NationStates Jolt Archive

For the fifth time, this pothead decides he should try running for president again. Obviously, he still has a chance. Seriously, this guy needs to run for something productive like Senate and can then get his issues at least on the table. Or talk to the candidates about what he wants done. Obama could really pick up on these issues and run with them...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader)

WASHINGTON - Ralph Nader is launching a third-party campaign for president. The consumer advocate made the announcement Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." He says most Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties, and that none of the presidential contenders are addressing ways to stem corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promote labor rights.

Nader also ran as a third-party candidate in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. He is still loathed by many Democrats who call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost the party the election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a razor-thin contest in Florida.

Oh he's not planning to win, he just plan to steal votes from Democrats. :D

and wait, Libertarians! Why that no good bastard! :mad:

is he running as an independant?

its gonna be hard to get his name on a significant number of ballots in the fall. that is done on a state by state basis. without a big organization all he is is an asshole who is looking for attention.

For the fifth time, this pothead decides he should try running for president again. Obviously, he still has a chance. Seriously, this guy needs to run for something productive like Senate and can then get his issues at least on the table. Or talk to the candidates about what he wants done. Obama could really pick up on these issues and run with them...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader)

Anyone who draws off the votes of left-wing wackos who would otherwise vote Donkocrat, and thus helps the GOP in November, is doing the Lord's work :D

Run Ralph Run!

Anyone who draws off the votes of left-wing wackos who would otherwise vote Donkocrat, and thus helps the GOP in November, is doing the Lord's work :D

Run Ralph Run!

God I hope this is sarcasm.

Anyone who draws off the votes of left-wing wackos who would otherwise vote Donkocrat, and thus helps the GOP in November, is doing the Lord's work :D

Run Ralph Run!

Subtle as per usual, NM. Care to stick around and debate why people who vote 'Donkocrat' are 'left-wing wackos'?

Or will this be the usual one-response-and-then-leave tactic?

God I hope this is sarcasm.

Ooooo, no, not really.

You've been here a while Wilgrove, surely you've come across NMs rather...unique...political views by now?

Anyone who draws off the votes of left-wing wackos who would otherwise vote Donkocrat, and thus helps the GOP in November, is doing the Lord's work :D

Run Ralph Run!

Sometimes I think we should organize a mass mooning for you.

For the fifth time, this pothead decides he should try running for president again. Obviously, he still has a chance. Seriously, this guy needs to run for something productive like Senate and can then get his issues at least on the table. Or talk to the candidates about what he wants done. Obama could really pick up on these issues and run with them...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader)
The point he's trying to make is that the two-party systems sucks (why, he even wrote a book (http://www.amazon.com/Crashing-Party-Corporate-Government-Surrender/dp/0312284330) about it).

Anyway, he's got my vote.

Anyone who draws off the votes of left-wing wackos who would otherwise vote Donkocrat, and thus helps the GOP in November, is doing the Lord's work :D

Run Ralph Run!'cept this time around, disgruntled GOPers are voting for Reagan, so it'll even out =)

And NM is offline

Hands up who didn't see that coming?

he is is an asshole who is looking for attention.

Yep! Always has been, is now, and always will be.

The people who vote for him are radical hippies who don't vote, so meh.

He will take votes away from Clinton or Obama.

The people who vote for him are radical hippies who don't vote, so meh.:rolleyes:

The people who vote for him are radical hippies who don't vote, so meh.

Yep! Always has been, is now, and always will be."Takes one to know one," is all I've got to say to that.

"Takes one to know one," is all I've got to say to that.

I love you too. :fluffle:

The people who vote for him are radical hippies who don't vote, so meh.

Actually I voted for him last time, and you'd be hard pressed to fit me into the mold of a 'hippie'

Oh he’s not planning to win, he just plan to steal votes from Democrats.
So are these votes the property of the Dems?

Of course not; what a silly attitude to take.

I love you too. :fluffle:Don't really care :p

Actually I voted for him last time, and you'd be hard pressed to fit me into the mold of a 'hippie'Yeah... my hair will actually be shorter this time than when I voted for Kerry...

Subtle as per usual, NM. Care to stick around and debate why people who vote 'Donkocrat' are 'left-wing wackos'?

Or will this be the usual one-response-and-then-leave tactic?
You don't really expect that NM has changed his ways and actually start debating stuff instead of just trolling or spouting inane rethoric?

The people who vote for him are radical hippies who don't vote, so meh.

...yeah, which is why he had no impact on the Gore/Bush contest back in the day.

You don't really expect that NM has changed his ways and actually start debating stuff instead of just trolling or spouting inane rethoric?NM debates, occasionally. Be fair, we have no idea whether or not he actually has time to do more than pop in occasionally and drop off a little statement every now and then.

He would be a pretty good Vice president if it wasn't for the fact that he would never accept the invitation and wouldn't help the ticket.

NM debates, occasionally. Be fair, we have no idea whether or not he actually has time to do more than pop in occasionally and drop off a little statement every now and then.

Mmmmmmmmmmm... Nah, I see no reason to be fair this time around. Apologies, but it's just not the day for it.

I came upon this video yesterday, but I think it still has some point, and I found it pretty funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIFEceopAUI

Edit: I like Nader, but I will probably vote for Obama or Clinton

And NM is offline

Hands up who didn't see that coming?

So sorry for not complying with your personal scheduling requirements, but I had a few other priorities this morning, like 1) church and 2) breakfast. But I'm back now, so take your best shot :p

God I hope this is sarcasm.

Serious as a heart attack, pal ;)

Subtle as per usual, NM. Care to stick around and debate why people who vote 'Donkocrat' are 'left-wing wackos'?

If I had actually said "people who vote Donkocrat are left-wing wackos," I would gladly have debated the point.

However, if you had carefully read my post, you would have realized that my actual words were "left-wing wackos who would otherwise vote Donkocrat," which is a completely different statement and not an assertion that all those who vote Donkocrat are left-wing wackos, that only left-wing wackos vote Donkocrat, or even that most left-wing wackos vote Donkocrat.

Or will this be the usual one-response-and-then-leave tactic?

Apparently not ;)

Sometimes I think we should organize a mass mooning for you.

Only if they're all beautiful women :D

Obama could really pick up on these issues and run with them...

pfft like he would

I for one would vote for Nader seeing as how hes the only serious candidate :p

like 1) church and 2) breakfast. But I'm back now, so take your best shot :p

you can't have breakfast in a church silly!

I'll probably vote for him again. I only have one real misgiving this time: He's 73.

In almost every other way possible, he's my ideal candidate. A little overregulatory on business perhaps, but it'll be a short break from corporate toadies, so I'm willing to let that slide.

Ooooo, no, not really.

You've been here a while Wilgrove, surely you've come across NMs rather...unique...political views by now?

They may be unique on NSG, but that only shows how far from the mainstream most of NSG is.

But then, that's one of the major malfunctions of the left: they think they define the center, and anyone who departs from leftie orthodoxy is somehow suspect.

'cept this time around, disgruntled GOPers are voting for Reagan, so it'll even out =)

Nice try, but disgruntled GOP voters will eventually come around and vote McCain. They may be disgruntled, but they aren't going to facilitate national suicide by letting the Donkocrats take over the White House.

They may be unique on NSG, but that only shows how far from the mainstream most of NSG is.

But then, that's one of the major malfunctions of the left: they think they define the center, and anyone who departs from leftie orthodoxy is somehow suspect.That you consider yourself near the mainstream is so sad it makes me cry tears of joy. =')

Sometimes I think we should organize a mass mooning for you.

I've organized one before and I can do it again. :)

Nice try, but disgruntled GOP voters will eventually come around and vote McCain. They may be disgruntled, but they aren't going to facilitate national suicide by letting the Donkocrats take over the White House.Funny, cuz you could use the same rationale on people who could vote for Nader. Unless you'd assume that anyone willing to vote for something other than a right-winger is nuts. But I don't know anyone stupid enough to make that assumption.

Donkocrats, donkocrats, bloody donkocrats. Say "democrats", New Mitanni, it ain't that hard...What?! He's talking about a real party?

You don't really expect that NM has changed his ways and actually start debating stuff instead of just trolling or spouting inane rethoric?

When it comes to inane rhetoric, I must bow down before your scary talent.

I've organized one before and I can do it again. :)Yeah, but you live on the East Coast, if I remember correctly, while NM is a denizen of the West Coast...

Donkocrats, donkocrats, bloody donkocrats. Say "democrats", New Mitanni, it ain't that hard...

When they stop acting like donks, I'll start referring to them in some other way.

NM debates, occasionally. Be fair, we have no idea whether or not he actually has time to do more than pop in occasionally and drop off a little statement every now and then.

