Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I cannot believe we are still arguing about Nader [View all]Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
106 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I can't believe that there are people who still feel that he is relevent enough to bring up . .
grantcart
Feb 2012
#12
The votes of the left were available in Florida. Gore failed to attract them.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2012
#15
Would the Democrats have been satisfied with anything less than a complete rejection of everyone not
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2012
#36
Maybe it's time we stop being satisfied with the "not as bad" of American politics.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2012
#39
The Bush "enablers" are the Democratic politicians who vote with the Republicans.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2012
#60
So people who vote for a policy that Bush supports are Bush enablers. But people who enable the
BzaDem
Mar 2012
#61
Except that Ford outselling Chevy does not result in a dangerous moron being elected President.
Nye Bevan
Mar 2012
#30
It isn't Gore's responsibility to "attract" them. That premise is completely upside down.
BzaDem
Mar 2012
#55
But again, isn't that equally their problem? If a voter makes a decision to enable the inauguration
BzaDem
Mar 2012
#57
If the next Democratic candidate came from Idaho (but was as liberal as Kucinich), would you be
BzaDem
Mar 2012
#58
And politicians of course bear no responsibility at all for the choices they make..
Fumesucker
Mar 2012
#64
He told Gore during the recount, when it certainly could have made a difference.
MadHound
Mar 2012
#68
You made a post that keeps the debate going but that isn't your point, is it?
TheKentuckian
Mar 2012
#25
If one person determines an election, then do we really have a democracy? nt
ZombieHorde
Mar 2012
#26
I second that emotion. Nader = Egotistical has-been still trying to be viable. nt
Honeycombe8
Mar 2012
#28
That's as ignorant and short-sighted as saying it was all Nader's fault.
Behind the Aegis
Mar 2012
#49
No he didn't change, he just revealed who he really was in the first place..
Fumesucker
Mar 2012
#77
In your "expert" opinion, and yet, he was not the reason for the lost election.
Behind the Aegis
Mar 2012
#78
It helps hide the fact that despite knowing that election was stolen, Democrats
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#42
Can you point to one person on this board who claimed that Nader did something illegal, in running
BzaDem
Mar 2012
#59
You forgot the corporate media, Al Gore wasn't popular at all with them precisely because
Uncle Joe
Mar 2012
#93
Without a runnoff system, a popular third party liberal candidate can only acomplish one thing
Bradical79
Mar 2012
#89
Nader only pops his head out of the hole when the Dems have a good chance at winning thw WH.
JoePhilly
Mar 2012
#90
You left out something. Gore won the 2000 Election. It was stolen and not by Nader.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#92
That leaves Joe Leiberman, the Supreme Court and Bush off the spot. How convenient!
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#100