Third Party Debate Tonight: First Ever Nationally Televised 3rd Party Debate

TheLaureateTheLaureate Posts: 221
edited October 2012 in The Social Lounge
Watch tonight at 6pm Pacific, 9pm Eastern on CSPAN or http://live.freeandequal.org/stream.html

BE WARNED: They will actually be discussing REAL issues and REAL solutions.

Candidates: Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Constitution), and Rocky Anderson (Justice).

http://www.c-span.org/Campaign2012/Events/Third-Party-Presidential-Debate/10737435220/


Comments

  • cobblandcobbland Posts: 3,463
    They should have been allowed to participate in the debates with the two major party candidates.

    I'm not a fan of the "two party system," especially if all of the major outlets solely report on them.

    This limits the choices of the masses, in particular those who only rely on the mainstream outlets for their reporting.

    Case in point, Jimmy Kimmel poking fun at the debate.

  • jonojono Posts: 14,724
    I must've missed it that....I would watch it. I saw the debates they did on Democracy Now.
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,815
    edited October 2012
    ugh i hate this two party system. i saw this thread yesterday, and so i looked for the debate but couldnt find it. i must've messed up somewhere. either that or you trolled the hell out of me.
  • jonojono Posts: 14,724
    I been looking but I haven't seen it either, it must have been quick....if it did happen.
  • BK ProductBK Product Posts: 1,923
    I was late but this is the only article ive seen writen about it.

    http://news.yahoo.com/third-party-presidential-debate-gives-voice-long-shot-134859048.html

    If the four long-shot presidential contenders are “kind of Don Quixotes,” as debate moderator Larry King put it, then at least on Tuesday night their windmill jousting would be televised.

    Those who saw Jill Stein (Green Party), Rocky Anderson (Justice Party), Virgil Goode (Constitution Party), and Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) square off at the Hilton Hotel in downtown Chicago on C-SPAN or streamed online got a glimpse of the little-known contenders below President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney on the ballot in many states.

    What the public saw was broad agreement on issues ranging from the war on drugs (end it) to the future of American military spending (reduce it), as well as a handful of proposals from each candidate that stand in stark relief to the policies of either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney.


    The candidates found plenty of common ground. All four opposed rules that winnow contenders for public office, saying they are bad for democracy and unnecessarily limit voter choices. All supported reductions in American military spending. All said they would have vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act.

    All but Mr. Goode said they would legalize marijuana and end the “war on drugs.” Goode said he would keep marijuana illegal but would cut spending on drug enforcement as part of his plan to deeply reduce federal spending in his first year in office.

    But the candidates did open up some policy proposals sharply different from one another and from the two major-party presidential candidates.

    Dr. Stein and Mr. Anderson called for free higher education for all Americans, with Stein pointing out the benefits from the original, post-World War II G.I. bill and Anderson arguing that other industrialized nations have already achieved such a system.

    Johnson and Goode ridiculed the sentiment as ignoring the reality of America’s beleaguered fiscal condition.

    “ ‘Free’ comes with a cost,” Johnson said. “ ‘Free’ is accumulating more to the $16 trillion in debt than we already have. ‘Free’ has gotten us to the point where we are going to have a monetary collapse.”

    When asked to offer one constitutional amendment they would most like to see passed, the candidates again diverged. Anderson argued for a “new Equal Rights Amendment” enshrining protection from discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

    Johnson and Goode said they would push for term limits for Congress – something they say would keep members focused on achievement instead of political longevity.

    Stein said that even with term limits, “corporations and big money can still buy what they want.” Hence, her preferred amendment would upend the US Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling authorizing limitless campaign spending by corporations and individuals.

    Other notable offerings unmentioned by the two major-party candidates included:

    •Stein, a physician, promised a “New Green Deal” of 25 million jobs in fields like sustainable energy and mass transit and bailing out American student loan debt.
    •Anderson, a former two-time Democratic mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, said the major candidates had all but ignored two significant issues: America’s poor, with poverty at its highest level since 1965, and climate change.
    •Goode, a former six-term congressman from Virginia, argued for a “near-complete moratorium” on new immigration to the US until unemployment fell under 5 percent.
    •Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, vowed to not bomb Iran and to repeal the Patriot Act.
    Johnson – whose flip observation during his only GOP primary debate that his neighbor’s dog had produced more “shovel ready jobs” than Obama’s stimulus plan – was the source of much of the night’s levity.

    In a debate peppered with complaints about how big money had infected the two major political parties and America’s democratic system, none drove the point home so squarely as when Johnson argued that candidates should, during debates, have to wear NASCAR-esque jackets sewn with the logos of their biggest donors.

  • Oya_HusbandOya_Husband Posts: 14,016
    Definitely got to watch this, people got mad at me saying I will be distracting people from the election with this. I don't even know how this could even hurt anyone, I just think its time to get people thinking. SMH, I'm totally done with people at this point.
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,815
    Nice drops.

    But man, I would've paid big money to see Ron Paul go at it with Obama, instead of Romney's wack ass. Unfortunately, I'll probably never see it happen. Paul vs. Obama would've been a hell of an interesting debate. Two great minds, but coming from two very different mindsets. Lots of knowledge and truth would've been dropped instead of the empty rhetoric and jocking fest Romney put on. Paul is like the Marciano of debates, like 49-0, never lost. He waxed Romney's ass plenty of times:
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,815
    edited October 2012
    And Step wrote: »
    Man this is like watching the NIT tournament.

    heh yeah that's true, but why do you post out of nowhere but in regular, spaced-out intervals? aint you averaging like one post a month? this going to be like your one post for the month. i could go on make a corny period* joke but i'm a chill.
  • i fucks with virgil goode. he said straight up, i'm not the one to vote for if you want legalized marijuana & free education. he didn't dance around it at all.
  • And StepAnd Step Posts: 3,724
    Plutarch wrote: »
    heh yeah that's true, but why do you post out of nowhere but in regular, spaced-out intervals? aint you averaging like one post a month? this going to be like your one post for the month. i could go on make a corny period* joke but i'm a chill.

    Yeah, I think I average a post every three months. I don't dig the new format. Also don't like the sub forum race and religion thing. They effectively killed it.

  • ra-mes1ra-mes1 Posts: 420
    Saw the very end of it on C-Span. I will be voting for Obama because Romney is far worse...but the two party system (along with the electoral college) is not democracy.
  • ra-mes1 wrote: »
    Saw the very end of it on C-Span. I will be voting for Obama because Romney is far worse...but the two party system (along with the electoral college) is not democracy.

    How is Romney far worse? Explain.
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Posts: 3,366
    edited November 2012
    ra-mes1 wrote: »
    Saw the very end of it on C-Span. I will be voting for Obama because Romney is far worse...but the two party system (along with the electoral college) is not democracy.

    How is Romney far worse? Explain.

    As governor, Romney attempted to cut programs for the sake of cutting programs with no concern for their impact on citizens, or concern for the fact that they were going to cost the state more if his attempts didn't get vetoed.

    Romney's Overriden Cuts Include:
    Legal aid -- $7,564,132
    Mental health legal aid -- $501,085
    Cervical/breast cancer -- $2,784,551
    Turning 22 -- new clients (helping intellectually and physically disabled young adults live independently) $36,500
    Holyoke Soldiers' Home long-term care fees -- $579,000
    Nurse's aide scholarships -- $250,000
    Regional emergency medical services -- $1,246,896
    Newborn hearing screening -- $83,060
    Suicide prevention -- $125,000
    Prostate cancer prevention: -- $1,000,000
    Healthy Families (counseling for young parents) -- $6,677,891
    Housing Services Program -- $221,925
    Medical assistance eligibilty for the blind -- $100,000
    Commission for the Blind -- $213,456
    Turning 22 services -- $131,240
    Veterans' Outreach Centers -- $165,000
    Ferguson Industries for the Blind -- $200,000
    Community Services for the Blind -- $250,000
    Independent living (aid for people with disabilities) -- $220,000
    Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing -- $128,235
    Early Intervention Services (for children w/ developmental delays) -- $697,132
    Turning 22 community services for adults with intellectual and physical disabilities-- $150,155
    Community mental health centers -- $3,000,000
    Breast cancer detection and research -- $35,678
    Chelsea Soldiers' Home -- $250,000
    AIDS prevention and treatment -- $150,000

    Total: $26,760,936

    All of these cuts were pure ideology with absolutely no planning or details explaining why he wanted to cut those programs. The fact that Romney lies his ass off about anything and everything and switches his non existent positions on the fly should dismiss any fallacy that these two men are in any way the same. But i guess one or two topic issues matter more to some people.

    What's even more despicable is that his party has made every attempt to rig the vote. His son owns voting machines for fucks sake.
  • janklowjanklow Posts: 5,458
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    What's even more despicable is that his party has made every attempt to rig the vote. His son owns voting machines for fucks sake.
    honestly, if we can't actually substantiate this kind of claim, we should stop making it in the same posts where we're trying to serious break down verified events
  • Swiffness!Swiffness! Posts: 6,892
    edited November 2012
    cobbland wrote: »
    They should have been allowed to participate in the debates with the two major party candidates.

    I'm not a fan of the "two party system," especially if all of the major outlets solely report on them.

    Ross Perot was in the 1992 debates. Ross Perot WON the first one. You know why? BECAUSE ROSS PEROT WAS LEADING THE PRESIDENTIAL POLLING AT ONE POINT. Gary Johnson excluded, who the fuck are these guys? Who the fuck is the "Justice Party"? Do you realize how crazy fuckwow fascist the Constitution Party is? Does the Green Party's nominee believe in 9/11 Conspiracies and U.S soldiers secretly executing 5,000 ppl during Katrina this time? How come when I voted today, the Libertarian Party had a County Treasurer candidate, but their slot next to the U.S Congress slot was blank?

    Nobody takes 3rd parties seriously because they're a fucking joke 99% of the time. Their only hope is for one of the major parties to collapse so they can take its place. That's how we got the Republicans.
  • janklowjanklow Posts: 5,458
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    Gary Johnson excluded, who the fuck are these guys?
    okay, but we could just focus on Johnson, then

Sign In or Register to comment.