Put Nader on ignore! Poll question: Should Nader threads even be allowed at this time?

[Swamp Rat]

Poll question: Put Nader on ignore! Poll question: Should Nader threads even be allowed at this time?

Even if one agrees with some of his statements, what purpose does it serve to rehash Nader's talking points when we know it will likely hurt the Democratic candidate? :shrug:

[DinahMoeHum]

1. Fuck Nader. He's not running as a Democrat.

n/t


:nuke:

[Cha]

46. Yeah, fucking

idiot.

[terrya]

2. Definitely after the nominee is known.

There should be ZERO talk about Nader after we have a nominee. Anyone who would still think of voting for that asshole after 2000 shouldn't even be here.

[rpannier]

3. Only if it's to insult him should there be any threads

Nader 'the Republican Enabler' is back

[H2O Man]

4. Other.

Nader should be treated like McCain. He is the opposition. We should discuss how to counter the opposition, not pretend it is not there. But any posts that express support for McCain or Nader should be zapped immediately.

[Swamp Rat]

6. Way'at H2O Man!

:hi: well-put. I agree to a certain extent. McCain is the opposition so we MUST counter him, but Nader functions more like an Achilles' heel. Another solution is to move Nader posts to a 'Nader forum' where folks can discuss him as infinitum.

[Window]

56. Exactly.

Well said.



Peace:thumbsup:

[applegrove]

71. There should be no tolerance for pro Nader posts. Goes against longstanding

DU rules. We come to this site as Democrats. Let the open sites talk about him all they want. The DU should not.

[totodeinhere]

5. ...

I agree with H2O Man. We should not ignore Nader. We should advocate against him and make sure that all progressives know that a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.

[Hutzpa]

31. We can still do that without

Nader threads and posts.

[grantcart]

7. thank you

[grantcart]

8. thank you

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. I Say Anyone Condoning Nader In Any Way Should Be Banned On The Spot.

Oh how I wish it would be so.

[mudesi]

50. Yes! Ban all liberals from Democratic Underground!

:eyes:

[bridgit]

59. 'liberals' at DU support Nader? Wow. Just wow...

How wrong can the right be by suggesting liberals have no sense of history when they see 'liberals' continue to paddle over the falls with the ticket-splitting Nader like boat loads of wet lemmings?

[stevenleser]

60. No sane Liberals or Progressives support Nader, sorry

Without Nader, we would have had President Gore, meaning:

- No Iraq war
- No Abu Ghraib
- No Guantanamo Prison/Concentration Camp
- No hundreds of Presidential signing statements
- No tax giveaway for the rich
- No bankrupting of our economy to pay for said tax giveaway and the Iraq war

I could go on. And that is not even considering the good things Gore would have done.

So, no, there would be no banning of Liberals or Progressives if we ban pro Nader threads.

Nader and those who support him can kiss my arse and then promptly go to hell.

[UALRBSofL]

10. Nader is relevant in the election

I don't see any reason to ignore him. He's part of the political process and he is running for president. I don't believe in censor, just my opinion.

[Swamp Rat]

11. Your response is exactly the problem I foresee.

Thank you very much, and no offense intended.

[UALRBSofL]

16. Swamp Rat, I'm not sure what you mean

I don't support Nader or will vote for him, but, he shouldn't be ignored. Just my opinion.

[Swamp Rat]

20. Oh, I know you don't support him.

I did not at all intend to offend you. Sorry if it came off that way. I just think it is a bad idea to give Nader ANY voice during the election cycle, at least in GDP, where he will cause a major distraction.

Your response was reasonable, and I expected it, but there are people who plan and will abuse the topics about Nader in order to hurt the Democratic Party, and distract us from our objective of removing the GOP from the White House.

[ProSense]

12. Obama on Nader

"I think anybody has the right to run for president if they file sufficient papers," Obama said -- and recall, he won that first State Senate race by getting a rival tossed off the ballot, so he's not unfamiliar with the kind of petition challenges that could prevent Nader from being a threat in key states.

"And I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference," he added, suggesting, perhaps, that the party's job isn't to kick Nader off the ballot.

He was then asked about Nader having criticized him for lacking "substance." Obama responded:

You know, he had called me and I think reached out to my campaign -- my sense is is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work. Now -- and by the way, I have to say that, historically, he is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anybody on behalf of consumers. So in many ways he is a heroic figure and I don't mean to diminish him. But I do think there is a sense now that if somebody is not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, then you must be lacking in some way.

link

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

13. Pro Nader, you're outta here...and I'm with you on discussing the talking points, thus begins the

"but, he's saying BOTH parties are corrupt" threads. He divides our party every time, with his passive aggressive "reasonableness" all designed to allow him to be a player.

