yakherder
老外
She was actually originally competing for the Green Party nomination against Jill Stein and Kent Mesplay. I guess she decided to run independently when Jill Stein got it.
Presidential Debate Discussion Thread
- Thread starter AeryFairy
- Start date
She was actually originally competing for the Green Party nomination against Jill Stein and Kent Mesplay. I guess she decided to run independently when Jill Stein got it.
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,770
- Lifestyle
- Other
If someone made a movie of my life, I would like Sarah Silverman to play me. Or perhaps Eliza Dushku or Penelope Cruz.
Dedalus
Mercurial and fleeting
FortyTwo
Custom Title
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,770
- Lifestyle
- Other
Well, slightly old news, but I thought I'd mention that Democracy Now again invited third-party candidates to answer several of the questions from the previous two CPD-controlled debates, mixed with excerpts from the original debate. If anyone is interested in watching, try searching for "Expanding the Debate with Third-Party Candidates Jill Stein, Virgil Goode, Rocky Anderson" and/or "Expanding the VP debate" (featuring Cheri Honkala of the Green Party and Luis Rodriguez of the Justice Party).
Regarding up-coming debates, I believe Democracy Now's final Expanding the Debate special will begin at the same time as CPD's debate Monday (viewable live or, of course, on-demand afterward) and should feature the complete debate supplemented with third-party candidates. The following day, disjoint from any CPD activities, Free and Equal will present a debate with Johnson, Stein, Anderson, and Goode. Based on the 2008 Free and Equal debate, I expect this one might be the most interesting of the season, even though Obama and Romney are unlikely to participate.
Speaking of Obama and Romney not participating, Time magazine obtained and published the Obama-Romney debate agreement. It basically matches what critics claimed it was, though it is nice to have the actual document instead of just (well-founded) speculation. Two key provisions are that they agree to not appear in any non-CPD debate, and they agree to the rules for deciding when third party candidates should be allowed to participate, in practical terms, never. Together, these fairly simple clauses do a remarkably good job of locking out third-parties -- and with them any ideas that might conflict with the interests of the established powers -- from mainstream consciousness. To borrow words from the League of Women Voters, such agreements "perpetrate a fraud on the American voter" (referring to the similar 1988 agreement between Bush Sr. and Dukakis).
I hope everyone can appreciate how serious an issue this is and why it is so important to insist on fair and inclusive debates. (Inclusive of third-party candidates, but more importantly inclusive of ideas and questions that the entrenched parties would rather avoid.) If nothing else, just taking some of your own time to watch (and maybe share with your friends) a few of the expanded or alternative debates is, I think, a significant step in the right direction.
Regarding up-coming debates, I believe Democracy Now's final Expanding the Debate special will begin at the same time as CPD's debate Monday (viewable live or, of course, on-demand afterward) and should feature the complete debate supplemented with third-party candidates. The following day, disjoint from any CPD activities, Free and Equal will present a debate with Johnson, Stein, Anderson, and Goode. Based on the 2008 Free and Equal debate, I expect this one might be the most interesting of the season, even though Obama and Romney are unlikely to participate.
Speaking of Obama and Romney not participating, Time magazine obtained and published the Obama-Romney debate agreement. It basically matches what critics claimed it was, though it is nice to have the actual document instead of just (well-founded) speculation. Two key provisions are that they agree to not appear in any non-CPD debate, and they agree to the rules for deciding when third party candidates should be allowed to participate, in practical terms, never. Together, these fairly simple clauses do a remarkably good job of locking out third-parties -- and with them any ideas that might conflict with the interests of the established powers -- from mainstream consciousness. To borrow words from the League of Women Voters, such agreements "perpetrate a fraud on the American voter" (referring to the similar 1988 agreement between Bush Sr. and Dukakis).
I hope everyone can appreciate how serious an issue this is and why it is so important to insist on fair and inclusive debates. (Inclusive of third-party candidates, but more importantly inclusive of ideas and questions that the entrenched parties would rather avoid.) If nothing else, just taking some of your own time to watch (and maybe share with your friends) a few of the expanded or alternative debates is, I think, a significant step in the right direction.
Lord Snot
Parsley Provider
As much as I wish that was not the case, I suspect that fundamentally, you're right.
OP
OP
Last night's fourth and final debate:
Transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/u...te-in-boca-raton-fla.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Fact Check: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/22/fact-checking-third-presidential-debate/
Obama declared the winner.
Highlights (mostly boring, because the debate was the least exciting yet):
Obama: You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.... This isn't a game of Battleship.
Romney wheels out the "apology tour" line again. Obama states that every fact checker everywhere has disputed it and, despite that, the Republicans carry on using it. Romney carries on through, insisting it was an apology tour.
More flip-flopping on Afghanistan. From being against a timeline, to maybe supporting a timeline, Romney now quotes Obama's policy of "out by 2014" as if it was his own idea.
There was a point where both candidates had what seemed like a schoolyard fight. "You're wrong" "you're wrong" "no, you're wrong" "look it up!" "the people will" "good!".
Romney answered the question "What is America's role in the world" with his 5-point plan. Now, I know candidates never answer the actual question, but... what?!
And, my personal favourite: Romney called Syria "[Iran's] route to the sea". 'Cause it's not like Iran is on both the Caspian sea and the Persian Gulf or anything. Also, it doesn't border Syria.
Other bits:
David Burge (@iowahawkblog) on the Florida polls: "Presidential poll update: 4.5% Obama, 4.5% Romney, 91% Stop Calling Me Or I Swear I'll Get a Restraining Order"
Transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/u...te-in-boca-raton-fla.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Fact Check: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/22/fact-checking-third-presidential-debate/
Obama declared the winner.
Highlights (mostly boring, because the debate was the least exciting yet):
Obama: You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.... This isn't a game of Battleship.
Romney wheels out the "apology tour" line again. Obama states that every fact checker everywhere has disputed it and, despite that, the Republicans carry on using it. Romney carries on through, insisting it was an apology tour.
More flip-flopping on Afghanistan. From being against a timeline, to maybe supporting a timeline, Romney now quotes Obama's policy of "out by 2014" as if it was his own idea.
There was a point where both candidates had what seemed like a schoolyard fight. "You're wrong" "you're wrong" "no, you're wrong" "look it up!" "the people will" "good!".
Romney answered the question "What is America's role in the world" with his 5-point plan. Now, I know candidates never answer the actual question, but... what?!
And, my personal favourite: Romney called Syria "[Iran's] route to the sea". 'Cause it's not like Iran is on both the Caspian sea and the Persian Gulf or anything. Also, it doesn't border Syria.
Other bits:
David Burge (@iowahawkblog) on the Florida polls: "Presidential poll update: 4.5% Obama, 4.5% Romney, 91% Stop Calling Me Or I Swear I'll Get a Restraining Order"
OP
OP
Oh. My. Word.
Paul Ryan in response to Obama's horses and bayonets retort:
What the hell?!
Full story: http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2012/10/23/paul-ryan-obama-bayonets-romney-debate/1651323/
Paul Ryan in response to Obama's horses and bayonets retort:
What the hell?!
Full story: http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2012/10/23/paul-ryan-obama-bayonets-romney-debate/1651323/
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,770
- Lifestyle
- Other
I found the debate very alarming, I stopped watching it after a while because it was so depressing to me. Why cant there be a US president who doesnt wish to spend large amounts of money on war? Even Obama has gone way overboard with his foreign policy, he is very right wing in that regard, though Mitt Romney is like a dangerous psychopathic dictator who would likely try and participate in even more wars.
Democratic Presidents have been worse with war over history than Republicans have. To promote war is just as much a left-wing characteristic as it is right.
90 minutes seems too long for foreign policy issues. 30 minutes is enough for me. They could spend the rest of the time talking about environmental issues, animal rights issues, the population problem, and other very important issues that always get ignored.
If I understand correctly, the Democrats & Republicans of today are different from the past, and in many respects their roles (as progressives and conservatives) have been reversed.
yakherder
老外
I think conflict is pretty constant regardless of what party is in charge. Neither is at fault for that, they just like to blame the other. I personally was deployed more under both Bill Clinton and Obama than I was under Bush and the only reason for that is that I took a four year break from the military during Bush's presidency. I expect there to be plenty of action in the coming years regardless of who wins this election.
And the withdraw from Iraq and the proposed withdraw from Afghanistan changes nothing except the location and nature of the fighting. Maybe we'll be in Iran or maybe we'll be fighting drug cartels. It's all the same from my perspective.
And the withdraw from Iraq and the proposed withdraw from Afghanistan changes nothing except the location and nature of the fighting. Maybe we'll be in Iran or maybe we'll be fighting drug cartels. It's all the same from my perspective.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
From Woodrow Wilson to the present, Carter is the only Democratic President to keep us out of war and even with him you could argue otherwise. The love of war is just as much a characteristic of the left as it is the right as far as Presidents go.
Protip: The Caspian Sea is not actually a sea, and the Persian Gulf is hardly a viable route at all.
