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.
People remark that "if the Dems had chosen" or "if he'd been more popular" but I think that's not a clear picture of reality. People were deliberated dissuaded from these individuals and all independent candidates by the media and by everyone's reluctance to accept the truth: that things are bad and could get worse. We don't vote for people who tell us the truth because we can't handle the truth. For me, that's pretty much ALL I want! You can't move forward without it.
I wanted to toss Rudy Guiliani in there somewhere but he's my pick for attorney general. After 16 years of musical morons between Clinton and Bush we need somebody with a record of cleaning up messes, not creating them or just covering them up.
Rudy was fine in NYC, NYC was already toast & deserves recognition as one of the most unAmerican places in America, however, as a Federal AG he would be disastrous.
People remark that "if the Dems had chosen" or "if he'd been more popular" but I think that's not a clear picture of reality. People were deliberated dissuaded from these individuals and all independent candidates by the media and by everyone's reluctance to accept the truth: that things are bad and could get worse. We don't vote for people who tell us the truth because we can't handle the truth. For me, that's pretty much ALL I want! You can't move forward without it.
Agreed, the problem is no major party is interested in the truth & neither are the media or most people.
Imagine a day where the newspapers and TV news agencies all had nothing bad to report. It's not in the media's best interest for anything to be good since they thrive on strife. In short it's in the media's best interests to keep stirring the pot so it would purposely ignore anyone or anything that makes sense or would inflict no damage. It's just business to them. Allowing anyone who could answer a question by giving a definitive answer wouldn't be controversial or sensational at all so wouldn't make good TV.
Let's face it. We don't flip on the news to hear them say it was a great day. We want robberies, brutality, and the quick glimpse of a dead body or two and they deliver exactly what we ask for. Any candidate with a clean past or who isn't off the wall just isn't newsworthy.
We don't vote for people who tell us the truth because we can't handle the truth. For me, that's pretty much ALL I want! You can't move forward without it.
We voted for Carter because he told the truth, and then we refused to accept the truth and couldn't wait to get rid of him, and replace him with the worst liar the White House has ever seen. Everybody was then happy to have a liar back iin the White House where liars belong and feel comfortable.
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.
His campaign is nothing but Ego.
If Nader were serious he would run for senator or governor and then we could see what he wouldreally be like as a president.
We've had disasters like Reno and ********, I can't see how Rudy would be any worse. I don't like to think what Obama might scrape up for the job.
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.