2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRalph Nader: Hillary Clinton a “corporatist” and “militarist”
While speaking at a D.C. bookstore, former Green Party presidential candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader criticized Hillary Clinton for not being the same person she was at 30 years old, also calling her a corporatist and militarist.
I think Hillary is not the Hillary of when she was 30 years old, he told his listeners. She made peace with the power structure and she is a deep corporatist and a deep militarist. One can almost forgive the corporatism. She moved to New York with Bill because thats where the power is and Wall Street, but her militarism is absolutely shocking.
Nader also took to criticizing her decisions as Secretary of State, particularly regarding the War in Libya.
She almost singlehandedly did the uh, Libyan War. The Defense Department was against it, [Robert] Gates; She persuaded the White House that it was an easy topple without knowing that in a tribal society with nothing to replace it you would have a civil war, sectarian killings spilling into Africa, weapons everywhere, Mali, central Africa and shes being accused of Benghazi. The big thing is the huge amount of geography that has been destabilized because of the Libyan overthrow.
Read more at the link: http://rare.us/story/ralph-nader-hillary-clinton-a-corporatist-and-militarist/
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)A man who doesn't know how to drive an oversteering rear-engined car. Why are we still wasting our time on this?
enid602
(8,594 posts)But for Bernie, however this is an endorsement nonetheless. Do I sense a little bromance here? A possible VP pick, maybe? I can just see them doing a cross country whistle stop in a '61 Corvair, stopping occasionally to fight windmills.
pengu
(462 posts)They're not on very good terms at all. There's zero chance he'd be the VP pick.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)as a Democrat, Bernie disagrees. People can disagree without disliking each other.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Susan Sarandon was an ardent Naderite. This cycle she's found a new idol, and furthermore, she wants us all to know what she won't do with her fiddly bits....
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Obama's successful peace initiatives with Iran, thank the gods, no war there as the neocons dream of.
So I guess she at least agrees with Nader on the militarization part.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Will Ralph Nader become Al Gore's worst nightmare?
Of more immediate interest, at least to Al Gore, are Nader's respectable poll numbers: 7 to 10 percent in California as of June, 6 percent nationally. If California tips Green enough, Bush could win the state and the whole damn election.
Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn't be so bad. When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush."
http://www.outsideonline.com/1837851/ralph-nader-2000-campaign-interview
And he succeeded...
Nader flew back and forth between California and Florida, finally spending the most of the last few weeks in Florida, and fulfilling his goal of a Bush Presidency.
I always thought that that was his preference, but hadn't seen actual confirmation before. (Certainly, his campaign alone did enough damage in itself).
Nader deserves thanks for increased car safety and other progress in consumer issues.
But his messing with the 2000 election (and later elections) has done damage to this country.
And I'm tired of his bitterness. Enough already.Please go away, Ralph. Or at least shut up.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)JudyM
(29,192 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)Who has the blood of everything from 9/11 to Afghanistan to Iraq to even ISIS on his hands due to his ego.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Not to mention giving us george war bush.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Didn't die.
Not even once.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)guzzlers of the time.
jmowreader
(50,528 posts)And that is, A car with the engine behind the driver needs more tire in the back than it does in the front. You can get there two ways: by putting bigger tires in the back (as you see with top fuel dragsters, rear-engine Porsches, and Lamborghinis) or by inflating the rear tires to higher PSI than the front ones, like aircooled VWs and Corvairs. The problem was, no one who dealt with Corvairs knew that - they said to do it in the owner's manual but a lot of people ignored it. Volkswagen was different: when the car came out, they gave their dealers very specific instructions to tell their customers just how critical this was. Volkswagen Bugs are just as capable of killing their passengers as Corvairs are if you fuck up the air pressure, but Volkswagen's leadership in this held down the carnage to a reasonable amount.
Seriously guys, I could never figure out what the product development people at GM were thinking when they invented the Corvair. I can understand the impetus: the Germans were eating GM's lunch with the Beetle. Problem is, the customer was buying Beetles because they are:
* cheap to buy
* cheap to run
* easy to fix
* fun to own
and GM thought the customer was buying Beetles because:
* engine is in the back
A lot of people claim the Edsel was Detroit's Greatest Marketing Blunder. Nope, it was the Corvair. A car like the Nova, but with a cast-iron engine in it, would have been better than the Corvair.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)I've seen DUers blame Senator Nader for the Iraq war, too.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He's no mastermind, but he's like the little girl in the Shake n Bake commercial...he "hepped."
