Ralph Nader on MSNBC - Post Election

[GreenPartyJustice]

Check out the Green Party/Partido Verde for 2012!

Look at how big the Green Party has grown around the world!

We are here to stay!

[madpaintbalerx]

Wow people are voting less and less for third parties. Another shred of evidence that people are getting dumber every year.

[MrThishitistupid]

i belive in everything nader is right...however i am in the milirtary and the cutting back on military budget especially the f22 is not something i would look into ...i can understand that the majority of the american people are not for this war but the honest to god truth of it is...is that a major terroristic attack like 911 hasant happened since we have entered afghan... iraq should have never been brought into the situation but someone needed to stop that idiot aswell ... i belive in nader!

[madpaintbalerx]

@MrThishitistupid Well, cutting spending on fighters would help a ton considering they cost over $100 million each, and we aren't exactly using all our fighter planes.

[robaquarian]

nader is a master at being concise.

[John3285]

Did he say Democratic-Republican Party?

[johnnyappleseedism]

@John3285 yes, cause they are the same party. good cop , bad cop. kinda like pro-wrestling cause left vs. right help dupe the people. i guess dems are the good cop. no matter who is in office, they ignore us. when it comes to the big agendas, both parties go the same route.

[theimperfektman]

it's hilarious that all this is still true. im one of 672k people who voted for nader/gonzalez.. dammit. it's the only time i've voted in my life and im proud.

[Demonhunter8908]

I absolutely disagree with him on just about everything. But I like how he presents the issues, his positions on them, and he even gives a reference web site. I don't agree with you at all, but kudos for reliability.

[unclesamandy]

Mr. Nader does not have the marketing brilliance and money at his disposal of Obama. Therefore, he is not qualified to be President. I think, at least, that's how I learned it in school...

[Ddubb925]

the reason that Nader didn't have the money at his disposal like obama is because Nader didn't take huge private donations from corporations. Obama at one point decided that he wasn't going to accept private donations but then he went back on his word. I hope they aren't feeding you that garbage in a public school.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

This guy is just annoying. All he does is wag his finger at political parties that represent the views of the vast majority of Americans.

[Dutchoven08]

Nader won every "anonymous" style poll held in the 2008 election..

When asked about real, tangible issues, without the flashy lights and catchy slogans, 50-70% of Americans found their positions to match closely or identically with Nader's policies.

So who's wagging their finger again, friend?

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Well you can't believe every poll you see. There is always a margin of error and they are usually biased in a certain direction. If Nader's policies are so popular then why didn't he pull in any electorial votes or get more than 1% of the popular vote?

[richardpr986]

It's difficult for third parties to achieve ballot access and have media coverage in this country. Newspaper editorials favour candidates from the major parties--not the Naders and Ron Pauls. Ballot access is determined on the state level. Some states, Oklahoma, for example, doesn't count write-ins, yet other states have lax requirements where just two thousand signatures are required for candidates to be listed. How can third parties and independents exist under these conditions?

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Well it's not impossible. Ralph Nader had a big impact on the 2000 election and is arguabley one of the reasons why Gore lost Florida. Before that Ross Perot got on the ballet in all 50 states and was included in the debates. This year Ron Paul earned a few deligates and was probabley the 2nd most popular candidate among young voters, Obama being the first. The media can endorse whoever they want, we have a free press. Also, both Republicans and Democrats were once unpopular 3rd parties.

[mad3moyer]

PS: Perot managed to stay competitive in 1992 because he was a self-made billionare who could keep up with Bush and Clinton in spending, and was invited onto the debates by Bush because he thought Perot would hurt Clinton. Perot was not politically intellectual, and often had no opinion on certain policies, but talked sense when it came to the economy. He took in 18% of the vote in 1992, but really...do you think he would have done that without spending 100s of millions of his own money?

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

I know Perot was kind of "out there", so I supported Clinton in '92 (I wasn't old enough to vote in 1992). Regardless of where his campaign money came from if people thought Perot was the best candidate they would have voted for him. Same goes for Nader and any other 3rd party or independant candidate.

[mad3moyer]

You seem to be under the impression that the majority of voters actually look up and study all of their candidates and their posistions. I can assure you less than 1% of voters could name you all viable presidential candidates last year. Can YOU even name them without looking them up?

To believe that the 2 richest candidates just by coincidence happen to be the most popular, and just happen to be a Democrat or Republican every 4 years would just be silly.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Well what's your definition of viable. Obama and McCain weren't the richest. Obama started out with basically nothing and grew in popularity until he had the ability to raise millions in contributions. McCain started out with literally nothing, he couldn't do anything but travel around and give town hall meetings. Romney was the richest candidate and he didn't even make the nomination. The fact of the matter is that most people's ideals line up with either Democrat or Republican policy.

[mad3moyer]

Viable as in presidential candidates who were on enough state ballots on Nov 4th to win the election.  Can you name them without looking them up? If not (and I assume you consider yourself politically active), how can you say they have any kind of reasonable chance when even someone like you doesn't know about them?

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

You're right. I don't know all the candidates. That doesn't matter though because I did my research on Obama and found that he represents everything I support. I researched a candidate, found that he had a real chance of winning, and then I voted for him. Done. We have a new president know and I agree with everything he's done so far and everything he plans to do. I'm happy.

[mad3moyer]

No, the majority of voters are casual voters who simply assume the Democratic or Republican candidates are the only choices, because they are the only ones who are given mainstream coverage. Which brings me back to my point that you are incorrect in assuming that a candidate who isn't of the two major parties has a fair chance of being elected.

When did I ask you to join a third party or yell at you? I'm unafilliated. I'm simply arguing the point you are making about 3rd party candidates.

[mad3moyer]

Of course it matters. It completely goes against your claim that people will vote for a 3rd party candidate if they represent their views. How can you say that when you yourself don't even take the time to find out their names and what their views are?

I'm not arguing whether Obama is president. I'm pointing out that the electoral system is closed off to all but 2 parties. Parties which sabatoge and run all 3rd parties into the ground as soon as one of them begins to gain momentum.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

If I have found a candidate who is mainstream and who I feel represents my veiws than what is the point of looking into 3rd parties? Look into the history of America's electoral system. You'll find candidates running unoposed, two candidates who are almost exactly the same, two candidates who are polar opposites, and at one point four candidates sought after the pesidency.

[mad3moyer]

You are still not answering my question. How can you say that in the electoral system we have now, that people will elect a third party "if they represent their views" when you yourself don't even bother to look up third party candidates?

And I have a hard time accepting that you looked at Obama, thought to yourself "He's perfect, I agree with absolutely everything he says and does," and left it at that.

Your examples just show how rediculous the system has become.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

People would elect a 3rd party candidate if they had staunch disagreements with both the Democratic and Republican candidates. If you looked at the history of our electoral system, you would have seen that for the first few elections Democrats and Republicans were nonexistant (Andrew Jackson was the first Democrat to reach the White House and he was elected in 1828). If the two major parties were once 3rd parties than what is stopping currnet 3rd parties from being major players?

[mad3moyer]

You still aren't answering my question. Onto your other point.

The reason 3rd parties can't emerge in this day and age is because of the roadblocks the two major parties have set up over the recent decades (some of which I will list on my follow up post). Roadblocks that did not exist nearly 200 years ago. It is silly to try and compare the pre-20th century electoral process to today's...

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Whether you believe it or not I did research Pres. Obama when he was a candidate and I then based my vote for him on the research I had conducted. There really isn't a single major issue that the president and I disagree on.

[mad3moyer]

1. Insurance companies, Oil companies, lobbyists, etc... that invest millions into ONLY the two major parties in order to keep them well ahead of any other party.

2. Major networks (and many cable) in the pockets of the two major parites, and only cover them to rediculous extents.

3. The Dem and Republican controlled "Commission of Presidential Debates" which allow only the two major parties to debate.

4. Frivilous lawsuits they file against smaller parites to keep them broke/busy.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Who cares

[mad3moyer]

Good answer. You ask what's stopping 3rd parties from emerging if it could be done in the 1800s, I give you reasons, and you reply "Who cares." It appears that perhaps you are one of the "casual voters" I referred to, except that you want to masquerade as someone who is well-informed.

Friendly suggestion. If you enjoy the unfair, corrupt electoral process, then sit back and enjoy it, rather than trying to pretend to others it's something other than that.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Ok. The thing is that we're both just reiterating the same response over and over again adding no new topics or points to the discussion so I just got tierd of arguing with you. Here's a loophole in the "unfair process". When compared to the 2 major parties, Ralph Nader most closely matches up to the Democrats. In 2012, why doesn't he just run as a Democrat? Bob Barr could run as a Republican, Cinthia Mckinley could run as a Democrat, etc. Why don't they tackle the "corruption" head on?

[mad3moyer]

Actually, I am answering your questions and points, while you have been ignoring mine.

There is no "loophole" in the unfair process. Issues that 3rd parties address which are ignored by the two major parties (such as universal healthcare, living wage, ending corporate welfare, etc) are not supported by the big corporate donors. Therefore, people who run on those platforms generate no money from them. And if you happen to have any kind of split views on issues...(cont on next post)

[mad3moyer]

...you will not be allowed anywhere NEAR the frontline of nominees. For example, McKinney and Barr, who as soon as they disagreed with a couple of mainstream views of their party, were rediculed and all but kicked out of their party (forget holding any office). Take a look at the heat Barr got for being against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Take a look at Nader's site and you will find 14 issues that Dems and Repubs do not even address.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

What points have you made? Nothing exactly stuck out. If the major parties don't adress an issue than it probabley isn't very important. That's one thing I hate about 3rd parties. They seem to find one key issue that seperates them from either the Democrats or Republicans, and then they feed off that issue when there are atleast 15 issues more important than their's. If you aren't voted for in a major parties nomination then it is your fault for failing to persuade voters to vote for you.

[mad3moyer]

My points:

1. I said you have no basis to claim people would vote for a 3rd party if they represent their views, when someone like you never even bothered to look them up. Response: "I like Obama."

2. You askwhy 3rd parties are restricted from a fair run at office. I listed several. Response: "Who cares"

2. You ask why don't can't run as mainstream candidates. I explained what happens when you disagree with one major issue in your party, you are disregarded. Response: "Their fault."

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Face it buddy. Regardless of what your opinion is on 3rd parties, I think one thing that nearly everyone can agree on is that they will never get elected. Pres. Obama will be re-elected in 2012, in 2016 the Republicans will probabley win, etc. Nader, McKinney, and Barr are three names that you will never see on a list of presidents.

[mad3moyer]

Once again, I am not arguing whether Obama is president, or who will be elected/re-elected in the future, though you seem to keep trying bringing the conversation back to it. I have been, and continue to address your original claim that 3rd parties could be elected to the presidency under our current system. Of course, you just went against that claim in your last post. Which means you realized you are wrong, or didn't really believe what your wrote in the first place.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Here's why I believe that a 3rd party candidate could be elected. In a situation where both of the major candidates were bums, I, and I assume many others, would be willing to vote for an independent or a 3rd party candidate. Why would someone vote for a 3rd party candidate if a mainstream candidate represented their veiws, as was my case with Obama? Obama disagrees with his party on healthcare, clean coal technology, and Afghanistan, all major issues......

[mad3moyer]

Not at all, because in a case where you have 2 bums (ie: Bush vs Kerry in 2004), people are so desperate to keep the lesser of 2 evils out of office, they are afraid to vote third party. 2004 gave us two dreadful choices, yet 3rd parties received about 1% of the popular vote.

Read what you are writing. Only in a case where you despise both mainstream candidates do you say you would even consider voting for a 3rd party. Already, you are giving them no real chance to earn your vote.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Well there's no point in arguing about the past. I can happily say that the winner of the '04 election is no longer president. This year however, we had 2 great candidates. There was Obama who won my vote and there was McCain who would have had my vote if Hillary had been the Democratic nominee. Here's an situation where I would vote for Nader or another minor candidate. Say in 2016 it's Hillary Clinton vs. Sarah Palin. I would NEVER vote for either of them and I wouldn't waste my vote.

[mad3moyer]

And where does Obama have any kind of major disagreement with his party on healthcare, clean coal, or Afganistan?

I am not saying everyone who runs deserves to win. I am saying everyone who goes thru the grueling, time consuming, and expensive process of getting on enough state ballots to win, deserves to have fair coverage given to them (take a look at what it takes to get on some enough state ballots, only a small handful of people are able to do it).

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Obama is against Universal Healthcare which is a platform of the liberal wing of the Democratc party, he supports clean coal technology which makes him unpopular with enviromentalists (most of which are liberal democrats), and he wishes continue the war in Afghanistan while those in the radical left (the farthest left of all the liberals) want to see a total end to middle east intervention. Obama is also against gay marriage which is a largely liberal platform.

[mad3moyer]

The majority of elected Democrats have the same stand as Obama on the first three issues you listed. That's why bills like HR 676 still have nowhere close to a majority support, even in our largely Democratic House. Only a small percentage of elected Democrats have the courage to go against the norm in any of these issues (you're even using the phrases "far left, liberal, radical"...when you describe the people on the other side of the issues you listed) As far as gay marriage...

[mad3moyer]

I am not arguing the past. I am using the past to cite examples that back up my point. 2004 was a prime example of 2 disasterously unpopular candidates, yet was one of the lowest years for 3rd party support ever.

The example you give in which you would consider a 3rd party (Palin vs Clinton) is never going to happen.

I'm glad you felt we had 2 quality candidates this election. Over 95% of voters would disagree with you. Nearly 75% of voters said they were afraid of at least one of them.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Well of coarse most people hated either Obama or McCain, that's the nature of modern politics. When examining candidates I tend to focus mainly on their good qualities (unless I see none which was the case with Hillary & Palin) because I know more that than half of the negatives are just exagerated smears. That's why I saw both as great candidates. Hillary vs. Palin could happen. They both obviously have presidential asperations and there are people out there who are willing to vote for them.

[mad3moyer]

Again, Clinton vs Palin will never happen. Clinton will be nearly 70 by 2016 and has already made it clear she will not run. And Sarah Palin will never secure the Republican nomination.

Regardless of how you may look into things when you vote, it doesn't change that the majority of voters are casual voters who simply see two choices (2/3 of voters don't know other candidates run) and make their choices based off TV news, and that somone as politically involved as you could not name them.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

McCain ran when he was 72 and Palin is widely popular among conservatives. The point of that senario was to establish that there are possible 2016 and on candidates that I despise and would never vote for. The VP's only duties are to be president of the Senate and take the president's place if he is incapable of preforming his duties. If they run for president than they transition from VP to presidential candidate. Very few VPs have become president by accident.

[mad3moyer]

And once again, I am explaining that by barely giving third party candidates even a rediculous long shot for you to consider them (BOTH main parties to be dispisable and unvotable in your opinion), it goes against your claim that 3rd parties can earn a legitimate chance of being elected. However you choose to vote is fine. It's your vote. But you have still never explained how this current electoral process gives an alternate party anything close to a fair chance of emerging.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Look. I'm a democrat. I've been a Democrat and have supported democratic causes ever since I registered to vote in 2000. Odds are about 90% of the time the Democratic candidate will match my veiws better than the Republican candidate or any 3rd party candidate will. Will I vote for a 3rd party candidate: Probabley not. I'm just saying that America has a rich history of political and social movements and if a 3rd party candidate won a major election it would just be one on top of thousands.

[mad3moyer]

Why do you keep bringing this back to your personal style of voting when Im asking for something to support your claim that a 3rd party has a fair opportunity to establish itself? How does a 3rd party establish itself with continued decades of sabotage to them by the main 2? What late, great political movements have occurred outside the 2 major parties? And you cant know if you agree with a Democrat or Republican more than a 3rd party, when you dont know the 3rd party candidates.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

There are MAYBE 1 or 2 issues in which I differ with the Democratic party. A party closer to my veiws is nearly impossible. There was the conservative movement in the 80's, the civil rights movement, the women's sufferage movement, all kinds of movements. Obama's campaign itself was a sort of mini-movement that rejected the failed policies of George Bush and the corrupt Republican party. My belief in the possibility of 3rd party candidates winning elections is based in the history books.

[mad3moyer]

Again, I am not asking you to change your party affiliation, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Any political movement over the last 35-40 years are movements within the two major parties. The "Conservative" movement was simply more people registering and voting Republican, the "Obama mini-movement" was simply more people registering and voting Democrat. I ask again, how can a third party prosper with the unlimited power of the two major parties, and the roadblocks they set up?

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

The Civil Rights movement and the Women's Sufferage movement had no party affiliation. I brought up my party affiliation because you questioned me on when I would vote for a 3rd party candidate. I explained that since I am a Democrat and support the Democrats on nearly every issue, it is only logical to assume that I would vote for the Democratic candidate. That is why I wouldn't look into 3rd parties or vote for 3rd party candidates; the Democrats satisfy all my veiws.

[mad3moyer]

I made it very clear I was not interested in trying to convince you to vote third party, or in knowing what it would take for your to vote for a third party. You are the one who keeps putting out that information. My question (which you keep side-stepping) is:

How, under the current corrupt two party duopoly, is it possible for a third party to make any headway, without one of the parties coming crashing down on them to stop them? Non-party movements from decades ago offers no evidence.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

They do what anybody would do. They start out small, they campaign across America gathering supporters as they go, they gain a substantial amount of support, they get on the ballets come election day because they have so much public support and either they win or lose fair and square. No organization can stop the will of the American people.

[mad3moyer]

If it were that easy, don't you think a party would have done it over the last century? They try to, but the major paries shut them down by overspending where they need to, and trying them up with frivilous lawsuits, so that the candidates, and their supporters end up spending their campaign time and resources in court. Take a look at what the Democratic Party did to Nader in 2004, and what the Republican Party did to Bob Barr in 2008. Unless you are a self-made billionare, it's impossible.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Well I don't think Barr posed any major threat to Republicans, they knew they were going to lose big time this election anyways. Votes for Nader in Florida were largely the reason that Gore didn't win Florida, so Democrats are understandabley a little pissed off at him.Whether it is possible or not is definetly debatable and our debate has proven ineffective in persuading each other.

[mad3moyer]

I love how you are actually justifying the illegal actions that Democrats took to stifle another candidate's presidental run. "Well, they were pissed, so that's understandable."

Barr posed a major threat before the economic meltdown in September. He was polling 4-5% during the summer in what was then an even race. And the 2008 Republican Party did exactly what the Democrats did to Nader in 2004.

Plenty of acceptions? Can you find one in any Democratic nominee over the last 20 years?

[mad3moyer]

And the Democratic Party is just as corrupt as the Republican Party. Let's not pretend their is any good side or bad side here.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

We didn't steal any elections and we were out of power when this economic crisis was brewing up.

[mad3moyer]

Do you really want to get into a discussion about how Democrats are just as much to blame as Republicans for the current economic crisis, and the multiple appointed and elected Democrats under investigation and facing criminal charges?

Both major parties are currupt, corporate owned lackeys. Just because you agree with one side more on the issues doesn't make them less so.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

I'm not saying Democrats are guilt free, I'm just saying that deregulation accompanied with careless spending (2 things Bush and other Republicans were big on) are the major causes of today's crisis.

[mad3moyer]

The steady decline of regulation has been going on for years now, and Clinton and his administration had more than their fair share to do with our current situation, as did Bush and his administration.

Again, to pretend that one of the major parties isn't corrupt is just silly.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Clinton presided of the largest economic expansion in U.S. history, he's definetly not to blame. Typically when a fiscal conservative comes into office the economy plummets. It happened with Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43. Clinton was the only one who got his economy to grow.

[mad3moyer]

The main part of the temporary economic expansion was due to the internet boom of the mid-late 90s, which had nothing to do with Clinton. What specifically did he do to contribute to the growth?

By 2000, 80% of worker's salaries declined in purchasing power due to Clinton allowing no more than a 90 cent increase in minimum wage during his 8 years.

His resume is filled with some of the largest corporate welfare subsidies as well.  And of course...

[mad3moyer]

Clinton also pushed and got the Financial Services Modernization Act thru, which allowed for the deregulation of banks, and allowed them to create the situation we find ourselves in now.

What Clinton did was create a lot of low level, low paying jobs to reduce the poverty level from 14.5% to 11.3% during his term.

As I said, he has just as much blame as Bush for our current situation.

[trtnec]

also repealed glass-steagal

[nader85021]

it wasn't just the deregulation of banks that was the problem, it is the artificially created low interest rates by the federal reserve, to create free credit, that created the problem.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

I am fairly liberal, but I'm to moderate on issues like gay marriage, fighting terrorism, and healthcare to fit into the "far left" or "radical" category. You should know that there are some real crazies out there. PETA is the first group that comes to mind. A few weeks ago they posted an activity on their website titled "You Wouldn't Eat a Sea Kitten", which was a game where you design your own fish used to discourage people from eating fish.

[mad3moyer]

Your PETA response had nothing to do with your point from before, which I countered. I pointed out that all the other issues you mentioned, where Obama was supposedly against the Democratic norm (healthcare, terrorism, clean coal), Obama's stand on them is exactly the same as the majority of other elected Democrats. I said you even referred to the people who have opposite views on those issues as being "very liberal, radical, and the farthest left."

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Let me do some clarifying here. My point was that Obama does not represent the veiws of the extreme left. He is for healthcare reform while the far left is for universal healthcare. He supports the war on terror (Afghanistan) while the far left wants us out of the middle-east altogether. He supports clean coal as an alternitive energy soarce that will keep the coal industry alive and protect our envirmoment while the far left is unwilling to negotiate with traditional energy sources.

[mad3moyer]

You made that list of issues and Obama's stands on them when I pointed out that presiential nominees are not allowed to go against their party's majority on any major issue. The truth is, you gave bad examples that didn't work. I have never suggested that Obama was an extreme leftist (quite the contrary actually), so please don't pretend as though you were trying to defend him in that regard.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

I wasn't trying to defend him. The Democratic party is the more liberal of the 2 parties and you said it was impossible to get nominated if you have major disareements with your party. I listed 3 major issues where Obama is moderate, not liberal, to make a point. Whether it was a good point or not is not up to me to determine.

[mad3moyer]

I said you dont get nominated by the major parties if you express disagreements in any of the elected partys major issues. You then proceeded to list 3 major issues where Obama goes along with exactly what his partys majority supports, yet tried to do so in a way that made it seem he was against the norm. So how are you countering my point, when you evidence agrees with it?

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

He disagrees with the far right Democratic party, not the regular left or moderate Democratic party.

[mad3moyer]

And what makes up the majority of the Democratic party...the far left, or the combined regular left and moderately left Democratic party?

This is exactly what I keep explaining. Your examples of Obama's stands on major issues are all itentical to the stands of the majority of elected Democrats, and the Democratic Party.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

The Democratic party is split fairly evenly between liberals and moderates. The liberals are split fairly evenly between regular liberals and far-left liberals. Obama is a regular liberal.

[mad3moyer]

Let me repeat this again. I said that a candidate of a major party is forced to adopt their policy to match all the major issues which the majority of their elected party supports if they want to run for president. You then proceeded to list 3 issues where Obama goes along with the majority of his party, pointing out that those in disagreement were on the "radical, far left."

Let me try it this way. Do you agree that a presidential candidate is forced to adjust his policies to gain support?

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

No I don't. Some of them do, but if they do then they are accused of flip-flopping and don't get nominated. That was the biggest problem Mitt Romney ran into. The candidates who get nominated are the ones who stick to their veiws and who put up a good enough debate to pursuade voters that their veiws are the correct veiws.

[mad3moyer]

I didn't say they flip flopped, which is to suggest they keep going back and forth on an issue. I said they adjusted their posistions when they know they are going to run for president (which is often 2-4 years before the actual election). What major issues does Obama disagree with when it comes to his party? Which ones did Clinton disagree with? How about Kerry? Gore? Clinton?

When a candidate knows he is going to run for president, he adopts all of the majority issues within his party.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

You'll find plenty of acceptions to that if you look hard enough.

[mad3moyer]

Obama was quietly against gay marriage (notice with all the issues listed on his site, convieniently the gay marriage issue is left out). However, once Obama became the front runner of Democratic nominees, his stance on gay marriage became even more wishy washy (how one can be against gay marriage, yet also speak out against prop 8 sure makes things a bit confusing).  Clean coal was also an issue which Biden jumped ship to Obama's side once he became the vice president nominee...

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Obama was against Prop 8 because it was put into effect by an unconstitutional method. The only group that ad the right to change California's constitution was the state legislature and the state supreme court. He was also against it because it was unclear what would hapen to the gays and lesbiens who had already been married. Biden may have flipflopped, but the VP's veiws aren't nearly as important as the president's veiws.

[mad3moyer]

On Prop 8: Fair enough. However, if that is really how Obama feels, we'll see if he does anything to correct it. Sadly, many gays are under the impression that Obama is secretly pro-gay marriage, since he doesn't take a loud stance on it. When in truth, he keeps quiet about it to avoid any scrutiny.

VP's views are still extremely important, being that the presidential nominee chooses them, they are one step away from the presidency, and many of them run for president in the future.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

Obama's veiw on gay marriage is very simple. While gays deserve the same rights as straights in regards to couple's benifits, they do not meet the qualifications for marriage because marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. The only way to give gays the same rights without giving them marriage is to put civil unions into effect. Since marriage is a religious institution, the only group who has the right to change it's definition is the church.

[mad3moyer]

I know what Obama's real stance on gay marriage is. My point once again, is that he remains very quiet, wishy washy, or vague about it. So much that many gays believe he is actually FOR gay marriage, but doesn't want to admit it.

There is a reason this issue remains off-topic and off his website with him.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

I don't have any real backing for this, but my guess is that Obama doesn't think gay marriage was a major issue. During the campaign it wasn't even comparabley important next to the economy, healthcare, and Iraq. In my opinion, the only reason it even qualifies as an issue is because the radical liberals are like "OMG! Everyone has to be equal even if it means destroying a sacred institution" and the radical conservatives are like "We HATE gays even though real christians don't hate".

[mad3moyer]

I dont believe he views it as a major issue either. And while I support gay marriage, dont believe it is a major issue myself, but it something which will eventually happen over time. However, with a policy of over 30 main issues and over 100 sub-issues within them, dont you think Obama would have it included, or something that should have been directly asked and answered in a nationally televised interview?

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

It probabley will happen in the future. In the 70's a similar proposition to Prop 8 was proposed and it passed with 78% of the vote. Prop 8 pased with only 52% of the vote. Attitudes have and are changing and, while I would prefer civil union to gay marriage, it would be foolish of me to say that gay marriage won't be a reality nationwide in the near future.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

....How could you aregue that it isn't the candidates fault if they don't get elected? Are you saying that everyone who runs deserves to win? Why do you even care about 3rd party candidates? The major parties have produced good leaders and bad leaders just as any smaller party would.

[mad3moyer]

Obama and McCain got the initial attention because the networks cover any Democrat or Republican candidate who may win the nomination (no other party), and they are allowed to debate multiple times on national networks. They get the initial coverage, while any other party is automatically dismissed or discredited by the media.  Once nominated, the lobbyists and big businesses then just happen to only invest millions upon millions into those two nominees and no one else, to keep choices at 2.

[GeeYouAreYou0001]

The media networks do that because the Democratic and Republican parties are they only two that have significant popularity. People are aware of 3rd parties, they just don't have any desire to join them because they feel their values are properly represented by either the Democrats or Republicans. If you are a member of a 3rd party and you want people to join your party then try persuading them to join, don't yell at them and slam the 2 party system. You look obstructionist if you do that.

[mad3moyer]

Of course it's impossible. The major networks refuse to give any coverage or time to anyone who is not one of the two major parties. The Democratic and Republican controlled "Committee of Presidential Debates." only allows the two parties to participate on the televised debates. Let's not pretend this is somehow a fair or reasonable playing field. With a handful of viable presidential candidates every four years, the Dems and Repubs don't just happen to have the 2 best every 4 years.

[rfalfonse]

Trying to minimize Nader by drawing attention to his declining vote count 0:20 - 0:34 is ridiculous.

No one knows how many votes Nader or anyone else got for that matter with all these hackable voting machines that don't even produce a verifiable vote tally.

blackboxvoting . org

verifiedvoting . org

[Dutchoven08]

Spot on..

Britans vote for a "party", then the party chooses the leader.

Americans vote, then the "Electoral College" (millionaire insiders) choose the President.

Different, yet exactly the same, huh..?

The whole time promoting the illusion of a "Democracy" of and by the people.

Then we vote on a work day.. silly.

Nader still has my vote!

[NatureLegalized]

I voted for Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzales.

I'm glad to see November5 org mentioned!

