Presidential Debates....only 3

[georgephillip]

It's always been three

Three works. Don't want that Mass Debates we saw in the Republican primaries

How about requiring both major party candidates to face Noam Chomsky for separate 90 minute interrogations beginning with "American Exceptionalism?"

 

[rightwinger]

Here's the ratios in 2009:

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
Top 1% 36.73%
Top 5% 58.66%
Top 10% 70.47%
Top 25% 87.30%
Top 50% 97.75%
Bottom 50% 2.25%

It is a given that the numbers for 2010 and 2011 will be little different.

So...let me see if I have this right

Those who control most of the wealth in this country pay most of the taxes. And you want to spread more of the burden onto those who have the least wealth

 

[rightwinger]

It's always been three

Three works. Don't want that Mass Debates we saw in the Republican primaries

How about requiring both major party candidates to face Noam Chomsky for separate 90 minute interrogations beginning with "American Exceptionalism?"

I'm thinking Jon Stewart

 

[Liability]

Ron Paul guys will protest if Ron's not one of the guys in the debate.

 

[Sarah G]

It's always been three

Three works. Don't want that Mass Debates we saw in the Republican primaries

Good lord, please. We already know more than we want to about Romney.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your definition of political equality depends on how much tax you pay?
Is that correct?

What happened to the principle that says each person carries equal weight in the conduct of public policy?

I did not say that political equality depends on how much taxes we pay, but I do say that those who pay the taxes should have the biggest voice in how those taxes are used. It is bad enough that the freeloaders have a vote that can result in having others support the freeloaders.

I am unaware of any principle that says each person carries equal weight in the conduct of public policy. I am aware of a principle that says each person has equal opportunity to accomplish, produce, and contribute as much as he or she is able.

Read the story of Henny Penny or The Ants and the Grasshopper and tell me that justice was not done.

 

[barry1960]

.. and only one for the VP candidates..

I really think this sucks, I believe the American people deserve to know more on the views of these candidates...

A full test of their mettal before the American people..

(Personally, I believe Obama is to much of a coward to submit to the test and Democrats/liberal media will provide Obama with excuses)

The number of debates is set. Calling our president a coward is uncalled for (perhaps someone who types from the anomity of a keyboard that our president is a coward better fits that definition).

IMO the presidential debates are about newscasters telling the public who won, candidates who regurgitate prepared answers, and news guys looking for one sound bite to take from a portion of a single answer for a nice headline. Issues have nothing to do with it.

One thing I do know, no matter what the answers are, Republicans will claim a great victory for Romney and Democrats will claim a clear Obama victory.

Can't we have a debate over something that really matters like the designated hitter rule in baseball or extending the NFL season to eighteen games?

 

[rightwinger]

.. and only one for the VP candidates..

I really think this sucks, I believe the American people deserve to know more on the views of these candidates...

A full test of their mettal before the American people..

(Personally, I believe Obama is to much of a coward to submit to the test and Democrats/liberal media will provide Obama with excuses)

The number of debates is set. Calling our president a coward is uncalled for (perhaps someone who types from the anomity of a keyboard that our president is a coward better fits that definition).

IMO the presidential debates are about newscasters telling the public who won, candidates who regurgitate prepared answers, and news guys looking for one sound bite to take from a portion of a single answer for a nice headline. Issues have nothing to do with it.

One thing I do know, no matter what the answers are, Republicans will claim a great victory for Romney and Democrats will claim a clear Obama victory.

Can't we have a debate over something that really matters like the designated hitter rule in baseball or extending the NFL season to eighteen games?

Same number of debates we have had for thirty years

Romney needs to spend as little time in front of the public as possible. His human robot act wears thin very fast

 

[Lumpy 1]

.. and only one for the VP candidates..

I really think this sucks, I believe the American people deserve to know more on the views of these candidates...

A full test of their mettal before the American people..

(Personally, I believe Obama is to much of a coward to submit to the test and Democrats/liberal media will provide Obama with excuses)

The number of debates is set. Calling our president a coward is uncalled for (perhaps someone who types from the anomity of a keyboard that our president is a coward better fits that definition).

IMO the presidential debates are about newscasters telling the public who won, candidates who regurgitate prepared answers, and news guys looking for one sound bite to take from a portion of a single answer for a nice headline. Issues have nothing to do with it.

One thing I do know, no matter what the answers are, Republicans will claim a great victory for Romney and Democrats will claim a clear Obama victory.

Can't we have a debate over something that really matters like the designated hitter rule in baseball or extending the NFL season to eighteen games?

You know, you're right, it was wrong of me to add my personal view of Obama..

Yup, both sides will claim victory and talking heads will yammer but the important part is that the voters can still get the opportunity to develop their own perspective.

 

[Lumpy 1]

.. and only one for the VP candidates..

I really think this sucks, I believe the American people deserve to know more on the views of these candidates...

A full test of their mettal before the American people..

(Personally, I believe Obama is to much of a coward to submit to the test and Democrats/liberal media will provide Obama with excuses)


------------------------


2012 Presidential Debate Schedule

The dates and venues have been announced for the 2012 Presidential debates between President Obama and Mitt Romney. The date for the Vice Presidential debate has also been announced.


2012 Presidential Debate Schedule « 2012 Election Central

Romney won't know what hit him, Obama has very successfully debated some of the best, many times over.

If you were smart, that was rhetorical, you'd be trying to lower the bar for robot Romney, not raise it.

..nice zinger

Yup... sure he has...

Obama has a track record to question now, previously, pretty well nothing.

 

[georgephillip]

Your definition of political equality depends on how much tax you pay?
Is that correct?

What happened to the principle that says each person carries equal weight in the conduct of public policy?

I did not say that political equality depends on how much taxes we pay, but I do say that those who pay the taxes should have the biggest voice in how those taxes are used. It is bad enough that the freeloaders have a vote that can result in having others support the freeloaders.

I am unaware of any principle that says each person carries equal weight in the conduct of public policy. I am aware of a principle that says each person has equal opportunity to accomplish, produce, and contribute as much as he or she is able.

Read the story of Henny Penny or The Ants and the Grasshopper and tell me that justice was not done.

You're saying those who pay more taxes have more say in how their government functions?
One dollar: One vote?

"Political Equality means granting equal citizenship to all members of the state,and also, to ensure conditions that allow the citizens to participate in the affairs of the state."

Why should "equal citizenship" depend on how much money you "earn?"

What Is Political Equality? - Blurtit

 

[barry1960]

.. and only one for the VP candidates..

I really think this sucks, I believe the American people deserve to know more on the views of these candidates...

A full test of their mettal before the American people..

(Personally, I believe Obama is to much of a coward to submit to the test and Democrats/liberal media will provide Obama with excuses)

The number of debates is set. Calling our president a coward is uncalled for (perhaps someone who types from the anomity of a keyboard that our president is a coward better fits that definition).

IMO the presidential debates are about newscasters telling the public who won, candidates who regurgitate prepared answers, and news guys looking for one sound bite to take from a portion of a single answer for a nice headline. Issues have nothing to do with it.

One thing I do know, no matter what the answers are, Republicans will claim a great victory for Romney and Democrats will claim a clear Obama victory.

Can't we have a debate over something that really matters like the designated hitter rule in baseball or extending the NFL season to eighteen games?

You know, you're right, it was wrong of me to add my personal view of Obama..

Yup, both sides will claim victory and talking heads will yammer but the important part is that the voters can still get the opportunity to develop their own perspective.

The trouble with the debates is that the smart play is to play not to lose. That means giving pre-rehearsed sound bites and avoiding something that can be used as fodder for the other side or the media.

Look at the past:

Gerald Ford "There is no Soviet domination of Poland." - i remember no other issue and that helped elect the Jimmy Carter.

Ronald Reagon referring to his opponent Walter Mondale "There you go again." - This brilliant quip addressed no issue but won a debate.

Benson to Quayle - "You're no Jack Kennedy." - did the rest of the debate or any issues matter?

My guess is that you are a whole lot more politically minded and informed than the average voter. The average voter has about a five minute attention span before the channel changer is employed.

Hey, maybe we could use a speed dating format for the debates. Prospective voters get one minute to ask the presidential and vice presdential candidates questions before rotating to different tables. Then voters could write scores on an erasable chalkboard and the panel of three American Idol judges could then vote if the candidates will be allowed to travel to Washington, DC.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your definition of political equality depends on how much tax you pay?
Is that correct?

What happened to the principle that says each person carries equal weight in the conduct of public policy?

I did not say that political equality depends on how much taxes we pay, but I do say that those who pay the taxes should have the biggest voice in how those taxes are used. It is bad enough that the freeloaders have a vote that can result in having others support the freeloaders.

I am unaware of any principle that says each person carries equal weight in the conduct of public policy. I am aware of a principle that says each person has equal opportunity to accomplish, produce, and contribute as much as he or she is able.

Read the story of Henny Penny or The Ants and the Grasshopper and tell me that justice was not done.

You're saying those who pay more taxes have more say in how their government functions?
One dollar: One vote?

"Political Equality means granting equal citizenship to all members of the state,and also, to ensure conditions that allow the citizens to participate in the affairs of the state."

Why should "equal citizenship" depend on how much money you "earn?"

What Is Political Equality? - Blurtit

Nope. Didn't say that either. I am saying that only those obligated to pay the bills should have power to obligate themselves to pay them. Those exempt from the obligation to pay the bills should not be empowered to obligate others to pay.

Of course you won't see a concept like that debated in the Presidential debates will you? Most especially when one candidate will likely agree with that concept and the other who wants the rich to pay even more cannot say that.

 

[rightwinger]

I did not say that political equality depends on how much taxes we pay, but I do say that those who pay the taxes should have the biggest voice in how those taxes are used. It is bad enough that the freeloaders have a vote that can result in having others support the freeloaders.

I am unaware of any principle that says each person carries equal weight in the conduct of public policy. I am aware of a principle that says each person has equal opportunity to accomplish, produce, and contribute as much as he or she is able.

Read the story of Henny Penny or The Ants and the Grasshopper and tell me that justice was not done.

You're saying those who pay more taxes have more say in how their government functions?
One dollar: One vote?

"Political Equality means granting equal citizenship to all members of the state,and also, to ensure conditions that allow the citizens to participate in the affairs of the state."

Why should "equal citizenship" depend on how much money you "earn?"

What Is Political Equality? - Blurtit

Nope. Didn't say that either. I am saying that only those obligated to pay the bills should have power to obligate themselves to pay them. Those exempt from the obligation to pay the bills should not be empowered to obligate others to pay.

Of course you won't see a concept like that debated in the Presidential debates will you? Most especially when one candidate will likely agree with that concept and the other who wants the rich to pay even more cannot say that.

So your constitutional opinion is that the poor and the infirm and the elderly should not be allowed to vote

 

[feces_mustache]

I believe the GOP leadership is weak and cowardly and will agree to:

1. Having all the debate 'moderators' be liberal democrats
2. All the debate questions coming from liberal democrats and the DNC
3. Hold the 'debate' in venue that is packed with liberal democrats and no republicans so that all the cheering will be for Obama.

Of course none of the questions will focus on Obama's dismal economic record or on the titanic debt created by Obama with no jobs to show for it or Obama's dismal environmental record. I don't see any point in that kind of one sided debate in favor of the democrats. What is the point? Voters can examine Obama's 4 years in office and decide if they want another 4 years of high UNEMPLOYMENT and poverty. They got what they deserved when they voted for Obama the first time.

 

[georgephillip]

I did not say that political equality depends on how much taxes we pay, but I do say that those who pay the taxes should have the biggest voice in how those taxes are used. It is bad enough that the freeloaders have a vote that can result in having others support the freeloaders.

I am unaware of any principle that says each person carries equal weight in the conduct of public policy. I am aware of a principle that says each person has equal opportunity to accomplish, produce, and contribute as much as he or she is able.

Read the story of Henny Penny or The Ants and the Grasshopper and tell me that justice was not done.

You're saying those who pay more taxes have more say in how their government functions?
One dollar: One vote?

"Political Equality means granting equal citizenship to all members of the state,and also, to ensure conditions that allow the citizens to participate in the affairs of the state."

Why should "equal citizenship" depend on how much money you "earn?"

What Is Political Equality? - Blurtit

Nope. Didn't say that either. I am saying that only those obligated to pay the bills should have power to obligate themselves to pay them. Those exempt from the obligation to pay the bills should not be empowered to obligate others to pay.

Of course you won't see a concept like that debated in the Presidential debates will you? Most especially when one candidate will likely agree with that concept and the other who wants the rich to pay even more cannot say that.

"I am saying that only those obligated to pay the bills should have the power to obligate themselves to pay them."

You're saying only those citizens who earn enough money to pay Federal Income Taxes should have a vote, is that correct?

One concept I'm very sure we won't hear about in the Presidential debates is how the richest 400 US taxpayers paid a 51% Federal Income Tax rate 40-50 years ago, and they paid about 16% in Federal Income Taxes in 2007.

Freeloaders can be very poor or very rich.
I'm saying the rich freeloaders represent a much greater threat to Democracy in this country.

 

[georgephillip]

I believe the GOP leadership is weak and cowardly and will agree to:

1. Having all the debate 'moderators' be liberal democrats
2. All the debate questions coming from liberal democrats and the DNC
3. Hold the 'debate' in venue that is packed with liberal democrats and no republicans so that all the cheering will be for Obama.

Of course none of the questions will focus on Obama's dismal economic record or on the titanic debt created by Obama with no jobs to show for it or Obama's dismal environmental record. I don't see any point in that kind of one sided debate in favor of the democrats. What is the point? Voters can examine Obama's 4 years in office and decide if they want another 4 years of high UNEMPLOYMENT and poverty. They got what they deserved when they voted for Obama the first time.

What do you think "Songbird" McStain would've done differently?

 

[georgephillip]

You're saying those who pay more taxes have more say in how their government functions?
One dollar: One vote?

"Political Equality means granting equal citizenship to all members of the state,and also, to ensure conditions that allow the citizens to participate in the affairs of the state."

Why should "equal citizenship" depend on how much money you "earn?"

What Is Political Equality? - Blurtit

Nope. Didn't say that either. I am saying that only those obligated to pay the bills should have power to obligate themselves to pay them. Those exempt from the obligation to pay the bills should not be empowered to obligate others to pay.

Of course you won't see a concept like that debated in the Presidential debates will you? Most especially when one candidate will likely agree with that concept and the other who wants the rich to pay even more cannot say that.

So your constitutional opinion is that the poor and the infirm and the elderly should not be allowed to vote

That opinion isn't too far from some of the Founders (or is it Funders)

I hear debtors' prisons may be coming back...

 

[Foxfyre]

You're saying those who pay more taxes have more say in how their government functions?
One dollar: One vote?

"Political Equality means granting equal citizenship to all members of the state,and also, to ensure conditions that allow the citizens to participate in the affairs of the state."

Why should "equal citizenship" depend on how much money you "earn?"

What Is Political Equality? - Blurtit

Nope. Didn't say that either. I am saying that only those obligated to pay the bills should have power to obligate themselves to pay them. Those exempt from the obligation to pay the bills should not be empowered to obligate others to pay.

Of course you won't see a concept like that debated in the Presidential debates will you? Most especially when one candidate will likely agree with that concept and the other who wants the rich to pay even more cannot say that.

So your constitutional opinion is that the poor and the infirm and the elderly should not be allowed to vote

Are you saying that all of those in the 50% that pay little or no taxes are poor, infirm, or elderly? Should that 50% be the ones to choose how much in taxes the rest of us will pay?

I am saying that everybody should have a stake in the game. Everybody should be paying some taxes and should experience the consequences of a tax increase or a tax decrease and proportionately feel the effects of the laws passed by those they vote for. The rich would still pay much more than the less affluent. But if the rich are going to be expected to pay all or most of the taxes while others get pretty much a free ride, then the rich should be the ones to set the rules.

 

[rightwinger]

Nope. Didn't say that either. I am saying that only those obligated to pay the bills should have power to obligate themselves to pay them. Those exempt from the obligation to pay the bills should not be empowered to obligate others to pay.

Of course you won't see a concept like that debated in the Presidential debates will you? Most especially when one candidate will likely agree with that concept and the other who wants the rich to pay even more cannot say that.

So your constitutional opinion is that the poor and the infirm and the elderly should not be allowed to vote

Are you saying that all of those in the 50% that pay little or no taxes are poor, infirm, or elderly? Should that 50% be the ones to choose how much in taxes the rest of us will pay?

I am saying that everybody should have a stake in the game. Everybody should be paying some taxes and should experience the consequences of a tax increase or a tax decrease and proportionately feel the effects of the laws passed by those they vote for. The rich would still pay much more than the less affluent. But if the rich are going to be expected to pay all or most of the taxes while others get pretty much a free ride, then the rich should be the ones to set the rules.

Not what you said

You said if you do not pay taxes, you should not be allowed to vote

Do you believe that?