Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ralph Nader, who IS running, is the only candidate whose actions over the years have benefited every American. He isn't owned by anyone and doesn't mince words to elicit votes. He's not running to stroke his ego; rather, he's attempting to occupy the vacuum left by our indifference. Name someone else who has stood up to the plate to defy the status quo and offer real change. Unfortunately, since most idiots won't consider voting for an independent because they feel compelled for some ungodly reason to vote with every other lemming, we'll be stuck with more of the same from the two-headed monster. Your media-supported choice is between the lesser of two evils, both of which are attached to the same source: corporations and bankers. You pick Obama or you pick McCain, you LOSE.
Last edited by mhouse2001; 10-19-2008 at 04:59 PM..
Without question Ron Paul. The rest are just political clowns or wannabees.
We dont need a smooth talker, we need a person who respects the constitution & this country above all else.
While I too like Ron Paul, I don't think he is capable of running the country. I see Nader as having a larger support base and a broad history of dealing with our bureaucracy, so I think he's more capable of accomplishing the necessary changes. I agree that the Constitution is nearly sacred (I won't go so far as to attribute an adjective I save for religion) and not just the G-D sheet of paper this Administration thinks it is.
So far all of the names mentioned did or are running and got rejected as being not what people wanted. So it appears the best two by voter choice are running.
While I too like Ron Paul, I don't think he is capable of running the country. I see Nader as having a larger support base and a broad history of dealing with our bureaucracy, so I think he's more capable of accomplishing the necessary changes. I agree that the Constitution is nearly sacred (I won't go so far as to attribute an adjective I save for religion) and not just the G-D sheet of paper this Administration thinks it is.
I'm at the point where I think we need a person not so worldly so to speak.
Nader is a good man in my opinion too but I dont see him reining in like I think Paul would & simply backing out of international BS.
Our forien policy IMO should be one of dont ef with me & I wont ef with you.
Our best years were years of independence, self reliance & isolationism.
The bulk of our issues have come about because of the trend in the later part of the 20th century to try & solve the worlds problems or at least direct those problems towards ends benefiting us.
Let our problems be our own & let others problems be theirs & let the chips fall where they may.
So far all of the names mentioned did or are running and got rejected as being not what people wanted. So it appears the best two by voter choice are running.
Do you really believe that?
I tend to think we got what the two major parties wanted not because the voters knowingly desired them, but because most people just go with the flo.
Its my opinion that if the Rep party pushed Obama most Rep would back that & vica versa.
I'm at the point where I think we need a person not so worldly so to speak.
Nader is a good man in my opinion too but I dont see him reining in like I think Paul would & simply backing out of international BS.
Our forien policy IMO should be one of dont ef with me & I wont ef with you.
Our best years were years of independence, self reliance & isolationism.
The bulk of our issues have come about because of the trend in the later part of the 20th century to try & solve the worlds problems or at least direct those problems towards ends benefiting us.
Let our problems be our own & let others problems be theirs & let the chips fall where they may.
You and I usually agree on nothing, but I too support isolationism. No money for foreign governments until we actually have some to give. The military's role is to protect US, not America's business interests abroad, get our troops back here on our borders. Solve our problems first and get out of the rest of the world's affairs. I wonder what the actual source was for our move away from this. Was it the capitalist bankers who thought the rest of the world was ripe for exploitation? Was it part of a long-term plan to push America to the brink so it too would fold into a world collective? Don't know what the future holds but an isolationist united USA stands the best chance of survival.
My vote would go to Biden and Powell. . . .but I like Obama better than either of them! This country NEEDS a NEW ATTITUDE!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
