Real Presidential Debates

slithytove writes "As many of us are aware, the presidential debates are currently controlled by an organization called the Commision on Presidential Debates. As anyone who's seen a presidential debate recently could guess, the CPD does just what our two major parties want: exclude third parties and impose rules that make the event more of a joint press conference than a debate. Non-establishment candidates Michael Badnarik and David Cobb will be having an actual debate this Thursday. After debating each other, they will be rebutting the points Bush and Kerry make in their pseudo-debate. Free Market News will be streaming it and providing a download afterwards."

Comments

Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Can we spread DVDs recorded off the stream around? Anything these two have to say is bound to be much more open and interesting than what the oligopolists have to say.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[millahtime]

Do this actually matter though. They aren't legitimate candidates for Pres so do I really care what they ahve to say?

I have to say that since Bush and Kerry are the only legit candidates to get the job (notice my wording) that I don't care about the other debates.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[garcia]

Anything these two have to say is bound to be much more open and interesting than what the oligopolists have to say.

Unfortunately it will be worthless. Yeah, it may be interesting, but it will have little to no bearing on the main parties' campaigns, their strategy, or their eventual actions while in the White House.

The Republicans and the Democrats have little interest in what is going on outside of their only little world because no one in the majority really gives a shit either.

Until third party candidates actually have a shot at winning the elections (which will likely never happen in our lifetimes) their outlook on politics, the world, and everything else is utterly useless.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Cro Magnon]

I don't see why Badnarik/Cobb aren't legitimate cnadidates. The fact that their odds of winning are about the same as mine doesn't make them illegitimate.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[millahtime]

sadly we are a 2 party system. if you aren't in that party you wont' win. you don't have a legitimate chance at the job. 2 party system has to be changed before that will change. it's us politics.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[WalterDGeranios]

Do this actually matter though. They aren't legitimate candidates for Pres so do I really care what they ahve to say?

I think there's good reason to.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Yurka]

Nice sig. Only, the way it shapes up, it's "Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton and Clinton".

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Wybaar]

What you're describing is basically a Catch-22 situation. The 2-party system has to be changed before someone not in one of the two major political parties can win, but the system won't change unless something major happens to shake it up ... like a third-party candidate winning.

Frankly, I'm fed up with both parties. Now what would be really interesting would be if a group of people who had a Clue would start working now to get momentum going for a third-party candidate to challenge the Democrats and Republicans in 2008. After all, one definition of impulse is:

the product of force and the time interval over which the force acts

Now the major parties have a lot of force, but act over a short period of time. A minor party might be able to cause the same impulse by using less force but for a longer period of time.

So ... CowboyNeal in 2008!

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Mr. Slippery]

sadly we are a 2 party system. if you aren't in that party you wont' win.

We're in a two-party system only as long as people believe we're in a two-party system. It's not a legal or constitutional arifact.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Anonymous Coward]

If people pay attention and start voting for good 3rd party candidates, the major parties will co-opt their major planks or perish. It only takes 5-10% to get their attention.

Personally I see a vote for Bush or Kerry as a wasted vote. I want neither of them, I hate them the same, and Bush will easily win my state anyway.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[BakaHoushi]

One problem I have, though, is that my respect for third parties isn't much higher than it is for the "main" two. Usually, when one says, for example, "I hate Bush and Kerry," one is usually instructed to vote third party. But where does one turn when one feels that NO ONE up there is even semi-decent?

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Frymaster]

sadly we are a 2 party system.

and the u.s. will always be that way because of the nature of the system. in a presidential election, second place (let alone third or fourth) counts for nothing.

in a parliamentary system, by contrast, parties with lower levels of support get to have input. either they form the opposition or join the opposition coalition or, more effectively, become part of a governing coalition and weild some degree of political power.

witness canada: the dominant liberals alienated both the conservative and liberal portions of the population (no mean feat). however, none of the other parties were generally considered experienced enough to rule... so the electorate handed the liberals a minority victory.

to govern, the minority government now has to form coalitions with other parties to acheive enough votes to pass bills. in this case, the party the liberals allied with was the left-of-centre new democratic party. the result is that the ndp now has a fair amount of "pivotal power" - and given that helth care and other social programme issues were a big deal during the election, this is probably a Good Thing.

in a minority government situation, the opposition parties also have increased power. since the the government can fall to a well-organized attack by the opposition, the liberals are less likely to antagonize stornaway.

the result is: less people are alienated in a parliamentary system. if you voted for gore in 2000, your vote was completely wasted. but no matter who you voted for in canada last april (unless you voted green, as i did) there's someone in the government representing you.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Xzzy]

You change the system by listening to the 3rd parties.

The two main parties have zero interest in diluting their mindshare. Things will never change if you leave it to them.

Currently, the sole purpose behind 3rd party candidates is to be heard. The more good points they make, the more people will question the dominant parties. Eventually it reaches a critical mass and change will happen.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Quite possibly- I wrote the sig back when Kerry had a 16 vote lead in the polls, before the polls started writing their results to whoever pays the most money.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but it is slowly changing, and this kind of participation and publicity is central in the process. I recently took a look at the results for Libertarians, and was pleasently surprised by how well they did in some states last year. We may not be there yet, but it seems clear that a significant amount of people are becoming disillusioned with both of the major parties. I think it's important to remember too how well the electoral system helps canidates in this kind of situation - in theory at least. In any case change is going to be slow, and a long time coming, but I don't think that's reason enough to simply give up the attempt.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Anonymous Coward]

sadly we are a 2 party system.
and the u.s. will always be that way because of the nature of the system. in a presidential election, second place (let alone third or fourth) counts for nothing.

Yes, there's just no way to topple those Whigs from their firm grasp on power.

The U.S. might "forever" be a 2-party system, but you can change which 2 parties it is.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Squinky86]

I agree completely with the above opinion. In 1968, George Wallace, though he had some messed up views, managed to get some electoral votes. One newspaper even had him in line to win the presidency. He was shot and killed, though, I think right before election time, or something like that. He still managed to get 15 electoral votes I think it was.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Atzanteol]

We have had other parties in the past BTW, but basically we've always had 2 parties.

What you're describing is basically a Catch-22 situation. The 2-party system has to be changed before someone not in one of the two major political parties can win, but the system won't change unless something major happens to shake it up ... like a third-party candidate winning.

Sorta. In the past typically one party becomes very un-popular (federalists, whigs, etc.), and the other party sorta takes over. Then that party fractures into two parties. Lather, rinse, repeat. Though we have had the current parties for some time, and they are still pretty evenly-split, so it's doubtful that any other party will really have a chance.

What I *do* see as a use for the third/forth/fifth/etc. parties, is that they are a sort of test as to what the non-two party affiliated folks are thinking. For instance, the Democratic party can look to the green party members as sort of it's "far left", and gauge whether that's the direction the party may need to move in (or away from). Should the Green party start to gain momentum, I'd bet the Democrats would start picking up some of their platform (and similar for Republicans and Libertarians).

Just a thought...

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Toresica]

I'm fairly certain that the Liberals haven't actually allied with the NDP, since even with the NDP they're still one seat short of a majority - so for important legislation like the budget, they'll have to ally with either Conservative or Bloc, or make sure there are more Conservative and Bloc MP's absent then Liberal/NPD MP's.

A minor point, though.

As far as voting Green is concerned, even your vote wasn't wasted.
You helped them get over the magical 2% they need to get funding per vote, which means that they should be included in the debate next election, etc.
You'll be represented next election. :) By at least one candidate.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Toresica]

Should the Green party start to gain momentum, I'd bet the Democrats would start picking up some of their platform (and similar for Republicans and Libertarians).
That made me chuckle, thinking of the recent Canadian election.
The green party was gaining momentum, so the liberals followed their time-honoured tradition of running on the left and (it would seem) governing on the right.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[bugg]

Getting your positions and ideas heard by tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people is hardly "nothing."

Given how the media or the populace isn't critically analyzing anything of value, if someone wants to run a campaign (note: it seems neither Bush nor Kerry does) to force important issues onto the agenda of civil discourse, more power to them.

You don't have to win the election to win in the end.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[benzapp]

Yes, thats right. They didn't go to Yale University, thus they cannot be legitimate presidential candidates.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[sgant]

OK, don't know if this is a flame or troll or you're just plain ignorant of the facts.

One - Wallace died in 1998, not 1968. He was shot back then, but not killed...paralized.

Two - He was a mainly a democrat.

Three - He was elected Governor of Alabama (as a Democrat) four times

Four - he carried five Southern states, gaining almost enough electoral votes to throw the election to the House of Representatives. He was a candidate of the American Independent Party.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[b!arg]

Yes we are a two party system, but a third party has history of being able to create change by changing the dialogue. A perfect example is is Ross Perot. He changed the conversation. It became about balancing the budget and such. It has been the case throughout American history too, sadly, I can't give examples, I just remember it has. :) Any history buffs out there to support this with real historical info? The unfortunate thing is the fact that you have to be a billionaire to get that much access nowadays. And that's what it really comes down to, access. If more candidates had access then it probably would remain Republican and Democrat dominated, but these other parties could change the dialogue a bit.

It's almost like in the case of a business partnership. One partner has 49% of the business, the second has 49% of the business and a third has 2% of the business. Who is the most powerful person in this scenario when the two disagree?

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Johnathon_Dough]

and similar for Republicans and Libertarians

As a Libertarian I don't think I can agree with this. Lately the Republican party does not speak to the issues I care about, mostly being smaller government, and more self determination.

I think, unfortunately, who the republicans are listening to these days is the "Moral Majority" or the "Religious Right", depending on who is describing them.

There is all too much of both parties telling me what is right for My Own Good as opposed to just governing our society.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Sj0]

Consider my theory: That the republicans are actually left-wing and liberal in the traditional sense of the words.

Consider their policies. Consider their budget. Consider the constant "everything is different post 9/11, and things can never be done the same way". The opposition to two hundred year traditions. The utter outrage at international agreements which, like or not, we agreed to.

Put together, it looks to me like someone is misrepresenting themselves. Hmm?

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Sj0]

I thought the Liberals had aligned with the bloc because the NDP didn't have enough seats to form a minority government...

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[forlornhope]

"The 2-party system has to be changed before someone not in one of the two major political parties can win, but the system won't change unless something major happens to shake it up ... like a third-party candidate winning."

Umm... that has already happened... how do you think we got the Republican party? Anyone remember a stricking young republican named Abraham Lincoln?

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[zzyzx]

If you can't even find a third party that agrees with enough of your views to be worth voting for, then you have views that well under 1% of the population shares. The fact that that's not well supported in a democracy isn't that big of a bug.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Abcd1234]

Nope. If you look at the numbers, this was the breakdown:

Liberal: 135
Conservative: 99
Bloq: 54
NDP: 19
Independant: 1

Which means, with 154, the Liberals and NDP form a majority (well, 50% exactly, actually). I *think* this was a result of some recounts and disputes in various ridings which ended up changing the numbers a bit.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[BakaHoushi]

I didn't say that I couldn't really find a third party that I agree with. Well, actually, I did (words are not my friends). What was more intended was that I don't support the candidate, not the leader. For example, let's do this hypothetically. Suppose I were a Republican. Just because I'm a Republican does not mean that I support George Bush right now. If I were a Democrat, that doesn't mean I like Kerry.

Currently, I can think of some parties that I like the ideals of. However, this doesn't mean I think that the party is going about the right way of doing it. Doesn't mean I trust the head honcho.

And if my views really are in the 1%... Well, so be it. To each his own. I'll still debate things with people, regardless of how popular they are. I'd never learn anything, never trust any groups, perfect my current ideas, or reach any new ones if I didn't discuss my current ones with others, now would I?

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but there are drawbacks to the parliamentary system too. There's less accountability of individual parties and politicians, and there's more room for a minority focused on one or few issues to weild disproportionate power. The best example is the Bloc in Canada. Imagine a USA where the Republicans would have to form a parliamentary majority by allying with the "NRA Party". The NRA could dictate almost all gun control policy because they would trade away their influence on almost all other issues for it.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[w42w42]

I've posted this before - and I'll post again. Peoples political core beliefs tend to be two dimensional, while our political system is one dimensional. That's the reason we have the terms "Social Conservative" or "Fiscal Conservative" vs. "Socially Liberal" or "Fiscal Liberal".

Many people vote their religeon, others their social values, and still others on how they feel the government should run in regards to both personal and governmental financial responsibility. That's why I think the whole left/right thing is an over simplification.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Atzanteol]

Which is why one can't simply vote along party lines. The actual candidates themselves must be considered. Within each party there are vast differences, but with some 'core' values. Christ, a Democrat had a keynote at the RNC!

The people get lost in the labels.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Yurka]

It's so not funny.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ligitimacy is not an issue here. A reasonable expectation of winning is, however. If you morons are going to argue at all on a topic that actually has meaning in ANYONE'S life, please... think before you speak.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[coraxo]

Sorry,

There is only one party in the world,
and that is MONEY

well there is one more especialy in Middle East that is called RELIGION

Not so sure if one is much worse than the other

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Papineau]

Which means, with 154, the Liberals and NDP form a majority (well, 50% exactly, actually).

Which means in turn that if every MP is present for a vote (not very likely, but let's say it happens for the sake of argument), the Liberals will win that vote only if the President of the House comes from one of the opposition parties (as the President only votes in case of equality). If the President comes from the Liberals (the President is usually taken from the governing party), they'll have 153 votes against 154, and would lose.

This analysis also requires every MP to vote with his/her party, but that's sadly usually the case already (even if Martin said he'd like to have more free votes in the House).

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[xanalogical]

> Within each party there are vast differences, but with some 'core' values.

You've GOT to be kidding. From someone outside the traditional party system, from 10,000 feet they ALL look the same.

The issues some of us care about aren't even on the radar of those parties, and would scare them s***less if they were.

The Singularity is Coming.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Igmuth]

What's in a name.....

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[the_denman]

write in?

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Jormundgandr]

The parliamentary system does distribute the power to its sort-of-atrophied executive branch in a much fairer way, yes.

If the United States had a pair of consuls (or praetors maybe?) like the old Roman Republic we wouldn't get neocon corporate-friendly policies as we do now, or extremely pricey social programs as we did under LBJ. If we had a PM working under a coalition government, we'd probably have decent moderate policy.

Most democracies and republics in the world have a unicameral legislature that works pretty much as you described. And most of them manage to muddle through, as all governments end up doing. (Name one really spectacular government with no/few problems and i'll give you my house when I move there.)

However, you don't have to look very far to see a parliamentary system that has been seriously screwed up by this very same power sharing structure.

The Knesset in Israel has been seriously skewed towards the right by these same power-sharing schemes. I don't off the top of my head know when this started or the specific Hebrew name of the movement, but I do know that there is an ultra-conservative party which holds only four or five seats in the 120-seat Knesset but has a major influence on policy. How can this be?

The power-sharing structure that would seem to be the answer to many problems in the Knesset's case has worked out to make these five guys, representing less than 5% of all Israelis (assuming 100% turnout), the tiebreakers in legislation and the necessary addition to any legitimate coalition government. Because this party continues to play its cards very well, any government in Israel, whether it is Liberal or Likkud, has to satisfy a certain number of these guys' demands to stay in power. Thus, the parliamentary power sharing under these circumstances produces a shift in policy that is profoundly against the principles of a representative government.

The moral of the story: governments usually find ways to suck, because the vast majority of people running them are human. It's a tragic problem that afflicts almost all governments in the world. Except the Swiss.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[dnoyeb]

The parties are bad, not the so-called system.

It is bad when the people continue to feel obligated to vote for people they don't like.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Mitchell Mebane]

There is all too much of both parties telling me what is right for My Own Good as opposed to just governing our society.

How exactly do you think can society be governed without *someone* deciding what is good and what is not?

This isn't flamebait, I seriously want to know.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[skids]

"but the system won't change unless something major happens to shake it up"

What needs to happen is some voting system reform, not a "shakeup". It has to happen gradually, incrementally, at the grass-roots level, taking hold town by town, and eventually working its way up to the states.

The reasons are simple:

1) The party standing to lose from a change in the voting system will oppose it. They will be highly motivated to turn out at the polls to defeat such a referendum, even though the majority of the voters will likely favor it. For some reason noisy minorities tend to have high turnout in a pinch.

2) Part of the opposition will be a questioning of the legality and constitutionality of the proposed system. When the proposed system only applies to local candidates, this is much easier to prove.

3) The question of legality will come down to the ruling usually of several officials including an attorney general. The party affiliation and/or the personal integrity of these office holders will play a role in deciding the success of the initiative.

4) In most cases, the only time a major party will support a new voting system aggressively is when they are hurting from having a third party candidate "steal" their votes. You usually need whole-hearted support from one major party to get such a proposal passed, to overcome the get-out-the-vote drive by the opposition. In short, that party has to really care.

5) All effort must be made to make sure the system chosen will run smoothly and cannot be criticised after the fact. The party affiliation and/or personal integrity and/or competance of the clerks running the election may play a factor in whether the system is challenged by a followup referrendum.

So what this boils down to is that changing the voting system has to wait for the right opportunity. Timing is everything. That's why it will probably never happen spontaneously on the state or national level. It is much easier to find (or create) the right window of opportunity on a local level.

Once a new voting system is established (setting precedent) and properly maintained (proving viability and developing standards and practices) in a few local communities, it will be much easier for neighboring communities to attempt to adopt it. Advocates will need to be on hand to guide spontaneous efforts and protect them from failure.

Once a majority of communities in an area have adopted such a system, and people are comfortable with it, it will be possible to move the initiative up a level.

I find it disappointing that many advocates of such change sell themselves short by reaching too far, too fast. It's not that I don't think establishing and maintaining such a system nationwide right away would be a bad thing, it's that it is an impractical thing.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

That the republicans are actually left-wing and liberal in the traditional sense of the words.

You must be kidding. They are something all right but left-wing? Liberal? I dont think these labels apply to any of the two heads of this duopoly. I admit I have some serious left-leanings in some places (social infrastructure of the society, medical care, schools and limited oversight of the markets), while adhering to what could be described conservative views (smallest possible, efficient, fiscally responsible government, simplification of law, deregulation of non-life-threatening industries, free-but-not-insane markets, etc). So as a leftie I can tell you this: Liberal goes contrary to Patriot Act. Tax breaks for the wealthy goes contrary to left-wing social policies. etc. On the other hand "more powers for Homeland Security" sounds more right-wing and yet it comes from the Democrats. From my leftist perspective, they both swerved hard to the right with the notable exception of the fiscal responsibility part. That I admit, the Republicans seem to have borrowed from the worst excesses of some misguided left-wing governments of the past. The whole landscape seems to represent worst combinations possible as far as both left and right wing onlookers are concerned. And that is some kind of record I think.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[mardukkorn]

Where can I get more info on presidential vs parliamentary forms of govt?

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Anonymous Coward]

What they are not, is conservatives in the traditional positive sense of the word: that is, of the belief that traditional institutions that took decades or centuries to build should only be altered incrementally and with great care to preserve the balance of society.

So-called neo-conservatives are ideologically-driven right-wing revolutionaries, which may be why you confuse them with left-wingers. Interestingly, some of them started their political life as left-wingers, but what they advocate now is anything but.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[ChristTrekker]

who the republicans are listening to these days is the "Moral Majority" or the "Religious Right"

From what I hear, the social conservatives (as opposed to the fiscal conservative arm of the Elephant Party) aren't very happy with many of Bush's actions, either. Why anyone still blindly holds on to the GOP hoping it will return to its roots, I don't know. It's pretty clear that it won't.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[ynohoo]

as a simple guide, parlimentary systems have an "honorary" head of state with no real power - like the Queen of England, the Irish president, etc. Real power lies with the leader of the Governing party in the lower house (like the house of Representitives in the US). Under presidential systems (like the US and France) the president has real power to affect the direction of government policies, like the King of England before Cromwell decapitated him.

Under a parlimetary system the Prime Minister will select his ministers from the other members of parliment (usually from his own party, but not necessarily). Under the Presidential system he will select his most sychophantic ("yes men") supporters and financial backers.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[tbannist]

It's not just the parties, it's the system too. There are two many convenient ways to exclude third parties built into the American system. Gerrymandering and winner takes all electoral votes being the two primary ones. The US used to have more than 2 parties before McCarthyism destroyed the left and centrist parties, however once there were only 2 parties it became easy to prevent the rise of a 3rd party.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Anonymous Coward]

You helped them get over the magical 2% they need to get funding per vote, which means that they should be included in the debate next election, etc.

Really? And where did this criteria come from? The last time I looked the mainstream media, who organize the debates, never revealed what their criteria were and stuck with those criteria?

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Anonymous Coward]

This analysis also requires every MP to vote with his/her party, but that's sadly usually the case already (even if Martin said he'd like to have more free votes in the House).

Yeah, I think everything Martin says should be taken with a grain of salt. And now there's talk that the Canadian Alliance is cracking down more on their members, so there's nobody to draw attention to free votes, unless it serves somebody's hypocritical intentions of the moment.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[Anonymous Coward]

The key is distinguishing when a government is (a) protecting an individuals rights, or (b) determining what is for an individuals "Own Good".

Enforcing the bill of rights gives us (a). This is good.

Passing laws to protect people from their own mistakes or to do what some majority thinks is "Good" gives us (b). This is bad.

As you can tell, I am a Liberterian: one who upholds and lives the principle of individual liberty and responsibility of thought and action.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[ChristTrekker]

The voting system itself is biased against third parties. (Duverger's Law.) And the people in a position to change the system have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Keep voting for your principles; keep voting third party. With the way the two major parties are going, enough people will be disillusioned and start looking for any alternative. All it takes is a small foothold to make the "plurality" system start falling apart, and then it can be replaced with something other than an incumbent protection racket.

Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted?

[ChristTrekker]

It's not an issue of being parliamentary or not. It's completely a result of the plurality voting system. American voters are almost obliged to not vote for the guy whose platform they most align with, because well, nobody else is going to, right? As long as there is a strategic incentive to go along with what you guess everyone else will do, the problem perpetuates. We need a voting system (like Condorcet) in which you can vote honestly without shooting yourself in the foot.

Also, your last paragraph in nonsensical. The presidency is a singular office. Obviously everyone that didn't vote for the winner is disenfranchised for the presidency. The Congress is a closer analogue to a parliament. Proportional representation might be a convenient kludge, but I think a system that promotes honest voting would be even better.

15%

[geomon]

So because they didn't poll at 15%, the Greens and the Libertarians can't make monkies out of the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.

Free speech and democracy at its best.

Re:15%

[Anonymous Coward]

Where would you suggest they set the limit? It has to be somewhere, otherwise we're liable to see Bush debating that guy from "Laverne and Shirley". And nobody wants that.

Re:15%

[strictfoo]

Yes, we should allow anyone and their SuperSmallAndTrivial Party to show up at the debates and speak!

What are the Dirts and Losertarians polling at? .2% nationally?

Re:15%

[millahtime]

So, you think that the Greens and Libertarians would make Monkeys out of the Dems and Repubs.... if they were there then the Dems and Reps would prep for them and they can afford much better prep. I do think they would be very well prepared for the Dems and Reps. You give them too little credit. Even if they are feeding a line of BS.

Re:15%

[LilMikey]

So because they didn't poll at 15%, the Greens and the Libertarians can't make monkies out of the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.

Damn straight. Michael Moore is only one man. Bill O'Reilley is only one man. Rush Limbaugh is only one man... ok, maybe a man and a half. They all make monkeys out of their respective parties. It's kind of sad though when right wing-nuts and socially mal-adjusted documentary makers get more respect and attention than two people legitimately running for president and trying to fundamentally change our government. I'll still be voting for Kerry though :(

Re:15%

[jsebrech]

Where would you suggest they set the limit?

It's simple, if you make the ballot in enough states to possibly win the elections, you should be part of any debate. Since you can get on enough ballots simply by mobilizing regular citizens, that would open up the debates to anyone with actual grassroots support across america.

Re:15%

[Cro Magnon]

Well, that is giving the Greens/Libertarians too much credit. The Republicrats are quite capable of making monkeys of themselves without outside help.

Re:15%

[TedCheshireAcad]

Can we just be realistic here for a minute?

class Green extends Democrat

Really. This is what happens: smaller, single-point parties get swallowed up by the whole. This is how the Republican party came about, in fact, but at that time they were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives! Don't believe me? See what party Abraham Lincoln represented when he entered office.

Re:15%

[geomon]

Where would you suggest they set the limit? It has to be somewhere,...

Why?

Limiting the discussion is helpful in what way? ..otherwise we're liable to see Bush debating that guy from "Laverne and Shirley"

"That guy" has just as much experience running the US government as Bush had in 2000.

What makes you believe a person who has been President necessarily makes him an authority on all topics, even the most important?

Re:15%

[operagost]

Michael Moore is only one man. Bill O'Reilley is only one man. Rush Limbaugh is only one man... ok, maybe a man and a half. They all make monkeys out of their respective parties.

So what party does Bill O'Reilly belong to?

Re:15%

[Anonymous Coward]

Rush Limbaugh is only one man... ok, maybe a man and a half.

1998 called. They want their fat joke back.

Rush hasn't been overweight for years.

Re:15%

[geomon]

Rush hasn't been overweight for years.

Certainly not since he started taking drugs.

Re:15%

[Anonymous Coward]

So because they didn't poll at 15%, the Greens and the Libertarians can't make monkies out of the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.

Yep. And according to the logic of this system, we might as well cancel the election, and decide the next president by opinion polling!

Re:15%

[geomon]

So what party does Bill O'Reilly belong to?

His OWN, God DAMIT!

Now GET this piece of slime OUT of here before I TEAR him APART!!!

Grrr....

That Bill O' Reilly is one tough dude... with the families of the 9/11 victims.

Re:15%

[micromoog]

If there wasn't a limit set somewhere, you'd probably have 100+ people involved. And it's against FCC regulations to show people mass debating on TV.

Re:15%

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill O'Reilly belongs to the "SHUT UP!!" and "CUT HIS MIKE!!" party.

Re:15%

[Keebler71]

So because they didn't poll at 15%, the Greens and the Libertarians can't make monkies out of the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.

Or is it that the Greens and Libertarians make monkies out of themselves resulting in less than 15% poll numbers... just a though...

Re:15%

[geomon]

Or is it that the Greens and Libertarians make monkies out of themselves resulting in less than 15% poll numbers... just a though...

We will never know. The two controlling parties made the rules.

Re:15%

[Amiga Trombone]

Yes, we should allow anyone and their SuperSmallAndTrivial Party to show up at the debates and speak!

You don't have to necessarily let "anyone" into the debates.

But anyone that's on enough state ballots that they could theoreticly be elected is certainly a legitimate candidate, and should therefore be allowed to participate.

Re:15%

[Drakon]

The Bad Guys
With Bush and Ashcroft.

Re:15%

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Also, "liberal economic policy" used to mean support for free markets. Now, Liberals (Democrats) want the government to regulate pretty much everything that has to do with business, which is VERY close to Socialism and the exact opposite of what Liberal economic policy is.

Re:15%

[EnronHaliburton2004]

It's easy for Bill O'Reilly to be tough on his own TV show. His controlers don't exactly allow dissent on the show.

Re:15%

[Tongo]

I would think that running the State of Texas gives a person a little more experiance at running the US government than "some guy off the street".

Re:15%

[Atzanteol]

Ahh, somebody else who sees it like I do.

Most people fail to see that the parties are malleable. I'm guessing it's because a lot of folks here are young, and don't know history...

The democrats today are *not* the party that they were even when Kennedy was president! And the parties will continue to change as their members change. The third/forth/etc. parties serve to show where the 'extremists' are IMHO. The bigger the Green party gets, I'd be the more liberal the Democrats get. And the bigger the Libertarians get, the more Libertarian the Republicans would get. But since we've only got two parties, neither will stray very far from each other. Extremists are rarely popular.

Not that there are exceptions (witness the civil war, Hitler, etc.), but they aren't common (and the civil war was mostly because the 'lines' were drawn on geographic terms [North v. South] as well as political ones).

Re:15%

[Guppy06]

"Where would you suggest they set the limit?"

I don't have a number to suggest, but having it set that high will eventually bite them in the ass. Winning the presidency requires a majority of the electoral votes, not simply a plurality. Maine and Nebraska currently have per-district election of presidential electors, and hopefully Colorado will be following suit this year; it's only a matter of time before the country in general drops the winner-takes-all mechanism from Electoral College elections like we have already done with House elections (yes, "once upon a time...").

With that being said, in the House of Representatives the Republican Party has a majority with just under 52% of the seats, and in the Senate they have 51% even. From 2001 until 2003, no party had a majority in the Senate (there was a Democrat plurality, but that was it).

With party politics being as neck-and-neck as it is today, how long do you think it will be before no candidate wins a majority of the electoral votes? It may yet even happens this year, and when it does happen whoever comes in third is very important, no matter what kind of gap is between second and third, because three is the number of candidates presented to Congress.

Re:15%

[rhakka]

that in no way suggests that they couldn't raise some questions the big boys are not wanting to talk about right now and that SHOULD be talked about for the good of our nation or at least the level of awareness of our populace.

Third party platforms have been co-opted by the big boys since day one. This is a good thing and shows that third parties can influence things even without winning elections.

Of course it only works if they are heard. Can't have that or you might end up with a "jesse ventura" situation.

Re:15%

[geomon]

I would think that running the State of Texas gives a person a little more experiance at running the US government than "some guy off the street"./i.

How so?

By most accounts Bush did little except pander to his favorite contributors and sign A LOT of death warrants.

You're seriously comparing this to running the US government?

Re:15%

[nwbvt]

They can say whatever they want to say, but that doesn't mean anyone really wants to listen to it.

There has to be a cut off somewhere. Otherwise think of all the candidates that would be on the stage. Along with the Greens and Libertarians, you would also have the Constitution Party, the Natural Law Party, Reform Party, and a whole shitload of others including the Communists, Prohibitionists, Nazis (I know a certain troll who would love them), etc. In fact, anyone with a cause could start up their own party and demand a right to stand on that stage.

Re:15%

[Tongo]

No, he never did anything like work with budgets, sign bills, or anything else that would be involved with running a state. Besides, isn't what you described pretty much what he does now, according to the dems anyways?

Re:15%

[geomon]

No, he never did anything like work with budgets, sign bills, or anything else that would be involved with running a state.

No, that's why he has a staff

Besides, isn't what you described pretty much what he does now, according to the dems anyways?

Who care what the Demopublicans think?

Shrub hung around Austin doing what he does best: look important.

No, that's not fair; he did make some great contacts with folks from both parties. In fact, had he continued to show the same level of bipartisan relations at the federal level, he wouldn't be sitting at ~48% in the polls.

If he was such a terrific guy, why is he getting less than 50% support from the American public?

The guy never ran a business that didn't fail. He has jettisoned his party's platform for political expedience, and has made the Bill of Rights do a lap dance.

This is the best we can produce?

Free your conscience: vote for a third pary.

Re:15%

[jafac]

can anyone do that?

class MilitantExtremistReligiousFundamentalists extends Republican

COOL! That was fun!

Re:15%

[Lord Kano]

Why?

Because if there is no limit, then ANYONE could enter the debates.

I'm not yet 35, but I could declare myself a candidate and get in on the debates if there are no limits on who can enter.

It's idiocy to have no limits. The only questions are where they are and who sets them.

LK

Re:15%

[Tongo]

Wow, the second part of your comment explained it all. Your blinded by your hatred of Bush/Dems/Repubs to admit the fact that being a Governer gives you more experiance running the US Government than I or you (assuming you aren't in political office) have. FFS Bush has a staff in Washington D.C. also.

Re:15%

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Now, Liberals (Democrats) want the government to regulate pretty much everything that has to do with business, which is VERY close to Socialism..."

And the Republican party wants the government to regulate morality and family values. Plus it wants government ruled by a strong right-wing with business and the government tighly coupled which is close to being fascist... pick your poison.

Re:15%

[ElForesto]

So where's the invitation to Peroutka, then? I didn't see him name mentioned in that press release, and he's on more ballots than Nader or Cobb. Last I checked, Nader wouldn't be able to muster enough electoral votes to be elected, so inviting him is going on the basis of name recognition.

Re:15%

[mrbrown1602]

Exactly. It may not be fair, but we've got well over 300 people actually registered with the FEC running for President, and well - that'd be one heck of a debate. Reminds me of GSN's "Who Wants to be California Governor?".

Re:15%

[kootch]

Well, quick way to fix the situation:

You need 1 Green or Libertarian party supporter to work at each and every polling location in the country that uses electronic voting.

Exploiting the extensive flaws that have been documented in the Diebold systems and others, these "operatives" need to infiltrate the system, execute a hastily written program in the hated VB language, and change one out of every 3 votes to be for the Libertarian candidate and one out of every 3 for the Green party.

techrevolt!

I don't condone this, but it'll fix the situation...

Re:15%

[ShinyBrowncoat]

It's simple, if you make the ballot in enough states to possibly win the elections, you should be part of any debate. Since you can get on enough ballots simply by mobilizing regular citizens

or through the machinations of the major party most opposed to you...

Re:15%

[Rich0]

The fact is that Nader remains a viable candidate that many people are interested in. I'm probably not going to vote for him, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that he should be heard.

Face it, parties like the Greens, Libertarians, Constitutional, and Socialist parties are genuine political movements that should be able to get some level of coverage. Maybe not equal coverage to the two major parties, but right now they get near-zero coverage. We're far from a balanced position right now...

Re:15%

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise think of all the candidates [campusprogram.com] that would be on the stage.

True, if there were no set minimums, but we give federal matching funds at 5% (yes, all of the taxpayers here help out). Why shouldn't that be the minimum for participating in the debates instead of the arbitrary 15% which keeps out anyone who isn't already in a major party?

Re:15%

[True Grit]

The fact is that Nader remains a viable candidate

Not this year. He's been taken off the Ohio ballot because most of the signatures he presented turned out to be forgeries. Only the Reps call him viable, the Dems just see him as working for Bush, since they believe he siphoned off enough votes from Gore to give FLA to Bush, and he's trying to do the same again.

There is one thing this discussion is missing: Major 3rd parties in the US are created not to simply be a spoiler for one of the major parties, but a spoiler for *both*. Perot (whatever you thought of him) was a more legitimate "3rd option" since he was drawing from the discontented on both sides and it was within the realm of possibility that he could get close to 33% and really contest the race (he didn't but everyone realized his impact would be significant).

Nader and all the others aren't like Perot, each one is really just a parasite on one of the main parties, and most of the people who might agree with them continue to act as a subgroup of one of the main parties so they can wield some influence, hence the libertarians being an historically significant block within the Reps, and Nader's constituency being solely from the Dems - but 99% of them are staying with the Dems this year because they now know a vote for Nader is effectively a vote for Bush.

There is a huge difference between a viable 3rd movement and a fringe movement. Fringe movements (Nader, Libertarians, others today) almost always leech off one of the main parties and therefore can never make a difference other than to possibly give the victory to the other side, a viable 3rd party however pulls from both main parties, and has the potential to beat them (needing only 33.34% + 1 of the vote).

My main point is that a 3rd party, in a system without proportional representation, is only viable when its capable of attracting large groups of people away from both the main-stream parties, and actually *winning*. In Europe people will vote for a party even if they know it won't win a majority, because it will win representation above a certain threshold percentage of the total vote. In the US, your vote only counts as a positive when the party you vote for has a realistic chance of winning. If the party doesn't have a realistic chance at a majority, your vote is at least worthless, and at worst, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

So if you want people to vote for a 3rd party, either give them a proportional representation system where their vote means something even if their party doesn't get the majority, or give them a 3rd party that can actually win. Everything else being said is just hot air.

What we need is not the Libertarians, or Nader, or the Constitution Party. What we need is the "Moderate Party", a centrist organization, built from scratch via grass-roots mobilization, without ties to (or the chains of) the dominating special interests of today, capable of drawing the discontented and moderates from both the dominant parties as well as independents, where most people realize a vote for them might mean something.

Re:15%

[GimmeFuel]

If the third parties really made monkeys out of themselves, why do Democrats and Republicans work so hard to exclude them? Wouldn't it make more sense to have them in the political process, so the major party candidates could point and laugh and kick their asses in debates, making themselves seem that much better by comparison?

Re:15%

[nwbvt]

And how is 5% any less arbitrary? After all I believe in this election at least it would still keep out all the 3rd parties currently in existence as none are currently polling at 5%.

Re:15%

[Rich0]

Frankly, moderats are content to simply vote for Bush or Kerry. You won't see a "Moderate Party" anytime soon.

Any third party candidate is capable of winning if they are on the ballot in a sufficient number of states. Sure, in the present environment they are unlikely to win, but that is simply a self-perpetuating meme - nobody votes 3rd party since they didn't win the last five elections. Once one does win, people will start saying that a vote for a Republican or Democrat is a wasted vote...

As for me, I'm going to vote where it will do the most good. A vote for a 3rd party can actually have a much bigger impact on government policy than a vote for a major party. In the last election the Democrats didn't care about Nader - now they REALLY care about him, but instead of engaging him they're just playing dirty tricks. If they lose another election solely because of him maybe they'll start taking another look at his supporters and consider embracing the movement.

Ditto for the Libertarians. If the Supreme Court had awarded Florida to Gore last year, you can bet that the Republicans would have started taking seriously either the Libertarians or Buchanan.

