×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Third 2012 US Presidential Debate Tonight: Discuss Here

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the oh-god-is-it-over-yet dept.

United States 529

Tonight marks the third and final U.S. Presidential debate in the lead-up to the election on November 6th. It starts at 9PM ET (6PM PT, 0100 UTC), and it's taking place at Lynn University in Florida. The topic this time around is foreign policy, including discussions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, America's role in the world, "The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism," and China's rise as a superpower. You can livestream it from the usual suspects: (C-SPAN, ABC, PBS, CNN). Politifact has posted an article fact-checking statements the candidates have made about foreign policy. Both they and Factcheck.org will be using Twitter to verify statements in real time. This presidential debate again excludes the smaller U.S. political parties. If you're interested in hearing other voices, you'll be able to see candidates from the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Justice parties in a debate tomorrow with Larry King moderating. As before, we're doing a separate post for the debate in the hopes that political talk won't clutter other stories tonight. Tell us what you think as the debate unfolds. For live conversation, remember: context helps. And, as reader Ryanator2209 keeps pointing out, you can entertain yourself by playing Logical Fallacy Bingo while you watch.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Socialist agenda on full display tonite (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735699)

Our current president has an agenda to redistribute the wealth from the smart, capable, entrepeneurs to the fat, slobby, freeloading welfare moms.

Unfortunately, the bottom rungs of our society have figured out that this guy is their gravy train, and will be turning out in massive numbers to keep Socialist dream alive.

Did you think capitalism won with the fall of the Soviet Union? Think again. His blatant attempt to inject government control into all facets of our lives (not just health care - where it has no business anyway) is the culmination of decades of left wing planning and if we don't stop this power grab now, we may never be able to.

If you are a true patriot and love this country that we call home, you must vote for Mitt Romney next month and preserve the dream that anyone can come from the most humble of beginnings and succeed in this melting pot we call the United States of America.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735713)

If this is what socialism, I love it.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736125)

If this is what socialism, I love it.

larry king is a jew about 900 years old. that is socialism. senile jews owning media corporations and telling everybody what fairytale to believe in. how come it never works long term?!?!?!?! just didnt tell the tale hard enough. that is why. if we just sing kumbayaah long enough we will have the best society evear! duh. you are a nonbeliever if you question this.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (5, Insightful)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735773)

Nice try Anonymous Coward.. But most of the Slashdot readers here are educated enough to know that Obama is only slightly less authoritarian than Romney and 'socialism' is just a word used in the wrong context to demagogue Obama. Further, most Slashdot readers are smart enough to see that Romney changes his rhetoric for whatever crowd he's entertaining and either candidate just continues the march towards facism.. It's just that Obama seems to want to march slower.

I'll be voting Gary Johnson. Even though I think Obama is the slightly lesser of two evils, I am sick of voting for evil.
 

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735929)

Let me guess, you voted for Nader in 2000? How is that working out for you?

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735997)

Let me guess you voted for Bush or Gore. How is that working out for you?

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736063)

Not GP, but it seems to working pretty well for him. More people are taking note of third parties than in 2000. It will break the majority in time.
 
Sometimes people look forward to more that the current election. Strange isnt it.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736163)

It will only break the majority if and when the republican (or democrat) parties completely collapse.

I really don't understand how so many slashdotters fail to grasp that the two party system doesn't just happen by chance. It's not just that voters consider only two parties before their brains explode. It's first-past-the-post voting. Get a parlimentary system in place if you want a third party. Otherwise, just vote in the primaries and realize that the same people who are getting elected now are the same people who would get elected under a multiparty system.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (2, Insightful)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736195)

No.. Third party votes do count. When the Republicans and Democrats are working together to divide the people in half as evenly as possible, and only winning by small margins, a small-margin of third-party votes has a huge effect.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (5, Insightful)

imnotanumber (1712006) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736293)

No.. Third party votes do count. When the Republicans and Democrats are working together to divide the people in half as evenly as possible, and only winning by small margins, a small-margin of third-party votes has a huge effect.

The only problem is that "huge effect" is, usually, negative for the interests they represent. They "steal" votes from the candidate that is near to their interests making the other win. So, you have a real disincentive to promote a third party.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736225)

Er, how do we get a parliamentary system, pray tell please? I think it is easier to fit the third parties in the current system than move to other systems.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (1, Offtopic)

phaggood (690955) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736285)

Once the majority of either governors or at least 25% of one of the congress-pools is 3rd party, they won't have a chance. I wish people would figure that out; a viable party isn't going to start in the White House.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736017)

Nice try Anonymous Coward.. But most of the Slashdot readers here are educated enough to know that Obama is only slightly less authoritarian than Romney and 'socialism' is just a word used in the wrong context to demagogue Obama. Further, most Slashdot readers are smart enough to see that Romney changes his rhetoric for whatever crowd he's entertaining and either candidate just continues the march towards facism.. It's just that Obama seems to want to march slower.

I'll be voting Gary Johnson. Even though I think Obama is the slightly lesser of two evils, I am sick of voting for evil.

Please don't feed the trolls.

Thanks,
The Zookeeper.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (1, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736203)

I'll be voting Gary Johnson. Even though I think Obama is the slightly lesser of two evils, I am sick of voting for evil.

Please tell me you don't live in a swing state.

It is sometimes your duty as a thinking individual to choose between two evils. No one wants to have to, but it is sometimes the choice that is in front of you.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735787)

It is already too late. More than half the voting population depends on government and doesn't pay their fair share of the bills.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (2, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735793)

It doesn't matter which wins.

Obama is brown lunch with grey sauce, and Romney is grey lunch with brown sauce. (And no. That is not a euphamism for their races. It's an animaniacs reference.)

It doesn't matter which one wins. Regardless, a deleterious agenda will be spearheaded. It is a false dichotomy to say we must choose which of those agendas to bend over for.

Personally, I'd vote for "assasinate both and start over", but in civilized countries this isn't an option. I'll grudgingly settle for "insane and unpredictable" with a write in for Paul. (Insane and unpredictable at least frustrates all major agendas.)

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (0)

emm-tee (23371) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735947)

Way to go! Instead of using your vote to keep out the worst possible outcome for everyone (Romney), you're throwing it away. Or are you let down because Obama is just a good president, but can't walk on water like you wanted?

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736003)

False dichotomy is again false.

I refused to vote at all last election. Obama is a horrible president, and so was bush.

Even if it is a thrown away vote, I at least have a batshit crazy MFer that is contrary to all major agendas to vote for this time, which is more than I had 4 years ago.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736087)

Way to go! Instead of using your vote to keep out the worst possible outcome for everyone (Romney), you're throwing it away

What I find hilarious is that the Obama supporters I have spoken to, including people who are out canvassing for Obama's campaign, cannot come up with a better argument than this: "Well at least he's not Mitt Romney!" What kind of a reason is that to vote for a someone? Oh, and, newsflash: Obama is a terrible candidate. Here is what Obama's administration has done:

  1. Increase paramilitary raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in California.
  2. Give military aid to the government of Honduras
  3. Promote trade agreements that attack the Internet
  4. Protect the revenue of wealthy corporations
  5. Promote the system of starting people out in life with inescapable debts, and increase the effort to extract money from people who cannot repay those debts (or offer them 20 years of indentured servitude)
  6. Assassinate American citizens without a trial
  7. Prosecute people for watching Youtube videos for the wrong reasons
  8. Maintain, promote, and expand the lawless TSA; fail to demand that the TSA follow the law or court orders
  9. Threaten the NSA for developing software internally and not buying software from corporations
  10. Crack down on whistleblowers (while promising transparency and open government)

Yeah, that really sounds like someone we need in the white house. Sure, Romney is not going to do things differently -- so why even pretend there is a difference? Anything you can say Romney would do that is bad, there is something equally bad that Obama is doing right now.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736221)

I've noticed a lot of Romney supporters making that argument, that all Obama supporters have is criticism.

Which actually serves as a demonstration of hypocrisy, both on his and your part.

Seriously, all you're offering is the same thing you just got done complaining about.

And really look at Romney's campaigning, quite a bit of that too.

Huh.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736325)

The GP called out both candidates and yet you see his post as pro-Romney for his criticisms of Obama. I can't tell the candidates apart without a microscope. Neither one seems keen on serving my interests, though I am sure both would bend over backwards to tell me otherwise.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736261)

dear betterunix:
the argument - enunciated clearly by D Ellsberg recently (www.commondreams.org i think) is yes, this is all true (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/18)
However, on some things, like abortion, Romney is much worse then obama.
so, there is a difference, however small and it is real

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736263)

"good president". Joke of the day there, I had a laugh at that one!

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736193)

"euphamism "?

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (0)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736255)

Sure, one little typo, and people act like they can't use google!

(I kid! I kid!)

Euphemism [wikipedia.org]

It's bsically a cute expression for a not very cute subject. Due to the appearance of the statement I made, I felt it prudent to point out that I was not employing the statement as a cute-ified slur about Obama's race and behavior, as some readers would falsely believe. That is all. It was more intended that they are both exactly the same "lunch", but with different combinations of food aditives. In the end, you are eating exactly the same thing regardless.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735803)

preserve the dream that anyone can come from the most humble of beginnings and succeed in this melting pot we call the United States of America.

