This endorsement by Kucinich disapointed me as well yet he seemed explain himself in the video unless I'm seeing things? Question: I know why politicians are corrupt but why do Americans keep voting for the ones who want to keep this corruption going? Why is it that when a politician decides to actually stand for the truth that they get ignored by the american voter? The polls act like a big lie detecter. the ones with the lowest poll ratings are the most truthful, go figure.
I'm anwering my own question folks because I can't wait. American's have a love affair with blatent liars. Being lied to is all they have ever known and it's all they expect. When someone tells the truth they reject them because they fear change. Oh yeah, this election is about change which is why Mccain and Clinton are doing so well, can you say Bullshit!
nader likes kucinich 1st, mathews rushed over that fact because hes a cnn scum bag, and nader should have spoke about dk more but that ass mathews insisted that he only refer to the so called "front runners" which is big corp bullshit talk, nader has the same platform as kucinich,and he should have insisted on mentioning that,plus nader was the only one who help DK wih munilight back in the day,edwards was just as bad as the other 2 shits, voting records dont lie like candidtes do!
your right i was pissed when dk did that, and he pissed off alot of his supporters doig that. obama is a dangerous piece of shit and god damn liar! hes just as dangerous as clinton and edwards is full of shit too, y dont these people look at voting records, thats says it all, and kucinich is it hands down, im still voting for him in the primary and i hope all kucinich fans r too, hes still on the ballot and he can still get delegates, and if he wants can still re-enter the race so vote kucinich!
what u fail to relize is abama IS THINKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is american land of unity the united states when we bring that back and change the way the government rusn the country back to it actually governing it then well be the land o the free again... founding fathers r crying fellas
I used to love Obama, and used to consider him my second favorite candidate, no I do not like him. I find his message of change good, but he is not really progressive enough. Now Edwards is my second favorite.
Dennis is a Joke. First he get's all mushy over racist Ron Paul and says he'd choose him for a running mate, then he appears on tin-hat looney Alex Jones' show. GIVE UP DENNIS! His nomination would ensure another Republican president because he'd get creamed in the general election against someone like Huckabee or McCain. Edwards is the ONLY HOPE for progressives because the racist/sexist south just ain't gonna vote for either a woman or a black man.
as always, we're forced to run our country through a popularity contest, and nobody questions the undemocratic nature of that constraint. meanwhile, as usual, all of our options for king/queen for the next 4 years really boil down to a bunch of people with exactly the same fundamental viewpoints, simply quibbling and bickering over nothing to give the illusion of diversity. this is not even close to a democracy.
My second choice is Edwards after Kucinich. I don't know why Kucinich did this, because he was the first to make such a statement and overture. When he did that, Biden and Dodd moved to Obama as a second choices. However, even Obama is far better than the Lady Republican.
Kucinich sent out an email to supporting stating, "I have serious concerns about [Edwards'] connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests....
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty."
Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate for me. If he made an error in asking his supporters to vote for Obama in the second ballot (Iowa, only), then he's entitled to at least one. He's been right far more than the rest of the candidates put together. Cut the man some slack: he's human! So are we all. Lighten up, RP.
So if you throw in your lot with Edwards and he drops out and says back Hillary what you do next? This nation is at a critical point. It is going to take ALL of us to pull through. Kucinich v Paul would have been a win-win choice if we had it. If you truly want change in this country you are going to have to go beyond party lines and pick the best man for the country. If Kucinich is out then only one good choice for the country remains. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
Edwards will never back Hillary. Have you listened to him talk about her? He's got lots of venom against her. He's much more aggressive against her than Obama is. And Obama is her main rival.
That is rediculous...edwards over obama???..It is very clear that Obama...is a bigger catalyst for change then edwards is....it is very clear that obama has a bigger intellectual and diplomatic capacity then EDwards does...If you truly support Kucinich..trust that he knows what hes talking about...did u ever consider that Kucinich could punch a Vice president ticket with Obama? damn flip floper
rep press: Judicial Watch just announced their 10 most corrupt list for 2007!! Guess who's name is not on the list!! judicialwatch dot org/judicial-watch-announces dash list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt dash politicians-2007
RPress: I believe it is also worth noting that Edwards' bio is interesting. The guy has made it the hard way. He's a skilled tactician and good thinker. Obama is clever, and I've no doubt his Harvard Law Review is good experience, but Edwards has fought some wars in the courtroom. Litigation is not for the faint of heart.
Obama is just not ready for foreign affairs. Not a good debater, just a good speaker. Edwards and Hill have more knowledge.Edwards better than Obama. Mitt is whining too much. Huck not enough on foreign affairs. Rudy on the right track. McCain is the best man.
That is odd, but I'm still gonna vote for Kucinich... Hey, did you see on the Simpsons Sunday they mentioned Dennis Kucinich. I think the talented writers are endorsing him.
Lucidtomr, I recorded the Simpsons and didn't get to watch it yet. The Simpsons will contain some interesting political ideas sometimes. What other show has mentioned the Military Industrial Complex?
demha94, do you say you trust Obama MORE? That is the point of the video. I think it would not be good to have Obama as the candidate, meanwhile Kucinich undermines efforts to stop that! And for no principles reason. I think Kucinich backed Edwards in Iowa last time around (I have to check that)
No way hosay. You can trust that if Dennis tells us one thing, he has thought about it and has good reason for it. in an Email Dennis describes why he came to the decision that he came too.
Dennis was worried about Edwards close ties to wall street hedge funds and companies that destroy the middle class. Edwards is nothing like Kucinich and there is no way I would change my vote.
kevinpaulharper, I don't think Kucinich "has good reason" for telling people to vote for Obama. If we are going to vote strictly on policies, Kucinich should have not told voters to back Obama. He sould have talked up Gravel. Where was Kuchinich when Gravel was being excluded? Let's not get into a worship role with these candidates.
I am sorry but I dont see how his suggestion is any worse then your suggestion to start pushing Edwards instead of Dennis, Edwards does not share my values on war,health care, marriage rights, and so on. For him to sign every bad thing that ever came over his desk and now switching his points on everything is not someone I believe in. I will continue to push Kucinich harder then ever.
kevinpaulharper, actually I said that Norman Solomon says we should now vote for Edwards in the primary.
You still ignore the main point of the video. Please answer this, if your vote would decide if the nominee would be Edwards or Obama. Who would you vote for? Let's say the only two running were Edwards and Obama, who would you vote for?
rep press: The JE connection to wall street is a complete farce. The guy needed the money, and he could get paid for using his knowledge of washington, etc. _All_ of the candidates are either being advised by, or at least have some heavy contributions from hedge fund people. Edwards has handled this issue very straightforwardly.
This video is about Edwards vs. Obama. Your point is negated by Barack Obama: "I think we should keep all options on the table..." (Feb. 11, 2007, answering "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft's question: "Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?")
I think I believe that edwards is worse then obama, google "Israeli factor" u will see haaretz rated edwards higher then obama in serving israel ie fighting iran
demha94, I think you are really stretching to try to prove me wrong for some reason. Your first point was a wash, this second one was funny to see when I saw the numbers. 5 for Obama compared to for 5.87 Edwards. Last month 5.25 for Obama, 6 for Edwards. The difference is not even a full rating point. Hardly a basis to say Edwards is "worse then Obama"
The points I cited above are those that convinced me of my conclusions. I cite edwards attended the 7th annual herzeliya conference in Israel. that is pretty significant to me. I personally foreign policy is most pressing issue for me. Obama told the truth about Israel until he got slandered by fox, then he changed and submitted to Aipac. Ron Paul is the cure. Obama is just the lesser of 2 evils and I could be wrong. love your videos.
You are really splitting hairs, and even if this one indicator (a ranking made by Haarats on which is "better for Israel" is a precise and relevant as far as how unprogressive one is to the other, less than 1 ranking point is not much of a difference, wouldn't you agree? This minor diff in this 1 nebulous indicator is hardly a basis to dismiss the point of my video.
rep press: I believe the threats to Iran have something to do with keeping the Shias from starting up their fighting again. It (the Shia not pulling shit) allows the Sunnis to see AQ as being the source of terrorist attacks, and therefore allows Petraeus to continue his work with the Sunnis.
Edwards? Sure he sounds good but he'll say anything to win. Don't you know he is a lawyer? This guy will never follow through with his promises... he co-authored the Liberman amendment 1...
Just for this crap video, I'm unsubscribing from this channel.
cormex55, is Obama better than Edwards or is Edwards better than Obama? Can you answer that? That is what this video is getting at. You didn't even refer to Obama and THAT is the point of the video!
kevinpaulharper, is Obama better than Edwards or is Edwards better than Obama? Can you answer that? THAT is the point of the video! Do you want to answer that question? Did you watch the video? what does it say?
cormex55, I've noticed that those that throw "i'm unsubscribing" in my face often resort to false or misleading arguments. In your case, it is a false that claim that Edwards "co-authored the Liberman amendment"
I make an effort to get the facts right, can you dispute a single fact in my video?
Well now you gotta get your facts straight because it's a fact that Edwards co-authored Lerberman Amendment 1... anyone who takes the time to look into it will find out.
And I DESPUTE your "facts" that the only choices are between Oprama and Edwards... I vote for who I believe in, it has nothing to do with "electable"
You are simply narrowing the choices and playing the same bullshit game the Major Media Does in trying to pick the candidates FOR us...
cormex: The Lieberman Kyl amendment is a vote that allows for aggressive military action against Iran. However, the only purpose of the amendment is to continue the threatening of Iran in order to achieve a continuing unwillingness of the Shia to fight. This is because, as Shia factions resist fighting, any actions against Sunnis are correctly perceived as coming from Qaeda. It is a way to achieve a continuing de facto alliance of the U.S. military with Sunnis.
cormex: What? There were like 15 co-authors on that thing. The Bush people had scared the crap out of half the people in the U.S. Edwards has apologized for his vote. Also, you're making a very strange argument here, that somehow no one has the right to try to sell you on voting for the candidate they think is the right one?
cormex: Oh please, very few are now blaming candidates for original support of the war. You dismiss his apology, but, look, for anyone who is willing to apologize, they are saying, "Okay, I'm sorry because I fell for this line of crap." Hindsight is always 20/20. But why do you figure Edwards is a phony? I mean more of a phony than anyone else?
I object to the way you are stumping for (pro-death penalty) Edwards, as if you have a group of 10,000 unthinking followers who are incapable of making their own educated decision on who to vote for in the primary.
If you wanted to make a pro-Edwards video, I'm all for it, and would in fact enjoy seeing you make the argument for Edwards over Obama. But I could care less who is endorsing who. Especially you.
dropoutfilms, you are stubbornly ignoring what I am saying in my video. What Kucinich did was really shitty, the video makes the case about why. You totally mischaracterize what my video is saying. By the way, this isn't the first time Kucinich has pulled this kind of crap. When asked about a potential running mate he said "Ron Paul," that is OUTRAGEOUS. What he should have said was Gravel.
"in fact enjoy seeing you make the argument for Edwards over Obama."
Then what is the problem? I make the case too strongly? I am not going to soft peddle it. Kucinich's playing it off as "well none of them are good" meanwhile he tells his supporters to pick the a worse candidate. I don't think he had a principled reason. In 2004 he was telling supporters to vote for Edwards in any Iowa precinct that Kucinich couldn't win.
Your argument: Listen to how disingenuous Kucinich's argument for supporting Obama is, as opposed to Nader and other people supporting Edwards - therefore support Edwards.
You don't address any of the key issues, what Obama/Edwards have done, will do or their viability. It's clear that Kucinich is not a viable candidate and we should decide whether to support Obama or Edwards, but should do so properly informed. Your video does not contribute to the dialogue at all. I expect more from you.
The way I see it: if we don't get behind Obama, we'll end up with Hillary. If that happens, I will definitely be spoiling my ballot.
Also, I actually AM an Edwards supporter, and was on NPR discussing the qualities of an Edwards campaign back in 2006. I don't, however, think he's as strong a candidate as Barack Obama.
dropout: "I don't even know why I'm responding to this tosh, nicholas" gives you away. A rather perfect indication you believe you have some sort of inside track to the "truth." In fact, you appear to not be tolerant of anyone who has an opinion different from your own. THE issues? Oh wait, you mean YOUR issues.
nicholas, "I figure you might just be a little bit jealous of Rep Press's viewership."
What does this even mean? It's nothing but a lame ad hominem attack, and a bad one at that. I'm jealous of someone's subscriber count, despite the fact that I'm a subscriber/commenter and don't have any vested interest in YouTube?!
My point this whole time is that this video is not nearly as informative as RP has done in the past.
drop: "I object to the way you are stumping for (pro-death penalty) Edwards, as if you have a group of 10,000 unthinking followers who are incapable of making their own educated decision on who to vote for in the primary." Sure sounds like some form of envy or jealousy to me. But wait, is it possible that you thought RP was merely an objective reporter of political mini-events?? Puh-leeze, he's a partisan, and, I figure, a relatively honest but ambitious one.
drop: (2) The political process is proceeding apace and, while Rep Press was satisfied in the past with uncovering the powers that be, wielding their levers of policy and political influence, it's now getting closer to crunch time. Hence the shifted emphasis toward decision-making and his own brand of enlightened punditry!!
Kucinich knows that he's not as well know as Obama. People recognise Obama as the "black candidate", they know and remember him. Kucinich has been excluded from two important democratic debates. Kucinich's decision was the best he could make, and he wont be backing down any time soon. (He has never done so yet.)
bezgin, are you being honest or manipulative? My video is about Edwards being MORE progressive than Obama. You disingenously post Edward's 7th ranking as if it proves me wrong yet you ignore that the same list shows Obama is listed as the SECOND TOP Recipient:
I support kucinich and have since 2004. I was a bit surprised by this as well, but I don't questions Kucinich's judgement. I am sure he knows more than he is telling, and he has his reasons. He let out a little but more about his reason which as because edwards has an affiliation with nyc hedge fund called forest investments. But know this, he has done it for reasons which is in the best interest.
forex01, that's the thing. I DO question Kucinich's judgment. I question the judgment of ALL the candidates. I am still searching for an explanation as to why Obama over Edwards. Do you have a link?
I have spent a LOT of time analyzing these candidates. I can tell you Kucinich is one of the most honest and reputable man there is. I tried to find that video but I have watched so many that I can not find it. The name of the fund in question though is fortress funds.
The standard line is Kucinich was offended by the chat Hillary and Edwards had about excluding some candidates from the debates and thought that comment was directed toward him.
Naelok, I thought I was bringing up issues. Notice I didn't say something banal, I gave looked at the polices. Doesn't this video show I don't "shill" since I am being critical of Kucinich? I will get into a whole bunch of issues, I plan to increase my video output.
Yeah I am going to have to say that represenative press lost my subscription as well. Anyone who can turn their back on a real hope at betterment does not deserve my time. So, this is the last few moments I will spend of it on this excuse for an alternative voice. Thanks for nothing.
cincishaman, I felt it needed to be pointed out that there is a big problem with Kucinich's recommendation. I have yet to hear a substantive reason why he recommended Obama. You mention "betterment" yet ignore that Edwards is better than Obama. (this is my understanding, if you have info to the contrary I would like to see it)
Type dollar diversify into the google search engine. When the rest of the countries completely dump our dollars it is depression/soup kitchen time. What democrat has a plan to stop this?
Need more information. I'm not going to rule out Edwards, or Obama. Both will do far better in the White House and will consult from the middle than the extreem right. No need to worry. Only if CIA or Neo Cons pull another Red Flag attack on Iran. ART. 51 is in place.
I have been monitoring the Edwards campaign for some time and he, out of the other tools, is advocating most for our economic well-being. He also has been taking a better stance on the War issue when compared to his Democratic counterparts. Not to mention that he is the most electable Democrat we have right now.
bezgin are you responding to what my video is about? If you have a source that shows Edwards isn't more progressive than Obama, I would like to see it.
Whats so good about being progressive? You hear like its the buzzword of the 21 Century. America needs a president who is honest, keeps his words, is responsible and serves the interest of his people in the best manner possible and not the interest of some shitty country in the middle east.
If America has no such candidates then be a protest voter to show your rejection of the politics. Thats the only way to go. Voting for the sake of voting when there is no good candidate is silly.
I want to be clear, the video makes it clear for me but when I write "Kucinich said vote for Obama in Iowa." I should write "Kucinich said vote for Obama in Iowa in the second ballot (and thus undermining Edwards who has more progressive policies" The video makes this clear.
armitage4, and I made this video because I think it serves the interests of the people. I thought I did a good job pointing out that Edwards is better than Obama and that Kucinich was wrong to tell voters to vote Obama as the second choice. There is no excuse for it as I think I have shown in these comments.
RevolutionaryJam, In 2004, "Edwards and Kucinich agreed that in any Iowa precinct where either candidate fails to garner the minimum needed to survive the first round, their supporters are urged to line up for the other candidate, Kucinich spokesman David Swanson said."
bezgin, you offer no facts. Can you back p what you claim about Nader? I think Nader has a good handle on some things to do to achieve economic justice.
This has always been about who will win the nomination, not who we would like to win. Had we all followed the "back Kucinich, no wait now back Edwards" routine, we would have Hillary coasting to a win, and that would be the worst of all progressives. I LOVE Kucinich, but I know politics and KNEW Obama was the best candidate given the realistic alternatives. Look, the truth is he is more progressive than he lets on. Trust me. We are in great hands.
Do you think Edwards could actually get meaningful policy change through Congress with his strict anti-corporate rederict? I was a Gravel supporter initially and I still am, but practicality dictates that in March when Ohio's primary is, Mike will be out of the race and I will have to choose between Edwards and Obama. I agree with a lot of what Edwards says but I think he seems a bit too confrontational to get things done, where Obama seems to be less so.
xthe: I don't like Edwards' use of the word "greedy" in reference to corporations, but Obama says _nothing_ about the enormous problem of wealth and income disparity, oligopolistic economy, corp influence on congress, etc.
ashaib: finding references, and probably a video, to this is easy enough to google. He said something about leaving an invasion of Pakistan on the table, something of that sort.
Norman Soloman should be careful where he throws his support. Kucinich has not abandoned his principles, he simply recognized the probable winner in Iowa where he spent no time. The truth is no candidate besides Kucinich is worth supporting. Let us not lose sight of the big picture.
He views Obama as a better chance to beat Hillary. Plus it looks like Edwards and Obama will run together after the primaries. He is viewing the big picture - and in that picture Obama stands a much better chance against Hillary.
well i still have serious problems with free market, why should it be legal for someone to own as much property as they want beyong their use, including infinite apartments which they don't live in that they get to RENT to other people, ie. get money they didn't earn for no work
judo: I only asked coz, up above, you say, "RP knows that free markets . ." I wanted to be sure that your "RP" didn't mean "Representative Press," lol. In some sense this is a political thread, because Ron Paul (tho his message has been important) has probably no chance for getting the nomination of his party.
Ron Paul is polling better and far more funded than the other candidates I support. I wish Kucinich and Gravel had more support. I just really fear Hillary and all the republicans minus Paul.
judo: Look, here is the deal - given Ron Paul's radical stance on a number of things, he has done remarkably well. He got 19 percent of the 18 - 24 vote in NH, 2nd to McCain's 27 pct. The problem is basically some of his stuff is so scary that he will have to go step by step about how he would accomplish some of his goals. A lot of the country are older, more suspicious, not as idealistic as younger voters.
nicholas: I don't find his ideas radical or scary in the context of history. I consider myself a libertarian but I understand that these ideas may produce scary results if not done slowly. People fear change more than they fear the status quo. More than anything, I want a leader who will cut all the government pork, end corporatism, eliminate the deficit, and bring our troops home.
judo: Those are laudable goals, but when you're talking about (as an example) eliminating bases overseas, people want to know what the plan is. It's going to take some sort of infomercial, with numbers and charts (I believe) to convert more skeptical voters.
revol: well, I didn't do it, but I think the free market, if it is matched by a gov't that acts to quell antitrust, and anti-competitive behaviors, can produce a lot of good for people.
judo: yes, what we have now is not really free markets, some companies are so huge and so "national" that smaller companies are squeezed out. The result is not a broad-based capitalism across the country, but an oligopoly in which only a percentage of the people can participate. It's very destructive to the culture.
free markets will always eventually become a bunch of rich corporations controlling our lives because they have freedom to collude
the biggest shittest least socially responsible corporations will ALWAYS deliver the cheapest products, because they will go to any length, therefore they will be most successful
RevolutionaryJam, very soon I will make a video dealing with economics. Specifically Chomksy talking about the massive propaganda program carried out on Americans, "the everlasting battle for the minds of men
." You might be interested in the links I added to the video description here.
"Politics is the shadow cast by big business over society" - John Dewey
point is, if everyone stopped buying shit they didn't need the system would collapse and everyone would be out of a job - what does say about the system we live in if it actually depends on people buying crap for it to survive.
revolu: This need not necessarily be true. If you have a gov't that is adversarial with regard to the corporate interests (the bigger ones), then I believe it can work. Of course right now the gov't is actually in the pockets of the corporate sector.
the least responsible firms will always provide the cheapest product, therefor the extremity of a political regeme based on consumerism is survival of the shittest.
yea i believe it's either between edwards kucinich or gravel for me at the present. either 1 of them would be a good candiate. the world just can't afford a obama hidllary or the republican panel. their lives are just important as ours and we owe it to those people.
Dennis wrote to his supporters (it's probably available on his website) and explained that the reason he picked Obama over Edwards was concern over Edwards' connection to Wall Street, especially one particular hedge fund.
Dennis doesn't like to go negative. He wants to talk about issues instead.
Edwards talks a good game, but when you examine his record from his years in the Senate, he was never as progressive as he sounds.
revolution: Hillary Clinton, as far as I know, has done nothing to deserve being called a bitch. She's a former first lady, and according to all accounts an excellent Senator from New York. She's a tireless, efficient and ambitious politician, like many of her male counterparts.
revolution: Books written to thrill guys like yourself are not very convincing. If you read that a male candidate had screaming matches with his children or his wife, it wouldn't matter to you. But any sort of ambition or focused management style or angry outburst from a woman is reason enough to call her names. I think that might make you sexist.
revol: Glad you're an active feminist. Now if you could quit acting on your stereotypes about strong women, you wouldn't need to call Hillary a bitch. The point is, you're judging Hillary by different standards than you would a man who exhibited the same behaviors. For god's sake, you read a book called "The American Evita" and now you've got the inside track on Hillary? All part of the rightwing anti-Clinton agenda, been going on forever. And keep in mind, I'm not even a HRC supporter.
revol: Your comparison standard for calling Cheney an asshole is different than your comparison standard for calling Hillary a bitch. If people were "scared of Hillary" in the WH (as Sally Bedell Smith asserts), that's reason enough to call Hillary names. Cheney (and plenty of other guys) are scary, dominant, aggressive (think Bolton), but guys wouldn't call Cheney an asshole for merely demonstrating those behaviors, they might say, "he's a tough guy" or other words.
bitch is applicable to woman, bastard is applicable to male. If Janeane Garrofolo was running for president I'd be delighted, but a bitch is a bitch, end of story.
revol: Lol, if Janeane Garofolo were running for public office, there would be books published about her that would lead you to believe she is "too ambitious," "too calculating," "too cold," "man-hating," or any of the bazillion adjectives used to describe Hillary Clinton. But I can see your mind won't be changed, so good luck. Btw, I would vote for Janeane myself, she's a babe!!
The Clintons will be the death of the Democratic Party as a truly progressive counterweight to corporate power. Also, I refuse to forgive Bill Clinton for killing Iraqi children and for attacking Serbia in violation of international law.
Yeah, I've gone back and read a lot of stuff about the Serbian affair, and have come around to agreeing with you. Good job. I'm not a Hill supporter, mainly because I think dynasty is simply a bad idea. In addition, I completely agree that we need someone who gets it that the corporate sector has narrowed and centralized, allowing a concentration of corporate power and wealth, and influence in washington. The Clintons, I don't believe, see any need to challenge this bad situation.
Because that is where the terrorists originate from (in Iraq, they're fighting in their own land). The Taliban is 90% Pakistani. Trust me that is much more wiser than Iran, Iraq, or afghanistan.
This endorsement by Kucinich disapointed me as well yet he seemed explain himself in the video unless I'm seeing things? Question: I know why politicians are corrupt but why do Americans keep voting for the ones who want to keep this corruption going? Why is it that when a politician decides to actually stand for the truth that they get ignored by the american voter? The polls act like a big lie detecter. the ones with the lowest poll ratings are the most truthful, go figure.
fywacia 4 years ago
I'm anwering my own question folks because I can't wait. American's have a love affair with blatent liars. Being lied to is all they have ever known and it's all they expect. When someone tells the truth they reject them because they fear change. Oh yeah, this election is about change which is why Mccain and Clinton are doing so well, can you say Bullshit!
fywacia 4 years ago
nader likes kucinich 1st, mathews rushed over that fact because hes a cnn scum bag, and nader should have spoke about dk more but that ass mathews insisted that he only refer to the so called "front runners" which is big corp bullshit talk, nader has the same platform as kucinich,and he should have insisted on mentioning that,plus nader was the only one who help DK wih munilight back in the day,edwards was just as bad as the other 2 shits, voting records dont lie like candidtes do!
oz22verizon 4 years ago
your right i was pissed when dk did that, and he pissed off alot of his supporters doig that. obama is a dangerous piece of shit and god damn liar! hes just as dangerous as clinton and edwards is full of shit too, y dont these people look at voting records, thats says it all, and kucinich is it hands down, im still voting for him in the primary and i hope all kucinich fans r too, hes still on the ballot and he can still get delegates, and if he wants can still re-enter the race so vote kucinich!
oz22verizon 4 years ago
what u fail to relize is abama IS THINKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is american land of unity the united states when we bring that back and change the way the government rusn the country back to it actually governing it then well be the land o the free again... founding fathers r crying fellas
daloamta 4 years ago
I used to love Obama, and used to consider him my second favorite candidate, no I do not like him. I find his message of change good, but he is not really progressive enough. Now Edwards is my second favorite.
ChristianSocialist 4 years ago
Obama admires Ronald Reagan!?!?!?
The Reagan Administration ran an illegal war out of the White House basement.
He used right wing death squads to murder and torture 100's of thousands of innocent civilians in Central America.
Obama admires right wing death squads in Central America?
nowellian 4 years ago
Ueg2007, us southerners don't like Hillary and Obama for the content of their character, not the color of their skin or their gender.
fuck off.
DanteCWB 4 years ago
Dennis is a Joke. First he get's all mushy over racist Ron Paul and says he'd choose him for a running mate, then he appears on tin-hat looney Alex Jones' show. GIVE UP DENNIS! His nomination would ensure another Republican president because he'd get creamed in the general election against someone like Huckabee or McCain. Edwards is the ONLY HOPE for progressives because the racist/sexist south just ain't gonna vote for either a woman or a black man.
ueg2007 4 years ago
I agreed with Dennis's views but, now he is backing Obama (even after he listed off reasons why we shouldn't vote for Obama); it's really gloomy.
I agree with John Edwards on a lot of issues but, he has shown that he can make a mistake and learn from that mistake.
peepnklown 4 years ago
I like Edwards message, but I have trouble believe he is sincere about his message.
ChristianSocialist 4 years ago
as always, we're forced to run our country through a popularity contest, and nobody questions the undemocratic nature of that constraint. meanwhile, as usual, all of our options for king/queen for the next 4 years really boil down to a bunch of people with exactly the same fundamental viewpoints, simply quibbling and bickering over nothing to give the illusion of diversity. this is not even close to a democracy.
justinl81 4 years ago
My second choice is Edwards after Kucinich. I don't know why Kucinich did this, because he was the first to make such a statement and overture. When he did that, Biden and Dodd moved to Obama as a second choices. However, even Obama is far better than the Lady Republican.
westphalianprinz 4 years ago
Kucinich sent out an email to supporting stating, "I have serious concerns about [Edwards'] connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests....
demurish 4 years ago
(cont'd)..."
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty."
demurish 4 years ago
And how is Obama better? If anything, he's worse!
westphalianprinz 4 years ago
Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate for me. If he made an error in asking his supporters to vote for Obama in the second ballot (Iowa, only), then he's entitled to at least one. He's been right far more than the rest of the candidates put together. Cut the man some slack: he's human! So are we all. Lighten up, RP.
GuinnevereB 4 years ago 4
So if you throw in your lot with Edwards and he drops out and says back Hillary what you do next? This nation is at a critical point. It is going to take ALL of us to pull through. Kucinich v Paul would have been a win-win choice if we had it. If you truly want change in this country you are going to have to go beyond party lines and pick the best man for the country. If Kucinich is out then only one good choice for the country remains. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
Rudenewt 4 years ago
Edwards will never back Hillary. Have you listened to him talk about her? He's got lots of venom against her. He's much more aggressive against her than Obama is. And Obama is her main rival.
westphalianprinz 4 years ago
watch "Candidates@Google: Barack Obama", a relatively informative event:
/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo
"Anybody but Hellary"
semiliteratedgod 4 years ago
Kucinich should have thrown his support to Gravel, who really needs some!
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
That is rediculous...edwards over obama???..It is very clear that Obama...is a bigger catalyst for change then edwards is....it is very clear that obama has a bigger intellectual and diplomatic capacity then EDwards does...If you truly support Kucinich..trust that he knows what hes talking about...did u ever consider that Kucinich could punch a Vice president ticket with Obama? damn flip floper
affy619 4 years ago
Obama and Edwards would be great for Pres/VP. Actually anyone after Bush would be great!
saadasim 4 years ago 2
rep press: Judicial Watch just announced their 10 most corrupt list for 2007!! Guess who's name is not on the list!! judicialwatch dot org/judicial-watch-announces dash list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt dash politicians-2007
nicholas9999 4 years ago
people need to start doing the research on there own rather than having someone else give you the "facts".
joseph591 4 years ago 3
RPress: I believe it is also worth noting that Edwards' bio is interesting. The guy has made it the hard way. He's a skilled tactician and good thinker. Obama is clever, and I've no doubt his Harvard Law Review is good experience, but Edwards has fought some wars in the courtroom. Litigation is not for the faint of heart.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Obama is just not ready for foreign affairs. Not a good debater, just a good speaker. Edwards and Hill have more knowledge.Edwards better than Obama. Mitt is whining too much. Huck not enough on foreign affairs. Rudy on the right track. McCain is the best man.