If you avoid voting third party because "anybody would be better than Bush" or "anybody would be better than Gore", then you'll be accepting whatever the major parties want to give you for a long time. If you want to cause change vote for a 3rd party. This is just like negotiating prices at a car dealer - if they offer you car A for $30k and car be for $28k and your budget is only $20k you just have to walk away - they won't offer you less until they think you're going to take your business elsewhere...

In my opinion democracy is best served when the people have choices. There shouldn't be only two candidates for the USA's highest office. Granted, the electoral college system is dysfunctional for multi-party situations, but if two presidents in a row have to be selected by congress due to split votes, we'll probably see the system reformed.

I agree that a parlimentary or other proportional system would be better. However, we won't ever get such a system if everybody is content to vote status quo.

Re:15%

[jsebrech]

So if you want people to vote for a 3rd party, either give them a proportional representation system where their vote means something even if their party doesn't get the majority, or give them a 3rd party that can actually win. Everything else being said is just hot air.

The problem is though that the very people who would institute a proportional system are members of the parties which are held in power by the current system. Why would they ever create a fair system when they benefit so much from not doing it?

The only way to get the big parties to do the right thing is to publicly shame them into doing it, so that's why 3rd parties should be a viable part of the debates and electoral process. Sure, people will still vote for democrats or republicans, but at least the two big candidates will have to really talk about the issues, instead of just attacking the other guy or talking about artificial non-issues that few people really care about (gay marriage ban anyone?).

Ofcourse, in the long term, for the democratic health of the US, there needs to be a radical reshaping of the executive and legislative, and how they are elected, to make them actually a fair representation of the will of the voter. But in the short term the most controllable element is the press coverage and the debates. Those two should be able to be swayed by public opinion to more fairly cover the issues.

Re:15%

[DerWulf]

what the hell do you need an other centrist party for? Arn't the dems and reps enough anymore? how far to the common center of statist, socialist and enviromentalism do they need to move for you to be content? Would you even know a republican from a democrat if they wouldn't show the little 'D' and 'R' right next to their names?

The libertarian party is exactly what you describe: it draws the free marketeers, smaller government republicans and the pro civil liberties and anti war democrats.

Re:15%

[DerWulf]

yeah, because they can prep so well the rules of debate had been changed to being a joint press conference. No follow ups, no direkt questions between the canditates etc. etc.. They don't have anything but 'propaganda', empty words which could mean anything or nothing but invoke a warm, fuzzy feeling in the voter. The libertarians (and greens probably) got actual principals, a sharp contrast to the opportunism of the large parties. They would lose every 'free' debate because they haven't got the answers to the hard questions like 'how do you finance this', 'why should a country founded on the principals of individual liberties elevate equality to the highest goal', 'how can the fed.government dare to do anything other than the consitution provisions for' and so forth. How will you prep against questions you can't answer without either appearing as a liar (because of past actions) or as repressive (because you don't honour the constitution)?

Re:15%

[Anonymous Coward]

With regards to both major parties, the only thing to ever come out of an ass or elephant is piles of shit.

Re:15%

[True Grit]

Frankly, moderats are content to simply vote for Bush or Kerry.

Well with the absence of a third "moderate" alternative, then sure. My point is if you give them a realistic third option, they may NOT vote for the usual suspects. A lot of people went with Perot for example just to show dissatisfaction with the establishment.

but that is simply a self-perpetuating meme

Its self-perpetuating for a reason. :)

A vote for a 3rd party can actually have a much bigger impact on government policy than a vote for a major party.

Evidence for this?

In the last election the Democrats didn't care about Nader - now they REALLY care about him, but instead of engaging him they're just playing dirty tricks.

Well its the Reps who are working so hard to get Nader on the ballets, so who is really playing the dirty tricks here?

I don't see your logic. The Dems still don't care about Nader, they're just mad at him because he's running when he and everyone else knows he doesn't stand a chance in hell, and he's also running while Bush has no one running that would siphon votes from him. The only thing Nader can do is swing a few close states to Bush by taking crucial votes from Kerry, and a LOT of people see Bush as a hell of a lot worse than Kerry.

If they lose another election solely because of him maybe they'll start taking another look at his supporters and consider embracing the movement.

They can't and you know that. Just as the Reps can't accept Buchannon's crap into their main platform either. The difference is, Buchannon hasn't chosen to run in the primary and take votes away from Bush this time, and the Libertarians only cost Bush .39% in 2000 versus Nader taking 2.8% from Gore. Nader has no rational explanation for running in this election, knowing that the anger level against Bush is high this time, and thus anyone who effectively helps Bush is not going to be welcome by the center-left of the electorate this time. I don't think he *has* any supporters this time, except conservatives pretending to be ultra-liberal to get him on the ballot.

If you avoid voting third party because "anybody would be better than Bush" or "anybody would be better than Gore", then you'll be accepting whatever the major parties want to give you for a long time.

Until there is a "reasonable" 3rd party that I and many others would be willing to vote for, the point is moot. That was the whole point of my prior post. Fringe groups can't win elections, so voting for them is a waste. Deny that all you will, but it remains the truth.

if everybody is content to vote status quo.

As I said in my prior post, without a realistic alternative (a 3rd candidate that could actually win) smart people realize that they have no choice. If there is no real difference in the 2 usual suspects, then voting really doesn't matter. If one of the candidates is much worse than the other, then voting for the other party's candidate is the only logical way to keep the "worse" candidate out of office.

By definition, the status quo is what you get when no new viable alternatives are available.

Re:15%

[geomon]

Your blinded by your hatred of Bush/Dems/Repubs to admit the fact that being a Governer gives you more experiance running the US Government..

No, the criticism I have for Bush comes from experience.

I worked in office of the governor in my home state. They guy spent most of his day doing what a governor needs to do: meet with legislative aides and his staff to reconcile political differences over policy issues facing the state.

The heavy lifting of writing budgets, crafting alternative legislative language, preparing policy statements, and evaluating political appointments is done by the staff .

Your blind support and rage against anyone who isn't associated with a major party leaves you without a rational foundation on which to assess the fitness of anyone, including your next door neighbor, for the job of running a government. Who knows, your neighbor might do a better job than either of the major party candidates.

Politics isn't rocket science, but some people are better at it than others. Looking at Bush's resume in 2000 doesn't mean he was any more qualified to run the US government than any other schmuck off the street.

Keep in mind that there were 49 other governors in office when Bush sat in Austin. I think that you will agree that not all of them were qualified to be President.

Re:15%

[quisph]

Perot (whatever you thought of him) was a more legitimate "3rd option" since he was drawing from the discontented on both sides and it was within the realm of possibility that he could get close to 33% and really contest the race.

You're ignoring the most important reason why Perot came anywhere near 33%: Money.

I agree with most of what you say, as far as it goes... We do need a 3rd party candidate who can actually win. But the #1 deciding factor isn't whether the candidate is liberal, conservative, moderate, or somewhere on the fringes. It's whether or not he/she has the funding to compete with the Republicrats. Perot did. Which is not to say that being something of a moderate didn't help him, but it was ultimately not as important as the fact that he was a billionaire with money to burn.

Re:15%

[True Grit]

what the hell do you need an other centrist party for?

As an alternative to the 2 established parties which have been in power for so long they've taken their position for granted.

Would you even know a republican from a democrat if they wouldn't show the little 'D' and 'R' right next to their names?

I thought the little 'D' was really 'd'? :)

The libertarian party is exactly what you describe: it draws the free marketeers, smaller government republicans and the pro civil liberties and anti war democrats.

That's your description, not mine, my description of the current Lib party is very simple: "too extremist to ever win an election".

Re:15%

[DerWulf]

That's your description, not mine, my description of the current Lib party is very simple: "too extremist to ever win an election".

yeah, because we all know that compromise is the best way to reach good decisions.
'Sir, would you like your car green or yellow?' 'Hmm, maybe a little of both?'
'Would you like to go by boat or plane?' 'I'm not extremist either way. I want a compromise'
'Would you prefer to be dead or alive?' 'Decision, Decisions. Maybe a coma is best?'


I am not sure how people got the idea that 'extremisn' is something to be avoided. But you are right, something 'new' does not go over well with the voters, especially if they feel there votes would go wasted if only a minority would be voting the same way.

Re:15%

[hether]

Unfortunately in my state, you're not allowed to work at the polls if you are registered with no party - what they consider an independent. And currently you're only allowed to register as an R or D (or N, for no party), because we didn't have any other parties meet the 2% threshold for a statewide or federal race in 2002. So sorry! All actions would have to be taken remotely, not that I condone such actions anyway.

Re:15%

[hether]

Peroutka was unable to attend the Miami third-party debate due to a scheduled event in Utah, but he was invited and will be at future third party debates.

Nader opts out

[14erCleaner]

Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who has been invited to participate in the open format debate, has not yet accepted the invitation.

Obviously Ralph is holding out for an invitation to the Kerry-Bush debate. Or else he's afraid to set foot in Florida after the problems he caused in 2000.

Re:Nader opts out

[geomon]

So Nader should have jettisoned his campaign to save Gore?

So we could have an inept Gore Administration in the place of an equally inept Bush Administration?

Gore lost Florida because of Gore.

Re:Nader opts out

[AceCaseOR]

Did Nader get on the ballot in any state? He didn't even get on the ballot in Oregon (yes, it was on a technicality, but a legit one, as radical parties and lobbyists on both sides of the spectrum have played games in the past with petition signatiures).

And I'm sure his calling the Oregon election board "facists" didn't help things any (to my knowledge, the only people in Oregon who throw "facist" around with regard to the state government are the local Anarchists - though almost everyone calls the Portland Police Department that, but not to their faces).

Re:Nader opts out

[Anonymous Coward]

"Equally inept"? Don't make me laugh.

Re:Nader opts out

[Mr. Slippery]

Or else he's afraid to set foot in Florida after the problems he caused in 2000.

The Republicans disenfranchise thousands, Gore play some of the worst politics seen on the national stage in years, and it's Nader who should be afraid to show his face in Florida?

Re:Nader opts out

[Anonymous Coward]

An inept administration would be better than an actively evil administration.

Re:Nader opts out

[damiam]

So Nader should have jettisoned his campaign to save Gore?

He should have asked his voters in swing states to vote for Gore, and Gore voters in non-swing states to vote for him.

So we could have an inept Gore Administration in the place of an equally inept Bush Administration?

We'll never know what Gore's administration would have been like. I'm fairly sure, though, that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, which would leave the world a much safer place at the moment.

Gore lost Florida because of Gore.

True. Gore also lost Florida because of Nadar. Multiple factors can lead to a single event.

Re:Nader opts out

[Anonymous Coward]

Whos Nadar? Is he related to Radar from M*A*S*H? I loved that show.

Re:Nader opts out

[LordNimon]

He should have asked his voters in swing states to vote for Gore, and Gore voters in non-swing states to vote for him.

Absolutely not. People should vote for whomever they want as president, regardless as to whether they think that person will win or whether they are in a swing state. To suggest anything less is undemocratic.

Re:Nader opts out

[Anonymous Coward]

Gore would have been much less likely to piss off most of europe. Europeans really do have weapons of mass destruction, unlike some other nations I could mention.

Re:Nader opts out

[aardvarkjoe]

He should have asked his voters in swing states to vote for Gore, and Gore voters in non-swing states to vote for him.

Only if Nader's primary goal was to defeat Bush. And as far as I can tell, he's the only candidate who doesn't have that as his only goal.

Re:Nader opts out

[killjoe]

"So we could have an inept Gore Administration in the place of an equally inept Bush Administration?"

I don't know about "equally inept". I am of the opinion that my dog would have done a better job of being the president that bush has.

Re:Nader opts out

[killjoe]

" Did Nader get on the ballot in any state? "

Sure, in lots of them. Republicans made sure of that. See florida for example.

Re:Nader opts out

[geomon]

I am of the opinion that my dog would have done a better job of being the president that bush has.

Get his name on as many of the 50 state ballots as you can, publish his platform, and I'll have a look at 'em.

Oh, wait.... What breed is sh/e?

Can't be too careful.

Re:Nader opts out

[killjoe]

"Oh, wait.... What breed is sh/e?"

Border Collie.

I called one of his toys "abu nidal" and the other one "abu abbas". He was able to tell the difference after about five tries.

Re:Nader opts out

[damiam]

The plurality/electoral college system is undemocratic. If 35% of poeple want Gore, 25% want a more liberal candidate, and 40% want Bush, then Bush wins even though the will of the people is clearly against him. When states divide their electors to reflect the actual vote, and/or when we switch to approval or instant runoff voting, then people will be able to effectively vote for the person they actually want to be president. As it is, such a move would make perfect sense on Nader's part.

Re:Nader opts out

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll never know what Gore's administration would have been like. I'm fairly sure, though, that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, which would leave the world a much safer place at the moment.


Ummmm...

If Bush Jr hadn't been elected would there be any chance that anyone on earth would believe he would have been engaged in the most ambitious nation building exercise ever by 2003?

No?

You have no idea what a Gore presidency would or would not have brought.

I'm no Bush fan (far from it) but the idea that Gore couldn't possibly have made a worse mess than Bush has is absurd.

Re:Nader opts out

[timeOday]

If I vote for Nader, which I might, it will be partly because I didn't want to vote for Bush or Kerry. Like many others, I don't like Bush, but I happen to dislike Kerry equally. The nature of the Bush/Kerry debate is exactly what I don't like about them - they're completely phony.

I can't vote for the lesser of two evils, because I don't view either as much "less evil" overall. Besides, since neither my vote nor that of my entire state have ever mattered in an election, the practical implications of my vote are null. So why lodge a vote I don't feel good about?

Given this, I would be annoyed if my "third-party" vote were interpreted as belonging to Kerry in some way.

Re:Nader opts out

[Daetrin]

He should have asked his voters in swing states to vote for Gore, and Gore voters in non-swing states to vote for him.

Personally i think what he _should_ have done was get a written and signed agreement with Gore/the DNC that if they won the election he would have been given a cabinet level position or that they would support certain legislation. In excchange for this Nader would instruct his supporters to vote for Gore but tell the exit pollers that they voted for Nader.

Of course that would have been sane and reasonable, and i might even have defected from the democrats under that deal if Nader was that kind of person. However Nader is an just as much an unethical liar as any other politician, and he wasn't willing to place his professed beliefs ahead of his ego.

Re:Nader opts out

[fyngyrz]

The plurality/electoral college system is undemocratic.

Undemocratic? The USA is a republic, not a democracy. Wake up and smell the inevitability, Mr. Anderson. Presidential elections have nothing at all to do with democracy. Your representatives decide, you don't. It's designed that way, and it wasn't an accident. If you want to change it, it'll take more than getting the greens or the libertarians to field a candidate. The system is broken.

Imagine, just for a moment, that a libertarian manages to get elected as president (extremely unlikely, of course, but bear with me... please imagine an undetectable voting machine malfunction in the electoral college.) Of course, this new president has a democratic/republican congress. Exactly how much do you think he or she could get accomplished?

I'll tell you. The answer is zero because your "representatives" control everything as a small group of highly priviledged individuals with amazing perks, security and almost complete lack of accountability. Not you. And not the president, either. The president has precisely one area in which the officeholder is allowed some freedom of action: Foreign policy. Mind you, congress controls the funding, so it turns out this is mostly illusory, but he can at least talk to other country's ambassadors, if only to complain how unable he is to do anything. For good or ill, that's the way it is.

Now, repeat after me:

• The USA is not a democracy.
• The USA never was a democracy.
• I cannot elect a president.
• I have no control.
• I cannot formulate law.
• I cannot accept or reject law.
• I cannot cause law to be enforced.
• I cannot cause law to be disregarded.
• I will pay my taxes or I will be jailed.

Re:Nader opts out

[SirKodiak]

The USA is a republic, not a democracy.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

"democracy
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law:

"democracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"

So, we fall under the dictionary definition of a democracy. What we are not is a direct democracy.

Even under your definitions, however, the USA is a democratic republic, which would mean a question of something being undemocratic would be perfectly valid.

Re:Nader opts out

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you are your dog exibit similar levels of intelligence.
And don't take it wrong, this is a complement to you - not to the dog.

Re:Nader opts out

[metamatic]

Al Gore didn't want any of the votes of Nader supporters.

If Gore had wanted Nader supporters to vote for him, he would have debated Nader and attempted to win over his supporters. He didn't, so clearly he wasn't interested in their votes. He got his wish. I see no problem with that.

Similarly, Kerry is apparently so confident that he doesn't feel any need for the votes of Green Party supporters. More fool him.

Re:Nader opts out

[damiam]

Al Gore didn't want any of the votes of Nader supporters.

I don't know what you're smoking. Al Gore, like all politicians, wanted all the votes he could get.

If Gore had wanted Nader supporters to vote for him, he would have debated Nader and attempted to win over his supporters.

That would be pointless, because Nader voters generally are quite sure that they favor Nader on the issues. The question for them was not "do I prefer Gore to Nader?", because they've already decided "no". The question was "will my beliefs be better served by a Nader or Gore vote?".

Similarly, I'm sure Kerry would love all the Nader/Green/Libertarian/etc. votes he can get. But debating those candidates would gain him few of their supporters, and would alienate quite a few more of his centrist supporters.

Re:Nader opts out

[killjoe]

Oooh my first slashdot stalker. Too bad he is a pussy. hi pussy stalker! Are you jerking your little pud right now looking for my posts?

Re:Nader opts out

[fyngyrz]

No. The USA is not a "democratic republic" in the areas we're talking about. It is a pure republic, where laws are made without the input of the people, essentially by fiat, where presidents are elected not as the people want, but as the duly financed and power-machine inserted representatives of the military industrial complex decide.

Oh, we do get to choose between the two people that the machine produces. Fun, eh? So, let's examine the process. First, those with money (nominally the political parties, but of course what that really means is the big contributors to them) select who they are willing to back. Those people get up and say A, B and C and D, E and F, respectively. We are supposed to listen to this, and elect the person we want, based upon the specific issue-wise representations they make to us and the general beliefs they espouse. So, many of us play - and we vote.

These people then go to Washington, or the state capital, or where-ever, and turn right around and do exactly the opposite of the thing they claimed they would do. What can we do about this? Nothing. Not for four long years, or two in some cases. Suppose we get really, really annoyed... then the political party puts up another approved candidate, and we do it again. And they do it again.

The presidential race is the same, only we don't actually get to choose, the electoral college does that. Keeping in mind that the president doesn't get to do anything significant unless the congress goes along - and that is a body that is entirely machine.

How many times have we heard about votes in congress that go right up and down the aisle? They're not voting for their districts, they're voting in lockstep, as a machine. I think it was Mark Twain that said (paraphrasing, because I really don't remember the details, just the sense of it): "There are two things you don't want to see made: Sausage, and law."

The electoral college is certainly the most blatant example of "screw you very much, thanks for playing" because the public is given the illusion of being an active participant, but lawmaking is quite similar, simply minus the illusion - lawmakers do what they want, when they want, without any particular regard for what the people want.

Driven 55 in a 55 zone lately? If you have, how many people tried to get around you? All of them? Yeah, I thought so. :) How about sexuality? I know for a fact I've broken this state's sex laws (and I'm most pleased to say so - Retardo the Representative can stay the hell out of my sex life.) I hope you have too, for the sake of your mental health. Did you know that some of these clowns have made genital piercings illegal? - not dangerous ones, mind you, just "genital", end of story. How about the "drug war", and how about fair, understandable, equally applied taxes? How about the fact that laws are often - perhaps mostly - made in trade; "I'll vote for this if you'll vote for that"; you think that's... democratic???

If you choose to live in a world of imaginary political friends, that's fine. But don't try to tell me that they're doing democracy for us. Hardly!

Do you really want to stand up and tell me that these laws were made in anything remotely resembling a "democratic" fashion? We all know what democratic really means - it means that the majority decides. It doesn't mean anything more than that, and it certainly doesn't mean that the majority gets to vote, and the representatives get to ignore that vote, or that we "vote in" representatives who then have zero requirement to do what they said they would do. Yet, that is precisely what we have here in the USA.

I guess I don't care what you call it, in the end. It is what it is, and that is a pile of steaming, stinking, non-biodegradable dung. If this is democracy, then we need something radically different. It doesn't serve us. We serve it. That's bass-ackwards.

Re:Nader opts out

[carlivar]

Imagine, just for a moment, that a libertarian manages to get elected as president (extremely unlikely, of course, but bear with me... please imagine an undetectable voting machine malfunction in the electoral college.) Of course, this new president has a democratic/republican congress. Exactly how much do you think he or she could get accomplished?

The answer is not zero, as you stated. The president can:

veto stuff from Congress (which with a Libertarian president, would probably be absolutely everything that comes across his or her desk)

appoint a Cabinet, Supreme Court judges, etc.

Pardon prisoners (I've never understood why the President has the power to do this but anyway...). Imagine a Libertarian president pardoning every single non-violent drug offender. That would clear up a lot of room in our prisons for real criminals!

Carl

Re:Nader opts out

[fyngyrz]

The president can:

veto stuff from Congress (which with a Libertarian president, would probably be absolutely everything that comes across his or her desk)

...and they can, in turn, override that veto. Buzz.

appoint a Cabinet, Supreme Court judges, etc.

The president nominates, and then the nomination has to be approved... by the senate. So, in all actuality, the senate does the appointing. Buzz.

Pardon prisoners (I've never understood why the President has the power to do this but anyway...). Imagine a Libertarian president pardoning every single non-violent drug offender. That would clear up a lot of room in our prisons for real criminals!

Well, you sure got me that time. He could indeed do that. The only limit on pardons is for impeachment; which is kind of funny, because I think impeachment would follow immediately upon the heels of any such action, thus limiting this to either an end-of-term act or one of political suicide, but that is only an IMHO. Good point. No, great point. I'll definitely have to think about that one. <sweeping bow>Tips Hat</sweeping bow>

Re:Nader opts out

[pommiekiwifruit]

An inept administration would be better than an actively evil administration.

Unfortunately that seems not to be what most voters think. "My country right or wrong" remember?

Re:Nader opts out

[Anonymous Coward]

If Bush Jr hadn't been elected would there be any chance that anyone on earth would believe he would have been engaged in the most ambitious nation building exercise ever by 2003?

Well those who had read his associates' published plans for world domination might have.

Re:Nader opts out

[metamatic]

So, why bother with debates at all then?

Re:Nader opts out

[geomon]

Ah, border collies!

I would say that they are a bit too hyper for me, but I have two german shorthairs.

I did hear a radio broadcast attesting to the intelligence of border collies and I was impressed. They are quite bright.

My shorthair, on the other hand, is too excitable to be a good president. He can't concentrate on anything but birds.

That pretty much leaves out my springer and my black lab too.

Would your border collie consider my black lab for Secretary of Defense? He can be pretty intimidating.

Re:Nader opts out

[LaCosaNostradamus]

What problems did Nader cause in Florida? The last I heard, he was simply on the ballot and people were free to vote for him.

Re:Nader opts out

[fyngyrz]

Love the "troll" moderation, thanks so much. :) Obviously, I was simply trying to stir people up, I wasn't trying to present my point of view.

Slashdot: Where any idiot can be a moderator.

Re:Nader opts out

[Dyolf Knip]

Each branch has power over the decisions made by the others, but it's designed to take much greater effort to do so in the 2nd round. So while Congress could theoretically override every Presidential veto, doing so requires a 2/3rds majority, which ixnays the majority of anything Congress wants to pass. Historically, very few things that got vetoed got passed verbatim over it.

And if there was something really atrocious like the PATRIOT or DMCA, which very likely would have been overridden, he wouldn't just veto it. He'd do a fireside chat kind of deal and say, "You won't believe the shit your reps just tried to pull" and explain why it's such a godawful piece of crap. I _seriously_ doubt that our congresscritters would have passed PATRIOT if it had been read to them, with commentary, for the first time with all their constituents as co-audience.

because I think impeachment would follow immediately upon the heels of any such action

True, but the deed would be done nonetheless. Anyways I doubt Badnarik would start with something that massive. He'd begin by gutting the DEA's of their gestapo mandate and putting them in a regulatory position with the FDA, combined with putting pressure on state govs to stop pursuing drug cases. After the world _doesn't_ end, then he'd start by pardoning the oldest and most heinously unjust cases, guys who've been sent up for life because they had a single joint on them, things like that.

Re:Nader opts out

[fyngyrz]

The thing about the 2/3rd majority is that the situation has always been that you either have a dem or rep president; when the thing goes back for a second pass, the presidents party will (because it is a machine, rather than a group of individuals acting in conscience) act to support, and the opposing party will act to counter.

In the case where the sitting president is libertarian, there will be no machine acting in support, and so they will all be against his veto. My take is that this situation would make the 2/3 majority much easier to obtain. I freely admit I'm extrapolating into the unknown, but that really seems most likely to me.

Regarding the drug imprisonments, I rather prefer the idea of letting all the nonviolent ones go, all at once. This would be such a humanitarian act that I would revere the perpetrator of the pardon as a true hero, in every sense of the word. And no, I don't do drugs (or drink), nor would I do drugs if they were legal. I just think you should be able to if you want to. As long as you don't drive or otherwise act to put me at direct risk for your funmaking.

Re:Nader opts out

[Dyolf Knip]

the situation has always been that you either have a dem or rep president

Yeah, that had occurred to me. It's been so long since we had a very minority candidate in the White House there's really no way to say what would happen. My guess would be it would depend on the circumstances regarding the veto (cop out!). The minority pres can't simply veto it and expect his party to back him up. He has to get enough of Congress not to vote for it again. He has to be polite and convincing, but willing to shame them where applicable, otherwise they'll simply gang up on him and double-pass everything like you said. Personally, I think the whole affair would be truly fascinating to watch.

I rather prefer the idea of letting all the nonviolent ones go, all at once. This would be such a humanitarian act

Well hell, I like you already. But politics is the art of the posible, right? There's too many people and reps out there who have either bought into the Reefer Madness propaganda or else have their livelihood tied into the War on Some Drugs. And they would simply _riot_ at the idea of letting all those dangerous drug users out.

Re:Nader opts out

[killjoe]

Secy of defense surely needs to go to an airdale. Black Lab is an ideal candidate for a secy of health and human services.

Actually although border collies can be hyper if you make sure they get enough exercize they are quite a pleasure.

Re:Nader opts out

[fyngyrz]

There's too many people and reps out there who have either bought into...

You might be interested in reading this, which I wrote some time ago:

The Drug Problem

Lets start by admitting the obvious. The "war on drugs" hasn't reduced drug usage. The global drug market is valued annually at 400 billion dollars a year as of 1998. That's more than the oil industry. A great deal of that value is a direct result of the criminalization of drugs; if drugs were legal, they'd be less costly (and of course, we'd spend less on the government's "war"). The global drug market's value would go down.

So. What is the "drug problem"? We can answer that fairly easily, I think, by:

1. Looking at who is hurt by the current situation, and what about the situation is it that hurts them?
2. Looking at who benefits by the current situation, and what about it benefits them?

First of all, there are four classes of people involved. In some cases they overlap. It's useful to identify the classes as an aid to visualization. They are:

1. Consumers
2. Suppliers
3. Anti-drug forces
4. Those not directly involved in the above three classes.

The street prices of drugs are directly related to supply and demand, and of course to the usual metrics for any product, such as quality, variety, and marketing strategies.

The anti-drug forces work to reduce the supply. This increases the costs to the consumer. In fact, it is the key factor in increasing the costs to the point where it is worthwhile to pursue drug supply as a career. This is nothing else but trivial economics.

So the suppliers increase the price, and as some of them go out of business as a result of the anti-drug forces actions, others obtain a tighter hold upon a particular market segment. The suppliers who remain active after any anti-drug force action clearly benefit. So it is clear that it is in the best interest of the suppliers who are not interfered with by the anti-drug forces to see other suppliers bear the brunt of such action. Again, this is nothing more than trivially simple logic and common economic interactions.

In order to avoid such action by the anti-drug forces, suppliers go armed as a matter of course. This aids them in both potential clashes with other suppliers, and with the anti-drug forces. Drug suppliers are killed, anti-drug force members are killed, and occasionally consumers and uninvolved individuals are also killed. This, I believe, is a direct result of this area of commerce being illegal. These problems don't occur in the purveying of coffee, for instance, a medium strength legal stimulant. That's because it is legal, and not profitable to handle as an underground product.

Who benefits from all this? Funds go to jails, police forces, politicians have issues to discuss that allow them to avoid boring (but critically important) issues such as the country's infrastructure, the incredibly complicated and unfair legal and tax systems, etc.

Who is hurt by this? Many consumers and some suppliers are spending time in jail, at a fairly high cost to the average citizen. Poor quality drugs kill large numbers of consumers every year. The financial cost of this underground commerce takes directly away from the resources that these consumers could spread around elsewhere. Kids have direct access to drugs as a result of them being in the street, instead of in the stores. It's pretty easy to see who is really hurt, isn't it?

Medical costs are now also borne by the average citizen. If drugs were legal, and subject to taxation, there would be an available alternative for funding whatever problems remain. Interesting to think about.

My position here is that if drugs were legal, then these costs would not occur (and those in the anti-drug forces would have to find productive jobs).

Individual consumers are being hurt by the war on dr

Re:Nader opts out

[carlivar]

veto stuff from Congress (which with a Libertarian president, would probably be absolutely everything that comes across his or her desk)

...and they can, in turn, override that veto. Buzz.

But overriding vetos is harder than passing legislation, if I remember correctly from junior high. So it would still make some sort of difference, even if it is only a delay.

appoint a Cabinet, Supreme Court judges, etc.

The president nominates, and then the nomination has to be approved... by the senate. So, in all actuality, the senate does the appointing. Buzz.

Then how did Reagan get conservative justices appointed at all in the 80's with a Democratic congress? By your definition it should have been impossible. Buzz back.

Carl

Re:Nader opts out

[fyngyrz]

Then how did Reagan get conservative justices appointed at all in the 80's with a Democratic congress? By your definition it should have been impossible.

No, by my definition the president didn't get them appointed, the Senate did. I never said that the senate wouldn't act to confirm a presidents suggestions, I just said that the senate made the decision, not the president. The specific point being that a libertarian president could not appoint judges, as that is not a presidential power; he can only nominate them.

I think it is only reasonable to think that if a sitting libertarian tried to nominate, his nominees would be scrutinized quite strongly, and probably there would be resistance "on principle" (which is kind of funny because that actually indicates a lack of principles, but there you go...)

Regarding a congressional override of a veto, my feeling is that an override would be much easier to get with a libertarian president and a republican and democratic congress. No one would be on the president's side, and as I mentioned earlier, the parties do tend to work as machines - voting in lockstep, etc. The 2/3rds majority required for an override seems like a lot less of a tough threshold when no one in congress, or very few, are of the president's party.

Do keep in mind I lean very hard towards the libertarian position on most things. However, I think of myself as a realist when it comes to what I think possible to achieve. As you probably know, most optimists call realists, pessimists. :)

Re:Nader opts out

[bckrispi]

So what do we have in common with the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea??

Re:"Real" debates

[strictfoo]

Yes, but Kerry will give the straight answers, as he always does!

Both candidates shovel tons of BS as does any politician.

what are your objections

[avandesande]

What are your objections to the rules of the presidential debate? they seem pretty reasonable to me.

Re:what are your objections

[James Lewis]

There are a ton of rules, but I think the most recent changes that had some people angry was that it is traditional to allow audience members to ask questions "town meeting" style. Instead new rules state that audience members will submit questions to the moderator before hand, and are not allowed to in any way deviate from their submitted questions, make comments, etc.

Re:what are your objections

[questionlp]

Are you sure you read through the PDF linked in the article summary? This was discussed on last Friday's NOW with Bill Moyers on PBS. The conditions and restrictions imposed and agreed by both the Democrat and Republican candidates and parties make sure that everything is as scripted, planned and sugar coated as possible. I believe all questions that are asked must be submitted to the CPD and approved by both parties before they can be scripted , filtered and asked.

The fact that both parties and the CPD have squeezed out non-Republicrats from the debates makes sure that people watching the debates (the numbers have dwindled since the CPD took over the debates after the League of Women Voters stepped out over the demands of the two main parties) continue to think that other parties are not serious or even contending. It also helps perpetuate the problem of corporate interests who are contributing to both candidates, both parties, the so called "non-partisan" (and private) CPD, and pay for the debates. By doing so, they pretty much have bought even more shares in the mind of both candidates and hope to make them more sympathetic to the problems facing those companies.

Re:what are your objections

[millahtime]

This does 2 things though....

1) It stops people from asking stupid questions or ones that aren't on the agreed topics. The debates each have specific topics and there are a lot of areas being covered in a small amount of time.

2) Saves time. Going to the Aud for questions vs having a list. It's is a time saver and keeps things organized.

Re:what are your objections

[formzero]

go to OpenDebates.org. Click on "issue" if you want the full scoop on the objections. Do you support scripted debates with no invites to 3rd,4th,5th party candidates?

From OpenDebates.org: Under CPD sponsorship, the major party candidates secretly design all the elements of the formats. Consequently, challenging questions, assertive moderators, follow-up questions, candidate-to-candidate questioning, rebuttals and surrebuttals are often excluded from the presidential debates. The CPD's formats prevent in-depth examination of critical issues, and allow the candidates to the deliver pre-packaged soundbites that are repeated over, and over, and over again on the campaign trail.

Presidential debates were run by the civic-minded and non-partisan League of Women Voters until 1988, when the national Republican and Democratic parties seized control of the debates by establishing the bi-partisan, corporate-sponsored Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Posing as a nonpartisan institution committed to voter education, the CPD has continually and deceptively run the debates in the interest of the national Republican and Democratic parties, not the American people.

Re:what are your objections

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

What are your objections to the rules of the presidential debate? they seem pretty reasonable to me.

Are you joking?

* Exclusion of third-party candidates: This is a problem because, without appearing on debates and being otherwise shut out of the media, third-party candidates have a hard time getting their message across. Polls indicate that the majority of Americans want more views expressed and candidates present in our debates, but the commission denies them this.

* Under-handed questions: Not only are topics that are to be discussed known beforehand, but there are virtually no surprises or tough questions. Answers are therefore heavily scripted, repetative, and boring. Viewership for the debates has declined steadily over the years.

* "Taboo" subjects ignored entirely: I think it is important to hear the Greens/Libertarians/Independants view on the legitimacy of the multibillion dollar war on drugs, and to hear Kerry's/Bush's defense of it. How come this issue is not discussed? Oh, that's right - its off limits for some reason. The War on Drugs is just a drop in the bucket - there are many more issues that deserve thorough and diverse debate, but are ignored entirely.

The truth of the matter is that Kerry and Bush would have a hard time defending themselves against any of the three parties I mentioned. The "Commission" (which is made up of the two major parties) is really just protecting their interests by excluding them, at the expense of an informed American public. How anyone could continue to vote for the two major parties is beyond me...

Re:what are your objections

[damiam]

The candidates aren't even allowed to talk to one another or ask questions, and there's almost no time for rebuttal or follow-up. What remains is two interleaved speeches, not a debate.

Re:what are your objections

[HeghmoH]

It also does one more thing, namely, prevents the debates from being at all meaningful. Given the choices, I'd rather have an unruly debate with lots of stupid questions and time wasting than have two guys spending an hour parroting their party line before stepping off the stage.

Re:what are your objections

[Mnemia]

I think the whole concept of using polling as a way of deciding eligibility is pretty morally bankrupt. I've suspected for a while that the reason for that is to make it possible for the major parties to manipulate third parties out of the contest. Perot gave them a good scare in '92, and they've been tightening the screws on our republic ever since.

Eligibility should be decided on a more legalistic basis: if the electoral votes of the states that a candidate is officially ballot-qualified for exceeds 270, then the candidate should get a chance to debate because they have a real chance of being elected. Arguing that they do not have a chance because they are not a Republican or Democrat becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only person who could possibly argue that a candidate that is ballot-qualified in 30+ states doesn't even deserve a chance to debate the other candidates is either a partisan shill or someone who has been manipulated by the partisan shills, IMHO.

Think about that: thanks to the "system" for ballot access that has been put into place, the minor party candidates have collected signatures from tens of thousands of voters all over the country. They have met the legal requirements for ballot access in many cases. But they aren't even given a chance to have a serious policy debate, because the debates are now controlled by the "major" parties. Those parties have concluded that the opinions of all those tens of thousands of people who signed petitions for Nader, Badnarik, et al don't mean shit to them as long as they can hold onto power without having to run the country well. Nice what our republic is turning into.

Re:what are your objections

[pokeyburro]

Given the choices, I'd rather have an unruly debate with lots of stupid questions and time wasting than have two guys spending an hour parroting their party line before stepping off the stage.

Given the above choice, either way I'll get zero from either candidate.

Re:what are your objections

[Drakon]

Having specific topics is part of what most of the people opposed are arguing AGAINST, since it can lead to ignoring issues that neither candidate wants to talk about (Like the looming 70 trillion dollar deficit when everyone retires all of a sudden)

PS: you are now listed as a foe, because no person of sound mind can also be a republican, and I don't like people who are not of sound mind.

Re:what are your objections

[Pig Bodine]

The town hall format for presidential debates originated in 1992 with Bush, Clinton and Perot and isn't particularly traditional. That being said, I don't see the point to it if they are constraining those who are asking the questions.

