• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Ralph Nader's thoughts on the 2016 "Corporate Elections"

Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes, I can blame Nader, among other things like the Florida vote rigging.

You can blame what you want.

And Nader picked a very bad time to daydream about the viability of a third party.
Click to expand...

All Al Gore had to do was convince more Nader voters to vote for him. Based on how confident people here are of Nader's terrible ideas, that should have been an easy task. And Democrats failed at that easy task. Not much of an endorsement for their leadership.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Putin is a respected president of a stable country, and I'm not his "fanboy". And you certainly didn't understand what I wrote in the time you responded. Read the Parry piece written for you? ;)
Click to expand...
He's respected in Russia where they don't tolerate dissent and like strong man nationalist authoritarian dictators. And by right wing authoritarians elsewhere.

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Especially because as we now know and Nader points out, he actually didn't lose, but gave up and let Dubya, JEB, Diebold and cohorts get away with their shenanigans in Florida.
Click to expand...

That part is, unfortunately, true. A lot of things may have gone way differently (i.e. better) if we had not had an imbecile with criminal caretakers in the White House for 8 years.
 
varwoche said:
Pure silliness. Once the Supreme Court ruled, game over.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that was regarding the recount. The real problem was the rigged voter disenfranchisement when they purged voter roles of legitimate voters at the last minute, leaving people wrongly purged with little recourse.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Voter_suppression#Voter_role_purge_in_the_2000_Florida_election

That should have been the basis for a lawsuit challenging the election outcome.

I think the people involved were reluctant to call for an entire state election do-over, but there was sufficient reason to do so.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
All Al Gore had to do was convince more Nader voters to vote for him. Based on how confident people here are of Nader's terrible ideas, that should have been an easy task. And Democrats failed at that easy task. Not much of an endorsement for their leadership.
Click to expand...

And to convince Jewish voters not to vote for Hitler fanboy Pat Buchanan.

Childlike Empress said:
Putin is a respected president of a stable country, and I'm not his "fanboy". And you certainly didn't understand what I wrote in the time you responded. Read the Parry piece written for you? ;)
Click to expand...

Fangirl, then?
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is extremely obvious. Al Gore's failure to convince Nader voters of that makes him unfit to win the election.
Click to expand...

But the problem was that a lot of those voters knew Bush couldn't win and so felt free to send Gore a warning about backpedalling on his environmental policies by voting Nader. Not the first or last time voters made that sort of mistake.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes, I can blame Nader, among other things like the Florida vote rigging.

You can blame what you want.

And Nader picked a very bad time to daydream about the viability of a third party.
Click to expand...

We used to have a poster here stating he was German who kept arguing that the US ought to switch to a 3 party system. I tried hard to explain to him how unlikely to ever happen that was . Never did work.
 
varwoche said:
Whatever happens is what is meant to be.

Like, far out dude. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Elections are a great test of the person running. I don't see an otherwise qualified candidate losing due to a spoiler. His inability to handle what his own supporters see as a crap argument by Nader really calls into question his competence.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Asked what he says about/to people who believe what Travis wrote he believes (particularly about the 2000 election), Nader expressed his very low opinion of their intellectual capacity/honesty. Check the interview for details.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far, and didn't really hear Nader say that, but, I agree with both Nader (and Gore) about what cost him the 2000 election. As for 2016, if Democratic voters nominate Hillary in the primary, they will own the consequences.

In general, I respect and agree with most of what he has said in this interview. I've never had a major problem with Nader, very pro-labor, strong on corporate regulation, public safety and consumer protection oriented, what's not to like?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes, but that was regarding the recount. The real problem was the rigged voter disenfranchisement when they purged voter roles of legitimate voters at the last minute, leaving people wrongly purged with little recourse.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Voter_suppression#Voter_role_purge_in_the_2000_Florida_election

That should have been the basis for a lawsuit challenging the election outcome.

I think the people involved were reluctant to call for an entire state election do-over, but there was sufficient reason to do so.
Click to expand...

Strongly agreed!! Before that I did not use the republicker name nor did I automatically loathe any republicker politician. After that loathing was a small version of how I thought and still think of the slime infestation.
 
Trakar said:
I wouldn't go that far, and didn't really hear Nader say that, but, I agree with both Nader (and Gore) about what cost him the 2000 election. As for 2016, if Democratic voters nominate Hillary in the primary, they will own the consequences.

In general, I respect and agree with most of what he has said in this interview. I've never had a major problem with Nader, very pro-labor, strong on corporate regulation, public safety and consumer protection oriented, what's not to like?
Click to expand...

That he tried to start a third party that had no chance of winninga single stae, but had quite the chance of moving Democrat voters and ONLY Democrat voters to not vote Democrat. Major elections are not the time for nobodies to show off and cause the good side to lose because they do not think it is quite good enough for them.
 
Trakar said:
I wouldn't go that far, and didn't really hear Nader say that, but, I agree with both Nader (and Gore) about what cost him the 2000 election. As for 2016, if Democratic voters nominate Hillary in the primary, they will own the consequences.

In general, I respect and agree with most of what he has said in this interview. I've never had a major problem with Nader, very pro-labor, strong on corporate regulation, public safety and consumer protection oriented, what's not to like?
Click to expand...

That he tried to start a third party that had no chance of winninga single stae, but had quite the chance of moving Democrat voters and ONLY Democrat voters to not vote Democrat. Major elections are not the time for nobodies to show off and cause the good side to lose because they do not think it is quite good enough for them.
 
fuelair said:
That he tried to start a third party that had no chance of winninga single stae, but had quite the chance of moving Democrat voters and ONLY Democrat voters to not vote Democrat. Major elections are not the time for nobodies to show off and cause the good side to lose because they do not think it is quite good enough for them.
Click to expand...

For the record, Democrat is a noun. The adjective is Democratic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom