sorry, but youre wrong. ALOT changes with an open field of candidates -- namely, the quantity and quality [of choices] of IDEAS increases. this is the basic tenet of democracy that elevates such a "system" to higher planes than totalitarianism. without a full spectrum of ideas there is not democracy, and without democracy there is basically nothing but wrongly glorified fascism.
"system" is the problem. democracy is theoretically opposed to systemization, which is why [how] we've degenerated as a nation into the quagmire of corruption that currently dominates our government. the problem occurs in the necessity of nations to enact rigid laws to maintain their infrastructure.
ive been called many names for saying so, but i personally think we need a whole new constitution.
[EDIT: punctuation]
Keep in mind i wasn't offering a ringing endorsement of the current system. Now, just where was i wrong? Even if you had a field of 20 to 30 candidates, you would be extremely naive to think that every single one of them wouldn't play politics. Good luck with your 25 percent of the vote president.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
People are paying attention to what he is saying. Just because you're not seeing him all over the mainstream media, doesn't mean he isn't getting his message out. In fact, people using mainstream media as a source for reliable news is on a steady decline and rightfully so.
But back to Commy's point, when in this year and a half campaign have you seen any issue that Nader brought into the forefront, and that made the two party candidates address it?
And while people using mainstream media as a source for reliable news is on a steady decline, the VAST, VAST majority or people still use it as a reliable source, and they aren't seeing or hearing anything about Nader.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
And while people using mainstream media as a source for reliable news is on a steady decline, the VAST, VAST majority or people still use it as a reliable source, and they aren't seeing or hearing anything about Nader.
He will be on with George Stephanopoulos this morning.
Cornnifer, one of the main problems of your presentation is that you focus only on presidential candidates. You should have more parties, which have their own candidates generally. For a presidential you dont have to go more advanced than having "round 2" between the top 2 candidates of noone receives over 50% of total votes (As for instance they do in France) Instanty runoff would perhaps be even better. It can be done and it's not hard either.
I agree that if you are going to have a field of personal candidates, it can be hard to navigate, but if many of these are representatives of a party, which have party guidelines and decided-on policies, you dont have to know everything about the candidate. What party he runs for should make it clear where he/she roughly stands.
It may be that I am coloured by local conditions in Norway, but I am a huge fan of several parties with a distinct program developed democratically through the party which they are committed to in the following period. Then you have actual choice. In the case of Norway, 7-8 parties that regularly are elected into national and local government. Just to give a taste of the span from roughly left to right with rough national percentage in brackets:
This usually translates into coalition governments of the centre-left and centre-right flavours. And it works, at least in Norway, because of a heavy consensus-tradition in law-making, where most parties are included in processes that are to institute major changes. While in coalition, the parties retain their favoured positions, even if they had to compromise to get into government.
Wouldn't it be nice to have distinct options like the above for your elections? While america is 50 times bigger both in people and probably size, why should 2 parties be sufficient to cover your views?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I personally love it when I see a post of yours pop up. You should drop in more often.
youre too sweet.. unfortunately i can really only muster one or two rational thoughts per day, and sometimes per week, so keeping my fingers off the keyboard is typically the smartest thing i can do...
and Cornnifer, i think you started to be wrong upon immediately saying: "Let's consider some obvious hypotheticals." you said this and then went off created election scenarios that dont exist nor ever could exist, which isnt all that bad, say for the sake of discussion, but in the end you created a discussion with no basis in reality.
it's been awhile since ive raised this thought, so i cant really fault you for your snide assumption that i would somehow be linked to a system that would produce leaders with mere 25% voter-support. my schtick is that i want to see art and culture implimented into government and law as a means of increasing democracy, or direct public actions for legislative processes. election may be held every 6 months, or every week, or every 6 weeks, but instead of "leaders" the populous would vote on "ideas". the ideas would be presented through art, and the art would be presented through gov't run institutions to ensure unanimous availability. there are logistical problems here, and ultimately the concern still exists that the majority of persons may not know how to interpret the said works of art, thus the ideas within fall muted into oblivion, hence philosophical mediation is an inherent component with art (and i hate mediation!). im also bothered by the way our current gov't is built so extensively on beaurocratic foundations and processes, and such a cultural system as i am proposing would require much of the same in some form or another to keep fresh art and new ideas streaming into the process, but hopefully the corruption of professional politicians would be reduce to near nihil.
ok, im spent. see ya next week!
