Just a moment...
boingboing.net
    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      5·
      8 months ago

      No, that commenter literally said they’re not a threat and then gave the exact reason the green party is a threat to democrats.

        • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
          1·
          8 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?

            • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
              1·
              8 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.

                • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  8 months ago

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

                  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                    2·
                    8 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

            • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
              1·
              8 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@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                8 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