I'm thinking of abandoning Bernie

[Skeptic Ginger]

Faked in the sense that assets misled? Sure. Al Gore is not immune to that.

Faked as in lies and distortions. That you drank the 'we all looked at the same evidence' koolaid just says you can't let go of the lie.

 

[varwoche]

Faked in the sense that assets misled? Sure. Al Gore is not immune to that.

Gore is on record opposing Iraq invasion, before invasion occurred.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-23-gore_x.htm

I don't believe he would have invaded Iraq. Not because he was a peacenik, but because he wasn't a moron.

 

[DavidJames]

Faked in the sense that assets misled? Sure. Al Gore is not immune to that.

Perhaps, but we don't know. Making that assumption is helpful to maintain the charade that all are the same, but it's far from critical thinking.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, they did not. It was all based on something.

Clearly you have no interest in any other narrative than this one. But this is a thread sidetrack so I shall not continue.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Faked as in lies and distortions. That you drank the 'we all looked at the same evidence' koolaid just says you can't let go of the lie.

My bias is extremely different, which is why I'm not trying to put words into trakars mouth in defending his argument.

I am super peacenik libertarian. I'm not even sure the benefits of entering WWII justify the cost. I seriously doubt there are president's who can use force well and those who can use it poorly. They all suffer a fundamental problem of limited information and poor incentive to get it right. My rejection of the Iraq war as intelligence failure rather than moral character is not a defense of Bush. It is a far greater condemnation of him and a system that entrusts too much power to the executive branch.

It is also why I will be here arguing that Hillary and the Republican nominee will be similarly bad. You can't trust those who argue they are the good ones at employing that level of power.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yawn....

Yes, evidence was faked!

There was no evidence Saddam was looking to buy yellow-cake in Niger. That has been established.

What's his face, aka Curveball, made stuff up.

George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie

Why do you keep posting crap that has been utterly refuted? Does any contrary evidence ever cause you to change your mind, or at least to change your talking points?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Do tell me how Hillary is the same as them. Make your case. Convince me that Hillary is just as bad as them on the issues I most care about: gay rights, reproductive freedom and freedom of religion. Do that and I might be persuaded.

But I'm not interested in persuading anyone to vote for Hillary, or Republicans. I think you should stay true to Bernie Sanders. Embrace the radiance of his love and wisdom! Do not be seduced by the easy path of the Clinton side!

 

[Garrison]

Agreed. I'll vote for Sanders but not for Clinton. If Clinton gets the nomination I won't vote for her Republican opponent, I just won't vote this time. If Clinton is banking on inheriting Sanders' supporters she is going to be disappointed.

Which is the same short sighted stupidity that put GW Bush in the Whitehouse. If you think Cruz or Carson, or Trump are acceptable President's then go ahead, indulge your bruised ego but dont bitch about the mess that comes afterwards.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Which is the same short sighted stupidity that put GW Bush in the Whitehouse. If you think Cruz or Carson, or Trump are acceptable President's then go ahead, indulge your bruised ego but dont bitch about the mess that comes afterwards.

Part of your assumption is that Nader voters look back on the 2000 election as a mistake. Maybe a sizable portion are completely satisfied with their decision and fully believe Gore and Bush are the same.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Part of your assumption is that Nader voters look back on the 2000 election as a mistake. Maybe a sizable portion are completely satisfied with their decision and fully believe Gore and Bush are the same.

False dichotomy. One needn't believe two candidates are the same in order to prefer a third.

Perhaps if the people arguing for voting for the lesser evil had any faith at all in their own candidate they wouldn't need to resort to cynicism, mischaracterization, and personal attacks.

 

[Tony Stark]

No, they did not. It was all based on something.

It was based on their insane desire to start a war with Iraq. Something they wanted to do before 9/11. They got lucky that 9/11 happened though not so lucky that they could pin it on Saddam like they wanted.

 

[varwoche]

Gore is on record opposing Iraq invasion, before invasion occurred.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-23-gore_x.htm

I don't believe he would have invaded Iraq. Not because he was a peacenik, but because he wasn't a moron.

Here is the statement Gore issued in 2002, in sharp opposition to the Iraq war.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

Stop making stuff up folks.

 

[The_Animus]

I find it odd how often people will blame Nader and those who voted for him. It's all the fault of the few thousand who voted Nader in Florida because they believed him to be the best candidate. Definitely not the millions who voted republican or the millions who didn't vote.

