Support NeoGAF

[Wolfy]

Regardless of who 'wins,' I think the way the debates are formatted are total garbage. They should be longer, with more crossfire type debating, rather than bullshit like "do you think we should save the whales?"

 

[ManDudeChild]

I think we all know the answer to their positions on whales.

Bush: Whales support TERROR!
Kerry: Whales are good ... bad no GOOD GOOD GOOD!.... bad.

 

[Triumph]

We will all lose for not having Ralph Nader there to talk about real shit.

 

[Hitokage]

We will all lose for not having Ralph Nader there to talk about real shit.

Quick, get more antigay funding!

 

[Triumph]

Quick, get more antigay funding!

*sigh*

The problem with Ralph's method of fundraising is that he doesn't have prospective donors fill out a questionaire- as long as you aren't a PAC, you can cantribute up to the max $2000. So of course, it is politically advantageous for individuals from far right wing groups to contribute to Ralph- the better he does, the fewer votes Kerry will get is the thinking on this. And it will continue to work as long as the Democrats don't address the left side of the spectrum in their quest to boot lick their way into power.

Of course, Nader is the only candidate advocating legalizing gay marriage. But real stands on real issues aren't important any more, are they? Of course not. It's all about presentation and posturing.

 

[StoOgE]

Of course, Nader is the only candidate advocating legalizing gay marriage. But real stands on real issues aren't important any more, are they? Of course not. It's all about presentation and posturing.

Sure, he advocates legalizing gay marriges, but takes support from anti-gay groups. I once respected and voted for Nader, and still think he is one of the best men alive.. but all the same, I cant support him anymore and am losing alot of respect for him by the day. The company you keep is just as important as what you say.

You can claim to be pro womens rights, but when you hang out with a bunch of date raping assholes, what you say loses alot of credibility.

 

[Dan]

Whoever wins... we lose.

Agreed on the format stuff. It's really not much of a debate. It's a series of one-off speeches on the same topics.

 

[Gregory]

Is this the only time the president is participating in political debates in USA? Seems pretty odd looking at it from an european viewpoint.

Here scandinavia atleast, and I guess most of Europe, our prime-ministers/presidents are in televised political debates almost every week. I don`t think I`ve ever seen Bush in anything. :/

 

[Wolfy]

Yea, I watch blair in the house of commons all the time, it's so hardcore.

 

[firex]

Sharpton will win it.

 

[BigJonsson]

Canada has debates every day as well although I don't think any parlaiment goes as nuts as the British house

 

[cvxfreak]

I'll be totally honest and say no one will win, because it's the cool option to choose.

 

[Screaming_Gremlin]

"Whoever wins... we lose"

 

[Hitokage]

As I understand it, even though in the UK it's the Prime Minister who holds any real executive power, he's still a member of Parlaiment. Members of the US Congress debate amongst each other, but when it comes to the President, the conflict is more of between their respective branches of government rather than between individuals. Veto threats and oversight, etc.

 

[iapetus]

Whoever you liked going into the debate will 'win' it.

 

[MetatronM]

Is this the only time the president is participating in political debates in USA? Seems pretty odd looking at it from an european viewpoint.

Yeah, we only have actual political debates during election years. There are usually about 2 or 3 debates in the last couple months before the election. Otherwise, there is no formal debate involving the President. The President makes speeches and holds press conferences, but never engages in formal debate with the opposing party.

It's partly due to our separation of powers, but it's also largely due to the perception that the President should be spending his time on governing and effectively ruling the world, therefore leaving no time to be annoyed with regular domestic political events.

 

[shoplifter]

"Whoever wins... we lose"

Pretty much.

 

[Alcibiades]

As I understand it, even though in the UK it's the Prime Minister who holds any real executive power, he's still a member of Parlaiment. Members of the US Congress debate amongst each other, but when it comes to the President, the conflict is more of between their respective branches of government rather than between individuals. Veto threats and oversight, etc.

true, and during both the Republican and Democratic administrations, you'll see sparring between members of the same parties (like with Clinton on trade as an example) between the executive branch (Presidency + Cabinet + federal agencies) and Congress, and you'll find some weird political partnerships (DeLay/Clinton on trade with China, Bush/Kennedy on education bill, etc...)

 

[Triumph]

Sure, he advocates legalizing gay marriges, but takes support from anti-gay groups. I once respected and voted for Nader, and still think he is one of the best men alive.. but all the same, I cant support him anymore and am losing alot of respect for him by the day. The company you keep is just as important as what you say.

You can claim to be pro womens rights, but when you hang out with a bunch of date raping assholes, what you say loses alot of credibility.

Here we go again...

