[Rentahamster]

No. Nader has legitimate criticisms based on reality while the Tea Partiers were saying Obama's shredding the constitution due to his non-existent socialism based on what crazy bullshit Rush Limbaugh is telling them.

Concerns about habeas corpus and the commerce clause are both relevant to the constitution.

[Clevinger]

Everyone says the same about Herman Cain. Uncle Tom is definitely not as funny as Herman Cain.

Who's everyone?

[airmangataosenai]

There are so many ways this statement can be proven wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...tified_results

George W. Bush 2,912,790
Al Gore 2,912,253

Difference: 537

Ralph Nader 97,488

The end results of his run still stand as (IMO) far worse than anything Obama's done even if it was inadvertant. It stands as the perfect case of what's wrong with the ideological purity preached by the left.

[Jacob]

I remember a lot of the Obama chatter in 2008 was in regards to his status as a Constitutional law professor, and that was a significant factor in many folks' decision to vote for him due to that contrast with George Bush.

That's part of the reason, though not the main one, why I liked Obama in 2008. So ... yeah. :/

Interesting side note: Do the Tea Party criticisms of Obama "shredding the Constitution" gain credibility? Or do they lack credibility? Are they talking about the same thing or different things? How is Nader saying Obama is wrecking the constitution different than A Tea Partier who walks around with a pocket constitution in his pants?

I think Clevinger answered this pretty well already.

[SnakeswithLasers]

"Nader gave Bush the election" is the "Obama is a socialist muslim" meme of the left.

[Duane Cunningham]

And I reply, in a non-swing state is doesn't matter in the slightest. I would never encourage an Ohioan or a Floridian to vote third-party. I wouldn't discourage them, either, but I can understand a vote for pragmatism as opposed to idealism. My disagreement with your stance comes when you realize that a great deal of voters in this country don't have to make that compromise. Obama will win California, Romney will win Texas. If you live in those states and feel inclined to vote third-party, there's no good reason not to.

Huh. You know, you actually make a lot of sense with this. Maybe as a Kansas voter I should vote for Stein instead of Obama.

EDIT: Oh wait, I see... she doesn't even get a ballot line in KS. Lovely.

[TacticalFox88]

I've seen Obama get a ton of shit from progressives for the drone strikes and drug war bullshit. I think they also realize he's a lot better than the (electable) alternative, so it's counter-productive to vote for anyone else.

And besides, no matter how much you all like to think there be, there are no perfect candidates that's going to satisfy everyone.

Are the drone strikes bad? Perhaps, but considering the dozens of Taliban and Al Qaida operatives that have been killed, I'd say it's more or less 50/50.

Considering all that the man HAS done, most of you sound like ungrateful assholes.

Seriously.

[Cheebo]

"Nader gave Bush the election" is the "Obama is a socialist muslim" meme of the left.

If Nader was not on the ballot Gore would have won florida, there is no way one could see otherwise. How is that not true?

[Amir0x]

And I reply, in a non-swing state is doesn't matter in the slightest. I would never encourage an Ohioan or a Floridian to vote third-party. I wouldn't discourage them, either, but I can understand a vote for pragmatism as opposed to idealism. My disagreement with your stance comes when you realize that a great deal of voters in this country don't have to make that compromise. Obama will win California, Romney will win Texas. If you live in those states and feel inclined to vote third-party, there's no good reason not to.

I mean in the end, I encourage people to vote the individual that they in their mind truly believe is the best. That is one of their most important rights as an American citizen, and they should never sell it off in a fit of cynicism if that's not what they want.

But they should at least be seriously informed as to the implications.

Sure, Obama's horrific civil rights record should be shocking and shameful to anyone, but the alternative is Romney and Romney alone. At least with Obama we get a man and a party who is openly supporting gay marriage, even whilst simultaneously breaking all sorts of international laws whilst bombing families/children/men without due process. With Romney you'd just get the violations.

Sure, Obama's record on the drug war at this point, particularly in light of his campaign promises in 2008, is offensive by any rational standard. But the alternative remains Romney, who has vocally and outrageously called for a continued intensification of the drug war. The fact remains we'd get Romney, who is just worse.

Sure, Obama's affordable care act is really one giant sweet heart deal for pharmaceutical companies, and it's impossible not to get irritated at the level of cynicism required for a man to make this trade off knowing how important it is. But, in the end we got no preexisting conditions discrimination, we get breaks to help a wide range of Americans afford health care, we get kids on their parents care until much later in life. In short, we have incrementally moved toward the goal line in the humanitarian and morally unassailable goal of Universal Health Care. With Romney, we USED to be getting this too... now we're getting someone who is seriously answering the question with "well people can throw themselves in Emergency Rooms and pay $10,000 for a 3 minute stay, it's not like we'll let them die! Perfect environment!" In the end there is only Romney instead.


