Originally posted by ZahlanziI've considered it, AND voted for him. But yes, we are doomed to a 2-party system in this idiotic country. Why, I don't know, but I haven't ruled out the utter stupidity of the average American.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader
Nader has announced he will run for president. His speech was the usual, he will bring down corruption war profiteers, give medical care and 2.5 cookies to all, end poverty and all the rest.
Putting aside whether or not he could deliver, my question is, mostly to all americans, if either of you e ...[text shortened]... ident? or america is doomed to having to choose either a republican or a democrat for president?
Originally posted by PinkFloydDo you think that they are stupid for not supporting a third party or for not supporting Nader?
I've considered it, AND voted for him. But yes, we are doomed to a 2-party system in this idiotic country. Why, I don't know, but I haven't ruled out the utter stupidity of the average American.
Originally posted by telerionMaybe they're (we're) "stupid" for not organizing a nationwide grassroots democratic campaign to open up the electoral process and eliminate the roadblocks that make alternate parties so unrealistic in the US. This would clearly impove their (our) democracy by allowing them (us) to put more pressure on our government.
Do you think that they are stupid for not supporting a third party or for not supporting Nader?
**I'm assuming here that democracy is a good. Possibly a bad assumption.
maybe you could consider forcing the democrats and republicans to only accept donations from individuals(like nader claims he is going to do). when most of the rich corporations give millions of dollars for campaigns only to one of those two parties and the average american(sadly the dumb average american) only hears on tv kerry this and bush that (hillary obama or mccain now) it is obvious he will vote for one of the two because he didn't hear the other man talk.
in politics it all comes down to choosing the best talker, not the best man for the jobs. and the best talker is either the man with the charisma, or the man who got the money to hire the best people for his campaign and make the best publicity.
choosing a president in the us is similar to making a commercial: usually
the biggest budget is a winner
Nader definitely is on the lunatic fringe, no chance at all of getting any significant numbers. As far as third parties go, I'd guess the Libertarian party has values closest to our founding principles (with the Constitution party close behind). But as the years roll on, I become more convinced that the majority of voters in the states either never learned these principles in school, or they simply no longer agree with these principles or care about them. Neither the Libertarian nor the Constitution party has a chance in heck of getting any significant votes. I may end up voting for either Ron Paul or whoever the Libertarians select to represent their party.
To me, an ideal presidential candidate isn't just one who believes in the same things I do, but one who knows how to lead people to achieve those goals. One who knows how to get people to support his agenda.
Even if I thought Nader believed in the same things I did, I won't vote for him because he doesn't know how to lead people. Case in point, he's choosing a party where he'll get no significant support in winning the election.
One reason (of many) why I think George Bush was a terrible president wasn't just his goals and ideals (which I also hate), but because he didn't know how to get people to support him. He couldn't get UN support for Iraq, and so he turned his back but went ahead with his plans anyway. He couldn't get support of Congress for any of his domestic policies, but he still pursues them.
Capable leaders know how to convince people, and get their support.
Nader has proven time and time again that he can't do that.
Don't twist my words, I said an ideal candidate is one who believes in the same ideals and knows how to convince people.
I was trying to highlight that it's pointless to vote for a candidate who is incompetent in leading just because their ideals match yours.
I don't believe in the same ideals as Hitler. Perhaps you mistakenly assumed that I shared your political beliefs.