Slashdot Mirror
Third 2012 US Presidential Debate Tonight: Discuss Here
Tonight marks the third and final U.S. Presidential debate in the lead-up to the election on November 6th. It starts at 9PM ET (6PM PT, 0100 UTC), and it's taking place at Lynn University in Florida. The topic this time around is foreign policy, including discussions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, America's role in the world, "The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism," and China's rise as a superpower. You can livestream it from the usual suspects: (C-SPAN, ABC, PBS, CNN). Politifact has posted an article fact-checking statements the candidates have made about foreign policy. Both they and Factcheck.org will be using Twitter to verify statements in real time. This presidential debate again excludes the smaller U.S. political parties. If you're interested in hearing other voices, you'll be able to see candidates from the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Justice parties in a debate tomorrow with Larry King moderating. As before, we're doing a separate post for the debate in the hopes that political talk won't clutter other stories tonight. Tell us what you think as the debate unfolds. For live conversation, remember: context helps. And, as reader Ryanator2209 keeps pointing out, you can entertain yourself by playing Logical Fallacy Bingo while you watch.
a long time ago, Mitt Romney was chair of the audit committee at Marriott.
And Marriott filed tax returns using a very lucrative tax shelter known as "son of BOSS"
I contend that at the time, son of boss was illegal - it was patently a sham transaction.
I don't know if legal liability attached to Gov Romney then, or now, what with staute of limitations, but this incident tells us that MR is quite comfortable filing fraudulent tax retrns.
Which means, maybe all of these things in MR's taxes are real
magic beanstalk IRA with undervalued capital contributions
Rafalca as business that should have been a hobby
sham transactions in cayman island accounts
listing himself as passive instead of active investor...
and the beat goes on....
I've watched all the #debates so far and it's sad how little they say, tapdance around questions, avoid talking about the critical issues while spending lots of time on things that don't matter for shit.
Sad, sad field. These ain't the best, and they ain't the brightest.
Nice try Anonymous Coward.. But most of the Slashdot readers here are educated enough to know that Obama is only slightly less authoritarian than Romney and 'socialism' is just a word used in the wrong context to demagogue Obama. Further, most Slashdot readers are smart enough to see that Romney changes his rhetoric for whatever crowd he's entertaining and either candidate just continues the march towards facism.. It's just that Obama seems to want to march slower.
I'll be voting Gary Johnson. Even though I think Obama is the slightly lesser of two evils, I am sick of voting for evil.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
There is going to be a debate at 21:00 EDT on October 23, hosted by Larry King. The candidates taking part are the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson, the Green Party's Jill Stein, the Constitution Party's Virgil Goode, and the Justice Party's Rocky Anderson.
So on the one hand, you can watch the major party candidates lie as easily as they breath. On the other hand, you can spend those 90 minutes reading about what Obama did as president and what Romney did as governor. Oh, and you can also read about the third party candidates, and what they did previously.
Why listen to lies, when you can uncover the truth?
Palm trees and 8
I was thinking, after seeing clips from the previous debates, that the debate's host should include a real-time fact-checking panel of about six people seated behind the audience, with computers so they can contact their support staff and get quicker results. Then the debators could say "I'd like a fact check on that", and the audience (local and remote) would get a near-instant "vote" from the panel as to whether the purported fact is correct.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Our current president has an agenda to redistribute the wealth from the smart, capable, entrepeneurs to the fat, slobby, freeloading welfare moms.
Meanwhile the smart capable entrepreneurs have an agenda to redistribute all wealth to themselves. A healthy society needs that balance.
. His blatant attempt to inject government control into all facets of our lives (not just health care - where it has no business anyway) is the culmination of decades of left wing planning and if we don't stop this power grab now, we may never be able to.
a) The republicans grab power just as aggressively at every opportunity.
b) The government absolutely has a role in healthcare. I do not want healthcare allocated according to who can pay the most for it; nor which insurance companies can model who is likely to get sick and exclude those people, or deny care to people who are already afflicted (pre-existing conditions). Capitalism is not the right model.
Whether or not it should be a federal program vs state is certainly a legitimate discussion, but healthcare is a government mandate that the majority wants in some form.
If you are a true patriot and love this country that we call home, you must vote for Mitt Romney next month and preserve the dream that anyone can come from the most humble of beginnings and succeed in this melting pot we call the United States of America.
Only an idiot should fall that nonsense. Your odds of going from humble beginnings to success are increased if you are given a leg up while in the 'humble beginnings' stage; if you aren't deprived an education because you can't afford it, if you aren't financially wiped out because someone in your family tripped and broke a few ribs, it gets a lot easier to become a productive member of society, to save up a nest-egg, to strike out as an entrepreneur, to become a -gasp- "job creator".
How exactly does the argument that government wealth redistribution prevents people from succeeding work? Bearing in mind that all the evidence shows that the wealthy are doing just fine, and indeed are getting wealthier by the day.
"The 1980's are calling for their foreign policy back" -- Barack Obama :)
http://unfix.org
It will only break the majority if and when the republican (or democrat) parties completely collapse.
I really don't understand how so many slashdotters fail to grasp that the two party system doesn't just happen by chance. It's not just that voters consider only two parties before their brains explode. It's first-past-the-post voting. Get a parlimentary system in place if you want a third party. Otherwise, just vote in the primaries and realize that the same people who are getting elected now are the same people who would get elected under a multiparty system.
The rich have always been against anything that would make life better for regular people. (living in luxury while being surrounded by squalor apparently makes the rich feel special or something) Our society had to fight like hell to get rid of the company stores/housing, get a standard 40-hour work week, OSHA regulations, public education, etc. Hell, the rich were even opposed to the poor having running water and bathtubs at first because the rich thought the poor would just use the tubs to store coal.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
Palm trees and 8
No.. Third party votes do count. When the Republicans and Democrats are working together to divide the people in half as evenly as possible, and only winning by small margins, a small-margin of third-party votes has a huge effect.
The only problem is that "huge effect" is, usually, negative for the interests they represent. They "steal" votes from the candidate that is near to their interests making the other win. So, you have a real disincentive to promote a third party.
It is sometimes your duty as a thinking individual to choose between two evils. No one wants to have to, but it is sometimes the choice that is in front of you.
Relevant quote from Douglas Adams's So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish:
I call you out on your demagogue word 'socialism' and you replace it with 'Marxist' like that is somehow a good argument. It's just name-calling. I'm not worried about socialism or communism.. Like I said earlier, I am worried about facism.
And, since I will be the one voting, I will decide whether or not I am losing by casting a losing vote. Perhaps my only goal is to influence the scope of discussion and open up both 'sides' to the ideas that only Gary Johnson is talking about. My choice is to expand the scope of discussion. My choice is for a better Republican candidate than the one the Establishment dictates to me. My choice is that it would be better for the Republicans in the long run to lose the election to a bad President than to win the election with a bad candidate.
My vote is for Gary Johnson. Obama is simply not better than Romney by enough of a margin for me to vote for him; and vice-versa. Gary Johnson is on the ballot and my choice is for him.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
you have a lot more power than you think
but your power is counterintuitive
in 1992, ross perot voters meant bill clinton won
in 2000, ralph nader voters meant gw bush won (well, al gore actually won, but he lost the bullshit filter we call the electoral college by a hair's sliver that nader voters greatly outnumbered)
in 2012, you guys may again decide who wins since the election is so close
third party voters come from a disillusioned left, or a disillusioned right. it seems to me that this election cycle has more disillusioned voters on the right. meaning: obama wins, as the right is fractionated to some extent by voters for someone other than romney
unfortunately, we live in a system where you have to vote strategically, not idealistically
1. for those of you who vote strategically (not the guy i like the best but the guy closest of the main parties), you get someone closer to your ideology in the white house
2. for those of you who vote idealistically (screw the guy who could win, i like THIS guy), you get someone further away from your ideology in the white house (see 1992 and 2000 above)
now, other systems where more than two parties dominate: is that really such a rosy world? ask someone in parliamentary systems where coalition governments form: you have people close to you ideologically, getting into bed with ideologies that are extremely odious to you, to stay in power. coalitions of perverse arrangement
in other words, other countries are not better than the usa if ideological purity is so important to you, they are just compromised in different ways than the american system
such that, an ugly truth for you: you will NEVER, as long as you ever live, have someone you love ideologically in power. you will ALWAYS have someone who is kinda sorta like you, as your best bet. this is true no matter what your ideology, right or left. why? because that's EXACTLY what politics is: compromise, in order to lead. that's what politics always was, what it is, and what it always will be. and only an ideologue is angrily allergic to compromise. and thank god, therefore, your man will never lead in a sane country. because the leader who champions rigid ideology over compromise is dangerous
politics is a game to appeal a lot of people weakly, than a few strongly. get used to it. the candidates who have the best chance to lead, always, FOREVER, will appeal to you ONLY weakly
you should accept this truth, and always vote strategically instead of ideologically
or help elect the guy further away from you ideologically by voting idealistically
your choice
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You made the claim that the candidates are the same. I pointed out that they were different.
That's it. I never shoehorned you into either camp. I said I was disgusted by your apathy towards an election that will literally be life or death for many people. There are clear and important differences between the candidates, and to deny that is the height of recklessness.
Those differences include:
Abortion. Romney would outlaw it, Obama would preserve the status quo. From your post, you should prefer Obama.
Medicare. Romney would end it, Obama would make some minor tweaks to keep it solvent. From your post, you would prefer Romney. You're wrong, and don't seem to understand that sending seniors to the for-profit corporations for care would not improve outcomes, but you should at least acknowledge there's a difference.
Military spending. Obama is trying to cut it by $100Byr, Romney wants to increase it by $200B/yr. You gave no indication of which you prefer, but unless you're barely-sentient, you must have some sort of opinion on the matter.
Taxes. Romney would cut them 20% across the board, Obama would raise them by a few percent on people earning $250k+/yr, and by ~10% on capital gains. Again, surely you have some opinion on the matter.
Gay rights. Sounds like you ought to be in the Democrat's camp on this one, if you truly don't condone mistreatment of people based on their sexual orientation.
War. Romney wants to ramp military spending, has said a little while ago in the debate that we should be arming the Syrian rebels, has accused Obama of not sufficiently supporting Israel, etc. If he's elected, there's a better than even chance that we'll be at war in Iran in the next two years. Obama has resisted calls by Israel to support bombing strikes against Iran, pursuing every possible alternative, and wants to cut military spending. I can't guarantee that he wouldn't go to war, but it seems far less likely.
Any reasonable person should come to the conclusion that Obama is the better choice here. An unreasonable one, who perhaps has their view of the world tainted by religion, might think Romney is the better choice. But only an absolute fool would say it doesn't matter either way.
Don't get me wrong, I approve of a lot of Gary Johnson's platform, but the idea of eliminating the IRS, income taxes, corporate income taxes...I'm sorry but I think that's insane. Not even Ireland has 0% corporate income tax, and consumption (sorry, "expenditure") taxes are regressive.
I'd love to support Mr. Johnson but I rather like the civilized society that we live in and I know that taxes are the price we pay for such a society.
:(){
The only problem is that "huge effect" is, usually, negative for the interests they represent.
This is true in the short run. But in the long run, voting for a third party causes the major parties to move in that direction to win these voters back. The popularity of the Socialist Party in the early 20th Century caused the Democrats under FDR to move significantly to the left.
Since neither the Libertarians nor the Greens get many votes, the major parties are under little pressure to champion personal liberty and/or stronger environmentalism. By supporting one of these parties, you can change that. Unless you live in a swing state, your vote is meaningless anyway, so voting third party is the only way to make a difference.
550 goddamn votes in Florida and you'd see what difference not electing Bush the Lesser would have made, kemosabe.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
They are both the same? Not to me. As a cancer patient who has gone from unemployed to a semi-well paying job, I can now get insurance that I couldn't get/hope to afford before Obama.
You close your eyes and ears and say it all looks/sounds the same. Your an albatross around the neck of this country, and if you truly feel that way, brush up on your Mandarin and move to China where it really is all the same.
Actually, the Libertarians are having a strong effect on the Republican party. You'll notice that Ron Paul debated on the stage with the other Republican candidates, and got a strong response. The effect is usually sneered at as "The Tea Party". But if you look at any candidate labeled as a Tea Party candidate, you'll see a strong libertarian streak.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that, just before the Civil War, the Republicans WERE the 3rd party. The bad thing about a 2-party system is that, no matter who the 3rd-party is, if they get strong they eventually become one of the 2. The good thing about a 2-party system is that some fringe group (like the Greens or Austria's Freedom Party) can't hold the coalition government model hostage in order to advance their narrowly-supported agenda.
Romney refuses to answer any HARD questions. Obama refuses to answer them as well.
True.
They both are the same. Hooray for the new king, same as the old king!
