frustrated with presidential debates?
chopitdown
Posts: 2,222
I saw this on another website and I think it sums up rather well what is wrong with these debates...http://chrisdodd.com/republican_debate/chart.png
it was just an advertisement for mccain, giuliani, and romney...let's not let too many other people throw their ideas out to be heard.
it was just an advertisement for mccain, giuliani, and romney...let's not let too many other people throw their ideas out to be heard.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
What pissed me off about 1996, 2000 and 2004 was that Nader was PHYSICALLY prevented from debating. He literally was not allowed to go.
Its one thing to be against Nader and not want him to take votes away from Gore, and Kerry, its another thing entirely to bar him and prevent him from debating at all.
People always say, Nader WILL NEVER win an election. Part of that is because he doesnt put ads on tv like every other candidate. if he did that his votes would increase. And secondly he isnt allowed to debate. Again, if he was allowed to do that, his votes would increase.
The current Democrat debates are interesting, but I fear the Dems will choose a mealy mouthed middle of the road moderate like they always do.
Do you really think that they will allow nader or another far more left wing candidate to debate?
I personally don't think they (the media, the parties) will allow anyone who is not a republican or a democrat to debate, especially once the nominations have been made. The media and the parties (who are definitely influenced by money) will get their favorites the most air time and the most exposure. the only way to increase any candidates exposure would be for them to start winning a few states in the primaries. Until then, it'll be business as usual. What I'd rather have is a forum, esp at this stage. Debates just prove who has more wit. If they would actually hold a candidates feet to the fire and make them say something, these would be so much more beneficial.
It goes far beyond that. Even individuals within the two parties are cast aside. The media picks it's favorites, Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, and then proceeds to shove them down your throat. Even during the debates these candidates are the focus while the others are just shadows in the background. Our election process really is a joke. As long as money and the media continue to dictate who our next president will be we will continue to have the worst possible leadership. The public doesn't help much either. They are either too lazy, stupid, or uninterested to vote for good candidates. Honest candidates with integrity and vision, such as Gravel, Paul, Kucinich, etc…, will never reach the top.
On a side note does anyone else think that Mitt Romney looks like Bruce Campbell.
I can agree with some of that. But too list only those candidates as the "honest candidates with integrity and vision" is a bit much, don;t ya think.
Honestly, I've seen Paul a few times now and while he may say 1 or 2 interesting things, he is hardly someone I would trust much of anything to. That's not to say I don't think the same thing about a bunch of others as well.
Anyhow, I missed the beginning of the debates last night but have it on DVR so I'll watch it tonight. The stage setup is certainly meant to focus on certain candidates.
I agree that in the general it would be nice to have more than two parties; but our election process prevents it. Yes, it has to do with the influence of power, yes it has to do with money. More than those two reasons, however, is the fact that the one who gets the most votes in a state wins regardless of the percentage he or she receives - i.e. someone could win with 25% of the vote so long as everyone else gets less. So, say we have five parties and it breaks down as Party 1 - 25%, Party 2 - 20%, Party 3 - 20%, Party 4 - 20%, and Party 5 - 15%. Party 1 wins. In the next election, Parties 2, 3, 4, and 5 join forces to defeat Party 1, and the election is Party 1 - 25%, Party Other - 75%. Party Other wins, but with a coalition it can't possibly hold together. The following election, Party Other splits in two. One half remains Party Other, the other half splits between Party 1 and the new Party Third. The results are Party 1 - 50%, Party Other 38%, and Party Third 12%. Party 1 wins. Party Other and Party Third join up again, and then you've got a 50/50 split, roughly - and that's pretty much where we are right now. Hence, the "mealy mouthed moderates" trying to keep their coalitions together.
Proportional voting, or Instant Run-Off voting are the only programs capable of fixing this problem - if you see it as a problem. I do, but I don't see a way to fix it short of massive demand from the population. For the time being, I'm more comfortable pulling a government controlled by the Democrats to the left than I am trying the same thing in a Republican controlled one.
Well I would trust a candidate like Paul over any of the others in his party. The fact that the man wants to greatly reduce, instead of greatly increase, the size and scope of governments lends me to believe that he wants what is best for the country and it's people and not what is best for him and his party. He is a man who puts principles before party something I have yet to see out of any other Republican candidate.
I haven't been paying to much attention to the Democratic field simply because I will never vote for Hillary, Obama, or Edwards and I know that one of them will win the primaries. So from what I have heard and can gather about Kucinich and Gravel, they seem to be along the same mold as Paul.
The news flash is of course this whole "well they aren't fit to be president" argument is a joke. Who is fit to be president? About 5 of the current 43 that's who. Not a lot of people make good presidents, most of the really truely great ones you can name on your fingers and they are people who do not desire power rather they desire to make the people and the country greater than themselves. Look at the canidates in the debates this year, who among them have these qualities? Who has fresh, ideas with few ties to politics or special interest groups and lobbiests?
Vote on ideas, not on symbols or marketing.
This guy, that guy has no chance....only because the people voting decide they have no chance. Why not put your money towards that Add campaign P Diddy, instead of the stupid as hell Vote or Die crap?
After each debate the public can call in with who they liked the best...the candidate with the fewest votes is booted from the debates....until we are down to just 2 candidates, then the other candidates get to decide who will run for president from that party.
At least that way, the people would watch, right?
as long as they had some judge there to call out the BS that the candidates say and to give an honest appraisal of the answer.
the "media" is all part of the charade ...
Panel of 3 judges....Dennis Miller, Al Franken, & 1 from this group (John Stewart, Bill Maher, Rosie O, Oprah, or Paula Abdul).
or some cab driver from NY to bring a working mans view to it
Well traditional this is supposed to be the medias job, to inform us of the truth.
I don't think they are even bothering to pick up the ball in the first place.
i do believe this is the first time I have been accused of being a dreamer in politics.
very good point.
OK, I'll conceed on the fact that Paul does seem to be a decent man that has some very good and refreshing ideas and willing to take a stand. I'll have to give him mre time.