|
DISCLAIMER: There may be spelling and grammatical errors in the post below
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
I must add the Nader is a f'n shit. He may have not taken enough votes away from Kerry to make a difference but he should be faulted for taking away time, energy, and money from dems that they could have dedicated to Bush. That may not be reflected in the vote results but i'm sure it did not help the democrat's efforts.
I want to further add, that the dems should have fronted a conservative evangelical to do the same on the repub side. Maybe they'll do that next election. |
First of all, Ralph Nader has as much right to run in a Presidential election as anyone else. Secondly, no one made the Democrats Disenfranchise Nader's supporters by making such strong efforts to have him removed in other states. Living in Ohio, I collected signatures for Ralph's campaign, and talking to his supporters, they voiced their likeliness to do one of two things (upon Nader's imminent removal):
a.) write Nader in
b.) Vote for another third party candidate.
The people of America are more or less crying for a candidate who can fairly and honestly represent them and their views. This was not offered in this election. We got a politician from Texas who allows his religious views to alter his secular life, and one from Massachusets whose main political platform was, "Im not the incumbent!" While both of the major candidates had several good points, it is no secret that these people win because of the large sums of money they can spend. These funds which are putting a stranglehold on American politics are largely donated by corporations and their owners. Corporations do not represent the good of the American people. Additionally, both of the major candidates have too narrow of a view of the world. A perfect example of this was shown during the third debate when the moderator asked about the AIDS problem. The answer for both candidates, after stumbling over the idea in their minds, was simply more funding. While this certainly helps, it is not a solution. It also shows how little these gentlemen saw of the world beyond the following issues: Terrorism, Iraq war, Dropping economy, Large-scale job loss. A few other topics were gently breached, but usually as a reference point for one of the above. There were alot more issues in this election but due to (I think) the simplicity of the common American mind, the candidates were afraid of overloading their minds with information.
I (generally) like the American Electoral process, but the American public is ridiculous. They vote a straight party ticket, regardless of their candidate (this explains how a local judge who participated in a financial scam, to avoid paying nearly 200,000 dollars worth of taxes can get 48% of the vote), they vote like their spouses (I saw 7 different husbands enter the voting booth while their wives were in there yesterday. This is, I believe, illegal), they vote on issues and candidates they dont know anything about, they vote based on how many times theyve heard the name on tv and radio.....It is disgusting. Until the American public starts to educate itself on things, our elections will always be a mish-mash of those who understand who stands for what and those who vote for vapid reasons like party lines and tv slogans (Ya just lift up the hood and fix it!"....anyone remember that one?). The lesser of two evils did not win this election, no matter who ends up winning. But then again, voting lets the public choose who they want, and maybe in the end, theyll get what they deserve. Ill just detachedly observe it all...
Last edited by on Nov-03-2004 at 14:47
|
