Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Politics

Democracy Now Asks Third Party Candidates Questions From Last Night's Debate 257

As they did with the first debate, Democracy Now has published the debate questions answered by third party candidates. Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Constitution), and Rocky Anderson (Justice) were present. There's a (long) video with the answers spliced in, and (thankfully) a transcript of all their answers. Gary Johnson was not present, but you can catch him debating Jill Stein Thursday October 18th at 7 p.m. EDT.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democracy Now Asks Third Party Candidates Questions From Last Night's Debate

Comments Filter:
  • by wstrucke ( 876891 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @03:11PM (#41684773)
    They won't because the system is rigged against them. It's a catch-22 - - they can not get enough votes to make the average person think they should be included and since they aren't included or given any coverage throughout the political season they can't get any votes.
  • by NettiWelho ( 1147351 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @03:14PM (#41684801)
    Yet only candidates approved by the majority parties are allowed in the real debates. Stay classy.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @03:15PM (#41684815)

    Mittens respects neither freedom nor responsibility.

  • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @03:20PM (#41684887) Journal

    Mitt Romney is the crony capitalist candidate. So is Barack Obama. Two parties, one agenda.

  • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @03:27PM (#41684981)

    yes, but one is extra-Christy (long-i vowel) and insists that you also have to subscribe to his party's belief system.

    don't know about you, but for me, that's a total and complete show-stopper. keep your religion to yourself. do what you want with your family and church, but it HAS to stay out of public laws.

    given a choice, I cannot accept even any hint of an american taliban.

  • by night_flyer ( 453866 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @03:30PM (#41685029) Homepage

    Why do the parties always go for the big prize? It's like a high school student wanting to become the CEO of IBM immediately after graduating.

    Even if they do win, then what? they will have zero support from either of the parties that dominate the congress.

    If a 3rd party wants to be taken seriously start at the bottom. city councilor, mayor, state senator, work your way up, then people will see what you really believe in and have a track record... and while you are at it get more of "your party" elected to those roles as well.

    This is one case of "go big or go home" doesn't work, it just means you are going home empty handed

  • Stupid questions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @03:30PM (#41685031) Journal

    I watched this debate, and none of the questions were even worth answering. Not one question was asked about civil liberties. Not one question about the TSA, or drug policy, or drone strikes. Not one mention of science. Not one question addressed the regulatory capture of just about every government agency. Not one question about Obama's failure to prosecute any banking execs for fraud after the 2008 financial crisis. Absolutely no worthwhile questions were asked, and no worthwhile answers were given.

  • by Nadaka ( 224565 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @03:42PM (#41685181)

    The greens are starting at the bottom. There have been 136 green party members elected to local office, 3 elected to state offices (all no longer serving), and 0 elected to federal offices.

    Participation in the presidential election builds name recognition and motivation for the party, improving their chances at lower offices even if the presidency is hopeless.

  • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @04:12PM (#41685623) Journal

    We know Romney did things that were uncharitable, but at least his actions were not evil - they were, after all, legal and financial actions.

    Legal and financial actions account for most of the evil that is done in this world.

  • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @04:14PM (#41685639) Journal

    You could say the same about Obama and the left wing of the Democratic party. Failing to implement a single progressive policy hasn't seemed to hurt his support.

  • by jitterman ( 987991 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @04:21PM (#41685723)
    I initially thought I would be the only person I knew who'd vote for him. However, when the topic has come up (the election in general), I've been pleasantly surprised by the number of people I know who - without my prompting or mentioning him - have said that they are voting for Gary Johnson as well. Of course, it's not ENOUGH people, but he has more support than I expected. I like many of you am extremely disappointed that the non-insiders don't get some attention. OTOH, I guess the "liberal media" may not be as liberal as some suspect, else the more dangerous-to-the-establishment candidates would get some air time.
  • by r1348 ( 2567295 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @04:38PM (#41685959)

    Keep your army within your borders. That would be a pretty fucking good foreign policy.

  • by dkleinsc ( 563838 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @04:40PM (#41685989) Homepage

    I truly see Obama re-elected as a threat to the US

    What exactly is the threat to America that Obama's reelection presents? We've had 4 years of Obama in charge, and I'm curious to know what evil you think he can do in, say, 2015, that he can't do right now.

    (For the record, I'm voting for Stein this year because I prefer her foreign policy)

  • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @05:04PM (#41686223) Journal

    1) Never even tried to bring single payer to the table as he promised he would. Obamacare is literally less progressive than Nixon's health care plan. Was Nixon a progressive?
    2) Great, now a small fraction of a small fraction of people can put their lives on the line to protect oil company profits.
    3) What exactly is progressive about cutting oil production? Cutting oil consumption would be progressive, but he hasn't done that.
    4) Medicare, medicaid, etc have been increasing exponentially. But they've been increasing exponentially for decades. And hell, Bush passed Medicare part D. Was he progressive?

    Sorry, the one progressive policy you singled out amounts to nothing but crumbs for a tiny fraction of the populace. Get real. Obama is a center right president.

  • by epyT-R ( 613989 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @06:14PM (#41687027)

    Romney is a NEO-conservative. Republicans support almost none of this.

    1. A libertarian would never impose a state religion, state funding for or special tax breaks for religious institutions.
    2. He would most likely support some spending for defense, but he would not waste the money on useless 'police actions' that lack congressional oversight.
    3. he would also not hesitate to declare war to defend ourselves but he would do it by the book (as a congressman or senator).
    4. A libertarian would not impose restrictions on healthcare for ideological reasons (such as abortion) but would also oppose state funding for it.
    5. he would demand heavy restrictions on self-instancing of state power.
    6. he would defend our constitutional rights, even if their use makes insecure control freaks butthurt.

  • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @06:32PM (#41687219) Journal

    Vote whatever third party you desire, or abstain. Voting for either major party is immoral.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...