits description. The truth is you don't care very much about those issues relative to abortion rights.

[JI7]

21. i am a woman so things concerning women's rights, control over my own body will matter to me

more than some things . sorry you have a problem with it.

as i said, you want to support Nader go ahead and do it.

but for me it's a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE in candidates who support women's rights and those who don't.

i count Nader among those who don't because of his dismissing Roe v Wade by saying it just means it will go to states. thankfully i'm in a blue state but i care about the women who are in the Red States and would suffer the most.

[betterdemsonly]

28. I am a women too

I am disabled. Social Security is a higher priority to me than other issues. Sorry you have a problem with that.

Nader isn't running.

I have a problem with the fuck nader voters meem. Like you don't want Nader voters. Like the fact other people priortize things other than abortion is a crime that makes it so you don't want their votes.

[JI7]

32. you have a problem with me saying you can vote for whoever you want ? i told you not to vote for

Democrats if you don't like them for whatever reason.

vote for whoever you want. vote for Nader, write him in. vote some other third party. vote for Ron Paul if you want.

vote for whoever YOU WANT.

why is that a problem for you ?

[AgingAmerican]

90. 1% of Nader voters in Florida

...identified themselves as Democrats in exit polls. Meanwhile, 13% of Florida Democrats voted for Nader.

Do the math.

[upaloopa]

18. Do you think whatever repub wins will challenge

Corporate person hood?
You question is mute!

[betterdemsonly]

22. If democrats had challenged the concept like Nader did

maybe they wouldn't have lost votes to Nader. In other words Nader was only a threat because the democrats did not win their votes. Simple as that.

[JI7]

33. Nader lied and said Republicans overturning Roe is a Scare Tactic

he should have just said it's not an important issue for him. that he considers other issues more important.

[winter is coming]

26. It's "moot" and a false choice. Who said we have to go with a Third Way Dem? n/t

[betterdemsonly]

37. I don't see anyone that appears to be running but Hillary

Many of the "Fuck Nader supporters" posters are people who want to clear field for her, and if that happens I expect another Nader type third party challenge.

[JI7]

40. id on't see anyone passing a law to prevent NAder or anyone else from Running in the Primary

although Nader did attack the true liberal bernie sanders who has been considering getting into the race.

[betterdemsonly]

44. I don't give a crap about Nader

I don't understand the desire to dis his voters and causes all the time.

[JI7]

47. because Abortion rights are important so when someone lies and claims what Republicans

are doing is just scare tactics i will call it out.

why should i respect the anti choice cause ?

[betterdemsonly]

55. because it is used to scare us into supporting centrists

why should I respect the antisocial security cause? Why are you so obtuse as to not realize that many people have other priorities and you have to win their votes instead of guilt tripping.

[JI7]

56. it's NOT a Scare TActic, it's A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES , and i said you don't

have to vote for the DEm.

vote for the third party or whoever you want.

[betterdemsonly]

62. I don't want to vote for third parties

I want dems to adopt Nader causes and win his voters, fair and square.

[JI7]

63. Nader Cause involves not caring about abortion so that isn't going to happen

[betterdemsonly]

65. Well lose then

it's hopeless. Get centrist voters that support corporate personhood. That will help! They will defend your rights well.

[JI7]

67. Obama did not Lose, Sotomayor and KAgan voted the right way , Clinton's appointees did also

[betterdemsonly]

68. They also voted to allow abortion protesters to interfere with your abortion

by eliminating protest barriers.

[JI7]

70. that was based on first amendment issue

[TheKentuckian]

30. Why would the question be moot? The TeaPubliKlan having a lousy position doesn't free the

Democrats to adopt it and move on in silence.

Are we going to nominate an anti choice candidate and say any opposition is "mute" because the other guy isn't pro choice? Fuck no.

[jeff47]

35. They will do what they need to in order to win elections. So make them change to win.

Politicians are primarily concerned with winning elections. So make them win the primary.

Teabaggers have turned the Republican party far to the right by challenging them in primaries. The teabaggers almost always lose, but the "mainstream" Republicans have to turn to the right in order to win.

We can do the same thing with the Democratic party. Make the "mainstream" Democrats defend themselves in primary elections. They will have to tack left to keep winning.

Why doesn't third party do the same thing? Because when you go third party you can't vote in the Democratic election (in most states). And you aren't relevant in the general election - it's easier for the Democrat to attract some more of the middle than to attract you. So you're written off by the Democratic party and they turn further right.

So vote. In every damn primary. Only the mainstream candidate on the ballot? Then run, or help find someone to run.

The party will not fix itself, we have to do it.

[betterdemsonly]

39. Even when third party lefties try to go legimate in a Dem primary

Democrats punish them. In Tx recently, when Kinky Friedman ran for Ag commissioner in the Democratic primary. The republican chose a fundamentalist christian Perry supporter who didn't even campaign rather than support Friedman. The centrist type democrats aren't serious defenders of any lefty causes, particularly in the South where the thirdway type dem is dominant.