This is the sad state of our Republican, but it is, unfortunately, what it is. :(

[evil solrac v3.0]

Thanks for Bush in 2000 Ralph. Dead on description of Romney though.

He's right, mostly. But Nader should probably shut the fuck up. He helped the country swing way the fuck to the right when he spoiled 2000's election.

wouldn't you want more options in the land of the Free and home of the brave? I can't understand having only two options in this country.

[Mammoth Jones]

No one listens to men that tell the truth. He will be ignored as he always has.

[Deified Data]

He called Obama a Uncle Tom. A remark with serious racial undertones.

Definitely a bad choice of words - likely an attempt at shock and awe. The full context of the interview:

Fox News: "Guess who's here? The Independent party candidate, Ralph Nader. This is his second run for the Presidency since he played spoiler in the close 2000 contest. This year he was on the ballot in 45 states plus D.C. This year he was polling about 1-percent. Ralph, you spoke to Fox News Radio's Houston affiliate today, and said this:" Nader: "To put it very simply, he is our first African American president; or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations". Fox News: "Really. Ralph Nader -- What was that?" Nader: "It's very simple. He has gone along with corporate power from the moment he entered politics in the State Senate -- Voted for the Wall Street Bailout -- Supports expanding military budget that is desired by the military industrial complex, and doesn't really have a tax reform thing for the ordinary fellow in this country -- Opposes single-payer full Medicare for all, because the giant HMOs AETNA and SIGNA do -- Doesn't have a living wage -- He's supposed to be respectful of the poor -- hardly mentions them in his speech -- It's all the middle class -- He doesn't have a comprehensive program..." (Interrupted by Fox) Fox News: "... and you utter the words 'Uncle Tom'? Are you kidding me?" Nader: "Yeah... that's the question he's gotta face." (Interrupted by Fox) Fox News: "He didn't have to face it until it came out of your mouth! I mean, I just wonder if you don't realize that you had a number of supporters out there. You were running a percentage this year, you were reduced to irrelevant, and I just wonder now if that's what you want your legacy to be -- the man who, on the night that the first African American President in the history of this nation was elected, you ask if he's going to be Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom." Nader: "Yeah, of course. He's turned his back on a hundred-million poor people in this country -- African Americans and Latinos and poor whites, and we're gonna hold them to a higher standard. It's just not an unprecedented career move, ya know, in the White House. We expect more of Barack Obama..." (Interrupted by Fox) Fox News: "You were reduced to complete irrelevance here. You weren't able to play spoiler. Will you run again?" Nader: "Look, I don't like bullies like you. I can't see you. You can pull the plug on me. I'm lookin' at a dark camera..." (Interrupted by Fox) Fox News: "You said "Uncle Tom". I didn't say it, sir. With respect, I did not say it..." Nader: "I said that's the question HE has to answer. He can become a great President, or he can become a toady for the corporate powers that have brought both parties to their knees against working people in this country, and have allowed our country to be hijacked by global corporations who have no allegiance to this country other than to ship its jobs and industries to fascist and communist dictators abroad who know how to keep their workers in their place. This is reality here. This is not show business. It's not celebrity politics. There are people suffering in this country, and we expect a great Presidency from Barack Obama, and we're gonna try to hold his feet to the fire..." (Interrupted by Fox) Fox News: "I just wonder if, in hindsight, you wish you'd used a phrase other than Uncle Tom"? Nader: "Not -- at all. Do you know what the historic...." (Interrupted by Fox) Fox News: "Fair enough. Thanks very much. We'll have a response from our panel in just a moment." Nader: "Thank you..." [1]

I don't apologize for his dumbshit statement, but in no way was he directly calling Obama an "Uncle Tom". In his own words, he presented it as the sort of accusation that Obama should be prepared to face in office. He's saying Obama has the choice to either stand up for people, or be a corporate sell-out. That's as far as I'll defend him in this instance, however. It was a moronic thing to say, especially on Fox News.

[Socreges]

What has Obama done that's been against the constitution?

[Borgnine]

If Nader was not on the ballot Gore would have won florida, there is no way one could see otherwise. How is that not true?

