Would four candidates have been acceptable to you? Five?
If ten candidates were each polling at 7-15% of the vote, then ten would be the right number. If two are polling at 40-50%, then two is the right number.
Perhaps rather than dictating to people how many candidates have a chance and therefore matter, we could just provide them with the book/tome and expect them to do their civic duty and read up as much as they can?
You are sadly mistaken if you think that people do their civic duty. Most of them would sooner watch Fear Factor or The Apprentice than watch the Presidential debates. Most Americans (including Dick Cheney) believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.
Because our voting system forces us to vote out of fear rather than hope, the issue of who is a "viable candidate" is extremely important. Simply saying "he has no chance of winning" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. None of us want to vote for someone without a chance, because we're too afraid of the possible outcomes of doing so.
We need a system where each person gets to rank their top-three candidates and the winner is determined by score. Your top choice is three points, your second place is two, and your third place is one. Total it at the end and pick that way. I'd bet that 95% of the Nader voters would have put Gore as their second choice and he'd be President now. Instead, we have a system where two liberal candidates could garner 60% of the vote and a conservative can win with 35%. That's broken.
(Note: 60%, 35% figures were hypothetical, not historical)
At the point where you decide that someone's voice or opinion, a presidential candidate's no less, is less important than someone else's, it's game over.
Now that's funny, in an ironic way: 'Everyone's voices and opinions are equally important, and presidential candidates are even more important than that!'
You've just given Judas's kiss to democracy...
No, we've just seen democracy in action. All of the candidates spent months trying to get our support and the polls now decide which ones are still participating in this discussion. If polls showed Badnarik at 10% or more, his answers would have been here.
And before you give me bullshit about the expense or effort involved in the production of, or having to read the manifestos of all the candidates, may I remind you this is not a KDE/Gnome/Insert shitty piece of software kind of choice, but something that actually means something.
Yes, it is damned important and I want to see voters who are informed -- and you don't get informed voters by publishing things that are so long that no one reads them.
The Democrats weren't confused by having 6 candidates in their primary debates. I don't see why we can't include all 6 candidates (with a mathematical possibility of winning) now.
I wasn't confused, but neither was I particularly informed by those debates. They served as a great way to weed out those who lacked the right stuff, but they did not leave me with an in-depth knowledge of where each candidate stood on the important issues.
Actually, you are required to show your driver's license regardless of suspicion when the police set up an "informational roadblock".
Such roadblocks were to gather information about crimes, for instance, asking those stopped if they witnessed an accident. I found this article on the subject. You will note that in 2001 the Supreme Court ruled in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S.Ct. 447 that a "drug interdiction" roadblock was unconstitional. I saw no evidence that those stopped at informational roadblocks were required to show ID unless the police happened upon evidence that a given driver had committed a crime (e.g., drunk driving). These were, instead, just requests for witnesses to come forward.
Now, I know the airlines have been requiring this for years, with some exceptions (I think people under a certain age, for instance). Whether or not it's an actual federal law doesn't really matter for the purpose of our discussion, because regardless of whether it's the government or the airline requiring it people find it to be perfectly reasonable.
I must disagree. If it was voluntarily done by airlines, market pressure could lead to some carriers choosing to not require it. It could lead to others putting strong consumer privacy protections in place (e.g., not retaining data after flights end, not retaining biometric data, etc.). Private companies setting up their own rules for transactions is far different than federal legislation setting up those rules.
Specifically, are you saying that this law being considered by Congress is going to extend this in some way? [In terms of this question I've assumed we're asking it from the view of whether or not it "should" be Unconstitutional, not whether or not there is precedent that it is.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no federal law currently requiring airlines to require biometric IDs of any type (even photo) for people who wish to fly. There are "secret" rules that the FAA has apparently passed on to the airlines, but no legislative requirement for same.
As to whether it "should" be unconstitutional, something either is or is not. The only way to determine that is to investigate the Constitutional interpretations made by the courts over the years. I believe that the courts should find it unconstitutional as it violates a "right to privacy" recognized by the Supreme Court in prior decisions. I also feel that it is a violation of the rights of citizens to not be subject to warrantless searches.
I interpret the exchange as a meaningless quibble.
Then let's close the books on that and put it behind us.
In fact, other than most discrimination laws, the ACLU is generally in favor of interpreting the Constitution to give the government less power, not more.
That's true, and it's their very nature: Protecting American Civil Liberties.
Maybe "partisan" isn't the right word, but just because someone has more knowledge of the law that doesn't make them right in their interpretation.
I also agree with you about that, but I also feel that it is unwise to summarily dismiss the opinions of knowlegeable people and organizations.
In essence, we can talk about what is Constitutional in terms of what the Supreme Court has already ruled, or we can talk about it in terms of how the Supreme Court should rule, but we need to be careful not to confuse the two.
But the two are very tightly linked. The concept of legal precedence is key to most Supreme Court decisions. How was a given Constitutional word, phrase, sentence, amendment, etc. interpreted in the past? Obviously, the Supreme Court is not infallible and sometimes they have to revisit decisions, but past decisions are key to deciding most new cases.
Looking at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I feel that a federally mandated (or coerced) biometric national ID which allows your travels to be monitored, documented, and analyzed is not at all something with which the framers would have approved.
Why aren't Cobb, Badnarik, Brown, and others shown?
Because they are not viable candidates at this point in time. They have no conceivable chance of winning.
You act like there is no cost associated with turning this into a book. Well, there is: If the answers from George W. Bush (Republican), John F. Kerry (Democrat), Stanford E. "Andy" Andress (Independent), Lawson M. Bone (Write-In), David C. Byrne (Write-In), John Joseph Kennedy (Write-In), James Alexander Pace (Write-In), Tom Trancredo (Write-In), Thomas J. Harens (Christian Freedom Party), Deborah Elaine Allen (Write-In), Andrew J. Falk (Write-In), Gene Amondson (Prohibition Party), Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party), Walter F. "Walt" Brown (Socialist Party), Roger Calero (Socialist Workers Party), David Keith Cobb (Green Party), Earl F. Dodge (Prohibition Party), Charles Jay (Personal Choice Party), Ralph Nader (Reform Party), John Parker (Workers World Party), Leonard J. Peltier (Peace & Freedom Party), Michael A. "Mike" Peroutka (Constitution Party), and Bill Van Auken (Socialist Equality Party) were all included, then the resultant tome would become too much of a burden for 99% of people to read. That means a less, not more, informed electorate.
It appears that you are interested in a more civil debate. I'll try to uphold my end.
