Ralph Nader: The Democrats are unable to defend the US

[JA]

Ralph Nader: The Democrats are unable to defend the U.S. from the "most vicious" Republican Party in history

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Doimper]

Ralph Nader needs to go away

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Who?

[JA]

Ralph Nader needs to go away

What did he say that was inaccurate?

[PoliticalShelter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just pure moronic analysis.

The rest of this is just the things lefties have been saying about the democrats for years now. There's nothing unique about, other than the fact it's coming from the most overrated American leftist from the past twenty years.

[Santander]

Lincoln's Republican Party was far more vicious.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What a great man.

Lincoln's Republican Party was far more vicious.

This made my day.

[Beet]

What a great man.

Lincoln's Republican Party was far more vicious.

This made my day.

It's time for another civil war. You guys are going to have to start it, since that's the only way a significant portion of the military will side with us.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

There needs to be a party that keeps Trump in check, but the Dems don't seem up to the task.

[JA]

There needs to be a party that keeps Trump in check, but the Dems don't seem up to the task.

The Democrats don't seem up to any task at this point.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What a great man.

Lincoln's Republican Party was far more vicious.

This made my day.

It's time for another civil war. You guys are going to have to start it, since that's the only way a significant portion of the military will side with us.

Are you interpreting me as a neoconfederate? I assure you, the opposite is true.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, third parties like in 2000 and in 16 took away the Dems chances for victory, that's the fact.

[JA]

No, third parties like in 2000 and in 16 took away the Dems chances for victory, that's the fact.

Why were those elections so close anyway? And why were many likely Democratic voters so willing to cast their vote for a third party? Obviously, it was because the Democratic candidate was uninspiring.

[Technocracy Timmy]

No, third parties like in 2000 and in 16 took away the Dems chances for victory, that's the fact.

The election came down to three states with less than 1% margins of victory for Trump. All three states had large enough concentrations of Obama-Trump voters that they managed to swing the election to President Trump.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Nader is still alive?

[Yank2133]

No, third parties like in 2000 and in 16 took away the Dems chances for victory, that's the fact.

Why were those elections so close anyway? And why were many likely Democratic voters so willing to cast their vote for a third party? Obviously, it was because the Democratic candidate was uninspiring.

You know, i would be ok with this if this election had been Rubio vs Clinton or Jeb vs Clinton. But this excuse doesn't fly when the GOP nominee is Donald ****ing Trump.

[Yank2133]

No, third parties like in 2000 and in 16 took away the Dems chances for victory, that's the fact.

Why were those elections so close anyway? And why were many likely Democratic voters so willing to cast their vote for a third party? Obviously, it was because the Democratic candidate was uninspiring.

You know, i would be ok with this if this election had been Rubio vs Clinton or Jeb vs Clinton. But this excuse doesn't fly when the GOP nominee is Donald ****ing Trump.

Because Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio wouldn't have appointed someone like Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and they certainly would never negotiate a major weapons deal with Saudi Arabia or push a wholesale repeal of the Medicaid expansion for the sake of regressive tax cuts... right?

I would take lawful evil (Rubio and Bush) over chaotic evil (Trump) any day of the week.

[Mr. Smith]

Pretty well said, but nothing new added to the table.

[BudgieForce]

Dems are still stuck in the 80s/90s

Bunch of losers outsmarted by a brain damaged game show host

Thats a major oversimplification.

[°Leprechaun]

He's absolutely right.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Who?

The man who might be responsible for saving more American lives than any other living person on account of his advocacy for seat belt laws and other automobile safety improvements.

Obviously I know who Nader is, but my point is he's completely irrelevant now.  Also, he's a hypocritical egomaniac, but that's beside the point.

[°Leprechaun]

Who?

The man who might be responsible for saving more American lives than any other living person on account of his advocacy for seat belt laws and other automobile safety improvements.

Obviously I know who Nader is, but my point is he's completely irrelevant now.  Also, he's a hypocritical egomaniac, but that's beside the point.

Whatever. What he says is obviously quite on target. That's the point.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Who?

The man who might be responsible for saving more American lives than any other living person on account of his advocacy for seat belt laws and other automobile safety improvements.

Obviously I know who Nader is, but my point is he's completely irrelevant now.  Also, he's a hypocritical egomaniac, but that's beside the point.

Whatever. What he says is obviously quite on target. That's the point.

No one cares what Nader thinks and he has only himself to blame for that

[Santander]

Yet here we all are, talking about him.

That says more about how pathetic we are than how relevant Nader is.

[dead0man]

No, third parties like in 2000 and in 16 took away the Dems chances for victory, that's the fact.

You nominate sh**tty candidates (one time hacking the system to get it done) and people that would vote for you, that gladly voted for Bill and Obama twice in spite of all their faults, vote third party and you blame the voters?

Instead of saying that, they campaign by saying “Can you believe how bad the Republicans are?” Now once they say that, they trap their progressive wing, because their progressive wing is the only segment that’s going to change the party to be a more formidable opponent. Because they say to their progressive wing, “You’ve got nowhere to go, get off our back.”

And this went right into the scapegoating of the last twenty years. “Oh, it’s Nader, oh, it’s the Koch Brothers, oh, it’s the electoral college, oh, it’s misogyny, oh, it’s redneck deplorables.” They never look at themselves in the mirror.

[...]

[Another] millstone is: Nobody gets fired. They have defeat after defeat, and they can’t replace their defeated compadres with new, vigorous, energetic people. Labor unions, the same thing. They [stay in positions] into their eighties no matter how screwed up the union is. You don’t get fired no matter how big the loss is, unlike in the business community, where you get fired.

A lot of what Nader said is nonsense or already "known", but these last bits rings true to me.  You nominated someone so horrible Donald Freakin' Trump won.  There is plenty of blame to go around for that, but you can't see that a huge part of it was how garbage Hillary was then this kind of thing is just going to keep happening.  Every time you have nobody around that can fake integrity as good as Obama and Bill did you're going to lose, sometimes to someone as sh**tty as Trump (because the GOP sucks too).