Jill Stein and Gary Johnson Debate Online Tonight 349
Starting at 7 p.m. EDT (4 p.m. PDT), the Green and Libertarian candidates for President are debating on the Independent Voter Network. You can catch it via a Google+ hangout or Youtube both live and afterward (no word on flashless user unfortunately, unless anyone knows how to access youtube live streams). Since the big two candidates got some time here on Slashdot, we figured you guys might want to argue amongst yourselves about the third party platforms too. Note that there will be another debate with more candidates on Tuesday.
Jill Stein... (Score:5, Funny)
...is kind of hot.
Hey, I'm old.
Re: (Score:2)
Christ, the debates even bring out the grandmother porn addicts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jill Stein... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds pretty much correct. And Jill is kinda hot, in a I'd-love-to-meet-your-daughter sort of way.
Re: (Score:2)
Have not really heard of her until I went to this position survey [isidewith.com]
All my friends, regardless of political party, are told by that site that they side with Jill Stein. So do I, apparently.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem of course with matching is, you are only matching the politicians promises, not their actual real true intent. What we need are truth forums, where politicians are forced to tell the truth. Reality is without truth democracies fail.
Re: (Score:3)
The cardinals are playing tonight (Score:2)
They picked the wrong night
Re: (Score:2)
The game or the debate?
Re: (Score:2)
Thursday is laundry night. Thursday is always laundry night.
Re: (Score:2)
That's Saturday, you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I'll probably vote for Obama
I've lived in the USA for 30 years and only thought about voting for Perot as a third party candidate when I was young and dumb
Re:The cardinals are playing tonight (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that you're old and stupid, you'll just keep making the same old mistakes. Gotcha.
Re:The cardinals are playing tonight (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, Republican, Democrat... whichever party of big government you support, that's all good. Pick team blue if that floats your boat. But after the 3.5 years this president has had, no sane person should ever even consider voting for this guy. Doesn't mean Romney should get your vote - particularly not if you are a died-in-the-wool team blue fan of the big state (as opposed to a died-in-the-wool team red fan of the big state). But by no possible measure has this guy earned a chance at your vote. In addition to bringing forward all of the worst of Bush - on the war, crony capitalism, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, deficit spending, gitmo, on and on -- he's brought it to a new level with the drone strikes, secret kill orders against american citizens, deportations of immigrants, raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, etc. Even his crowning achievement of "healthcare reform" is a dud whether you supported national healthcare or opposed it.
On top of all of that you've got the abysmal economy, shrinking workforce with high unemployment, huge monetary expansion.... Holy crap dude, how could you even think of voting for this guy!?!? Forget what he says, look at what he's actually done!
Listen to the weirdos in the Libertarian/Green Party debate and see if you don't find someone who you could actually support for a reason other than "Yeah! Go Team Blue!" If you are a progressive, Jill Stein represents your views way, way, way more than the candidate with a big "D" after his name. (in the interest of fairness, for you conservatives - take a look at Gary Johnson. He's way, way, way more of a constitutional conservative than your candidate with a big "R" after his name) But for god's sake, don't vote for the guy who's already proven that he's not up to the job.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely well said. I really wish someone could go on all of the national TV stations during prime time and announce this. It boggles my mind how passionate people get about voting for their guy, because the other guy is purely evil! Really...why do we seemingly always end up with evil then? Why don't we stop voting for evil, and kick evil out. There's no room for evil anymore. Time to get a few people with a clue who aren't completely bought out to all of the lobbyist interests.
Re: (Score:3)
But after the 3.5 years this president has had, no sane person should ever even consider voting for this guy.
Well, look, I'm voting Green because pot should be legal and the Libbies want to disband the EPA and Obama is going to win in Illinois in a landslide (and Romney will win Texas in a landslide). However:
When Obama's predecessor took office he was handed a balanced budget, a record high stock market, a lower unemployment rate than in decades, and peace.
When Obama took over, he was handed two wars, a co
Re: (Score:3)
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/ [whatthefuc...esofar.com]
The only wasted vote, is a party line vote. (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats and Republicans can reliably count on their party line votes, regardless of how they flip flop. That's why they focus more on the "independent" vote, come election time. The only way to influence the major parties anymore, is to show a significant uptick in the third party you most support. At the very least, you can affect the talking points of the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
Kuro5hin posted a new article this morning, on Humanity's Second-Best Hope [kuro5hin.org]. Gary Johnson is apparently our best hope, but the Machine won't let him get elected.
Re: (Score:3)
So register as an Independent, then they'll pay attention to you. Vote for some crackpot third party candidate and you don't exist.
