Features

KevinTheOmnivore · #1

I swear to God, if we're still debating swift boats and executive type writers in 1 month, Imay not vote. The Democrats started this 527 mess, and although I think there's no real comparison between Kerry's proven war record compared to our president's lack of such, I also DON'T CARE.

Kerry hasn't seemed to figure out that white, middle to upper class men are going to vote for Bush....period. All of this tough guy shit is great, bt being a good soldier doesn't necessarily make you a good commander-in-chief.

Don't ge me wrong, this Bush administration has carried out what I believe is one of the worst foreign policy agendas in the history of this nation. With that said, people feel safer with Bush. M grandmother feels safer with the man, and that's why she'll vote for him (that, and he wears his Christianity like a Coach hand bag, but I digress).

This president has utterly neglected his duties in international affairs. Kerry would immediately restore some global credibility, and has also wisely set a time table on Iraq that is pretty reasonable. He would build the kind of coalitions Bush I might applaud.

However, domestically speaking, Kerry is sort of vapid. I know his policies exist....somewhere.....but they have been drowned out by bullshit debates about swift boats and Air National Guard papers, etc.

I think the debates could save this discourse. I would like to see both campaigns denounce these outside 527 tactics, publicly, maybe even in a joint-memo or something. Anything. Just cut this shit out, and talk about "bread and butter," so to speak.

okay, I'm done.

Ronnie Raygun · #2

I believe in the 1st Amendment so I support 527 groups.

There shouldn't even have to be 527 groups in the first place....

mburbank · #3

I think debates will help bring it back, because there's no way the moderators will ask more than one question about Vietnam service records, if even one.

Does anyone know anything about the state of the debate negotiations?

Ronnie Raygun · #4

I don't.....but like you, I look forward to the debates.

I heard that there will only be two.

KevinTheOmnivore · #5

The 1st Amendment doesnt cite that money is a form of free speech, Buckley v. Valeo did that, and that judgement is in the process of retrospective scrutiny.

Furthermore, I have the 1st Amendment right to do a lot of obnoxious and tasteless things, that doesn't make it right.

KevinTheOmnivore · #6

RE: The debates

i heard they would be issue oriented debates, so like one will be about foreign policy, the other about domestic, etc.

I dunno, that may have changed. :/

Ronnie Raygun · #7

That sounds like a good idea....

Is there a date set?

Preechr · #8

http://www.debates.org/

mburbank · #9

Two debates. That is fucking pathetic. Enough money thrown around to feed several third world countries and all the voters get is two debates.

Their should be multiple debates, and the candidates should be allowed to ask each other questions. Anything else is cowardice and a lack of faith in your own positions. These bastards owe it to the people they supposedly serve.

KevinTheOmnivore · #10

That commission needs to be disolved.

Preechr · #11

Agreed. Badnarik is polling netter than Nader, Cobb and Peroutka combined, and he's confirmed to be on the ballot in 48 states as of now. Were he to be allowed to participate in the debates, he would trash Kerry and Bush. He'll likely not get to the 15% requirement, as most of the people reading this have probably never even heard of him thanks to the media boycott against him.

mburbank · #12

I'm all for allowing the trongest third party candidate into the debates. It forces the other two to confront issues they have a joint interest in avoiding.

Ant10708 · #13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preechr

Agreed. Badnarik is polling netter than Nader, Cobb and Peroutka combined, and he's confirmed to be on the ballot in 48 states as of now. Were he to be allowed to participate in the debates, he would trash Kerry and Bush. He'll likely not get to the 15% requirement, as most of the people reading this have probably never even heard of him thanks to the media boycott against him.

I've never heard his name mentioned

Preechr · #14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ant10708

I've never heard his name mentioned

As I said, most people haven't.

www.badnarik.org

He's the only top three candidate that's anti-war and pro-gay-marriage and anti-drug-war and... well, the list goes on and on...