Democrats: Is there ANY scenario in which you would possibly vote for Nader?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. None, period.

Not even if it's Hillary as the nominee and she leads by 30 points in Minnesota. Not even if I lived in DC. No matter how upset I am with the nominee, Nader is NEVER an option. Under no circumstances whatsoever should Nader EVER be an option for ANY leftist.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd love to try and defend Nader but really there is no point given the level of hackinessness in your posts about him and your love-in type polls. So all I'll say is this:

Why would you want to defend such a pro-censorship authoritarian James Dobson lover in the first place?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I might vote for him for biggest douche in the universe.

Yes, that's the only way I'd vote for him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3514799

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

*Sigh*. I support his right to run in an election for president of the United States as his is constitutional right under the US constitution.

So why not make as much of a fuss for the Constitution Party?

- I support his right not to be a media\corporate hack like Al Gore was\is\always has been in putting himself forward for the presidency.

That's why Gore was the candidate all the corporations wanted in 2000, right?

- I support his right to call for material to be banned or him to be concerned about pornography\video games\violent movies\whatever - That does not mean I want them banned; only that I believe that Nader has right to say that he wished things to be banned.

Sure he has the right to call for that. The question is whether you want someone calling for that to be President.

The Constitution Party and Libertarians have a right to call for the loony things they do too...

Plus I'm concerned about plently of those things too; even though I dabble in them.

What the hell is there to be concerned about?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I vote for the most progressive candidate that has a shot of winning.

So by that logic, in Oklahoma next year you'd vote for Inhofe? He'd be the most progressive candidate with a shot at winning, as he is the ONLY one with a chance at winning.

Until Nader is that, no, I won't vote for him.

Nader will never be that, chance at winning or not, because he is not progressive.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Sure, it's very progressive to attack Michael Moore by calling him a "beachball", own stock in Halliburton, and consider James Dobson to be preferable to Al Gore.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Was big business pissed off about Bush stealing it in 2000 because that meant "their guy" did get in? Or were they overjoyed?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That must be why Al Gore has become the hero of the American left and has NEVER been criticized by any American leftists in the past couple years? (It's true too, I have not heard a single leftist say anything negative about Al Gore in years. He's a beloved hero through the entire American left. Meanwhile as for the American left's opinion of Nader...)

Also Nader is authoritarian, Gore is not.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Go look at DU, a "left wing nutjob" site. Say something negative about Gore. Won't be good. Also look at the thread I linked earlier re: Nader. And Tweed, an open communist, loves Al Gore. jfern has been trashing the Democrats now, and he still considers Gore a great Democrat and a hero. Also worth nothing everyone you mentioned endorsed Kerry in 2004...

Bash Gore all you'd like, but frankly, even ignoring electability issues, I still would find him the best candidate in 2000. If there was IRV, I'd only preference him. Nader is an ass, he has a huge ego, he's very authoritarian, and a year earlier he allied with James Dobson to trash the Democrats. So we're supposed to crucify Al Gore, yet ignore Nader's alliance with Dobson and not hold him to the same standard? Furthermore Nader's flat out lie and libel in which he claimed Bush and Gore were 100% identical and they did not differ in any way and were exactly the same on every single issue alone is enough of a turn off. Nader still continues to claim that a Gore presidency would be exactly like Bush's. I'll never respect or give support to such sheer idiocy. Nader's record of union busting and buying stocks in companies that were competitors of ones he was about to write something bad about also come to mind. Nader's an egomaniac blowhard asshole, and I have no reason to like or support him. Gore was the best candidate on the ballot in 2000, period.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Gore isn't a shill, he's a hero. He's done a hell of a lot more for the environmental movement than Nader, that's for sure.

Here's another question: If Nader were such a great activist, why did he run in 2004? What did he accomplish by running? Nothing. And there was nothing he could've accomplished, at least in 2000 he had the goal of getting the Green Party federal funds or whatever. Well he did do one thing, further the rift between him and the rest of the left. Now he's a pariah who isn't taken seriously by anyone, crippling himself as an activist. Had he not ran in 2004 and focused on mending bridges, that wouldn't necessarily be the case, but he scarified this for his ego. Nader destroyed his chances of ever accomplishing anything significant ever again so he could get 0.38% of the vote and spend most of his time fighting to get ballot access instead of promoting a message. So what was the point of 2004 run? Not to mention during that time he pretty much insulted and attacked everyone who had supported him in the past, furthering his status as a pariah, Michael Moore, the Green Party and HIS 2000 VP CANDIDATE all come to mind.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD, whether you agree with it or not, he believes that the two-party system is ultimately bad for the American people and bad for the government. He believes that by running, by giving us a third choice, he can challenge that system. Do I agree with him? Of course not. But that doesn't make him a horrible person.

