lawrocket 3 #1 October 2, 2012 I have little interest in the Presidential debates. Why? Because it shows the inevitable result of cooperation between the Republicans and Democrats – an anti-competitive consortium. Imagine, if you will, that Microsoft and Apple got together with each other and agreed that they are fine competing against each other, but that all efforts should be jointly made to ensure that other competitors will not compete against them. We’ve got that now. The Commission on Presidential Debates controls the debates. Last October they released their criteria for a candidate to participate in the debates: [Quote](1) are constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States; (2) have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election; and (3) have demonstrated a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results. It’s the third category that is most difficult. Jill Stein (Green), Rocky Anderson (Justice) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian) are prohibited from participation. It kept Ralph Nader out of the debates in 2000. Perot managed to meet the criteria. The debates themselves are based on unfair competition. They exclude other voices. I want to hear what Jill Stein has to say. I want the rest of the country to hear what Gary Johnson has to say. These are entirely different voices with different viewpoints and different ideas. That’s the problem – the Republicans and Democrats have too much to lose. This is what politics in America is about. The GOP and Democrats empower themselves. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #2 October 2, 2012 QuoteI want to hear what Jill Stein has to say. I want the rest of the country to hear what Gary Johnson has to say. Do they realistically have a rats chance in hell of winning? No. So why waste the time? Let's hear from the two guys, one of which will absolutely be the President.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #3 October 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteI want to hear what Jill Stein has to say. I want the rest of the country to hear what Gary Johnson has to say. Do they realistically have a rats chance in hell of winning? No. So why waste the time? Let's hear from the two guys, one of which will absolutely be the President. did it ever occur to you that they might have a rats chance in hell if they were allowed in the debates? "so why waste the time" and what?? miss another hour of reality TV?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #4 October 2, 2012 I absolutely won't be watching anything except the debates. As for the people not in the debates...look...if they had great ideas, their time for voicing them was months and months ago. THAT is how the process works. Not wait until the last minute and then step up. The American public has over the course of a LONG period of preliminaries decided these are the two guys it boils down to. If anybody wanted to be in the final debates, the field was wide open 9 months ago. Or don't you remember that?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #5 October 2, 2012 Quote did it ever occur to you that they might have a rats chance in hell if they were allowed in the debates? "so why waste the time" and what?? miss another hour of reality TV? No...adding them to the debates will not increase their chances. We (well, GOP faithful) already got to see what you get in a debate with 5-10 candidates. That's not a debate (which nearly by definition is two people or viewpoints), that's a circus. No, the crime of the debates is nearly always that the format is so contrived and prearranged that each candidate can ignore actual argument and just give short stump speeches to the viewers. I'm better off watching that reality TV show and just going to the party web pages. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #6 October 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteI want to hear what Jill Stein has to say. I want the rest of the country to hear what Gary Johnson has to say. Do they realistically have a rats chance in hell of winning? No. So why waste the time? Let's hear from the two guys, one of which will absolutely be the President. Well, I'd like to hear a different perspective on issues even if they don't have a rat's chance. Helps keep the others honest.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #7 October 2, 2012 QuoteQuote did it ever occur to you that they might have a rats chance in hell if they were allowed in the debates? "so why waste the time" and what?? miss another hour of reality TV? No...adding them to the debates will not increase their chances. We (well, GOP faithful) already got to see what you get in a debate with 5-10 candidates. That's not a debate (which nearly by definition is two people or viewpoints), that's a circus. No, the crime of the debates is nearly always that the format is so contrived and prearranged that each candidate can ignore actual argument and just give short stump speeches to the viewers. I'm better off watching that reality TV show and just going to the party web pages. I'd like to see a good moderator who won't let them get away without answering the questions asked.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 October 2, 2012 QuoteDo they realistically have a rats chance in hell of winning? No. This is the attitude, isn’t it? Do you seriously think Romney has a rat’s chance in hell of winning? But he’s given the podium BECAUSE he’s the chosen candidate of a powerful party. Quotewhy waste the time? Because it provides another set of ideas. Other voices are rather nice to see because there are other ideas. You know, how about having a debate with four people? Five people? Perhaps have a debate that is not pre-selected and controlled by a series of memoranda of understanding between two candidates? I rather like a marketplace of ideas as opposed to a bureaucracy of statement. I have a fundamental problem with the idea that a candidate who could theoretically win’s statements and questions are a “waste of time.” QuoteLet's hear from the two guys, one of which will absolutely be the President. Let’s hear from the candidates, one of which will absolutely be the President. We should have heard from Nader in 2000 – yes he DID impact the election. He was relevant regardless of the establishment’s exclusion. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,062 #9 October 2, 2012 Hi John, Quote I'd like to see a good moderator who won't let them get away without answering the questions asked. +100% But it will not happen. What a waste. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #10 October 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote did it ever occur to you that they might have a rats chance in hell if they were allowed in the debates? "so why waste the time" and what?? miss another hour of reality TV? No...adding them to the debates will not increase their chances. We (well, GOP faithful) already got to see what you get in a debate with 5-10 candidates. That's not a debate (which nearly by definition is two people or viewpoints), that's a circus. No, the crime of the debates is nearly always that the format is so contrived and prearranged that each candidate can ignore actual argument and just give short stump speeches to the viewers. I'm better off watching that reality TV show and just going to the party web pages. I'd like to see a good moderator who won't let them get away without answering the questions asked. AMEN. imagine how great it would be if the moderator could call them out on their rehearsed lines. they wont of course because then the network would never get another debate or interview. its a big business and you dont get debates or interviews asking tough questions. and if you dont get that, you dont get ratings which means you have no ads or revenues."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 October 2, 2012 QuoteWell, I'd like to hear a different perspective on issues even if they don't have a rat's chance. Helps keep the others honest. Bingo. And I'll add, these other candidates may add ideas that are popular, which can become a part of a "major candidate's" policy goals. Take the whole "15%" rule. George Dubya won the 200 election with a staggering 50,456,002 votes. This constituted 17.9% of the population in 2000. Hence an indication of the difficulty of actually meeting the criteria. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #12 October 2, 2012 >I have little interest in the Presidential debates. I do as well. From an article on Romney's debate strategy: ========== Mr. Romney’s team has concluded that debates are about creating moments and has equipped him with a series of zingers that he has memorized and has been practicing on aides since August. ========== I can just read speaker's Corner for that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 198 #13 October 2, 2012 QuoteI'd like to see a good moderator who won't let them get away without answering the questions asked Agreed. Too many times they end up squirming out of a tough question. The ol' If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, ...Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #14 October 2, 2012 I'd watch the debate if they would include Vermin Supreme.You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 October 2, 2012 Quote Take the whole "15%" rule. George Dubya won the 200 election with a staggering 50,456,002 votes. This constituted 17.9% of the population in 2000. Hence an indication of the difficulty of actually meeting the criteria. Though actual voters and registered voters are slightly more conservative than the eligible voter class, the difference is not huge...and I suspect less than the margin of error with our counting systems. And while the population may have been 280M in 2000, the eligible voting population was substantially less. The 17.9% figure is not a valid one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #16 October 2, 2012 I will be watching the debate. The only reason i will be watching it is because their is so much mis-information being disseminated by both sides that it will be interesting to hear what they have to say when they are standing right next to each other. If the moderator is doing his job, he will be asking questions to set the record straight. Also, with so much media bias, hopefully the same questions will go to each candidate so we can get an answer and rebuttal unfiltered.... Here is to hoping..... "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 October 2, 2012 Quote If the moderator is doing his job, he will be asking questions to set the record straight. The moderator's job is to execute the debate under the set rules. Guess who set the rules? Do you think they want to be called out on their shit? Of course not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #18 October 2, 2012 Quote I will be watching the debate. The only reason i will be watching it is because their is so much mis-information being disseminated by both sides that it will be interesting to hear what they have to say when they are standing right next to each other. If the moderator is doing his job, he will be asking questions to set the record straight. Also, with so much media bias, hopefully the same questions will go to each candidate so we can get an answer and rebuttal unfiltered.... Here is to hoping..... Whether the moderator is or isn't going to let them get away with anything isn't even the issue. Anyone of reasonable intelligence ought to be able to spot a politician ducking and deflecting a simple question.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 October 2, 2012 QuoteWhether the moderator is or isn't going to let them get away with anything isn't even the issue. Anyone of reasonable intelligence ought to be able to spot a politician ducking and deflecting a simple question. And since they'll both be doing it, it'd be nice to see if there is another candidate out there who doesn't do it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #20 October 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhether the moderator is or isn't going to let them get away with anything isn't even the issue. Anyone of reasonable intelligence ought to be able to spot a politician ducking and deflecting a simple question. And since they'll both be doing it, it'd be nice to see if there is another candidate out there who doesn't do it. It doesn't matter about any other candidate. That mythical other candidate of yours isn't a realistic choice, so ultimately what they have to say doesn't matter at all. It will absolutely be one of these two. Think about it this way, you don't go into the finals with the candidates you want, but rather the candidates you have. We realistically only have these two to pick from. Pick the one who is going to suck the least. That's all you can do.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #21 October 3, 2012 Quote Pick the one who is going to suck the least. That's all you can do. shhh... relax.... put your head back in the sand.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #22 October 3, 2012 Elvira would make for a good moderator of the debates! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #23 October 3, 2012 QuoteIt is NEVER a 'wasted vote' to vote your conscience and your beliefs. It's not a horse race- the object isn't to pick the winner. unfortunately for many of the "wasted vote", "two-party players", it IS about picking the winner. so they pick the guy that sucks less, then tell us to shut up and do it too.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shredex 0 #24 October 4, 2012 This really does upset me. I just don't understand why America is just so afraid of anything that's not Democrap or Repubican. America wanted change, so they vote for Obama...That's not change...that's insanity!(Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.) It's time's like this that I wish I was a billionaire just so I could throw a huge campaign for Gary Johnson so he is actually heard by the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shredex 0 #25 October 4, 2012 Quote25 minutes until the drinking games start! Yippeee! We're all gonna die from alcohol poisoning lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