[Swamp Rat]

18. I tried to point that out a long time ago.

[Hutzpa]

37. Ok Swamp, I do have great respect for you,

now tell me what you think on the question raised by the poster above.

He does divide the party, unless this is the Clinton's doing....now..

I'm not accusing them,(Clinton's) but just putting my :tinfoilhat: on.

[Swamp Rat]

43. What's the question?

:D :shrug:

All I know is, the injection of Nader's personality will marginalise progressive ideas. It happened before and it will likely happen again.

[Hutzpa]

45. Ok, not a question, but a

statement by this poster;

"but, he's saying BOTH parties are corrupt" threads. He divides our party every time, with his passive aggressive "reasonableness" all designed to allow him to be a player.

[Hutzpa]

48. Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you

I'm just saying, what CAN we do besides zapping these threads and posts.

[Swamp Rat]

53. Create a Nader forum?

:D That is all I got. Sorry. :D

[Swamp Rat]

14. Nader threads -------------------->

[bahrbearian]

15. I hope I don't get Tombstoned because how I Vote.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Other: ritually shame Nader and his supporters. n/t

[workinclasszero]

19. Nader's a republican

virtual or otherwise. He exists to destroy democrats.

Isn't this a pro-democrat board?

Seems like a clear choice to me.

[workinclasszero]

22. Proof right here

Nader enters in boon to GOP

By: Mike Allen and Ben Smith
Feb 24, 2008 09:48 AM EST
Updated: February 24, 2008 10:35 AM EST


Ralph Nader announced on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he'll run as a third-party, anti-corporate candidate for president this fall, which would be likely to drain votes from the Democratic nominee and provide a huge boon to Republicans.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8655.html

[Coexist]

21. zap him! OT, SwampRat

do you have any of your awesome graphics of McBarbie and her hubby yet?

I love your stuff.

[Swamp Rat]

23. I was working on one last night, but I am having trouble finding some material

I am also going to have to get back to my studies, so I will have to put off the project.

thanks! :hi:

Quoting McCain on waterboarding, this is entitled "Exquisite Torture.":

[cloudythescribbler]

24. Suppressing content speech like this is really an act of cowardice and lack of principle ...

I would add that I also oppose many of the kinds of things that the Democratic Party did in 2004 to keep Nader off various ballots, including some pretty sleazy maneuvers. That said, here's what I think of Nader & his candidacy, especially in 2000 (repost):

(I can't say that I have read a whole lot of material from the Obama campaign myself, but on the other hand, I don't put so much stock in all the specifics outlined by candidates in these documents). I have watched some 8 debates and several speeches by Obama during the campaign, and seen plenty of detail for my purposes there and in extensive social commentary.

Actually, the advantage of figures like Nader, to the extent that in an election where the ONLY significant impact they could possibly have is to be a spoiler helping the Repukes get power, is that they advocate positions, details or no details, like single payer health insurance ignored by the mainstream.

Nevertheless, as in the past, including Nader's MOST SUCCESSFUL (both in getting votes and in possibly tipping the election FROM the Democrats to the Repugs) in 2000, the MSM attention on Nader has been almost exclusively on his role as a spoiler, and he has done little to counteract that. In 2000 in particular, he spent LOTS of time campaigning in swing states like Penn, Ohio, and FL, and relatively little both in solid blue states (like MA, CT, and CA) AND IN SOLID RED STATES WHERE HE WOULDN'T ACT AS A SPOILER (such as TX, WY, and IN). Most states and jurisdictions fall into one of those two categories, even in widely contested races with many states "in play" such as in 2000.

What this and other factors show me is that Nader is more interested in drawing attention than in 'going hunting where the ducks are'. After all, the logic of the two MAIN candidates under the present system is to FOCUS on all the "purple" and 'purplish' states such as CO, MO, MN, OH, and FL, while the logic of someone running to get at least the minimum 5% threshold to qualify for federal financing (and possibly being included in the debates as well) is, as noted, exactly the opposite.
Nader, even in 2000, didn't even come CLOSE to getting 5% of the national vote.

As for building up a progressive movement (something I am very interested in, in its proper context, with groups like sds/mds -- the newly reconstituted students for a democratic society/movement for a democratic society) the fact that at Nader's main appearances in DC, his audience(s) were reportedly almost entirely white belies any notion that he is really effective in pursuit of that at least ostensible goal either

cloudy the scribbler

[Swamp Rat]

28. "cowardice and lack of principle" is posting Nader threads in the guise of defending free speech.

