Author Topic: 2016 vote 3rd party  (Read 2861 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
2016 vote 3rd party
« on: December 17, 2014, 11:00:31 PM »
a
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 03:17:03 PM by Calvin6s »
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2014, 06:07:52 AM »
Doubtful.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5453
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2014, 06:19:55 AM »
It'll never happen.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19380
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2014, 06:40:52 AM »
Until there is greater transparency and overall campaign funds have reasonable cap on them, there's not a chance in hell.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2014, 08:46:35 AM »
I voted for Ross Perot once.

If he couldn't do it, I'm not sure who could.  Unless some other well-respected political figure changed from one party to a third party.

Maybe Colin Powell?
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19380
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2014, 09:03:57 AM »
Ross Perot may have had a chance if he didn't make it public that he saw aliens on his lawn.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10556
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2014, 09:04:50 AM »
Maybe Colin Powell?

I'd vote for him any and every time for any office. Love that guy.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2014, 10:03:37 AM »
I have a lot of respect for him as well.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2014, 03:36:02 PM »
I don't see it happening as long as we have unlimited campaign contributions from anyone, anytime.  In the age of "corporate personhood" I think the average American better get used to how their ankles feel in their hands.  Because until or unless we get all of this ridiculous money out of our elections, I don't see the current political class getting off the top of pile anytime soon.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2014, 05:56:29 AM »
My hope with a candidate like Colin Powell is that he would break the trend in recent years (decades, really) of having to choose between social issues and economic ones.   I, like many people, vote economically, but in many cases I am making a sacrifice on social issues to do so.    Thankfully, the right have been (depending on your point of view) either much more practical or much less effective than their cohorts on the left when it comes to social issues, and haven't staked their reputation on them (for the most part), but it would be nice to be able to have a candidate that touches a broader, more varied platform. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19380
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #10 on: December 19, 2014, 06:17:05 AM »
Public Campaign Financing is the way to go.  Strict public campaign *funding*.

Couple that with strict enforcement of equal time and strict "prevailing wages" so we don't have the flip side of one side getting free services.

Change the debate format so the candidate can choose to present their platform with powerpoint type presentation.  The other candidates can ask questions on the current presentation (although after the full presentation).  The public at large that just watches a debate to decide would be provided more useful information in a format like this.

Powerpoints would be interesting seeing as the debates are more or less worthless. At least a presentation would force them to talk about something other than how much they hate their opposition.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #11 on: December 19, 2014, 02:29:31 PM »
Yeah, to me the debates are pretty useless.  They all hit the stage with their talking points memorized and none of them ever actually answer a question.  They just keep regurgitating their talking points over and over and over...

Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9251
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #12 on: December 19, 2014, 03:05:18 PM »
Ross Perot may have had a chance if he didn't make it public that he saw aliens on his lawn.
If anything that helped get a few more votes.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10556
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #13 on: December 19, 2014, 03:06:31 PM »
Yeah, to me the debates are pretty useless.  They all hit the stage with their talking points memorized and none of them ever actually answer a question.  They just keep regurgitating their talking points over and over and over...

....while quoting cherry picked "facts" that only support whatever half brained idea they're pimping at that time to get elected.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19380
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2014, 03:14:58 PM »
What about the idea that we replace the moderators asking questions with the other candidates asking questions?

How many times have you watched a debate where the moderators seemed to skew questions to favor one candidate over another.  There was a whole SNL skit on that for the Hillary v. Obama debates.

I wouldn't even worry about limiting candidate questions. Perhaps if one candidate pulled a fappening on another candidate ...  :corn

I'd love to see Bill O'Reily, John Stewart, Bill Maher, and S.E Cupp moderate a debate.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2014, 06:40:40 AM »
I don't see it happening as long as we have unlimited campaign contributions from anyone, anytime.  In the age of "corporate personhood" I think the average American better get used to how their ankles feel in their hands.  Because until or unless we get all of this ridiculous money out of our elections, I don't see the current political class getting off the top of pile anytime soon.
I agree.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19380
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2014, 06:06:19 AM »
I'd love to see Bill O'Reily, John Stewart, Bill Maher, and S.E Cupp moderate a debate.
For pure entertainment value?