There's nothing wrong with requiring biometric data on your driver's license, that's the point.
But that's hardly analogous: You don't have to show your license and announce your destination when you drive your car. The government cannot use that license to ascertain your comings and goings. You are only required to show your driver's license to law enforcement when you are suspected of a traffic infraction or crime (speeding, running a stoplight, DWI, etc.). If the feds wanted me to get a biometric "license to fly" that I only had to produce when I was under suspicion of having committed a crime, I'd have far less objection.
I never said travelling to England was interstate commerce.
You: It has the power to regulate commerce among the states and the power to make all laws necessary to use that power.
Me: Requiring passengers produce ID has nothing to do with regulating commerce among the states. In fact, you have to produce ID when travelling from Washington, D.C. to England, neither of which is a state.
You: One is a state, the other is located within a state.
How would you interpret that exchange? Your initial statement about regulating commerce among "the states" sure sounds like interstate commerce to me.
While I respect the legal opinions of most of those you've listed (though not the opinions of the EFF), you have to realize they are all partisan, so they're not exactly looking at the law from a purely legal point of view. They're taking the answer they want to get and trying to figure out an interpretation which supports that answer.
I do not believe that predominently liberal members of the ACLU really wanted Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, IL in 1978, but they fought for the right of the Nazis to do so. The ACLU is about as non-partisan as they come.
That's really stretching the definition, but I did not used to have to provide a photo ID in years past.
You can find a lawsuit about just about anything.
Quit being dismissive. The lawsuit was filed by the John Gilmore, the man who co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation (with Mitch Kapor, John Perry Barlow, and Steve Wozniak), the Cypherpunks (with Eric Hughes and Tim May), the ``alt'' newsgroups on the Usenet (with Brian Reid and Gordon Moffett), Cygnus Solutions (with Mike Tiemann and David Henkel-Wallace), and GNU Radio (with Eric Blossom).
Several Amicus ("friend of the court") briefs were filed in support of Gilmore's appeal. These include briefs by the American Civil Liberties Union, The Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. I suggest that you read actual information instead of wasting your time and mine with smart-assed answers.
In fact, you have to produce ID when travelling from Washington, D.C. to England, neither of which is a state.
One is a state, the other is located within a state.
England is a sovereign nation, not a state (those fireworks on July 4 are there for a reason) and Washington, D.C. is not "within a state." It shares one border with Virginia and one with Maryland. It has no voting representation in Congress and no star on the flag. It is not a state. Traveling to England is not "interstate commerce," so admit that your argument was flawed and move on.
Your answer to the clear point that something is not unconstitutional is to say that the Supreme Court is wrong.
No, I said that one of their decisions was wrong (in the sense that it runs contrary to legal precedence) and I specifically provided information on Supreme Court decisions that established and upheld a right to privacy.
You're the one who has demonstrated no knowledge of the law.
What a crock. I smacked you down hard before and I just did so again. Unlike you, I provided specific information about multiple Supreme Court decisions and pending cases. The American Civil Liberties Union, The Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and John Gilmore all have far more knowledge of the law than you. They maintain that the government-mandated requirement to present a photo-ID is unconstitutional. That carries a lot more weight than your virtual jumping up and down yelling "is not, is not, is not!"
Nonsense. There's no probable cause needed for a police roadblock, is there? Yet the Supreme Court has declared them to be reasonable searches.
The Supreme Court was wrong in that decision just as they were in the Dredd Scott case, ruling that a slave was property, nothing more, and could never be a citizen.
But since it happened before 9/11 it can't possibly have been done as a response.
Japanese internment camps were a response to Pearl Harbor and the detainment of various Muslims were a response to 9/11. Just because an atrocity has happened in the past doesn't mean that the
Ever wonder why police have to get warrants before kicking your door in and searching your home?
No. It's obvious why they do.Nonsense. Not being tracked isn't even a freedom, let alone a fundamental one.
Privacy is a freedom -- a fundamental one. The First, Fourth and Fifth amendments have been interpreted to include privacy rights. Our legal concept of privacy is often said to begin with the famous law review article of Warren and Brandeis, although they were in particular addressing the issue of privacy and the press. Privacy is covered in various court cases, such as the Supreme Court's decision in 1967 that affirmed the right to private communications by outlawing wiretapping (except under certain court-sanctioned circumstances). In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law banning birth control. Justice William O. Douglas wrote, "Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy."
How is it not reasonable? They've been doing it for years, and very few people have complained.
No, they have not required biometric data to fly. And perhaps you've not been out from under your rock lately, but there is an ongoing lawsuit about just requiring any ID for air or ground transport. Google "Gilmore vs. Ashcroft." Besides, when has Constitutionality been decided by complaint counts?
Sure it does. It has the power to regulate commerce among the states and the power to make all laws necessary to use that power.
Requiring passengers produce ID has nothing to do with regulating commerce among the states. In fact, you have to produce ID when travelling from Washington, D.C. to England, neither of which is a state.
It also has the power to tax and spend, and part of that power to tax and spend includes the power to withhold funding so long as it is not being coercive.
This has nothing to do with funding or witholding funding. This is about denying people "access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation."
Again, I suggest you take a course on Constitutional law before you start whinging about what is and isn't Constitutional.
I know far more about Constitional law than you do -- as you have so clearly demonstrated.
Maybe you should give your life for your country. That'd certainly be a good start.
Looks like I hit a nerve.:-)
Personally I think I do more for my country alive than dead, thank you.
You get on Slashdot and speak out in favor of gutting the Constitution if it will save your sorry a$$ from terrorists. My, that is quite the service to your country.
Your inability to effectively counter it doesn't mean that it's not a valid argument.
Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?
Because the Supreme Court has interpreted warrantless searches and seizures as unreasonable unless preceded by probable cause.
The government runs my library. Why shouldn't they be allowed to demand information from themself?
The FBI does not run your library. Neither does the federal government. Ever wonder why there are different branches of government and why there this whole "checks and balances" concept that people keep talking about? Ever wonder why police have to get warrants before kicking your door in and searching your home?
Yes we have. Long before 9/11.
So what? I'm talking about what we've done as a response to 9/11.
We are abiding by the terms of the Geneva Convention.
The U.S. has classified the prisoners held at Camp Delta and Camp Echo as "illegal combatants." This grants them the rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as opposed to the more common Third Geneva Convention which deals exclusively with prisoners of war.
"And the term "enemy combatant" is much older than 9/11."
So? Your point?
The problem with having no litmus test like whether something could have prevented 9/11 is that there is no end to things which could help in the fight on terrorism.
