Presidental Debates

[inquisitive_socialist]

I was wondering why none of the presidential candates such as kerry or pres. bush have felt the need to debate Bill Auken. Hes the socilaist candidate fr president and i dont see why hes less important an opponent than kerry.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 11:44 AM
I was wondering why none of the presidential candates such as kerry or pres. bush have felt the need to debate Bill Auken. Hes the socilaist candidate fr president and i dont see why hes less important an opponent than kerry.
:lol:

It's the United States of America, a Democratic Republic.

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 1 2004, 10:15 AM
:lol:

It's the United States of America, a Democratic Republic.
What's that got to do with anything? The SEP strongly advocates democracy.

If you're so sure of your system and it's leaders, what do you have to be afraid of?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 03:29 PM
What's that got to do with anything? The SEP strongly advocates democracy.

If you're so sure of your system and it's leaders, what do you have to be afraid of?
Nothing, and the socialist candidate will be on the ballot and in the position papers that every registered voter gets, but we have to be reasonable about who the majority of Americans are really considering.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 04:44 AM
I was wondering why none of the presidential candates such as kerry or pres. bush have felt the need to debate Bill Auken. Hes the socilaist candidate fr president and i dont see why hes less important an opponent than kerry.
It would give the impression that, that person matters at all or weilds any kind of political influence.

Go up to 100 random people on the street of 10 cities and ask them who Bill Auken is and see what your responses will be. I am sure they will range from "A Musician?" "Is he the guy that plays the piano on David Letterman?" You might get a couple of people who might say, "A political person?"

If nobody knows who he is, why not just ask the question, "Why doesn't President Buish or Senator Kerry debate anybody and everybody?"

Secondly, why would you A. Waste your time as a politician, valuable time you are using for campaigning, preparing and debating somebody nobody really even knows.

Thirdly, Why put yourself at political risk? Why take a chance to debate somebody, somebody that even if you beat won't give you any kind of political prestige, who you might screw up on. You will gain nothing by winning, but could have a screw up broadcasted everywhere with sound bytes showing this to everyone, hurting your election chances.

Sure ideally a canidate would have to debate everybody all the time. That would put the most information out there for people, or it would overwhelm us with our busy lives and we'd just shut out everything. A culture of people within the US who would pay attention and would want to watch a weekly debate and had enough information ahead of time to be able to clearly see misinformation, inaccurate information and clear signs of debate defeat, would be great.

[redtrigger]

was wondering why none of the presidential candates such as kerry or pres. bush have felt the need to debate Bill Auken. Hes the socilaist candidate fr president and i dont see why hes less important an opponent than kerry.

The socialist party is not a high roller in American politics, why would they debate him.

Second, did anyone else find it funny that Bush should have crushed Kerry in this debate. But him not just proves how inept he is.

[cormacobear]

They don't include other candidates because they don't want to let the American peopl know they have more than two choices.
If they only put two candidates on the boob tube american mushrooms might beleive that they have two different stances, which of course we all know isn't true.

Mushrooms=kept in the dark and fed shit

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Any socialist should know better than to vote in bourgeois, much less actually run for a US government position.

[timbaly]

Having third party candidates in a debate threatens the two party system. People who previously didn't know about candidates like Nader or Auken might find their opinions and ideas to be superior to Kerry's or Bush's, therefore the two major parties would lose votes. Since we all know that they don't want to lose votes, it's easy to see why they keep the other parties out and this way they stengthen the American duoply.

[Exploited Class]

Well they do have 3rd party canidates in the debate and have done so recently. Ross Perrot was in the debates of the 90s.

Does having only 2 canidates in a debate, make americans think there are only 2 parties in America. No it does not. Just about every active American knows that Nader exists and that he effected that last election.

Does it make them think there are only 2 effective parties, effective in the sense that they get to actively participate in the American Political Machine, Yes. It impacts that very much, just as much as not having anybody in the Senate or House being a part of anything other than Democrats and Republicans. Just as much as there is nothing else but those 2 parties on a ballot.

A lot of Americans are aware of the Libertarian Party, it is a 3rd party, and they are showing up on all the local and statewide elections.

Americans know there are more than 2 parties, but they have adopted the belief that voting for anything other than those 2 are "throwing away their vote".


Having third party candidates in a debate threatens the two party system.
It doesn't threaten a two party system at all, in fact if anything it strenghtens it. If a third party canidate is in the debates, more people will vote for him/her and take away votes from on of the closer associated canidates. Next election everybody freaks out at that 3rd party canidate and the backlash occurs. I have heard on the radio more no nader ads than pro-bush or pro-kerry ads.


People who previously didn't know about candidates like Nader or Auken might find their opinions and ideas to be superior to Kerry's or Bush's, therefore the two major parties would lose votes.

I don't know about 'superior' ideas than their opponents, but they would give ideas, responses and conduct that differ greatly from their opponents and those might more closely relate to a viewer more than the others'. That may steal away from one of the canidates. Likewise it might energize somebody who was not going to vote to vote.

That latter part is a much more serious threat to power. Activating or energizing otherwise apathetic voters into active voters. I seriously doubt that for the most part that is why they do not automatically have 3rd party canidates. The reasons as to why, I stated in an above post.

It is ludicrous and naive to think that the reason why they do not have a specific 3rd party canidate is because they want to control all of us. That it would deystroy their system and we would all revolt and overthrow the system. To think their intended goal is to keep everybody dark and only listening to them is way off mark.

To say that not having a third party canidate in the debates creates the above, is probably very true. Leaving out a third party canidate does dumb down the debates, does not inject intresting and different point of views to the american public, it does help keep the 2 party tyranny system in place, it does help assist in keeping the public pacified. It does do these things.

BUT IT ISN'T THE REASON AS TO WHY

It is the result, it is an unfortunate watered down version of a democratic republic, it tastes of rotten sulfur and it shows just how weak this system is.

when you say, "the reason so and so is not there is because they want us stupid and uninformed" sounds like you think there are 5 people in a backroom plotting this. This sounds like you will be wearing a tinfoil hat when you go home.

To say that, "The reason they do not have a 3rd party canidate is because the effectiveness of a long standing, entrenched two party system to take and retain power, has made the possibility of a 3rd party canidate doing anything effective but changing the outcome of an election, close to flacid." That sound intelligent and correct.

to say that, "The requirements to be included in a deabte as a third party canidate, who is in a long standing and entrenched 2 party political system, impractical and almost impossible to reach." sounds intelligent and correct.

To say that, "Those requirements which are close to impossible and very impractical for a 3rd parrt canidate to reach only helps to keep 2 the party system in power and entrenched. Which of course only helps in assisting to keep the order of an oligarchy."

People are getting the WHYS and the RESULTS mixed up.

[T_SP]

Just pulling things in a different direction, anyone got a link for the transcripts of the debates or videos or audio files?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Why shouldn't a socialist run for a position in US Government¿

[T_SP]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 1 2004, 05:21 PM
Nothing, and the socialist candidate will be on the ballot and in the position papers that every registered voter gets, but we have to be reasonable about who the majority of Americans are really considering.
Yeah the one who can grease the most big business palms I guess!



Hell they wouldn't want a Socialist up there asking questions that would really make the candidates squirm!!

[T_SP]

That brings up another question, why not have Nader up there debating, you,ve all been talking about political positions well Nader is fairly well established. I didn't know who Bill Auken was but I know of Nader ( I'm a Brit) why not get Micheal Moore up there, I'm sure he could ask some awkward questions!!

[Xvall]

Because the American government advocates a two-party form of government where anyone who isn't in either of these parties is too insignificant to have any opinions worth listening to.

[GoaRedStar]

What the hell is a democratic republic. The US is only a republic you cant have them both, plus a democracy cant work with a capitalist society .




democracy- is controlled by the masses, people actually vote for the issue not for candidates

Republic- is a representitive government

[Individual]

Thought this was interesting..

Kerry, the flip-flopper? (http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/09/09_526.html)

[Pawn Power]

the debates are basically an embarrassment

[synthesis]

I am generally unconcerned with capitalist politics as a whole, but Cheney's conduct in the vice-presidential debates was truly Orwellian. The fact that there was no outcry of any sort over the things he said is only indicative of how far we have to go in the U.S.

For example, he said that he never claimed that there were links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. However, evidence of him saying exactly that is as easy to find as coke residue on Bush's college yearbook. I have never been so utterly convinced that my fellow Americans are nothing but a herd of blind, stupid sheep.

[Hiero]

Hey i seen in the news that Bush may have had a radio device under his jacket.

[/\______/\]

A complete farce. The only thing of interest about the presidential debates have been the undemocratic restrictions put on third parties. It has been unfairy under-reported in the media, but here is a very interesting article on the one highlight of the debates for me: http://www.progress.org/2004/debates08.htm - Green Party Presidential Candidate Arrested