 

[quadraginta]

I find it odd how often people will blame Nader and those who voted for him. It's all the fault of the few thousand who voted Nader in Florida because they believed him to be the best candidate. Definitely not the millions who voted republican or the millions who didn't vote.

The millions who voted Republican were likely always going to vote Republican anyway, regardless of the candidates. So they aren't a useful part of the equation.

The millions who didn't vote were likely not going to vote anyway, regardless of the candidates. So they aren't a useful part of the equation.

Without a Nader on the ticket it is probable that those votes would have gone to Gore (or to no one at all), as the average Nader supporter is unlikely to be able to stomach voting for a Republican.

In view of the closeness of the election I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that he lost the election for Gore.

There was never a snowball's chance in hell Nader was going to win.

Lost votes. Lost Gore votes

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Why do you keep posting crap that has been utterly refuted? Does any contrary evidence ever cause you to change your mind, or at least to change your talking points?

Just because you posted a claim doesn't make it a fact.

You are wrong, end of off topic sidetrack.

 

[Tony Stark]

The millions who voted Republican were likely always going to vote Republican anyway, regardless of the candidates. So they aren't a useful part of the equation.

The millions who didn't vote were likely not going to vote anyway, regardless of the candidates. So they aren't a useful part of the equation.

Without a Nader on the ticket it is probable that those votes would have gone to Gore (or to no one at all), as the average Nader supporter is unlikely to be able to stomach voting for a Republican.

In view of the closeness of the election I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that he lost the election for Gore.

There was never a snowball's chance in hell he was going to win.

Lost votes. Lost Gore votes

Yep, Nader voters may well have cost Gore the Presidency because of their stupid "principles". With absolutely disastrous results. Similarly Jill Stein voters may, because of their stupid "principles" cost Hillary the Presidency . I doubt this will happen but if it does it will be similarly (or worse) disasterous. For example those evil scumbag Republicans might feel that it is a good idea to break the Iran deal and then start a war with Iran.

 

[DavidJames]

Perhaps if the people arguing for voting for the lesser evil had any faith at all in their own candidate they wouldn't need to resort to cynicism, mischaracterization, and personal attacks.

Getting a little defensive?

This has nothing to do with faith in one candidate or another. This is so simple I struggle to understand why you and the others don't get it.

Some of us have tried to understand the logic of not voting for the "lessor of two evils". Since one of them will be elected, what on earth would possess someone to allow the greater evil to win? Maybe you have a good reply, if so you'd be the first. Prior attempts have mimic'd the popular attempt by Republicans to claim equivalence when little exists for uncomfortable issues.

 

[Tony Stark]

Getting a little defensive?

This has nothing to do with faith in one candidate or another. This is so simple I struggle to understand why you and the others don't get it.

Some of us have tried to understand the logic of not voting for the "lessor of two evils". Since one of them will be elected, what on earth would possess someone to allow the greater evil to win? Maybe you have a good reply, if so you'd be the first. Prior attempts have mimic'd the popular attempt by Republicans to claim equivalence when little exists for uncomfortable issues.

Apparently voting their principles matter more to them than how their votes will affect reality. Absolutely insane if you ask me. Similarly, I have spoken to many "conservatives" who will sit out the election if Marco Rubio or another "RINO" gets the nomination. Though I didn't bother explaining to them that he is much more conservative than Hillary is and that it would be highly irrational of them to not vote for him if they want the country to move to the right.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yep, Nader voters may well have cost Gore the Presidency because of their stupid "principles". With absolutely disastrous results. Similarly Jill Stein voters may, because of their stupid "principles" cost Hillary the Presidency . I doubt this will happen but if it does it will be similarly (or worse) disasterous. For example those evil scumbag Republicans might feel that it is a good idea to break the Iran deal and then start a war with Iran.

If they are so stupid, do you want their votes? Frankly, if a candidate wants a third party to drop out because they think the voter's are too stupid, that disqualifies the paternalistic (profanity) from office.

 

[Tony Stark]

If they are so stupid, do you want their votes? Frankly, if a candidate wants a third party to drop out because they think the voter's are too stupid, that disqualifies the paternalistic (profanity) from office.

Because I think it is extremely important that no Republican becomes President in the foreseeable future as the GOP has gone insane.

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk