Printable View
I'll grant you Ralph Nader has done a lot of good as a tireless advocate for consumer safety and ordinary people. He also has a big ego that totally backfired when he ran for President in 2000 and essentially siphoned just enough votes away from Al Gore to hand George Bush the Presidency, with some help from the Supremes. I can never forgive him for that. And, as they say, the rest is history.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by snoop4truth:
I politely want to invite you to look at that old story with some facts presented here in this video. This short video outlines the numbers, and I wonder if you had this info on who voted for who you might stop blaming Nader.
He is an amazingly intelligent guy but he is also a human and not perfect, but he did not steal the election. I worked on Nader's campaign and it was important to me understand this. I hope you will check it out.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
I figured I'd take some guff on this one.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by laughingrobin:
I watched about half the video but got turned off by the simpering attitude of the little wanker spin doctor narrating. What I did see was Bush "won" Florida by 21,000 votes and Nader got 95,000 votes. Spin it any way you like but I don't believe Bush wins if Nader wasn't on the ballot. If Gore wins there's no Iraq war, climate change gets addressed 20 years ago, and we don't get Trump.
Thanks for nothing, Ralph. Why he ran in the first place is beyond me.
A great way to discourage any worthy candidate and allow the rigged system to continue.
Take all money out of politics - voting isn't the answer (they own that anyway).
Nader's activism has been directly credited with the passage of several landmark pieces of American consumer protection legislation including the Clean Water Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.[citation needed] He has been repeatedly named to lists of the "100 Most Influential Americans", including those published by Life, Time, and The Atlantic.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
and as the years go by I'm more and more amazed by how much it changed. I tended to not buy the 'great man' theory of history. But just imagine Al Gore's response to 9/11. Even Iran offered sympathy - Gore would have used that as a way to de-escalate the conflicts in the middle east. No Cheney, no wars on the scale of what he and Rumsfeld and Bolton got us into. Less (probably) corporate dominance over the workers, less imbalanced taxation, more concern for the environment, possibly no Obama, though. A totally different world. And no, not Nader's "fault" but without his campaign, it woulda been Gore. Oh yeah, a slightly different Supreme Court!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
So you missed the facts instead of listening on and hearing how many dems voted republican, and other critical info. Stats can be spun but if you ignore the numbers your attitude is just spin too. Gore was not a strong candidate, unfortunately. Also I think the more right supreme court actually chose the president so either way, Gore lost, But saying that someone is a spoiler, does not address the broken two party system that gives us only 2 choices, we will always be settling for less. When we as a nation get sick of the stupid 2 party system we might be able to stop blaming and really start choosing from a variety instead of one pompous ass over another.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
I've heard Nader speak a few times and he definitely has a large, healthy ego. Add to that, the pressure from the left for him to run and --ta-da!--you have a candidate.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
Does anyone here really want a "Bush v Gore v Nader Redux"?
Are you really sure about that?... ...OK, Here we go...
Oops!! I somehow erased what I spent almost an hour to write, so I will post some links with less to say at the moment....
...Anyway, Re:
I will never forget Al Gore's lack of fight to have all the votes recounted instead of a small percentage.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
Not Nader's fault. some here and elsewhere seem to still be a bit bitter about that. Oh well it's your choice. Too bad those of you who still blame Ralph Nader because you have apparently either missed out on relevant data or have, for whatever reason, ignored allot of other important factors that lead to the 2000 election results in Florida which became the deciding factors.... ...More on that, but first...
...Also, Re:
That is not correct; at least...Quote:
"What I did see was Bush "won" Florida by 21,000 votes and Nader got 95,000 votes. ..."
...acording to FEC
https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
Final official vote count for 2000 election in Florida
Bush 2,912,790
Gore 2,912,253
...Therefore doing simple arithmetic, Bush won by a measly 537 votes, not 21,000.
The simplified version of blame-gaming and pointing finger at Ralph Nader and his supporters may show the underbelly emotional aspects of some democrats, but does not have the proof in raw data to make reasonable claim to being the primary reason why Al Gore lost the 2000 election to George W. Bush.
The Nader vote count in Florida does not represent the complex details of the multitude of underlying reasons behind the final conclusion, which was in Florida, where there were 8 parties and however many write-ins.
There are 'inconvenient' truths, (yes pun intended), about that election that democrat party as a whole would be best to not poo-poo and ignore... ...again.... ...particularly now in 2020.
There are many progressive-minded people who are not 'radicals' as so many label us as, who are closer to what middle-of-the-road actually is than what the monied media portrays all so much.
I read and hear so much misinformation in the popular media and also people parroting a viewpoint that 'the left-wing media', (so-called), is so 'extremely' slanted to the left etc, etc, etc. ad nauseam. such BS!
The blaming of Ralph Nader is incorrect and, IMO, is a pathetic excuse that offers the democrat party more reason to lean even further away from common folks and favor the most well-off rich as being the ones to be chosen to prosper and lead America whilst the majority of the rest of us continue to go under, which, BTW, IMO, is going in a direction of heading straight off a cliff!
Of course, somehow it is convenient for some to gripe about 2000 election, continue preaching a false narrative and blame Ralph Nader for Americas disastrous national policies that emerged from congress and POTUS simply because Al gore did not win the 2000 election.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton had about 3,000,000 more popular votes than Donald Trump. Who is the democrats blaming for that?... ...Bernie Sanders?!:hmmm: ... ...after reading some posts here on waccobb, over the years and recently, I wouldn't be too terribly surprised.:(:
Article by Irene Dieter, CAGP titled "Dispelling the Myth of Election 2000: Did Nader Cost Gore the Election?"
http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
If you haven't had enough on this and also my viewpoint about the 2000 election and Ralph Nader's involvement in it, there is at least one thread I can remember that already exists. It has 35 posts! Check it out if you are interested.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...ht=Ralph+Nader
and more specifically my take at the time, #32 in that thread