[JI7]

43. you have a problem with Wendy DAvis ? well you can vote third party if you feel the Dem

party is not liberal enough for you.

[betterdemsonly]

48. I have a problem with the Democratic candidate for ag commissioner

who is a fundamentalist and Perry supporter, and I have a problem with the type of dem that voted for him.

What kind of dems would vote for people like that, and why are 3rd party voters worse than them? Did Wendy support the fundy over Friedman?

[JI7]

49. so don't vote for him, who said third party was worse ? you can vote third party if you want

[DisgustipatedinCA]

80. You've advised this poster about 5 times to vote 3rd party

You can stop now. You're in violation of the terms of service, which is ironic, since you in no way mean what you're saying. Your attempt to smear this poster is making you look a little desperate.

[JI7]

81. telling someone they don't have to vote for someone they don't want to is not

a violation of TOS.

there is no smearing of the poster. the poster doesn't like democrats so i told them you don't have to vote for someone you don't like.

[jeff47]

46. Then make them lose.

They still have to win the primary in order to run.

Heck, they have to win votes within the party to be "party officials". So challenge those people too.

[betterdemsonly]

51. he is going to lose anyway

He is a token closet republican. I just find his voters incomprehensible.

[sunnystarr]

41. It's BECAUSE of Nader

that we're even dealing with Corporate Personhood!!!

[betterdemsonly]

54. Not true

Corporate personhood has been a big issue since the Sun Pac decision.

[msanthrope]

45. I defend people's rights in court everyday. And as an Democratic campaign

attorney, I defend franchise for all.

Yeah...I will fight against corporate personhood.

[hfojvt]

50. a pair of silly questions

Sorry.

What I seriously think is that you can never, ever, ever defeat 3rd-way dems as a 3rd party candidate, especially in a Presidential election.

You wanna challenge them? I am all for it.

You wanna defeat the "mushy middle". Again, hell yes, let's do it.

But do it in a primary.

That's pri

and

mary.

In November, a 3rd party (unless it is a libertarian type) just enables the Republicans to win.

Which even Nader SHOULD be able to figure out - does not advance any good causes.

[we can do it]

52. Fuck Nadar. Fuck his followers.

[1monster]

69. Jury results for the alert on this post:

On Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:02 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Fuck Nadar. Fuck his followers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5179597

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Pedantic. Not a good way to win voters.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:10 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's offensive, but also protected speech.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't particularly care for the language, but I'm really tired of the constant petty alerts. Save the alert button for the real transgressions for which it was meant.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nader makes a lot of us angry. No need to hide this.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I had to look up pedantic.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Cha]

75. Ha!

[Maedhros]

85. You betray your lack of knowledge by referring to those who support Nader's policies

as "followers." Not so.

I will demonstrate that I have more class that you by not responding to your insult in kind.

[frazzled]

53. Nader cozies up to hedge funds and the Koch brothers

Nader Seeks Fannie Mae Value in Push Aiding Hedge Funds

Consumer activist Ralph Nader and a free-market group whose funders include billionaires Charles and David Koch are part of a growing crowd urging the Senate to preserve value for investors in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“As the housing-finance reform debate heats up on Capitol Hill, it is of the utmost importance that the voices of shareholders -- which have, until now, been ignored -- be heard,” Nader, 80, said in a statement he released today as a delegation of individual stockholders from 20 states prepared to visit lawmakers. The five-time presidential candidate said he owns about 50,000 of each company’s shares himself.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Nader+hedge+funds&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Also: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/06/why-is-ralph-nader-cozying-up-to-a-bunch-of-hedge-funds/

[sadoldgirl]

57. My Democratic Senator is up for reelection;

he is an honorary board member of the Third Way. I don't even know anything about a candidate from the Greens, but I am absolutely sure that I will have to vote for my Senator. Naturally his right counterpart is a teabagger, who supported the personhood amendment. Since the election is a very close one I have to swallow the Third Way membership. I am pretty sure that I am not alone in making a painful choice within the Democratic Party, but I see no other more liberal competition which would help here..

[betterdemsonly]

60. The third way support corporate personhood.

If you were to decide that was too much, do you think the democrats would be wise to tell you to fuck off, and instead seek votes from socalled centrists who openly support corporate personhood? This is called swallowing your tail or cutting off your nose despite your face.

[sadoldgirl]

66. Look, our constitution is more or less set up for two parties

may they be as close to each other as twins. I wished someone like Bernie Sanders would run, but knowing my state I could not risk voting for him even.

[Maedhros]

86. Actually, the Constitution was set up with the idea that there would be NO parties.

It's just one of its many weaknesses, because it failed to protect against the problem we have now.

[woo me with science]

58. Only in public, and only if they can make absolutely certain beforehand

that it will come to naught.

