Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


United States Second Presidential Debate

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkaelis View Post
They won't win not because people disagree with their views, but because most people don't even know what their views are. There are plenty of Green office holders. The issue isn't that they can't take local offices, the issue is that the offices aren't enough.

If you're on enough ballots to win 270 electoral votes, and thus, the presidency, why should you be excluded from political discourse? Why is the average voter only exposed to the parties with corporate interests behind them?

Saying that third parties will never win is part of the problem. People don't want to vote for someone who can't win. Meanwhile, if you don't live in a swing state, a vote for either large party is entirely wasted. So yes, I do think people should vote for third parties, and try to get them fair political funding. Granted, they still won't have SPACs to just pump entirely absurd amounts of money into them, but it's a start.

Corporatism isn't going to get us out of this economic crisis.
Well. Sorry to disappoint, but that's not really what I was saying. I personally find the Green Party preferable to the two major parties, being a hardcore liberal (I'm a fan of socialism). However, the American people are not ready for a 3 party system, indeed, it will most likely never happen. Additionally, the Green Party has no presence at any level beside city, and even that is meh. Before people will consider them as THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD, they need to hold some other positions of power. And believe me, the second they become a major party, those corporate interests are going to flood in. Right now, Jill Stien is just taking votes away from Obama for the most part, and so supporting her is doing NOTHING for anything the Green Party supports. So. Congrats.

On the other claw, the Green Party platform has some elements in it that appear to have been drafted in response to the draft for Vietnam. The major parties revamp their platforms occassionally, as opposed to simply appending them.

Whatever support I may have had for the Greens died more than a decade ago when I encountered several of the loony environmentalist types who are part of their party. I have rarely met with such closed-minded people in my life, and to say that their views were "out there" is to understate the reality. If I thought that these were just those on the fringes, I would have more sympathy, but their ideas are part of the "core values", and it makes me question *any* Green policies. I knew the subject that these people were talking about so I knew they were talking &^%*, but I'm not an expert in many of the other fields in which they hold strong views, so I don't know if their views in those areas are similarly unbalanced.
I approve of some of their ideas, and think the implementation of them may work. I am dubious about a number of their other views, and don't know if they could (or should) be implemented effectively. I know some of their views are just plain wrong, and hope they never get a chance to implement them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelkon
Well. Sorry to disappoint, but that's not really what I was saying. I personally find the Green Party preferable to the two major parties, being a hardcore liberal (I'm a fan of socialism).
Oh, I'm pretty leftist myself. I'm a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I'm not saying that you find the major parties preferable.

Quote:
However, the American people are not ready for a 3 party system, indeed, it will most likely never happen.
What I am saying is that this is bullshit. A three party system isn't going to have the American people's heads exploding. It's not any more complicated, it would simply improve the quality of political discourse. Even if Jill Stein never won anything ever, her presence at debates would force candidates to talk about things. Where's the talk about the climate crisis? Also, with another party, it'd be difficult to run a negative campaign.

Quote:
Additionally, the Green Party has no presence at any level beside city, and even that is meh. Before people will consider them as THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD, they need to hold some other positions of power. And believe me, the second they become a major party, those corporate interests are going to flood in. Right now, Jill Stien is just taking votes away from Obama for the most part, and so supporting her is doing NOTHING for anything the Green Party supports. So. Congrats.
I agree with you that they might need a tad bit more influence, to say the least, but please understand, that's not what I'm arguing for. I'm not arguing for Jill Stein 2012. I'm arguing for the debate to be opened up to third party candidates who have their names on enough ballots to win 270 electoral votes. I'm arguing that not having television exposure shouldn't stop them from getting television exposure. The CPD is a completely corrupt organization, and needs to be taken out of control of this.

Furthermore, supporting Jill Stein is saying that I want something new. I live in New York. A vote for Obama is a waste, a vote for Romney is a bigger waste. Also, both candidates are terrible anyway. Sure, I prefer Obama over Romney, but honestly, it's not like he's done an amazing job as president.

Also, Obama's ahead in Ohio, which is basically all that matters due to electoral college. "So. Congrats."

Quote:
Originally Posted by muggie2
I approve of some of their ideas, and think the implementation of them may work. I am dubious about a number of their other views, and don't know if they could (or should) be implemented effectively. I know some of their views are just plain wrong, and hope they never get a chance to implement them.
Jill Stein's plan involves using the money that's constantly being used to bail out the banks to bail out students who were told that college was the way of the future, and came out unemployed or underemployed. There's more student debt than credit card debt at this point in the nation.

She wants to embrace energy independence, and set up renewable, clean energy sources, which will create tons of jobs, because people need to run these systems. You know what? Just go to this page and read her Green New Deal for yourself.

Again, I'm not a member of the Green Party. I believe that many of the third party candidates have good idea that simply aren't being heard. For example, Virgil Goode, Constitution Party candidate, brings up a strong argument that I had never previously considered: There are 1.2 million green cards issued every year, and about 75% of those people take jobs here. We're in an economic crisis. Maybe some of those green cards shouldn't be issued

Aside from this, I find Virgil Goode to be as conservative as conservative could be, which is generally not my thing, but I've learned something: I don't hate conservatives. I don't think they're to blame. I won't buy into the mainstream media's "OBAMA VS. ROMNEY! FIGHT!" nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkaelis View Post
Oh, I'm pretty leftist myself. I'm a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I'm not saying that you find the major parties preferable.

