Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jill Stein and Gary Johnson Debate Online Tonight

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the might-actually-not-be-boring dept.

Politics 349

Starting at 7 p.m. EDT (4 p.m. PDT), the Green and Libertarian candidates for President are debating on the Independent Voter Network. You can catch it via a Google+ hangout or Youtube both live and afterward (no word on flashless user unfortunately, unless anyone knows how to access youtube live streams). Since the big two candidates got some time here on Slashdot, we figured you guys might want to argue amongst yourselves about the third party platforms too. Note that there will be another debate with more candidates on Tuesday.

cancel ×

349 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41699895)

They'll have all of 20 views.

People barely care about the two real political parties. What would make you think anyone gave a shit about these guys?

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41699949)

There is only one political party that has been in charge of deleting rights for the last century; Repubmocrats.
The Libertarians and Greens ARE honestly the REAL candidates along with other non-Repubmocrat offerings.
Repubmocrats are 99.1% plastic, .8% incidental protein and .1% inert ingredients.
Leave First Post to the professionals.

Re:Really? (-1, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41700001)

How do I tell a Tea Partier from a Libertarian?

Re:Really? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700061)

everything out of the Libertarian's mouth boils down to "fuck you, I got mine"

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41700093)

How does that differ from what comes out of a Tea Partier's mouth?

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#41700129)

and everything out of a Democrat's mouth boils down to "fuck you, give me yours"

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

Phantom of the Opera (1867) | about 2 years ago | (#41700283)

Why are the red states the ones that get more from the government than they give?

Re:Really? (1, Funny)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#41700491)

i forgot to add,

and everything out of a Republican's mouth boils down to "fuck you, I got mine... and btw give me yours too"

Re:Really? (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#41701255)

You know, I asked the very same thing years ago, and was told that because I had more, I should feel proud to give to those who have less. Funny how these noble sentiments go out the window as soon as the "wrong" politics get involved, eh?

Re:Really? (5, Funny)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41700495)

Well, I think that adequately sums up the various positions we're going to see in this thread. Good work everyone!

Re:Really? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41701225)

and everything out of a Democrat's mouth boils down to "fuck you, give me yours"

You have that a little wrong. Democrats tend to be holier than thou, the other reason they want everyone else's stuff is so they can give it to those who won't for for their own. So it's more like "Fuck you, I'm taking yours and giving it to some lazy piece of shit who doesn't deserve it because I'm such a great humanitarian and you're a rotten hard working individual who ought to be ashamed at having so much.... But don't take my stuff because I'm a humanitarian who helps other people."

Re:Really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700401)

how about: fuck you, kill yourself

Re:Really? (4, Informative)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 2 years ago | (#41700075)

The tea partier will hit you over the head with a pound of sacred dead tree matter, while explaining why corporate interests trump all else. Libertarians will just quote Ayn Rand instead.

Re:Really? (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41700111)

Ah, I gotcha. They serve the same god, but just at different temples.

Re:Really? (2)

BergZ (1680594) | about 2 years ago | (#41700665)

It's amazing to me that of all the things Paul Ryan could dislike about Ayn Rand's works the thing that seems to bother him the most is that Rand and her views were "atheistic". That her views were "atheistic" is what I liked the most about her writings.

Re:Really? (1, Interesting)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#41700775)

That's also the most amusing part - at least Ayn Rand was consistent in her disdain for helping others in need.

The religious right will quote the Bible left and right when it suits their agenda, but then try to avoid one of the most important messages of the New Testament, which is to... wait for it... help others in need. I wonder how Jeebus felt about the 47%?

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41701077)

Ayn Rand would certainly piss on you if you were on fire. She was of the "teach a man to fish" school, and disdained people who gave fish away. That's really all it boils down to in the end, anyway. You either get taught to fish, or learn on your own, or you're useless, and should stay out of the way.

Re:Really? (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#41701129)

You mean "teach a man to fish if he's already wealthy enough to afford to pay for his education." Free public education is another thing Rand was against.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41701137)

I thought Ayn Rand was a dude.

Re:Really? (4, Funny)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#41700275)

The tea partier will hit you over the head with a pound of sacred dead tree matter, while explaining why corporate interests trump all else. Libertarians will just quote Ayn Rand instead.

