General Discussion

riqster

(13,986 posts)

43. The part which you just reposted.

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:45 PM

Dec 2013

You know, right before the "that could form a concise definition of Naderism"? That you cut and pasted into your very own response? Right, THAT definition.

Once again: I have not, and do not, said that we needn't consider all factors in the 2000 and 2004 elections. I have in fact affirmed that bit of rationality and common sense.

It is you that is insisting on not including all the factors, by trying to exclude Nader. And only Nader.

And you gave not presented Ounce One of evidence to refute my OP. Which leaves you with nothing to do but distract and obfuscate.

Nader worked for and with the Republicans to defeat Democratic candidates. That is my point. Address it or keep on talking about other factors, but until you can refute it (or at least attempt a rebuttal), you won't persuade anyone but the Nader Worshippers.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

135 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sic semper Naderus. (A response to the recent pro-Nader posts) [View all] riqster Dec 2013 OP

I can't tell if all of DU is infested with shit-stirrers, really bored or really drunk... Blue_Tires Dec 2013 #1

That scab is there because the wound never healed. riqster Dec 2013 #5

Short of time travel, how do we "deal with it?" Blue_Tires Dec 2013 #7

Actually, we agree. riqster Dec 2013 #9

Actually, I think the best way to deal with it ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #44

If the Democratic Party gives us a liberal candidate to support ... Laelth Dec 2013 #71

Not sure about that. riqster Dec 2013 #79

Well ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #94

Well put. riqster Dec 2013 #101

And THAT ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #111

I don't see it as having lost. riqster Dec 2013 #113

That's because ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #114

Which is why these threads are necessary. riqster Dec 2013 #115

Agreed ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #116

Absolutely. riqster Dec 2013 #118

But it's NOT ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #90

Americans under 30 have a more favorable opinion of socialism than of capitalism. Laelth Dec 2013 #93

They will figure that out ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #96

I think the current Party establishment has a strong incentive ... Laelth Dec 2013 #97

Politicians are (largely) two things ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #99

I agree with your assessment about the nature of politicians. Laelth Dec 2013 #100

1StrongBlackMan keeps talking about PRIMARIES and you keep ignoring that Jim Lane Dec 2013 #120

Admittedly, I ignore the argument that primaries are valid. Laelth Dec 2013 #121

Hmmmmm. If the facts don't support them, why do they fit? nt el_bryanto Dec 2013 #2

Probably because I am such a contumacious SOB. nt riqster Dec 2013 #6

Yah. He said it here: MineralMan Dec 2013 #3

A critique from October 2000. riqster Dec 2013 #8

You know the drill.... libodem Dec 2013 #4

Since Nader is running (sarcasm) nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #10

The reason it COULD be stolen was the margin. riqster Dec 2013 #12

Explain all those elderly Jews voting for Buchanan nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #14

Math dictates otherwise. riqster Dec 2013 #16

Yup, why you keep ignoring nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #18

The fact is, you cannot put everything you care about into a single post. riqster Dec 2013 #21

As I said, experts in political science and history I have spoken to nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #24

See post 21, where I did define it. riqster Dec 2013 #30

What part of it does not matter are you purposely missing nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #36

The part which you just reposted. riqster Dec 2013 #43

You defined nothing, and you know why? nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #49

So, you're OK with helping Republicans defeat Democrats, riqster Dec 2013 #52

You read that as you will nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #75

Once again, you mistake omission with lack of concern. riqster Dec 2013 #81

I said, you need to learn how to read nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #85

Oh, I read it all right. I just disagree. riqster Dec 2013 #87

Since you are comparing an illegal act with a legal act nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #88

one glaring fact that is NEVER addressed G_j Dec 2013 #23

Oh absolutely nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #25

Got facts to support that claim? riqster Dec 2013 #28

for starters G_j Dec 2013 #35

That proves that the Caucus and the minority community were fucked over. riqster Dec 2013 #38

The Great Florida Ex-Con Game G_j Dec 2013 #41

Also a factor. In fact, Rick Scott is trying to do it again. riqster Dec 2013 #45

I don't see why G_j Dec 2013 #47

You forget this, though: nyquil_man Dec 2013 #42

Oh, no argument there. riqster Dec 2013 #46

I just don't have a whole lot of use for Nader as a candidate. nyquil_man Dec 2013 #50

yet throughout this thread, you fail to address the culpability of 200,000+ registered dems.. frylock Dec 2013 #92

Because you can't cover everything in a single post. riqster Dec 2013 #104

nader was the least of the issues leading up to that theft.. frylock Dec 2013 #119

The Democrats are and have been trying to address most of the issues that caused the 2000 theft Gothmog Dec 2013 #126

You are of course familiar with the report issued on that Sept 11 nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #130

Yes, Al Gore was the real winner of 2000 elections Gothmog Dec 2013 #132

+1 progressoid Dec 2013 #20

Katherine Harris KamaAina Dec 2013 #62

Are they related? nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #77

I seriously doubt it KamaAina Dec 2013 #78

I doubt it too nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #80

I am compelled to agree with you. LanternWaste Dec 2013 #129

Good article Gothmog Dec 2013 #11

And let's not forget Iraq. Iraq would never have happened under Al Gore, but some fell for the... Tarheel_Dem Dec 2013 #32