For me anyway.
SparklestheClown 4 years ago
That is odd, but I'm still gonna vote for Kucinich... Hey, did you see on the Simpsons Sunday they mentioned Dennis Kucinich. I think the talented writers are endorsing him.
Lucidtomr 4 years ago 2
Lucidtomr, I recorded the Simpsons and didn't get to watch it yet. The Simpsons will contain some interesting political ideas sometimes. What other show has mentioned the Military Industrial Complex?
representativepress 4 years ago
that coupled with the fact that I don't trust Edwards ONE BIT.
demha94 4 years ago 2
demha94, do you say you trust Obama MORE? That is the point of the video. I think it would not be good to have Obama as the candidate, meanwhile Kucinich undermines efforts to stop that! And for no principles reason. I think Kucinich backed Edwards in Iowa last time around (I have to check that)
representativepress 4 years ago
No way hosay. You can trust that if Dennis tells us one thing, he has thought about it and has good reason for it. in an Email Dennis describes why he came to the decision that he came too.
Dennis was worried about Edwards close ties to wall street hedge funds and companies that destroy the middle class. Edwards is nothing like Kucinich and there is no way I would change my vote.
kevinpaulharper 4 years ago 3
kevinpaulharper, I don't think Kucinich "has good reason" for telling people to vote for Obama. If we are going to vote strictly on policies, Kucinich should have not told voters to back Obama. He sould have talked up Gravel. Where was Kuchinich when Gravel was being excluded? Let's not get into a worship role with these candidates.
representativepress 4 years ago
"Dennis was worried about Edwards close ties to wall street hedge funds"
But even on that point it doesn't make sense to insist on Obama over Edwards.
Of the Hedge Funds Top 20 Recipients, Barack Obama is #3 at $489,234 while John Edwards is #5 at $204,750
representativepress 4 years ago
I am sorry but I dont see how his suggestion is any worse then your suggestion to start pushing Edwards instead of Dennis, Edwards does not share my values on war,health care, marriage rights, and so on. For him to sign every bad thing that ever came over his desk and now switching his points on everything is not someone I believe in. I will continue to push Kucinich harder then ever.
kevinpaulharper 4 years ago
kevinpaulharper, actually I said that Norman Solomon says we should now vote for Edwards in the primary.
You still ignore the main point of the video. Please answer this, if your vote would decide if the nominee would be Edwards or Obama. Who would you vote for? Let's say the only two running were Edwards and Obama, who would you vote for?
representativepress 4 years ago
rep press: The JE connection to wall street is a complete farce. The guy needed the money, and he could get paid for using his knowledge of washington, etc. _All_ of the candidates are either being advised by, or at least have some heavy contributions from hedge fund people. Edwards has handled this issue very straightforwardly.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
John Edwards, is pushing for War with Iran. Edwards, the sanguine democrat, literally wants to nuke Iran.
"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate -- ALL options must remain on the table."
demha94 4 years ago 2
This video is about Edwards vs. Obama. Your point is negated by Barack Obama: "I think we should keep all options on the table..." (Feb. 11, 2007, answering "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft's question: "Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?")
representativepress 4 years ago
Let me say that Edwards and Obama and Hilary have a totally unacceptable position concerning Iran.
representativepress 4 years ago
I think I believe that edwards is worse then obama, google "Israeli factor" u will see haaretz rated edwards higher then obama in serving israel ie fighting iran
demha94 4 years ago
demha94, I think you are really stretching to try to prove me wrong for some reason. Your first point was a wash, this second one was funny to see when I saw the numbers. 5 for Obama compared to for 5.87 Edwards. Last month 5.25 for Obama, 6 for Edwards. The difference is not even a full rating point. Hardly a basis to say Edwards is "worse then Obama"
representativepress 4 years ago
The points I cited above are those that convinced me of my conclusions. I cite edwards attended the 7th annual herzeliya conference in Israel. that is pretty significant to me. I personally foreign policy is most pressing issue for me. Obama told the truth about Israel until he got slandered by fox, then he changed and submitted to Aipac. Ron Paul is the cure. Obama is just the lesser of 2 evils and I could be wrong. love your videos.
demha94 4 years ago
You are really splitting hairs, and even if this one indicator (a ranking made by Haarats on which is "better for Israel" is a precise and relevant as far as how unprogressive one is to the other, less than 1 ranking point is not much of a difference, wouldn't you agree? This minor diff in this 1 nebulous indicator is hardly a basis to dismiss the point of my video.
representativepress 4 years ago
rep press: I believe the threats to Iran have something to do with keeping the Shias from starting up their fighting again. It (the Shia not pulling shit) allows the Sunnis to see AQ as being the source of terrorist attacks, and therefore allows Petraeus to continue his work with the Sunnis.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Kucinich 08
cormex55 4 years ago 3
Edwards? Sure he sounds good but he'll say anything to win. Don't you know he is a lawyer? This guy will never follow through with his promises... he co-authored the Liberman amendment 1...
Just for this crap video, I'm unsubscribing from this channel.
cormex55 4 years ago
cormex55, is Obama better than Edwards or is Edwards better than Obama? Can you answer that? That is what this video is getting at. You didn't even refer to Obama and THAT is the point of the video!
representativepress 4 years ago
I am also unsubscribing form your videos. Edwards cant touch Dennis.
kevinpaulharper 4 years ago
kevinpaulharper, is Obama better than Edwards or is Edwards better than Obama? Can you answer that? THAT is the point of the video! Do you want to answer that question? Did you watch the video? what does it say?
representativepress 4 years ago
cormex55, I've noticed that those that throw "i'm unsubscribing" in my face often resort to false or misleading arguments. In your case, it is a false that claim that Edwards "co-authored the Liberman amendment"
I make an effort to get the facts right, can you dispute a single fact in my video?
representativepress 4 years ago
Well now you gotta get your facts straight because it's a fact that Edwards co-authored Lerberman Amendment 1... anyone who takes the time to look into it will find out.
And I DESPUTE your "facts" that the only choices are between Oprama and Edwards... I vote for who I believe in, it has nothing to do with "electable"
You are simply narrowing the choices and playing the same bullshit game the Major Media Does in trying to pick the candidates FOR us...
cormex55 4 years ago
cormex: The Lieberman Kyl amendment is a vote that allows for aggressive military action against Iran. However, the only purpose of the amendment is to continue the threatening of Iran in order to achieve a continuing unwillingness of the Shia to fight. This is because, as Shia factions resist fighting, any actions against Sunnis are correctly perceived as coming from Qaeda. It is a way to achieve a continuing de facto alliance of the U.S. military with Sunnis.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
That's Lieberman 2
Lieberman 1 was the war on Iraq
cormex55 4 years ago
cormex: What? There were like 15 co-authors on that thing. The Bush people had scared the crap out of half the people in the U.S. Edwards has apologized for his vote. Also, you're making a very strange argument here, that somehow no one has the right to try to sell you on voting for the candidate they think is the right one?
nicholas9999 4 years ago
If people knew what the candidates were up too then maybe they wouldn't vote for them. I'm just showing the dirt, it's not up to me to clean it.
