Third-Party debate - Tuesday October 23rd

[ronin sparthos]

Why do you think these politicians are different than those politicians? I seriously don't understand the fascination with the "third party" as if they have somehow figured out how to be honest or truthful while no one else has...

The reason they can be honest and truthful is because no one gives a fuck about them. You can say whatever you want when a 3% share of the population is a huge take for you. Their positions are extreme at the best.

I wonder what they would be saying if they were really trying to win the election instead of being a side freak show.

All debates are entertainment and that is why I see this as being useful for any fan of politics because its the ability to see these 3rd party platforms express their points free of the plastic of mainstream debating. People do have appeals to thd 3rd parties moreso with the inaction of the two big parties on congress and in a democracy we should be entertaining all options no matter how batshit crazy it may be simply because it offers more choices to eliminate rather than an immediate jump to brand X or Y both of which you may not agree with.

Countless Americans like neither Romney or Obama yet they are forced to choose between the two why? Becausevwe've stigmatized the 3rd party before hearing anything - altered to a larger audience or not. In turn the Dems and Reps need not exert much effort when certain groups are in the bag no matter what because they effectively hold those electorates hostage.

I dont see why people catch such a hardon when 3rd party candidates come up but i will chalk it up to the duality of the human mind coupled with fears of 'spoilers' which tell more about the inadequacies of the dominant candidates rather than trying to offer greater choices to the voting public.

[Waraji]

Oh But see, Ringthree would agree with everyone you just said, but would still probably never vote 3rd party.

[Salodin]

Oh But see, Ringthree would agree with everyone you just said, but would still probably never vote 3rd party.

Because a repub or dem would win any ways. Id rather put my vote to making sure the greater of two evils doesn't come to pass.

[Waraji]

Albeit a great point, a growing number of Americans are still for voting for the candidate that best represents their views and concerns, regardless if they are in a favorable/majority party or not. Hence why people would still genuinely vote for Romney, or Obama.

Gdit this is a circular argument.

[ringthree]

All debates are entertainment and that is why I see this as being useful for any fan of politics because its the ability to see these 3rd party platforms express their points free of the plastic of mainstream debating. People do have appeals to thd 3rd parties moreso with the inaction of the two big parties on congress and in a democracy we should be entertaining all options no matter how batshit crazy it may be simply because it offers more choices to eliminate rather than an immediate jump to brand X or Y both of which you may not agree with.

Countless Americans like neither Romney or Obama yet they are forced to choose between the two why? Becausevwe've stigmatized the 3rd party before hearing anything - altered to a larger audience or not. In turn the Dems and Reps need not exert much effort when certain groups are in the bag no matter what because they effectively hold those electorates hostage.

I dont see why people catch such a hardon when 3rd party candidates come up but i will chalk it up to the duality of the human mind coupled with fears of 'spoilers' which tell more about the inadequacies of the dominant candidates rather than trying to offer greater choices to the voting public.

The proof is in the pudding. If people loved the 3rd party so much then they would be mainstream, and vying for votes and selling out like the big dogs.

It's so simple to stand on the outside and say "I have all these great ideas, and the system is so fucked", it's a lot harder to actually have to garner support and run a country.

The reason that 3rd party's do poor could be because of the "duality of the human mind" "fear of spoilers" "political inertia" or a hundred other made up things.

OR... it could be because 3rd party's only cater to fringe interest that don't get popular support.

We could have 3 parties in this country, or more, but if they are trying to win elections and actually govern, then they would be just as banal as those you criticize. You have a ridiculously idealized vision of 3rd parties, one that does not reflect on reality at all.

You can say anything when what you say has no consequence.

[GoggleHead]

I'd say our electoral process discourages having more than two options, so it's not as simple as "lulz, if they weren't crazy they'd be getting elected dawg".

[ronin sparthos]

The proof is in the pudding. If people loved the 3rd party so much then they would be mainstream, and vying for votes and selling out like the big dogs.