[Arkana]

64. Critical of Ralph Nader != Third-Wayism.

The sooner you learn that the better.

[Bobbie Jo]

74. Funny that....

I haven't even heard the term "third way" anywhere else but here. I ran it past my husband, a typical rank and file union Democrat, and he gave me that WTF kind of look.

Most of my liberal friends weren't familiar with it either. I'm a social worker in the nonprofit sector, so most of my co-workers are of the liberal/progressive persuasion, support Democrats, and are very active politically. I can't recall one conversation where the the term "third way" was mentioned. Not once in 25+ years!

I think it's just bizarre that some DU'ers can't seem to form a post without some kind of backhanded comment about the fucking "third way11!!1"

Truly, what is with the fixation??

[Arkana]

93. It's a way for the No True Scotsman portion of the left

to dismiss any and all ideas that would even suggest that perhaps governance requires two to tango.

[TheKentuckian]

76. No, just the more one drones on about him the more likely they tend to be such

Or at least more than tolerant of their position and worldview.

Reagan and BushCo. have done more than enough damage without ideological corporatists on our side of the aisle throwing us an anchor every time they get a chance too and join in torching the world supposedly balanced moderate social policy (no, understanding we are all people doesn't make you liberal, in means you aren't retrograde filth and dumb as dogshit) that far too often they get caught following behind the general public before the finger in the air on even those positions feels which way the wind is going and quickly make their way to the front of the bandwagon to pretend they were driving the whole time.

A lot of it seems like double talk to me anyway, how are these motherfuckers soooo pro - women and minorities when their policies are most likely to kick the shit out of them first?

Welfare deform is pro - women, is watching out for the most vulnerable? Right.

Shipping jobs over seas is lifting up women, minorities, and the poor how? By cutting off every Avenue to getting ahead or at least not falling further behind?

How are resource wars advancing the interests women, poor, and minorities? They aren't except by diverting limited resources into a black hole?

Are the most at risk helped by their water being on fire or poisoned? I know they do it for the shorties!

How are our kids served turning their education into a corporate wealth extraction program? Poorly.

Busting unions is helping women and families how? It isn't it is knocking them down.

I swear we have some that are not so different than their opposite numbers on the right. Just as they have the twisted holier than thou fucks that don't give a damn about a baby once it is born, we have some that don't seem to give a shit about women before or after they are in a clinic for services.
A few more want equal pay but seem as comfortable with bringing down men's to do it as lifting women up, perhaps more so seeing how little of a solitary fuck they care about the state of wages that women, children, minorities, gay, WHATEVER have to live on and scratch out some kind of future on.

Who is getting hammered in the phony ass drug war, minorities. Who disproportionately takes on the chin? Single mothers and their children left up in a damn war zone with nothing and no prospects.

The thing is that we have big picture problems and that does not mean for a second that women's health or equality have to take a back seat but rather that we have dire for nearly each and everyone issues that they are a part of the comprehensive puzzle on that cannot be disregarded without inflicting great harm on what is being fought tooth and nail for.

[vssmith]

72. Gore did a lot to cause his own demise

His debate performance was embarrassing

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. OP is falling into the same trap many do, I think.

By assuming that 'critics of Nader' are the same people who believe Nader was anything more than a convenient scapegoat in 2000.

Candidates and their supporters blame anyone and everyone but the candidate for a loss.

That having been said, I'm critical of Nader, even though I don't blame him for Bush taking the WH in 2000.

[Maedhros]

87. Reasoned criticism is always welcome in a political discussion forum.

It leads to reasoned debate.

"Fuck Nader!" is just political flatulence.

[KG]

73. to answer you question, since nobody seems to want to, is: no.

actually, not only no, but hell no.

[Jamaal510]

82. That type of talk about moderate Democrats,

calling them "mushy", using "third way" as a pejorative, and portraying them as weak is not the way to go to get them to see your side of things. Some moderate-minded folks have brought up the issue of getting money out of politics and keeping businesses from trampling people's private lives, such as the President.
Also with regards to Nader and other 3rd party advocates fighting to defend people's rights, I never hear too much from them when it comes to social issues such as those concerning minorities and women. None of them made a peep as Republicans have been taking away people's right to vote. They all come off as one-trick ponies that have their whole agenda revolving around a small handful of issues, and that crowd pops up in presidential years while staying mostly silent during off-years. If Nader, Jill Stein, etc. care so much about changing the system, they should do more than just running a bunch of losing campaigns and creating endless streams of false equivalencies between the two major parties. I also advise anyone who still supports them to brush up on our checks-and-balances system.

[jazzimov]

84. Nuck Fader - and his supporters.

Spoilers, every one of them.

[AgingAmerican]

88. Mushy middle types

...just go unquestioningly along with whatever the mushy middle politicians tell them. They have no fight in them whatsoever, except to protect those same mushy middle politicians.