Imagine when we get enough of us into &

working with/thru November5 org

Ni4D(.) org

[bremckee]

Are Nader and Ron Paul the only influential figures in politics with a head on their shoulders? I'm about fed up with all the bullshit and corporate tyranny. I voted Nader and will continue to vote for whoever will REPRESENT MY VALUES in the White House. Settling for anything less is a fucking joke.

[bremckee]

I think it's great that we can put racial issues aside and strive for "change", but that's not enough. We still have to push for our rights and wants. As for would be supremacist killers...if Obama goes does, I'm getting my damn guns and taking this country back by force. Ignorance and apathy (as Corporate power has done it's best to instill in us) is on it's way out the door.:D Can't wait for the green revolution.

[Kold2market]

Nader is absolutely right in saying that in voting for a lesser of 2 evils (between Obama and McCain) is like the choice between Tuberculosis and Cancer.

[Kold2market]

I voted for Nader!

Can't wait to vote for him again in 2012

What's the alternative? Voting for 1 of 2corprate candidates who both take lobby money and voted for the Bailout? NO Thanks.

[projectmonarch]

I have absolutely NO regrets for campaigning and voting for Mr. Nader in my district. He stood for what I believe in. I will not settle for 2nd best or the lesser of 2 evils. The lesser of two evils is still.....evil.

[powermikey08]

ralph..ralph calm down you lost but i totaly agree i'm 11 and i went door to door campaning for him....=D

[simple0981]

This is just like high school. It doesn't matter who's the most capable, the most popular person usually wins bc too many wished they were popular also. Americans forget that voting for the most likeable person got us two terms of Bush. I suppose the economic mess and the bailout are evident that we refuse to live in reality, and we just can't handle the truth. I don't want to break this to you America, but most of you are not popular and you're not rich, but you'll live SIGH*.

[simple0981]

Shows how racism really affects Washington. For 40 years, real change has been coming to Washington, but I guess a caucasian man's change isn't the same as an African-American's. If Washington was really open to the idea of helping others from differing ethnic and racial backgrounds, they would've fixed the horrendous public schools in that district (which school many ethnic minorities) long before they decided that they were ready for a non-caucasian president.

[ArcticSlicer]

6 minutes! Got to love how his television spots are twice as long when he's not running a campaign for election.

[HughieGphiladelphia]

MSNBC blocked all third party candiadtes along with Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich!

Nader is great...just an awesome guy! I voted for him

[MeatLoafEnchilada]

Not to mention Ron Paul.

[SZavaglia]

I love Ralph Nader.

I also love how he plugs his websites. So bitching.

[smantie]

Yes, he is good at plugging his website too, unlike... John McCain who can't use a website.

[marniespeaks]

The majority don't want to bailout GM - but that's not stopping Congress.

Something is wrong with the American People.

[stirrrrrr]

more like the media failed the American people

[marniespeaks]

The American people own the airwaves - they own a lot of things and united with one voice could change DC over night, but they don't want to.

[DurAR89]

Nah Nader got more votes than 700,000.

America had a chance with Ron Paul, with Dennis Kucinich, with Mike Gravel, and with Ralph Nader, but most people blew it, and it's going to cost them their lives because Obama will through his supporters into the FEMA camps spread all across the NAU which is what Obama will be president of. We warned the people of What Obama will do, welp, they'll have to learn the hard way. Most Americans are too far gone.

[Kold2market]

I VOTED For NADER !

Can't wait to vote for him again in 2012.

When issues, not party mattered, Nader won! In a local Brooklyn High School on Oct. 28, 2008, students were allowed to vote for five Presidential candidates but were told only what the candidates stood for, not their names. Nader/Gonzalez handily won the election with 46%

[mdt187]

Hopefully Matt Gonzalez will build off Nader's legacy, maybe with the Green Party, maybe with a new party....

[apocalyptichybrid3]

Obama will change little if nothing. I was one of the few that voted Nader. Thanks to all the others who did also.

[DurAR89]

Me too Apoc, I voted Nader too as well as many of my friends and relatives.

[ejbh3160]

"found THEMSELVES on the sidelines".. yeah EXACTLY MSNBC!! It was the corporate media that kept him and others "on the sidelines"!! The cheek of it!!!

I don't believe the dibold machines anyway..

Do you??

Really??