Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 20, 2016

When longtime independent Senator Bernie Sanders lost his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, he concluded his campaign by endorsing Hillary Clinton instead of a third-party candidate. "This huge, wonderful effort that he launched is now aborted," says our guest, four-time former presidential candidate Ralph Nader. "Sanders hasn't returned a call from me in 18 years. He is a lone ranger. He doesn't like to be pushed into more progressive action than he is willing to adhere to. As a result, millions of his voters now are in disarray. They don't know where to go." Nader has a new book titled "Breaking Through Power: It's Easier Than We Think."

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Nader is a true "Profile in Courage." It is a wonder how he has avoided a premature death despite directly challenging the existing dark state system.

#1 | Posted by ReformedNeocon at 2016-09-20 08:28 PM | Reply

#1 Well, he did get used as a tool to defeat Al Gore....

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-09-20 08:34 PM | Reply

Ralph Nader cares so much about building third parties he quit the Greens in 2002.

I wouldn't take your calls either, Ralph.

#3 | Posted by rcade at 2016-09-20 08:38 PM | Reply

#3 I don't believe you. you'd gobble that phone like a turkey drumstick.

#4 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-20 09:52 PM | Reply

Ralph Nader refuses to take responsibility for his actions. We have thousands of dead soldiers, hundreds of thousand of dead Iraqis, partially because of Ralph Nader. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson should consider the effects of third party candidates in American. We have the election system we have, it would be much smarter for them to focus on changing it.
I understand where these candidates come from, I agree with some of their ideas but ignoring the realities of our "winner takes all" election system, I do not respect. That's how it works here. They would be so much better served trying to change our system not by running predictably defeated Presidenital runs. Congress is where we could change things, not in failed Presidential runs.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2016-09-20 10:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Everyone else but Hillary is responsible for wars, dead soldiers, and maimed civilians.

#7 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-20 11:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ralph Nader rocks!

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-09-20 11:22 PM | Reply

So the question is, if you don't like those candidates, if you don't believe in them, if you think that they would be bad for the country, then why pick the lesser of two evils? Why waste your vote? Doesn't it make more sense to vote for a candidate that you actually believe in? Rather than simply the candidate you think might win.
ivn.us

Third-party votes aren't 'wasted'
third-party candidates can and do win elections, on occasion. Beyond winning, however, there are other benefits for third-party voting. "It makes a political statement to the majority parties. It helps local politicians of that party in elections. It can help change platforms to include third-party elements. And it provides recognition for the party among voters as a viable alternative," he wrote.
www.desmoinesregister.com

#9 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-09-20 11:36 PM | Reply

#6 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I agree with everything Danni layed out.

When Nader talks, I listen. I've also listened to at least two interviews of Gary Johnson on the Smerconish radio show, and I really like what Gary Johnson has to say. I've watched one interview of Jill Stein on c-span, and again, really good stuff...

But they can't win.

People say often to the effect "vote your conviction". My conviction is that a billionaire reality TV star with a bigoted past would make a terrible president of the United States.

Hillary is far from perfect, but she knows policy, she's smart and capable, and she has my vote.

I'm voting Hillary.

#10 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-09-21 06:41 AM | Reply

"We have thousands of dead soldiers, hundreds of thousand of dead Iraqis, partially because of Ralph Nader"

yeah, sure Pinch.

You agree with that?

join her in the corner, then. That's been debunked so many times, you'd have to be a full on retard to think anybody believes that other than dolts such as you and Danni.

More democrats voted for Bush than anybody voted for Nader. He wasn't the factor in Florida that you fools believe.

Al Gore sucked and he lost. Get over it.

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2016-09-21 08:16 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

When you vote third party, you're doing two things.

1) You're voting your conscience for a candidate that represents your views.
2) You're leaving the race to the candidate that can build a majority turn-out in key states for their base.

That's democratic voting. if your base doesn't turn out for your crappy candidate, that's on her.
Them Dems shut out the left and don't deserve our vote. screw 'em. if you don't need us, we don't need you.

#12 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-21 08:26 AM | Reply

"We have thousands of dead soldiers, hundreds of thousand of dead Iraqis, partially because of Ralph Nader"

yeah, sure Pinch.

You agree with that?

join her in the corner, then. That's been debunked so many times, you'd have to be a full on retard to think anybody believes that other than dolts such as you and Danni.

More democrats voted for Bush than anybody voted for Nader. He wasn't the factor in Florida that you fools believe.

Al Gore sucked and he lost. Get over it.

#11 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I don't agree Nader is responsible for dead soldiers in Iraq, that's Dubya's responsibility. But I do agree with Danni that policy and agendas matter, and the many people who voted for Nader unknowingly enabled Bush, despite your spin as to what happened in FL.

Also, I voted for George W. Bush in 2000, making your assertions about me and Al Gore off-base.

#13 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-09-21 10:44 AM | Reply

#13

Bull. It makes my assertion that al gore sucked correct.

Not even you voted for him.

