There is no such thing as a discussion on the internet. All people do is talk in stupid pre-packaged phrases, or talking points. People are so pathetically self-absorbed that they cannot just discuss an open-ended subject. All they want to do is 'win' the argument (since everything must be an argument with these people). For the most part, the internet, like the MSM, is devoid of intellectual content.
When I read most things, I am encountered with the juvenile bantering of, "I'm right, you're wrong, lalalalala." It's pretty annoying and makes me not want to try to converse with others in this format. I like to take on broad philosophical topics. I like to debate them and hash them out with other people in an intellectual manner. I believe that this is a good way to reach solutions. The only problem is that the internet doesn't tend to be the medium that allows a healthy debate. It instead allows people to avoid problems and swarm anyone with an inquisitive mind with talking points.
For example, we need change in this country. There are several different theories on how that change will come or what it will look like. Most people in this country are fed up with the two party system, but feel trapped in it without any third party candidates that stand out. So, how do we address this? Most people that flock to a third party say they do so because they are disillusioned with the current system. But, this may be part of the problem. They are disillusioned, not driven. They are not putting out a universal message, and if they are, it is one of disillusionment and not a positive forward plan for the nation.
You have to be for something to win. It sounds ridiculous, but that is how the group dynamic works. The message has to be universal, it cannot be too exclusive. What third party fits this description? Third parties are very niche oriented. How then are they ever going to get enough electoral votes to be added as a viable third party? As far as I see it, they won't.
Our system is currently set up in a way that to infiltrate it is nearly impossible. But, what if the third parties made a coalition party and united under one universal banner long enough to get elected to some national position? They could start with the House or Senate to get name recognition for their party. Could they put their pet agendas aside for awhile for the betterment of our democracy? Or are they so unbending that they will continue to just be a thorn in our side and not a vehicle for change?
Why bringing these obvious problems up is considered shilling for the democrats is beyond me, but that is what I am accused of doing. By explaining to them that the current third party apparatus is going nowhere and we need someone to step up and lead with a uniting message, I am obviously just trying to discredit them or something. It couldn't be that I may have a point and they do not want to take their head out of the sand long enough to realize that I may be right. That maybe their candidates aren't doing enough to get the message out (if they have one). And that, if the average people on the street never hear of them or their message, they can never expect to win the vote of those people.
The country is ready for change and there is no one standing up to take the lead. What has Nader done recently? He should personally contact every major liberal blog and get as many as he can on board. He should be at every protest. He should show up at every presidential debate and put his platform out, even if it means on the other side of the blockade. He needs to make town hall meetings all over the country to spread his message. He could do a lot.
What would it take in this country for someone to truly stand up and do whatever it takes to get their message heard and to recruit people to their movement? If a third party candidate just states his/her message without making the effort to spread that message to as many people as possible, and therefore never intending on acting on that message, isn't he/she also just spouting empty talking points?