A great deal would be different Gothmog Dec 2013 #58

He and his supporters have blood on their hands. Tarheel_Dem Dec 2013 #64

If the Democrats want the votes of the left it should trying to appeal to the left. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #13

This. Vashta Nerada Dec 2013 #15

Nader didn't just run FOR Liberal votes. riqster Dec 2013 #17

And, the Democrats who voted for Dubya far outnumbered the Nader voters. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #54

The point is, be honest. riqster Dec 2013 #57

Democrats accept support from Republicans every election. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #59

With the avowed intent of getting Bush elected. nt riqster Dec 2013 #61

And, that's why voters voted for him? Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #63

Each of us is accountable for our own actions. riqster Dec 2013 #65

He's also responsible for letting the Democratic party know it has a left wing to contend with. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #67

A left wing of the party should be paid attention to. riqster Dec 2013 #105

You may be right...the party is still ignoring the left and running right. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #110

avowed intent would be nader saying "i'm doing this to get bush elected" frylock Dec 2013 #95

Read more of the source material. He said it. riqster Dec 2013 #103

I get real sick of people trying to rewrite history. CorrectOfCenter Dec 2013 #19

Is there evidence he's even running? nyquil_man Dec 2013 #22

Someone else who would do what Nader did. riqster Dec 2013 #27

When this Naderesque generic has a name, I'll worry. nyquil_man Dec 2013 #31

We'll probably see a repeat of this one: Tarheel_Dem Dec 2013 #34

People still cast ballots for Ralph? Arkana Dec 2013 #26

No, but his disciples pop up like dung heap mushrooms after a rain every cycle. riqster Dec 2013 #33

Am I the only one who doesn't read the Nader threads? Capt. Obvious Dec 2013 #29

It's trolly, that kind of Nader-touting shit. Plus, the guy is pushing eighty. MADem Dec 2013 #37

LMAO! You're still compelled to evade the blame and makes excuses for Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #39

Another post that does not address the OP. riqster Dec 2013 #51

Sad and pathetic. Gore won the election as well, how'd that work out? Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #53

I am not prepared to accept the betrayal of Nader. riqster Dec 2013 #55

There was no betrayal, Nader is not a Democrat. The ubiquitous selective memory Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #66

+1, well put. Marr Dec 2013 #102

Substitute "Left" for "Democratic", if you prefer. riqster Dec 2013 #123

No, the Democratic Party fucked our shit up, by first failing to earn enough votes and then, Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #127

Uh-huh. riqster Dec 2013 #128

That's absolutely not what I said and you know it. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #134

If you support Nader's actions, my statement is a reasonable one. riqster Dec 2013 #135

HIs statement here is my answer to dilettantes who blithely call for destroying everything: freshwest Dec 2013 #40

Damn. This should be an OP. riqster Dec 2013 #48

You're welcome to steal any or all of it. The ideas and results matter, not sources or labels, IMO. freshwest Dec 2013 #72

Do you blog? riqster Dec 2013 #74

I've been asked to, but have no interest in learning another format and need to do other things. freshwest Dec 2013 #84

Billy Gibbons said something similar. riqster Dec 2013 #86

If only some Florida Dems would not have become traitors and voted for Bush Rex Dec 2013 #56

Ah yes, Le Taz Hot Dec 2013 #60

And Nader had a vested interest in the Rethugs being elected, pnwmom Dec 2013 #68

I can't believe there are DUers who are still defending Nader. WTF?? Avalux Dec 2013 #69

Great post. sagat Dec 2013 #70

And one whose TOS calls for electing DEMS. riqster Dec 2013 #73

bluntandcranky is giving The People's View a run for its money whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #76

Really? There is something worse than The Peoples Spew? Rex Dec 2013 #82

Nope, all Nader did was pretend to be a liberal while he helped Bush steal elections. riqster Dec 2013 #122

You got your 'two minutes of hate' out of this thread. Rex Dec 2013 #124

I certainly got a lot of hate from the Nader contingent. riqster Dec 2013 #125

At least I know how to use an apostrophe. riqster Dec 2013 #83

you should be real proud frylock Dec 2013 #98

About Nader (and the Green Party in general), Jamaal510 Dec 2013 #89

I'm thinking the second option for some, the first for all too many. nt riqster Dec 2013 #108

Nader is as old as the crust on Rush Limbaugh's underwear. RBInMaine Dec 2013 #91

Both are toxic, even in small doses. nt riqster Dec 2013 #109

almost 40,000 people voted for someone other than bush, gore or nader in fl. gore lost by 154 KG Dec 2013 #106

But it makes for a good narrative in black and white. Celefin Dec 2013 #117

Fuck Nadir! BlueToTheBone Dec 2013 #107

I am not a fan of Nader. hrmjustin Dec 2013 #112

You want "blunt and cranky?" 1000words Dec 2013 #131

That is your right. riqster Dec 2013 #133