Ralph Nader

12357…14

Comments

  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    nader is another reason why mccain will be the next prez. what a dumbass.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    nader is another reason why mccain will be the next prez. what a dumbass.

    how is he a dumbass? do people simply owe the democrats their vote or is it supposed to be earned? they haven't earned mine, that's fo sho!
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    how is he a dumbass? do people simply owe the democrats their vote or is it supposed to be earned? they haven't earned mine, that's fo sho!

    he is a dumbass because he is taking away votes from the democrats.
  • dontloseyourheat
    dontloseyourheat Posts: 483
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    he is a dumbass because he is taking away votes from the democrats.

    That is some absolutely ridiculous and ignorant logic. The votes don't belong to the Democratic Party, they belong to the voter. And that voter will vote for whoever is most appealing to them. If the Democrats stood apart from the Republicans, maybe people would vote for them instead of Nader.
    "Don't lose your inner heat...ever" - EV 5/13/06
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    dontloseyourheat wrote:
    That is some absolutely ridiculous and ignorant logic. The votes don't belong to the Democratic Party, they belong to the voter. And that voter will vote for whoever is most appealing to them. If the Democrats stood apart from the Republicans, maybe people would vote for them instead of Nader.

    hehe you're right. I pulled that out of my ass. simple question, who would (few/some/many) nader supporters vote for if he wasn't in the race

    maccain or obama?

    or am I being absolutely ridiculous and completely illogical? :rolleyes:
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    he is a dumbass because he is taking away votes from the democrats.
    The democrats have to earn those votes, nothing's given.

    I am voting for Nader, and if he wasnt' running a democrat wouldn't get my vote. So in my case, and for the people I know voting Nader, that statement is incorrect.
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    Commy wrote:
    The democrats have to earn those votes, nothing's given.

    I am voting for Nader, and if he wasnt' running a democrat wouldn't get my vote. So in my case, and for the people I know voting Nader, that statement is incorrect.

    so for you and the 2 other people you know, I'm wrong. but I still say my statement is correct. al gore 2000, florida..anyone anyone?
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    so for you and the 2 other people you know, I'm wrong. but I still say my statement is correct. al gore 2000, florida..anyone anyone?
    closer to 10, and if that's any sampling of the way people are voting than the idea that Nader is stealing votes from the democrats is rediculous.
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    he is a dumbass because he is taking away votes from the democrats.


    I am voting Obama, and like that Nader is running. Hopefully he can keep the Dems in line and hold them to their promises.

    Anyway, you are the dumbass with this logic. If Obama can't beat McCain with Nader running, then there is something seriously wrong in this world. Now if Chuck Hagel had the Republican nomination, I may have been a little worried.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    so for you and the 2 other people you know, I'm wrong. but I still say my statement is correct. al gore 2000, florida..anyone anyone?


    You're a bit behind us...we've already had this discussion

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=276261
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    hehe you're right. I pulled that out of my ass. simple question, who would (few/some/many) nader supporters vote for if he wasn't in the race

    maccain or obama?

    or am I being absolutely ridiculous and completely illogical? :rolleyes:
    Yes, you're being "absolutely ridiculous and completely illogical". I voted for Nader in 2004 and I'll vote for him in 2008. After Kucinich was bullied out of the race and before Nader announced that he's running, I was very likely not going to vote at all. I don't think I could vote for anyone else in the race and have a clear conscience.

    The idea that Nader takes votes from democrats is stale and plain wrong. If dems want my vote, they had damn well better earn it. They've done NOTHING but cater to the Bush and other republicans and support this god awful war. They are NOT progressive. I, for one am very much interested in PROGRESSive candidates and nothing less.
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    brandon10 wrote:
    I am voting Obama, and like that Nader is running. Hopefully he can keep the Dems in line and hold them to their promises.

    Anyway, you are the dumbass with this logic. If Obama can't beat McCain with Nader running, then there is something seriously wrong in this world. Now if Chuck Hagel had the Republican nomination, I may have been a little worried.
    Good post. It just makes so much sense for Nader to run. It blows my mind that people can't see that. Obviously, I want him to win. But if not, I think he does nothing but help the dems. The American people are sick and tired of republicans. But for some reason the dems are moving further and further right. It's pure fucking insanity.
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    brandon10 wrote:
    I am voting Obama, and like that Nader is running. Hopefully he can keep the Dems in line and hold them to their promises.

    Anyway, you are the dumbass with this logic. If Obama can't beat McCain with Nader running, then there is something seriously wrong in this world. Now if Chuck Hagel had the Republican nomination, I may have been a little worried.

    are blatant insults like this allowed around here? I take you for another high school kid like that roland guy. thats not an insult, just a maturity level observation. you know why? because there is nothing wrong with this world if a candidate you dont support wins. I think you'll understand when you get older. as for my logic, all I can say is Al Gore 2000. but you were probably much too young to know what happen then but heres a hint. Nader essentially lost gore florida, which ended up costing gore the election.
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    Eliot Rosewater wrote:
    Good post. It just makes so much sense for Nader to run. It blows my mind that people can't see that. Obviously, I want him to win. But if not, I think he does nothing but help the dems. The American people are sick and tired of republicans. But for some reason the dems are moving further and further right. It's pure fucking insanity.

    talk about insane logic. how does nader running HELP the dems? he is taking votes directly away from democrats. even though the communist says he and his buddies wouldn't vote for a democrat, many people who vote for nader would.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    talk about insane logic. how does nader running HELP the dems? he is taking votes directly away from democrats. even though the communist says he and his buddies wouldn't vote for a democrat, many people who vote for nader would.


    He helps by keeping the other guys honest, bringing ignored issues up and he helps to shape the Dem's platform into fitting more closely with what leftist types would like to see in their candidate. If they don't represent what we'd like to see done in this country why in the heck would we vote for them?

    The Dems don't get our votes simply because they're not McCain. They have to represent the principles we value, tackle the problem issues that are swept under the rug by the others, their record should match their rhetoric, they need to have actually DONE things to make them deserving and not just said some things....
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    are blatant insults like this allowed around here? I take you for another high school kid like that roland guy. thats not an insult, just a maturity level observation. you know why? because there is nothing wrong with this world if a candidate you dont support wins. I think you'll understand when you get older. as for my logic, all I can say is Al Gore 2000. but you were probably much too young to know what happen then but heres a hint. Nader essentially lost gore florida, which ended up costing gore the election.

    Did you even bother reading the link to a thread on this I posted to you?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    He helps by keeping the other guys honest, bringing ignored issues up and he helps to shape the Dem's platform into fitting more closely with what leftist types would like to see in their candidate. If they don't represent what we'd like to see done in this country why in the heck would we vote for them?

    The Dems don't get our votes simply because they're not McCain. They have to represent the principles we value, tackle the problem issues that are swept under the rug by the others, their record should match their rhetoric, they need to have actually DONE things to make them deserving and not just said some things....

    sorry bout thats just not true for so many dems. I think even more so now because so many are anti-bush they will vote for anyone who isnt him no matter what. and if nader wasn't in the race, 99 times out of 100, the dems would get that vote.
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Did you even bother reading the link to a thread on this I posted to you?

    o I'm sorry, I didn't know it was a rule around here to obey your every command. ...

    fuck nader. he lost gore the election in 2000 and will help mccain get elected this time around. although he probably doesnt need much help.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    What ever did happen to jlew24asu I wonder?

    oops nevermind..
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    Eliot Rosewater wrote:
    Yes, you're being "absolutely ridiculous and completely illogical". I voted for Nader in 2004 and I'll vote for him in 2008. After Kucinich was bullied out of the race and before Nader announced that he's running, I was very likely not going to vote at all. I don't think I could vote for anyone else in the race and have a clear conscience.

    The idea that Nader takes votes from democrats is stale and plain wrong. If dems want my vote, they had damn well better earn it. They've done NOTHING but cater to the Bush and other republicans and support this god awful war. They are NOT progressive. I, for one am very much interested in PROGRESSive candidates and nothing less.

    Here are the actual results from the 2000 election:

    Gore 50,999,897 48.38%
    Bush 50,456,002 47.87%
    Nader 2,882,955 2.74%
    Total 105,405,100 100.00%*

    * Includes all candidates

    See: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

    Allocating the 2,882,955 Nader votes along established patterns: 46% / 1,326,159 to Gore and 23% / 663,080 to Bush (leaving out the 31% of Nader voters who said they wouldn't have voted at all) shows Gore more than doubling his popular vote margin.

Categories