DVRacer
(707 posts)I agree with you on something. My chest feels tight right now. Lmao Hoyt I read your posts shaking my head most days feeling like you have experienced very little of the real world. Then you say something like this and totally redeem yourself. Please take this with the lightheartedness it was intended.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,252 posts)The fact that he didn't retreat in shame into a cave and never utter another word in public again should tell you everything you need to know about Ralph Nader.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)elleng
(130,732 posts)and always has.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)message.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Than to tell the honest truth, or admit it when it's staring down at you.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,252 posts)His "claims" are all name calling and generalities. How can an insult be "true" or "false"? I think Nader is an asshole, but as much as I'd like for that to be the objective truth, I know it's all subjective.
I have absolutely no idea what "militarist" or "corporatist" is supposed to mean. Has Clinton supported military intervention in the past? Yes, and so have a lot of good people (including Sanders). Has she made some mistakes? Again, yes. And again, so have a lot of good people. When that crosses the line into Ralph Nader's magical definition of "militarist" is anyone's guess.
That said, I don't care what he has to say. Ralph Nader could go around speaking the most inane details about the weather 24/7, and I still don't want to hear his voice ever again. He has lost all credibility and is never getting it back.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)owned by industries. She owned by Monsanto, Walmart, MIC, financial services industry, etc.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That's just silliness. She has enough money to do her own thing. When you have to drag in WALMART, where she was a token board director a million years ago, and of whom she's been critical in the intervening years, to "prove your point" it's clear you're not arguing from facts. The "etc." is a clue, too.
smh!
still_one
(92,061 posts)job by aligning with Nader.
This doesn't surprise me though, since there are also threads which post links from extreme right wing, anti-abortion, and anti-choice sites to defend the attacks on PP.
If they continue with this kind of nonsense, the same threats some have made regarding that they would not vote for Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee, could very easily motivate some non-Bernie supporters to take a similar stance if Bernie is the nominee.
If enough on either side decide that course, then we all lose
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's like the whole Paulbot snuggling, I don't get that either.
MADem
(135,425 posts)One thing this election cycle has taught me is that we have a cadre of generalists who like to fling buzzwords without understanding their meaning or even having a set sense of what they are saying. I always thought our crowd was smarter, now I realize we might not be--we're just on the other side of the issues.
I think Ralph needs to shut up, too--he's already Wrecked It.
I often wonder what life would have been like after eight years of a Gore Presidency. I'll bet the air in LA would be cleaner...! I think we probably would have rehabilitated Saddam and forced him into a box. Hard to know...
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)She shows poor judgement at nearly every occasion where judgement of some kind is required. Clinton Inc. IS DANGEROUS! !
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)Nothing like some good ole DU Nader Derangement Syndrome.
840high
(17,196 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)His advocacy work has been a positive contribution.
Compared to any Republican, he's a bloody saint.
Compared to Hillary Clinton he's ... well, yes, he's preferable. But then just about anyone except a Republican is.
Laser focused hate-sessions aren't productive.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That you do so means you are behaving in a very petty manner, and thus you belong on the ignore list.
/bye.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)brush
(53,741 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,167 posts)Damn. How time flies.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)brush
(53,741 posts)He's a huge hypocrite. Many of the very things he rails against, he does.
Pls read the link:
http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#hypocrite
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Nader may well be a hypocrite, but being a hypocrite doesn't mean your claims are wrong; just that your actions are out of sync with those claims.
brush
(53,741 posts)Pls read this link:
http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#hypocrite
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Been watching the Clintons since 1991. Closely. Have done a 180 from hardcore fan to realizing they are part and particle of what is wrong with the Democratic Party of today. I would opportunistic, to Nader's observation.
Eugene
(61,807 posts)and the whole world.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)How about you now try addressing the topic he raised?
That is, if you can.
Step up to the plate and take a swing at it. (Or just keep sniping from the locker room.)
brush
(53,741 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)I don't do requests for shoot the messenger spinners that don't FIRST address the topic.