They are NOT. They are LARGELY the same, with the exception of a few issues where they clearly are NOT (taxes, gay rights, health care)
While I very much see your point, just because 80% of the issues have been cemented by a repulsive silent agreement between two parties, is still no reason to state that they are the same. There is still a lesser evil and a greater evil here, even though it isn't as much of a difference as I would have hoped.
But Nader wouldn't have received all the non-Bush votes, just as Perot wouldn't have received all the non Bush Sr./Dole votes. But the inverse is true. Gore would have received nearly all (I would guess 99% with the remaining 1% just not voting) of the Nader votes and Bush Sr./Dole would have received those Perot votes.
There's historical precedent for this conclusion: The elections of 1912 is a particularly good example, where the Republican vote was split between Theodore Roosevelt running independently and Howard Taft the defending Republican incumbent.
The biggest problem is that our system of government is outdated, inefficient, and ineffective. But to criticize the U.S. Constitution is taboo (funny how the most staunch defenders of this antiquated document know the least about it). Voting for a third party candidate is just voting against one's interests and will continue to be the case as long as our government is run by this ridiculous bicameral legislative system and selects the head of state through an electoral college. The only hope for this to happen is for the average citizen to become better educated and thus better able to see through the nationalistic bullshit of worshipping the U.S. Constitution and the men who founded this country. That's why I'm voting for Obama - I don't think he'll enact the specific changes I would like to see, nor do I think he'd have the power to do so if he wanted to - but he does prioritize education, which sets America on the path to overcoming the chains of our federalist system. In an era when technology is steadily making manual labor less necessary, this country cannot afford to have as many uneducated, unskilled people running amok as it currently does.
It doesn't matter if people think in the terms of the 'lesser of two evils' or not. The average voter is a moron. It doesn't matter what they think. Statement votes to third party candidates will do nothing to better this country. Voting for Obama does.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
well, one is a lot more publicly religious than the other. I don't like that. I actually hate that! its a showstopper for me.
the other keeps his religion in check.
this is not just them, either; its representative of their parties.
vote NO on american taliban.
that one issue will get in our way of so much progress. please don't send us backwards again! we had that with bush and the other republicans since reagan. enough with the christian bullshit, already! we are a mixed nation and we like it that way.
now, bring republicans back about 20 or 30 yrs and we might have something. before they got all preachy and holier than thou.
but the current R crowd, makes me sick. physically sick. that says a lot.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
This is true in the short run. But in the long run, voting for a third party causes the major parties to move in that direction to win these voters back.
Very true, and voting third party can also have other benefits. You just have to do it smartly.
You only risk letting "the greater evil" win if you live in a swing state. If your state is solidly for one of the major parties, you can safely vote third party without risking the vote affecting the major parties. So for example, living in California, I can assume that Obama will win my state not matter how I vote, and so I can vote for whatever third party I feel like without worrying about "spoiling" anything (depending on which I would otherwise support, either victory is assured or it is impossible, either way there's no point wasting effort fighting about it).
So if you live in a swing state, yes, vote the lesser of the two evils who are most likely to win. If you don't, however, voting for your preferred third party will get you several other benefits, besides the one quoted above (major party platforms shift to try to recapture the third party vote):
- It increases the size of the third party supporter bloc (both for that party, and for the concept of third parties), which helps promote the third party (and the concept of third parties) even if they didn't win. Since they weren't going to win anyway, and your non-swing state was going the way it did anyway, this is pure win at no risk here.
But besides that obvious benefit:
- If people in your non-swing state start doing this who would otherwise vote for your state's shoe-in candidate (e.g. if California liberals start voting Green instead of Democrat), then that eventually makes your state a swing state, and suddenly your vote matters a whole lot more! This combined with parent poster's point about major parties courting the third party vote, but even better: since you're not a swing state, they care a lot about capturing your vote, giving your preferred third party's platform a major influence on them.
- That second point can however go the other way, e.g. if California conservatives start voting Libertarian, that just entrenches California more firmly as a Democrat state, with a large Democrat bloc vs smaller Republican and Libertarian blocs. However, since (for example) California is already a firmly Democrat state, you can feel free to take this all the way and eat up all the Republican votes you want, go right ahead and kill the Republican party in California, you won't be making any difference in who wins there so still no harm in letting the "greater evil" win since (for a conservative who ranks Libertarians > Republicans > Democrats) they would have anyway. So you can feel free to "spoil" the "lesser evil" all you want, and if you can manage it, go on to supplant them, e.g. turn the California election into Democrats vs Libertarians instead of Democrats vs Republicans.
Combining all these effects, voting third party in a non-swing state can have major influences. To use my own state for an example again, if we assume (perhaps questionably) that a large bloc of liberals generally prefer Greens > Democrats > Republicans, and a large bloc of conservatives generally prefer Libertarians > Republicans > Democrats, then if those people all follow this strategy instead of abstaining or voting for "the lesser evil", California could end up with a more notable Green party, Democrats eagerly adopting a lot of Green policies to try to keep the liberal vote, and at least a much larger Libertarian party if not one wholly supplanting the Republican party, and Republicans eagerly adopting a lot of Libertarian policies.
Suddenly you've got something almost resembling a healthy multi-party system, all without anyone ever risking "the greater evil" getting into office. And all this in what's now quite possibly a swing state, so very influential on national politics, and either way having an inevitable run-on effect o
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Ok, say you are a rich person. Would you rather a) live in a fancy house with slums all around where you need an armed guard whenever you have to travel outside of your closed complex, or b) live in a fancy house with decent houses all around you without there being any slums and without having to pay taxes to support people who don't work because the country is wealthy enough that everybody can make a decent living with a reasonable amount of effort?
To understand the mindset of the really wealthy, realize that if it meant that they had a fancier house, they'd choose option (a) above. The ability to be conspicuously much better than the people around you is exceptionally attractive due to the way that primate dominance hierarchies work; absolute wealth matters nowhere near as much as relative wealth.
This is, of course, stupid. True though.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
And ran the country into a ditch.
550 goddamn votes in Florida and you'd see what difference not electing Bush the Lesser would have made, kemosabe.
Would we? Here are a couple of views:
The History of the U.S. – If Al Gore Became President
If Al Gore Had Won in 2000
Here are a few of mine:
Al Qaida was attacking United States embassies and the Cole under the Clinton administration.
It seems pretty certain that 9/11 would still have happened.
If 9/11 happens, it's pretty certain a global war against Al Qaida follows, and very likely war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Invasion? Probably.
Economic crashes? Of course. The internet-centric business meltdown is virtually certain to have occurred, and the housing bubble not much less so. The internet-centric business meltdown was the result of trends started in the Clinton administration. The actual wrong-doing for Enron occurred under the Clinton administration. The housing bubble was a result of policies with broad bi-partisan support.
Iraq? That is more of a wildcard. The US policy calling for regime change in Iraq was set under the Clinton administration. It is virtually certain that there would have been conflicts with Iraq, including armed action. Would it have lead to invasion and occupation of Iraq? Somewhere along the line of less likely to no. There almost certainly would have been bombings though, probably a lot more of them to compensate for the lack of ground forces. Saddams army in 2003 was strong enough to hold Iraq against rebellion that wasn't aided externally. It seems pretty certain that either Saddam or one of his sons would still be in power. They might even have thrown off sanctions due to the "Oil for Food" program bribes and the loss of interest in the world community in containing him. Saddam with no sanctions means a Saddam rearming and continuing to support terrorism (no, not Al Qaida). He might ever do it with a vengence. Would Iraqis be better off? Very unlikely. Saddam used the food money to build palaces and buy weapons while the infrastructure crumbled, and people perished. That is from simple neglect. Saddam's government filled Iraq with large numbers of mass graves. Had Saddam's regime not been overthrown, the killing would have continued.
You may recall that Saddam had to restrain his sons, they were crueler than he was.
How Bad Was Saddam’s Son?
. . . Latif’s first lesson was to learn how to not react in disgust or become sick at Hussein regime cruelty. He was taken to a viewing room holding thousands of videos of torture sessions.
Saddam’s son had learned the same way. “Uday told me whenever he seemed weak or squeamish as a child his father would beat him with an iron bar and then force him to watch videos of prisoners being tortured.”
It worked. “Just wait until I become president,” Uday promised, “I’ll be crueler than my father ever was. You mark my words. You’ll yearn for the days of Saddam
Hussein.”
Now, read this carefully. If there is no US invasion of Iraq, there is not the same opportunity for an Al Qaida supported and led insurgency in Iraq that drew Al Qaida members from around the world to Iraq. That movement generated intelligence and provided opport
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell