Monica Lewinsky caused the Syrian civil war, if you think about it, long enough...
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I'd bomb some cnuts for her. She was well fit and still is.
It doesn't make him responsible and that wasn't my previous point. The votes he took from Gore did however change the results of the Presidency, and by logical extension, the following 8 years of Republican policy which led to a number of calamitous events.
errr what? Bernie supports my views or at least he is close to it. So of course I want him to be President.
I am voting the candidate, not the party. simple.
she was flabber then. looks fit now tbf.
Which states did he lose because of Nader?
Most of which I wouldn't pick you up on. 9/11 is jumping the shark rather though.
Yeah she was chunky but funky.
I wasn't exaggerating in the least. I was in government at the time.
give her a Cigar!!!!!
What were you doing, or is that a bit personal? This is far more interesting than Ralph Nader.
Raoul. The blame lies entirely in the faulty system.
The two party system ? Well we can may have found something to agree on here.
feck that, the blame lies with the lazy electorate.
In a Florida governed by Jeb Bush. Talk about Banana Republic elections!
This is the right answer.
Arcane ballot design rendered 175000 votes voided, 20000 voters incorrectly get their voting rights revoked due to close-sounding name with felons etc... swung the election.
SCOTUS didn't give W the presidency
Ralph Nader mightnt give W the presidency
John Ellis Bush definitely did.
This thread is already a horible read anyway but this is the icing on the cake.So instead of of focussing on the millions of idiots that voted for Bush, a horrible election system or the executive itself you blame a single guy because he decided to run for president.
So instead of of focussing on the millions of idiots that voted for Bush, a horrible election system or the executive itself you blame a single guy because he decided to run for president.
Indeed, a ridiculous post.
Show me instances where his policies have not been consistent with the Democratic party. And please don´t use instances such as the Iraq war vote. Something like 40% of Dems voted against it, including Obama.
He is a liberal democrat, always has been, always will be. It has also now become apparent that he is the face of about half the democratic party as well. You can´t keeping banging on about apparatus. That doesn´t make you an official "Democrat."
You´ve got it backwards. He´s always been practically as Democratic as you can be. The "independent" was label only, not "Democrat." Hence running a fantastic campaign as a Democratic candidate for the Democratic party. Is that so hard to understand?
voter suppression is the norm. but to blame Nader is ridiculous.
SCOTUS should not have stopped the vote count.
The biggest blame for the the loss is Gore being a horrible candidate and and even worse campaign.
His domestic policies follow from FDR and LBJ (and even Eisenhower and Nixon!).
It's his foreign policies that I think are new. I don't see any other prominent Dem politicians talking about past US misadventures like he talks about Pinochet, Mossadegh, etc.
Didn't Obama need super delegates to give him the edge?
So instead of of focussing on the millions of idiots that voted for Bush, a horrible election system or the executive itself you blame a single guy because he decided to run for president.
Those millions are to blame as well, but to absolve Nader for his half thought out attempt at breaking up the two party duopoly is a mistake. Actions have consequences and he knew exactly what he was doing.
New Hampshire and Florida, either of which on their own would've been enough to win overall. Also came close to turning Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Minnesota red.
Yes, though Hillary ended up directing her delegates to vote for Obama.
The rot of a 2-party FPTP system is an interesting topic (ask any Indian) but I don't think this thread is the place for it.
He knew it could take away some voters from the Dems, yes. Doesn't make it wrong tho what he did or is a reason why he should be blamed. If I'm crossing a street on a green light I know I might get hit by a car. Is it wrong that I cross the street? Of course not and I'm also not to blame if I actually get hit by a car - the driver is.
Not sure that analogy works from any angle you look at it.
It's quite simple. He set out to challenge the two party system and wound up initiating a construct that made the country and world considerably worse off. It was all about him and his quest for change, with no consideration for the unfortunate knock on effects that a Bush Presidency would entail.
power is too concentrated in a two party system. It needs to be diluted.
A third..or even a fourth party can only be good for all.
A third..or even a fourth party can only be good for all.
You either believe in your principles or you don't. Nader is cool.
indeed. so is Bernie. I hope he fights on to the convention.
Nader didn't accomplish any of that and gifted us Dick Cheney instead.
Which gifted us Obama and the possible death of the old republican party. Much better than four years of Gore.
Got him a place in the history books though, job done. Notice that he never put the effort in to become an actual legislator, either, where he could actually advocate real reform. Even bloody Michael Moore admits Nader was a bad idea.
Remember, back in the 80s when Reagan was arming the Contras and mining their harbours; well, this had to be done behind congress´backs (typical Patriotic Republican politics) because the Democratic controlled congress had prohibited this kind of adventurism, the same way Kissinger and Nixon had to sneak behind a Democratic controlled congress to illegally bomb the feck out of neutral Cambodia and Laos (how this was not a war crime is an absolute joke) . . . so as you can see, Democrats since long ago have been against this kind of misadventuring. Also Nixon and Kissinger had to classify everything, and it´s only come out recently, about their involvement with Pinochet and the whole operation Condor, precisely for the same reason of Democratic opposition.
Carter was also heavily into "human rights" in his foreign policy, which would be right in line with Sanders and so many democrats, as opposed to the underhanded policies of Kissinger et al.
Bernie has been along that same line, and is now. To be honest, I was quite shocked to hear sHillary praising Kissinger. As a life long Democrat (registered in 1980) I was sickened to hear her support of Kissinger. I´d say a big percentage of democrats think Kissinger should be up for war crimes. If you noticed, no one batted an eye when Sanders said Kissinger was no friend of his and it did nothing to hurt his support. On the contrary.
If anything the hawkish Clinton in foreign policy is a newish sort of Democrat. And I think it´s her worst part and very controversial and up to criticism, especially concerning her Iraq war support and handling of the recent middle east crisis as sec of state.
I just don't think Hillary has the grand world view that past presidents have had. I don't think she's that bothered about anything beyond the status quo.
She has only one goal. To be president. She has no vision for the country.
- Status