Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

I hope there no stupid faith based religious freedom questions tonight...

garh head hurts

 

[Buzzati]

Um. Has Jill Stein and her VP been arrested? I think they tried to crash this townhall. So far, the only source on this possible story is RT.

Yes.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/10/green_party_presidential_candi.html

 

[Marvie_3]

Any guesses on the number of distortions/lies Romney will drop before having them "walked back" by his campaign staff tomorrow morning?

500

 

[gutter_trash]

Yes.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/10/green_party_presidential_candi.html

good, we don't need parties that help Republicans win

 

[Deified Data]

Um. Has Jill Stein and her VP been arrested? I think they tried to crash this townhall. So far, the only source on this possible story is RT.

Haha, love these ladies. They're absolutely right, too.

Jill Stein, Cheri Honkala arrested, call tonight's debate a "mockumentary"

(HEMPSTEAD, NY) - Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala, the Green presidential and vice-presidential nominees, were just now forcibly prevented from entering the grounds of tonight's presidential debate organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). See a video here.

Dr. Stein and Ms. Honkala will appear on 85% of ballots on Election Day, and recently polled 2-3% in four consecutive national polls. The Federal government recognizes Jill Stein as a qualified presidential candidate, having approved her campaign for federal matching funds. Yet the two women were arrested by local police when they tried to enter the grounds of Hofstra University, in Hempstead, New York, where the debate is scheduled to take place. They are currently still in police custody.

Dr. Stein and Ms. Honkala walked with supporters toward the Hofstra campus at 2:00pm EST today. There they were met by three ranks of police officers in uniform and plainclothes. At this point, the Green Party candidates held an impromptu press conference in which Dr. Stein called the CPD debate a "mockumentary," saying that, "We are here to bring the courage of those excluded from our politics to this mock debate, this mockery of democracy."

Dr. Stein and Ms. Honkala then turned and began walking onto the debate grounds, at which point the rank of police officers physically stopped them and pushed them back. The two women sat down and the police arrested them, saying that Stein and Honkala would be charged with "obstructing traffic," a charge Jill Stein for President staffer and lawyer Alex Howard called "bogus" in that there was no through-traffic visible at any time during the incident.

The presidential debates are the first opportunity for millions of voters to see the candidates themselves, not just their advertising campaigns. These debates are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) - a supposedly "nonpartisan" entity which is a puppet of and serves the interests of the Democrats, Republicans and the big corporations that fund both of them. The CPD's criteria to be included in these debates is designed to exclude independent presidential contenders who promote ideas that challenge those in power.

Over 14,000 have signed a statement calling on CPD to change its criteria, and repeated public calls for opening the CPD debates have been ignored by that corporation.

“The debates must include every candidate who is on enough ballots to win the White House and who has demonstrated a minimal level of support -- meaning either 1% of the vote in a credible national poll, or qualification for federal matching funds, or both,” reads the statement. “In 2012, the Green and Libertarian party candidates both meet all of these criteria and are both contenders for the presidency…These debates belong to the people, not the politicians or Wall Street.”

In addition there have been protests all over the country about this issue including in Boston, home of the Romney headquarters, and in Denver and Kentucky – the sites of the two recent presidential and vice presidential debates.

good, we don't need parties that help Republicans win

Don't be naive - she's getting exactly what she wants.

 

[Dan]

Or, have a team debate. Team of President, VP, + 2 other ppl of their choosing. Notes allowed. Signs allowed. Laptop and internet allowed. Chalkboard allowed. I would like to see this.

The debate formats we have now are kinda worthless and only give us soundbites.

I would pay good money to see this. That's what the country needs. I'm sure I'll never see such a thing.

This back-and-forth speechifying is so archaic. It's 2012. Our debates should enable live fact-checking between the candidates, easy use of sources and documentation, etc.

 

[ThisWreckage]

I am absolutely embarrassed with what happened to Ron Paul and now Jill Stein.

 

[Grakl]

I hope that this will be fun. Obama better not disappoint.

 

[pigeon]

Yes.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/10/green_party_presidential_candi.html

Jill Stein is a freaking badass. I'm probably going to vote for her. (California)

 

[Deified Data]

Jill Stein is a freaking badass. I'm probably going to vote for her. (California)

Ditto. Dr. Stein's protest and subsequent arrest will likely say more than any of the base platitudes offered in tonight's debate.

 

[Forever]

People thought it was a good idea to vote for Nader in 2000 too.

 

[LegatoB]

Jill Stein is a freaking badass. I'm probably going to vote for her. (California)

I'm going to vote for her (Florida).

I'm dragging y'all down to hell with me.

 

[pigeon]

People thought it was a good idea to vote for Nader in 2000 too.

If Obama is in danger of losing California, I'll be way too busy changing my citizenship to vote for him in any case.

 

[Angry Grimace]

People thought it was a good idea to vote for Nader in 2000 too.

I for one, always vote for the candidate with views the most similar to mine.

Spoiler

I'm voting for myself

 

[Seguin]

I'm going to vote for her (Florida).

I'm dragging y'all down to hell with me.

Florida? NOOOOOOOOOOO. Don't Nader us again

 

[Deified Data]

People thought it was a good idea to vote for Nader in 2000 too.

Don't bother bringing out that shit.

http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

It's been proven false a thousand times over. Nader's a convenient scapegoat when Dems want to blame anyone but themselves.

 

[Forever]

Don't bother bringing out that shit.

http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

It's been proven false a thousand times over. Nader's a convenient scapegoat, but nothing else.

That's a lot of obfuscation. Of course there were systemic shenanigans by the Republicans.

Doesn't change the fact that if those wide eyed idealists had voted strategically (intelligently) instead of voting for Nader, we would never have been cursed with Bush II. That's a plain truth.

2000. Never fucking forget.

 

[Shrennin]

Yup, the same media who railed Biden for being too offensive, where Romney was 10x worse the previous debate. The "news" in this country is such a joke.

Uh, no. Biden laughed, smirked, and was downright disrespectful to Ryan whereas Romney was aggressive but he did none of those things. Should Biden have had control of those mannerisms, he would have won the debate easily but because he didn't it became a tie. Debates are all about style -- Biden made mistakes being aggressive and in control of the debate which cost him.

 

[jtb]

Uh, no. Biden laughed, smirked, and was downright disrespectful to Ryan whereas Romney was aggressive but he did none of those things. Should Biden have had control of those mannerisms, he would have won the debate easily but because he didn't it became a tie. Debates are all about style -- Biden made mistakes being aggressive and in control of the debate which cost him.

That just about sums up everything wrong with this country and these "debates". Why even call them debates when they're really just glorified pageants. Ugh.

 

[ThisWreckage]

That's a lot of obfuscation. Of course there were systemic shenanigans by the Republicans.

Doesn't change the fact that if those wide eyed idealists had voted strategically (intelligently) instead of voting for Nader, we would never have been cursed with Bush II. That's a plain truth.

2000. Never fucking forget.

Don't torture yourself with hypotheticals. Many things swung that election and people voting for Nader was just another piece of wood on the pile.

 

[Deified Data]

That's a lot of obfuscation. Of course there were systemic shenanigans by the Republicans.

Doesn't change the fact that if those wide eyed idealists had voted strategically (intelligently) instead of voting for Nader, we would never have been cursed with Bush II. That's a plain truth.

2000. Never fucking forget.

If all the Democrats who voted for Bush voted for Gore instead...

If Gore had intervened in the state's voter disenfranchisement...

If Gore challenged the Supreme Court's Ruling with greater enthusiasm and demanded recalls outside of blue districts...

If, if, if. Yeah. In conjunction with all the shit that went down in Florida in 2000, Ralph Nader's campaign is a footnote. He's a scapegoat. I don't understand this mindset among Democrats, that there's no possible way it could have been their own fault they lost. Give it up.

 

[Forever]

Don't torture yourself with hypotheticals. Many things swung that election and people voting for Nader was just another piece of wood on the pile.

When people start talking about repeating that critical mistake I think it's instrumental to learn from the past.

I don't understand this mindset among Democrats, that there's no possible way it could have been their own fault they lost. Give it up.

This is a straw man, and nothing in your post begins to address the fact that the Green Party siphoned off far more than enough votes to decide the election.

The Greens are literally willing to let the country burn so long as they get to prove some kind of masturbatory point known and cared about only by them. They are the Republican's Fifth Column within the ranks of the left. They can go fuck themselves.

 

[astroturfing]

People thought it was a good idea to vote for Nader in 2000 too.

what if it was?

if third party candidates slowly but surely got more and more support in the coming decades, that would be a good thing for democracy, right? it's gotta start somewhere. people really should look further than just the next 4 or 8 years.

i think it's a disturbingly defeatist attitude to just vote for the lesser of two evils even if there are better candidates. if millions of people keep conforming to that idea, nothing is ever going to change. true change doesn't happen in an instant, it requires sacrifices and takes a long fucking time.

 

[ThisWreckage]

If all the Democrats who voted for Bush voted for Gore instead...

If Gore had intervened in the state's voter disenfranchisement...

If Gore challenged the Supreme Court's Ruling with greater enthusiasm and demanded recalls outside of blue districts...

If, if, if. Yeah. In conjunction with all the shit that went down in Florida in 2000, Ralph Nader's campaign is a footnote. He's a scapegoat. I don't understand this mindset among Democrats, that there's no possible way it could have been their own fault they lost. Give it up.

Exactly. He's one hypothetical of many. The biggest issue was that so many liberals/Democrats thought that Bush was going to lose and they sat their asses at home on election day.

 

[Shrennin]

That just about sums up everything wrong with this country and these "debates". Why even call them debates when they're really just glorified pageants. Ugh.

Can't say I disagree with you. I think both matter, honestly, but a presidential debate doesn't give much room to substantative arguments.

 

[Guevara]

what if it was?

if third party candidates slowly but surely got more and more support in the coming decades, that would be a good thing for democracy, right? it's gotta start somewhere. people really should look further than just the next 4 or 8 years.

i think it's a disturbingly defeatist attitude to just vote for the lesser of two evils even if there are better candidates. if millions of people just keep conforming to that idea, nothing is ever going to change. true change doesn't happen in an instant, it requires sacrifices and takes a long fucking time.

Even a <10% Green Party nationally would guarantee Republican control of the presidency and supreme court for a generation. I don't get what the end game is for the Green Party.

 

[EatinOlives]

Uh, no. Biden laughed, smirked, and was downright disrespectful to Ryan whereas Romney was aggressive but he did none of those things. Should Biden have had control of those mannerisms, he would have won the debate easily but because he didn't it became a tie. Debates are all about style -- Biden made mistakes being aggressive and in control of the debate which cost him.

Maybe you could try listening to what Biden was responding to and what he was saying in return rather than getting jimmies rustled that "omg he smirked he so smug".

I'm sick and tired of people looking at the candidates without listening to a word they're saying, then declaring a verdict based on "style".

 

[SteveWinwood]

Honestly Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will probably just cancel each other out so it's not a huge deal in my mind. I've seen about an equal amount of excitement for both, 95% of which has been entirely on the internet making it super small in reality.

 

[Forever]

what if it was?

It wasn't.

if third party candidates slowly but surely got more and more support in the coming decades, that would be a good thing for democracy, right? it's gotta start somewhere. people really should look further than just the next 4 or 8 years.

i think it's a disturbingly defeatist attitude to just vote for the lesser of two evils even if there are better candidates. if millions of people keep conforming to that idea, nothing is ever going to change. true change doesn't happen in an instant, it requires sacrifices and takes a long fucking time.

I'm guessing you're middle class, kind of sheltered, probably white, and have never truly felt the impact of Republican policies upon your family.

 

[Shrennin]

Maybe you could try listening to what Biden was responding to and what he was saying in return rather than getting jimmies rustled that "omg he smirked he so smug".

I'm sick and tired of people looking at the candidates without listening to a word they're saying, then declaring a verdict based on "style".

Or you could look at what I was responding to instead of acting like I was saying Biden lost the debate purely because I didn't like his style. Honestly, I thought Biden won that debate even with his aggression but I knew that aggression would work against him. And it did, more than I thought it would have.

 

[jtb]

Even a <10% Green Party nationally would guarantee Republican control of the presidency and supreme court for a generation. I don't get what the end game is for the Green Party.

Doesn't the first past the post system in its current form always end in a two-party system anyways? It's always been about choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

[Deified Data]

When people start talking about repeating that critical mistake I think it's instrumental to learn from the past.


This is a straw man, and nothing in your post begins to address the fact that the Green Party siphoned off far more than enough votes to decide the election.

The Greens are literally willing to let the country burn so long as they get to prove some kind of masturbatory point known and cared about only by them. They are the Republican's Fifth Column within the ranks of the left. They can go fuck themselves.

Well, sounds like you've got it all figured out. Gore would have won if Nader weren't there to "steal" his votes. He also would have won if he had run unopposed, wouldn't he? Or if, say hypothetically, he ran a competent campaign? Say liberal votes don't "belong" to Democrats by right, but must be earned through action and confidence? Say the Green party appeals to the vast majority of liberals, those who are scared and bullied by people like you into voting against their own conscience?

But hey, you keep towing that line, buddy. Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.

 

[Alcibiades]

Please no Nader blaming. :/

Things are too complicated to blame an election on a single person. If they hadn't prematurely announced Florida for Gore, Bush wouldn't have lost thousands of votes in the Panhandle. Consider that some people hate both parties and just went for the most viable 3rd party candidate. I bet some "conservative"-leaning moderates voted for Nader (note that Bush won comfortably in 2004), as well as perhaps some Libertarians that thought Harry Browne didn't have the name recognition Nader did.

If Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were to be in these debates, imagine the potential for the American people to wake up the debate as a political show with very little substance.

 

[pigeon]

Even a <10% Green Party nationally would guarantee Republican control of the presidency and supreme court for a generation. I don't get what the end game is for the Green Party.

The endgame is for the Republican Party to fail to evolve appropriately and crumble into a regional southern party while the Green Party emerges on the Democratic left and gets just enough success to push for electoral reform.

Will it actually happen? Probably not, but I wouldn't vote Green if I lived in a swing state. In the long term, I believe that America needs electoral reform, so. We're going to need some sort of destabilizing event to get it, probably.

But this is all irrelevant to the debate!

 

[Balphon]

Even a <10% Green Party nationally would guarantee Republican control of the presidency and supreme court for a generation. I don't get what the end game is for the Green Party.

Delegitimization of the two-party system?

 

[Buzzati]

It wasn't.



I'm guessing you're middle class, kind of sheltered, probably white, and have never truly felt the impact of Republican policies upon your family.

Condescend more - and maybe you'll win those Greens over. How are you going to tell a constituent who opposes candidates who cow-tow to Israel, to suck it up and vote for the guys that are 'good enough'.

 

[Forever]

Well, sounds like you've got it all figured out. Gore would have won if Nader weren't there to "steal" his votes. He also would have won if he had run unopposed, wouldn't he? Or if, say hypothetically, he ran a competent campaign? Say liberal votes don't "belong" to Democrats by right, but must be earned through action and confidence? Say the Green party appeals to the vast majority of liberals, those who are scared and bullied by people like you into voting against their own conscience?

But hey, you keep towing that line, buddy. Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.

Tactical Voting.

Learn it. Practice it. If you give a single shit about what happens to actual people in this country, that is.

Condescend more - and maybe you'll win those Greens over.

If you intend to vote Green in a swing state in this year 2012 then you are not operating on a rational basis and there is likely no argument that can sway you.

 

[Magni]

Let's do this!

pigeon, here's the Daily Beast's stream, Urtak, debate bingo, and live chat: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/16/presidential-debate-dashboard-round-2.html Their coverage starts in twenty minutes.

 

[ThisWreckage]

I don't believe in tactical voting. I don't vote for the lesser of two evils and I don't vote defensively.

 

[Deified Data]

Tactical Voting.

Learn it. Practice it. If you give a single shit about what happens to actual people in this country, that is.

I live in Buttfuck, Indiana - a red district in a red state. I can vote for whomever I please without fear of repercussions. Don't presume to know my situation, or the level of my understanding regarding the "tactical vote".

I wouldn't encourage someone in a swing state to vote third party, but I sure as hell wouldn't condemn them for it, either. Encourage progressive change in your own party before you attempt to sway Greens with fear-mongering. I think we might just have to agree to disagree and imagine we have it all figured out.

 

[Buzzati]

Tactical Voting.


If you intend to vote Green in a swing state in this year 2012 then you are not operating on a rational basis and there is likely no argument that can sway you.

Many likely wouldn't vote Democrat anyway. The Democratic party isn't entitled to every liberal vote - they have to earn it.

 

[besada]

I'd love to see Stein and Johnson in these debates. Talk about letting the cat among the pigeons. It would have zero effect on the chances of a third party to win in the U.S., but I imagine it would be difficult for the real candidates to stay on script in the middle of that chaos. Someone might get confused and say something interesting.

 

[ivysaur12]

Uh, no. Biden laughed, smirked, and was downright disrespectful to Ryan whereas Romney was aggressive but he did none of those things. Should Biden have had control of those mannerisms, he would have won the debate easily but because he didn't it became a tie. Debates are all about style -- Biden made mistakes being aggressive and in control of the debate which cost him.

Then why do most polls show that Biden "won" the debate?

 

[oatmeal]

I'd love to see Stein and Johnson in these debates. Talk about letting the cat among the pigeons. It would have zero effect on the chances of a third party to win in the U.S., but I imagine it would be difficult for the real candidates to stay on script in the middle of that chaos. Someone might get confused and say something interesting.

Yeah, it would be great to get another viewpoint in there.

But alas...two party system.

 

[Deified Data]

I'd love to see Stein and Johnson in these debates. Talk about letting the cat among the pigeons. It would have zero effect on the chances of a third party to win in the U.S., but I imagine it would be difficult for the real candidates to stay on script in the middle of that chaos. Someone might get confused and say something interesting.

Too dangerous for the status quo. Someone might say something a little too appealing. Before you know it, straight-ticket voters might start asking uncomfortable questions of their candidates.

 

[Shrennin]

Then why do most polls show that Biden "won" the debate?

Either way, he was more aggressive than Romney was, which is what I was responding to. I've seen polls showing a tie or that Biden won, but I haven't counted the polls to determine who technically came out on top but Biden could have won the debate by a large majority if he controlled his mannerisms.

The thing is, I wasn't trying to respond about who won that debate, I was just responding to the aggression angle to the person I quoted (who said the media determined it a tie). There's a way to be aggressive and Biden handled that aspect poorly while Romney did it masterfully.

 

[Conciliator]

Wooooo debate hope it's funny or at least kind of interesting in some way.

 

[Alcibiades]

If you intend to vote Green in a swing state in this year 2012 then you are not operating on a rational basis and there is likely no argument that can sway you.

That seems a little harsh. People have a right to do whatever they want with their votes and sometimes there is disagreement as to who to vote for or whether their votes make a difference. There are people that are purposely not voting because they hate the whole process. Can't really blame them considering the last decade or so of politics. Some people prefer Obama, some Romney, some neither, some won't participate. I'm sure there is some "rational basis" for the different choices people make.

For my part, I won't even encourage people to vote. If they are informed enough to care and vote (or purposefully not vote), then I respect their decision to participate.

 

[Lv99 Slacker]

It's not up to Obama. He will do well. He's proven that when he does slip up during a campaign, he rights his wrongs and comes out ahead.

And Romney will deliver a great performance once again. No one should expect otherwise. But it's not up to Romney either.

The outcome of this debate will be decided by the media. The same media that called the Biden/Ryan match a "draw" when it clearly wasn't. Assuming Obama and Romney both do well, which way will the media go? They love an underdog. They love a tight race. However, where does the race even stand right now? Electoral college favors Obama. Popular vote favors Romney. Obviously the election is decided by the EC but shouldn't the popular vote results be more important to networks like CNN because that's who their viewership is?

A big problem with "objective" networks is that they give too much validity to republicans without a plan. Instead of trying to be fair and balanced, they should be reminding viewers that one side has a plan and the other side is blowing hot air.

Candy Crowley is employed by CNN. I do not expect a fair match like the one moderated by Martha Raddatz. Do not expect a CNN employee to call out a republican for not being specific enough. CNN/NBC/ABC anchors and pundits will decide this debate, not the candidates or the braindead undecided electorate.

Funny enough, it was a CNN Republican primary debate from the last election that made me realize this. Save for Ron Paul and Huckabee, every other candidate got 3-5min to reply, and those first two candidates only got called on three times each.

 

[MrCheez]

Good luck, Bams! Let's see some fire tonight, plz