"The articles themselves pointed out exactly what happened, that the Democrats brought legal challenges that were found valid by the courts . . ."
Which is a long way of saying they were knocked off the ballot.
"I'm sure that if the Republicans or Libertarians had brought valid challenges to the courts that resulted in Democratic or Green Party Candidates being knocked off the ballot, you'd be cheering"
Holy shit, do you pay attention to anything? (No, of course you don't.) Let me spell it out for you: I do not support Republicans. I don't even vote for Democrats because they're too fucking conservative. You're replying to a thread in which I've cheered the success of Greens that was handed to them on a silver platter by all the Rep and Dem legal wrangling. So where do you get... oh, nevermind. Why do I even bother?
This posting of yours only indicates your ridiculous assertion that the Democrats and Republicans are in bed with each other and essentially exactly the same, which is utter bullshit. They're markedly different in their policies.
In the past you've come out for some rather wacky libertarian ideas, so it wasn't difficult to picture you as libertarian, i.e., conservative. I guess you're proof of the claim that the far left and the far right somehow always manage to meet in the middle of the political circle.
Do I wish the Democrats were more liberal and less conservative? I've been wishing that for probably more years than you've been alive. If the Greens are gaining power in Pima County and Tucson, more power to them. If they gain enough power to become a major third party, I might support them--but only if doing so would not have the strong possibility of resulting in a Republican victory. We lost the 2000 election in no small part due to Ralph Nader being in the race; I'm glad I don't have those 8 years of Bush hanging on my conscience.
Reps and Dems aren't exactly the same, but they're closer to each other than either of them is to acceptable. And "libertarian" is not equivalent to "conservative". Conservative libertarians are a subset of libertarians.
"We lost the 2000 election in no small part due to Ralph Nader being in the race"
That old trope again? Fact is, every one of the dozen or so fringe candidates on Florida's ballot had more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore. It was a one-in-a-million freak occurrence that any of them mattered. If you're going to argue that Nader shouldn't have run because he split the vote, then it's fair to say that none of the others should have, either. And if they hadn't, Gore still would have lost because most of Florida's fronge candidates drew votes from the right.
Reps and Dems aren't exactly the same, but they're closer to each other than either of them is to acceptable. Absolute bullshit. You must be blind as a bat and deaf as a post. Dems support a woman's right to choose, gay marriage and national healthcare; the Reps do not. Dems favor lowering taxes on the middle and lower classes and making defense cuts while raising taxes on the wealthy; the Reps roundly refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy under the illusion that they create jobs, when 30 years of supply-side economics has proven the opposite. The Reps claim they will not raise taxes on anyone, but every one of their tax plans calls for raising taxes on the middle and lower classes, refusing cuts to defense, and making massive cuts to federal programs that serve those in need just to support the cuts on the wealthy. If you are unable to recognize these clear differences in policy, you're a prize idiot. Do your fucking homework bfore you make such a stupid claim.
"libertarian" is not equivalent to "conservative". Conservative libertarians are a subset of libertarians. When libertarians are running around screaming that their right to own multiple automatic assault weapons supercedes the safety of children and that the federal government should be eliminated entirely and everything privatized, they are right-wing kooks. If they supported that racist pig Ron Paul because he supports legalizing pot, they are left-wing kooks. The fact of the matter is that most libertarians are right-leaning, and very selective in their libertarianism. For example, most of them are against abortion, which is a basic right that should be supported in libertarian philosophy. The fact of the matter is that it isn't. If you ally youself with libertarians, you've allied yourself with a party that is made up predomiantly of right-wing kooks.
Fact is, every one of the dozen or so fringe candidates on Florida's ballot had more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore. You should know better. That several of the votes went to to fringe candidates had more to do with the confusion over the butterfly ballot than any actual support for those candidates. I can guarantee you that none of the retired Jews in Florida would have intentionally voted for Buchanan. So to claim that support for the fringe candidates split the Florida vote is ridiculous.