What I am saying is that this is bullshit. A three party system isn't going to have the American people's heads exploding. It's not any more complicated, it would simply improve the quality of political discourse. Even if Jill Stein never won anything ever, her presence at debates would force candidates to talk about things. Where's the talk about the climate crisis? Also, with another party, it'd be difficult to run a negative campaign.

I agree with you that they might need a tad bit more influence, to say the least, but please understand, that's not what I'm arguing for. I'm not arguing for Jill Stein 2012. I'm arguing for the debate to be opened up to third party candidates who have their names on enough ballots to win 270 electoral votes. I'm arguing that not having television exposure shouldn't stop them from getting television exposure. The CPD is a completely corrupt organization, and needs to be taken out of control of this.

Furthermore, supporting Jill Stein is saying that I want something new. I live in New York. A vote for Obama is a waste, a vote for Romney is a bigger waste. Also, both candidates are terrible anyway. Sure, I prefer Obama over Romney, but honestly, it's not like he's done an amazing job as president.

Also, Obama's ahead in Ohio, which is basically all that matters due to electoral college. "So. Congrats."
I'm from Ohio myself, so I guess it's just instinct to think that's a wasted vote for me.
And I'm just saying that putting her into the ring won't do anything. Sure, she has some stuff to talk about, but most of it is the same stuff neither candidate can even mention because people simply think it's too radical. End of story pretty much. I wish stuff would change, but really, it'll only take votes from the party that will modt likely support the ideals of the Green and Liberation parties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelkon View Post
I'm from Ohio myself, so I guess it's just instinct to think that's a wasted vote for me.
Don't vote for a third party if you live in Ohio. I'll grant you that. Your votes are pretty much the only ones that matter these days.

Quote:
And I'm just saying that putting her into the ring won't do anything. Sure, she has some stuff to talk about, but most of it is the same stuff neither candidate can even mention because people simply think it's too radical.
I vastly disagree. I think that candidates can't even mention these topics and solutions not because the American people think they're too radical, but because corporations don't really want to increase minimum wage and release the working class from wage-slavery. It's censorship of ideas, not fear of offending people.

Quote:
I wish stuff would change, but really, it'll only take votes from the party that will modt likely support the ideals of the Green and Liberation parties.
So, what? We should give up? Accept things the way they are? Toil for our entire lives only to have our socioeconomic status slowly degrade because we just can't keep up?

I reject the idea that what we have is "good enough", or that things "won't change". Slowly, the working class in this country has gone from being able to survive on one income to almost requiring two, and now there are families that have three incomes. When does it end? When our children have to get jobs so we can put food on the table?

In short, if you're defeated, be defeated silently. Your saying "you're only splitting votes" and "things won't change" isn't helping anyone. You're part of the problem. You're another level of crap that the bipartisan system has protecting it.

We've had multiple parties in the past, it always reduces to a two party system until one of those parties cannot get elected anymore, then new parties become viable as a way to challenge the predominant party. Sometimes it falls, and then things stay chaotic longer, but eventually it settles down to two parties again. If the Republicans hadn't had the over-hyped minor rally in 2008 we would probably be looking at a multi-party system again by 2016.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkaelis View Post
Don't vote for a third party if you live in Ohio. I'll grant you that. Your votes are pretty much the only ones that matter these days.



I vastly disagree. I think that candidates can't even mention these topics and solutions not because the American people think they're too radical, but because corporations don't really want to increase minimum wage and release the working class from wage-slavery. It's censorship of ideas, not fear of offending people.



So, what? We should give up? Accept things the way they are? Toil for our entire lives only to have our socioeconomic status slowly degrade because we just can't keep up?

I reject the idea that what we have is "good enough", or that things "won't change". Slowly, the working class in this country has gone from being able to survive on one income to almost requiring two, and now there are families that have three incomes. When does it end? When our children have to get jobs so we can put food on the table?

In short, if you're defeated, be defeated silently. Your saying "you're only splitting votes" and "things won't change" isn't helping anyone. You're part of the problem. You're another level of crap that the bipartisan system has protecting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW rules
Be excellent to each other.
The greatest of all golden rules.
*cough*

And besides, you've completely misinterpreted me. I'm not saying "put up with it," I'm saying that running a presedental candidate is worthless at our current sate. You gotta start lower, get the party more state power. However, you run the risk of loseing democratic and green power, which defeats the purpose. Anyway, the more power they have, the more beneficial it will be for both parties to take their views into account. The offset of this will be the increasing corporate power exerted on the party, in a bit of a "join or die" way. Anyway, the Green Party can further their cause the most by actualy geting elected to positions, no matter how small. Their best bet is to Jain power to influence the two major parties. Silveroak correctly states that 2 parties is usually the max, and that's good because usually over half the population will be for a candidate instead of 1/3rdish.

Interestingly, I suspect most people on these forums voting for Romney are actually libertarian, but are bending to political reality. I know that's my story. *Shrugs*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powderhorn View Post
Interestingly, I suspect most people on these forums voting for Romney are actually libertarian, but are bending to political reality. I know that's my story. *Shrugs*
I don't get that though, what makes you think Romney is going to support liberty and privacy anymore than Obama has?





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status