Nader selects loser joke just like him as "running mate"

[Jabbery]

New reports say that the two pathetic cockroaches plan to continue running away from reality as fast as they can.

[physioex]

1. Let's buy them both a Corvair....EOM

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I love Camejo. And I think it's a great ticket but

it's just not feasible in a plurality voting system.

Hope John Kerry gets ranked voting put into place during his term or he can kiss my vote in 2008 good-bye.

[clydefrand]

4. Explain please what is

ranked voting. I'm trying to learn. Be patient.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Welcome to DU. :^) ranked voting is

putting your candidates in order of preference. (IE for me I'd probably vote, Gree, Socialist, then Dem.) How the votes are counted depends on the type of voting system used.

Most folks are pushing for Instant Runoff Voting, which actually is not my preference because it is still susceptible to the spoiler effect, such as when the Greens and the Dems wound up splitting a fair number of progressive votes.

I have links to explanations of all kinds of ranked voting methods on my website. Just click the link below. :^)
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/

[chimpy the poopthrower]

26. Huh? IRV is NOT susceptible to spoiler effects!

From the link on your own website:

"Does IRV eliminate "spoilers" and vote-splitting?

Yes. In multiple-candidate races, like-minded constituencies such as Latinos, liberals, conservatives, etc. can split their vote among their own competing candidates, allowing a candidate with less overall support to prevail. IRV allows those voters to rank all of their candidates and watch as votes transfer to their candidate with the most support. In partisan races, IRV prevents the possibility of a third party candidate "spoiling" the race by taking enough votes from one major candidate to elect the other."

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. Yes, it can be susceptible

And here is how: http://electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.htm

Ergo, if I and enough others vote 1) Green 2) Socialist 3) Natural Law 4) Dem, odds are the Repubs will win by the second or third round.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

48. Not logical.

Here is the example from that link:

"Suppose my true preference is for the Libertarian first and the Republican second. Suppose further that the Libertarians are the strongest "minor" party. At some round of the IRV counting process, all the candidates will be eliminated except the Republican, the Democrat, and the Libertarian. If the Libertarian then has the fewest first-choice votes, he or she will be eliminated and my vote will transfer to the Republican, just as I wanted. But what if the Republican is eliminated before the Libertarian? Unless all the Republican votes transfer to the Libertarian, which is extremely unlikely, the Democrat might then beat the Libertarian. If so, I will have helped the Democrat win by not strategically ranking the Republican first. But that's the same situation I'm in now if I vote my true preference for the Libertarian!"

The narrator's true preference has not been ignored. His/her first and second choices have merely both been defeated. "Unless all the Republican votes transfer to the Libertarian, which is extremely unlikely, the Democrat might then beat the Libertarian." That's right. If another voter expresses the preference L-D-R, that person's vote will transfer to the Dem, not the Libertarian, after the Republican is eliminated. Because that is THAT voter's preference. The narrator changing his/her preference to R-L-D would not have made a bit of difference. All a voter can do under IRV is express their true preference. They can't control what other people do. And there is no strategy that will serve a voter better than expressing his/her true preference. If you think there is, please explain how using an actual sample of, say, 12 voters.

[GreenPartyVoter]

51. Yes, it is logical

As I said before, if you have enough people who vote in the first few rounds for several smaller parties who garner smaller numbers, a large party like the Repubs can get a majority before all the rounds are counted.

Ultimately, under IRV smaller parties are still unlikely to get elected into office.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

54. Please provide an example.

You may be right, although I don't think you are. But I'd have to see it for myself to understand what you mean. Can you create an example with a reasonably small number of voters to show what you're thinking?

[ContinentalOp]

112. I get the point but I'm still confused.

I read the article and understand the argument. Here's an example with 12 people:
5 people vote Republican only
4 people vote Greens as 1st choice, Dems as 2nd
3 people vote Dems as only choice

So according to the author, in round one it's R-5, G-4, D-3 and the Democrats are eliminated. Then in round 2 it's R-4 and G-5. The effect is that the Republicans win although the majority of the voters supported liberal parties 7-5.

But is this how instant runoff votes are actually counted? I had always assumed that the candidates weren't ranked and you basically gave a Yes or No vote to each candidate. So in the above example there would be 7 Dem votes, 4 Green votes and 5 Rep votes with the Democrats winning.

So now I'm totally confused. What's the truth about instant runoff voting?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

113. But why would you group Greens and Dems together here?

You say that voters supported liberal parties 7-5, but there is no reason to group Dems and Greens together as liberals here. The three people who voted D, indicated no preference for G over R. If they did prefer Greens over Republicans, they should have expressed that as D-G or D-G-R. Doing so would not have hurt the Dem candidate's chances at all. So for the Republican to win in this scenario is actually a true reflection of voter preferences. And even if the second group (G-D) had left off the D and just voted G, that would not have increased the Green's chances. So, there is no spoiler effect.

[ContinentalOp]

120. I'm not lumping them together.

"You say that voters supported liberal parties 7-5, but there is no reason to group Dems and Greens together as liberals here."

I wasn't grouping them together I was simply counting 7 votes overall for the Democrat vs. 5 for the Republican. So the "popular vote" as it were actually goes to the Dems while a technicality of the IRV throws the election to the Republicans. Still I'm not convinced this is how IRV actually works, I'm just explaining my understanding of the article posted.

"The three people who voted D, indicated no preference for G over R. If they did prefer Greens over Republicans, they should have expressed that as D-G or D-G-R."

Right, and of course it's only fair that the Greens lost. The point in this example is the Democrats who had support from a majority of hypothetical voters yet still lost. It's a mistake to say that they should have voted D-G-R because as far as I understand there is really no ranking in instant runoff voting. It's simply yes or no for each candidate. If you vote D-G-R (assuming those are the only 3 candidates) your vote is essentially meaningless because the 3 cancel each other out. Please correct me if my understanding of IRV is wrong or if I'm confusing it with another system.

"So for the Republican to win in this scenario is actually a true reflection of voter preferences."

How so, when 7 of the voters supported the Dem candidate to some degree and the Rep candidate not at all while only 5 voters supported the Rep candidate? That doesn't seem like a true reflection of voter preferences to me.

[GreenPartyVoter]

121. IRV is ranked, you do assign a higher to lower preference

You may be thinking of approval voting, in which case you check off the candidates who you can stomach having in office. (Down side to that system, though, is that you have more of a chance of ending in a tie.)

[GreenPartyVoter]

122. Did you review

the other page from this website? http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm

[jobycom]

63. Exactly.

I've tried to explain that before, but no one gets it. Glad to see a web page on the subject.

IRV is fine for local and state races. I use it for a local club I'm with. Another problem I've run into is that if not everyone understands it, the voting is even more skewed. I wouldn't recommend it for national voting, even though I have recommended it for smaller elections.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

77. Can YOU provide an example?

I'm keeping an open mind, but you gotta show me something.

[BurtWorm]

3. Actually, I thought Camejo was a decent guy

and kind of a scary choice for Nader to run with, considering that for some progressives, he actually brings something enticing to that ticket.

[rinsd]

8. Could be trouble....

Camejo has been highly visible in the last year with the recall election here in CA.

[Dardi]

100. Camejo was very impressive

during the recall election. A lot of people wanted him to run as the front end of the Green ticket (Camejo-McKinney?). Luckily for Kerry, California, where Camejo is well known, isn't a swing state. I mean, if California is in play, the election has already been lost.

[rinsd]

102. CA is not in play....

But you are right about Camejo in CA. He has a bit of support especially in the Bay Area...

[Dardi]

110. You're right

Arnold has no Bush coattails whatsoever. What I'm saying is that if California is even close, the election will have been a landslide elsewhere. It's like Texas being close in reverse.

[UrbScotty]

5. Exactly. (nt)

[tandot]

6. Hey, put them both on SpaceShipOne and

and sent them into space:

SpaceShipOne soared more than 62 miles above Earth's surface during its brief flight this morning, making it the first privately funded manned craft to fly in space, controllers said.

www.cnn.com

I just wish that rocket could stay up there until after November.

[Dhalgren]

7. Jesus! Take a pill!

Camejo is a good progressive, with many of the best ideas. He may not be a Democrat, but "cockroach" is over the line.

[lazarus]

11. Yeah

A good progressive who helped get Arnold elected in California. Real progressive.

[Dhalgren]

22. Bullshit!

I am sick and tired of people blaming other candidates because a particular party couldn't muster the necessary votes! If you want progressive votes, be more progressive! Democrats don't value progressive voters as much as centrist voters, so you get the center and lose the progressives - that's called politics and you live with your choice. Everyone should vote for whichever party they think deserves their vote. Stop belly-aching because Arnold won the recall, if the Dems had had their shit together none of it would have happened in the first place. Democrats make it aweful hard to vote Democractic!