Try again.
brush
(53,741 posts)Your choice.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Who hasn't had to "evolve" to be on the liberal side of issues.
brush
(53,741 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Is that clear enough for you comprehend?
brush
(53,741 posts)that tried to start a union on the staff of one of his magazines for the low pay and long hours.
He squashed them with the typical hardball corporatist tactics that he rails against.
But suit yourself. Stay uninformed. Nader is not the hero many seem to think.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)No means no.
brush
(53,741 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... watch them flail about flabbergasted that someone has the audacity to not play their horseshit games.
840high
(17,196 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Ross Perot split the vote which allowed Clinton to win. Do you hate him?
I voted for Bill, but Nader had a right to run.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I mean, being a hypocrite doesn't mean you are wrong.
A better avenue is probably trying to unpack what "corporatist" actually means.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)Bwhahahahahaha
oasis
(49,326 posts)That slimy crackpot has not ounce of credibility.
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)Nader can accomplish the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, Citizens United and the elimination of Roe v. Wade
oasis
(49,326 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)oasis
(49,326 posts)don't give a damn what that POS slime bag says now, or has ever said.
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Yes, I said both of those things and I am not sorry.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
still_one
(92,061 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)HRC is a pawn of the The System.
brush
(53,741 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brush
(53,741 posts)He does many of the things he criticizes others for, including the oligarchs, corporations (his huge stock holdings) and banks.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MH1
(17,573 posts)Go away, Ralph.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)brush
(53,741 posts)he rails against. Pls read the link.
http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#hypocrite
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
brush
(53,741 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
RandySF
(58,488 posts)We've reached the bottom of the barrel.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Don't go away mad, Ralph, just go away. And take your ego with you.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)instead of crawling into a hole and shutting the hell up.
Any "democrat" who listens to a thing Nader says has Stockholm Syndrome or is a secret right winger.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I'm sick of bozos like him undermining the Democratic party through hyperbole and overstatement. Screw him.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Renew Deal
(81,846 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Renew Deal
(81,846 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)People like you who won't vote for someone better and someone willing to change the system are the problem. That is why wages are stagnant and jobs are sparse.
Renew Deal
(81,846 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Renew Deal
(81,846 posts)That statement speaks for itself.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)economic collapse of 2007-2008.
okasha
(11,573 posts)that eight years of Bush and Republicans weren't the cause of that collapse. You're way too fond of Rattus rattus.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)And it seems you're setting up Sanders to do it again. People who help Republicans gain power & get into office can't continue to claim to be progressive heroes.
Thankfully, Bernie's plans so far are apparently elsewhere.
artislife
(9,497 posts)There have been others who have run beside the Dems and the Repubs and yet they aren't blamed.
Is it because the election was stolen? Nader didn't do that. Is it because Gore didn't fight it? Nader didn't do that either.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I pretend the ineffectual are too powerful also-- it really helps us believe what suits our biases to do so, and from that unstable, unsupported premise, we can make up anything we want to.
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)Go to hell you son of a bitch and the assholes that voted for you in 2000.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Gore1FL
(21,098 posts)Nader made FL possible to steal. He played into their hands and we got Bush.
This has nothing to do with Gore winning TN. He didn't need to win TN. He won Florida.
artislife
(9,497 posts)And the hanging chads?
Gore1FL
(21,098 posts)No need to count chads or butterfly ballots. Do you really want to rehash this discussion?
artislife
(9,497 posts)But blaming Nader for running is wrong. The loss of the election had to do with other realities.
I voted for Gore and was mad at my boss for voting for Nader, but I have had time to reflect. I used to call that election a silent coup and still think it was. If there had been no Nader, it still would have happened.
Gore1FL
(21,098 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)brush
(53,741 posts)He's a huge hypocrite and does many of the things he accuses others of. Read this link:
http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#hypocrite
artislife
(9,497 posts)The two party strangle hold wouldn't be so bad if our party didn't try to force their pick instead of us deciding who to pick.
Nader didn't lose the election. I did not and would not vote for him. But he had every right, yup constitutional and otherwise, to run.
TekGryphon
(430 posts)If there had been no Nader, there would have been no Bush.
Nader made it a razor-thin election that could be decided by a court. Without Nader, the margin would have been a solid win for Gore.