I don't see how that's a problem.
Then I'll try to explain: Many of those things will infringe on privacy and Constitutional rights. If you say "anything goes" as long as it prevents terrorism, then maybe America is not really the right country for you.
Correllation does not imply causation. Yes, these things wouldn't have helped stop 9/11. But that doesn't mean that anything which wouldn't stop 9/11 is a bad idea.
Agreed.
Absolutely. But there are certain laws that can be passed which will greatly reduced the amount of terrorism that happens and don't abridge any fundamental freedoms.
Any law which allows the government to track your whereabouts and travel does abridge your fundamental freedoms.
This law is perfectly Constitutional. So that's a choice you're not being asked to make.
No, it is not.
1. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Ever heard of that? How is it a reasonable search to require that I provide biometric proof of identity in order to board a plane?
2. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The federal government has no Constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before they engage in private transactions. Implementing a Soviet-style internal passport system is not one of the powers granted the federal government by the Constitution.
Oh yeah, and I'd rather be alive and not have the Constitution than be dead and have it. The Constitution is there to protect my freedom, and when I'm dead I don't have any freedom.
I'll throw out a quote for you:
"I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country" Nathan Hale (an actual patriot).
Believe it or not, people have died for the freedom that we hold so dear, but obviously braver, less self-centered people than you. Those were people who recognized that the Constitution is there to protect the freedom of all Americans, not just theirs, and that their personal safety was less important than protecting the rights and freedoms of all of those who would come after them.
I really don't understand why people keep bringing up whether or not this would have helped against 9/11. 9/11 is over, we have to look to the future, not the past.
The reason that it is brought up is that the Bush administration is hell-bent on using 9/11 as an excuse to erode Constitutional and human rights in the name of fighting terror. Law enforcement can gather information about people with no court orders and no probable cause. They can go into your library and demand to see the list of books you've checked out -- even if you've done nothing wrong. We've had U.S. citizens detained for months at a time with no charges leveled against them and no access to lawyers. We have POWs in Guantanamo Bay -- but we call them "Enemy Combatants" to avoid abiding by the terms of the Geneva Convention.
The problem with having no litmus test like whether something could have prevented 9/11 is that there is no end to things which could help in the fight on terrorism. Cameras in restrooms to spot people with explosives strapped to themselves. Strip-searches of people boarding Amtrak trains. Repeal or modification of the Second Amendment (right to bear arms), Fourth Amendment (barring unreasonable search and siezure), Fifth Amendment (rights to due process of law), Sixth Amemdment (right to speedy and public trial, right to counsel, right to an impartial jury of peers), and Seventh Amendment (protection from double jeopardy).
I know that you're not suggesting that such steps would be appropriate, but, lacking such a test, there will be someone to argue in favor of any of those things. I don't want my country destroyed by cowards who would give up everything that made this country great just to prevent terrorism. No matter how many laws are passed and freedoms abridged, terrorism will happen. We can either live our lives in terror, as the perpetrators of 9/11 wanted, or we can be brave and stand up for our way of life. I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than gut the Constitution to prevent one.
We're not talking about an Estes model rocket here. Have you ever looked at the at-risk geographic area under the atmospheric portion of a space launch? I have and I can tell you that it's not something measured in yards.
The Running of the Bulls in Pamplona is a major tourist draw, and NASCAR racing has yet to be outlawed despite the dead spectators (and participants). They didn't outlaw skiing, even when famous, rich people died doing it.
I never saw a bull or a skier break apart in a flaming fireball overhead. Same thing with NASCAR. There's a big difference between the redneck wreck-fest that is NASCAR and normal tourism. No one outlawed NASCAR, but what happened with Ford Explorers on Firestone tires started rolling over and killing people? There were Congressional inquiries, lawsuits, and even demands that people be jailed.
People have little trouble coping when the deaths are related to personal failures or risk sports. But we would have had a very different outlook had Sonny Bono died because of an equipment failure. We all play test pilot every day, convincing ourselves that we could have cheated each death we hear of. We get upset when the death is out of the hands of the people who died -- when there's nothing that anyone could do to deny death.
I think you've worn out your argument (just an opinion).
Challenger and Columbia. Look at the public reaction. Look at the endless press coverage. If that's our reaction when trained, professional astronauts die, what will be the reaction when people who've spent their savings on a "fun" trip into space are incinerated?
How can you claim there is zero chance Cobbs will win given that he's on enough ballots *to* win? The same goes for Badnarik.
Because there is a difference between a mathematical possibility and an actual chance.
While I agree that there are currently two strong contenders, that doesn't mean Badnarik or Cobbs can't be made a third if enough people just decide to make him one.
I think that we are talking at cross purposes. I'd be demanding that Badnarik share the stage with Bush and Kerry if Badnarik had a strong enough enough base of support to make him a viable candidate with an actual shot at winning. If Bush, Kerry, and Badnarik were at 35%, 35%, and 30%, you can bet that Badnarik would be given a place on that stage - as he should be in that circumstance.
But what we have now is a race that's down to two contenders. The rest of the field has support in the single digit or fractions of a percent ranges.
See isn't that easy. These four, along with Bush and Kerry are the only candidates that can win the electoral college. Why not allow them in the debates?
Becuase you would cut, by a factor of three, the time that Americans could hear from those who have an actual, rather than mathematical, chance of winning. I'll admit that polls aren't perfect, but when Cobb isn't even showing as a blip in the polls, he just can't win, so why take precious time out of a debate to let him participate?
The Democrats had debates with nine and ten candidates during the primary and we didn't see Mosley-Braun, Sharpton, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt and Kucinich get excluded despite the fact they routinely polled less than 15% and had no chance of winning!
And those debates lacked much substance. They were a way to weed out the chaff and nothing more.
I don't define words. Dictionaries do: "The likelihood of something happening; possibility or probability."
then either there's the possibility that one person will win
That's a given: Only one person will win.
or there's the possibility that anyone who meets the qualifications will win (limiting it to those with enough ballot access is another definition, given that I don't believe all states allow write-in).
No, that's not a possibility. There is ZERO chance that, say, Cobb will win. There is ZERO chance that Kenneth Lay will win. It doesn't matter if Bush and Kerry strip naked and go at it doggie style on national television. Neither Cobb nor Lay have ANY chance of being elected. None.
Claiming only one of two men has a possibility of win[sic] seems disingenuous.
No, it's realistic. There is no other person running who has any chance of winning this election.
For quite some time, the President of the US has been elected by a plurality (about 50% of the eligible populace votes). That would seem clear evidence that if there were three strong contenders, one would probably win by slightly over 33% of those who vote (though I've no idea if the percentage of actual voter would increase).
But we don't have three strong contenders. We have two. So it makes no sense to complain that there are only two people in the debate.
What if the death blow happens before anyone can go up because the regulations limits the industry to huge companies not willing to take any financial risks? That is an even worse tragedy, IMO.
It's more likely that a regulation vacuum would mean that venture capital would be hard to come by. Can you imagine trying to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in a space tourism business, not knowing if the government regulations would render your design unflyable?
"Thank you for talking to us Mr. Soros. Here's the plan: We are going to build three of these rockets at a cost of $85 million each. Each will be capable of transporting up to 9 paying passengers into space. Provided the government never steps in to regulate this industry, we can foresee no problems. So, are you in?"
You think people who can afford $200,000 for a three minute ride won't have their lawyers explain it to them?
So, how many lawyers do you know who have a good understanding of biomechanics and risks associated with G-forces on, say, an out of shape 58 year old guy?
Perhaps you're right, and then they deserve a Darwin Award. I'd willingly take mine.
Your Darwin Award would be given posthumously, so you couldn't "take" it.;-)
The loss of a couple of passengers and a pilot is hardly a "horrible disaster."
Whatever the public views as a "horrible disaster" is one. If the person who died was a popular public figure like Harrison Ford or Michael Jordan, it would be all the worse. Suppose the failure ended up a booster destroying a nursing home or an elementary school in a blaze?
With your kind of logic, Lewis and Clark would have never gotten on the boat.
It's not my kind of logic. It's an acceptance of reality. The public doesn't have a great stomach for high-profile flaming deaths associated with tourism.
No, it is not. The person to whom I was replying was in favor of letting all candidates share the stage. He wrote: "Most of the reason none of those people have a chance is that they are excluded from the debates." The implication being that they should all be allowed to participate in the debates or they would be denied their chance to have a meaningful candidacy.
You could restrict the debates to candidates who were on the ballot of enough states to theoretically win enough electoral votes to be elected. That happens to be six candidates, in this case. Considering that six candidates or better are frequently accomodated during primary debates, there's no reason they couldn't be accomodated during presidential debates, as well.
While that's an improvement, I think that one has to recognize that the purpose of the primaries is more to weed out the weak candidates than to decide between the two strongest. Six candidates rather than two means that each candidate gets less than 1/3 of the talking time that the two candidates do today. That, to me, seems inadequate.
It's a tough balancing act to run these debates. If they get too long, many people won't watch them. Look at C-Span if you doubt me. If they are too short, the voters won't learn enough from the exchange. If there are too many candidates sharing the stage and talking about a wide variety of issues, voters will become confused; "Was Brown the one in favor of gun control but against the Kyoto treaty or was he the one who was pushing for alternative fuel tax deductions who told Smith that there was more to running a country than name dropping?"
By the way, your sig doesn't exactly promote intelligent discourse and I'd urge you to consider changing it. Just a suggestion. Not a flame, insult, or attack.
I don't know what country you're from, but in the US the Presidential Office is held by exactly one person. So, there's only one person who has a chance of winning the election.
Perhaps English is a second language to you, but "chance" means "possibility." So if one says that only two men have a chance of winning the election, it means that the race is down to those two men. It means that there are no other people with a foreseeable possibility of winning.
Most of the reason none of those people have a chance is that they are excluded from the debates.
Absurd. The majority of voters have made their decisions long before the debates and only a small percentage will be swung by the outcome of the debates. "Third party" candidates aren't excluded from the debates. If any of them had managed to get enough support, they would be included in the debates, as Ross Perot was.
It's possible that you just don't want a multiple-party system, and that's fine. But be honest about it - it's not necessairily against our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, even if it's against yours.
Don't presume to tell me what I want and what my motivations are. It's very much in our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, and that's why you can't have a line-up of two-dozen or more candidates on the stage at once. How meaningful is a 90 minute debate that has two dozen competing participants?
"For each question there can only be a 5.8 second response, a 3.2 second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion extension of one minute in which each candidate will be allowed to speak for 2.5 seconds. A green light will come on when.6 seconds remain in any given answer, yellow at.3, red at.1 seconds, and then flashing red means time's up. There is also a backup buzzer system if needed."
Yes, that would really be a great benefit to the voters. Or were you proposing that we extend each debate to 18 hours to give each participant the same time that Bush and Kerry now enjoy?
Really, why wouldn't people understand the risks? I'm sure they'll have to sign indemnity waivers before going up.
Understanding a risk and signing a document which limits their legal recourse in case of injury or death are two very different things. Why do I think that they would not understand? Because 99% of the people would have no idea how many Gs they could survive. They would have no understanding of the complexity of the craft, what failures they might survive, and which would guarantee their death.
I've wanted to make it into space ever since watching the Mercury missions - with damn small chance. I don't know if I could take six G's, but if I had the money, I'd sure like to try a trip.
And I hope that you get the opportunity to do that some day. But I'd hate to see the entire space tourism industry dealt a fatal blow because inadequate regulation lead to a horrible disaster.
This is an example of what happens when people don't use common sense.
What kind of meaningful debate would we have if we invited not only the mainstream candidates, but also Presidential candidates Stanford E. "Andy" Andress (Independent), Lawson M. Bone (Write-In), David C. Byrne (Write-In), John Joseph Kennedy (Write-In), James Alexander Pace (Write-In), Tom Trancredo (Write-In), Thomas J. Harens (Christian Freedom Party), Deborah Elaine Allen (Write-In), Andrew J. Falk (Write-In), Gene Amondson (Prohibition Party), Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party), Walter F. "Walt" Brown (Socialist Party), Roger Calero (Socialist Workers Party), David Keith Cobb (Green Party), Earl F. Dodge (Prohibition Party), Charles Jay (Personal Choice Party), Ralph Nader (Reform Party), John Parker (Workers World Party), Leonard J. Peltier (Peace & Freedom Party), Michael A. "Mike" Peroutka (Constitution Party), and Bill Van Auken (Socialist Equality Party)?
All of the above are exercising their right to run for the office of President of the United States, but that doesn't mean that it's in the best interest of the country to allow them all to share the stage in a debate with the only two men who actually have a chance of winning the election. If one of those candidates was looking at 20% or more of the likely vote, you can bet your butt that they'd be invited, but.0013% - 2% doesn't cut it.
Slashdot Mirror
Would four candidates have been acceptable to you? Five?
If ten candidates were each polling at 7-15% of the vote, then ten would be the right number. If two are polling at 40-50%, then two is the right number.
Perhaps rather than dictating to people how many candidates have a chance and therefore matter, we could just provide them with the book/tome and expect them to do their civic duty and read up as much as they can?
You are sadly mistaken if you think that people do their civic duty. Most of them would sooner watch Fear Factor or The Apprentice than watch the Presidential debates. Most Americans (including Dick Cheney) believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.
Because our voting system forces us to vote out of fear rather than hope, the issue of who is a "viable candidate" is extremely important. Simply saying "he has no chance of winning" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. None of us want to vote for someone without a chance, because we're too afraid of the possible outcomes of doing so.
We need a system where each person gets to rank their top-three candidates and the winner is determined by score. Your top choice is three points, your second place is two, and your third place is one. Total it at the end and pick that way. I'd bet that 95% of the Nader voters would have put Gore as their second choice and he'd be President now. Instead, we have a system where two liberal candidates could garner 60% of the vote and a conservative can win with 35%. That's broken.
(Note: 60%, 35% figures were hypothetical, not historical)
At the point where you decide that someone's voice or opinion, a presidential candidate's no less, is less important than someone else's, it's game over.
Now that's funny, in an ironic way: 'Everyone's voices and opinions are equally important, and presidential candidates are even more important than that!'
You've just given Judas's kiss to democracy...
No, we've just seen democracy in action. All of the candidates spent months trying to get our support and the polls now decide which ones are still participating in this discussion. If polls showed Badnarik at 10% or more, his answers would have been here.
And before you give me bullshit about the expense or effort involved in the production of, or having to read the manifestos of all the candidates, may I remind you this is not a KDE/Gnome/Insert shitty piece of software kind of choice, but something that actually means something.
Yes, it is damned important and I want to see voters who are informed -- and you don't get informed voters by publishing things that are so long that no one reads them.
The Democrats weren't confused by having 6 candidates in their primary debates. I don't see why we can't include all 6 candidates (with a mathematical possibility of winning) now.
I wasn't confused, but neither was I particularly informed by those debates. They served as a great way to weed out those who lacked the right stuff, but they did not leave me with an in-depth knowledge of where each candidate stood on the important issues.
How is Nader more viable than Badnarik? Nader is only on the ballot in 34 states vs. Badnarik's 48 states.
Because polls show that a lot more people intend to vote for Nader than Badnarik. That said, I'd have preferred to see Nader left out of this.
Actually, you are required to show your driver's license regardless of suspicion when the police set up an "informational roadblock".
Such roadblocks were to gather information about crimes, for instance, asking those stopped if they witnessed an accident. I found this article on the subject. You will note that in 2001 the Supreme Court ruled in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S.Ct. 447 that a "drug interdiction" roadblock was unconstitional. I saw no evidence that those stopped at informational roadblocks were required to show ID unless the police happened upon evidence that a given driver had committed a crime (e.g., drunk driving). These were, instead, just requests for witnesses to come forward.
Now, I know the airlines have been requiring this for years, with some exceptions (I think people under a certain age, for instance). Whether or not it's an actual federal law doesn't really matter for the purpose of our discussion, because regardless of whether it's the government or the airline requiring it people find it to be perfectly reasonable.
I must disagree. If it was voluntarily done by airlines, market pressure could lead to some carriers choosing to not require it. It could lead to others putting strong consumer privacy protections in place (e.g., not retaining data after flights end, not retaining biometric data, etc.). Private companies setting up their own rules for transactions is far different than federal legislation setting up those rules.
Specifically, are you saying that this law being considered by Congress is going to extend this in some way? [In terms of this question I've assumed we're asking it from the view of whether or not it "should" be Unconstitutional, not whether or not there is precedent that it is.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no federal law currently requiring airlines to require biometric IDs of any type (even photo) for people who wish to fly. There are "secret" rules that the FAA has apparently passed on to the airlines, but no legislative requirement for same.
As to whether it "should" be unconstitutional, something either is or is not. The only way to determine that is to investigate the Constitutional interpretations made by the courts over the years. I believe that the courts should find it unconstitutional as it violates a "right to privacy" recognized by the Supreme Court in prior decisions. I also feel that it is a violation of the rights of citizens to not be subject to warrantless searches.
I interpret the exchange as a meaningless quibble.
Then let's close the books on that and put it behind us.
In fact, other than most discrimination laws, the ACLU is generally in favor of interpreting the Constitution to give the government less power, not more.
That's true, and it's their very nature: Protecting American Civil Liberties.
Maybe "partisan" isn't the right word, but just because someone has more knowledge of the law that doesn't make them right in their interpretation.
I also agree with you about that, but I also feel that it is unwise to summarily dismiss the opinions of knowlegeable people and organizations.
In essence, we can talk about what is Constitutional in terms of what the Supreme Court has already ruled, or we can talk about it in terms of how the Supreme Court should rule, but we need to be careful not to confuse the two.
But the two are very tightly linked. The concept of legal precedence is key to most Supreme Court decisions. How was a given Constitutional word, phrase, sentence, amendment, etc. interpreted in the past? Obviously, the Supreme Court is not infallible and sometimes they have to revisit decisions, but past decisions are key to deciding most new cases.
Looking at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I feel that a federally mandated (or coerced) biometric national ID which allows your travels to be monitored, documented, and analyzed is not at all something with which the framers would have approved.
Why aren't Cobb, Badnarik, Brown, and others shown?
Because they are not viable candidates at this point in time. They have no conceivable chance of winning.
You act like there is no cost associated with turning this into a book. Well, there is: If the answers from George W. Bush (Republican), John F. Kerry (Democrat), Stanford E. "Andy" Andress (Independent), Lawson M. Bone (Write-In), David C. Byrne (Write-In), John Joseph Kennedy (Write-In), James Alexander Pace (Write-In), Tom Trancredo (Write-In), Thomas J. Harens (Christian Freedom Party), Deborah Elaine Allen (Write-In), Andrew J. Falk (Write-In), Gene Amondson (Prohibition Party), Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party), Walter F. "Walt" Brown (Socialist Party), Roger Calero (Socialist Workers Party), David Keith Cobb (Green Party), Earl F. Dodge (Prohibition Party), Charles Jay (Personal Choice Party), Ralph Nader (Reform Party), John Parker (Workers World Party), Leonard J. Peltier (Peace & Freedom Party), Michael A. "Mike" Peroutka (Constitution Party), and Bill Van Auken (Socialist Equality Party) were all included, then the resultant tome would become too much of a burden for 99% of people to read. That means a less, not more, informed electorate.
It appears that you are interested in a more civil debate. I'll try to uphold my end.
There's nothing wrong with requiring biometric data on your driver's license, that's the point.
But that's hardly analogous: You don't have to show your license and announce your destination when you drive your car. The government cannot use that license to ascertain your comings and goings. You are only required to show your driver's license to law enforcement when you are suspected of a traffic infraction or crime (speeding, running a stoplight, DWI, etc.). If the feds wanted me to get a biometric "license to fly" that I only had to produce when I was under suspicion of having committed a crime, I'd have far less objection.
I never said travelling to England was interstate commerce.
You: It has the power to regulate commerce among the states and the power to make all laws necessary to use that power.
Me: Requiring passengers produce ID has nothing to do with regulating commerce among the states. In fact, you have to produce ID when travelling from Washington, D.C. to England, neither of which is a state.
You: One is a state, the other is located within a state.
How would you interpret that exchange? Your initial statement about regulating commerce among "the states" sure sounds like interstate commerce to me.
While I respect the legal opinions of most of those you've listed (though not the opinions of the EFF), you have to realize they are all partisan, so they're not exactly looking at the law from a purely legal point of view. They're taking the answer they want to get and trying to figure out an interpretation which supports that answer.
I do not believe that predominently liberal members of the ACLU really wanted Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, IL in 1978, but they fought for the right of the Nazis to do so. The ACLU is about as non-partisan as they come.
A photo ID is biometric data.
That's really stretching the definition, but I did not used to have to provide a photo ID in years past.
You can find a lawsuit about just about anything.
Quit being dismissive. The lawsuit was filed by the John Gilmore, the man who co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation (with Mitch Kapor, John Perry Barlow, and Steve Wozniak), the Cypherpunks (with Eric Hughes and Tim May), the ``alt'' newsgroups on the Usenet (with Brian Reid and Gordon Moffett), Cygnus Solutions (with Mike Tiemann and David Henkel-Wallace), and GNU Radio (with Eric Blossom).
Several Amicus ("friend of the court") briefs were filed in support of Gilmore's appeal. These include briefs by the American Civil Liberties Union, The Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. I suggest that you read actual information instead of wasting your time and mine with smart-assed answers.
In fact, you have to produce ID when travelling from Washington, D.C. to England, neither of which is a state.
One is a state, the other is located within a state.
England is a sovereign nation, not a state (those fireworks on July 4 are there for a reason) and Washington, D.C. is not "within a state." It shares one border with Virginia and one with Maryland. It has no voting representation in Congress and no star on the flag. It is not a state. Traveling to England is not "interstate commerce," so admit that your argument was flawed and move on.
Your answer to the clear point that something is not unconstitutional is to say that the Supreme Court is wrong.
No, I said that one of their decisions was wrong (in the sense that it runs contrary to legal precedence) and I specifically provided information on Supreme Court decisions that established and upheld a right to privacy.
You're the one who has demonstrated no knowledge of the law.
What a crock. I smacked you down hard before and I just did so again. Unlike you, I provided specific information about multiple Supreme Court decisions and pending cases. The American Civil Liberties Union, The Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and John Gilmore all have far more knowledge of the law than you. They maintain that the government-mandated requirement to present a photo-ID is unconstitutional. That carries a lot more weight than your virtual jumping up and down yelling "is not, is not, is not!"
Nonsense. There's no probable cause needed for a police roadblock, is there? Yet the Supreme Court has declared them to be reasonable searches.
The Supreme Court was wrong in that decision just as they were in the Dredd Scott case, ruling that a slave was property, nothing more, and could never be a citizen.
But since it happened before 9/11 it can't possibly have been done as a response.
Japanese internment camps were a response to Pearl Harbor and the detainment of various Muslims were a response to 9/11. Just because an atrocity has happened in the past doesn't mean that the
Ever wonder why police have to get warrants before kicking your door in and searching your home?
No. It's obvious why they do.Nonsense. Not being tracked isn't even a freedom, let alone a fundamental one.
Privacy is a freedom -- a fundamental one. The First, Fourth and Fifth amendments have been interpreted to include privacy rights. Our legal concept of privacy is often said to begin with the famous law review article of Warren and Brandeis, although they were in particular addressing the issue of privacy and the press. Privacy is covered in various court cases, such as the Supreme Court's decision in 1967 that affirmed the right to private communications by outlawing wiretapping (except under certain court-sanctioned circumstances). In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law banning birth control. Justice William O. Douglas wrote, "Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy."
How is it not reasonable? They've been doing it for years, and very few people have complained.
No, they have not required biometric data to fly. And perhaps you've not been out from under your rock lately, but there is an ongoing lawsuit about just requiring any ID for air or ground transport. Google "Gilmore vs. Ashcroft." Besides, when has Constitutionality been decided by complaint counts?
Sure it does. It has the power to regulate commerce among the states and the power to make all laws necessary to use that power.
Requiring passengers produce ID has nothing to do with regulating commerce among the states. In fact, you have to produce ID when travelling from Washington, D.C. to England, neither of which is a state.
It also has the power to tax and spend, and part of that power to tax and spend includes the power to withhold funding so long as it is not being coercive.
This has nothing to do with funding or witholding funding. This is about denying people "access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation."
Again, I suggest you take a course on Constitutional law before you start whinging about what is and isn't Constitutional.
I know far more about Constitional law than you do -- as you have so clearly demonstrated.
Maybe you should give your life for your country. That'd certainly be a good start.
:-)
Looks like I hit a nerve.
Personally I think I do more for my country alive than dead, thank you.
You get on Slashdot and speak out in favor of gutting the Constitution if it will save your sorry a$$ from terrorists. My, that is quite the service to your country.
So it's a strawman argument. OK.
Your inability to effectively counter it doesn't mean that it's not a valid argument.
Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?
Because the Supreme Court has interpreted warrantless searches and seizures as unreasonable unless preceded by probable cause.
The government runs my library. Why shouldn't they be allowed to demand information from themself?
The FBI does not run your library. Neither does the federal government. Ever wonder why there are different branches of government and why there this whole "checks and balances" concept that people keep talking about? Ever wonder why police have to get warrants before kicking your door in and searching your home?
Yes we have. Long before 9/11.
So what? I'm talking about what we've done as a response to 9/11.
We are abiding by the terms of the Geneva Convention.
The U.S. has classified the prisoners held at Camp Delta and Camp Echo as "illegal combatants." This grants them the rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as opposed to the more common Third Geneva Convention which deals exclusively with prisoners of war.