Well, that was unexpected! But thanks for the affirmation. And you are correct about my time availability for the most part. Just so happens that I have some free time this morning.

you can't have breakfast in a church silly!

Er, yeah . . . that's why I listed them in sequential order.

Donkocrats, donkocrats, bloody donkocrats. Say "democrats", New Mitanni, it ain't that hard...

Well, that was unexpected! But thanks for the affirmation. And you are correct about my time availability for the most part. Just so happens that I have some free time this morning.Spelling and inability to appear online 24/7 are two things no one should be berated for without a good reason.

Yeah, but you live on the East Coast, if I remember correctly, while NM is a denizen of the West Coast...

Wow. A rabid right wing ultraconservative in California. I wonder who he pissed off. ;)

When they stop acting like donks, I'll start referring to them in some other way.They act like newbie poker players?

That you consider yourself near the mainstream is so sad it makes me cry tears of joy. =')

Try again.

I didn't say I "consider myself near the mainstream". In fact, I consider myself somewhere between center-right and far-right, with some libertarian (!) tendencies, depending on the issue.

But from what I've read on this board, IMO the vast majority of NSG posters are not just left, but far left. And again to my point, many if not most lefties don't recognize the fact that they are on the left, but think they define the center, i.e., the "mainstream". Which they don't.

When they stop acting like donks, I'll start referring to them in some other way.

:rolleyes: Donk is not a word, smart guy. And I suppose you'd be perfectly alright if I said Elaphacans. Elaphacans, elaphacans, elaphacans. Hey, everybody, the ELAPHACANS ARE COMING!

But from what I’ve read on this board, IMO the vast majority of NSG posters are not just left, but far left. And again to my point, many if not most lefties don’t recognize the fact that they are on the left, but think they define the center, i.e., the “mainstream”. Which they don’t.
So it’d be easy for you to name a single poster who’s on the far left yet considers himself/herself ‘mainstream’?

Funny, cuz you could use the same rationale on people who could vote for Nader.

Not really. Nader has proven that he has a voting base (small though it may be) that will in fact vote for him even though he has no chance of winning, and even though by doing so they are withholding their votes from the only viable alternative to the Republican nominee. I don't see any comparable effort, or any organization similar to the Green Party, on the right.

Unless you'd assume that anyone willing to vote for something other than a right-winger is nuts. But I don't know anyone stupid enough to make that assumption.

You know what they say about people who assume ;)

Of course I would never make such an assumption. In my own case, I'm voting McCain, and he's no right-winger. And before that I was going to vote for Giuliani.

Try again.

I didn't say I "consider myself near the mainstream". In fact, I consider myself somewhere between center-right and far-right, with some libertarian (!) tendencies, depending on the issue.

But from what I've read on this board, IMO the vast majority of NSG posters are not just left, but far left. And again to my point, many if not most lefties don't recognize the fact that they are on the left, but think they define the center, i.e., the "mainstream". Which they don't.I have friends on the far left, actually, and while I'm well aware that I'm on the left, I would consider myself relatively close to the mainstream. The vast majority of NSG posters are certainly not far-left by any sane scale.

They act like newbie poker players?

Never heard that term before. Gee, you learn something new every day *heh*

BTW: "Donkocrat" is just a more polite version of the term I usually use.

Not really. Nader has proven that he has a voting base (small though it may be) that will in fact vote for him even though he has no chance of winning, and even though by doing so they are withholding their votes from the only viable alternative to the Republican nominee. I don't see any comparable effort, or any organization similar to the Green Party, on the right.We'll see.
You know what they say about people who assume ;)

Of course I would never make such an assumption. In my own case, I'm voting McCain, and he's no right-winger. And before that I was going to vote for Giuliani.McCain's pretty moderate for an American, but his opposition to torture and support for emission curbing don't make him any less right-wing than he is.

:rolleyes: Donk is not a word, smart guy. And I suppose you'd be perfectly alright if I said Elaphacans. Elaphacans, elaphacans, elaphacans. Hey, everybody, the ELAPHACANS ARE COMING!

"Donk" is short for "donkey", as in, "mascot of the Democrat Party", as in "jackass", smart guy.

And I am perfectly alright if you say whatever you want. But I must say, "Elaphacans" packs a lot less punch than "Donkocrats".

We'll see.
McCain's pretty moderate for an American, but his opposition to torture and support for emission curbing don't make him any less right-wing than he is.

If by "right-wing" you mean "conservative," he is certainly conservative. And rightly so *heh*

If by "right-wing" you mean "conservative," he is certainly conservative. And rightly so *heh*

Then how come the right wing pundits like Limbaugh claim that he's not Conservative?

If by "right-wing" you mean "conservative," he is certainly conservative. And rightly so *heh*Conservative and right-wing aren't the same, though they can be. Conservatism tends to cover the spectrum from center right to right, while right-wing refers to those on the right or far-right. A neo-nazi, for instance, is right-wing without being conservative.

Then how come the right wing pundits like Limbaugh claim that he's not Conservative?Are you implying Limbaugh actually knows what he's talking about? :p

"Donk" is short for "donkey", as in, "mascot of the Democrat Party", as in "jackass", smart guy.

And I am perfectly alright if you say whatever you want. But I must say, "Elaphacans" packs a lot less punch than "Donkocrats".

Hey, I wasn't born yesterday. I knew where the Donkocrats came from. =

Are you implying Limbaugh actually knows what he's talking about? :p

He's not the only right wing pundits who think Mc. Cain isn't Conservative "enough". These are also the same people who back Huckabee, so I don't give them much credit.

He's not the only right wing pundits who think Mc. Cain isn't Conservative "enough". These are also the same people who back Huckabee, so I don't give them much credit.The obvious answer would be that they consider themselves conservative, but don't want to be associated with McCain, hence they try to exclude him.

Then how come the right wing pundits like Limbaugh claim that he’s not Conservative?
Because he’s not a member of the UK Conservative party? Careful with your capitals there, boyo.

And anyhoo, Limbaugh has a very limited, personal, and clearly-defined understanding of what a ‘conservative’ is. He is not Mr. Political Philosophy; just because he says someone isn’t ‘conservative’ by his standards, doesn’t mean they don’t subscribe to conservative values/policies.

Oh, and Mitanni: Care to respond to my query?

Someone's vandalized his wiki page. It'll be fixed soon I guess. Surprised it hasn't been already. Usually vandalism is caught pretty fast on there.

" Ralph Nader (born February 27, 1934, in Winsted, Connecticut) is a real loser who claims to beAmerican and who pretends to be an attorney, author, lecturer, and political activist in the areas of consumer rights, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government. He mainly was the real reason for Today's problems of the USA by causing AlGore's defeat against the Tyran Bush in the 2000 Elections by earning 2.7 % of the votes. So, he is directly responsible for Today's catastrophic Foreign Affairs of the USA due to the Bush Administration. "


But heck .. that's pretty much what was said further down on the page under
the [Controversy regarding the effect of third-party votes] area. Minus the name calling of course.

When it comes to inane rhetoric, I must bow down before your scary talent.

You flatter me with your childish attempt to even pretend that you have any idea who I am (on NSG) :)

I'll probably vote for him again. I only have one real misgiving this time: He's 73.Yeah, but in 3 days, he won't be, and that obstacle will have been removed as well! =D

He will take votes away from Clinton or Obama.
That has never been proven.

Actually I voted for him last time, and you'd be hard pressed to fit me into the mold of a 'hippie'
By definition, you are a hippie because you voted for him.

...yeah, which is why he had no impact on the Gore/Bush contest back in the day.
That has never been proven.

pfft like he would
He's running on the cause of change. These are issues that really could be a part of his change agenda. He does have some anti-corporate stuff...
I'll probably vote for him again. I only have one real misgiving this time: He's 73.
That's what I don't get about McCain. He's 71. Ron Paul is 72 or 73. Nader is almost 74. Maybe McCain just looks old. Nader doesn't look a day over 50.

Someone's vandalized his wiki page. It'll be fixed soon I guess. Surprised it hasn't been already. Usually vandalism is caught pretty fast on there.

" Ralph Nader (born February 27, 1934, in Winsted, Connecticut) is a real loser who claims to beAmerican and who pretends to be an attorney, author, lecturer, and political activist in the areas of consumer rights, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government. He mainly was the real reason for Today's problems of the USA by causing AlGore's defeat against the Tyran Bush in the 2000 Elections by earning 2.7 % of the votes. So, he is directly responsible for Today's catastrophic Foreign Affairs of the USA due to the Bush Administration. "


But heck .. that's pretty much what was said further down on the page under
the [Controversy regarding the effect of third-party votes] area. Minus the name calling of course.
I hate when people do that.