You have to engage in some seriously deluded conspiracy theories to think that the Republicans would still have stolen Florida or the election without Nader.
artislife
(9,497 posts)TekGryphon
(430 posts)What other neat tricks can you do?
artislife
(9,497 posts)Response to JRLeft (Reply #53)
Post removed
JI7
(89,239 posts)so he still got what he was going for.
so i guess he got one up over gore on that.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)... he would crawl under a rock and never show is face in public again.
George II
(67,782 posts)....to bash Democrats.
The clown has no conscience.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Or anything else regarding party politics.
Response to JRLeft (Original post)
Post removed
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)After all was said and done, there are only three responses on this thread that I can see. These anti Nader HRC people make it so easy for me to delete them.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Lack critical thought. They also give bush ligitimacy with that bullshit. Takes shit for brains to not understand that.
JudyM
(29,192 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Sorry a little levity...
JudyM
(29,192 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)JudyM
(29,192 posts)Nader swung both FL and NH to Bush.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)JudyM
(29,192 posts)of winning.
There wouldn't have been the need to do a recount.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I still don't give a rat's ass about his political opinions.
Nyan
(1,192 posts)brush
(53,741 posts)He under pays and overworks his workers and has even busted their attempts to form a union.
http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#hypocrite
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)now I have nothing but contempt for this self indulgent fool
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Nyan
(1,192 posts)Pay attention to what Nader said about Libya bombing, people. And Clinton's role in it, which is absolutely abhorrent.
And no. Nader doesn't get to take the blame than the Bush family and Gore.
It's reactionary, and cowardice to go after him.
Jeb and George rigged the election together, and Gore didn't put up a fight when he should have.
It's all been very convenient for them to have 3rd party candidate to take the blame for everything.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)(the Party) is defied.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)pnwmom
(108,955 posts)Lying about there being no differences between the two candidates, claiming that Gore and Bush were Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
And if a small fraction of Nader's dupes had voted for Gore instead, he would have had a solid win, out of the reach of the Supreme Court.
So we can thank Nader for his helping Bush get elected and everything he did after that.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)pnwmom
(108,955 posts)Gore over Bush.
They chose to vote, but he was the one who decided to fun, and to campaign his hardest in the swing states -- even while many of his supporters were urging him not to.
progressoid
(49,945 posts)There are lots of reasons Gore lost.
If the Natural Law party, the Workers World party, the Libertarians, the Socialists, etc had voted for Gore...
If the butterfly ballot (designed by a Democrat) hadn't been used and given Pat Buchannan over three thousand votes...
If Katherine Harris and Choice Point hadn't illegally purged thousands of minority voters...
If over 200,000 Democrats hadn't voted for Bush...
Yes, Nader is an asshole, but the blame lies in many places. I suppose he's an easier punching bag though.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)have recommended be cast for Gore -- as many of his supporters were urging him to. They didn't want him to campaign in the swing states, but he campaigned there the hardest.
Each of your 200K controlled only one vote. Nader diverted 95,000.
progressoid
(49,945 posts)pnwmom
(108,955 posts)Most of those "Democrats" were people who had switched parties during the Reagan era -- the famous Reagan Democrats -- and never changed their registrations.
No one expected them to vote for Gore.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Bush would have never been elected without Nader and his"not a dimes worth of difference" once again: Thanks for the Iraq war Ralph and the people in FL that voted for him.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Try to deny that his narcissistic run had far reaching catastrophic effects.
betsuni
(25,377 posts)Blah, blah, blah, blah, militarist.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, war.
Tra la la la, tra la la la la, both parties are the same.
Tra la la la, tra la la la la, WE GET IT, YOU DO NOT LIKE HILLARY CLINTON.
Same song every day.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)pnwmom
(108,955 posts)Nader was either a self-serving liar or profoundly stupid.
In either case, progressives should have learned to ignore his political opinions long ago.
Bleacher Creature
(11,252 posts)I think he was both.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)brush
(53,741 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)he had the bright idea of recruiting billionaires for a 3rd party run in 2016. And when he told Janet Yellen she should let her husband tell her how to do her job.