Because they'd ask hard questions, and they'd challenge any response that wasn't an answer to the question asked. They'd make the candidates feel uncomfortable and force them to think on their feet.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2014, 06:12:37 AM »
That is the kind of debate that was proposed on season 1 of The Newsroom.  It was shot down, in a way that I think demonstrated why such an informative debate will never be seen in this country.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19380
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2014, 08:30:12 AM »
That is the kind of debate that was proposed on season 1 of The Newsroom.  It was shot down, in a way that I think demonstrated why such an informative debate will never be seen in this country.

Can you give a synopsis?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2014, 11:27:11 AM »
My hope with a candidate like Colin Powell is that he would break the trend in recent years (decades, really) of having to choose between social issues and economic ones.

So Libertarian?  The general philosophy that people can make their own destiny and the government is just there to create that level playing field (whether economic or social)?

What about foreign policy?

A 3rd party candidate is tough in that people envision them as being perfectly aligned.  So they support the idea, but turn on the reality.  Unfortunately, it is more like a scorecard.  Which candidate is most aligned with you, but probably has a problem area that rubs you the wrong way elsewhere?

Then you have to consider if they a) can do what they say and b) will do what they say.

Well, interestingly, I have a big problem with people automatically voting to their self-interest.  I regularly read Rolling Stone (which is politically a shade left of Bill Bradley) and there isn't a political article in there that doesn't whine about people "voting against their self-interest", when that is actually a GREAT thing in many cases.    Who says that the interests of one person in Buttefouk, Montana is necessarily what's best for the nation as a whole?  To me, it is not a badge of honor when people say they voted a certain way because they personally had x, y, or z (and why I tend to not go crazy over singular issues like gay marriage, even if I tend to agree with them in principle). 

As for foreign policy, I'm way more flexible on that than domestic issues, as I tend to think that there are too many moving parts and too many variables to track to say that we could (or should) have ONE static policy that applies to all countries at all times.   Another area that I am an iconoclast:  a common criticism of the Iraq War was "well, if we're going to do that, we should invade [insert list of about 40 countries that were nominally similar to Iraq]" and it doesn't work that way.   Bill Parcells didn't treat Lawrence Taylor (he looked the other way while LT did coke and banged hookers, even during the season) the same way as he treated Phil Simms (worked him like a dog, even in off hours, drilling him unmercifully in schemes and repetition) and he has two Super Bowl rings to show for it.  Even today, Phil Simms says he didn't like it but is grateful for it, as the difference in treatment made both of them better players and was the difference in why the Giants were able to be so good so consistently in that era.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2014, 02:25:54 PM »
That is the kind of debate that was proposed on season 1 of The Newsroom.  It was shot down, in a way that I think demonstrated why such an informative debate will never be seen in this country.

Can you give a synopsis?
The news team provided a mock debate for the Republican Party bigwigs with different staffers assuming the roles of various primary challengers (Bachman, Perry, Romney, etc.).  They weren't given the questions ahead of time, and nothing would be agreed to.  The questions were the providence of the moderator, and the moderator would hold each respondent to an answer of the actual question before moving on.

The candidates all came off looking like the asshats they are, and the bigwigs shut it down.

It was in episode 9 of season 1.  I recommend it, fantastic stuff.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19380
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2014, 02:48:43 PM »
Awesome. I watched the first six episodes and the final episode of season 1. Very good show.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2014, 10:55:44 AM »
Maher and O'Reilly are a little too full of themselves not to turn it into being about them.

But Stewart would be fantastic.  Think his appearance on Crossfire from years ago.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19380
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2014, 10:59:40 AM »
Maher and O'Reilly are a little too full of themselves not to turn it into being about them.

I don't think they would do that. Granted, they do it on their show, but it's kind of expected. I think either of them in the moderator seat of a presidential debate would take the role very seriously.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2014, 11:19:45 AM »
Maybe.  I love Maher, but I just can't see him taking this seriously.  He would just fuck with people. 