I live in South Carolina. If I don't want Romney to be President, voting for Obama doesn't really mean my vote count. He's not winning this state.
Not that I like Obama anyway. Voting for a third-party candidate here actually makes more of a difference, as it gives that third party uptick the GP was talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your vote doesn't count regardless of who you vote for [reason.com]. Might as well vote for someone you like.
Darn! You beat me to linking to that article. Even after reading that article, I still feel really good about voting for Gary Johnson even though I know it won't make much of a difference. But I can't in good conscience support the two major bafoons.
Re: (Score:2)
These are not debates (Score:3)
She lost me (Score:2)
"We have to do something about the gross financial inequality in this country."
FAIL.
*click*
You can divide a sandwich among many men, but you cannot digest it in a collective stomach.
Re: (Score:2)
"We have to do something about the gross financial inequality in this country." FAIL.
I agree. As if "financial equality" is some sort of delicious treat that nobody could say no to.
Re:She lost me (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise, a certain amount of financial equality is good. Entrepreneurs and business owners can end up with quite a lot of money providing goods and services to the world. Individuals can inherit wealth and live on the interest its investment brings in. There is nothing at all wrong with this. However, when things go to an extreme they can have extreme consequences. Just like the rose bush, you need to keep things in balance in order for the economy to be healthy.
If you try to institute a soviet/communist style control and equalize everything, you crush a lot of the incentive to achieve in an honest way. The incentive to achieve through corrupt practices will flourish, however. I use Russia/USSR as an example. If you willfully go the other way and allow the few to obtain and control the vast majority of the wealth, you eventually end up with a lot of dead wealthy people and a river of blood in the streets. I can also use Russia/USSR as an example of this as well. Also France.
I'd kind of like to keep the rose bush alive and healthy without having to feed its roots with blood.
Reunion tour (Score:3)
I guess Shaggy 2 Dope and Violent J were busy tonight.
I doubt these two candidates sincerity, I am suspicious of their motivation and I encourage their supporters to think very carefully before voting for them.
There is not going to be a third party that breaks into the US political system nationwide. It's not going to happen because it cannot happen. The system is specifically designed for it not to happen, and the sooner supporters of these two lunatics get that message, the better off they will be.
On the other hand, there is certainly a place for political outsiders in the local elections, where they could actually have an impact. Most significantly, by influencing one of the two existing political parties. And it's much easier than you might think. Just about anywhere in the US, an average person could become a party committee member practically just by showing up, and once you've done that, now YOU are one of the people who picks primary candidates and who gets on the ballot and who doesn't. School boards, park district boards, but mainly members of the local party structure is the way to go.
That's how the tea party did it. They started showing up (albeit with corporate money in their pockets) for everything from the local school board to party precinct captains to committee members, and they ended up completely taking over the entire Republican Party and bending every elected Republican to their will. Just like that.
If you don't like the way politics works in the US, there are plenty of ways to approach changing it, but if you think you're going to do it by voting for a Libertarian or Greenie or some other third party candidate for president, you might as well just go jack off in your shoe for all the good it will do you. And that's without the rather questionable agendas of the two candidates named in this story.
Just think: Who stands to gain the most if a bunch of people vote for Ron Johnson? Jill Stein? Do you think that fact is lost on the Republican and Democratic parties? Do any of you believe that either Johnson or Stein is going to be elected president?
Re: (Score:2)
The bottom line is even if they are super sincere if they got elected (if you subscribed to a multiverse theory they get elected in some universe) they would be ineffective, because you have to b eable to get the congress and the senate to agree to anything you watn to do as president for the most part.
I like the green party for the most part, I think they are a bit too extreme in some ways but they really need to focus on local elections and not the presidential one.
Local Elections? (Score:2)
You mean like when Jill and some random Libertarian candidate faced Mitt Romney for the Massachusetts gubernatorial election? [c-spanvideo.org]
The Boston Globe called her "the only adult in the room."
I think she should get arrested more often. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you...
Re: (Score:2)
The bottom line is even if they are super sincere if they got elected (if you subscribed to a multiverse theory they get elected in some universe) they would be ineffective, because you have to b eable to get the congress and the senate to agree to anything you watn to do as president for the most part.
I don't think you understand what the powers of the President are. Hint: Gary Johnson has vetoed over 750 bills as governor of New Mexico.
Stopping bullshit legislation by forcing a 2/3rds majority would have a very large impact in government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I posted this link in this conversation already but.....voting for them won't have any more or less of an effect than voting for anyone else [reason.com]. Your vote doesn't matter.
Ah yes, that bone-headed article that might be relevant if it were whispered to a handful of people but as a massively consumed and overly quoted piece of tripe it eliminates all of its own arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess Shaggy 2 Dope and Violent J were busy tonight.
