If he truly wants Bush to be defeated, than he would not run splitting the vote of the Dems . No, he is just an egomaniac who wishes to stay in the news at whatever cost.
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
If he truly wants Bush to be defeated, than he would not run splitting the vote of the Dems . No, he is just an egomaniac who wishes to stay in the news at whatever cost.
Hi, Paul.
Nader has zero credibility at this point. After the last time, his support will only be the extremists who probably would have voted for the Socialist Workers Candidate if he weren't in the race.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Hi Dave,
If I'm not too wrong the leader of that party was born in Australia and is a naturalized American citizen and thus cannot become the president of the USA.
The Vice President nominee for the party is too young for office, since she's only 24...
However, I think it is a pity that we don't have a parliament system instead so we could see more parties being part of the political decisions, no matter if they are right- or left wing (I obviously have MY preferences...). Then it would matter who you voted for, even if it was a small party and the decisions would probably have a broader support in the society. Just my opinion/thoughts.
Well, the head of the party, or even the vp, doesn't have to be the candidate does it? in fact, I dare say that the head of the Democratic or Republican party has rarely ran for President or VP, at least not while head of the party.
Anyone that wants to can start a party I think. And any district that wishes can elect anyone of any party to be a member of the House or the Senate. There is no requirement to have a parliament system, however you define it, to have different parties representative.
So why do you feel that we need a parliament system for "... it would matter who you voted for, even if it was a small party ..."?
Shrug, our way has held up pretty good for 200 years plus, with changes made when enough approved. It has it flaws, and many disagreements about what is flawed and what is good. But it works as well as any other currently in the world I suspect.
Every country doesn't have to have the same style of government as what you're use to for it to work fine.
"... we don't have a parliament system ..."
So you are a US citizen then? if you wish to say that is. There was some question about it in the past and if it was clarified, I must have missed it.
roger
Hi, Charlie.
The problem with parliamentary systems is that the requirment in most that the ruling party prevail in all "substantive" issues is death on compromoise -- and we have too much of that attitude already! It's also the exact opposite of our system of "checks and balances," where each branch tends to limit the power of the other. In a parliamentary system, the executive and legislative are the same.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!