All right, so you were pretty much right. They weren’t a third party in an actual election year, but they started forming before the whigs had collapsed. So, I’m not entirely admitting I’m an idiot, but I sort of am.
Thanks.
Environment, schmenvironment. The Earth’s in no danger. It ain’t as fragile as the greenies like to think it is.
How 'bout some facts to back up that assertion, tracer.
There’s a lot of evidence to show possible early stages of damage to the environment. Bush want’s to wait till the damage is done bnefore acting. Would you wait until after your car slams into a semi, or a child, before you repair those erratic brakes?
Peace,
mangeorge (Yes, Global Warming)
Did Nader get his 5%? (NOT EVEN CLOSE!)
Did Nader split the Democratic vote? (SAFE BET!)
Are we in for years of environmental Hell? (JUST WATCH!)
Anyone have specific cites showing that Nader denied Gore any key states? (CAN YOU SAY PHYRRIC VICTORY?)
I think we are all in for a very grim time. (EXCEPT FOR THE TOP 1% OF THE POPULATION.)
I’d like to submit for your approval Florida (before anyone else does).
(99% reporting)
George W. Bush = 2,886,311
Al Gore = 2,875,282
Ralph Nader = 95,031
With a difference of 11,000, if 15% of Nader voters chose Gore instead, he’d been president.
Now that the count is down to the hundreds in Flordia, do I hear recount?!?!
I have to agree Zenster…this election has proved that if you truely do care about something as important as the enviornment then perhaps you should put your self righteousness aside and do what is best for it. Nader had no chance of winning what so ever. Yet he siphoned off votes from the guy who is the most “green” friendly. Now anyone who really cares about environmental issues may be stuck with the other guy for the next four years and his cronies controlling Congress.
I think this election also should prove to anyone, including myself, who previously thought their vote didn’t count. If you are living in Florida this morning or Pennsylvania or any of the other “swing” states then you know for certain that it does.
Needs2know
I can’t reiterate this enough. Exit polls (at least the ones I heard/saw on NBC) showed that Nader voters overwhelmingly stated that, had Nader not been on the ballot, they would have either a) stayed home or b) not voted for Gore OR Bush.
The media didn’t help this matter much by saying “Well, if you add Nader’s vote in X state to Gore’s, he’d be ahead in X state.” It simply doesn’t work that way. Yes, some voters would have voted Gore if Nader wasn’t in the election. Some would have voted Bush. It goes both ways.
Whereas the exit polling on CNN said the exact opposite. They said that Nader voters, or 46% or them, would have ‘chosen the lesser of two evils’. Of course, the fact that even if most said they would have stayed home, the margin is razor thin. Nader still could cost Gore Florida. (The funny thing about this exchange is that I voted for Nader. My excuse, I live in Virginia!)
Washington Post
Dubya Bush = 2,909,199
Algore = 2,907,544
VoteNader = 96,896
Margin 1655
A change of 18% from Nader to Gore would change the story.
I knew for some reason that number didn’t look right. A change of 1.8%
Look Again
ONE POINT FREAKIN’ EIGHT PERCENT
would have changed the story.
So does overwhelming majority mean 65%
75%
80%
even at 90% Nader may have won Bush the presidency. And that was by being a little disingenious.
Well then Sterling I have to smack your hand! Guess you noticed how nicely slim the margin was her in Virginia. So had you voted Gore and then the other few hundrend or so Democrats in the state gone to the polls then perhaps we could have overthrown this Republican controlled state! Shame on you.
Needs2know
Can you show me exactly how Al Gore is green friendly, especially since he tried to stop an East Liverpool Ohio incinerator from being turned off as it was damaging the environment?
Yes?
Where are you, and when did your state change its name to Virginia.
If I included every person who voted for Nader, and threw in Harry Browne for good measure (he beat Buchanan here), and added it to Gore’s total, GreenBrowneGore would have still lost
OK all you Greens out there. What’s done is done. But…
If Bush hangs on to claim the Presidency, please watch very carefully how he acts on environmental issues over the next four years. Then compare that honestly to the Clinton/Gore record. Then think long and hard before you vote Green again in '04.
vanilla, please read my earlier posts and you will find the explanation you seek.
Well I did fall asleep way before 11:00 but the VA votes were in, thought it was something like 52/48 with 2 going to Nader…0 Browne. I think that real nutjob with the Constitution party, name escapes me right now, got something like 290 votes total. I did mention the folks who stayed home didn’t I? I stayed home for years because I didn’t think my vote would make a shit. My point is perhaps people will not stay home anymore just because they know they are going to lose. If a few more Dems had gotten out there it could have upset the whole good old boy apple cart. Don’t throw your vote away next time just because you think it doesn’t matter.
Needs2know
spoke- and others who clearly have no idea what Clinton/Gore’s environmental record was, I’ve already addressed it in this thread, but here’s a short recap.
Supported NAFTA
Lied about incinerator.
Supprted incinerator that has caused much environmental damage.
Lobbied for Bush admin to push through incinerator.
Under Bush, moratorium protecting spotted owl. Under Clinton/Gore, remove moratorium, fight for extinction.
Much more logging than under Bush admin.
Supported law that supports more logging, called “the worst single piece of public lands legislation ever signed into law”
Gore pushed through a bill that repealed the ban on the import of tuna caught in nets that also kill dolphins.
Gore pushed for a global free trade agreement on timber with no conservation measures.
Fought and killed the Biosafety Convention
In 92 promised to keep offshore oil and gas drilling away from Florida coastline. Then he broke that promise in the face of opposition of FL Dems and Republicans. {Alaskan wildlife refuge anyone?}
In 96 directly ordered the EPA to slow down it’s implementation of tougher pesticide standards.
First politician to successfully weaken the EPA
Talks of the need to have industry regulate itself
Speaks out against cumbersome government environmental regulations.
Better than Bush?
Bwahahahahaha
oldscratch I have a very clear idea of the Clinton/Gore record. As I said in my earlier post, I have observed the changes (for the better) under Clinton/Gore in my own back yard. I did not get my information on their record from some dubious propaganda tract. I saw their accomplishments with my own eyes.
I’m sorry you have decided to turn this personal. But since you have, I think readers of this thread may have some doubts about the political acumen of a poster (you) who first proclaims himself a communist, who then comes out in support of Nader’s candidacy, and who then tells us that he would vote for Bush if Nader weren’t in the race. 
You’re all over the political map, chief! What next? A flirtation with Libertarianism?
Socialist… communist… same thing, right oldscratch? :rollseyes: