Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 09:43 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Location: Canada
Posts: 13,662
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by neroux View Post
To narrow it down to two candidates for the election. What you initially quoted.
I see now (I think).

I wasn't suggesting the field be narrowed down to two.
I was asking why it needed to be narrowed down to two.

The thinking is, if you want the best person for the job of President, why limit your choice to 2 people?
It doesn't make any sense.
Get as many candidates as you can in view and then choose the best one.
Most other job interviews work this way.
A person who wants to hire someone for a job doesn't stop accepting resumes after they get two of them.
The fry cook at your local Denny's is chosen from a larger field of possibilities than the President of the US.
Where is the logic in that?

More specific to this Presidential race, Gary Johnson has 6% support nationally.
Is it a huge number? No.
But that is 6% of the population that doesn't want a Demopublican and their voices certainly deserve to be heard, even if the 94% of Demopublicans don't think so.
And we're only talking about registered voters, here.
How many of the people who never vote in elections would maybe decide to vote in one if they had more choice?
How is more choice hurting democracy?
__________________
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot

Last edited by Zap; 10-04-2012 at 09:46 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 09:46 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 10-04-12
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
I see now (I think).

I wasn't suggesting the field be narrowed down to two.
I was asking why it needed to be narrowed down to two.
I know. Thats why I was asking how such a selection should happen in the first place.
 
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 09:53 AM
TechWizard's Avatar
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,674
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Just my on this subject....

The reason that the campaign process is so long and it is not just a 4 or 5 month process is for the preselection process to take place. This involves every single person that is desiring to run for President regardless of party.

In many states it may be that if you are registered a certain party that you are not allowed/able to vote in the nomination of nominees of other parties in order to avoid manipulation.

Now, as for funding....during the primaries, correct me if I am wrong but the monies used by the nominees are collected by the nominees and not support via the party? The party support and money don't technically come in until after the final nominee selection. Of course there is going to be bias in the parties as to who the individuals that are in charge of certain things in the state parties, this is a human factor/nature thing and when happens should just be acknowledged and announced so everyone voting can allow that information during their decision making.

As to third parties/independents. I am not aware of anything preventing them from continuing on to the general election minus money. If so many are supportive of an independent or third party then that issue should be no different than it is for the other parties, those within the party generate donations etc to collect funds needed. As far as I know the only thing that actually keeps an independent or third party off the official ballot is the failure to meet criteria determined by each individual state...i.e. petition with a number of supporters etc....as stated that process varies from state to state.

It could be suggested, not that I am, but could be suggested that the failure for a person to garner enough support to get the funding going and other things that are needed could be a sign of lack of leadership ability? Like I said I am not suggesting that just putting the idea out there, as with everything else, if Obama had a lot of donations and Romney couldn't keep up, or there were problems in the campaign it is an automatic leadership ability issue, on the other side it is instantly the little man being walked over issue. Not always the actual case but definitely the preprogrammed response by those that support that person it seems to me.

Anyone that meets the qualifications as assigned by the Constitution is able to run for President. Their ability to think outside the box so to speak, to garner initial and continuing support, and able to mobilize fund raising I see as having just as much of a chance. Ron Paul ran as an Independent last time did he not? On the Republican ticket this time?

A perfect example of what I am attempting to say is Joe Lieberman. The DNC in his state got stupid so he ran as an independent, garnered the support and funding and won the seat back against the wishes of the party he had been part of for decades.

So it is possible, it is just rare, be it rare because the system tends to stick with the what has become the norm, or because very few manage to be able to make things happen on their own.
__________________
The Solutions You've Been Looking For
www.techwizardsolutions.com
Remote Computer Repair / Complete Computer Care / Managed Antivirus / Unlimited Online Backup

 
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 09:58 AM
Breeze Wood's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 04-06-11
Location: USA
Posts: 958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._debates,_2012

United States presidential election debates, 2012

CPD (bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates) stipulates three criteria for eligibility: constitutionally eligible, appearance on enough ballots to potentially reach 270 electoral votes, and average at least 15% on five selected national polls. Four candidates achieved the first two criteria: Democratic nominee Barack Obama, Green nominee Jill Stein[3], Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Only Obama and Romney also satisfy the third criterion of averaging 15% in five selected national polls and thus are the only two to appear in 2012 CPD debates.


Antitrust lawsuit

On September 21, 2012, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson filed an antitrust lawsuit in the US District Court for the Central District of California against the Commission on Presidential Debates, the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee. The suit alleges that the three private companies have conspired in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act to limit competition and that in doing so they are injuring the Johnson campaign and the American electorate

... and average at least 15% on five selected national polls.


by October, the 15% seems reasonable.


Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...ited_States%29

The Libertarian Party was formed in Westminster, Colorado, in the home of David Nolan on December 11, 1971.[7] The founding of the party was prompted in part due to concerns about the Vietnam War, conscription, and the end of the Gold Standard.[12] The first Libertarian National Convention was held in June, 1972. In 1978, Dick Randolph of Alaska became the first elected Libertarian state legislator. Following the 1980 federal elections, the Libertarian Party assumed the title of being the third largest party after the American Independent Party, which had previously been the third largest political party, continued to fracture. In 1994, over 40 Libertarians were elected or appointed which was a record for the party at that time. 1995 saw a soaring membership and voter registration for the party. In 1996, the Libertarian Party became the first third party to earn ballot status in all 50 states two presidential elections in a row. By the end of 2009, 146 Libertarians were holding elected offices.

December 11, 1971 - they have had enough time to achieve 15% if the electorate were truly interested and equally enough time to be properly characterized as a Fringe group outside the mainstream of American politics.
__________________
.

All's Well that Ends Well

.

Last edited by Breeze Wood; 10-04-2012 at 10:05 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 01:57 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 12,106
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by neroux View Post
Also, how would you narrow it down to two candidates if you five, six, seven running for it?
You did not ask me but I would like to answer.

Since I have to listen to 2 years of this tripe every 4 years I would suggest a national primary election in early May with all states holding the election on the same day. The top two finishers would then run for election in the fall.

A system like this would eliminate the power and corruption inherent in the existing two party system.

At least if I had to make a choice between a liberal and socialist it would be the will of the people and not the power brokers.
__________________
SEO does not mean Spam Everywhere Online
Scriptman's Playhouse || Ramblings from an old man
 
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 03:12 PM
bxy bxy is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 03-04-11
Posts: 64
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breeze Wood View Post
... and average at least 15% on five selected national polls.

by October, the 15% seems reasonable.

December 11, 1971 - they have had enough time to achieve 15% if the electorate were truly interested and equally enough time to be properly characterized as a Fringe group outside the mainstream of American politics.
Really, Then by your reasoning 15% in only 40 years is extremely more popular then the 50% it took the D&R's 200 years to achieve. Absurd.

Let's break it down better. About 50% won't even vote. So two equal candidates can only pull 25% each. And by time you get to four equal candidates, no one can qualify. 15% makes the debates virtually exclusive. I've seen lesser elections won on 15%

No, if they qualify to be on the ballot in enough states to possibly win I want to hear what they are about, before I potentially find out the hard way.

And for those who don't think they can get blindsided in an election, let's step back to 1985. Italy was much like America is today, most people very discontent with their government. The parties put up the same worthless candidates as always. They always one, always. Then here comes this Porn Star who's campaign consisted of traveling the country and putting on free porn shows for the local populous. (truly she did give speeches, but no one ever heard anything beyond her bare flesh). She was the insult vote, the protest vote; Chicholina won.

Luckily Chicholina turned out to be very cool, I have had the privilege of talking to her in person, face to face, one on one. A very sweet gal. And she has done so many great things for Italy. But the way she got into office was not cool, and could have gone extremely wrong. Had she been someone with a vengeance, she could have destroyed the country.

There is enough discontent in America today for someone to win on an insult vote. Yet here you stand, saying that you don't want them in the debates. You are only pushing people further toward making that insult vote, a totally uninformed vote that could have drastic consequences.

Fools Blunder On.
__________________
Jill Stein for President
* Green New Deal, puts us back to work, and back in our homes, homes made better and more energy efficient by the GND.
 
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 08:31 PM
Breeze Wood's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 04-06-11
Location: USA
Posts: 958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by bxy View Post
Really, Then by your reasoning 15% in only 40 years is extremely more popular then the 50% it took the D&R's 200 years to achieve. Absurd.


No, if they qualify to be on the ballot in enough states to possibly win I want to hear what they are about, before I potentially find out the hard way.
Then by your reasoning 15% in only 40 years ...

it was not my reasoning -

with one month remaining till the election the CPD 15% threshold does not seem unreasonable - the Libertarians failed to reach that goal.



No, if they qualify to be on the ballot in enough states to possibly win I want to hear what they are about,

that is one of the three criteria for the debate and certainly necessary for any chance for success -

but for arguments sake why is every candidate not automatically qualified in all 50 States by a minimal registration - so the CPD has accounted for the cumbersome process and with a high enough popularity in the pols would invite the candidate to the debates.
__________________
.

All's Well that Ends Well

.
 
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 10-05-2012, 08:33 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
16 Critical Economic Issues That Obama And Romney Avoided During The Debate

Quote:
Did you watch the presidential debate on Wednesday night? It is absolutely amazing how they can have an hour and a half debate about the economy and say so little. It seemed like both candidates were falling all over each other wanting to talk about how much they value education, but will more education really solve our problems? After all, 53 percent of all Americans with a bachelor's degree under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed in 2011. So perhaps they should just both agree that education is a good thing and start talking about how to create more jobs for all of us. If you want to grade the debate from a technical standpoint, clearly Romney was the winner of the debate. Romney was full of energy and was generally sharp with his answers. Obama looked like he had just popped a couple of antidepressants and was ready for nap time. As a result, this might have been the worst blowout in the history of presidential debates. A CNN/ORC International poll that was taken right after the debate found that 67 percent of all Americans that had watched the debate thought that Romney was the winner. Never before had any presidential candidate crossed the 60 percent mark in the history of their post-debate polling. So Romney definitely had a big night. But the reality is that both candidates were telling the American people what they want to hear. If either Obama or Romney told the truth about what we are facing they would lose votes, and in a race this tight both of them really want to avoid doing that. Obama and Romney both desperately want to win this election, and the words that are coming out of their mouths have been carefully crafted to appeal to the "undecided voters" in the swing states. If you actually believe that they can deliver on everything that they are promising, then you must not have been paying much attention to U.S. politics over the past several decades.

Perhaps the biggest failure on Wednesday night was debate moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS. His questions were about as far from "hard hitting" as you could get.

The hour and a half debate was almost entirely about the economy, and yet almost all of the critical economic issues were ignored.

Yes, Obama and Romney have slight differences when it comes to tax rates and regulations, but those small differences are not going to do much to change the direction of this country one way or another.

Meanwhile, there were some really huge issues about the economy that were not addressed at all last night....

1 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the Federal Reserve was not mentioned a single time.

2 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, Ben Bernanke was not mentioned a single time.

3 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, quantitative easing was not mentioned a single time.

4 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the term "derivatives" was not used a single time. Considering the fact that derivatives could bring down our financial system at any moment, this is an issue that should be talked about.

5 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was no mention of the millions of jobs that have been shipped out of the country. Considering the fact that both Obama and Romney have played a role in this, it is probably a topic they both want to avoid. Overall, the United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.

6 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, neither candidate mentioned that the velocity of money has plunged to a post-World War II low.

7 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the fact that the rest of the world is beginning to reject the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency was not mentioned a single time, but this has enormous implications for our economy in the years ahead.

8 - The fact that the Social Security system is headed for massive trouble was only briefly touched on during the debate. At the moment, there are approximately 56 million Americans that are collecting Social Security benefits. By 2035, that number is projected to grow to an astounding 91 million. Overall, the Social Security system is facing a 134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years. When are our politicians going to honestly address this massive problem?

9 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the nightmarish drought the country is experiencing right now was not mentioned a single time.

10 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the financial meltdown in Europe was basically totally ignored. But considering the fact that Europe has a larger economy and a much larger banking system than we do, perhaps someone should have asked Obama and Romney what they plan to do when the financial system of Europe implodes.

11 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the student loan debt bubble was only briefly mentioned.

12 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was not a single word about the fact that the gap between the wealthy and the poor is now larger than it has been at any point since the Great Depression.

13 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was no mention of TARP (which they both supported at the time). Would they both bail out the big banks if another financial crisis erupted?

14 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was no mention of the economic stimulus packages (which they both supported at the time). Would they both want more "economic stimulus" if we entered another recession?

15 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, neither candidate talked about the fact that most of the jobs our economy is producing now are low income jobs. In fact, since the end of the last recession, 58 percent of the jobs that have been created are low paying jobs.

16 - In an hour and a half debate about the economy, neither candidate mentioned that more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government or that more than half of all Americans are now at least partially financially dependent on the government. I can't blame Romney for avoiding this point though - he probably wanted to avoid the phrase "47 percent" at all costs.

Is this really the best that America can do?
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...ing-the-debate
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 10-05-2012, 01:52 PM
bxy bxy is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 03-04-11
Posts: 64
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Breeze. Sure sounded like you were saying they had plenty of time since 1971...

Anyhow I already argued the irrational thought of the 15%, the numbers simply do not work, and are mathematically, by design, meant to keep others out.

And, no it is not simple to get your name on a ballot in any state. It takes a serious number of signatures in each and every state.

That is a lot of people saying they want to hear what this candidate has to say. And this is gvt. "for the people" not for the parties, or for the gvt, and especially not for the corporation. When Americans speak, our servant government has a responsibility to listen.

NE. Agreed, but isn't it amazing how many people don't notice, when it is the very things they are complaining about between election years? It's like they're all going to some d** football rally, rooting for their teem instead of choosing a President.
__________________
Jill Stein for President
* Green New Deal, puts us back to work, and back in our homes, homes made better and more energy efficient by the GND.

Last edited by bxy; 10-05-2012 at 01:54 PM. Reason: spelling error
 
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 10-05-2012, 02:12 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by bxy View Post
NE. Agreed, but isn't it amazing how many people don't notice, when it is the very things they are complaining about between election years? It's like they're all going to some d** football rally, rooting for their teem instead of choosing a President.
Yes it is amazing how easy it is to escape the real questions people asks, and the mainstream media are there to make sure the focus is on what the candidates debate.

All I see is two salesman trying to sell the same products with a different packaging.
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 10-05-2012, 02:45 PM
bxy bxy is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 03-04-11
Posts: 64
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Ya, more Corporate Tax Breaks, and more loop holes.
__________________
Jill Stein for President
* Green New Deal, puts us back to work, and back in our homes, homes made better and more energy efficient by the GND.
 
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 10-05-2012, 03:57 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Expanding the Debate Exclusive: Third Party Candidates Break the Sound Barrier As Obama-Romney Spar

Quote:
As President Obama and Mitt Romney squared off for the first time on Wednesday night, Democracy Now! broke the sound barrier by pausing Obama and Romney’s answers to get real-time responses from candidates Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. Stein and Anderson joined Democracy Now! for a live special just miles away from the Obama-Romney contest at the University of Denver. Many Obama supporters have expressed surprise that Romney was able to put the president on the defensive, while Obama failed to mention several of Romney’s potential weak spots, including including his record at the private equity firm Bain Capital, his vast personal wealth and offshore investments, and his recent remark that 47 percent of Americans are government dependents. Today, highlights from our "Expanding the Debate" special with the voices of all four candidates, showcasing the broadened perspectives on the critical issues beyond the Democratic-Republican political spectrum.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/...ve_third_party

Watch the video
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2012, 05:57 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Location: Canada
Posts: 13,662
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Elements View Post
All I see is two salesman trying to sell the same products with a different packaging.
The system is designed to perpetuate that. New ideas are not welcome.
The demopublicans want their monopoly to continue.

Forget about the 15% requirement or whether or not you personally think an independent candidate has a chance.
If they've jumped through the hoops necessary to get themselves on the ballot, then they deserve a seat at the debate. It doesn't matter if you want them to win or think they can win. They are a legitimate choice and deserve to have their voice heard along side the other choices.
If they truly have no chance at winning, then your favourite candidate should be proud enough of their own policies to defend them against ALL eligible candidates.
The fact that both Obama and Romney are too cowardly to discuss issues with Gary Johnson or Jill Stein says volumes about their lack of character.
__________________
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
 
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2012, 07:54 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
The system is designed to perpetuate that. New ideas are not welcome.
The demopublicans want their monopoly to continue.

The fact that both Obama and Romney are too cowardly to discuss issues with Gary Johnson or Jill Stein says volumes about their lack of character.
I agree completly that the system is designed to perpertuate the demopublicans monopoly.

This election is not about discussing issues, it is about taking some lesser disagreements, emphasize them, and build a battle around it, to give the illusions to the voters, that the disagreements between the two political parties are extremely important.

They do a pretty good job and the mainstream media are there to help them to achieve their goals.
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2012, 08:19 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Location: Canada
Posts: 13,662
iTrader: 5 / 100%
I think the Demopublicans worry that if they allow Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in to the debate, then they'll actually have to start talking about the Federal Reserve, the endless wars, the disappearing jobs, the reserve currency status being taken away, the decline in living standards, the eroded value of the dollar, the growing disparity between the classes, the bank bailouts, out of control military spending, corporate welfare, rampant fraud in the banking system, etc. (or a real substantive discussion about the debt, which neither of them take seriously, even though they like to act as though they do)

It's much safer to discuss whether or not there's a need to cut Big Bird's funding.
__________________
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
 
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2012, 08:29 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
I think the Demopublicans worry that if they allow Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in to the debate, then they'll actually have to start talking about the Federal Reserve, the endless wars, the disappearing jobs, the reserve currency status being taken away, the decline in living standards, the eroded value of the dollar, the growing disparity between the classes, the bank bailouts, out of control military spending, corporate welfare, rampant fraud in the banking system, etc. (or a real substantive discussion about the debt, which neither of them take seriously, even though they like to act as though they do)

It's much safer to discuss whether or not there's a need to cut Big Bird's funding.
True, but they aren't going to talk about the real problems, and I am not sure the people want to hear about it.

The people concerns are Jobs and Inflation that affect commodities.
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Senate debates tax increases on companies that move jobs overseas Franc Tireur Controversial Social Issues 10 09-26-2010 10:13 AM
Candidates that are still fighting... jabo Controversial Social Issues 2 05-16-2008 08:40 AM
Presidential debate ferret77 Controversial Social Issues 352 10-13-2004 07:56 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Escalate Media




Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.