patrick.net

Homeboy says

Thanks for giving us 8 years of Bush/Cheney, Ralph.

Ugh, another partisan falsehood from Homeboy. The Supreme Court, Kathryn Harris, and more than 40 million voters gave us four years of Bush/Cheney, then an even larger number of American voters gave us four more. But, Homeboy and his fellow partisans blame (of all people) Ralph Nader, because their goal is to pick stupid fights and enforce party discipline as if a voluntary political party could be run like a gang.

curious2 says

The Supreme Court, Kathryn Harris, and more than 40 million voters gave us four years of Bush/Cheney, then an even larger number of American voters gave us four more.

True, but were it not for Nader's campaign, Bush would not have won, and therefore could not have been re-elected.

Homeboy says

were it not for Nader's campaign, Bush would not have won

In 2000, Al Gore got more votes both nationally and in Florida. Yet somehow you blame Ralph Nader. It doesn't make any sense.

A better question to answer for the reasonable people on the left/right spectrum would be:

Under a two-party system that's completely sold out and doesn't work for the American public: what would be different if either party wins?

Homeboy says

Thanks for giving us 8 years of Bush/Cheney, Ralph.

how many demos voted bush again?

that homeboy sounds like a demented old couch potato.

"Under a two-party system that's completely sold out and doesn't work for the American public: what would be different if either party wins?"

This is the crucial point. Although its important to point out that the 2 party puppet show is really very sophisticated with built in real social issue differences.

It is these differences that we supposed to focus on, gay rights, women's rights (abortion), health care, various things that have a big impact on different segments of the population.

Meanwhile the power structure which screws every single average citizen remains intact and unchanged regardless of which party wins elections.

curious2 says

In 2000, Al Gore got more votes both nationally and in Florida.

And did he become president?

Yet somehow you blame Ralph Nader. It doesn't make any sense.

Of course it makes sense. I know you're just feigning ignorance, but nevertheless I will explain to you what you already know. Most of the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not been running. If that had occurred, Gore would have had a clear majority in both the popular vote and in the electoral college. The race would not have been as close as it was, there would have been no controversy, and Gore would have become president.

But you're gonna pretend like you never heard that before, eh? I can see why the guys in that other thread said they have you on ignore and don't even bother arguing with you anymore.

coriacci1 says

that homeboy sounds like a demented old couch potato

Says the person who spends all his time watching conspiracy videos on 911truth.org.

You couldn't make this stuff up, folks. :D

uomo_senza_nome says

Under a two-party system that's completely sold out and doesn't work for the American public: what would be different if either party wins?

Normally I would agree with you, but George W. Bush was the absolute worst president we have ever had, and did irreparable damage to the country. I'm not sure if we will ever recover from it. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that things would have been different if Gore had won.

pazuzu says

Meanwhile the power structure which screws every single average citizen remains intact and unchanged regardless of which party wins elections.

And you think Nader would have fixed that?

curious2 says

Homeboy says

were it not for Nader's campaign, Bush would not have won

In 2000, Al Gore got more votes both nationally and in Florida. Yet somehow you blame Ralph Nader. It doesn't make any sense.

True, Al Gore won the election. But it was just close enough that Bush was able to steal it. Like it or not, Nader is a spoiler for democrats. The solution is to use instance runoff elections for the presidency.

coriacci1 says

Homeboy says

Thanks for giving us 8 years of Bush/Cheney, Ralph.

how many demos voted bush again?

Quite a lot in my county, Palm Beach, FL. The butterfly ballot made Holocaust survivors vote for Hitler fan-boy number 1 Pat Buchanan. That, in effect, was a vote for Bush. There were a lot of pissed off old Jews in my area after that.

I disagree with Nadar on the use of the word spoiler. It's a Game Theory term, not an intentional disparagement. However, I agree with everything else Nadar said, especially about Obama taking the power to kill U.S. citizens without trials and his use of drones.

Still, Nadar sounds like an angry old man in the video. It reminded me of Clint Eastwood at the RNC.

Homeboy says

Most of the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not been running.

You have no way of knowing how other people would have voted, or even if they would have voted at all. Besides, Gore's problem wasn't having fewer votes than W, because Gore had more votes than W. Run along to a Republican gathering and complain about Buchanan siphoning votes away from W, and Jimmy McMillan taking votes from Romney.

Homeboy says

But you're gonna pretend like you never heard that before, eh? I can see why the guys in that other thread said they have you on ignore and don't even bother arguing with you anymore.