And this shit:
WTF? is that. Maybe we should pop out babes while we're ironing hubby's shirt. Fuck that noise & fuck Nader.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)than to be peaceful?
one_voice
(20,043 posts)and I know I didn't say that shit. No wonder you're a fan of Nader.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)and I quote:
94. Yeah, I remember when...
he had the bright idea of recruiting billionaires for a 3rd party run in 2016. And when he told Janet Yellen she should let her husband tell her how to do her job.
And this shit:
This is the problem of women trying to overcompensate in becoming more aggressive and macho so they are not accused of being soft on the need to kill and war, right? Instead of taking the tradition of women of peace, and turning into a muscular waging of peace of conflict and prevention, she did the reverse, and Albright did the reverse and Anne Marie Slaughter did the reverse and some of Obamas advisers did the reverse.
WTF? is that. Maybe we should pop out babes while we're ironing hubby's shirt. Fuck that noise & fuck Nader.
98. It's better she slaughter innocent women and children
than to be peaceful?
I implied no such thing. What I implied what was Nader was a sexist asshole.
Bye now.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)poor advice.
JI7
(89,239 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I can giuve you credit for what you have done, but the fact is, YOU, yes YOU, and all the people that voted for you, are responsible for this. Go ahead and rattle about the Reagan Democrats in Florida, the fact is, if you did not come to Florida for the express purpose of trying to be a spoiler, Bush would never have been president. period. The numbers do not lie, they did nto lie, and they never will lie no matter how many people flip themselves into pretzels forgetting that they could have stiopped it, but chose not to because they wanted an ego high.
GO TO HELL, Ralph.
LexVegas
(6,030 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Mr. Nader offered his opinion on Ms. Clinton and many posters offered their opinion of Mr. Nader. Opinions are subjective in nature, yet only the former's opinion is treated as being sacrosanct.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)It is my opinion Sugar Ray Leonard would have easily dispatched of Floyd Mayweather Jr. the way he dispatched of his father, Floyd Mayweather Sr.
That is an opinion that can no more be verified or refuted than Mr. Nader's opinion(s) about Ms. Clinton.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)subjective - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/subjective
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)The predicate:
Subjective information is one person's opinion. In a newspaper, the editorial section is the place for subjectivity. It can be based on fact, but it is one person's interpretation of that fact. In this way, subjective information is also analytical.
Student research papers are usually subjective, in that the writer formulates a thesis statement and uses sources that support that thesis. Bear in mind that there is usually another equally valid viewpoint that can be supported with other sources.
Objective information reviews many points of view. It is intended to be unbiased. News reporters are supposed to be objective and report the facts of an event. Encyclopedias and other reference materials provide objective information
https://www.lib.odu.edu/genedinfolit/1infobasics/subjective_vs_objective.html
I will make two statements and you can please tell me which statement is objective and which statement is subjective:
Hillary Clinton was born on October 26, 1947.
Subjective or objective ?
Ralph Nader is a vainglorious megalomaniac whose ill thought out candidacy gave us eight years of George Walker Bush and two unwinnable wars.
Subjective or objective?
Thank you in advance.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Correlation or causation?
The Supreme Court decided that the state of Florida could not come up with a timely, consistent manner of counting ballots, thereby ending the vote count and handing the Presidency to George W. Bush.
Correlation or causation?
"Ralph Nader is a vainglorious megalomaniac whose ill thought out candidacy gave us eight years of George Walker Bush and two unwinnable wars."
Correlation or causation?
Thank you in advance.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Correlation or causation? You actually gave me an incomplete hypothetical. It's actually more of a statement.
The Supreme Court decided that the state of Florida could not come up with a timely, consistent manner of counting ballots, thereby ending the vote count and handing the Presidency to George W. Bush.
Correlation or causation? For elaboration please see previous answer.
"Ralph Nader is a vainglorious megalomaniac whose ill thought out candidacy gave us eight years of George Walker Bush and two unwinnable wars."
Correlation or causation?
Thank you in advance.
Did the candidacy of Ralph Nad(i)r sic lead or did it not lead to the sequela of events that led to the election being decided by the Supreme Court?
Thank you in advance.
Respectfully,
DSB
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Nader's responsible for the Iraq war, but Hillary isn't? Bullshit.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Nader's responsible for the Iraq war, but Hillary isn't? Bullshit.
-OnyxCollie
You asked my opinion. I gave it to you, Now you disrepect, dismiss, dehumanize, and denigrate me. I used to think empathy was the sine qua non of liberalism. That is what made us different from right wingers, used to.