Although being born with a platinum spoon in your mouth definitely helps. Where would Mittens be without daddy's connections and resources? Of course, the people who couldn't pull themselves up are part of that shiftless, mangy 47% who are just taking up space.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736007)

preserve the dream that anyone can come from the most humble of beginnings and succeed in this melting pot we call the United States of America.

Although being born with a platinum spoon in your mouth definitely helps. Where would Mittens be without daddy's connections and resources? Of course, the people who couldn't pull themselves up are part of that shiftless, mangy 47% who are just taking up space.

See the Daily Show / Leonard Nimoy [laughspin.com] take on that.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (2, Insightful)

emm-tee (23371) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735899)

The rich in the US are only interested in their own wealth, and not the longterm wealth of their country. So they don't want to ensure that all citizens have a good education and are able to get healthcare they need. This results in the US having one of the worst social mobility ratings in the developed world. Land of the opportunity for the filthy rich to become even richer, and most of the rest to rot.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (5, Insightful)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736179)

The rich have always been against anything that would make life better for regular people. (living in luxury while being surrounded by squalor apparently makes the rich feel special or something) Our society had to fight like hell to get rid of the company stores/housing, get a standard 40-hour work week, OSHA regulations, public education, etc. Hell, the rich were even opposed to the poor having running water and bathtubs at first because the rich thought the poor would just use the tubs to store coal.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735951)

Our current president has an agenda to redistribute the wealth from the smart, capable, entrepeneurs to the fat, slobby, freeloading welfare moms.

His opponent has an agenda to redistribute wealth from the middle and working classes to the fat cats that already have more than their share.

the fat, slobby, freeloading welfare moms. [...] the bottom rungs of our society"

I'm guessing that you've never looked into the question of where most public aid actually goes.

His blatant attempt to inject government control into all facets of our lives

Yea, God intended that big corporations should do that. Usurper! Infidel!

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736013)

Did you think capitalism won with the fall of the Soviet Union? Think again. His blatant attempt to inject government control into all facets of our lives (not just health care - where it has no business anyway) is the culmination of decades of left wing planning and if we don't stop this power grab now, we may never be able to.

Indeed. All this government control ("regulations" they call it) are mightly interfering with my business plan to sell rat poison in cans labeled Nutritious Food.

I can't believe how blatant this government control is, and how people can just sit back and let me be completely unable to sell them rat poison in cans labeled Nutritious Food.

It's un-American!

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736049)

Our current president has an agenda to redistribute the wealth from the smart, capable, entrepeneurs to the fat, slobby, freeloading welfare moms.

Meanwhile the smart capable entrepreneurs have an agenda to redistribute all wealth to themselves. A healthy society needs that balance.

. His blatant attempt to inject government control into all facets of our lives (not just health care - where it has no business anyway) is the culmination of decades of left wing planning and if we don't stop this power grab now, we may never be able to.

a) The republicans grab power just as aggressively at every opportunity.

b) The government absolutely has a role in healthcare. I do not want healthcare allocated according to who can pay the most for it; nor which insurance companies can model who is likely to get sick and exclude those people, or deny care to people who are already afflicted (pre-existing conditions). Capitalism is not the right model.

Whether or not it should be a federal program vs state is certainly a legitimate discussion, but healthcare is a government mandate that the majority wants in some form.

If you are a true patriot and love this country that we call home, you must vote for Mitt Romney next month and preserve the dream that anyone can come from the most humble of beginnings and succeed in this melting pot we call the United States of America.

Only an idiot should fall that nonsense. Your odds of going from humble beginnings to success are increased if you are given a leg up while in the 'humble beginnings' stage; if you aren't deprived an education because you can't afford it, if you aren't financially wiped out because someone in your family tripped and broke a few ribs, it gets a lot easier to become a productive member of society, to save up a nest-egg, to strike out as an entrepreneur, to become a -gasp- "job creator".

How exactly does the argument that government wealth redistribution prevents people from succeeding work? Bearing in mind that all the evidence shows that the wealthy are doing just fine, and indeed are getting wealthier by the day.