Re:what are your objections

[Bendebecker]

The fact that it isn't an actual debate. I heard about the rules on the news. No canidate can ask the other a question (though they can ask rehtorical questions). No true rebuttels on anything. The mod asks a question, each gives his response, and that's about it. The result? You can basically cut and paste what the canidates said at other speeches and come up with what's going to be said during this debate. Its a joint press conference, not a debate.

Re:what are your objections

[Anonymous Coward]

the major party candidates secretly design all the elements

Seriously, tinfoil hat man. How is that 'secret' if everyone knows about it?

Re:what are your objections

[siliconjunkie]

What are your objections to the rules of the presidential debate? they seem pretty reasonable to me.

Section 5, Subsection (F) Reads:

"The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions."

I don't understand this. I didn't do the whole "debate team" stuff in high school and maybe I'm just uninformed, but is this how debates work? How come the two debates can't ask each other direct questions.

I know that when I am debating things with my friends, the asking of direct questions plays a central role in articulating individual positions on the topic being debated about.

It seems to me that these rules, and this rule in particular takes away from the entire purpose of having a debate. These debates could serve as an opportunity to see how each individual candidate thinks "on their feet" and to observe how well they are able to articulate themselves on their position, but when you take away a basic characteristic of "debating" as this rule does, all you will most likely end up with is a 90 minute rehash of the commercials we have been seeing for the past few months.

Re:what are your objections

[Anonymous Coward]

"third-party candidates have a hard time getting their message across."

It's way too late in the game, but they could buy airtime, or they could have a platform that carries enough interest among people who can campaign for them on their own dime, or they could appeal to enough people that their sheer popularity makes the idea of "exclusion" a non-issue.

"Answers are therefore heavily scripted, repetative, and boring."

You are already writing your editorial review for an event that has not even happened yet.

Re:what are your objections

[IndependentVik]

How could you tell grandparent was a Republican from what he wrote there? Do you go through the posting history of everyone you reply to for their political affiliation? That seems like a bit much.

Re:what are your objections

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.

I'd suggest that if you were even thinking about using one news source as your only news source then you already have brain damage.

Re:what are your objections

[Anonymous Coward]

How could you tell grandparent was a Republican from what he wrote there?

His sig is a link to his web site...

Re:what are your objections

[smyle]

Having specific topics is part of what most of the people opposed are arguing AGAINST, since it can lead to ignoring issues that neither candidate wants to talk about (Like the looming 70 trillion dollar deficit when everyone retires all of a sudden)

This republican wholeheartedly agrees with you.

PS: you are now listed as a foe, because no person of sound mind can also be a republican, and I don't like people who are not of sound mind.

Score one for open-minded debate.

...and no, I really don't care if you list me as a foe either. It seems to me that that this statement goes directly against your previous implied assertion that it is a bad thing not to want to debate something.

Re:what are your objections

[Drakon]

I think people who pretend to be friends while disagreeing on basic philosophies of life, the universe, and everything, are lying to themselves.

This goes for Republicans and Democrats, as well as Greens and Libertarians.
Just because I list you as a foe doesn't mean I'm not willing to listen to what you have to say.

Re:what are your objections

[Vellmont]

I think people who pretend to be friends while disagreeing on basic philosophies of life, the universe, and everything


There's more to life than politics and basic philosphies of life. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can chill out a bit.

Re:what are your objections

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

... they could buy airtime ... or they could have a platform that carries enough interest among people who can campaign for them on their own dime

And third-parties do both of these things. However, the simple fact remains that you cannot reach nearly as many people through such means as you could with just one televised debate. Look at Ross Perot - he was by no means an excellent candidate (not nearly as qualified as someone like Ralph Nader, for example), and yet he did very well in the elections that year (something like 20% of the vote). Why? Simply because he was treated like the other two candidates in the media. When there were debates, he was with them. When the newspapers were talking about issues and the various candidate's positions on them, he was included. He was not deemed a spoiler - he was simply a candidate, just like any other. It is unfortunate, but the media makes and breaks these candidates.

... or they could appeal to enough people that their sheer popularity makes the idea of "exclusion" a non-issue

They are trying, but again, when you are ignored by the media, this is a difficult thing to do.

You are already writing your editorial review for an event that has not even happened yet.

I was speaking of past elections, of course. I am not a psychic - for all I know, this may be the best "debate" ever... but if the past is any indicator, there will be no big surprises or any real discourse this year, either.

Re:what are your objections

[Bull999999]

PS: you are now listed as a foe, because no person of sound mind can also be a republican, and I don't like people who are not of sound mind.

I guess you'd better list me as a foe since I'm a Republican as well. BTW, I registered as a Republican back in 2000 to support Sen. McCain. I also joined the College Republicans, where its members were planning on voting for Bush by default. I've talked them into giving Sen. McCain a chance and they agreed to join me to hear him speak when he has planning to come to town.

I also had many friends who were in the College Democrats that were Bradley supports. Bradley was my second choice so I organized a bipartisan effort between the College Republicans and Democrats (wasn't too hard since most of us were moderats) for on-campus voter registration drive. Sadly, both McCain and Bradley lost the primaries, and no, I did not vote for either Bush or Gore.

I'm not planning on voting for Bush this year, but I may end up voting for Kerrey as "lesser of two evils" depending on what he says on the debate.

Personally, I think that no person of sound mind can also sterotype so blantly, but just disagreeing with me doesn't necessarily make you wrong (although I reserve the right to disagree), and thus will not have you or anyone else on my foe list. Life's too short to be closed minded, IMHO.

Re:what are your objections

[bluGill]

There is no such things as two thinking people who AGREE on everything. Many people find disagreement fun in less important issues. I'm not the only one who sometimes plays devils advocate when everyone is agreeing on something.

Sure if we disagree one everything, there is no chance to be friends, but that is unlikely, if not impossible. Perhaps all we agree on is we like football (even though I like the Vikings and you like the Packers), that is enough to argue stats for months on end. Odds are we are smart enough to recognize it doesn't matter, and respect the other for standing up for a dumb team...

American flag?

[Drakonian]

A little OT but...

How long has this American flag background been on the Politics section? I only noticed today. Does this exclude discussion of non-American politics?

Re:American flag?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're new here, aren't you?

Re:American flag?

[flint]

You're just jealous of our freedoms.

Re:American flag?

[AvantLegion]

How long has this American flag background been on the Politics section? I only noticed today. Does this exclude discussion of non-American politics?

Yes. Burn, commie!

Actually, that's a good question. I don't see how the flat would mean that anything else is off-limits, though. It's just the most common focus.

Re:American flag?

[DogDude]

Slashdot FAQ

Re:American flag?

[EMH_Mark3]

About the same time that they made a politics section, afaik.

Re:American flag?

[chamblah]

That was asked when this section was created and I posted this as a reply to it.

I still think that it applies.

Re:American flag?

[Anonymous Coward]

How long has this American flag background been on the Politics section?

Be thankful that Slashdot isn't covering your country's politics. The United States topic doesn't even have all 13 stripes on the flag. It either has 11 or 12, depending on how you look at it, and it's been mentioned about a bazillion times already. Been this way since March 2002.

Re:American flag?

[Keebler71]

What banner would better symbolize politics (considering of course that this is a US-centric site)? Perhaps the word "Slashdot" emblazened across a $100 dollar bill? Or maybe a butterfly ballot?

Re:American flag?

[SuperDuG]

Its obvious that you're not "with us" therefore you must be "against us".

People in other nations say americans suffer from "exceptionalism" ... we'd hate to prove them wrong.

Re:American flag?

[Le Marteau]

What banner would better symbolize politics...?

Oh, I don't know. A silhouette representing the sodomy scene from Deliverance?

Re:American flag?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting link but it seems a bit insensitive of them to comment on the vastness of their American readers. It's probably kind to put it down to glands, or possibly a heavy bone structure.

Re:American flag?

[upsidedown_duck]

Does this exclude discussion of non-American politics?

Did Slashdot block off non-USA IP addresses to the politics section? Nope.

I'd actually like to hear more non-US input to the politics section. The USA is so large that most people growing up here never need to cross an international border, which inevitably leads to a lack of knowledge regarding other countries (even Canada and Mexico).

There are issues in the US campaigns right now that other countries have already addressed or at least debated in one form or another. An obvious one is health care, for example. If anything, providing information about whether Canada's or Great Britain's health care systems are any good or not can only help people in the US better understand the issue. It would also be very interesting to hear about what foreign media report about the US, since American media is understandably biased (American journalists reporting on American events).

Re:American flag?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just jealous of our freedoms.

Do you mean the freedom americans have to get fucked by a retarded political system?

Do you mean the freedom americans have to choose by which moron they will get fucked for the next 4 years?

If you'd have a democracy you'd have better candidates and a less corrupted administration (unless you love to get it from behind by Cheney and Wolfowitz).

I shouldn't forget to say that the other morons, condoleeza and the asshole that was not informed Irak was going to be attacked, are of negligible importance!!

Re:American flag?

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally think that an all-black flag with a bunch of little white question marks all over it would be more appropriate.

Re:American flag?

[ediron2]

[me: clicks link on Slashdot FAQ] .... mumble mumble... us-centric... mumble... omlette... mumble Jon Katz

Ack!

Curse you, I thought I'd finally gotten to a point where I'd never see *his* name again!

Re:American flag?

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

Prepare to be liberated!

Re:American flag?

[aggiefalcon01]

You're new here aren't you?

And, yes, it's always been here. The issue you bring up was mentioned, and discussed some (I don't know what came of it).

Re:American flag?

[pjt33]

Is that addressed to Drakonian or flint?

Re:American flag?

[pjt33]

Last Modified: 10/28/00

I wonder whether it's still true.

Re:American flag?

[Kombat]

which inevitably leads to a lack of knowledge regarding other countries (even Canada and Mexico).

To be fair though, <OB_SIMPSONS>it's easy to miss Canada, all tucked away down there.</OB_SIMPSONS>

Re:American flag?

[huge colin]

Why was parent modded "funny", exactly?

One would think that the US citizens who bitch endlessly about the political state in the US would have noticed at some point that THEY HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DO SO. That isn't true everywhere in the world. I think it's pretty amazing that the gov't in the US doesn't try to control its citizens to a greater extent, given how incapable the average person is of living his or her own life properly.

If there are parts of the world that aren't jealous of US's freedoms, they should be. Mod parent down severely, please.

--Colin

Re:American flag?

[DongleFondle]

Saying, "you're just jealous of our freedoms" is a line of reasoning that the Bush cartel have given as reasoning for the US becoming a target of terrorist groups like Al-queda. The notion that terrorist groups want to kill every walking breathing American simply because they are a little green with envy must seem to the parent to be a little ridiculous. Many Americans seem to feel that terrorist groups such as Al-queda have much different motives for their terrorist acts against the US, such as possibly the influence of aggressive US capitalist interests on foreign country's economies. The parent was making a crack at this absurd notion of jealously.

Also, just for your information, Americans consider the freedom of speech a basic human right that is essential to the effective operation of government and society bringing accountability to all influences of power. And many Americans died to gain this right. It was not a gift granted by an all-knowing and loving government, it was something that was fought for and achieved (shoot each other in the face fight, not drop bombs from miles away fight). To not use these freedoms is to take that right for granted, not the opposite. And yes, we understand that, and yes, I'm still willing to die for that right.

Thanks for checking though.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[Anonymous Coward]

Been mindlessly absorbing some right-wing propaganda, have we?

How true (sadly)

[acvh]

The current "debate" system is worse than flawed. It is nothing more than a joint campaign appearance. Preapproved questions, no talking to each other (!), no followups; no reason to watch.

Still, I'll watch, if only in the hopes that Bush will stumble badly over a fact or two.

Re:How true (sadly)

[garcia]

Still, I'll watch, if only in the hopes that Bush will stumble badly over a fact or two.

Yet it seems that people favor that. They think that he is more like one of them when he sounds like a bumbling idiot. It's like the Law and Order episode that showed a celebrity event planner with a facial tick. The tick forces everyone to let their guard down... The majority of the American public think that you should make mistakes even when you are leading this country through a deadly war. They seriously believe that a wartime economy (including diverting relief funds to continue the fighting) is a good thing. They also believe that we should be overly paranoid about the world around us and that we should have a leader who is on the offensive against these forces of evil!

I seriously hope that someone cuts into Survivor and The Apprentice this week and explains what the "debates" really are (they better be dressed like Burnett or Trump) and that they are worthless or we are going to see yet another 8 point jump in the ratings.

I guess having a bad plan is better than having no plan at all.

Re:How true (sadly)

[hackstraw]

Yeah, the only interesting thing that is allowed are hypothetical questions. One I would ask Bush would be:

What would you call two people that under an investigation that require all of the following to be true in order to participate in that investigation? 1) That the two people must be allowed to testify jointly 2) That they would not be required to take an oath before testifying; 3) That the testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers; and finally 4) That these notes would not be made public.

For those that don't know these were the requirements posed by Bush and Cheney in order to participate in the investigation of the largest attack on our nation within our borders.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions and vote accordingly.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Keebler71]

Um... they didn't have to testify at all - due to separation of powers. Since this wasn't an impeachment hearing (at least not yet) or independent council investigation, the congress has no business investigating the office of the president. All of the stipulations you mention were specifically put in place to change the tone of the interview from being one of investigators investigating the president, to one of two equal branches of government having a dialogue. I think Bush also released some sort of statement saying to the effect that his meeting with the committee was not to be the basis of any future precedent.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

What would you call two people that under an investigation that require all of the following to be true in order to participate in that investigation?

I can't even parse the question, let alone understand it enough to hazard a guess at an answer.

Re:How true (sadly)

[killjoe]

"Still, I'll watch, if only in the hopes that Bush will stumble badly over a fact or two."

Would it really matter. Bush has said 10 times in various forums that Abu Nidal Killed Leon Klinghoffer when it was really Abu Abbas. Have you heard anybody in the press ask him about it? Have seen anybody in the democratic party hold his feet to the fire on it? Why hasn't cheney or rove corrected him after the first five times he told that lie? How come he does not know who he is fighting?

Apparently nobody cares when Bush says something stupid, makes a gaffe, out and out lie or get some facts wrong.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry George, it was just a rhetorical question... Here, have a banana.

Re:How true (sadly)

[cobray]

As I remember George Bush cleaned the floor with Al "the great debater" Gore in the last debate. Or did you forget that?

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF?? No talking to each other? Seriously?

Isn't there something about you Americans having the responsibility to overthow a corrupt government? That's why you keep all those guns around?

No talking to each other. Wow.

We had an election in Canada a little while back. Our debates (one in each official language) featured the leaders of the 4 main political parties (yeah yeah, no greens or liberatians at our debate either), and they did lots of talking to one another. Like, that's the whole point. One guy says: "Mr. X, how does your policy on Y square with Z?" and then Mr. X says "A lot better than your policy W. does..." etc.

Sheesh. They didn't even need questions, they pretty much drove the whole thing themselves.

No talking to each-other. Wow.

Re:How true (sadly)

[jalefkowit]

Yeah, the only interesting thing that is allowed are hypothetical questions.

Which is probably why one of the first lessons any politician has drilled into him by The Experts is "Never answer a hypothetical question."

Indeed, they learn a whole battery of rhetorical tricks specifically to avoid having to deal with hypotheticals. Watch the next time you see somebody pose one to a politician -- any politician -- and you'll immediately see that, no matter what their answer, it has nothing to do with the hypothetical. Which is a shame, since hypotheticals can be useful ways to see how someone thinks; but maybe that's the reason why they avoid them so assiduously...

Re:How true (sadly)

[pipingguy]

The text below is from a PDF document:

In 1986, the Republican and Democratic National Committees ratified an agreement for the "parties to take over the presidential debates." Fifteen months later, then-Republican Party chair Frank Fahrenkopf and then-Democratic Party chair Paul Kirk created the CPD, which immediately seized control of the debates from the genuinely nonpartisan League of Women Voters.

The link comes from a PBS program web page, Now with Bill Moyers. Was the League of Women Voters actively undermining America enough that both parties got together to change the debate rules?

Re:How true (sadly)

[Coryoth]

No talking to each other. Wow.

US politicians don't know how to conduct a conversation, they only know how to give speeches. Watch any interview with any major US politician, and note that the interviewer never interrupts, never asks for clarification, never redirects a question, never probes into anything the candidiate just said - they let the candidate give their short speech, then move on to the next question regardless.

Yes this is a big difference from Eurpean or, as you point out, even Canadian political discourse, but that's the way it is.

If you let the candidates talk to each other, and pose each other questions you might discover that they have a somewhat limited supply of pre-canned speeches on any given topic. The art of being a politician in the US is to be able to memorise a large number of speeches, and be good enough at extemporising any question you get asked so that you can lead straight in to your pre-prepared speech. Don't believe me? Watch an interview or a debate and notice that the question always receives a long answer that either leads into an anecdote, or allows the candidate to make a short series of points that are only very loosely related to the question at hand.

Jedidiah.

Re:How true (sadly)

[hikerhat]

Everyone is complaining about "pre-approved" questions and all that, but that is misleading. The questions are pre-approved by the _moderator_. Neither campaign (and not event the commission) are allowed to see the questions before the debate. If you actually read the agreement that both candidates will be sticking to you'll see there is no conspiracy hidden in there. It is mostly nuts and bolts stuff like what kind of dressing room they'll get, the office space their staff will have, etc. It is really very reasonable.

During they debate they candidates will look like they knew the question was coming because they have lots of smart people working for them who prep them on pretty much every possible question. That gives the impression of a staged debate. But they don't know what will be asked before hand.

All the candidates know is the first debate will have questions about foreign policy and national security. The second debate will have questions about domestic policy and economics. I can't think of any question that doesn't fall into one of those four categories, so there really is no restriction on what questions can be asked.

The answers will still be canned and evasive but no debate format can fix that. These guys are professional politicians and debaters. The only way to get an interesting answer out of either of them would be to tie them to a chair and shock them whenever they start speaking in weasel. And the secret service won't allow that. And even if the secret service did allow it, Kerry/Bush might fry before they give up a straight answer.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like we weren't watching the same debate. Or is this suddenly Bizarro world?

Re:How true (sadly)

[fyngyrz]

Isn't there something about you Americans having the responsibility to overthow a corrupt government? That's why you keep all those guns around?

I think you've missed a few events. We can't have guns now unless we're approved, and the particular type of guns are approved. We mostly can't get approved if we live in cities. We mostly live in cities. We certainly can't have weapons that are on par with power of the weapons the government has. I can't own a tank with a working gun barrel, for instance. Can't own a SAM or an AGM. Can't own or operate high powered doppler radar, etc. We can't even use the same technologies, never mind the guns and weapons systems. For instance, we can't record a conversation on the phone without knowledge of both parties. The government can. We can't know what our neighbor, or the government, checks out of a library - but the government can. No legal preamble, just zip, and they're good to go.

We're pretty helpless over here, though most don't seem to mind. I don't suppose you'd care to invade and help us out?

Re:How true (sadly)

[onemorechip]

Um... they didn't have to testify at all - due to separation of powers. Since this wasn't an impeachment hearing (at least not yet) or independent council investigation, the congress has no business investigating the office of the president.

I'm as much a believer in separation powers as anyone. But separation of powers does not prevent Congress from investigating the executive branch. Separation of powers means that the Constitution grants certain exclusive powers to each branch of the government; for example, the executive branch cannot declare war or constitute tribunals; the judicial branch cannot carry out impeachments; and the legislative branch cannot pardon crimes. Separation of powers also encompasses the idea of checks and balances. If one takes the view that this investigatory role is a check on the executive branch then separation of powers actually does give Congress this power.

You might have a more persuasive argument if you had said that the Constitution simply does not grant the power to Congress to conduct investigations. And you'd be right, if we only consider powers that the Constitution grants explicitly. However, it is generally understood that investigatory powers are granted to Congress implicitly, and this power is not so limited as to exclude investigations of the executive branch.

Re:How true (sadly)

[onemorechip]

*Sigh* If only somebody had told this guy...

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apparently nobody cares when Bush says something stupid, makes a gaffe, out and out lie or get some facts wrong."

That's because not everybody is a dumbshit zealot like you.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Keebler71]

. But separation of powers does not prevent Congress from investigating the executive branch

True statement. Congress certainly can investigate anyone they wish. But at the same time they can not compell the heads of the Executive or Judicial branch to do anything. Thus, they can't compell the president to testify. If Bush had testified in exactly the same manner as all the other witnesses, there certainly would have been an appearance (rather real of imaginary) that he was succombing to the will of the committee.

Re:How true (sadly)

[bluesnowmonkey]

Master and puppet?

Re:How true (sadly)

[killjoe]

I got two toys for my dog. I named one "abu nidal" and the other one "abu abas". After about five tries my dog could tell the difference between the two.

If expecting the president of the united states to be able to tell those two apart is zealotry then I am proud to be a zealot.

If expecting the president of the united states to have basic grasp of reality and facts is zealotry then I am proud to be a zealot.

If expecting the president of the united states to have sound reasons and rational for going to war is zealotry then I proud to be a zealot.

If expecting the president of the united states to be smarter then a dog is zealotry then I am proud to be a zealot.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad none of those conditions is what is getting you labeled a zealot.

Re:How true (sadly)

[onemorechip]

I don't know if you mean "can/can not" in a legal sense or in a practical sense. If by "can investigate" you mean that Congress has this power legally then the fact is, they can subpoena anybody within their reach, so "can not compell" [sic] taken in the same sense is not correct. But if you mean it practically, I agree that Congress cannot send a federal marshall to bring in a President (or anybody) that refuses to comply with a subpoena, because Congress does not command any law enforcement officers. The remedy available to Congress in that case would be to cite the President for contempt of Congress, which I believe would result in a criminal trial (in the judicial branch, of course -- separation of powers at work again). Of course, that is never going to happen to a Republican President under a Republican-dominated Congress, so this was a simple face-saving agreement that allowed Congress to get the "testimony" it wanted without appearing to back down.

You'll recall that Clinton testified under oath but he did not have the advantage of having Democrats in control of Congress at the time.

In any case your reply is a change from your earlier tune, which was the congress has no business investigating the office of the president. Certainly that is not implied by "separation of powers".

Re:How true (sadly)

[killjoe]

I heard about slashdot stalkers before and I am glad to have finally got one. This is cool as hell. Some pussy out there looking for my posts (I bet you have me modded up so you can find them easy) and then replying to them anonymously.

Do you bookmark your replies so you can keep track or is it enough to autmatically mod me up? Just curious.

Thanks for being my stalker. Just don't jerk off reading my posts or anything like that.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe. You're trying to get under my skin. That's so cute. Go ahead, lash out! You'll feel a little better! Not as much as you would if you'd just come to terms with what you are, of course. :)

Re:How true (sadly)

[killjoe]

I am glad you find me attractive. Of course most stalkers find their targets attractive so that's not surprising. As I said before though that I prefer that you don't jerk off while reading posts.

Maybe I am being too harsh. After all it really doesn't effect me all that much if you are wanking your little pud thinking about me. So tell me what kind of fantasies do you have about me? Do you see me violating you like a little girl? Are you more into S&M? Maybe you see me doing an Abu Ghraib on you and crucifying you to a bed and shoving a broomstick up your ass.

As I said it's weird having a stalker. I guess I really don't know what kind of homosexual scenarios you have in mind. Maybe you can tell me, nah on second thought don't. I really don't want to know.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe. The old "Doh, he's got me. Maybe if I call him homosexual he'll bang his fist on the keyboard." retort. Yeah yeah.

I must have really pissed you off. Hee hee.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one minor difference between the Bush situation and Clinton's. Clinton was impeached. The congress can compel a president to testify, if he is under impeachment. If he is not, they have no legal authority to compel any other branch officer to testify.

Re:How true (sadly)

[killjoe]

"I must have really pissed you off. Hee hee."

Well you are stalking me so I'd say that I have gotten to you. I must have done something to attract you to me in such a way that you feel obsessed abut me. Compelled keep posting anonymously. Unable to stop thinking about me and waiting with baited breath for my next post so you can reply to it anonymously.

It just makes sense that you are a homosexual. Usually these kinds of obsessions have a very stong sexual component and a desire to be dominated. COmbine this with your surpressed homosexuality and you have a powerful force. The force that keeps you coming back to me even though a part of your mind realizes how sick you are and how humiliating this obsession with another man has become for you.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well you are stalking me so I'd say that I have gotten to you."

Yeah, mostly right. I don't see many zealots. Also, it amazes me that you can be so opinionated, but think you're operating from an educated point of view. You are quite impressive in that respect, sir.

"It just makes sense that you are a homosexual. Usually these kinds of obsessions have a very stong sexual component and a desire to be dominated."

Hehe. It's not working, I'm not homophobic.

Re:How true (sadly)

[killjoe]

"Hehe. It's not working, I'm not homophobic."

Of course not. I never said you were. I simply said that you were a homosexual. Why else would you be stalking me?

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course not. I never said you were. I simply said that you were a homosexual."

You're saying it because you're hoping it'll piss me off. Now you'll stick to it hoping that repetition will frustrate me. I've been in your shoes before, I know exactly what you are feeling.

"Why else would you be stalking me?"

You know why. And that's why you're trying to get revenge by pissing me off. It's really hacking you off that I haven't given you any information to attack me with, so you're grasping at straws hoping to find a crack in my armor. Calling me a homosexual won't send me into orbit. Try something else. ;)

Re:How true (sadly)

[killjoe]

"You're saying it because you're hoping it'll piss me off."

I am saying this because it's statistaclly true. Stalkers tend to be repressed homosexuals.

"It's really hacking you off that I haven't given you any information to attack me with"

It's not hacking me off, again it's typical stalker behavior. Stalking is all about love from afar. Admiration behind anonymity. Stalkers don't go up to their target and announce themselves, they don't engage in conversation. they simply admire from afar and fantasize being sexually dominated by the target of their attention.

You display all the classic pathology of a the stalker. You admire me from afar and anonymously while wishing to be sexually dominated by me.

I am not saying any of this to piss you off, after all you are the first stalker I have ever had and I think it's kind of neat. I like the idea that there is somebody out there wishing I was sexually savaging them. It would be better if the stalker was not a little boy but I realize that hot chicks are not cruising slashdot looking for men to stalk.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am saying this because it's statistaclly true. Stalkers tend to be repressed homosexuals."

Yeah yeah. You're trying sooooo hard to divert me from calling you a zealot again. It's not working, zealot. ;)

Re:How true (sadly)

[killjoe]

You can call me a zealot all you want. I don't mind.

I need to read up on it but maybe this is a part of the stalker mentality. Now that I know who you are I should go read up on some of your other posts and see if I can glean some insight onto the mind of the stalker.

I'll go and see if wikipedia has an entry on slashdot stalkers. Maybe that would throw some insight into your subspecies.

As for your homosexuality, there is no doubt in my mind that you are a homosexual. You may be in the closet but you are gay. The only reason for one man to stalk another is sexual.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehehe. "If I call him names, he'll get mad and argue with me. Then I'll get him!"

So am I supposed to be offended or something? I guess it's a good thing that I'm comfortable with who I am. ;)

So are we going to do another round of "You're a stalker homosexual, take that!!!", or are we going to discuss your own psychological defects?

Re:How true (sadly)

[killjoe]

I am not stalking you. You are stalking me.

As I said I find that kind of cool and am hoping you continue to stalk me. In fact I have asked somebody else to stalk me too. It would be cool to have an army of stalkers replying semi-anonymously to all my posts. I could start a trend!

BTW I have checked wikipedia and they don't have an entry about slashdot stalkers. Maybe I'll post one using you an example. You could be famous! Of course I won't mention your homosexuality I don't believe in outing people that want to stay in the closet.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe it still isn't working Mr. Zealot. You are fanatically commited to your opinions. Your responses haven't deviated from my accusation. You are fulfilling my description of you.

"I'm not a zealot! You're a stalker! I know this because I refuse to accept that something I said encouraged you to have a little fun at my expense! You're a homosexual! I believe this with no credible information to back it up, but you cannot change my mind! You're a homosexual stalker!! I'm not a zealot!!!"

Hee hee. You need a new strategy, friend.

Re:How true (sadly)

[killjoe]

Hey I put in an entry about slashdot stalkers on to wikkipedia. check it out.

Congratulations you are the first of a brand new kind of slashdot troll. The slashdot stalker.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehehe cool!

Nice dodge, btw!

Re:How true (sadly)

[killjoe]

Could you please start stalking me on another thread. This thread is getting very long and slashdot is messing up the threading.

Just pick any recent post (I am sure you have me modded way up) and start posting whatever insult you feel is clever.

Thanks for being my stalker. I hope to attract many more.

Re:How true (sadly)

[Anonymous Coward]

Still dodging! Weenie!

Re:How true (sadly)

[killjoe]

I forgot. What am I dodging again? Again could we please continue your stalking on another thread. You can copy and paste your above remark in another thread it would be very helpful.

Thanks once again for being my faithful stalker.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[wwest4]

Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign.

Heh. Bush could debate himself too, but he'd lose.

Nader

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately Nader was invited before to debate Green / Libertarian and didn't show up nor did the Republican / Democractic party. He is invited again along with the Constitutional party. Once again only Cobb Badnarik said they will show up. Nader wants to be included in the debate with Bush/Kerry, but perhaps is playing a power move to position him self as the only 3rd party canidate. Yet he debated Dean from the Democrats, can only wonder what he is really up to.

Re:Nader

[Guppy06]

"He is invited again along with the Constitutional party. Once again only Cobb Badnarik said they will show up."

This I find odd. Bush and Kerry won't show up becaome they don't want to give third-party candidates any sort of validation. Nader's campaign relies solely on drawing attention away from Bush and Kerry, so he won't show up where they don't show up. But why not Peroutka, the Constitution Party's candidate? Has he officially turned it down, or are they still waiting on a response? Is he trying to take a "Hurt Bush and Kerry" tact like Kerry's?

Re:"Real" debates

[erick99]

I don't think I would expect any more from Kerry. The debates are tightly choreographed and neither candidate's "handlers" are going to allow them stray far from a safe script. So, the debates end up being more about style than substance. Which candidate looks more "presidential," more like a "leader," and makes people feel good about them. Style over substance has been the rule for these debates for a long time.

C'mon Now

[Pave Low]

You think Badnarik and Cobb are more worthy to be called the third party candidates?

Get real now. Ralph Nader is registering 1 percent in the polls. He is more worthy of being in the debates than these two clowns.

Hardly anybody knows who Badnarik and Cobb are, why they hell should they be in the major leagues? Maybe if they ran a better campaign, got the names on the ballots, and polled better than 0%, they would be on prime time. As it is, I have no problem excluding any yahoo from the debate just because they think they belong.

Re:C'mon Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Badnarik is on 48 states ballots, Nader is on 33 states. Nader can't even theoretically win without winning from write ins from other states.

Re:C'mon Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardly anybody knows who Badnarik and Cobb are, why they hell should they be in the major leagues? Maybe if they ran a better campaign, got the names on the ballots, and polled better than 0%, they would be on prime time. As it is, I have no problem excluding any yahoo from the debate just because they think they belong.
The problem with that is that you need to petition and get at least 5% of voter's signatures to get on the ballot.

Oh, and i dont know about Cobb, but Badnarick is already on the ballot in 49 states.

Re:C'mon Now

[pilgrim23]

As to "Names on the Ballot", in most states that process is a politicized as the election. Here in Oregon, Nader got enough signatures to be on the ballot but the (Dem.) Sec State decided that the sigs of petition gatherers did not meet some reasonable legibility rule so he tossed whole pages of petitions out. The (Dem) Supreme Court agrees. Not surprising. In this state there are so many independent wakos that the Dem establishment are afraid a 3rd party candidate might throw the election to the Repubs and that is far more unacceptable then any mere fraud or illegality. For the record, I am not a Naderite, Dem or Repub. I am disgusted with all of them and will probably write in my pet weasel.

Re:C'mon Now

[panda]

Badnarik's name is on the ballot in 49 states. He's not on the ballot in NH because someone in the NH Libertarian Party failed to get the paperwork in on time.

If Badnarik and Cobb were invited to the debates, then people would know who they are and could hear them speak.

Maybe, if 3rd parties weren't so roundly shut out by the ruling oligarchy, more people would actually be interested enough to vote, and just maybe we could have some real change in policy, instead of six or one or half-dozen of the other.

Re:C'mon Now

[paitre]

Badnarik is polling better than Nader in NV - and in fact, is polling high enough to cover the margin of error in the last several polls conducted there.

He's very likely to play spoiler, more so than Nader in 2000.

Re:C'mon Now

[AceCaseOR]

Well, there was more to it thatn sigs of petition gatherers. Remember all the problems we had with signature shenanagins by both Bill Sizemore and Lon Mabon. We've got those laws for a good reason.

Besides, the conservatives get their hissy fits listened to also (like when there were the loads arguments against one of Lon Mabon's mesures that were disguised as arguments in favor and submitted to the voters pamphlet. Mabon's people got extremely upset and had a new screening process or something set up for Voter's Pamphlet arguments).

Re:C'mon Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Badnarik is actually on the ballot in more states than Ralph Nader. I really think this year will bring quite a bit more LP votes.
http://badnarik.org/ballotaccess.php

Re:C'mon Now

[GMFTatsujin]

I think you mean "six of one AND a half dozen of the other." That's not a correction to the old saying: that's how things actually are.

Depressing.

Re:C'mon Now

[kmweber]

Actually, 48 states + DC--that is 49 ballots, but not 49 states. He missed it in NH for the reason you cited, and in Oklahoma because of unnecessarily stringent ballot-access rules.

Re:C'mon Now

[sofakingon]

According to Zogby, Badnarik is polling at 1.2% right now. Nader is polling at 1.4%. Nader is on the ballot of 37 states, which does not include California. Ergo, Badnarik is positioned to recieve more total votes than Nader at the moment! Not worthy? I think not!

Re:C'mon Now

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is why he is invited :\

Re:C'mon Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that most people probably think that all of the current third party candidates are loonies. Besides, most Americans don't want things to change. More exposure won't help, they simply don't like your ideals. Deal with it.

Re:C'mon Now

[Vellmont]

If Badnarik and Cobb were invited to the debates, then people would know who they are and could hear them speak.


Perhaps. The fact that know one knows who these guys are when it's almost October says a lot though. It's not as if the debates are the only place you can get your name known, or your message out. I follow the presidential race fairly well, and I'd never heard of either of them until the "ask slashdot" questions came out last week. If these guys can't even show up on the radar, is the big problem that they aren't being included in a debate at the end of September?

The real problem as I see it is that the presidential race is some kind of gold standard for third parties and the only thing that matters in many peoples minds. Sorry, but parties just don't start off at the top. If you want to look at the health of 3rd parties look towards the smaller races. Hell, that yahoo wrestler Jesse Ventura won the governor of MN in 1998.

Re:C'mon Now

[That's Unpossible!]

Ralph Nader is registering 1 percent in the polls. He is more worthy of being in the debates than these two clowns.

1. Ralph Nader is a flagrant self-promoter. He is more interested in selling books than in being President. He has name-brand recognition because he has put himself out there so often, and because of his book Unsafe at Any Speed.

2. Compare the number of stats where Nader is on the ballot, versus Badnarik. If electability is what you want to use to decide who gets to debate, I think Badnarik gets in before Nader.

Re:C'mon Now

[Blakey Rat]

Maybe if third party supporters didn't say things like:

"roundly shut out by the ruling oligarchy"

they could garner enough respect to be invited to the next 'official' debates? People aren't going to respect you as a third party if you're openly hostile to the entire system.

Re:C'mon Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it this way. Right now, Badnarik has less than 20% name recognition, but he's polling about even with Nader. How many people don't know Nader's name? How much news coverage does Nader get compared to Badnarik?

Think about it.

Re:C'mon Now

[harks]

According to this,URL:http://www.badnarik.org/ballotaccess.php/ he's got 48 states- still in court in Oklahoma

Re:C'mon Now

[Squeeze Truck]

Maybe, if 3rd parties weren't so roundly shut out by the ruling oligarchy, more people would actually be interested enough to vote, and just maybe we could have some real change in policy, instead of six or one or half-dozen of the other.


I think that's precisely why they are shut out. From the oligarchs' perspective, the fewer people involved in the process the better.

Re:C'mon Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Badnarik has been polling above 1% in Zogby's 6-candidate polls for weeks now.

Re:C'mon Now

[hether]

Jesse won that race almost entirely because of the debates!! He was lucky enough to be let in with 8% of the vote and got incredible mainstream exposure out of the deal. He won the debates hands down for his honesty and straightforward answers to the questions. The debates made all the difference for him, and I think it would do the same for the presidential contenders.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/article s/mi_m2519/is _1_20/ai_53889303

Nobody knows who the third party candidates are because there is a virtual media blackout going on. They don't have the money to buy media like the candidates (and the RNC and DNC) spending multiple millions, and they're not getting most of the earned media they should be. They send out press releases, campaign across the country, visiting as many or more places than the major two, and overall do what they can, but the press refuses to cover them. The places they usually get coverage are a few of the small papers that find it notable that they visited. Despite the fact that in some states the third party candidates are polling as high as 5%, take a look at the big time papers. Do a search on the NY Times - there are NO results for most of the candidate's names!! Yet there are whole sections and daily stories on the major two. Have you ever seen a mention of Cobb, Badnarik, Peroutka, etc. on MSN, CNN, or ABC News?? Additionally there are documented examples of shows like O'Reilly refusing to let their guests even mention the third party candidates names, or cancelling on guests when they find out they intend to do so.

As for focusing on local elections, there is a big disagreement in the third parties about this very subject. The argument is that the presidential races get us the maximum exposure, and if they can just get the __% (different in each state) they will have automatic ballot access. In my state, this also allows voters to register with your party name, rather than just as None (Independent). This would mean that instead of spending all our time and money trying to get our candidates on the ballot, we'd be able to refocus those resources on publicity and other efforts.

I've been closely involved with one of the third party campaigns this time around (working for one of the VP candidatess) and what I can tell you is that the system is broken beyond repair. I don't know how it's ever going to be possible to break through at the presidential level and agree that we're probably going to have to change strategies to focus on local elections and build from the ground up.

Re:C'mon Now

[Vellmont]

You can't honestly compare Ventura to these two clowns. Ventura had funding, name recognition, and actual television ads. He also had a popular radio show that got his name out to the non wrastling crowd. These guys have... nothing. I didn't look like Ventura was going to win going into the debates that year, but you'd be hard pressed to say he wasn't on the radar. Christ, even Nadar shows up on the radar, and that's only because he's a news item because the democrats all hate him, and hate sells on the news.


Nobody knows who the third party candidates are because there is a virtual media blackout going on. They don't have the money to buy media like the candidates (and the RNC and DNC) spending multiple millions, and they're not getting most of the earned media they should be.


They don't have any funding because they don't have any support. The media sure isn't going to cover them because no one supports them, or cares about them. There's no conspiracy, it's just about getting eyeballs to TV screens, papers, and monitors. That's even doubly true for O'Reilly. The guy started out on Inside Edition, that tabloid "news" magazine show. You don't think that's all about generating controversy and emotions? I could run for president too.. does that mean the media should cover me? What's the standard that should be set for the media to cover Joe Nobody libertarian candidate?


As for focusing on local elections, there is a big disagreement in the third parties about this very subject. The argument is that the presidential races get us the maximum exposure,


Maximum exposure at looking like a bunch of ass clowns. The 2000 election only alienated democrats from the Green party. Yah yah, I know, know there's no such thing as bad publicity. Maybe that's true when someone has to make that 3 second decision on what brand of salsa to buy, but it falls short in a presidential election. The system may be screwed up, but it's the system we have and it's not changing just because you want it too.

As far as a viable third party, I keep thinking about a quote by Hunter S Thompson from "On The Campaign Trail '72"

Remember the Whigs, Larry? They went belly up, with no warning at all, when a handfull of young politicians like Abe Lincoln decided to move out on their own, and fuck the Whigs... which worked out very nicely, and when it became almost instantly clear that the whig hierarchy was just a gang of old impotent windbags with no real power at all, the Party just curled up and died... and any politician stupid enough to "stay loyal" went down with the ship.

Which I think says a lot. You don't start up a party from nothing. Both parties are pretty shaky right now, but the libertarians or the greens are hardly even sane. Christ, I saw the muddlehead Green candidate for Governor in MN a couple years ago in a debate and all he could rant about was solving transportation problems with bicycles and deficits with taxing water. What average american is going to take a third party candidate serious when he says naive and foolish things like that?

No, I think the biggest problems with establishing a third party is the third parties themselves. They're full of extremist who the average american can't identify with at all. The closest we got was the independance party in 92, and that all self destructed when everyone realized there wasn't anyone holding it together but Ross Perot.

Re:"Real" debates

[millahtime]

I don't expect Bush to actually answer any of the points presented by Kerry this week anyway.

I don't expect Kerry to actually answer any of the points presented by Bush this week anyway.

Badnarak

[Feminist-Mom]

I read that he was a national champion debater in HS, so this should be interesting.

Re:Badnarak

[micromoog]

Are you saying that he's a master debater?

Re:Badnarak

[jimius]

Don't know, but i'm sure he is a cunning linguist

Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[American AC in Paris]

Hell, I want full presidential debates. Every single candidate.

The opinions of people like Mr. Larry J. Schutter of the Turtle Party and Darren Karr of Party-X are every bit as valid as those of Badnarik and Cobb. Likewise, they all share the same chance of winning said office. What makes Badnarik and Cobb more deserving of a debate than any of the other "Dark Horse" candidates?

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is not enough air time on tv to cover all parties. The televised ones could be improved by including canidates on enough states to theoretically win. If you want to know what all of them have to say in writing feel free to read it at...
http://www.vote-smart.org/election_presiden t_party .php?party_name=All

It has them all fill out the NPAT national political awarnes test.

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[spikev]

I want full presidential debates.

That'd be great and all, but wouldn't a presidential Battle Royale be so much more fun?

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just say something about mass debating a horse?

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[Phat_Tony]

I would have moded that up as "funny," but "insightful?" Come on.

Anyone can run for president, and if they'd get national air time for doing so, that list you linked to would be 10,000 times as long. They'd have to clear out a 6-month block of TV time to let everyone have their free say.

It needs to be restricted to some degree based on anybody having interest in the party. Perhaps something like being on the ballots in at least x number of states, or getting at least x number of names on a petition supporting you.

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

My personal preference for the threshhold of who should be in the debates is this:

Add up the total electoral votes for all states on which the candidate is on the ballot. If this number is enough to gain election, the candidate should be involved in the debates. So if you can get on the ballot in Texas, California, New York, Florida, and a few other states, you should be eligible for the debates.

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[cpeikert]

Hell, I want full presidential debates. Every single candidate.

I know you're joking, but there is an easy answer to this: anybody who is on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority under the Electoral College should be invited.

How many candidates would that include? Get ready for it...: 6. Including Bush and Kerry. That's half as many as some of the debates during primaries. It's entirely feasible.

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[Dante333]

Ballot access. They have gone through and gotten on enough ballots where they could get 270 electoral votes and be the next president. If the dudes from the Turtle Party and Party-X are on enough state ballots, they should be included too. Though I really doubt they can get 270 votes much less 270 electoral college votes.

Okay how about this standard. Every canidate that has a chance of winning by virtue of being on ballot on enough states to get 270 electoral votes. Or better yet, on 2/3rds of state ballots. Yes this would exclude write in's. But tough nuts for them. This would give use, the way things are now, about 5 canidates at the debates, with out having to include the nuts in the Spider Revolutionary resurgance tofu eating party.

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[Brandybuck]

If the candidates can't get your own debate organized, or have supporters dedicated enough to organize one for them, then they're S.O.L.

A debate shouldn't be a candidate welfare program. If Mr. Shutter and Karr want to join in this debate, they're more than free to convince the organizers to let them in. But I'm willing to bet they haven't even asked...

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[nitehawk214]

What about this guy? Mr. HRM Caesar St Augustine De Buonaparte

I cant make this stuff up.

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[Dread_ed]

You want more debates?

I guess you never took a debate class. Debate is a skill, a methodology of speaking applied to the facts that is not designed to elucidate facts, but to persuade the audience, sometimes flying in the face of the facts. A skilled debator will win a debate regardless of wheteher he believes in his point or even has ample facts to support his case. Truth and debate are strange bedfellows.

Political platforms are supposed to convey the facts about what a political candidate stands for and wants to do if they win office. As is evident from the media and the comments from the two parties no one really wants to talk about the facts or the real situations we are facing. No one mwntions that Iraq is actually a strategic emplacement that, if it is ever stabilized, solidifies the USA's global presence and extends our political influence into the rest of the world(the reason we are pulling out of Germany is because it has lost its strategic signifigance). No one wants to talk about the Chinese and the fact that their consumption is causing the rise in oil prices. No one wants to talk about the transformation of the american economy to a globally infiltrated economy and what that will really mean for the next few generations. And everyone, I mean everyone, want to aviod the real subject of retirement and social security.

It is no wonder that politicians like debates. It gives them the chance to appear to tell the truth about what they want, all the while they are just laying persuasive bricks to bolster their candidacy and leaving themselves verbal backdoors to escape from like Houdini after they get elected.

Even worse, we, the American people understand so little about what they are actually talking about (foreign policy, military policy, history, and conventions, ECONOMIC policy, the Constitution, matters of personal liberty) that we swallow what they say hook line and sinker, and don't have the background to call "BULLSHIT" when they say something totally off base with conventional wisdom.

Personally, I am not of the mindset to see conspiracies at every turn, however I have had the feeling these past few elections that those in power do not like to see high voter turnout. I believe that if there was a conspiracy it would be one of negativity. It is proven that negative campaigns cause people to become disenchanted with political figures and the political system, leading to lower voter tunrout. Therefore they campaign on their opponents weaknesses and point aout things have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to govern a nation (see the innumerable references to Viet Nam for fucks sake).

I think that it is just possible that politicians understand that if less people vote and more people are disinterested with and disgruntled with the political system there will be fewer people to question and complain about what they do in the real powerhouses of the government...the Senate, Congress, and the Supreme Court.

If they keep the eyes of the country on the politcal bouncing ball, the president, and off of the people who manipulate and control the legal landscape of the whole country, no one will stop them when they enact the PATRIOT act, or the DMCA, or whatever other policy that undermines the fabric of our liberties. At least, that is what I would do if I were them and had absolutely no moral intentions.

Maybe I have just had too much to drink tonight, but then again, maybe that is the Feds knocking at my door at 1:00 am and not my neighbor with another bottle of beer.

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[pjt33]

There is not enough air time on tv to cover all parties.

:blink: There are two months left until the elections, aren't there?

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[superflippy]

Which six? And where can I find the information you used to reach this conclusion? It would be interesting to see.

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[Squeeze Truck]

I can really get behing this Party-X platform:

1) Give you the choice of whether or not we should be in Iraq by returning to Congress the power to commit our troops to war.

2) Remove special interest and big money corporate influence from politics by prohibiting lobbying of our government officials (among other things).

3) Eliminate the Electoral College so elections are decided strictly by the people, not the Supreme Court.

4) Return democracy to this country by requiring "instant run off" elections in every state so no vote is ever "wasted" on a third party or independent candidate. With me, never again will you be forced to vote for someone simply because you don't want "the other guy" to win.

5) Stabilize Social Security and Medicare before it bankrupts our country.

6) Prevent the health care industry from becoming rich off of your hardships.

7) Eliminate all government waste at the federal level and lower or eliminate federal income tax.

8) Remove Congressional "fringe benefits", require Congress to participate in Social Security, restructure the Congressional retirement plan, require members of Congress to actually show up and do their jobs, and let the people vote on Congressional pay raises.

9) Impose judicial reform on the federal and state governments so every American can equally pursue justice. All judges will be elected, NEVER appointed.

10) Remove the power of the President to enact law through Executive Orders.

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[Dyolf Knip]

Someone else made the marvelously simple suggestion of: If your name is on enough state ballots that you could theoretically have a majority, then you get to be in the debate.

It doesn't solve the problem of having unnecesarily restrictive state ballot requirements, but it doesn't create new problems either.

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[cpeikert]

Siblings of my initial comment contain some good links pointing out all the candidates, in which states they are on the ballot, etc.

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[superflippy]

Finally found one comment which contains a link to this wikipedia page, so I'm posting this for my own reference.

The six candidates are obvious, if you think about it, representing all the major and major minor parties: Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and Constitution, plus Ralph Nader.

Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are?

[hether]

http://ballot-access.org/
and in more depth by state
http://ballot-access.org/2004/electoral.html

And the main two are on by default in most cases. They have to meet a set of requirements, but as large as their parties are and with the resources at their disposal, it's hardly a challenge for them.

"Debates"

[Knightfall]

Anyone who has read my posts can quickly guess I am a republican, but this "debate" process really turns my stomach. Practiced questions, scripted answers, attempts at "humor", and no outside candidates is unacceptable. We need these third, 4th, 5th etc party candidates pushing the mainstream runners to answer questions they don't want to answer. On paper Bush and Kerry are both so equally horrible that it is impossible to distinguish between them. Putting a strong third party runner in there with them with unscripted questions is exactly what we need to see what they really are. It amazes me they are both (Bush and Kerry) so fearful of getting a question they aren't ready for or being upstaged by someone actually in touch with true American feelings that they are their debate-fixing group make it impossible to find out anything that resembles the truth.

I've said it many times ... we have got to get a strong third party in place and soon to push the political mountain or we are going to watch these two parties merge into one uncontrollable monster.

Re:"Debates"

[stinkyfingers]

Putting a strong third party runner in there with them with unscripted questions is exactly what we need to see what they really are

You hit it right on the head. Unfortunately, Ross Perot and John Anderson are what has passed for a strong third party candidate over the last 25 or so years.

So how does one determine the strength of a third-party candidate?

Re:"Debates"

[garcia]

It amazes me they are both (Bush and Kerry) so fearful of getting a question they aren't ready for or being upstaged by someone actually in touch with true American feelings that they are their debate-fixing group make it impossible to find out anything that resembles the truth.

I have never actually watched Kerry be interviewed by anyone and stumble through the questioning but I have watched (and read) through this interview where the questions were submitted in advance and yet the President still did not look prepared for the questions/style he was presented with.

It made me feel like we were being led by someone completely unprepared to lead this country when we need it most (ie when he stared like a deer in headlights in the classroom after hearing of the second plane hitting the WTC).

While I have mentioned that the American public may seem to side even more with someone that has problems during an interview I don't think that it gives him any more credibility to those of us that may still be sitting on the fence.

Re:"Debates"

[mcrbids]

I've said it many times ... we have got to get a strong third party in place and soon to push the political mountain or we are going to watch these two parties merge into one uncontrollable monster.

Words are cheap. You can say it many times, and you can be right. What's the difference between somebody who can't read, and somebody who doesn't read? Nothing. Your wisdom doesn't matter if it's not translated into action.

Why don't YOU start such a party? You say "we" which implies you and at least one other person. Start this party you speak of - get funding, find a candidate if not yourself!

See, the USA is politically "open source". Anybody can make their dent, and the rules are reasonably simple and apply to everybody.

Just as we have Microsoft ruling the computer technology scene as a Monopoly, the Right/Left wings grapple in
a Machiavelian struggle, swinging us "right" and "left" while moving us forward towards....?

Ross Perot almost did it. For a while, there, it actually looked as though he was going to win the presidency!

You could, too. We need an impassioned, trusted, charismatic, reasonable-sounding candidate who's willing to go the mile, and it would be a LONG mile.

I've considered joining the fray a few times, myself. Whether or not I'm "impassioned" enough or "charismatic" is an determination best left to listeners.

You have tremendous power in cable-access media. You can produce a broadcast quality show with a budget of under $50/week. (I know, I've done it!) FCC rules require this community-access television to be funded - it's just that few people actually stand up and produce the programming. Once a show is produced, it only requires a local sponsor to air the show in each community.

So, who's going to actually do it? You?

Re:"Debates"

[KevinIsOwn]

Unfortunately you are way off.

Letting 3rd party candidates into a debate won't suddenly revitalize our democracy and create a multiparty system, rather than our biparty system. While it may give voters a few extra names to remember when they go to the polls, it will make very little difference.

Ultimately what grabs votes is money. Sure there are lots of people who pay attention to debates, but there are just as many who don't. Most people end up going by what they see on TV, and what they see on TV has a direct corrolation to the amount of money a party has. A small party like the Green party or Libertarian party just does not have enough money to run an effective campaign. Remember that candidates are now marketed to the populice. The more money you have, the more "product" exposure you get.

The likelyhood of two parties that have such diametrically opposed ideologies is next to zero. Just because they are both interested in pushing 3rd parties out of the way- And manage to work together to do it does not mean they will become a single entity unless there is a drastic shift in ideologies in this country, and the way things are headed right now only points to more disagreement.

Unfortunately, there is the widespread idea that 3rd party complaints and ideas are not heard. This is only true to an extent. 3rd parties come and go so often because they are almost always a splinter off of a particular party and their ideas are generally adopted into a major party platform. This usually convinces the members of the 3rd party to rejoin with the major party since their ideas were finally acknowledged. There are only a few parties for which this has not occurred (Communist/Socialist parties, the Libertarians only occassionally agree with conservatives).

Re:"Debates"

[Anonymous Coward]

On paper Bush and Kerry are both so equally horrible that it is impossible to distinguish between them. Putting a strong third party runner in there with them with unscripted questions is exactly what we need to see what they really are. It amazes me they are both (Bush and Kerry) so fearful of getting a question they aren't ready for or being upstaged by someone actually in touch with true American feelings that they are their debate-fixing group make it impossible to find out anything that resembles the truth.

Even if radical third-party candidates made it to national debates, I don't think it would make a difference.

In fact, it might even be worse. The main party candidates might get a free pass debating each other, if they would team up to discredit all opposition.

Also, there is the problem of format, and scruples. We all know that "campaign promises" is a phrase synonymous with "lies". Limited-time extemporaneous debate is not a good way to introduce complex and different political concepts into the mainstream, but it is a good way to smear said concepts. Have you ever seen one of those creationist-evolutionist debates, held by creationists, in the same format? There are all sorts of clever fallacies you can use to misrepresent an opponent in that format, and against third parties, who advocate extreme reform, it will be a simple matter to demonize their positions in too many ways to possibly comprehensively refute in the limited timeframe.

The 15% rule is probably a good thing.

Re:"Debates"

[Anonymous Coward]

Requirement: many millions of dollars.

Re:"Debates"

[goodhell]

But that's the problem a three party system just wouldn't work. The two party system used to work here in the US, but now it is starting to fail. The reason is simple. Both sides have gone to the "You're either with us or against us" dogma. There is no middle ground for them anymore. And with our political process that is quite lethal.

A multi-party system would gridlock faster than traffic in LA on Friday afternoon. It would be almost impossible to reach a consensus. If you don't agree with me look at other major things like Klamath River. They've got several groups there vying for their own agenda and it is extremely hard to reach a consensus.

Personally, I would like to see a party that more closely fits my needs. So far the Independent and the Libertarian (except for a few key issues) Parties are the closest to my opinions.

A little OT but somewhat related... What we really need to do is get rid of the corruption. One of the ways to do that, IMO, would be to give more cajones to the GAO (government accountability office). Then politicians couldn't just dip into the public coffers anytime they felt the itch. Hold them accountable for the money. (examples of abuse - The Big Dig in Mass. and somewhat related UN Oil for Food). The GAO right now only comes in after the fact. But if we hold them responsible by listing specifically what the money is spent on then there is less chance for abuse such as both parties are exploiting now.

On Topic. I think the debates are going to be a farce. They've got the whole thing scripted so that we can't really decide. 'Course I can understand somethings like the way they had chairs with Ross Perot. He was really short and they had these tall chairs he had to jump down from. It looks terrible. But I would like to see both of the candidates at the same time. Split the screen so we can see them at all times. I want to see how the other reacts to what his opponent is saying.

It's all garbage

Re:"Debates"

[josecanuc]

Take a look at http://www.opendebates.org/

Re:"Debates"

[Anonymous Coward]

I've said it many times ... we have got to get a strong third party in place and soon to push the political mountain or we are going to watch these two parties merge into one uncontrollable monster.

I agree, get rid of the Electoral College and this will happen.

Re:"Debates"

[fishbowl]

"So how does one determine the strength of a third-party candidate?"

By measuring the breadth of their appeal.

Re:"Debates"

[SuperDuG]

I'm sorry I stopped paying attention after you said "I'm a republican" ...

Re:"Debates"

[Buzz_Litebeer]

Kerry is actually known for his ability to think on his feet in debates.

Some feel that the format for the current debates was the only way they could get the president to show up. When the president doesnt know what to do he gets kind of a simian look about him, otherwise he does pretty good.

During one of Kerrys re-election campaigns as Senator he did well in 8 debates where the questions were fast and furious, and those debates were one of the reasons that helped him win the debates.

Kerry wants to have a dynamic off the wall questioned debate, because he knows what happens when Bush gets complicated questions.

Look up Bushes Sovereignty video that goes around where he was asked about indian soveriengty rights, thats what Kerry is hoping happens.

Bush wants questions he knows the answer too so he does not have any embarrassing moments.

Re:"Debates"

[thoughtterrorist]

I don't blame yea, a democrats reality is a fragile thing and can easily be shattered by facts and reason. I sugguest you stock up on supplies, board up your house, and cut your internet connections, to keep all those pesky republican ideas from doing further damage.. I can predict your petty responses, but feel free, any reasonably intelligent person can see through you and the stupid are a lost cause, so I'm not worried.

Re:"Debates"

[AceM2]

So I suppose the question is: Do we want a leader who prefers to consult his advisors and do his research, or the guy who can quickly spew the most garbage, regardless of consistency? Kerry's quick thinking is what has him behind in the polls now. He's quick, but what he says barely syncs up. Luckily for him, people have short memories and they get tired of hearing the same old "flip flop" one liners. I feel bad for Bush though, because people are much quicker to point out a flaw in speech/appearance or something obscure rather than true core issues. It's funnier to point out "nucular" than to actually dissect the arguments.

Re:"Debates"

[SuperDuG]

... who said I was a democrat?

Re:"Debates"

[SewersOfRivendell]

On paper Bush and Kerry are both so equally horrible that it is impossible to distinguish between them.

Thanks for that, Karl Rove. Please back that assertion up with facts. Because it sure seems to anyone who's actually paying attention that there's a huge disparity between Bush and Kerry. Let me list just a few of the differences that I've observed.

Kerry actually mentioned science in his DNC acceptence speech. Kerry actually mentioned his web site in his DNC acceptence speech. Kerry actually saved the lives of several people in Vietnam and afterwards. Kerry is a documented war hero. Everyone who was actually there at the time says so. (Lots of people who weren't there and just happen to be funded by wealthy Republicans from Texas claim otherwise.)

Meanwhile Bush's favorite philosopher is Jesus, which is fair enough. Lots of Christians love Jesus. But Bush can't name anything Jesus ever said, let alone abide by His word. Still, Jesus is a good name-drop sop to the sacreligious right for him, so he'll continue to use that line.

Bush has never saved anyone's life. Bush started a preemptive war that has so far resulted in over 1000 American deaths and at least ten times that number of Iraqi deaths -- including innocent women and children.

Come on, man, pick up the beat. Kerry is much superior to Bush. Don't listen to the right-wing talking heads. Think for yourself.

Re:"Debates"

[Epistax]

Unfortunately unlike Ross Perot I don't have spare billions of dollars.

Re:"Debates"

[thoughtterrorist]

Meant "leftist's", not "democrat's" - my fault.

Re:"Debates"

[AceM2]

Just in case the parent doesn't bother to do research:

"I'm just a poor college student, who is a liberal, and is a democrat."

http://www.dugnet.com/dug/oldstuff/000126.html

Re:"Debates"

[AceM2]

"Leftists" is better, but don't let him guilt trip you. As I pointed out, the guy is being dishonest and trying to make others believe he isn't biased. His own webpage says repeatedly that he's a liberal, and in a recent entry he even calls himself a democrat. It's sad when you add that to the fact he discredits republicans automatically. Luckily I don't think he's old enough to vote yet, so there's still time for the ignorance and dishonesty to wear off.

Re:"Debates"

[Bromrrrrr]

A multi-party system would gridlock faster than traffic in LA on Friday afternoon. It would be almost impossible to reach a consensus.

If a president cannot get a majority of representatives to agree with his plans then maybe that is because a majority of the people he rules don't agree with them. Gridlock in this case is not a bug but a feature.

Multi-party (why settle for 3 if you can have the whole set :-) systems can work, but you need politicians who realize that however strong they might feel about an issue, unless their mandate is strong enough (ie more then 50% of the votes), they cannot act in the way they want.

Re:"Debates"

[mcrbids]

Unfortunately unlike Ross Perot I don't have spare billions of dollars.

Nobody has spare billions of dollars! "Oh, yeah, I think there's a billion or so in that coffee can over there... "

You think that fund raising isn't a core piece of building a political campaign? Perhaps you didn't notice that I mentioned this as a goal of running a political campaign?

Get a coherent message together. Broadcast it as broadly as possible. (I gave you a hint on how I'd do it) Raise the funding needed to pay expenses, give small thank yous to volunteers, pay for ads, mailings, etc.

Or, find somebody you agree with and do same for them. Help them get funding, help broadcast their message, etc.

Or, shut up and pick a candidate!

Re:"Debates"

[Anonymous Coward]

For a while, there, it actually looked as though [Ross Perot] was going to win the presidency!

What alternate universe are we talking about, here? Perot never had a chance.

Re:"Debates"

[Shotgun]

I would like to expand on the parent post. I think his ideas are excellent; futhermore, I think it can be expanded upon.

Put up the offer of a debate to all the candidates on the ballet in your area. The format is that all candidates sumbit X number of questions, and get equal time to answer it. Make sure that it is clearly implied that it will be free time to the other candidate if they don't show up.

Cable-access is a convenient outlet, but there are others.

-Contact the producers of any local news/talk radio. They're always looking for something other than Rush Limbaugh to fill the airwaves. Even better if it's free.

-Try to get the local news media interested. Even just a blurb will pique people's interest and make them start asking about the process.

To hell with left/right media bias. Call all the talk shows you can and ask why they have an incumbent bias. Raise the roof over this one.

Once people see reasonable debates and serious alternatives at a local level they'll start wanting to see it at the national level.

Re:"Debates"

[upsidedown_duck]

Also, Kerry doesn't do Elmer Fudd impressions when put on the spot.

Re:"Debates"

[Anonymous Coward]

So in order to get your vote, all I have to do is say the word science (SCIENCE!!), drop a URL and save a few people in Vietnam? (a war 30 years ago that the American public, in the last 3 elections, has determined doesn't matter by voting in a draft dodger twice and a draft avoider once.)

Wow, nice criteria you have.

How about...what's the difference on the candidates support of the PATRIOT Act? How about their stance on the poor intelligence leading up to the Iraq invasion? (Senate/House Intelligence Committee members bears some of the blame.) What's their stance on the DMCA? What does Kerry have to say about Bruce Lehman being a Technical Advisor? (Bruce Lehman was a big mover and shaker during the Clinton years..not a friend of this crowd to be sure.)

Why does Kerry's yay vote appear in the resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq, but later he says it was the wrong war at the wrong time? The whole damn world knew GWB was itching to invade Iraq...if he wasn't for invasion (before he voted against it), why did he vote yay?

What's the difference in the candidates Energy Policy? Why does Bush favor nuclear power and Kerry favor expanding coal usage? How does either one address our need to find alternative fuels or lessen our consumption of fossil fuels?

Re:"Debates"

[Syntroxis]

Hi Knightfall - So, a republican eh? Maybe consider jumping over to a candidate who has not trashed the Bill of Rights, who has not turned a surplus into the largest deficit we've ever had, who has not slacked up on clean air and water standards to allow more mercury and arsenic, who doesn't let his vice prez award no bid contracts to the company he still has millions of stock in. I could go on, but.. I'd just like a regeim change 'cause it would be a lot easier fot the Bush camp to do far more damage in the next 4 years. Paul

Re:"Debates"

[Anonymous Custard]

Dude, read opendebates.org. Lots of reasonable responses to almost every point you brought up.

If the 15% threshold was applied to every debate in the 20th century, only one or two 3rd party candidates would have been invited ever. Ever if it were a whoppingly small 2%, only three or four would have.

Re:"Debates"

[reverius]

By that measurement, John Kerry and George W. Bush are much "stronger" candidates than any third parties, so what's the point of including any number (greater than 0) of third party candidates?

I really don't think popularity is what the poster was going for. Maybe... ability to challenge the status quo and arbitrary conventions that the two parties hold to, as well as the positions on issues of the main candidates that are not in the best interest (or not the most popular stance) among the American people.

Re:"Debates"

[Knightfall]

"So, who's going to actually do it? You?"

Well, actually, yes, I have tried. I ran for a state rep position as an independant. Came in 2nd I might add. I was beaten by democrat with $$$$$$$$$$ who had a record of voting for 100% of the tax increases put before him, who voted for every patriot-like act, and who had a published affair with an intern. If I can't beat that without a huge bankroll how I am to move any further forward. Are YOU going to give me donations?

Re:"Debates"

[Knightfall]

You are kidding right? There are websites devoted to nothing but Kerry goofs. Hell, his list of sports mis-statments alone take up several pages (nothing like going to Michigan and claiming you are firmly behind the Ohio State Buckeyes). His is not so much a problem of intellect as being completely out of touch with anyone even resembling mainstream. Just like the other major candidate I might add.

Re:"Debates"

[Knightfall]

Way off? No, I don't think so. I am not talking about a revolution in the democratic process. I am not talking about a sustained multiple party system. I am talking about getting 1 CREDIBLE person to open eyes, bring out "real people" issues, and get public interest back into the process. Perot came close, but unfortunately nobody followed up.

Re:"Debates"

[Knightfall]

Your statements conflict. First you say that a multi-party system would "gridlock" things, of which I am in 100% agreement. Then you say you want a party that more closely meets your needs. YOu have to have a 3rd party with some staying power to either 1)eliminate one of the current parties or 2)make one of the current parties move back to the mainstream. I do not want to see a sustained multi-party system, but what we have got to have is a solid third party come up for 1-2 election runs to either remove some of the power of the current parties or cause a major shift in voter awareness.

Re:"Debates"

[Knightfall]

You make a great point. But to get that we need a MUCH more open debate system. I would love to see a rel debate with real questions that both men have equal opportunity to shine or fall. I have seen the video you mentioned and it is scary to see how badly Bush handle that situation. I have also seen videos that show how truly out of touch with mainstream Kerry is. He is an intellectual and fair speaker, but he just has no clue how to speak to people that get paid on Monday and are broke on Tueday after paying the essential bills. An open free debate format could help expose that just as much as Bush's lack of, well, anything? :)

Re:"Debates"

[Epi-man]

Anyone who has read my posts can quickly guess I am a republican .....
I've said it many times ... we have got to get a strong third party in place and soon to push the political mountain or we are going to watch these two parties merge into one uncontrollable monster.

As someone else sort of pointed out, why do you not see that you are in no way helping, but are actually part of the problem! If you are so worried about "these two parties" why in the heck do you start out by saying you are part of one of them?! You have stated you support half of the problem (okay, half, a little less than half, whatever).

Re:"Debates"

[Knightfall]

Oooooo ... here's the flame I was waiting for. Back it up with facts huh? Read here for an idea on how they are not all that different at all. Not just the comments, follow some of the links.

Kerry was a war hero and "everyone that served with him" says so ... Um, don't think so.

Bush started a war that resluted in over 1000 american deaths ... damn, I could have sworn that someone else started the war by killing 2948 Americans. Guess I was wrong.

Kerry and Bush are both silver-spoon born million/billionares with no grasp on what the common man goes through day to day. Do you think either of them has ever been in a position where they had $5 left in their account and were stuck deciding between getting gas or food for the evening? Think either of them has ever seen red ink in their personal checkbooks and prayed that the paycheck went through before the mortgage check? Open your eyes and stop sucking at the liberal teat of the left-wing.

Re:"Debates"

[Knightfall]

Did you bother to read my reply to that poster??? I HAVE TRIED. HAVE YOU?

Re:"Debates"

[Knightfall]

I have and will. Four years ago neither Bush nor Gore got my vote. This year neither Bush nor Kerry will be getting it. I do what I can. Now if we can get 50 or so million to follow us perhaps we can make a change :-)

Re:"Debates"

[Buzz_Litebeer]

I am sorry if I am having trouble seeing the logic behind LIKING that the president cannot think on his feet without his handlers to consult.

I can understand where you want him to consult his industry representatives so that he doesnt do anything wrong.

The problem is, when Bush is in a foriegn country, he has to be able to think independantly because he cant ship everyone he asks for help with him. This is perhaps why we are not having good relationships with other countries.

Telling a foriegn dignatary that he is spouting "Fuzzy Logic" doesnt work.

Re:"Debates"

[Anonymous Coward]

opendebates.org is blue-sky idealism and completely irrelevant to every point I brought up. I have absolutely no philosophical objections to opening debates to less-popular candidates. In a utopia or tabula-rasa USA, I'd surely welcome it.

In this reality, however, pragmatism is inseparable from politics. The problems of extreme minority participation in mainstream debates can be summarized in two points: 1) the main parties have enormous established "user bases" and fluid resources and 2) neither has any compunction against committing immoral acts to secure more power.

An open debating system would need to be architected from the ground up to work, and the playing field's already skewed (see #1 above). Like anarchy, or socialism, or libertarianism, or any other theory advocating extreme change, if you implemented it immediately and all at once it would result in unmitigated disaster.

John Kerry has already slammed George W. Bush for being an "extremist radical libertarian"; Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has called John Kerry a "socialist". What do you imagine might happen when people so entrenched in a particular worldview that they consider Bush "libertarian" and Kerry "socialist" encounter actual espousers of actual libertarian or socialist politico-philosophy?

Third parties need to gain mainstream acceptance before they will be useful in a political context, not vice-versa. Throw history to the wind - there weren't armies of cell phones, or an Internet, before recently. Communication is changing, and third parties do have a chance - and a utopian implementation isn't at all necessary for this chance to be capitalized upon.

Re:"Debates"

[AceM2]

I am sorry if I am having trouble seeing the logic behind LIKING that the president cannot think on his feet without his handlers to consult.

Well, I reject the idea that he can't think on his feet at all. I'm saying there is more to it than that. I'd rather have a president who prefers to consult before he talks rather than someone who says something different every time he gets asked about tough issues.


I can understand where you want him to consult his industry representatives so that he doesnt do anything wrong.

Hilarious. Do you write your own material? After reading your sig and noticing you quoted yourself, I though you might be an aspiring comedian.

The problem is, when Bush is in a foriegn country, he has to be able to think independantly because he cant ship everyone he asks for help with him. This is perhaps why we are not having good relationships with other countries.

First of all, the President has secretaries and ambassadors to do a lot of the talking. When he goes and meets with someone, it's generally composed of short meetings filled with a lot of pre-prepared lines and such. This is not something new to Bush, it's just the way things are done. We should assume that both sides want to have a good relationship, so if the other dignitary is using 'fuzzy logic' and trying to screw us over, then the President should point it out as such.

Re:"Debates"

[cduffy]

"Hard to reach consensus" is a feature, not a bug. Simply put, I'm far happier with a government that does nothing than a government that does the wrong thing.

So, yes -- give me deadlock! (That said, I'm not convinced that more groups means more deadlock -- after all, it can also be taken to mean that there's effectively someone in a tiebreaker role -- though I'm comforted as a Libertarian if it's my tiebreaker in place).

Re:"Debates"

[Buzz_Litebeer]

Hmmm. Considering Bush handling of the economy, I think his "Fuzzy Logic" was a blatant lack of understanding of the subject, and the inability to reply in a meaningfull manner.

Perhaps if we had had someone who could give a detailed answer on a subject, without making the subject black and white, there are things that are NOT black and white, and thats where things like Fuzzy Math come in, it weights things on its values and tries to make the best decisons from a multitude of options.

Re:"Debates"

[AceM2]

Hmmm. Considering Bush handling of the economy, I think his "Fuzzy Logic" was a blatant lack of understanding of the subject, and the inability to reply in a meaningfull manner.

After the bubble burst and 9/11, he's doing pretty well for someone who doesn't understand it then.

Re:"Debates"

[Anonymous Custard]

opendebates.org is blue-sky idealism and completely irrelevant to every point I brought up.

No... it provides quite an interesting history of how what you call "blue sky idealism" was actually the way things worked for years while the League of Women Voters ran the debates, and how the two major parties f'd the debates up into such a state that people consider real debates to be "blue sky idealism".

Re:"Debates"

[Dyolf Knip]

Bush started a war that resluted in over 1000 american deaths ... damn, I could have sworn that someone else started the war by killing 2948 Americans. Guess I was wrong.

I take it then you get most of your news from Fox? Because they seem to have the highest success rate in turning out people who think Saddam = Osama.

Re:"Debates"

[Syntroxis]

In my way of thinking, you are simply sticking your head in the sand. Bush's handlers are, right now, trembling in anticipation of what they will be able to accomplish once he gets into office again without having to worry about re-election. I've had people call me paranoid, but who'd have thought we'd see done to the Bill of Rights what's been done so far. Frankly, it scares me to death, and those people who are not making a positive effort to eliminate the current scourge on this land are simply supporting it. There is no other candidate who has even a remote chance of defeating the current puppet. If you are sincere in wanting to get the shrub out of office, the only legitimate vote is Kerry. Paul

Re:"Debates"

[Knightfall]

Another good flame. Anyone ignorant to think that Saddam was not supporting every major terrorist group needs to remove their cranium from their glutius maximus region.

Re:"Debates"

[Knightfall]

So you are telling me that because I don't agree with Bush I should place my vote for someone who absolutely turns my stomach instead???? Nope, not how I work. The only way to get a third party into the light is to "take a few for the team", vote for them, and hope that enough people open their eyes, do the same, and allow that third party to at least be in a position to make a difference. To me Voting for Kerry is equal to throwing my vote away.

Re:"Debates"

[Dyolf Knip]

Yup! Fox News all the way!

Re:"Debates"

[Epi-man]

Did you bother to read my reply to that poster??? I HAVE TRIED. HAVE YOU?

I have, and it doesn't address the point of my post, you still indicate you are part of the problem. Sure, you ran, but you ran as an independant, that doesn't help establish the strong third party you indicate we desperately need in your first post, and you still claim to be a republican in the same post you say they are half the problem. How does this go against my original post (saying you are part of the problem you complain about, right now, this day)? How did you try to establish a third party by running as an independant? Even if you had run as a third party candidate, how does that change that today, you claim to be a republican? Why aren't you working towards the solution you desire anymore?

Have I tried, yes, and I continue to try. I darn near never vote for republicans or democrats at any level, so you can stop yelling now.

Re:"Debates"

[Knightfall]

Prove me wrong. Show me some documents that aren't forged that prove me wrong.

Re:"Debates"

[Dyolf Knip]

Lemme get this straight, it's my job to prove that something (proof of support for Al Qaeda by Hussein) doesn't exist? You are aware that barring internal contradictions in the supposition, that is a logical impossibility?

But hey, I'll play that game. Only first you have to show me some documents that aren't forged that prove that, oh, say, Bill Gates wasn't supporting them either. If you can't, then we have to go invade Redmond.

Re:"Debates"

[Knightfall]

Come down off your intellectual high horse. I'm saying show one document, by a reputable source or independent source, that says explicitly, "Hussein was not supporting terrorists." Notice I said terrorists, not Al Qaeda specifically. Seems most folks have forgotten about the 100's of other terrorist cells that exist. A quick google search turns up 100's of documents and reports that say he was and I would imagine at least one even you would say is credible in the bunch.

Re:DailyKOS

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed, dailykos need to be SHUT DOWN, this is not about freedom of speach, it is about enforcement of laws against treason

Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[RanceMuhamitz]

In the last third party debate Badnarik mentioned eliminating the Federal Reserve. He suggests using the American Liberty Currency as an alternative currency that is backed by gold and silver. I think this is an excellent idea.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[realdpk]

Doesn't it all seem like kind of a scheme though?

"I simply hand them the currency as payment. 95% of the businesses accept it"

Come on now. If that's not a lie, it's sure a distortion.

Then I go to look for liberty merchants in my area (WA state), almost all of them are "associates". Then you look at this page:

Description of the associate system

It's a pyramid scheme! They even admit it. You give them $250, they give you $100 in their currency back. But you can make the remainder back by getting more people to sign up as associates!

If Badnarik is really for this ALC stuff, he's lost my vote, and respect.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[RanceMuhamitz]

It's not a pyramid scheme. After you sign up, you work directly from NORFED. No pyramids are formed. You should take a little more time to read before making statements like this. Plus, NORFED is a non-profit organization. This is completely legit.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, great. Another obnoxious loudmouth who doesn't understand how the international monetary system works, yet thinks himself qualified to promote an obtuse and impractical "solution" that would, at best, duplicate the current institutional system.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[RanceMuhamitz]

You obviously didn't read anything about it.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[realdpk]

But you have to sign up associates under you to receive your compensation. How is that not a pyramid? Is it because money doesn't continue to flow upwards after they sign up?

Plenty of non-profit organizations are not entirely legit, btw. The Red Cross, for instance.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[Anonymous Coward]

I read enough of it to justify my skepticism. You, on the other hand, obviously have little background in international finance or history.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[kmweber]

I live about 30 miles north of NORFED's HQ in Evansville, IN and I spend a good deal of time down there. If you want, I can put you in contact with someone who can explain it to you.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[fishbowl]

>This is completely legit.

Until you can pay federal taxes and fines with it, it's no more "legit" than any other barter system.

Why not just buy gold and use that? (You probably *could* use it to pay public debts, then.)

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[Blakey Rat]

If it's completely legit, then why do I hand them $250 and get only $100 back? That's $150 away from being legit.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[TheWizardOfCheese]

Badnarik mentioned eliminating the Federal Reserve. He suggests using the American Liberty Currency as an alternative currency that is backed by gold and silver. I think this is an excellent idea.

OK, but why do you think that? I followed your link to find out for myself, and I concluded that this idea is completely kooky. Aside from all the weird rubbish about international bankers etc, why do you think it would be a good idea to yoke the value of your currency to a pair of commodities? Yes, inflation and deflation would no longer be directly controlled by government decisions ... but that's a bad thing. Instead, inflation and deflation would occur randomly as demand for money changed against the capacity to extract gold and silver. We don't have to guess about this; it's exactly what happened in the century and a half before Bretton-Woods. This caused some disasterous depressions in the 19th century.

In any case, bimetallic standards are inherently unstable, because the intrinsic relative values of gold and silver are not constant; the money in a bimetallic standard can therefore be arbitraged against the underlying commodities.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a multi-level marketing scam.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[westlake]

Status Report of U.S. Treasury Owned Gold August 31, 2004:

Gold owned by the U.S. Treasury: $11 billion
Gold held by the Federal Reserve: $586 million

FRB Currency and Coin Services:

Currency in Circulation: (2003) $690 billion, 1/2-2/3 held abroad

Consider the contraction in credit implied by a return to the gold standard. What happens when 2/3 of america's gold reserves can be claimed abroad?

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, it's a scam.

I don't think Badnarik has ever recommended this particular system. There are a lot of ways that gold and/or silver could be used. This isn't one of them.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[ninja0]

Although having a commodity-backed currency sounds like a good idea, it doesn't necessarily work out. Back in the 19th century (and part of the 20th) many countries were on the gold standard, where currency is backed by gold. Although this does some cool things, like controlling inflation, etc., it also leads to some painful depressions. The gold standard was abandoned because it's not fully compatible with a modern economy.

Not that Libertarians' ideas are all bad, but a lot of their lassiez-faire economic ideas used to be the norm 100 years ago. These policies were abandoned for good reasons. A certain amount of governmental intervention has been proven to be needed to keep a complicated modern economy stable.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, Badnarik must have absolutely no clue about economic history.

Not someone I want as president.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[Idarubicin]

He suggests using the American Liberty Currency as an alternative currency that is backed by gold and silver. I think this is an excellent idea.

It's an excellent idea...for people who like the idea of a fully-backed currency...as long as there aren't too many such people.

In another Slashdot thread a month or two ago, someone proposed using physical pure-gold currency in all transactions. The problem is, there isn't enough gold.

Very roughly, the total amount of gold ever mined is on the order of three billion troy ounces.

The total amount of U.S. currency in circulation is on the order of six hundred billion dollars.

The current price of gold is about four hundred dollars per ounce, giving the value of all the gold in the world as about 1.2 trillion dollars. In other words, you'd have to put half of all the world's gold into Fort Knox to fully back all the greenbacks in the U.S. To be fair, trying to acquire enough gold to back all U.S. currency would play merry hell with the value of gold, and the dollar, so the numbers above are very approximate. We'll leave aside the damage caused by the economic dislocations of shifting so much capital about....

For silver, the comparable figures are 40 billion total ounces mined in the last two millennia, at $6.50 an ounce--total value: $260 billion. There isn't enough silver to back greenbacks, period. Also, silver is used commercially for a lot of things (photography, jewellery and other decoration, electronics...) and is currently being consumed faster than it is mined. Once again, trying to pull billions of ounces of the stuff out of circulation to back a currency would be an economic disaster.

Adopting a fully-backed currency may seem appealing, but it is a practical impossibility for the United States--there just isn't $600 billion worth of anything out there that could be readily relocated to Fort Knox.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[mdfst13]

"After you sign up, you work directly from NORFED."

That doesn't make it not a pyramid scheme. It just makes it a very short pyramid (three levels: you, the associate who signs you up, and them). It still uses Multi-Level Marketing to expand. It compares itself to PayPal or Amazon, but it is very different.

PayPal and Amazon collects money for services and goods. They then take a portion of the money that they collect and use it for marketing. One method of marketing is to pay for referrals. Note that you don't have to pay anything to get in the Amazon or PayPal programs. They make their money from the referred customers, not from selling you the right to sell for them.

By contrast, the liberty program is a club. You pay in $250 of real money and get back $100 of their money. They then take $100 of their money and give it to whomever signed you up. This can only be justified if you believe that $100 of their money plus the right to exchange real money for their money in the future is worth $150. However, they don't try to argue that. Instead they tell you to refer two more people, so that you can get paid $100 of their money.

Calling it a non-profit doesn't matter. There are all sorts of ways to make money off a non-profit. For example, one can simply get paid a salary by the non-profit. Someone is coining the silver money.

Pages like http://www.norfed.org/html/silvertwice.asp are what really indicate that this is not a good idea. Of the $100 of their money that they are giving you, $40 is in the form of silver coins that contain (drumroll please) about $20 of silver. Also the bizarre claim to be "inflation-proof." What are they saying? That inflation didn't exist prior to fiat money? That's bull. Look at the affect the gold rush had on prices. New sources of precious metal (or a drop in demand) cause inflation in metal backed currencies. Heck, I looked all over the public parts of the site, and I can't find a listing of the exchange rates (how much liberty money for a real $1; how many really dollars for liberty money).

This group gets you coming, going, and in the middle.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[publius_jr]

I agree about getting rid of the Fed, and while reverting to a 100%-backed gold standard would solve one problem of our money system, i.e. fractional reserves, it would create a new problem that is totally unnecessary and avoidable, i.e. basing our currency on a resource concentrated in the hands of few. The result of the ALC, if totally implemented, would be to create a quasi-Fed, invisible, boarded by quasi-governors (i.e. big gold holders) & powered with similar abilities to change at will the actual purchasing power of money (by hoarding or releasing their gold). A better solution might be a 100%-backed fiat currency which does not expand or contract (beyond perhaps such factors as population growth rate). The transition to such a system is beyond my head, but I am aware of efforts by noble-minded economists like Friedman in that very vein (cf. the video The Money Masters).

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[Guppy06]

"backed by gold and silver."

That's nice. What happens when gold and silver prices fluctuate with respect to each other?

"I think this is an excellent idea."

Good. Now go bother your state legislature. They have the power to mint gold and silver coin to be used as currency to their heart's content and I fail to see the need for the entire Union to get involved in yet another "hard money" venture.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[RyanK]

"By contrast, the liberty program is a club."

If you care to look at the Associate program as such, fine. But there is more to it. You can get their currency without paying the $250. But, Associates get the currencies at a discount. Currently, $9.23 gets you 10 Liberty Dollars. This price fluctuates with the cost of silver.

And, they openly explain what they do with the $50 from the signup. It goes to pay people to answer phones when some merchant gets one and doesn't know what it is. They have marketing materials, they have offices to pay for.

"$40 is in the form of silver coins that contain (drumroll please) about $20 of silver."

They NEVER claim to be an investment vehicle. They will openly tell you that there is $6.96 worth of Silver in that $10 piece. The difference goes to the cost of coining the silver. They also have paper money and a warehouse (that is independently audited, more costs) that stores silvers. For every paper liberty dollar in circulation, there's a silver 'coin' in the warehouse.

"Also the bizarre claim to be "inflation-proof.""
"I can't find a listing of the exchange rates"

These are related! They exchange on a 1 for 1 basis with they US dollar! However, if the price of silver exceeds a threshold for a 30 day period, all Liberties double in value. An example: I give a liberty associate a 10 dollar Federal Reserve Note (FRN) he gives me a $10 Silver Liberty. Over the course of the next 30 days, silver gets close to $10 an ounce, my $10 Silver Liberty is now a $20 Silver Liberty. If I want to get another one, I'll have to give the associate $20 (FRN).

So, it doesn't protect you from the inflation that you mention, but Silver is relatively difficult to mine and its entering the market at about the rate it is being consumed (yes, silver is used in many everyday items). What it does protect you from is our government merely printing more money.

Most people don't understand that we control the rate of inflation. For whatever reason, we want a 3% rate, so we introduce 3% more every year, and simple supply and demand drives prices up. Meanwhile your savings account that is getting 1% (if you're lucky) is losing ground!

There's lots of places on their website where they explain all of this.

Silver approaching $10

The Value of the Silver being less then face value

About Norfed and scam claims

Also, they have been investigated by the Secret Service (who is responsible for policing counterfeiting, you know, it IS one of the three federal crimes, the others being Piracy (the-open-water-ARRRRG,Ahoy-Matey kind, not the P2P-MP3-file-sharing kind) and Treason), and they have no problems with it.

I'm not a fanatic, but I have some currency, and I see the value in it. I'm near Chicago, and its more difficult to use here. There are entire small towns in other parts of the country that are thriving on it though. Check out the video section at the bottom of their info page.

Enough rambling for now...

Ryan

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[RyanK]

Isn't this the logical outcome of a slow and steady inflation? Since the total number of circulating dollars is ever increasing and outpacing anything of value, if it isn't ahead of a commidity, it soon will be. And if it's ahead, it's not coming back!

If the move to silver or gold is going to happen, it will have to happen slowly, and be adoted over a period of time, to ease the pain of the capital shifting. And, yes there may be some deflation or devalueing of our dollar, but there are ways to manage that as well. There has already been talk about devaluing our currency or removing coins from circulation.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[RyanK]

We are at our capacity to mine silver. Its a manual task and until someone finds a better way to mine it or throws more resources at it, we will be out of silver. You are also right that we consume more silver then we are producing. So, Supply and demand will dictate one of two things. The price of Silver will go up (which is good if your currency is backed by silver), or there will be more reward for people to mine more silver or find more efficient ways to extract it (which would keep the value the same, but we would have more of it).

The depressions you speak of in the 19th century were the result of Bank Panics or Bank Runs. Those were the result of fraction currencies. Banks were loaning out more then they had on deposit. When debtors defaulted on the loans the banks made, it wasn't the banks that lost, it was those that had deposited their funds that were out the money. So, if the economy took a downturn, people wanted to be able to get THEIR money out while their was still money in the bank. Unfortunately, people removing their deposited funds is the WORST thing for the bank panic and eventually all the money is out of the bank and some people are left with nothing.

This is why all our banks now are insured by the government. That's what FDIC insurance is. So, instead of making it illegal to loan money you don't have, the government santioned it by covering the losses. Who cares now anyway, they can just print more!

One other correction, Silver is the main component of the American Liberty Currency. The gold piece is a $500 coin and it was more of a commerative piece then meant for actual use in transactions. Remember, the ALC is designed as a currency to hold value in transactions and not as a long term investment. It could prove to be quite a good investment if we experience any hyper-inflation, similar to Germany after WW1.

Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve

[Idarubicin]

Isn't this the logical outcome of a slow and steady inflation? Since the total number of circulating dollars is ever increasing and outpacing anything of value, if it isn't ahead of a commidity, it soon will be. And if it's ahead, it's not coming back!

Nope. The outcome of inflation is a decrease in the purchasing power of each dollar. It is about the perceived value of the currency. (In the case of fiat currencies, anyway.) Additional banknotes can be printed without causing inflation as long as the perceived value of the economy and government behind them increases at the same rate.

Printing more dollars does not in and of itself make a currency worth more in total. That sort of thing does cause inflation. Very roughly, there are six hundred billion dollars in circulation now and gold costs three hundred dollars an ounce. If the U.S. Mint printed another six hundred billion dollars' worth of notes on Monday, the price of gold wouldn't stay at $300 per ounce. There would be instant inflation, and gold would rise to $600 per ounce. Think of it as being like the market capitalization of a company. You can issue a million shares at a dollar apiece, or a hundred thousand shares for ten dollars apiece. If you sell additional stock, it dilutes the value of what's already out there.

The problem is that the perceived value of the notes in circulation approaches the value of all the gold ever mined anywhere in the world, and exceeds the value of all the available silver. Unless the perceived value of the currency is lowered drastically (which would be economic and political suicide), it's not possible to fully back the U.S. dollar. It used to be possible to have fully-backed national currencies because the economies involved were a lot smaller. Some smaller countries could choose to have fully-backed currencies now, but the list is getting shorter. Don't blame inflation--blame a healthy economy.

And, yes there may be some deflation or devalueing of our dollar, but there are ways to manage that as well. There has already been talk about devaluing our currency or removing coins from circulation.

Deflation and devaluation have opposite effects. Deflation increases the purchasing power of each dollar. It tends to have nasty economic consequences because people will hoard cash (it will be worth more tomorrow) instead of spending it. Incidentally, what techniques do you recommend to deal with the economic dislocations of deflation?

Pulling coins (or banknotes) from circulation won't devalue the dollar. It will increase its value. People will still want cash, and want to use it. Since there will be fewer dollars out there, the value of each dollar left in circulation will rise.

I'm not sure how you would suggest 'devaluing' the dollar without screwing people over. Most methods involve heavy inflation through issuing lots of extra notes, or some other form of gross economic stupidity.

This is first-year macroeconomics, people. Incidentally, what are the benefits to a fully-backed currency that ties one's exchange rates to a commodity? Backing the dollar with gold just abdicates all responsibility for management of the currency, and puts it squarely on the source of gold--in no small part South Africa. Dandy.

Dude!

[Tibor the Hun]

Down with the man, dude!

Re:Dude!

[Rob the Bold]

Down with the man, dude!

Down with the dude, man!

sweet!

[TedCheshireAcad]

So the candidates that no one is going to vote for are going to have a debate that no one is going to watch?

/join #care-police

Non-troll content is low

[operagost]

I wish Slashdot had a nutritional information label, so that I could look at it and see if it had any non-troll content.

The "official" debates are highly flawed, but to call them pseudo-debates because you don't like them is absurd. They are real debates, with real moderation and real issues. Many complain that there's really one Republicrat party with the same ideals, but I suggest that it only seems that way if your own interests swing wildly to one end of the political spectrum. Wake up, radicals, most people congregate somewhere near the center. It's generally only the unstable nations with strong factions at the extremes. I grow weary of people who demand instant change, and don't care if it's against the public will or good because they're sure they're right. That kind of thinking got us the Alien and Sedition acts and Prohibition.

That being said, I'm happy to see an alternate party debate and hope it is a success.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[Anonymous Coward]

The "official" debates are highly flawed, but to call them pseudo-debates because you don't like them is absurd. They are real debates, with real moderation and real issues.

The candidates are not allowed to ask each other questions, nor are they given time to respond to what another candidate says. These events simply do not meet the dictionary definition of debates. [I'm too lazy to link to the entry on dictionary.com.]

Re:Non-troll content is low

[geomon]

Wake up, radicals, most people congregate somewhere near the center.

Then you must have missed the primaries.

No process is more dominated by fringe elements within the Republican and Democratic parties than the primaries. For 15 years I attended Republican caucuses in my state and organized around centrist candidates only to see the process hijacked by radicals.

Your rant about the other parties is way off the mark. The centrists have left the major parties looking for parties that the middle CAN vote for.

And I, for one, am not looking for instant change. I am working at the local level (school districts, county commissioners, state reps and senators) for victories that will make the major parties begin to pay attention again.

If you continue to stay with the major parties, you are begging to be controlled by the fringe.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[Noksagt]

The parent post should be modded straight to the top (or we need a method of moding submitted stories "Flamebait").

There are several very vocoal Libertarians and Green Party supporters on slashdot. I have no problems with their opinions, but the wording of this story is so bad as to turn me off. Insisting on using loaded words can turn people against you, even if you are even partially right: think RMS & "GNU/Linux" or the millenial-pedants.

But the lexical extremism doesn't even seem to be partially right in this case.

How exactly are these debates any more "real" or "actual" than the "official" debates? There are still only two parties represented. They have still agreed on a set of rules governing the event (that are more unrestricted and open than that of the "official" debate, but still...). I don't even see any indication that Kerry or Bush were invited (and, because of the timing and location, I doubt very much that they were considered).

I guess "real" must mean that the debates have a candidate you believe in & "pseudo" must mean that they don't.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[rhakka]

If you can read the "Memorandum of Understanding" and think this is anything but a farce, I'm sorry, pull down your underwear so you can get a look at what's going on here. It's not just the exclusion of third party candidates that is the problem... though that is a problem... another HUGE problem is this is a whitewashed cakewalk which allows the candidates to do nothing but spit sound bites for 90 minutes.

They can't even cross examine each other. I don't know what planet you come from, but I for one would much prefer to see the candidates, you know, DEBATE.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[ajna]

Your argument is based on the assumption that the Republican and Democrat party lines are drawn at their current locations based on the opinions of the electorate. This is not the case. Instead the parties share the same fundamental pro-corporation viewpoint, as corporations and wealthy individuals at the helm of corporations are their funding source.

Evidence for this is that the issues that the candidates do diverge on are relatively non-critical: abortion, gay marriage, things that would be nice to have resolved but are not critical to the function of the nation. Many real issues are left totally untouched by either party, such as how to achieve universal health care coverage, whether we should be in Iraq at all (not over whether troop increases are necessary), whether our current relationship with Israel is parasitic or symbiotic...

Re:Non-troll content is low

[10101001 10101001]

Look up the word debate:

Debate \De*bate"\, v. i.
1. To engage in strife or combat; to fight.
2. To contend in words; to dispute; hence, to deliberate; to consider; to discuss or examine different arguments in the mind; -- often followed by on or upon.

From the sounds of it, the "debate" between Bush and Kerry will just be a list of questions to be answered publically. If Bush and Kerry don't "fight" each other or the questioners, it's not a debate. It's at best a pre-scripted verbal test. Debates are in a separate class which require a lot more out of a person, which is why they're useful as a means of testing a person. Once the "heat is off", each candidate might make better, more thought-out decisions. But, that's not the point of a debate, as we hope that any remotely good candidate will assign a competent cabinant such that any solution that takes time to think about can be well thought out.

To that end, Badnarik and Cobb's response might be a pseudo-debate, depending on how much they fight each other. Hopefully, also, their debate (?) will include unscripted questions.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[rbowen]

... That kind of thinking got us the Alien and Sedition acts and Prohibition. ...

And the Patriot Act, let's not forget.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[CaptainSuperBoy]

You're in luck, dear moderate: Centrist kind of thinking will get us a marriage amendment, unchecked government spending, a ten trillion dollar national debt, and absolutely zero progress. This is a time for big change, to our philosophies and our political process.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[Noksagt]

Why did you choose to cite the (obsolete) intransitive verb froms? That first definition is actually quite literal--it just isn't used anymore.

Listen--this "by definition" argument made here and in other places is careless. From the OED (emphasis added):

2. a. Contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; esp. the discussion of questions of public interest in Parliament or in any assembly.

The candidates will be discusiing their opposing viewpoints that are of interest to the voters. That they have agreed not to ask questions of each other or to be open to questions from the general public changes the rules of the game, not the name of it.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[Anonymous Coward]

They are only having a discussion in the weakest sense of the word "discussion". A discussion is usually a conversation, not simply two people reading statements. That these debates do not involve any real interaction between the two people is why this can only be called a debate by using the loosest definitions and the most tenuous lines of reasoning. Imagine how completely uninvolving debate clubs would be if they were run as such. They'd essentially be essay and public reading contests.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[10101001 10101001]

As my esteemed Anonymous Coward "friend" points out.

discussion
n 1: an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic
2: an exchange of views on some topic

From the sounds of it, this is not a debate because what is occuring is a lecture, not a discussion. There's no chance of an interactive section, and even lectures sometimes have those (though usually just to clarify wording). Without a secondary party to discuss with, there is no debate.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wake up, radicals, most people congregate somewhere near the center."

True, but politics these days is all about getting the votes of a small minority. Why?

The majors know that x% of the voters will always vote Republican, no matter who the candidate is. Likewise, y% will always vote Deomcrat.

That leaves z% whose votes will actually change the outcome. z is probably only 10% of the population (given that most people either can't, or won't, vote). And rest assured that the majors have that 10% nailed down domographically. They know who they are and where they live. They know what their values are and what concerns them.

That minority decides the outcome. Not the majority in the middle.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[operagost]

The Patriot Act just applies the same law enforcement privileges that have been used against suspected drug smugglers and dealers. So if there was any knee-jerk reaction, it was in the 1990s.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[John Newman]

The "official" debates are highly flawed, but to call them pseudo-debates because you don't like them is absurd.

Well, one of the ground rules is that the candidates may not address questions or comments at each other. That would seem to take much of the actual debating out of the debates. It's more like a moderated Q&A session.

Not to say they aren't still valuable, because they're still the only time most of the public will ever hear the candidates discuss a reasonable breadth of issues, and because they're all we've got.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[theLOUDroom]

They are real debates, with real moderation and real issues.

No they aren't.

The questions are known beforehand and the answers are scripted.
These are as much of a real debate as the Barbie Dreamhouse is a real house.
The moderators are just for appearences. There is nothing to moderate, as they've all decided what is going to happen in advance.
The "real issues" consist of topics chosen by the canidates in advance as issues they would *like* to discuss.
In these "debates" both canidates can chose to refuse to discuss anything they want.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[Anonymous Custard]

They are real debates, with real moderation and real issues.

Unfortunately, they're missing those valuable "real responses" that fill up actual debates, and instead have cleverly worded sidestepping policy declarations designed to avoid the most backlash.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[Nimey]

Hell, minor parties are just as vulnerable to radicals as the majors. Look at what Pat Buchanan did to the Reform Party in 2000.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[Noksagt]

But this is an exchange of views on some topic! Candidates will be asked many of the same or similar questions & will (ideally) talk about them. They're even likely to do so in such a way that is designed to set them apart from the other.

Discussions are discourses between some set of people, defined by some amount of temporal and topical continuity. Rules limiting what can be said don't stop it from being a discussion.

I'm not saying the "official" debates are a perfect system (very far from!)--just that it is stupid to argue semantics. Not only will saying that it isn't a real debate win few to your side who would agree that it should be changed, but what you choose to call it doesn't change what it is.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[Moofie]

This makes it OK how exactly?

Step 1) Get rid of PATRIOT.
Step 2) Get rid of RICO.
Step 3) Rationalize drug policy.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[Anonymous Coward]

if most people congregate somewhere near the center, why do we have two candidates that come from wealthy white families. i'll call them worse than pseudo-debates, i'll call them "if Yale ruled the world"

Re:Non-troll content is low

[10101001 10101001]

You seem to be missing the point. A discussion is a type of dialogue. Ie, it requires two way communication. Now, you can claim that the censored questions being answered in public qualifies. But, it's closer to a oral test. Oral tests aren't discussions. An oral test is a one to one transaction (ie, a fixed list of input and an equal or smaller list of responses, with no expansion on those responses). It does not "evolve" beyond that level because there is no framework for it.

It's not stupid to argue semantics when the semantics are the key to what a debate is about. Without people being able to ask questions as they go or censoring what could be a dialogue, you're effectively removing the ability to evaluate each candidate's ability to reason or respond quickly to a set of conditions. Things like wars, damage relief, or all sorts of other things a President is expected to decide upon require near immediate action. Without an ability to test those abilities, the people voting for said candidates have even less of a clue on how such a person will react as President (yes, you can go on history; but, the past can paint a vague picture of the present if viewed too closely; such perceptions are best joined with perceptions of the present).

To put it another way, imagine if instead of me responding to you or you responding to me, this entire forum was exactly one level deep and consisted of responding only to the story. It's hard to call that a discussion in any reasonable terms, and it truly undermines the power of the resolution of ideas through the joined input of multiple parties on a question of dispute.

Re:Non-troll content is low

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people only select from the ideas and options presented to them. Since the ideas presented are predominantly those of the major parties, and the options are presented as a choice between the two most likely winners or a protest vote among the most likely losers, it is not hard to announce that most people congregate somewhere near the center. They have to. Many Americans, whether among the half that votes or the half that does not, are not being represented by the two major parties. In the past this situation would remedy itself over time. However in this day and age there are a host of mechanisms by which the Democrats and Republicans maintain their grip on power artificially.. and by no means because American citizens share their views.

The Democrats and Republicans of the modern era truly *do* share the same political foundations. They both advocate an authoritarian future for America. The only differences lie in the minutiae of how and on what issues they will press and enforce their authority, via government, upon the populace. Operagost you said "I grow weary of people who demand instant change, and don't care if it's against the public will or good because they're sure they're right. That kind of thinking got us the Alien and Sedition acts and Prohibition." -- I say "I grow weary of the government resisting or enacting change when it is convenient for the government, and not caring if it's against the public will or good because they're sure they're right. That kind of thinking got us the PATRIOT act and the war in Iraq"

Another, even more meaningful debate

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife and I will debate over what's for dinner, what to do after dinner, and whether there will be any extracurriculars later that night.

Sadly, the debate is meaningless, as marriage is a dictatorship.

Re:Another, even more meaningful debate

[Daagar]

Just hope she doesn't start bringing in 3rd party candidates...

Re:Another, even more meaningful debate

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish I had mod points for this'n. Thanks.

Fault on both sides

[Thunderstruck]

Sadly, it is often as much the fault of 3rd party candidates and campaigns that they are not included in the debates. Third parties seem to fail, year by year, to do their homework.

Generally, to get into any debate whether it be persidential, state, or local, one needs only to contact the organizing agency before they finalize things and start doing press releases. Most 3rd party campaigns do not do their homework, do not maintain contact with the other parties, and do not find out in advance who's hosting a debate. Thus, they show up after the rules are set and the advertising paid, and demand to be included.

Granted, this does not absolve the most recent accord on debates from responsibility for the clause which prohibits BUSH and KERRY from debating anyone else... but you can see where the problem lies most often.

.

Re:Fault on both sides

[maximilln]

Third parties seem to fail, year by year, to do their homework

There you go. Shovel the blame back onto those who are left in the cold.

Generally, to get into any debate whether it be persidential, state, or local, one needs only to contact the organizing agency

That's pretty generally speaking and it's also false. Third party candidates, especially Libertarian candidates, have contacted debate organizers time and time again for months preceeding debates only to be rebuffed with red tape or outright ignored. Harry Brown (US-president) went through this in 2000 and Ed Thompson (WI-gov) had the same problem in 2002.

Most 3rd party campaigns do not do their homework, do not maintain contact with the other parties, and do not find out in advance who's hosting a debate

Hogwash. Especially, again, where Libertarians and Greens are concerned they maintain plenty of contact. In the case of presidential and gubernatorial elections there's no secret who is running the debate. The only issue is getting an invite.

Re:Fault on both sides

[gcaseye6677]

Kind of like the Nader supporters who turn in their petitions late, and with invalid signatures, then sue because they've been "disenfranchised". The fact of the matter is, Nader is not on most state ballots, or in debates, because hardly anybody supports him. This is true of libertarian candidates and other third parties as well. The average American's opinion is very different than the average slashdotter, and they at least think they are represented by the usual 2 parties. This is the way things will be until a significant people get fed up, demand change, and get behind a third party candidate. The establishment (republicans and democrats) are aware of this and will make sure to keep the sheeple satisfied to prevent revolt and disruption of their gravy train.

Re:Fault on both sides

[Mark Shewmaker]

Generally, to get into any debate whether it be persidential, state, or local, one needs only to contact the organizing agency

That's pretty generally speaking and it's also false. Third party candidates, especially Libertarian candidates, have contacted debate organizers time and time again for months preceeding debates only to be rebuffed with red tape or outright ignored. Harry Brown (US-president) went through this in 2000 and Ed Thompson (WI-gov) had the same problem in 2002.

An even more extreme example was in 1992, where the Commission on Presidential Debates' official response when asked about the requirements to be allowed to debate was, even while the debates were going on, that the requirements for that year's debates had not yet been decided upon, but that they would be decided upon and published after all the debates had occurred.

In other words, third parties wishing to participate in the debate were effectively told that they proper time to petition for inclusion was after the debates had come and gone.

(1992 was also the year Perot was invited to the debates. One would have thought that there would be published, objective criteria that the commission would have used to include him, but given that the Libertarian candidate Andre Marrou had polled higher than Perot (!) at some points in the year, and that the LP was on the ballot in all 50 states while the Reform party wasn't, it's not clear to me what sort of objective criteria they could have been using.)

Re:Fault on both sides

[fyngyrz]

...it's not clear to me what sort of objective criteria they could have been using.

Well, let me help you out, then. The criteria was, and is, money, power and influence.

Re:"Real" debates

[strictfoo]

awesome, parent is flamebait, but the grandparent post is insightful - What is the CBS?

Re:Flip-Flopping

[geomon]

Bush: the paragon of "staying the course".

Unless you are talking about the Department of Homeland Security (was against it, then for it)

Unless you are talking about a comittment smaller government (has ran at least three times on that platform) yet created ANOTHER cabinet seat.

Unless you are talking about fiscal conservativism (and ran up the deficit).

Face it: Bush and Kerry are the same in more ways than they are different.

Republican: a Democrat without guilt.

Debating one's self

[stuffduff]

Bush suggests that Kerry could debate himself for 90 minutes. This is probably true. Unfortunately Bush probably couldn't even pull that off; but the maliprops and 'Bushisms' of him debating himself would be priceless.

Re:Debating one's self

[Anonymous Coward]

So have you forgotten the debates between Bush and Gore? Gore was supposedly to slaughter Bush, yet Bush came out tied or slightly ahead in all the debates? Bush has one thing Kerry will never have. He comes off as intense and earnest. Kerry comes off as a life size weather vane.

Re:Debating one's self

[damiam]

I'm sure Kerry could debate himself for 90 minutes. It's called thinking, and it's a useful skill I wish Bush would attempt to learn.

Re:Debating one's self

[Yohahn]

Bush is always underestimated by the left. He actually is a clever manipulator.

My latest favorite bumpersticker is:
"Bush thinks you're stupid!" (you refering to the public).

Given what the parroting new people say and how the public accepts it and repeats it, I am afraid that it is correct.

Re:Debating one's self

[Anonymous Coward]

s/new people/news people/

Re:Debating one's self

[Jonny Ringo]

If either of them could debate themselves for 90 minutes. Clearly they would master (de)bate.

Re:Debating one's self

[Anonymous Coward]

I am thinking....

in fact, I am thinking you are making an excuse to prop up an idiot due to your political leanings.

That saddens me.

Re:Debating one's self

[Anonymous Coward]

I am thinking....

in fact, I am thinking you are making an excuse to prop up an idiot due to your political leanings.

No, really! It's called thinking... Weighting the pros, weighting the cons, taking a decision. Thinking is not paroting Cheney or Fox News.

Re:Debating one's self

[Dyolf Knip]

Kerry could debate himself and probably pull it off. Bush could debate himself and still lose.

Ummm

[Skiron]

Are these taken serious? Taking bollocks and getting a reply thats bollocks and vice versa?

At least here in England with just hear the bollocks with no debate.

Re:Ummm

[FyRE666]

Well, some of us don't bother listening to any of the bollocks. Watching the dead-eyed, hypocrytical liars responding to carefully filtered questions with statements statistically proven to garner support from the average couch potato just sends me into a trance. The pricks we keep penned in over in Whitehall shouldn't get any TV coverage.

In fact, if we just walled up all the doors and windows of parliment with all the fuckers inside I'm sure the country would function a whole lot better...

Re:"Real" debates

[operagost]

In case anyone was unsure of which way Slashdot leaned, notice that this post is identical to the parent with "Kerry" and "Bush" transposed, thereby earning it a "Flamebait" instead of "Insightful".

Re:Flip-Flopping

[Izago909]

Kerry don't need Bush at the debate because he can debate against himself for 90 minutes front of the audience.

And we can watch Bush flip-flop just as much. All canidates do it, except that both parties would rather watch the people argue over pointless crap ratherer than charge their prosepctive leaders with real questions about topics that matter. It's American politics, Jerry Springer style. Why ask a question about trade bias China recieves compared to Cuba concerning trade and embargo status when you can have the people steamed up over who did what during a war? Why question why America isn't being seriously persuaded to develop alternitive feuls despite dwindling reserves when the people can fight each other over gay rights? It is a tool to distract the people from what matters, so please quit falling for thier rhetoric and think for yourself.

Re:"Real" debates

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are but what am I?

Is this necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there enough political crap on enough web sites? Must it infect /. too?

Re:"Real" debates

[Hatta]

I don't expect Bush to actually answer any of the points presented by Kerry this week anyway.

Duh, he's prohibited from responding to kerry in any way by the rules agreed upon by both candidates. So you won't see kerry responding to bush either. Just scripted responses to scripted questions.

Now ask yourself why both parties would want to set up the debates this way. Perhaps they have something to lose by having free debates?

Re:"Real" debates

[AKAImBatman]

The parent isn't flamebait. The grandparent is flamebait. Why mod the responses?

My own thoughts on the debate are as follows:

- Bush will answer questions pointing to what he believes he's done well, and will generally skirt around some issues to avoid fibbing or outright lying. Expect that some legalese (i.e. responding to the exact words vs. their intended meaning) may be used to skirt around some questions.

- Kerry will answer every question by promising the moon, even if his promises are contradictory.

As for this whole dual-party setup of the debates, consider this: The panel did allow Ross Perot into the debates, and it was enough to prevent Bush Sr. from winning the election.

too complicated to resolve easily

[Anonymous Coward]

Problems with the current debate selection process:
1. Third party candidates are excluded. Countepoint is that fringe/vanity candidates that get on the ballot in 1 or 2 states are excluded.

2. Campaign funding is not fully made with public taxpayer dollars. This excludes candidates that cannot raise enough money. It also prevents a fragmentation found when every fringe group and their dog gets free public money to spend.

3. Selection of the moderator of the debate is with the essential approval of all candidates. This introduces a large fight about how 'biased' each candidate sees the moderator as being.

4. Debate rules are negotiated between the candidates.

5. The debate needs all major party candidates to participate. A debate with one of the major candidates and one of the fringe candidates is of no use.