So, the libertarians try to use two pounds of dead matter? Gotcha.

Re:Really? (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#41701095)

You just made me spew water on my monitor I hope you're happy.

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700371)

And a liberal will just take whatever they want from your pockets and act like you're the one who has a problem for wanting to hold on to what you earn. No explanations needed, just excuses for why their social programs have created generations of we're-do-wells.

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41700515)

I believe the precise explaination they give is "you dont need it". Im pretty certain Obama actually used those words ("they dont need it", in the context of taxation on the rich), and certainly ive seen that here on slashdot.

Who, precisely, was elected to determine how much I need, I still havent heard.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

Mspangler (770054) | about 2 years ago | (#41701031)

"Who, precisely, was elected to determine how much I need, I still havent heard."

That has always been the problem. Who determines how much I need, and what the definition of 'need' is anyway, and who determines my ability. Who is more qualified than I am to make those decisions as they apply to me?

My argument is no one.

There is a lot to like in the Green platform, but they have a serious issue with "free" health care, education, and so on. There is no free. Some one has to pay for all the goodies, and they are being as cagey as Romney in not saying who is picking up the tab.

Re:Really? (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 2 years ago | (#41701109)

The same people as when democracy was first tried out, your neighbor. Before that it was your lord. Before that it was the biggest thug near you. The idea that you can be rich and be left alone really has never existed, this is a very liberal agenda you're pushing. There's always a been a balance between greed and self preservation, the current system seems a bit better than most since we're having an argument about how much of your money to take from you. It beats some of the past experiments in taxation that involved sharp objects, or men storming your house in the middle of the night.

Re:Really? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700205)

The Tea Partiers hate the Libertarians because Libertarians believe in a small government that lets people do things that make them feel funny; while the Tea Partiers believe in a big government morality police, as long as they don't have to pay for it.

Also, Ayn Rand thought abortions were awesome. How else are you going to keep the untermensch from breeding, preach at them?

Re:Really? (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41700527)

while the Tea Partiers believe in a big government morality police

Thats an absolutely fascinating theory. Im just struggling to find its connection to reality.

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700685)

So the tea party is now for getting government out the business of defining marriage and for legalizing drugs?

Re:Really? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41700691)

The state already defines marriage. Unless I am mistaken, the fight is to maintain the current definition rather than expanding it.

I am not aware of an official Tea Party position on drugs, but once again we already have drug laws.

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | about 2 years ago | (#41701313)

The state already defines marriage.

Oh? And what the fuck business is it of theirs?

Re:Really? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700687)

while the Tea Partiers believe in a big government morality police

Thats an absolutely fascinating theory. Im just struggling to find its connection to reality.

war on drugs?
war on fags?
war on damn dirty mexicans?
war on contraception?
war on evilution?

Re:Really? (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41700719)

If youre going to post ridiculous things, at least log in and do so. There is little incentive otherwise to start a discussion with an AC that is almost certainly going to end up going down the toilet.

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700859)

I don't have or want an account.

But I agree continuing a discussion with someone whose idea of an argument [slashdot.org] may be paraphrased as "if it's the status quo, supporting it doesn't count" is likely to end up down the toilet.

So forget I said anything. The tea party absolutely loathes big-government moral/cultural police with the exception of the moral/cultural pollice state we've already got; best guys ever!

Re:Really? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41700921)

I never said "supporting it doesnt count", but as the argument isnt "should the state recognize marriage", but rather "what should quality, its hardly a big government issue. That you chose to phrase it as a "war on fags" is kind of a turn off and is what makes me think the discussion isnt one worth having.

Re:Really? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700743)

you forgot the war on climate

and the war on sustainability

  and the war on bicycles

and the war on the fucking continuation of America as a power.

Tea Party are traitors.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700547)

It's not very hard. Are you retarded or something?

Re:Really? (1)

englishknnigits (1568303) | about 2 years ago | (#41700569)

Tea Partiers don't want the government messing with their social security.

Re:Really? (3, Interesting)

similar_name (1164087) | about 2 years ago | (#41700627)

Tea Partiers are generally okay with increasing spending on the military. They generally are okay with medicare as well given their demographic. Tea Partiers are also okay with the government telling people what they can ingest and who they can marry. For all their rhetoric about smaller government, they just mean it on things they don't like. They're not really for limited or small government when it comes to issues they support.

Re:Really? (0)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41700703)

The Tea Party certainly shares some ideals with the Libertarians... the founding fathers were largely Libertarian, after all.

But in general the Tea Party platform is a bullet list of platitudes and the Libertarian platform is a well-thought-out, self-consistent document.

Re:Really? (2)

elfprince13 (1521333) | about 2 years ago | (#41701415)

The Tea Partier will get uncomfortable if you bring up drugs. And the Libertarian will be able to argue you into a deontological system of ethics based on the non-aggression principle. Alternatively: one will talk about Sarah Palin, and one will talk about Murray Rothbard.

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41701489)

When the "Tea Party" first started, the definition was pretty similar, but now that the wazoos have taken it over:

A Libertarian believes that all people (every living human being on planet earth) have the right not to have violence initiated against them, and equally important, that one does not have the right to initiate violence against any other person.
A Tea Partier believes that Jesus will use the might of the US govt. to show them evil leftists a thing or two, and turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot, because our "Communist" President is not enough of a warmonger (even though he's actually even more of a warmonger than Bush was)

The former is a rational, logical, and very peaceful code of ethics for how to conduct one's self in social situations. Not a political platform per se - although a Libertarian political platform MUST conform to this code of ethics. EG. Aggressive warfare, or warfare in general is immoral, because it initiates violence against others, thus violating their rights. An anti-war stance is the only proper position for a real libertarian.

The latter is. . . DERP!!!! DERP!!! DE DOOOO!!! THEY TOOK R JERBS!!! SEND EM TO GITMO!!!!!

Sad to say, the Tea Party started out fairly libertarian. Not the case anymore. Just thought I'd clear that up for the uninitiated in the bunch.

Jill Stein... (4, Funny)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | about 2 years ago | (#41699901)

...is kind of hot.

Hey, I'm old.

Re:Jill Stein... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41700041)

Christ, the debates even bring out the grandmother porn addicts.

Re:Jill Stein... (5, Informative)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#41700391)

Have not really heard of her until I went to this position survey [isidewith.com]

Re:Jill Stein... (2)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#41701051)

I heard Nina Hartley endorsed Jill Stein.

The cardinals are playing tonight (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41699903)

They picked the wrong night

Re:The cardinals are playing tonight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41699953)

And I have a line up of TV series tonight. Big Bang Theory, Person of Interest, followed by Elementary. I was pretty pissed of to see some of these cancelled for the VP debate, and I am no way in hell, going to miss my TV night (before someone judges me, I have only one TV night and it is Thursday).

Re:The cardinals are playing tonight (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41699999)

Yeah, you have fun on your subsequent TV nights while you're bitching about who got elected.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Americans put about as much thought into what meal that they're going to eat on election night as to who they're going to vote for. Americans can't be bothered with making things better without a government edict.

Re:The cardinals are playing tonight (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41700439)

Nope, I'll probably vote for Obama

I've lived in the USA for 30 years and only thought about voting for Perot as a third party candidate when I was young and dumb

Re:The cardinals are playing tonight (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700519)

Now that you're old and stupid, you'll just keep making the same old mistakes. Gotcha.

Re:The cardinals are playing tonight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700591)

Thank you for continuing to be a part of the problem. Without clueless sheep like you we would lose a great deal of our money and power and might have to get real jobs.

Thankfully with your support and others like you. We will never have to do that.

-elected officials

Re:The cardinals are playing tonight (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700757)

Look, Republican, Democrat... whichever party of big government you support, that's all good. Pick team blue if that floats your boat. But after the 3.5 years this president has had, no sane person should ever even consider voting for this guy. Doesn't mean Romney should get your vote - particularly not if you are a died-in-the-wool team blue fan of the big state (as opposed to a died-in-the-wool team red fan of the big state). But by no possible measure has this guy earned a chance at your vote. In addition to bringing forward all of the worst of Bush - on the war, crony capitalism, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, deficit spending, gitmo, on and on -- he's brought it to a new level with the drone strikes, secret kill orders against american citizens, deportations of immigrants, raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, etc. Even his crowning achievement of "healthcare reform" is a dud whether you supported national healthcare or opposed it.
On top of all of that you've got the abysmal economy, shrinking workforce with high unemployment, huge monetary expansion.... Holy crap dude, how could you even think of voting for this guy!?!? Forget what he says, look at what he's actually done!

Listen to the weirdos in the Libertarian/Green Party debate and see if you don't find someone who you could actually support for a reason other than "Yeah! Go Team Blue!" If you are a progressive, Jill Stein represents your views way, way, way more than the candidate with a big "D" after his name. (in the interest of fairness, for you conservatives - take a look at Gary Johnson. He's way, way, way more of a constitutional conservative than your candidate with a big "R" after his name) But for god's sake, don't vote for the guy who's already proven that he's not up to the job.

Re:The cardinals are playing tonight (2)

jimmy_dean (463322) | about 2 years ago | (#41701487)

Absolutely well said. I really wish someone could go on all of the national TV stations during prime time and announce this. It boggles my mind how passionate people get about voting for their guy, because the other guy is purely evil! Really...why do we seemingly always end up with evil then? Why don't we stop voting for evil, and kick evil out. There's no room for evil anymore. Time to get a few people with a clue who aren't completely bought out to all of the lobbyist interests.

Re:The cardinals are playing tonight (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 2 years ago | (#41700073)

Thursday is laundry night. Thursday is always laundry night.

Re:The cardinals are playing tonight (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 2 years ago | (#41700183)

That's Saturday, you insensitive clod.

Re:The cardinals are playing tonight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700511)

Wash them in vodka and put them on wet? You're weird

Re:The cardinals are playing tonight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700037)

[insert cynical comment about there being little overlap between the demographics of "Cardinals game watchers" and "Libertarian/Green Party debate watchers"]

Editors... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41699929)

the Green party and Libertarian candidated for President

Re:Editors... (5, Informative)

Unknown Lamer (78415) | about 2 years ago | (#41699951)

Thanks! I got stuck in traffic and edited this up real quick (I blame traffic, I thought I had an extra hour). Just a quick tip: if you tag the story typo or typoinsummary, a jabber bot complains at the entire editorial team.

And more candidates that you are not seeing on TV (1)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41699943)

  • Vermin Supreme, presidential candidate on the Free Pony Party ticket;
  • Jimmy McMillan, presidential candidate on the Rent Is Too Damn High Party ticket;
  • Santa Claus, independent write-in candidate;
  • Edgar Lawson, write-in Republican presidential candidate;

The debate starts at minute 40, they have a few technical difficulties in the beginning, but solve them in a couple of minutes [noxsolutions.com] .

Re:And more candidates that you are not seeing on (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41700017)

I don't see C'thulu on the list. He belongs there. I'm tired of choosing the lesser evil.

Re:And more candidates that you are not seeing on (2)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41700051)

Seriously, you'd think with his connections...

OTOH how do you know he didn't serve already, remember the VP during W's terms?

Re:And more candidates that you are not seeing on (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41700059)

Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

Re:And more candidates that you are not seeing on (1)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41700135)

Did he have a long form birth certificate?

Then why do you want C'thulu? (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#41701119)

If C'thulu was running for president in 2012, he would be the lesser evil.

Have you spend any time reviewing the history of the candidates? Not what they promise but what they have done so far?

Their antics would disgust even a pope.

Re:And more candidates that you are not seeing on (1, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#41700201)

  • Jethro Q. Walrustitty, Silly Party
  • Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel, Silly Party
  • Kevin Phillips-Bong, Slightly Silly Party
  • Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Umbrella Stand Jasper Wednesday (pops mouth twice) Stoatgobbler John Raw Vegetable (whinnying) Arthur Norman Michael (blows squeaker) Featherstone Smith (whistle) Northgot Edwards Harris (fires pistol, then 'whoop') Mason (chuff-chuff-chuff-chuff) Frampton Jones Fruitbat Gilbert (sings) 'We'll keep a welcome in the' (three shots) Williams If I Could Walk That Way Jenkin (squeaker) Tiger-drawers Pratt Thompson (sings) 'Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head' Darcy Carter (horn) Pussycat (sings) 'Don't Sleep In The Subway' Barton Mainwaring (hoot, 'whoop') Smith, Very Silly Party

Apropos the OTHER candidates..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41699997)

Clinton: I Thought Obama 'Was Going to Cry' [weeklystandard.com]

"Governor Romney's argument is, we're not fixed, so fire him and put me in," said Clinton. "It is true we're not fixed. ...

Ouch. That's the sound bite that matters. The rest is just giving Bill Clinton cover. Makes one wonder if the Cintons have decided Hillary has a better chance running in 2016 as an outsider against Romney instead of as an effective incumbent against whoever.

I bet Obama's having second thoughts about trying to pin the blame for Benghazi on Hillary...

Re:Apropos the OTHER candidates..... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 2 years ago | (#41700209)

Nonsense, Hillary had Bill fixed after Chelsea was born. Dint want any strays dirtying up the breed. The prosecution presents Lewinsky as evidence of function.

Video Quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700123)

I've seen better video streams from the International Space Station. This is borderline unwatchable.

Theey need some tech volunteers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700199)

Come on guys, this is 2012. Why didn't you setup this days in advance, and practice if they wanted to do this video conference method?

And why couldn't they find a place to hold their own debates? Invite the two main candidates even. Get them on a stage and have people in the crowd...

I would vote for Jill, since her views are more aligned with mine. But, I have to vote for Obama to get him in the White House in order to do a few things I like.

Re:Theey need some tech volunteers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700847)

I would vote for Jill, since her views are more aligned with mine. But, I have to vote for Obama to get him in the White House in order to do a few things I like.

Things like what? Warrantless wiretaps? Secret Presidential kill orders against American citizens? Ooh, I know! Trillion dollar giveaways to crony capitalist suck-ups to the government teat! How about bombing foreign countries without a declaration of war or authorization (or even notification) of congress? Or how about unprecedented levels of deportations? [ibtimes.com] Ooh, I know - You're all for printing more money and driving inflation! Or massive increases in federal raids on legal-under-state-law medical marijuana providers? Drone strikes? War in Iran? No? Oh, I get it... it was using federal law enforcement to get around state limitations on asset forfeiture. (gotta make sure we can steal the property of the poor and minorities!)

Oh, that's not it... you're a fan of openness.. you are all about the prosecution of whistleblowers as spies [dailycaller.com] . Wait, what the heck are you in favor of?

The only wasted vote, is a party line vote. (4, Insightful)

Maltheus (248271) | about 2 years ago | (#41700239)

Democrats and Republicans can reliably count on their party line votes, regardless of how they flip flop. That's why they focus more on the "independent" vote, come election time. The only way to influence the major parties anymore, is to show a significant uptick in the third party you most support. At the very least, you can affect the talking points of the next election.

Re:The only wasted vote, is a party line vote. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700565)

So register as an Independent, then they'll pay attention to you. Vote for some crackpot third party candidate and you don't exist.

Re:The only wasted vote, is a party line vote. (2)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | about 2 years ago | (#41700613)

So register as an Independent, then they'll pay attention to you. Vote for some crackpot third party candidate and you don't exist.

I live in South Carolina. If I don't want Romney to be President, voting for Obama doesn't really mean my vote count. He's not winning this state.

Not that I like Obama anyway. Voting for a third-party candidate here actually makes more of a difference, as it gives that third party uptick the GP was talking about.

Re:The only wasted vote, is a party line vote. (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | about 2 years ago | (#41701443)

Your vote doesn't count regardless of who you vote for [reason.com] . Might as well vote for someone you like.

Re:The only wasted vote, is a party line vote. (1)

jimmy_dean (463322) | about 2 years ago | (#41701515)

Your vote doesn't count regardless of who you vote for [reason.com] . Might as well vote for someone you like.

Darn! You beat me to linking to that article. Even after reading that article, I still feel really good about voting for Gary Johnson even though I know it won't make much of a difference. But I can't in good conscience support the two major bafoons.

Re:The only wasted vote, is a party line vote. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700619)

I'm registered as an independent.

Romney wants to magically lower taxes while affecting nothing, and bring about the American Taliban.

Obama wants to spend money we don't have, while eroding our liberties at a rate that makes George Fucking Bush look like George Motherfucking Washington.

Will someone kindly illustrate how the Democrats and Republicans are paying any attention whatsoever to me? Perhaps some sort of chart, or colorful graph.

Re:The only wasted vote, is a party line vote. (1)

RedDeadThumb (1826340) | about 2 years ago | (#41701115)

When I was registered as Independent my phone would not stop ringing around election time with political calls. Now I am registered as Republican because I wanted to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. No phone calls. I am voting for Johnson. They can count me as Republican on paper as long as they leave me alone and I can still vote for whoever I want.

Re:The only wasted vote, is a party line vote. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700645)

Wow, Americans only figured this out now - lol!!, I think the Oscar Wilde quote is true - "America is the only country to go from barbarism to decadence with no civilization in between." ...

Re:The only wasted vote, is a party line vote. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41701389)

The earliest attributions of that quote are from a "French correspondent", possibly a French newspaper. It's been attributed to O. Wilde and many others, but like the line of W. Churchill's about the "...only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy, and the lash," we can categorize it as 'they wished they'd said it'.

Re:The only wasted vote, is a party line vote. (1)

nido (102070) | about 2 years ago | (#41700711)

Kuro5hin posted a new article this morning, on Humanity's Second-Best Hope [kuro5hin.org] . Gary Johnson is apparently our best hope, but the Machine won't let him get elected.

Stein (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700261)

Should change her first name to Beer, then she'd be a little more relevant.

This couldn't be more lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700383)

A 'debate' amongst the loser retards. Dumber than the Special Olympics..

These are not debates (2)

lexman098 (1983842) | about 2 years ago | (#41700657)

This isn't the first 3rd party "debate" I've seen between these candidates, and the one thing I've noticed about all of them is that they never directly address each other. This is lame.

Re:These are not debates (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700887)

That is something that I have liked about the major presidential debates so far - the candidates have plenty of time to address and challenge the other person. Unfortunately, a lot of it ends up dropping into "You're a liar!" "Nuh uh!" "Yeah huh!" "No YOU are the liar!"

Still, it's better than a simple question-answer yawnfest. I wish the debates would last longer, or ask fewer questions but give lots of time to talk about an issue in depth. 10-15 minutes per question really isn't enough in some cases.

Re:These are not debates (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41701023)

Yes, I prefer my candidates to waste time arguing about why the opponents position is bad instead of arguing why their position is good.

She lost me (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 years ago | (#41700769)

"We have to do something about the gross financial inequality in this country."

FAIL.

*click*

You can divide a sandwich among many men, but you cannot digest it in a collective stomach.

Re:She lost me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700927)

That sounds like a knee-jerk response to something you imagined, rather than what she said.

One of the consequences of a free market is the flattening of financial disparity. Interference in a market allows money to be siphoned off into the pockets of others, and as the American economic landscape has become more corporatized, the amount of assets held by the top 10% has expanded, impoverishing those without access to the economic niches favored by the distorted ground rules of our current market.

Re:She lost me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41700941)

I don't know what we are talking about, but words have more than one meaning. Gross also means disgusting.

Re:She lost me (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#41701163)

"We have to do something about the gross financial inequality in this country." FAIL.

I agree. As if "financial equality" is some sort of delicious treat that nobody could say no to.

Reunion tour (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#41700841)

I guess Shaggy 2 Dope and Violent J were busy tonight.

I doubt these two candidates sincerity, I am suspicious of their motivation and I encourage their supporters to think very carefully before voting for them.

There is not going to be a third party that breaks into the US political system nationwide. It's not going to happen because it cannot happen. The system is specifically designed for it not to happen, and the sooner supporters of these two lunatics get that message, the better off they will be.

On the other hand, there is certainly a place for political outsiders in the local elections, where they could actually have an impact. Most significantly, by influencing one of the two existing political parties. And it's much easier than you might think. Just about anywhere in the US, an average person could become a party committee member practically just by showing up, and once you've done that, now YOU are one of the people who picks primary candidates and who gets on the ballot and who doesn't. School boards, park district boards, but mainly members of the local party structure is the way to go.

That's how the tea party did it. They started showing up (albeit with corporate money in their pockets) for everything from the local school board to party precinct captains to committee members, and they ended up completely taking over the entire Republican Party and bending every elected Republican to their will. Just like that.

If you don't like the way politics works in the US, there are plenty of ways to approach changing it, but if you think you're going to do it by voting for a Libertarian or Greenie or some other third party candidate for president, you might as well just go jack off in your shoe for all the good it will do you. And that's without the rather questionable agendas of the two candidates named in this story.

Just think: Who stands to gain the most if a bunch of people vote for Ron Johnson? Jill Stein? Do you think that fact is lost on the Republican and Democratic parties? Do any of you believe that either Johnson or Stein is going to be elected president?

Re:Reunion tour (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#41701083)

The bottom line is even if they are super sincere if they got elected (if you subscribed to a multiverse theory they get elected in some universe) they would be ineffective, because you have to b eable to get the congress and the senate to agree to anything you watn to do as president for the most part.

I like the green party for the most part, I think they are a bit too extreme in some ways but they really need to focus on local elections and not the presidential one.

Re:Reunion tour (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41701337)

Yeah maybe there shouldn't be political parties to begin with. Voters shouldn't even know who they're voting for, only their stance on issues or other pertinent facts that keep prejudices and stereotypes far away. Even then people will side with the popular candidate that aligns with their strong convictions regarding abortion or gay marriage. The whole political system needs to be reworked, it really doesn't make any sense. Why vote for a single person when voters only care about issues; we should be voting on issues. Any politician that pretends to be "progressive" is full of crap, look at how steeped in archaic tradition the system is. These people are all "conservatives"

Moral questions should be voted on by the masses, logical operations should be implemented by people earning their position through proven knowledge and ability. Maybe I'll start my own little country. Oh wait here comes the CIA. Headless monster.

Local Elections? (1)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | about 2 years ago | (#41701405)

You mean like when Jill and some random Libertarian candidate faced Mitt Romney for the Massachusetts gubernatorial election? [c-spanvideo.org]

The Boston Globe called her "the only adult in the room."

I think she should get arrested more often. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you...

Unprofessional (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41701135)

I hate to say it (because I am more aligned with these candidates than the other two major parties'), but with what I've seen in the last ten minutes, these minor parties will never have their chance on the big stage.

The audio quality of this debate started out horrendous if I wasn't determined I would have left very early. Even throughout, you can hear typing, whispering to people off screen, and shuffling of papers. The Doctor's mic problems were almost laughable if we weren't talking about the presidency.

The video quality looks like they're using home-quality webcams and DSL connections. The governor's webcam cut out right before he was about to answer a question and he was gone for about 10 minutes.

These two candidates are decent, but not polished, speakers. They rarely looked at the camera and were often reading from something, there was poor lighting, and both had ugly backgrounds (was the Doctor in a basement?).

I know these parties don't have the bankroll of the major two, but they can't test and fix these things prior to the debate? Don't they have advisors for marketing and presentation? It's hard to take them seriously.

Don't get me wrong. I WANT these parties to succeed. And I know that the technical and superficial details I pointed out above don't come close to mattering in the big picture. I want a president that can fix our country's issues, not one that has a fancy webcam. Unfortunately, issues like this keep the majority of voters from giving them any consideration.

Gary Johnson is not really third party (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#41701421)

Gary Johnson is a clone of Ron Paul, who is just GOP turned up to 11. He offers nothing new, he just cranks everything the GOP wants up to an extreme level that the party leadership realizes they cannot sell. Unlike the regular GOP brass, however, he manages to pull in a few younger people who don't read the full text of what he wants - or the analysis of what it would actually do to the vast majority of Americans.

Jill Stein, on the other hand, actually offers some new ideas. Unfortunately nobody will take her seriously. Unlike in 2000, however, when republicans ran ads for Nader to pull voters away from Gore, Stein is being ignored outright because if the two main parties acknowledged her then people might realize how little difference there is in action between the republicans and the democrats.

What use is this debate? (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 2 years ago | (#41701453)

The people watching are the people willing to vote for these people in the first place. So whose minds do they think they are changing? You think a green party voter is going to vote libertarian or vice versa? This is just phony debate trying to get people to think they are actually trying to win. If they were serious they would look ay other methods to get their message out.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?