Slashdot Mirror
Democracy Now Asks Third Party Candidates Questions From Last Night's Debate
As they did with the first debate, Democracy Now has published the debate questions answered by third party candidates. Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Constitution), and Rocky Anderson (Justice) were present. There's a (long) video with the answers spliced in, and (thankfully) a transcript of all their answers. Gary Johnson was not present, but you can catch him debating Jill Stein Thursday October 18th at 7 p.m. EDT.
FWIW, Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (the other parties are noted in the opening paragraph)
The unfortunate part of these 3rd party debates is that people who are wanting to consider a third party candidate have probably already made up their mind, and probably already know the answers to the the questions that are going to be asked of their candidate. Gary Johnson not apearing is irrelevant when pretty much any of his followers know how he would answer them anyway.
I'm not saying these debates are bad, and I'm already planning on voting 3rd party (so it's not a wasted vote argument,) I just think we need more messages targeted at people who DON'T already know the 3rd parties and candidates.
Sounds like you missed the whole point.
They won't because the system is rigged against them. It's a catch-22 - - they can not get enough votes to make the average person think they should be included and since they aren't included or given any coverage throughout the political season they can't get any votes.
Yet only candidates approved by the majority parties are allowed in the real debates. Stay classy.
Will no gentleman stand forward to represent the people on the slavery issue?!?
Gentlemen? Jill Stein is no gentleman, she was arrested last night for trespassing at the debate.
She's getting my vote, and I didn't even RTFA. Obama will win in a landslide here in Illinois, so a vote for either him or Romney is wasted here. Rather than wasting my vote, I intend to vote for a candidate who doesn't want to put my friends and family in prison for pot. I choose her over the Libertarian, because the Libertarians stupidly think you can have a clean environment without environmental regulations, and I'm old enough to know what it was like before the EPA (So does Ron Paul, which makes me think he's either an idiot or in bed with the polluters).
As to the slavery issue... which one?
Free Martian Whores!
Why do the parties always go for the big prize? It's like a high school student wanting to become the CEO of IBM immediately after graduating.
Even if they do win, then what? they will have zero support from either of the parties that dominate the congress.
If a 3rd party wants to be taken seriously start at the bottom. city councilor, mayor, state senator, work your way up, then people will see what you really believe in and have a track record... and while you are at it get more of "your party" elected to those roles as well.
This is one case of "go big or go home" doesn't work, it just means you are going home empty handed
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I watched this debate, and none of the questions were even worth answering. Not one question was asked about civil liberties. Not one question about the TSA, or drug policy, or drone strikes. Not one mention of science. Not one question addressed the regulatory capture of just about every government agency. Not one question about Obama's failure to prosecute any banking execs for fraud after the 2008 financial crisis. Absolutely no worthwhile questions were asked, and no worthwhile answers were given.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Third party candidates have the benefit of knowing what the questions are and are able to give prepared answers.
You don't seem to understand just how badly this debate process has been subverted. From Democracy NOW!:
"The town hall debate we’re going to see tonight is the most constrained and regulated town hall debate in presidential debate history. The first town hall debate was introduced in 1992, and no one knew what anyone was going to ask, none of the audience members were going to ask. The moderator could ask any follow-up questions. It was exciting, and it was real.
Well, President George H.W. Bush stumbled in response to an oddly worded question about the federal deficit, and the candidates—the campaigns have panicked and have attempted to avoid that kind of situation from happening again. In 1996, they abolished follow-up questions from the audience.
In 2004, they began requiring that every single question asked by the audience be submitted in advance on an index card to the moderator, who can then throw out the ones he or she does not like. And that’s why the audience has essentially been reduced, in some ways, to props, because the moderator is still ultimately asking the questions.
And this election cycle is the first time that the moderator herself is prohibited from asking follow-up questions, questions seeking clarification. She’s essentially reduced to keeping time and being a lady with a microphone." -- George Farrah, author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates.
It's a goddamn circus, and an obvious one at that. anyone who can't see the forest for the trees in this situation, is probably one of the clowns.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Well, Jill Stein didn't know the questions beforehand, because she spent the night shackled to a chair in a warehouse.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/17/green_partys_jill_stein_cheri_honkala
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)
While I suspect you are joking, I will play it straight.
-
I don't think they say why. Maybe he was busy.
The greens are starting at the bottom. There have been 136 green party members elected to local office, 3 elected to state offices (all no longer serving), and 0 elected to federal offices.
Participation in the presidential election builds name recognition and motivation for the party, improving their chances at lower offices even if the presidency is hopeless.
Why do the parties always go for the big prize? It's like a high school student wanting to become the CEO of IBM immediately after graduating.
Gary Johnson was already governor of New Mexico for two terms.
Even if they do win, then what? they will have zero support from either of the parties that dominate the congress.
Maybe that would be a good thing. Gary Johnson vetoed more bills in his 2 terms as governor than all other governors combined. We don't need tens of thousands of pages of new laws every year.
If a 3rd party wants to be taken seriously start at the bottom. city councilor, mayor, state senator, work your way up, then people will see what you really believe in and have a track record... and while you are at it get more of "your party" elected to those roles as well.
The Libertarian Party has done exactly that: http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials
This is one case of "go big or go home" doesn't work, it just means you are going home empty handed
No, it doesn't mean that at all. In Michigan, if the top of the ticket gets 5% or more, then they get major party status, which means they don't need to waste money trying to get on the ballot the next time around. It helps to build momentum in that you're not wasting money, time & energy on something you had to do previously.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Yes, and he got there as a Republican, not with the LP.
When Poppa Bush lost to Clinton because of Perot being the election, the rules were changed. At that point, the republicans pushed through rules that pretty much prevented 3rd parties.
What are you babbling about? I just got my mail in ballot and there's 16 choices in the presidential election section. And the top one is some guy from a party I've never even heard of. It's getting like the cereal section of the supermarket. All I want is basic no-nonsense wheat flakes and there's all this sugary crap in over-produced packaging.
A lot of the environmental cleanup has nothing to do with the EPA, dirty air, etc. can cost you customers and thus money -- so there is more incentive to be clean these days and peoples attitudes have changed. That said, without laws against it, there would be plenty of people willing to spread filth as long as they make a buck.
The EPA may not be an ideal agency, but I think it is one of the few "general welfare" federal agencies that actually are constitutional as in, "generally speaking, everybody benefits by not living in a cesspool".
The Commission rules for this debate did not include this prohibition. The Romney and Obama campaigns agreed to it, but -- and this was pretty heavily covered all over the media before the debate -- it wasn't part of the Commission rules and the moderator openly rejected the restriction before the debate. And, in fact, when the debate actually happened, the moderator actually asked follow-ups.
Yes there is. In most states all parties that get at least 5% of the vote in most states get the consolation prize of being recognized as major parties, and don't have to jump through ridiculous hoops to get their local candidates on ballot for the next 4 years.
A Libertarian would support the ability of people to sue for pollution (even air pollution). They would also support the more practical way of controlling those externalities by taxing it. Because a Libertarian (as opposed to an anarchist) does believe in a government, which requires taxes, and something must be taxed.
So cap-n-trade is a far better solution to all pollution than current regulations. Wipe the current ones clear and tax each pollution at certain rates. If that means putting a cap to create a market, then so be it.