CNN Truth Squad: Did Obama destroy the economy?

[Vanquish]

I'll stay on the love train here a moment with you, Jar.

You've kind of disproved what you set out to prove. You said a conservative wouldn't blame someone else, they'd live up to their part of the blame...

then you blame liberals for something...

A consertvative president would have said to the public....

You cant understand or read it? Dont sign it or buy it.

And you know something? The credit card companies would have made user friendly changes in an effort to get the business....no government interference...no class warfare.....free market at work.

But Obama?

You are a VICTIM for signing without reading.

I mean...really?

That's blame shifting right there. It's Obama's fault. Liberals don't wan't any personal responsibility. Broad propositions that, gently and respectfully, I must say are unprovable...and based on general sterotypes.

But here I am, saying both sides need to take ownership. One more than the other. You're focused on just making one group the villain.

And you've totally bypassed the destructive examples of what the professional industry has done as a group. They are the ones creating financial instruments, lying about their risk, and selling them to the public. They are the ones who aren't doing their job of checking behind the unwashed masses.

Where's the responsibility? Aren't conservatives law and order types? What about the laws about verifying financial information? What about the laws for being honest about investment risk?

You seem very willing to overlook the group that's on your side of the argument. Meanwhile I'm taking at least some ownership.

 

[California Girl]

True. Bush put tanked it and put the economy in a hole. Then Obama came along with his heavy duty digging equipment and turned the hole into a canyon...

No he didn't.

Using that analogy..Bush tanked it, put it in a hole, then lied to the next guy about how deep the hole was because he keep covering it with wood planks and some nice potted plants.

Okay as an Independent, I can't go with either camp's claim of "Oh it's ALL Bush / Obama's fault!".
Bush tanked us. No doubt. Hell, he did SUCH a bad job, the GOP nominee literally stopped his campaign because of the "Crisis facing our nation" while Bush was still in office. So the BS that he is not culpable is exactly that. Fine.
But after Obama got in, what did he do? Exact same things as Bush. He REWARDED the banks and auto industries for their incompetence! Then he spent the next year and a half of our crisis, passing a health care plan that's so bad, not one Dem mentioned it in their mid-terms - except to say they voted AGAINST it. WTF???
Did he or the Dems introduce legislation that would offer long-term incentives for 100% American companies to hire Americans? Nope.
He's wasted his time and our money. He's a waste.

Where is the 'independent logic' that you claim in your username?

Bush did not tank us.... not by himself. Nor was it the Republicans. Nor was it Obama. Nor was it the Democrats. They all did it. Along with the banks, the unions, and 'we, the People'.

Have some intellectual honesty if you're gonna claim to be independent and logical.

 

[Vanquish]

Wow. Finally a CaliforniaGirl post that I agree with 100%.

Checks the sky for swine.

 

[Jarhead]

I'll stay on the love train here a moment with you, Jar.

You've kind of disproved what you set out to prove. You said a conservative wouldn't blame someone else, they'd live up to their part of the blame...

then you blame liberals for something...

A consertvative president would have said to the public....

You cant understand or read it? Dont sign it or buy it.

And you know something? The credit card companies would have made user friendly changes in an effort to get the business....no government interference...no class warfare.....free market at work.

But Obama?

You are a VICTIM for signing without reading.

I mean...really?

That's blame shifting right there. It's Obama's fault. Liberals don't wan't any personal responsibility. Broad propositions that, gently and respectfully, I must say are unprovable...and based on general sterotypes.

But here I am, saying both sides need to take ownership. One more than the other. You're focused on just making one group the villain.

And you've totally bypassed the destructive examples of what the professional industry has done as a group. They are the ones creating financial instruments, lying about their risk, and selling them to the public. They are the ones who aren't doing their job of checking behind the unwashed masses.

Where's the responsibility? Aren't conservatives law and order types? What about the laws about verifying financial information? What about the laws for being honest about investment risk?

You seem very willing to overlook the group that's on your side of the argument. Meanwhile I'm taking at least some ownership.

not sure why you diverted like that.

My point was my point.

I didnt blame anything on Obama. I simply described how he dealt with it...which is by no means the way I think he should have. It is best to let one learn lessons than to allow him to find excuses for failure.

Laws about verifying financial information?
What law is that?
Laws for being hinest about investment risk?
I mean...really...are you saying that Americans are too stupid to look at something and say to themselves.....
"well, this deal will lower my mortgage payment by 80% for the next 5 years AND I get 120K cash out....and they dont think there is a risk to it?"

Whatever.....

I feel if you apply yourself, a little logic, and allow your personal greed to not sdictate decisions, there is very little out there that can hurt you.

And you know something?

It works well for me.

 

[IndependntLogic]

No he didn't.

Using that analogy..Bush tanked it, put it in a hole, then lied to the next guy about how deep the hole was because he keep covering it with wood planks and some nice potted plants.

Okay as an Independent, I can't go with either camp's claim of "Oh it's ALL Bush / Obama's fault!".
Bush tanked us. No doubt. Hell, he did SUCH a bad job, the GOP nominee literally stopped his campaign because of the "Crisis facing our nation" while Bush was still in office. So the BS that he is not culpable is exactly that. Fine.
But after Obama got in, what did he do? Exact same things as Bush. He REWARDED the banks and auto industries for their incompetence! Then he spent the next year and a half of our crisis, passing a health care plan that's so bad, not one Dem mentioned it in their mid-terms - except to say they voted AGAINST it. WTF???
Did he or the Dems introduce legislation that would offer long-term incentives for 100% American companies to hire Americans? Nope.
He's wasted his time and our money. He's a waste.

Where is the 'independent logic' that you claim in your username?

Bush did not tank us.... not by himself. Nor was it the Republicans. Nor was it Obama. Nor was it the Democrats. They all did it. Along with the banks, the unions, and 'we, the People'.

Have some intellectual honesty if you're gonna claim to be independent and logical.

LOL! I love the whackjobbery here! See bold above.
If you claim it's ALL Obam's fault, the Liberals call you a Conservative.
If you claim it's ALL Bush's fault, the Conservatives call you a Liberal.
But...
If you do what I did.
And claim it is BOTH Bush and Obama's fault. BOTH the Dems & Repubs fault...
The Conservatives claim you're not an Independent and of course...... call you a Liberal!!!!

 

[Vanquish]

Pretty much, Independent.

I like Jarhead, but I just think he's caught up in partisanry to the point where he just can't see what he's doing.

not sure why you diverted like that.

My point was my point.

I didnt blame anything on Obama. I simply described how he dealt with it...which is by no means the way I think he should have. It is best to let one learn lessons than to allow him to find excuses for failure.

Laws about verifying financial information?
What law is that?
Laws for being hinest about investment risk?
I mean...really...are you saying that Americans are too stupid to look at something and say to themselves.....
"well, this deal will lower my mortgage payment by 80% for the next 5 years AND I get 120K cash out....and they dont think there is a risk to it?"

Whatever.....

I feel if you apply yourself, a little logic, and allow your personal greed to not sdictate decisions, there is very little out there that can hurt you.

And you know something?

It works well for me.

Jarhead, I was a stockbroker for the better part of a decade. If you don't know there are laws requiring due diligence, believe me there are. I'm not going to go further and insult you. That wouldn't help our discussion. I'll simply say that very few people on here would doubt that fact.

And the same for investment risk. There's a reason why investment advisors HAVE to tell investors that risk is involved EVERY TIME they sell an investment. There's a reason why unlicensed cold callers can't solicit investments. There's a reason why Moody's rate investments based on risk...and that risk has to be reported by the people packaging the investments. In all cases...it's about THE LAW.

I get your piece of homespun wisdom. People should be able to read something and take responsibility for putting their name and money on the line. I get it. WE GET YOU.

But you seem unwilling to realize that professional financial types have a higher duty than individuals. You think I'm saying that for liberal, get out of jail free type reasons. I don't know how to prove to you that I'm not...other than to appeal to your common sense that professionals get investment licenses for a reason. A higher duty.

I'm about to drop out because despite the fact that I posted right on point, you received it as a diversion. The more I try and split the blame between two groups...the less you seem willing to agree. Confronted with reasonability...you stick your head in the sand and still want to "win".

I think I'm beginning to learn the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives
Con: They dont see shades of grey, only black and white memes.
Pro: Once they hear something that sounds common sense...they can dig in and stand behind it forever.

Liberals:
Con: They see things in too many shades of grey and finesse.
Pro: They can split issues into more than just 100% black and white.

Neither is better. Just different. Oh wait I'm sounding too reasonable.

 

[Jarhead]

Pretty much, Independent.

I like Jarhead, but I just think he's caught up in partisanry to the point where he just can't see what he's doing.

not sure why you diverted like that.

My point was my point.

I didnt blame anything on Obama. I simply described how he dealt with it...which is by no means the way I think he should have. It is best to let one learn lessons than to allow him to find excuses for failure.

Laws about verifying financial information?
What law is that?
Laws for being hinest about investment risk?
I mean...really...are you saying that Americans are too stupid to look at something and say to themselves.....
"well, this deal will lower my mortgage payment by 80% for the next 5 years AND I get 120K cash out....and they dont think there is a risk to it?"

Whatever.....

I feel if you apply yourself, a little logic, and allow your personal greed to not sdictate decisions, there is very little out there that can hurt you.

And you know something?

It works well for me.

Jarhead, I was a stockbroker for the better part of a decade. If you don't know there are laws requiring due diligence, believe me there are. I'm not going to go further and insult you. That wouldn't help our discussion. I'll simply say that very few people on here would doubt that fact.

And the same for investment risk. There's a reason why investment advisors HAVE to tell investors that risk is involved EVERY TIME they sell an investment. There's a reason why unlicensed cold callers can't solicit investments. There's a reason why Moody's rate investments based on risk...and that risk has to be reported by the people packaging the investments. In all cases...it's about THE LAW.

I get your piece of homespun wisdom. People should be able to read something and take responsibility for putting their name and money on the line. I get it. WE GET YOU.

But you seem unwilling to realize that professional financial types have a higher duty than individuals. You think I'm saying that for liberal, get out of jail free type reasons. I don't know how to prove to you that I'm not...other than to appeal to your common sense that professionals get investment licenses for a reason. A higher duty.

I'm about to drop out because despite the fact that I posted right on point, you received it as a diversion. The more I try and split the blame between two groups...the less you seem willing to agree. Confronted with reasonability...you stick your head in the sand and still want to "win".

I think I'm beginning to learn the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives
Con: They dont see shades of grey, only black and white memes.
Pro: Once they hear something that sounds common sense...they can dig in and stand behind it forever.

Liberals:
Con: They see things in too many shades of grey and finesse.
Pro: They can split issues into more than just 100% black and white.

Neither is better. Just different. Oh wait I'm sounding too reasonable.

Vanquish..

I most certainly understand about due diligence...and I understand the reasons for licenses.....and registrations....such as a 7 or a 6.

And I am quite aware that there are two groups of laws that govern the investment world...SEC laws and laws of ethics.

Many laws of ethics were broken....with the penalty being loss of reputation and possibly a shelving of your license by the department of state or the SEC.

But you see....I am not avoiding blaming both entities...the pros and the people...for any reason other than a lesson I learned a long time ago. You can spend your time blaming others or you can spend your time finding ways to not have to worry about how others can hurt you.

SO, I again say, I am not blaming anyone....I am saying each person should blame himself.

You are blaming both sides......me? I am blaming no one. It is each persons place to blame themselves.

I lost a lot in my 401(K) due to the meltdown. I blame myself for hoping my money would make easy money for me. I could have invested in munis for a nice fixed rate and would have lost nothing.

I decided to buy cars without a concern for the gas mileage....so now I bname only myself as I pay 4 bucks a gallon.

I decided to go into the employment industry....so I blame no one but myself when I have very slow times during recessions. I am hit first and the last to recover.

When the huriicane hit...I blamed myself for buying oin the coast. When 2 feet of snow hit, I blmae myself fgor buying in the north.

 

[Vanquish]

Pretty much, Independent.

I like Jarhead, but I just think he's caught up in partisanry to the point where he just can't see what he's doing.

not sure why you diverted like that.

My point was my point.

I didnt blame anything on Obama. I simply described how he dealt with it...which is by no means the way I think he should have. It is best to let one learn lessons than to allow him to find excuses for failure.

Laws about verifying financial information?
What law is that?
Laws for being hinest about investment risk?
I mean...really...are you saying that Americans are too stupid to look at something and say to themselves.....
"well, this deal will lower my mortgage payment by 80% for the next 5 years AND I get 120K cash out....and they dont think there is a risk to it?"

Whatever.....

I feel if you apply yourself, a little logic, and allow your personal greed to not sdictate decisions, there is very little out there that can hurt you.

And you know something?

It works well for me.

Jarhead, I was a stockbroker for the better part of a decade. If you don't know there are laws requiring due diligence, believe me there are. I'm not going to go further and insult you. That wouldn't help our discussion. I'll simply say that very few people on here would doubt that fact.

And the same for investment risk. There's a reason why investment advisors HAVE to tell investors that risk is involved EVERY TIME they sell an investment. There's a reason why unlicensed cold callers can't solicit investments. There's a reason why Moody's rate investments based on risk...and that risk has to be reported by the people packaging the investments. In all cases...it's about THE LAW.

I get your piece of homespun wisdom. People should be able to read something and take responsibility for putting their name and money on the line. I get it. WE GET YOU.

But you seem unwilling to realize that professional financial types have a higher duty than individuals. You think I'm saying that for liberal, get out of jail free type reasons. I don't know how to prove to you that I'm not...other than to appeal to your common sense that professionals get investment licenses for a reason. A higher duty.

I'm about to drop out because despite the fact that I posted right on point, you received it as a diversion. The more I try and split the blame between two groups...the less you seem willing to agree. Confronted with reasonability...you stick your head in the sand and still want to "win".

I think I'm beginning to learn the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives
Con: They dont see shades of grey, only black and white memes.
Pro: Once they hear something that sounds common sense...they can dig in and stand behind it forever.

Liberals:
Con: They see things in too many shades of grey and finesse.
Pro: They can split issues into more than just 100% black and white.

Neither is better. Just different. Oh wait I'm sounding too reasonable.

Vanquish..

I most certainly understand about due diligence...and I understand the reasons for licenses.....and registrations....such as a 7 or a 6.

And I am quite aware that there are two groups of laws that govern the investment world...SEC laws and laws of ethics.

Many laws of ethics were broken....with the penalty being loss of reputation and possibly a shelving of your license by the department of state or the SEC.

But you see....I am not avoiding blaming both entities...the pros and the people...for any reason other than a lesson I learned a long time ago. You can spend your time blaming others or you can spend your time finding ways to not have to worry about how others can hurt you.

SO, I again say, I am not blaming anyone....I am saying each person should blame himself.

You are blaming both sides......me? I am blaming no one. It is each persons place to blame themselves.

I lost a lot in my 401(K) due to the meltdown. I blame myself for hoping my money would make easy money for me. I could have invested in munis for a nice fixed rate and would have lost nothing.

I decided to buy cars without a concern for the gas mileage....so now I bname only myself as I pay 4 bucks a gallon.

I decided to go into the employment industry....so I blame no one but myself when I have very slow times during recessions. I am hit first and the last to recover.

When the huriicane hit...I blamed myself for buying oin the coast. When 2 feet of snow hit, I blmae myself fgor buying in the north.

Sure you're blaming someone. You're blaming the individuals who lied. And there's nothing wrong with that. But then there's the more culpable group - the investment professionals. You're not blaming them at all.

I get your personal responsibility theme. FFS, I get it. You just dont want the investment community ...made up of individuals who fucked people over...despite having more knowledge and more power than non-professionals...to be held accountable.

And we wonder why this country is fucked to hell and back. People who want big business to get away with anything so they MIGHT get some scrap from the table.

 

[Intense]

How come nobody is interested in looking at those that were insulated from the effects of their own actions, while the rest of us are stuck with the bill?

 

[Full-Auto]

How come nobody is interested in looking at those that were insulated from the effects of their own actions, while the rest of us are stuck with the bill?

Campaign contributions. The right palm at the right time.

 

[Intense]

How come nobody is interested in looking at those that were insulated from the effects of their own actions, while the rest of us are stuck with the bill?

Campaign contributions. The right palm at the right time.

Reading this thread is like watching 3 Card Monte.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqWcYuIRSKc]ULTIMATE 3 CARD MONTE BET - YouTube[/ame]
ULTIMATE 3 CARD MONTE BET

 

[Vanquish]

I just don't see how a viable third party isn't emerging!?!

The dems want to spend too much and Obama protected Wall Street.
The repubs want the super-wealthy to succeed at the expense of the ENTIRE fucking middle class.

Throw ALL these fuckers out!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yep that and globalization. And both partys played a part in it.

exactly. perfectly stated.

i think i'd lay the larger part of the blame on deregulation of banks and the last administration's refusal to fund oversight and discouragement of real enforcement.

that said, there were a lot of factors which led to the current situation. it is silly to choose any one and say it is THE cause.

what we do know is anyone who says this administration CAUSED our financial problems is a liar.

did the admin fix iit quickly enough? not to most of our liking. the why's of that can be debated. i have my own feelings about it. no doubt others will disagree.

Oh fucking brother....

 

[IndependntLogic]

Pretty much, Independent.

I like Jarhead, but I just think he's caught up in partisanry to the point where he just can't see what he's doing.

"I'm about to drop out because despite the fact that I posted right on point, you received it as a diversion. The more I try and split the blame between two groups...the less you seem willing to agree. Confronted with reasonability...you stick your head in the sand and still want to "win".

I think I'm beginning to learn the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives
Con: They dont see shades of grey, only black and white memes.
Pro: Once they hear something that sounds common sense...they can dig in and stand behind it forever.

Liberals:
Con: They see things in too many shades of grey and finesse.
Pro: They can split issues into more than just 100% black and white.

Neither is better. Just different. Oh wait I'm sounding too reasonable.

Hadn't actualy noticed that Jarhead agreed with CaliGirl's assessment that I "must be a Liberal" because unlike her, I hold both Bush and Obama, both Repubs and Dems culpable.

I also agree with your assessment of Libs vs. Dems above. If you disagree with a Lib, they'll argue the point. If you agree with a Conserv - but not entirely, they often don't argue the point or directly address it, they just call you a Liberal (Caligirl being an example of that in this thread).

As far as no one in government being responsible, I would disagree completely. If there is no law against murder, will it happen more often? You bet. What if the govt just "deregulates" murder so that it's easier to get away with? You bet.
Well, the Dems shoved a bunch of unqualified buyers down the throats of banks. Obviously that was evantually going to have consequences. The Repubs deregulated the Commerical Mortgage Backed Securities industry so that millions of bad mortgages could be sold at huge profits and when things went wrong, we got the bill for it. That also had consequences.
In one case, the Libs forced "equality" for those who didn't earn it, through regulation.
In the other, The Conservs took all responsibility for screwing investors away from the Corps and Banks, through deregulation.
Bad mix.

 

[Intense]

I just don't see how a viable third party isn't emerging!?!

The dems want to spend too much and Obama protected Wall Street.
The repubs want the super-wealthy to succeed at the expense of the ENTIRE fucking middle class.

Throw ALL these fuckers out!

It's still Primary Season.

 

[Intense]

Pretty much, Independent.

I like Jarhead, but I just think he's caught up in partisanry to the point where he just can't see what he's doing.

"I'm about to drop out because despite the fact that I posted right on point, you received it as a diversion. The more I try and split the blame between two groups...the less you seem willing to agree. Confronted with reasonability...you stick your head in the sand and still want to "win".

I think I'm beginning to learn the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives
Con: They dont see shades of grey, only black and white memes.
Pro: Once they hear something that sounds common sense...they can dig in and stand behind it forever.

Liberals:
Con: They see things in too many shades of grey and finesse.
Pro: They can split issues into more than just 100% black and white.

Neither is better. Just different. Oh wait I'm sounding too reasonable.

Hadn't actualy noticed that Jarhead agreed with CaliGirl's assessment that I "must be a Liberal" because unlike her, I hold both Bush and Obama, both Repubs and Dems culpable.

I also agree with your assessment of Libs vs. Dems above. If you disagree with a Lib, they'll argue the point. If you agree with a Conserv - but not entirely, they often don't argue the point or directly address it, they just call you a Liberal (Caligirl being an example of that in this thread).

As far as no one in government being responsible, I would disagree completely. If there is no law against murder, will it happen more often? You bet. What if the govt just "deregulates" murder so that it's easier to get away with? You bet.
Well, the Dems shoved a bunch of unqualified buyers down the throats of banks. Obviously that was evantually going to have consequences. The Repubs deregulated the Commerical Mortgage Backed Securities industry so that millions of bad mortgages could be sold at huge profits and when things went wrong, we got the bill for it. That also had consequences.
In one case, the Libs forced "equality" for those who didn't earn it, through regulation.
In the other, The Conservs took all responsibility for screwing investors away from the Corps and Banks, through deregulation.
Bad mix.

Bad Mix, and Forcing the Power of law to manipulate. What do you expect?

 

[Jarhead]

I just don't see how a viable third party isn't emerging!?!

The dems want to spend too much and Obama protected Wall Street.
The repubs want the super-wealthy to succeed at the expense of the ENTIRE fucking middle class.

Throw ALL these fuckers out!

the problem is both parties spin the intentions and motives of the opposing party.
So we never really have an honest and fair debate.
And a third party will have an entire congress working against them...and nothing will be done over a 4 year period.

 

[Jarhead]

for example....

Democrats dont want to give entitlements to the lazy...they want to give them to those that dont want them, but need them....and unfortunately, it also helps the lazy that dont want to do for themselves.

Republicans dont want to assist the wealthy at the expoense of the working class. They want the small business owners to have the comfort and secruity necessary to take chances and expand...and unfoirtunately that ALSO helps the uber rich that dont need the help.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Pretty much, Independent.

I like Jarhead, but I just think he's caught up in partisanry to the point where he just can't see what he's doing.

"I'm about to drop out because despite the fact that I posted right on point, you received it as a diversion. The more I try and split the blame between two groups...the less you seem willing to agree. Confronted with reasonability...you stick your head in the sand and still want to "win".

I think I'm beginning to learn the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives
Con: They dont see shades of grey, only black and white memes.
Pro: Once they hear something that sounds common sense...they can dig in and stand behind it forever.

Liberals:
Con: They see things in too many shades of grey and finesse.
Pro: They can split issues into more than just 100% black and white.

Neither is better. Just different. Oh wait I'm sounding too reasonable.

Hadn't actualy noticed that Jarhead agreed with CaliGirl's assessment that I "must be a Liberal" because unlike her, I hold both Bush and Obama, both Repubs and Dems culpable.

I also agree with your assessment of Libs vs. Dems above. If you disagree with a Lib, they'll argue the point. If you agree with a Conserv - but not entirely, they often don't argue the point or directly address it, they just call you a Liberal (Caligirl being an example of that in this thread).

As far as no one in government being responsible, I would disagree completely. If there is no law against murder, will it happen more often? You bet. What if the govt just "deregulates" murder so that it's easier to get away with? You bet.
Well, the Dems shoved a bunch of unqualified buyers down the throats of banks. Obviously that was evantually going to have consequences. The Repubs deregulated the Commerical Mortgage Backed Securities industry so that millions of bad mortgages could be sold at huge profits and when things went wrong, we got the bill for it. That also had consequences.
In one case, the Libs forced "equality" for those who didn't earn it, through regulation.
In the other, The Conservs took all responsibility for screwing investors away from the Corps and Banks, through deregulation.
Bad mix.

The republicans were forced into a huge banking mess by Democrats - especially the housing collapse..

In short, pretty much Bill Clinton and Al Sharpton in 1992 claimed republicans were racists and hated the poor if the congress did not make home loans a "RIGHT."

What the fuck do you think will happen when you lend not on financial income but on race or lack of income???

Forcing banks to pretty much lend to people they will never recover the money from is a BAD FUCKING IDEA...

This is ALL progressives problem - the notion that banks should just buy people free homes and allow them to borrow against them is typical socialism...

The biggest mistake was that republicans actually went along with the plan just so they "didn't look like racists."

Then Bush tried to stop it and he was called a racist while Barney Frank claimed there were no problems and the program was perfectly sound...

Few months later we collapsed...

Republicans are guilty of passing ALL CRA amendments - that's it...

 

[Intense]

I just don't see how a viable third party isn't emerging!?!

The dems want to spend too much and Obama protected Wall Street.
The repubs want the super-wealthy to succeed at the expense of the ENTIRE fucking middle class.

Throw ALL these fuckers out!

the problem is both parties spin the intentions and motives of the opposing party.
So we never really have an honest and fair debate.
And a third party will have an entire congress working against them...and nothing will be done over a 4 year period.

The only effect of a Third Party Candidate, other than livening up the Debates , is to slant the deck in favor of one or the other opposing Candidates. Perot and Nader are prime examples.