I don't want to argue political ideologies, but I am curious as to what my peers (you) thought about the debate on Thursday. I'll start:
-I thought it was better than the first debate, and much better than the VP debate (which I was disappointed in).
-I found it funny that they always referred to the person asking the question by their first name. And a few times they couldn't remember it.
-I laughed out loud when McCain referred to Obama as "that one."
-15 minutes into the debate, I wanted to scream everytime McCain said "my friends."
-there was something weird about McCains's voice the whole night. It's hard to explain. It's like he was trying way too hard to relate to people that he can't relate to. His voice sounded super patronizing. Almost like a teacher would do to a kindergartner when the kid finds out his/her dog died. I dont' know, maybe someone can help me with what I am trying to say?
I'll leave it at that for now, and maybe add to it if people participate in my thread here.
Oct 7 Debate
Moderator: Staff
Oct 7 Debate
It's a fledgling Anna's Hummingbird.
The debate was alright. The debate rules were very limiting. No rebuttals allow one candidate to trash the other's position or record without much of a reprisal. Of course, that doesn't stop them from correcting each other in the next question, which takes time away from answering or ignoring that particular question. I was not a fan of the townhall setup of this debate. The difference was only having common people ask the questions rather having the moderator ask those same questions. I'd rather see LD-type debate format put in, with more focus on the depth of a topic.
Presidential debates, at this point, aren't going to show much of anything new, imo. The two candidates have been campaigning around a year and a half, everything they have to say has been said. Only real thing to see is how a candidate reacts and performs under that kind of stress. This could be that I've made my decision well before
Third-parties are great a thing to have if they bring a single issue to the forefront or a specific candidate as its champion, other than that it's meh. The current third-parties usually lie too far left or right on the political spectrum to reach the median voter and make little difference other than siphoning voters from one candidate or shifting where the median voter sits.
Presidential debates, at this point, aren't going to show much of anything new, imo. The two candidates have been campaigning around a year and a half, everything they have to say has been said. Only real thing to see is how a candidate reacts and performs under that kind of stress. This could be that I've made my decision well before
Third-parties are great a thing to have if they bring a single issue to the forefront or a specific candidate as its champion, other than that it's meh. The current third-parties usually lie too far left or right on the political spectrum to reach the median voter and make little difference other than siphoning voters from one candidate or shifting where the median voter sits.
Humwuwu wrote:The debate was alright. The debate rules were very limiting. No rebuttals allow one candidate to trash the other's position or record without much of a reprisal. Of course, that doesn't stop them from correcting each other in the next question, which takes time away from answering or ignoring that particular question. I was not a fan of the townhall setup of this debate. The difference was only having common people ask the questions rather having the moderator ask those same questions. I'd rather see LD-type debate format put in, with more focus on the depth of a topic.
Presidential debates, at this point, aren't going to show much of anything new, imo. The two candidates have been campaigning around a year and a half, everything they have to say has been said. Only real thing to see is how a candidate reacts and performs under that kind of stress. This could be that I've made my decision well before
Third-parties are great a thing to have if they bring a single issue to the forefront or a specific candidate as its champion, other than that it's meh. The current third-parties usually lie too far left or right on the political spectrum to reach the median voter and make little difference other than siphoning voters from one candidate or shifting where the median voter sits.
your attitude on third party candidates are why this country will never have a real choice when it comes to elections. it makes me sad.
Rathic - Newb Druid of Agony
Remagi and I have had several "discussions" about third party candidates. I tend to agree with Humwuwu.
I would really, really like to agree with Rathic. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that warned us against going with a two-party system. However, that doesn't change the fact that we will never adopt another system (not in my lifetime anyway).
Say I am voting for Ralph Nader (I actually briefly visited his website). I didn't have time to read in depth on where he stands on the issues, but it doesn't seem too extreme. I don't agree with his stance on nuclear power though. Or I guess it's nukular power if your name is Sarah Palin.
So just pretend that I love Nader, and I totally want him to be president, so as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter, I cast my vote for him.
The only problem is, he isn't going to win. I know he's a great guy and all, and has a vision for the US, but he's going to lose, period. He doesn't have the finances to compete with the 2 major party candidates, he isn't invited to the debates, it sucks but that's the way it is.
So because I live in the real world, and I realize this for truth, I can either vote for McCain or I can vote for Obama. Essentially, a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. It happened in 2000 when Gore lost to Bush. Just think of how different the world might be if Nader had not have run in 2000. He received 2.74% of the popular vote, and I think we all remember how that election ended. If you ask a Democrat, they will tell you it was Nader's fault, If you ask a Green Party member, they will tell you that it wasn't. So who knows? It also works the other way around. When I was a 19 year old Private in AIT in 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Now, wikipedia says, "Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home in his absence on the ballot," but I have heard people argue that it is Perot's fault that H.W. lost the election. Is it true? I guess we'll never know.
Anyway, enough rambling. I think Rathic and Humwuwu both have valid points. On one hand, it's a matter of principle to cast a protest vote for a third party. On the other hand, it's a vote for the Conservative when you vote for the third party liberal.
Didn't you ever see that Southpark? It's almost always between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.
I would really, really like to agree with Rathic. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that warned us against going with a two-party system. However, that doesn't change the fact that we will never adopt another system (not in my lifetime anyway).
Say I am voting for Ralph Nader (I actually briefly visited his website). I didn't have time to read in depth on where he stands on the issues, but it doesn't seem too extreme. I don't agree with his stance on nuclear power though. Or I guess it's nukular power if your name is Sarah Palin.
So just pretend that I love Nader, and I totally want him to be president, so as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter, I cast my vote for him.
The only problem is, he isn't going to win. I know he's a great guy and all, and has a vision for the US, but he's going to lose, period. He doesn't have the finances to compete with the 2 major party candidates, he isn't invited to the debates, it sucks but that's the way it is.
So because I live in the real world, and I realize this for truth, I can either vote for McCain or I can vote for Obama. Essentially, a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. It happened in 2000 when Gore lost to Bush. Just think of how different the world might be if Nader had not have run in 2000. He received 2.74% of the popular vote, and I think we all remember how that election ended. If you ask a Democrat, they will tell you it was Nader's fault, If you ask a Green Party member, they will tell you that it wasn't. So who knows? It also works the other way around. When I was a 19 year old Private in AIT in 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Now, wikipedia says, "Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home in his absence on the ballot," but I have heard people argue that it is Perot's fault that H.W. lost the election. Is it true? I guess we'll never know.
Anyway, enough rambling. I think Rathic and Humwuwu both have valid points. On one hand, it's a matter of principle to cast a protest vote for a third party. On the other hand, it's a vote for the Conservative when you vote for the third party liberal.
Didn't you ever see that Southpark? It's almost always between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.
It's a fledgling Anna's Hummingbird.
I used to feel this way for a long time. Then I realized that if all the people voted for who they really wanted to, those same 3rd party candidates would then be given legitimacy and funding... thus effectively making it possible for them to win. It only takes a small percentage of popular vote to do so.
The defeatist attitude among voters is what kills this country. "He/She can't win, so I guess I will vote for some douche bag that I do not really believe in." Nonsense.
I believe that enough people are ready for a change in this country, and not the fake ass Obama/McCain type. REAL change.
Vote for who you truly believe in. If enough of us had the conviction to actually do that, the results would be staggeringly different within our lifetime... within even the next 2 elections.
I get so frustrated by people who refuse to even acknowledge that there might be SOMETHING better out there, simply because they are too lazy to give a shit about this country.
We both served Adrienna, you know as well as I do how much this country means to us. I cannot fathom ever voting for someone I did not fully support again. I feel that it is a true crime to vote for a candidate because he is the "lesser of two evils". That is a cop out, and complete, utter, ignorant bullshit to me.
The defeatist attitude among voters is what kills this country. "He/She can't win, so I guess I will vote for some douche bag that I do not really believe in." Nonsense.
I believe that enough people are ready for a change in this country, and not the fake ass Obama/McCain type. REAL change.
Vote for who you truly believe in. If enough of us had the conviction to actually do that, the results would be staggeringly different within our lifetime... within even the next 2 elections.
I get so frustrated by people who refuse to even acknowledge that there might be SOMETHING better out there, simply because they are too lazy to give a shit about this country.
We both served Adrienna, you know as well as I do how much this country means to us. I cannot fathom ever voting for someone I did not fully support again. I feel that it is a true crime to vote for a candidate because he is the "lesser of two evils". That is a cop out, and complete, utter, ignorant bullshit to me.