Respectfully,
DSB
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)The ROFL smilie is a dehumanizer.
Maybe Hillary Clinton thought that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled ROFL smilies when she voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, giving George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq, eliminate Saddam, and create a political vacuum which led to the creation of ISIS.
Or, maybe it was the prospect of creating new business opportunities in Iraq.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)The ROFL smilie is a dehumanizer.
-OnyxCollie
Is laughing at someone and dismissing his or her opinions as "bullshit" an effective method of validating other human beings and letting them know they are worthy of respect?
Is or is not treating other human beings with love, kindness and respect a laudable goal?
Thank you in advance.
Respectfully,
DSB
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Or those who try to blame Ralph Nader for everything through some Rube Goldberg concatenation, while exempting those with the legitimately-recognized authority who are truly responsible.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)SIGH
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)I'm not disrespecting you; your actions are not worthy of respect.
That's your problem.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)But it is easy to disrespect people on the internet.
Out of the blue you engaged me in a global discussion on correlation, causation, opinion, fact, subjectivity, and objectivity and when I gave you a response you didn't like you insulted me. It is what it is.
I am not walking away from this discussion until you apologize or withdraw from our tête-à-tête.
The choice, sir or madame, is yours.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Respect is earned, not given.
If you're so easily upset, delicate flower, stay off of message boards.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)View profile
Respect is earned, not given.
If you're so easily upset, delicate flower, stay off of message boards.
-Onyx Collie
More insults and now a command. The latter is making me shudder while the former is making me sad.
Respectfully,
DSB
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Here's another suggestion: Keep ginning up the faux outrage and playing the victim, it suits you well.
Here's a demand: Don't bother responding. I'm putting you on ignore.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)View profile
Respect is earned, not given.
If you're so easily upset, delicate flower, stay off of message boards.
-Onyx Collie
180. Demand? More like a suggestion.
View profile
Here's another suggestion: Keep ginning up the faux outrage and playing the victim, it suits you well.
Here's a demand: Don't bother responding. I'm putting you on ignore.
-OnyxCollie
I can't put my finger on the discordance between the two responses but I know it's there.
Respectfully,
DSB
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It appears that you are the one who first engaged DSB. When you didn't like his responses, you insulted him, put him on ignore to immediately shut-down the conversation. The word "unfair" doesn't seem quite right, but it's pretty close (and one that should pass jury scrutiny.)
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)is my civic duty, but engaging in volley of posts with someone who borrows RW tactics of feigning outrage and playing the victim instead of defending his position is a waste of my time, as is explaining my actions to cohorts of said poster.
Welcome to ignore.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)You're not the first... and you certainly won't be the last.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Unless you are shocked that DSB can type and/or put together a sentence, or otherwise communicate his opinion, this is nothing that would seem to enter the realm of respect/disrespect. (Given the context of the exchange, that seems unlikely)
So ... Don't you mean ...
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... but it's funny as all get-out!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Where's that, "I don't think that word (those words) mean what he/she thinks they mean" thingy?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)That's how Earth rotates. The sun doesn't move.
Note the difference between unthinking cliches and facts.
delrem
(9,688 posts)You'd have got me but relative to any observer on earth, for whom the terms "east" and "west" apply, the sun rises in the East.
Bloody idiots!
Jeez christmas! The stupidity of some people with their "gotcha's".
okasha
(11,573 posts)Try again.
delrem
(9,688 posts)No.
I don't think so.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I'm making fun of you.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Jeez.
Response to JRLeft (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #119)
betsuni This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)I thought everybody knew by now that Hillary is a corporatist and militarist. Her supporters adore her for it and the rest of us don't. Maybe Nader should read DU more often?
He says, "The big thing is the huge amount of geography that has been destabilized because of the Libyan overthrow." He mentions "weapons everywhere" following the destabilization of Libya; did any of those weapons come of Hillary's agreements with weapon sellers while SOS? An even bigger "thing" is the massive destabilization and death that followed the Iraqi invasion, which she voted for. But she is far more directly responsible for Libya than Iraq. Poor Obama; I wonder how much he regrets having to give her the SOS position? Glad he has Kerry now.
