Nader was right...Things did have to get worse before they could

[Bandit]

get better. People are now going to make things get better and Nader will not be responsible.

[mac56]

1. Except that Nader was partially to blame for making things worse.

Kind of like the kid who kills his parents and then asks the court for leniency, because after all, he's an orphan.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. No, he wasn't. Claiming that Nader is a spoiler is as ridiculous

as the Repubs whining that Dem are cheating now because they are getting out the vote.

[mac56]

7. this thread is not worth the trouble

Believe the foma that makes you happy and free.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Ditto

[mac56]

9. self edit

;-)

[Julien Sorel]

18. Nadir breathes through his mouth, and has sewn

his lips to Bush's anus.

[LTRS]

16. Are you kidding me? He very intention was to be

... a spoiler. And he spoiled things all right. Like fiscal sanity and the lives of thousands of people. He knew he would split off the progressive vote, but thanks to his ego, he didn't care. So instead he let his entire life's work be crapped on by Dubya.

I know for an absolute FACT that the democrats offered him the sun, moon, and stars - a voice in the platform, funding to get his message out, and many other things. Instead he preferred the publicity of ruining this country by aiding and abetting criminal conservatives.

THAT is his new, and well deserved legacy. He's finished. Washed up. And he destroyed himself as well as this country for the past 4 yrs.

[Lindacooks]

20. Wrong. Nader took it away from Gore.

That's what the math says.

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. This isn't a two party country. He was an opponent of Gore's, just like

the others running for the presidency. What is so hard to understand about that?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[K-W]

32. You apparently have no idea what the word spoiler means.

A spoiler by definition is someone in the race. It is someone in the race who's impact is not as a potential winner, but in determining who the winner will be.

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. The ONLY reason we HAVE "spoilers" is because we have a lopsided

election system that favors the parties with the most money and air time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[K-W]

45. No, that isnt even remotely correct.

The more parties you have, the more likely you are to have spoilers.

Spoiler just means that he had no shot of winning, but his prescence did have an impact on who did win. You seem to have all kinds of wacky implications mixed up here that dont belong. Being a spoiler just means that he couldnt have won, but he did get votes. Anyone who runs in an election, can't win, but can get significant numbers of votes will be a spoiler.

Seriously, you need to get over the word Spoiler, Nader was a spoiler. Your argument should be that he had every right in the world to be a spoiler, because your argument that he isnt one is all over the place.

Edit:
Think about sports. At the beginning of the season, hypothetically any team can win. As the season goes on, it becomes clear that some of the teams are definately not going to win the championships. If one of these teams by thier actions effects those teams that do have a shot, then that team is a spoiler. Just like Nader was.

[GreenPartyVoter]

47. This is why I promote ranked voting, among other reforms,

because it helps with the spoiler issue when it comes to having more parties.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[Media_Lies_Daily]

21. You must not have seen the 2000 results that I saw....

...where the heck do you get off claiming that Nader was NOT a spoiler??

Are you even marginally sane, or did they let you out for a few moments to post on DU? Got a doctor I can contact to tell them that you're having terrible problems recognizing reality and that you're not ready to be released?

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. He was a legit candidate, as were many others. Stop assuming

that everyone has to be either a Repub or a Dem in this country. That's not in the constitution. Or will Kerry be working to get that added?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[K-W]

34. No one is assuming that. You have created a strawman.

You have invented the point you are arguing against out of thin air.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. Nader took GOP money to run ads in the....

...northwestern states in the final month of the 2000 campaign. Tell me again what party he was representing that year.

Maybe you're the one that needs to stop assuming that Nader was working in your best interests.

[GreenPartyVoter]

42. Hey, I was assuming Clinton was working in my best interests when I voted

for him during his first run. Then he gave us NAFTA, GATT, and a slew of other horrors.

Glad I was able to vote for Nader/Green the next time around.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[Robbie67]

44. Maybe you could back up your bullshit with some facts.

:shrug:

[GreenPartyVoter]

49. Read Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" for

more details:

Bill C.:

Allowed federal funds to be given to faith-based charities.

Upped the number of crimes that can be punishable by the death penalty and would not declare support for a moratorium on the death penalty, depsite having knowledge that there are many innocent people in line for the needle. Also he supported the 3 strikes law, even if people just committed three minor crimes like shopilifting gum.

Was against same-sex marriages.

Knocked ten million people off of welfare who had nowhere else to turn. (And offered states extra money if they too reduced the welfare rolls, but did not require that these folks have some sort of job or alternative income source.)

Was not supportive of pregnant teens who needed help.

Pursued most of Newt Gingrich's Contract for America. (Lowering the capital gains tax, for one.)

He dropped the ball on making sure everyone has health insurance, including illegal immigrants.

Made certain no American funds would help women in other countries secure an abortion if they need one.

Wouldn’t sign the land mine ban treaty.

Screwed up the Kyoto treaty so that it wouldn’t do much to reduce carbon dioxide in our air, then refused to sign it til the last day of his term (Knowing full well $hrub would nullify that anyway.)

Drilled for more oil on federal lands than even Ronnie Reagan, privatized a major California oil field, and failed to get auto manufacturers to improve the mpg of their cars.

Allowed for deregulation that has dismantled our checks and balances in our business sector. Enron, anyone??


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[LTRS]

52. Half of this is total BS, and the other half

indicates that you somehow believe dems would EVER be in power if they were as flaming lefty as you apparently want them to be. Nader gets only 1-2% of the vote because that is about the total voter population that agrees with him.

Get on the reality train.

[GreenPartyVoter]

53. Wrong. We have no way of knowing the true number of people

who support candidates acorss the spectrum because they many who might vote otherwise feel like their vote only ocunts with a Dem or a Repub. If we had preferential voting where there was not "spoilage" fear I think we would see more than 2% of folks voting for Nader.

