• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    116 hours ago

    You are, as I have stated several times, mistaken about bush v gore.

    Every post-hock review of statewide ballots that I’ve ever heard of has had gore winning by a narrow margin.

    Just the butterfly ballots alone would have tilted the pre-recount tally in gores favor.

    Nader didn’t give us bush, the Supreme Court and the weak recount of only a few counties did.

    Would gore have been significantly different after 9/11? I thought so back then, but now I’m not convinced. The preparations to invade Iraq again were being made during the end of the Clinton administration and there was enough personnel carryover from Clinton to bush that I believe it would have been the same but with different graft.

    I asked earlier if people like me were more to blame than non voters, than the parties who failed to convince us or even recognize that they needed us and the administrations who actually perpetuated the myriad war crimes of the bush and Obama administrations. Are we?

    Break it down here, what precise volume of Iraqi blood is on my hands?

    • @chiliedogg
      link
      14 hours ago

      It never would have reached the point where it went to the Courts if Nader hadn’t run and the recounts not occurred. And the recounts that did occur likely would have turned out differently because Bush would have been further behind in the rest of the state’s numbers.

      Nader gave the Court the opportunity to put their thumb on the scale.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        13 hours ago

        Wait, so you think it’s more naders fault than the unjust, undemocratic system that installed bush or the gore campaign for pushing a partial recount open to an equal protection ruling (that’s the bush v gore basis) that it couldn’t even win or for not realizing that it needed left voters and adjusting its platform appropriately?

        When is it the fault of the democrats for running a bad campaign? For running on a bad platform?

        • @chiliedogg
          link
          12 hours ago

          I’m saying that Nader, knowing full-well he has zero chance of winning, intentionally ran a campaign that could do nothing but harm Al Gore’s campaign and help the GOP.

          The Green party did now fandango to the environment in that campaign than can ever be offset by them. They’re an environmentalist party that doomed the planet of of arrogance, stupidity, or duplicity, and I don’t care which. I blame them and anyone who voted for them for the current state of the world that they enabled with their irresponsibility.

          Evil people are gonna try to be evil. When there’s an enemy at the gates we need to put aside our minor differences and work together to defeat them, not stab the other guards and let the city get overrun.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 hours ago

            I’m no defender of the greens and I don’t think people should vote for them, so please bear that in mind before you read this:

            You blame the self proclaimed environmentalist party and their voters, a tiny proportion of the electorate by comparison, for 24 years of the two non environmentalist parties devastating the climate while in power which they reached by receiving in every case several orders of magnitude more votes than the ostensibly environmentalist party did.

            You blame them more than the foolishness of the gore campaign for not choosing the full recount it would have won, and the undemocratic system it was operating under for stopping the recount and installing bush.

            Do you think that responsibility for the actions of people in power ultimately rests on their shoulders? Do you think that there was some deficit in the gore campaigns environmental policy and that the Green Party shaped itself to fit that niche?

            I literally think people shouldn’t vote for the greens though, so why not talk about what I do support, voting psl?