And if they hadn't, Gore still would have lost because most of Florida's fronge candidates drew votes from the right. Actually, you're dead wrong. several independent recounts after the Supreme Court decision demonstrated that Gore would have won the election. And then there were thousands of votes found in the trash that weren't counted, and several people of color were refused the right to vote. The role of fringe candidates was relatively minor; Nader's role in the election as a whole was much more significant. He recognized this himself, and that's why he hasn't run since.
Dems shoved Republican national healthcare plan down our throats. They've been lukewarm at best on gay rights; Obama's grudging, half-assed repeal of DADT and his scheme to of prevent SCOTUS from ruling on DOMA were strategic setbacks. When the Reps were whining about Obama cutting defense spending, it was a typical Rep lie and typical Dem spin. Obama didn't cut defense spending; he cut the rate at which it is increasing. That's not even close to acceptable when what we really need is a 80% cut. Obama made no attempt whatsoever to alter Bush's timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and failed to close Gitmo. Like a store that marks up prices before a sale, he increased our troop strength in Afghanistan before trumpeting a "drawdown" that left more troops there than when he started. And of course all the stupid liberals cheered.
"That several of the votes went to to fringe candidates had more to do with the confusion over the butterfly ballot than any actual support for those candidates."
Nope. It was actually a really small and totally unremarkable number of votes. The only thing that was unusual was that Bush and Gore were that close.
"several independent recounts after the Supreme Court decision demonstrated that Gore would have won the election"
Name one.
"And then there were thousands of votes found in the trash that weren't counted, and several people of color were refused the right to vote."
Now that I agree with. Vote suppression was several orders of magnitude a larger factor than Nader's candidacy. But go on, keep blaming Nader.
You can go on and on all you like about all of Obama's failures. I completely agree with you on every account. In my 54 years on earth I have never seen a president, Democratic or Republican keep all his promises. It's one thing to say it on the campaign trail; it's another thing to make it happen with a Repubican dominated House. However, that doesn't in the least change the facts regarding the clear policy differences between the two parties. Had Obama not been elected, there would be no repeal of DADT, abortion would probably have been outlawed, there would be no health care reform guaranteeing coverage despite pre-existing conditions and eliminating lifetime caps, and more tax cuts would have been given to the rich. You can scream about Obama and the Dems until the cows come home, but that's not gonna make me vote for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning, and will only guarantee a Republican victory.
I'll add to this that the controversy continues, for the very reasons pointed out in the second and third links. So we can never be completely sure who won.
But go on, keep blaming Nader. After I mentioned several other factors that led to Gore losing the election, you're still claiming that I I solely blame Nader for the loss. Sorry, but you're dead wrong. I do believe he played an important part in drawing votes away from Gore, but I by no means believe he was the only factor in Gore's loss, as you suggest.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
madscience.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2012-12-22 08:04 pm
no subject
Which is a long way of saying they were knocked off the ballot.
"I'm sure that if the Republicans or Libertarians had brought valid challenges to the courts that resulted in Democratic or Green Party Candidates being knocked off the ballot, you'd be cheering"
Holy shit, do you pay attention to anything? (No, of course you don't.) Let me spell it out for you: I do not support Republicans. I don't even vote for Democrats because they're too fucking conservative. You're replying to a thread in which I've cheered the success of Greens that was handed to them on a silver platter by all the Rep and Dem legal wrangling. So where do you get... oh, nevermind. Why do I even bother?
no subject
This posting of yours only indicates your ridiculous assertion that the Democrats and Republicans are in bed with each other and essentially exactly the same, which is utter bullshit. They're markedly different in their policies.
In the past you've come out for some rather wacky libertarian ideas, so it wasn't difficult to picture you as libertarian, i.e., conservative. I guess you're proof of the claim that the far left and the far right somehow always manage to meet in the middle of the political circle.
