Voting for a Muslim was Foolish! Not that I expect much from a liberal democrat! It's sad that ppl still believe that Rep/Dem is against each other! They have you FOOLED!
I'm a total non-partisan and unbiased commentator. I have a radio show called "Thinking Outside The Politically Correct Box" on 92.7FM and I never insinuate any particular points of view or endorse any candidates directly. But in two years and with a minority government, Harper, my prime minister, has asserted our sovereignty in the Arctic to protect it against the competing interests of Russia and America, he raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 which protects our children from predators and
he lowered the GST from 7% to 5%. It would be hard to imagine why anyone would want to take the country in another direction. But as I said, Im unbiased and non-partisan, always looking for guests who are passionate about their views. If you're actually running for the governor of CA in 2010 or even if you just want to advertise your Vlog, you're more then welcome to phone in.
I have voted for Nader the past 3 elections. not as a protest vote, but simply because I felt he was the best choice each of those elections. I get irritated when people complaining that anyone voting third party should vote Democrat to not "waste their vote." However, anyone who truly believes Obama was a better choice should have voted for him (same with McCain or any other third party). Now we'll see if he delivers.
Honestly, i dont trust Obama. I mean, you can believe what you want. Look, if Obama can afford his own channel on Dish, a 30 minute special on all major channels, plus more, who's giving him this money? Well, i'm not that "plugged in" to this race, but I recall hearing him hacking McCain with lies and taking funding from Lobbyists, or whatever. Well, as much crap as he's talking about them, i doubt it. I think he's taking money from Ayers.IMO. Take rights away, ship jobs to china.McCain/PalinFTW
Who is giving him this money? Normal people like you and me. If you'd do your research, you'd see that the vast majority of his money comes from small donations from average people. It's funny tha t you say Obama's the one relentlessly attacking McCain - as it is the other way around. Oh - and you "think" hes taking money from Ayers? Well man, that's some great proof youve got there! BTW, I also "think" you're a dumbass ;-)
Obama is McCain on most important issues. You shouldn't give in so easily to the Dems. Sure, Obama can speak well, but that's it. No real difference from McCain. You make many good points but it saddenes us to hear how you've given up. Please re-think your vote. Nader needs the support of all thinking men. A vote for Obama is one for war, consentration of wealth, shrinking middle class, weaker democracy, no electoral reform...etc. please re-think it.
If you want to escalate the war by invading Pakistan, and risk exposing our troops to a nuclear strike by Pakistan (since they cant match our military), by all means....vote Obama. Obama has said in two debates, speeches, and interviews posted on youtube that he intends to invade Pakistan with troops redeplyed from Iraq. Sound like "change" to you?
I just wish they would have invited Ralph to be a part of any of the debates. Ralph has not gotten too much attention on any news or talk shows. My reason for this would be the great issues Ralph brings to the table. He was allowed to speak before. Yes; some think he is just a spoiler - not true. Without Ralph; Obama and McCain are let off the hook.
I agree he's no spoiler, and I agree that the "independent commission" on presidential debates is just a tool of the two major parties. There should have been at least one debate with all 6 candidates who are on enough ballots to make a difference. I'm mad about that, but I've looked into all 6, and Obama is still my choice.
I got tired of the Democratic Party acting like they were the 'real champion' of the down-trodden, the oppressed, etc. As a third generation Mexican-American, growing up I really believed (my parents are die-hard Dems) that this party would always look out for minorities and the poor. WRONG!!! Gonna do some more research on Nader....
Nader was one of the greatest forces for good we had in the late 20th century. Unfortunately, he now seems like a tired shell of what he once was, and hardly seems to know why he's running, other than to make a point about choice. I really do feel that Obama comes out ahead on the issues I most care about. But then, as an Independent, I'll keep the pressure on Obama to deliver once elected.
Yes. Voting third party/independent demonstrates to people like Obama and other Democrats that there is a true progressive base that will only vote for candidates if they are truly progressive. Obama is no different from any other status quo democrat.
I'm on the same page with you. I'm voting for Obama and have hope for him. I havn't heard any politician as inspiring as him since John and Bobby Kennedy. However,I agree with Nader and feel that no one, not even Obama, tells it like it is like Nader. I wish he could at least get on someone's cabinet and get his ideas through the legis/exec branches before he dies. I didn't know about his history of reform until recently. Alas, there's no room for anti-corporate messages in the media.
I posted a video response to your video that I am sure 3rd party voters maybe interested in. I have also included your video in my blog on myspace regarding this issue.
Shame on you. Call yourself an independent.Barcack, McCain, the same on every important issue. And now, Barrack favors the bailout. This should be an obvious demonstration of whose interests Barrack serves.
until arerica reforms their system, to say a systems like france or germany, where partys with more than 5% of the votes are in the house and senate (bundestag/rat in germany) the 2 big partys gonna shove it down your throat like they want to
I agree - and changing the political system is one of my top long-term priorities. Unfortunately, this year, we have more immediate economic trouble to tend to.
The comparison is EXACTLY why our system's far better. Legislatures without a majority cannot work, ever. So, they piece together a "majority" with short-term coalitions based on one or two issues, and if they suddenly split and the coalition breaks apart, the government collapses.
We have no need whatsoever for more parties. We need people to get more involved in their party. There's nothing wrong with party loyalty, at all. The problem is apathy, cynicism.
Kenrg; Sir what is your position on foreign policy with respect to Obama's ideas about Iraq, Afganistan,Pakistan,Georgia,Iran etc. It seems to me he represents alot of the status quo of the military industrial complex,who would like to continue the extension of the American Empire..By the way I am a military veteran of 12 years, so don't try to bullshit me!!
I soured with the Democratic party a few years before you. About one third of the way through the 88 primaries Jesse Jackson had emerged as a serious contender and through their actions the power players behind the scenes made it clear that they wanted keep the votes of the African Americans but they did not want to have an African American as their candidate.
I was very closely involved with this year and the Jackson campaign. I was an elected delegate for McGovern (no, really!) and went to our state convention along with Jackson delegates as "undecided," since Jesse and McGovern dropped out.
Jackson didn't win in '88 because there were excellent candidates people just liked better, saying it was only race is insulting and wrong.
The Democratic Party's done so much for African-Americans, by abandoning the party you HURT the cause of justice.
Indeed there was a large pool of candidates in 1988 - and being involved you will remember that following super tuesday the possibility that Jackson might actually will was so strong that Time Magazine wrote an article describing what a Jackson cabinet in the white house might look like. From that point on the party leadership did all it could to prevent Jackson from winning.
Which, even if true, could have a lot of reasons having little to do with color.
The "leadership" is NOT the Party. Want to know who the leader of the Democratic Party is? I am, and you should be, and so is every other Dem who bothers to get off their butt and show up at caucus and volunteer at HQ and participate. You're as much Democrat as they are. If what leaders do is wrong, CHANGE the Party, don't just quit on it. That means the change you want will NEVER happen.
Good points! I'm also a registered Independent, who used to be a Democrat. I feel that the 2 party system has failed this country and we need some sort of reform. I'm completely amazed at how people will automatically vote their party even if the candidate doesn't support their interests... it's rather maddening.
I am also supporting Barack Obama for the presidency, because it's pretty apparent... during the debates that McCain is in way over his head.
I couldn't agree more. As much as I appreciate your argument about the exit polls, I like Nader's standard response. He says that the Democrats should have hit a home run against a guy like George W and if they couldn't win a landslide victory with a Republican candidate that bad, then they are doing something wrong and shouldn't blame him (Nader). Very true.
Agreed. Even without the polls showing the legend of the spoiler is false, every candidate still has a right to run, and every citizen has the right to their vote.
A few more things kenrg. Just in the last couple of days, the Democrats voted in favor of offshore drilling. And approved Bush's military budget, the largest budget ever. I thought Iraq was winding down? Little difference between the two parties. I know Nader isn't going to win. McCain doesn't have a chance either. At least if Nader does much better than his usual 2 - 3%, maybe Washington will get the message that lots of people are fed up. Not trying to convince you, just saying my peace.
"the Democrats voted in favor of offshore drilling."
They didn't vote for the drilling, they let the sanctions stopping offshore drilling to lapse. And people will finally realize that it will take 7-10 years for the oil to "Trickle Down" and make some real impact.
I agree, to a point, that there is very little difference between the parties.. but one thing is clear... Republicans reduce taxes and deficit spend... while Democrats raise taxes and pay down the deficit.
Big difference. One is a vote, one isn't. You stated they voted IN FAVOR of it, they aren't In Favor of it...People complained about the "Do-Nothing" Democratic congress, but it would have been vetoed anyway by the president... because the Democrats didn't have 2/3 majority overrule power. So the Democratic congress let the sanctions lapse to make themselves be perceived as letting it happen.
But it won't change anything, people will still view them negatively.
The Democrats are in favor of it. Listen to what they are saying. They claim they will bring this issue up again next year. But, they are not talking about a ban, they are talking about allowing offshore drilling with some compromises. The message is clear, make no mistake, offshore drilling will be a reality. Even with a Democrat in the White House, there is no talk from the leadership about reinstituting the ban. The Democrats capitulated.
Look at it from a different point of view... if the Democrats choose to do nothing... and continue with the ban... they would have been strung up by their toes (Or at the very least, lose their seats).. people have been given the wrong information from the Republicans... countless experts have stated this isn't going to help things in the interim... so yes, while the Democrats have capitulated.. they've done so only to save their own political lives.
True, economy is an important thing. Among many other news from USA there has been practically nothing about your present president's ideas for saving USA (and the world) from a depression. I truly hope the next president of yours have good ideas.
The current president finally made a statement last night, and Obama and McCain are going to the White House today to talk to the president about his plan. Of course, it's all just a big old political show and won't help a darn thing, but we'll enjoy the show anyway...
This is just a personal opinion, but I think we put to much emphasis on the individual politician. I call it the Le Fort factor because in my mind excluding Teddy Roosevelt most famous leaders and rulers had this factor in the background. Peter the Great gets all the credit, but Le Fort groomed Peter from the age of 4. Geniuses like Le Fort for good or bade are driving politics, religion, and commerce today. Surprisingly if the genius is unchecked they make a mess of things.
Interesting - I'll look to read more about Le Fort. (And about TR having the highest IQ - I've put Jefferson on that rung, but TR is probably right behind him).
Obama and the Republicans are too similar. I don't understand why people can't see that. Obama went with the FISA Bill that takes away our civil rights, plus giving immunity to the Telecoms that broke the law. He said he would cut corporate taxes. On foreign policy, he's starting to sound like a neocon, saying he would launch attacks within Pakistan even without their approval. Plus, no option is off the table regarding Iran.
Vote Nader. It's not a wasted vote. It will make a statement!
If Mr. Obama does win the election, and I sincerely hope he does from a European perspective, then sadly, it will take some time for him to be able to correct the damage done to the economy in the wake of the recent Wall Street shenanigans. I hope he is given some patience in dealing with this as it will no doubt take some time to rectify.
I think you make a lot of really great points here. I have one foot out the door of the Democratic party. I've often thought of leaving the Democratic party to register Independent for a long time. I think that if McCain wins I will be looking for a husband in Canada to get me outta this country.
very well said. As i'm from England, i've been watching this election cycle with great intrest mainly because it'll affect us more than many people think. Me being anti-war to the bone, i don't agree with McCain or much with Barack Obama's intrest with Iran and Afghanistan. I just hope that he keeps to his word and helps the economy as it's hurting us as well. Although i would prefer a 3rd party outcome (not going to happen...) Obama's policies look better than Mcain from my view. Nice video!
I'm not sure if I'll move to Canada, or just get involved in the California Independence movement and leave you other suckers behind. Either way, I ain't going quietly into McCainia.
Nader is a good guy and so is Obama. McCain's choice of a running mate scares me a little. Not only does it cause me to question his judgment/intelligence, it also causes me some anxiety to imagine Palin facing off against Putin/Medvedev!!! Of course, Putin/Medvedev are far more honorable than Bush/Cheney, but that's not really the point...
Most of my comments have accepted, for the sake of argument, that encouraging 3rd parties is, all other things being equal, a good thing. But I really don't think so. Countries with multiple parties have a devil of a time getting things done. Breakdowns of the 2 party system do not have an encouraging history in the US (gave us James Buchanan and Richard Nixon, probably the two worst presidents in US history as of 2000). For all its faults, the 2 party system may be better than the alternatives.
The problems of multiple parties versus the problems of two parties... It's a tough choice ;^)
My main goal is to increase participation and the idea that government is responsive to the people. Our two major parties have, for the most part, gone against that. Will increased participation bring other unintended problems? Maybe - but it's a risk I'm willing to take.
But, again, this year I'm going with the Democrat. But my longer-term emphasis is on democracy not Democrats.
Have you missed the fact that we voted in a new Congress to end the war, close the borders, stop the loss of jobs to overseas, and impeach Bush & Cheney and THEY'VE DONE NOTHING? Obamacain and Republicats cannot willnot help us. They are owned by bigcorpa.
Peaceful noncompliance: Cut them off. They refuse to do what we tell them anyway.
18% vote takes the election - let's all write in the independent we decide on and take it.
At the end of the day, what is the point of voting for anything other than democracy? Doesn't it make a mockery of your vote? Don't forget, the two party system is what allowed Bush to become president and McCain to be a candidate. Ultimately, it will just be the same next time if nobody stands up against them.
Democracy to me means fair competition of ideas between all parties, not just two. But it doesn't mean refusing to listen to the major two when they do have something to say. Competition between ALL parties means ALL parties, including the established big ones. To me (IMHO), Obama's got something good to say. Had it been another Clinton against a different Green, I might be voting independent.
It is a shame that you are turning your back on the movement for democracy. So you like Obama better than some others, but let's face it, not much is going to change. You care about the economy so why vote for someone who wants to increase the military budget? Obama won't reform elections, or kick the corporations out of Washington. He voted for the Patriot Act.
I am not turning my back on the movement for democracy - My commitment to that movement means supporting the right of any citizen to vote for any candidate; even when that candidate is a member of a "major" party. This year, for me, Nader is a lesser choice than Obama. It doesn't mean I'm against him running, just that, like McCain, Nader's time is past (IMHO).
Your investigation into whether Nader cost Gore the election isn't all that necessary because; 1) It is Nader's right to stand, and the right of people to have choices and vote for whomever they wish. Therefore, whatever result you come out with is irrelevant, under no circumstances is Nader a spoiler. He is nothing other than a truly great American. 2) Gore did win the election, and Bush stole it from him.
chrisjohnrhodes: Gore ALLOWED Bush to steal the election. He paused, waited, Gore didn't grab it and then Bush announced. After the fact, jury counts were rigged in Jeb-land using Texas voting records.
Very true - I didn't run the numbers just to ease a guilty conscience, I was more just curious about shutting up the idiots who believe that stuff. I support every candidate's right to stand, whether I'm voting for them or not. There are millions of votes that go uncast each election - we need more competition in the marketplace of ideas, not less.
My first choice was Gore and I was extremely disappointed when he didn't run. I think Nader is a good guy and only ignorant fools get a kick out of disrespecting him.
As for Obama, well, he isn't far enough to the left for me. But-given the alternative of McCain & Palin who, if elected, will have this country in a holy war with Iran & most of the middle east in a nanosecond, Obama is starting to look good to me.
We've all got to look at ALL the candidates (not just the top two) and make the best choice for ourselves and our country - Weigh all the issues and see who you think is best for this time in our history. For me, this year, it's Obama.
I've voted Nader lots of times! I'll probably vote for him again in a few weeks!!! The only way I'll vote for Obama is if it's close here in CA... very unlikely... but we'll see!!! (Despite the literal interpretation of my most recent song/video, I would consider it a disaster if McCain were to win the presidency!)
True that here in CA, we can be pretty sure Obama will carry our state, whatever you or I decide to do - But I'm glad to finally have a Democrat who I actually do think is better than simply "less evil." But I wish Ralph well.
I am doing the opposite. I have voted Democratic in the past, but I will be voting for Ralph Nader for the first time this year. At this point in time I value my vote too much to vote for either of the two controlling parties.
Voting party based only is a mistake. I have come to realize that we live in a two party dictatorship. The fact that we are seeing the 3rd party escorted away from debates is an abuse of power and it further drives home the dictatorship part.
While I would not vote the 3rd party, I do not think escorting them away and dismissing them is what we would expect from a two party dictatorship and not a democracy.
Great comment - I'm with you on the abuse of power by the two major parties, which is why - even when I actually like one of their candidates - I will not be joining up with any of them again. They cannot "rely" on my vote and not have to try to actually represent me. I'll do more vlogs about this later.
Well, that's really another point that I didn't put in the video: I live in California - There was no way Bush was going to carry California whether I voted for Gore, Nader, or Mickey Mouse. Would I have voted differently if I'd lived in a "swing state"? I doubt it, but maybe I would have.
This election is TOO IMPORTANT to throw your vote away on a candidate that we know will not come close to getting elected. Knock it off with the pretentious attitude that "oh my vote is too important blah blah blah".. it's only important if you vote for one of these two parties, this time.. and that's the reality of the situation..Vote for the lesser of two evils. Get your independant party in there, next time.
Like I said, this year I'll be voting for Obama, but because I actually like him, not because he's simply "the lesser evil." Thanks for watching, and thanks for voting!
Suppose there were an election between say, Ralph Nader, Barack Obama, G.W.Bush and Adolf Hitler, with Bush and Hitler in a dead heat for the lead and Nader and Obama roughly tied for a very distant third. GreyThumb would vote for the best candidate? OK. As for me, I would vote for the second WORST candidate. Not only would I vote for him. I would campaign for him. I would contribute money. I would cancel important business meetings on Election Day just to drive his supporters to the polls.
Hell, I would suck Carl Roves cock if it meant he could spend more time coming up with malicious lies to tell about the other candidates (and Im not even gay). But I guess some people would rather elect Adolf Hitler than vote for someone who wouldnt make the best president. I use the Hitler example to make the point clear: the same moral logic applies in any race with more than 2 candidates.
Yes, vote for the person who best represents what you want for America. There have been times that for me, that was Ralph Nader, and I did vote for him. This year, I believe it is Barack Obama.
I'm not sure what moral philosophy underlies the "vote for the best person" ethic. As a utilitarian, I say, "Cast your vote where it will have the most positive expected impact on the election result and on future elections." I can see, if one candidate is far ahead in your state, or far ahead overall, that the long-run benefit of voting for a "best but unelectable" candidate might outweigh the small short-run disadvantage. But if your state and the election are close, that disadvantage is huge.
Admittedly, since I live in Massachusetts and Kenrg AFAIK lives in California, both solid blue states, there isn't much reason for us to vote for the major candidates unless we like them. It's an interesting paradox that, if I liked Nader better than Obama, I might vote for Nader but campaign (out of state) for Obama.
Anyhow I apologize for the vulgarity of my earlier comment and for missing the apostrophe in "Rove's." But I stand by the Hitler example, Godwin be damned!
I'm quoting Sean Penn "Ralph Nader is obligated to run for the Presidency. It is the American thing to do". Both Obama and McCain are indentured to the corporations. Look at them blaming each other for the mess on Wall Street. Us tax payers will be paying off this bad debt created by greedy CEO's, and our government asleep at the wheel. I will not vote for least worse, never. My vote means more to me than that. We are moving farther away from our constitution and economic law. Vote Ralph Nader!
Once again, I agree with Nader's right to run, and I am not knocking him - I'm defending him here - That doesn't mean that I'm obligated to vote for him again.
Fuck me for defending him? With all the other people blaming him for Bush, etc., you post that here? You're not helping your cause any with that attitude or approach.
I support Nader's right to run, and I think he's bringing more people into the voting booth, which is a very good thing, I'm just going a different way this year. That's democracy; that's the goal.
And let me say, I -- well, I won't say "supported" -- but I didn't oppose Nader in 1996. (You could say I was torn between him and Clinton. Clinton was better politically than Dole, but not all that much better, and Dole certainly seemed like he would have made a pretty good president, politics aside. And Clinton was pretty far ahead in the polls. So there was no strong reason not to vote for Nader.
But 2000 was quite a different story. You had an election that, by most accounts, was going to be close. You had the highly competent, intelligent, and politically reasonable Al Gore running against W, who looked (to me, anyhow, and still does) like an idiot and was running on a platform similar to Dole's, but in this case he was running against Gore, and the political contrast (on domestic issues, anyhow) was greater. It's hard to justify voting for Nader under those circumstances.
Actually, I take back the thing about political contrast. In reality, the contrast between Bush and Gore is indeed much larger than that between Dole and Clinton, but such was not really apparent at the time.
But the point stands that Bush was an obvious fool who should not have been let near the White House, whereas Dole was a sensible, reasonably intelligent, and competent statesman, even if he was wrong about a lot of things.
And the point stands that the polls were a lot closer in 2000.
Yes, 2000 and 1996 were different politically, but the bottom line is the same: There were millions of uncast votes that were up for grabs by any candidate - That's where Gore lost.
I believe that increasing third party and independent participation will bring more nonvoters into the voting booth, and that can only be good for our democracy.
I won't be voting for Nader this year, but I stand by his right to run, as I stand by any citizen's right to run for any office.
There were any number of jointly necessary reasons that Gore lost, one of which was that he didn't attract enough otherwise uncast votes. You can blame him for that, perhaps, but I still blame Nader for increasing the chance that Bush would win. Some of Nader's voters came from Bush; more came from Gore; some wouldn't have voted otherwise or would have voted for another third party. What matters is that number from Gore exceeds that from Bush, and that was foreseeable.
I don't think anyone questions Nader's right to run; it's just that a lot of people (including me) don't think it's a good idea.
I don't think more voter participation is an inherently good thing. Voting (at least voting intelligently) uses up a lot of resources. If 50% of the people vote, rather than, say 30%, I'd say it's worth the extra cost because it gives Americans as a whole more confidence in the democratic process. If it's 70% vs. 50%, I'm not sure it's worth the cost.
Morally speaking, it doesn't matter if Nader cost the Democrats the election. He COULD have, if the vote in Florida had been closer (and perhaps it would have been, if all the votes had been counted correctly). If you point a gun at somebody without knowing whether it's loaded, and you pull the trigger, it makes no moral difference whether the gun turns out to be loaded. Nader was morally guilty of possibly costing the Democrats the election even if he didn't actually cost them the election.
Nader should work hard to repair relations with the car enthusiast vote, which has essentially abandoned him ever since the book "unsafe at any speed" I have yet to hear one reason why i should forgive him for that book.
Well, I still disagree. When 100% of eligible and registered voters actually show up to vote, you can say that one candidate "took votes" from another. When participation is barely above 50%, there is plenty of room in the market of ideas for more competition.
This has got to be the most intellectual expression of NOT voting for Nader I've seen on youtube thus far...
Question though: I'm sure you already know Obama's universal healthcare plan keeps the insurance companies on the table...
What is your logic for supporting this? Don't want there to be a shakey, economic pitfall with people losing there jobs in that market if, say, it was single-payer? Or do you think Obama will scrap his plan and adopt Kucinich's HR 676 considering its popularity?
I used to say Single Payer or nothing! But at this point, I'll take almost any plan that will cover most of the 47 million currently without insurance. Is the Obama plan perfect? No. Is it the best we can probably hope for in the next decade? Hell, yes. Maybe I'm just getting old.
Thank you for expressing a clear and concise point of view without rancor and ridicule ... the agitated kerflufal of the electoral season is wearing on me and I'll be glad when it's over. I hope to be overjoyed -- but I do have to wait patiently for that!
What was that at the end?! You actually Want the job of governing California?
As far as Obama is concerned, like I told Elaina43, if he is elected the music will improve. I watched both conventions (yes, I am a glutton for punishment), and the music at the Democratic convention was much better than what the Republicans had, imho.
At the end? Just checking to see if anybody's still watching at that point ;^) I've been joking about running for Gov since high school. Maybe I will, maybe I won't ...
And if music is the only thing that's improved, it will still be worth the effort - Thanks!
you need more than 2 choices. For the moment I doubt I would be able to choose. I like Obama but I feel everything has gone so wrong that neither candidate will be able to keep their promise. funny that Bush did more for socialism than MArx or Engels. I just hope the dollar doesn't turn to confetti.
From European view, McCain or Obama......i think they are both just a puppets.....the REAL power is held by totally different group....I mean, i think it won't make any difference, who is the president of the US, he's going to be just a face in the oval room...nothing more....
But i don't live in the States, so this is really (like i said in the beginning)just one European view of things back there in United States of America.......
Politics is one of the things in life that depresses me. So divisive. Like religion. Unfortunately, it seems there's no way around it. I try to avoid these sorts of things, but I do like Obama. I've read his first book and about half of his second. Seems like a good man. Good to hear from you.
"So divisive" Diversity is divisive, and yet we celebrate it.
I believe "E Pluribus Unum" to be an unrealistic dream. One that would require far too much sacrifice of individuality to truely achieve. When the people unite behind a cause, be sure its the right one. Don't forget how Hitler managed to unite the Riech behind him.
Well said. I do not advocate a universal ideology, theology or oligarchy. I just hope that we can find a way, as humans, to realize our experiences are similar in many respects. A lot of the things we are trying to accomplish or that we hope for, as people, are the same. Argument is fine, expressing your point of view is fine, but when it causes family members to not speak to each other, it's gone a little far for me. In general, that's sort of the background for my comment. Peace.
I agree. I guess my mind takes the word "divisive" too far sometimes. Its over use in a speach can e be a turn off. Lots of give and take here. Peace!
Gore won the 2000 election by popular vote. Of course, since the popular vote doesn't count, the florida voting debacale ended up decicding the electoral vote, and florida was run by bush's brother. I don't see what Nader has to do with anything.
Very well stated. My understanding is that if you are an Independent, you can't choose a Presidential Candidate in the Primary. Is that accurate? A better system would be to list them all and allow voters to choose from the entire list. Of course I'm also a believer in ditching the electoral votes and having the total country votes count regardless of where the voter resides. Nader has done so much for our safety - we owe him respect. IMHO of course.
Different states have different primary rules, and sometimes it varies by party. California now allows independents to cross-over in primaries, so I was able to vote Obama in the primary. Yes, there are many better ways than closed primaries and the electoral college - Maybe after the election I'll do some vlogs about possible reforms. Thanks!
You touched on a lot of the reasons why I dislike the Democrat vs. Republican silliness and how it influences not just the campaigns but politics in general.
And I ain't no Democrat neither. If anything, I'm Agnostic.
I'm surprised, and disappointed, to see him carrying the Green banner. The Greens really should have told him to take a hike a while back. He keeps using their name and party, but he's refused to ever join the party.
Voting for a Muslim was Foolish! Not that I expect much from a liberal democrat! It's sad that ppl still believe that Rep/Dem is against each other! They have you FOOLED!
kgunjoem 11 months ago
Ralph Nader 2012
NoShelter15 1 year ago
Nothing good for Country, means nothing rational. Negative emotions produce nothing but tyranny
freederfy 2 years ago
both nader and obama are baby-killers.
VoiceOfModeration 3 years ago
You spew crap like that and call yourself the "voice of Moderation"? Have you bothered to look up moderation in a dictionary?
kenrg 3 years ago
I'm a total non-partisan and unbiased commentator. I have a radio show called "Thinking Outside The Politically Correct Box" on 92.7FM and I never insinuate any particular points of view or endorse any candidates directly. But in two years and with a minority government, Harper, my prime minister, has asserted our sovereignty in the Arctic to protect it against the competing interests of Russia and America, he raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 which protects our children from predators and
VoiceOfModeration 3 years ago
he lowered the GST from 7% to 5%. It would be hard to imagine why anyone would want to take the country in another direction. But as I said, Im unbiased and non-partisan, always looking for guests who are passionate about their views. If you're actually running for the governor of CA in 2010 or even if you just want to advertise your Vlog, you're more then welcome to phone in.
VoiceOfModeration 3 years ago
every vote is wasted. until obama actually does something i am not sold on him(although i am not for mcain either)
BluntedBeyondBelief 3 years ago
kenrg, nice video.
I have voted for Nader the past 3 elections. not as a protest vote, but simply because I felt he was the best choice each of those elections. I get irritated when people complaining that anyone voting third party should vote Democrat to not "waste their vote." However, anyone who truly believes Obama was a better choice should have voted for him (same with McCain or any other third party). Now we'll see if he delivers.
mad3moyer 3 years ago
The only wasted vote is the one not cast. Thanks.
kenrg 3 years ago
What a long haired hippy fool. Voted for Nader, and now for Obama! That's all you need to know about this liberal clown!
Tom3013 3 years ago
Honestly, i dont trust Obama. I mean, you can believe what you want. Look, if Obama can afford his own channel on Dish, a 30 minute special on all major channels, plus more, who's giving him this money? Well, i'm not that "plugged in" to this race, but I recall hearing him hacking McCain with lies and taking funding from Lobbyists, or whatever. Well, as much crap as he's talking about them, i doubt it. I think he's taking money from Ayers.IMO. Take rights away, ship jobs to china.McCain/PalinFTW
boblomature 3 years ago
Who is giving him this money? Normal people like you and me. If you'd do your research, you'd see that the vast majority of his money comes from small donations from average people. It's funny tha t you say Obama's the one relentlessly attacking McCain - as it is the other way around. Oh - and you "think" hes taking money from Ayers? Well man, that's some great proof youve got there! BTW, I also "think" you're a dumbass ;-)
ZigZaggityWW 3 years ago
Obama is McCain on most important issues. You shouldn't give in so easily to the Dems. Sure, Obama can speak well, but that's it. No real difference from McCain. You make many good points but it saddenes us to hear how you've given up. Please re-think your vote. Nader needs the support of all thinking men. A vote for Obama is one for war, consentration of wealth, shrinking middle class, weaker democracy, no electoral reform...etc. please re-think it.
dudeedud7 3 years ago
If you want to escalate the war by invading Pakistan, and risk exposing our troops to a nuclear strike by Pakistan (since they cant match our military), by all means....vote Obama. Obama has said in two debates, speeches, and interviews posted on youtube that he intends to invade Pakistan with troops redeplyed from Iraq. Sound like "change" to you?
annfordinc 3 years ago
Eh, we all know Gore won in 2000 anyway, regardless. But I still think Nadar is a douche.
androidslayer 3 years ago
I just wish they would have invited Ralph to be a part of any of the debates. Ralph has not gotten too much attention on any news or talk shows. My reason for this would be the great issues Ralph brings to the table. He was allowed to speak before. Yes; some think he is just a spoiler - not true. Without Ralph; Obama and McCain are let off the hook.
CharTres1717 3 years ago
I agree he's no spoiler, and I agree that the "independent commission" on presidential debates is just a tool of the two major parties. There should have been at least one debate with all 6 candidates who are on enough ballots to make a difference. I'm mad about that, but I've looked into all 6, and Obama is still my choice.
kenrg 3 years ago
BTW...if he was running, Joe Wurzelbacher "Joe the Plumber" would get my vote!! HA!!!
joey75220 3 years ago
How about a write-in campaign for Joe? I'll bet he gets a few votes after last night's tribute to him. Is he the last undecided voter in America?
kenrg 3 years ago
Thanks for this..LONG LIVE THE INDEPENDENTS!!!
I got tired of the Democratic Party acting like they were the 'real champion' of the down-trodden, the oppressed, etc. As a third generation Mexican-American, growing up I really believed (my parents are die-hard Dems) that this party would always look out for minorities and the poor. WRONG!!! Gonna do some more research on Nader....
joey75220 3 years ago
Nader was one of the greatest forces for good we had in the late 20th century. Unfortunately, he now seems like a tired shell of what he once was, and hardly seems to know why he's running, other than to make a point about choice. I really do feel that Obama comes out ahead on the issues I most care about. But then, as an Independent, I'll keep the pressure on Obama to deliver once elected.
kenrg 3 years ago
Kenrg, now that Obama is elected you have NO power to put pressure on him, unless of course you're a giant corporation. Wonderful choice you've made.
ScipioAmericanus 3 years ago
And I'd somehow have more power if I'd voted for Nader again? How do you figure that?
kenrg 3 years ago
Yes. Voting third party/independent demonstrates to people like Obama and other Democrats that there is a true progressive base that will only vote for candidates if they are truly progressive. Obama is no different from any other status quo democrat.
ScipioAmericanus 3 years ago
obama is going to win by default who's the spoiler? democrats and republicans are
aquafishsoup 3 years ago
vaya tela........... bush, es lo peor,
sudorysaliba 3 years ago
I'm on the same page with you. I'm voting for Obama and have hope for him. I havn't heard any politician as inspiring as him since John and Bobby Kennedy. However,I agree with Nader and feel that no one, not even Obama, tells it like it is like Nader. I wish he could at least get on someone's cabinet and get his ideas through the legis/exec branches before he dies. I didn't know about his history of reform until recently. Alas, there's no room for anti-corporate messages in the media.
MemeSha 3 years ago
Thanks - Hope is pretty much all we have now.
kenrg 3 years ago
I posted a video response to your video that I am sure 3rd party voters maybe interested in. I have also included your video in my blog on myspace regarding this issue.
isegoria1 3 years ago
Thanks - I'm watching your vlog now.
kenrg 3 years ago
Thanks
isegoria1 3 years ago
Shame on you. Call yourself an independent.Barcack, McCain, the same on every important issue. And now, Barrack favors the bailout. This should be an obvious demonstration of whose interests Barrack serves.
longsilver1 3 years ago
They look the same when you fail to observe the voting history. What is McCain's voting history with Bush as opposed to Barack's?
isegoria1 3 years ago
until arerica reforms their system, to say a systems like france or germany, where partys with more than 5% of the votes are in the house and senate (bundestag/rat in germany) the 2 big partys gonna shove it down your throat like they want to
kutterkoet3r 3 years ago
I agree - and changing the political system is one of my top long-term priorities. Unfortunately, this year, we have more immediate economic trouble to tend to.
kenrg 3 years ago
The comparison is EXACTLY why our system's far better. Legislatures without a majority cannot work, ever. So, they piece together a "majority" with short-term coalitions based on one or two issues, and if they suddenly split and the coalition breaks apart, the government collapses.
We have no need whatsoever for more parties. We need people to get more involved in their party. There's nothing wrong with party loyalty, at all. The problem is apathy, cynicism.
ColumbiaCowboy 3 years ago
Kenrg; Sir what is your position on foreign policy with respect to Obama's ideas about Iraq, Afganistan,Pakistan,Georgia,Iran etc. It seems to me he represents alot of the status quo of the military industrial complex,who would like to continue the extension of the American Empire..By the way I am a military veteran of 12 years, so don't try to bullshit me!!
pat52007 3 years ago
I soured with the Democratic party a few years before you. About one third of the way through the 88 primaries Jesse Jackson had emerged as a serious contender and through their actions the power players behind the scenes made it clear that they wanted keep the votes of the African Americans but they did not want to have an African American as their candidate.
channeIreview 3 years ago
Very true. I voted for Jesse in the primary that year, but by the time it got to California, it was clear that they'd marginalized him completely.
kenrg 3 years ago
I was very closely involved with this year and the Jackson campaign. I was an elected delegate for McGovern (no, really!) and went to our state convention along with Jackson delegates as "undecided," since Jesse and McGovern dropped out.
Jackson didn't win in '88 because there were excellent candidates people just liked better, saying it was only race is insulting and wrong.
The Democratic Party's done so much for African-Americans, by abandoning the party you HURT the cause of justice.
ColumbiaCowboy 3 years ago
Indeed there was a large pool of candidates in 1988 - and being involved you will remember that following super tuesday the possibility that Jackson might actually will was so strong that Time Magazine wrote an article describing what a Jackson cabinet in the white house might look like. From that point on the party leadership did all it could to prevent Jackson from winning.
channeIreview 3 years ago
Which, even if true, could have a lot of reasons having little to do with color.
The "leadership" is NOT the Party. Want to know who the leader of the Democratic Party is? I am, and you should be, and so is every other Dem who bothers to get off their butt and show up at caucus and volunteer at HQ and participate. You're as much Democrat as they are. If what leaders do is wrong, CHANGE the Party, don't just quit on it. That means the change you want will NEVER happen.
ColumbiaCowboy 3 years ago
Good points! I'm also a registered Independent, who used to be a Democrat. I feel that the 2 party system has failed this country and we need some sort of reform. I'm completely amazed at how people will automatically vote their party even if the candidate doesn't support their interests... it's rather maddening.
I am also supporting Barack Obama for the presidency, because it's pretty apparent... during the debates that McCain is in way over his head.
Zuul030 3 years ago
Agreed on all points. And this was the debate where McCain was supposed to shine - his "area of expertise" and he couldn't pull it off.
kenrg 3 years ago
I couldn't agree more. As much as I appreciate your argument about the exit polls, I like Nader's standard response. He says that the Democrats should have hit a home run against a guy like George W and if they couldn't win a landslide victory with a Republican candidate that bad, then they are doing something wrong and shouldn't blame him (Nader). Very true.
NorCalCorsello 3 years ago
Agreed. Even without the polls showing the legend of the spoiler is false, every candidate still has a right to run, and every citizen has the right to their vote.
kenrg 3 years ago
Watch Dr. Phil Friday Sept 26th. Ralph Nader is on.
foodscoo 3 years ago
where?
Spacemonkeyone 3 years ago
A few more things kenrg. Just in the last couple of days, the Democrats voted in favor of offshore drilling. And approved Bush's military budget, the largest budget ever. I thought Iraq was winding down? Little difference between the two parties. I know Nader isn't going to win. McCain doesn't have a chance either. At least if Nader does much better than his usual 2 - 3%, maybe Washington will get the message that lots of people are fed up. Not trying to convince you, just saying my peace.
jrigeli 3 years ago
I appreciate your points, and I'm all for everybody saying their piece, and getting their vote. I'm just making a personal vlog about my decision.
kenrg 3 years ago
"the Democrats voted in favor of offshore drilling."
They didn't vote for the drilling, they let the sanctions stopping offshore drilling to lapse. And people will finally realize that it will take 7-10 years for the oil to "Trickle Down" and make some real impact.
I agree, to a point, that there is very little difference between the parties.. but one thing is clear... Republicans reduce taxes and deficit spend... while Democrats raise taxes and pay down the deficit.
Zuul030 3 years ago
"They didn't vote for the drilling, they let the sanctions stopping offshore drilling to lapse"
Six of one and half a dozen of another. What's the difference?
jrigeli 3 years ago
Big difference. One is a vote, one isn't. You stated they voted IN FAVOR of it, they aren't In Favor of it...People complained about the "Do-Nothing" Democratic congress, but it would have been vetoed anyway by the president... because the Democrats didn't have 2/3 majority overrule power. So the Democratic congress let the sanctions lapse to make themselves be perceived as letting it happen.
But it won't change anything, people will still view them negatively.
Zuul030 3 years ago
The Democrats are in favor of it. Listen to what they are saying. They claim they will bring this issue up again next year. But, they are not talking about a ban, they are talking about allowing offshore drilling with some compromises. The message is clear, make no mistake, offshore drilling will be a reality. Even with a Democrat in the White House, there is no talk from the leadership about reinstituting the ban. The Democrats capitulated.
jrigeli 3 years ago
Look at it from a different point of view... if the Democrats choose to do nothing... and continue with the ban... they would have been strung up by their toes (Or at the very least, lose their seats).. people have been given the wrong information from the Republicans... countless experts have stated this isn't going to help things in the interim... so yes, while the Democrats have capitulated.. they've done so only to save their own political lives.
Zuul030 3 years ago
True, economy is an important thing. Among many other news from USA there has been practically nothing about your present president's ideas for saving USA (and the world) from a depression. I truly hope the next president of yours have good ideas.
LadyDiWolfe 3 years ago
The current president finally made a statement last night, and Obama and McCain are going to the White House today to talk to the president about his plan. Of course, it's all just a big old political show and won't help a darn thing, but we'll enjoy the show anyway...
kenrg 3 years ago
He did finally? Well, that was about the time...
LadyDiWolfe 3 years ago
This is just a personal opinion, but I think we put to much emphasis on the individual politician. I call it the Le Fort factor because in my mind excluding Teddy Roosevelt most famous leaders and rulers had this factor in the background. Peter the Great gets all the credit, but Le Fort groomed Peter from the age of 4. Geniuses like Le Fort for good or bade are driving politics, religion, and commerce today. Surprisingly if the genius is unchecked they make a mess of things.
Frank
ockteby 3 years ago
The reason I excluded Teddy Roosevelt he I think possessed the highest IQ of any president. He was in the Le Fort genius realm.
Frank
ockteby 3 years ago
Interesting - I'll look to read more about Le Fort. (And about TR having the highest IQ - I've put Jefferson on that rung, but TR is probably right behind him).
kenrg 3 years ago
Obama and the Republicans are too similar. I don't understand why people can't see that. Obama went with the FISA Bill that takes away our civil rights, plus giving immunity to the Telecoms that broke the law. He said he would cut corporate taxes. On foreign policy, he's starting to sound like a neocon, saying he would launch attacks within Pakistan even without their approval. Plus, no option is off the table regarding Iran.
Vote Nader. It's not a wasted vote. It will make a statement!
jrigeli 3 years ago
Great - Vote for Nader - I'll still be voting for Obama.
kenrg 3 years ago
If Mr. Obama does win the election, and I sincerely hope he does from a European perspective, then sadly, it will take some time for him to be able to correct the damage done to the economy in the wake of the recent Wall Street shenanigans. I hope he is given some patience in dealing with this as it will no doubt take some time to rectify.
TamHickey67 3 years ago
Yes, it will take time - I'm sure he's got the patience, the bigger question is, do the rest of us? I pity whoever wins.
kenrg 3 years ago
you should run for president lol
pallewallebogman 3 years ago
Maybe I am running and you just don't know it!
kenrg 3 years ago
interesting insight into US politics, good to see what a normal american thinks
staplerjm 3 years ago
Well, I don't know how "normal" I am, but thanks!
kenrg 3 years ago
I think you make a lot of really great points here. I have one foot out the door of the Democratic party. I've often thought of leaving the Democratic party to register Independent for a long time. I think that if McCain wins I will be looking for a husband in Canada to get me outta this country.
missdivinestalls 3 years ago
If McCain wins, can you see if that new husband of yours has a sister?
kenrg 3 years ago
very well said. As i'm from England, i've been watching this election cycle with great intrest mainly because it'll affect us more than many people think. Me being anti-war to the bone, i don't agree with McCain or much with Barack Obama's intrest with Iran and Afghanistan. I just hope that he keeps to his word and helps the economy as it's hurting us as well. Although i would prefer a 3rd party outcome (not going to happen...) Obama's policies look better than Mcain from my view. Nice video!
Bigpineapple 3 years ago
Thanks - Good to hear the European point of view.
kenrg 3 years ago
I'm a libby too. If Obama doesn't win I'm moving to Canada. Toronto looks nice.
Justinmazing 3 years ago
I'm not sure if I'll move to Canada, or just get involved in the California Independence movement and leave you other suckers behind. Either way, I ain't going quietly into McCainia.
kenrg 3 years ago
I'll leave quietly. It starts with the sound of a butterfly wing.
Justinmazing 3 years ago
Nader is a good guy and so is Obama. McCain's choice of a running mate scares me a little. Not only does it cause me to question his judgment/intelligence, it also causes me some anxiety to imagine Palin facing off against Putin/Medvedev!!! Of course, Putin/Medvedev are far more honorable than Bush/Cheney, but that's not really the point...
RuskyED 3 years ago
Agreed, pretty much.
kenrg 3 years ago
Most of my comments have accepted, for the sake of argument, that encouraging 3rd parties is, all other things being equal, a good thing. But I really don't think so. Countries with multiple parties have a devil of a time getting things done. Breakdowns of the 2 party system do not have an encouraging history in the US (gave us James Buchanan and Richard Nixon, probably the two worst presidents in US history as of 2000). For all its faults, the 2 party system may be better than the alternatives.
DClaudeKatz 3 years ago
The problems of multiple parties versus the problems of two parties... It's a tough choice ;^)
My main goal is to increase participation and the idea that government is responsive to the people. Our two major parties have, for the most part, gone against that. Will increased participation bring other unintended problems? Maybe - but it's a risk I'm willing to take.
But, again, this year I'm going with the Democrat. But my longer-term emphasis is on democracy not Democrats.
kenrg 3 years ago
Have you missed the fact that we voted in a new Congress to end the war, close the borders, stop the loss of jobs to overseas, and impeach Bush & Cheney and THEY'VE DONE NOTHING? Obamacain and Republicats cannot willnot help us. They are owned by bigcorpa.
Peaceful noncompliance: Cut them off. They refuse to do what we tell them anyway.
18% vote takes the election - let's all write in the independent we decide on and take it.
uptheconstitution 3 years ago 2
Good luck to you.
kenrg 3 years ago
At the end of the day, what is the point of voting for anything other than democracy? Doesn't it make a mockery of your vote? Don't forget, the two party system is what allowed Bush to become president and McCain to be a candidate. Ultimately, it will just be the same next time if nobody stands up against them.
chrisjohnrhodes 3 years ago 2
Democracy to me means fair competition of ideas between all parties, not just two. But it doesn't mean refusing to listen to the major two when they do have something to say. Competition between ALL parties means ALL parties, including the established big ones. To me (IMHO), Obama's got something good to say. Had it been another Clinton against a different Green, I might be voting independent.
kenrg 3 years ago
It is a shame that you are turning your back on the movement for democracy. So you like Obama better than some others, but let's face it, not much is going to change. You care about the economy so why vote for someone who wants to increase the military budget? Obama won't reform elections, or kick the corporations out of Washington. He voted for the Patriot Act.
chrisjohnrhodes 3 years ago
I am not turning my back on the movement for democracy - My commitment to that movement means supporting the right of any citizen to vote for any candidate; even when that candidate is a member of a "major" party. This year, for me, Nader is a lesser choice than Obama. It doesn't mean I'm against him running, just that, like McCain, Nader's time is past (IMHO).
kenrg 3 years ago
Your investigation into whether Nader cost Gore the election isn't all that necessary because; 1) It is Nader's right to stand, and the right of people to have choices and vote for whomever they wish. Therefore, whatever result you come out with is irrelevant, under no circumstances is Nader a spoiler. He is nothing other than a truly great American. 2) Gore did win the election, and Bush stole it from him.
chrisjohnrhodes 3 years ago 2
chrisjohnrhodes: Gore ALLOWED Bush to steal the election. He paused, waited, Gore didn't grab it and then Bush announced. After the fact, jury counts were rigged in Jeb-land using Texas voting records.
uptheconstitution 3 years ago 2
Yes I agree. Another reason to vote third party.
chrisjohnrhodes 3 years ago
Very true - I didn't run the numbers just to ease a guilty conscience, I was more just curious about shutting up the idiots who believe that stuff. I support every candidate's right to stand, whether I'm voting for them or not. There are millions of votes that go uncast each election - we need more competition in the marketplace of ideas, not less.
kenrg 3 years ago
My first choice was Gore and I was extremely disappointed when he didn't run. I think Nader is a good guy and only ignorant fools get a kick out of disrespecting him.
As for Obama, well, he isn't far enough to the left for me. But-given the alternative of McCain & Palin who, if elected, will have this country in a holy war with Iran & most of the middle east in a nanosecond, Obama is starting to look good to me.
vintagegarden 3 years ago 2
We've all got to look at ALL the candidates (not just the top two) and make the best choice for ourselves and our country - Weigh all the issues and see who you think is best for this time in our history. For me, this year, it's Obama.
kenrg 3 years ago
I've voted Nader lots of times! I'll probably vote for him again in a few weeks!!! The only way I'll vote for Obama is if it's close here in CA... very unlikely... but we'll see!!! (Despite the literal interpretation of my most recent song/video, I would consider it a disaster if McCain were to win the presidency!)
blackturtleus 3 years ago 2
True that here in CA, we can be pretty sure Obama will carry our state, whatever you or I decide to do - But I'm glad to finally have a Democrat who I actually do think is better than simply "less evil." But I wish Ralph well.
kenrg 3 years ago
I am doing the opposite. I have voted Democratic in the past, but I will be voting for Ralph Nader for the first time this year. At this point in time I value my vote too much to vote for either of the two controlling parties.
FLGibsonJr 3 years ago 2
Vote your conscience - I disagree with your choice, but I support your right to that choice 100%
kenrg 3 years ago
Voting party based only is a mistake. I have come to realize that we live in a two party dictatorship. The fact that we are seeing the 3rd party escorted away from debates is an abuse of power and it further drives home the dictatorship part.
While I would not vote the 3rd party, I do not think escorting them away and dismissing them is what we would expect from a two party dictatorship and not a democracy.
isegoria1 3 years ago 3
Great comment - I'm with you on the abuse of power by the two major parties, which is why - even when I actually like one of their candidates - I will not be joining up with any of them again. They cannot "rely" on my vote and not have to try to actually represent me. I'll do more vlogs about this later.
kenrg 3 years ago
I declare my biomass free and independent of all laws of any country.
crawleykakes 3 years ago
I'm moving where you are.
kenrg 3 years ago
Hey my house is for sale 585 and its yours. Includes state of denial.
crawleykakes 3 years ago
Great video Ken. Enjoyed your insight on the Nader deal.
GeneticBlend 3 years ago
Thanks!
kenrg 3 years ago
11 swing states decide the election. we need reform. vote with your soul
GreyThumb 3 years ago
Well, that's really another point that I didn't put in the video: I live in California - There was no way Bush was going to carry California whether I voted for Gore, Nader, or Mickey Mouse. Would I have voted differently if I'd lived in a "swing state"? I doubt it, but maybe I would have.
kenrg 3 years ago
This election is TOO IMPORTANT to throw your vote away on a candidate that we know will not come close to getting elected. Knock it off with the pretentious attitude that "oh my vote is too important blah blah blah".. it's only important if you vote for one of these two parties, this time.. and that's the reality of the situation..Vote for the lesser of two evils. Get your independant party in there, next time.
Gangularis 3 years ago
Like I said, this year I'll be voting for Obama, but because I actually like him, not because he's simply "the lesser evil." Thanks for watching, and thanks for voting!
kenrg 3 years ago
I agree, completely, Kenrg. I think Obama is a genuinely intelligent, wise, and knowledgable man. Just the sort of stuff I want in a president.
Gangularis 3 years ago
such an eloquent speaker.Home run ken,,,keep em coming.
sdante7 3 years ago
Thanks!
kenrg 3 years ago
I want the pdf Ken! I believed this myth until about 2 minutes ago!
wogsland 3 years ago
It's on its way... enjoy!
kenrg 3 years ago
Thanx!
wogsland 3 years ago
as long as you have researched the candidates, vote for who you want, period. With out question Ralph Nader would be the best president...enough said
GreyThumb 3 years ago 4
you are dreaming wake up!!
dino2763 3 years ago 4
Suppose there were an election between say, Ralph Nader, Barack Obama, G.W.Bush and Adolf Hitler, with Bush and Hitler in a dead heat for the lead and Nader and Obama roughly tied for a very distant third. GreyThumb would vote for the best candidate? OK. As for me, I would vote for the second WORST candidate. Not only would I vote for him. I would campaign for him. I would contribute money. I would cancel important business meetings on Election Day just to drive his supporters to the polls.
DClaudeKatz 3 years ago
Hell, I would suck Carl Roves cock if it meant he could spend more time coming up with malicious lies to tell about the other candidates (and Im not even gay). But I guess some people would rather elect Adolf Hitler than vote for someone who wouldnt make the best president. I use the Hitler example to make the point clear: the same moral logic applies in any race with more than 2 candidates.
DClaudeKatz 3 years ago
Yes, vote for the person who best represents what you want for America. There have been times that for me, that was Ralph Nader, and I did vote for him. This year, I believe it is Barack Obama.
kenrg 3 years ago
I'm not sure what moral philosophy underlies the "vote for the best person" ethic. As a utilitarian, I say, "Cast your vote where it will have the most positive expected impact on the election result and on future elections." I can see, if one candidate is far ahead in your state, or far ahead overall, that the long-run benefit of voting for a "best but unelectable" candidate might outweigh the small short-run disadvantage. But if your state and the election are close, that disadvantage is huge.
DClaudeKatz 3 years ago
Admittedly, since I live in Massachusetts and Kenrg AFAIK lives in California, both solid blue states, there isn't much reason for us to vote for the major candidates unless we like them. It's an interesting paradox that, if I liked Nader better than Obama, I might vote for Nader but campaign (out of state) for Obama.
Anyhow I apologize for the vulgarity of my earlier comment and for missing the apostrophe in "Rove's." But I stand by the Hitler example, Godwin be damned!
DClaudeKatz 3 years ago
I'm quoting Sean Penn "Ralph Nader is obligated to run for the Presidency. It is the American thing to do". Both Obama and McCain are indentured to the corporations. Look at them blaming each other for the mess on Wall Street. Us tax payers will be paying off this bad debt created by greedy CEO's, and our government asleep at the wheel. I will not vote for least worse, never. My vote means more to me than that. We are moving farther away from our constitution and economic law. Vote Ralph Nader!
vardisvs 3 years ago 6
Once again, I agree with Nader's right to run, and I am not knocking him - I'm defending him here - That doesn't mean that I'm obligated to vote for him again.
kenrg 3 years ago
fuck you kenrg and stick your video up your fuckin ass NADER ALL THE WAY
rumpelstillskin65 3 years ago
Fuck me for defending him? With all the other people blaming him for Bush, etc., you post that here? You're not helping your cause any with that attitude or approach.
I support Nader's right to run, and I think he's bringing more people into the voting booth, which is a very good thing, I'm just going a different way this year. That's democracy; that's the goal.
kenrg 3 years ago
And let me say, I -- well, I won't say "supported" -- but I didn't oppose Nader in 1996. (You could say I was torn between him and Clinton. Clinton was better politically than Dole, but not all that much better, and Dole certainly seemed like he would have made a pretty good president, politics aside. And Clinton was pretty far ahead in the polls. So there was no strong reason not to vote for Nader.
DClaudeKatz 3 years ago
But 2000 was quite a different story. You had an election that, by most accounts, was going to be close. You had the highly competent, intelligent, and politically reasonable Al Gore running against W, who looked (to me, anyhow, and still does) like an idiot and was running on a platform similar to Dole's, but in this case he was running against Gore, and the political contrast (on domestic issues, anyhow) was greater. It's hard to justify voting for Nader under those circumstances.
DClaudeKatz 3 years ago
Actually, I take back the thing about political contrast. In reality, the contrast between Bush and Gore is indeed much larger than that between Dole and Clinton, but such was not really apparent at the time.
But the point stands that Bush was an obvious fool who should not have been let near the White House, whereas Dole was a sensible, reasonably intelligent, and competent statesman, even if he was wrong about a lot of things.
And the point stands that the polls were a lot closer in 2000.
DClaudeKatz 3 years ago
Yes, 2000 and 1996 were different politically, but the bottom line is the same: There were millions of uncast votes that were up for grabs by any candidate - That's where Gore lost.
I believe that increasing third party and independent participation will bring more nonvoters into the voting booth, and that can only be good for our democracy.
I won't be voting for Nader this year, but I stand by his right to run, as I stand by any citizen's right to run for any office.
kenrg 3 years ago
There were any number of jointly necessary reasons that Gore lost, one of which was that he didn't attract enough otherwise uncast votes. You can blame him for that, perhaps, but I still blame Nader for increasing the chance that Bush would win. Some of Nader's voters came from Bush; more came from Gore; some wouldn't have voted otherwise or would have voted for another third party. What matters is that number from Gore exceeds that from Bush, and that was foreseeable.
DClaudeKatz 3 years ago
I don't think anyone questions Nader's right to run; it's just that a lot of people (including me) don't think it's a good idea.
I don't think more voter participation is an inherently good thing. Voting (at least voting intelligently) uses up a lot of resources. If 50% of the people vote, rather than, say 30%, I'd say it's worth the extra cost because it gives Americans as a whole more confidence in the democratic process. If it's 70% vs. 50%, I'm not sure it's worth the cost.
DClaudeKatz 3 years ago
Morally speaking, it doesn't matter if Nader cost the Democrats the election. He COULD have, if the vote in Florida had been closer (and perhaps it would have been, if all the votes had been counted correctly). If you point a gun at somebody without knowing whether it's loaded, and you pull the trigger, it makes no moral difference whether the gun turns out to be loaded. Nader was morally guilty of possibly costing the Democrats the election even if he didn't actually cost them the election.
DClaudeKatz 3 years ago
Nader should work hard to repair relations with the car enthusiast vote, which has essentially abandoned him ever since the book "unsafe at any speed" I have yet to hear one reason why i should forgive him for that book.
joness105639 3 years ago
Well, I still disagree. When 100% of eligible and registered voters actually show up to vote, you can say that one candidate "took votes" from another. When participation is barely above 50%, there is plenty of room in the market of ideas for more competition.
kenrg 3 years ago
I'm certain, Ken, you do know more about McCain and Obama then most Americans. I only hope they reach the same conclusion.
Urnkneekovaks 3 years ago
Me too ;^)
kenrg 3 years ago
This has got to be the most intellectual expression of NOT voting for Nader I've seen on youtube thus far...
Question though: I'm sure you already know Obama's universal healthcare plan keeps the insurance companies on the table...
What is your logic for supporting this? Don't want there to be a shakey, economic pitfall with people losing there jobs in that market if, say, it was single-payer? Or do you think Obama will scrap his plan and adopt Kucinich's HR 676 considering its popularity?
lurchslayer 3 years ago
I used to say Single Payer or nothing! But at this point, I'll take almost any plan that will cover most of the 47 million currently without insurance. Is the Obama plan perfect? No. Is it the best we can probably hope for in the next decade? Hell, yes. Maybe I'm just getting old.
kenrg 3 years ago
Thank you for expressing a clear and concise point of view without rancor and ridicule ... the agitated kerflufal of the electoral season is wearing on me and I'll be glad when it's over. I hope to be overjoyed -- but I do have to wait patiently for that!
liz1060 3 years ago
There's plenty of time for rancor and ridicule as we get closer to the election. I thought I'd at least try to start out calmly. It won't last.
kenrg 3 years ago
What was that at the end?! You actually Want the job of governing California?
As far as Obama is concerned, like I told Elaina43, if he is elected the music will improve. I watched both conventions (yes, I am a glutton for punishment), and the music at the Democratic convention was much better than what the Republicans had, imho.
:P
lookingforananswer 3 years ago
At the end? Just checking to see if anybody's still watching at that point ;^) I've been joking about running for Gov since high school. Maybe I will, maybe I won't ...
And if music is the only thing that's improved, it will still be worth the effort - Thanks!
kenrg 3 years ago
you need more than 2 choices. For the moment I doubt I would be able to choose. I like Obama but I feel everything has gone so wrong that neither candidate will be able to keep their promise. funny that Bush did more for socialism than MArx or Engels. I just hope the dollar doesn't turn to confetti.
yellowlabrador 3 years ago
Confetti is about it - I still remain hopeful, but guardedly so.
kenrg 3 years ago
From European view, McCain or Obama......i think they are both just a puppets.....the REAL power is held by totally different group....I mean, i think it won't make any difference, who is the president of the US, he's going to be just a face in the oval room...nothing more....
But i don't live in the States, so this is really (like i said in the beginning)just one European view of things back there in United States of America.......
gintonic666 3 years ago
To some extent that's true, but there's still a lot that a good president can do. At least, we have to hope so.
kenrg 3 years ago
Politics is one of the things in life that depresses me. So divisive. Like religion. Unfortunately, it seems there's no way around it. I try to avoid these sorts of things, but I do like Obama. I've read his first book and about half of his second. Seems like a good man. Good to hear from you.
brignoni68 3 years ago
Depressing, but necessary. Thanks for the comment.
kenrg 3 years ago
"So divisive" Diversity is divisive, and yet we celebrate it.
I believe "E Pluribus Unum" to be an unrealistic dream. One that would require far too much sacrifice of individuality to truely achieve. When the people unite behind a cause, be sure its the right one. Don't forget how Hitler managed to unite the Riech behind him.
joness105639 3 years ago
Well said. I do not advocate a universal ideology, theology or oligarchy. I just hope that we can find a way, as humans, to realize our experiences are similar in many respects. A lot of the things we are trying to accomplish or that we hope for, as people, are the same. Argument is fine, expressing your point of view is fine, but when it causes family members to not speak to each other, it's gone a little far for me. In general, that's sort of the background for my comment. Peace.
brignoni68 3 years ago
I agree. I guess my mind takes the word "divisive" too far sometimes. Its over use in a speach can e be a turn off. Lots of give and take here. Peace!
joness105639 3 years ago
Gore won the 2000 election by popular vote. Of course, since the popular vote doesn't count, the florida voting debacale ended up decicding the electoral vote, and florida was run by bush's brother. I don't see what Nader has to do with anything.
joness105639 3 years ago
That's pretty accurate. Exactly, the play was in, whether or not Nader was on the ballot. Bush stole it however you look at the data.
kenrg 3 years ago
Very well stated. My understanding is that if you are an Independent, you can't choose a Presidential Candidate in the Primary. Is that accurate? A better system would be to list them all and allow voters to choose from the entire list. Of course I'm also a believer in ditching the electoral votes and having the total country votes count regardless of where the voter resides. Nader has done so much for our safety - we owe him respect. IMHO of course.
thizizliz 3 years ago
Different states have different primary rules, and sometimes it varies by party. California now allows independents to cross-over in primaries, so I was able to vote Obama in the primary. Yes, there are many better ways than closed primaries and the electoral college - Maybe after the election I'll do some vlogs about possible reforms. Thanks!
kenrg 3 years ago
As a fan of the Chevrolet Corvair, I can't vote Nader.
joness105639 3 years ago
LOL - I can respect that position ;^)
kenrg 3 years ago
Well spoken, great opinion and video.
freitasex 3 years ago
Thanks!
kenrg 3 years ago
this might offend you, but i would rather see the cooking movies. they r awesome. doesnt mean its cool u show ur opinion
Rivertje0 3 years ago
No problem - I do a lot of different things on the 'Tube - not every video is for every viewer.
kenrg 3 years ago
You touched on a lot of the reasons why I dislike the Democrat vs. Republican silliness and how it influences not just the campaigns but politics in general.
And I ain't no Democrat neither. If anything, I'm Agnostic.
Is there a Vloggerhead political party yet?
OhCurt 3 years ago
There will be a VloggerHead in every race by 2012.
kenrg 3 years ago
who do u think will win?
ralfonzo83 3 years ago
I feel strongly that Obama can and will win, but it might be very, very close...
kenrg 3 years ago
I was a little surprised to see Nader run again... The Golden Rule Boys would find Nader a bitter pill to swallow... Good to hear from you
PappyStu 3 years ago
I'm surprised, and disappointed, to see him carrying the Green banner. The Greens really should have told him to take a hike a while back. He keeps using their name and party, but he's refused to ever join the party.
kenrg 3 years ago