No, that commenter literally said they're not a threat and then gave the exact reason the green party is a threat to democrats.
Look at the thread again
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?
No... I'm saying you're mistaking two different commenters as one
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.
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?
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?
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.
I did read the link. And it still seems like a ton of mental gymnastics to ignore the vote totals.
I can give you the material but not the IQ
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.
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
Screaming? I thought I was typing...
as if somehow the popular vote has ever won a presidency
Uhh, that's exactly how it works per state. The most popular vote in that state gets the electoral votes for that state.
That was a different commenter....?
No, that commenter literally said they're not a threat and then gave the exact reason the green party is a threat to democrats.
Look at the thread again
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?
No... I'm saying you're mistaking two different commenters as one
No... Because I'm only referring to one post.
I'll break it down for you. The first part of the post literally says this:
And then the very next part of the same sentence is:
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.
Why are you making stuff up?
What does Florida's fuckery have to do with independents?
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?
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
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-al-gore-ralph-nader-2000-20160527-snap-story.html
I did read the link. And it still seems like a ton of mental gymnastics to ignore the vote totals.
I can give you the material but not the IQ
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.
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
Screaming? I thought I was typing...
Uhh, that's exactly how it works per state. The most popular vote in that state gets the electoral votes for that state.
Too bad
NaderFlorida didn't act in good faith.A threat is viable. They are not