3rd Party Presidential Debate

[ZvP]

As I'm typing this, the online 3rd party Presidential debate is about to end. As was to be expected, there was no leftist representation. Did anyone watch this? I find it sad that these 3rd party candidates, who hardly differ from Obamney in any meaningful way, are considered the last bastion of American politics, the only people who can save our country from the tyranny of the two party monopoly. As if that's the problem.

Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson have some cute ideas, but they still support the status quo, more or less.. Gary Johnson is a rehash of the Ron Paul "revolution", and Virgil Goode is insane. Is this the best we can do?

[Questionable]

I didn't watch them but this topic made me google Virgil Goode, and wow. I didn't know American had a blatantly fascist party.

[GPDP]

Was Vermin Supreme there? If not, I am not interested.

[bcbm]

Is this the best we can do?

why would 'we' give a shit about masturbatory electoral spectacle?

[RedSonRising]

There was no true leftist presence within the debate, but some key topics, such as the war on drugs, the imperialist wars in the Middle East, corporate donations to politics, etc. were touched upon, and that was somewhat refreshing.

The left has 4 years to get their shit together and mobilize under a unified front, and another 4 after that, and then another. We can't depend on the ballot box, but I'd hope we can at least make more noise than the fucking nationalist tea-party and right-wing militias murdering people on the border.

[The Jay]

why would 'we' give a shit about masturbatory electoral spectacle?

Some candidates will do more damage to people's lives than other candidates. Is that a good enough reason?

[bcbm]

We can't depend on the ballot box, but I'd hope we can at least make more noise than the fucking nationalist tea-party and right-wing militias murdering people on the border.

um occupy was gaining some headlines for a minute and seemed a might bit better than trying to tie 'our' fortunes to electoral politics


Some candidates will do more damage to people's lives than other candidates. Is that a good enough reason?

no

[Prof. Oblivion]

Some candidates will do more damage to people's lives than other candidates. Is that a good enough reason?Even if this were the case, there is absolutely no way to determine which candidate would be "worse" as nothing that comes out of their mouth is meaningful.

The argument, for example, to "tactically" vote Obama simply presumes that everything both candidates are saying is true, and that is easily proven wrong based on how often they flip flop and contradict themselves. Romney as a governor was a centrist, strongly pro-choice negotiator that had a hand in implementing one of the most progressive state healthcare systems in the country. Do you really think that between then and now he's coincidentally switched positions on all of this?

[The Jay]

Even if this were the case, there is absolutely no way to determine which candidate would be "worse" as nothing that comes out of their mouth is meaningful.

That is only partly true. I can say that some candidates will not do certain things or are more likely to do one thing than another. I can count on Romney to cut Social Security, but doubt that Jill Stein would, ect, ect.

[Prof. Oblivion]

That is only partly true. I can say that some candidates will not do certain things or are more likely to do one thing than another. I can count on Romney to cut Social Security, but doubt that Jill Stein would, ect, ect.First, I was speaking only of the two viable candidates. Third parties are unfortunately for all intents and purposes non-existent as candidates on the federal electoral level, especially in presidential elections. So I think it's irrelevant to discuss Stein's position on anything or even consider her in this discussion.

Second, you can most certainly not count on Romney to cut Social Security, as you have no basis upon which to "count" aside from what himself and other politicians have said. He is no more likely to cut Social Security than he is to defund Planned Parenthood. In fact, if we base a guess on past history of his performance as governor, we could reasonably guess that he would in fact expand "entitlement" programs.

[The Jay]

First, I was speaking only of the two viable candidates. Third parties are unfortunately for all intents and purposes non-existent as candidates on the federal electoral level, especially in presidential elections. So I think it's irrelevant to discuss Stein's position on anything or even consider her in this discussion.

Second, you can most certainly not count on Romney to cut Social Security, as you have no basis upon which to "count" aside from what himself and other politicians have said. He is no more likely to cut Social Security than he is to defund Planned Parenthood.

