brewster wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

Rorschach wrote:
A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump. It is Nader revisited. And look what that resulted in, 8 years of Dubya.

Nader didn't get Bush elected. Stop being a petulant baby.

What powers of denial!! Holy Shit! Yes dear, had Florida Nader voters punched their chads for Gore and Bush, Gore would have won. This is a fact. Nader brought us GWB and the Iraq war. No Iraq War, no ISIS. Stuff that in your petulant pipe.

Quote:

The official Florida tally gave Bush the win by 537 votes (48.847 percent to 48.838 percent), while Nader racked up 97,488 votes. The national exit poll asked respondents how they would vote in a two-person race between Bush and Gore. Political scientist Gerald Pomper summed up the results in a 2001 Political Science Quarterly overview: ?approximately half (47 percent) of the Nader voters said they would choose Gore in a two-man race, a fifth (21 percent) would choose Bush, and a third (32 percent) would not vote. Applying these figures to the actual vote, Gore would have achieved a net gain of 26,000 votes in Florida, far more than needed to carry the state easily.?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/arti ... ouldnt_forget_130715.html

Rorschach wrote:
A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump. It is Nader revisited. And look what that resulted in, 8 years of Dubya.

JCMan8 wrote:
If you vote for Jill Stein you are indirectly supporting the criminal, Hillary Clinton.
Help show society that no one is above the law and vote for Trump to bring her to justice.

SOS wrote:
A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. People won't vote for Stein or Johnson because Trump is one scary MFer...

fat-ass-bike wrote:

Rorschach wrote:
A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump. It is Nader revisited. And look what that resulted in, 8 years of Dubya.

JCMan8 wrote:
If you vote for Jill Stein you are indirectly supporting the criminal, Hillary Clinton.
Help show society that no one is above the law and vote for Trump to bring her to justice.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Or if fewer people have voted for Bush in Florida, Gore would have won. Or if Gore had convinced more people to vote for him in Florida, Gore would have won. Or if the recount process hadn't been stopped by Bush's brother, Gore would have won. Or if a giant dinosaur had stomped through the panhandle and destroyed voting centers, Gore would have won.

The problem is that you think Gore was somehow entitled to Nader's votes, and that it's their fault for nsot voting for Gore. If Gore and the DNC couldn't convince people to vote for them over Bush then that's their own damn fault and nobody else's.

Instead of owning up to their mistakes, the DNC went into 2008 thinking "That jerk Nader isn't around to ruin it for us this time. It's in the bag!" and completely blew it again.

This is revisionist and even bizarre, and btw a Democrat won in 2008. What happened then and what's happening now in the 3rd party camps is people saying "both the parties exactly are the same corrupt bastards, it makes no difference who gets elected so I might as well vote for Nader (or whoever)" The fallacy is THEY'RE NOT THE SAME!!! However flawed Clinton is she's not Trump, and she represents a party that will be more left than the GOP. Full on Bernie left? No, sorry. But more liberal than the GOP.

And SCOTUS is what will send 3rd party liberal voters to hell. Even Obama's current court nominee is far better than any GOP one, and a Clinton nominee will be guaranteed to be left of him. Do as I do and ease your conscience by being a single issue voter, in a general election I elect a SCOTUS nominator. Period. I find primaries much harder.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
because hey, why have an intelligent political discussion when you can just post memes all day?

That's funny ... and you consider the crap coming from Trump and lies from Hillary as "intelligent political discussion"!

Do I? Based on what exactly?

Sorry to inform you whoelsecouldibe, but you're not a political party advocate, policy maker, running for office, paid representative, professional journalist or Trump's / Hillary's campaign official - basically you're just a vocal sideline cheerleader.

I would much rather discuss politics with a rational swinging voter, not a person who blindly follows (like a sheep) one specific party for life as one does a football team.




I'm also convinced that any person with a law degree or has a team of lawyers around them are master's of deception and lying, thus the wrong credentials to manage a nation for the people ... Both Hillary and Trump are fully aware that they can talk crap about what they will and will not do if elected and BOTH have a history of talking siht ... Both are fully aware that they are only accountable of what they say in a formal legal environment (eg. Courtrooms)

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
because hey, why have an intelligent political discussion when you can just post memes all day?

That's funny ... and you consider the crap coming from Trump and lies from Hillary as "intelligent political discussion"!

Do I? Based on what exactly?

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
because hey, why have an intelligent political discussion when you can just post memes all day?

That's funny ... and you consider the crap coming from Trump and lies from Hillary as "intelligent political discussion"!