It has never been proven that he affected the election. It's just as plausible in a country with only 50% turnout that people who normally didn't turnout finally decided to because there was a strong, active movement for a different guy. Find me 528 Florida Naderites that would have voted Gore otherwise, and then you have proof. He's going to keep doing it until someone picks up the issues. That's what Tom Tancredo did for the Elephicans: he brought up illegal immigration and when they all picked it up, he left.

That has never been proven.
It hasn't been proven that he will take votes away from Clinton or Obama? You're right about that - since it's a future event.

The hypothesis isn't unreasonable though.

By definition, you are a hippie because you voted for him.
Silly person.

That has never been proven.
He got votes - it had an effect. That has been proven.

You flatter me with your childish attempt to even pretend that you have any idea who I am (on NSG) :)

New Mitanni calling someone on Inane Rhetorics is like Osama Bin Laden calling someone else a terrorist.

Yeah, but in 3 days, he won't be, and that obstacle will have been removed as well! =D

Yay! :)

He got votes - it had an effect. That has been proven.
There is no proof it had an effect on Al Gore's vote count. It's a conjecture.

He is not "stealing votes from Democrats". Don't be a fucking idiot, a vote for Nader is exactly that, a vote for Nader.

More Americans should be encouraged not to settle.

I am a leftist. Democrats are not leftists. They do not represent my interests. Just because they are less shitty than Republicans does not mean they are good for this country. And just because one of the 2 parties will win, does not leave me with an obligation to help them out.

By definition, you are a hippie because you voted for him.

Hardly...
Your ignorance is showing through again Sel Appa...

is he running as an independant?

its gonna be hard to get his name on a significant number of ballots in the fall. that is done on a state by state basis. without a big organization all he is is an asshole who is looking for attention.

Oh, he has a big organization, it is just not "technically an organization that publically endorses him", namely: PIRG. When I was an undergrad I volunteered with an organization called MOPIRG (Missouri Public INterest Research Group), which has pretty big following on most major university campuses (as well as junior colleges) accross the US, thousands of members, and was founded by Ralph Nader.

damn indepentents....

Pick a party you tards!

There is no proof it had an effect on Al Gore's vote count. It's a conjecture.

100,000 votes were for Nader. A few hundred seperated Bush from Gore.

Yes, it most definately had an effect that Nader ran.

libertarian (!) tendencies, depending on the issue.


Oh please. You're about as libertarian as Doctor Doom.

damn indepentents....

Pick a party you tards!
Most certainly not!

The idea that you’ve got to pick one of two parties and be done with it is stupid and dangerous, and frankly is one of the main problems with the US’ polarised political scene.

All this nonsense of ‘liberal’ vs. ‘conservative’; the bullshit whining of the Democrat faithful that they were ‘betrayed’ by Nader, that he ‘stole’ their votes; all absolutely disgusting.

100,000 votes were for Nader. A few hundred seperated Bush from Gore.

Yes, it most definately had an effect that Nader ran.

You have no proof, however, that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if he hadn't run... I voted for Nader in both '00 & '04, if he hadn't run I still would not have voted for Gore or Kerry.

You have no proof, however, that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if he hadn't run... I voted for Nader in both '00 & '04, if he hadn't run I still would not have voted for Gore or Kerry.

So you claim that the 100,000 votes had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election in Florida where only a few hundred votes seperated Bush and Gore?

I would demand proof of that, since you claim that none of these 100,000 would ever have voted for Bush or Gore had Nader not run. I can't see that you can prove that claim.

I will stand by my claim that he had an impact since 100,000 people voted for him, people who could have voted for other candidates if he had not been on the ballot.

The people who vote for him are radical hippies who don't vote, so meh.

Or they could just be tired of having to choose between Bowl of Shit A and Bowl of Shit B, which may smell slightly different, but are still, well, shit.

You have no proof, however, that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if he hadn't run... I voted for Nader in both '00 & '04, if he hadn't run I still would not have voted for Gore or Kerry.

So you would have not voted then?

So you would have not voted then?

Possibly, or I would have found someone else to vote for for who was less objectionable to me than Kerry, Bush or Gore.

So you claim that the 100,000 votes had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election in Florida where only a few hundred votes seperated Bush and Gore?

I would demand proof of that, since you claim that none of these 100,000 would ever have voted for Bush or Gore had Nader not run. I can't see that you can prove that claim.

I will stand by my claim that he had an impact since 100,000 people voted for him, people who could have voted for other candidates if he had not been on the ballot.

When did I claim that? Quote me saying that and I'll acknowledge you have some sort of point. Until then, I stand by my assessment that you're speculating wildly.

Stephen King used the word "donk" in a sentence in Cujo. *shrug*

Well, Stephen King is utterly batshit insane, so there you are.

Or they could just be tired of having to choose between Bowl of Shit A and Bowl of Shit B, which may smell slightly different, but are still, well, shit.

Stated crudely, but accurately.

:rolleyes: Donk is not a word, smart guy. And I suppose you'd be perfectly alright if I said Elaphacans. Elaphacans, elaphacans, elaphacans. Hey, everybody, the ELAPHACANS ARE COMING!

Stephen King used the word "donk" in a sentence in Cujo. *shrug*

Well, Stephen King is utterly batshit insane, so there you are.

Donk is also a character in Crocidile Dundee.

...if you vote for a non-viable canidate, then you are taking votes away from a viable canidate. It’s still the same end.
And?

What’s the point of complaining about people who don’t want to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican; complaining that they somehow lost the race for the Democrats?

The Democrats didn’t get enough votes. Tough shit (excluding questionable nonsense in Florida courtrooms; but, again this is not Nader’s fault).

When did I claim that? Quote me saying that and I'll acknowledge you have some sort of point. Until then, I stand by my assessment that you're speculating wildly.

Well, you demanded proof for an unprovable situation that I hadn't even claimed occurred, so I figured it was just right to extrapolate the stated claim from your apparent idea that 100,000 voters would do the same as you and not vote for Gore.

I say again: That Nader ran had an effect. It's not a great speculation that people voted for him that would have voted for Gore if he had not been on the ballot. I'm not saying it was decisive, mind you.

He is not "stealing votes from Democrats". Don't be a fucking idiot, a vote for Nader is exactly that, a vote for Nader.

More Americans should be encouraged not to settle.

I am a leftist. Democrats are not leftists. They do not represent my interests. Just because they are less shitty than Republicans does not mean they are good for this country. And just because one of the 2 parties will win, does not leave me with an obligation to help them out.

Exactly. Americans who want genuine change - whether they're libertarian, socialist, communist, fascist, or whatever - should start voting for genuine alternatives who represent their views, rather than "the lesser of two evils."

Possibly, or I would have found someone else to vote for for who was less objectionable to me than Kerry, Bush or Gore.

So you'd replace Nader with another vote for another person that's guaranteed not to win the presidency? Replace Nader with Walken, with my neighbor Tom; if you vote for a non-viable canidate, then you are taking votes away from a viable canidate. It's still the same end.

And?

What’s the point of complaining about people who don’t want to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican; complaining that they somehow lost the race for the Democrats?
Is anybody really complaining?

The Democrats didn’t get enough votes. Tough shit (excluding questionable nonsense in Florida courtrooms; but, again this is not Nader’s fault).
Not his fault - but he might have been a decisive factor in their defeat.

So you'd replace Nader with another vote for another person that's guaranteed not to win the presidency? Replace Nader with Walken, with my neighbor Tom; if you vote for a non-viable canidate, then you are taking votes away from a viable canidate. It's still the same end.

Not really, since as I already stated, I wouldn't have voted for Gore anyways.

Is anybody really complaining?
Several posters here already have, and it’s a sentiment I’ve heard many times on here and in r/l since 2004.

Not his fault–but he might have been a decisive factor in their defeat.
I think what was more decisive was the roughly 50% of the voting population that voted for Bush

Stephen King used the word "donk" in a sentence in Cujo. *shrug*

Stephen King is a little weird.

Stephen King is a little weird.

A little weird?

Well, Stephen King is utterly batshit insane, so there you are.

Just saying, it's been used before, if not in the silly way that NM used it.

I think what was more decisive was the roughly 50% of the voting population that voted for Bush
48.85% for Bush Vs. 48.84% for Gore (+/- 0,01%). Both the votes for Bush and Gore were, of course, important.

But with only about 537 votes seperating them, Naders 97,421 votes with great probability were indeed decisive in determining the outcome.

Had it been the other way around, Pat Buchanan might have been that factor.

And?

What’s the point of complaining about people who don’t want to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican; complaining that they somehow lost the race for the Democrats?

The Democrats didn’t get enough votes. Tough shit (excluding questionable nonsense in Florida courtrooms; but, again this is not Nader’s fault).

You have a right to cast your vote however you choose, or not cast a vote at all. But to pretend that doesn't affect the outcome of an election is ignorant.