Re:Socialist agenda on full display tonite (0)

Vladius (2577555) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736199)

This message brought to you by an Anonymous Coward. As opposed to Mitt Romney who is a well known coward.

son of BOSSS (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735751)

a long time ago, Mitt Romney was chair of the audit committee at Marriott.
And Marriott filed tax returns using a very lucrative tax shelter known as "son of BOSS"
I contend that at the time, son of boss was illegal - it was patently a sham transaction.
I don't know if legal liability attached to Gov Romney then, or now, what with staute of limitations, but this incident tells us that MR is quite comfortable filing fraudulent tax retrns.
Which means, maybe all of these things in MR's taxes are real
magic beanstalk IRA with undervalued capital contributions
Rafalca as business that should have been a hobby
sham transactions in cayman island accounts
listing himself as passive instead of active investor...
and the beat goes on....

Obama wastes YOUR MONEY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735761)

http://heritageaction.com/2012/07/can-president-obama-name-one-clean-energy-success/

"For those who only hear about these failing companies one by one, the following is a list of all the clean energy companies supported by President Obama’s stimulus that are now failing or have filed for bankruptcy. The liberal media hopes you’ve forgotten about all of them except Solyndra, but we haven’t.

        * Evergreen Solar
        * SpectraWatt
        * Solyndra (received $535 million)
        * Beacon Power (received $43 million)
        * AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
        * Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
        * SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
        * First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
        * Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
        * Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
        * Amonix (received 5.9 million)
        * The National Renewable Energy Lab
        * Fisker Automotive
        * Abound Solar (received $400 million, only borrowed $70 million of that)
        * Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
        * Solar Trust of America
        * A123 Systems (received $279 million)
        * Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
        * Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
        * Schneider Electric (received $86 million)
        * Brightsource (received $1.6 billion)
        * ECOtality (received $126.2 million)
        * Raser Technologies (received $33 million)
        * Energy Conversion Devices
        * Mountain Plaza, Inc.
        * Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsens Mills Acquisition Co.
        * Range Fuels
        * Thompson River Power LLC

That’s 27 (that we know of so far). We also know that loans went to foreign clean energy companies (Fisker sent money to their overseas plant to develop an electric car), and that 80% of these loans went to President Obama’s campaign donors.

The President is trying to claim in his first official campaign ad that he’s created 2.7 million clean energy jobs. When you look at all the companies going bankrupt, some of those jobs might have been paid for by the stimulus, but they are gone now. You can’t claim we’re up 2.7 million jobs if so many of those jobs have been subsequently lost."

READ IT ALL DRONES YOU ARE BEING LIED TO PAY UP SUCKAHS

And welcome to your 30 hour workweek while you are waiting in line for your state mandated colonoscopies.

Re:Obama wastes YOUR MONEY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735789)

Chevy Volt is a car, not a company.
My father owns quite a bit of Johnson Controls stock. Trust me, they are nowhere near bankruptcy.

Re:Obama wastes YOUR MONEY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735821)

"owns quite a bit of Johnson Controls stock"

Owwww you are a rich capitalist, pay up suckah.

"Trust me, they are nowhere near bankruptcy."

Excuse me, I don't trust you. Asserting a point does not make it true. Present proof.

Plus you think one of these failures is bot bankrupt? Whoopie for you, Solyendra anyone?

BANKRUPT JUST LIKE THE LEFT.

Drone.

Re:Obama wastes YOUR MONEY (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735853)

Not GP, but bankruptcy is public, you moron. If they did file for bankruptcy, it would be public record. And I dont see Solyendra's bankruptcy as one of the bad things Obama did. Infact if he bailed them out instead of letting them go bankrupt, that would be the bad thing.

Re:Obama wastes YOUR MONEY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735941)

http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/content/us/en.html

Stock:

http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/content/us/en/investors.html

Stock history:

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=JCI+Interactive#symbol=jci;range=5y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

Click on 5 year.

Sure looks like Johnson Controls is one of those good stories, not bad ones. Perhaps you should do even a minimum of research before you open your big mouth and insert foot.

Re:Obama wastes YOUR MONEY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736023)

www.johnsoncontrols.com? No bias there.

Stock history? Proves nothing.

Welcome to fail.

Re:Obama wastes YOUR MONEY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736095)

Nice cherry picking there. Yahoo link was unbiased source (it has more than the history, FYI). GP cannot prove a negative. The onus in on you to prove that they filled for bankruptcy.

Re:Obama wastes YOUR MONEY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735849)

GM paid back their bailout loans. A long time ago.

Re:Obama wastes YOUR MONEY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735917)

Lie. Prove it drone. You cannot. Take your time.

You people are sheep. How do you like it being screwed by your own socialist parties.

Socialism is for the people NOT THE SOCIALISTS.

Re:Obama wastes YOUR MONEY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735879)

When did ECD get a loan from the government?

a sad field (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735769)

I've watched all the #debates so far and it's sad how little they say, tapdance around questions, avoid talking about the critical issues while spending lots of time on things that don't matter for shit.