6. The electorial process has some barriers to entry.

My time is valuable

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Why would I waste it listening to two non-contenders? I would rather spend that time listening to the debates, then checking the facts as presented by the candidates. I don't consider the debates to be a "press conferencene" - that's what the conventions are for.

By the way, my question is legitimate. What do I have to gain from two unknown non-players telling me what they want me to hear? I can find that information and more quite easily; you see, I have the Internet installed on my computer. Gaining knowledge of your agenda won't help me decide how to vote. I already know what issues are important. I now have to decide who (between the 2 people that have a chance of being elected) comes closest to my views.

Re:My time is valuable

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the Internet installed on my computer

Really? You must have a really big HD... or you might just be new here.

Re:Even if they did

[Concerned Onlooker]

So because they didn't poll at 15%, the Greens and the Libertarians can't make monkies out of the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.

Even if they did, the American public probably wouldn't recognize that such a thing had happened. They still be like "Well, I guess I'm voting for that shorter monkey."

Re:Flip-Flopping

[stinkyfingers]

Kerry don't need Bush at the debate because he can debate against himself for 90 minutes front of the audience.

That's cute. Way to reguritate a sound bite from our Retard-in-Chief. At least put some critical thought in before being brainwashed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4 30 93-2004Sep22.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/w p-dyn/articles/A411 45-2004Aug4.html
http://www.google.com/search?sou rceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&q=bush+is+flip%2Dflopper

Good

[Ravensign]

I, for one, don't want to see two people who have no chance of becoming president gumming up the debate between to people that do.

I would rather see Bush and Kerry's smartest advisor's debate than two people of no consequence getting in the way of helping analyze the real cantidates.

Re:Good

[Queuetue]

Without the third parties "gumming up the debate", you won't see any debate between the "big two" candidates. What you're going to see is, as the slashdot blurb called it, a joint press conference where they agree beforehand which positions they will take, which questions they don't have to answer, and how they will argue.

In other words, there will be no value to the Bush/Kerry debate, other than to act as a launching platform for whatever catch phrases thier speechwriters want joe american to be repeating Frday morning.

And, btw, the reason they have such low chances of being elected is because they are excluded from the process. Not the other way around.

Re:"Real" debates

[Guppy06]

" I don't expect Bush to actually answer any of the points presented by Kerry this week anyway."

Which means he would be following the rules of the "debate." In the structure of the dog-and-pony show, the candidates will not be allowed to talk to/at each other, ony to the audience/cameras, and the only questions that can be asked are those prepared by the system, agreed upon by both sides, and asked by the people designated to do the asking (who are not the candidates).

About the only "answer" to "any of the points presented" by the other side allowed by the system is the gasping, huffing, hawing and incredulous looks Al Gore did during the '00 debate, perhaps with the occasional "Nuh-uh!" depending on the tolerence of the moderators.

19%

[Anonymous Coward]

Perot got 19% in 92 (more than half of Bush Sr.) and yet was excluded in 96.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[Lord_Slepnir]

I think the daily show did this at one point. they spliced together old news clips to debate President George W Bush vs. Texas Governor George W Bush. There were things like:

Jon Stewart: So what is your opinion on Foreign Policy

President Bush: We have a duty to bring democracy to the peoples of the world

Jon: Ok, how about you, Governor

Governor Bush: The US has no bussiness being the policeman of the world

Re:"Real" debates

[Anonymous Coward]

And now the first comment on the problem is redundant. Gotta love Slashdot logic!

Re:Flip-Flopping

[DogDude]

The problem is that most Bush supporters don't know what the word "pragmatism" means. "Flip-flopping" is a 2 grade level phrase that makes it easier for the Bush supporters to understand, plus, it sounds funny! Kerry is pragmatic (look it up). Bush can't change course (ie: the disaster in Iraq), because they'd look stupider than they already do. So instead of saying "I was wrong. I made a terrible mistake. Let's fix this problem", Bush just keeps lying, saying "The war in Iraq is going great! The economy is great! Terrorism is down! Everything is great", when in reality, he needs to face up to the fuck-ups, and get shit fixed. Bush has made me, for the first time in my life, to be embarassed for being American.

Re:The CPD is a front group for...

[gcaseye6677]

I thought it was the Illuminati.

The only thing I worry about...

[Buzz_Litebeer]

Is what Bush did back in 2000 against Gore. Bush had such a complete lack of understanding of the subject that at one point he just called what Gore said "Fuzzy Math", which should have been a big red beacon saying "He doesnt know what he is doing" and instead people thought he was witty and that it won the debate through personality.

I just hope he doesnt think of something equally retarded to say that will completely avoid the question, while showing how childish he can be in front of the public.

Re:The only thing I worry about...

[UdoKeir]

He also referred to Gore having claimed to invent the internet (which, as we know, is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Gore actually said).

Gore let him get away with it. He'll try the same thing with Kerry. Hopefully Kerry will call him on it.

Re:The only thing I worry about...

[bofkentucky]

"Fuzzy Math" was a response to the "surplus" Al was going to spend, problem is, that surplus was nearly gone, the recession began in March 2000, and we're just now dug back out of it thanks to 9/11, which would have went down on Gore's watch anyways.

Re:The only thing I worry about...

[canoeberry]

No, I hope that Bush pulls the "fuzzy math" line but this time Kerry is ready for it.

I remember when Dukakis was asked if he would support the death penalty if somebody raped his wife and daughter. What he should have said was, "I'd want to kill the fucker with my bare hands, but that doesn't mean I support state sponsered killing" or something like that. Instead he "rose above" the question and replied with an emotionless, intellectual answer, which is death in america.

Kerry got that question right. He probably learned from Dukakis' mistake. Let's hope he is learning from Gore's many mistakes.

Re:The only thing I worry about...

[Mal-2]

A little bit of Fuzzy Math action for you. Rather cute, even if silly.

Mal-2

Re:"Real" debates

[Xardion]

Which of course is a reflection of the shallow and materialistic nature of American society, which unfortunately I belong to. God forbid we have any substance. The French might call us nerds!

hmm

[zerodl]

I've spent a lot of time looking over the policies of both Bush and Kerry, and I do not think either of them are good. It's more like voting for the lesser of the two evils. But that's my opinion.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's the lesser of two evils.. it's still evil!!

Choose a indie, or someone good. It's not a wasted vote as until you make a stand (along with others) your always going to get evil.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. Those that would vote for evil in any form, deserve the evil that they ask for.

Re:"Real" debates

[Mr. Slippery]

In case anyone was unsure of which way Slashdot leaned, notice that this post is identical to the parent with "Kerry" and "Bush" transposed, thereby earning it a "Flamebait" instead of "Insightful".

Given that Bush has avoided press conferences and made attendees at his speech sign loyalty oaths, accusing him of ducking questions has some basis.

Kerry may give inarticulate, confusing, and stupid answers, and generally fail around like a dying fish. But I don't think an accusation of him ducking questions has much weight, though I'm willing to hear arguments. (It might have been better for his campaign if he'd learned some question-ducking.)

I'm sure I speak for the large % of the population

[OverlordQ]

when I say Who gives a Fuck?. If you decide your vote based on these debates you're a moron. Look long term at each of the candidates trends. Who cares if it's only a 2 party system, see the previous point.

OpenDebates.org

[jalano]

OpenDebates has been doing a good job publicizing the lack of a real presidential debate recently. The founder, George Farah, was recently on NOW with Bill Moyers to discuss this. He also has a book out, No Debate, which covers this. The website is a fascinating read.

Re:OpenDebates.org

[kmweber]

Farah et al is just a publicity front for Nader. They're not at all interested in getting candidates such as Badnarik, Peroutka, or Cobb involved as evidenced by their choice of methodology for determining who should or should not participate.

Debate drinking game

[oncee]

I'm looking forward to playing the debate drinking game.

Pleasantly Patriotic Abstractions

[wsherman]

What the debates need is someone who will ask the candidates what they actually mean when they say some pleasantly patriotic abstraction:

"They hate our freedom"?

Define precisely who "they" are and what is meant by "freedom" and then provide a precisely reasoned argument why it is that they would "hate" it.

Re:Pleasantly Patriotic Abstractions

[Jerf]

Radical Muslims, the ones training the suicide bombers (although not always the bombers themselves) hate us because we do not live under Sharia, and are therefore worthy of death. I'd say this qualifies as "hate".

Sharia is an extremely restrictive set of rules, especially for women, but probably nearly every person reading this would fall afoul of some major part of it or other. If you'd like to learn more about Sharia, Google is that-a-way.

If you seriously doubt that "they hate our freedom" for some suitable definition of "they" (and for damn near any definition of "freedom"!), you are far, far more out of touch then either of the candidates. If you are just making the point that this would be an interesting question, I agree that a clear answer would be very interesting, but unfortunately politicians are trained to avoid giving clear answers.

(To preempt the obvious psuedo-rebuttal, what to do about the fact that there are people who hate our freedom is another entirely seperate and valid topic of debate. That does not change the empirical fact that such people exist and really do hate us and our freedom... although their stated reasons are not always their real reasons. In fact there are several reasons; for my example "precisely reasoned argument" I submit a basic human emotion: jealousy. It isn't the only argument, but it is a sufficient one.)

Re:Pleasantly Patriotic Abstractions

[wsherman]

Actually, I would argue that your definitions are still quite vague.

Radical Muslims, the ones training the suicide bombers (although not always the bombers themselves) hate us because we do not live under Sharia, and are therefore worthy of death. I'd say this qualifies as "hate".

Are you saying that the "they" in "they hate out freedom" is anyone who observes Sharia law or anyone who trains a suicide bomber because depending which definition you choose "they" could be either millions of people or hundreds of people.

Also, you are playing fast and loose with whether they hate "us" or "our freedom" or perhaps "our behaviour". Another plausible definition of "our freedom" (besides non-observance of Sharia law) is "our foreign policy that affects the Middle East" which gives an entirely different meaning to "they hate our freedom".

Finally, you suggest that the reason "they" hate "our freedom" is because of jealousy. Usually, one is jealous of a scarce resource: someone else is in possession of a particular object so the person who is jealous is unable to possess the object. Non-observance of Sharia law isn't a scarce resource - it's not like there is a limit of three hundred million people who can be non-observant of Sharia law and after that everyone else in the world has to observe Sharia law.

I would agree, however, that saying "people who train suicide bombers want to impose Sharia law on the United States because they are jealous" is a vast improvement over "they hate our freedom" and, in fact, by interviewing "people who train suicide bombers" one could establish the fraction of those people for whom the statement was correct. Personally, I think that the fraction would turn out to be substantially less than one.

Re:Pleasantly Patriotic Abstractions

[jratcliffe]

Sure. "They" are radical Islamists. "Freedom" is living in a society that does not attempt to emulate the behaviors and social mandates of nomadic tribes on the Arabian peninsula in the 7th Century CE. They "hate" it because they believe not only that people who do not live in the way they believe Islam dictates are doomed to hell, but also that God will be displeased with them if they allow people to live in ways that differ from their belief of how God wants people to live.

Re:Pleasantly Patriotic Abstractions

[Moofie]

I'm really curious as to what's going to happen if the Iraqis appoint a theocracy. Then we'll see what a big fan of democracy and freedom Mr. Bush is.

Re:Pleasantly Patriotic Abstractions

[demachina]

Its is kind of a stupid statement but there is some substance to it. Fundementalist Islamic terrorists do hate the lax morals in the west. Muslims abhor alcohol and drug use. They abhor pornography, casual sex and homosexuality. I think gambling is on the list too though I forget. They aren't fond of pop music and you have to admit, rap in particular, in isn't a real positive influence on people, especially children. They obviously dislike equality and freedom for women.

With the exception of the last one they do have a point, the West is pretty corrupt and is working hard to spread that corruption uniformly across the globe.

The paradox is all of those "freedoms" are equally ahored by the religious right that has taken over the Republican party. So an arguement can be made "they" could just as easily be the Republican party. "The Republican party hates us for our freedom". After all the U.S. is now putting more people in prison than most of the rest of the world, so it appears they hate people for exercising their freedom to engage in recreational drug use and are locking them up for years over it. Some Southern states in particular continue to try to jail gays for consensual sex.

There is unfortunately some truth to calling the Republican party the American Taliban. Of course the Democrats are equally to blame for the war on drugs etc.

All in all its just more doublespeak coming out of the Bush administration. It is the perfect thing to say to distract people from the fact that they are using the war on terror to take away the freedoms Al Qaeda and the Republican's hate. Maybe that is the secret plan to win the war. If the Republican's take away all the freedoms Al Qaeda hates then they will no longer have a reason to attack us....heh....irony.

Re:Pleasantly Patriotic Abstractions

[Jerf]

Actually, I would argue that your definitions are still quite vague.

Damn straight they're vague, because I know that if I try to nail it down in the next post you'll go all "Oh, I don't know about that detail, and isn't that a little racist, and" pickity poke poke poke, all dancing around the fundamental point that such people exist. You can define and classify all you want, but they exist, they act, they live. No, I can't give you a name of a random militant in Iraq for you to dither on whether or not he really hates our freedom or if he was just a poor, misguided soul taken in by a strong-minded Mullah, but it really doesn't matter.

You can't nitpick these people out of existance. Somebody toppled the World Trade Center, and that is hate. I'll be the first to say classification is useful, but to insist on extraneous detail so you can poke at it until you find something that allows you to dismiss it and makes you feel comfortable again is sheer intellectual dishonesty. (Yeah, I'm extrapolating a bit here but I'm pretty confident about it.)

Re:Pleasantly Patriotic Abstractions

[Eric S. Smith]

...allows you to dismiss it and makes you feel comfortable again...

Isn't that exactly what deciding that "they hate our freedom" does for you? If you were to be stuck with an answer like "they hate our foreign policy", or even "they hate our Baywatch re-runs", you'd have to ask yourself whether they had a point. If you choose "freedom" or some other desirable and supposedly intrinsic quality, you've already decided that they are being completely unreasonable.

It's all very well to say that people who blow things up to make a point deserve to have their point ignored, but it is not in the interest of justice to ignore it. After all, other people may well have the same complaint. If they are also violently militant, you risk further attacks. If they are not violent but are truly suffering, you may perpetuate an injustice.

Re:Pleasantly Patriotic Abstractions

[Anonymous Coward]

There is NO substance to "they hate our freedoms." Regardless of whether some fundie Muslims walk around all day, seething over our freedoms, that is not what incites violence. Violence and oppression incites violence, as do threats of violence and oppression.

Violence in response to violence, is of course, inciting further violence.

Re:Pleasantly Patriotic Abstractions

[demachina]

"There is NO substance to "they hate our freedoms."

I'd still have to disagree, I understand you disapprove of the propaganda application of the statement by the Bush administration but there is a grain of truth to it. I'm not saying it is THE reason for the current war, but it is a fact that fundamentalist Muslims do hate the lax morals in the West, and they would in fact do away with many of them if they took over the U.S.

As an example, in Iraq, owners of liquor stores are apparently Christian, since no good Muslim sells or drinks alcohol. As Iraq has rushed towards Islamic fundamentalism many Christian liquor store owners are being compelled to close or leave. Saddam was a bad man but one positive is he did keep religious fundamentalism in check, and that is no longer the case. Women in particular had a lot more rights under Saddam's secular government than they are going to see in the new, increasingly, fundamentalist Iraq, as long as they didn't run afoul of his secret police or his sons. A couple nights ago the news showed a man, apparently self appointed morality monitor, standing at the gates of one of Iraq's University's barring a women from entering because she was wearing pants.

Living under the taliban whether they be Afghan, Iraqi or American would be bad, but if look at Afghanistan under the Taliban, despite the American propaganda to the contrary, they were very devoted to and successful at destroying opium production in the areas under their control, much more so than under the U.S. occupation and the fiefdoms of the new Afghanistan where opium production is exploding.

Re:Pleasantly Patriotic Abstractions

[IndependentVik]

You know, we're not the only free nation on Earth--there's a lot of other democracies. Why do you think they hate us more than they hate anybody else? Why is there no mission to destroy Canada? Because Canada has socialized medicine? I doubt it . . .

If you thought about it a little bit, I think you'd realize your view of the world is tinted through neoconservative glasses.

What if the moderator threw out the rules?

[JohnnyDanger]

I'd like to see the moderator chuck out the debate rulebook in the middle of the debate. What would happen, I wonder?

(Nobody wants to be the first candidate to say, "Now this isn't what I signed up for.")

Of course, that would probably run afoul of their agreement to moderate the debate: http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040923/tops tories/151247.shtml.

I want to see hard questions asked. Let the candidates ask each other questions. Have fact-checkers on hand.

I want to see Bush and Kerry squirm a little bit. A president's job is to run a country, yet the forum we set up for them to perform is as safe and predictable as possible.

Sigh... Something unpredictable would be nice. I always feel like I know what the next thing out of their mouths is going to be.

Re:What if the moderator threw out the rules?

[HeghmoH]

You bring up a very good point. We're going to trust one of these guys with our nuclear launch codes and full control over the rest of our military. We're going to trust that they can keep their cool and be reasonable under tremendous pressures. But we can't even trust them to be able to handle an unscripted debate?

Re:What if the moderator threw out the rules?

[Guppy06]

"I'd like to see the moderator chuck out the debate rulebook in the middle of the debate. What would happen, I wonder?"

Technical Difficulties: Please Stand By.

Presidential Candidates

[Syntroxis]

Oh, I wish that there was a way to get a third party involved in a legitimate run for the president.

All we have been able to do for years is to select the lesser of two evils.

We have become the government of the people, by the lawyers, and for the corporations.

The "powers in charge" will never to do anything to jepoardize their power in this country and the world.

It's also interesting that our choice this time is between two members of skull and bones.

Paul

Re:Presidential Candidates

[killjoe]

"All we have been able to do for years is to select the lesser of two evils."

True but not insignificant. It's important to vote even if it's for the lesser evel. You would not want the greater evil to run the country would you.

Re:Presidential Candidates

[Sloppy]

Quit saying you can't vote for whatever candidate that you want, and just do it.

Oh, I wish that there was a way to get a third party involved in a legitimate run for the president.

There is a way, only one way: vote.

Re:Presidential Candidates

[Syntroxis]

I have not missed voting in any and every election that I have ever been eligible to vote for. In fact, I am really active in this campaign seeing that the current pResident is kicked out of the office that was stolen for him.

Paul

Re:Presidential Candidates

[bacchusrx]

Quit saying you can't vote for whatever candidate that you want, and just do it.

The issue isn't whether or not it's physically possible to mark a ballot for a third party. Such thinking is a deceitful red herring.

For chrissakes, fifty years ago Maurice Duverger showed that elections conducted by"first-past-the-post" principles tend -- by their very mechanics -- toward a political system that's perpetually dominated by two political parties.

Alternatives exist, to be sure. But it's more than disingenuous to suggest that malcontent against an artificial two-party state is somehow attributable purely to apathy and not also to what's nearly a mathematical certainty.

The system is rigged. (And not just for this reason and in this way.) What motivation have the present set of players to change it of their own volution?

Re:"Real" debates

[grumpygrodyguy]

I don't expect Bush to actually answer any of the points presented by Kerry this week anyway.

Bush won't, but maybe Karl Rove or Arty will. This may sound like another one from the tinfoil crowd, but keep a lookout for the wireless radio reciever. It's a small device used today by many in the broadcasting industry. It's nearly unnoticable fitting inside the ear, providing the wearer with crystal clear radio-based audio.

It's _highly_ probable that Bush will be wearing a wireless earpiece for the debate. Bush will no doubt have some of the best debate people the republican party can buy telling him what to say through such an earpiece. I suppose Kerry could use the same thing, but then again he probably wouldn't need it.

Republicans are too afraid to let Bush do his own talking(understandably), which is why he has no input on speech writing etc. Shouldn't the american people hear what thier president has to say, rather than what the people who hold his leash tell him to say?

Re:"Real" debates

[johnnyb]

What I would like to hear from John Kerry is the information he has concerning TWA Flight 800. He has referred to TWA Flight 800 as a terrorist act on two occasions - once on the Larry King Live show and once on Chris Matthew's. However, these points are not going to likely be a part of the debates, sadly.

Maybe The Model Should Change

[DanielMarkham]

Instead of the old model, where one or two people debate and we all watch, why not something new? The old way sounds like client-server, now is the age of P2P!

Sooooo -- we should all debate each other, simultaneously. Then some algorhitm could determine which issues were decided which way. Certainly there are a lot of new models besides client-server, right?

Virtual debate better

[shrike_love]

Why not just edit the debate into a 'virtual' debate adding the other candidates? Then put the thing up in divx or something on all the p2p networks? What would that take, some talented final-cut types? (There are lots of em out there...right?) So lets see it!

Re:"Real" debates

[BakaHoushi]

Though, to be fair, the grandparent post was modded Overrated and Troll, too. So it looks like one mod based his point on the fact that he, too, doubted Bush would not answer without considering that Kerry isn't well known for straight answers, either.

No one is in the right here... Though considering the comment about which way /. leans, perhaps I should mention that that was not meant as a pun.

Re:Man!

[Anonymous Coward]

Down with the dude, man!

Who cares...

[The-Bus]

The debates I really want to see are the Vice-Presidential debates. At least in 1992, when there was a third candidate, they were extremely interesting.

As anyone who saw them remembers, at one point Perot's VP (Vice Admiral Stockdale) did this:

GORE: Could I respond?

BRUNO: We have to go on. What I'm about to say doesn't apply to the debate tonight; it applies to the campaign that's been going on outside this auditorium. With 3 weeks to go, this campaign has at times been very ugly, with the tone being set by personal negative attacks.

As candidates, how does it look from your viewpoint? And are these tactics really necessary? Admiral Stockdale -- it's your turn to go first.

STOCKDALE: You know, I didn't have my hearing aid turned on. Tell me again.

At that point, I lost it in laughter.

In other news, it has been reported that countries with many parties usually have "coalitions" that form between the several parties so it ends up being one side vs. the other. Whether or not that makes the world more splintered and fragmented, I don't know, but it leaves you a little bit more of a choice. Right now, both parties are so centrist that you can barely tell them apart.

Re:Who cares...

[pjt33]

It varies. Italy has a very fragmented system, such that any post-WWII Italian government which lasts 18 months is doing well. Most countries aren't so extreme.

Re:"Real" debates

[Golias]

Thank you for being the first here to point out that third party candidates who are not kooks with less than 3% of the vote are not invited to debates, but real candidates are not shut out.

Don't get me wrong, I love thrid-party kooks, and would hate to see an America where they didn't exist... but let's give up the pretense that any of them expect to be elected president. The debates are for those who might actually get elected.

Approval voting would help

[mcg1969]

Now I personally am a two-party man. I don't particularly have difficult with the two-party system. And I believe that the best way for people who lean to third-party platforms to effect change is to work through their local elections on up.

Having said that I would quite welcome an approval voting system, whereby we can vote for as many candidates that we choose for any given office. This would allow people to safely register their support for a third-party candidate while risking becoming a "spoiler" for the candidate that they frankly would tolerate if they had to. So for example, a Nader supporter could vote for both Nader and Kerry. A Constitution party supporter could vote for Peroutka and Bush.

As a result, we could all get an honest assessment of how much support and influence these third-party candidates would receive. I would still advocate a "trigger" of, say, 5-10% before a party would receive preferential treatment with regards to public funding and/or debate access. Nevertheless, I think that grassroots efforts would be far more likely to take hold in such a system.

The CPD doesn't control the debates

[muntjac]

The CPD merely does everything the democrats and republicans jointly ask them to do. Basically neither of the parties want a real debate so they have gotten the CPD to do their dirty work and appear to be at fault.

found this document at http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/debates.html

http://www.opendebates.org/documents/REPORT2.pdf

Re:"Real" debates

[N3WBI3]

Actually the scripting did not start until after 1992 when the league of women voters was replaced by the joke that is in place now..

They use a typewriter?!

[iammaxus]

I'd like to add something to the list of grievances against the CPD, they used a typewriter to write the Memorandum of Understanding posted in the article. How riduclous is that?

Re:They use a typewriter?!

[Larthallor]

At least we know THEY'RE not behind the CBS Bush memos.

Re:They use a typewriter?!

[sampson7]

Actually, it's pretty standard to use Courier New font in legal documents -- so they don't *actually* use a typewriter.

As to the PDF format, they are putting up the signed ("executed") agreement -- so they can't just put up a Word Doc or HTML or whatever. Again, very common in the boring/staid world of big time corporate law.

Re:They use a typewriter?!

[mlc]

looks to me like it's a computer using Courier or some similarly ugly font. note the bold-face section headings, and the page numbers apparently in Times font.

Re:They use a typewriter?!

[fyngyrz]

As to the PDF format, they are putting up the signed ("executed") agreement -- so they can't just put up a Word Doc or HTML or whatever.

Who told you that? Adobe? What a load of hooie.

You can put a signature, or signatures, on an HTML document just as easily, or more so, than you can a PDF. JPEG or GIF serve just fine for facsimile (which is all PDF can do.) PDF's are not immune from hacking (far from it) and the only significant differences between PDF and HTML for this type of task are that HTML is a lot lighter, HTML is a lot more friendly, HTML is a lot more multiplatform, HTML is not proprietary, and HTML is what the web is built around, not PDF.

Re:They use a typewriter?!

[sampson7]

Yeah, I'd love a jpeg signature block floating around... that sounds like a great idea. Listen, I realize PDF isn't any more secure than html, but it gives the illusion of increased security. (Much like the Bush war on terror gives the illusion of security.)

My point wasn't that this was some stroke of brilliance on the part of the negotiators, only that it's common practice in the legal industry. PDF has achieved a currency that html or word do not come close to.

Plus, should there need to be a forensic examination of the documents (say, compare a copy to the original), a scanned PDF document is far easier to authenticate. Or, at least mildly harder to forge.

Sound far fetched? It's not. I've seen in done in open court before -- very dramatic.

Re:They use a typewriter?!

[fyngyrz]

Yeah, I'd love a jpeg signature block floating around... that sounds like a great idea. Listen, I realize PDF isn't any more secure than html, but it gives the illusion of increased security. (Much like the Bush war on terror gives the illusion of security.)

Sigh. Pop up your PDF on screen, magnify it (or not), screen capture it, zip, you have your captured signature. Not even worth worrying about - complete illusion of signature security.

My point wasn't that this was some stroke of brilliance on the part of the negotiators, only that it's common practice in the legal industry.

Ah. Common practice of the legal industry. Like swearing on the bible before a trial. Like lawsuits because a cup of hot coffee was... hot. Like single-handedly driving medical costs out of reach of a huge portion of the population. Like bazillion dollar lawsuits for anything, for that matter. I suppose if it is common practice of the legal industry, it is all right, then.

PDF has achieved a currency that html or word do not come close to.

If by that you mean, there are far fewer PDF documents on the web than HTML, I'd agree. So would google. However, if you're trying to say that PDF documents exeed HTML in number, then I call complete and utter nonsense on your claim. Word, of course, is even an even worse web format (and less common) than PDF, and not really worth discussing.

On the other hand, if by "currency" you simply meant that PDF is accepted as "worthy" where HTML is not, in a courtroom, then I have no cause to doubt you (though it gives me good reason to laugh at the courtroom in question.) However, the web is not a courtroom and PDF is not even slightly appropriate for the web. If a document is put up for public consumption, then the most available display technology should be utilized to ensure that the widest possible audience is reached. PDF does not meet this obvious, simple, and obviously ethically golden standard. Though we should not in the least be surprised to see the legal profession embracing a standard that creates a disenfrancised class of citizen. That has been the distinct pattern of the legal system for many years now, as exemplified by the difference between the quality of defense you get from the public defender's office, and that which you get from Johnny Cochran's office.

Plus, should there need to be a forensic examination of the documents (say, compare a copy to the original), a scanned PDF document is far easier to authenticate.

A scan of the document would serve just as well, probably better in point of fact. Not to mention an actual, physical copy of the document, with real signatures, something a handwriting expert can see stroke angle and depth in and on, notary seal impressions felt and examined, holograms vivid and so forth.

Or, at least mildly harder to forge.

No, they are not. The facts are that a PDF document can be forged easily, and by not particularly technical people.

Sound far fetched? It's not. I've seen in done in open court before -- very dramatic.

Oh, I'm sure it is dramatic; but a bunch of supposed "experts" making ridiculous claims for the supposed invulnerability of PDF to hacking in court doesn't move me one bit. Mainly because it isn't in the least bit true, but also because of the cast of players. These are the same bunch of people who don't draw a distinction between a plea-bargained "guilty" plea (in other words, bribing someone to say they are guilty using the threat of further legal action) and a real guilty plea. They're the same bunch of people who blithely put the burden on the citizen to know the entire body of law, knowing this is utterly impossible, but do not put the same requi

Just some thoughts

[SimianOverlord]

A question we have to ask oursevles is why did the jenemy attack the WTC, when there were more politically explosive (White House) and economically important (NY stock exchange) targets? My best guess is that it was due to the underlying symbol of the twin towers.

It's a well established fact of modern architecture that skyscrapers represent masculinity. I don't want to make it anymore explicit than that. The act of throwing up a huge public, tapering monument is very symbolic of what drives the world (note also that Architects are 89% male, which increases to 96% when you look at the top 100). So what they did on that fateful September day was no less than a direct attack on America's masculinity. Also note that the main victims of 9-11 were firefighters, which is an extremely masculine career.

If you accept this hypothesis, a number of interesting conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, consider the fact there were TWO towers, side by side, and what that might symbolise about permissive modern America. Next, remember that the Middle Eastern perpetrators were deeply conservative reactionaries, dedicated to justice that dates from biblical times, so this target must have subconsciously represented what they hate most in modern America. Also think about the vehement reaction from some quarters.

There are many types of reaction to an attack on masculinity. Those secure in their own proclivities and nature tend to handle it the best. The others may range from slight disquiet to full blown rage. It is the latter group that is in denial. Denial of their nature leads to inner repression, and then an outbursting of emotion when the feelings inside finally have an outlet. The next time you see, for example, a politician, ranting about the twin towers in a wholly overblown way, just remember what is REALLY motivating him. Just something to think about.

Re:Just some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

"A question we have to ask oursevles is why did the jenemy attack the WTC...It's a well established fact of modern architecture that skyscrapers represent masculinity. I don't want to make it anymore explicit than that"

Or maybe the twin towers were just the tallest buildings around and it was easier for an inexperienced pilot to hit them then the much shorter Stock Exchange build which would have required maneuvering between buildings. As for targets of political importance I'd say the Pentagon was more important then the White House (the Whitehouse being largely symbolic unless the president happens to be at home), although who knows perhaps the final plane was indeed heading for the White House.

Seriously though, I think someone needs to lay off the Freud for a while. Sometimes a skyscraper is just a skyscraper.

Re:Just some thoughts

[fyngyrz]

It's a well established fact of modern architecture that skyscrapers represent masculinity... The act of throwing up a huge public, tapering monument is very symbolic of what drives the world

Er... mine is bigger at the busines end. And my sweetie likes it that way, too. What are you, deformed?

Freud was a sick man. Not everything that is longer than it is wide is a phallic symbol. Unless you're publishing Hustler.

Re:Just some thoughts

[syn3rg]

Same thing with the Pentagon vs. White House: The Pentagon would be easier for an inexperienced pilot be able to spot and hit at 300+ MPH.

Re:Just some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

That must make getting it in him all the more difficult.

Re:Just some thoughts

[Filmwatcher888]

Any countries or civilizations who aren't into DP are not good in my my book.

It's All Politics

[stinkyfingers]

Look, debates are risky monsters. If Bush or Kerry thought that they were a shoo-in (say, 60-40 in the polls), there wouldn't be any debates. Why? If you're that far ahead, then why risk it. That's politics. It has nothing to do with democracy. If Nader is running at 1%, and the other 150 clowns trying to run for President at at 0.001 to 0.5 percent, why would Kerry or Bush even deign to do a debate? Obviously, the American public couldn't care less about these fringe groups.

I've said it before, and let me say it again - these fringe parties should spend the next 50 years trying to build up support from the city/county level on up to Congress and governorships. When they can accomplish that, then they have the organizaion, message, and support to run for President and qualify for these debates.

Re:It's All Politics

[stratjakt]

These fringe groups already have plenty of support at the city/county level, and there have been Green Libertarian and Independant Congressmen.

What they need to do is break away from the label of "fringe group", and to do that, the country needs to wake up and realize it wasn't founded on the political principle of choosing one of two completely similar agendas.

relevant background

[Anonymous Coward]

Beeb report on the watershed first televised presidential debate.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[Rob the Bold]

You gotta give him credit for leaving the bad grammer intact for authenticity!

Re:"Real" debates

[Anonymous Coward]

This fellow. Area fifty-one.
Necessarily a space-creature.
" Speak into the machine. "

Re:"Real" debates

[whmac33]

I don't know what CBS is but I konw CBS isn't televising the debate.

Re:"Real" debates

[PostItNote]

Really, it ha sbeen the rule ever since the Nixon-Kennedy debates. All the radio listeners thought Nixon did better, but all the TV viewers thought Kennedy did better - largely because of appearances and style.

Re:"Real" debates

[Ingolfke]

He won't need to. Kerry will flip-flop and rebut himself.

Constitution Party will also be there

[michaelmalak]

...at least according to a press release dated tomorrow :-). The Constitution Party candidate Howard Phillips got 98,000 votes in 2000, behind the Green (Nader), Reform (Buchanan), and Libertarian (Browne) parties, but ahead of the Natural Law Party (Hagelin).

Re:"Real" debates

[grumpygrodyguy]

awesome, parent is flamebait, but the grandparent post is insightful - What is the CBS?

Getting there.

Re:"Real" debates

[los furtive]

I doubt he'll talk about the TWA Tea either.

Re:"Real" debates

[KevinIsOwn]

Don't blame style over substance on the candidate's handlers. The candidate's advisors and aides are only trying to make him appealing to the public.
It is the public that looks for style over substance. If the public was interested in listening to a 3 hour long debate on the merits of a privitized social security system then that's what the debates would be about.

Re:"Real" debates

[Le Marteau]

but let's give up the pretense that any of them expect to be elected president

Nobody said that they expect to be elected. They expect to INFLUENCE the process, and they do. Look at what Nader did in Florida.

Free-market.net

[TheSHAD0W]

Whatever copyright Free-market.net chooses to use, I'm sure they'll be happy to give permission for redistribution.

Re:Free-market.net

[murr]

Whatever copyright Free-market.net chooses to use, I'm sure they'll be happy to give permission for redistribution.

Hey, it's a Libertarian site, so I'm sure they'll feel morally obliged to make a profit on this.

If it were an Objectivist site, they'd insist on payment in gold.

OT: battle royale

[MustardMan]

That looks exactly like the kind of so-bad-it's-good-again movie that i love. I'm going to have to see if I can find a torrent.

Re:OT: battle royale

[FleaPlus]

Not to mention that it has the Japanese school-girl from Kill Bill. w00t!

Re:OT: battle royale

[FleaPlus]

I'm kind of curious as to why this was moderated off-topic. Although it isn't on the subject of the article, it is quite relevant to the parent post.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[erick99]

Before telling other folks to "look it up," you might want to clean up your own grammar as well as word usage. For example, "..is a 2 grade level.." should read "..is a 2nd grade level.." Also, if you follow the rules for using commas, your last sentence simplifies to, "Bush has made me to be embarrassed for being American." In addition, that should also be "an American." I could go on but there are too many other errors. You are welcome to correct mine, of course.

Prediction: Kerry will violate the Debate Rules

[Cryofan]

I predict that if Kerry is behind more than he is now at the time of the last debate, then he will viloate the debate rules and take direct unrehearsed questions from audience members.

He almost has to. It is almost a certainty that most of the political commentators on cable news shows will call the first debate a Bush win no matter what happens. That is what they did after the Gore-Bush debates, even after Bush made several major mistakes during the debate. And those cable tv commentators are widely watched. And most of them favor Bush (no surprise, as they are all making millions).

So, I think it likely that Kerry will be behind 5 or more points going into the last debate. He almost has to do something like disregarding the moderator questions (or answering them quickly, then taking questions from the audience. If he gives the right explanation, what can Bush do? If he walks out, he will plummet in the polls. Kerry can make Bush like bad this way, and set himself up as somewhat of a maverick, which is a perception he desperately needs.

I would hope that shadow debate by cobb and badnarik gets some play, as it will help set the stage for kerry's debate move, as it will build a background awareness among the voters that the Bush-Kerry debates are staged affairs, thus justifying kerry's move.

Re:Prediction: Kerry will violate the Debate Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

As I recall, CNN and MSNBC both considered Gore to be the winners in the 2000 debates between Bush and Gore.

As for Fox News, well they would have said that Quayle beat Gore back in 1992 if they were around back then.

Re:Prediction: Kerry will violate the Debate Rules

[Bill Dog]

Maybe Kerry will do like Al Gore and walk up to Bush when it's Bush's turn to answer the question, and try to block him out or steal the spotlight or whatever Gore was thinking at the time! (What the devil was he thinking at the time?) Theoretically, a candidate can conduct themself as sleazy as they want, as long as there are more people* that view it as simply "going the extra mile" than something distateful.
*I'm simplifying here, of course -- we have an electoral college system, thank goodness.

