The letter from a listener concerning Apple’s privacy policy is very well written.

The author glosses over some of the more unsavory aspects of Apple, but that is to be expected.

Expand full comment

So grateful 🙏 I found your words ✨️ I reflect 😔 continually on the way to help collectively grow up to be informed citizenry judgments worthy to speak justly always until breath ends.

Expand full comment

In what was described as the number one problem baked into our electoral system Ralph again talked about neutralizing the electoral college using the National Popular Vote Compact.

The NPVC is not a sufficient solution.

The problem with the electoral vote is the states awarding the electoral votes in a winner take all manner. Citizens that do not vote for the winner in their state in essence have their vote changed to the winner in the state.

The NPVC does not solve this problem, it just transfers the problem from the state level to the national level. 80% of citizens in state could vote for candidate A and under the NPVC the state would award all the state's electoral votes to candidate B if candidate B won the national popular vote.

There must be some organizations advocating for states awarding electoral votes proportionally. Please have someone from one of these organizations on to discuss this much better approach.

But this not the root of the number one problem baked into our electoral process.

Ralph described the number one problem very well when he said "I don't think there's a rational classification other than the bundles of campaign cash for Congress to tax a profitable corporation at a maximum of 21%...." .

That is the motivation for everything Congress does on every issue.

This cannot be accomplished through legislation as the big money corporate controlled legislators will not pass the legislation as the big money interests have no interest in seeing such legislation passed.

The only way to pass such legislation is to first replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators. The problem has to be solved before legislation to solve the problem can be passed.

Citizens need to do what seems to be impossible to get the big money out of politics by demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes.

Citizen have to make our votes and money the motivation for action by Congress instead of the bundles of corporate campaign cash.

You have said politicians want our votes more than big money.

In your recent blog you suggested that citizens that could get predisposed billionaires to attend a meeting about funding civic investment should ask them what if, how to and why not?

Instead I will ask you as you are predisposed to accepting the idea that politicians want our votes more than big money- what if you could get your network of activists, journalists, etc. to organize citizens using the how to of demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes and why not?

Expand full comment

Nader appears to lost his flexibility of intellect. Same thing with David Cay Johnston; neither have written well in a long time, are blind to the corruption of the leftists and the Democrats. Zero competence when it comes to investigative journalism and muckraking.

Expand full comment

I agree with Ralph and his team we should have a popular vote for President (1 person, 1 vote). However we should also eliminate as much as possible mail in ballots and completely eliminate mass mail-out ballots for so called registered voters. I feel the reason why Trump won in 2016 was because of in-person voting on election day. In 2016 40.1 percent were mail in ballots compared to 69.4 percent mail-ballots in 2020. Voting is based on secret ballots and based on studies there is nothing secret about mail-in ballot. Quote Michael Moore from TrumpLand - said "When a Rich person and a poor person vote they have the same power. In our current news cycle early voting about a month is wrong. Maybe allow 3 day for early voting.

Expand full comment

I recall from the podcast a listener question about moving companies low-balling move estimates and then increasing the rate drastically once they arrive on site on moving day. That happened to us when we moved a few years ago, but I was tipped off by a guy named Fred from one of the moving companies that did not get the job because I thought their bid was too high. Fred said of his competition, "If you get a bid that is much lower than mine, keep in mind that there is a reason for it being so low."

He then described how I might handle the situation if (and when) I was presented with a "revised estimate" on moving day. The movers were there on site, having driven many hours, and asked me to sign a contract that was 2.5 times higher than the carefully detailed estimate we worked out previously. I refused saying that we were in no hurry and didn't need to move for another three weeks and I had already lined up another company to do the job in case they failed to honor the estimate. I asked them to leave. Before they got to their truck to drive away, the crew boss knocked on the door and said they would honor the original estimate. We had a great move.

They scam works because most folks have a set moving day with little wiggle-room in their schedule. They key is set a move window of about three weeks. If that's not possible, then I don't know what you'd do.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this important Fourth Estate interview by a fluent firsthand witness to this democratic catastrophe! What I can understand and appreciate is the different worlds between Congress then

and Congress now--yes, I was in rapt attention to Watergate's outcome. The Jan 6 hearings, its 18-month ordeal almost caught me sleeping---but no, I was just resting. So livid it all seems.

The utter absence of integrity from the Protection Side is the most startling (remember Watergate

insulted everyone!)

I wish you would explore (perhaps in a dedicated segment or full episode) more of this doctrine of plenary power which is "a complete and absolute power to take action on a particular issue, with no limitations" You hinted at its pure utility when confronted by such trespassing and disregard of our own agreed laws.

I will request this massive tome from my local library (social democracy at its best)

so, I may read Mr. Broadwater's introduction as I attempt to follow various interviews and questionings and remind myself why upstanding Republicans never supported the Commitee's reach.

Expand full comment

Mailbag Question: How does Mr. Nader define Justice?

Expand full comment