• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Nader blasts Dems as 'chronic whiners'

VioletAura

Banned
Aug 28, 2003
302
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: sbp
http://u.sbsun.com/Stories/0,1413,216~24287~1756684,00.html

Former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader called Democrats "chronic whiners" for continuing to accuse him of spoiling the 2004 presidential election for Al Gore.

----------
He's right about that. :D
F**ck that self righteous ego maniac. If I ever see him I am going to punch him in the face.
You are referring to Gore, right?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
It's really too bad we can't have a legitimate independent party in this country. Well, we could, but nobody will vote for 'em. Well, I do, but hardly anyone else does. Too bad everyone has to make sure their vote "counts," and that their candidate "wins."
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
18,266
10,072
136
Nader a self-righteous meglomaniac? Hahahahahahahahahaha! Apparently not being a corporate/special interest stooge or tool of the right qualifies you as such, interesting.


Tell us another tnitsuj!
 

amcdonald

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2003
4,012
0
0
he did ruin it for al gore though...
Take florida... most people who voted for nader (green) would have voted democrat instead were he not an option...
easily enough people to overtake florida and win the election.
 

privatebreyer

Member
Nov 28, 2002
195
0
0
Originally posted by: amcdonald
he did ruin it for al gore though...
Take florida... most people who voted for nader (green) would have voted democrat instead were he not an option...
easily enough people to overtake florida and win the election.
True. Perot did the same for Bush Sr. in 92. I guest thats what 3rd parties are for.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
18,266
10,072
136
Yes, yes I have. Have you ever heard of the quote function before? Christ, lighten up man...
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,614
218
106
Originally posted by: privatebreyer
Originally posted by: amcdonald
he did ruin it for al gore though...
Take florida... most people who voted for nader (green) would have voted democrat instead were he not an option...
easily enough people to overtake florida and win the election.
True. Perot did the same for Bush Sr. in 92. I guest thats what 3rd parties are for.
As a Democrat, I will never support the causes of the green party or Ralph Nader. Nader is trying to rationalize away his role in history in helping elect GWB. Everytime, GWB proposes a new law to gut the environmental laws or weaken labor laws, I place the blame on GWB and the green party and Nader. Anytime, they/Nader want to complain about GWB's policies, I will say TOO FREAKING BAD!

Nader received over 90,000 votes in Florida (Gore lost Florida by about 600 votes) and over 22,000 votes in New Hampshire (Gore lost by about 7k votes). Had Gore won either, Gore would have been president. Gore had to spend a lot of time defending Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, etc because of Nader.

NADER should STFU. There is NO question he cost Gore the election. Nader had every right to run for President but he should take responsibilities for the consequences. He cost Gore the election and helped elect GWB.

---------
regarding Perot. I have no firm evidence or link to supply but I think that though Perot took more votes from Bush Sr. then Clinton, you really cannot say that Perot cost Bush the election. Perot ran on an anti-incumbent, populist, anti-free trade, balanced budget platform. I think a lot (not a majority) of the Perot voters would have stayed home or voted for Clinton. Clinton also won an electoral college landslide whereas GWB won by like 2 electoral votes.
 

amcdonald

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2003
4,012
0
0
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: privatebreyer
Originally posted by: amcdonald
he did ruin it for al gore though...
Take florida... most people who voted for nader (green) would have voted democrat instead were he not an option...
easily enough people to overtake florida and win the election.
True. Perot did the same for Bush Sr. in 92. I guest thats what 3rd parties are for.
As a Democrat, I will never support the causes of the green party or Ralph Nader. Nader is trying to rationalize away his role in history in helping elect GWB. Everytime, GWB proposes a new law to gut the environmental laws or weaken labor laws, I place the blame on GWB and the green party and Nader. Anytime, they/Nader want to complain about GWB's policies, I will say TOO FREAKING BAD!

Nader received over 90,000 votes in Florida (Gore lost Florida by about 600 votes) and over 22,000 votes in New Hampshire (Gore lost by about 7k votes). Had Gore won either, Gore would have been president. Gore had to spend a lot of time defending Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, etc because of Nader.

NADER should STFU. There is NO question he cost Gore the election. Nader had every right to run for President but he should take responsibilities for the consequences. He cost Gore the election and helped elect GWB.
While it can be said that Nader cost Gore the election, there is the matter of the 90,000 people in florida who didn't realize their votes were going more towards Bush than Nader. Most people vote for 3rd party candidates as a statement. The only fault lies with those democrats who switched their would-be Gore votes... Nader can't be blamed for their lack of foresight... People are idiots.

 

privatebreyer

Member
Nov 28, 2002
195
0
0
Originally posted by: chowderhead
regarding Perot. I have no firm evidence or link to supply but I think that though Perot took more votes from Bush Sr. then Clinton, you really cannot say that Perot cost Bush the election. Perot ran on an anti-incumbent, populist, anti-free trade, balanced budget platform. I think a lot (not a majority) of the Perot voters would have stayed home or voted for Clinton. Clinton also won an electoral college landslide whereas GWB won by like 2 electoral votes.
If I remember correctly, he toke like twenty percent of the popular vote, which no doubt drained from both sides. Bush Sr. obviously got the short end of the stick though.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY