There are SO many things that can split the vote besides the third party candidate. Also the same people who bitch about "spoiling the election" are also the assholes who close the debates to anyone but the two party duopoly.
I did, but I was voting in Texas and as far as I can remember, McKinney wasn't a certified write-in candidate there like Nader was. There weren't any Green Party candidates in any of the races in my district either, but I do support them and plan on getting more involved here in Texas. The past four years I was in school in Louisiana so it was hard to stay connected to TX politics.
dude, why is your audio like almost always screwed up? There's usually some noticeable delay. Like old channel 5 sunday afternoon kung-fu theatre.....
You vote third party to survive the next civil war. Who do you think the civil war soldiers will hang when the government fails to follow thru to the citizens.....
1862 Hangings for those not joining the union or confederacy. The same nightmare can happen again. The vote is documented fact. When you vote dem or gop or others its documented.
furthermore, from abortion to economic policy, both parties take decidedly different stances.
yes, they may converge on bailouts and such...but other than that, the difference is clear (a political junkie like yourself should be able to see that)
ps: i am totally against bailouts...but i think there are very strong arguments that could be made in support of them.
Both overwhelmingly supported and continue to support NAFTA (and CAFTA), which is the trade policy that is responsible for so many US jobs getting outsourced to other countries. This, to me, is a crucial similarity between their economic policies.
The Dems talk better on economics but their actions don't correlate with all this rhetoric (I feel like a broken record here).
The Republicans could have overturned Roe vs. Wade during the Bush II presidency, why do you suppose they didn't?
Because it's not really on the Republican agenda, at least not their actual candidates. They pander to that idea on the campaign trail but they've got no plans to do it. Similar with the Dems and national health care, and ending the war.
i'm gonna have to disagree with that part about ending the war...i think barack obama is definitely committed to ending the war in iraq and making changes to our healthcare situation
ps: if ralph nader gets into office, he will become the "status quo"...politicians throw that term around to attract grassroot support
By status quo I mean the establishment of wealth and power that essentially controls congress and the president, neither of the parties threaten this.
Obama has never said he will withdraw all troops from Iraq and hand the government over to the Iraqis. He also had a more hawkish stance on Pakistan than McCain during the campaign. Even if he did pull us out of Iraq, it seems like it would only be so that we could occupy some other country. Like I said, I don't vote for that.
like i said...i don't agree with wars in general and, thus, totally against the war in afghanistan...however, i still think most of what obama has proposed is what we need
it kills me to say this...but obama does pander to certain demographics when talking about how he would act on any imminent threat...as a result, he sometimes comes off way more "hawkish" that he really is.....
ralph nader would make some modifications and maybe even pander to certain groups if he thought he had a chance in hell. when you think you actually have a shot (like the dems do), you're more likely to triangulate and be less rigid about your policies...i'm certain that there are many dem politicians that support the legalization of gay marriage...however, in a country as religious as ours, it would be way too risky to make such a proposal
The dems don't just "think they actually have a shot," they're guaranteed a 50/50 chance of winning.
Third parties don't have a chance in hell because the debates are closed, and they're all but banned from getting on the ballot in some states. It's not because they're on the fringe. McKinney and Nader were more in line with most Americans' beliefs than any of the front runners in the primaries and the general election.
I supported Kucinich until he dropped out, by the way.
by "think they actually have a shot" i was referring to the 50/50 chance lol
i would have assumed that you supported kucinich...he's just like nader et al except he's actually in the dnc...i'm sure i agree with most of his views but clearly he's out of the mainstream (and there's nothing wrong with that)
if mckinney and nader were "more in line" with most americans then they'd have more support...they'd at least be polling at 10%
Yeah, maybe if most people actually knew that these candidates were even running at all. Or if the third parties were given equal time on news shows...or allowed into the debates... or if people in the media told the truth about these candidates, or portrayed them as the legitimate candidates that they are...
you might be right. but, on the other hand, ralph nader (for instance) doesn't do enough to get his message out there. all he ever does is drop headline-catching (and offensive) one-liners here and there...i'm sure he's a great guy...i've done some research about him in the past...but he uses the little tv time he gets to say stuff about obama "acting white" or being an "uncle tom"..that just makes him look like more of a joke...
Traveling state-to-state on a shoestring budget giving speeches to overfilled auditoriums, organizing volunteers in every state to gather ballot access signatures, regular mass emails to huge lists, two websites... what more should be done? Any time they let him on TV, they make sure he doesn't get his message across: real issues aren't discussed on corporate McNews anyway, but his appearances are always in the context of "this guy will not win, look how pathetic," same with other 3rd parties
ummm..."they" don't do anything...the man goes off with stuff that he thinks will grab the attention of the masses...and it always backfires. he should use his tv time to tell the people what his positions are...he's been running for president since the beginning of time; if he still doesn't know how to maximize the little airtime he's given, he has no one to blame but himself
he needs to learn how to maneuver his way around "mcnews"...it would make his candidacy much more viable
I'm not going to quibble about Ralph's word choice. I vote on issues, and Ralph was talking about the issues I thought were important, and I agreed with his stances. That's why I voted for him.
We're going in circles here. The bottom line is that third parties are just as "viable" as the mainstream parties. They have every right to run and I have every right to vote for them. Better to vote for something you believe in and lose than to vote for something you don't believe in and win.
when you're running on a shoestring budget (as you put it) and not a lot of support, wouldn't it make sense to choose your words wisely? your proposals might be great but many people aren't gonna give you the time of day if all they ever get from you is verbal diarrhea
yes, we're going in circles because we clearly don't agree. you cant be viable when you're polling at 3%. i didn't say they didn't have a right to run or that you didn't have a right to vote for them. i'm just saying that it's a wasted vote considering all that's at stake.
if nader really cared about making a difference rather than just being "different", he would join the dnc in order to get more people to listen to what he has to say.
as i mentioned earlier, he's not as "radical" as he is portrayed by the media...but, for some reason, i get the feeling that he enjoys being labeled as such...i think it feeds his ego
i know you're not completely satisfied with the way the dems handle things (trust...i'm not either) but there is no denying that they approach things much differently than the republicans. if you take foreign policy for instance, it's clear one party thinks they have the right to invade a sovereign nation, bomb it back to the stone age and stay there despite calls from the world for them to leave...while the other party thinks it's time to leave...
yes, many dems voted for the war (they were dumb for doing so and many have admitted that they were wrong). however, in my opinion, this ability to reflect on their actions is an example of what makes them different from the repubs.
i agree..we should pull out of afghanistan..but, whether u like it or not, many americans want this "war on terror" to go on til we get OBL and, unfortunately, some of them are dems..however, unlike the war in iraq, there's somewhat of a legit reason for that war
yeah yeah i know about the welfare "reform" and what not..but the truth is that there ARE major differences...if you don't see it, then it is because you either aren't paying attention or just don't want to
so i'm guessing you voted for nader as promised? lol
Oh I definitely voted for Nader, but it was in Texas so it wasn't much of a statement anyway.
If you could articulate these major differences, I'll try to pay even more attention, because obviously I'm not a political junkie already...
the main difference I see is that the Dems pay lip service to progressive ideals. It may feel good to have them in office, but we've got to work like hell to make sure there are no more Kosovos, Iraqs, Afghanistans, or corporate bailouts.
I hear the "vote for Nader is vote for republican" line a lot.
Were you aware that McCain actually did worse in the polls when Nader was added to the equation?
I don't see the "stark" difference between these two behemoths. Under Clinton the "liberal," we got NAFTA, welfare "reform" i.e. cutting, and a bloated military budget to name a few. Now Obama is bring back the major players from that administration.
were you quoting me in this video? i definitely remember saying to you that "a vote for nader is a vote mccain"...and i stand by that statement lol.
honestly, i would be all for third party candidates if there weren't such stark differences between democrats and republicans. in other words, if republicans weren't so batshit crazy, i'd take a chance with a third party candidate...but the truth is that we can't risk having the republicans get into office...which is why progressives need to unite
The Nader campaign (nor any campaign, for that matter) can't feasibly ask each contributor, "Hey, are you SURE you're not a Republican?"
Any Republican who contributed to Ralph's campaign, that's their loss, because he does NOT put Republican's in office, the Democrats do (think Al Gore in 2000, banging the gavel in the faces of northern Florida blacks who were disenfranchised, trying to testify before Congress)
Ralph Nader started running for president as a proxy for "none of the above." He and his voters know he's not going to win, but the goal is to maximize his votes and try to put the issues that matter on the presidential table. You can't do it within the party, look at Kucinich.
(fun fact: Nader wouldn't have run this time if Kucinich were nominated)
Nader's parents lived well into their 90s, as did many others in his family. McCain, although younger, with his pages and pages of medical records, is more in the "too old" category than Nader if you take actual health into account.
I voted for Obama, and wish I had voted for Ralph back in 08. I was duped by Obama's campaign lies.
FillingtheVoidRevues 10 months ago
I agree. ThePunkPatriot did a video on this also.
There are SO many things that can split the vote besides the third party candidate. Also the same people who bitch about "spoiling the election" are also the assholes who close the debates to anyone but the two party duopoly.
XM8rifle 1 year ago
Why didn't you consider voting for the Green Party?
cymonebreathe 1 year ago
@cymonebreathe
I did, but I was voting in Texas and as far as I can remember, McKinney wasn't a certified write-in candidate there like Nader was. There weren't any Green Party candidates in any of the races in my district either, but I do support them and plan on getting more involved here in Texas. The past four years I was in school in Louisiana so it was hard to stay connected to TX politics.
GretnaBlast 1 year ago
AlGore cost Ralph Nader the 2000 election!
tuttt99 2 years ago
This video was both a joke and a waste of time.
Fortunately, your useless candidate didn¨t ruin things for Democrats this time around.
makokun9 2 years ago
dude, why is your audio like almost always screwed up? There's usually some noticeable delay. Like old channel 5 sunday afternoon kung-fu theatre.....
infinitegamehead 3 years ago
Because the Third Party ballots outnumber the dem and gop votes.
2004 there were 70 million votes.
third parties ballots not counted.
SCOOTERBALLUSA 3 years ago
You vote third party to survive the next civil war. Who do you think the civil war soldiers will hang when the government fails to follow thru to the citizens.....
1862 Hangings for those not joining the union or confederacy. The same nightmare can happen again. The vote is documented fact. When you vote dem or gop or others its documented.
SCOOTERBALLUSA 3 years ago
furthermore, from abortion to economic policy, both parties take decidedly different stances.
yes, they may converge on bailouts and such...but other than that, the difference is clear (a political junkie like yourself should be able to see that)
ps: i am totally against bailouts...but i think there are very strong arguments that could be made in support of them.
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
Both overwhelmingly supported and continue to support NAFTA (and CAFTA), which is the trade policy that is responsible for so many US jobs getting outsourced to other countries. This, to me, is a crucial similarity between their economic policies.
The Dems talk better on economics but their actions don't correlate with all this rhetoric (I feel like a broken record here).
The Republicans could have overturned Roe vs. Wade during the Bush II presidency, why do you suppose they didn't?
GretnaBlast 3 years ago
i don't know....why didn't they?
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
Because it's not really on the Republican agenda, at least not their actual candidates. They pander to that idea on the campaign trail but they've got no plans to do it. Similar with the Dems and national health care, and ending the war.
These are the status quo parties.
GretnaBlast 3 years ago
i'm gonna have to disagree with that part about ending the war...i think barack obama is definitely committed to ending the war in iraq and making changes to our healthcare situation
ps: if ralph nader gets into office, he will become the "status quo"...politicians throw that term around to attract grassroot support
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
By status quo I mean the establishment of wealth and power that essentially controls congress and the president, neither of the parties threaten this.