[K-W]

27. What kind of twisted logic is that?

Now labling Nader a spoiler is equivelent to labeling encouraging turnout as cheating?

Whether or not you think Nader was a spoiler or not, I would hope you can see the MASSIVE difference between that and calling voting cheating.

[GreenPartyVoter]

37. Legit votes are legit votes. That includes votes for Nader.

What is so hard about understanding that there are more parties/candidates than the big two and that they all are legit?

It's like listening to a priest complain that the Baptits miinister down the street is responsible for the lack of bums in his pews at mass. Is that a reasonable complaint?

The ONLY reason I am voting for K/E this time is that it is an emergency and I don't want the anti-Christ in office any longer. Don't assume that if you got rid of Nader or the Greens that the Dems "spoiler" problems would be over. There would still be the socialists and communists to vote for. *shrug*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[K-W]

43. Did you even read my post?

It was not debating your spoiler point... not that you are even debating your spoiler point.

The socialists and communists have never had the electoral success that they became spoilers in a national election. So I'm not sure where on earth you are coming up with this.

Regardless, my post was simply addressing your equivelence. That these two statements are of equivelent rediculousness.

1. Nader acted as a spoiler in the 200 election.
2. Encouraging people to vote is cheating.

Do you honestly think that these two statements are of the same merit?

[GreenPartyVoter]

46. Yes, I do when people complain that Nader ran only to louse things up

for the Dems. An opponent doesn't generally run to make things _better_ for his/her opponent. If we didn't have such screwy election laws we wouldn't even have to run presidential candidates. But right now we do in order to keep our ballot status. And that just sucks.

So it's a bad thing for small parties to run. They'll "spoil" the elections. So when WILL it be ok with the Dems for us to run? When wil we have your permission? I wonder, would the DNC feel inclined to do something about election reform if there were never any scary "spoiler" moments? Proabably not.

So I would say that Ralph was right that in that thigns had to come to a head to get any notice around the country. Hwoever, I disagree with him that he had to run this time. I think the point was made last time, though it is regretful that * got into office. By all that was logical, the statement we were all trying to make should have had an impact, but without the issue of * taking office. Gore should have had it. And did, but for the SCOTUS, who along with * were the real problems in the last election. Not Ralph or the Greens or any other small party or indy candidate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[hall monitor]

2. Nader was right...

Hope Nader is given a roll in the Kerry administration. He deserves it.

[calico1]

5. How about cleaning the toilets in the White House? n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. That's too good for him. How about the toilets at Gitmo?

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Sec'y of Commerce Nader? Maybe head of the SEC?

[Robbie67]

10. He could be FEC head

push for electoral refor...REAL reform, not just some stop-gap like HAVA

[tabasco]

11. "Boss.....zee plane!!"

They canceled Fantasy island a long time ago. He will need to buy a pass to get inside the White House after whoring himself out to the republicans.

[Kanary]

14. Ohhhh, that would be *great*!!

Wouldn't that shake things up?!

Fine idea!

:hi:

Kanary

[Media_Lies_Daily]

28. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

[LTRS]

13. He deserves nothing and will get nothing

He ruined his legacy and no dem administration should ever give him a roll in ANYTHING.

[Kanary]

15. a "roll"?

~~chortle~~

[mac56]

17. When you can't refute the substance of a post,

just mock a spelling error.

Very klassy.

:thumbsdown:

[Kanary]

25. Y'know, after all the crap given to women complaining of sexism

to "lighten up", I get a break sometimes.

So, lighten up.

:)

Kanary, wondering if some can't "take a joke" :)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. Where was the joke? Was it your inability to respond to the post?

[LTRS]

19. No, not a roll, not even a cracker

... not even a breadcrumb should he get from the democratic party. And I am confident he will get just what he deserves.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

24. There you go again....bash the spelling because you have....

...no possible response to the substance of the post.

[never_get_over_it]

50. Maybe Nader can buy a ranch

next to the freak in chief in Crawford and never be heard from again - Nader is a disgrace and should be ashamed of himself.

[Lindacooks]

22. It's spelled 'role'

[Media_Lies_Daily]

33. Oh thank goodness we have the self-appointed DU Spelling Police!!

[benito]

3. Has anyone else noticed that

votenader.org is running a little slow tonight?





I didn't think so.

Edit-spelling edit.

[LTRS]

12. Nader is the butthole that MADE things worse

Please, if it hadn't been for him we wouldn't have a record deficit and thousands of dead people courtesy of the worst. president. ever.

Nader can KMA, now and forever more.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

48. and senate dems are the spineless shits who voted for all of that

they acted like bush had a mandate and didn't block the tax cuts, they voted for both wars, the patriot act, no child left behind, and the phony bankruptcy reform bill

it's hard to call ralph a bush-enabler when daschle, clinton. edwards, and the rest were actively helping chimpy all along

[LTRS]

51. There are definitely spineless dems in the party

.... but none of that would even have been on table if not for Nader.

And btw, spineless dems can KMA too.

[GreenPartyVoter]

54. Hear, hear!

[Bandit]

23. Whenever I get uptight and need a chuckle I start a Nader thread

Thank you all I needed that. :evilgrin:

[mac56]

36. hope we amused you...

Got more salt for any other old wounds?

[K-W]

38. Lets just spend the next 3 days arguing about Nader.

I think it would reduce all of our stress levels.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. Your brand of "humor" escapes me. What do you plan to do next?....

Scrape your fingernails across a chalkboard?

[Kanary]

41. And I thank you.

Certainly shows just how much work we have ahead of us in the awareness dept. :)

:hi:

Kanary, who's so very glad there are posts she doesn't "receive". :)