You assume 97,000 Nader voters would have voted for Gore. More likely they would have just stayed home, or voted for whomever the Green party candidate was if Nader was not on the ticket. All the numbers show me is that Gore was such a weak candidate he couldn't convince 538 more people to come to his side.

[antonz]

What has Obama done that's been against the constitution?

There is a long list but will go with an easy one. The Assassination of a US Citizen without any sort of due process

[Cheebo]

You assume 97,000 Nader voters would have voted for Gore. More likely they would have just stayed home, or voted for whomever the Green party candidate was if Nader was not on the ticket. All the numbers show me is that Gore was such a weak candidate he couldn't convince 538 more people to come to his side.

No I assume at least 537 of them would have, all that Gore needed to win. Do you really think a green voter would have voted BUSH if Nader didn't run?

[Cubsfan23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...tified_results George W. Bush 2,912,790 Al Gore 2,912,253 Difference: 537 Ralph Nader 97,488 The end results of his run still stand as (IMO) far worse than anything Obama's done even if it was inadvertant. It stands as the perfect case of what's wrong with the ideological purity preached by the left.

this is why i laugh at those who preach 3rd party voting. It does nothing but get dumbasses like Bush into office

[Borgnine]

No I assume at least 537 of them would have, all that Gore needed to win. Do you really think a green voter would have voted BUSH if Nader didn't run?

They would not, and did not, vote for either.

[Socreges]

There is a long list but will go with an easy one. The Assassination of a US Citizen without any sort of due process

Sorry, you might have taken my question as an objection, but I'd actually like to know what he's done. i.e., I'm interested in the "long list". I already know about the assassination, but by the sounds of it he's done a great deal else.

[Dude Abides]

And besides, no matter how much you all like to think there be, there are no perfect candidates that's going to satisfy everyone. Are the drone strikes bad? Perhaps, but considering the dozens of Taliban and Al Qaida operatives that have been killed, I'd say it's more or less 50/50. Considering all that the man HAS done, most of you sound like ungrateful assholes. Seriously.

Yes you ingrates! Grovel for the scraps thrown you by Lord Barack and be thankful you get even a crust!

[Terra Firma]

No I assume at least 537 of them would have, all that Gore needed to win. Do you really think a green voter would have voted BUSH if Nader didn't run?

Isn't that more a problem with the system than the candidates?

[Socreges]

You assume 97,000 Nader voters would have voted for Gore. More likely they would have just stayed home, or voted for whomever the Green party candidate was if Nader was not on the ticket. All the numbers show me is that Gore was such a weak candidate he couldn't convince 538 more people to come to his side.

That doesn't actually make any sense.

Also you'd think that a fraction of those 97,000 would have voted for Gore, instead. Nader certainly stole some enthusiasm from the Democrats.

[Deified Data]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...tified_results George W. Bush 2,912,790 Al Gore 2,912,253 Difference: 537 Ralph Nader 97,488 The end results of his run still stand as (IMO) far worse than anything Obama's done even if it was inadvertant. It stands as the perfect case of what's wrong with the ideological purity preached by the left.

Carefully read this article and you'll realize Al Gore handed Bush the election himself.

Would he have won if Nader weren't there? Maybe. If he insisted on more recounts. If he requested recounts outside of blue counties. If the Supreme Court hadn't ruled in Bush's favor. If he convinced the thousands of Democrats who voted for bush to vote for him instead. If Gore stepped in when voting authorities began to purge suspected felons from voting lists, most of whom would have voted for him. But he didn't. Really, the possibilities are endless. Nader is a convenient scapegoat, but Gore ran a shit campaign. There's no way around it.

Huh. You know, you actually make a lot of sense with this. Maybe as a Kansas voter I should vote for Stein instead of Obama. EDIT: Oh wait, I see... she doesn't even get a ballot line in KS. Lovely.

Stein is currently seeking a place on the ballot in Kansas. Keep an eye out. She'll likely be available as a write-in.

That doesn't actually make any sense. Also you'd think that a fraction of those 97,000 would have voted for Gore, instead. Nader certainly stole some enthusiasm from the Democrats.

Oh, undoubtedly.

You speak as though that enthusiasm belongs to the Democrats by right. There was no "stealing" here. Gore failed to appeal to those liberals who voted for Nader. Simple as that.

[ThisWreckage]

If Nader was not on the ballot Gore would have won florida, there is no way one could see otherwise. How is that not true?

And if people were more passionate about voting and if more people turned out in all states it could have turned out differently even with Nader in the mix. Don't torture yourself with hypotheticals. People demonizing Nader by placing Bush's victory on his shoulders is ridiculous.

