[Vision2020] LA Times: :Third-party debate showcases fresh faces and issues"

Thu Oct 25 14:37:43 PDT 2012

Well, he may have talked about it, but in the end he agrees completely with Obama on the subject.  This is why it's not brought up as a national issue, why bring it up if nobody disagrees?  Never mind the people that are against it, they don't get a choice (unless they want to "throw away their vote").  This is true for almost every other item on Ted's list.

The Ds and Rs have locked up the debates, which has the effect of silencing all those who disagree on these issues.  Who said they couldn't act in a bipartisan manner?

Paul

________________________________
 From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>; Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] LA Times: :Third-party debate showcases fresh faces and issues"

During the last presidential debate, Romney stated unequivocally that he supports Obama's use of drones.

Seeya at the polls, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares"
http://www.MoscowCares.com

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students.  The college students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."

- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)

On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

We disagree on a lot of things, but we agree completely on this topic.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
>To: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:08 PM
>Subject: [Vision2020] LA Times: :Third-party debate showcases fresh faces and issues"
> 
>
>Issues addressed in this debate that were not emphasized in the Demopublican/Republicrat debate include legality or wisdom of drone killing, the massive US military budget continuing while domestic needs suffer, NDAA tyranny, the damaging war on drugs and the massive US incarceration rate, anthropogenic climate change, and corporate cash influencing elections.  Comparing this debate to the Obama/Romney debate charade, that was sometimes like a mano a mano testosterone verbal battle, rather than a mature discussion of critical issues by two adults, made me wonder why I bothered to even watch those debates.
>This debate was shown again on C-Span, and appears to be available in full on the C-Span website here:
>http://www.c-span.org/Events/Third-Party-Presidential-Debate/10737435220/
>
>Listening to this debate offered hope for our democracy, likely a vain hope given the odds against any of these alternative candidates or anyone like them being elected president.
>------------------------------------
>
>http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-third-party-debate-fresh-faces-issues-20121023,0,4056150.story
>
>Third-party debate showcases fresh faces and issues
>By James Rainey 
>October 23, 2012, 9:55 p.m
>Four alternative candidates for president of the United States debated 
Tuesday night in Chicago and agreed America needs a good dose of what 
they could provide -- clear, straight talk that has not been 
market-pasteurized.
>The third-party debate, sponsored by the nonprofit Free and Equal Elections Foundation and streamed online with host Larry King, offered up a heaping serving of candidates few voters have seen and issues President Obama and Mitt Romney have seldom raised -- including drug legalization, climate change and indefinite holds on citizens suspected of terrorism.
>
>Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, Jill Stein of the Green Party, Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party and Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party may not win huge votes Nov. 6, but they rocked a Chicago hotel ballroom and the social media landscape, which buzzed with commentary about their 
conversation.
>“You’re all Don Quixotes in a way,” King, the former CNN host, said at 
the end of the 90-minute session, “but the windmills have a way of 
stopping and we have a way of saluting you just for getting into the 
fray.”
>
>The encounter had a quirky charm,  featuring opening 
statements hastily inserted after the candidates had already answered 
their first question (supplied via social media). It also featured the 
affable King, an eminence in this setting, who put up with none of the 
filibustering that the two big-party candidates foisted on the 
moderators of the major televised debates. 
>
>The four candidates
 were united on several issues -- their disdain for the influence of 
money in politics, their opposition to massive defense spending and 
foreign wars, and their determination to cut executive power that allows
 the indefinite detention of Americans in the war on terror.
>
>Johnson, the Libertarian former governor of New Mexico, said corporate 
money had gotten so bad in politics that candidates should be required 
to wear NASCAR-style jackets to show all their corporate sponsors.
>
>On defense, the liberal Stein said she would ban all drone strikes and 
Johnson said he would cut defense spending by 43% (to 2003 levels). The 
conservative Goode, a former congressman from Virginia who has the 
rough-boned look of a Civil War officer, concurred, saying: “The United 
States should stop trying to be the overseer of the world. That would 
save us billions and billions of dollars.”
>Anderson, former mayor of Salt Lake City and an outspoken liberal, called the National Defense Authorization Act that allows detention of citizens “the very definition of tyranny.” No 
one on stage disagreed. The act has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
>
>The “transpartisan” debate was not all a love-in, though. Johnson said 
he would get rid of federal college loans, which he said had contributed
 to the artificially high price of education. The Green Party’s Stein 
said she favored free college for all modeled on the post-World War II GI Bill. Rebutted Johnson: “Free comes with a cost. Free is spending 
more money than you take in…. Free has gotten us to the point we are 
going to experience a monetary collapse in this country.”
>
>Goode
 had some of the most dramatic prescriptions. He said he would instantly
 balance the federal budget with massive cuts and not tax increases. He 
said he would block all green card admissions of immigrants to the U.S. 
until the unemployment rate dropped below 5%. “We need jobs in America 
for U.S. citizens first,” Goode said, acknowledging that many in the 
crowd would not like what he had to say.
>
>Everyone but Goode 
agreed that the U.S. should legalize marijuana. The three -- Stein, 
Johnson and Anderson -- said the criminalization of the drug had led to 
massive imprisonment rates that far outstrip the rest of the world's, 
and huge costs that cannot be sustained. The three also bemoaned the 
total lack of attention to climate change in the main presidential 
contest. Anderson called it "a greater long-term risk to the United 
States than terrorism."
>
>In the last of six questions, the four 
were asked what one amendment they would like to make to the U.S. 
Constitution. The two small-government candidates -- Johnson and Goode 
-- said they would impose term limits on Congress, assessing that the 
change would get lawmakers to focus more on policy and less on 
reelection. Stein advocated a change to limit spending by corporations 
in elections. Anderson said he had “already written” an amendment that 
-- like the scuttled Equal Rights Amendment -- would give equal 
protection under the law to women, and also to people regardless of 
their sexual orientation.
>Campaign professionals have said that a vote for one of the four would 
be wasted because it would only take away from one of the sure winners, 
Obama or Romney. But Johnson disputed that notion in his closing 
statement.
>
>“Wasting your vote is voting for somebody you don’t 
believe in,” Johnson said. “I am asking everyone watching this 
nationwide to waste your vote on me … and then I’m the next president of
 the United States.”
>------------------------------------------
>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
>=======================================================
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>              http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>
=======================================================
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>              http://www.fsr.net
>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121025/29d9eb5a/attachment-0001.html>