This thread is not at all about censorship of free speech content, as we already know the rules for posting about third party candidates.

[cloudythescribbler]

34. Well I disagree with the rules on this issue -- I favor open debate (& OPPOSE Nader's candidacy) ...

... as I did vocally in 2000 when MANY if not most at least ostensibly politically progressive colleagues were supporting him (though oddly, often also Hillary for the Senate).

[Swamp Rat]

39. The injection of Nader's personality will marginalise progressive ideas.

Allowing him to own progressive frameworks may help lead to another lost presidential election.

[cloudythescribbler]

73. Actually, there r MANY w/Nader's views of the 2 major parties -- it's not a "personality" issue

I don't support Nader's candidacy, and feel he actually tends to POISON the waters for when a REALLY viable 3d party idea comes along, given his 'spoiler' role, but 'personality' is a distractor issue here.

I don't support the idea of suppressing those political tendencies you consider harmful, as long as they are sincerely progressive. After all, there are LOTS of folk around places like DU who have an agenda having nothing to do with AUTHENTIC promotion of authentic progressive politics, but are not subject to effective screening.

Important progressives like Nader should be heard from and about, but hopefully not supported in the general election in cases such as the one we have now (2008). He doesn't "own" or pretend to "own"
progressive frameworks, just championing them, ineffectively in terms of the progressive issues, in the elections.

(I have a number of specific objections to Nader, eg his comments on Roe v Wade also, but that's another matter)

[Obamanaut]

64. I think Nader is more disruptor than candidate. nt

[Seabiscuit]

25. Other. Tombstone anyone advocating or promoting Ralph Nader's candidacy.

This is not Free-For-All Underground.

It's Democratic Underground.

[Selatius]

26. Answer me this: What do the rules say?

[Exilednight]

30. We welcome Democrats of all stripes,....

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.

[formernaderite]

27. I don't understand why discussing his candidacy

and agreeing and disagreeing on how it will affect the democratic race is a NO-NO? Obviously this is NOT the place to advocate his candidacy.

[Exilednight]

29. Love him or hate him, personally I strongly dislike him, he and his....

supporters deserve to be heard. He is left leaning, and does represent many progressive values. He tilts at windmills and we have the right to laugh at him, but he also has the right to be laughed at if he so chooses.

Attack him for his policy. Attack him for lack of action to bring about the change he says he wants over the past 8 years, but don't attack him because people support and like him.

It's juvenile and goes against everything my party, the Democratic party, says it represents.

If you're one of those people who say that a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain, then that is playing the fear card - and makes you no different than the current administration.

I can beat up Nader all day long, but I can do with arguments of substance and not underhanded character assassination and fear mongering.

[Swamp Rat]

33. "he and his supporters deserve to be heard." Yes, but on another message board.

We tried that already, but it did not work.

We are fully capable of discussing progressive ideas without bringing Nader into the dialog. The injection of his personality will marginalise progressive ideas. Don't believe me? Watch what happens if Nader topics take over DU and the rest of the blogosphere.

[marlakay]

32. If you put him on at all not in this thread

as it is for dem primary...maybe have a separate thread for strategies on how to win in November against other candidates and he could be on that one.

It doesn't surprise me that he is running. He is a shit disturber.

[Exilednight]

36. I agree with that, this is the board for primary, and not the place to discuss him.

[AZBlue]

35. Only threads that contain info on how to shut him down should be allowed.

[Swamp Rat]

41. Perhaps, in a Nader Forum.

DUers could focus on marginalising him there, which will in itself marginalise him, as topics on him are removed from the main DU forums.

[Barack_America]

38. Other. I defer to the Mods on this one.

It's not my site.

[Swamp Rat]

40. This may double, triple... no, quadruple their workload.

You should have seen it here before the 2004 election.

It is unfair to put this onus on the mods. There will be a LOT of Nader threads with which to contend. Something else should be done.

[Barack_America]

47. Whatever is to be done, they're going to have to be the ones that do it.

IMO, Nader is irrelevant, I'm not even going to waste my time flaming people who support them.

Whatever happens to the Naderites' posts or DU status is up to the mods.