He's benefiting the Republicans, he knows it, and he's openly accepting their money and support. That doesn't sound like him running as some honest third party. Plus he also keeps claiming the Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same which is obviously total bullsh!t. He was also totally dishonest when he said Gore would've invaded Iraq, even though Gore opposed it and always did.

And as I pointed out, he would've been a much more effective activist for election reform had he NOT ran in 2004. What did he accomplish through his 2004 campaign?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Exactly. He made himself irrelevant and destroyed any clout he had as an activist. So what was the point?

Furthermore, Nader didn't challenge or damage the two-party system, he SOLIDIFIED it. Nader destroyed any possibility of a strong third party candidacy similar to Perot for 20 years at leasts.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. I'd just refuse to vote. I doubt he'd be any different than Kim Jong-Il honestly, he has the same personality.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK, we all agree DU is to the left of this forum, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3514799

Hmmm, let's compare results...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Furthermore, Nader didn't challenge or damage the two-party system, he SOLIDIFIED it. Nader destroyed any possibility of a strong third party candidacy similar to Perot for 20 years at leasts.

Rubbish. Arrogant, complacent rubbish. The only thing, and I mean the only thing, standing in the way of a strong insurgent candidate of some form is the fact that the two-party system is institutionalised and that breaking through it requires a great deal of money (and other things).

That's the ONLY thing? FPTP has nothing to do with it?

Do you even read my posts? I said DU was mostly full of kids playing politics and is very partizanly democratic\American-Liberal but does equate it being ultra left-wing. There is a huge difference.

The average age on DU is much higher than on here and Democrats get bashed all the time. I can bring up plenty of examples. And American Liberal is the same thing as left wing.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Do you think they would be supporters of James Dobson?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nader forged an alliance with Dobson to attack the Democrats over ties to the gambling industry:

http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/culture/gambling/nader-dobson-ask-whether-democrats-want-to-be-the-party-of-the-gambling-industry

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nader forged an alliance with Dobson to attack the Democrats over ties to the gambling industry:

http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/culture/gambling/nader-dobson-ask-whether-democrats-want-to-be-the-party-of-the-gambling-industry

Wait a minute, So Nader and Dobson happened to agree on one thing and wrote a letter together comdemning one of the world's most famous vices, which destroys communities and lives every year and questioned a corrupt political system where this parasatic industry can flourish and often gain access to the highest levels of political power and can have a serious say on actual policy... AND this is a bad thing?

Straha is right for once, you're a total hypocrite - your politics is all about protecting your vices under the name of liberalism.

I don't gamble much actually. Usually I only do if I'm with my brother and he wants to since my brother is a super-gambler (who by the way supports Ron Paul on this issue alone. Basically one of his buddies told him Ron Paul wants to abolish all regulations on gambling and my brother was behind him 100%) or if I'm visiting the local casino with someone (usually my parents. I wonder what the "family values" crowd thinks of that!). I just support the right of people to do what they want with their money instead of having government act as this huge nanny-state and forcing banks to block financial transactions to online gambling sites (even though as my brother can tell you, it's not working. There's still a million loopholes he's using and he's still banking on online poker almost every night). Which the most liberal Democrats in Congress opposed. Extreme liberal Barney Frank has been one of the toughest advocates for the gambling industry.

I just dislike prudish alliances with the religious right to limit freedom.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Exactly. He made himself irrelevant and destroyed any clout he had as an activist. So what was the point?

Furthermore, Nader didn't challenge or damage the two-party system, he SOLIDIFIED it. Nader destroyed any possibility of a strong third party candidacy similar to Perot for 20 years at leasts.

Once again, you completely missed my point.  As I've already shown you - and you've agreed - Ralph Nader is now entirely irrelevant.  And yet you've created 83 threads so far that are either about him or mention him in some way.

Why are you *still* talking about him?

Probably conditioning from DU. He still gets trashed daily there.