Right, and that's exactly what happened too! You can see by how they all lined up to give bush anything he wanted.
Hillary won't get the nomination
- Thread starter Onceler
- Start date
Right, and that's exactly what happened too! You can see by how they all lined up to give bush anything he wanted.
You're completely ignoring the consequences.
I don't discount that it can make a difference. I just think it is subtle, not nearly as powerful as you seem to think and is COMPLETELY shadowed by the negative impact of their actions.
As I keep saying: the principles that Nader holds dear, for the most part, were set back for many, many years. I'm sure that wasn't the goal of dreamers who voted for him, but it is the consequence. People who DEAL IN REALITY understand that.
Are they speaking more strongly towards those issues in this election cycle? I think they are.
A short-term loss will often bring a long-term victory while voting for the least "evil" will never bring your issues to the fore.
Battleborne
Terminator
LMAO..............
Darla ,cippie and orno are KGB ho's...they use them then throw them away when their usefullness is over...!...Thats a fact jack!
Darla ,cippie and orno are KGB ho's...they use them then throw them away when their usefullness is over...!...Thats a fact jack!
what say you about Clinton winning in 92 only due to Ross perot? Same thing no?
What proof do you have of that?
I think whatever small influence Nader voters exerted in 2000 has already disappated. And we still have Iraq, and will for years to come, as well as its many consequences. Not to mention other issues Nader voters likely believed in, such as the environment.
You sound like a total dreamer; your sense of perspective is completely wacked on this...
I will vote for Edwards in the primary, but if Senator Clinton is the democratic nominee against any one of the current Republican canidates... Ill vote for Senator Clinton.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Well Warren, they have to blame someone and you sure as hell won't get them to take responsibility for their own party, their own parties nominee or their own parties leadership.... no.... instead, they will just blame Nader. No personal responsibility that way.
But if you even so dare as to mention that had they simply put up a moderate rather than Gore, that they could have also picked up those extra votes that way. But hey... blame Nader and those who voted for them... its just easier that way.
Not true, if you do the math. Those who voted for Perot were not all pre-disposed to vote only for Bush had it not been for Perot. Meaning, Perot drained about equal votes from Bush and Clinton. Nader is a superliberal, he drained votes almost exclusivly from Gore and Kerry.
Name the issues.
On war, I have to say no. On the environment, that's Gore, and plus, you know, scientific evidence. On health care, that's not Nadar. That's the people. A good case of, let me see where my people are going, so I can lead them.
Damo, people's lives are more important than anyone's issues.
And I think yours is. If you ignore your issues to vote for something else your issues will not be in the fore by definition.
First I hear they are "throw away" votes and now you say that they can't effect the party that they left. I think you are being disingenuous. The left took them so seriously that during a Presidency when they pretty much gave Bush everything he wanted they stopped ANWR. They continued to block more drilling off the coasts... and so forth.
Ignoring their influence on the party's reaction to their loss is disingenuous garbage.
Not "equal", Perot drained some from Clinton, but not "equal".
No, that is your issue. Theirs are as important to them as yours is to you. Yet you expect them to ignore their issues for yours.
Nader's influence is done.
Getting back to the original premise, his voters WASTED their chance. They could have put this country on an entirely different track in 2000, and the principles they likely hold dear would have been promoted more, instead of taking the beating they have.
Bush for 8 years, along with the Iraq War & a complete assault on the environment. I wonder what 3rd party Nader voters would consider an adequate payoff for such a consequence?
Getting back to the original premise, his voters WASTED their chance. They could have put this country on an entirely different track in 2000, and the principles they likely hold dear would have been promoted more, instead of taking the beating they have.
Bush for 8 years, along with the Iraq War & a complete assault on the environment. I wonder what 3rd party Nader voters would consider an adequate payoff for such a consequence?
I agree with this perception 100%. Any more moderate candidate would have beaten Bush then.
Keep ignoring that Gore did beat bush, and that Gore WAS a moderate.
Both of you.
Life is so much more pleasant that way.
As I pointed out, I think that it was because of this message sent that they actually showed a tiny bit of spine and on the environment specifically stood up to Bush whom they otherwise pretty much gave what he wanted all the way through. Shoot, even after they took power....