Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
What are your objections to the rules of the presidential debate? they seem pretty reasonable to me.
love is just extroverted narcissism
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.
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.
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.
http://www.busyweather.com/
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.
Evolution or ID?
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?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
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.
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.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
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".
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
" 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.
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.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
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.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
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
Wherever you go, there you are.
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?
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
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?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
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.
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.
2 1337 4 u!
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.
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.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
We all want to influence the process. It doesn't mean we get to be on TV with the President and his leading opposition.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
We have had other parties in the past BTW, but basically we've always had 2 parties.
... like a third-party candidate winning.
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
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...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Take a look at http://www.opendebates.org/
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...
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.
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.
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
Unfortunately unlike Ross Perot I don't have spare billions of dollars.
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"
Ave Molech Setting
...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.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
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.
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.
Life is too short to proofread.
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.
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?