I doubt these two candidates sincerity, I am suspicious of their motivation and I encourage their supporters to think very carefully before voting for them.
There is not going to be a third party that breaks into the US political system nationwide. It's not going to happen because it cannot happen. The system is specifically designed for it not to happen, and the sooner supporters of these two lunatics get that message, the better off they will be.
On the other hand, there is certainly a place for political outsiders in the local elections, where they could actually have an impact. Most significantly, by influencing one of the two existing political parties. And it's much easier than you might think. Just about anywhere in the US, an average person could become a party committee member practically just by showing up, and once you've done that, now YOU are one of the people who picks primary candidates and who gets on the ballot and who doesn't. School boards, park district boards, but mainly members of the local party structure is the way to go.
That's how the tea party did it. They started showing up (albeit with corporate money in their pockets) for everything from the local school board to party precinct captains to committee members, and they ended up completely taking over the entire Republican Party and bending every elected Republican to their will. Just like that.
If you don't like the way politics works in the US, there are plenty of ways to approach changing it, but if you think you're going to do it by voting for a Libertarian or Greenie or some other third party candidate for president, you might as well just go jack off in your shoe for all the good it will do you. And that's without the rather questionable agendas of the two candidates named in this story.
Just think: Who stands to gain the most if a bunch of people vote for Ron Johnson? Jill Stein? Do you think that fact is lost on the Republican and Democratic parties? Do any of you believe that either Johnson or Stein is going to be elected president?
I think that most of the people on /. take for granted much of what you've spelled out here and will choose to vote for the perceived lesser of the two major evil candidates. I will. On the other hand, I can imagine a third party actually causing change in one of the evil parties. Imagine an anti-TSA party and pretend it pulled 5% of the vote, and that most of that 5% were registered Republican (for the sake of argument). That's enough to swing the election. I imagine that the Republicans would at leas
Re: (Score:2)
if I vote gary johnson, at least I influence the next election.. if I vote obama or romney, I vote against what it is I want.. it doesn't matter if johnson doesn't have a chance of winning this time. It would be nice if he did of course, but if we don't vote rationally and by conscience, then what the fuck is the point of elections?
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and Vote Swapping (Score:4, Interesting)
Whatever happened to the avid discussions concerning Vote Swapping [wikipedia.org] and Instant Runoff Voting [wikipedia.org]? I liked when those topics were on the forefront because they gave me more hope than any of the candidates for fixing the seemingly impenetrable wall of muffled cries between the citizens' desires and the ruling bodies.
I don't ever want to vote against. I want to vote for.
[Sad face here]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is only one political party that has been in charge of deleting rights for the last century; Repubmocrats. .8% incidental protein and .1% inert ingredients.
The Libertarians and Greens ARE honestly the REAL candidates along with other non-Repubmocrat offerings.
Repubmocrats are 99.1% plastic,
Leave First Post to the professionals.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
The tea partier will hit you over the head with a pound of sacred dead tree matter, while explaining why corporate interests trump all else. Libertarians will just quote Ayn Rand instead.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
The tea partier will hit you over the head with a pound of sacred dead tree matter, while explaining why corporate interests trump all else. Libertarians will just quote Ayn Rand instead.
So, the libertarians try to use two pounds of dead matter? Gotcha.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe the precise explaination they give is "you dont need it". Im pretty certain Obama actually used those words ("they dont need it", in the context of taxation on the rich), and certainly ive seen that here on slashdot.
Who, precisely, was elected to determine how much I need, I still havent heard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Who, precisely, was elected to determine how much I need, I still havent heard."
That has always been the problem. Who determines how much I need, and what the definition of 'need' is anyway, and who determines my ability. Who is more qualified than I am to make those decisions as they apply to me?
My argument is no one.
There is a lot to like in the Green platform, but they have a serious issue with "free" health care, education, and so on. There is no free. Some one has to pay for all the goodies, and the
Re: (Score:3)
That has always been the problem. Who determines how much I need, and what the definition of 'need' is anyway, and who determines my ability. Who is more qualified than I am to make those decisions as they apply to me?
Whether you are more needy than all the other people who also want something of a limited resource? You may be the most knowledgeable about your own needs but also the least objective. And if there's no relationship between ability and reward because it's all based on need you have an equally strong biased interest in not measuring your ability correctly too. Why work hard for no benefit? So then you have to bring in arbitrators to determine if you're really that useless and needy as you claim, but then the
Re: (Score:2)
The same people as when democracy was first tried out, your neighbor. Before that it was your lord. Before that it was the biggest thug near you. The idea that you can be rich and be left alone really has never existed, this is a very liberal agenda you're pushing. There's always a been a balance between greed and self preservation, the current system seems a bit better than most since we're having an argument about how much of your money to take from you. It beats some of the past experiments in taxation t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and the error liberals make with this statement is that bigger government is not always (if ever) the best way to go about helping others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean "teach a man to fish if he's already wealthy enough to afford to pay for his education." Free public education is another thing Rand was against.