And yet the political process and individuals who think like you obstruct that process. The media portrays 3rd party candidates as fringe loonies, spoilers and enemies of our great democratic process before they are even trial tested by the voting public. Who are we to decide what is fringe looniness? Are we the entire voting populace?

The people are only as good as their media and when the public is force-fed the idea that 3rd party votes are wasted votes you get stuck with brand X and brand Y or you don't vote at all. I don't agree with much of what Ron Paul says but why should his ideas not be put to the national platform for the public to decide? Oh right, Reps and Dems don't want competition because it upsets the balance of two parties consolodating power for themselves and further still the monied interests that don't want their investments spread across 3+ parties.

People ate up the Tea Party shit because people with money and influence forced the media to act on it and in turn many people did vote Tea even though it was under the umbrella of the Republican party. On the other hand, OWS had little rich guy influence and subsequently got torn to shreds by the media and portrayed as young hippies with nothing of import to say.

You underestimate the media and the manipulation of minds that is perpetuated by planting an idea and letting it take root through repeated whispers.

It's so simple to stand on the outside and say "I have all these great ideas, and the system is so fucked", it's a lot harder to actually have to garner support and run a country.

Again, you're off base here. You assume that I believe this ideal 3rd party candidate won't be marred by the rigors of attempting to court people outside their camps but what I'm getting at is that some of these people have ideas far and away from the Democratic / Republican positions and these ideas should be trial tested by our public, not media pundits who are afraid their entrenched positions may be upset by someone gaining traction amongst the populace.

[Salodin]

Didn't we try this once, and all it did was screw us over cause it took votes away from a democrat and gave it to a certain republican? Just sayin...I get where the idea is, but unless the entire country jumped on board at the same time, all that's going to happen is things "Will get much worse before they get better". Unfortunately, it's a big "if" when it comes to things becoming better because of it.

[Andalusian girls]

we've tried it more than once

in 1992 Perot led the gallup polling throughout much of June and wound up with 19% of the popular vote (would have done much better if he didn't bizarrely drop out of the race in July then reenter in October), drawing from Bush and Clinton evenly.

Perot proved a third party candidate is viable, just need the right one. and likely a party that can self-sustain following the incipient cult of personality. historically though such movements have been the death knell for one of the existing parties

[ringthree]

And yet the political process and individuals who think like you obstruct that process. The media portrays 3rd party candidates as fringe loonies, spoilers and enemies of our great democratic process before they are even trial tested by the voting public. Who are we to decide what is fringe looniness? Are we the entire voting populace?

The people are only as good as their media and when the public is force-fed the idea that 3rd party votes are wasted votes you get stuck with brand X and brand Y or you don't vote at all. I don't agree with much of what Ron Paul says but why should his ideas not be put to the national platform for the public to decide? Oh right, Reps and Dems don't want competition because it upsets the balance of two parties consolodating power for themselves and further still the monied interests that don't want their investments spread across 3+ parties.

People ate up the Tea Party shit because people with money and influence forced the media to act on it and in turn many people did vote Tea even though it was under the umbrella of the Republican party. On the other hand, OWS had little rich guy influence and subsequently got torn to shreds by the media and portrayed as young hippies with nothing of import to say.

You underestimate the media and the manipulation of minds that is perpetuated by planting an idea and letting it take root through repeated whispers.



Again, you're off base here. You assume that I believe this ideal 3rd party candidate won't be marred by the rigors of attempting to court people outside their camps but what I'm getting at is that some of these people have ideas far and away from the Democratic / Republican positions and these ideas should be trial tested by our public, not media pundits who are afraid their entrenched positions may be upset by someone gaining traction amongst the populace.

It's the meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedia.

Right.