Do I wish the Democrats were more liberal and less conservative? I've been wishing that for probably more years than you've been alive. If the Greens are gaining power in Pima County and Tucson, more power to them. If they gain enough power to become a major third party, I might support them--but only if doing so would not have the strong possibility of resulting in a Republican victory. We lost the 2000 election in no small part due to Ralph Nader being in the race; I'm glad I don't have those 8 years of Bush hanging on my conscience.
no subject
"We lost the 2000 election in no small part due to Ralph Nader being in the race"
That old trope again? Fact is, every one of the dozen or so fringe candidates on Florida's ballot had more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore. It was a one-in-a-million freak occurrence that any of them mattered. If you're going to argue that Nader shouldn't have run because he split the vote, then it's fair to say that none of the others should have, either. And if they hadn't, Gore still would have lost because most of Florida's fronge candidates drew votes from the right.
no subject
Absolute bullshit. You must be blind as a bat and deaf as a post. Dems support a woman's right to choose, gay marriage and national healthcare; the Reps do not. Dems favor lowering taxes on the middle and lower classes and making defense cuts while raising taxes on the wealthy; the Reps roundly refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy under the illusion that they create jobs, when 30 years of supply-side economics has proven the opposite. The Reps claim they will not raise taxes on anyone, but every one of their tax plans calls for raising taxes on the middle and lower classes, refusing cuts to defense, and making massive cuts to federal programs that serve those in need just to support the cuts on the wealthy. If you are unable to recognize these clear differences in policy, you're a prize idiot. Do your fucking homework bfore you make such a stupid claim.
"libertarian" is not equivalent to "conservative". Conservative libertarians are a subset of libertarians.
When libertarians are running around screaming that their right to own multiple automatic assault weapons supercedes the safety of children and that the federal government should be eliminated entirely and everything privatized, they are right-wing kooks. If they supported that racist pig Ron Paul because he supports legalizing pot, they are left-wing kooks. The fact of the matter is that most libertarians are right-leaning, and very selective in their libertarianism. For example, most of them are against abortion, which is a basic right that should be supported in libertarian philosophy. The fact of the matter is that it isn't. If you ally youself with libertarians, you've allied yourself with a party that is made up predomiantly of right-wing kooks.
Fact is, every one of the dozen or so fringe candidates on Florida's ballot had more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore.
You should know better. That several of the votes went to to fringe candidates had more to do with the confusion over the butterfly ballot than any actual support for those candidates. I can guarantee you that none of the retired Jews in Florida would have intentionally voted for Buchanan. So to claim that support for the fringe candidates split the Florida vote is ridiculous.
And if they hadn't, Gore still would have lost because most of Florida's fronge candidates drew votes from the right.
Actually, you're dead wrong. several independent recounts after the Supreme Court decision demonstrated that Gore would have won the election. And then there were thousands of votes found in the trash that weren't counted, and several people of color were refused the right to vote. The role of fringe candidates was relatively minor; Nader's role in the election as a whole was much more significant. He recognized this himself, and that's why he hasn't run since.
no subject
"That several of the votes went to to fringe candidates had more to do with the confusion over the butterfly ballot than any actual support for those candidates."
Nope. It was actually a really small and totally unremarkable number of votes. The only thing that was unusual was that Bush and Gore were that close.
"several independent recounts after the Supreme Court decision demonstrated that Gore would have won the election"
Name one.
"And then there were thousands of votes found in the trash that weren't counted, and several people of color were refused the right to vote."
Now that I agree with. Vote suppression was several orders of magnitude a larger factor than Nader's candidacy. But go on, keep blaming Nader.
no subject
Name one.
Here you go:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/12/uselections2000.usa
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-03-11/politics/palmbeach.recount_1_gore-buchanan-gore-and-reform-party-butterfly-ballot?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0111a/copyright/bushlostrecount.html
http://www.issues2000.org/Florida_Recount_Official.htm
I'll add to this that the controversy continues, for the very reasons pointed out in the second and third links. So we can never be completely sure who won.
But go on, keep blaming Nader.
After I mentioned several other factors that led to Gore losing the election, you're still claiming that I I solely blame Nader for the loss. Sorry, but you're dead wrong. I do believe he played an important part in drawing votes away from Gore, but I by no means believe he was the only factor in Gore's loss, as you suggest.