After debate Nader says considering president bid

[Kinetic 0]

If they can't even pull in 5% of the vote, why should we waste our time?

You don't think total lack of media coverage has anything to do with that?

[Vyce 0]

Are some of you joking about Nader?

 

Look, the Democrat party didn't lose because of the Greens / Nader in 2000, and they certainly won't live or die by either this time around.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Are some of you joking about Nader?

 

Look, the Democrat party didn't lose because of the Greens / Nader in 2000, and they certainly won't live or die by either this time around.

I disagree.

 

I think Nader got enough votes in Florida where if he wasn't running Gore would have picked some of those up and pulled ahead.

 

But, too f'n bad. Gore still lost...

[NoCalMike 0]

I would like to see more voices of opinion involved. Whether I agree with the person or not, it is the principal that having the same two sides argue back and forth can get a bit tiresome.

[Guest MikeSC]

I guess he had so much fun screwing up the Democrats, he might decide to run Independant so he can screw up the Greens, too.

Feel the Perot pain.

 

And the problem for Gore, as always, was that Gore is just not a likeable guy. It wasn't Nader. Just as Bush I and Dole lost because they didn't want to run and just aren't nationally electable respectively, not Perot.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

If they can't even pull in 5% of the vote, why should we waste our time?

You don't think total lack of media coverage has anything to do with that?

The Green Party could have their own network. They are an UNELECTABLE party.

 

And having tons of unelectable parties in positions of power leads to government instability.

-=Mike

[Guest Brian]

I think he could have pulled in more than five percent in a less than contested year.

 

The point with Gore should be that it was his election to lose.

[Guest Cerebus]

You're all assuming those that came out to vote for Nader would have come out to vote for Gore if Nader had not ran. Of course with Florida even a few hundred could have made the difference anyway.

[Kinetic 0]

The Green Party could have their own network. They are an UNELECTABLE party.

 

And having tons of unelectable parties in positions of power leads to government instability.

-=Mike

That's a bit of an undemocratic point of view to have, in addition to being the sort of self-fulfilling prophecy that maintains the two-party system that alienates so many American voters.

[Guest MikeSC]

The Green Party could have their own network. They are an UNELECTABLE party.

 

And having tons of unelectable parties in positions of power leads to government instability.

                -=Mike

That's a bit of an undemocratic point of view to have, in addition to being the sort of self-fulfilling prophecy that maintains the two-party system that alienates so many American voters.

Seeing as how American voters can't even name a single issue that a candidate stands for --- the less that vote, the better.

 

I'd rather have a country where a few, somewhat educated people vote than one where tons of drooling troglodytes do.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

I'm still waiting for a SANE independent candiate.

 

And Nadar is not a sane one.

 

God, sometimes it sucks not being Democrat or Republican.

[NoCalMike 0]

It is also not always about winning though. Media coverage is not just about making Nader or Libertarian guy the President, maybe they just want to put the heat on other politicians who are not following through with campaign promises, or they want certain ideas and/or thoughts to be pondered. Just like Al Sharpton has said on many occassions he knows he has no chance of winning, however if given the correct forum in the primary race, he can address issues and/or problems that would otherwise go ignored. Sometimes we need people other then Bush/"insert democrat here" to raise awareness and issues involving this country and it's people that we normally wouldn't ever be talking about.

[MrRant 0]

If people took 5 seconds of their time to watch the news, read a paper or read the news online then you wouldn't need politicians to raise awareness of "issues".

 

I definetely don't look towards them for awareness of "issues".

[NoCalMike 0]

If people took 5 seconds of their time to watch the news, read a paper or read the news online then you wouldn't need politicians to raise awareness of "issues".

 

I definetely don't look towards them for awareness of "issues".

I just turned on CNN/FoxNews/CNBC/MSNBC for 5 seconds each and I didn't learn anything new, just more talk of "terror threat is high" Now I can test your theory with the paper, but I am not sure the sports page or entertainment section count......

[BX 0]

If the media (broadcast, print, and radio) dedicate a mere 20% of the coverage they give to celebrities, and refocus it on candidates and politics in general, then people would be more aware of the issues.

 

Instead of telling us what Clay fucking Aiken had for dinner, or name-dropping Paris Hilton for no apparent reason (because when it comes down to the nitty gritty, what kind of fucking impact does that have on ANYONES life?), they could dedicate that same energy to shit that truely matters.

 

We could certainly have a serious third party in this country, but in this day and age where mindless dribble prevails on the glowy box, it's too much to ask people to sit down for five fucking minutes and discuss the issues.

 

That being said, im guna go and watch e! entrtnment TV lol/