It's not the fact that one of them believes in the abolishment of the government. One of them puts the environment above everyone's jobs. And the rest are some form of fascist. The reason these people don't share the national platform is because the public HAS decided that they don't like their positions. Why is this so hard to understand? If their ideas were as reasonable and popular as you say they are then they would be polling better than 3%. Stop blaming the freaking Republicans and Democrats. Man, they give the people what they want. You act like there is some kind of Media/Major Political Party conspiracy going on, when in fact the reason that the Republicans and Democrats flip-flop so much is because they are adjusting themselves to the wants of the public. You are correct, the two main parties don't represent all of the populous. But they represent most of it, and the third parties represent a tiny little fraction of it.

You are right, I underestimate the meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedia because it's all so much bullshit. The media didn't create the Tea Party, the media didn't create O:WS. The media gives people what they want to hear. The media conspiracy theories aren't new, and it's not like the 3rd parties have discovered so way out of our political morass. You still haven't said one reason why there would be any difference between what we have now and what we would have if we had a 3rd, 4th or 5th party. People just don't like what they have now, but that is always true and would be true with extra parties. They just want something/someone to blame.

If you want political power you have to court people outside of your camp, if you want to whine on the side lines and complain about media conspiracy and do fuck all to govern then you can stick with your little fringe cults.

You have made not one argument as to how anything would ever change if we had a legitimate third party. Not one. Democrats and Republicans test the position of the other side ALL THE TIME. That is all we hear about. The third parties don't even engage discussions of governance. They engage only in hypotheticals are irrelevant to anything that is going on because they have no power and thus no responsibility for those statements.

So please, stop whining about the media, stop whining about the "public good", stop whining about "exclusion" and make a freaking argument. One way that a third party, once it had gained power, would do anything that was different than what we have now.

[ringthree]

we've tried it more than once

in 1992 Perot led the gallup polling throughout much of June and wound up with 19% of the popular vote (would have done much better if he didn't bizarrely drop out of the race in July then reenter in October), drawing from Bush and Clinton evenly.

Perot proved a third party candidate is viable, just need the right one. and likely a party that can self-sustain following the incipient cult of personality. historically though such movements have been the death knell for one of the existing parties

Shhh, don't talk about that. Remember! It's the media that excludes third parties! Even though in 1992 they were drooling all over Perot all the time.

[archibaldcrane]

Billionaires like Perot have been the past, are the present, and will the future of "3rd party candidates" - but really, they aren't "3rd party" - they run as independents. They don't benefit from a half-cocked party platform that they didn't form weighing them down, and they have their own money to fund a campaign. Perot ran a party primarily on the platform of opposing NAFTA, which both major-party candidates supported but had tenuous popular support. A situation like that, where Ds and Rs generally agree but isn't particularly popular is where an independent can make a challenge if they have the money and the rest of their ideas are within norms.

[BaneTheBrawler]

If anyone busts out the phrase "lamestream media" i'm going to throw myself in front of a train.

[Qalbert]

lamestream media

[venikk]

"Stopping the deficit" right now when the nation can borrow money at sub-inflation rates would be really stupid.

Meet my friend: He's called the quantity theory of money, google it.

Every dollar in deficit is an increase in money supply and therefor prices. Ever wonder why gasoline is 5x more than it was in 1999?

[BaneTheBrawler]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6...3u4o1_1280.jpg

here it comes, adios douchebags

[venikk]

Why do you think these politicians are different than those politicians? I seriously don't understand the fascination with the "third party" as if they have somehow figured out how to be honest or truthful while no one else has...

The reason they can be honest and truthful is because no one gives a fuck about them. You can say whatever you want when a 3% share of the population is a huge take for you. Their positions are extreme at the best.

I wonder what they would be saying if they were really trying to win the election instead of being a side freak show.

No, the truth is whoever the powers that be want to be president, gets the limelight and no one else.

When Gary johnson and ron paul in 2008 got enough 3rd party polling to be in the debates they raised the polling requirements.

When Ron Paul was in 1st place in the nomination last december before Iowa, they gave him 90 seconds to talk in a 1.5hr debate.

[venikk]

here it comes, adios douchebags

Gudush?

[archibaldcrane]

Meet my friend: He's called the quantity theory of money, google it.

Every dollar in deficit is an increase in money supply and therefor prices. Ever wonder why gasoline is 5x more than it was in 1999?

Inflation is very low over the past decade, it hasn't cracked 6% since 1991 and has been under 4% since the recession began. Gas prices are significantly more volatile than a simple inflation indexing for a number of reasons. tl;dr General price inflation is not the leading driver of gas prices.

[ronin sparthos]

It's the meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedia.

Right.

It's not the fact that one of them believes in the abolishment of the government. One of them puts the environment above everyone's jobs. And the rest are some form of fascist. The reason these people don't share the national platform is because the public HAS decided that they don't like their positions. Why is this so hard to understand? If their ideas were as reasonable and popular as you say they are then they would be polling better than 3%. Stop blaming the freaking Republicans and Democrats. Man, they give the people what they want. You act like there is some kind of Media/Major Political Party conspiracy going on, when in fact the reason that the Republicans and Democrats flip-flop so much is because they are adjusting themselves to the wants of the public. You are correct, the two main parties don't represent all of the populous. But they represent most of it, and the third parties represent a tiny little fraction of it.

Again, these candidates get such little play that unless you go out of your way to find out what they stand for then you have no clue what they stand for. You think the average voter has gone through the process of eliminating a Gary Johnson or Jill Stein through looking at policy and declaring that they aren't fit for the presidency? Fat chance. They don't have the audience because people have been trained to immediately dismiss a 3rd party candidate because only crockpots take that route that inevitably 'spoils' the presidency.

The concept of spoiling the presidency by choosing someone you align with is dubious and so you get legions of people flipping Democratic or Republican to choose 'the lesser of two evils' (whatever that means) rather than actually casting a vote for a 3rd party candidate that may be more in line with their views. Both parties use this to their advantage readily and instead of casting a ballot for a person you agree with you simply cast a ballot to cockblock the other guy you don't like.

The only way you can break this cycle is by bankrolling your own 3rd party candidacy effectively bypassing the obstacles to set up to protect the two party system. With enough money you can get the reach you need and when that happens people listen, people evaluate and eventually make a decision based on what they hear. If Mike Bloomberg decides to run for president in 2016 as a 3rd party candidate you don't think people are going to listen to him? The media won't cover him?

It's not a conspiracy, it's simply the fact that both major parties actively do their part to stamp out any competition through their media mouthpieces. You want to reach to 'all 3rd parties are crackpots' when the fact is that the people haven't gotten the opportunity to make those decisions for themselves.

You are right, I underestimate the meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedia because it's all so much bullshit. The media didn't create the Tea Party, the media didn't create O:WS. The media gives people what they want to hear. The media conspiracy theories aren't new, and it's not like the 3rd parties have discovered so way out of our political morass. You still haven't said one reason why there would be any difference between what we have now and what we would have if we had a 3rd, 4th or 5th party. People just don't like what they have now, but that is always true and would be true with extra parties. They just want something/someone to blame.

Call it a conspiracy all you want but the media pursues their respective interests which work against 3rd party candidates because surprise, surprise these entities don't want to see their influence diminished by a new party on the block dividing how much clout they wield. You think FOX wants to cover Republican and Libertarian issues or MSNBC covering the Democrats and Green Party values? Ron Paul got dismissed a delusional old man by FOX anchors precisely because he didn't tow the party line and had his views which run in opposition to those with influence high up in the Republican party using FOX as a propaganda platform.

When the Tea Party started getting Koch Bros money (after being dubbed a bunch of backward buffoons) they had no choice but to be addressed seriously by pundits on both sides of the fence precisely because someone with influence demanded it and the Republican party ran with it to great success in 2010.