[lazarus]

83. Democrats make it hard to vote Democratic?

Well, if you value the "purity" of your vote so much you don't mind if people like Arnold and W are in office, fine.

Me, I figured out long ago that I won't find a candidate I agree with 100% until I run for office myself.

I'm not blaming Camejo 100% for the recall; if you'll notice, I said he "helped" Arnold win the recall.

If you're happy with Arnold as governor, and Bush as president, fine. As a progressive, I'm not, and I know I'll be happier with Kerry as president, and I was happier with Davis as governor.

Camejo helped get the recall on the ballot in the first place, btw. I guess Davis was so bad he was willing to have Arnold in office instead.

[rastignac5]

15. Anybody who helps Bush's re-election is a cockroach. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. You mean the DLC cockroaches?

If you do, then I agree wholeheartedly.

[Jabbery]

16. You're right - SLUG is a better term

Sorry.

[Aidoneus]

9. is it time for the Two Minutes' Hate already?

And to think, I almost missed it! :silly:

[Forkboy]

10. Ignorance is bliss

[PittPoliSci]

20. But reality is frightning.

Which is why it is folly for Nader to distract any left wing vote away from Kerry.

[Forkboy]

24. Which is why kerry might want to pay attention to the left

instead of assuming thier votes are automatically his.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. Oh, no no no. Run to the middle. The middle is where it's at!

/sarcasm

[hiphopnation]

34. Middle is the new left

thanks to BushCo. Get it?

[GreenPartyVoter]

41. Up is down, black is white, war is peace.

I love what chasing the neocons has done for this nation. :P

[hiphopnation]

46. I just hope you're in a safe state

so your concious is clear. I am in a safe state, and I still won't vote for the pussbag. Camejo, OTOH, I liked during the re-call debacle.

Good luck to you!

[GreenPartyVoter]

47. I am voting for Kerry

not cause I like him but because I am worried.

Then again, it may not matter whose name I check off. The BFEE stole one election, they can steal another one.

[PittPoliSci]

72. don't forget my two favorites...

Ignorance is Strength and Slavery is Freedom:-)

[olddem43]

12. I wouldn't be surprised if the Repugs were bankrolling

these two jackasses.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Any evidence of that? Or, are you just following the DLC party line.

Pathetic.

[HamdenRice]

13. Anti-Naderism is going overboard...

I certainly understand the anxiety everyone feels about Nader running again, given what happened in Florida in 2000. But in the long run, creating a viable Green Party is absolutely vital to our democracy and the health of our planet.

I for one, am probably going to vote for Nader if he is on the ballot, because I am in a safe Democratic state. Progressive voters are intelligent enough to know not to vote for him in close states.

Worries about him sabotaging Kerry are greatly overrated.

[rastignac5]

17. His sabotaging of Gore was not overrated

it was very much real.

And what's changed since then?

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. It wasn't sabotage, it was a legit run for the Oval Office.

The whole POINT of elections is to garner votes rather than your opponent. And Gore was indeed his opponent.

[sangh0]

60. Nader said he wasn't running against Gore

He even said he wouldn't campaign in battleground states.

He also said (and did) the complete opposite.

[HamdenRice]

44. What's changed

is the experience of 2000. In close elections, people who want to be sure of helping get rid of Bush will vote for Kerry. In safe states we will vote for any alternative to the left of Kerry, ie Nader.

BTW, here in New York, I believe that the Greens have a permanent spot on the ballot ever since Grandpa Al Lewis garnered enough votes in his run for Governor. Hopefully, Nader will be able to use the NY Green Party line. If not, I will probably vote for whoever is the NY Green Party nominee.

The reason I might waste my vote and vote vote for Kerry is just for the good feeling of joining in the national effort to get rid of bush.

[PittPoliSci]

18. Yeah, cause god knows...

The Greens certainly didn't help Bush get installed in 2000...:eyes:

Flame on.

[Forkboy]

28. No they didn't

that would be SCOTUS.Remember them?

BTW,did you see the report the other day about the million plus voters who were purged from Florida's voting rolls in 2000?

[PittPoliSci]

59. Remember Al Gore?

As I recall it was the Greens who said he's just like GWB. As far as I can tell, that couldn't be further from the truth. Everyone knew how dangerous it would be if Bush came into power, but still, people voted Green, and why? Because they didn't agree with everything Gore had to say? I didn't agree with everything Gore had to say, but I would've voted for him if I was eligible because the threat of a Bush presidency was enough to scare me into voting more moderate. If voting for Nader achieved anything, it was a Bush presidency.

The Republicans are going to try any dirty trick they can, including purging voting rolls, to win this election again.

Saying "oh the republican did this" isn't going to turn back time, we have to make every vote count this time. There is no good that can come from voting for Nader, only a second term for BushCo.

If voting for Nader equalled some kind of representation in government, that would be great, but it doesn't. Face the grim reality, suck it up, and vote for Kerry, whether you like it or not, he's the only shot we have right now.

[Forkboy]

82. If the votes weren't counted,and they weren't

what difference does it make who voted for who? That's the whole point.

Saying "oh the republican did this" isn't going to turn back time,

No it wont,so why are people still ragging on Nader for doing what people are allowed to do in a democracy?

[PittPoliSci]

95. the point is...

had nader not ruined everything, almost 90,000 people would've voted for gore, thus, we wouldn't have had Bush!

Why are we ragging on Nader? Cause he's going to make an already tight race even harder for the Democrats to win, THAT'S WHY. If he really wants to beat Bush, he should just piss off, but he's too much of a self-important attention whore to do that.

[Forkboy]

98. If the votes weren't counted how the Hell did Nader "ruin everything"?

Nader didn't purge the voters.
Nader didn't decide 5-4 in favor of Bush.
Nader isn't Katherine Harris.

Why do you single out the one legal factor and ignore the illegal ones?


Your post makes zero sense.

[PittPoliSci]

101. it's quite simple.

Had Nader not been in the race, 90,000 votes would've went Gore.

Gore would've had a plurality, and won florida, despite Bush's best efforts.

I single out the legal factor cause it can be changed. People can vote for Nader again, and Bush will come back into power, or, they can abandon Nader, and give Kerry a better chance of winning, and hopefully (much more likely than if Bush won) Kerry will enact some (probably many) more progressive iniatives.

[Forkboy]

105. two points

Had Nader not been in the race, 90,000 votes would've went Gore.


This is assumption.Perhaps a safe one,but an assumption nonetheless.

Forget those 90,000 votes because NOT ONE VOTE WAS COUNTED ANYWAY.

[Forkboy]

99. If the votes weren't counted how the Hell did Nader "ruin everything"?

Nader didn't purge the voters.
Nader didn't decide 5-4 in favor of Bush.
Nader isn't Katherine Harris.

Why do you single out the one legal factor and ignore the illegal ones?


Your post makes zero sense.

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. Agreed. More people are interested in getting Bush out than getting Nader

in.

[sangh0]

35. Another Nader lie

You do realize that Nader is not a Green, and is not creating a viable Green Party. He didn't in 2000 and he's not doing it 2004 either.

If Nader really wanted to help build a Green Party, the best thing he could do would be to keep away. But that would interfere with his plans for a Nader Reich

[Dhalgren]

42. So are you saying that you want what is best for the Green party,

as a political party, and for its enhanced viability? Because, I thought you didn't particularly like the Greens...

[sangh0]

43. I guess you don't want to address the point of what Nader wants

so instead, you try to swing it over to discussing me.

Why won't you address the fact that Nader isn't helping the Greens?

[Dhalgren]

64. But isn't it the Greens who picked him?

You were saying that what the Greens had decided was not what was best for them, so I was wondering why you are in a better position to know what's best for them than they are.

[sangh0]

73. You're working very hard to avoid the question.

I asked "Why won't you address the fact that Nader isn't helping the Greens?"

Instead of an answer, you asked a question. A question is NOT an answer.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. DLC threads like this may make me reconsider my vote for Kerry.

The two "pathetic cockroaches" you refer to didn't vote for the slaughter in Iraq like Kerry did.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

36. DLC? Evidence please.

How do you know that Jabbery is part of the DLC and not a disruptor trying to foment divisiveness on the left or even a Nader-supporter trying to create sympathy for (and discussion about) Nader? Note that I am not accusing the poster of anything, merely pointing out that anyone can post to a message board and claim any point of view, and that a poster's motives and intentions are not always clear.

[sangh0]

39. The proof of DLC influence

is that they disagree with bandera. Therefore, they must be a part of the PNAC/DLC/BFEE coalition

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Walks like a duck, looks like a duck, smells like a duck....

Just because they agree with sanghO/sangha they must be above reproach no matter how stupid their remarks about "cockroaches".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Pardon me, but this sounds an awful lot like the usual DLC crap.

But, you could be right.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

49. Also, even if the original poster is sincere...

not every Dem who opposes Nader is DLC. I oppose Nader and I am about as far left as you can get.

[Forkboy]

52. "as far left as you can get."

If we're still Dems that doesn't wash :)

[chimpy the poopthrower]

75. Why not?

Are you saying that I can't be a Democrat and be "far left"?

[Forkboy]

78. No

I'm saying you can't be a Democrat and be "as far left as you can get".

[chimpy the poopthrower]

87. Why not? (nt)

[Forkboy]

90. Do you think the Dems are the farthest left you can get?

What about the Socialists,Communists,Greens,etc etc?

Look,I'm not trying to insult you or anything.It's just reality that the Dems are not the furthest left one can get. :shrug:

[chimpy the poopthrower]

96. You seem to have a very narrow view of political parties.

A political party cannot be reduced the way you are trying to do. I stand by what I said. I am a registered Democrat who has always voted for the Democratic candidate. And I consider myself very far to the left -- about as far as you can get on most issues. Changing my party registration would not change my political idealogy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Far left? Please explain.

If you are as "far left" as you say, then why would you oppose Nader? I consider myself pretty far left (socialist) but I still believe in democracy.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

56. So do I...

...believe in democracy? Why are you implying that I don't? Nader has the right to run, if he stays within the law, just like Bush does. But I won't be voting for either of them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. Neither will I. But why do you "oppose him".

As a leftist, I find his policies a lot more in line with mine than Kerry's pro-war, pro-globalization, tepid, liberalism.

The only reason I'm voting for (and, I use the "for" advisedly) is that the "moderate" apologists are somewhat right. In that Dumbya is really the greater evil. It is only the very real threat of him controlling the office and doing even greater damage than Kerry is likely to do that I'll be holding my nose again and voting for an ambitious politician with few ethics.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

92. If you are voting for Kerry...

...then you also "oppose" Nader. You can only support one candidate in the end. Nader and Bush are both the opposition to Kerry. I'm voting for Kerry because I see that as the best means to achieving the ends I want (i.e. what I want for this country and for the world). You are apparently doing the same thing, so I don't see why I need to justify myself to you.

[jobycom]

66. I'd prefer the DLC tro Nader-- more leftist, more integrity

And of course Nader didn't vote for the invasion. He only voted for Bush, who spearheaded the invasion.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. Nader voted for Bush? Did he tell you that?

Perhaps you can tell me who I voted for while gazing through your magic x-ray glasses.

Or, are you buying into the DLC mythology that Nader voters cost Gore the election when he moved right and ignored the left?

Could it possibly be that Gore LOST their votes because he was pandering to the rightwing of the party?

[Aidoneus]

80. actually, even the DLC doesn't blame Nader

I don't recall the link, and don't care to look, but I believe the NDOL's view of it was not that it was Nader's fault at all--and they go into length at why--, but that Gore wasn't Republican enough.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. Here's the link.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919

Al From's plea for a more Republican Democratic candidate.

[Forkboy]

29. This kind of ignorance and hate is why Kerry will get my last Dem vote

ever.

[Dhalgren]

33. My feelings exactly FB.

[Dhalgren]

30. Lining up likely suspects

for who to blame when Kerry loses in November?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Yep. The usual boo-hooing from the "middle".

[Terran]

38. Another histrionic generalization

from Mr. "all Republicans are racist" Jabbery.

Edit: :eyes: (how could I forget that??)

[hiphopnation]

65. Indeed

He hasn't offered much in the way of substantive...umm...anything. Nothing but slander and attack. Some strategy. Not sure he/she's the kind I want on "my" team.

BTW, love your sig line! One of the best sci-fi movies of ALL TIME!

[Terran]

115. Thanks hhn23

It's my fave movie of all time, basically.

[Zorra]

45. Why do you say that Peter Camejo is a "loser joke"?

What has he done or said to make you think of him this way?

I'm a Kerry supporter that is very disappointed in Nader, because his running for President at this time may, IMO, be directly responsible for another four years of Bu$h. Nader is aware enough to know that another four years of Bu$h will destroy America.

Camejo has always seemed to be a good guy, with a very Democrat-like platform on issues.

I'll admit, it is also disappointing that Camejo would join the Nader ticket, because Nader has reportedly received considerable funding from republicans with questionable intentions. Personally, if I were running for office, I would not accept republican funding because of ethical considerations.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

55. So you really dont know anything about Camejo?

BTW,your other smear post is missing.Care to repost with any facts,or is that too leftist an idea for you?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

62. Ah,I see

So people asking for facts are "Crank Loser Loony Leftist Underground" members.

