So Nader hasn't done anything lately? You don't know Nader at all if you believe that. Obama has party backing. Much easier to organize when you don't have to spend every dime and every second trying to gain ballot access then fight lawsuits from the Dem party whose constantly suing you then dropping the case after the election to bankrupt your campaign and tie up the election season with court battles.

Btw... is it me you are referring to as one whose making personal attacks?

Nader had a meeting with Kerry in 2004 and practically begged him to take his platform to get his base to vote for him. Instead Kerry opted to try to out-machismo Bush with war talk.

So the major candidate was supposed to adopt the platform of the little guy, such hubris on naders part is incredible.

Look, I like nader and consider him to have been heroic, and he still could be, if he would just get off this ego trip.

Note that I link the polls so you don't have to google them unless you wish to.



He got 6% in CNN/AP poll in early June and again 6% here more recently on July 1st CNN story. So that's two polls.

And he did it with a virtual media blackout.

Yes, and I showed you how they aren't. One more time:
Obama: Showed up to vote, voted to strip fisa immunity, has spoken out against fisa immunity.
McCain: Did not show up, promotes fisa immunity, has spoken out in favor of fisa immunity.

NOT THE SAME.




I never made a single claim as to what you have been doing. But if there's a Nader organization that has been working on his candidacy for the last four years, they have done a terrible job at it considering an internet obsess political junky like me hasn't heard of them.



Wagers. Guesses. Wishful thinking. You actually think there's a chance in hell that Nader will win the 2008 election?



..uhuh....I'm the one accused of making assumptions?



Nor does common sense. Fear isn't necessarily a bad thing when contemplating a McCain presidency. Courage isn't the lack of fear - it's the abillity to act in spite of it. Only a severely damaged person is free of fear.



Stop making assumptions about me.

Kerry was an idiot. I'll agree with that.

I didn't say that they candidate should "take on" his platform to get his base. I said he could "help" form the policy and platforms. Why the hell would any candidate take on another's entire platform for a few votes???

It's Nader's fault that the 2000 election was close enough for the Bushies to steal. Without him, we would have had 8 years of Gore instead of 8 years of the neo-con agenda ripping this country apart piece by piece.

A poll from more than one source !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not hubris. Nader told him if he wants to get votes from Nader's base, then he'd have to take the platforms he is pushing. That is how Women got the right to vote thanks the the National Woman's Party (NWP). Similarly with workers rights and the union movement. Outside pressures. Not inside. As far as internal working to change the party, I'm a Kucinich backer.

It's not ego he is pushing. It's policies. They locked him and all his organizations out of the congressional hearings and such so his effectiveness to facilitate change was quashed. That made him run. Not ego.

I have made the point twice now that Nader is the reason Bush is in office. Care to respond????

Right...'Cause republicans will vote Nader in droves.



I outlined how we did it in this party.



A: That isn't what I said. I said we have been planning a democratic run for 08 since 04 at least. I'm talking about ME, about Randys, about CarmenJones, Capt. Kona, EC, ODB, GFK, the Rza, the Gza, inpector Deck, and the other 36 chambers of democracy we rock here. If you think a dmeocratic presidency means a plumb for Obama, you are sorely mistaken as to the character and nature of the democratic party.

EDIT:
Forgot to add
B: He did take center stage in 04. It was called a keynote address. He stood right in the center of a stage and scared the shit out of the republican party machine. Inspired John Stewart to ask "Why isn't this guy our nominee?"

That's what laying GROUNDWORK means.



Try again. I'm not a democratic supporter. I'm not sure I'm a "die-hard" anything. Fists with my toes not withstanding.



I'm arguing with you for the sake of people who might not see through your claims or who might know what you are saying doesn't add up - but can't put their finger on it. Same reason we listen to AAR. It helps to communicate and to hear other talking about what you feel or think or believe.

Don't hide behind your personal choice to vote after coming onto a board of mostly democrats saying how Obama is the same as McCain.

But it is, either that or he is a sadistic asshole, and I dont think he is...you see when you do something you know will result in negative consequences (elect george w bush, or almost elect him) and you do it anyway, you are one or the other.

We know he believes in what he is selling, I do too, but he has been irresponsible with these elections and there are over 4000 dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis to prove it.


naders actions directly resulted in my family making a sacrifice for this country, in that war , (not the ultimate sacrifice thank god) and it need not have happened...

(and no it isnt only naders fault, we are discussing him, nothing else)

AH HA!

Maybe, just maybe the reason Senator Obama is not filibustering this FISA fiasco is he knows it would never stand up to a court challenge!

He did say the bill was "poorly written". So, rather that expose his casmpaign to the possibility of rethuglican swiftboat action, try to strip it, And let it go.

What he has done is this. Not exposed his campaign, and exposed to all of us the weak links in the democratic party! He has always said it will take all of us the get this mess straight. Well maybe the first thing we need to do is clean house.

AH HA!

Yes but he voted for FISA. What type of courage is that.

Aha! Someone thinking like an adult the way Obama is trying to speak to us!

Hey guys, Nader did not cost us the election in 2000. He did take some votes of course. It was Gore who picked the wrong strategy, and did not hold out for a prudent outcome. There was also a lot more going on with people being not counted or turned away from voting. Polling places were moved, I remember all of that, they did it to us here.

The problem with Nader is this, he only comes out during the major election. He actually does run his campaign as a spoiler, not a winner.

This FISA is a real bitter pill. We should not even be dealing with this, but we have a President that makes criminals look innocent. He has taken an honorable position and turned it into a spiteful imperialistic power of doom. All you have to do is break out the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Geneva Convention and realize this person has broken the law. Phil Donahue said it best, "Yes Saddam was a bastard, but he was OUR BASTARD!" that pretty much says it all.

We are not the great power that the cool aid drinkers think we are. We are on borrowed time, and the world is getting sick of our fascist policies. We are getting weaker everyday, and there will be a breaking point. How many trillions in debt can a country go? How long can you run a ship on a credit card? We created NATO and the United Nations when we had a conscience. Now we give them the finger. That should pretty much say it all.

I didn't mention Nader because he is a non issue!

You don't read well, do you? Or at least read everything in the post

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

About me you are... do you not recall saying these comments directed at me?







Look, you tell me what I should be doing then you tell I don't have common sense. Now you say I'm making assumptions about you. It seems you feel like I'm personally attacking you. Sorry if it came off that way, it was not my intent.

btw... I never said I'm free of fear. I'm just not guided by it.

Not really. Just by your choice of words I can tell you are too emotionally charged on this topic to have a reasonable conversation with. Looks like all's you want is a fight. Not here for that.

Kerry was a terrible candidate. Gore was a decent candidate who was led by the nose by Donna Brazil who had him laying down and taking the high road and ignoring the attacks against him. Then he went into a debate with GW BUsh and came out even if not losing the debates to him due to a slothish lackluster style which he was advised to take. Had he had 1/5th the emotion he had in his movie he'd have crushed Bush in the debate. Then maybe he would've won his own state and maybe then he would've won Clinton's home state and then maybe it would've been impossible for Bushco to steal the election.

I realize you arent addressing me but I must interject...

What irony it is that you are accusing someone of allowing emotion to effect their judgment on this issue...

From me that is all you will get, emotion, when it comes to Nader...you see, as I have stated already, Nader contributed, in a major way to the fact that W became President in 2000 and the consequences of that IN THE REAL WORLD, for some people, like myself, were devastating, and could have been much worse...

Our son came back alive, many didnt, I bet the parents of the dead ones would be emotional about this also.

Obama didn't have the DLC behind him did he? He captured the moment, put together the organization and defeated the Clinton machine. You have to acknowledge the substance of what he did and where Nader was lacking. The context also has to be acknowledged of where we are as a country.

From what I've read you haven't fallen into personal attacks but the thread title itself and the poster has been pretty offensive.

What is it you're here for then?

I understand your passion for this but Nader running for president is a constitutional right and he cannot be held responsible for the actions of Bush nor should he be scapegoated for the fact that Iraq wouldn't have happened if the Dems didn't vote to let it happen. The fault dem supporters have with accusing Nader is that they keep playing the "what if" game and then putting Nader at the center of it and neglect to see the actions of the Democractic Party and Democratic supporters. For instance, Dems blame Nader for 2000 election because of Florida when OBSCENE numbers of Democrats voted for Bush. So many so that they dwarf Nader's votes in Florida. But yet Nader is still at fault. Not the registered Dems who voted for Bush.

"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

Dispelling the Myth of Electon 2000: Did Nader Cost Gore the Election

That's a good site describing the unreasonable scapegoating that is going on.

"O-2"

If he's such a non-issue then we can count on the Dems not complaining about his running then right?

Not emotional at all....and if you ever any of other posts and threads, then you would know that I'm a lover not a fighter. I was just stating a valid point that you repeatedly ignore. I can only assume, since you refuse to respond, that you don't have an adequate answer to the question. My point is that voting for Nader.... AGAIN.... would only help McBush win. If you are willing to do that, then you are willing to doom us all. In the real world, people have to compromise from time to time to achieve a higher cause.

I full on applaud Obama for defeating Terry McCauliffe and the DLC machine which I describe as the neocon wing of the Democratic Party. I'm not an Obama hater. I like the guy. I despise how he is handling this issue today which is how I pretty much got going in this thread. There is much I applaud about Obama. In fact I end up defending him regularly in another forum. I guess people want to talk more about conflict which is why this thread took off. Understandable.

Very true. My cousin was killed in Iraq 2 years ago. Going to the funeral was the hardest thing I have ever had to do. Seeing my aunt go crazy after loosing her only son been the undoing of one entire side of our family.