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2016-09-21 10:51 AM | Reply

Gore sucked milquetoast. But at the time, Clinton was silenced in shame, hidden from the campaign trail, and the peoples verdict was delivered by electing a rethug.

Clinton screwed up royally. the price was Dumbya. I blame Bill.

#15 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-21 10:58 AM | Reply

"Gore sucked milquetoast. But at the time, Clinton was silenced in shame, hidden from the campaign trail, and the peoples verdict was delivered by electing a rethug."

George Bush was not elected. He was appointed by a corrupt SC.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2016-09-21 10:59 AM | Reply

Bull. It makes my assertion that al gore sucked correct.

#14 | POSTED BY EBERLY

You're trying to convince me of that? What's next, you trying to convince me that water is wet?

The reason Gore lost are many, but it is undeniable that Nader running third party was part of the calculus that tipped the 2000 election to George W. Numbnuts.

Liberals should not have to learn this lesson all over again.

#17 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-09-21 11:33 AM | Reply

There is nothing more anti-American than the idea that votes are somehow owed to a certain party or candidate.

I would have voted for Bernie, but now I'm voting for Stein. I would not vote for Hillary in a million years. My vote was never hers for anyone to "steal".

The stolen vote things is just a putrid concept.

#18 | Posted by sully at 2016-09-21 12:01 PM | Reply

Nader running third party was part of the calculus that tipped the 2000 election to George W. Numbnuts.

Liberals should not have to learn this lesson all over again.

#17 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-09-21 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's no more legit that saying that if Gore were not in the race, Nader would have won.

Nobody owes your crappy political party anything. And party loyalty is against your interests as a citizen.

#19 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-21 12:03 PM | Reply

Nobody owes your crappy political party anything. And party loyalty is against your interests as a citizen.

#19 | POSTED BY SULLY

I'm only a Democrat because of Bernie Sanders. In fact, I'm overdue in changing my affiliation back to Independent.

Both parties suck.

But only one party is actively working toward stealing your retirement and suppressing your wages. This same party has been pretty successful in achieving these goals.

Liberals sometimes over-intellectualize, and over think the problem and the situation. Being called an egg-head is actually positive, but not in this case.

It's disheartening that these same liberals want to go down the exact same Nader-path knowing full well their votes may well elect a bigoted billionaire turned TV reality star.

#20 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-09-21 12:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But only one party is actively working toward stealing your retirement and suppressing your wages

Bzzzt... wrong.

What do you think, the bankers give money to both parties but only expect a return from one of the two?

#21 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-21 12:43 PM | Reply

If there were two legitimate parties with legitimate policies in this election, one might be able to talk about "partisan hacks" or stupid memes like, "we don't owe you our votes!" which of course, no one has ever claimed they did; it's just a stupid meme to use when one doesn't have a real argument as to why they are throwing away their vote as some sort of lame, ineffective protest.

Ask Bernie, he'll tell you.

The fact is that for even just a left leaning person, there has not been a better set of policies for America proposed by the GOP than there has been by the Dems in a lifetime... so there is really no legitimate second party to choose from.

No, that may not be fair and it may not be ideal, but it is a fact and it is true of the upcoming election, so perhaps some people should get over themselves and their hatred for a particular candidate and vote for the policies that are now, and have for decades been, the best policies that have a chance of being promoted in the upcoming cycle.

Unless some leftier than thou "liberals" frak it up by helping the GOP and the Alt Orange Right take the Presidency along with most of the rest of the government they already have because VOTERS, we'll eventually see the FDR-is reforms most of us want... IF we retain control of the one branch of government we already have.

But it will take a lot longer, maybe never at all, if we have to live thru Worse Than GW because of some people's petty hate and stupid memes.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-21 12:51 PM | Reply

"That's no more legit that saying that if Gore were not in the race, Nader would have won."

That's ridiculous. Nader couldn't have won even if he were the only candidate.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2016-09-21 01:02 PM | Reply

"If there were two legitimate parties with legitimate policies in this election..."

Granted, rigging the nomination process in favor of warmongering, influence peddling bankster was excessively sleezy but I wouldn't say the Democrats are any less legitimate than the GOP. Granted they managed to do it without cheating but nominating a buffoon is no reason to be prideful.

#24 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-21 01:06 PM | Reply

That's ridiculous. Nader couldn't have won even if he were the only candidate.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2016-09-21 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Both claims are equally ridiculous. What I said was meant to illustrate the absurdity of the "his votes were owed to my candidate" claims in a way that unthinking party hacks could understand. Apparently, I failed.

BTW - Why don't you just assume that all the votes should have gone to Gore? It makes about as much sense....

#25 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-21 01:10 PM | Reply

#24

Don't try standup, you could get hurt. But it's always gratifying to see attempted comedy as obfuscation because you have no argument to the main point; that the proposed Dem policies are better than the proposed GOP policies for America, and there are no other proposed policies that have a chance of winning.

It's a start.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-21 01:10 PM | Reply

#27

Ah, still no argument to the fact that Dem policies have historically been and currently are better for America than GOP policies, just more South Park level rationale for your petty hatred.

'S OK. No one expected more from you.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-21 01:26 PM | Reply

Let the idiots select their own Idiot Leader, be it D or R.

I refuse to be a part of continuing the problem.

Vote 3rd party.

#29 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-21 01:27 PM | Reply

for your petty hatred.
'S OK. No one expected more from you.
#28 | POSTED BY CORKY

...and we've arrived at Corky's favorite destination.

#30 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-21 01:30 PM | Reply

"Ah, still no argument to the fact that Dem policies have historically..."

Blah blah blah.

Hillary has her own track record and you are still not fooling anyone.

#31 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-21 01:43 PM | Reply

Blah blah blah

The Dems have their own track record and it is much better than the only other electable choice, no matter their candidate.

You just selfishly put your petty hate before what's better for America.

But it's not unexpected that someone who initially fell head over heels for The Donald would be unable to see that there is no equivalency between the two as far as who could frak things up worse.

And the fact that one party's policies are better than the other is more important than who is the party leader. The policies are the important part, not the caricatured candidates.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-21 01:57 PM | Reply

- no matter their candidate.

okay...well that explains the 3,000 hours you've spent here the past 18 months selling Hillary to anybody who will listen.

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2016-09-21 02:01 PM | Reply

"You just selfishly put your petty hate before what's better for America."

Save your hamfisted strawmen. You're not smart enough to position them with the necessary subtlety as to be convincing.

I don't like Hillary because she's a warmonger, influence peddler, liar and corporate shill. As her record proves.

#34 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-21 02:07 PM | Reply

"... no matter their candidate."

You laughed off the polls showing Bernie beating Trump, Clinton not.
Now you're upset it's all coming true. shrug.

#35 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-21 02:11 PM | Reply

- You're not smart enough

I'm smart enough to know that Dem policies are better for America than the only other choice.

And smart enough never to have believed anything Trump ever said to begin with... unlike yourself.

-the necessary subtlety

rofl! You are about as subtle as your former love, Trump.

And just as much a clown.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-21 02:15 PM | Reply

well that explains the 3,000 hours you've spent here the past 18 months selling Hillary

Well, the promising news is that according to Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point, it requires 10,000 at a task/hobby/profession to obtain mastery.
Only 1/3 of the way to being a master media manipulator (or something).

#37 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-09-21 02:29 PM | Reply

"I'm smart enough to know that Dem policies are better for America than the only other choice."

You're also smart enough to know she has no intentions of fulfilling any of it that doesn't benefit the 1%.
Which makes you a willing and knowing contributor to the grand lie.
But not smart enough to fool others, so Sully's right again.

#38 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-21 02:37 PM | Reply

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-21 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't have to be subtle because, unlike you, I'm not trying to mislead anyone or convince anyone to vote for an obejectively horrible person.

#39 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-21 02:40 PM | Reply

-mislead anyone

Awwww.... poor baby!

Convincing left leaning people that Dem policies are, and have long been better for America, no matter the candidate is easy. Even you know it, you just won't admit it.

- an obejectively horrible person.

Still consider your opinions to be facts, I see. Millions of people disagree with that opinion and showed in in the primary. And even if they don't, they still know that Dem policies are better for America than the only other choice.

Meaning they aren't half-wits.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-21 06:22 PM | Reply

Notice how Corky has given up on selling Hillary and is now try to sell the "Dem policies" generic brand in her place?

Does anyone else here actually believe that there is a universal list of "Dem policies" that all Democrats, including Hillary who hates rules, must adhere to? Has Hillary ever shown any willingness at all to put aside what she wants to do in order to play nice and follow the rules?

Are Bernie and Hillary indistinguishable from a policy standpoint? Did all Democrats vote for the Iraq War?

If I'm a half-wit and can still see the obvious flaw in what Corky is trying to sell you, he must think the rest of you are witless.

#41 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-22 10:06 AM | Reply

-Are Bernie and Hillary indistinguishable from a policy standpoint?

In the survey done during the election, on a thread posted here, they were 92 percent the same.

You are still doing caricature, however, to avoid the point; Dem policies are better for America than GOP policies and have been for decades at least.

Like I said, you know this, you just won't admit it and would prefer to talk about me instead. You just selfishly put your petty hate before what's better for America.

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-22 12:52 PM | Reply

Did all Democrats vote for the Iraq War?
#41 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-22 10:06 AM
Just the dumb ones.

#43 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-09-22 12:59 PM | Reply

"In the survey done during the election, on a thread posted here, they were 92 percent the same."

Oh well if a survey says so then it must be true.

Don't trust your lying eyes!

#44 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-22 01:17 PM | Reply

Still no retort on the point that Dem policies are better for America than the only other choice in this election.

btw, since you are only able to argue minor points, not main ones....

The very few times Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders disagreed in the Senate

www.washingtonpost.com

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-22 01:26 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

Drudge Retort