• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      12 months ago

      Are you saying that something helping the republicans isn’t a threat to democrats? Or are you saying it’s not enough to help because you’ve already forgotten the lesson from 2000?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 months ago

          No… Because I’m only referring to one post.

          He’s wrong anyway, the green party isn’t a threat to any of the parties, but it’s designed to shape off 1-3% off the democratic vote to help republicans.

          I’ll break it down for you. The first part of the post literally says this:

          the green party isn’t a threat to any of the parties

          And then the very next part of the same sentence is:

          but it’s designed to shape off 1-3% off the democratic vote to help republicans

          Which is exactly what I pointed out. It starts by saying the green party isn’t a threat and then gives the exact reason why it is a threat.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              22 months ago

              Chill? I’m not heated. Clearly it was a misunderstanding, that’s why I explained it. I didn’t mean any disrespect.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                22 months ago

                Fair enough. I see what you mean now. I realized I probably read a tone into your response that wasn’t there and that is why I deleted my response. Thanks for your patience

      • Cadeillac
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 months ago

        Why are you making stuff up?

        the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush’s presidency

        What does Florida’s fuckery have to do with independents?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 months ago

          I don’t understand that conclusion. According to their table there, Gore lost by ~550 votes and Nader had over 90,000 votes. Do you really think those votes would have been evenly split?

          • Cadeillac
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I know reading is harder than looking at the picture, but give it a shot and you will have your answer. Of course, you won’t. You will only cherry pick the things that you think will help your case. Problem is, no one believes you, and you aren’t going to convince anyone otherwise

            Edit: I did a bunch reading for you

            Gore lost his home state of Tennessee and New Hampshire. If Gore had won just New Hampshire and lost Florida, we would be calling him Former President Al Gore.

            As it turns out, only around 24,000 registered Democrats voted for Nader in Florida, compared with the 308,000 registered Democrats (or 13 percent of all Democrats in Florida) who voted for George W. Bush. It seems to me that the 308,000 Democrats who voted Republican in 2000 hurt the Democratic Party much more than the 24,000 Democrats that voted for Nader.

            Gore lost because 200,000 Democrats voted against him in Florida, electoral chaos reigned, and he failed to win his home state of Tennessee.

            Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of Republican George W. Bush has now been completely nullified in the eyes of history by none other than former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted for Bush. Now she says, “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed it up.”

            Imagine if O’Connor had thought that way in December 2000. Gore may have become president, and Nader would have had nothing to do with the results.

            https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-al-gore-ralph-nader-2000-20160527-snap-story.html

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              12 months ago

              I did read the link. And it still seems like a ton of mental gymnastics to ignore the vote totals.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  12 months ago

                  Is it really that hard to conceptualize 90,000 > 550? Or that green party voters back then were much closer to democratic voters than republican? You have to ignore the most obvious fact in order to contrive others.

                  • Cadeillac
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    22 months ago

                    You have literally ignored every other point I have posted, keep screaming the same thing as if somehow the popular vote has ever won a presidency