Not really, since as I already stated, I wouldn't have voted for Gore anyways.

So you'd have voted for Bush then? Because that's essentially what you did. And there's no problem with that, but own what you did.

The difference is you did imply that the votes would have been for Gore, And I simply pointed out 1 instance (my own) where that would not have been the case.

Nope. I implied that the votes could have been for Gore, if Nader didn't run. And you demanded proof for that claim.

Well, you demanded proof for an unprovable situation that I hadn't even claimed occurred, so I figured it was just right to extrapolate the stated claim from your apparent idea that 100,000 voters would do the same as you and not vote for Gore.
100,000 votes were for Nader. A few hundred seperated Bush from Gore.

Yes, it most definately had an effect that Nader ran.


The difference is you did imply that the votes would have been for Gore, And I simply pointed out 1 instance (my own) where that would not have been the case.

See, this just proves your ignorance... A vote for someone who is not Bush, is not a vote for Bush.

"essentially"


With a race that close, and where only two parties have a realistic chance of winning, it essentially is.

So you'd have voted for Bush then? Because that's essentially what you did. And there's no problem with that, but own what you did.

See, this just proves your ignorance... A vote for someone who is not Bush, is not a vote for Bush.

God I hope this is sarcasm.

sadly it's not.

See, this just proves your ignorance... A vote for someone who is not Bush, is not a vote for Bush.

Okay, so who benefited from a vote for a non-viable canidate?

God I hope this is sarcasm.

I think he means, "run Ralph, run!" as in, 'run, Ralph! Before you get lynched by the angry mobs of Democrats!'

...to the cat kicking festivities, but I still feel like I've been hit in the head with a fencepost.
If this were an ideal world, I'd be first in line with the offer of a hank of rope to lynch that SOB Nader with....:sniper:

But then again, if this *were* an ideal world, I wouldn't have to put up with the third :mad:or fourth:mad::headbang: or fifth
time :mad::headbang::upyours: that this pompous, egotistical pusbag:upyours::upyours::upyours: has shown up to ruin an otherwise interesting
election season.

...to the cat kicking festivities, but I still feel like I've been hit in the head with a fencepost.
If this were an ideal world, I'd be first in line with the offer of a hank of rope to lynch that SOB Nader with....:sniper:

But then again, if this *were* an ideal world, I wouldn't have to put up with the third :mad:or fourth:mad::headbang: or fifth
time :mad::headbang::upyours: that this pompous, egotistical pusbag:upyours::upyours::upyours: has shown up to ruin an otherwise interesting
election season.

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

:D :D :D

You sure you don't wanna see a whole post of these[:upyours:]??

Or about eight-hundred and sixty-two more of these[:headbang:]??

I could;)but the mods might consider it excessive abuse of the privilege.

...

...

...

eight hundred and sixty-two "headbangs" might be pretty impressive...

Aw, party loyalty. How cute and antithetical to democracy. Oh, and lookie there! The Democrats are still convinced Nader's votes belong to them! They're like little children, but ugly and less intelligent!

Get a copy of Washington's Farewell Address!!

Hmm, there's this...

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address

And a rather neat twist on it here...

http://blag.xkcd.com/2007/01/29/washingtons-farewell-address-translated-into-the-vernacular/

Because the only party I'm loyal to is any party *these* guys throw:

http://blog.starwreck.com/

Extreme right wingers calling not-as-extreme-but-still-quite-extreme right wingers "crazy lefties". And people calling themselves "conservatives" for holding views that never were that popular to begin with, and as such they aren't really conserving anything but rather trying to break down the system that's been up for quite a while instead. Shouldn't that, you know, make them the exact opposite of conservative? Or is that one of those words that you'd think that should mean something ("conserving the old ways" or somesuch) but really means something else ("let's turn this place into an extreme right wing, fundamentalist Christian, corporate-run police state where only the really rich can actually live with modern comforts and everyone else is just grey workmass" or somesuch, and yes, I'm exaggerating)?

Ahh, how have I missed reading this stuff. Dunno why I quit for a while. This is kind of entertaining. In that "hitting your head in the wall and ending up with a skull fracture" kind of way.

Hmm. I think I found my answer.

Well, he still has a better chance of winning than Ron Paul.

100,000 votes were for Nader. A few hundred seperated Bush from Gore.

Yes, it most definately had an effect that Nader ran.
I have 100,000 pebbles in this pile and a few hundred pebbles in that pile. The fact that one pile has 100,000 pebbles does not have anything to do with the other pile.

So you claim that the 100,000 votes had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election in Florida where only a few hundred votes seperated Bush and Gore?

I would demand proof of that, since you claim that none of these 100,000 would ever have voted for Bush or Gore had Nader not run. I can't see that you can prove that claim.

I will stand by my claim that he had an impact since 100,000 people voted for him, people who could have voted for other candidates if he had not been on the ballot.
No one ever stated that it had no effect. We just stated that it has not yet been proven that it DID have an effect.

Well, you demanded proof for an unprovable situation that I hadn't even claimed occurred, so I figured it was just right to extrapolate the stated claim from your apparent idea that 100,000 voters would do the same as you and not vote for Gore.

I say again: That Nader ran had an effect. It's not a great speculation that people voted for him that would have voted for Gore if he had not been on the ballot. I'm not saying it was decisive, mind you.
It's associative speculation which is baseless. It's like saying pink should be with red because it's similar. The left-right spectrum is being found more and more to be horribly inaccurate.

So you'd replace Nader with another vote for another person that's guaranteed not to win the presidency? Replace Nader with Walken, with my neighbor Tom; if you vote for a non-viable canidate, then you are taking votes away from a viable canidate. It's still the same end.
No you aren't. If you didn't plan on voting unless a there was a third-party, then how did you take away votes from a viable candidate?

48.85% for Bush Vs. 48.84% for Gore (+/- 0,01%). Both the votes for Bush and Gore were, of course, important.

But with only about 537 votes seperating them, Naders 97,421 votes with great probability were indeed decisive in determining the outcome.

Had it been the other way around, Pat Buchanan might have been that factor.
There is no indeed decisive. You have yet to show that 538 of those 97,421 would have voted for Gore.

"essentially"


With a race that close, and where only two parties have a realistic chance of winning, it essentially is.
No it isn't. If I have car A, car B, and a bicycle and I hate cars, my choosing bicycle has nothing to do with not choosing A or B.

While it would seem likely that they probably would have voted for Gore, there is no proof. If you can find 538 Naderites who would have voted for Gore, then we have proof. Until then, you're making assumptions and conjecturing what the truth is.

The Green Party and Nader ran a huge movement to get 5% of the vote so they could get funding and more ballot access. They only got 2.78%. But they probably had a huge grassroots movement to get people who wouldn't vote to go vote and bring it up to 5%. Third-party voters are disenchanted with the other two parties and don't like them. If there wasn't a third party, they might not be voting. I certainly considered voting third party when Clinton was still very viable and McCain was not frontrunner. If the race was Clinton-Romney, Clinton-Huckabee, Clinton-Giuliani, etc..., I would vote Socialist or Nader. I would NEVER vote for Clinton, so my vote could not be "wasted" since I never even had her as an option.

It's a similar argument to the link between cigarettes and lung cancer. It's most likely that there is a correlation, but there is no direct proof. Maybe people prone to lung cancer like cigarettes at a higher rate. The only way to know for sure is to take people randomly and subject them to cigarette smoke until they die. If they get lung cancer at a higher rate than people not subjected to smoke, then it is acceptable to asy that cigarettes do indeed increase the risk of lung cancer.

Learn statistics. It's the greatest art of lying and deception.

For the fifth time, this pothead decides he should try running for president again. Obviously, he still has a chance. Seriously, this guy needs to run for something productive like Senate and can then get his issues at least on the table. Or talk to the candidates about what he wants done. Obama could really pick up on these issues and run with them...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader)

Any idea what his policy stance is? Not the obvious (humanitarianism, environmentalism, etc), I mean the fine details.

Okay, so who benefited from a vote for a non-viable canidate?

No-one (other than myself and others who felt like me)

Any idea what his policy stance is? Not the obvious (humanitarianism, environmentalism, etc), I mean the fine details.

corporate power
the environment
labor rights
Military overspending

Maybe people prone to lung cancer like cigarettes at a higher rate.

Fantastic.

No-one (other than myself and others who felt like me)

"No-one" benefited? Your self delusion is hilarious. Voting for a non-viable canidate is the same as not voting. So you are basically trying to pretend that non-action has no impact. Sorry, non-action does have an affect., I don't care how inconvenient it is for you.

"No-one" benefited? Your self delusion is hilarious. Voting for a non-viable canidate is the same as not voting. So you are basically trying to pretend that non-action has no impact. Sorry, non-action does have an affect., I don't care how inconvenient it is for you.

