General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNadar , Kucinich , and Ron Paul ....
Need to answer a question...
"why are you in the presidential race ?"
If the answer is "they are in it to win it " , then they are delusional fools
The real answer is they are in it to manipulate the election , fuck those guys and their giant egos
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Don't like it? Don't vote for them.
Maybe they do have big egos, or are really in it for manipulation sake, but this is our system. Don't like it? Change it.
surfdog
(624 posts)But can you tell me why Nader percentage ran for president ?
mac56
(17,566 posts)I'm free to walk blindfolded across the interstate.
Just because someone CAN doesn't mean that they SHOULD.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Though, I wish he would challenge Obama, if nothing else it might force the President to the left, as it is he is just going to continue his slide to the right.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)You are the go-to person for political analysis.
surfdog
(624 posts)Tell me why he did run for president can you do that ?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)surfdog
(624 posts)Obviously he isn't in the race
can you tell me why he did run for president ?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)he ran to be nominated his party's official candidate for the same reasons the others ran.
I am not going to play mind reader.
surfdog
(624 posts)That would make him delusional
He is well aware that he can't win one state much less the nomination
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)surfdog
(624 posts)The fact that he thinks he can win when reality tells us he can't even win one state
Kucinich was never in the race to win it he had other motivations
Why don't you tell me why he was in the race ?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I strongly suspect you are not looking for knowledge.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)and you can read minds?
My that is certainly interesting.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)he felt that he could make a difference and he qualified under the Constitution to do so. Certainly it would have been an long uphill battle to win, but the same could be said of an unknown State Senator from IL at one point. He tried, he didn't make it, how many have not even tried?
surfdog
(624 posts)He ran because he felt he could make a difference ? I thought that's why he joined congress , I'm glad you didn't say he ran because he thought he could win because nobody not even Dennis Kucinich believes that
So what are we left with ?
Kucinich ran for president knowing that he could never win
Javaman
(62,521 posts)you're "political analysis" is staggering to say the least.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)that anyone who qualifies under the Constitution can run? It is not up to me or you to pass judgement on their motivations or electability, only through our vote to decide if we think they are the best choice for the job and frankly this is exactly what the Primary process is all about. It is designed for both parties to narrow the field to their one candidate to oppose the other party. Why would we not want the field to be as wide and varied as possible? Why would we not want candidates that who perhaps cannot win to bring their ideas and energy, debate the issues and to the table to engage the broadest possible portion of the electorate? In 2008 there were a number of Democratic candidates of which Dennis Kucinich was one, why is your focus simply on him and not the others?
But, I suspect you know all that and your motivations in this thread are elsewhere.
think
(11,641 posts)and the erosion of our civil rights. You know those simple little issues that tend to get glossed over by the MSM....
G_j
(40,367 posts)and the system is for winners seemingly according to the OP.
surfdog
(624 posts)Maybe I should run for president
think
(11,641 posts)I prefer more candidates and options rather than being forced to chose the lesser of two evils.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I thought this was going to be a "---, -----, --- walk into a bar.." joke.
Carry on.
psst... it's NadEr.
Javaman
(62,521 posts)
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)Did I miss something?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)That's why they're campaigning. What's "delusional" are politicians who think that the people owe them their votes because they happen to belong to one of the establishment parties.
surfdog
(624 posts)Obama Hillary McCain they all ran cause They thought they could win
Kucinich Ron Paul Ralph Nader they run for their own personal agenda , all of them know they have zero chance of winning
If they know they have zero chance of winning then why are they running ?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)How does manipulating it to win (i.e. spending millions of dollars, lying through their teeth, etc) differ from manipulating it to change the system?
Or, maybe, it's because Nader and the rest feel the same way Jefferson did.
"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.
think
(11,641 posts)Most Americans wouldn't even know the FED is a private corporate entity if it were not for Ron Paul running.
I hope Kucinich DOES run and that he does bring up illegal wars and shit like the Patriot Act, closing Gitmo, and out of control military spending that people seem to have forgotten about.
These are very important REAL issues unlike all the bull shit issues like flag burning, outlawing contraceptives, and DOMA that the MSM wants to distract us with.
PLEASE. Let's not dumb down America anymore than we already have!
Selatius
(20,441 posts)It's just my opinion, but I believe you're overlooking the elephant in the room. If you have relatively little cash, you get nowhere, even if your platform was the most reasonable out of the entire field. If your platform comes anywhere near angering the wealthiest interests, you're at a competitive disadvantage compared to those who actually create a platform that's friendly to the wealthiest.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)to limit the debate to the corporate party talking points.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." Noam Chomsky
Report: US may be forced to "militarize" Syria crisis.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002288483
Congress Passes Bill to Proliferate Drone Use in US Airspace (FAA says up to 30,000 by 2020)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002287989
So Iran is our new “Enemy.” Are we going to fall for this crap again?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002288384
Top US counterterrorism official: drone critics are Al Qaeda enablers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002279862
War with Iran! Are you kidding me? says Dennis Kucinich
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11066
The "What If" Speech
“Madame Speaker, I have a few questions for my colleagues. What if our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests? What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous?
What if propping up oppressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel? What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us? What if some day it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, or Afghan people are killed or displaced?
What if we finally decide that torture even if called “enhanced interrogation technique” is self destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?
What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy? What if all war time spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing? What if we finally see that war time conditions always undermine personal liberty?
What if conservatives who preach small government wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government? What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?
What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests? What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations? What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq? What if a military draft is being planned for, for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed?
What if the American people learn the truth that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and that it never changes from one administration to the next? What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests? What if president Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam - put together? What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression? What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?
What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded? Nothing. But what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored? Nothing good.”
And I yield back the balance of my time.”
This was spoken by Ron Paul in front of the House of Representatives in February 2009. Dennis Kucinich would endorse this, and probably a few other Democrats, as well....but not the Democrats in the spotlight...the Democrats we need to be saying things like this.
This is why I am glad Ron Paul is still in the race. And, no, this is not an endorsement for voting for him. But why is it that the only politician in the national spotlight we hear speaking these truths, actually using the word "warmongering" during a debate and talking about corporate benefit from these atrocities, is an extreme libertarian who would also rip away our safety nets and abolish critical government functions and safeguards?
We desperately need a national conversation about these things. We should have had a DEMOCRATIC candidate saying these things. Instead, the relentless push seems to be to get everyone to shut up.
The only way things will change is to get the money out of politics. We must take back our party from the corporate interests who have purchased it and our media, and who are guiding the national conversation.
Support OWS
frylock
(34,825 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)And in that, lies the question.......
However, me thinks that this is motivated by other considerations.
surfdog
(624 posts)Why did Kucinich run ?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Kucinich is one of the best politicians in this country today. The ONLY reason he, or anyone else like him, could not win the WH is because the Big Corps who buy the elections now would never fund him. Why? Because they know he would not do as they tell him.
And that is the best compliment anyone could pay him.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)which is a perfectly honorable reason for running in primaries with no sitting president, as he did.
I think you do him a great disservice by putting him in the same category as Nader.