Please post your evidence that the canidates were able to elect themselves in that election.



It would probably have been much worse. And we would have had more terrorist attacks by now.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Falling dollar is actually helping the economy by increasing American exports and investment from abroad. The economy is not imploding only correcting itself.

__________________
"True Freedom is the Freedom to oppress others"

Ideology: Self Preservation.

Sorry but many on both sides of the political spectrum are tired of politicians catering to lobbyists for big business and corporations. Also many have no clue that they do. Like I said before people complain about it but feel helpless against it and still vote for either one of the big parties.
Yet I find so many polls and opinions that show so many Republicans and Democrats unhappy with their parties.
See above post.
Yet you couldn't refute the point that the debates and their questions are determined and controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties.
Quite the contrary. The people need control yet cannot achieve this when they are controlled by a media that only gives them certain information. The majority of people cannot make an informed decision if they are not given all the information.
Some people have independent thought.
My next part said that the voter (the people) does get the blame. Are you following this?
I said "Yes the blame does go to the voter" Blame goes out to both those who control and those who let themselves be controlled.
Sorry but that is wrong. When Ralph Nader announced his candidacy for President in the 2000 election not one major media source covered it. How many people even actually know what some of the third parties platforms are. In another thread not one person here knew Nader's platform (which I supplied)and this is supposed to be a place of political interest. If the people here don't know, what are the chances that the general population doesn't know?
No, they won't win because of all the reasons I stated.

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

If most felt that way, they would be voting for people hostile to corporate lobbyists. The empirical evidence does not support your conclusion.


Then it obviously doesn't bother them enough. They have the power to do something about it, but refuse to do so. Whose fault is that?


Actual elections supersede any commercial poll, because the sample size is so much larger in an election.


All you posted was evidence that the Republicans and Democrats make the rules for their OWN candidates...which is what I said all along.

There is no law that says they have to do so. It is entirely voluntary. Their rules are self-imposed. Your own source proves there is no law preventing them from debating anyone. Its a private agreement between them.

I didn't refute it because there is nothing to refute. Your own evidence proves my point. My claim was that no one is preventing anyone from hosting a debate or joining in a debate. Which is true. The only thing that prevents Republicans and Democrats from debating anyone is the Republicans and Democrats themselves.

And I still don't see the problem with this, because you are not entitled to debate them! Neither is any 3rd party. Debates are not required to be elected to office.


You have not proven they are being controlled by anyone.

The fact that they don't agree with you doesn't mean they are being controlled.


Who gets to decide which people have "independent thought"?


because no one wanted to buy what he had to sell. The media isn't obligated to waste airtime on someone who is only supported by a tiny minority of the voting population.

Not all views have equal merit. You are not entitled to force me to hear what you have to say. The same is true for 3rd parties.

They can get media attention the hard way; through grass roots effort. We already know it can be done. Perot did it.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Let's have a poll here then for American citizens. We can either ask if they support lobbyists or if they feel the 2 main parties cater to corporate interests. I already know for a fact they do but you seem to believe they don't. You can help decide how the poll is worded.
Still partly their fault.
How many times did people vote for the lesser evil in 2004 or simply did not want to waste their vote. It is a catch-22 situation and it is perpetuated by the media and repeated by the majority.
I'm not talking about a poll that asks who they are going to vote for but polls that show they are unhappy with the 2 major parties.
Now you are talking about a law! I never claimed anything about the legality of debates.You state that no one is preventing anyone from joining in a debate so I will ask you, why wasn't Nader allowed in any of the debates? You further reinforce my point with your quote "The only thing that prevents Republicans and Democrats from debating anyone is the Republicans and Democrats themselves" That shows they control the debates.
My god, look around you. The media mentions Reverend Wright and everyone talks about him. How many were talking about him before the media brought him up.Any subject of political interest in controlled by the media. The majority of the people are not talking about atrocities caused by Nestle, GE or Bechtel because they are not in the news.
Who said anything about agreeing with me. If one shows that they have collected information outside of the mainstream media instead of parroting the pundits on CNN or FOX then it shows they can obtain some sort of independent thought.
See above post.
And while the media continues to ignore them they will never gain any insurmountable numbers. Please tell me one thing from his platform that liberals don't agree with since Nader is considered a liberal.

Sounds like you want to control the information. when should the views of a third party be heard? When they receive a certain percentage of the vote, when the support the interests of corporations before the people? You tell us when a voice other than the Republicans or Democrats should be heard?
Perot did it with money. The media still largely ignored Ross Perot but Perot spent millions on advertising.

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

Thank you, and best wishes to you and your family as well.

Notice how nobody bothered responding to this though.

I love my fellow countrymen and women, but you call them overly patriotic (which is true) and they wont even give you the time of day lol.

__________________
"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments"

--George Washington

"Never spend your money before you have earned it."

--Thomas Jefferson

"One man with courage is a majority."

--Thomas Jefferson

We already do that. They are called elections. We'll have another "poll" in less than a year.


We've already asked them. Many times. They see these politicians cave in to lobbyists and yet they still elect them to office. That = consent. They have the power to stop them, but choose not to.


So their vote is "wasted" so long as they don't vote with the majority...is that your position?

No one forces them to vote for the "lesser of two evils". They have the option to vote 3rd party if they want to. But its all their choice. If they CHOOSE to compromise by voting for someone they don't completely agree with (but who is more likely to win) that is their choice.


The majority know their options. They know they can vote 3rd party if they want to. Thats why this talk about a "2 party system" is so absurd...it's only a 2 party system because they want it that way.



If they were unhappy enough with them, they'd vote for someone else. We saw that with Perot, we see that with Ralph Nader every election.

The majority is ok with compromising. They don't have a problem with it. If they did, they'd vote for someone else.



You claimed the candidates were prevented from debating who they wanted to debate. Your link proves that is untrue...their own parties can change the rules whenever they want.


Because the major party candidates don't want to debate him. Thats why.


No it doesn't...it shows that they only want to debate each other. They don't control any debates. What is to prevent CNN from hosting a debate between Nader and all the other candidates? Nothing. If the Republicrats wanted to join them, they could. No one is being "prevented" from debating anyone.

If Nader decided he didn't want to debate anyone, would you then say HE controlled the debates? Gimme a break.

The Republicrats don't control anything because they cant prevent other candidates from debating each other. All they control is their OWN actions. Thats all your link showed.


Done that. Still dont think they are being controlled.

You reek of the typical liberal elitism that says if someone doesnt agree with you, they must be "controlled". Because it couldn't possibly be that your position is simply wrong.


They're talking about him because that is what people want to hear about.


...and by proxy, their viewers. Who are voters.


And because they don't care. Thats why they are not news.


How can they show this? By agreeing with you?


If they build up a large enough grass roots movement, the media will not be able to ignore them.


I have no idea, since I'm not a liberal. You'd have to ask them.

To me he looks the same as any other liberal. But they obviously make a distinction.


Not allowing you to force me to hear what you have to say = I want to control all information? Huh?

Are you saying I don't have a right not to have to listen to you?


Whenever someone wants to listen to them.

I fully agree they should have free speech. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to force me to hear what you have to say.


Perhaps the people believe that those corporate interests are parallel to their own. You don't get to make that decision for them either way.


Which would seem to run counter to your claim that money buys influence.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Come On People - get it right ...

It is NOT a Democracy ....

That is the problem with the Left ... they are redefining what was working fine!

That is why we are in such a friggin mess ...

I think it should be classified as TREASON to imply this country is a Democracy - that would END a lot of problems!

__________________
Some

Words From History:

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction...” — Ted Kennedy (September 27, 2002)


"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan.

I am getting so tired of repeating this, heh heh


We fit all underlined definitions. "Democracy" and "Republic" are not mutually exclusive terms. We are both.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

i think were slightly slipping away from democracy a little but it isnt a recent thing. weve been doing it for a while now.. the electoral college is a perfect example. we need to get rid of it and just go by the popular vote. the two-party system also. in fact, we should get rid of the party system all together. let it be like the founding fathers meant for it to be.