Then explain to me how Bush benefited from people (who you cannot prove would vote for Gore) voting for Nader.


Also, voting for a candidate that you do not feel is viable is not the same as not voting.

No you aren't. If you didn't plan on voting unless a there was a third-party, then how did you take away votes from a viable candidate?

Because it is a two party system in America. A non-vote is the exact same thing as voting for the winner. You forgo a say in who the winner is, it doesn't mean you aren't responsible in part for the outcome.

And before you try to take me on a trip to idiot island with a thread jack about why the two party system sucks, let me remind you of a few things. Firstly, you change that system in the other three years, 11 months and 29 days. You don't decide to change it in spite of massive and exhaustive opinion polling and prediction markets that show your canidate can't even get 5% of the vote. If it was shown Nader could have even gotten 25% of the vote, fine. Polls and prediction markets can be wrong, but the respectable ones aren't going to be off by 90 points or more.

I have 100,000 pebbles in this pile and a few hundred pebbles in that pile. The fact that one pile has 100,000 pebbles does not have anything to do with the other pile.
You could have put the pebbles in the other pile.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8489/policeca9.jpg

No one ever stated that it had no effect. We just stated that it has not yet been proven that it DID have an effect.
Actually, you stated:
The people who vote for him are radical hippies who don't vote, so meh.
...which would mean that it had no effect. So you did indeed state that which you claim nobody ever stated.

And again, it cannot be proven to have had an effect, but it can be speculated with a high degree of probability. That's the fun part about having secret elections.


It's associative speculation which is baseless. It's like saying pink should be with red because it's similar.
Not at all.

The left-right spectrum is being found more and more to be horribly inaccurate.
Indeed. Relevance?

No you aren't. If you didn't plan on voting unless a there was a third-party, then how did you take away votes from a viable candidate?
And if you would have voted if the third party candidate wasn't on the ballot?

There is no indeed decisive. You have yet to show that 538 of those 97,421 would have voted for Gore.
I neither can nor do I need to show that.

However, I can quote Nader from his book Crashing the Party, where he states:
In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.

...which, if the exit poll had come true, would have given the victory to Gore with a clearer margin. So I maintanin that it's a high probability that people voting for Nader could have been a decisive factor in Gores defeat.

No it isn't. If I have car A, car B, and a bicycle and I hate cars, my choosing bicycle has nothing to do with not choosing A or B.
If you have car A, car B and a bicycle, and you hate cars - what will you do if the bicycle is gone? Stay home or go out? If you choose to go out, you'll have to pick a car - or walk.

I.e. in the current system, when there's two candidates neck in neck, and you choose to vote for a third candidate (which is all right mind you) - and you would have cast a vote for one of the two candidates if that third option was removed - you do indirectly support the remaining candidate.

While it would seem likely that they probably would have voted for Gore, there is no proof.
The exit poll Nader talked about is evidence.

If you can find 538 Naderites who would have voted for Gore, then we have proof. Until then, you're making assumptions and conjecturing what the truth is.
See above.

If there wasn't a third party, they might not be voting.
On the other hand, they might.

Then explain to me how Bush benefited from people (who you cannot prove would vote for Gore) voting for Nader.


Also, voting for a candidate that you do not feel is viable is not the same as not voting.

In a two party system, any vote for a non-viable canidate benefits the winner of the election, any non-vote benefits the winner of an election. Like it or not, we have a two party system. You cannot change that system the day of the election. You will fail. As has been proven consistently throughout history.

Fantastic.

Yeah, ain't it. Obviously the cigarette makin' companies aren't responsible for anything, it's the folks who are prone to lung cancer who are to blame for this whole cigarettes raising the chance of lung cancer by a truckload thing!

I didn't even know there still were people who seriously think that it hasn't been proven that smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer. :eek: What's next? People claiming that eating lots and not moving hasn't been proven to increase the chance of becoming obese? Or that brushing your teeth hasn't been proven to decrease the chance of your teeth rotting away?

In a two party system, any vote for a non-viable canidate benefits the winner of the election, any non-vote benefits the winner of an election. Like it or not, we have a two party system. You cannot change that system the day of the election. You will fail. As has been proven consistently throughout history.

I call bullshit.

Then explain to me how Bush benefited from people (who you cannot prove would vote for Gore) voting for Nader.
In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.
Nader from his book Crashing the Party.

If this is true, it would have given Gore the election if Nader had not been on the ballot.

Also, voting for a candidate that you do not feel is viable is not the same as not voting.
It has the same effect in this case.

Love the two-party system :)

I call bullshit.
Oh, that's brilliant! Yes, that completely seals your case in stone. No proof, no counter argument. Nope, none of that is needed when you can say "bs"! Yes, what a thoughtful and intelligent response.

NSG isn't letting me quote you. It couldn't be your repetitive editing to sound slightly less absurd, could it?

Oh, that's brilliant! Yes, that completely seals your case in stone. No proof, no counter argument. Nope, none of that is needed when you can say "bs"! Yes, what a thoughtful and intelligent response.

NSG isn't letting me quote you. It couldn't be your repetitive editing to sound slightly less absurd, could it?

If you have no need of proof, why is it necessary for me to have some?
Also you can't quote that post because I deleted it.

You are the one who is speculating, for my only assertion I have no proof that I can provide over the internet because the only statement I made is that I voted for Nader and wouldn't have voted for Gore or Kerry.

I'll put it in bigger letters so your dull little mind has an easier time with it...
You are the one stating that votes for Nader were votes for Bush, now prove it or shut the hell up.

Nader from his book Crashing the Party.

If this is true, it would have given Gore the election if Nader had not been on the ballot.

That would have been a net gain of under 13000 votes for Gore so, again you fail.
Not to mention the fact that in the presidential election, the popular vote is meaningless, as the president is chosen by the electoral college.

That would have been a net gain of under 13000 votes for Gore so, again you fail.
Not to mention the fact that in the presidential election, the popular vote is meaningless, as the president is chosen by the electoral college.

Actually, the failure is on the other foot.

Nader was talking about the Florida election on that quote. If it is to be trusted, it would look like this:

Bush got 2,912,790 votes, while Gore got 2,912,253. Nader got 97,421.

If Bush had gotten 25% of those votes (24,355) and Gore had gotten 38% (37,020) that would leave the final tally at

Bush 2,937,145
Gore 2,949,273

i.e. Gore the winner of Florida with 12,128 votes.

If it had come true.

You are the one stating that votes for Nader were votes for Bush, now prove it or shut the hell up.

It's like this. You have a two party system. What does it mean?

It means that you, in reality, have two options. Basically you could rename them to "Yes" and "No". What this means is that people who didn't vote either yes or no drop the amount of voters whose vote could've made any real difference in the vote. The lower the percentage of people who vote "yes" or "no", the lower the percentage of people who are needed to make something pass (or not pass), making it so that even the voice of fringe groups may be heard a lot louder than should be the case.

Now, I'm all for protest votes, but claiming that voting "I have cultists, let me show u them" instead of "Yes" or "No" isn't a vote out of the actual vote that was taking place is just being plain stupid.

Do you really need me to give you a lesson in 1st grade arithmatic?


And posted an equally absurd statement in it's place. Don't worry, I saw.


Which in a two party system benefits the winner. It widened the margin Bush won by.



Oh, you really are floundering. It's okay. Big letters really do make you look cooler, I promise.;) It's much easier than showing how the margin of victory wouldn't be widened by a non-vote.

You have further proof, from the exit polls, that Nader not being in the election would have affected the results.

You not only fail at math, you fail at understanding the results of the exit polls.

And still you fail to provide any proof. No worries, you're now on my ignore list.

If you have no need of proof, why is it necessary for me to have some?
Do you really need me to give you a lesson in 1st grade arithmatic?

Also you can't quote that post because I deleted it.
And posted an equally absurd statement in it's place. Don't worry, I saw.

You are the one who is speculating, for my only assertion I have no proof that I can provide over the internet because the only statement I made is that I voted for Nader and wouldn't have voted for Gore or Kerry.

Which in a two party system benefits the winner. It widened the margin Bush won by.

I'll put it in bigger letters so your dull little mind has an easier time with it...
You are the one stating that votes for Nader were votes for Bush, now prove it or shut the hell up.

Oh, you really are floundering. It's okay. Big letters really do make you look cooler, I promise.;) It's much easier than showing how the margin of victory wouldn't be widened by a non-vote.

You have further proof, from the exit polls, that Nader not being in the election would have affected the results.

You not only fail at math, you fail at understanding the results of the exit polls.

And still you fail to provide any proof. No worries, you're now on my ignore list.

You put me on ignore and fail to respond to Gravlen's proof. I'm glad you did. I don't have the time or the inclination to explain basic math to you. You've already ignored the others in this thread that have done that already, why would it be any different if I explained it too?

Actually, the failure is on the other foot.

Nader was talking about the Florida election on that quote. If it is to be trusted, it would look like this:

Bush got 2,912,790 votes, while Gore got 2,912,253. Nader got 97,421.

If Bush had gotten 25% of those votes (24,355) and Gore had gotten 38% (37,020) that would leave the final tally at

Bush 2,937,145
Gore 2,949,273

i.e. Gore the winner of Florida with 12,128 votes.

If it had come true.

I will give you that, assuming of course that the figures provided in Nader's book are accurate and I have no reason to assume otherwise, so point to you Gravlen.

Fantastic.
The same data proves both things.

Because it is a two party system in America. A non-vote is the exact same thing as voting for the winner. You forgo a say in who the winner is, it doesn't mean you aren't responsible in part for the outcome.
No it isn't a non-vote is a non-vote. It gives the effect or appearance of supporting the winner, but it is not identical. That non-vote still could have voted for the winner, so your assumption is wrong. You assume that any non-voter automatically would go with the loser.
And before you try to take me on a trip to idiot island with a thread jack about why the two party system sucks, let me remind you of a few things. Firstly, you change that system in the other three years, 11 months and 29 days. You don't decide to change it in spite of massive and exhaustive opinion polling and prediction markets that show your canidate can't even get 5% of the vote. If it was shown Nader could have even gotten 25% of the vote, fine. Polls and prediction markets can be wrong, but the respectable ones aren't going to be off by 90 points or more.
Wtf... And the thread has already been jacked by people blaming Nader for Gore's loss.

In a two party system, any vote for a non-viable canidate benefits the winner of the election, any non-vote benefits the winner of an election.
It does not benefit the winner. It still could have voted for the winner anyway.
Like it or not, we have a two party system. You cannot change that system the day of the election. You will fail. As has been proven consistently throughout history.
Who said anything about changing the system, let alone changing it on the election day.

Yeah, ain't it. Obviously the cigarette makin' companies aren't responsible for anything, it's the folks who are prone to lung cancer who are to blame for this whole cigarettes raising the chance of lung cancer by a truckload thing!

I didn't even know there still were people who seriously think that it hasn't been proven that smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer. :eek: What's next? People claiming that eating lots and not moving hasn't been proven to increase the chance of becoming obese? Or that brushing your teeth hasn't been proven to decrease the chance of your teeth rotting away?
It's true. It has not been decisively proven. All that the studies have shown suggests a relationship. The exact same data can conclude that people who get lung cancer are more likely to smoke cigarettes.

Nader from his book Crashing the Party.

If this is true, it would have given Gore the election if Nader had not been on the ballot.


It has the same effect in this case.

Love the two-party system :)
Finally some proof that should be enough to project that Nader did have an effect. 538 is 4.2% of 12665 (the margin of Gore-Bush Nader). Even if that was heavily skewed, it still is big enough to overcome a skew.

Regardless, unless you ask every Naderite and Gore is ahead amongst them by 538 votes, you cannot definitively prove that he had an effect. All that's done is strongly suggesting that he did. Even with this. But at least you gave something proof-like finally. :)

Which in a two party system benefits the winner. It widened the margin Bush won by.
It did not widen any margin. You're assuming they would have voted for Gore. They could have also voted for Bush.


You have further proof, from the exit polls, that Nader not being in the election would have affected the results.

You not only fail at math, you fail at understanding the results of the exit polls.
The exit poll data was not posted here until well after we started arguing. He didn't ignore anything.

Protest and third party votes do have a benefit: they reopen the debate of our electoral process, if they are significant enough. Now with the big media, that is possible.

Most certainly not!
And this is why we're never going to see an independent president or Congress

All this nonsense of ‘liberal’ vs. ‘conservative’; the bullshit whining of the Democrat faithful that they were ‘betrayed’ by Nader, that he ‘stole’ their votes; all absolutely disgusting.
Of course it's bullshit, heaven forbid it be on your head that you elected Bush by not tipping the scale in Al Gore's favor.

Actually, the failure is on the other foot.

Nader was talking about the Florida election on that quote. If it is to be trusted, it would look like this:

Bush got 2,912,790 votes, while Gore got 2,912,253. Nader got 97,421.

If Bush had gotten 25% of those votes (24,355) and Gore had gotten 38% (37,020) that would leave the final tally at

Bush 2,937,145
Gore 2,949,273

i.e. Gore the winner of Florida with 12,128 votes.

If it had come true.

This is why we need a ranked voting system. That way, people like Nader can take advantage of their right to run for public office without screwing over the country.

Well, that was unexpected! But thanks for the affirmation. And you are correct about my time availability for the most part. Just so happens that I have some free time this morning.

Yet completely avoid actual debate ... interesting

Regardless, unless you ask every Naderite and Gore is ahead amongst them by 538 votes, you cannot definitively prove that he had an effect. All that's done is strongly suggesting that he did. Even with this. But at least you gave something proof-like finally. :)

Um, you realize unless I test every apple I can't definitely prove the range of the weight of an apple. You realize that unless I test every apple I can't prove apples don't taste like dog poop. The level of proof you require is both unscientific and silly.

Unless thos figures are refuted his evidence is well within the margin of error and the claim that Nader cost Gore the election stands.

Um, you realize unless I test every apple I can't definitely prove the range of the weight of an apple. You realize that unless I test every apple I can't prove apples don't taste like dog poop. The level of proof you require is both unscientific and silly.

Unless thos figures are refuted his evidence is well within the margin of error and the claim that Nader cost Gore the election stands.

It's better than when he was just claiming. It's also much more feasible to ask 100,000 people than taste every apple. I said project, which is acceptable. Before he gave the exit polls, he had no proof.

And this is why we're never going to see an independent president or Congress
Why?

Of course it's bullshit, heaven forbid it be on your head that you elected Bush by not tipping the scale in Al Gore's favor.
You guys still assume they would have voted for Gore. Obviously they weren't satisfied with either candidate and the better one just wasn't enough.

This is why we need a ranked voting system. That way, people like Nader can take advantage of their right to run for public office without screwing over the country.
No, this is why we need to:

Abolish the electoral college
Have a runoff if no candidate receives a majority
Have proportional representation in Congress so all voices can be heard

In my state, this could seriously undermine the chances of a Democrat winning, since it seems like everybody who's not a conservative/libertarian is a hippy. Obama appealed to people in both camps - even though his stances may not have lined up completely with the former - they were a large portion of his caucus victory here. If Nader runs, he will take a lot of the pot-smoking hippy vote, which would destroy the possibility of Obama winning Alaska.

Nader knows full well that the two party first-past-the-post electoral system is undemocratic and game-able - he's spoken out against it I think. So why is he sticking his nose in when doing so in the past has resulted in at least hundreds of thousands of deaths as a consequence of the Bush administration? Why does he think it's a good idea to run when his only criticism of Barack Obama is the fact that he "self-censors", that he doesn't spew the kind of leftist vitriolic rhetoric that would lose him the election?

Here's what I think the possible answers are:

1) He thinks Obama will win anyway. He's practically said as much. This would indicate he is naive about the media's power and desire to frame an election so it's as close as possible. Surely Mr. anti-corporate green-green isn't so naive?

2) He's holding the nation hostage. He's saying "I will spoil each and every election you have until you pass the kind of democratic electoral reform that would prevent me from doing so." That's an idea, but it's too hardcore for my tastes because firstly, it results in real people dying - an abstraction shouldn't take precedence over tangible evil in this world; secondly, if the result is somebody who makes the nation even LESS democratic (Bush), then all you're doing by running is moving us further in the wrong direction; and thirdly, our two party system isn't entirely undemocratic, because the parties are open to everybody and have democratic processes to select their candidates - it's just clumsily-designed with tattered edges.

3) His giant fucking ego. Yeah Nader worked really hard and did a lot of good things, but he let it go to his head.

For the fifth time, this pothead decides he should try running for president again. Obviously, he still has a chance. Seriously, this guy needs to run for something productive like Senate and can then get his issues at least on the table. Or talk to the candidates about what he wants done. Obama could really pick up on these issues and run with them...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader)

Fuck a duck.

Does the man really hate America so much he wants to give us more years of Republicans? :upyours:

You guys still assume they would have voted for Gore. Obviously they weren't satisfied with either candidate and the better one just wasn't enough.

Of course, it ruins their premise if you don't assume that.





Wow, I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with you Sel Appa, isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? :p

Fuck a duck.

Does the man really hate America so much he wants to give us more years of Republicans? :upyours:

Ah, another one who thinks it's Nader's fault that the Republicans won...
*shakes head *

It's better than when he was just claiming. It's also much more feasible to ask 100,000 people than taste every apple. I said project, which is acceptable. Before he gave the exit polls, he had no proof.