Sad, sad field. These ain't the best, and they ain't the brightest.

Re:a sad field (3, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735887)

I've watched all the #debates so far and it's sad how little they say, tapdance around questions, avoid talking about the critical issues while spending lots of time on things that don't matter for shit.

Even outside of debates, the media has become *horrible* about not expecting their guests to actually answer questions. Even when they're playing softball, they usually let the guest cite some irrelevant talking points rather than actually answering the question.

Re:a sad field (5, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736287)

No, what is sad is how people judge a "winner" of a debate. I've seen honest conservatives who thought the first debate was a draw while the vast majority of people thought Romney won based on being "aggressive". Apparently the Romney ape beat his chest harder than the Obama ape, and that is enough for the rest of the tribe to decide that Romney is alpha and Obama the beta.

America's role in the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735783)

"America's role in the world". We already know about this POTUS, he is a novice when it comes to foreign policy.

Re:America's role in the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735837)

Better than the guy who seems to stick his foot in his mouth every time he leaves the country, and who was chomping at the bit so hard to make political hay out of the death of one of our diplomats that he couldn't even bother to act sorry that it happened.

Re:America's role in the world (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736009)

I guess you are having Romnesia:

Bin Laden?

Final presidential debate? I THINK NOT! (5, Informative)

mfwitten (1906728) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735795)

There is going to be a debate at 21:00 EDT on October 23, hosted by Larry King. [2012presid...onnews.com] The candidates taking part are the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson, the Green Party's Jill Stein, the Constitution Party's Virgil Goode, and the Justice Party's Rocky Anderson.

Re:Final presidential debate? I THINK NOT! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736153)

Final debate for people who could actually become president, aka the "Final presidential debate". (crackpots who won't win a single electoral colleges don't count as candidates)

Re:Final presidential debate? I THINK NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736273)

None of those candidates are going to get a single electoral vote, so I don't think their absence in these debates is a significant factor for this election.

Re:Final presidential debate? I THINK NOT! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736305)

Three of my high school friends and I are also having a debate on public access TV on Oct. 24! I figure that we have as much of a chance of getting an electoral college vote as Rocky Anderson, so don't forget about our debate!

And for those who could care less... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735801)

NFL on ESPN; Game 7 of the NLCS on Fox.

Re:And for those who could care less... (1)

mfwitten (1906728) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736291)

I agree: For those who could indeed care less

It's all bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735823)

Both choices suck. Obama will win just because of least resistance. Same old, same old.

Bingo! (3, Informative)

dward90 (1813520) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735831)

Somehow, I don't suspect we'll see anything different than we saw in the first two: heated exchange of cliches and platitudes, punctuated with awkward smiles. Enjoy it while you can.

Play logical fallacy bingo! [lifesnow.com] It also makes a great drinking game.

Re:Bingo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736021)

Prediction: lies, lies, and more lies. These debates are utterly useless to anyone that is even somewhat intelligent.

Re:Bingo! (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736213)

They've been campaigning for how long now? Anyone who is somewhat intelligent made up their mind a long time ago.

Political Debate Drinking Game (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736161)

Perry Metzger tweeted the following suggested political debate drinking game - if a political debate comes on, turn on the TV and go out for a drink with your friends!

(In this case I'm going out for a music jam with friends instead, but it'll do the job.)

Re:Political Debate Drinking Game Typo Fix (2)

billstewart (78916) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736177)

if a political debate comes on, turn OFF the TV and go out for a drink with your friends! - Let's try this one again...

I will not be watching. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735841)

Until the massive media conglomerates agree to put aside the "entertainment" factor of something as important as public debates between presidential candidates, I will not take such things seriously. We have more than two candidates, and only the worst 2 are being presented. If nothing else screamed corruption, this should be an obvious one.

In other words, Obama and Romney will lie more (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735855)

So on the one hand, you can watch the major party candidates lie as easily as they breath. On the other hand, you can spend those 90 minutes reading about what Obama did as president and what Romney did as governor. Oh, and you can also read about the third party candidates, and what they did previously.

Why listen to lies, when you can uncover the truth?

fact checking (5, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735857)

I was thinking, after seeing clips from the previous debates, that the debate's host should include a real-time fact-checking panel of about six people seated behind the audience, with computers so they can contact their support staff and get quicker results. Then the debators could say "I'd like a fact check on that", and the audience (local and remote) would get a near-instant "vote" from the panel as to whether the purported fact is correct.

Re:fact checking (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735869)

That is about as likely to happen as a third party candidate being allowed to sit in the audience.

Re:fact checking (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736037)

That is about as likely to happen as a third party candidate being allowed to sit in the audience.

Better yet, have the TPCs pick the questions and serve as moderators.

Re:fact checking (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736233)

I don't understand why there can't be a news network doing this. Or even a pop-up-video style remix that adds stuff like, this is a lie because... this is an exaggeration because... as well as expounding on positions that the candidates have taken in the past and what their official websites say.

I think someone could do this and re-run the debate on Tuesday night.

Obama Endorsers (-1, Flamebait)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735859)

The Chinese, The Castro Bros. Vlad Putin, Ahmadinejad, Morsi, and Hugo Chavez. With friends like these, who needs enemies!
So all you Obama supporters - why would these people endorse Obama and why is that good for the USA? Just the facts please (ps remember Godwin's law please)

Re:Obama Endorsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736001)

The Chinese, The Castro Bros. Vlad Putin, Ahmadinejad, Morsi, and Hugo Chavez. With friends like these, who needs enemies! So all you Obama supporters - why would these people endorse Obama and why is that good for the USA? Just the facts please (ps remember Godwin's law please)

Communists hate fascists, and Romney is definitely the bigger fascist. I imagine there are a few thousand white supremacists lined up behind Romney, should I infer something about Romney because of that?

Re:Obama Endorsers (1)

dr_leviathan (653441) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736093)

It's an international reverse psychology gambit to fool the US population into electing Romney.

Re:Obama Endorsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736299)

The Chinese, The Castro Bros. Vlad Putin, Ahmadinejad, Morsi, and Hugo Chavez. With friends like these, who needs enemies!

So all you Obama supporters - why would these people endorse Obama and why is that good for the USA? Just the facts please (ps remember Godwin's law please)

I think that as a bid of an ad hominem attack and a wonderfully crafted bit of faulty logic. (golf clap).

Trolls Endorse Romney! (0)

billstewart (78916) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736323)

It's not like Obama doesn't have trolls also, but trolls have had more than four years of practice with Obama, and they've occasionally thought of things besides the Birther schtick. But hey, feeding an occasional troll can be fun.

The military-industrial complex likes Romney (especially with Ryan saying that cutting the Pentagon's pork barrel budget is not an option for reducing the deficit), though they haven't been too upset with Obama either (he didn't arrest them all, kept the wars going, and his "cuts" to their budget have been reductions in the rate of increase, not actual cut cuts.)
China's also happy that Ryan isn't serious about cutting the deficit.
Banksters like Romney's commitment to not regulating them, though they were pretty happy about Obama bailing lots of them out.
Vlad Putin wants an American President who's not stupid enough to blow up the world.
The Castro Bros are happy if America maintains enough isolation for them to stay in power, instead of opening up travel so they get flooded with tourists spending money the government can't control.
Ahmadinejad is happy to have a US president backing Israel's hard-line saber-rattlers enough that he can keep his own country in line by rattling sabers back at them, and knows that the US can't afford to invade Iran.
I haven't heard Chavez supporting Obama, but if he did he was probably drunk at the time. At least Obama hasn't sent in the Pentagon to help the oil companies overthrow him.
And Morsi? He'd like to be solidly in charge, but his position is too unstable. He can't afford to get Romnesia, but he's waving his Etch-A-Sketch around every week depending on which way the wind is blowing.

Obama rejects FOIA request (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735867)

Hey drones, hows that transparency working out for you?

http://suffolkcountylibertyreport.com/sclr/?p=25837

"After its “cap and trade” legislation to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) admissions was stalled in Congress, the EPA is attempting to issue regulations to force individuals and companies to cut GHG emissions – in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. Landmark was one of several individuals, organizations and companies that filed suit to stop the agency from abusing its authority and issuing regulations that could cost individuals and companies thousands more in annual energy costs.

Because of our years of experience in combating the EPA, Landmark has become the lead amici in the case and authored the first “friend of the court” brief filed in the matter this weekend."

It's a cover up drones, wake up. FOIA is the LAW. Obama care not about the rule of law and he cares not at all about you drones except to steal your money.

Pay up suckahs!

yuo Fa1l It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735877)

goals I personaaly to stiVck something are about 7000/5

I'm voting for Jill Stein (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735931)

Sensible alternative to Obama, who is just Bush II.

Re:I'm voting for Jill Stein (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736173)

Me too. She has a really good platform and will actually do something to make sure everyone who wants a job will not only have one, but will be paid a living wage.

Lots of people WANT to work, but simply CAN'T because while welfare will provide a basic living, a minimum wage job CAN'T.

Minimum wage should be enough to support ones self - pay rent, transportation, medical insurance, food, clothing, etc - at least for the person working.

