The Democracy Gap

I agree, Ralph Nader is the Godsend America needs, but Godfearin` Bush and Kerry try to shut out. He wasn`t even allowed to debate against the other two clowns! And Ralph Nader likes Canada!

---
Dave Ruston

**Off-topic**: I don't know why Nader would pick a quote by Cicero; Cicero was the Bill O'Reilly of his day.

---
"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

As an American, I'm fed up and disgusted with the current electoral system. We need more voices and more choices because the way I see it now we have two choices. 1) Things stay the same (Bush). 2) Things get worse (Kerry). Go ahead, boo hiss.

Whoever wins there will be no BIG changes, and that's what I think America needs! We don't need band-aid fixes, we have arterial bleeding and require emergency surgery. Neither the Democratic or the Republican candidate is going to make any major changes, they'll both 'play it safe', and things won't get any better.

Ralph Nader has some good ideas, and I think he would try to make some BIG changes, but I disagree with him on several things so he doesn't get my vote. I like the Libertarian candidate, but I probably won't vote for him because New Mexico was the closest state in the 2000 election, and that's where I live. I'm still on the fence though, I might vote for Michael Badnarik just out of spite, even though it really is a wasted vote. But he himself makes a good point, voting for a candidate because he is the 'lesser evil' instead of the candidate you truly agree with is more of a waste. So I'm torn. I probably won't decide until election day

I say again though, I am disgusted with the current election system and I think many Americans are. We all want more voices and more choices, and I don't think it will be much longer before we DEMAND it. Less than 50% of Americans vote, and the reason given most of the time is that their vote doesn't matter, there isn't enough of a difference between the two candidates or parties.

Its almost like voting in Saddam Iraq, you either could vote for Saddam, or vote for Saddam Why bother.

I don't agree with this sentiment that there is no difference between the parties, but at the same time I can understand completely why others would feel that way. A two party system is absolutely ridiculous and has led to vast waste and corruption, and out of control growth of spending and government.

President Bush is the 'conservative' candidate, yet spending is through the roof, we have huge budget deficits, and he's promising more government 'help'. Conservative? I don't think so.

Kerry promises 'better health and education', sound familar? Every time I hear a Canadian politician that seems to be the mantra, the rallying cry of the liberals. I remember Jimmy Carter promising better health and education, and Bill Clinton too, all empty promises. Even if Kerry wins, I very strongly doubt our health or education systems will be meaningfully improved. We'll just spend more money on it and get the same results. Ross Perot (independant candidate in 92) called it getting front row seats to a third rate show.

End rant...

I am curious to know what you find disagreeable about Ralph Nader that leads you discount him entirely.

---
gina

<p>Imagine having to choose between Barry Goldwater and LBJ.

Welcome to Vive, Darvin! Yes, we Canadians can sympathize with not having much of a choice lately. I tend to agree that Kerry is pretty much the same as Bush. Atleast you`re considering alternatives. But i think people should vote for the BEST candidate, and not the most popular, richest, or even the candidate that merely has the best chance of winning. And if people knew their politics like they knew their sports teams, we might see more responsible governments! But yeah, then there`s the old promises, promises....

---
Dave Ruston

Darvin,

My heart goes out to all Americans that are concerned for the future of democracy. I think we all are. But I do need to know how you can look at the biographies or "resumes" of Bush and Kerry and not make a decision based solely on thier past deeds? I know you're not getting any truthful information with regards to these two men's history, but we are! I watched a very good documentary on Frontline (PBS, so you could have watched it),the other night. It was a very informative bio of both men.
Last US election I was dumbfounded when Bush won considering the resume of Al Gore. He's a decent man that cares for people and that is reflected in what he did in his life. Bush was party, drugs, AWOL during Vietnam and given businesses by family friends that he drove into bankrupsy. Man, I know if I had been hiring someone to run my country he would have never got to second base. Unless of course you hired him to bankrupt the country which he's overqualified to do and is making that happen as we discuss this.
I predict America is going to be devastated economically by this admin.

4Canada

I think the greatest sadness for America was the success of the anti communism propoganda war. It clouds any discussion there might otherwise be on the quality of life socialism can offer. Under the rule of capitalism the majority willingly allow themselves to be shortchanged while living in fear. If you have time and would like to please visit www.workingtv.com and scroll down to Michael Parenti to listen to his webcast. He gives an enjoyable speech and makes a lot of sense. And while you're there listen to Carlos Fernandez de Cassio, the Cuban Ambassador to Canada. He provides a true Socialist perspective and makes you understand why the ruling Capitalists are so afraid of Cuba and work so hard to repress the people there with embargoes and sponsored disruptions.

---
gina

Isn't that exactly what happened in the Federal election in Canada?! The man with the best biography didn't win because he smiled too much and had a mustache and yes I know there were a couple of other small reasons but still...He definitely had the best qualifications of all of them.

---
gina

Please forgive me. I just submitted a reply to the wrong submit and then on my second comment I replied to the wrong comment. Apologies - I will try harder!!!

---
gina

I found you Gina,

I can see your point, exactly.

<i>"Less than 50% of Americans vote, and the reason given most of the time is that their vote doesn't matter, there isn't enough of a difference between the two candidates or parties.</i>" <p>We are headed in that direction as well, and as far as the Libs & Cons are concerned, well -- </p> that's just the way, uh huh, uh huh, they like it....... <p>(with apologies to the Backstreet Boys)</p> The lower the turnout, the easier it is to manipulate the electorate, and the less chance there is of a 3rd party ever acquiring any power, even in opposition, as those who DO vote are mostly mainstream voters. This is especially relevant as the so-called "policies" of the two mainstream parties become mirror images of one another, with only nuances to tell them apart. <p>Were the 40-60% of non-voters to vote, I expect the incumbent party would find a way to nulify the election.....</p> <p>---<br>RickW

You're basically asking how on earth could I possibly vote for George Bush over John Kerry, right? My vote isn't decided but I'm leaning towards Bush quite a bit, my only other choice that I could feel good about would be the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. Right now I'm really torn between those two, if I thought Badnarik had any real chance he'd get my vote. You can get an overview of the Liberterian party and its views at badnarik.org and lp.org

Now, why would I choose Bush over Kerry? There are many reasons, the most fundamental reasons being that Bush shares more of my conservative views. And I know for sure that Bush isn't afraid to flex our military muscle if needed, even if it makes France and Germany (and Canada) angry with us. Even if the UN isn't on board 100% Bush will do whatever it takes to defend America and fight the war on terror. And to fight it 'over there' instead of here in the USA.

John Kerry? Its hard to figure out WHAT he would do or where he stands on just about anything. He's playing the Bill Clinton game of trying to play both sides of the fence. To me this is a symptom of a bigger problem which I don't think George W. Bush has. John Kerry's positions change depending on who he's speaking to, because his positions dont come from his own values and principles, he has no conviction in his beliefs. Whether you agree with Bush or not, you KNOW where he stands on any given issue. And judging from his character, I think I've got a pretty good idea how he would respond to threats in the future as well.

Having said that I think both Bush and Kerry lack the spirit to really make any of the major changes that America needs. Neither one of them, if elected, will change the direction America is headed in. I think its shameful that we, the most powerful nation on earth, have such poor grades in health and education and are so hated around the world.

Michael Bandarik wants to bring our troops home from all over the world, and I agree with that 100% I would hope that we would stay in Iraq long enough for them to stabilize, then get out and come home. And that goes for Afghanistan, South Korea, Europe, Japan, all around the world!

Now before you clap, let me tell you why I feel that way. I think a big chunk of the 'free' world has gotten a free ride when it comes to national defense from the USA for YEARS. We have all these troops in south Korea, WHY? South Korea has known for 50 years that North Korea is not a friendly neighbor, they should be prepared to defend themselves instead of relying on US military power to continue to keep them safe. How many billions of dollars a year does it cost to keep all of those troops over there? The situation now, as I see it, is South Korea gets a 'free lunch' when it comes to defense, and do they feel gratitude towards their US protectors? No. They hate us. Let's pull out US troops and let France and the UN (haha!) worry about defending South Korea.

Then Europe, we still have enormous amounts of military personnel and equipment stationed over there, why? Is there a real threat of German re-armament or something? I really doubt it. Who are we protecting over there, and who are we protecting them from? Why are they there? How many billions of dollars does that cost us to keep them there? And they HATE us!

So in a nutshell I would like to see all US forces drawn in from foreign lands, and only flex our military muscle under the leadership of the UN. Which would basically mean that we'd pretty much never have to deploy troops anywhere, because without the US leadership, the UN will NEVER EVER want to use military force for anything. They'll talk and talk and pass resolutions and maybe even pass sanctions but the criminals of the world will never have to fear the military might of the UN.

I guess my attitude towards the 'rest of the world', that so hates us, is FINE, ENOUGH! Let them fight their own wars and fix their own problems and hate us for that instead. Or, with all the money we save from military spending to defend other countries, we could have the absolute BEST healthcare and education systems in the world. That's the America I dream of An America where we're hated not because of us flexing military muscle, but where we're hated because we sit back, mind our own business, and prosper like never before.

Darvin: let me first welcome you too to Vive. I do not understand your pro-Bush logic at all! My understanding is that Bush has greatly aggravated the terrorism problem by feeding it. I definitely see Bush as the top Al-Kaida recruiter. The ideological belief on the power of markets seems to feed a market for "hate" for which the Americans are the absolute top world-class supplier. Think of weapons, counter-weapons, preemptive weapons, starwar shields, security systems, digital identity&encryption&IT, mercenary services, rebuild services, etc... IMHO, exporting these in oil rich and other rich countries is not an ethical way to rebuild the US ailing economy.

I really do not think that Kerry could be so blind to ideology of the market that is bringing us to absolutely guaranteed self-destruction. I am mainly a "techie" and you can be guaranteed that technology (or "markets") will not solve our current problems. I am not sure if Bush would even understand what I am talking about. Bush is quite likely manipulated by some very evil people. IMHO, these people are far more dangerous than the worse terrorists in the Middle-East. I like this bumper sticker best: "cut the middle-man, vote for Halliburton".

---
"We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"