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.

28 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Informative

    FWIW, Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (the other parties are noted in the opening paragraph)

    1. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mittens respects neither freedom nor responsibility.

    2. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      I thought the Libertarian candidate was Mitt Romney.

      Mitt Romney is a conservative. Conservatism has three pillars:
      1. Economic conservatism (low taxes and free markets)
      2. Social conservatism (public religion, opposition to abortion)
      3. National defense conservatism (high defense spending)
      Libertarians only agree with Mitt on #1.

    3. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mitt Romney is the crony capitalist candidate. So is Barack Obama. Two parties, one agenda.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought the Libertarian candidate was Mitt Romney.

      I thought that the Libertarian candidate was so anti-government, that he wasn't even running for government.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yes, but one is extra-Christy (long-i vowel) and insists that you also have to subscribe to his party's belief system.

      don't know about you, but for me, that's a total and complete show-stopper. keep your religion to yourself. do what you want with your family and church, but it HAS to stay out of public laws.

      given a choice, I cannot accept even any hint of an american taliban.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      yes, but one is extra-Christy (long-i vowel) and insists that you also have to subscribe to his party's belief system.

      Perhaps, if you take what Romney says at face value. But that would be silly. Romney says whatever it takes to get elected, and he's banking on the evangelical vote. Judge him by his record, and he's pretty much the same as Obama.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by Hatta · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm not sure Romney understands Romney's platform.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by wstrucke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mitt might claim to be an economic conservative, but I do not see it.

    9. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could say the same about Obama and the left wing of the Democratic party. Failing to implement a single progressive policy hasn't seemed to hurt his support.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by jitterman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I initially thought I would be the only person I knew who'd vote for him. However, when the topic has come up (the election in general), I've been pleasantly surprised by the number of people I know who - without my prompting or mentioning him - have said that they are voting for Gary Johnson as well. Of course, it's not ENOUGH people, but he has more support than I expected. I like many of you am extremely disappointed that the non-insiders don't get some attention. OTOH, I guess the "liberal media" may not be as liberal as some suspect, else the more dangerous-to-the-establishment candidates would get some air time.

      --
      For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
    11. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Failing to implement a single progressive policy hasn't seemed to hurt his support.

      Seriously? What about:

      1. Obamacare (the road to socialized medicine)

      2. End of Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military?

      3. Cutting oil production (I am directly impacted on this one living in the Gulf area).

      4. Expansion (massive) of Federal Entitlement Programs

      ....to name a few...? I'd say he's pretty heavily progressive.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by r1348 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Keep your army within your borders. That would be a pretty fucking good foreign policy.

    13. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I truly see Obama re-elected as a threat to the US

      What exactly is the threat to America that Obama's reelection presents? We've had 4 years of Obama in charge, and I'm curious to know what evil you think he can do in, say, 2015, that he can't do right now.

      (For the record, I'm voting for Stein this year because I prefer her foreign policy)

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    14. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) Never even tried to bring single payer to the table as he promised he would. Obamacare is literally less progressive than Nixon's health care plan. Was Nixon a progressive?
      2) Great, now a small fraction of a small fraction of people can put their lives on the line to protect oil company profits.
      3) What exactly is progressive about cutting oil production? Cutting oil consumption would be progressive, but he hasn't done that.
      4) Medicare, medicaid, etc have been increasing exponentially. But they've been increasing exponentially for decades. And hell, Bush passed Medicare part D. Was he progressive?

      Sorry, the one progressive policy you singled out amounts to nothing but crumbs for a tiny fraction of the populace. Get real. Obama is a center right president.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Romney is a NEO-conservative. Republicans support almost none of this.

      1. A libertarian would never impose a state religion, state funding for or special tax breaks for religious institutions.
      2. He would most likely support some spending for defense, but he would not waste the money on useless 'police actions' that lack congressional oversight.
      3. he would also not hesitate to declare war to defend ourselves but he would do it by the book (as a congressman or senator).
      4. A libertarian would not impose restrictions on healthcare for ideological reasons (such as abortion) but would also oppose state funding for it.
      5. he would demand heavy restrictions on self-instancing of state power.
      6. he would defend our constitutional rights, even if their use makes insecure control freaks butthurt.

    16. Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Vote whatever third party you desire, or abstain. Voting for either major party is immoral.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  2. A good step, but not that effective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:A good step, but not that effective... by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because the Commision on Presidential Debates is controlled by Democrats and Republicans.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:A good step, but not that effective... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Informative

      Democracty NOW! covered that topic as well.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:A good step, but not that effective... by Githaron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Many third party candidates are not included or are rarely included on the polls. You can't poll at X% if you are not included on the polls (unless X = 0). I believe right now X = 15.

  3. Re:And why weren't the Whigs represented?!? by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  4. the problem with 3rd party presidental candidates by night_flyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  5. Stupid questions by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Stupid questions by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We know Romney did things that were uncharitable, but at least his actions were not evil - they were, after all, legal and financial actions.

      Legal and financial actions account for most of the evil that is done in this world.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  6. Re:Third party candidates have the benefit ... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  7. Re:the problem with 3rd party presidental candidat by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:the problem with 3rd party presidental candidat by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.