[Mammoth Jones]

There is a long list but will go with an easy one. The Assassination of a US Citizen without any sort of due process

You're either with us or against us.

[Muffdraul]

wouldn't you want more options in the land of the Free and home of the brave? I can't understand having only two options in this country.

Only if all three options are equally viable. As it stands, the third option has literally ZERO CHANCE of winning and its only real effect is ultimately deciding which of the other two wins.

Nader pulled more votes from the Democratic side than the Republican side. The election was so incredibly close, it's natural to conclude that he swung the results.

[Cheebo]

They would not, and did not, vote for either.

You really don't think 500 of 100,000 green voters would have voted the next closest candiate to their viewpoints? All 100k would have stayed home and not vote? A mere 0.5%, only a half percent of his Florida voters is all it would take. All 100k would have stayed home? Not one for Gore?

That is impossible to even comprehend. That makes no sense at all.

It's even more ironic when Gore has done far more good fo the green cause the past 10 years than Nader. Hell, Gore has done more for the green cause than Nader has ever done in his life time.

[Cyrillus]

Yeah, this. Him just bitching & moaning isn't helping anything.

He's right, mostly. But Nader should probably shut the fuck up. He helped the country swing way the fuck to the right when he spoiled 2000's election.

Guys, he's run for POTUS...multiple times. You want to blame him for Bush in 2000 I suppose you can (and you're not alone), but saying he's just bitching and moaning seems silly. He's run for office, published books, started tons of non-profits, and participates in various activism causes around the country. What more is he supposed to do? It's not like he's sitting in his basement typing all this shit into his blog.

[Kusagari]

They would not, and did not, vote for either.

So you seriously believe Bush wins Florida if Nader wasn't on the ballot?

Stop with the games.

[The_Hitcher89]

Who's the last leader of either the USA or Britain who couldn't be considered a war criminal by certain quarters?

[Borgnine]

That doesn't actually make any sense. Also you'd think that a fraction of those 97,000 would have voted for Gore, instead. Nader certainly stole some enthusiasm from the Democrats.

I mean I obviously don't know how all these 97,000 people felt, but this all comes down to the assumption that the Green Party is a faction within the Democratic party, which just isn't true. The difference between Green and Democrat is the same as between Democrat and Republican. I would never have voted for Al Gore.

[ThisWreckage]

I expected this thread to turn out this way. Nader brings up valid points that paints Obama as a terrible president and GAF dismisses it as "bitching and moaning".

[Guevara]

Who's the last leader of either the USA or Britain who couldn't be considered a war criminal by certain quarters?

Probably Carter.

[Deified Data]

Only if all three options are equally viable. As it stands, the third option has literally ZERO CHANCE of winning and its only real effect is ultimately deciding which of the other two wins. Nader pulled more votes from the Democratic side than the Republican side. The election was so incredibly close, it's natural to conclude that he swung the results.

Nader pulled more voters who wouldn't have voted at all than those who would have voted for Gore.

I expected this thread to turn out this way. Nader brings up valid points that paints Obama as a terrible president and GAF dismisses it as "bitching and moaning".

Yeah, it can't be helped. The two-party mentality is so deeply ingrained in a lot of people - "If you're not with us, you're against us". People get really defensive about this shit.

[Muffdraul]

Nader pulled more voters who wouldn't have voted at all than those who would have voted for Gore.

You can't prove that and I can't prove otherwise. Quick. Let's make love.

[Cheebo]

I mean I obviously don't know how all these 97,000 people felt, but this all comes down to the assumption that the Green Party is a faction within the Democratic party, which just isn't true. The difference between Green and Democrat is the same as between Democrat and Republican. I would never have voted for Al Gore.

Even though Al Gore has proven himself to be more true to the liberal sensibilities of the green party than Nader has ever been? There hasn't been a politician alive today to do more to bring the issue of the environment and global warming in particular to the forefront of the American people than Al Gore. And was against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act from day one.

[ThisWreckage]

Even though Al Gore has proven himself to be more true to the liberal sensibilities of the green party than Nader has ever been? There hasn't been a politician alive today to do more to bring the issue of the environment and global warming in particular to the forefront of the American people than Al Gore.

You're right. Al Gore has championed environmental awareness and renewable energy by flying around in his private jets that guzzle jet fuel to push his ideology. What a guy.

[Rentahamster]

I think Clevinger answered this pretty well already.

Not very specifically, though. I replied that both habeas corpus and the commerce clause are constitutionally related.

To cite actual Supreme Court rulings, we could say....

ACA, signed by Obama, upheld
Stolen Valor Act - signed by Bush, struck down
multiple rulings against Bush's policies regarding Guantanamo

[Borgnine]

Even though Al Gore has proven himself to be more true to the liberal sensibilities of the green party than Nader has ever been? There hasn't been a politician alive today to do more to bring the issue of the environment and global warming in particular to the forefront of the American people than Al Gore.

You're asking me why I wouldn't have voted for Gore in 2000 after seeing his accomplishments in 2000-2012? Also there's more to the Green Party than just environmental causes.

[metalslimer]

I don't hate Nader for it, but you're crazy to think Gore wouldn't have won without him. Of course Gore would have been painted as a unfit to rule when 9/11 happened and the republicans would have taken back the presidency in 04 anyway

[Snake]

Probably Carter.

Not even Carter. East Timor, Afghanistan, etc.

All US Presidents have blood on their hands. Comes with the job.

[Cheebo]

You're asking me why I wouldn't have voted for Gore in 2000 after seeing his accomplishments in 2000-2012? Also there's more to the Green Party than just environmental causes.

If you read back on what Al Gore did when he was a senator before being veep to the moderate Clinton you'd find a senator more passionate about the issue of environmentalism than any other at the time. The Bush campaign mocked Gore for his views on the environment in the 1992 election if you remember.

Gore's accomplishments were there long before 2000.

[Borgnine]

If you read back on what Al Gore did when he was a senator before being veep to the moderate Clinton you'd find a senator more passionate about the issue of environmentalism than any other at the time. The Bush campaign mocked Gore for his views on the environment in the 1992 election if you remember. Gore's accomplishments were there long before 2000.

But I liked Nader more. 97,000 Floridians did too.

[ultim8p00]

Pretty spot on, if a little hyperbolic. If there is one thing I dislike Obama for, it's the ratcheting up of drone efforts abroad.

[Clevinger]

wouldn't you want more options in the land of the Free and home of the brave? I can't understand having only two options in this country.

Our presidential elections are structured for two parties. If people want a third party at the presidential level, they need to reform the electoral process from the ground up. But people like Nader just go "OK, there's no reforms in place, I have 0.00000% of winning this, I will only siphon off votes from viable left leaning candidates; let's do this anyways!" It's stupid and counterproductive, and in his case fucked the country over massively.

People like him should focus on congressional campaigns, where they actually have some chance of winning and could actually make a difference legislatively, or focus heavily on election reform and then run at the top. Running third party at the top of the ticket now is like running into a brick wall repeatedly to get to the other side.

[Cheebo]

But I liked Nader more. 97,000 Floridians did too.

Well, a large fraction of those didn't like Nader better. Remember the ballot issue? A lot voted for him by mistake due to a confusing ballot thanks to Jeb Bush and pals.

[The Technomancer]

Pretty spot on, if a little hyperbolic. If there is one thing I dislike Obama for, it's the ratcheting up of drone efforts abroad.

The drone thing is super tricky for me. On the one hand, I don't like them. On the other hand, I don't particularly like the idea of having actual troops performing those operations either. On the third hand, I'm not sure if I like the idea of doing nothing

[Pseudo_Sam]

thats still counter productive 'cause all that will do is cut into Obama's lead and give Romney a better chance of winning, a far more horrendous result I will totally vote for a libertarian candidate or a green party candidate when I see their party has grown the sort of infrastructure and foundational/grassroots support that can allow their candidates to genuinely compete at the national stage. The biggest problem with this countries political system is that we only have option A and option B, in reality. But the solution is not to vote for woefully underfunded and impossibly improbable candidates, particularly if said vote will be effectively a vote to get the true worst candidate elected. It's unfortunate, but I'm a realist.

How the hell do you think that happens? Magic?

You're not a realist, you're a cynic. It's realistic to think that change in the two party system can and will happen - the question is when. It's pushovers like you that prevent it from being sooner rather than later.

[Rentahamster]

Probably Carter.

Not really. There's always someone with another opinion.

http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/Apr97/carter.html
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/col...ss_murderer-0/

[ThisWreckage]

How the hell do you think that happens? Magic? You're not a realist, you're a cynic. It's realistic to think that change in the two party system can and will happen - the question is when. It's pushovers like you that prevent it from being sooner rather than later.

You're right. He's waiting on that change, but wants no part in pushing it forward. He'll sit by idly and then he'll participate once things actually matter. I find that mindset to be despicable.