Obama has never said he will withdraw all troops from Iraq and hand the government over to the Iraqis. He also had a more hawkish stance on Pakistan than McCain during the campaign. Even if he did pull us out of Iraq, it seems like it would only be so that we could occupy some other country. Like I said, I don't vote for that.
GretnaBlast 3 years ago
like i said...i don't agree with wars in general and, thus, totally against the war in afghanistan...however, i still think most of what obama has proposed is what we need
it kills me to say this...but obama does pander to certain demographics when talking about how he would act on any imminent threat...as a result, he sometimes comes off way more "hawkish" that he really is.....
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
(cont'd)
ralph nader would make some modifications and maybe even pander to certain groups if he thought he had a chance in hell. when you think you actually have a shot (like the dems do), you're more likely to triangulate and be less rigid about your policies...i'm certain that there are many dem politicians that support the legalization of gay marriage...however, in a country as religious as ours, it would be way too risky to make such a proposal
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
The dems don't just "think they actually have a shot," they're guaranteed a 50/50 chance of winning.
Third parties don't have a chance in hell because the debates are closed, and they're all but banned from getting on the ballot in some states. It's not because they're on the fringe. McKinney and Nader were more in line with most Americans' beliefs than any of the front runners in the primaries and the general election.
I supported Kucinich until he dropped out, by the way.
GretnaBlast 3 years ago
by "think they actually have a shot" i was referring to the 50/50 chance lol
i would have assumed that you supported kucinich...he's just like nader et al except he's actually in the dnc...i'm sure i agree with most of his views but clearly he's out of the mainstream (and there's nothing wrong with that)
if mckinney and nader were "more in line" with most americans then they'd have more support...they'd at least be polling at 10%
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
Yeah, maybe if most people actually knew that these candidates were even running at all. Or if the third parties were given equal time on news shows...or allowed into the debates... or if people in the media told the truth about these candidates, or portrayed them as the legitimate candidates that they are...
GretnaBlast 3 years ago
you might be right. but, on the other hand, ralph nader (for instance) doesn't do enough to get his message out there. all he ever does is drop headline-catching (and offensive) one-liners here and there...i'm sure he's a great guy...i've done some research about him in the past...but he uses the little tv time he gets to say stuff about obama "acting white" or being an "uncle tom"..that just makes him look like more of a joke...
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
Traveling state-to-state on a shoestring budget giving speeches to overfilled auditoriums, organizing volunteers in every state to gather ballot access signatures, regular mass emails to huge lists, two websites... what more should be done? Any time they let him on TV, they make sure he doesn't get his message across: real issues aren't discussed on corporate McNews anyway, but his appearances are always in the context of "this guy will not win, look how pathetic," same with other 3rd parties
GretnaBlast 3 years ago
ummm..."they" don't do anything...the man goes off with stuff that he thinks will grab the attention of the masses...and it always backfires. he should use his tv time to tell the people what his positions are...he's been running for president since the beginning of time; if he still doesn't know how to maximize the little airtime he's given, he has no one to blame but himself
he needs to learn how to maneuver his way around "mcnews"...it would make his candidacy much more viable
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
(cont'd)
and not only does it make him look like a joke, it allows the "radical" label to stick (even though he really isn't.
if there's any voter block that could warm up to him, it's black people...and his comments this past year have offended many of us
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
I'm not going to quibble about Ralph's word choice. I vote on issues, and Ralph was talking about the issues I thought were important, and I agreed with his stances. That's why I voted for him.
We're going in circles here. The bottom line is that third parties are just as "viable" as the mainstream parties. They have every right to run and I have every right to vote for them. Better to vote for something you believe in and lose than to vote for something you don't believe in and win.
GretnaBlast 3 years ago
when you're running on a shoestring budget (as you put it) and not a lot of support, wouldn't it make sense to choose your words wisely? your proposals might be great but many people aren't gonna give you the time of day if all they ever get from you is verbal diarrhea
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
(cont'd)
yes, we're going in circles because we clearly don't agree. you cant be viable when you're polling at 3%. i didn't say they didn't have a right to run or that you didn't have a right to vote for them. i'm just saying that it's a wasted vote considering all that's at stake.
if nader really cared about making a difference rather than just being "different", he would join the dnc in order to get more people to listen to what he has to say.
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
(cont'd)
as i mentioned earlier, he's not as "radical" as he is portrayed by the media...but, for some reason, i get the feeling that he enjoys being labeled as such...i think it feeds his ego
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
i know you're not completely satisfied with the way the dems handle things (trust...i'm not either) but there is no denying that they approach things much differently than the republicans. if you take foreign policy for instance, it's clear one party thinks they have the right to invade a sovereign nation, bomb it back to the stone age and stay there despite calls from the world for them to leave...while the other party thinks it's time to leave...
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
yes, many dems voted for the war (they were dumb for doing so and many have admitted that they were wrong). however, in my opinion, this ability to reflect on their actions is an example of what makes them different from the repubs.
i agree..we should pull out of afghanistan..but, whether u like it or not, many americans want this "war on terror" to go on til we get OBL and, unfortunately, some of them are dems..however, unlike the war in iraq, there's somewhat of a legit reason for that war
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
yeah yeah i know about the welfare "reform" and what not..but the truth is that there ARE major differences...if you don't see it, then it is because you either aren't paying attention or just don't want to
so i'm guessing you voted for nader as promised? lol
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
Oh I definitely voted for Nader, but it was in Texas so it wasn't much of a statement anyway.
If you could articulate these major differences, I'll try to pay even more attention, because obviously I'm not a political junkie already...
the main difference I see is that the Dems pay lip service to progressive ideals. It may feel good to have them in office, but we've got to work like hell to make sure there are no more Kosovos, Iraqs, Afghanistans, or corporate bailouts.
GretnaBlast 3 years ago
I hear the "vote for Nader is vote for republican" line a lot.
Were you aware that McCain actually did worse in the polls when Nader was added to the equation?
I don't see the "stark" difference between these two behemoths. Under Clinton the "liberal," we got NAFTA, welfare "reform" i.e. cutting, and a bloated military budget to name a few. Now Obama is bring back the major players from that administration.
I just don't vote for that.
GretnaBlast 3 years ago
were you quoting me in this video? i definitely remember saying to you that "a vote for nader is a vote mccain"...and i stand by that statement lol.
honestly, i would be all for third party candidates if there weren't such stark differences between democrats and republicans. in other words, if republicans weren't so batshit crazy, i'd take a chance with a third party candidate...but the truth is that we can't risk having the republicans get into office...which is why progressives need to unite
babesblingandbooze 3 years ago
The Nader campaign (nor any campaign, for that matter) can't feasibly ask each contributor, "Hey, are you SURE you're not a Republican?"
Any Republican who contributed to Ralph's campaign, that's their loss, because he does NOT put Republican's in office, the Democrats do (think Al Gore in 2000, banging the gavel in the faces of northern Florida blacks who were disenfranchised, trying to testify before Congress)
GretnaBlast 3 years ago
So you think he's "unelectable." That's fine, you don't have to vote for him, but does that mean he shouldn't run?
GretnaBlast 3 years ago
Ralph Nader started running for president as a proxy for "none of the above." He and his voters know he's not going to win, but the goal is to maximize his votes and try to put the issues that matter on the presidential table. You can't do it within the party, look at Kucinich.
(fun fact: Nader wouldn't have run this time if Kucinich were nominated)
GretnaBlast 3 years ago
Nader's parents lived well into their 90s, as did many others in his family. McCain, although younger, with his pages and pages of medical records, is more in the "too old" category than Nader if you take actual health into account.
GretnaBlast 3 years ago