Uh, no, it isn't. There will always be more apples. It still wouldn't prove anything. Your required level of proof is nonsense. What he gave is enough that it would illogical to not conclude that, by being on the ballet in FL, Nader attracted enough voters away from the other two candidates with enough of a bias that Gore would have won.

If you can debunk that proof, you'll have something. As of yet, you're just creating a requirement for proof that could not ever be met, and isn't necessary in logic or science.

Ah, another one who thinks it's Nader's fault that the Republicans won...
*shakes head *

Yep, another one with a firm grasp of reality. How frustrating.

*shakes head*

Why?


Because the system is designed to favor parties, and with out one, you can't change the system.

I'll only consider voting for Nader if Clinton's the nominee.

Or he could simply be fed up with one-party Republicrat rule

And helping the Republicans win changes that how?

Ralph Nadar is truly testing my patience. I've been a supporter of his for some time now, but his constant attempts to seem relevant on a national level---in the context of political races----is simply as ridiculous as it is redundant. He rails against the major political parties constantly, but hasn't undertaken to form a national third party in any real sense. He simply sits back and waits until the presidential elections in order to sway the election.

If he's serious about it, let him organize a national third party and work to support third-party candidates during the mid-term elections. Let him work to form the necessary grass-roots organizations to support his third party and do the work necessary to get legislators elected at the local, state and federal level. Perhaps then I can take his announcements at running for high office seriously.

All he accomplished the last time he pulled this stunt was to get George Bush elected. And we know how that turned out.

Fuck a duck.

Does the man really hate America so much he wants to give us more years of Republicans? :upyours:

Or he could simply be fed up with one-party Republicrat rule, like a sizeable number (but still too small) of Americans are.

I like Ralph. He's okay. Not that I'd expect '08 to be that close, but it's nice knowing he'll skim a couple thousand votes off the top in a few key urban areas. More power to him, I say. :)

And helping the Republicans win changes that how?

The Republicrats will always win. It's unavoidable.

In 2000, he had a campaign stop in a forest reserve. A friend of mine worked there. When they left he said the preserve was left filthy. Nader is a loon and an inconsistent loon at that.

Yep, another one with a firm grasp of reality. How frustrating.

*shakes head*

Come on - the only person responsible for Gore losing in 2000 was Gore himself. He came into the race as a VP from a popular presidency and then just squandered the race through a bad campaign.

Gore's biggest mistake was to think the issues would matter in a race of personality. When it comes down to it, Presidential elections are won on this simple question.

"Who would you rather have a beer with of a sunny afternoon over BBQ"

Regardless, here's the rebuttal of Nader being the cause.

Link (http://prorev.com/green2000.htm)

From which, and let's not forget:

Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, Bill Clinton's Arkansas and traditionally Democratic West Virginia; with any one of these, Gore would have won.

EDIT: I disagree with the article's idea that Bill Clinton cost Gore the election as well, if anything Gore distanced himself too much but the ultimate point is that, like Senator Kerry, Gore came off as an intellectual without charisma - this is why flip-flop works as an attack because it feeds into the idea of slippery intellectuals.

Come on - the only person responsible for Gore losing in 2000 was Gore himself. He came into the race as a VP from a popular presidency and then just squandered the race through a bad campaign.

Gore's biggest mistake was to think the issues would matter in a race of personality. When it comes down to it, Presidential elections are won on this simple question.

"Who would you rather have a beer with of a sunny afternoon over BBQ"

Regardless, here's the rebuttal of Nader being the cause.

Link (http://prorev.com/green2000.htm)

From which, and let's not forget:

Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, Bill Clinton's Arkansas and traditionally Democratic West Virginia; with any one of these, Gore would have won.


I read the first bit, but their base assumption was false, so I stopped looking for conclusions based on it.

They propose that if Nader had an effect, then there would be a direct correllation between rises in Gore's approval and drops in Nader's. The assumption is not supportable. There are many places votes can come from. More voters could decide to vote or decide to stay home. Voters could come from Bush or other third party candidates or leave to vote for them. There were numerous factors in Gore's loss, no doubt, but Nader was undoubtedly one of them. Absent Nader, according to Nader's polls, Gore would have won FL.

I read the first bit, but their base assumption was false, so I stopped looking for conclusions based on it.

They propose that if Nader had an effect, then there would be a direct correllation between rises in Gore's approval and drops in Nader's. The assumption is not supportable. There are many places votes can come from. More voters could decide to vote or decide to stay home. Voters could come from Bush or other third party candidates or leave to vote for them. There were numerous factors in Gore's loss, no doubt, but Nader was undoubtedly one of them. Absent Nader, according to Nader's polls, Gore would have won FL.

I'd note, not so much the correlation but the dramatic rise for George Bush. There's a few issues I disagree with in that article so fair enough. The thing is, Florida is given prominence because it was the decider state when there were plenty of other states that Al Gore lost, states he really shouldn't have lost, that would have made Florida moot.

He lost the election by being unable to counter George Bush, by being so assured of his moral and intellectual superiority that it seemed inconceivable to him that George Bush might beat him, so he never evolved his position.

I feel Senator Clinton has the same problem, she thought she'd have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday and has no strategy whatsoever to continue, didn't even seriously put a thought to it because of that assumption.

I'd note, not so much the correlation but the dramatic rise for George Bush. There's a few issues I disagree with in that article so fair enough. The thing is, Florida is given prominence because it was the decider state when there were plenty of other states that Al Gore lost, states he really shouldn't have lost, that would have made Florida moot.

He lost the election by being unable to counter George Bush, by being so assured of his moral and intellectual superiority that it seemed inconceivable to him that George Bush might beat him, so he never evolved his position.

I feel Senator Clinton has the same problem, she thought she'd have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday and has no strategy whatsoever to continue, didn't even seriously put a thought to it because of that assumption.

I can accept that, but it's true that the presence of Nader makes it more difficult for Democrats to win. Or did. I sincerely doubt anyoe will take him seriously this time. He's a loon and a hypocrite. Physician, heal thyself, is my advice to Nader.

For the fifth time, this pothead decides he should try running for president again. Obviously, he still has a chance. Seriously, this guy needs to run for something productive like Senate and can then get his issues at least on the table. Or talk to the candidates about what he wants done. Obama could really pick up on these issues and run with them...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader)

yay! someone I can vote for!

maybe this year he'll double the number of votes from last time! :D

Anyone who draws off the votes of left-wing wackos who would otherwise vote Donkocrat, and thus helps the GOP in November, is doing the Lord's work :D

Run Ralph Run!



Donkocrat? :D I love it! Funny stuff.

Anyone who draws off the votes of left-wing wackos who would otherwise vote Donkocrat, and thus helps the GOP in November, is doing the Lord's work :D

Run Ralph Run!

Always a pleasure, Mitanni. I really appreciate someone like you who can debate intelligently and maturely, and not simply engage in childish name-calling and taunting of anyone who disagrees with their viepoint.:rolleyes:

I've organized one before and I can do it again. :)

Awesome!

What?! He's talking about a real party?

Ye, he is. In his own special way.

I hate Nadar. He's a loon, who doesnt run because "key issues arent addressed", like he claims. He runs becauses hes a loon and loves media attention.

So you'd replace Nader with another vote for another person that's guaranteed not to win the presidency? Replace Nader with Walken, with my neighbor Tom; if you vote for a non-viable canidate, then you are taking votes away from a viable canidate. It's still the same end.

Does your neighbour Tom advocate the same sort of policy platform as Nader? Does he have Nader's experience?

But you are claiming that my vote for a non-viable candidate doesn't matter...

You have a right to cast your vote however you choose, or not cast a vote at all. But to pretend that doesn't affect the outcome of an election is ignorant.

Oh, wait. You're claiming that it does matter...

Because it is a two party system in America. A non-vote is the exact same thing as voting for the winner. You forgo a say in who the winner is, it doesn't mean you aren't responsible in part for the outcome.

Everyone is responsible for the outcome. That's the point behind voting. That's why people voted for Nader. To effect the outcome.

In 2000, he had a campaign stop in a forest reserve. A friend of mine worked there. When they left he said the preserve was left filthy. Nader is a loon and an inconsistent loon at that.

I don't believe you.

I read the first bit, but their base assumption was false, so I stopped looking for conclusions based on it.

They propose that if Nader had an effect, then there would be a direct correllation between rises in Gore's approval and drops in Nader's. The assumption is not supportable. There are many places votes can come from. More voters could decide to vote or decide to stay home. Voters could come from Bush or other third party candidates or leave to vote for them. There were numerous factors in Gore's loss, no doubt, but Nader was undoubtedly one of them. Absent Nader, according to Nader's polls, Gore would have won FL.