So what does that make people like yourself who dont need facts? Republicans?

[Terran]

114. I'm beginning to think you're right, Forkboy

He's trying awfully hard to establish left-wing credentials, isn't he, all the while ignoring reality. Remember the "All Republicans are racist" thread?

[Forkboy]

117. I remember it

:)

[Forkboy]

85. Still hunting for facts Jabbery?

It would be a nice change.

[Dhalgren]

70. Didn't Kerry enable Bush's war?

Is that what you're talking about?

[sangh0]

76. NO

.

[Aidoneus]

84. On what grounds do you say this so emphatically?

Plainly, it is a war he supports and an occupation he plans on maintaining.. what is there that is unclear?

[sangh0]

88. reality

You should familiarize yourself with it someday

[Aidoneus]

91. How cute

Baseless and silly, but cute. Do you actually have a point to expand on here, or just planning on thrashing around blindly?

[sangh0]

93. "Baseless and silly"

The best kind of answer for a baseless and silly question

[Aidoneus]

94. So you'll stick with thrashing around blindly..

If that's the best that can be gathered up, good luck in November.. you'll need it.

[sangh0]

116. If it works for you

I see no reason why I should abstain

[Jay Bradfield]

61. Hey you Democrats: WTF have you done for us lately?

This anti-Naderism just makes me want to avoid joining the Democratic party.

Frankly, the Democrats have been declining in power for three decades now.

What have the Democrats done recently other than whine and complain about Republicans.

Nothing.

Now, I think the Green party is a silly idea, but as I can see from this post, apparently the Democrats still don't want their party to be the party of the Left.

So be it. Even if Kerry wins, the Dems will continue to lose ground until the progressives take over the party just like the radical conservatives took over the GOP.

[PittPoliSci]

68. just how exactly are the progressives going to take over?

Especially when they're all out chasing some silly dream of a viable third party?

[Jay Bradfield]

124. forget about the third party

They are not going to take over by pursuing a third party. I am planning to vote for Nader just because I doubt Kerry has a backbone.

Progressives will take over the same way radical conservatives took over.

[sangh0]

69. Motor Voter Law, Assault Weapons Ban

higher taxes on the rich, EITC, the longest expansion of the economy in peacetime, higher rates of home ownership, higher employment, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower poverty rates, lower rates of substabce abuse, Clean Air Act, Civil Rights Act, abortion rights, American with Disabilities Act, Family Leave Act, increased funding for EEOC, support for the UN, etc

Nah, that's nothing

[jobycom]

71. Then go!

Nader supporters are just Bush supporters, anyway. I'd rather win without them.

As for what Democrats have done-- as much as we could, considering we are out of power. The question is, what has Nader or the Greens done for us lately?

[Jabbery]

74. The Nazis are gaining power, so I'll quit the other parties

Yeah, you're right. Princples are outdated concepts. Hell, since the Nazis are on the rise, I'll just quit the other parties. If the Communists start gaining power, I'll just follow them.

What a guru!

[ShaneGR]

119. LOL, not much... because you helped put Repugs in office!

Kind of hard to do anything when you're not in power. Why don't you start asking the Repugs what they've done for, or to, you.

[Delano]

67. Hehe...

Love your post.

Just got through saying pretty much the same thing over on the Yahoo boards.

Does anyone think Nader has a chance to win even in the last remaining hippie communes? Not likely.

[ArkDem]

79. I was hoping he'd chose an anarco-syndicalist.

[hiphopnation]

86. LOL!!

We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more majority.

[ArkDem]

109. Exactly!

[Rex]

89. Actually both see reality for what it is.

Problem is they will never solve America's many faults by taking away votes from Democrats. Yea...it's a shitty system, but that's the way it is for now.

[jpgray]

97. Neither Camejo nor Nader are 'loser jokes'

We can disagree with Nader's candidacy, I hope, without being rude and insulting. :(

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

107. Glad someone said it first.

How is this thread not deleted or locked?
Nice progressive board we have here.


TWL

[oasis]

106. Comejo is in a position to talk some sense into Ralph before election day.

Camejo is a rising political star. He won't make the mistake of being marooned on Nader Island.

[messiah]

108. Lol

Camejo is worse than Nader for democrats.

[Deja Q]

118. Give us some real info or move this trash to the Lounge please

Thank you.

(Nader's an unfunny joke, and it seems to be contagious.)

[Moderator]

123. Locking.

This has degenerated into a flame fest.

---DU Moderator