Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


United States Second Presidential Debate

   
So if i understand you correctly, human intelligence is crap but we should have known because alternative media and the local government- who rely on human intelligence- already knew that its was aterrorist organization. And of course we should just have taken their word for it, with their human intelligence networks because... why again?
The fact is that the reason we didn't know sooner and they did is that they *had* the human intelligence networks that we didn't, and all you have is a lame conspiricy theory about the president lying to Americans when he had no motive to do so. The brither conspiricy at least had an intrinsic motive even if it was equally baseless.

I agree with Solaris that A lot of the take from people on the ground is crap, but it isn't all crap. And you have people in place who have contacts that *might* be able to get details. It all depends on who you have in place, where they are, how much coverage you have, and so on. Solaris's view is *exactly* the same as most of the admins in the alphabet agencies - at least he has it for rather more valid reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wippit Guud View Post
Here's a fun one for Mitt:

1. One of his major issues is that North American become energy independent. Which includes bring oil in from Canada
2. A second issue is that he want to be tough with China

Problem: Canada's oil companies are being taken over by China. Citation given
Canada also wants to sell to other big places like India, but that's only because they think quickly. It depends whether or not american companies want to twiddle their thumbs. It's weird how we need a pipeline to fix that (where the government probably gets involved; nothing to do with article).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TW Teczka View Post
Couldn't your Greens debate vs. Party for Socialism and Liberation and place everything on Youtube? Assuming that there would be so high demand for their views they would be easily accessible there. Or if they have too close views with each other, get another guy outside the mainstream like a libertarian supporting legal weed? (I've heard that the US had, at least previously, an utra-religious candidate supporting reintroducing prohibition, maybe you should try bring him too) That should solve problem of lack of competing, alternative visions.
Actually, Jill Stein debated Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party last night at 7 PM, on Google+. The issue isn't that they can't campaign themselves, because they do. The issue is that realistically, many people in America don't care about politics, and they watch the ads on TV. Jill Stein can't afford ads on TV.

My issue is that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are on enough ballots to actually win the 270 electoral votes. Why can we not hear from them during the debate? Why does America not get to hear another perspective? Is it a time thing? Extend the debate. Also, to lock Jill Stein and her running mate up in a warehouse, handcuffed to metal chairs for eight hours, is a little excessive. This isn't a police state yet.

The people who really, truly care about politics and want to see change are probably already backing a third party and shaking their heads at the bipartisan system.

Historically when there is a 2 party system one of the parties has to become non-viable for the third parties to start having their time in the sun. Personally I think the Republican party is closer to collapse than the Democratic if you follow some of the political chatter, and if your goal is for 3rd parties to emerge than you should be voting Democrat and pushing their viability to the exclusion of the Republicans to where those who disagree with democrats will start looking at other options.

Personally i don't care so much whether we start getting 3rd parties involved or whether the Republican party decides to have a major shift in agenda away from the demogogic appeal to religious oppression, defunding education, and what ammounts to a a nationalized Christian Identity movement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkaelis View Post
Actually, Jill Stein debated Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party last night at 7 PM, on Google+. The issue isn't that they can't campaign themselves, because they do. The issue is that realistically, many people in America don't care about politics, and they watch the ads on TV. Jill Stein can't afford ads on TV.

My issue is that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are on enough ballots to actually win the 270 electoral votes. Why can we not hear from them during the debate? Why does America not get to hear another perspective? Is it a time thing? Extend the debate. Also, to lock Jill Stein and her running mate up in a warehouse, handcuffed to metal chairs for eight hours, is a little excessive. This isn't a police state yet.

The people who really, truly care about politics and want to see change are probably already backing a third party and shaking their heads at the bipartisan system.
Don't run a green candidate for president. They. Won't. Win. Simple. They will take votes away from whichever part is closest to them. If you want them to have power, start at the city level. Elect me to the city council or mayor or something. Then county. Maybe even a few state positions. You may even be able to get them a few in the senate and house. And then, after you've given them a powerful name in the senate, prepare for them to either replace the Democratic Party, or evenly split the vote, ensuring neither party can get a president.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
So if i understand you correctly, human intelligence is crap but we should have known because alternative media and the local government- who rely on human intelligence- already knew that its was aterrorist organization. And of course we should just have taken their word for it, with their human intelligence networks because... why again?
Do you have access to any signals intelligence? I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
The fact is that the reason we didn't know sooner and they did is that they *had* the human intelligence networks that we didn't, and all you have is a lame conspiricy theory about the president lying to Americans when he had no motive to do so. The brither conspiricy at least had an intrinsic motive even if it was equally baseless.
Strawmanning. I never claimed he lied, nor see any reason for him to do so. If you want to debate me, fine, but I'll not stand in for a caricature for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelkon View Post
Don't run a green candidate for president. They. Won't. Win. Simple. They will take votes away from whichever part is closest to them. If you want them to have power, start at the city level. Elect me to the city council or mayor or something. Then county. Maybe even a few state positions. You may even be able to get them a few in the senate and house. And then, after you've given them a powerful name in the senate, prepare for them to either replace the Democratic Party, or evenly split the vote, ensuring neither party can get a president.
Yeah, the only time that I can remember a third party getting more votes than one of the major parties in a national election, was the bull moose party. And none of the current third party candidates has anywhere near the popularity and political power Theodore had.

Sorry, I was assuming that you had the same position as Romney. If you consider his position to effectively be a strawman argument then I suppose the issue is settled.

You're not debating Romney. You're debating me. Romney's position... settles nothing. Now, if you want to agree to disagree, that's perfectly fine by me.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status       Advertise with us