This Democrat is voting for Ralph Nader

[Jackpine Radical]

as the most destructive and divisive asshole in 21st-century American politics, narrowly beating out Karl Rove. Had there been no Ralph Nader campaign in 2000, we'd all still be saying "KKKarl Who?"

All the self-serving "dime's worth" Greenie arguments to the contrary, Nader gave us Bush. And eight years of hell. Now he's back, going for 12.

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. okay.....you got me

:rofl: :spank: :rofl:

[crispini]

2. D'oh!

That's almost as bad as a Rickroll. Is there a :headslap: icon around here? :D

[Touchdown]

3. And there's something wrong with his eye too!

it's too disturbing to look at. Like a tumor with it's own set of hands.:silly:

But, yeah. He's in love with his own voice and ego to get all worked up over.

[ixion]

4. there would be no 'war' on terror, no illegal invasion of Iraq, and the WTC would still exists

if Gore had been allowed to assume the office he rightfully won.

[Touchdown]

5. But, but, but, there's no difference between Gore and Bush.

St. Ralph said so!:crazy:

[yardwork]

6. Rickroll!

[GOPBasher]

7. There's totally no difference between Al Gore and GWB!

:rofl: He actually said that. And I haven't heard him admit he's wrong.

[genie_weenie]

8. No. Nader is not responsible but is a convenient fall guy.

And I agree with http://www.counterpunch.org/vidal03142003.html">Gore Vidal, "We have one party --we have the party of essentially corporate America. It has two right wings, one called Democratic, one called Republican.

[blondeatlast]

10. He could be relevant if he'd ramp up the drive for a third party, but instead,

he does whatever he does on grand, very public scale, every four years--then goes back to doing the same in private.

The country's in a crisis and he's got clout but wastes it tilting at windmills. I'd say the exact same thing about Don Quixote as I say about Nader.

Fuck 'em both and spare me the "anarchy."

I'll give him some credit though--he finally got a suit that ALMOST fits. :eyes:

What a self-mockery is Mr. Nader.

[kimmerspixelated]

13. I agree.

His good ( maybe at least originally) intentions are mis-directed. He has some great ideas, and I do like how he tells it like it is...but he's going about it the wrong way.

[tanglefoot]

12. Wow...

Just...wow


:crazy:

[genie_weenie]

25. I know, man, the truth boggles the mind!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Yup. A fall guy for the Democratic Party's failure to earn the votes of the left.

Some of us are weary of holding our noses for "lesser of two evils".

[Virginia Dare]

19. So you assisted the worst evil imaginable.

nice.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. How do you mean?

[Raskolnik]

22. On balance, did votes for Nader in 2000 produce a positive outcome, or a negative outcome?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Neither.

Nader, and the folks who voted for him aren't responsible for how others voted.

[Raskolnik]

31. No, but they are responsible for how *they* voted

And one of the results of people voting for Nader instead of Gore was that Gore did not win the election by enough votes, and the presidency went to Bush.

People that bought into the "not a dime's worth of difference" claptrap from Nader and voted for him with the knowledge of how close the election was going to be contributed directly to Bush becoming president. On balance, that was a negative outcome, to say the least.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. The votes were available to Gore but he shunned the left.

Then, just as now, politicians have to earn the votes of the voters.

[Raskolnik]

38. So who did those votes punish? Gore, or the entire country?

Could you tell me what benefit, other than personal self-righteousness, came from people voting for Nader?

[genie_weenie]

39. Wrong! The mere fact of the D, forces you to vote for them, anything less

means you are Hitler...

Ha, I went there!

[Richard Steele]

24. Or just a distraction from the fact that we WON those votes, but ?

Both of the IMPARTIAL recounts showed that Gore
actually won Florida back in '00.

Nader didn't keep him out of the White House,
the Supreme Court did.
(In COMPLETE VIOLATION of law and precedent, I might add...)

While the "Green Party" has CERTAINLY served as a useful vote-splitting
whore for the Repubs in some state-level elections, Nader is just
a distraction from the bloodless coup our nation experienced in 2000AD.

[genie_weenie]

26. True. And it's not as if my vote for Nader in 2000 for which I should be publicly flogged

mattered. Gore won my state...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. I held my nose and voted for Gore.

And, Kerry.

But, not this time.

[genie_weenie]

32. I'm voting Obama and hoping

he pulls us out in 2009 as he promised.

And I voted Kerry in 2004, but I'm sure my absentee vote didn't make it back from the Big Sandy in time to be counted...

[Raskolnik]

34. So you don't consider the difference between Obama and McCain to be significant enough

to justify taking a side?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. I am taking a side.

They have this handy-dandy little write-in line on my ballot.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[Raskolnik]

40. So you're taking McCain's side, in effect.

Just as every vote for a loony right-wing third party candidate is effectively a vote for Obama, at the end of the day every vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.

(and I know you love posting quotes, but I don't find cut & pasted snippets particularly illuminating)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. So you disagree with the sentiments expressed in the quotes?

And, you can get back to me if my one vote changes the course of history.

BTW, what do you base your vote on? Morality? "Practical" politics? Party Loyalty? Patriotism? Charisma? Or, just doing your duty?

[Raskolnik]

44. I base my vote on what I perceive to be in the best interests of the country.

In the vast majority of national races, the country will be far, far better off under Democratic leadership than Republican leadership. No one is saying that one vote would have made a difference in a national election, but Nader voters in 2000 absolutely did have a collective effect on the race, and that effect was disastrous for the country.

And frankly, I find cut & pasted quotes intellectually lazy and boring.

[genie_weenie]

43. What kind of election do you want?

One candidate? Saddam only on the ballot?

How can India survive as a Democracy by allowing (GASP) 6 major national political parties and 50 State political parties? How can their Parliament function? Why hasn't India imploded?

Break free of the two party tyranny.

[Raskolnik]

45. Yes, I want Saddam on the ballot, and Saddam only. That's exactly what I want.

That kind of post does not deserve a serious response.

[genie_weenie]

47. You're the one claiming a vote for anyone other than the PARTY APPOINTEE is

a vote for McCain.

So are you serious that breaking from the party line is heresy?

[Raskolnik]

49. It absolutely is. That's exactly why I want some douche-bag like Alan Keyes to run on a third-party

ticket, because every vote he would get takes away a vote for McCain.

There are two people that have any chance whatsoever of winning the presidential election: the Democratic nominee, and the Republican nominee. That's a fact you can't change.

If Nader voters want to actually produce a viable third party candidate, they should start with grass-roots efforts to actually build a party, rather than this once-every-four-years bullshit that Nader brings out of the woodwork.

[bobbolink]

59. Another one given up on the lesser of two weavils.

To hell with it.

[eissa]

16. If that's the case

why doesn't Nader put some energy into running in local/state elections. You know....maybe grow your base and put in the effort to make a third party a really viable choice, instead of dramatic, unrealistic runs for the presidency in the 4th quarter just to get some air time.

[Virginia Dare]

18. Who knows what would have happened..

if he had focused on keeping the right wing neocons out of the White House?

[genie_weenie]

30. Maybe Harry Turtledove could write one of those

lame fictionalized histories he's fond of, with the supreme court not colluding with Harris and others to rob Gore of the WH.

Of course, 2000 was not Nader's fault and Ralph has the right to run for office whenever he feels like it...

[Virginia Dare]

33. Of course it was a stupid self-aggrandizing thing for him to run in 2000

and of course it is now, he of course has every right to.

[Raskolnik]

21. I think that kind of outlook is too clever by half

While there often may not be as much difference between D's and R's as we would like to see, seemingly small policy differences can create huge changes when run through the machinery of government.

[genie_weenie]

36. Yeah, right. Like the never were anti-war congress

Huge changes.

Matt Taibbi and http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves">The Chicken Doves.

From the article:

Rather than use the vast power they had to end the war, Democrats devoted their energy to making sure that "anti-war activism" became synonymous with "electing Democrats."

Once again — it happened in 2002, 2004 and 2006 — the Democrats have essentially decided to rely on the voters to give them credit for being anti-war, despite the fact that, for all the noise they've made to the contrary, in the end they've done nothing but vote for war and cough up every dime they've been asked to give, every step of the way.

[Raskolnik]

41. Do you want a laundry list of ways in which a Gore presidency would have differed from a Bush

presidency?

Let's just start with environmental policy (Kyoto), foreign policy (Iraq), and judicial appointments (one of the most important and lasting, in my opinion). Do you honestly think those three areas alone wouldn't be remarkably different had Gore been president?

[genie_weenie]

46. Everything you post is mental masturbation

and is, at best, your wish-thinking.

While I wish the WH had not been stolen from Gore, it remains a FACT Nader is not to blame.

Just as it is a FACT the Democratically controlled Congress has not stopped the War but allowed Bush to expand the US commitment and save his presidency. Now Bush can claim he Won Iraq (AGAIN) and leave the mess and blame to the next president while he enjoys his life in Paraguay.

[Raskolnik]

48. How does voting for Nader accomplish anything?

Tell me what this kind of top-down, non grass-roots candidacy that has absolutely NO chance of succeeding accomplishes?

Why doesn't Nader work to build a third party from the ground up, building popular support along the way and accomplishing real goals? I'll tell you why: because he wouldn't have people talking about him as much doing that, he wouldn't have as much money (particularly from his Republican donors) and he and Tim Russert wouldn't be able to blow each other every four years.

[genie_weenie]

50. Because the Two Party system is fundamentally opposed to allowing in

another major party.

I plan to vote Obama this year.

But, following your line of thinking, it was bad Kucinich ran since he had no chance of winning. It was bad Paul ran against the Repukes and spoke truthfully about Iraq at their debates because he had no chance of winning.

I voted for Nader in 2000, I'm glad I did. But, my vote didn't matter and large scale voting (IMO) is a fraud anyway.

[Raskolnik]

52. Then Nader voters should build a third party, and not stamp their feet every four years

while playing the spoiler. Nader doesn't want to accomplish real change, he wants attention.

Kucinich's candidacy is not comparable, because he wasn't taking votes away from a Democratic candidate running against a Republican. If Kucinich runs as a spoiler in the general election, fuck him.

[spanone]

9. why, i oughta.....

[applegrove]

11. Wish the man would just retire. He's an embarassment.

[TommyO]

14. Dayum, I was ready to let loose on you, it's a good thing I read the

rest of your post!

[Virginia Dare]

17. Don't forget 8 years of further unrestrained..

destruction of the planet.

[L. Coyote]

27. ROFLMAO. You want us to believe you are a card-carrying DEM?

That's rich. I'm kinda enjoying that one. :rofl:

Finally found a reason to declare being a DEM, right? LOL

[provis99]

28. gee, and I thought it was because a lot of people voted for Bush

I guess the Republican voters are entirely blameless in your world.

[MasonJar]

51. I will never forgive him for causing Al Gore, my hero, to lose even one vote.

I am sure that the families whose sons and daughters have been sacrificed to enrich Cheney and the Bushes in the USA and in Iraq feel the same way. We went from electing a man of vision and greatness to the seating via a rightwing Supreme Court of one of the most inept and vicious men ever to set foot on the planet Earth. Ralph Nader is a loser in my black book; he has never even acknowledged that Gore and Bush were not alike, even though the certainty has been demonstrated for almost 8 long, inexorable years of torment. I feel I have lived my golden years in Dante's Inferno.

[stark6935]

54. How many votes?

How many votes do you think he will get this time?

[IowaGirl]

53. In fairness.....

didn't the predominantly republican appointed Supreme court actually give us Bush? Just trying to give "credit" where it's due.

[Jackpine Radical]

58. Sure. But they wouldn't have had the opportunity

had Ralphie not pulled enough votes away in FL to throw it into the court. And yes I know about all the recount-stopping, felons lists, etc., and my point still stands. Had Nader stayed out with the result that only 60% of the Naderites voted at all, and had only 60% of those votes gone to Gore, there would have been no chance for the SC to intervene in the recount.

[libodem]

55. Made me click

to see if you'd lost your ever-lovin' mind. The thought of that twist makes wildly irrational with fury. CRUSH---KILL----DESTROY----CRUSH---KILL---DESTROY---LIBO----HATE----NADER----

[VotesForWomen]

56. how many election losses are dems going to blame on nader before they start looking in the mirror?

[ConcernedCanuk]

57. A third party, 4th, and 5th even - just might save the USA as a respectable country.

.
.
.

Even if Ralph just gets the seed planted down there, it may grow if y'all who have doubts about both the Democrats and Republicans, support different groups(parties).

WE have over a half dozen parties up here, not just the Liberals and Conservatives.

We have the NDP, The Bloc Quebecois, The Green party,

and even a http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/index.en.php3">Marijuana Party! (only in Canada, eh?)

BUT

In our parliamentary system, as we have right now, a minority government, when those "little guys" back up either the Libs or the Cons - THEY have the deciding power

yeah, the "little guys"

tilt the balance of power.

Ya gotta start somewhere, and Nader has given y'all a starting point.

And it just may be worth researching his party a bit.

Refine it, revise it, but worth checking it out.

That's my Canuk Opinion anyhoo . . .