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Cornnifer, one of the main problems of your presentation is that you focus only on presidential candidates. You should have more parties, which have their own candidates generally.
Right on.
Heck, lets have a political party representing each and every faction and interest group in the united states. For example, the polygamist party, or the vegan party. The nudist and swingers party perhaps. A party for every group each with its own candidate. That would limit the field to about fifteen million and every single American would have their own views represented 100%. And of course, the swingers would never pander to the polygamists, or the nudists would never state their views in a way that might seek to attract any vegans who might be on the fence. THat would NEVER happen :rolleyes: . Have a run off so that the final two candidates can be the Democrat and Republican candidate EVERY SINGLE TIME ANYWAY!
Ya know what, lets not even HAVE the united states of America. Lets designate a small piece of land for each of the fifteen million groups i spoke of above, respect their borders and sovereignity and let them elect their own president. now THAT just may work.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Right on.
Heck, lets have a political party representing each and every faction and interest group in the united states. For example, the polygamist party, or the vegan party. The nudist and swingers party perhaps. A party for every group each with its own candidate. That would limit the field to about fifteen million and every single American would have their own views represented 100%. And of course, the swingers would never pander to the polygamists, or the nudists would never state their views in a way that might seek to attract any vegans who might be on the fence. THat would NEVER happen :rolleyes: . Have a run off so that the final two candidates can be the Democrat and Republican candidate EVERY SINGLE TIME ANYWAY!
Ya know what, lets not even HAVE the united states of America. Lets designate a small piece of land for each of the fifteen million groups i spoke of above, respect their borders and sovereignity and let them elect their own president. now THAT just may work.
Ehm, not sure how to interpret this response, but you seem to be sarcastic to me. If so, my response is that most countries have multiple parties, and to have a serious party would mean to have a party with a stance on just about everything. A party is not a special interests group which you seem to portray it as. At least it should not be, and aren't in most countries. And there's nothing wrong with many minor parties, but they wouldn't have many followers. At least not the ones you propose. But that would even itself out and after a while you'd have a bunch of real parties that attract more than 0,5 %. The democrats or republicans might well win the first election and two, but if the system was changed so that other parties were viable and had a chance to gain seats and influence, I think you'd see quite a break-away from these parties. After all, I hear nothing but bitching and moaning about how poor the dem/repub candidate is on here. There should be room for several other viable parties. Once you turn away from the 1-man winner takes all districts, which does nothing but promote the larger parties, it might be more interesting to for instance vote green so they get a seat from your 10-20 man region. As it is, any vote not dem/repub is a vote wasted. A sentiment often expressed on here.
So I dont see why multiple US parties is so laughable. I didnt describe utopia, just how many other countries work.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Sure. i don't disagree, and i have my own concerns regarding te two party system. i have concerns about just how far we should open it up, however, as well. Let's consider some obvious hypotheticals. Suppose hillary clinton, unsatisfied with her primary defeat, decided to enter the general election race independently. Let's also, for the sake of our hypothetical discussion throw in someone like, say, Jesse Ventura. Heck, why not. It's all for the sake of choice denied us by the two party system. Toss in acouple others. Go ahead and choose 'em yourself. Now, given this scenario, we've got three heavy hitters. clinton has her faithful core of support, Obama has his, and McCain, too, has his. Nader will have his faithful, albeit small band of support as will Barr, Ventura and any others you've chosen to include in our little hypothetical recipe for disaster. You've got at least three candidates with a decent chance. You've got Nader, Barr, Ventura and possibly some others who will pull votes from them respectively. Te field is wide open. What happens? You elect a president who won wins with probably 30 percent, or less of the votes cast. That means a president that 70+ percent of the country voted against! That is, without a doubt a recipe for disaster. You've got 70+ percent of the population already dissatisfied with the president. i don't see how this an improvement over the two party system. It may be worse.
Besides, (this scenario applies to every election and the names can be changed at will), any of the candidates, regardless of party affiliation will have to play the same game you refer to in your post if they have any aspirations at all of winning that necessary 25-30% of the vote. It doesn't change anything. You've just got more people pandering to you. Also its hard enough for the average voter to gather enough ACCURATE information to make an informed choice as it is. The more choices, the harder that becomes and the AVERAGE voter is pulling the lever even more blindly than before.
Its a difficult situation. endless choice is great when deciding on dinner and a movie. Not necessarily the same in a presidential election.
So, the question remains. How do we improve the system?
If you decide that it's your "RIGHT" to vote, then you need to realize you have a RESPONSIBILITY to educate yourself on the candidates.
More choices is not an issue... that would just mean an ounce of effort on the part of the American people towards educating themselves on the candidates (instead of passively and lazily accepting the media bullshit on TV).
If you decide that it's your "RIGHT" to vote, then you need to realize you have a RESPONSIBILITY to educate yourself on the candidates.
More choices is not an issue... that would just mean an ounce of effort on the part of the American people towards educating themselves on the candidates (instead of passively and lazily accepting the media bullshit on TV).
i do. The problem is the vast majority of Americans don't do that NOW. Its easy to take the attitude that if someone doesn't want to educate themselves and take the time and energy to be an informed voter than thats THEIR problem. But it isn't. Its MY problem too. An uneducated, uninformed electorate got us 8 years of Bush, and therefore THEIR problem is MY problem as well.
Besides, the point you make is in reference to what was only a small aside to my original comments. Its not really the "beef" of my argument. You still have to address the fact that more candidates only really equals more people pandering to you and you still have to address the very real problem of electing a president that 75% percent of the population voted AGAINST!
i'm not arguing in favor of the, basic, very entrenched, two party system we have. i'm simply saying that the alternatives people speak of may not necessarily make things any better.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
i do. The problem is the vast majority of Americans don't do that NOW. Its easy to take the attitude that if someone doesn't want to educate themselves and take the time and energy to be an informed voter than thats THEIR problem. But it isn't. Its MY problem too. An uneducated, uninformed electorate got us 8 years of Bush, and therefore THEIR problem is MY problem as well.
Besides, the point you make is in reference to what was only a small aside to my original comments. Its not really the "beef" of my argument. You still have to address the fact that more candidates only really equals more people pandering to you and you still have to address the very real problem of electing a president that 75% percent of the population voted AGAINST!
i'm not arguing in favor of the, basic, very entrenched, two party system we have. i'm simply saying that the alternatives people speak of may not necessarily make things any better.
and what alternatives do you feel might make things better?
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
People are paying attention to what he is saying. Just because you're not seeing him all over the mainstream media, doesn't mean he isn't getting his message out. In fact, people using mainstream media as a source for reliable news is on a steady decline and rightfully so.
that's what he was polling back in 2000 as well. i know because i voted for him and i thought we were going to get the 5% he needed, but he won't this time around either.
nader attacks on obama - countless
nader attacks on mccain - 0
nader does realize he is running against both obama AND mccain, right?
He has said plenty on McCain but not as much as why should he? It's the people who believe Obama will do the same kinda things Nader is addressing that he needs to focus on. McCain voters know what they are getting.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
that's what he was polling back in 2000 as well. i know because i voted for him and i thought we were going to get the 5% he needed, but he won't this time around either.
And your crystal ball is extra sparkly today?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
He has said plenty on McCain but not as much as why should he? It's the people who believe Obama will do the same kinda things Nader is addressing that he needs to focus on. McCain voters know what they are getting.
see, that is my point. i did both of those things and i couldn't find anything. i understand your points Abook, i just don't see naders logic for only going after obama.
i'd feel a little better about naders intentions if, when i googled "nader attacks mccain" i didn't get a page full of nader attacks on obama. or if when i visited http://www.votenader.org there was anything that could be construed as a negative campaign or comment on mccain.
see, that is my point. i did both of those things and i couldn't find anything. i understand your points Abook, i just don't see naders logic for only going after obama.
i'd feel a little better about naders intentions if, when i googled "nader attacks mccain" i didn't get a page full of nader attacks on obama. or if when i visited http://www.votenader.org there was anything that could be construed as a negative campaign or comment on mccain.
I did alot of reading on why Nader is so mad at the Democrats and he seems to be upset that they dont take him seriously anymore. In the 70's and 80's he was the toast of Washington for meetings and conferences with Democrats on a wide range of issues. It started to diminish in the 90's and after the 2000 election the door was shut on him. I read in one article how pissed he was that no one would take his calls or call him back (Democrats in Washington). He was trying to testify during the Condi Rice confirmation and not one Democrat would sponsor his testimony or call him back (like he was a foreign policy expert or something, right?). I think he has a large chip on his shoulder that the Dems dont take him seriously anymore and sometimes go out of their way to exclude him. Nader is a man scorned.
I did alot of reading on why Nader is so mad at the Democrats and he seems to be upset that they dont take him seriously anymore. In the 70's and 80's he was the toast of Washington for meetings and conferences with Democrats on a wide range of issues. It started to diminish in the 90's and after the 2000 election the door was shut on him. I read in one article how pissed he was that no one would take his calls or call him back (Democrats in Washington). He was trying to testify during the Condi Rice confirmation and not one Democrat would sponsor his testimony or call him back (like he was a foreign policy expert or something, right?). I think he has a large chip on his shoulder that the Dems dont take him seriously anymore and sometimes go out of their way to exclude him. Nader is a man scorned.
Couldn't have anything to do with how the Democrat party has continued to become less about the needs of the people and increasingly more about special interests and pandering. And that they have people fooled into believing they are actually an opposition party...nah, couldn't be that.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
see, that is my point. i did both of those things and i couldn't find anything. i understand your points Abook, i just don't see naders logic for only going after obama.
i'd feel a little better about naders intentions if, when i googled "nader attacks mccain" i didn't get a page full of nader attacks on obama. or if when i visited http://www.votenader.org there was anything that could be construed as a negative campaign or comment on mccain.
Do you honestly think most McCain voters will change their minds and vote Nader? Why waste limited resources focusing on someone who almost everyone that would give Nader an honest listen already knows what a complete joke McCain is....I know that's why I don't bother with posts about McCain. I don't prefer to waste time preaching to the choir.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Couldn't have anything to do with how the Democrat party has continued to become less about the needs of the people and increasingly more about special interests and pandering. And that they have people fooled into believing they are actually an opposition party...nah, couldn't be that.
Actually many people that have worked with him say he is mad at being shutout, etc... I know, doesnt change your view, he is a good man, blah blah.... but doesnt make it less relevant to those who arent fixated on King Ralph.
Actually many people that have worked with him say he is mad at being shutout, etc... I know, doesnt change your view, he is a good man, blah blah.... but doesnt make it less relevant to those who arent fixated on King Ralph.
He should be mad at being shut out. He is trying to address huge issues that are continuously ignored my our corrupted gov't. I would be mad, too. Our gov't has been bought and sold and no longer even pretend to care.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Do you honestly think most McCain voters will change their minds and vote Nader? Why waste limited resources focusing on someone who almost everyone that would give Nader an honest listen already knows what a complete joke McCain is....I know that's why I don't bother with posts about McCain. I don't prefer to waste time preaching to the choir.
This is a good point, makes sense as to why he'd go after Obama and not McCain.
Comments
Keep in mind i wasn't offering a ringing endorsement of the current system. Now, just where was i wrong? Even if you had a field of 20 to 30 candidates, you would be extremely naive to think that every single one of them wouldn't play politics. Good luck with your 25 percent of the vote president.
But back to Commy's point, when in this year and a half campaign have you seen any issue that Nader brought into the forefront, and that made the two party candidates address it?
And while people using mainstream media as a source for reliable news is on a steady decline, the VAST, VAST majority or people still use it as a reliable source, and they aren't seeing or hearing anything about Nader.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
He will be on with George Stephanopoulos this morning.
I agree that if you are going to have a field of personal candidates, it can be hard to navigate, but if many of these are representatives of a party, which have party guidelines and decided-on policies, you dont have to know everything about the candidate. What party he runs for should make it clear where he/she roughly stands.
It may be that I am coloured by local conditions in Norway, but I am a huge fan of several parties with a distinct program developed democratically through the party which they are committed to in the following period. Then you have actual choice. In the case of Norway, 7-8 parties that regularly are elected into national and local government. Just to give a taste of the span from roughly left to right with rough national percentage in brackets:
RV:Communists/former communists/radical socialists (1-2%)
SV:Socialists/Greens (5-10%)
AP:Social Democrats (Labour) (25-35%)
SP:Farmers/Districts (5-10%)
KrF:Christian Democrats (5-10%)
V:Liberals (5-10%)
H:Conservatives (10-20%)
FrP:Populistic right/libertarian/anti-immigration (15-30%)
This usually translates into coalition governments of the centre-left and centre-right flavours. And it works, at least in Norway, because of a heavy consensus-tradition in law-making, where most parties are included in processes that are to institute major changes. While in coalition, the parties retain their favoured positions, even if they had to compromise to get into government.
Wouldn't it be nice to have distinct options like the above for your elections? While america is 50 times bigger both in people and probably size, why should 2 parties be sufficient to cover your views?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
youre too sweet..
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
and Cornnifer, i think you started to be wrong upon immediately saying: "Let's consider some obvious hypotheticals." you said this and then went off created election scenarios that dont exist nor ever could exist, which isnt all that bad, say for the sake of discussion, but in the end you created a discussion with no basis in reality.
it's been awhile since ive raised this thought, so i cant really fault you for your snide assumption that i would somehow be linked to a system that would produce leaders with mere 25% voter-support. my schtick is that i want to see art and culture implimented into government and law as a means of increasing democracy, or direct public actions for legislative processes. election may be held every 6 months, or every week, or every 6 weeks, but instead of "leaders" the populous would vote on "ideas". the ideas would be presented through art, and the art would be presented through gov't run institutions to ensure unanimous availability. there are logistical problems here, and ultimately the concern still exists that the majority of persons may not know how to interpret the said works of art, thus the ideas within fall muted into oblivion, hence philosophical mediation is an inherent component with art (and i hate mediation!). im also bothered by the way our current gov't is built so extensively on beaurocratic foundations and processes, and such a cultural system as i am proposing would require much of the same in some form or another to keep fresh art and new ideas streaming into the process, but hopefully the corruption of professional politicians would be reduce to near nihil.
ok, im spent. see ya next week!
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Right on.
Heck, lets have a political party representing each and every faction and interest group in the united states. For example, the polygamist party, or the vegan party. The nudist and swingers party perhaps. A party for every group each with its own candidate. That would limit the field to about fifteen million and every single American would have their own views represented 100%. And of course, the swingers would never pander to the polygamists, or the nudists would never state their views in a way that might seek to attract any vegans who might be on the fence. THat would NEVER happen :rolleyes: . Have a run off so that the final two candidates can be the Democrat and Republican candidate EVERY SINGLE TIME ANYWAY!
Ya know what, lets not even HAVE the united states of America. Lets designate a small piece of land for each of the fifteen million groups i spoke of above, respect their borders and sovereignity and let them elect their own president. now THAT just may work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU
I'm going with the VERY silly party
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Ehm, not sure how to interpret this response, but you seem to be sarcastic to me. If so, my response is that most countries have multiple parties, and to have a serious party would mean to have a party with a stance on just about everything. A party is not a special interests group which you seem to portray it as. At least it should not be, and aren't in most countries. And there's nothing wrong with many minor parties, but they wouldn't have many followers. At least not the ones you propose. But that would even itself out and after a while you'd have a bunch of real parties that attract more than 0,5 %. The democrats or republicans might well win the first election and two, but if the system was changed so that other parties were viable and had a chance to gain seats and influence, I think you'd see quite a break-away from these parties. After all, I hear nothing but bitching and moaning about how poor the dem/repub candidate is on here. There should be room for several other viable parties. Once you turn away from the 1-man winner takes all districts, which does nothing but promote the larger parties, it might be more interesting to for instance vote green so they get a seat from your 10-20 man region. As it is, any vote not dem/repub is a vote wasted. A sentiment often expressed on here.
So I dont see why multiple US parties is so laughable. I didnt describe utopia, just how many other countries work.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
More choices is not an issue... that would just mean an ounce of effort on the part of the American people towards educating themselves on the candidates (instead of passively and lazily accepting the media bullshit on TV).
i do. The problem is the vast majority of Americans don't do that NOW. Its easy to take the attitude that if someone doesn't want to educate themselves and take the time and energy to be an informed voter than thats THEIR problem. But it isn't. Its MY problem too. An uneducated, uninformed electorate got us 8 years of Bush, and therefore THEIR problem is MY problem as well.
Besides, the point you make is in reference to what was only a small aside to my original comments. Its not really the "beef" of my argument. You still have to address the fact that more candidates only really equals more people pandering to you and you still have to address the very real problem of electing a president that 75% percent of the population voted AGAINST!
i'm not arguing in favor of the, basic, very entrenched, two party system we have. i'm simply saying that the alternatives people speak of may not necessarily make things any better.
and what alternatives do you feel might make things better?
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
i don't know. i've already stated that i won't pretend to have a solution. i just don't think virtually unlimited selection is the answer.
"Fuck the pessimists."
im voting Silly Party all the way till the cows come home..!
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
nader attacks on obama - countless
nader attacks on mccain - 0
nader does realize he is running against both obama AND mccain, right?
that's what he was polling back in 2000 as well. i know because i voted for him and i thought we were going to get the 5% he needed, but he won't this time around either.
He has said plenty on McCain but not as much as why should he? It's the people who believe Obama will do the same kinda things Nader is addressing that he needs to focus on. McCain voters know what they are getting.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And your crystal ball is extra sparkly today?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
care to make it interesting?
links please.
No, not really. I have no way of knowing either way and don't pretend to.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nah, you can google or go to his site.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
see, that is my point. i did both of those things and i couldn't find anything. i understand your points Abook, i just don't see naders logic for only going after obama.
i'd feel a little better about naders intentions if, when i googled "nader attacks mccain" i didn't get a page full of nader attacks on obama. or if when i visited http://www.votenader.org there was anything that could be construed as a negative campaign or comment on mccain.
I did alot of reading on why Nader is so mad at the Democrats and he seems to be upset that they dont take him seriously anymore. In the 70's and 80's he was the toast of Washington for meetings and conferences with Democrats on a wide range of issues. It started to diminish in the 90's and after the 2000 election the door was shut on him. I read in one article how pissed he was that no one would take his calls or call him back (Democrats in Washington). He was trying to testify during the Condi Rice confirmation and not one Democrat would sponsor his testimony or call him back (like he was a foreign policy expert or something, right?). I think he has a large chip on his shoulder that the Dems dont take him seriously anymore and sometimes go out of their way to exclude him. Nader is a man scorned.
"I'm an old white dude who likes to bitch about the white establishment." Where's fanch when you need him?
Couldn't have anything to do with how the Democrat party has continued to become less about the needs of the people and increasingly more about special interests and pandering. And that they have people fooled into believing they are actually an opposition party...nah, couldn't be that.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Do you honestly think most McCain voters will change their minds and vote Nader? Why waste limited resources focusing on someone who almost everyone that would give Nader an honest listen already knows what a complete joke McCain is....I know that's why I don't bother with posts about McCain. I don't prefer to waste time preaching to the choir.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Actually many people that have worked with him say he is mad at being shutout, etc... I know, doesnt change your view, he is a good man, blah blah.... but doesnt make it less relevant to those who arent fixated on King Ralph.
He should be mad at being shut out. He is trying to address huge issues that are continuously ignored my our corrupted gov't. I would be mad, too. Our gov't has been bought and sold and no longer even pretend to care.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This is a good point, makes sense as to why he'd go after Obama and not McCain.