[SKKY]

42. If you're going to ban Nader threads, you'd also have to ban McCain threads...

...I'm not a Nader fan, so please don't take this the wrong way, but while this is a forum for Democrats, it's also a forum to discuss things that affect us as Democrats. And unfortunately, Nader affects us. Discussion to be kept to just that, how he affects us, and should not include any "Vote Nader" threads. Those should be locked, and the poster punched squarely in the face- but only in a non-violent manner.

[Swamp Rat]

44. False dilemma

McCain and the GOP are the opposition.

Nader threads will distract DUers from our goal of removing the GOP from the White House.

Nader's objective is to co-opt progressive ideas, which will likely lead to pulling away support of the Democratic candidate. It worked once before, and it may work again.

That aside, it would be a good idea for the Democratic nominee to embrace the progressive ideas promoted by Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards.

[Exilednight]

49. That is a false assumption

I hate defending Nader, but he didn't "pull" votes away from Gore. Voters do not have an obligation to vote for any one candidate.

Like I said before, I can beat up Nader on a lot of things, but using a fear tactic to silence him and his supporters is no better than our current administration.

If that is the tactic that supporters, nominees and the party in general will employ, then this is not the party I have been a member of my entire adult life.

[Swamp Rat]

51. Yes he did. I know it for a fact.

"using a fear tactic to silence him and his supporters is no better than our current administration." - Ad hominem.

[Hutzpa]

Ad hominem= distort n/t

[Swamp Rat]

58. I have a lot of experience with Ad Hominems

:D

[Hutzpa]

55. .

[Exilednight]

61. Then please post the facts.

[Swamp Rat]

63. That is YOUR job since you stated: "he (Nader) didn't "pull" votes away from Gore."

You made the assertion, now back it up.

[Exilednight]

65. Nice Strawman, but it doesn't work....

You are claiming that Nader did do something, I claim he didn't.

You can't prove a negative. There is no proof that Nader pulled votes from Gore. If you say there is, then prove it.

[Swamp Rat]

66. You just posted a classic example of a Straw Man.

My original assertion: "Nader threads will distract DUers from our goal of removing the GOP from the White House."

My next statement (not an assertion, but opinion): "Nader's objective is to co-opt progressive ideas, which will likely lead to pulling away support of the Democratic candidate."

Your ensuing replies: "I hate defending Nader, but he didn't "pull" votes away from Gore. Voters do not have an obligation to vote for any one candidate." - The set up for the straw man (Red Herring embedded).

"You are claiming that Nader did do something, I claim he didn't. You can't prove a negative." - Red Herring.

"There is no proof that Nader pulled votes from Gore." - Straw man conclusion.

Modus ponens

Btw: "You can't prove a negative." - In mathematics you can. There, I followed your Red Herring to the end of the stream. :D

[Exilednight]

68. That's not what you said. What you said is....

"Yes he did. I know it for a fact."


If you know it for a fact, then please provide the fact. My argument is on principal. No one owes their vote to any one candidate, every person is given the right to vote for whomever they desire. That's a fact.

[Swamp Rat]

69. Yes, of course I said that because I saw Nader become a distraction here in 2004.

"Nader threads will distract DUers from our goal of removing the GOP from the White House." - I was here in 2004 and saw the threads with my own eyes. That is a fact.

You have changed the debate using a Straw Man. The Achilles heel in your argument is that you have omitted the word "likely" from another statement of opinion made by me regarding the pulling away of support, and assumed I do not understand the meaning or significance of this disqualifier. I made no factual, or quantifiable assertions in this regard, and you have created a new debate on your terms.

"No one owes their vote to any one candidate, every person is given the right to vote for whomever they desire. That's a fact." - No, that is a truism. Are you setting up another Straw Man?

[Hutzpa]

52. I totally agree with you

McCain is the Opposition, and Nader will distract us, which is what happens

the last time.

[OzarkDem]

54. Agree, Nader's not a Dem

[RichardRay]

57. If 'Ignore' means 'Act as if he doesn't exist'...

then I'm Other (which is where I voted). If it means to not allow Nader-support initiated posting then I could change that vote.

[Shine]

62. I don't think ignoring him is going to solve anything, sadly.

but shit, I am PISSED he's decided to enter. :grr: He could seriously fuck things up for the Dem party.

[VolcanoJen]

67. Hell to the No, your Swampness!

Good God, isn't Nader how we got here in the first place??

:shrug:

Best thing Nader ever did? Helped create Democratic Underground. :-)

[Swamp Rat]

70. Way'at VolcanoJen!

:hi: :hug:

[VotesForWomen]

72. Ban Nader! Censorship strengthens DU and the democratic party.