Hillary is the queen of bad judgement. Not what we need in a president.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)I thought this was common knowledge? Clinton has, for some 40 years, been political, in the system, part of the status quo, an overachiever, big time political wonk.
As far as blaming Clinton for Libya, had the UN not got involved, then Libya would unquestionably look like Syria right now. Syria did not have any major defections, there was no large territory taken in the early phases of the war, and it still resulted in 250k dead civilians. R2P was invoked for the first time in Libya and it resulted in a much less unstable scenario to where it's safer than a lot of Latin American countries.
Anyone who blames the UN for the actions in Libya must explain how Libya would be better than Syria when Syria had no major military defections but Libya did. When Syria had no major arms depots raided but Libya did. When Syria had no besieged cities freed from outside sources but Libya did (Misrata).
Beacool
(30,247 posts)He already did enough damage in 2000. I have zero interest in any opinion he may have on any issue.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Nader poking his head up to attack a Democrat like some malignant groundhog, or the supposed "progressives" defending him.
Fuck Nader.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Oh yeah, Fuck Nader.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)is a misogynist and a paranoiac.
FloridaBlues
(4,004 posts)Nader lost his credability long time ago.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)That debacle is another foreign policy blunder by Clinton.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)MineralMan
(146,254 posts)That is all I will say about Ralph Nader, out of respect for the sensibilities of many on this website.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Some blame Nader, some blame those who were in power and others blame those who put them into power.
And they are all right.
Some much more so than others in my mind. But hey, that is only because I rely on empirical evidence.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)The "truth" you're referring to is that Ralph Nader, in the eyes of most of DU, is an asshole election stealing non-relevant so-and-so. And while you're free to think that, the actual "victim" here, if there is such a thing, is the truth that Nader told. Because Clinton is a militarist and a corporatist. So you can give the trite response "truth hurts", but there's only really one truth that has been suppressed in this thread.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)The Democrats would have won the election if Bill Clinton hadn't sold out the middle class, working class, and poor. Why do you think he lost so many seats in Congress?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I was listing the DU commonly-agreed-upon attitude about Nader. I don't hate him. I don't love him. He has a voice like everyone else, and a right to run for President. And he was right about Hillary when he said she's a corporatist and a militarist.
jeepers
(314 posts)An idea sold to us by both the democratic and republican parties to distract us while they pulled off a political coup that brought perpetual war and financial ruin down on all of us as the investors made billions. And we are focused on the shiny object a third party run by an American icon. The willfull ignorance expressed here by so many is shamefull.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Really.
olddots
(10,237 posts)Ah the internet evolves .
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)TekGryphon
(430 posts)Fuck you, Nader. You're one of the few people I can name who the world would be far better off if you had never been born.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Without Nader voters in FL there would not have been no Bush Presidency and no Iraq War-Bottom line. "Not a dimes worth of difference" ?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)are the shallowest of political thinkers, best ignored. They are interested only in lashing out at a designated external enemy, having been led by the nose to do so by Democratic Party apparatchiks working to deflect blame from the incredibly poor performance of their candidate.
It's so staid and boring that I have no time for refuting it anymore.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)Actually, no. It's really not anywhere near as pathetic as that.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)ZIP. Wrong on everything that matters.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)bullshit and see how laughable his campaign lies were.
Anyone who can buy Ralphie's lies has no credibility judging Clinton, so I'll laugh at your slice and dice little videos.
Response to R B Garr (Reply #253)
99Forever This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to R B Garr (Reply #239)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)and caused untold death, misery, and destruction. That right there gives him a 1up on Nader.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Owns a lobbying firm that represents arms manufacturers and Saudi Arabia.
That's who she choose to represent her.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)brooklynite
(94,333 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)point in their lives is forever tarnished and unworthy of any consideration or respect, now cite Ralph Nader as a credible source and ally because he shares their loathing of Hillary Clinton, while shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Sure, he almost single-handedly delivered this country eight years of Bush-Cheney, but other than that, he's a really great guy . . ."
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Good for you, Ralph.
olddots
(10,237 posts)NADER lost us the 2000 election .
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)5 justices selected Bush.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)in all his sham campaigns since 2000. Until then he can pipe down.
Mike Nelson
(9,944 posts)...shut up, lose the envy - and, then, he might be applauded for the early activisms. Alas, he's not interested.