Ralph Nader endorses John Edwards

blackascoal said:
If I were a 3rd party candidate .. 3rd party because I don't give a rats ass about either main political party .. why would I give a damn about either?

Who "mucked it up" in 2004?
Click to expand...

I don't see the practical difference in making a system that transfers votes of those who had a snowballs chance in hell of winning to their second choice, and simply voting for your second choice if you think your candidates has a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

And if Nader was your first choice, and Bush was your second, why, you're just very special, aren't you?
 
Watermark said:
I don't see the practical difference in making a system that transfers votes of those who had a snowballs chance in hell of winning to their second choice, and simply voting for your second choice if you think your candidates has a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

And if Nader was your first choice, and Bush was your second, why, you're just very special, aren't you?
Click to expand...

You voted for Gore .. but Bush was still your fiorst choice because your party allowed Bush to win .. knowingly.

That's what I'd call "special"
 
I don't know?

Let's just use common sense people.

Here's the appropriate way to vote under plurality:


List the order of people you prefer.

Maybe that's, Nader 1, Gore 2, and fuck Bush

Now, is the election close? Yes.

Does my first choice have a snowballs chance in hell of winning? No.

Whats the highest candidate on my list who has a snowballs chance in hell of winning? Gore.


I'm sure some people operate their life soley on principle. I am not one of them. I operate my life based on common sense. The people who voted for Nader, lacked common sense. Even if you absolutely hated Gore, BAC, and that that he was literally equal on your list to Bush, I'm pretty sure that the majority of Nader voters didn't think that way, and we're just lacking in common sense.

Hell, if just 10% were that way, if they had just had some common sense, Gore would be president.
 
DigitalDave said:
It's much easier for them to blame a powerless third party and keep shoveling the shit on them than to actually take the blame. They couldn't swallow the pill so they lost again in 2004 to someone over half the country hated by that time. Had they nominated Clark... they won the election.
Click to expand...

No, what he’s saying is that both elections were stolen, but the Democrats sat back and let it happen. And both elections were stolen.
 
Watermark said:
I don't know?

Let's just use common sense people.

Here's the appropriate way to vote under plurality:


List the order of people you prefer.

Maybe that's, Nader 1, Gore 2, and fuck Bush

Now, is the election close? Yes.

Does my first choice have a snowballs chance in hell of winning? No.

Whats the highest candidate on my list who has a snowballs chance in hell of winning? Gore.


I'm sure some people operate their life soley on principle. I am not one of them. I operate my life based on common sense. The people who voted for Nader, lacked common sense. Even if you absolutely hated Gore, BAC, and that that he was literally equal on your list to Bush, I'm pretty sure that the majority of Nader voters don't think with such rigidity, and we're just lacking in common sense.
Click to expand...

In the end you've exhibited that you lacked the common sense to choose wisely yourself .. as Bush won.

WHO DID YOU BLAME FOR 2004?

You keep running ..
 
blackascoal said:
You voted for Gore .. but Bush was still your fiorst choice because your party allowed Bush to win .. knowingly.

That's what I'd call "special"
Click to expand...

BAC, I don't operate under that logic. The Green's have the right to vote for whoever they want. I'm just critical of their decision. They KNOW that vote splitting is a problem. Throw protest votes in elections where there's going to be a landslide, or whenever your candidate has a chance. There was a lot at stake in Flordia in 2000.
 
Watermark said:
BAC, I don't operate under that logic. The Green's have the right to vote for whoever they want. I'm just critical of their decision. They KNOW that vote splitting is a problem. Throw protest votes in elections where there's going to be a landslide, or whenever your candidate has a chance. There was a lot at stake in Flordia in 2000.
Click to expand...

There is a lot at stake in every election.

How is it that it is not the responsibility of the Democratic Party to ensure that elections are fair?
 
blackascoal said:
There is a lot at stake in every election.

How is it that it is not the responsibility of the Democratic Party to ensure that elections are fair?
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things that could have resulted in Bush not getting elected. I've raised your very same critiscim of the Democratic party before. But it's not like it's all or none. The Democrats could've required instant runoff voting. They could've investigated vote fraud. I also have a third complaint, with the Greens in Florida.
 
blackascoal said:
WRONG .. the republicans were intent on stealing the election and there was ZERO opposition to stop them from doing it.

If democrats had any balls, if democrats had not joined in on the fraud of war, if Gore had won his own fucking state, and if Gore had not run away from the success of Clinton .. then perhaps a milion Iraqis and thousands of Americans would still be alive.

Placing the blame on Nader, or mopre specifically, those who voted for Nader is a long ass way from truth.