Rathic - Newb Druid of Agony
I really feel however, my animosity grew exponentially over this bailout. I cannot believe we allowed it to happen. I cannot believe we are allowing a Lehman Bros. executive to oversee the spending of this bloated bullshit bill. This completely illegal, pseudo fascist, pseudo socialist raping of our country. I cannot in good conscience vote for ANY politician who supported the illegal use of taxpayer money to pay off private financial institutions without due compensation to the tax payers.
It is INSANE. This country is treading on very very dangerous waters.
It is INSANE. This country is treading on very very dangerous waters.
Rathic - Newb Druid of Agony
Rathic wrote:I really feel however, my animosity grew exponentially over this bailout. I cannot believe we allowed it to happen. I cannot believe we are allowing a Lehman Bros. executive to oversee the spending of this bloated bullshit bill. This completely illegal, pseudo fascist, pseudo socialist raping of our country. I cannot in good conscience vote for ANY politician who supported the illegal use of taxpayer money to pay off private financial institutions without due compensation to the tax payers.
It is INSANE. This country is treading on very very dangerous waters.
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. Hooray! We get the worst parts of facism and socialism!
your attitude on third party candidates are why this country will never have a real choice when it comes to elections. it makes me sad.
It really isn't my opinion. I was registered Libertarian for ten years, when I recently changed to Independent and it wasn't because I ever felt my vote was a waste or throwaway vote. My comment on third parties dealt with a theory in political economy called the median voter theorem. It is basically people and their political views in a normal distribution. The median contains the most amount of voters with those views and the number of voters falls when you move further, left or right, from the median. Based on this candidates will want to move closer to median voter than their opponent to receive the largest amount of votes.
Now the major issue that third parties have is that they lie further away from the median voter than the democratic and republican parties. The majority of voter preferences more reflect the positions of republicans and democrats. You could blame this on an entrenched two-party system or it could be that most voters have preferences of that nature. The strength that third parties currently have is that they can shift the median voter one direction or another. You could probably look at the current issues of a environmentalism and attribute some of that increased focus on the exposure the Green party garnered with Nader in 2000. One could probably say that many Goldwater republicans that have become disenfranchised with the current Republican party and moved to the Libertarian party. Further, with the recent popularity of Ron Paul, you might be able to safely assume that there will be a shift back to more traditional Republican values in that party or further growth in the Libertarian party in the future. This either forces the two main parties to shift their platform to maintain those voters or sit and hope the median doesn't shift further away from them. Obviously, I don't believe people's opinions can be changed with the flip of a switch and it will take time for those preferences to change or really change at all if right and left issues tug and pull the median voter.
Hopefully, that clarifies my point a bit more. Third parties aren't a waste of time, so please vote for whoever you want.
Adrienna wrote:I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that warned us against going with a two-party system.
That was George Washington. Thomas Jefferson co-founded the Democratic-Republican party to go against the Federalist party. So you can blame him and Hamilton for creating the party system.
Didn't you ever see that Southpark? It's almost always between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.
Futurama has a debate between clones, John Jackson and Jack Johnson.
A couple of big problems with a third party (and don't think I'm supporting a two party system by stating this) are that 1) most likely now you'll have a third talking head who is spouting the same moderate ideas as the other two and 2) now 2/3 of the people will NOT have voted for the president instead of 1/2 (I'm considering tight races of course).
Us Californians might have seen that with the election of our governator. I don't remember the numbers offhand but if 10 people run, someone could win with 89% of the popular vote not voting for the next governor. It'd just be more of a reason to bitch and moan and I could become rich on making "Don't blame me, I voted for Mary Carey!" bumper stickers. Every party you add to a two party system has the potential to create more civil unrest.
The above in no way supports a two party system and if you make an oppositional statement, I'll probably agree with you.
Us Californians might have seen that with the election of our governator. I don't remember the numbers offhand but if 10 people run, someone could win with 89% of the popular vote not voting for the next governor. It'd just be more of a reason to bitch and moan and I could become rich on making "Don't blame me, I voted for Mary Carey!" bumper stickers. Every party you add to a two party system has the potential to create more civil unrest.
The above in no way supports a two party system and if you make an oppositional statement, I'll probably agree with you.
The eyes are the groin of the head - Dwight Schrute
EDINGER INCIDENT - Electronica with a splash of Limon
EDINGER INCIDENT - Electronica with a splash of Limon
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests