What would happen if the media

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

That's a bullshit response. I don't like Nader because he's not "mainstream". I like him because he's fucking amazing and has a very long and very good track record. I would bet that nearly all the people that like him are probably smart enough to realize what he's done in his life. We're just smarter, so we get it

It's not about anything to do with mainstream. That's like saying you don't like Pearl Jam because they're too mainstream. If the music is good, the music is good. And Ralph Nader plays some damn good music as far as I'm concerned.

Spot on!

PearlsGirl wrote:

What most people don't see now a days that there are people, like me for example, who are traditional democrats. Have you seen both parties take a complete 180 in the past decade? Dems and republicans have different values than did ten years ago. You now have to be "religious" to be a republican, and you have to be a pot smoking hippie to be a democrat. Also, personally, I don't understand WHY we must have a two party system. Most American's don't fall under either party, and I am one of those. I will say it clear, right now, I am more of a socialist. I believe the British Labour Party defines my personal political views. I don't support any war, ever. We had no reason to invade Iraq, other than to play along with Bush's game of Cowboys and Indians. We've spent 1.3 trillion dollars (roughly) on a war that has gone to shit, and taken away money from Education (tuition spikes suck ass), Welfare (and there are people out there receiving welfare who don't need it, making way for those who do need it to be royally fucked), Social Security! and we even tax it! goddamn, who knew that all that money that is taken out of my pay check every month is soon not going to be around. THANKS GOV'T., and well, the economy is shit right now. Thanks to the raising price of oil, well, it's like a game of dominos, everything else goes up as well.
I don't get why we always say that America is a democracy, because it's not. we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. we have no direct say in gov't, we have assholes represent us, they are the ones who allowed Bush to become president in '04. Thanks to the electoral college.

...
You answered your own question... don't vote along party lines.
Vote for the candidate, not the political party. There is nothing in writing that states if you are a registered Democrat, that you must vote for the Candidate with the (D) next to his/her name.
People who DO vote along party line are playing into the politicians hands. This is what they want... the electoriat to vote without thinking. They aren't stupid... WE are stupid. That is why we have a Congess who scores a 19% Approval Rating.
Maybe it's time we fire all of the fucking assholes that are in there and start a rebuilding effort.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

That's a bullshit response. I don't like Nader because he's not "mainstream". I like him because he's fucking amazing and has a very long and very good track record. I would bet that nearly all the people that like him are probably smart enough to realize what he's done in his life. We're just smarter, so we get it

It's not about anything to do with mainstream. That's like saying you don't like Pearl Jam because they're too mainstream. If the music is good, the music is good. And Ralph Nader plays some damn good music as far as I'm concerned.

I have met plenty through the years that don't like pearljam because they are too mainstream. And I think deep down they realize PJ is very talented. But if it's not Lagwagon, Propoghandi, or Bad Religion then they are prob too mainstream. I Imagine there are some that think this way politically as well

Cosmo wrote:

...
You answered your own question... don't vote along party lines.
Vote for the candidate, not the political party. There is nothing in writing that states if you are a registered Democrat, that you must vote for the Candidate with the (D) next to his/her name.
People who DO vote along party line are playing into the politicians hands. This is what they want... the electoriat to vote without thinking. They aren't stupid... WE are stupid. That is why we have a Congess who scores a 19% Approval Rating.
Maybe it's time we fire all of the fucking assholes that are in there and start a rebuilding effort.

100% agreed!

ledvedderman wrote:

What's that have to do with the price of tea in China? Just because something is ".com" they are trying to sell you something?

you're a sheep.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

We wouldn't have anything to blame and then you'd actually have a point. As it stands now, you don't because Nader is completely ignored and not covered by the media so we can't not expect that to make a huge difference. Just like the way all you guys think Nader doesn't do anything but run for prez every 4 years and then vanishes...it's ignorance based on non-exposure.

I agree that he doesn't get the exposure as major party candidates, that isn't the only reason that he won't win. And I don't think that it's some corporate media blacklist that keeps him off the air... Ralph Nader just isn't interesting or sexy enough to get TV ratings. Ross Perot made a splash as a 3rd party candidate because he spent a ton of money and came in during the right political climate... He got lucky, and the media picked up on him.

I wrote this in an earlier Nader thread, but I think it's true:

I know he doesn't actually quit working in the years in between, but what I was saying that if he is serious about turning around our government, he has to find a way to get the grassroots working. You see major candidates start years ahead of time in Iowa, doing a lot of door to door campaigning, developing local offices, and just getting out there. I'm not so sure that Nader does that enough. Also, he's no spring chicken, what happens to the movement when he is gone? There needs to be a charismatic leader to pick up where he leaves off.

And as far as people getting their news from other sources, that maybe true, but the vast majority of the people aren't digging any deeper... You look at Google searches and Yahoo news searches, and the top searched categories are still celebrity gossip, and whatever the story of the day is on the cable news networks. People are going different places, but the major news media is still setting the agenda.

That's why it has to be a ground-up change... Older voters are still going to vote for their party, and as younger voters get older, once they have their own families, etc., a lot of us get more complacent and apathetic to some huge change... we have a million other day-to-day things to worry about.

That goes back to your thread about what will it take to resist... I have a wife and a family, we juggle child care and other schedules, rising prices on gas and every other bills, and lack of free time, so when we do get a weekend off or some evenings off, we would much rather do fun "family" stuff, then worry about changing all of the wrongs with the world... Once our daily lives and freedoms get noticeable altered, only then will most people resist.

So, if you start getting third party candidates on local town boards, and city councils, then state government positions, and people see a difference, then we might see a reduction in the power of a two party system.

lazymoon13 wrote:

you're a sheep.

Thanks for answering for macgyver

ledvedderman wrote:

Thanks for answering for macgyver

np. sheep!