Man... damn...

Expertise, you KNOW you're always welcome at our table, but damn, man, sometimes you just talk out yer... you know...


Justification for that: Here goes...


Why Nader gets more attention? There's a reason for that. He's the only 50 states candidate that has any activist history, or who has ever done anything besides blow hot air (props to Al for his book, but what has he REALLY done besides be born to an afluent family).
Buchannon is a joke, Brown can be an ASS sometimes (ever listen to him speak?) which destroys credibility, Hagelin is a nice professor with no public appeal and no action, etc. etc. etc.


Why Nader challenges Bush and Gore: challenging piss-ant third party candidates IS "playing along" 'cause third party candidates are supposed to play nice together. Just like third-world countries are supposed to play nice together, and third-person comments don't really address the two-people involved in the problem.

If you are going to break the duopoly you must fight the duopoly--not others against it.

The key to breaking the duopoly is political alliance. All "third" parties must unite sworn to undo government controls mandating the duopoly.




LAST BUT NOT LEAST: you said the bipartisan system is not the problem... it is, brother.

The government is not bipartisan because we don't vote for other cats--there are currently many non-partisan, and other-party cats in elected positions.

The US government, and Pennsylvania state government are designed for TWO (2) parties. Their Standing Rules, and their Rules of Procedure, and their designs are specifically created for two parties. Republican and Democrat. Seats on committees are assigned by these two parties--not by the chair alone, not by vote, not by first come first serve, not by a committee--NOTHING.

This is done because back in the day, it was two parties fighting for a monopoly. Now, they're sharing a duopoly. That's a step forward, yes... but for 1800's. A positive step for the 1800's was also letting cats sleep in the big house, but does that mean shit today?

No.

'cause people and the world evolve.

No ideology, no conservative, no progressive, no liberal, no nothing will have a voice in government until the two-party system is SMASHED.

So let's put our heads together and come up with a better design. 'cause saying "down with it" isn't enough (which i'm sure you would say).


IDEAS?