Stewart is who I would trust for something like this.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19380
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #25 on: December 23, 2014, 11:23:13 AM »
Of the four, I'd definitely choose Stewart first. I'm actually shocked to hear you say you love Maher.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #26 on: December 23, 2014, 12:25:23 PM »
Of the four, I'd definitely choose Stewart first. I'm actually shocked to hear you say you love Maher.
Why?  He's a hoot.  I always watch Real Time.  It should be starting up again soon.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19380
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #27 on: December 23, 2014, 12:32:19 PM »
Of the four, I'd definitely choose Stewart first. I'm actually shocked to hear you say you love Maher.
Why?  He's a hoot.  I always watch Real Time.  It should be starting up again soon.

He starts up again in January. I always thought you were a religious man. I just assumed anyone who follows of religion wouldn't be able to watch him without wanting to smash something. Then again, I listen to Alex Jones everyday, so I guess I can understand.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #28 on: December 23, 2014, 02:57:01 PM »
Of the four, I'd definitely choose Stewart first. I'm actually shocked to hear you say you love Maher.
Why?  He's a hoot.  I always watch Real Time.  It should be starting up again soon.

He starts up again in January. I always thought you were a religious man. I just assumed anyone who follows of religion wouldn't be able to watch him without wanting to smash something. Then again, I listen to Alex Jones everyday, so I guess I can understand.
I am religious.  And it just so happens that many of the things he dislikes about religion, I also dislike about religion.  Those things just don't drive me away from religion, like they have him.

Of course, he was raised Catholic, so no surprise.  :biggrin:
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #29 on: December 29, 2014, 09:14:04 AM »
I sort of know the answer to this, based on the way the thread has gone, but anyone else tired and a little scared of the recent trend towards the blurring of the comedy/news line?   This isn't a left/right thing, but a general thing (and the only reason why I bring Rush Limbaugh in, as he doesn't do what Stewart does, technically): it bothers me a little that so many people are looking at Jon Stewart and others like him as a source of news.  I see no difference between that and looking at Rush Limbaugh as a source of news.   Neither are journalists in the strict sense of the word, and while I am not na´ve about bias in news, at least nominally there is some level of integrity, and the laws that protect people against things like slander (oral) and libel (written/broadcast) are such that comedians have not a little but a LOT of leeway to play loose with facts without obligation to tell you that, and without recourse when they do.

I think it is an example of the very dumbing down that so many comedians (at least the good ones; Rock, Carlin, etc.) seek to shed light on.

Offline AngelBack

  • I'm officially a lard......
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 831
  • Gender: Male
  • Why you want beef with broccoli ?
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2015, 09:09:24 AM »
I sort of know the answer to this, based on the way the thread has gone, but anyone else tired and a little scared of the recent trend towards the blurring of the comedy/news line?   This isn't a left/right thing, but a general thing (and the only reason why I bring Rush Limbaugh in, as he doesn't do what Stewart does, technically): it bothers me a little that so many people are looking at Jon Stewart and others like him as a source of news.  I see no difference between that and looking at Rush Limbaugh as a source of news.   Neither are journalists in the strict sense of the word, and while I am not na´ve about bias in news, at least nominally there is some level of integrity, and the laws that protect people against things like slander (oral) and libel (written/broadcast) are such that comedians have not a little but a LOT of leeway to play loose with facts without obligation to tell you that, and without recourse when they do.

I think it is an example of the very dumbing down that so many comedians (at least the good ones; Rock, Carlin, etc.) seek to shed light on.


