Clinton first delcared iraq had WMD...he also cut funds for the lower class (ie: cut finanical aid to families with independant children) i don't need to say anything about Bush that people don't know already.
Nadar has done more as a citizen for people than any handfull of presidents: including OSHA, Clean air act, nutritient labels on food, car crash testing, warning on drugs, tread wear label on tires, to name a few.
Both Democrats and Republicans give way to corporation campaign and care less about the working class.
note to democrats who think nadar is a spoiler... in 2000, bush won florida by 500 votes. Every independant candidate had more than 500 votes. get a better campaign and fulfill the libertarian and consumer issues and stop the corporate prostitution,
micheal moore on the democratic party in 2000: "the lesser of two evils is still evil"
2007-07-14 16:56:34 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I do not like politicians,
Political Leadership is a Myth.
But one of the very few exceptions : Ron Paul
Read some about it ? :
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/
2007-07-14 17:21:56 · answer #1 · answered by MIkE ALEGRIA 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That is still the basic flaw of a 2 party system.
You could have a country 60% democrat, 40% republican.. Dems win
Toss someone like nader into the batch, to split the dem vote, and you would end up with a 30%, 30%, 40%.. republicans win.
Publically funded elections could bring more people into the arena, eliminate the need political parties and possibably balance out the sytem. What would happen with a 5 way race? 10?
Maybe dont vote for only one person.. but rank them from higest to lowest.
How well do you think Nader would do in a system like that? He was not the lesser of 2 evils, he was not evil. However, many people fearing bush's victory (and for good reason) voted for who they beleived had a better shot of winning.
2007-07-15 00:22:32 · answer #2 · answered by Kacy H 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't like the concept of single-issue people being President. Nader as President would make it a Consumer's Union nation, at the expense of the economy and business. I want a President who will have some give and take. Nader strikes me as the anti-Bush - a self-important inflexible LEFT winger who thinks he is always right and that he knows what's best for everybody, and who is unwilling to entertain conflicting advice.
Politically, though, Nader should understand that he has no chance to actually WIN, and all his candidacy is doing is taking votes away from the Democratic candidate, and possibly helping assure a Republican victory.
And while every independent candidate may have had more than 500 votes in FL 2000, any one of them, including Nader's, might have won the election for Gore. So don't try to back out of your responsibility for that one.
I would like to see a third-party candidate - a CENTRIST third party candidate. Not a far-left or far-right winger. They just annoy me.
2007-07-15 00:35:48 · answer #3 · answered by Chredon 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I just want to see a woman president, who's intentions are actually good for the country. A little change never hurt nobody :)
2007-07-15 00:05:02 · answer #4 · answered by Meow 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Ralph Nader would have a better shot if his supporters would get his name right.
2007-07-14 23:59:19 · answer #5 · answered by open4one 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
2007-07-15 00:09:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
maybe
2007-07-15 00:32:55 · answer #7 · answered by billnzan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