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."
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.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yes, but Kerry will give the straight answers, as he always does!
Both candidates shovel tons of BS as does any politician.
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
How long has this American flag background been on the Politics section? I only noticed today. Does this exclude discussion of non-American politics?
Random is the New Order.
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.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
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.
... 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've said it many times
Knightfall
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.
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.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
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.
(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.
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.
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.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
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.
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.
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.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
"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.
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.
If I told you that was last year, would you know what I meant?
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.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
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.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
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.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
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...
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.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
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.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"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.
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.
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.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.