In defense of Ralph Nader (re to Gimmeabreakman)

[TiradeFaction]

Great video! Let's keep this alive for the future online so maybe, just maybe, we can get past the MSM bias in the future so we can start to see actual alternatives.

[Treecosys]

By finding Ralph Nader's website and indulging in my own research, I am appalled that a man who is really going the way of the people is being casted aside in order to show Obama and McCain. It sickens me.

[hume12345]

obama is at heart a progressive, or at least i feel he is. being a progressive hasn't helped kucinich, gravel, ron paul (don't really consider him a progressive, but i know a few do) or nader. and it certainly won't help obama if he takes on the progressive tag in the campaign. but what obama has done in choosing biden as VP is to signal to the core democrats that he hasn't morphed into a republican, even though he must pander to the right for those swing states.

[hume12345]

when obama was still the new kid on the block nader was asked what he thought of him. His response was that obama was self sensoring and that the only problem with this is that it leads to adopting positions you don't entirely agree with.

I think the whole 'nader don't run' debate is rubbish and even it's proponents can't justify their arguements. al gore was robbed, plain and simple. if nader hadn't of run in 2000 the result would stilll remain the same (tbc..)

[rosewood223]

i think u lose. cause everyone dont trust conspiracy theorist like u.

[rosewood223]

nader is a conspiracy theorist, vote for mccain!!!

peace.

[travelfar22]

NADER/Gonzalez = WE the PEOPLE

Democrats and Republicans = THEY the CORPORATION$

* The two headed Democrat and Republican monster is not

to be trusted as they've proven over and over!

* No more PAY-or-DIE Healthcare $ystem!

We Want Single-Payer like Canada!

* "Spoiler" is a politically bigoted word used by the opposing parties to keep the independents out of the race.

* Vote NADER/Gonzalez and We The People can win!

[Whoo69]

Barack Obama is just another politician. We need someone outside Washington for a change who's actually gotten major reforms done, like as a consumer advocate. We need someone who actually cares about us when it comes to trade policy and doesn't sell us out for a phony "Free" trade agreement like NAFTA. We need someone who'll stand up to the WTO corporate bureaucrats who are so deluded on economics and trade policy.

[CitizenWorm]

I agree completely with everything you've said here (but I was Kucinich person rather than Gravel--he's cool too though). When I saw all these comments in my email I was afraid it was going to be somebody telling me to "go back to Russia" or some other such nonsense.

I made three videos after this one replying to all the comments here, don't know if you saw them but you should check them out.

[Whoo69]

I'm getting tired of this lesser of two evils bullshit. Republicans versus Democrats is just tweedledee versus tweedledum. They're really not all that different. Both spend like crazy. Both haven't gotten anything done on energy. Both get us in stupid wars (LBJ with Vietnam, Truman with Korea, Bush with Iraq). Both can't balance the budget.  They can't fix the healthcare system. They both support the disastrous War on Drugs.

Ralph Nader and others are a cut above the rest.

[Whoo69]

Anyone who votes for the lesser of two evils is weak, plain and simple. They give up their values because they either believe a) voting for a 3rd party candidate could spoil the election and give votes to the guy they least want or b) the person won't win anyway, so why bother?

Well, there is a reason to bother. If we can get enough support for Nader and get him in the debates and make sure other voices get heard besides Obama and McCain, we CAN make a difference! Obama won't get shit done.

[Whoo69]

The Commission on Presidential Debates has such a vested interest in making sure both parties stay in power, they make impossible standards for 3rd-party and independent candidates to meet just to open the debates. For example, a candidate must have 15% of support from voters before he can be in a CPD debate. That's ridiculous!! Even Ross Perot couldn't get that much support before he entered the debates in 1992. He had like 7 or 8% and then it jumped to 19.

Most people want ralph to debate

[Whoo69]

Republicans have some new ideas, but they're terrible ideas.

If the Democrats actually cared about their causes and getting liberal progress done as much as they claim, they'd HELP Ralph Nader! But instead, they're so damn tied to their party, they don't wanna see it lose and give the vote to a competitor. And of course, there's that nonsense about him being a "spoiler" because Democratic candidates since 2000 are too weak to actually fight the Republicans and win. Kerry was terrible.

[Whoo69]

Howard Dean would've won the 2004 election and held Bush's feet to the fire, but then somewhere along the way, Democratic voters got scared and started buying into the right-wing nonsense that Dean is "radical" and considered him "unelectable." So they nominate the worst candidate in the Democratic primaries, just like in 08 with this Obama fella (I supported Gravel). I am ashamed that this is what constitutes "change."

Ralph Nader is 100x real change what Obama could ever be.

[Whoo69]

The way the Democrats react to Nader only shows their ineptness and their partisanship. If we didn't have any political parties in the first place, and every candidate was REQUIRED to run as an independent, there would be no silly political parties. Parties, ultimately, do more harm than good. People should unite behind causes, not entire parties with huge platforms that rarely change or adjust to the times.

Look at the Democrats today! They really have no new ideas, still.

[makokun9]

Fact: Nader will run, and that won´t make ANY difference... for him and his supporters at least. At the end of the day, results are all that count, so why should he run anyway?

[CitizenWorm]

He should run so that people with principles have a reason to go to the polls and most importantly so that he can make truly progressive issues a matter of discussion. If he were allowed in the debates McCain & Obama might have to address the fact that both are war mongers who reside in Israel's rectum and have NO FUCKING PLAN to deal with the disaster that is our economy. Nader speaks for me on these issues while Obama is an embarrassment. There is NO reason for progressives to vote for Obama.

[makokun9]

Perhaps... but that doesen´t give you the right to consider yourselves "useful", not under the current circumstances at least. By the way, do you plan to keep voting for Nader until he becomes 75?

[devasmicota]

Brava! :)

[luvanani]

What you said, sis!!! Very true about the differences between speeches and outcomes. If any party did, really.

[westkicker15]

hahahaha OMG, plz. Your telling me Obama has been in less time, so he is less "corrupt"????

hahahahahahahaha.

Politicians are politicians.

[CitizenWorm]

Yes, I think he owes fewer favors than Hilary. That doesn't let him off the hook. Look at my recent videos on the subject for more information.

[oz22verizon]

your talking about obama already winning new york in november as of now? that better not be true, cause thats fucking bullshit

[CitizenWorm]

I'm telling you, absent a terrorist attack of some sort (on American soil) Obama will win by at least 30%. If I made bets with money I would bet on that, but I don't make $ bets. But I'm as certain as you ever can be without programming the voting machines yourself.

[oz22verizon]

well thats depressing as all hell and i hope to hell you're wrong, im holding my breath for kucinich to keep his seat march 4th and im going to campaign like hell for nader

[oz22verizon]

exactly! well said as usual :)

[ellenloveseverything]

Exactly. We settle for less! Americans continue to elect presidents who don't fully represent them, and thus it frees him from any obligation to fulfill the demands of the people.

I mean, when we elect a politican (who don't really represent everything we stand for), we tell him that they will still get our votes even though they are completely ignoring the issues that we want addressed.

Werdddd

[nicholo1234]

If McCain wins this election, I really hope you can look at yourself in the mirror after 8 more years of the Iraq war.

[CitizenWorm]

If Obama loses it won't have anything to do with me. He will get my electoral vote no matter what I do. I live in NY, he will win here by 30%.

[nicholo1234]

Ok last comment. The big problem I have with Nader is how he waits until the last moment to start running, even he knows his attempt is futile yet he begins his candidacy less than a year before elections...WTF! If he wanted to be taken seriously he would have started way back in 2005 like all other candidates...You think Hillary and Obama woke up one morning last year and decided to run? A real candidacy takes years to prepare for.

[CitizenWorm]

You should make a video and then I can respond in video. You obviously have a strong opinion about this.

I simply disagree with this. If they start that early or feel the need to start that early I think it is a problem.

[nicholo1234]

I don't have a cam yet.

[CitizenWorm]

That's too bad. This would be a really good debate.

I hope you don't take what I'm saying personally. It's impossible not to get heated about this stuff.

[nicholo1234]

Nah, never take online debates personally. I like you believe in the competition of ideas and that only through this competition can some truth be revealed. You're obviously a very smart young lady and the fact that you can be humble instantly earns my respect.

[nicholo1234]

In fact your whole video is nothing but empty assertions. You really should learn the value of providing supporting evidence.

[CitizenWorm]

I have spent 7 years saying these things. ANY thinking person knows there was a lot more going on in Florida than Nader and Gore. It's an absurd and STUPID assertion that has been addressed ad nauseum.

The point of this video was to discuss Nader's strategy and what he thinks he can accomplish. Watch the video it is responding to.

[nicholo1234]

Right, ANY thinking person agrees with you. All morons disagree with you...did I nail it?

Just because there were other issues than Nader does not take away from the fact that if Nader had not run, Bush would not have had nearly enough votes to win Florida and thus would have lost. Can we agree on that at least?

[CitizenWorm]

That is not a given. Nader brought people to the polls. And I contend that there were enough factors in play that it's quite possible they (republicans) would have managed to steal the election anyway.

It's not a matter of whether or not you agree with me. At issue is whether or not you are capable of holding more than two facts in your head at the same time. There are more than two choices, there were more than two or even three factors at play in Florida.

[nicholo1234]

If you would actually provide some evidence (I don't think you can provide fact) I would be more inclined to listen in a more respectful way, you make the mistake of assuming people know everything you know. To sway people you have to organize your thoughts and make an argument, calling people morons for not agreeing with your assertions when you provide no evidence to support them is the height of idiocy. So what if there were other issues at hand in FL, Nader was one of those factors!

[CitizenWorm]

You're not providing anything either. As I said the video was about strategy, not the 2000 election.

You shout that I and Nader gave you Bush and ignore other factors. Now you FINALLY acknowledge that it's more complex than that. Yet you still imply without giving reasons that he was the main factor.

I think it's weird that you attack the progressive hero and not the racist policy or the machinations of the Republicans.

[nicholo1234]

Wow, why are you avoiding my point? I never said there weren't other factors. What I said (which you well understand but conveniently play dumb) is that Nader was one of those factors and a deciding factor at that. You say I give no evidence? How about the quote by Obama on his stance against war. How about me providing the number of votes Nader got in Florida vs the amount of votes needed for Gore to have won. I've given you evidence to support my assertion, I'm still waiting for yours.

[CitizenWorm]

What I take issue with is the "deciding factor at that" part.

I find going into detail in comments really irritating. I will promise you that in the next 8 hours I will make a video on this because it needs to be done. If you have any specific or major arguments you haven't brought up here send me a pm and I will answer all of it. That goes for anybody else too. Send PM's right away so they get to me in time.

[truthout911]

How you explain the fact that 250000 dems in FL voted for Bush or the fact that 97000 black and Latino voters who were illegal purged from the voter roles as felons by choicepoint, when that was not the case. Or about the fact that some counties in FL reported more votes for Bush than registered voters. Why do demapussies think they are entitled to our vote. Watch the documentary " American Blackout" a true story of the theft of the 2000 & 2004 elections.

[nicholo1234]

I love how you assert that Nader didn't spoil the 2000 elections yet provide not so much as an argument to support this assertion. You actually think that Bush would have been elected had it not been for Nader snagging nearly 100k votes in Florida? Cmon, lets get real here!

[CitizenWorm]

I have repeatedly said these things but I will say it again, for you.

11% of Democrats voted for Bush and 3% voted for Nader. Gore lost his own state and Arkansas (could have had Clinton campaign for him). He chose a neo-con war pig as a running mate-and one who has no charisma at that. He didn't talk about the environment at all during that race. Did you see the debates? He couldn't do something with that? Or he could have followed up on one of a number of legal issues after the fact...

[nicholo1234]

Ok I lied about the last comment thing:

Nader snagged 97,421 votes in Florida. Had Nader not run at all, the running logic holds that those presumably left-leaning voters would have switched to Gore, the more palatable of the two major candidates, and Bush would have never been president. This isn't even an issue that's up for debate. You do know that Bush beat Gore by simply 500 some odd votes right?

[CitizenWorm]

Why don't you talk incessantly about the disenfranchisement of black voters? Why don't you talk about the diebold machines or the numbers not adding up a several counties. Why don't you talk about Katherine Harris. Any of these things would have made the crucial difference as well yet you insist on attacking a man who has worked his entire life for progressive causes.

Instead of courting the millions of liberals who don't vote, the Dems fight them and then whine when you're not elected.

[nicholo1234]

Oh believe me I do talk about those other issues, but it doesn't make the fact that Nader spoiled the 2000 election any less true.

[CitizenWorm]

Are you serious!?!?!?! You don't think the 500 vote deficite would have been made up by any of those things?

Can you count? I guess not.

[nicholo1234]

Now you're deliberately being obtuse...that deficit would have most certainly been made up by other factors but does that take away from the fact that had Nader not run Gore would have undoubtedly won Florida?

[CitizenWorm]

As I said it is very possible that Nader helped Gore. By responding to Nader's presence and incorporating some slightly progressive ideas into his platform he became more palatable to left of center Dems.

Also, people came out to vote for Nader who then also voted in State and local elections all over the country. Do you think they cast those votes for conservatives? No, they voted for Democrats

[nicholo1234]

Another baseless assertion. Gee let me have a crack at it: Jesus loves you!

[CitizenWorm]

Are you suggesting that they voted for Nader and then voted down the line republican on everything else?

Also, there is a study that has been done on this by a prof. from North Carolina or someplace, I can try to find it.

[nicholo1234]

Not sure about that. I'm just really pissed off about the course this country has taken over the last 8 years. I in no way blame Nader, that would be very simple minded. I guess I'm just so traumatized by Bush that the notion of Nader possibly being a factor in spoiling the Dems chance in 08 just get my blood boiling.

[nicholo1234]

The flaw in the logic that RNader will bring up questions that would otherwise not be brought up and this is the sole benefit of his candidacy is that all the issues he brings up have already been brought up by the likes of kucinich or RP (regarding Iraq). Yet people still voted for the mainstream candidate. Nader will siphon votes from the dems and will not increase support for his party...talk about futility.

[CitizenWorm]

I disagree. From the very beginning Hillary was treated like the inevitable candidate and her ideas were treated like the mainstream. Now look what's happened, she's not the candidate. DK was made fun of for being short, a vegan, for having a young wife...most voters don't know who he is.

Suggesting that we have gotten to this point in the primaries by a fair a reasoned discussion of ideas is a joke.

Barack Obama, like Hillary Clinton, was bought and paid for long ago by "special" interests.

[nicholo1234]

And Nader will be different and be more respected than DK? Talk about denial!

[CitizenWorm]

Who's fault is that. YOURS! The mainstream of the Democratic party should be embracing people like Dennis, Ralph and me. We should be partners. Instead you act like you have the right to say that there are different rules for us & Hillary Clinton. Or that we're not being nice if we don't support candidates that simply shit on us and our views every chance they get.

Here is it really simply.

If you want my vote you will HAVE to do something to get it. It's not yours by default.

[nicholo1234]

Oh, so most democrats should automatically embrace your and Nader's positions yet you would for ideological reasons put a Repub in the White House? You want a reason to vote for the Dem candidate? Here it is:A VOTE FOR NADER IS A VOTE FOR THE PRO WAR CANDIDATE!

I understand that you're an ideologist but at what point does the reality of the matter play into your decision?

[CitizenWorm]

You're an idiot if you think a vote for Obama is a vote for an anti-war candidate.

I didn't say you should embrace or vote for Nader. I said by silencing him you are killing the Democratic party. Reality has a lot more to do with what I say than with what Obama says.

I also explained how because of the electoral college my vote is totally ineffective anyway. It doesn't matter what I do, Obama will win NY.

[nicholo1234]

Simply calling someone an idiot for espousing a view (a valid one no less) without making a counterpoint makes you the idiot. "The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now," -Obama 2007

[CitizenWorm]

I'll be making a video about this soon. It's too big an issue for this comment box.

[rileymayhem20]

This is one of your best video (and this is from the Republican)! This is like Ohio State skipping Michigan because they might blow there shot at the National Championship. Oh ya and Al Gore lost his home state, Tennessee!

[CitizenWorm]

I know what you liked about it! I endorsed the conservative virtue of competition. It is supposed to be a basic tenet of our system.

Yeah, the 2000 issue is so ridiculous. There are countless ways in which Gore doing a decent job with his campaign would have changed the outcome. Singling out another man's right to run as the primary one is a curious choice. We don't talk endlessly about the disenfranchisement of black voters. We don't talk about the machines.

[rileymayhem20]

It goes to show, you can't just walk up in a (D) next to your name and expect to win. Politicians try doing that here in Erie County and it failed miserably in our County Ex Race in 2007. The GOP has publicly stated they have lost there stones to take Obama to task. Nader just might be the hope for a true debate for both parties.

[kalvinphil]

WHY is everyone mad at Nader for running? I thought this was a Democracy

[wawbwc]

Why close down the Federal Reserve?

[kalvinphil]

Because it is a private company. Who is only looking out for itself and its own wealth....not the people.

[rileymayhem20]

The Federal Reserve is possibly the best run Federal Agency.

[kalvinphil]

Its not a fuking Federal Agency. It is a private bank and YES very well ran in bankers terms. Printing money out of thin air, doesnt help the people at all! It kills the dollar....havnt u been paying attention.

[CitizenWorm]

You two can duke this out but I want to just say that rileymayhem20 has very different fundamental views from myself and a lot of the people who watch my videos. So he takes a lot of shit in these sorts of situations and I would just like to say that it's easier to have a fruitful conversation if the tone stays civil.

That being said feel free to tear apart his positions and maybe we can turn him into a rational progressive yet.

[kalvinphil]

good call.  He seems to be into BIG BUSINESS

[rileymayhem20]

I'm into ALL Businesses, big and small. Has a poor person ever gave you a job? Do you ever want to buy a home someday?

[rileymayhem20]

Progressive, lol I'm flattered. If the world economies collapse and we are back to living off the land as a tribe then I'll be the best progressive ever ;o)

[rileymayhem20]

Unless your going to a foreign country anytime soon, I think you can suck up the fallen dollar. What happens when the banks crash? You know who is the one that are hurting: Wall Street, Charlotte, NC (those people the Democrats look out for however your too blind to see it). Great, you place a bunch of trial lawyers in Congress when you wonder why things can't get done. Corn farmers in Iowa are living fat right now however the banks are the backbone of America, like it of not!

[kalvinphil]

wow you are very mis-informed ! Do some real research ...then maybe we can debate some facts.

[kalvinphil]

Its NOT a federal Agency it is a private bank. Do some research before you spout out misinformation.

[CitizenWorm]

I assert that much of the reason the Greens aren't in a better position is the Democrats responding to them not as potential partners but as insolent demon spawn. The question of how this will impact the Dems has everything to do with how they respond. If the debate is opened up and the mainstream of the party starts addressing other issues they are likely to pick up more voters. People like me and people who might not vote otherwise. Or they can turn their back on us & insure I vote for Nader.

[stratocasterz]

McKinney is a radical 911 denier who attacks capitol hill policemen in the crotch with her cell phone.

She must not be allowed to take part in the discussion.

[truthout911]

Bullshit, because I can guarantee you if she had truly attacked that cop as alledged in MSM, she would he be prosecuted. Mckinney is a True Patriot, You are a party fascist and a spineless gutless whining whimpy demapussie or a racist lying, baby killing two faced republinazi.

[CitizenWorm]

He we go with the personal attacks. You must be terrified of an open debate. If she's got no merit or credibility she wouldn't be the nominee of the largest "3rd" party in the country. I'm a member of that party and I demand that you allow her to be part of the national conversation. When you fight to keep alternatives out of the discussion you are indeed a fascist. Deal with it.

[stratocasterz]

Apparently no ones ever explained the necessity of compromise to you. You'll never get a candidate that you agree with on everything, but I bet you agree with Obama on a lot more issues than you do with McCain.

Be pragmatic, not a baby.

[CitizenWorm]

Well, I don't think you were listening. I said I might vote for Obama if he agrees with me on SOME issues but I can't even get him to answer my questions on bills that are in his committee so why should I consider him when he's done nothing about the war, nothing about accountability of this administration, none on the issues I care about? Until he makes some specific commitments he doesn't get my vote. If you think he shouldn't even try then I'll gladly vote Nader.

[StephStance]

good video

[CitizenWorm]

thanks!

[ChaosNecromancer]

I have a question here because something in your video caught my ears/eyes/brain, and made me go "wait, whaua?" now this is because i dont fully understand how the american voting system works but.. what was that about your vote being theoretical? it doesnt seem very democratic to me :/

also its a shame that poloticians are so lazy these days to the point that people run simply to try and poke a responce out of the oposition , third partys can win though , example the libs in scotland :)

[CitizenWorm]

This is a contentious issue in the US. We have something called the electoral college which basically means that each state has electoral votes based on the size of the population. Who ever wins a state's popular vote gets all the electoral votes. Conservatives are trying to change this in CA but I think system wide change is a must--only doing it in one state (a big one) isn't fair. CA aside, Obama will win my state by a lot, easily getting all the electoral votes whether I vote or not.

[KiheiLawyer]

We should NEVER change the electoral college! Anyone who thinks that way does not understand the concept of States rights.  We are a REPUBLIC, NOT a democracy. There is no one person one vote. There cannot be in a country with 50 states. (example, the majority of people could live in death valley and vote for a president that supports draining the Great Lakes for drinking water in death valley) Our country is too big and diverse to allow the big city mentality to rule the entire country!

[Stodels]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. You obviously don't understand the reasons for the electoral college or better yet our system of government. James Madison said it quite well at the constitutional convention: The purpose of this government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority.

[CitizenWorm]

I don't advocate that we go to one person, one vote tomorrow. The rule of the mob can be fickle and ill informed. There must be reform though! I support states rights (with the one caveat being when a state tries to deny basic rights to some of their citizens). We need to decide what a state does when it's being fucked around by the Fed. Gov. NY for example is not being protected the way it should, is that a deal breaker? It needs to be discussed.

[Dadalama]

personally... I see that as an entirely different bag of worms. We can't be expected to be any more than men. So why should one person over a thousand miles away decide things for people he has no emotional attachment too. To them it's either all statistics or hard choices.

I see it as the power structures needing to shrink.

[Gimmeabreakman]

Well, I asked. You answered. Now I gotta figure out what you said. I don't mean that disparagingly. Just saying I need to think about it.

BUT great passionate voice added to the debate.

[CitizenWorm]

Sorry the tone is so confrontational. That anger shouldn't really be directed at you, it only is because you asked the question.

If you want clarification on anything don't hesitate. I won't yell at you, I promise : )

[Methadone4Life]

My problem with Nader is that,while I agree with him on some things,he isnt going to win and he is only going to help McCain continue George Bush's reign of terror! No way does he take more votes from the GOP..most of Nader's loyalists are former democrats who arent happy with their party. While I preferred Kucinich,Edwards or even Gravel,I think that the worst democrat would be better then the best republican and sadly,that is what it boils down to right now.

[CitizenWorm]

I think outside of a major terrorist event AND the people choosing perpetual war in the wake of that, there is no way that Obama will lose. Besides which, Obama doesn't have my vote yet do you want him to try to get it? He's going to win by 30% in NY state, I would almost bet money on that. If I and even 100,000 or 200,000 other people here vote for Nader to register our support for the policies he represents, Obama will still win.

[KiheiLawyer]

Think about this...Obama wins the Democratic nomination. Then 1 commerical is run across the U.S. that says...Do you really want a President named "Hussein" with a picture of Sadam and then Barack Hussien Obama? That 10 second commerical slam dunks the election for McCain. I predicate this WILL happen!

[CitizenWorm]

Wrong. Sorry, but I predict, if that happens it will shore up about 5% of McCain's base and turn off every single thinking independent or centrist republican which McCain REALLY needs. There might be a 527 stupid enough to do it but McCain would have to denounce it.

The "hussein" thing is an idiotic tactic and and an idiot argument.

[KiheiLawyer]

LOL, yet Clinton did something similar today. I tell you, you do not remember Dukas losing because of 1 ad of him on a tank, and there is many other other campaigns that have ended because of 1 or 2 catchy things like this. Remember, the mass of people are followers and very much anti-islamic. An idiotic argument? You are VERY niave.

[CitizenWorm]

So Clinton does it and what happens? Anybody who's paying attention is more bothered by the way the information is used than the information itself and Clinton has to denounce the tactic. Even though she does, she still looks like a desperate race baiter. How has this helped her chances? If the Republicans don't learn from that and try the same thing, the impact will be even greater on them in terms of the numbers. Next?

[Lucidtomr]

This pretty kitty has claws ;P

I was going for Gravel, maybe Ralph has a better chance leading the 3rd party. Its sad that Ron Paul appears he won't be running as 3rd party because of gloomy complicated issues.

Gravel and Nader ticket would be awesome. Ralph actually took more votes from Republicans then Democrats in 2000. As for Obama winning the delegates, I think a false flag attack or CIA attempt on him, he would loose. I dont like Hillary, but dont underestimate her power. +5

[exinferiz]

lock Nader up until elections are over!! dont fool yourself he WILL take votes away from obama. You did not provide evidence of the contrary. In my view Nader is totally wrong on his view of corporations and the economy.

[CitizenWorm]

Yes I did, electoral college, NY etc. Also that assumes that my vote ever belonged to the Democrats. As I said, if they do something to show me they represent me on any of the major issues, I would consider voting for them but currently they don't therefore my vote can't be stolen or taken from them.

I would also bet that Obama wins by at least 10% nationally. It could even be a lot bigger. Too early to tell though.

[DandelionSalad]

Bravo!!! You understand politics better than most people my age and older. Keep up the great work!!

[CitizenWorm]

Thanks! I've read your blog. Thanks for posting this video there.

[Dadalama]

5 starred and favorited

[travitherabbii]

I get what you are saying. But if Nader didn't run in 2000 gore would of most likely of won. But don't think I like gore I voted bush. I think Nader is going to make it harder for the Democrats to beat the Republicans. But you are right about everything eles you said.

[jrsnyderjr]

I was hoping you would do a video on this after seeing your comments on Victor's vid...

Bravo!

[CitizenWorm]

thanks! I was going off the deep end over there. I could have talked about this for another 10 minutes but I figure one video is good (for tonight at least).

[jrsnyderjr]

You and I probably disagree on some core beliefs politically but I didn't think you went off the deep end...you were passionately expressing beliefs you feel strongly about. That has to be respected and admired.

[drowningfish]

It is a fact that the Electoral College negatively impacts the viability of a MINORITY party (3rd party) unless that party manages to make its platform control a vast amount of POPULAR support.

You can choose to support whomever you want for President. If you want to write in Mickey Mouse then write it in; however, do not refer to me as an "agent of Facism" because I choose to see the reality of the situation. That being; Nader is NOT mainstream... TBC

[drowningfish]

...and therefore nor are his views. It can then safely be concluded - him running for President serves absolutely no purpose other than to disrupt the process.

[drowningfish]

Oh and just an FYI:

I am not here to debate a female version of warren26peace, so please keep the tone of your responses respectful.

[CitizenWorm]

Don't dismiss me as a version of another YouTuber just because we're both angry, that's a mistake. I took time to apologize for calling you an agent of fascism, that doesn't mean your views aren't authoritarian. If you expect me or any other progressive to support your candidate then you better get working on your platform.

I don't like the electoral college but I'd say those in power have had more opportunities to do something about it than those of us outside of your supposed "mainstream".

[drowningfish]

Unfortunately, the Electoral College is a necessary evil. There is no way to develop a system of electing a President that would make everyone feel a "fuzzy". It is the best thing we can do to ensure every state has a relatively equal voice in the election.

The alternative? A true democracy where a few larger states dictate who becomes President.

[KiheiLawyer]

Plus Thomas Jefferson was correct in saying that the mass of people is inherently stupid.

[Stodels]

I guess he was thinking of you when he said it.

[truthout911]

Look you spineless, cowardly Demapussie. If the demapussies were worth a shit, there wouldnt be a need for a third party. Demapussies like you, H. Reid, Pelosi, Shummer, Emmanuel, Clinton and the rest of them are worthless.

[drowningfish]

Truthout911 you should just keep your comments to yourself. You do no good for this alleged new "Nader Movement for Change".

If his supporters are like you then I fully understand why he has not been successful over the last 45+ years in bringing his version of "change" to the forefront of American Politics.

[truthout911]

I didnt say I would vote for Nader, but I dont like cowards like yourself who claim they are liberals. You are a phony and why dont you keep your comments to yourself, BITCH!

[drowningfish]

Hi troll.

[CitizenWorm]

You may not like his word choice but he has a good point. If the Democrats posed any opposition to the Republicans at all then perhaps they wouldn't have to worry about progressive candidates attracting "their" voters. The Democrats have failed miserably at every turn when it comes to the war, guantanamo, the politicization of the Justice department, accountability for the disaster that is the budget, no bid contracts etc, etc. You've done NOTHING. Why should I vote for that?

[drowningfish]

CW do no substantiate a point off a troll's.

My point here is that he has been perpetually unsuccessful as a candidate; his "movement" is not POPULAR; he has had 45+ years to make his "movement" POPULAR; he has failed, yet continues to run for President?

Mr. Nader is going about all this wrong, and in turn is disrupting the process as a result. He needs to start a "new progressive movement" from the bottom up not jump right to the top without ANY substantial. . . TBC

[drowningfish]

. . .viable POPULAR support. Until he does this, or someone else in his party does this, the Electoral College will prevent him from being a legit "competitive" opponent.

[CitizenWorm]

I disagree. When people like you Lle about him and fight to keep him out of the process he only gets a few million votes. I guess the votes of those people don't mean anything to you. The democrats have done NOTHING to build popular support or get my vote. They don't get it by default. You have power, so do something about the system or I will happily disrupt it. There is no incentive for me to allow it to "function" when all it does is try to feed me more bullshit.

[drowningfish]

CW, it is interesting how you are now agreeing me in regard to causing a "disruption" to the system. I am flattered; however, you and your like-minded friends are going about this all wrong. You are not solving anything by being nothing more than annoyances in a futile Presidential Campaign.

You blame everyone else for why the Nader Movement has been unsuccessful yet you do not blame yourself or Nader for this fact? Interesting.

There are no shadowed-men in the background somewhere. . .TBC

[drowningfish]

. . .preventing Nader's Movement from gaining enough POPULAR support to become a REAL competitive movement; only Nader and his supporters appear to lack the drive necessary to push their platform to MAINSTREAM.

I have not LIED about this man or his politic. Quite frankly I applaud his efforts over the years; however, running for President is not helping ANYTHING.

Disrupt the system by building POPULAR support. Do not disrupt for the sake of disrupting because you are unable to gain attention.

[drowningfish]

We can go back and forth for all eternity on this issue. It is obvious neither of us are going to persuade the other to their respective viewpoint.

So I am giving you the last word since this is your channel.

Thanks for the discussion, and I hope your subscribers found this informative.

Regards,

~Df

[CitizenWorm]

Thanks for a rigorous debate, truly!

If you take one thing from here let it be this, the democrats do not own my vote or, in my opinion, deserve it. I think Nader's views ARE popular--people don't get to hear him. Running candidates IS working within the system but we are systematically kept off the ballot and out of debates so I feel no need to support the system for it's own sake and lots of good reasons to disrupt it. I want to vote for a winner but not one who doesn't represent me.

[Brandt761]

Well, Nader would probably not be a serious challenger even if the media and dems didn't treat him like shit, but that is besides the point.

[truthout911]

What the hell have the Demapussies succeed at in the last 25yrs. They whine and cry all the time because either they say we dont have enough votes, or they are in the minority. Either way they are pathetic. Nader has a lifetime of accomplishments. Demapussies arent owned are undying loyalty. You claim to be for democracy, but all you are is a fascist party doll.

[drowningfish]

As for you Truthout911...

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

[truthout911]

As for you coward, if you believe in true democracy, then you dont try to block those who are trying to have their voices heard, and represent a different view. But when you deny that, you have become what you have mocked.

[dnHooligan]

My prediction(-:~

(like anybody gives a rat's backside)

Watch the VPs

We're set up, this year.

Vice-President will engage Dir51, and f*ck us ALL up, because the CIA hit will be blamed on they semi-civil disobeyers.

Giuliani will be yo masta.

My vote for Dr. Paul will either be ignored, or counted for McSlain, but it won't really matter cuzz all the little lambs are voting Dem. Vote against McCain. Vote against Hitlary. HUHUHAHAHAAA (thank you for playing)

[mistaspot1]

Newton's third law: law of reciprocal actions

"All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction."

A three party political system does not function properly, as one party is always too similar to another and will siphon votes from them.

We need a 4th party, on the conservative side, to counter us on the left. This would really balance things out.

2 party politics may as well be 1 party politics.

[CitizenWorm]

It would be good for there to be more voices on the right as well, for sure.

[mistaspot1]

As 3rd party supporters, that should be one of our main focuses; urging people on the right (assuming they're not fascists, and have serious concerns with the Republican party) to break away and run as 4th party candidates. This way we could have an even, 4 party debate and the voters could use their best judgment as to who best represents their views. I'm tired of this sheepish approach to politics in America where people are so quick to criticize 3rd party candidates.

[brouhajoe]

Hear hear!!!

[givebirthathome]

I supported Kucinich, Gravel and Paul, because they did make important contributions to their debates. Nader should have run in the primary.

NY isn't a swing state. His candidacy will matter there. Check the numbers--You can't say Nader was nor can you say he was not "to blame" for George Bush- you can say he was a contributing factor.

The mainstream parties make me heave, but helping achieve peace is my main priority,aka no McCain, so I won't be supporting Nader.

[DamNationDiplomat]

....i do want to caution you against using Stalin and Hitler references. Even though the tactics you describe resemble Stalinism, it's not even close to the millions of murders carried out in his name; bush isn't even close to the insidious genius of those two madmen, and neither is the democratic leadership. 'Asshole' is a fine descriptor, but 'Stalin' is a bit cynical toward the newspaper columnists and others who dared breathe a word 'disappearing' through the cold war days.

[CitizenWorm]

It might be extreme but so are Presidential Directive 51 and the Homegrown Terrorism and Violent Radicalization act. How many steps removed to we need to be from actual soviet style authoritarianism before we call it what it is? Are we going to wait until Obama votes for this shit and then try to use our freedom of speech? The 4th amendment is gone, the first is dangling by a thread...when is it enough to act?

[DamNationDiplomat]

It is ALWAYS the time to act because government is always in need of reform even if we become a great measure more free and prosperous than we are at the moment; action is certainly not the issue. Langauge makes a big difference, and words like 'Stalin' simply turn off the ears of your opposition and evoke applause from your support. Be outraged; we all have VERY good reason to be, but change comes from engaging political foes in such a way as to invite them rather than expuge them.

[DamNationDiplomat]

I made a video awhile back saying that true democracy is impossible without abolishing political parties because they allow people to vote based on a kneejerk reaction. I'm back and forth on Nader. I do think he raises important issues, and i fully support his candidacy, but because of the biopoly of democrats and republicans, it's almost literally impossible for him to win, and it's too important at this moment in history to oust the neocons; it's the old 'enemy of my enemy' argument.

[CitizenWorm]

I don't think there will be any trouble doing that unless there is a major security event, manipulated or not. Even then people might not choose the ideological option of "eternal war". McCain is unabashedly militaristic and even the typically jingoistic American populous is sick of war right now. He's got experience with what has never really worked and is currently a miserable failure. Obama gets money from them too but he at least publicly must be seen advocating for withdrawal from Iraq.

[TheRealPoncho]

Well said, girl! I couldn't agree more. I was very disappointed when Dennis Kucinich dropped out of the race, so, I'm now hoping that either Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney or Mike Gravel actually get somewhere with their campaigns until November. However, I don't share your optimism that these progressive candidates will somehow magically improve the candidacies of Obama and Clinton. I think they're both crooked. I don't expect anything positive from either of them.

[Chandlerbin2006]

Well said.

[christhemanrulez]

awesome vid!