Ralph Nader, like George W. Bush and John Kerry, has a website. On that website, you can click a link and contribute up to the maximum donation allowable for an individual under the law. There is no review process, no questionaire that you must fill out in order to contribute. I myself have given him $250. You just have to give your name and address- not which institutions you are a member of.

Of course some jaded, cynical members of certain societal organizations that realize that Mr. Nader has no chance of winning, but nonetheless realize that politically his very presence in the race harms the Democratic ticket, will contribute to a far left ideology that they do not support. And then the Democrats will bitch about it, despite the fact that they are bootlicking Middle America in their quest to take the White House.

Of course, again issues don't matter. Intentions and platforms don't matter. Perception matters, and if you have the(wrong) perception that Ralph Nader welcomes support from anti-gay, anti-women's groups of course you'll be less likely to vote for him. And that's just what the Democrats want, rather than to actually embrace a truly liberal agenda they will point out straw men backing Ralph Nader and label him a spoiler. Well you know what? Fuck them. If you can't differentiate between the man and his message and who might give him money, then you don't deserve the right to vote. I'm fucking sick of all the ignorance, all of the cynicism. Ralph Nader's is the only agenda that will benefit a majority of America. The dominant political and economic institutions don't want you to know that, because it doesn't benefit THEM at all. Keep tucking yourself in with your Corporately Endorsed, Democratic candidates at night and don't come crying to me when the same shitty issues are up for "debate" again in four years.

 

[Azih]

I think every country should adopt the Canadian 'scrum' which is where the Prime Minister steps outside the Parliment building and has a dozen microphones shoved in his face on an almost daily basis.

 

[Triumph]

I think every country should adopt the Canadian 'scrum' which is where the Prime Minister steps outside the Parliment building and has a dozen microphones shoved in his face on an almost daily basis.

Bush would have been hiding in the Oval Office with a cheap bottle of gin after a week of that. Are you serious? Leave the poor man-child alone.

 

[Hitokage]

Bush would have been hiding in the Oval Office with a cheap bottle of gin after a week of that. Are you serious? Leave the poor man-child alone.

I know, even after banning certain people of the press from asking questions and making press conferences as scripted as possible, the man still needs his gin to handle it all.

 

[Drensch]

What debates?
You mean the scripted pre-screened questions asked by a moderator of each candidate without the ability to directly address the other candidate? That's not a debate. That what Karl Rove designed to protect the monkey, that is not a debate.

 

[Alcibiades]

Here we go again...

Ralph Nader, like George W. Bush and John Kerry, has a website. On that website, you can click a link and contribute up to the maximum donation allowable for an individual under the law. There is no review process, no questionaire that you must fill out in order to contribute. I myself have given him $250. You just have to give your name and address- not which institutions you are a member of.

Of course some jaded, cynical members of certain societal organizations that realize that Mr. Nader has no chance of winning, but nonetheless realize that politically his very presence in the race harms the Democratic ticket, will contribute to a far left ideology that they do not support. And then the Democrats will bitch about it, despite the fact that they are bootlicking Middle America in their quest to take the White House.

Of course, again issues don't matter. Intentions and platforms don't matter. Perception matters, and if you have the(wrong) perception that Ralph Nader welcomes support from anti-gay, anti-women's groups of course you'll be less likely to vote for him. And that's just what the Democrats want, rather than to actually embrace a truly liberal agenda they will point out straw men backing Ralph Nader and label him a spoiler. Well you know what? Fuck them. If you can't differentiate between the man and his message and who might give him money, then you don't deserve the right to vote. I'm fucking sick of all the ignorance, all of the cynicism. Ralph Nader's is the only agenda that will benefit a majority of America. The dominant political and economic institutions don't want you to know that, because it doesn't benefit THEM at all. Keep tucking yourself in with your Corporately Endorsed, Democratic candidates at night and don't come crying to me when the same shitty issues are up for "debate" again in four years.

thanks man, it's true, Nader can't control who gives money through his website, instead of b*tching (and I don't remember this level of anger and public assault, like trying to discredit him personally and actually launching campaigns to keep him off the ballot with million-dollar law firm operartions, on Ross Perot from the Republicans in '92, then again, I was a kid) about this "spoiler", why aren't the Democrats contributing to the Constitution and Libertarian parties (which in fact, have cost Republicans Senate seats and electoral votes)...

 

[Triumph]

 

[Alcibiades]

f*cking SWEEEEEEET!!!

 

[Mandark]

Of course, Nader is the only candidate advocating legalizing gay marriage. But real stands on real issues aren't important any more, are they? Of course not. It's all about presentation and posturing.

Isn't there another, actually credible progressive third party candidate for you to support? I know ErasureAcer is throwing his immense clout behind someone else, and what with Nader cozying up to the racists and stuff, you could probably do better.

Nader's obviously not interested in building a viable third party, only in giving lip service to the evils of a duopoly every four years. Of course taking over an existing party is probably a lot more effective (just ask the Goldwater Republicans), but if you're going to create a third party, create a third party.

He's not serious about ideas anymore, if his Iraq plan is any indication (it's just as stupidly optimistic as anything Bush's cabinet ever put together). I can understand the feeling that the Democratic party has moved too far to the right, and that the DLC is running things, but voting Nader is really just an emotional response, that is not going to result in a short-term change in governance, or a long term realignment of American politics.

So basically it's a decision whether the substantial, but not ideal, differences between a Kerry administration and a second Bush administration are worth more or less than the catharsis of voting Nader.

 

[Hitokage]

Money can be given back, and signatures can be refused. Last I heard, Nader hasn't done either.

 

[Triumph]

Isn't there another, actually credible progressive third party candidate for you to support? I know ErasureAcer is throwing his immense clout behind someone else, and what with Nader cozying up to the racists and stuff, you could probably do better.

Nader's obviously not interested in building a viable third party, only in giving lip service to the evils of a duopoly every four years. Of course taking over an existing party is probably a lot more effective (just ask the Goldwater Republicans), but if you're going to create a third party, create a third party.

He's not serious about ideas anymore, if his Iraq plan is any indication (it's just as stupidly optimistic as anything Bush's cabinet ever put together). I can understand the feeling that the Democratic party has moved too far to the right, and that the DLC is running things, but voting Nader is really just an emotional response, that is not going to result in a short-term change in governance, or a long term realignment of American politics.

So basically it's a decision whether the substantial, but not ideal, differences between a Kerry administration and a second Bush administration are worth more or less than the catharsis of voting Nader.

Frankly, I don't know why Ralph refused to actively run for the Green Party this time around. I don't personally buy the "Independent Citizen as Candidate" thing he's trying to sell. And yes, his platform and the platform of the actual Green Party candidate, David Cobb, are incredibly similar. Neither will get on the ballot in Georgia, despite the fact that I have collected over 500 signatures for Mr. Nader. So I will write in Nader's name and feel fine about it.

When it comes down to it, my support of Nader can be explained thusly: If for whatever reason God asked me to pick the person I felt was most qualified to run our country and fix it's ills, I would name Ralph Nader. I don't think that there is a person more qualified for the job. It's a shame that the debate over his candidacy centers mostly on the votes that he will "cost" the Democrats, but that is the nature of the machine that drives our Presidential elections.

As far as creating a viable 3rd Party, I am in fact active with local Green initiatives. It's not easy advocating a quasi-socialist agenda in Georgia though, so we don't really tend to have many candidates run as Greens. I was going to run for Atlanta City Council at one point, but couldn't afford to take the time off of work. And I would rather run under the Freak Power ticket anyhow, if only to satisfy a life long dream. But to answer your question, yes I realize the need for a 3rd party and work actively to create one. It's not easy, though. Especially in the conservative, Bible belt South.

 

[Dan]

I want that shirt... minus the Nader reference. Maybe just "vote third party" or "support third parties". Nader's name just ages the shirt. Might still grab it though. At the very least, I'm sure it'll draw some interesting comments from people.

 

[Mandark]

In the long term, wouldn't it be a better plan to try and get the Green Party over 5% for the federal matching funds?

Also, don't try to reduce Nader's reliance on the right-wing machine for support to anonymous internet donations. He courted support from Fred Newman and the New Alliance Party. He took signatures collected by Republican party operatives in Michigan, after his spokesman said he wouldn't. His campaign hired a conservative consulting firm in Arizona, where they had Nader's petition piggyback on another, anti-immigrant petition. You can argue that means and ends are distinct from each other, but it's clear that he's made a conscious decision to actively seek and accept support from people whose political philosophy he disagrees with.

Or at least mostly disagrees with. I'm not too crazy about Nader's stance on immigration. He seems to dance around it, by saying it relates to other issues, then discussing them. And more than once (including on a show hosted by Pat Buchanan) he's said that if the American people don't like the immigration situation, maybe they'll do something about it.

Taken literally, that's obviously right. But that is the only issue on which I've heard him defer to the judgement of the American people. Why is he doing that? Does he feel he is unsuited to deal with that problem, while he's totally uncowed by everything else? Or is it just that he'd be willing to set up some incredibly stringent laws to keep foreigners out of the country, but realizes his base would not like to hear that?

The more Issues pages I read on Nader's site, the more he seems like George W. Bush in several ways. But that probably deserves it's own post, and this thread has gone way off on a tangent.

So to answer the question, I think Edwards will win the debates.