“This is a collapse of the Democratic Party.” Consumer advocate, corporate critic and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader comments on the reelection of Donald Trump and the failures of the Democratic challenge against him.

Despite attempts by left-wing segments of the Democratic base to shift the party’s messaging toward populist, anti-corporate and progressive policies, says Nader, Democrats “didn’t listen.” Under Trump, continues Nader, “We’re in for huge turmoil.”

  • Flying Squid
    link
    4
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about the person weighing in.

    I don’t want to hear what Jill Stein has to say about it either. Fuck both of them.

    And you people downvoting: would you want to hear Newt Gingrich’s take? Even if this is what he said?

    • FlashMobOfOne
      link
      1017 days ago

      You should be saying: “Fuck Kamala Harris”

      The Dems knew from day one that the economy was the most important issue to voters, because the vast majority of them are working 2-3 jobs just to barely make ends meet.

      So what did they do? They ran a clearly brain-damaged candidate, and when he imploded on live national TV, they subbed in Harris, who spent two months just telling people suffering to be joyful, as if it weren’t only condescending, but terribly bad policy and campaign strategy. Here in Missouri the $15 minimum wage passed overwhelmingly, but Harris decided to cosplay as a moderate Republican and talk about tax cuts that no one actually thought she’d follow through with anyway, because they’ve spent the last four years being ignored by Joe Biden.

      And they kept harping on Trump’s weirdness, as if they haven’t already observed that voters do not care how weird he is.

      Jill Stein and Ralph Nader didn’t make these crappy political decisions.

      The Dems did.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        217 days ago

        Kamala Harris would not even be an issue if Nader hadn’t spoiled the 2000 election.

        Because Gore would have been president and everything would have been different.

        So no, fuck Ralph Nader.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          17 days ago

          Gore lost because George Bush’s brother, Jeb, invalidated a bunch of ballots and stopped a recount as governor of Florida.

          Besides that, this argument is absurd as it would be just as valid to say that Gore spoiled the election for Nader and if Gore hadn’t run, Nader would have been elected president instead of George W.

          Quit trying to externalize the blame for the actions of the party leadership. These faults should have been clear to you in 2016 when they handed the White House to Trump, and again in 2020 when their candidate only narrowly defeated Trump (especially at a time when Trump had already wrecked the economy and COVID was skyrocketing and this was fresh on everyone’s mind).

          You seem to keep insisting that everyone else needs to adjust to meet you in backing candidates that keep losing when maybe you should be the one adjusting to meet others. Sliding further and further right isn’t a winning strategy for Dems and that should be quite obvious by now.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            216 days ago

            Gore lost by few enough votes that there are a multitude of people who could have acted differently to produce a win. You can pick and choose who you want to blame and everyone is right.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            117 days ago

            So you’re comparing something that literally happened within the lifetime of most people here with something that’s totally fictional?

              • Flying Squid
                link
                0
                edit-2
                16 days ago

                2000 is ancient history to you?

                Just how old are you?

                Also, since you seem to think Adam and Eve counts as history, I think I understand why reality is an issue for you.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      That’s a logical fallacy called an Ad Hominem. Where you don’t argue against an idea, instead attack the person voicing it.

      You’re opinion of a person, doesn’t mean anything to their argument. It actually works against finding truth and solutions.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        117 days ago

        So then yes, you would like to know what Newt Gingrich’s take is as long as it is a valid argument?

        You don’t think that maybe some people don’t deserve attention in the first place?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          617 days ago

          Good ideas deserve attention. It doesn’t matter where they come from.
          Your idea here isn’t a good one, and no longer has mine.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            017 days ago

            No one has a right to media attention just because they have a good idea. I assume if a serial killer had a good idea, you wouldn’t want it on all the front pages. Maybe let them tell someone else and have that person bring it up if it’s such a good idea.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                -217 days ago

                Okay, well then I stand by my point. Ralph Nader doesn’t deserve attention on election issues no matter what good ideas he has. If they’re good enough ideas, he has plenty of media connections he can tell them to.

                  • Flying Squid
                    link
                    -217 days ago

                    You do not get to dictate how or why I post until you become a mod. If you don’t like what I have to say, you can either block me or not respond. Ordering me to do what you want isn’t going to work.