Yes, Nader was one of many factors that had an effect. His effect was being a better candidate than anyone else for a small percentage of the population. So they voted for him. If the Democrat party wanted those votes, they should have earned them. They didn't.

Why do Democrats whine so much about losing votes to Nader? It's not Nader's fault that the Democrats suck.

He will take votes away from Clinton or Obama.

Or they will deprive him of votes; another example of alternate perception.

New Mitanni calling someone on Inane Rhetorics is like Osama Bin Laden calling someone else a terrorist.

It's funny you should mention Osama bin Laden, because I haven't heard much about him lately, and I think it's because of Barack Obama, because his last name sounds a lot like bin Laden's first name (Obama/Osama). Enough so, in fact, that it would be very easy to switch the two names around, even accidentally (e.g., "Obama bin Laden" or "Barack Osama").

This, plus Obama's (the presidential candidate) middle name "Hussein", psychs me out of voting for him (Obama).

It's funny you should mention Osama bin Laden, because I haven't heard much about him lately, and I think it's because of Barack Obama, because his last name sounds a lot like bin Laden's first name (Obama/Osama). Enough so, in fact, that it would be very easy to switch the two names around, even accidentally (e.g., "Obama bin Laden" or "Barack Osama").

This, plus Obama's (the presidential candidate) middle name "Hussein", psychs me out of voting for him (Obama).

You used to be devoted to your character and I didn't see one mention of Zod, for shame.

BTW someones name should have no bearing on how you vote even if his name is Osama Bin Sadden (I am unimaginative)

Yep, another one with a firm grasp of reality. How frustrating.

*shakes head*

So you actually believe that Nader has cost the Democrats the win every time he has run? So much for you 'firm grasp on reality'.

It's funny you should mention Osama bin Laden, because I haven't heard much about him lately, and I think it's because of Barack Obama, because his last name sounds a lot like bin Laden's first name (Obama/Osama). Enough so, in fact, that it would be very easy to switch the two names around, even accidentally (e.g., "Obama bin Laden" or "Barack Osama").

This, plus Obama's (the presidential candidate) middle name "Hussein", psychs me out of voting for him (Obama).

You seriously would not vote for someone based on what their middle name is?

Wow, I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with you Sel Appa, isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse? :p
Wait...Why?

Uh, no, it isn't. There will always be more apples. It still wouldn't prove anything. Your required level of proof is nonsense. What he gave is enough that it would illogical to not conclude that, by being on the ballet in FL, Nader attracted enough voters away from the other two candidates with enough of a bias that Gore would have won.

If you can debunk that proof, you'll have something. As of yet, you're just creating a requirement for proof that could not ever be met, and isn't necessary in logic or science.
Of course there will always be more apples. I stated that unless you ask everyone, you cannot fully prove Nader had an effect. Exit polls are reasonable enough. But, before Gravlen posted that, there was no proof posted in this thread at all taht Nader had any effect.

Because the system is designed to favor parties, and with out one, you can't change the system.
The system is designed for independents and the best possible candidate. Unfortunately, it has had the unintentional effect of creating two powerful factions. Not to mention said factions' ENORMOUS political machines that squelch or eat competition. The electoral college is one of the main causes of bipartisanism. After that, the first past the post system also contributes.

And helping the Republicans win changes that how?
He isn't helping them win. The Democrats need to pick up his issues and grow backbones.

bubububu
I've been saying that since like 2000. He needs to run for Congress or something.

In 2000, he had a campaign stop in a forest reserve. A friend of mine worked there. When they left he said the preserve was left filthy. Nader is a loon and an inconsistent loon at that.
Sure it wasn't his supporters?

When it comes down to it, Presidential elections are won on this simple question.

"Who would you rather have a beer with of a sunny afternoon over BBQ"
And that's why Obama will win the nomination and the presidency. The issues don't really matter. Actually, that IS an issue; the most important one.

I read the first bit, but their base assumption was false, so I stopped looking for conclusions based on it.

They propose that if Nader had an effect, then there would be a direct correllation between rises in Gore's approval and drops in Nader's. The assumption is not supportable. There are many places votes can come from. More voters could decide to vote or decide to stay home. Voters could come from Bush or other third party candidates or leave to vote for them. There were numerous factors in Gore's loss, no doubt, but Nader was undoubtedly one of them. Absent Nader, according to Nader's polls, Gore would have won FL.
You are contradicting yourself. If Nader had an effect, it would be seen in support for Gore vs. Nader. People don't realize that Democratic voters don't make up a large part of his base.

Or they will deprive him of votes; another example of alternate perception.
Nice call there. I wonder how a Green-Republican race would go...

This, plus Obama's (the presidential candidate) middle name "Hussein", psychs me out of voting for him (Obama).
You need to seriously reevaluate your life.

um this new mintanni dude should come to the for anarchy works thread, maybe back me up? :sniper: :mp5:

Of course there will always be more apples. I stated that unless you ask everyone, you cannot fully prove Nader had an effect. Exit polls are reasonable enough. But, before Gravlen posted that, there was no proof posted in this thread at all taht Nader had any effect.

Again, asking for that burden of proof is illogical. I can't fully prove the sun will come up tomorrow till it happens, but if you tell the sun isn't going to come up tomorrow, you're an idiot.


You are contradicting yourself. If Nader had an effect, it would be seen in support for Gore vs. Nader. People don't realize that Democratic voters don't make up a large part of his base.

Um, no. Contradicting myself would be claiming that the data didn't support Gore wining if Nader wasn't in the race.

What I said is that a rise in one candidate and a fall of another or a lack thereof does not evidence or disprove whether Nader was a cause for Gore's loss. YOU contradicted me.

Unfortunately, since your contradiction assumes that votes can only come from Nader to Gore or Gore to Nader, which isn't true, you fail. It would be true if Nader was the ONLY factor in Gore's loss. But no one is saying that. According to Nader, polling showed that they made up about 40% of his base. What do you call a large part?

Sure it wasn't his supporters?

If he appears at a campaign stop at a forest preserve, he BETTER well make sure that the green candidate doesn't leave it filthy. If he didn't realize that the Green Party candidate shouldn't be leaving a trail of trash, then he's not bright enough to be President. And that's after the last seven years so it's quite the bold statement.

I don't believe you.

B...b...but, pleas, no.


Yes, Nader was one of many factors that had an effect. His effect was being a better candidate than anyone else for a small percentage of the population. So they voted for him. If the Democrat party wanted those votes, they should have earned them. They didn't.

Why do Democrats whine so much about losing votes to Nader? It's not Nader's fault that the Democrats suck.

I'm neither a Democrat, nor did I say he should not have run. The claim was that he wasn't a factor, and it's been demonstrated that he not only was a factor, but had he not been in the race, Gore would have won.

Gore and Kerry both sucked as candidates.

If he appears at a campaign stop at a forest preserve, he BETTER well make sure that the green candidate doesn't leave it filthy. If he didn't realize that the Green Party candidate shouldn't be leaving a trail of trash, then he's not bright enough to be President. And that's after the last seven years so it's quite the bold statement.

Did that actually happen. Maybe I missed your link, but that seems a bit unbelievable without a source to back it up.

Click Stand;13481840']Did that actually happen. Maybe I missed your link, but that seems a bit unbelievable without a source to back it up.

I listed my source when I said it. I realize it's not reliable to you, but it's a reason I've formed the opinion I have of him, so I listed it. I supposed I could see if it's around, but even if I could find a source, unless you know someone who was there, it's highly unlikely it couldn't be seen as rumor.

Again, asking for that burden of proof is illogical. I can't fully prove the sun will come up tomorrow till it happens, but if you tell the sun isn't going to come up tomorrow, you're an idiot.
I'm not asking for that proof. I just said the only definitive way to know for certain is to ask everyone. It is acceptable to use exit polls and extrapolate. It's good enough, but not perfect.

Regardless, Gore should have picked up his issues and also should have won some states he didn't ,as has been said.

Um, no. Contradicting myself would be claiming that the data didn't support Gore wining if Nader wasn't in the race.

What I said is that a rise in one candidate and a fall of another or a lack thereof does not evidence or disprove whether Nader was a cause for Gore's loss. YOU contradicted me.

Unfortunately, since your contradiction assumes that votes can only come from Nader to Gore or Gore to Nader, which isn't true, you fail. It would be true if Nader was the ONLY factor in Gore's loss. But no one is saying that. According to Nader, polling showed that they made up about 40% of his base. What do you call a large part?
I think I misread what you said...

um this new mintanni dude should come to the for anarchy works thread, maybe back me up? :sniper: :mp5:

Kid, having NM on your side would crush whatever remaining credibility you still have.

Wait...Why?

Because I usually don't...

Yay! Add some spice to the race!