--

Who's ultimately responsible for President W?

The Gang of 5 will have a lot to answer for when they face the Heavenly Court.

Nader, for sure. Gore, for running a lousy campaign and for picking Lieberman.

But the ultimate responsibility for the catastrophe that is President GWB lies with his father, President GHWB. The guy knew better than anybody what a putz his son was and is, and still, put him up to become Governor of Texas, and then the Decider.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 22nd, 2007 9:12pm
The voters.
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
July 22nd, 2007 9:50pm
AIPAC supporting fucktards like you.
Permalink Dan Denman 
July 22nd, 2007 10:32pm
I would start with President W.
Permalink son of parnas 
July 22nd, 2007 10:58pm
George Bush Sr. was just the practice run.
Permalink Send private email Impractical Economist 
July 23rd, 2007 12:34am
I've never voted for a Republican.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 23rd, 2007 7:02am
the Supreme Court that decided Bush v Gore.
Permalink the great purple 
July 23rd, 2007 8:18am
Whoever told Monica Lewinsky she should go to Washington.
Permalink strawdog soubriquet 
July 23rd, 2007 8:22am
Americans are responsible. You voted for him. AGAIN.

Someone should shoot him.
Permalink Bluebeard 
July 23rd, 2007 8:26am
Now, now, Bluebeard, no shooting.

In fact, the argument can be made that the assassination of the Kennedy brothers begat Viet Nam, begat Johnson, who begat Nixon, who begat Ford and Carter, who begat Reagan.

And it was in the Reagan administration that these looney tunes -- Cheney at the top -- began to get power,  The Bush-I administration didn't help.

The Clinton administration was a fluke, he only won because Ross Perot, the 'third party candidate' sucked away enough conservative votes.

So in Bush-II these looney tunes finally got enough power and position to implement their looney-tune policies they'd been sitting on every since Reagan.  So, if you connect the dots that way, it was the assassination of Kennedy that got us Iraq.

So, NO ASSASSINATIONS!  They tend to make any situation worse, not better.

I think the case that the Supreme Court got us Bush-II is a much better case, though.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 23rd, 2007 8:39am
I blame humanity.  We're a stupid species.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 23rd, 2007 8:48am
I would have thought Viet-Nam would have taught America the enormous danger of this kind of military adventurism.  Now we have Iraq as yet another example lesson of how things can turn out badly.

The point being, it's sad that America enabled such a bunch of neo-cons to misbehave in these ways.  It's even sadder that in 2004 they re-enabled it. 

But the saying still goes -- "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice -- well, you can't fool me again."
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 23rd, 2007 8:58am
>Nader, for sure.

You're contradicting yourself. You said yourself earlier that "it couldn't be known" whether Nader voters would have voted for Gore if he wasn't there.

So your confidence about this is based upon something you admitted that you had no idea about. Well argued.

I'm confident that they wouldn't have. You just have to ask them. Would they have voted for Gore had Nader not been running? No.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 23rd, 2007 9:27am
No, you misunderstood. I still believe that most Nader voters would have picked Gore rather than abstained or picked Bush, it's just not a provable conjecture; plus, Nader promoted the canard that there's no difference between the parties. However imperfect the D's were and are, they are light years better than the R's. That was obvious then, and is obvious now.

Political suicide bomber.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 23rd, 2007 10:54am
Had Gore grabbed but 50.5% of the Florida Nader voters compared to Bush's 49.5% of them (even after assuming that half of the Nader voters in Florida didn't bother going to the polls at all), Gore would have won Florida.

The way it was? Who knows. It was a statistical dead heat. The Supreme Court should have just tossed a coin.
Permalink strawdog soubriquet 
July 23rd, 2007 11:16am
What makes you think they didn't?
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 23rd, 2007 11:17am
>I still believe that most Nader voters would have picked
>Gore rather than abstained or picked Bush, it's just not a
>provable conjecture

That isn't provable, you're right - it is disprovable however. Every Nader voter I've spoken to has said the same thing: there is no significant difference between the parties.

Again, you HAVE contradicted yourself since you said that he was at fault "for sure" and simultaneously stated that this was because "you believe without any evidence that they'd have picked Gore".

Either that or you're a Christian.

>Nader promoted the canard that there's no difference
>between the parties.

Exactly, and the people who voted for him are the ones who BELIEVED that. So why would they have voted for a Democrat?

>However imperfect the D's were and are, they are light
>years better than the R's. That was obvious then, and is
>obvious now.

That wasn't obvious then.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 23rd, 2007 11:19am
>What makes you think they didn't?

Because every supreme court judge voted along partisan lines.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 23rd, 2007 11:20am
>That isn't provable, you're right - it is disprovable however. Every Nader voter I've spoken to has said the same thing: there is no significant difference between the parties.

How many have you spoken with? And where are you located, I believe it is the UK? Total representative sample.

>Again, you HAVE contradicted yourself since you said that he was at fault "for sure" and simultaneously stated that this was because "you believe without any evidence that they'd have picked Gore".

Nader set out to deny the Presidency to the D's. That was obvious in his reaction to the fact that his vote could have given the election to Gore. Smiled broadly.

He caused Gore to spend time and money answering the pathetic minority of spoiled brat leftists that could have been directed at the much more conservative center. There was a clear and present danger to the Republic, and these suckers threw their votes away.

>Either that or you're a Christian.

Huh?

>Nader promoted the canard that there's no difference
>between the parties.

>Exactly, and the people who voted for him are the ones who BELIEVED that. So why would they have voted for a Democrat?

Because that's what people do in this country, they suck it up and vote for the least bad.

>>However imperfect the D's were and are, they are light
>>years better than the R's. That was obvious then, and is
>>obvious now.

>That wasn't obvious then.

It was to all who cared about our country and the world.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 23rd, 2007 11:37am
As to the OP, I'm going to go with 'the lizard people'.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 23rd, 2007 11:51am
>How many have you spoken with? And where are you located, I
>believe it is the UK? Total representative sample.

Thanks to the power of a tool called "the Internet" I can go on to Ralph Nader message boards and discuss this with 20 to 30 voters at a time, just as I can discuss it with you no matter where I am located, which is in the UK, yes.

Now isn't that brilliant?

Oh, and my gf used to work for Winona LaDuke (who is apparently an utter bitch), but yes I am located in London.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 23rd, 2007 12:09pm
>Nader set out to deny the Presidency to the D's. That was
>obvious in his reaction to the fact that his vote could
>have given the election to Gore. Smiled broadly.

Your evidence that Nader set out to deny the presidency to the Democrats is that he SMILED?

Hitherto I had only imagined that such depths of stupidity were achievable.

>He caused Gore to spend time and money answering the
>pathetic minority of spoiled brat leftists that could have
>been directed at the much more conservative center. There
>was a clear and present danger to the Republic, and these
>suckers threw their votes away.

If you're going to blame anybody, you'd do better blaming the Republican voters.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 23rd, 2007 12:23pm
Nader voters who say they might have voted for Bush are kinda like Bush still believing there's WMD in Iraq. Denial's a long ass river.
Permalink strawdog soubriquet 
July 23rd, 2007 12:27pm
>Nader voters who say they might have voted for Bush

They'd have abstained.

Face it: if they wanted to vote for Gore, they would have voted for Gore. None of them were under the impression that Nader would have won.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 23rd, 2007 12:42pm
The internet's a representative sample--fine. You believe that.

Imagine if these wankers ever got real power. Oy. And the Left wonders why it's always on the outside looking in.

Nader's big crusade before he decided to destroy the US was to hold fast on the 55MPH speed limit. What a man of the people.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 23rd, 2007 1:04pm
If 50% of Nader voters in Florida abstained, Gore just needed a 50.5/49.5 margin in Florida to win.

If 75% abstained, he needed a 51/49 margin.

If 87.5% abstained, he needed 52/48 margin.

In fact even with a 60/40 split, he just needed for 2.5% of all Nader voters in Florida to vote.

I doubt that that many politically minded voters were going to stay home (one had to be to support Nader, even to know what he stood for).

The numbers don't work out.

The Nader vote was mostly a protest vote against the Democrats. In the summer of 2000, that's what it was. The Nader voters were pretty sure Gore was going to win and took the opportunity, but then they got caught up. Of course they can't say *today* the would have voted for Gore, because folks like LWP will jump all over them. (SoP has a bunch of psych articles about cognitive dissonance.) Really, that was the way people talked in the summer of 2000, when in the glow of the roaring 90's a Dem win was reasonably assured (as was victory in Iraq for the Reps 3 years later).

I disagree with LWP that the election can be blamed on Nader. though.  He wanted to push the political discussion to the left (by saying the Dems and Reps were to the right of him). Good for him. Anyone should be able to run for president and if they are criticized they should be criticized for their ideas, values, character, etc not what effect they had on some other candidates campaign.

2000 was for the Dems to lose, they were to head-strong and lost it.
Permalink strawdog soubriquet 
July 23rd, 2007 2:21pm
"Nader's big crusade before he decided to destroy the US was to hold fast on the 55MPH speed limit. What a man of the people."

LWP:

Nader's done a lot of good work to improve safety on those steaming piles of shit you Americans call cars. He's responsible for making US auto manufacturers develop basic safety features like collapsing steering columns and so on. All this happened in the sixties.

He's also the reason your wino dad didn't manage to kill himself in his Ford Fairlane all those years ago, so he is in fact indirectly responsible for your very presence.

So there.
Permalink Bluebeard 
July 23rd, 2007 2:46pm
Yeah, Nader did some good things in the 60's, he's been riding that ever since. BTW, I had a Vega in high school, I haven't given any money to the US car manufacturers since. Fuck 'em, where were they when that piece of crap left me everywhere.

As an adult, I just buy Japanese.

And yes, there's plenty of blame to go around for 2000. At the end of the day, Gore made plenty of mistakes, for sure.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 23rd, 2007 5:25pm
You ignore the reptiliansssess at your peril.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 23rd, 2007 5:35pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics