Menu Bar

Home           Calendar           Topics          Just Charlestown          About Us
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Ralph Nader was an ass in 2000


Ralph Nader is an ass, yes. But he’s also a wrong ass.

But in an interview with U.S. News, Nader expressed more positive thoughts about Trump's candidacy than Clinton's:
 [...] “He's questioned the trade agreements. He's done some challenging of Wall Street – I don't know how authentic that is. He said he's against the carried interest racket, for hedge funds. He's funded himself and therefore attacked special interest money, which is very important”
Remember, even Donald Trump himself says not to take anything he says seriously. Nader pretends that he shares some sort of ideology with Trump, when Trump is explicitly making shit up as he goes along, exhibiting no ideology beyond self-worship. 

And of course, it’s telling Nader completely ignores Trump’s racism, bigotry, and misogyny. 

When asked what positive contributions Clinton has made to the 2016 campaign, Nader called her a "corporatist, militarist Democrat" who would have been defeated by Sanders if every state held an open primary.

Clinton has won more open primaries than Bernie Sanders, by far. It’s not even close. The only reason Sanders has as many delegates as he has is because of low-turnout caucuses, which he has won 11-2 (excluding American territories).

Clinton has won primaries 21-7. If we’re talking open primaries, she’s won those 13-6, and those include the big delegate-rich states of Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.

"She's going to win by dictatorship. Twenty-five percent of superdelegates are cronies, mostly. They weren't elected. They were there in order to stop somebody like Bernie Sanders, who would win by the vote," he says.

Clinton has a popular vote edge of over three million, yet she’s going to win “by dictatorship”? 

Dear god, what a stupid thing to say. Utterly moronic. And it’s not Clinton depending on the superdelegates to win, it’s Sanders trying to spur a “contested convention” by having the supers abandon the primary-season winner of both the delegate count and the popular vote. 

And if those delegates exist to stop people like Bernie Sanders, why didn’t they back up Clinton in 2008 and stop Barack Obama? The supers are utterly superfluous, irrelevant to the current contest.

Had Sanders won the primary, the supers would be getting behind him as well, because at this point, they are little more than a rubber stamp. Should they be eliminated? Sure! Do they currently matter? Nope. 

To date, Clinton has captured 3 million more total votes than Sanders, but Nader argues the results would be different if independents were allowed to participate in each state.

The actual vote results prove otherwise. But even if true, it’s irrelevant.

This is a Democratic primary. It costs nothing to be a Democrat. So if you want a say in the Democratic primary, then become a Democrat. Otherwise, you don’t get a say.

You can vote in the Green Party primary, or the Independent Party primary, or take your sanctimonious “I’m too good to be a member of any party” self and let others make the decision for you. But to whine that non-Democrats don’t have a say in a Democratic decision-making process is ridiculous.
"I think [Sanders] made very few mistakes. He raised a lot of money, so he was viable, from small contributions. He didn't back down on his record of 35 years. He wasn't given enough debates ... he couldn't do anything about closed primaries. And he couldn't do anything about the super-delegates. But he almost won and he would've won," Nader says. "He would've defeated Trump easily, much more easily than [Clinton] would've defeated him. He doesn't produce gaffes. He's very consistent and he's scandal-free. What politician 35 years in office is scandal-free?"  
The idea that Republicans wouldn’t run hog wild with Sanders’ record is bizarre. That’s the difference between Clinton and Sanders—she’s already been through the wringer (from both the Right AND the Left), while Sanders hasn’t been touched.

Her numbers have her negatives baked in, Sanders’ don’t have his. I’m not saying Sanders couldn’t win a general, he could. If we’ve learned anything this cycle, it’s that we are so polarized as a nation, that demographics truly are destiny. But his numbers would look close to Clinton’s when all was said and done. 

The lack of early debates was one of the Clinton campaign’s biggest miscalculations. Debates didn’t move Sanders’ numbers, they improved Clinton’s, allowing her to define herself apart from the caricatures painted by her detractors. She could’ve solidified her position early with more and earlier debates. That was stupid on her part. 

He “couldn’t do anything about closed primaries”? I know something he could’ve done: won Democratic votes. That’s something. You know, winning the support of members of the party he aimed to lead. These are the same voters who rejected Clinton in 2008 and voted for the insurgent. 

It can happen if you run the right kind of campaign. 

He couldn’t do anything about the supers? What exactly have the supers done that has undermined Sanders? I mean, sure, they aren’t overturning the will of the primary voters by crowning him despite his losses, but that’s not the fault of the supers. 


Ultimately, Nader wouldn’t say who he’d vote for in November. The answer seems easy, right? 

Shouldn’t he be a Jill Stein supporter? Man, he can’t even be loyal to the Greens in the end. A complete asshole.