Re: (Score:3)
Rand said:
The average [public school] graduate has no concept of knowledge. He has the cynicism of a decadent adult and the credulity of a child. His mind is in a state of whirling confusion. He finds himself in the midst of the brilliant complexity of an industrial, technological civilization which he cannot begin to understand.
The purpose of education is to teach a student how to live, by developing his mind. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e
Re: (Score:2)
I don't seem to recall Jeebus ever running for political office on the platform of stealing from the rich to finance his popularity with the poor.
Do you remember what he did say about rich people?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Medicare and Social Security are not in the Constitution at all. Yeah, people have paid in, but if you're not willing to ax it then you're not really for small government. Regardless of what marriage means historically there is no basis in the constitution for the Federal government to define it. Regardless of what drugs may do to someone there is no constitutional basis for controlling it. In fact, one has to wonder why prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment but prohibition of drugs do not.
For all of your arguments, none address making the government smaller. The military, Medicare and Social Security are what make our government large. You can cut welfare, head start, school lunches, the interstate system, Nasa and whatever else you want but until you start talking about cutting the big three any rhetoric about small government is disingenuous.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How does that differ from what comes out of a Tea Partier's mouth?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
i forgot to add,
and everything out of a Republican's mouth boils down to "fuck you, I got mine... and btw give me yours too"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You know, I asked the very same thing years ago, and was told that because I had more, I should feel proud to give to those who have less. Funny how these noble sentiments go out the window as soon as the "wrong" politics get involved, eh?
The problem with republicans claiming to be against redistribution while benefiting from it isn't that redistribution is wrong, it's that the hypocrisy is irritating.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I think that adequately sums up the various positions we're going to see in this thread. Good work everyone!
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
everything out of the Libertarian's mouth boils down to "fuck you, I got mine"
What you've said has no connection to reality.
Plenty of libertarians are not financially wealthy (I am downright impoverished - by choice). Plenty of libertarians donate to charity. People who want to protect what's theirs from competition are likely to turn to government for help, which is how we get all those cronyist regulations. Libertarians believe that all people are equal in their negative Rights [wikipedia.org].
Everything out of a real libertarian's mouth boils down to "violence is wrong" [wikipedia.org], including violence by governments to buy loyalty of the mob with stolen loot!
--libman
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ah, no that is not the libertarian perspective. that is the libertarian perspective twisted by leftist wingnuts.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Libertarians want government. Therefore, there is a public sector and public property. So your whole post is off-base.
Re: (Score:3)
Where is this notion that Libertarian societies are bad for the environment?! Libertarians are not Republicans!
In a Libertarian society it wouldn't be illegal to sue over air/water/land/noise pollution seeping onto your property. The cost to pollution would be so astronomical, it would be infeasible to create a company that pollutes.
Re: (Score:3)
while the Tea Partiers believe in a big government morality police
Thats an absolutely fascinating theory. Im just struggling to find its connection to reality.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
while the Tea Partiers believe in a big government morality police
Thats an absolutely fascinating theory. Im just struggling to find its connection to reality.
war on drugs?
war on fags?
war on damn dirty mexicans?
war on contraception?
war on evilution?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never said "supporting it doesnt count", but as the argument isnt "should the state recognize marriage", but rather "what should quality, its hardly a big government issue. That you chose to phrase it as a "war on fags" is kind of a turn off and is what makes me think the discussion isnt one worth having.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The state already defines marriage. Unless I am mistaken, the fight is to maintain the current definition rather than expanding it.
I am not aware of an official Tea Party position on drugs, but once again we already have drug laws.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The state already defines marriage.
Oh? And what the fuck business is it of theirs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Those are separate rights tacked on to the idea of marriage. The status quo is not an argument for itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The state already defines marriage. Unless I am mistaken, the fight is to maintain the current definition rather than expanding it.
No, the teabaggers have started to make a movement to have the feds tell the states what they can call marriage, and to partially repeal inconvenient parts of the Constitution, like Full Faith and Credit.
And it's ok for them to support interfereing in people's lives, so long as the law was already there? We should go back to slavery, that started before the teabaggers came along.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Editors... (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks! I got stuck in traffic and edited this up real quick (I blame traffic, I thought I had an extra hour). Just a quick tip: if you tag the story typo or typoinsummary, a jabber bot complains at the entire editorial team.
Re:Editors... (Score:4, Funny)
You know that little factoid is going to make your lives a world of pain when the trolls see it, right?
Re:And more candidates that you are not seeing on (Score:5, Funny)
I don't see C'thulu on the list. He belongs there. I'm tired of choosing the lesser evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, you'd think with his connections...
OTOH how do you know he didn't serve already, remember the VP during W's terms?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
Then why do you want C'thulu? (Score:2)
If C'thulu was running for president in 2012, he would be the lesser evil.
Have you spend any time reviewing the history of the candidates? Not what they promise but what they have done so far?
Their antics would disgust even a pope.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, Hillary had Bill fixed after Chelsea was born. Dint want any strays dirtying up the breed. The prosecution presents Lewinsky as evidence of function.
Re:Gary Johnson is not really third party (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Your citation is here: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/coalitions/choice [garyjohnson2012.com]
The fact that you even needed a citation for that doesn't speak well about how much you now about the candidate you are talking about. Remember, the OP said GARY JOHNSON is not a third party. There are some pro-life libertarians. I am not talking about them.
Gary Johnson IS for gay marriage. So are many other libertarian candidates. Marriage is a contract. Government should not be in the business of telling people who they can and cannot
Re:Gary Johnson is not really third party (Score:4, Informative)
This is a lie. Ron Paul has not endorsed Gary Johnson.
Here is Ron Paul's statements on war...
"Another term for preventive war is aggressive war - starting wars because someday somebody might do something to us. That is not part of the American tradition."
"We as commander in chief aren't making the decision to go to war. You know, the old-fashioned way, the Constitution, you go to the Congress and find out if our national security is threatened. And I'm afraid what's going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq. They didn't have weapons of mass destruction. And it was orchestrated and it was, to me, a tragedy of what's happened these last ten years, the death and destruction, $4 trillion in debt. So no, it's not worthwhile going to war. If you do, you get a declaration of war and you fight it and you win it and get it over with."
"It should be harder to promote war, especially when there are so many regrets in the end. In the last 60 years, the American people have had little to say over decisions to wage war. We have allowed a succession of presidents and the U.N. to decide when and if we go to war, without an express congressional declaration as the Constitution mandates.
Since 1945, our country has been involved in over 70 active or covert foreign engagements. On numerous occasions we have provided weapons and funds to both sides in a conflict. It is not unusual for our so-called allies to turn on us and use these weapons against American troops. In recent decades we have been both allies and enemies of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and the Islamists in Iran. And where has it gotten us?
The endless costs resulting from our foolish policies, in human lives, injuries, tax dollars, inflation, and deficits, will burden generations to come. For civilization to advance, we must reduce the number of wars fought."
"For civilization to advance, we must reduce the number of wars fought. Two conditions must be met if we hope to achieve this.
First, all military (and covert paramilitary) personnel worldwide must refuse to initiate offensive wars beyond their borders This must become a matter of personal honor for every individual.
Second, the true nature of war must be laid bare, and the glorification must end. Instead of promoting war heroes with parades and medals for wars not fought in the true defense of our country, we should more honestly contemplate the real results of war: death, destruction, horrible wounds, civilian casualties, economic costs, and the loss of liberty at home.
The neoconservative belief that war is inherently patriotic, beneficial, manly, and necessary for human progress must be debunked. These war promoters never send themselves or their own children off to fight. Their hero, Machiavelli, must be buried once and for all."
Re: (Score:3)
> "Ron Paul is most definitely not in favor of gay marriage. He wants the gov't to stop recognizing marriage entirely so that people don't get the married rate for taxation."
No? From what I can understand, he wants the government to "stop recognizing marriage entirely" for completely logical, completely non-tax-related reasons that, while I am not completely libertarian, I agree with completely. What he and most libertarians, and a number of other people who aren't libertarian, are arguing, is that there
Re: (Score:2)
to extend your analogy..
as opposed to watching the 'winner' jock/douchebag/ivy league fast track/preps 'debate' by trying so hard to sound smart that they sound even dumber than their average intellects suggest they should.. and yet everyone votes for them anyway because they're more popular?
people like you who insist on voting for who they think will 'win' are worse for democracy than the worst tyrant..
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the Democracy Now! 3rd party debates, which were produced by professionals. Gary Johnson turned those down, but you can still watch Jill Stein go up against Rocky Anderson and some redneck from the Constitution Party.
Unfortunately the sponsors of this one didn't seem to know what they were doing, and it didn't help that they were using Google+, which clearly deserves its "beta" label.