Sure he can apologize...how many people are dead and maimed...
it's a judgment call.
cormex55 4 years ago
cormex: Oh please, very few are now blaming candidates for original support of the war. You dismiss his apology, but, look, for anyone who is willing to apologize, they are saying, "Okay, I'm sorry because I fell for this line of crap." Hindsight is always 20/20. But why do you figure Edwards is a phony? I mean more of a phony than anyone else?
nicholas9999 4 years ago
This is the worst video you've ever made.
dropoutfilms 4 years ago 2
dropoutfilms, why? what specifically do you object to?
representativepress 4 years ago
I object to the way you are stumping for (pro-death penalty) Edwards, as if you have a group of 10,000 unthinking followers who are incapable of making their own educated decision on who to vote for in the primary.
If you wanted to make a pro-Edwards video, I'm all for it, and would in fact enjoy seeing you make the argument for Edwards over Obama. But I could care less who is endorsing who. Especially you.
dropoutfilms 4 years ago
dropoutfilms, you are stubbornly ignoring what I am saying in my video. What Kucinich did was really shitty, the video makes the case about why. You totally mischaracterize what my video is saying. By the way, this isn't the first time Kucinich has pulled this kind of crap. When asked about a potential running mate he said "Ron Paul," that is OUTRAGEOUS. What he should have said was Gravel.
representativepress 4 years ago
"in fact enjoy seeing you make the argument for Edwards over Obama."
Then what is the problem? I make the case too strongly? I am not going to soft peddle it. Kucinich's playing it off as "well none of them are good" meanwhile he tells his supporters to pick the a worse candidate. I don't think he had a principled reason. In 2004 he was telling supporters to vote for Edwards in any Iowa precinct that Kucinich couldn't win.
representativepress 4 years ago
And whats wrong with Ron Paul ? Isent he the key to end the war ???
TehHandyman 4 years ago
Here's the problem:
Your argument: Listen to how disingenuous Kucinich's argument for supporting Obama is, as opposed to Nader and other people supporting Edwards - therefore support Edwards.
dropoutfilms 4 years ago
You don't address any of the key issues, what Obama/Edwards have done, will do or their viability. It's clear that Kucinich is not a viable candidate and we should decide whether to support Obama or Edwards, but should do so properly informed. Your video does not contribute to the dialogue at all. I expect more from you.
The way I see it: if we don't get behind Obama, we'll end up with Hillary. If that happens, I will definitely be spoiling my ballot.
dropoutfilms 4 years ago
dropoutfilms, I should make a follow up video on this. The points made I thought were clear. Just listen to what I say and what the clips say.
Now that I see you are an Obama supporter, I see why you don't like the video.
representativepress 4 years ago
dropoutfilms, no, please watch the video again. What I say is in the video. What you wrote is not accurate.
representativepress 4 years ago
Also, I actually AM an Edwards supporter, and was on NPR discussing the qualities of an Edwards campaign back in 2006. I don't, however, think he's as strong a candidate as Barack Obama.
dropoutfilms 4 years ago
dropout: Your comment makes no sense, unless I figure you might just be a little bit jealous of Rep Press's viewership.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
I don't even know why I'm responding to this tosh, nicholas, but, the reasons why I support Obama over Edwards:
The LCV (bipartisan environmental organization) rates all candidates out of 100 on their environmental voting records and future plans:
OBAMA 96
EDWARDS 59
Edwards is in favor of the death penalty, Obama is not.
If RP wants to make pro-Edwards videos, I'd like to see him tackle the ISSUES.
dropoutfilms 4 years ago
dropout: "I don't even know why I'm responding to this tosh, nicholas" gives you away. A rather perfect indication you believe you have some sort of inside track to the "truth." In fact, you appear to not be tolerant of anyone who has an opinion different from your own. THE issues? Oh wait, you mean YOUR issues.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
tosh: see also, nonsense
nicholas, "I figure you might just be a little bit jealous of Rep Press's viewership."
What does this even mean? It's nothing but a lame ad hominem attack, and a bad one at that. I'm jealous of someone's subscriber count, despite the fact that I'm a subscriber/commenter and don't have any vested interest in YouTube?!
My point this whole time is that this video is not nearly as informative as RP has done in the past.
You're giving yourself away as a half-wit.
dropoutfilms 4 years ago
drop: "I object to the way you are stumping for (pro-death penalty) Edwards, as if you have a group of 10,000 unthinking followers who are incapable of making their own educated decision on who to vote for in the primary." Sure sounds like some form of envy or jealousy to me. But wait, is it possible that you thought RP was merely an objective reporter of political mini-events?? Puh-leeze, he's a partisan, and, I figure, a relatively honest but ambitious one.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
drop: (2) The political process is proceeding apace and, while Rep Press was satisfied in the past with uncovering the powers that be, wielding their levers of policy and political influence, it's now getting closer to crunch time. Hence the shifted emphasis toward decision-making and his own brand of enlightened punditry!!
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Obama is young and really doesn't know sh*t, He can be manipulated. Washington will chew him up and spit him out.
MrMP81 4 years ago
Kucinich knows that he's not as well know as Obama. People recognise Obama as the "black candidate", they know and remember him. Kucinich has been excluded from two important democratic debates. Kucinich's decision was the best he could make, and he wont be backing down any time soon. (He has never done so yet.)
samdahabib 4 years ago 2
If you really want to find out ask the campaign if they can direct you they are great people who have always responded back to me.
forex01 4 years ago
Health insurance:
Top 20 Recipients
7. Edwards, John (D) $536,176
opensecrets,org
bezgin 4 years ago
bezgin, are you being honest or manipulative? My video is about Edwards being MORE progressive than Obama. You disingenously post Edward's 7th ranking as if it proves me wrong yet you ignore that the same list shows Obama is listed as the SECOND TOP Recipient:
2. Obama, Barack (D) $2,158,610
representativepress 4 years ago
I also found this Kucinich statement somewhat disengenuous. I would gladly vote for Edwards.
NathanZackery 4 years ago
I support kucinich and have since 2004. I was a bit surprised by this as well, but I don't questions Kucinich's judgement. I am sure he knows more than he is telling, and he has his reasons. He let out a little but more about his reason which as because edwards has an affiliation with nyc hedge fund called forest investments. But know this, he has done it for reasons which is in the best interest.
forex01 4 years ago 2
forex01, that's the thing. I DO question Kucinich's judgment. I question the judgment of ALL the candidates. I am still searching for an explanation as to why Obama over Edwards. Do you have a link?
representativepress 4 years ago
I have spent a LOT of time analyzing these candidates. I can tell you Kucinich is one of the most honest and reputable man there is. I tried to find that video but I have watched so many that I can not find it. The name of the fund in question though is fortress funds.
forex01 4 years ago
The standard line is Kucinich was offended by the chat Hillary and Edwards had about excluding some candidates from the debates and thought that comment was directed toward him.
givebirthathome 4 years ago
I liked you better when you brought up issues, rather than shilled for candidates.
Naelok 4 years ago 2
Naelok, I thought I was bringing up issues. Notice I didn't say something banal, I gave looked at the polices. Doesn't this video show I don't "shill" since I am being critical of Kucinich? I will get into a whole bunch of issues, I plan to increase my video output.
representativepress 4 years ago
agree 100%, i can actually listen to edwards he sounds serious, i hope all kucinich supporters vote for him
salim201 4 years ago
Yeah I am going to have to say that represenative press lost my subscription as well. Anyone who can turn their back on a real hope at betterment does not deserve my time. So, this is the last few moments I will spend of it on this excuse for an alternative voice. Thanks for nothing.
cincishaman 4 years ago
cincishaman, I felt it needed to be pointed out that there is a big problem with Kucinich's recommendation. I have yet to hear a substantive reason why he recommended Obama. You mention "betterment" yet ignore that Edwards is better than Obama. (this is my understanding, if you have info to the contrary I would like to see it)
representativepress 4 years ago
Type dollar diversify into the google search engine. When the rest of the countries completely dump our dollars it is depression/soup kitchen time. What democrat has a plan to stop this?
crazycatfguy 4 years ago
Need more information. I'm not going to rule out Edwards, or Obama. Both will do far better in the White House and will consult from the middle than the extreem right. No need to worry. Only if CIA or Neo Cons pull another Red Flag attack on Iran. ART. 51 is in place.
JamJells 4 years ago
I have been monitoring the Edwards campaign for some time and he, out of the other tools, is advocating most for our economic well-being. He also has been taking a better stance on the War issue when compared to his Democratic counterparts. Not to mention that he is the most electable Democrat we have right now.
PubicMan 4 years ago
PubicMan, that was my conclusion too.
representativepress 4 years ago
that affirms the notion of voting for electability the whole system is fraud
judoka1 4 years ago
Heres a clue ! Back Ron Paul !
My channel has answers.
SOMUCHFORFREEMEDIA 4 years ago
somuch: This thread has nothing to do with your candidate.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Who do you think raised $30,329,152 for Edwards?
Check your sources. And Representative press i am unsubscribing you from now on!
bezgin 4 years ago
bezgin are you responding to what my video is about? If you have a source that shows Edwards isn't more progressive than Obama, I would like to see it.
representativepress 4 years ago
Whats so good about being progressive? You hear like its the buzzword of the 21 Century. America needs a president who is honest, keeps his words, is responsible and serves the interest of his people in the best manner possible and not the interest of some shitty country in the middle east.
If America has no such candidates then be a protest voter to show your rejection of the politics. Thats the only way to go. Voting for the sake of voting when there is no good candidate is silly.
armitage4 4 years ago
armitage4, Kucinich said vote for Obama in Iowa.
This video points out facts that some people don't want to deal with. Kucinich should have backed Gravel by your own argument.
representativepress 4 years ago
I want to be clear, the video makes it clear for me but when I write "Kucinich said vote for Obama in Iowa." I should write "Kucinich said vote for Obama in Iowa in the second ballot (and thus undermining Edwards who has more progressive policies" The video makes this clear.
representativepress 4 years ago
armitage4, and I made this video because I think it serves the interests of the people. I thought I did a good job pointing out that Edwards is better than Obama and that Kucinich was wrong to tell voters to vote Obama as the second choice. There is no excuse for it as I think I have shown in these comments.
representativepress 4 years ago
Kucinich backed Kerry and said he would back Hilary if she won the nomination, wtf is with that? can you explain this to me RP?
RevolutionaryJam 4 years ago
RevolutionaryJam, In 2004, "Edwards and Kucinich agreed that in any Iowa precinct where either candidate fails to garner the minimum needed to survive the first round, their supporters are urged to line up for the other candidate, Kucinich spokesman David Swanson said."
representativepress 4 years ago
armit: stating a questionable assertion as if it were a fact (and not being clear about it to boot) simply gets you ignored.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
bezgin: congratulations on acting like a child.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Nader is afraud.
bezgin 4 years ago
bezgin, you offer no facts. Can you back p what you claim about Nader? I think Nader has a good handle on some things to do to achieve economic justice.
representativepress 4 years ago
Don't let big media sway you. Kucinich is the only good one in that field.
czarwright 4 years ago 4
This has always been about who will win the nomination, not who we would like to win. Had we all followed the "back Kucinich, no wait now back Edwards" routine, we would have Hillary coasting to a win, and that would be the worst of all progressives. I LOVE Kucinich, but I know politics and KNEW Obama was the best candidate given the realistic alternatives. Look, the truth is he is more progressive than he lets on. Trust me. We are in great hands.
qtonic 4 years ago
I do respect your opinion and your work to get the word out about progressive issues, and I thank you for it. All the best!
qtonic 4 years ago
OBAMA for president and Edwards for VP! Both men are intelligent and charismatic. Anyone but that fake and Zionist hillary!
Toxxic88 4 years ago
True dat on Hillary! I have wondered if Edwards would consider VP again. Obama/Binden?
qtonic 4 years ago
i agree with you Toxic88
Fila8882002 4 years ago
RP,
Do you think Edwards could actually get meaningful policy change through Congress with his strict anti-corporate rederict? I was a Gravel supporter initially and I still am, but practicality dictates that in March when Ohio's primary is, Mike will be out of the race and I will have to choose between Edwards and Obama. I agree with a lot of what Edwards says but I think he seems a bit too confrontational to get things done, where Obama seems to be less so.
xthexlanternx 4 years ago
xthe: I don't like Edwards' use of the word "greedy" in reference to corporations, but Obama says _nothing_ about the enormous problem of wealth and income disparity, oligopolistic economy, corp influence on congress, etc.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
i actually like obama.
can someone give me a actual video of obama saying "i will invade pakistan"
ashaiba91 4 years ago
ashaib: finding references, and probably a video, to this is easy enough to google. He said something about leaving an invasion of Pakistan on the table, something of that sort.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
EDWARDS! please everyone! spread the word NOW!
monkcycle 4 years ago
.
I'm NOT backinganyone BUT Kucinich untill Kucinich drops out, if ever.
.
maxx1000 4 years ago
I believe nader is trustworthy.
nicholas9999 4 years ago 2
edwards is a twat good luck with him, lol
TheHairyHeart 4 years ago
Dennis Kucinich knows that Barack Obama is the best choice for president other than himself. Bottom line.
Xone7 4 years ago
Norman Soloman should be careful where he throws his support. Kucinich has not abandoned his principles, he simply recognized the probable winner in Iowa where he spent no time. The truth is no candidate besides Kucinich is worth supporting. Let us not lose sight of the big picture.
cincishaman 4 years ago 2
Sadly I think he knows exactly where he throws it...
TheHairyHeart 4 years ago
He views Obama as a better chance to beat Hillary. Plus it looks like Edwards and Obama will run together after the primaries. He is viewing the big picture - and in that picture Obama stands a much better chance against Hillary.
Of course - I'm voting for Ron Paul :D
Bassman5000t 4 years ago 3
RP knows that free markets can work if government supported corporate welfare is eliminated.
judoskeleton 4 years ago
well i still have serious problems with free market, why should it be legal for someone to own as much property as they want beyong their use, including infinite apartments which they don't live in that they get to RENT to other people, ie. get money they didn't earn for no work
RevolutionaryJam 4 years ago
judo: This thread has nothing to do with your candidate.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Of course it does. This is a public forum discussing polotics.
judoskeleton 4 years ago
judo: Who is your candidate?
nicholas9999 4 years ago
nicholas
I like Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel. I think Paul and Kucinich really follow the constitution.
judoskeleton 4 years ago
judo: I only asked coz, up above, you say, "RP knows that free markets . ." I wanted to be sure that your "RP" didn't mean "Representative Press," lol. In some sense this is a political thread, because Ron Paul (tho his message has been important) has probably no chance for getting the nomination of his party.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
nicholas
Ron Paul is polling better and far more funded than the other candidates I support. I wish Kucinich and Gravel had more support. I just really fear Hillary and all the republicans minus Paul.
judoskeleton 4 years ago
judo: Look, here is the deal - given Ron Paul's radical stance on a number of things, he has done remarkably well. He got 19 percent of the 18 - 24 vote in NH, 2nd to McCain's 27 pct. The problem is basically some of his stuff is so scary that he will have to go step by step about how he would accomplish some of his goals. A lot of the country are older, more suspicious, not as idealistic as younger voters.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
nicholas: I don't find his ideas radical or scary in the context of history. I consider myself a libertarian but I understand that these ideas may produce scary results if not done slowly. People fear change more than they fear the status quo. More than anything, I want a leader who will cut all the government pork, end corporatism, eliminate the deficit, and bring our troops home.
judoskeleton 4 years ago
judo: Those are laudable goals, but when you're talking about (as an example) eliminating bases overseas, people want to know what the plan is. It's going to take some sort of infomercial, with numbers and charts (I believe) to convert more skeptical voters.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
why do i get thumbs down for making the fair point that free market means freedom to enslave people economically
RevolutionaryJam 4 years ago
revol: well, I didn't do it, but I think the free market, if it is matched by a gov't that acts to quell antitrust, and anti-competitive behaviors, can produce a lot of good for people.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
imo there has to be limits to property rights, if we make an idea of
free market vs absolute socialism
we get to choose between either a corporate monopoly or government monopoly of our lives
we need elements of both, and most importantly a large dose of anarchy/community self-sufficiency to reach true personal sovereignty and freedom
RevolutionaryJam 4 years ago
We have corporate markets and embedded poloticians. Free markets work as long as they are truelly free.
judoskeleton 4 years ago
judo: yes, what we have now is not really free markets, some companies are so huge and so "national" that smaller companies are squeezed out. The result is not a broad-based capitalism across the country, but an oligopoly in which only a percentage of the people can participate. It's very destructive to the culture.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
free markets will always eventually become a bunch of rich corporations controlling our lives because they have freedom to collude
the biggest shittest least socially responsible corporations will ALWAYS deliver the cheapest products, because they will go to any length, therefore they will be most successful
RevolutionaryJam 4 years ago
RevolutionaryJam, very soon I will make a video dealing with economics. Specifically Chomksy talking about the massive propaganda program carried out on Americans, "the everlasting battle for the minds of men
." You might be interested in the links I added to the video description here.
"Politics is the shadow cast by big business over society" - John Dewey
representativepress 4 years ago
kl i look forward to it
point is, if everyone stopped buying shit they didn't need the system would collapse and everyone would be out of a job - what does say about the system we live in if it actually depends on people buying crap for it to survive.
RevolutionaryJam 4 years ago
revolu: This need not necessarily be true. If you have a gov't that is adversarial with regard to the corporate interests (the bigger ones), then I believe it can work. Of course right now the gov't is actually in the pockets of the corporate sector.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
the least responsible firms will always provide the cheapest product, therefor the extremity of a political regeme based on consumerism is survival of the shittest.
RevolutionaryJam 4 years ago
yea i believe it's either between edwards kucinich or gravel for me at the present. either 1 of them would be a good candiate. the world just can't afford a obama hidllary or the republican panel. their lives are just important as ours and we owe it to those people.
righteouspolitics80 4 years ago
Very true.
judoskeleton 4 years ago
Yeah, I was surprised Kucinich backed Obama over Edwards also.
TheGiantRobot 4 years ago 6
because Obama has a better chance of beating Hillary and will beat the Republicans hands down.
PizzaGod 4 years ago 2
Dennis wrote to his supporters (it's probably available on his website) and explained that the reason he picked Obama over Edwards was concern over Edwards' connection to Wall Street, especially one particular hedge fund.
Dennis doesn't like to go negative. He wants to talk about issues instead.
Edwards talks a good game, but when you examine his record from his years in the Senate, he was never as progressive as he sounds.
jwlvs 4 years ago 4
yes I'm disappointed in Kucinich for that recommendtion, i think it's because he thinks Obama has more chance of beating the bitch
RevolutionaryJam 4 years ago 5
revolution: Hillary Clinton, as far as I know, has done nothing to deserve being called a bitch. She's a former first lady, and according to all accounts an excellent Senator from New York. She's a tireless, efficient and ambitious politician, like many of her male counterparts.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
nothing to do whatsoever with her sex, the american evita and crossfire are two books exposing her as a bitch
rantnation DOT com SLASH wp SLASH ?p=53
RevolutionaryJam 4 years ago
revolution: Books written to thrill guys like yourself are not very convincing. If you read that a male candidate had screaming matches with his children or his wife, it wouldn't matter to you. But any sort of ambition or focused management style or angry outburst from a woman is reason enough to call her names. I think that might make you sexist.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
hahahaha i'm an active feminist, i'd be an advocate of 50/50 men and women in politics, nice try though.
RevolutionaryJam 4 years ago
revol: Glad you're an active feminist. Now if you could quit acting on your stereotypes about strong women, you wouldn't need to call Hillary a bitch. The point is, you're judging Hillary by different standards than you would a man who exhibited the same behaviors. For god's sake, you read a book called "The American Evita" and now you've got the inside track on Hillary? All part of the rightwing anti-Clinton agenda, been going on forever. And keep in mind, I'm not even a HRC supporter.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
when I call Dick Cheney an asshole or a dick people don't assume I'm just saying that coz he's male !!! :|
RevolutionaryJam 4 years ago
revol: Your comparison standard for calling Cheney an asshole is different than your comparison standard for calling Hillary a bitch. If people were "scared of Hillary" in the WH (as Sally Bedell Smith asserts), that's reason enough to call Hillary names. Cheney (and plenty of other guys) are scary, dominant, aggressive (think Bolton), but guys wouldn't call Cheney an asshole for merely demonstrating those behaviors, they might say, "he's a tough guy" or other words.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
the difference is only in your head
bitch is applicable to woman, bastard is applicable to male. If Janeane Garrofolo was running for president I'd be delighted, but a bitch is a bitch, end of story.
RevolutionaryJam 4 years ago
revol: Lol, if Janeane Garofolo were running for public office, there would be books published about her that would lead you to believe she is "too ambitious," "too calculating," "too cold," "man-hating," or any of the bazillion adjectives used to describe Hillary Clinton. But I can see your mind won't be changed, so good luck. Btw, I would vote for Janeane myself, she's a babe!!
nicholas9999 4 years ago
lol you'd vote for her because she's a babe! And I'm the sexist one!
Lol I'd vote for her because I like her politics.
RevolutionaryJam 4 years ago
revol: Sorry, buddy, I know you like her coz she's a babe. You can't fool me with that politics crap, lol!!
nicholas9999 4 years ago
The Clintons will be the death of the Democratic Party as a truly progressive counterweight to corporate power. Also, I refuse to forgive Bill Clinton for killing Iraqi children and for attacking Serbia in violation of international law.
westphalianprinz 4 years ago
Yeah, I've gone back and read a lot of stuff about the Serbian affair, and have come around to agreeing with you. Good job. I'm not a Hill supporter, mainly because I think dynasty is simply a bad idea. In addition, I completely agree that we need someone who gets it that the corporate sector has narrowed and centralized, allowing a concentration of corporate power and wealth, and influence in washington. The Clintons, I don't believe, see any need to challenge this bad situation.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Obama scared me when he was talking about invading Pakistan.. i think Edwardes is a much better choice
harrisdurrani 4 years ago 2
why does he want to invade pakistan
k0329212 4 years ago
Because that is where the terrorists originate from (in Iraq, they're fighting in their own land). The Taliban is 90% Pakistani. Trust me that is much more wiser than Iran, Iraq, or afghanistan.
capslock86 4 years ago
@capslock86
"The Taliban is 90% Pakistani."
Invade them and 90% of Pakistanis will be Taliban...
semiliteratedgod 4 years ago
Indeed. It is sad that our leaders will probably do just that.
judoskeleton 4 years ago
Same here, I agree
Rickdeckard2020 4 years ago
I agree with you, there's a huge difference between Edwards and Obama
semiliteratedgod 4 years ago 3