Let me get this straight: you came to a thread discussing 3rd parties and then say that it is irrelevant for me to bring up a 3rd party candidate.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Let me get this straight: you came to a thread discussing 3rd parties and then say that it is irrelevant for me to bring up a 3rd party candidate.I am not saying it is irrelevant for you to bring up a 3rd party candidate in this thread; I am saying that 3rd party candidates are irrelevant when discussing federal elections, particularly the presidential election.

The post to which I was originally responding had to do with lesser-evilism, and that was what I was addressing, not the OP.

[The Jay]

I am not saying it is irrelevant for you to bring up a 3rd party candidate in this thread; I am saying that 3rd party candidates are irrelevant when discussing federal elections, particularly the presidential election.

The post to which I was originally responding had to do with lesser-evilism, and that was what I was addressing, not the OP.


It was my post you were referring to. I was including the third parties in it. You do not get to define away my meaning and then chastise me for using my original meaning.

[Prof. Oblivion]

why would 'we' give a shit about masturbatory electoral spectacle?

The way that the electoral process works, succeeding at bringing third parties into the process would not only widen options for voting, but also massively expand the spectrum of political discourse and break up this all-or-nothing brand-adherance that the democrats and republicans currently have.

In other words, people would be less inclined to ideologically cling to one of two sides, and discussion and debate would become more diverse and less dogmatic.

I don't really know if this is possible, but we can at least applaud the effort put forward by including the third party candidates in the debate, even if it was to a very limited extent.


It was my post you were referring to. I was including the third parties in it. You do not get to define away my meaning and then chastise me for using my original meaning.

Sorry, I didn't notice. I pulled the quote from the poster above me. I still think I responded to this by saying that for all intents and purposes third parties are irrelevant so it is pointless to consider them in the discussion of who to vote for. Hope this clears things up?

[The Jay]

Sorry, I didn't notice. I pulled the quote from the poster above me. I still think I responded to this by saying that for all intents and purposes third parties are irrelevant so it is pointless to consider them in the discussion of who to vote for. Hope this clears things up?


It does show that people are dissatisfied with the way things are if the 3rd parties have larger vote counts than normal. It can help people to feel like they are not as alone. This can lead to more radical ideas being looked at more critically as opposed to dismissively. It is not about winning the election - at the moment - but about showing how pissed you are, both in the street and in the box. Of course the bourgeoisie wouldn't allow things to change much, but they may give up some ground and that would be something until we can take the whole cake in a different way.

[Prof. Oblivion]

It does show that people are dissatisfied with the way things are if the 3rd parties have larger vote counts than normal. It can help people to feel like they are not as alone. This can lead to more radical ideas being looked at more critically as opposed to dismissively. It is not about winning the election - at the moment - but about showing how pissed you are, both in the street and in the box. Of course the bourgeoisie wouldn't allow things to change much, but they may give up some ground and that would be something until we can take the whole cake in a different way.

Low third-party vote counts are an effect, and not a cause, of the lack of diverse political discourse. People that vote third party are already convinced of their position, or at least are in definite opposition to the two-party system as it stands. I don't think a few hundred or thousand more people voting third party would garner even a dedicated news article unless it was significant, and even then it would most likely be buried. The Obama and Romney campaigns - and democrats/republicans generally - don't even consider third parties. I doubt they care at all how many people vote third party.

[RedSonRising]

um occupy was gaining some headlines for a minute and seemed a might bit better than trying to tie 'our' fortunes to electoral politics


The two are not mutually exclusive. Though Occupy would do well to solidify their goals and constituents as members of the left.

[Geiseric]

And this is why we need a labor party, to organize hundreds of thousands of people around demands that are being pushed for by the class conscious working class. We need to support building a labor party, and as socialists, act within the labor party to push it in the right direction.

[redstarradical]

None of them even have a chance. If they did have a shot at the public funding mark, then there's something to talk about, but they don't. Even then, that would be a miniscule victory.