B-1

A true patriot would do what is best for their country. Nader only serves to divide an already divided country even further.

I promise you I addressed all of your questions and issues in other posts in here that weren't addressed directly at you. If you read through my posts in this thread you'll find my writing and links address my position on your questions to me.

I disagree. Not to mention "what's best for the country" is a subjective term unless you want to interject that you, in fact know exactly what is good for the country. It's an opinion. Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Telling them they aren't patriotic because they don't agree with you is another.

Dissent is the mother of ascent -- Ralph Nader

I would have to agree. Although Mr Nader has the right to run, it is not the best thing for us as a whole at this point and time.

Who cares?

he's (obama) trying to" talk white" -Ralph Nader


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2..._talking-1.html

I was able to count one source that you quoted to answer my question. Hardly proof in the pudding....

Here are some sources that take the opposite position that Nader was the spoiler...



LINK



[email="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994287,00.html"]LINK[/email]



LINK

Shall I continue or is this enough evidence for you? I could go on and on....

Excellent post

Bush being President has been a disaster for the country.... Bush is President because of Nader. I don't see a problem with my statement. He's a spoiler. Period and end of story.

Nader won 97,488 votes
Al Gore lost by 537 votes
Democrats who voted for Bush: 200,000

All that fury over Nader's 97,488 supporters not voting the way you wanted but not a mention on the 200,000 Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida. Interesting.

"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

Link

Votes for Nader were votes for Nader. You are simply implying that Nader should have been eliminated and all those voting for him would be forced to vote for Gore. That's not how democracy works.

Donna Brazile was a horrible campaign director. You made a quote about how Nader did well in gathering support. How that supports your conclusions I don't know.

Finally, you made a quote where it said that Nader made Gore lose Florida... which I've addressed... and New Hampshire which is just ABSOLUTELY wrong. Exit polls in fact showed Nader pulled more votes from Republicans in New Hampshire than Dems.

Link

Finally...



This is the tone I'm trying to avoid which is why I was choosing to converse elsewhere. You aren't looking to talk with. You intend to blurt at. Not much interested.

Really? You are going to cut my sentences apart to make new ones? That's very dishonest of you.

For example, if I said, we are picking up steam, you would quote me "we are picking".

You took, "you have been working him up" and quoted "you would have been working". You took another quote and also chopped it mid-sentence. Argue with what I'm saying, not some straw position you can easily manage.



I never said you didn't have common sense, I said that if fear doesn't follow you to the polls, neither does common sense. I began with a premise, and then listed the reasons for it.



Nor am I.

I've shown you how you are mistaken. Choosing to put facts before emotion is going to have to be your choice. Democracy isn't a two-man thing no matter how much the two major parties tries to pound that into people's heads. Choice is very democratic. I like choice.

Gore was an idiot too.
Read "Betrayal of America" by Vincet Bugliosi for why I say that.

I put your quotes in as you stated them. You cut my writing to pieces only to address fabricated attacks. I've got nothing against you. You are getting emotional and I'm not intending to fight with you. If I've put you off I'm sorry. I didn't intend to and whatever victimhood you are trying to play here is purely hypocritical. You've dice my words to pieces and anyone going back to read the posts can see that. If I took your sentence out of context prove it because I put your sentences in exactly as you wrote them.

I welcome any moderator or admin to review what has been written, quoted and posted.

It is my personal belief that, when Gore distanced himself from Clinton back then, it hurt him more than helped him. I guess at the time it seemed like the politically correct thing to do.

So the only two sources you can cite are the CA Green Party synopsis on what happened in 2000 and an opinion piece on the same CA Green Party synopsis you already cited??? The Green Party would never want to be held responsible for defeating one the greatest environmentalist of our generation. They wouldn't want to take responsibility for the last 8 years of disaster. I hate to say it, but your sources are Green Party propaganda.

I apologize if you think tone is.... I don't know.... rude or whatever. Dude... if you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. On the RRMB, you have to have the facts to back it up. I was just asking if I had enough facts to satisfy you. I think you are acting as if I was attacking you, because you are frustrated that the facts are simply not on your side.

I would disagree that you have proven anything.... I think a lot of our fellow posters would agree with me.

O.k. You want to play?

Let's just have fun then. I'll quote you - but not your whole sentences. Let's see if I can fabricate some funny positions in an unfair way to support arbitrary claims.



I never told you to do that!



Don't worry, you will get better with practice.

Now I'm only kidding above, but seriously, do you see how that's unfair? Now I'll use a selected quote, but fairly:



K...I'm not actually that emotional. You might be reading in tone that is not intended, or I may be writing it. I think there's a lot to pick apart once you claimed ... and I quote...

"Bush = McCain = Obama"

That's a very ridiculous claim that's going to earn some criticism here.
Forum is bitching that I have too many quotes in this post, so I'll continue with the serious part in the next thread.