Do you blame Nader for 2004?
Click to expand...


Your focusing on the blame for Gore's loss. Those are important questions, questions that deal with the tools of our democracy, and the strenght of the Democratic party.

I'm not looking at this from the perspective of the tools and mechanics of our democracy and republic. I'm looking at this from the point of view of the consequences of the 2000 vote.

If one believes in their heart and soul that the Iraq war was the biggest foreign policy mistake in our history, and that its the moral test of our generation, then what was the most likely scenario to keep the war from happening?

The answer is self evident. The election of al gore.

One can speculate on the range and scope of who is to blame for Gore losing. Those deal with the questions involving the mechanics of our democracy. They don't deal with what was the best way to keep the war from happening. i.e., The consequences of Bush's election.

There were two left-center candidates who wouldn't have invaded iraq: Gore and Nader.

Only one of those center-left candidates was a viable option to win the white house. And ultimately prevent the deaths of up to a million people.
 
blackascoal said:
There is a lot at stake in every election.

How is it that it is not the responsibility of the Democratic Party to ensure that elections are fair?
Click to expand...



http://americanblackout.com/

Before you stop something you must be aware it exsists.


Pretending people in the democratic party should have been aware of all the fraud before it was a broken story serves no real purpose now does it BAC.

When you seek to bury your opponents its one thing but to seek to bury your allies is self distructive.

Note the year this film was made?

If these problems were so apparent why did this film need to be made?
 
Desh said:
http://americanblackout.com/

Before you stop something you must be aware it exsists.


Pretending people in the democratic party should have been aware of all the fraud before it was a broken story serves no real purpose now does it BAC.

When you seek to bury your opponents its one thing but to seek to bury your allies is self distructive.

Note the year this film was made?

If these problems were so apparent why did this film need to be made?
Click to expand...


The disenfranchisement of black voters is not new and it was as apparent in 2000 as it has been apparent throughout American history.

Why did the film need to be made .. because Americans have still not stepped up to ensure the fairnes of elections for disenfranchised voters, even in modern-day Ohio .. even to this day.

The only time it becomes an issue is when it affects outcomes non-black democrats expect.

Pretending democrats are not aware of this historic and constant disenfranchisement only serves the purpose of escape from the reponsibility of allowing republicans to dominate nearly every level of government .. which democrats did once AGAIN in 2004.
 
Cypress said:
Your focusing on the blame for Gore's loss. Those are important questions, questions that deal with the tools of our democracy, and the strenght of the Democratic party.

I'm not looking at this from the perspective of the tools and mechanics of our democracy and republic. I'm looking at this from the point of view of the consequences of the 2000 vote.

If one believes in their heart and soul that the Iraq war was the biggest foreign policy mistake in our history, and that its the moral test of our generation, then what was the most likely scenario to keep the war from happening?

The answer is self evident. The election of al gore.

One can speculate on the range and scope of who is to blame for Gore losing. Those deal with the questions involving the mechanics of our democracy. They don't deal with what was the best way to keep the war from happening. i.e., The consequences of Bush's election.

There were two left-center candidates who wouldn't have invaded iraq: Gore and Nader.

Only one of those center-left candidates was a viable option to win the white house. And ultimately prevent the deaths of up to a million people.
Click to expand...

Neither Iraq nor 9/11 were issues in the 2000 election.

You can blame Nader till the cows come home, but history will write the story of DEMOCRATS, including some who are now running for president, caving in to right-wing madness.

Gore didn't even win his own state yet you continue to look out the window for excuses.

I guess Nader chose Lieberman for Gore.
 
LIEBERMAN

Let's blame Nader for choosing a prowar religious zealot every bit as dangerous and disconnected as George Bush as Gore's running mate.
 
Darla said:
Yeah, he should have. Some too clever bastard, out-clevered himself there. But with the Supreme Court stepping in and stopping the recounts anyway, making bush an unelected president, what difference would it have really made? Maybe there is something in the timeline showing it would have made a difference? But I don’t see how.
Click to expand...
It would have made a tremendous difference. The US Supreme Court could not have stepped in to a state function IF the state followed it's recount rules ie they should have recounted the whole state. Instead Gore's legal team wanted only select counties recounted thus giving more weight to those counties votes than the counties not subject to the recount. Huge difference and the ONLY thing that gave the USSC the Jurisdiction to hear the case.
 
Topspin said:
Gore lost plain as day.
The next dem nominee won't be such a puss and will win outright including Gore should he run. After Obama sweeps Iowa and NH it may be too late for Al though.
Click to expand...
I swear you said Hillary was going to win. That was you right. Money in the bank and all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top