Home | About | Donate

The One Question Reporters Never Ask Candidates


The One Question Reporters Never Ask Candidates

Ralph Nader

Candidates for public office, especially at the state and national levels, are never asked this central question of politics: “Since the people are sovereign under our Constitution, how do you specifically propose to restore power to the people in their various roles as voters, taxpayers, workers and consumers?


One week's Pentagon budget would largely fund these proposals...so why not do it? Because the frightened elite hang on to their military as if it could save them and not crash the country's economy before doing so. They can see it is not working, but don"t know what else to do as the conditions deteriorate. It's a failure of imagination.


Ralph Nader is the consumer world's Einstein and he never lacks for solutions to the problems that ail us.

I fully expected the article's title to refer to the unquestioned power of the Military-Industrial-complex and its more than fiscally driven blood-lust for war.

Nonetheless, astute readers will no doubt notice the direct correspondence of the following "Rule by Corporation" protocols and how similar "standards" are about to become virtually global due to the ISDS hidden within the hundreds of pages of fine print that make up the TPP and TIPP:

"Corporate power, led by the cruel U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C., is stripping consumers of class action remedies, imposing severe penalties and fines in the marketplace and intimidating them from complaining for fear of lowering their credit ratings and credit scores. Add to this the gouging prices for drugs and health care, malpractice, near-zero interest rates on their savings, high rates on credit cards, and vulnerability to unregulated foreign imports of food, medicines and other products, and you have a compelling case for a power shift from vendors to consumers."

Who's lower on the spiritual food chain... the lawyer who devises "law" that eviscerates every prior law based on principle--the principle of The Public Good; or warriors who make war because part of their twisted psyches feels the same "rush" that's felt by serial killers... when they get to use all those deadly toys on actual battlefields (if not from the air where "combat" is little more than a high tech. version of shooting fish in a barrel).


Many of these elites own property in places like Paraguay where water aquifers are pure; and others have already purchased nicely equipped underground bunkers.

There are FEMA camps in obscure places with thousands of ready coffins.

Someone is planning war and those behind this imperative WANT a pretext for declaring Martial Law.

I find it far too much of a coincidence that these Paris attacks went off-like clockwork--in anticipation of the Paris climate talks (when the whole world is watching, or held hostage by functionaries who refuse to challenge the billionaires who view the living world from the moral perspective of vultures) and treaties like the TPP and TIPP are pending.

Goebbels made it very clear that a society will succumb to Big Brother Security Controls IF it believes itself to be under attack. Those controls--as we can see--tend to place far more scrutiny on those who challenge the status quo (from within the society supposedly being protected) than on outside threats.

In fact, there's ample evidence to conclude that the true reason for all the surveillance is to quell domestic dissent.

It's the Pinochet model.

Criminalize dissent, punish whistle-blowers, muzzle the press, turn any inquiry that's outside of the mass media's Official Talking Points into heresy, "conspiracy theory," or some other castigation to summarily dismiss ANY alternative to State Control, arm the police with military "surplus," allow the most rabid of police officers to let loose on (this time, Black) citizens, encourage churches (and chaplains taken into the U.S. Air Force and other branches) to speak in Holy War terms, depress wages for the vast majority, close the borders....

I mean if all this crap doesn't simulate Fascist Germany, what would?


As usual, good article by Mr. Nader. The reporters and interviewers of these so-called Presidential, debates are part of the dog and pony show to entertain the dumbed down American public. Just like the candidates are corporate soldiers and hand-picked so are the reporters and interviewers corporate hand picked soldiers; otherwise, they would not be allowed participate in this theatre of the absurd! And while I agree with Ralph, even if they asked those questions they all would give answers full of mendacities, obfuscation, ad hominems and casuistry.


Excerpt from Jill Stein campaign newsletter today:

If Donald Trump can get free airtime on NBC’s Saturday Night Live during campaign season, other qualified presidential candidates - like Jill Stein - should get the same opportunity. After Trump’s SNL appearance, NBC posted an Equal Time notice - and we’ve put in a request that NBC give Jill Stein equal time to reach the American people.

Here’s the problem: mainstream media is notorious for stonewalling Equal Time requests.

To show NBC we’re serious about getting Jill on SNL, we need a groundswell of support. That's where you can help.

Sign and share our petition to NBC to have Jill Stein on Saturday Night Live!

A huge way the corporate establishment maintains the political status quo is by locking out independent candidates from mainstream media. And of course the federal government keeps rewriting the equal time rule to shut out insurgent candidates.

But our campaign is determined to break through the lockout. The airwaves belong to the public. All candidates should be provided equal access. That is what real democracy would look like.


If Jill Stein intends to be recognized as a solver of problems and serious contender, I don't think Saturday Night Live is the wisest venue for her National Introduction.

Second, while I applaud many if not all of Ms. Stein's positions and would-be platforms, she could work as a spoiler to Bernie Sanders who represents MANY sound positions and is definitely chipping away at the American Dynasty tent pillars.


I think at this point any kind of national exposure is better than none. The Green Party's biggest problem is being shut out of media.

And I still don't know why anyone believes Bernie Sanders. Obama said all the right things too, and did the opposite of what he claimed to be in favor of. I reject the party of bait and switch, I don't care how good they sound any more.


“Since the people are sovereign under our Constitution, how do you specifically propose to restore power to the people in their various roles as voters, taxpayers, workers and consumers?”

Increasing voter turnout by automatic voter registration, "Uber Voting" or casting secure encrypted votes online, requiring proof of voting for federal benefits and/or driver's licenses and other methods are available. Politicians of both parties will not endorse these methods because they are getting oligarchy bribes to suppress methods that will raise voter turnout.


Ralph, when are you going to be wrong so that I may know that you are real?


Good luck with this one.

NBC has offered time to all of Trump's GOP challengers. The equal time rule applies to the specific office being contested. Stein is not running for the Republican nomination.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Bernie Sanders is not Obama. And it's ridiculous to posit as much.


error, wrong thread


Actually there are hundreds of pertinent and important questions that never get asked by corporate media. Although Nader's questions are excellent.

The "debates" are an absolute, transparent sham.


Snowden recommends encryption for secure communications.


It is not in the interests of either oligarchy or major party candidates themselves to increase voter turnout. They all prefer sparse voting. Democrats make some effort to get out the vote because high voter turnout hurts Republicans even more than Democrats.


Did this article's author "listen" to Bernie Sanders? Of course, Sanders is the ONLY candidate qualified to say he does, and has long supported individual Americans rights on all these fronts ... because he is the ONLY CANDIDATE WHO IS NOT ON THE CORPORATE PAYROLL.


As much as I have liked Ralph Nader for the many things he has done for people over the years, there is one thing he has said/done that went horribly awry and he flat-out refuses to own up to it. After the 2000 presidential election was stolen from Gore by the Bushes, etc., Ralph has maintained that, hey, we'll get through the Bush mess, it won't last forever, blah, blah, blah.

Does anybody seriously think that the US's priorities and performance over the last 15 years would have been the same if Gore had won the election in 2000? Do you seriously think that our country would be as rudderless as it is now if Gore had won? Do you think that a president who cared about the environment would have said to hell with that issue and just gone goo-goo-ga-ga over invasions and blaming "terrorists" for everything bad in the world? Maybe, but I don't buy it.

Unlike Canada, where additional parties do have representation in their parliament based on voter support, the US has the 2-party system. Win or Lose! There is no other result. Whereas it may have been a noble effort to try and get 5% so that the Green Party could be on future ballots with the Demopublican Party, it was an incredibly egocentric effort to become a cult hero. He did not get the 5%. Instead, he made it possible for Busheny to steal the election and go for the gold! Er, I meant oil. In 2000, when faced with his most difficult decision, he allowed one of our worst regimes to be in a position to steal the election.

It's super-convenient for a lot of people to haul out the old "I'm not gonna choose between the lesser of two evils" crap, and simply not vote, or perhaps write-in. But the fact remains that sometimes, as a people, as a nation, as women and men of conscience, we simply MUST make a binary decision and say "that SOB is clearly worse than the other SOB" and therefore vote for the lesser evil.

Ralph Nader could have and should have bowed out of the race and recommended that his followers vote for Gore. More than likely, that would have result in there being a President Gore, with no room for chads, etc. in Florida. When faced with the biggest decision of his life, the one that may have changed the course of history, he decided to stay in the race, probably on principle. He was like the cow that would not get off the train tracks, no matter what the conductor of the train tried to do, so the conductor ran it over, but not before acknowledging that he admired the cow for its determination but had to seriously question its judgement.

It saddens me to say it, WiseOwl, but our friend Ralph Nader was wrong, very wrong, back in 2000, when he was most responsible for handing the election to Busheny. I take no pleasure in pointing this out, but I feel it must be said.


The only problem with your narrative here is that you are wrong, very wrong. No need for me to point out any contravening facts since i'm sure you're familiar with them all, yet you still manage to maintain your false narrative.