Other parties...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

WHY WERE NOT ALL THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AT THE PUBLIC DEBATE?![/color]

Do you remember the GOP primary debates? They sucked, didn't they? Do you know why? Hint: it's not because there was a lack of good ideas on that stage.

[SpiritAlight 1]

WHY WERE NOT ALL THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AT THE PUBLIC DEBATE?![/color]

Do you remember the GOP primary debates? They sucked, didn't they? Do you know why? Hint: it's not because there was a lack of good ideas on that stage.

I didn't watch any of the preliminaries.

Neither side.

The thing is, is people need to know of and hear from all candidates running for president.

It's just logical.

What did I read at the Freedom Museum I believe...oh yeah, it costs $100 million to even think of running.

Not for regular working people.

Oh yeah, and like I said somewhere else, if it has to be between these two men, then let them team up.

Obama for Prez and John for VP

or the other way around...or co-prezes!

Ha!

They do all conform to sound the same in time anyways....so what truly is the difference?!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

*sigh*

If you didn't see the GOP debates, then you have no idea what I'm getting at. Let's just say the debates would have been far better had they excluded non-viable candidates.

[SpiritAlight 1]

Perhaps.

And this is far more important!

Yes, they would need a strong and fair moderator.

[IAMX 3,055]

There's Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander. Two great guys who do as much work as they can for the freedoms of others.

It would be nice if more third parties got exposure, and especially got their say in the debates. However, rest assured, the Democrat and Republican party would not like any possibility of decreasing their extremely good odds of winning. At very least more parties participating and more people voting for various parties means better competition, and as we know about the market the more competition there is, the better the product, because the product is centered around the consumer. Less competition, less options, means a worse product because there's little choice, and the product is centered around the business and their ability to control the consumer. Works just the same.

Edited September 30, 2008 by SRVT

[alienlovechild 75]

If you didn't see the GOP debates, then you have no idea what I'm getting at. Let's just say the debates would have been far better had they excluded non-viable candidates.

Can we guess? Uh, Fred Thompson? Rumplestileskin? Ron Paul?

Hey, genius why don't make your point without all the guessing games?

[SpiritAlight 1]

There's Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander. Two great guys who do as much work as they can for the freedoms of others.

It would be nice if more third parties got exposure, and especially got their say in the debates. However, rest assured, the Democrat and Republican party would not like any possibility of decreasing their extremely good odds of winning. At very least more parties participating and more people voting for various parties means better competition, and as we know about the market the more competition there is, the better the product, because the product is centered around the consumer. Less competition, less options, means a worse product because there's little choice, and the product is centered around the business and their ability to control the consumer. Works just the same.

It's heart-wrenching.

Or maybe the words are stomach turning.

[Jenn! 918]

American graffiti: The problem with third-party candidates

The U.S. seems to simultaneously fear and make fun of Ralph Nader and his ilk.

By Reed Wacker

Recently I noticed a stop sign with "Ralph" inserted in huge spray-painted letters after the word "Stop." I assumed the sentiment was meant to be anti-Ralph Nader. In 2008 Nader has become such a joke, it is hard to fathom anyone losing sleep over his presidential campaign.

But I support third-party participation in government. It would open up the debate and make the political process more real and less staged. Nader's reoccurring candidacy is to make a point. He may be a broken record, but he's repeating an important mantra: Americans should not be backed into a corner every time, voting for the lesser of two evils. He is shining a light on that fact with his tradition of running as a third-party candidate. It is symbolic.

This summer, Nader reportedly said that Democrats who plan to vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils are living under "political slavery." A woman in the audience asked Nader what he thought of the saying, "A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain." Obviously Nader did not agree; otherwise, he would not be running. He asked her if she thought he was a "second class citizen" and then called her a "political bigot."

The sign "Stop Ralph" and the saying "A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain" are both knee-jerk reactions. Political passivity and low voter turnout is the norm in America. In this respect, attacks on third-party candidates unlikely to poll any serious amount of the vote are baffling. In this country, third parties are simultaneously feared and laughed at.

Another guerrilla sign, this one stenciled on a pillar heading to I-5 away from KeyArena, says in big black letters, "Vote your hopes, not our fears, vote for a 3rd party." This fear of third parties and the resulting monopoly of the two main parties have narrowed our sense of viable candidacies. Fear of third-party candidacies has caused people to place short-term interests in one candidate ahead of belief in debate and the democratic process.

The impact of outsider candidates early in the election suggested how things might look without the two-party monopoly. This year would have been dynamic if Ron Paul had the support and resources of a real alternative party, and likewise for Dennis Kucinich.

Peer pressure by middle-ground politicians and big media pundits has made candidates like Kucinich and Paul clowns instead of what they are: Serious patriots voicing viable policy choices. Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain all snickered whenever Paul would list reasons we are in Iraq and why we should not be there. Kucinich was prodded with a gotcha question in one debate that uncovered his belief in the possibility of UFOs. From that moment on, he was branded a loon. These tactics denigrated the candidates and created a narrative bent on ensuring only the most status quo of candidates were left standing: Republican and Republican Light.

For now our politics resembles an editorial cartoon that has stuck with me for years: Two campaign posters are side by side. In one, a man cuts off a single arm; in the other, the man cuts both arms off. Two bad choices: Pick whichever one hurts less, but it will hurt no matter what.

In 2000, Gore and Bush seemed so similar, it was hard to see any difference. As I watched one of their debates, a guy walked up to me and said, "Why are you watching these two cheese dicks?" I was embarrassed as I thought about the question. An economics professor once told me, "Kids vote for Democrats, and adults vote for Republicans." I wonder who he would say votes outside of the two-party box? Minnesotans voted for Governor Jesse Ventura.

Obama has been influenced by independent thinkers. He has at least given lip service to the anti-war message Kucinich pushed, and that is a hell of a lot more than any front runner has done in a long time.

The "Ralph" stop sign might have nothing to do with Nader. Maybe it's a non-political statement. Ralph may simply be the name of a wannabe tagger, or a random expression. But the demand that he, or any other third-party candidate, should cease efforts to participate in our democracy is a bad sign.

Source

[IAMX 3,055]

American graffiti: The problem with third-party candidates

The U.S. seems to simultaneously fear and make fun of Ralph Nader and his ilk.

By Reed Wacker

Recently I noticed a stop sign with "Ralph" inserted in huge spray-painted letters after the word "Stop." I assumed the sentiment was meant to be anti-Ralph Nader. In 2008 Nader has become such a joke, it is hard to fathom anyone losing sleep over his presidential campaign.

But I support third-party participation in government. It would open up the debate and make the political process more real and less staged. Nader's reoccurring candidacy is to make a point. He may be a broken record, but he's repeating an important mantra: Americans should not be backed into a corner every time, voting for the lesser of two evils. He is shining a light on that fact with his tradition of running as a third-party candidate. It is symbolic.

This summer, Nader reportedly said that Democrats who plan to vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils are living under "political slavery." A woman in the audience asked Nader what he thought of the saying, "A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain." Obviously Nader did not agree; otherwise, he would not be running. He asked her if she thought he was a "second class citizen" and then called her a "political bigot."

The sign "Stop Ralph" and the saying "A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain" are both knee-jerk reactions. Political passivity and low voter turnout is the norm in America. In this respect, attacks on third-party candidates unlikely to poll any serious amount of the vote are baffling. In this country, third parties are simultaneously feared and laughed at.

Another guerrilla sign, this one stenciled on a pillar heading to I-5 away from KeyArena, says in big black letters, "Vote your hopes, not our fears, vote for a 3rd party." This fear of third parties and the resulting monopoly of the two main parties have narrowed our sense of viable candidacies. Fear of third-party candidacies has caused people to place short-term interests in one candidate ahead of belief in debate and the democratic process.

The impact of outsider candidates early in the election suggested how things might look without the two-party monopoly. This year would have been dynamic if Ron Paul had the support and resources of a real alternative party, and likewise for Dennis Kucinich.

Peer pressure by middle-ground politicians and big media pundits has made candidates like Kucinich and Paul clowns instead of what they are: Serious patriots voicing viable policy choices. Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain all snickered whenever Paul would list reasons we are in Iraq and why we should not be there. Kucinich was prodded with a gotcha question in one debate that uncovered his belief in the possibility of UFOs. From that moment on, he was branded a loon. These tactics denigrated the candidates and created a narrative bent on ensuring only the most status quo of candidates were left standing: Republican and Republican Light.

For now our politics resembles an editorial cartoon that has stuck with me for years: Two campaign posters are side by side. In one, a man cuts off a single arm; in the other, the man cuts both arms off. Two bad choices: Pick whichever one hurts less, but it will hurt no matter what.

In 2000, Gore and Bush seemed so similar, it was hard to see any difference. As I watched one of their debates, a guy walked up to me and said, "Why are you watching these two cheese dicks?" I was embarrassed as I thought about the question. An economics professor once told me, "Kids vote for Democrats, and adults vote for Republicans." I wonder who he would say votes outside of the two-party box? Minnesotans voted for Governor Jesse Ventura.

Obama has been influenced by independent thinkers. He has at least given lip service to the anti-war message Kucinich pushed, and that is a hell of a lot more than any front runner has done in a long time.

The "Ralph" stop sign might have nothing to do with Nader. Maybe it's a non-political statement. Ralph may simply be the name of a wannabe tagger, or a random expression. But the demand that he, or any other third-party candidate, should cease efforts to participate in our democracy is a bad sign.

Source

Can't say enough about how true the article is here, and emphasis on the bold parts.

I just wonder how anyone can look down upon third parties when they're voting for people who are not going to screw them, but already are. Not just voting for, but as highly prominent here on VJ, chanting and cheerleading for them. I can understand cheering for a hockey team or a football team. It's just sports. But why this cheering for these two major parties who you KNOW are going to just do the status quo of screwing the masses?

It only proves the two major parties don't want competition, so they market third party as stupid, and guess which lapdogs eat it up? I don't have an exact statistical answer to that, but I'd say around 99% of the voting population.

Democrats want change, and they vote for a guy who will largely do the same goddamn thing as his predecessors! He's already been challenged on how he will save your constitutional rights -- he already voted it down AND publicly defended it. His Democratic Convention was funded by the people who are TAKING these rights from you. How much more flaming can you get than that? Yet people still wave the damn "CHANGE" banner. Your party is no different in corruption than Republicans, as much as you'd justify it.

Republicans, well, exemplify the "screw everyone else but me" mantra, to the max. My beliefs take precedence over your marriage, my beliefs take precedence over your body, my beliefs, my beliefs, my beliefs. Lower taxes? Maybe. Fiscal responsibility? No chance in hell. If we're spending more and taxing less, what the hell are they going to use to cover those costs? Magic? No, we're in debt to someone. That someone is China, Saudi Arabia, and the like. Republicans are the party of preach and preach more, do and do more of the opposite, but, so long as you send the same message, people will still buy it, because hey, at least it's not the liberal Democrats.

Is this a guarantee most third parties wouldn't be corrupt? Not a chance, but at very least we know one thing, and that is, if someone is truly afraid of losing their position, and if people really DO hold the power of vote over these officials, more competition would greatly increase the quality of candidate elect. Also, if these politicians really were under the type of competition that creates a better country, they'd probably not be treating you, the masses, like idiots. And sadly they are turning out correct because they keep holding up that ball, and the masses sit there on their hind legs following it with their eyes, stupified and totally not in control of anything.

I dunno how much American citizens want to be owned by politicians, corporations, and government alike, but whatever the case, we're doing a fantastic job of headed straight toward it. The population at least expanding it's own options would shake up more than enough things just to start the process in the right direction. Until it does at least this, it will just get worse.

There's no constitution to protect you while the people running the government in charge of protecting you are taking those protections away.

Edited September 30, 2008 by SRVT

[Jenn! 918]

Great post, SRVT!

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

while i agree with the sentiments of Nader and Perot running for president, I have to question the sincerity of their attempts, because as I have said before, in a democratic country you must be able to vote to have a say. Why do they not attempt to build support from the grass roots up? I know that if they had fielded candidates in local and state elections in the 12 years since Nader first got on (at least some) presidential ballot, he might by now be in a position to implement some of his policies. If he were serious about his cause (consumer advocacy and not just pi$$ing off the 2 big parties) I think he would have done this by now.

[Jenn! 918]

I know that if they had fielded candidates in local and state elections in the 12 years since Nader first got on (at least some) presidential ballot, he might by now be in a position to implement some of his policies. If he were serious about his cause (consumer advocacy and not just pi$ing off the 2 big parties) I think he would have done this by now.

Maybe I'm missing what you're saying, but AFAIK green party candidates are always on the ballots. Here is the database of all the green party candidates, for example: http://www.gp.org/elections/candidates/

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

ok, my bad. They have candidates, and some that win. I guess they are simply not as broadly appealing as the other two parties. The other two simply absorb the policies that garner the third parties support, and therefore reduce their appeal.

[lucyrich 20]

Oh yeah, and like I said somewhere else, if it has to be between these two men, then let them team up.

Obama for Prez and John for VP

or the other way around...or co-prezes!

Ha!

That's not as absurd a possibility as it sounds.

If the electoral college winds up tied, then the constitution says that the House of Representatives selects the President, while the Senate selects the Vice President.

The House is strongly democratic, so it will likely pick a democratic President. The senate is a virtual 50-50 tie, which means Cheney could cast the tiebreaking vote. So the vice president could be a republican, even with a democratic president. You can imagine other interesting scenarios.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/sep/23/...llege-doomsday/

[silvanski 1]

vote for pedro

the undisputed president of VJ since the dawn of mankind