Presidential debate in NYC on August 31, 2004

[tpahl]

with republicans and democrats being the majority of the population in this country, why should any candidate worry about issues that don't directly affect the largets groups? It's plain logic that you don't waste your time on a group that in reality is going to be insignificant in choosing who the next president is.

Just because republicans and democrats combined are a majority, does not mean that the republicans and democrats are addressing all the issues that are a concern of the majority of the country. Also one of the advantages of being a republic rather than a democracy is that concerns of people less than a minority are addressed.

Why would you want a president that puts being elected above discussing important issues as a nation?

Travis

 

[dilloduck]

Just because republicans and democrats combined are a majority, does not mean that the republicans and democrats are addressing all the issues that are a concern of the majority of the country. Also one of the advantages of being a republic rather than a democracy is that concerns of people less than a minority are addressed.

Why would you want a president that puts being elected above discussing important issues as a nation?

Travis

If you are not elected, then ALL you can do is discuss (sorta like the minority parties). If you get elected you can ACT.

 

[Zhukov]

Considering neither of those individuals has a chance of winning, why should I care? What possible impact could it have on me?

Perhaps their ideals would be better served if they ran for a lower office, or joined one of the two main parties, to get their ideas across. As it is, it seems they'd rather just make foolish spectacles of themselves as opposed to actual trying to accomplish anything important or meaningful.

Just because they want to waste their time, why should I waste mine by watching them?

 

[tpahl]

If you are not elected, then ALL you can do is discuss (sorta like the minority parties). If you get elected you can ACT.

But if you do not discuss what you would act on, then you are acting on things that the public does not know or care about or actively opposes.

Look, it is quite simple... discussing ideas is good. Not discussing them is bad.

Travis

 

[tpahl]

Considering neither of those individuals has a chance of winning, why should I care? What possible impact could it have on me?

Because the two major parties might be ignoring important issues because they agree on them.

Perhaps their ideals would be better served if they ran for a lower office, or joined one of the two main parties, to get their ideas across. As it is, it seems they'd rather just make foolish spectacles of themselves as opposed to actual trying to accomplish anything important or meaningful.

They are foolish? You are the one spouting off about how diversity of opinions is a waste of time.

Just because they want to waste their time, why should I waste mine by watching them?

If you feel so strongly that a fresh ideas are bad, do not waste your time.

 

[DKSuddeth]

They are foolish? You are the one spouting off about how diversity of opinions is a waste of time.

Zhukov is right in this respect. How far do you think Badnarik is going to get with nothing but republicans and democrats running the senate and house?

what legislation or policies is he going to be able to get enacted without a libertarian group to back him up?

If you need a good example of how no cooperation from the house/senate works, look at George Bush Sr's term. Domestically ineffective and so all he had left was foreign policy that the democratically controlled house and senate had no power to stop.

 

[Zhukov]

Because the two major parties might be ignoring important issues because they agree on them.

I'm sure they are, but that in no way explains how Badnarik and Cobb discussing them will have any effect on me. They don't make policy. They aren't ever going to make policy. They have less input on the political process in this country than me, because I'll be voting on someone who has an actual chance of making policy.

Perhaps if one of them was an outspoken and/or popular veteran senator/governor they'd get a speaking position at one of the party conventions where a large number of people will actually hear their opinions and take them seriously.

As it is, what important democratically elected position of authority or responsibility have either of these two individuals ever held that gives their words weight or lends credibility to their intentions?

They are foolish? You are the one spouting off about how diversity of opinions is a waste of time.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said isn't it?

If you feel so strongly that a fresh ideas are bad, do not waste your time.

Go back and try to find where I ridiculed their ideas or wrote anything along the lines of any thing you claim I did. You won't be able to.

It might be easier to argue with someone when you only respond to the statements you fabricate for them, but it's hardly constructive now is it?

 

[Annie]

It's a matter of respect for his party, Traivs. His strongest supporters are participating in this convention. Again, why hold it right in the middle of the convention? Why not wait a week or two?

Your post and DK's are rationale. Tpahl's are all about campaigning, he has nothing to do with reality.

 

[tpahl]

Zhukov is right in this respect. How far do you think Badnarik is going to get with nothing but republicans and democrats running the senate and house?

Alot further than Bush is getting at limiting governemnt. Badnarik would actually veto a spending bill.

what legislation or policies is he going to be able to get enacted without a libertarian group to back him up?

Just stopping the current policies would be a step in the right direction.

If you need a good example of how no cooperation from the house/senate works, look at George Bush Sr's term. Domestically ineffective and so all he had left was foreign policy that the democratically controlled house and senate had no power to stop.

Actually congress does have the power to stop war. If they do not declare war the president is not suipposed to take the country to war.

 

[tpahl]

I'm sure they are, but that in no way explains how Badnarik and Cobb discussing them will have any effect on me. They don't make policy. They aren't ever going to make policy. They have less input on the political process in this country than me, because I'll be voting on someone who has an actual chance of making policy.

Third parties have always had alot if input in the countries decisions. The socialist platform was pretty much complelty adopted by roosevelt. Perot brought balanced budgets to the forefront of both parties in the 90's etc...

Perhaps if one of them was an outspoken and/or popular veteran senator/governor they'd get a speaking position at one of the party conventions where a large number of people will actually hear their opinions and take them seriously.

Perhaps. Or perhaps people could listen to them in a debate as well.

As it is, what important democratically elected position of authority or responsibility have either of these two individuals ever held that gives their words weight or lends credibility to their intentions?

You see I am a little different. I think people that have not spent their life in government jobs actually can still have important things to say.

 

[tpahl]

Your post and DK's are rationale. Tpahl's are all about campaigning, he has nothing to do with reality.

Why do you insist on flaming me for no reason?

 

[Annie]

Why do you insist on flaming me for no reason?

why do you insist in whining, for no reason?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Alot further than Bush is getting at limiting governemnt. Badnarik would actually veto a spending bill.

and 3/4ths or more of the house would pass it just for spite to show up the 3rd party president. Alot of good that did, eh?

Just stopping the current policies would be a step in the right direction.

read the above, again.

Actually congress does have the power to stop war. If they do not declare war the president is not suipposed to take the country to war.

War is not the only foreign policy action that a president can take. I suggest you look at the stonewalling that Bush Sr got his first year in office and then look at all the foreign policy he worked on after that.

 

[Zhukov]

Third parties have always had alot if input in the countries decisions. The socialist platform was pretty much complelty adopted by roosevelt. Perot brought balanced budgets to the forefront of both parties in the 90's etc...

Actually, 3rd parties have seldom had any input in political decisions, and almost never as 3rd parties. Do you know how Roosevelt implemented parts of the socialist agenda? Because he ran on the ticket of one of the major parties. Had he run as a Socialist he wouldn't have been elected.

And a Balanced Budget Ammendment was an awful idea. It would have dangerously restrained the spending power of the federal government, preventing such things as, oh I don't know, deficit spending to recover from a recession.

Thanks for the eight-year Presidency of the person who differed more greatly from your own political position than the man who's Presidency you personally and deliberately sank, Mr. Perot.

Perhaps. Or perhaps people could listen to them in a debate as well.

People could listen to any two individuals debate. What makes these two special? I've heard both of them on the radio and neither has acquitted themselves particularly well.

You see I am a little different. I think people that have not spent their life in government jobs actually can still have important things to say.

More invention, eh? Or is there someone else posting with the name Zhukov on this board?

It suddenly occurs to me that you'd probably be happier listening to yourself talk than bothering to watch the Badnarik-Cobb debate. Keep that in mind when it's on.

At any rate, it takes a lot more than having "important things to say" to be a competent and succesful President. For me, it takes a great deal more than just "important things to say" to even be considered.

I've important things to say. Probably more so than either Badnarik or Cobb. And I'm sure I'm more intelligent than either of them. Does that qualify me to be President? I wouldn't think so, but maybe you do.

And let's be honest, they aren't saying anything original, either of them. They spout the party line more so than even Democrats and Republicans because their party's constituencies or so limited that their political aims are monolithic. Any of a thousand Libertarians or Greens would say precisely the same things Badnarik and Cobb say because they only have one thing to say.

 

[tpahl]

and 3/4ths or more of the house would pass it just for spite to show up the 3rd party president. Alot of good that did, eh?

If a libertarian was elected president he would probably have a little support from the people don't you think? Why would the legislature want to do things just to spite the president when it means they would lose support from the people?

War is not the only foreign policy action that a president can take.

War is an action the president can NOT take. Did you not read my post or the constitution?

 

[tpahl]

Actually, 3rd parties have seldom had any input in political decisions, and almost never as 3rd parties. Do you know how Roosevelt implemented parts of the socialist agenda? Because he ran on the ticket of one of the major parties. Had he run as a Socialist he wouldn't have been elected.

And had the socialist not been a big factor in the election Roosevelt would have never taken the socialist route.

And a Balanced Budget Ammendment was an awful idea. It would have dangerously restrained the spending power of the federal government, preventing such things as, oh I don't know, deficit spending to recover from a recession.

Government spending does not get us out of recesions. That is an idea that roosevelt put forward That conservatives used to not beleive.

Thanks for the eight-year Presidency of the person who differed more greatly from your own political position than the man who's Presidency you personally and deliberately sank, Mr. Perot.

I doubt that Clinton differed anymore than Bush or Dole in terms of government spending.

People could listen to any two individuals debate. What makes these two special? I've heard both of them on the radio and neither has acquitted themselves particularly well.

These two are special becuse they have both recieved a nomination form their respective parties to run for president.

And let's be honest, they aren't saying anything original, either of them. They spout the party line more so than even Democrats and Republicans because their party's constituencies or so limited that their political aims are monolithic. Any of a thousand Libertarians or Greens would say precisely the same things Badnarik and Cobb say because they only have one thing to say.

Yeah they say basically the party line, and you may find this hard to beleive but millions of people beleive that party line and have just never heard it.

 

[DKSuddeth]

If a libertarian was elected president he would probably have a little support from the people don't you think? Why would the legislature want to do things just to spite the president when it means they would lose support from the people?

key word=little

have you not seen enough spin and rhetoric from this government to realize that a libertarian president would be made to look like the next hitler? I mean bush, uh, make that clinton...no gore.....wait. kerry, yeah, thats it. :duh3:

War is an action the president can NOT take. Did you not read my post or the constitution?

yes, both, many times. You're aware of the war powers act? 60 days ring a bell? where do you think congress would be if any president moves troops against a dictatorial country and then gets shot down by the house? nowhere but out of office after (look above) all the spin and rhetoric.

 

[Merlin1047]

These two are special becuse they have both recieved a nomination form their respective parties to run for president.

They're "special" because they have been nominated by some fringe goup? Okay, if that's your definition of "special", I can't argue with it.

What I do have a problem with is your assertion that these people are participating in "presidential debates". You and everyone in the world knows that the candicacy of Badnarik et al has absolutely no chance of getting anywhere. A far better and more accurate name for this event would be "Presidential Pretenders Debates". But even that would be giving them more credit than they deserve.

Can you just for once put aside your propoganda and deal with reality?

 

[Zhukov]

And had the socialist not been a big factor in the election Roosevelt would have never taken the socialist route.

The Socialist Party never was a big factor, in any election. The Democrats had absorbed the socialist ideas of the Populist Party before 1900. The Progressive Party, a collection of Populists, Bull-Moose, and Socialists, ran a candidate in 1924 and won a single northern state (Wisconsin, the candidate's home state), which hardly threatened Coolidge, who carried every single other state that hadn't been part of the Confederacy.

Roosevelt was a socialist through and through. Instead of riding the high horse of imagined political purity and assuming the unconstructive uncompromising attitude that accompanies such pig-headed behavior FDR joined one of the major parties and achieved success for his ideas.

Government spending does not get us out of recesions.

Moderate increases in government spending in the form of job creation and incentives to selected industries in conjunction with lowering tax rates (more expeditures from less income = deficit) has been shown to prevent or shallow recessions. It just happened. Or did you miss that?

I doubt that Clinton differed anymore than Bush or Dole in terms of government spending.

He did. Or have you forgoten that enormous and ridiculous Health Care Plan he tried to get passed?

These two are special becuse they have both recieved a nomination form their respective parties to run for president.

You're hardly convincing me considering my whole point is that their parties are more or less irrelevant.

Yeah they say basically the party line, and you may find this hard to beleive but millions of people beleive that party line and have just never heard it.

I don't find it hard to believe at all.

What's important is the vast majorty of those millions understand voting for a Green or a Socialist helps elect a Republican and voting for a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist helps elect a Democrat.

Therefore, the sensible people who might prefer a Libertarian or a Green swallow their pride, vote Republican or Democrat respectively, and in so doing ultimately advance at least a portion of their cause.

The illogical people, or those who are too prideful, vote for their fringe candidate and in so doing aid their dominant rival and thus divert the direction of American politics away from their cause.

How are the aims of the Libertarians served by electing Sen. Kerry to the Presidency?

If you believe that your protest vote will 'send a message' to the Republican Party to move to the right, you are wrong.

 

[tpahl]

key word=little

I was being a little sarcastic. The more appropriate phrase would be "more than any other candidate"

have you not seen enough spin and rhetoric from this government to realize that a libertarian president would be made to look like the next hitler? I mean bush, uh, make that clinton...no gore.....wait. kerry, yeah, thats it. :duh3:

If you would take notice, most of the reasons people give to associate bush with hitler are things that Badnarik and the LP oppse (things like pre-emptive war, the patriot act, and the department of Homeland security)

yes, both, many times. You're aware of the war powers act? 60 days ring a bell? where do you think congress would be if any president moves troops against a dictatorial country and then gets shot down by the house? nowhere but out of office after (look above) all the spin and rhetoric.

It is meant to be for short quick responses to an real threat. Things like both the gulf wars, vietnam, korea, are not short were not immediate threats and all could have and should have been approved by congress. They were not and are unconstitutional because of it.