"And the term "enemy combatant" is much older than 9/11."
So? Your point?
The problem with having no litmus test like whether something could have prevented 9/11 is that there is no end to things which could help in the fight on terrorism.
I don't see how that's a problem.
Then I'll try to explain: Many of those things will infringe on privacy and Constitutional rights. If you say "anything goes" as long as it prevents terrorism, then maybe America is not really the right country for you.
Correllation does not imply causation. Yes, these things wouldn't have helped stop 9/11. But that doesn't mean that anything which wouldn't stop 9/11 is a bad idea.
Agreed.
Absolutely. But there are certain laws that can be passed which will greatly reduced the amount of terrorism that happens and don't abridge any fundamental freedoms.
Any law which allows the government to track your whereabouts and travel does abridge your fundamental freedoms.
This law is perfectly Constitutional. So that's a choice you're not being asked to make.
No, it is not.
1. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Ever heard of that? How is it a reasonable search to require that I provide biometric proof of identity in order to board a plane?
2. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The federal government has no Constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before they engage in private transactions. Implementing a Soviet-style internal passport system is not one of the powers granted the federal government by the Constitution.
Oh yeah, and I'd rather be alive and not have the Constitution than be dead and have it. The Constitution is there to protect my freedom, and when I'm dead I don't have any freedom.
I'll throw out a quote for you:
"I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country" Nathan Hale (an actual patriot).
Believe it or not, people have died for the freedom that we hold so dear, but obviously braver, less self-centered people than you. Those were people who recognized that the Constitution is there to protect the freedom of all Americans, not just theirs, and that their personal safety was less important than protecting the rights and freedoms of all of those who would come after them.
I really don't understand why people keep bringing up whether or not this would have helped against 9/11. 9/11 is over, we have to look to the future, not the past.
The reason that it is brought up is that the Bush administration is hell-bent on using 9/11 as an excuse to erode Constitutional and human rights in the name of fighting terror. Law enforcement can gather information about people with no court orders and no probable cause. They can go into your library and demand to see the list of books you've checked out -- even if you've done nothing wrong. We've had U.S. citizens detained for months at a time with no charges leveled against them and no access to lawyers. We have POWs in Guantanamo Bay -- but we call them "Enemy Combatants" to avoid abiding by the terms of the Geneva Convention.
The problem with having no litmus test like whether something could have prevented 9/11 is that there is no end to things which could help in the fight on terrorism. Cameras in restrooms to spot people with explosives strapped to themselves. Strip-searches of people boarding Amtrak trains. Repeal or modification of the Second Amendment (right to bear arms), Fourth Amendment (barring unreasonable search and siezure), Fifth Amendment (rights to due process of law), Sixth Amemdment (right to speedy and public trial, right to counsel, right to an impartial jury of peers), and Seventh Amendment (protection from double jeopardy).
I know that you're not suggesting that such steps would be appropriate, but, lacking such a test, there will be someone to argue in favor of any of those things. I don't want my country destroyed by cowards who would give up everything that made this country great just to prevent terrorism. No matter how many laws are passed and freedoms abridged, terrorism will happen. We can either live our lives in terror, as the perpetrators of 9/11 wanted, or we can be brave and stand up for our way of life. I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than gut the Constitution to prevent one.
Launches will not take place over nursing homes.
We're not talking about an Estes model rocket here. Have you ever looked at the at-risk geographic area under the atmospheric portion of a space launch? I have and I can tell you that it's not something measured in yards.
The Running of the Bulls in Pamplona is a major tourist draw, and NASCAR racing has yet to be outlawed despite the dead spectators (and participants). They didn't outlaw skiing, even when famous, rich people died doing it.
I never saw a bull or a skier break apart in a flaming fireball overhead. Same thing with NASCAR. There's a big difference between the redneck wreck-fest that is NASCAR and normal tourism. No one outlawed NASCAR, but what happened with Ford Explorers on Firestone tires started rolling over and killing people? There were Congressional inquiries, lawsuits, and even demands that people be jailed.
People have little trouble coping when the deaths are related to personal failures or risk sports. But we would have had a very different outlook had Sonny Bono died because of an equipment failure. We all play test pilot every day, convincing ourselves that we could have cheated each death we hear of. We get upset when the death is out of the hands of the people who died -- when there's nothing that anyone could do to deny death.
I think you've worn out your argument (just an opinion).
Challenger and Columbia. Look at the public reaction. Look at the endless press coverage. If that's our reaction when trained, professional astronauts die, what will be the reaction when people who've spent their savings on a "fun" trip into space are incinerated?
But where do you get the 35%, 35%, 30% except from the vote itself?
From statistically valid polls.
How can you claim there is zero chance Cobbs will win given that he's on enough ballots *to* win? The same goes for Badnarik.
Because there is a difference between a mathematical possibility and an actual chance.
While I agree that there are currently two strong contenders, that doesn't mean Badnarik or Cobbs can't be made a third if enough people just decide to make him one.
I think that we are talking at cross purposes. I'd be demanding that Badnarik share the stage with Bush and Kerry if Badnarik had a strong enough enough base of support to make him a viable candidate with an actual shot at winning. If Bush, Kerry, and Badnarik were at 35%, 35%, and 30%, you can bet that Badnarik would be given a place on that stage - as he should be in that circumstance.
But what we have now is a race that's down to two contenders. The rest of the field has support in the single digit or fractions of a percent ranges.
See isn't that easy. These four, along with Bush and Kerry are the only candidates that can win the electoral college. Why not allow them in the debates?
Becuase you would cut, by a factor of three, the time that Americans could hear from those who have an actual, rather than mathematical, chance of winning. I'll admit that polls aren't perfect, but when Cobb isn't even showing as a blip in the polls, he just can't win, so why take precious time out of a debate to let him participate?
The Democrats had debates with nine and ten candidates during the primary and we didn't see Mosley-Braun, Sharpton, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt and Kucinich get excluded despite the fact they routinely polled less than 15% and had no chance of winning!
And those debates lacked much substance. They were a way to weed out the chaff and nothing more.
If you want to define it as possibility,
I don't define words. Dictionaries do: "The likelihood of something happening; possibility or probability."
then either there's the possibility that one person will win
That's a given: Only one person will win.
or there's the possibility that anyone who meets the qualifications will win (limiting it to those with enough ballot access is another definition, given that I don't believe all states allow write-in).
No, that's not a possibility. There is ZERO chance that, say, Cobb will win. There is ZERO chance that Kenneth Lay will win. It doesn't matter if Bush and Kerry strip naked and go at it doggie style on national television. Neither Cobb nor Lay have ANY chance of being elected. None.
Claiming only one of two men has a possibility of win[sic] seems disingenuous.
No, it's realistic. There is no other person running who has any chance of winning this election.
For quite some time, the President of the US has been elected by a plurality (about 50% of the eligible populace votes). That would seem clear evidence that if there were three strong contenders, one would probably win by slightly over 33% of those who vote (though I've no idea if the percentage of actual voter would increase).
But we don't have three strong contenders. We have two. So it makes no sense to complain that there are only two people in the debate.
What if the death blow happens before anyone can go up because the regulations limits the industry to huge companies not willing to take any financial risks? That is an even worse tragedy, IMO.
It's more likely that a regulation vacuum would mean that venture capital would be hard to come by. Can you imagine trying to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in a space tourism business, not knowing if the government regulations would render your design unflyable?
"Thank you for talking to us Mr. Soros. Here's the plan: We are going to build three of these rockets at a cost of $85 million each. Each will be capable of transporting up to 9 paying passengers into space. Provided the government never steps in to regulate this industry, we can foresee no problems. So, are you in?"
Yes, that would be a short meeting indeed.
You think people who can afford $200,000 for a three minute ride won't have their lawyers explain it to them?
;-)
So, how many lawyers do you know who have a good understanding of biomechanics and risks associated with G-forces on, say, an out of shape 58 year old guy?
Perhaps you're right, and then they deserve a Darwin Award. I'd willingly take mine.
Your Darwin Award would be given posthumously, so you couldn't "take" it.
The loss of a couple of passengers and a pilot is hardly a "horrible disaster."
Whatever the public views as a "horrible disaster" is one. If the person who died was a popular public figure like Harrison Ford or Michael Jordan, it would be all the worse. Suppose the failure ended up a booster destroying a nursing home or an elementary school in a blaze?
With your kind of logic, Lewis and Clark would have never gotten on the boat.
It's not my kind of logic. It's an acceptance of reality. The public doesn't have a great stomach for high-profile flaming deaths associated with tourism.
That's what we call a straw man.
No, it is not. The person to whom I was replying was in favor of letting all candidates share the stage. He wrote: "Most of the reason none of those people have a chance is that they are excluded from the debates." The implication being that they should all be allowed to participate in the debates or they would be denied their chance to have a meaningful candidacy.
You could restrict the debates to candidates who were on the ballot of enough states to theoretically win enough electoral votes to be elected. That happens to be six candidates, in this case. Considering that six candidates or better are frequently accomodated during primary debates, there's no reason they couldn't be accomodated during presidential debates, as well.
While that's an improvement, I think that one has to recognize that the purpose of the primaries is more to weed out the weak candidates than to decide between the two strongest. Six candidates rather than two means that each candidate gets less than 1/3 of the talking time that the two candidates do today. That, to me, seems inadequate.
It's a tough balancing act to run these debates. If they get too long, many people won't watch them. Look at C-Span if you doubt me. If they are too short, the voters won't learn enough from the exchange. If there are too many candidates sharing the stage and talking about a wide variety of issues, voters will become confused; "Was Brown the one in favor of gun control but against the Kyoto treaty or was he the one who was pushing for alternative fuel tax deductions who told Smith that there was more to running a country than name dropping?"
By the way, your sig doesn't exactly promote intelligent discourse and I'd urge you to consider changing it. Just a suggestion. Not a flame, insult, or attack.
I don't know what country you're from, but in the US the Presidential Office is held by exactly one person. So, there's only one person who has a chance of winning the election.
Perhaps English is a second language to you, but "chance" means "possibility." So if one says that only two men have a chance of winning the election, it means that the race is down to those two men. It means that there are no other people with a foreseeable possibility of winning.
Absurd. The majority of voters have made their decisions long before the debates and only a small percentage will be swung by the outcome of the debates. "Third party" candidates aren't excluded from the debates. If any of them had managed to get enough support, they would be included in the debates, as Ross Perot was.
It's possible that you just don't want a multiple-party system, and that's fine. But be honest about it - it's not necessairily against our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, even if it's against yours.
Don't presume to tell me what I want and what my motivations are. It's very much in our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, and that's why you can't have a line-up of two-dozen or more candidates on the stage at once. How meaningful is a 90 minute debate that has two dozen competing participants?Yes, that would really be a great benefit to the voters. Or were you proposing that we extend each debate to 18 hours to give each participant the same time that Bush and Kerry now enjoy?
Really, why wouldn't people understand the risks? I'm sure they'll have to sign indemnity waivers before going up.
Understanding a risk and signing a document which limits their legal recourse in case of injury or death are two very different things. Why do I think that they would not understand? Because 99% of the people would have no idea how many Gs they could survive. They would have no understanding of the complexity of the craft, what failures they might survive, and which would guarantee their death.
I've wanted to make it into space ever since watching the Mercury missions - with damn small chance. I don't know if I could take six G's, but if I had the money, I'd sure like to try a trip.
And I hope that you get the opportunity to do that some day. But I'd hate to see the entire space tourism industry dealt a fatal blow because inadequate regulation lead to a horrible disaster.
This is an example of what happens when people don't use common sense.
.0013% - 2% doesn't cut it.
What kind of meaningful debate would we have if we invited not only the mainstream candidates, but also Presidential candidates Stanford E. "Andy" Andress (Independent), Lawson M. Bone (Write-In), David C. Byrne (Write-In), John Joseph Kennedy (Write-In), James Alexander Pace (Write-In), Tom Trancredo (Write-In), Thomas J. Harens (Christian Freedom Party), Deborah Elaine Allen (Write-In), Andrew J. Falk (Write-In), Gene Amondson (Prohibition Party), Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party), Walter F. "Walt" Brown (Socialist Party), Roger Calero (Socialist Workers Party), David Keith Cobb (Green Party), Earl F. Dodge (Prohibition Party), Charles Jay (Personal Choice Party), Ralph Nader (Reform Party), John Parker (Workers World Party), Leonard J. Peltier (Peace & Freedom Party), Michael A. "Mike" Peroutka (Constitution Party), and Bill Van Auken (Socialist Equality Party)?
All of the above are exercising their right to run for the office of President of the United States, but that doesn't mean that it's in the best interest of the country to allow them all to share the stage in a debate with the only two men who actually have a chance of winning the election. If one of those candidates was looking at 20% or more of the likely vote, you can bet your butt that they'd be invited, but