Again with your silly personal attacks. I'm not going to pretend I never heard your partisan falsehood before, to the contrary all your partisan talking points are tediously familiar, but your repeating them doesn't make them true. Two PatNet users "Ignore" me, although one of them uses a separate browser to follow me and reply to my comments. Feel free to "Ignore" me. Your "arguments" full of pointless ad hominem attacks are a waste of time. The ad hominem stuff makes you sound very small and weak, trying to tease someone and run away, going out of your way to make enemies and alienate people. That's why I asked you if you're working for the Romney campaign, because you seem to be trying to alienate people from the Democratic Party.

curious2 says

You have no way of knowing how other people would have voted, or even if they would have voted at all. Besides, Gore's problem wasn't having fewer votes than W, because Gore had more votes than W.

Eh, not gonna even waste my time with you. If you want to be willfully obtuse again and pretend like Nader didn't take any votes away from Gore, have at it. I prefer reality. And I certainly don't want to bother explaining to you how the electoral college works. So go play your little 'attack someone out of the blue and then play the hurt/indignant victim' game with someone else.

Point is: Nader has been an unashamed advocate for the people since the 70s. Bush was an advocate for big oil, big defense spending, and big business. Gore was/is primarily concerned with continuing Clinton's legacy of shipping jobs to china and advancing his carbon credit company. Maybe we would have avoided the wars with him as POTUS, but then again maybe not. I'm not so convinced that the situation wasn't manipulated to begin with. Who's to say the people behind the wars wouldn't have kept up the pressure to invade Iraq until it actually happened! All they would have has to tell Gore was "they dissed on your global warming thing, dude!" And it would have been on!

People like to say that the Supreme Court gave the election to bush, but as I remember it, they ruled that they had no authority to rule. This decision let the previous decision by the Florida Supreme Court stand, which held that the vote counting was over as per official statement. It had gone on for so many weeks by then that the nation was getting seriously ancy.
So no, I don't see how that translates to a federal Supreme Court decision to give Bush the presidency. Of course the next day the democrat propaganda machine began to churn out the lie. It's been 12 years, long enough for it to have settled in among people who don't pay attention to details.

Homeboy says

So go play your little 'attack someone out of the blue and then play the hurt/indignant victim' game with someone else.

kiddo, it's time you changed your meds.

Homeboy says

Most of the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not been running.

I think you have no fucking Idea what in the hell you're talking about.
Nader was the only "Get out and vote candidate" that didn't or never marketed him self as such. Before Nader I was already 26-27 years old and never voted in my life. I was not even registered. Nader inspired me to get out and register. To this day, I'm still registered as NPA "That's (No party Affiliation) for you folks that still thinks America is a cut and dry Left and Right snow globe.?

And I'll tell you this, had there never been a Nader, I doubt I would be a registered voter today. And had the Liberals not tried so hard to disenfranchise my vote, cajole, pigeonhole to hijack my vote as well my intentions.

I most certainly would not be as much of a vocal critic against the Liberals. As much as I despise Republicans, Liberals will always hold a special place in Hell for me.

Homeboy says

George W. Bush was the absolute worst president we have ever had, and did irreparable damage to the country.

Oh his talents were superseded by Obama's mastery.

It is a strange place America has become, where those who stand for freedom and rights are ridiculed. I'm talking Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader.

We have become a nation where government can do anything they wish, take away any rights, and send anyone into a secret prison. And most Americans today, are ok with that for some reason.

I've written letters to my congresswoman, got a formal letter as a response, but not much action on the issue. I think we are just slowly turning into a dictatorship.

Quigley says

People like to say that the Supreme Court gave the election to bush, but as I remember it, they ruled that they had no authority to rule.

I love how the Revisionist in this country have their own reality.

Weren't there also a lot more votes for Buchanan than in previous years in the 2000 Florida election?

I caught an episode of "How the States got their shapes" over the week end. The episode concluded that because of the outcome of the 2000 election. The media started taking a bigger role in influencing how candidates are picked, as well as who wins the election. They were impartial(to an extent) before that point.

So Fuck you Very much Al Douchebag Gore for destroying democracy as we knew it. You big fucking cry baby sore loser. LOSER!

thunderlips11 says

Weren't there also a lot more votes for Buchanan than in previous years in the 2000 Florida election?

Homo Economicus. A Legendary Creature, like Bigfoot, claimed to exist by Pseudoscientists.

Nader had about 97k Florida votes. Buchanan and the Libertarian/Reform/Constitution candidates combined had about 37k votes.

Also, Nader had 22k votes in New Hampshire, which Bush carried by 7k votes.

To deny that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000 is to deny math and reality.

In the same breath, Ross Perot cost HW Bush his second term. You give and take with third party candidates...without that quook we wouldnt have had Clinton.

FortWayne says

It is a strange place America has become, where those who stand for freedom and rights are ridiculed. I'm talking Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader.

Amen brother.

david1 says

To deny that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000 is to deny math and reality.