Re:"Real" debates

[Golias]

We all want to influence the process. It doesn't mean we get to be on TV with the President and his leading opposition.

Whoops! n/m

[TheSHAD0W]

I misread who was hosting the debate. Ask them nicely and cross your fingers. :-)

It was created to bash Bush, not talk politics.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get real, the politics section, best represented by some stories that would not even pass the muster at CBS, was created to bash Bush.

The editors, minus one, are anything but secretive.

I think a far more important story is the problem the EU is having over their Constitution. It *IS* a major story that we don't get to discuss here because of the slant of /.

Re:It was created to bash Bush, not talk politics.

[Anonymous Coward]

The editors, minus one, are anything but secretive.

Which is the secretive one? Or doesn't he even publish his name? How do you know that there aren't a couple more even more secretive that you haven't found out about yet?

Re:It was created to bash Bush, not talk politics.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhh! You want to make him more unbearable?

Third-party candidates aren't viable.

[Chris Carollo]

They may be spoilers, but the American election process is so out of whack that third party candidates are simply not going to have any realistic chance at being elected. You're complaining about the effect rather than the cause -- once third-parties are viable, they will be included in the debates. Including them now would just be a waste of time.

Take a look at electionmethods.org, and in particular the page on Why the Electoral College Should be Abolished.

Major Network Coverage

[Sergeant Beavis]

I see the major problem for this debate being that it will not have any new coverage. It won't be live on any of the networks, it won't even be on Cable. If MSNBC or CNN or even FoxNews were to cover this debate, it "could" become very meaningful. The Libertarian candidate might even ciphon off some votes from Bush, like Nader most likely will from Kerry.

The only way these parties are going to start making a difference is if they are noticed. Perot made a difference (how is debatable) because his candidacy was noticed by the media. His money bought him air time and media recognition. If he hadn't pulled out of the election and acted like a looney, he might well have won the election or at least forced the House to pick the new President at the time.

IT really scares me

[eadint]

The debates don't matter, I'm sure they've locked bush in a room and are shock reinforcement him so that he can memo rise every question and every answer. I don't think Kerry has to. It's too bad that the press fucked over dean; he was probably the only worthy candidate since reagan or clinon. But, bush scares the hell out of me. Look at his eyes the guy is vacant. He's got the iq of a brain damaged monkey and the man controls nukes. This morning some other brain damaged soccer mom who needed to be shot and made sure that none of her children are allowed to live. Said that she will vote for bush because he will make America more secure. The truth is that bush has tuned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground and every terrorist in the world is planning to strike at America because of bush and his policy. If bush is reelected he will be responsible for the total annihilation of the USA. if you're terrified your not scared enough.

Re:IT really scares me

[Brandybuck]

Look at his eyes the guy is vacant

Some of you folks need to get a major clue. Either that or find the bottle of Prozac that rolled under the sofa.

Unfortunately, you're not alone. I was at a party where Bush appeared on a TV news clip. One attendee then went bonkers, and started shouting, "Ohmygod he's wearing a cowboy hat! Did you see that he's wearing a cowboy hat! Does he think he's a fucking cowboy ohmygod hes wearing a goddam fucking cowboy hat!" He was grabbing people, sticking his head in their face, and asking "does he think he's a fucking cowboy?"

Re:IT really scares me

[NetFu]

The debates, even as they exist today, DO matter:

-- Scripted or not, you will see the TWO significant candidates' opposing point of views presented by the candidates themselves.

-- You will see which team has their shit together the most in a really fucking scary public display. If you somehow don't believe the debates scare the crap out of presidential candidates, you haven't been there. In 2000, Gore lost to Bush in a major way on this alone (I supported Gore before the debates).

-- This is an important way for the candidates to address truly important issues (issues important to the majority of Americans) without resorting to the name-calling and mud-slinging of ad campaigns. I do care about who lied about what and when, but eventually we have to get down to the important issues depending on this election.

The bottom line is if you watch Bush or Kerry and pay more attention to Bush's "vacant eyes" or Kerry's "botox-injected face", these debates will never matter to you, and I along with most other Americans hope you don't cast your ignorant vote...

Wait a minute....?

[DeVilla]

Ok, so like there are these two guys who have no chance at being elected president in this race. They are going to debate each other .... and then offer commentary and analysis on the what the other two guys (the two who actually have a chance of winning) said in their debate.

Aren't all of the major news networks going to be staging the same thing? At least with the news, you'll be hearing it from the people who are going to be screwing up the earily exit polls on election day. Seems to me that their opinions will have a greater effect on the out come of the election than these two guys.

PBS Special

[farmgeek]

There is also a PBS special called "Crashing the Parties 2004" set to air on 29 September that will also explore the non-mainstream parties. They are set to have interviews with Nader and candidates from the Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties.

Check you local listings, etc.

Re:PBS Special

[farmgeek]

Darn, forgot the link http://www.pbs.org/previews/parties_2004/

Everyone looses.

[john_anderson_ii]

It seems the general consensus of the /. community agrees. Both major canidates are loosers!

Honestly, the only reason George W. is going to get my vote is that he wants to stay the course in Iraq and complete the job the U.S. Armed Forces, my Unit, and I started. I'd hate to see that 8 months of my life wasted just so someone else would have to go back and do it all over again in another 10 years or so. I'm not quite sure how much I like the plans to complete the job though.

However, everything else about both of these canidates is nothing but filth. Neither one of them would know a real domestic issue if I beat them about the head and shoulders with it!

I want to hear them answer questions like:

• What are your plans on dealing with the polarization of wealth, and the shrinking middle class of the U.S.?
• Do you even know what polarization of wealth means?
• Why does the typical "middle class" family now have to finance household appliances because they can no longer afford to meet the price range straight out and what is your administration going to do about it?
• What plans do you have to return the economy to a state where a single "Blue Collar" 40hr per week paycheck will support an average family of 4 people?
• How would your administration go about fixing the correctional institution in the U.S.? (If they need elaboration on the problems with our correctional institution, they should just be asked to leave the debate)

These are just a few questions I would like to hear these two stumble and jitter over answering.

When did the U.S. start picking it's bottom of the barrel to run for President? Christ! The problem is that these guys want to be president. Everyone with enough brains to acually be president realizes that they don't want to do it. Instead, they run multibillion dollar corporations and such. I wish there were a way to organize a campaign for some pre-determined, well resume'd, professional CEO, college professor, or someone with some sense. That way we could get a professional voted into office wether he liked it or not. That's what happened to visionaries like Jefferson and Franklin, and look how well they did.

Re:Everyone looses.

[SydShamino]

You seem like a very rational person. I don't, however, see why you plan to vote for Bush for one reason that doesn't (in my mind) make sense, while all your other concerns imply that you would lean toward liberal views?

With regard to the US forces in Iraq, Bush's statements are that things are going well, and we must keep doing what we have been doing. However, that assumes things are going well! It doesn't seem that we've done a good job to build up Iraq after we liberated them. Instead we've let parts of the country become terrorist breeding grounds. Even those Iraqis that would be dead under Saddam's regime don't like us much. I don't see this as the fault of anyone but the highest-level decision makers, who just failed to think through what it meant to govern an occupied country.

Kerry plans to do the following according to his web site:
----
We must change course in Iraq. Having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. The United States must take immediate measures to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East.

John Kerry and John Edwards will make the creation of a stable and secure environment in Iraq our immediate priority in order to lay the foundations for sustainable democracy. That is the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home. John Kerry and John Edwards believe the following principles should guide American policy in Iraq right now and that if these steps are not taken, options in the future will become more limited. This needs to be an urgent agenda to:

* Internationalize, because others must share the burden;
* Train Iraqis, because they must be responsible for their own security;
* Move forward with reconstruction because that's an important way to stop the spread of terror; and
* Help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country.
----

Nothing there says that we will pull out of Iraq immediately. That would be a pretty horrible thing to do - it would make Iraq the "failed state" that Kerry and Bush want to avoid. But, the conservate in me agrees very strongly with the ideas that Iraqis must "be responsible for their own security" and must "run their own country". I do not want US troops in Iraq in 10 years. I want Iraq to be a free, peaceful state. I don't see that happening under Bush, but I think with Kerry we have a chance.

I know the work that you did at the beginning (I assume you were there for the initial liberation from your post) went very well, but do you think that things are still going well?

Re:Everyone looses.

[Dasein]

Kerry and Edwards don't want to cut and run. They say that they want a stable and democratic Iraq. They want to:

• Internationalize, because others must share the burden;
  
• Train Iraqis, because they must be responsible for their own security;
  
• Move forward with reconstruction because that's an important way to stop the spread of terror; and
  
• Help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country.
  

I would think that someone who has been in Iraq and seen the price that we're paying would not only want a good outcome but want a president that wasn't going to waste the lives of soldiers because he told most of our allies to basically go f&%*^ themselves.

I think that a lot of the label of "flip-flopper" that Kerry's gotten is because his position on the Iraq war is that we were wrong to go but that, now we're there, we have to be effective and get Iraq stable and independent ASAP. That's not a position that's easy to convey in the soundbite media environment that he's dealing with.

Score -1 Off Topic

[Le Marteau]

I have had enough. Both major parties can SUCK MY BALLS. I REFUSE to vote for the lesser of two evils. I REFUSE to buy that crap that by not voting for either of those bastards is "wasting my vote" I REFUSE to watch those two yak it up on Thursday.

I don't give a rat's ass if my candidate won't win the election. At least my vote will be counted, and will be put into the column of other like minded folks who have had enough. At least the totals will show that SOME voters are not suckers and can think for themselves.

After Four years...

[Banner]

If you don't know who Bush is, you haven't been paying attention.

And after 20 years in the Senate, the same goes for Kerry.

I see no reason for these debates at all, both men have records that make it pretty clear where they stand.

Re:After Four years...

[Knightfall]

"If you don't know who Bush is, you haven't been paying attention."

I certainly do know who Bush is, but I would like to see a real candidate push him to answer questions outside his comfort zone to see how things may be handled in the next four years.

"And after 20 years in the Senate, the same goes for Kerry."

Have you actually seen the man's voting record or listened to him talk??? He never votes the same way twice or says the same thing two days in a row. How does the little jingle go? He has more waffles than a house of pancakes I believe. We need someone to push him, just like Bush, to answer questions on the spot, questions that actually mean something to the people in the "fly-over" USA.

"I see no reason for these debates at all, both men have records that make it pretty clear where they stand."

Bush, yes, you should have a decent idea of where he stands and be able to pick a side, but more information could never hurt. Kerry ... good luck figuring out where he will be on a tpoic tomorrow.

Re:After Four years...

[Banner]

Exactly! That's why I think you have to be either very partisan or very ignorant to vote for Kerry. He blows with the wind, is a follower not a leader, and can't make up his mind. He has no clear vision. For the life of me I cannot see how he got the nomination, nor can I understand why anyone would vote for him.

He's litterally killing the Democratic party. The fringe groups have sadly taken that party over. And I think that hurts all of us by not giving us a viable candidate. I could never vote for someone who I have no clue at all where they stand.

Re:After Four years...

[Knightfall]

And that is exactly why I feel we have to have a third party come into the light. The left wing-nuts are killing the democratic party and the LAST thing this country needs is for a republican party to be allowed to go completely unchecked. While I consider myself a "R", I know that allowing any one party to come into complete power kills the whole system.

Re:After Four years...

[Banner]

Yes, I agree with you on that. The problem is, what party? The reform party was starting to look good until Perot killed it (cause he couldn't control it anymore). Libertarians have good ideas, but way too many 'far out' members themselves (Mind you I'm in that party, and some of its members distress me). The Green party is nothing but the old red party with a new name... etc.

So in short, Who? and then How? I'm hoping what will happen is what happened the last time a national party died, and that is another one will take its place. I don't think we will ever be a one party country, but I am not looking forward to the transition period if the democratic party doesn't get its act together and does die.

Re:After Four years...

[Knightfall]

That is the good question. There are simply no viable alternatives yet. I am looking hard at the libertarian. If we could get them to move just a HAIR towards reality, they would be the best alternative right now. They have great ideas, and seem to have a bead on what mainstream america is thinking, bust they are so far out there when it comes to implementing ideas that they discredit themselves.

Mod parent up

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Its true, TV has always had this effect. The last time substance mattered over style was during the Lincoin - Douglas Debates.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

And those were for a Senate seat!

WILL THE POLITICS FILTER EVER BE FIXED?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really now, it's been over a month, can't anyone at slashdot freaking code? I'm really tired of seeing all this BS about politics. Especially as most of the people are so damn ignorant they spout nonsense.

TURN IT OFF ALREADY.

Re:"Real" debates

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure CBS here.

Separating Wheat from Chaff

[TheWama]

Oh Please.

There are plenty of reasonable criteria for screening out the kooks. One is having ballot access in enough states to win the Presidency, so that all those voters who have the ability to vote for you can make informed decisions. How many candidates make that? Just 6, including Bush and Kerry. There were nine in the Democratic Primaries.

Another is commisioning polls to find out if a majority of voters want to hear from each of these candidates. Open Debates commisioned a poll and found that Nader should be included. Badnarik has commisioned his own polls, using different verbiage, that show he too should be included.

These are reasonable, easily applied criteria that will allow alternative viewpoints be heard without stealing the show.

This country needs real Presidential debates. If we'd had them in the past, we may not have been left with Bush and Kerry as our candidates now...

exactly

[poptones]

that's why I'm sick of it. Every bit of it.

Fuck you all. I'm leaving. Red, white, blew by you...

FYI: there WILL be alternative debate by people

[museumpeace]

who actually can talk and may even think for themselves. AAAS has arranged and will webcast a debate on the science policy views of the two parties as presented by "representative" policy advisors to the parties...might just as well listen to the people who write the cue cards as to the people who read them.
The represetatives?

Former House Science Committee Chairman Bob Walker will represent the Bush campaign. Walker, chairman of Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, has been described as "perhaps the best political and policy strategist and tactician in Washington." Speaking on behalf of the Kerry-Edwards campaign will be physicist Henry Kelly, formerly the assistant director for technology of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He is currently president of the Federation of American Scientists.

Nothing says relevance...

[cryptochrome]

...like a debate at the Holiday Inn Ballroom. Which is where this debate is being held. I suspect Nader didn't want to debase himself.

Re:Nothing says relevance...

[Selecter]

They are holding the debate there becuase the two major party debates are quite literally about 1500 ft away across the street, on the same night, later on. So every media player in the world is gonna be there, and now they have something else to do beside sit on their hands waiting for the major party with two heads to come on.

Nader is invited to ANOTHER debate, one not held by the CPD. Like this one is that Badnarik and Cobb are going to be across the street from. In other words, Nader isnt invited to that one either.

Nader currently is the only candidate thats in the Open Debate Commission debate - so there's only one candidate currently in the only debate he's qualified for - himself. A debate starring Ralph Nader! HOORAH!

Dark Horses?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Are you kidding me, they're freakin invisible.

Re:Score -1 Off Topic

[OblvnDrgn]

At least the totals will show that SOME voters are not suckers and can think for themselves.

This is the line that really gets to me, and I see it all the time when people are discussing third party candidates. I respect both your frustration with the major candidates, and your professed desire to have your balls suckeled, and I would expect that same consideration to be returned. The fact is, there are us voters out there who have considered the issues, looked up third party candidates, and have decided to still support a Democrat or a Republican. This is often a question of moderation, not pragmatism, as the fringe candidates are often necessarily radical in one sense or another. And yes, most of us still know that the practical goal of a third party isn't to win a presidency, but to get one of the two big parties to shift their views rather than have their votes 'stolen' by some fringe group. I mean, it's entirely possible that we sincerely do not want the Democrats to adopt the position of the Green party, or the Republicans the Libertarians, isn't it?

Parent Makes Some Excellent Points

[geomon]

Do be gracious and please mod parent this up.

l.

[Anonymous Coward]

o.
l.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[thoughtterrorist]

People change their minds as they grow and learn, before 9/11 a lot of people didn't know how bad the situation was, but because of 9/11 they learned. I'm not saying 9/11 is a reason nonrelated countries should be democratized, but maybe it caused these officials to take a close look at the entire world and see that it's not all a bed of roses as we were led to believe. Maybe the same is true of Kerry, but I doubt it seeing how big a supporter of the Iraq war he was, where as Bush wasn't nearly as big an isolationists and Bush also seemed to change around 9/11, whereas Kerry seemed to change when he ran out of issues to bash Bush on.

Re:"Real" debates

[benzapp]

Hi there. I am very interested in these "loyalty oaths" of which you speak. Could you please provide a link that provides details on this? Perhaps even the textual content of said oaths? Thanks in advance for your contribution to public enlightenment.

Third Party Problems

[Tassach]

There are two main problems with all the existing third parties. The first is that they have no credibility, and the second is that there are too many small parties working at cross-purposes.

The small parties need to get together and come up with a MODERATE and REALISTIC platform which they can all tolerate. Three small parties which each get 5% of the vote can be dismissed as the lunatic fringe and accomplish nothing. One medium-sized party which gets 15% of the vote is going to be taken seriously.

Once they unite, the coalition of small parties need to work on building credibility with the establishment. This means starting small -- they need to get people in to the system at the county and state level first, before going for federal offices. They need to have established candidates in the state legislatures before they can try for a seat in the House or a governership; and they need a few seats in the House (if not the Senate) before they try for the Presidency. Doing it this way gives their candidates experience with the system and establishes their credibility. You've got to walk before you can run.

If you run for President without ever having held any elected office, most people are going to regard you as a kook, and rightfully so. Look at Hilary Clinton. She's going to finish at least one term in the Senate before she even thinks about running for president, even though she's probably more electable than Kerry.

Re:Third Party Problems

[Artifakt]

You've made some very good points, particularly the one about candidates having successfully held lesser offices and worked their ways up to be taken seriously. I'd add to that - a successful term as state governor is one of the best credentials for the top job, usually worth much more in the average voter's eyes than having been a senator.
I also liked the point about working at cross purposes.

"Three small parties which each get 5% of the vote can be dismissed as the lunatic fringe and accomplish nothing. One medium-sized party which gets 15% of the vote is going to be taken seriously."

The level that should be taken seriously should get smaller when the winning party barely slips by. Get a 72% majority, and it seems natural enough to ignore the rest of the parties. At that point, the winner can brag they have a clear mandate, and won by a landslide.
Win by 1,400 votes nationwide (just for example), and there's really only one rational option. I don't like to throw out that word, rational, too easily, because it sounds like I am making an emotional arguement (Everyone agree with me, so you're rational too), but here's why it seems the other choice is genuinely irrational:
The winner has to reach out and try to draw some people from the other parties for next time, or they are choosing to govern without being able to claim a clear mandate for their actions. Every law they pass will go on record as being what 49% of the poeple wanted. Unless they act to change something, they are gambling that they will get lucky, over and over, every time they try to pass a bill, and that none of the other parties will act successfully to change something in their favor before the next election. Can you imagine a football team winning several games in overtime, and deciding they didn't need to recruit new talent, train harder, and try to become a team that had the game sewn up by the third quarter, cause overtime was good enough? The ignore the losers alternative becomes deciding that 51% of the people are just stupid or crazy, and both should and can safely be ignored. That last proposition is the worst.
This last election, I expected whomever won to try hard to draw some new voters in from the major opposition, the small parties, and even some of the special issue independant voters, to solidify their power base. It didn't happen that way. I really hope there is some threshold below 50% where the two big parties will take a minority party seriously, but unlike you, I increasingly doubt it. It's become the core belief of both major parties that they have the system all to themselves.

Re:Third Party Problems

[ChristTrekker]

Some have proposed exactly that, and some others seem to be following through on the idea. Good for them.

Duh

[That's Unpossible!]

Run for President, or convince someone you admire to run for President.

That fact that you didn't even consider this option -- or worse, think it is an absurd idea -- is a sad reflection on our current politicians-for-life trend.

Re:Duh

[Naffer]

To run for president you need money. Want to be on the ballot? You've got to collect thousands of signatures in each state to get on. Did you get on the ballot? Good, now you've got to convince a majority of the people in each state that you'd be a better president then the other guys. So lets say for a moment that you found a gaggle of rich philanthropists to buy your airtime on major television and radio networks along with print advertisements and a public speaking tour. Think you might have a chance? Nope, cause you can get millions of votes and not a single one that counts (electoral).

No one has a chance. Average Joe can't run for president, nor can hyper-intelligent Prof. Joe.

Re:Duh

[BakaHoushi]

Well, see, that, too, is a problem. I'm not 35, thus, inelligible for running for President. There are people out there that I know of who, in my opinion, would make great presidents. Unfortunately, as a standard rule of thumb, the best person for a job of high power is someone who qualifies for the job, but does not want it. (To put this in an example, for a lawyer, I'd rather have a guy who has all the brains and charisma you need to be one, but WOULDN'T want to be one because he has little respect for the job.)

But perhaps that just falls back onto what you said. If this person hates lawyers so much, why not be one himself so he can change the profession?

But in cases like this, one person can't make much of a difference. (See the poster above me on his comments of what it takes to run for president) However, one person can start a snowball effect, gaining more and more support so he CAN run. Granted, such a thing is not easy. You try to convince a bunch of millionaires as to why they should support your campaign (especially if, say, one of your ideas as president is to increase taxes for the rich).

And, I'll admit it right here. I'm 17. I don't know everything. Hell, I'd be surprised if I knew ANYTHING with great detail. But if I see someone I think should run, someone I feel is truly capable, I'd support him in a heartbeat, regardless of his party affiliations. And until I'm old (and probably welathy) enough to run for Preisdent, all I can do is support who I think is best.

Too bad he's too late to start running.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're 17, you're not old enough to vote anyway.
So you are basically worthless in the context of this discussion. Now go back to the kids table and shut the fuck up.

Children should be seen and not heard.

Re:Duh

[BakaHoushi]

Irony is truly lost here. Part of the whole discussion here is that there are ways to help people that do not require voting. (I'm turning 17 in November and am already registered to vote. I will miss the Presidential election, but this discussion is actually more academic than situational.)

So I'm 17. No, I can't legally vote. So, I'm utterly hopeless? I can't do anything? Woe be unto the world where the only credentials required for voicing one's opinion is age.

Also, in what way does flaming and insulting from behind the wall of anonymity add to this discussion? (Ironically, nothing is also added by my pointing this out.)

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Children should be seen and not heard.

That doesn't work. You're still as obnoxious as ever.

Re:Duh

[ThatsNotFunny]

Me and all of my friends are 29-year-old convicted felons from Vancouver, you insensitive clod!

Re:Duh

[Daengbo]

You know that being a representative to the US government used to be a part-time job? Go to serve/vote andthen go home to supervise your farm or whatever. I think that would be a good idea. Part-time work and part-time pay. No career politicians.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Run for President, or convince someone you admire to run for President.

That fact that you didn't even consider this option -- or worse, think it is an absurd idea -- is a sad reflection on our current politicians-for-life trend.

Fuck that shit. I'm goddamned tired of having all these fuckers tell me I should run for something or devote my life to fixing everything I think is wrong.

If I think a stop sign should be at my intersection, I'm supposed to go to a bunch of goddamned city council meetings and argue like hell for it. -- Bullshit -- the cops should know it's needed.

If I don't like rivers being polluted, I'm supposed to quit my day job, let my house and family go to hell while I embark on a campaign to get it to happen. -- More bullshit -- the bastards in office should do the goddamned job they were elected to do and swore an oath of office to do.

Fuck you sons of bitches whose only mealy-mouthed answer is "If you want it done, give up all else to get it done. And do that for every wrong on earth."

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

But perhaps that just falls back onto what you said. If this person hates lawyers so much, why not be one himself so he can change the profession?

More of the same horseshit. Should I also become a cop and a doctor and an accountant at the same time to clean up those professions in my copious free time? The bastards have a moral and ethical obligation to keep themselves clean. It's not someone else's fucking job.

It's been proven too many times that if you become a cop and try to get rid of their self-serving code of silence, you'll be forced out of the police department if you're lucky and shot in the back if you're not lucky.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, people care more about what party you have tagged to your forhead more then what you got inside of it...

Point proven by Bush....

Doesn't mater if you're one of the 0.5% with an IQ through the roof... if you arn't a democrate or republican, you have -no- chance unless you've somehow become the mayor of a major city (LA or NYC), and done half a dozen things that gets -major- public advertising for you (through news)... so when you actually do run for president, there is some kind of hype about it...

We really do need a governmental system that involves more than heads and tails

Re:Duh

[Monx]

Fuck that shit. I'm goddamned tired of having all these fuckers tell me I should run for something or devote my life to fixing everything I think is wrong.

If I think a stop sign should be at my intersection, I'm supposed to go to a bunch of goddamned city council meetings and argue like hell for it. -- Bullshit -- the cops should know it's needed.

If I don't like rivers being polluted, I'm supposed to quit my day job, let my house and family go to hell while I embark on a campaign to get it to happen. -- More bullshit -- the bastards in office should do the goddamned job they were elected to do and swore an oath of office to do.

Fuck you sons of bitches whose only mealy-mouthed answer is "If you want it done, give up all else to get it done. And do that for every wrong on earth."

This is a Democracy. It requires a minimum level of participation. If you want your views represented, you have to make sure that your representatives are aware of your views. If that's too hard for you, consider living under a dictatorship or a monarchy so that you won't have to worry about being able to effect change.

Re:Duh

[cayenne8]

"Want to be on the ballot? You've got to collect thousands of signatures in each state to get on."

Just curious...do the Dem. and Rep. parties have to do the 1000's of signatures to get on the ballots in most states like the other parties have to? If not, do you know why?

Re:Duh

[Deideldorfer]

In some states if a party received over a certain % of the vote in that state, that party is exempt from the petition requirement. Each state has different ballot laws though.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "an American" correction is wrong. Look it up chowderpuffin.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[benzapp]

Pragmatism doesn't inspire artists or warriors unfortunately. There is something to be said for ideals. They give meaning to life, and inspire even the worst among us to strive for something greater than themselves.

You may, to an extent, be able to rationalize this pragmatic nihilism, but history has proven it always accompanies decadence and decay. Cultures have only ascended in history when they struggle against all odds for the ideals they hold dear. As soon as a pragmatic managerial class evolves, decline ensues.

Also, philosophy aside, Kerry has stated on a number of occasions pulling out of Iraq before a stable, democratically elected government is in place is absolutely off the table. Thus, not only is your very Machiavellian political philosophy poorly defended, your association of that philosophy with Kerry is simply wrong. I think, more than anything else, you should be quite embarassed by your blatantly partisan politics and your inability to see that Kerry is not the savior you dream about when you handle your penis.

We'll never have a third-party contender

[elcheesmo]

If it weren't for Ross Perot, Bill Clinton wouldn't have won. If it weren't for Nader, George W. Bush wouldn't have won. The third party candidates allow the non-favorites to win.

Re:We'll never have a third-party contender

[ragnar]

Thank God for Ross Perot, but I agree that it was shame the Bush was elected.

Why don't they invike Peroutka?

[Anonymous Coward]

www.peroutka2004.com

Re:"Real" debates

[Mr. Slippery]

Could you please provide a link that provides details on this? Perhaps even the textual content of said oaths?

Let me introduce you to Google...

Some Historical Perspective

[oobob]

Most revealing about Kerry's
ability is his debate with John O'Neill, a fellow Vietnam vet who felt that Kerry was doing
a disservice to other soldiers by testifying against the war. It was on the Dick
Cavat show around 71, and you may have heard Kerry's reply ("You have
heard of the Geneva Convention, haven't you?") on some of the news networks. You
can find it here: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic= KerryONeill.

The best part about this clip is the historical perspective it adds for us
youngins. You may have heard of John Kerry's "unpopular anti-war stance" during
Vietnam. In this debate - the same one that jackass Hannity uses to claim that
Kerry admitted he "committed atrocities" - us kids can finally learn exactly
what Kerry said. It might seem odd to those of us who grew up in the last 25 or
so years to learn that Kerry and O'Neill are discussing whether atrocities
occurred in Vietnam.

That's right - he was accused by John O'Neill of slandering soldiers for
claiming they committed atrocities in Vietnam. Let's review:

1) My Lai was an atrocity committed in Vietnam, where soldiers murdered 500
civilians and a cover-up soon followed.

2) *Free-fire zones (where soldiers were to shoot anything that moved) and the
"search and destroy" missions Kerry and other soldiers took part in (RTFA) are
considered illegal under the Geneva Convention. Read here
[http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/free-fir e-zone s.html] for more.

*This is the clip Hannity produces (produced? I stopped watching anything but
C-SPAN months ago. They show the actual politicians talking about their ideas.
Only children would be content with the pundits on cable news, with the
exception of Neal Gabler on Fox News Watch. He's not in the media and is the
only honest voice on Fox and all of cable news. For fuck's sake, they don't even
discuss why we should agree with a policy on any level but the closest to the
subject. How can we know what we think unless we seriously investigate concepts
like duty and morality? Don't concepts such as those determine our ideas of
what government should even attempt to solve? Watch more C-SPAN, and read while
you do it).

3) American soldiers committed these acts.

CONCLUSION: American soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam, often with their
commanding officers knowledge.

This is an essential point for anyone wanting to understand the (current) media,
mainly because it's true, and we can compare it to what the they report. What
have we heard?

Well, John Kerry's speech really demoralized the troops. He came back and starts
talking about atrocities, and gosh, that can be a real bummer when you're
involved in an Asian land war. Especially one fought despite intelligence that
suggested little, if any, chance of victory. And Nixon was doing so well
getting those troops out of there in a speedy manner that we should have trusted
him to do the right thing, like LBJ. Or like Nixon eventually ended up doing
(with respect to everything).

This gets better.

So, John Kerry was attacked for protesting the war. It seems he said Vietnam was
a mistake and that soldiers committed atrocities. But we get bits and pieces of
falsehoods, like Hannity's clips, the ribbons/medals debate (POINTLESS, THAT'S
A SYMBOLIC ACTION YOU MORONS), people attacking him for "demoralizing the
troops", comments from SBVFT that contradict their own previous comments about
Kerry - some as recently as this year - and written testimony from nearly
everyone else who was there. The only other officer alive who was in the river
when Kerry earned his Bronze Star works as an editor for the Chicago Tribune.
His account agrees with the record, and, indeed, the events described in every official
file and by all but a handful of those who Kerry served with (quantifier: those who
actually served in the same

Sad times are these

[rk]

When merely requesting that the federal government restrict its actions to those specifically permitted in the constitution which formed it is to be labelled a "radical".

"Winner takes all" is perhaps obsolete

[OrangeTide]

Winner takes all is there because we once believed in strong state government and a weak federal government. The idea was that states would all agree to basic principles and trade freely with one another. And that the state itself would vote in a weighted system for representives. But after the civil war this antifederalism ideal lost out, and we became a unified nation with little difference between states. Pushing control of the land up to the national level. Now you can no longer escape a crappy government by moving out of state, you have to move to a different country now.

The idea was that a state of mainly Quakers wouldn't want the same laws as a state mainly of Catholics. And just because there were more Quakers (at the time) than Catholics in the US it would not be fair to the minority if federal laws were made in favor of one group even if that group was almost non-existant in a region (not many Quakers in Maryland, not many Catholics in Pennsylvania).

The constitution doesn't prohibit a powerful federal government, nor does it grant it. People (or perhaps lawyers and bankers 120ish years ago) decided they wanted a strong federal government, and that's what we got. But we still have a lot of baggage from our times as a Nation of States.

There were certainly disadvantages to almost fully autonomous states (like slavery). On the otherhand there are advantages too. It is perhaps more efficient. It gives states the ability to compete for productive citizens (what place has the best taxes, best government, etc). Thus giving individuals a choice on what set of laws they live under.

Given the current system, "Winner takes all" is perhaps not a good system. My vote would to be to dismantle most of the federal government and reinstitute the rights of States, and then just keep the current voting system. I think most people would rather have strong federal government, in that case it would be best to update the voting system to reflect this.

One thing is for sure, the current system is strategically more interesting. It's quite simular to playing a game of Risk. Where as a fair system is a much tougher game to play, because clever strategy won't yield huge gains. Just gains proportional to the amount of work put into it.

Re:"Winner takes all" is perhaps obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Winner takes all is there because we once believed in strong state government and a weak federal government.

No, winner-take-all is there because the majority parties in each state abused their power.

If the framers had wanted winner-take-all, then California would have a single elector with 55 votes. But instead, it has 55 electors. The electors were supposed to have the opportunity to express different opinions within their state.

Re:"Winner takes all" is perhaps obsolete

[Guppy06]

"Winner takes all is there because we once believed in strong state government and a weak federal government."

No, it's there to lock in the major parties into the system, much as it was intended (and accomplished) when the scheme was used for House elections.

A "strong state government" scheme wouldn't involve a popular election at all, instead appointing electors by fiat (and probably in a way that reflected the party break-down of the legislature doing the appointing instead of majority-takes-all).

Really, how "strong" is your state government when the government has absolutely no say in the election results? Winner-takes-all may give you something of a strong state presence, but it's rigged to benefit the major parties at the detriment of both the states (who have no say at all any more, especially with the Seventeenth Amendment) and the people (since the electors are not apportioned with respect to them and electors end up serving districts they should have lost in)

"The idea was that states would all agree to basic principles and trade freely with one another."

They can only trade freely with each other so long as Congress says they can. They have the explicit constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce in the same way they regulate international commerce.

"But after the civil war this antifederalism ideal lost out, and we became a unified nation with little difference between states."

Winner-takes-all by virtue of a popular election was the norm decades before the American Civil War. Neither the Federalists nor the Democrats were all that happy with the results of presidential elections decided by Congress in the early Nineteenth Century and had their party faithful push for the system in those few states that weren't already using it at the time. South Carolina was the last holdout until secession, but everybody else had adopted the system by 1836.

If nothing else, the system is designed to take Congress out of the loop.

"The constitution doesn't prohibit a powerful federal government, nor does it grant it. People (or perhaps lawyers and bankers 120ish years ago) decided they wanted a strong federal government, and that's what we got."

Ehhh... if anything I'd say the people decided that they didn't care; take a look at voter turn-out. You also see a lot of time spent on "the issues" and not much on basic political philosophy: all tactics and no strategy.

Re:"Winner takes all" is perhaps obsolete

[OrangeTide]

Well to answer both posts. When post responded to my statement:

"Winner takes all is there because we once believed in strong state government and a weak federal government."

those posts mentioned how the original intent of the electoral college was abused. So I would like to clarify/rephrase what I said to be more in line with what I meant. Winner takes all exists because of what major parties have done [to rig the system in their favor]. What I meant to say was: The state electoral system was designed to promote strong state government and weak federal governments. It was preferable for a state to decide it's own policies on how to handle the electoral college, with only a couple restrictions on how it had to be done. I still believe the civil war was essentially started as federalists versus antifederalist. A confederacy is on the extreme end of the scale of being antifederalist!

Ehhh... if anything I'd say the people decided that they didn't care; take a look at voter turn-out. You also see a lot of time spent on "the issues" and not much on basic political philosophy: all tactics and no strategy.

Interesting differentiation between tactics and strategy there. I may start quoting you on that. :)

Bush supports don't know what "pragmatism" means?

[thoughtterrorist]

"flip-flopping" is a 2nd grade level phrase that makes it easier for Bush supporters to understand, plus it sounds funny? WTF do you call "chimp", "cowboy", "retard" that we hear daily from the left? Take your head out of the sand 'cause if there's one pragmatic side here, it sure as HELL ain't the left.

Re:"Real" debates

[thoughtterrorist]

It's pragmatism, dontcha know?

Re:Whoops! n/m

[Buran]

I know you didn't mean it this way but I'm gonna be goofy and take you literally.

As for hosting, one of them (second I think) is on the campus of the university I work for. I do not, however, work on that campus -- the medical campus is a separate one a short (relatively) distance away.

Washington University Presidential Debate 2004
Campaigns agree to WUSTL debate on Oct. 8

Here's some of the official blurb:

'The St. Louis debate will be the only one with a town-hall forum, with likely voters from the audience, selected by the Gallup Organization, posing the questions. A statement by the two sides said the debates "will ensure a productive and fruitful exchange of ideas about the most important issues facing Americans today."'

Anyone else here from WUSTL? It'd be nice to know!

Of course, I'm kinda annoyed. Hilltop people get a free day off. Us? We gotta work. Hmph.

Michael Bradnick

[greymond]

I'm actually going to be tuning in to watch the Bradnick vs. Cobb debate. I swear everytime I listen to Bush or Kerry speak all I can think about is sports players who after a major play in their interview all say the same shit "You know I just had to get in there, try my best, give 110%, practice everyday, thank my family and god for support" blah blah blah - I want to hear someone who can talk better than I write. Someone who doesn't have all the answers on a que card, someone who's not afraid to say "i'm not sure" instead of "it'll be fine"

Re:Michael Bradnick

[Beardo the Bearded]

The problem is, once you say something like "I don't know", then the rest of the campaign is reduced to soundbites like this:

"Beardo doesn't know about Marcoeconomics. Vote Greymond - because a bad plan is better than no plan!"

Same with changing your mind. I used to hate girls; now I love `em. If you're running for president, it's flip-flopping. Otherwise, it's puberty.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo hoo, hope you feel better after he wins again and your ideas/ideals are not what America wants.

Media Credentials Denied for Debate

[wayward]

As a bit of background, I'm involved in Indy Media, which essentially tries to provide alternatives to mainstream/corporately-owned media. Since I was hoping to cover the debate and some of the surrounding events, I applied for media credentials. Yesterday, I got the following email from the commission:

To all recipients on this list:

The Commission on Presidential Debates appreciates your interest in covering the debates. However, at this time, your application has been denied. Applications are declined due to security concerns, space limitations, or other reasons.

Thank you,

The Commission on Presidential Debates

See also http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/20590/index. php and http://stlouis.indymedia.org/

Re:Media Credentials Denied for Debate

[Anonymous Coward]

No fucking shit.

Indimedia is a political equivalent of UFO associations.
With the kind of nonsense that gets posted on indimedia sites you have only yourself to blame.

what if they're much different?

[Trepidity]

This might be the case if they have specific policies that could conceivably fit in with a larger party, but it doesn't work if they are completely different. For example, which party do you suggest Badnarik be swallowed by? He might fit in with the socially-liberal wing of the Democratic Party, as he supports drug legalization, getting the government out of marriage, and opposes foreign wars. Or he might fit in with the fiscally-conservative wing of the Republican Party, as he opposes social and entitlement programs, supports lower taxes, and so on. But his social liberalism is anathema to the Republicans' social conservatism, and his fiscal conservatism is anathema to the Democrats' fiscal socialism. So there's no conceivable way he could join either party.

Re:what if they're much different?

[True Grit]

Except the main parties are starting to change too. The neo-con Reps aren't particularly fiscally-conservative, and the new Deps aren't particulary fiscally socialist anymore. You have old timers on both sides still (D-Kennedy=fiscal liberal, R-McCain=fical conservative), but they are now a minority within their own parties, the real gap that remains between the parties as a whole now is on social issues.

At least you have a wife ...

[Anonymous Coward]

you insensitive clod!

Comom ground

[Anonymous Coward]

I get a newsletter from an organization called Search for Common Ground They teach conflict resolution skills for use in heavy-duty ethnic and political conflicts, in places around the world like the Balkans and Uganda.

A couple of decades ago the League of Women Voters approached SCG. As those of you who are middle aged or older may recall, they used to run the presidential debates.

The LWV was unhappy with how adversarial the debates were, and thought it would be more helpful if they were more dialogal. So the got in touch with SCG to get advise on how to change things to that end.

Alas, the campaign committees for the two candidates decided they liked things the way they were, and so they took control of the debates away from them and gave it to the Commision on Presidential Debates, which is a puppet of the Republican and Democratic parties. It's sad, thinking of what might have been

Re:Flip-Flopping

[End11]

Comparing how the similary funny and clever jabs of the parent and grandparent got moderated speaks volumes about the politcal bias of slashdot, and how that translates into almost a kind of censorship.

I'm not saying it's bad, or that I'm the first to notice it, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the clip.
rtsp://a1703.v9950f.c9950.g.vr.akamaistream .net/on demand/7/1703/9950/v001/comedystor.download.akamai .com/9951/dailyshow/stewart/jon_7131_300.rm

Re:Bush supports don't know what "pragmatism" mean

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is, the left doesn't use "chimp" and "retard" in official campaign literature and ads. Now, it would be nice if the Kerry camp would focus on concrete issues - like the Bush tax cuts that encourage outsourcing and American job loss, but that's another topic.

Now, don't you have your "5 minutes of hate" on your telescreen **ahem** FOXNews to attend to?

Excellent program on PBS about non-debates

[signingis]

George Fara (author of No Debate [non-referral link]) was on an Episode of NOW with Bill Moyers. Full transcript is here. I found the program to be incredibly interesting.

Re:Excellent program on PBS about non-debates

[signingis]

Overrrated?! :( That's not cool, man.

Facts....

[LoveLiberty2004]

Sure, anyone can run for President, but the only alternative party that ever made a REAL go for it was Ross Perot. And Ross Perot has something your average American doesn't... $$$$$ and tons of it. ANYONE can run for Pres, as long as they have the deep pockets to get their message out.

Re:Facts....

[Monx]

he only alternative party that ever made a REAL go for it was Ross Perot

The Republicans were a third party. Look where they are now. Oh, and Ross Perot isn't a party, he was a candidate.

Re:"Real" debates

[ninjagin]

Yunno, looking for such a device may be a tough task, this time. The camera angles are very tightly controlled. These devices do exist, but my guess is that they will be concealed, if used.

I haven't read all of the rules for this time around, but I wonder if such a stipulation (that none of these devices be used) would even be possible.

Maybe we'll just have to look out for ear-tugging or something like that.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[Anonymous Coward]

American can be an adjective or a noun, both would have been correct

dipshit

Candidates who are not invited to debate

[texashopeful]

If you have read Senator Katherine Laforge's political platform, you would see she has very different solutions to problems that we face. You would also note that they are solutions that would work. You can read her platform at: http://www.hulagusweb.com/flash_index.html?content =platform.html As you can see her solutions are draconian but very effective.

Re:"Real" debates

[Anonymous Coward]

But in 96, after getting 19% of the vote in 92, Perot was shut out of the debates!

Re:"Real" debates

[fyngyrz]

Actually, what this really demonstrates is how completely broken slashdot's moderation system is.

Any loser who is "moderator for a day" can knock a perfectly reasonable post down to -1, and if no one else with mod points, or the inclination to give them up, spots the abuse, the post is lost from sight by default.

Because moderation is hidden (unlike Kuro5hin, which IMHO does it a LOT better) you can't tell who did what to whom so there is no accountability at *all* (metamoderation doesn't fix the problem posts - I could give a hoot what it does to the moderators. They can always use another account, and they do that, too.)

And why can't we moderate the stories? I mean, recently, there was a story from some guy with an LCD that claimed the LCD was the source of lagging mouse pointer or some such. WTF?

Anyway, a bad mod doesn't indicate a liberal leaning for slashdot. It indicates a liberal leaning for some random moderator, no more than that.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, pinhead, I don't think Iraq with its FUCKING BIG OILFIELDS was ever ignored or overlooked by "these officials". Nor was Afghanistan, sitting between mongo natural gas fields and an idle Enron natural gas plant in India in 2001.

9/11 didn't change anything, but it did rescue a dead-in-the-water presidency.

Re:"Real" debates

[Anonymous Coward]

"Political campaigns are always eager to keep hecklers out of their pep rallies, but the Republican National Committee took that desire to a new level last week, requiring supporters to sign an oath of loyalty before receiving tickets to Saturday's New Mexico rally featuring Vice President Cheney."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A310 19-2004Jul31.html

you couldnt make this stuff up

Re:"Real" debates

[fyngyrz]

Yes, you have to love a "debate" where you can't directly (or indirectly, really) interact with the other party.

Perhaps this should be called a "2-party speech" instead of a debate. This is about as much of a "debate" as is a hog calling contest.

Reality (was Re:Nader opts out)

[Zathras11]

Nobody EVER mentions the votes that third-party candidates cost Bush (Libertarian, Harry Browne; Constitution Party/Independent American Party, Howard Phillips; etc.) There were SEVERAL states that Gore barely won you know! And, I'd like to point out Gore failed to carry his HOME state of Tennessee as well as Clinton's Arkansas... Nader did nothing wrong. He was allowed to run and did. If you add the votes of those other candidates to Bush in Florida, you'll see the folly of claiming you could add the Nader votes in Florida to Gore. People voted for who they wanted to win! The Nader voters liked him better than Gore! Like most other things, there could be only one winner. Despite the best efforts of the Democrat Florida Supreme Court [sic] to re-write Florida election law AFTER the election was over because they didn't like it, and the local Democrat-controlled election boards performing recounts against said law, not to mention the manufactoring of new votes by removing chads (witnessed) and the non-counting of U.S. Military votes (at Gore's request), Bush still won. Its over. Get over it. And its not like Republicans were in control of the polling places in Democrat areas. Everyone who wanted to vote did! NOBODY was disenfranchised! This whole thing is as funny as the same people who said it didn't matter that Clinton dodged the draft think Bush serving at home was wrong. LOL! No mention Bush applied for position that would have meant going to Vietnam and was turned down! Clinton running=Vietnam bad. Kerry running=Vietnam good. (HUH!?!) P.S. Here in Ohio we also have Butterfly ballots, and guess what, WE KNOW HOW TO USE THEM! ;^) Its not like brain surgery. You poke a metal thingy into a damn hole! People who can't do that, or who vote twice thinking they need to punch for Pres. and V.P. didn't know how to vote to begin with!

Re:Reality (was Re:Nader opts out)

[damiam]

Paragraph breaks = good.

Third-party candidates cost Bush votes, yes, but Nader polled the highest by far of all third-party candidates, and I think it's fair to say that the majority (not all, but many) of Naders voters would have voted Gore.

NOBODY was disenfranchised!

And you know this how? It's fairly well-documented that thousands of voters (mostly black) were erroneously purged from the rolls and turned away at the polls.

Debates don't matter

[sl4shd0rk]

The machines control the matrix now.

All candidates should take part in Q&A in NYT

[tentimestwenty]

Why don't all the candidates get together and agree on series of 20 questions, then take out a few pages in the New York Times (or similar) so that they can have their own form of equal debate. TV is great for certain things but without a more applicable selection process there could never be a real televised debate of all the candidates. Even if it was physically possible no one would watch the whole thing.

The only legitmate debate format is...

[DavidBrown]

...the format used by the Lincoln-Douglas debates:

No moderators.

No questions from the peanut gallery.

The format is very simple.

Bush speaks for one hour.
Kerry speaks for an hour-and-a-half.
Bush speaks for half-an-hour.

The order of speaking is flipped for the second debate.

The candidates get to say anything they want - they can use their time to both pose questions to their opponent and to respond to their opponents questions and statements.

Maybe we can cut down on the time - have it 30/45/15 minutes instead of 60/90/30, or somewhere in between. The point is that with the candidates posing their own questions, there's no interference from without (such as the snappy "what if Kitty Dukakis were raped and killed" question that sunk Dukakis). Also, because of the strict format, there's no opportunity for "Where's the Beef" or "There he goes again" interruptions that are really meaningless soundbites rather than substantive argument.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates were historic - Lincoln lost the Illinois Senate campaign, but the positions Douglas took, some of which Lincoln caused Douglas to take, were one of the reasons why Lincoln was subsequently elected President.

Re:The only legitmate debate format is...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the best part is... if they don't have anything to talk about then they aren't worth voting for.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[Anonymous Coward]

> speaks volumes about the political bias of slashdot

Interesting. It could just be that one is meant to be funny-absurd, and one is meant to be funny-true; or that one is pretty unoriginal (repeated verbatim), while the other is at least creatively reworded. Also, with yo' momma jokes, it's about delivery and who gets the last word/who starts it. One lobs, the other spikes. Guess who gets the point?

Correction!

[michaelmalak]

Peroutka is unable to attend the Miami third-party debate due to a busy schedule in Utah. The press release I had linked in my earlier message was for a PBS profiling show the night before that debate.

However, there will be at least one additional third-party debates, and Peroutka is planning to be in it -- Oct. 6 at Cornell (Word .doc)

Re:"Real" debates

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's OK, the man on the other side of the wire(less) rules the US anyway ...

USA used to be like that

[devphil]

The original scheme was that there was only a presidential race, not a vice-presidential one. Whoever lost the presidential election became vice-president. The two candidates were expected to set aside their personal differences and work together for the good of the (then-newborn) Union, and this scheme provides some balance of influence as well.

It only worked for the first few presidents, then they threw that approach out and replaced it with the "we can't not hold a grudge; I will never speak to my opponent face-to-face" approach of today.

Re:USA used to be like that

[gcalvin]

Well, that's partly right. True, there was only one vote which elected both offices, but it wasn't whoever "lost" that became VP, the two were never supposed to "work together" (the Veep was to preside over the Senate and to take over if the President was unable to continue in office -- not be an assistant to the President), and it never really "worked" for any President except maybe Washington.

The original design was that each elector got two votes, which had to be cast for two different people, at least one of which was not a resident of the elector's home state. The votes were not designated "President" or "Vice President", but the electors never doubted which was which. Both the President and Vice President had to be elected by a majority of the whole number of electors -- it was never the "loser" that became Vice President.

In 1796, John Adams was elected President and Thomas Jefferson was elected Vice President. Political parties (the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, later Republicans) were still in their infancy, and the Federalists didn't have the discipline to choose a "compatable" VP for Adams. Jefferson soon went back to Monticello and "served" most of his term from there.

In 1800 the result was even worse. The Republicans did have the discipline to control their electors, but they did it too well -- Jefferson ended up tied with Aaron Burr (though there was never any real doubt that it was Jefferson who was supposed to be President) and the election had to be decided in the House of Representatives. Shortly after that, the 12th Amendment mandated separate ballots for President and Vice President.

Re:USA used to be like that

[devphil]

Oh, damn, you're right, I got chunks of stuff confused with other chunks of stuff. Thanks for setting me straight.

Correction: 48 states

[chiph]

The OKLP, in cooperation with the Green and Constitution Parties, is encouraging their membership to leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank.

http://lp.org/lpnews/0411/oklahoma-nota.html

Chip H.

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 damn straigt!

Re:"Real" debates

[Bill Dog]

The nice thing about having the news media, for the most part, on your side, is that you're simply not asked questions that you'd want to duck. So he talks about what he did decades ago as a young man in Vietnam (which may or may not be all true), and ignores his rich, historical record of Senate votes when he was an older, wiser man, and the news media plays along. I don't care what anyone running for office did 30 years ago -- I want to know what they've done and thought and how they've conducted themselves in, say, the last 10 years, if I'm going to use it as any indication of how they would be in office in the near future. But it's looking like I'm not going to be finding out.

President of Real?

[Riktov]

So Rob Glaser's the incumbent. Who's the challenger?

Re:"Real" debates

[Bill Dog]

Anyway, a bad mod doesn't indicate a liberal leaning for slashdot. It indicates a liberal leaning for some random moderator, no more than that.

Or not even that -- conservatives are theoretically just as capable of confusing uninsightful with simply disagreeing, and make a bad mod. So I'd say Slashdot's liberal leaning must be indicated by something else. Maybe more UNIX people are Lefties? I get the impression there are a lot of college kids that participate here, and it may be the ones that feel the most impassioned to speak out tend to lean left.

Why is this nonsense "insighful"?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your source for this?
Do you really believe Bush is dumb and somehow faked his way through being a fighter pilot,a Harvard MBA,Governor and President?
Kerry is the one who continues to demonstrate he can't string words together to make a meaningful statement.He keps adding advisers and handlers to his failing campaign as well.
What is insighful about the millionth reiteration of "Bush is stupid"?
Clearly he is not and has benefitted from this kind of "misunderestimation".

Re:Why is this nonsense "insighful"?

[Anonymous Coward]

... somehow faked his way through being a fighter pilot...

Wasn't he AWOL for a bit of that?

a Harvard MBA

Just because someone has a piece of paper does not make them a compotent leader. I can remember a few MBAs who tanked more than a few dot-coms.

Governor

Killed 152 people. Refuses to recognize international treaties. Harper's Sep. '99: "Number of death sentences upheld by Texas courts since 1990 for men whose lawyers slept during their trials: 3"

and President?

Wars, deficit, civil rights, and much more.

Do you really believe Bush is dumb and ...

Yes.

Third Party Debate At Cornell

[JimBean]

I thought I would point out that there is a similar debate occurring at Cornell on October 6th. It will include both David Cobb and Michael Badnarik as well as the candidates for the Socialist and Constitutional Parties, Walt Brown and Michael Peroutka respectively. Nader was invited but has not given an official response (although I've heard he'll be in upstate New York at the time and could show up). Anyway, the event is being covered by C-SPAN and some regional networks, so there could be some real TV coverage (both locally and nationally). These candidates are not really going to impact the national election, but it's nice to hear some different political viewpoints.

Re:"Real" debates

[John Newman]

Thank you for being the first here to point out that third party candidates who are not kooks with less than 3% of the vote are not invited to debates, but real candidates are not shut out.

He wasn't invited because he wasn't a "kook" - he was invited only because both sides thought he would take votes away from the other guy, Turns out one side badly miscalculated. That side refused to make the same mistake in 1996, and the other side decided they didn't need the help or the distraction. The Clinton campaign was right on both counts.

So don't confuse "doing what's good for our partes" with "doing what's good for the country". 1992 was a fluke, since both parties thought they were doing themselves a favor by having Perot there. His actual performance in the election must have scared the hell out both of them, and I can guarantee that neither will ever let something like that happen again.

Re:"Real" debates

[Mr. Slippery]

The nice thing about having the news media, for the most part, on your side, is that you're simply not asked questions that you'd want to duck...I want to know what they've done and thought and how they've conducted themselves in, say, the last 10 years, if I'm going to use it as any indication of how they would be in office in the near future.

I don't think that has much to do with media being "on his side" (an assertation I'd dispute), but rather with the general nature of soundbite politics and of the complexities of the legislative process.

If you want the inforation, it's certainly available. But only the deepest policy wonks can really grasp most of it - it's full of things like this:

Vote to kill instructions to send the bill back to committee with directions to report it back with an amendment to increase the minimum wage to $6.15 per hour by September 1, 2000.

Stories about getting shot at in the jungle are simply more understandable and gripping than stories about a vote to kill instructions to send the bill back to committee with directions to report it back with an amendment (whatever the hell that all means).

No surprise, but one must try.

[Fantastic Lad]

Now all one has to do in order to be a solid Lois Lane is to sneak in regardless and cover whatever happens to you first. --The arrest, or the dog & pony show. (Neither, I expect, can be very pretty.)

The crappiest times to be a journalist are also the most important times to be a journalist.

Kudos to you.

-FL --Where the heck is Supes when you need him?

Re:No surprise, but one must try.

[wayward]

Thanks! Actually, some people affiliated with UC-IMC did go to the RNC, and five were arrested for some rather dubious reasons. Here are a couple of related stories:

http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/20179/index.p hp
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/20151/index.p hp

We'll probably end up covering the protest events outside the debate. The basic plan will probably be keeping a relatively low profile and trying to avoid arrest. Our role is to report news, not create it. For anyone interested in the St. Louis Presidential Debate protests, the URL is http://www.stlo8.org.

Parties losing power

[MoebiusStreet]

> In the past typically one party becomes very
> un-popular (federalists, whigs, etc.), and the
> other party sorta takes over.

I don't see this happening any more. In the past it seems that parties were guided more by actual ideologies. Today the guiding principles are political expedience and polling. Your own message acknowledges this.

Consider the Democrat backing of the war, and the Republican backing of the prescription drug plan. Both of these stands are contradictory to the respective Party's "ideals", yet they abandon their putative philosophies to maintain power.

To paraphrase Annihilator, the only solution is a violent revolution.

Re:Whoops! n/m

[Alan Shutko]

Not me, but my wife is in the Atkinson lab at the med school....

Ugh!

[Anonymous Coward]

I submitted this story like 3 or 4 times and it got ignored! WTF?

BTW, why is it when I post anonymously on slashdot, the website starts to try to get through my firewall?

Re:Ugh!

[syn3rg]

I noticed I was getting portscanned from /.'s IP after posting one night.

Re:"Real" debates

[theLOUDroom]

It is the public that looks for style over substance.

Actually, many members of the public would LOVE some substance, UNFORTUNATELY WE DON"T OWN ANY MAJOR TV NETWORKS.

How much did Microsoft, Enron, etc contribute to the Democrats in the last few years? (lots)
The Republicans? (lots)
The Green party? (nothing)

If you just spent a bunch on money buying the sopport of both the democrats and republicans, would you cover a third party on your TV network? Of course not.

Re:"Real" debates

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush lost because the public believed that he was out of touch with the core of America.
Witness the amazement in his eyes, seeing a product scanned with barcode scanner in a mock demonstration of grocery checkout.
Or notice how many times he looked at his watch during the town hall debate.
Either way, Bush lost on his own merits. No need to blame Perot.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow a "Retard-in-Chief" doesn't sound too convincing from a dude calling himself "stinkyfingers".

Re:"Real" debates

[Karl Cocknozzle]

It's _highly_ probable that Bush will be wearing a wireless earpiece for the debate. Bush will no doubt have some of the best debate people the republican party can buy telling him what to say through such an earpiece. I suppose Kerry could use the same thing, but then again he probably wouldn't need it.

A fun prank might be to use your scanner to find the frequency of Bush's earpiece, then transmit at fairly high power on that frequency for the duration of the debate. Big fun! Especially if you time your jamming so that just as Rove starts to speak, it drops out.

Now THAT is comedy. Fucking performance art, even.

I dislike the 3rd Party debate timing

[Degrees]

Because it seems they always try to stage their event on "same day, only a few feet away".

You don't upstage the big party candidates by competing with them* for their precious big media time slot. You upstage them by holding your debate the day prior.

Ideally, you'd rent the very same hall the day prior, so the networks would save some money by pre-setting up their cameras and microphones - they wouldn't have to go to the expense of rolling out a duplicate set. Better yet, the news exposure would be good: Wednesday, Presidential Candidates X and Y debated, Thursday, A and B debated - and it all looks the same on the TV to Joe viewer.

Lastly, and the biggest win, would be that the debate prior is likely to give some journalist material (or at least an idea) to ask the big two kahunas. We all know that the War on Drugs or the National Debt won't be a question topic Thursday night. But if Candidates X and Y come out and say they have a solution, the possibility exists that Candidates A and B will at least be asked.

*And losing! Its one of those pride things: "Sure we're gonna lose, but if we won, it would be awesome man!

Cast your alternative ballot now...

[Anguo]

Whatever your opinion after either set of debates, why not express your opinion like you never have before...

In the weeks leading up to the Presidential elections, many Slashdot users as well as some third party candidates (Badnarik) have advocated the use of better voting systems such as Instant Runoff Voting, Approval Voting and Condorcet Voting. There is a new web site which has just started a worldwide campaign to promote such alternatives, and it has just come up with an unexpected endorsement for the US 2004 election. What's much more interesting is a new service which is, as far as I am aware, unique on the web: a MOD of the popular software phpBB allows users not only to post messages like on any other Bulletin Board, but also to create their own polls, with their own choice of candidates, using a variety of voting methods. Users can thus create their own polls, cast their ballots and talk about the results all in the same forum.

American voters should use this unique opportunity to cast the alternative ballot that they will not be able to cast in November, and maybe also create new polls corresponding to other local elections in their states. It would be very interesting to see what the result would be if voters were given the opportunity to voice their true preferences.

Re:Bush supports don't know what "pragmatism" mean

[thoughtterrorist]

I fail to see the difference, most democrats only "know" that "bush is, like, stupid n stuff", it could be argued that most republicans aren't pro-Bush, they're pro-republicans, so what Bush says in his campaign ads matters little. And as for your last line, I guess you just can't stand a news channel that doesn't hate America and peddle forged documents to smear those that don't.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[thoughtterrorist]

Nice red herring, you can't face the fact that the democrats supported a blood thirsty tyrant like Saddam and that Bush did the right thing so you go digging for conspiracy theories to justify your weak politics. If we're stealing Iraqi oil, why is gas 2 bucks a gal? Answer, because we're not stealing it, just helping them develope it, asshat.

Gore won the debates

[Aexia]

and most people who were watching them thought so as well.

Unfortunately, Bush won the post-debate spin contest. Gore mixes up a trip he made with a cabinet secretary and the media beats the hell out of him for it. Bush takes credit for a bill he first vetoed and then later(when it passed again with a veto-proof majority) refused to sign, not a peep from the "liberal media".

Re:"Real" debates

[Selecter]

Sir, that is a damn good observation. I have no mod points to give you. Kudos anyways.

Networks already refusing to play ball

[Aexia]

on the bizarre camera instructions for example.

Re:"Real" debates

[Anonymous Coward]

The panel did allow Ross Perot into the debates

No, it did not. The League of Women Voters used to organize the presidential debates. After Perot got into the debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates took over.

Another advantage of approval voting

[Aexia]

is that it requires virtually no effort to implement.

All the elections offices have to do is simply stop discarding overvotes.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[Anonymous Coward]

The red herring is yours; your partisanship is showing. The previous AC didn't say that the war was fought for oil, only that US officials had always devoted serious attention to strategically important nations.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[shanen]

The original joke was "I don't worry about talking to myself. I don't even worry when I start arguing with myself. When I lose those arguments, then I worry."

Of course in Dubya's case, he'd never admit that he lost, and he's never had a real worry in his entire life. "Born on third base, thinks he hit a triple."

Actually, it isn't even funny. One of the themes that comes up frequently is that Dubya is not reflective, even to the point where he apparently can't think about the possibility of making a mistake. For example, in the book about Paul O'Neill, he specifically says that Dubya refuses to "negotiate with himself"--apparently expecting that if he thought about it he might realize that what he wanted was *gasp* impossible.

By the way, that also explains the problem with "Fool me once..." Dubya probably can't even admit to himself the abstract idea that he could be fooled--though it's obviously going on *ALL* the time.

3rd party debates...

[Money for Nothin']

If a tree falls in a forest when nobody is around, does it make a sound?

Re:"Real" debates

[lakeland]

I disagree.

While you're right that the ppl don't own major TV networks, I think you'll find people genuinely interested in detailed debates of the issues are rather scarce on the ground. Just look at the minor elections (like school boards). For the consistantly successful candidates you see exactly the same style-over-substance approach.

Re: Bush debating himself

[aggiefalcon01]

Maybe not for 90 minutes, but for 5 minutes, it's priceless.

Re:"Real" debates

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally, in any formal debate, one addresses the moderator rather than addressing the other party. Furthermore, in any parliamentary debate, such as those in Congress, it is against the rules to address anyone but the presiding officer. Thus, "Mr. President" and "Mr. Speaker" get yelled at a lot in these systems.

Re:"Real" debates

[mdfst13]

"Stories about getting shot at in the jungle are simply more understandable and gripping than stories about a vote to kill instructions to send the bill back to committee with directions to report it back with an amendment (whatever the hell that all means)."

Voting No was a vote for raising the minimum wage. I can see how it could get tricky with all the double negatives, but that's the basic intent. Unsurprisingly, that's what he did.

It is quite possible to interpret statements like that. Ted Kennedy wanted to increase the minimum wage, so he tried to have the relevant committee rewrite that bill with a provision to increase the minimum wage. Someone else set up a vote to end dicussion (preventing a vote). Kerry voted no: i.e. he wanted the bill rewritten.

The real question is why doesn't someone in the media (or even someone with Vote Smart) go through and summarize all Kerry's positions (without all the double negatives or intrigue). It's quite possible, especially if you ask the Kerry campaign to double check it to see if you misunderstood anything (for example, one might vote to replace a horrible bill with a bad bill in some circumstances; not a vote for the bad bill; a vote against the horrible bill).

...which makes it a bit of a problem

[Trepidity]

Since us libertarians are fiscally conservative, and the two parties are increasingly looking like they're both not fiscally conservative, there's no real reason to vote for either of them. I might end up voting Kerry because at least he's pro-freedom on social issues, but it will be a somewhat grudging vote.

Re:...which makes it a bit of a problem

[GimmeFuel]

Voting Kerry is effectively an endorsement of all of Kerry's policies. That includes continued War in Iraq, gun control, and all his huge fiscally liberal promises like socialized medicine. Sure, you agree with him on some things (like his supposed pro-freedom record on social issues...example?), but don't you disagree with him on as many things?

Besides, unless you live in one of the swing states, your vote for Kerry will not count at all. If you do live in a swing state, your vote will count for a teeny tiny bit - too small to make any difference in which of the two major party canidates gets elected.

Vote Libertarian or stay the fuck home.

Re:...which makes it a bit of a problem

[True Grit]

Vote Libertarian or stay the fuck home.

Spoken like someone obbsessed with an idea that few others accept.

Seeing as the choice of the People ...

[chris_sawtell]

... is pretty well split: 49% Don't care; 25% Democrat; 25% Republican; and a tiny minority of Others, wouldn't it be best if the Presidency was shared around the Parties? 4 years Democrat, 4 years Republican, and Ralph Nader or his descendent for a year once a century. That's fuss-free, fair, and there is not enough time for the Pres. to be corrupted by Power. What's more to the point it will put corrupt election officials out of office, because there won't be any more elections.

Is the war in Iraq justifiable ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is really absurd that the Bush regieme attacked
Afghan and Iraq. If Bin Laden was in any of the places, he and people related to him should be braught to justice, not the innocent civilians there. Would Bush go bombing CIA HQ for they didn't
protect the WTC ? Or should Texas be bombed for giving birth to Bush, since no WMD could be found
in Iraq, but he attacked them without a UN mandate ?
Well if things are sorted in a civilized manner, I guess US will end up paying trillions of dollars in
damage to the innocent victims of the war on terror.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[thoughtterrorist]

Wasn't a red herring, I misunderstood the asshat, giving him more credit than I should have, hell I thought he almost had an argument, but after your post I reread it and see he was just rambling to look like he had something to say. And partisanship has nothing to do with whether my arguments are correct or not, that is your partisanship showing.

Question from different country

[Jacek Poplawski]

I just want to ask, how can you call your government "democracy" if there are only two parties, only two candidates? Sure, in Poland democracy is young and stupid, but at least we have few parties, few more or less stupid candidates for president, etc... most people are tired with democracy and don't go to vote, but at least we have choices... what choices are in USA? I remember Bush vs Gore, is it always "smaller evil" to choose?

Re:Question from different country

[jlockard]

It may seem that there are only two candidates in the USA system, but there are really a lot more. The *problem* is that the two candidates that everybody knows about, in this case Bush and Kerry, are from the two largest and most popular parties. Many, many Americans view their vote to be a wasted vote if the don't vote for either a Republican or Democrat candidate.

I would guess the problem of popularity in the past for these two parties established them in everybody's minds and pocketbooks. I think it'd be great if there was a spending limit imposed on all candidates for advertising. Herein lies another problem, you have groups like "Friends of George Bush", which will buy advertising, which wouldn't could against that dollar amount. Another would be to supply each candidate with a certain amount of money for advertising or campaign use and tell them they can use that money for advertising and no more.

It's broken, it needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure how it should be fixed, because most of the "brokeness" is in the minds of us Americans...

-Me

Umm ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

That's cute. Way to reguritate a sound bite from our Retard-in-Chief. At least put some critical thought in before being brainwashed.

Uh ... "Retard-in-Chief"? I think you're about to implode in a puff of irony.

Hint: the Saturday Night Live guy isn't really the president. He's an actor.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[cascadingstylesheet]

The problem is that most Bush supporters don't know what the word "pragmatism" means. "Flip-flopping" is a 2 grade level phrase that makes it easier for the Bush supporters to understand, plus, it sounds funny!

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and flip-flopping is just flip-flopping.

What's Kerry's position on the war today? Would he still have voted for it, but not started it, or something? He's going to drastically reduce troop levels somehow without cutting and running, but he also doesn't think we're putting enough resources into it? Or was that last week?

And that's just the war ...

Re:"Real" debates

[xSauronx]

hahhaha pwn3d

Yet another political tyro

[Anonymous Coward]

Ralph Nader a moderate? Lynden Larouche a moderate? No, the minor parties are most certainly not populated by centrists trying to get away from major party extremists.

Republicans are espousing high cost social programs, Democrats are espousing hawkish international policy. Despite the carping of a vocal minority within those parties, there is still plenty of crossover between the two. From a macro view, it's pretty hard to tell the difference between the Republicans and Democrats anymore...that seems pretty centrist to me!

Re:"Real" debates

[benzapp]

I still can't seem to find the specific text of that oath, at least on the first page of those search results... I am a busy man, and unfortunately don't have the time to read through hundreds of links on google. Thanks for the attempt though. None of the quoted material in the articles cited seem to be what I would call an oath. A promise perhaps, but not an oath.

oh, I am

[Trepidity]

I was thinking more of the theoretical "live in a swing state and deciding between Bush/Kerry" situation. As I live in Texas, which Kerry will not win even if Bush murders a baby on live TV, I'll be voting Badnarik.

Debate requires contention or rebuttal.

[David Rolfe]

No I think it's a little less maligned than you believe...

A "real" debate is where you make a claim and I rebut it. You know, like where there is a contentious exchange of ideas. Often times there is a moderator.

The two-party 'debate' commision prevents "real" debate by design. The Memorandum of Understanding, that have existed since the Legue of Women Voters stopped sponsoring presidential debates, are created to stiffle honest interaction, to bar third parties from debates (unless the 'monopoly parties' agree on a third candidate as a spoiler to the other side, e.g., Ross Perot), and to promote their respective 'message' without costly mistakes all while 'fooling' the public into believing that it's anything more than a scripted two-party event. Important things may be said, so I'm not saying they aren't without merit, I'm just saying they aren't a debate; or at least, not a real one.

The "real" modifier is to differentiate against the "no direct response, timed answers, questions in advance, no follow-up" format chosen for the Bush-Kerry debates versus all other -- let's say 'true' -- forums of debate.

Oh - and what makes the Bush-Kerry debate "official" btw? That a private corporation founded and funded by a Republican and a Democrat put them on each year with corporate sponsorship?

Re:Score -1 Off Topic

[freqres]

If the majority of people choose not to vote for a president does that mean we can just go without one for four years? Or maybe disqualify the two candidates running now and force the major parties to come up with some better choices. Maybe the federal government should have stayed shut down when it couldn't pass a budget in 1995. I don't think I would have missed it much.

Re:Flip-Flopping

[wikdwarlock]

Does anyone have a better (preferably non-streamed) version of this? It's a pain in the arse to find anywhere, and the stream is bogging down after 10 seconds.

working coral'ed .mov of the clip

[wikdwarlock]

is here.

Actually, your best tactic

[Moderation abuser]

Is to divide and conquer.

The existing election system actually elects the largest minority, you don't need a majority of the population to vote for you at all. Therefore what you *should* be doing is giving a substantial portion of your funding to rivals of your main opposition, those people who are in a similar area of the political spectrum and who might have a chance of taking votes away from the main opposition.

E.g. In a generally right wing state:

Far right: 10%
Right: 39%
Left: 40%
Other: 11%

So, it's possible for a left wing candidate to take a generally far right wing state if he's politically savvy enough to take advantage of the stupidity of the election system and spend a portion of his funding helping opposition candidates who really don't have a chance of winning.

There ARE other versions

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot has set up shop in Japan too, if you can read it.

Here's a start

[Quila]

These debates. Only people in the debates have a chance of getting before the people and getting votes. Making the debates 4-way (say four biggest vote-getting parties from the last election) would break the Republicrat tunnel vision this country has.

But they let a three-way happen in '92 with Ross Perot, who seriously embarrassed them, and immediately changed the rules for '96 to make sure it wouldn't happen again.

Simply, no other candidates will be prominent and get votes because the debate commission, federal rules and state rules made by the Republicrats keep it from happening.

They've done better

[Quila]

one needs only to contact the organizing agency before they finalize things and start doing press releases.

1992 Lenora Fulani tried (ignored).

1996 Ross Perot petitioned the FEC on grounds that excluding other parties violated election law (ignored although FEC general counsel said Perot was right).

2000 Pat Buchannan filed FEC complaint (ignored).

2000 Ralph Nader filed a lawsuit, and IIRC was part of another, challenging the FEC to reign in the debate commission. Both thrown out.

Think about it: One of the richest men in the country put his weight behind forcing the commission to accept others, and he lost. What chance does anyone else have?

DOWNLOAD THE DEBATE

[Anonymous Coward]

http://63.223.15.84:443/freemarketnews/09-30-04-pe oplesdebate.wmv

Re:Flip-Flopping

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're stealing Iraqi oil, why is gas 2 bucks a gal?

ummm, because those stealing it and benefiting from this are the oil companies, their rich stockholders, friendly rulers (in oil-rich countries) and politicians? Many politicians will get their cut when they leave office - how many millions do you think Cheney and Bush will be given by the oil and related industries when they leave office?

If US drivers (and drivers all over the world) have to pay more for gas - that is just another benefit to those who control and benefit from oil and gas production. These companies are raking it in. They love $2/gallon gas, $3 would be even better!

Re:Flip-Flopping

[sumdumass]

I don't think thats an acurate statment. Too much in america revolves around oil. Basicaly you could take and production company and invest in it while reducing oil cost and see a market boom. Thats what part of the clinton boom was.

When oil is cheap, transporting materials as well as finished product is cheaper. Most materials used in production is cheaper. Office materials are cheaper, energy is basicaly cheaper. The consumer doesn't always benefit directly but about any companie in bussiness would have a significant increase in profit. More profit tends to lend leverage to employies gaining raises in pay wich means they can spend more.

Cheap oil prices would allow about anyone with money to invest clean up in the stock market. I'm sure your aware that people with large amounts of money don't burry it in the back yard rather seek to invest it in whatever will make the largest return. There should be more money making opertunities if oil prices drop for a significant amount of time then keeping them high for a quick pay off from theoil companies.

You need to get out more

[Anonymous Coward]

>not many Catholics in Pennsylvania

I suggest a trip to the Pittsburgh area.

gewg_

Knightfall

[TamMan2000]

I got into something like this with him recently

check this out...

He actually claims that nuclear warheads were found in Iraq. I suggest you read the whole tread, it's good for a laugh...

He is either a troll, or incapable of reasoning...