Worthless... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735935)

Romney refuses to answer any HARD questions. Obama refuses to answer them as well. both are lying pussies that REFUSE handle real questions from voters. and the media is too lame to ask the hard questions.

What kills me is the conservative nutjobs that are foaming at the mouth thinking that their guy is any better.

News flash. They both are the same. Hooray for the new king, same as the old king!

No matter who wins, those of us that are not stinking repulsively rich will lose. that is what the Liberal nutjobs dont understand. It does NOT matter... all of them are there for their own agendas.

Re:Worthless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736067)

Yep, definitely getting to be virtually impossible to choose the lesser of the evils.

News flash. They both are the same. Hooray for the new king, same as the old king!

So appropriate that the captcha for this response to you is: encore

Re:Worthless... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736085)

THANKS of your INPUT.
 
News flash. The way you format your text makes you look like a fucktard.

What about Pussy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41735983)

Riot?

They are being sent to a gulag! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/pussy-riot-prison_n_1971069.html

What are the candidates stand on this miscarriage of justice?

Saturday Night Live (2)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#41735995)

is where i watch the president debates. They seem to be more real.

This should be interesting.... (1)

Ferretman (224859) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736025)

I'm very much interested in hearing what each candidate has to say about things *other* than Libya...in particular China.

Ferretman

PARTIAL presidential candidate debate (0)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736027)

So how many candidates are being excluded this time? Is the percentage of excluded candidates still larger than the percentage of those allowed to participate?

Also, a nitpick FWIW, it's not a debate between Presidents, it's a debate between candidates.

I'm torn (0)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736029)

Do I support the dark-brown-skinned right-wing hypocritical jesus freak who spent this week sucking up to a group of pedophiles, or the light-brown-skinned right-wing hypocritical jesus freak who spent this week sucking up to a group of pedophiles?

Vote third party (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736111)

You could support neither; we actually have other choices.

Re:I'm torn (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736243)

Voting third party is the best idea. Show them that you don't want what they're bringing to the table. If one of them claims that third party was a spoiler vote you can go back and say "yes it was because I'm sick of...." and tell them how the big parties have degraded to a point of utter shame.

Neither of them cares... (1)

ChilyWily (162187) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736035)

Non-Americans don't matter... unless they are Israeli. Both candidates know they can trash talk the entire world for political points... to demonstrate how "tough" they are.

And for reasons I don't understand, they will both want to curry favor with the Israelis - for what reason, I don't quite know. (I mean I do understand how a boogey man is needed to keep the Arabs in line but why is the US such a fop in front of the Israelis? I don't understand why we must take such scorn in the rest of the world for a bully regime like Israel?).

Anyhow, non-Americans don't vote here and therefore can be denigrated with impunity. We are #1, go USA! Fake bravado, jingoisms, you'll hear it from both of them. Real serious concerns about how the Chinese are rich and growing stronger, the trouble-making by the Russians, the increasingly mistrustful allies who are growing fewer everyday (in private if not in public), the drain on our economy by the huge military expenditure... I doubt these will be discussed. I hope I am wrong.

Fuck Romney! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736077)

Fuck Romney and fuck Republicans. Vote Nigger/Bidden '12 unless you want to get reamed in the ass by oil companies.

Stage show (1)

Monstr (31035) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736097)

As an Australian, I always find it odd that so much emphasis is placed on these debates. Perhaps it's something that only someone that follows American politics can understand. From the outside it is presented that who-ever does the best stage-show is most likely to get votes.

This strikes me as a very 'consumer friendly' way to pick a politician, but perhaps not the best way to pick the best person for the job. Unless of course normal employment hiring practice in the USA is to stand up and debate the other candidates in all job interviews?

Re:Stage show (2)

able1234au (995975) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736289)

As an Australian then you will know that debates have been a big deal for Australian politics, including the infamous "worm" showing the performance of each speaker. The debate between Keating and Hewson probably won the election for Keating, one he was expected to lose. Debates are a way to get a feel for the speaker without (fully) prepared speeches and under a bit of pressure.

Russia is the enemy! (4, Informative)

fuzzel (18438) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736121)

"The 1980's are calling for their foreign policy back" -- Barack Obama :)

watch debate with Jill! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736141)

watch the version of the debate that includes Jill Stein, Green Party candidate, at democracynow.org at 9:30 PM EST

3rd parties (2)

CobaltBlueDW (899284) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736147)

We as a nation always complain about our 2 party system and all the problems that come with it. We also frequently joke about how neither of the candidates are exceptional. We then proceed to completely ignore all third party candidates. Realistically no third party candidate can win, but the more votes they get, the more seriously they will be taken in the future. Parties need to get 15% to get in these debates. If you view this system a bit like a free market, that's like saying a small business needs to take 15% market share from two colluding conglomerates. The third parties have been almost entirely ignored by the major political news dialog. Part of that is the fault of the news organizations that specialize to target a major political demographic, but part of that problem is us.

The problem is... (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736223)

Possible causes for this problem:
  1. The mindset of "Well we need to keep the other guy out of the White House!"
  2. The idea that what candidates say has any bearing on what they will do (nevermind what they have already done).
  3. The fact that the major news media benefits financially from the policies that the major parties push (or that the news outlets are owned by corporations that benefit from those policies).
  4. The fact that people assume the Democrats are liberals and the Republicans are conservatives (and the failure to understand that both are fascist).
  5. The failure to recognize that there are more issues than what the media focuses on.
  6. The assumption that some things are not even matters of politics (the war on drugs, the existence of a standing army, the student loan system, etc.).

Re:3rd parties (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736311)

We as a nation always complain about our 2 party system and all the problems that come with it. We also frequently joke about how neither of the candidates are exceptional. We then proceed to completely ignore all third party candidates. Realistically no third party candidate can win, but the more votes they get, the more seriously they will be taken in the future. Parties need to get 15% to get in these debates. If you view this system a bit like a free market, that's like saying a small business needs to take 15% market share from two colluding conglomerates. The third parties have been almost entirely ignored by the major political news dialog. Part of that is the fault of the news organizations that specialize to target a major political demographic, but part of that problem is us.

I fully agree. Interestingly, when Abrahan Lincoln was voted in he came in as a third party candidate. At the time, the republican ticket was third party. Today, people look upon the third party vote as a wasted vote. Truly a shame the direction America is going.

I think I'll sit this one out .... (2, Interesting)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736187)

I watched the last debate, out of what I guess was a partial sense of guilt and a partial sense of duty as an American citizen ... but it sorely disappointed me.

Not that I expected better, but it just served as a reminder of what a circus the whole thing is today.

As I pointed out to some friends of mine after the debate, both candidates are primarily concerned with putting on a good show. They went over their allotted speaking time over and over again. I've seen high-school debate classes with students FAR more capable of getting their points across within their time slots! You have to ask yourself if Romney and Obama are really that unskilled at time management? I think you and I both know the answer to that one. They're only running out the clock and continuing to talk because it's a TACTIC. If a candidate really doesn't have a good, effective comment or rebuttal to make, he wanders off topic to run the clock down, and then pretends to start addressing the issue as time is running out. That way, he can appear to have simply not been given enough time to explain his position rather than do so in full and look foolish. Alternately, he can purposely exceed the time limit in an attempt to irritate his opponent and rattle him.

Beyond that? I expect more of the REAL issues will be directly addressed by those "alternative, smaller political parties" we finally get to hear debate in their own little CNN hosted program tomorrow.

If you want to really discuss where the U.S. stands in the eyes of the rest of the world, a good start would be expounding on the recent Wall Street Journal article explaining how U.S. citizens living abroad are suddenly finding foreign banks no longer want their business. The U.S. government (and IRS in particular) have become so demanding and ruthless in their quest to "know all" about each person's investments and spending habits, they've made it uneconomical for foreign banks to comply anymore. Even the Swiss bankers (once considered almost untouchable) are being given the ultimatum by the USA ... turn over all those records of who has what in your bank, or else. Some people have even tried to turn in their passports and renounce their U.S. citizenship, only to find the IRS invalidates it, because they haven't paid past taxes (or even an "exit tax" they expect to be paid first).

It's an ugly state of affairs when your country believes it literally "owns" you, despite your express intentions to leave it behind. And the rest of the world realizes how draconian the U.S. government is getting, and doesn't want to get involved in that mess.... Here's betting NONE of this is even hinted at tonight in the "debates".

mitt romney is so corny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41736281)

what an assclown

Arming the Syrian Rebels? What Will That Solve? (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#41736303)

Mitt Romney wants to create world peace? By arming the Syrian rebels [guardian.co.uk] ? Because that's never bit us in the ass [wikipedia.org] . I'm sick and tired of this mentality that the United States needs to police the entire world and Romney keeps saying crap like "it's an honor that we didn't ask for but we have." What the hell?

Oh! But yeah, go ahead and arm Syrian rebels! Iran totally won't view that as an aggressive act! No, they'll sit by and watch that happen! And just say "Gee, I guess the people of Syria have spoken!" Try meeting with them then [go.com] and using diplomacy to reduce their nuclear efforts!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?