That's like saying I ONLY have $10,000 in my bank account because you have a $1,000,000 in yours. Thus your capitol has taken from my personal wealth.
Wait that IS exactly the new Liberal argument.

We're screwed!

Al Gore was even more unelectable than Mitt Romney.

Daily Trader says

Al Gore was even more unelectable than Mitt Romney.

Al Gore was elected.

CaptainShuddup says

That's like saying I ONLY have $10,000 in my bank account because you have a $1,000,000 in yours. Thus your capitol has taken from my personal wealth.
Wait that IS exactly the new Liberal argument.
We're screwed!

LOL. Yeah, it's exactly like what I said.

Dan8267 says

Daily Trader says

Al Gore was even more unelectable than Mitt Romney.

Al Gore was elected.

Not only did Gore lose, he lost to a retarded person. That's pretty embarrassing for guy coming out of a popular presidency during a strong economy.

Daily Trader says

during a strong economy.

The dot com bubble burst in March/April 2000, 6-7 months before the election in November 2000.

Dan8267 says

Still, Nadar sounds like an angry old man in the video.

He has run as an independent candidate twice in a completely rigged two-party system. You have to cut him some slack for sounding pissed off about the electoral process.

And his views on the current presidential candidates are pretty much dead on.

david1 says

The dot com bubble burst

That was a controlled demolition, perpetrated by the Wizard Greenspan.
The tech industry as well as ".com" is as powerful and big as ever, if not bigger. Who lost were the companies who's stock majority were held by Marge and Bill average Joe day traders, that made big in the market. Who won were the Companies that were backed by large financial institutions.

Understand most of the people that were winning in the .com bubble were stay at home day traders. Not corporation employee 401K contributors, managed by fund and index managers. These were rogue Millionaires and Al Greenspan found them out right repulsive.

Most major players that are still around today, were direct beneficiaries of the technologies those companies either pioneered, or the fire sales that resulted from the ".com bubble crash".

Leave it to the captain to have a convoluted twist on things.

Everyone knows that there was irrational exuberance and in fact many funds and large institutions took huge hits. IF a day trader happened to be blindly bullish (which most sensible ones would not be) then yes they did okay probably, but certainly did not drive the secular rally. It was group behavior or so called animal spirits. Nothing all that new.

Looking forward to the 21st century had a natural psychological affect that was combined with very real but over blown markets for new technologies.

Now the market is back up, primarily due to low interest rates (where else can people invest) and high productivity high profit margins.

CaptainShuddup says

companies who's stock majority were held by Marge and Bill average Joe day traders

This is right up there with the silliest things you've ever said.

CaptainShuddup says

Understand most of the people that were winning in the .com bubble were stay at home day traders. Not corporation employee 401K contributors, managed by fund and index managers.

Do you even know what day trading is ?? They are in and out. At any given time they are equally likely to be out, or even short (or long puts = synthetically short).

Actually a lot of ordinary long term investors or short term investors who had normal jobs bought in to the dot com boom. Same thing for venture capitalists, banks and mutual funds.

I was not a believer and thought the turn of the century would be a classic "buy the rumor sell the fact" situation.

Your understanding of the stock market is very similar to your understanding of the crude oil market. How exactly does a person get to be so clueless ? Do you ever read anything or learn from others ? Do you only trust supposed facts that you completely pull out of some orafice ? Why just make this shit up when there are plenty of good sources for reliable information.

But yes, the fed impact on interest rates was a factor in the crash. Just as the current low interest rate are one bullish factor for stocks now, increasing rates back then were a bearish factor for stocks.

Recessionary pressure and 9/11 were factors too.

Daily Trader says

Not only did Gore lose, he lost to a retarded person. That's pretty embarrassing for guy coming out of a popular presidency during a strong economy.

It's been mathematically proven that Al Gore won the election. No amount of time is going to change that fact.

Since 2000 there has been much electoral fraud, almost all of which was perpetrated by republicans. Evidently republicans cannot win without fraud.

Both parties are mired in dirt, Dan. Did you forget that democrats actively sought to invalidate absentee military ballots in 2000?

And Nader recently earned his day in court in Maine, due to Democrats concerted efforts to keep him off the ballot in 19 states in 2004.

Daily Trader says

Both parties are mired in dirt, Dan.

Politics is a cynical game of money, power, lies, propaganda, intimidation, and character assasination.

Greed and Fear. It drives business, the stock market, politics, foreign policy, and damn near everything else at some level.

FortWayne says

We have become a nation where government can do anything they wish, take away any rights, and send anyone into a secret prison.

Those things were all done by George W. Bush. If Nader hadn't been the spoiler in the election, we would not have the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, or Homeland Security.

And most Americans today, are ok with that for some reason.

I am most certainly not o.k. with it. Funny thing, though - if I had voted for Nader for president, we would still be in the same situation, wouldn't we?