Question about the Presidential Race

[patpratt]

Why aren't candidates like Bob Barr and Ralph Nader allowed to debate? I figure some of you may know.

[shermanology]

Depends. I know Ross Perot debated back in the day, and I want to say Nader debated in the last election. I guess it just depends on how "viable" the candidate is. Nader isn't even on the ballot in Virginia, and Barr doesn't have alot of support.

[patpratt]

gotcha. still seems we should be given more options...

[Burn That Shit]

If third party candidates were allowed to debate we'd probably have republicans in office for the rest of our days. I'd love to see more political party's have a chance at office, whether it be state, community, federal or whatever, but it seems that MOST republicans are stubborn about their political views. Probably going to get a lot of shit for saying that but whatever. I think I saw on the news last night someone was going door to door to raise support for their candidate and some guy started beating the shit out of her when she came to his door. Guess who he was supporting? :postcount:

[saysmydoctor]

Actually, if third party candidates were allowed to debate, especially this election season, we'd have a lot better chance of Obama being in office. Alan Keyes, Bob Barr, Baldwin are the major third parties that challenges McCain in the right. Bob Barr, especially, is the one making the best dent.

On the left, it's Cynthia McKinney and Nader as the major third party candidates, and Nader especially doesn't have the money to be as viable as he was before.

Actually, recently, the third parties had a debate, I should look for it.

[devint1990]

I believe third party candidates are allowed to debate if they have over 10% in the polls. Something like that. Which is why Perot debated.

[saysmydoctor]

Perot won Iowa, didn't? Or some state.

[patpratt]

I just think that more people would vote for these people if they were exposed to the ideas of Nader's (for example) like they are to Obama's and McCain's.

[saysmydoctor]

Because you don't live in a democracy.
A legitimate argument from Ben. C'mon, drop the pretentiousness and the nifty and shocking one-liners, and say something with substance, at least concerning this.

[shit stroll]

amy goodman is moderating a third party debate next week.

[saysmydoctor]

Amy Goodman....greeaaaaat woman.

[Machu505]

Perot won Iowa, didn't? Or some state.

Perot didn't win any states.

[theguy77]

i mean, you can be hyperbolic if you want, a lot of people are with regards to government control and corruption, but honestly the real issue is even if they were allowed to debate, how many americans do you think would pay attention? its largely due to the ignorance of the public that third parties arent really reckoned with. a large majority of americans want to avoid confusion and make their decision simple, black or white (literally in this case lol) and they like the idea of having a bicameral structure, each side on opposite ends of the spectrum (although the degree of differences between each party are heavily exaggerated.)

[saysmydoctor]

Perot didn't win any states.
Yeah my bad. He got 19% of the popular vote.
Quality not quantity my friend. There is nothing more to say. The fact they are excluded demonstrates how your country is not a democracy.
Them being excluded from a debate means this isn't a democracy? It's actually just means we have a narrow minded media and that Americans don't do research.

[saysmydoctor]

How is that valid?

[saysmydoctor]

I was quite certain we were talking about the US.

[saysmydoctor]

In Zimbabwie they have elections. In Russia they have elections. Yet on TV and in the newspapers you only hear about one party, hell I'd be suprised if half the people didn't even know what the other parties stand for. For that reason these countries are not democracies. They are autocracies run under the pretense of democracy.

Say we exchange that one party for two parties proposing extremely similar platforms. Does that make it so different from Russia and Zimbabwie?
None of this is pertinent to the US and our elections at all. One, all of our media outlets cover both parties--with bias, notably--so yeah, not valid.

Also, both parties offer polar opposite platforms in American political spectrum. You really don't know what the fuck you are talking about but...
Oh I see. You are too dumb to understand logic. I'll move along now.
That's right. :rolleyes:

Take your pretentiousness elsewhere, it's boring now.

[apoemtothedead]

Hey guys, I want to be a write-in candidate. Can I debate too?

[saysmydoctor]

We aren't talking about other political spectrums. US politics is US politics. The platforms are not similar. You are wrong.

For the record, as I don't agree with either platforms fully, you'll need to recant.

[saysmydoctor]

You do understand what a platform is. They have different stances on a vast majority of the issues. While by the world's standards, they are more center-center-right, it's 'left' here.

[theguy77]

i dislike the self importance on a governmental plane that comes from britain because they have a socialist party.

[x togepi x]

And I'm still waiting for someone to show me how voting for Obama is so hugely different from voting for McCain.

the supreme court justices each would pick would substantially change the court. mccain would most likely pick extremely conservative judges that would make us have an extremely right wing court for decades.

[Nevuk]

So in a few social issues we'd have slightly different precedents?
Pretty much. However, those social issues are going to matter a good deal to most people as they'll deal with things like net neutrality, privacy laws, etc. Basically there is a whole new realm of issues that's not been faced until now that will be addressed by the supreme court within a few decades.

Personally I think Obama can easily be likened to Jimmy Carter as far as what we'll actually get, although Obama might prove more effective.

[Tito Jr.]

And I'm still waiting for someone to show me how voting for Obama is so hugely different from voting for McCain. Are you being serious? This is like asking what the difference is between Atari and Playstation 3.

[modlife]

And I'm still waiting for someone to show me how voting for Obama is so hugely different from voting for McCain.

Bingo. However, a lot of voters inexplicably think there is a big difference.



I would just like to add that whoever wins, there will be riots in the streets.

[Nevuk]

Bingo. However, a lot of voters inexplicably think there is a big difference.



I would just like to add that whoever wins, there will be riots in the streets.
It's the myth upon which american politics are created. Without that belief, the two party system would fall apart.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm not denying the two parties don't have their similarities but to deny that Obama is a centrist or a moderate while McCain is the conservative is silly in my opinion.

The platforms are different in that they are polar opposite. We understand that to the world, US politics are very conservative. They are different in that one is sky blue whilst the other is more of a navy blue.

[superchris]

We don't have a socialist party and haven't for near 20 years.
i think whats hes saying in a narrow minded way is that the party in power are slightly left wing. but hey, rather that than right wing parties. we ahve free health care as a concequence!

and the mccain/obama differences i think can be pinpointed more easily by neurtral outsiders.

mccain seems to want to carry on the bush administration in relation to foreign policyt, something which scares the rest of the world.

and obama seems less conservative and more open minded in terms of world issues such as cliamte change etc. he seems to be able to think outside the 'american bubble'

[modlife]

i think whats hes saying in a narrow minded way is that the party in power are slightly left wing. but hey, rather that than right wing parties. we ahve free health care as a concequence!




I would say New Labour is a center-right party... with a minority of left-wing backbenchers.

Socialism is all but finished in the UK.

[saysmydoctor]

Wow.



So you accept I was right all along. Thanks.



Free health care isn't a left wing policy. It's a policy for anyone who isn't extremely right wing. He is a centre right candidate at best and after his recent pandering to US moderates he's pretty much just right wing. Of course everyone in America is right wing (or the vast majority) so right wing for you guys in the Republicans who are so right wing the rest of the world don't have an equivalent because even our extreme right wingers support socialist economics.


So Obama wants to be a bit less of douchebag? That's not a difference. Obama will still keep the exact same allies and hostile nations McCain would, he will still maintain all the same trade agreements, he will still spend very similar amounts on defence, he will still keep all the same people in the CIA and the Pentagon, he will still keep all the same army officers and so on and so forth.

That you chose foreign policy to begin with shows you don't know too much about politics because foreign policy is a notorious area where you get complete continuation of policy from president to president, parliament to parliament in almost any democracy in the world.

The only US President in the last 100 years who has dramatically revamped US foreign policy is FDR and possibly Raegan.
Wow, indeed.

Actually, I disagree with you, and you have been wrong all along. The two candidates are socially different. While the two are fiscally conservative--merely with different approaches and one being more moderate (Obama)--they are social opposites.

Free healthcare, as a social and fiscal issue, is a center stance because the term is in and of itself ambiguous. Free how? Impossible, nothing is free, somehow I'm paying for it--via taxes, fees, etc. However, if the government is footing the bill on healthcare, it begins pushing away from the right. Obama's idea is a moderate approach at healthcare.

You really are misrepresenting Obama's foreign policy. Everything may remain at face the same, but the approach at foreign policy is different. To go from an administration that ignores to an administration that discusses, compromises, and works to solve issues is a change, in essence. Granted, we will still be giving money to Israel, Pakistan, etc. At least we won't be ignoring terrorists simply because they are terrorists.

You know nothing about how the CIA and especially the Pentagon works. You are talking about a complex bureaucratic hierarchy that thrives on its own inter-dependency. To say that infrastructure hasn't been changed shows your unique lack of knowledge concerning the Intelligence Community and the Defense infrastructure.

[saysmydoctor]

You are assuming methodology based on the history of each candidate's party. Please stop.

[wesgemm08]

I am pretty sick of this Republicans and Democrats are the same argument. Do you honestly believe that Al Gore would have led the United States in the same direction that Bush led the country? Was the Clinton-led United States the same as the Reagan-led and Bush 1-led United States?

[saysmydoctor]

Balanced budget compared to extreme defense spending and deficit spending.

Yeah, these are the same.

[Nevuk]

erm what? McCain is balanced budget. He claims he can pay off all of the US's debts in eight years.
So did Bush?

Both of them are basically lying through their teeth throughout all of the election season.

[Nevuk]

and Obama isn't? Bump this thread in four years and see if Obama has done everything he promises.

I have no doubt McCain won't be able to reduce the debt but neither will Obama. In all likelyhood both will increase it. Ron Paul is probably the only prominant politician you could say would definitely balance the books, no matter what other crazy shit he'd do.
Oh, I meant both Obama and mccain are lying through their teeth.
Obama said he'd go through the budget, line by line. If my president is doing that, he deserves to get shot up by some wannabe anarchist.

[theguy77]

honestly the "all american politicians are the same" argument is nowhere near as poignant as it's made out to be. of course we dont have an electon between karl marx and saddam hussein, the change would be too radical and given our terms are only 4 or 8 years the nation would never have any stability. obviously both candidates follow right wing politics becuase thats what this naton is built upon, do you realize if a president to change that we would have to go through the fundamentals of 535 lawmakers AND the majority vote of 300 million americans who are comfortable with capitalism and/or attach a negative stigma to socialism? the difference between them economically is that obama is much smarter (in theory) about what can make capitalism work than mccain, when mccain is dropping bombs like "spending freeze" and contnuing to follow the fallacy of "trickle down theory" in his debates, during this economic crisis how can you honestly think there isn't a difference? foreign policy is also quite different, there is a difference between taking diplomatic steps toward world issues, and always resorting to blind belligerence. there is a difference between trying to militarily change the structure of a country and force a reform of their political system to turn a country into a puppet ally of ours, and in actually going after our relevant enemies. its not about who's going to change the fundamentals of the country, its about who is going to fix them so they work better and go about things in a smarter way. the notion that america's leaders should be trying to turn the country isolationist and socialist is absurd, unrealistic, and useless.

[x togepi x]

So in a few social issues we'd have slightly different precedents?

yeah if completely banning abortion is "slightly different precedents". mccain would pick "strict constructionist" judges who would set any civil rights cases that were to come up back fifty years or so.

[x togepi x]

honestly the "all american politicians are the same" argument is nowhere near as poignant as it's made out to be. of course we dont have an electon between karl marx and saddam hussein, the change would be too radical and given our terms are only 4 or 8 years the nation would never have any stability. obviously both candidates follow right wing politics becuase thats what this naton is built upon, do you realize if a president to change that we would have to go through the fundamentals of 535 lawmakers AND the majority vote of 300 million americans who are comfortable with capitalism and/or attach a negative stigma to socialism? the difference between them economically is that obama is much smarter (in theory) about what can make capitalism work than mccain, when mccain is dropping bombs like "spending freeze" and contnuing to follow the fallacy of "trickle down theory" in his debates, during this economic crisis how can you honestly think there isn't a difference? foreign policy is also quite different, there is a difference between taking diplomatic steps toward world issues, and always resorting to blind belligerence. there is a difference between trying to militarily change the structure of a country and force a reform of their political system to turn a country into a puppet ally of ours, and in actually going after our relevant enemies. its not about who's going to change the fundamentals of the country, its about who is going to fix them so they work better and go about things in a smarter way. the notion that america's leaders should be trying to turn the country isolationist and socialist is absurd, unrealistic, and useless.

lol.

[x togepi x]

There's a difference between banning abortion and bringing back Jim Crow. I don't think he would actual federally ban abortion anyway but even if he did.

There are like six cases that could go before the court in the next few years that would allow for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. He won't have to ban abortion himself, but he'll definitely pick justices that will vote for such a measure.

A conservative court does bring back Jim Crow, it would likely claim many pieces of civil rights legislation were unconstitutional, like affirmative action. It will slow down gay rights even further. That's the thing about a McCain court. He doesn't have to do anything crazy with his policies, if McCain appoints the right wing judges he'll pick, the crazy conservative groups can just sue their ideology into power, and let the courts declare everything that isn't insanely right wing unconstitutional.

[apoemtothedead]

Let me put it this way Lunchforthesky, on the scale of socialism to facism, yes there is little difference between Obama and McCain, and they would do no difference on that scale. But we don't live on that scale in America. We live on the Democrat to Republican scale, and within our country, there will be a large difference depending on which of these two men are elected.

[modlife]

Clinton bullying banks into handing out unaffordable mortgages is one of the main reasons for the current economic climate.

And Clinton's foreign policy was just as hawkish as Bush. He just didn't have a 9/11 to jump on.

Bombing Afghanistan in 1998 to pander to the Republicans - and stave off the collapse of his own admistration - was pretty disgusting.

[x togepi x]

But if Bush's judges didn't do that with Roe v Wade what makes you think McCain's will?


The two justices bush appointed most likely would overturn Roe v. Wade, but with the moderate justices still on the court, there isn't enough judges to do that yet. The more moderate justices are the ones that are most likely to retire. Losing these justices plus adding conservative justices means the decision gets overturned.

[wesgemm08]

But if Bush's judges didn't do that with Roe v Wade what makes you think McCain's will?



Hence why the two party system is built on the illusion of choice.

You people all keep claiming there's going to be a huge difference but no one has shown me yet what this difference will be.

...There are more than two judges on the Supreme Court

Differences between candidates:
Health Care Reform
Medicare Reform
General income taxation
Capital Gains taxation
Rebuilding the middle class vs. trickle down economics
Social Security
larger Domestic Spending vs. larger Miltary/Defense spending
Differing views on environmental/energy issues
Social issues
etc. etc.

[saysmydoctor]

erm what? McCain is balanced budget. He claims he can pay off all of the US's debts in eight years.
Erm, what? Clinton balanced the budget, with surplus, one of two presidents to ever do so.

And you are failing miserably to provide any evidence to support your terrible case. Where as I have throughout this thread backed up my points.
Miserable case, you've already conceded you don't know our domestic issues and yet are making idiotic remarks concerning them.
...There are more than two judges on the Supreme Court

Differences between candidates:
Health Care Reform
Medicare Reform
General income taxation
Capital Gains taxation
Rebuilding the middle class vs. trickle down economics
Social Security
larger Domestic Spending vs. larger Miltary/Defense spending
Differing views on environmental/energy issues
Social issues
etc. etc.
Thank you.

[leifstar]

erm what? McCain is balanced budget. He claims he can pay off all of the US's debts in eight years.


Just out of curiousity. If you were a U.S citizen, who would you be voting for? (If you don't mind me asking.)

If you're not comfortable answering, it is understandable. I am just curious.

[Machu505]

Al Gore would have gone into Afghanistan and he and most every other democrat supported the war in Iraq.


Al Gore was opposed to the Iraq War from the very beginning.

[saysmydoctor]

They have polar opposite views socially concerning most of the issues he listed.

[leifstar]

I would probably vote for Obama.

Cool. Thank you.

[x togepi x]

kNpNzDoH1II&eurl=http://bravenewfilms

this is relevant to the thread

[Nevuk]

NOOO CHOMSKY DON'T DO IT!!
x

[saysmydoctor]

And that was exactly my point and a point I've made numerous times when I say my support for Obama is a vote for the 'lesser of two evils.'

God, that man is brilliant and every time I hear him speak, I want to be him.

[Nevuk]

Chomsky is brilliant but limited by an unwillingness to link his linguistic theories to his political stances.

[dtrzcin]

Lunchforthesky is right in that the election of either candidate will not make much change. The US is still heading down the same path. Socialism, here we come.

[saysmydoctor]

You don't know what socialism is.

[Nevuk]

It's more like liberalism here we come....

[dtrzcin]

You don't know what socialism is.

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods -Miriam Webster

a.k.a. Taxing the rich and giving it to the poor.

In theory that sounds good, but what about the rich guy who earned his money? Why should he be punished?
And should the lazy guy not have to get a job because he gets to depend on the government to supply all his needs?


Maybe not outright socialism, but you can't deny that we're going that way.

[x togepi x]

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods -Miriam Webster

a.k.a. Taxing the rich and giving it to the poor.

What's awesome is your AKA doesn't at all agree with the definition you stated. Taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is completely different than advocating ownership/administartion of the means of production and the distribution of goods. The key element in a socialist government is the workers controlling the means of production. Nothing we're doing right now is at all socialist since the workers are not gaining any new control over the means of production that they didn't have two years ago.



In theory that sounds good, but what about the rich guy who earned his money? Why should he be punished?

He or she is not "being punished". They are paying for social programs that enable a better, more stable society. the current economic problems are already leading to violence (http://www.alternet.org/workplace/103656/arson%2C_suicide%2C_and_murder_mark _the_economic_crisis%2C_and_we%27re _not_hearing_about_it/), and lowering the gap between the rich and the poor is a check against such violence.

They also can afford to pay more taxes as they make way more money than they need and tend to put this money in the bank to amass giant fortunes.

And should the lazy guy not have to get a job because he gets to depend on the government to supply all his needs?

oh fuck off you worthless piece of shit. my family is in poverty. we also own our own business. I'm pretty sure my parents work harder than you, yet they need some government help. Poor=/= lazy. Rich =/= hard working. The government hardly ever just hands out money, there has to be some sort of incentive like going to school or getting a job.


Maybe not outright socialism, but you can't deny that we're going that way.

it would be amazing if we were moving in the direction of socialism, but spending 700 billion dollars to bail out rich companies is not something a socialist government would do.

[dtrzcin]

I'm not going to waste my time arguing, but let me clarify I did NOT say poor=lazy or rich=hard working.

[saysmydoctor]

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods -Miriam Webster

a.k.a. Taxing the rich and giving it to the poor.

In theory that sounds good, but what about the rich guy who earned his money? Why should he be punished?
And should the lazy guy not have to get a job because he gets to depend on the government to supply all his needs?


Maybe not outright socialism, but you can't deny that we're going that way.
Firstly, that's not what Webster said at all and is the worst paraphrase I've ever seen. And it doesn't even consider the social portions of socialism. Socialism is the idea of a egalitarian society

Secondly, the rich guy would still be rich. He isn't even being punished. Name a rich man or woman who has been punished for having so much. That executive making a huge bonus, while his company employers make nothing? Yeah, he is getting a raw deal.

Furthermore, less than 5% welfare beneficiaries are doing anything fraudulent. People fall on hard times. But let's really get in depth: view Sweden.

The class stratification of Sweden comparatively:

http://home.mesastate.edu/%7Estarbuck/144lect/144lec6/img007.gif

If the lower class has no money, the upper class can't make money; see: today's economy. Now, notice Sweden has a near even spread and their upper class is the US' upper middle class, while their lower class is merely our lower middle class. The nation runs in a socially democratic format and look at the results: 4th most competitive globally, 3.4% GDP growth as of last year....need I go on in describing who is more successful?

[saysmydoctor]

I'm not going to waste my time arguing, but let me clarify I did NOT say poor=lazy or rich=hard working.
That's probably best, because you are incredibly ignorant. You were implying it.

[wesgemm08]

Your arguments would work if it weren't for the fact that the typical American believes they one day will be a member of the top 1% earnings club.

[apoemtothedead]

Your arguments would work if it weren't for the fact that the typical American believes they one day will be a member of the top 1% earnings club.
100% in the top 1%!

[x togepi x]

I'm not going to waste my time arguing, but let me clarify I did NOT say poor=lazy or rich=hard working.

Those were your counter examples against what you call "socialism" that we'd be taking money from hardworking people and giving it to lazy people.

[Nevuk]

Your arguments would work if it weren't for the fact that the typical American believes they one day will be a member of the top 1% earnings club.
I blame Ben Franklin

[loveisdead]

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods -Miriam Webster

a.k.a. Taxing the rich and giving it to the poor.

In theory that sounds good, but what about the rich guy who earned his money? Why should he be punished?
And should the lazy guy not have to get a job because he gets to depend on the government to supply all his needs?


Maybe not outright socialism, but you can't deny that we're going that way.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing, but let me clarify I did NOT say poor=lazy or rich=hard working.
Uh, yeah ya did.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't understand the right and their use of the term 'punished' over a slight tax increase for the top 1% of the top 1%. If you have no middle or lower class, you have no one buying your assets.

[loveisdead]

I don't understand the right and their use of the term 'punished' over a slight tax increase for the top 1% of the top 1%. If you have no middle or lower class, you have no one buying your assets.
Don't go using fucking logic on me.

[saysmydoctor]

*pfucking

[Tito Jr.]

Most of those the candidates are in basic agreement but have slightly different views about how much should be spent, what should be done to achieve the same aims and so on.. You just refuted your own argument. :clap:

There's no doubt that each party thinks they can make the country better (their ends are very well the same) - however, their means are the definitive differences between the two.

Following your rational, an airplane and a train are the same. They both attempt to achieve the same common ends - (i.e transportation, cargo, tourism, etc.) . However, you are ignoring the very obvious difference between the two (i.e. cost, use of resources, efficiency, technique, etc.).

Another example of your argument can be applied to religion - same ends, different means. Are you going to try and tell me Hindu's are the same as Taoists? And Jews are the same as Christians?

Yes, Obama and McCain are both politicians. Yes, they both think they can make the country better. Yes, they have different plans to solve the same issues. But still you see no difference? We've had 8 years to examine McCain's plans - the means make ALL the difference.

[Tito Jr.]

...and lunchforthesky is no where to be found.

[Tito Jr.]

:tumbleweed:

[Chris Fallon]

I'm not going to waste my time arguing, but let me clarify I did NOT say poor=lazy or rich=hard working.
Wait, wait, wait... are you serious? Because, actually, you did.

Where are the intelligent anti-Obama people? I have yet to see them around these parts.

[Post-me]

I think I agree with lunchforthesky, as Europeans we see very divergeant parties actually having influence or supporters but in the US democrats and republicans are two center to far right parties for us. Fiscaly AND socially they are both in this area.

You actually have some left parties but them being third parties, nationally, it's like they don't exist. As saysmydoctor said, you're voting for the lesser of the two evils, Obama. But it's not like your voting for a socialist or a communist (haha) like conservatives seem to think.

But I'd say even in Europe we're heading in the same direction as you: even if our other parties may be more important, the national elections are now having a big right party VS. a social democrat party or a center left party in most of the EU countries. Wich means right vs. center like in the US.

[saysmydoctor]

Democrats have always been the centrists, we're aware.

I wish the use had a social democrat party. A big name, national one.

[Machu505]

Democrats have always been the centrists, we're aware.

I wish the use had a social democrat party. A big name, national one.

Bill Clinton is a moderate social democrat.

[saysmydoctor]

Pfft, he is a centrist.

[Machu505]

Your mom is a centrist.

[Circa1628]

Your mom is a centrist.

win