Good post.  I recently got into a heated discussion with my daughter's boyfriend's dad.  At one point he threw out "I bet you carry a gun and watch FOX News".  Was funny even though both were true.  The point is FOX news only has a couple of legitimate journalist on the daily lineup, maybe only Brett Baier. The rest are nothing but conservative commentators.  Not the same but the line between entertainment/editorial and hard news has definitely been blurred and those that can't see the difference are bound to draw the conclusion that bias is degrading the reporting of the "news".  Same as most other networks at this point in time.
But the arc of your life will still be profound

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 26217
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2015, 09:32:23 AM »
I sort of know the answer to this, based on the way the thread has gone, but anyone else tired and a little scared of the recent trend towards the blurring of the comedy/news line?   This isn't a left/right thing, but a general thing (and the only reason why I bring Rush Limbaugh in, as he doesn't do what Stewart does, technically): it bothers me a little that so many people are looking at Jon Stewart and others like him as a source of news.  I see no difference between that and looking at Rush Limbaugh as a source of news.   Neither are journalists in the strict sense of the word, and while I am not na´ve about bias in news, at least nominally there is some level of integrity, and the laws that protect people against things like slander (oral) and libel (written/broadcast) are such that comedians have not a little but a LOT of leeway to play loose with facts without obligation to tell you that, and without recourse when they do.

I think it is an example of the very dumbing down that so many comedians (at least the good ones; Rock, Carlin, etc.) seek to shed light on.

I think one big difference between Limbaugh and Stewart is that Limbaugh generally comes across as a hateful assface who is so partisan that he can't see straight, while Stewart generally comes across as a jokey satirist who usually keeps things light-hearted. 

To people who don't lean far to one/either side, like me, Stewart is far more likable and easy to listen to and/or watch.  When I was younger and very conservative, I found Limbaugh slightly amusing, but as I took on some liberal views, and now sit in the center, I find him terribly annoying.  I am not a fan of partisan talking heads like him.  He is like the right's version of Keith Olbermann: an obnoxious ass who is incapable of being objective.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2015, 07:08:42 AM »
I sort of know the answer to this, based on the way the thread has gone, but anyone else tired and a little scared of the recent trend towards the blurring of the comedy/news line?   This isn't a left/right thing, but a general thing (and the only reason why I bring Rush Limbaugh in, as he doesn't do what Stewart does, technically): it bothers me a little that so many people are looking at Jon Stewart and others like him as a source of news.  I see no difference between that and looking at Rush Limbaugh as a source of news.   Neither are journalists in the strict sense of the word, and while I am not na´ve about bias in news, at least nominally there is some level of integrity, and the laws that protect people against things like slander (oral) and libel (written/broadcast) are such that comedians have not a little but a LOT of leeway to play loose with facts without obligation to tell you that, and without recourse when they do.

I think it is an example of the very dumbing down that so many comedians (at least the good ones; Rock, Carlin, etc.) seek to shed light on.

I think one big difference between Limbaugh and Stewart is that Limbaugh generally comes across as a hateful assface who is so partisan that he can't see straight, while Stewart generally comes across as a jokey satirist who usually keeps things light-hearted. 

To people who don't lean far to one/either side, like me, Stewart is far more likable and easy to listen to and/or watch.  When I was younger and very conservative, I found Limbaugh slightly amusing, but as I took on some liberal views, and now sit in the center, I find him terribly annoying.  I am not a fan of partisan talking heads like him.  He is like the right's version of Keith Olbermann: an obnoxious ass who is incapable of being objective.

But that sort of makes my point for me:  Limbaugh is not someone who is going to win over liberal listeners.  He is a preacher with a set choir.   I don't find him scary at all (actually he is a non-entity to me; I don't find him annoying or obnoxious either; I just don't bother).  It's the very light-hearted amusing nature of Stewart that is so bothersome; plus, it feeds into something I have been saying for a long time now, and that is "common sense is neither common, nor sensical".     My spider sense tingles as soon as someone like Stewart boils what is usually a very complex, intricate thing down into a soundbite that "sounds good".   Yet people buy into that crap on a daily basis without any consideration into the ramification and consequences of what that might mean.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40284
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2015, 07:23:33 AM »
I think you are oversimplifying what Stewart does.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 vote 3rd party
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2015, 07:48:59 AM »
I think you are oversimplifying what Stewart does.

How so (seriously)?   I would've thought the criticism would be that I am overstating what Stewart does.  :)