The anti-spam plugins have stopped being effective. Registration is back to requiring approval. After registering, you must ALSO email me with your username, so that I can manually approve your account.

Main Menu

Change the World.

Started by cha0s, April 28, 2007, 06:49:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


For any Americans out there who missed the democratic presidential candidates' debate, I strongly urge you to check out this video:

This guy talks about everything we need. Treating other countries as equals, staying the hell out of conflicts we don't belong... Truly an epic champion of the issues we face today. And no one ever heard of him until 2 days ago, funny eh?

He even has coherent plans for universal healthcare, and also a Federal ballot system (That means we could get signatures and put a law on *Federal* ballot, that's only possible with state nowadays)


The three debate partners, closely following Federal Election Commission guidelines, established objective criteria to determine who we invite to the debates. Because there are literally dozens and dozens of declared presidential candidates, most of whom we have never heard of, we have to have a method of determining who is invited. Our criteria simply identifies candidates that have measurable public support for their campaign. Because Mike Gravel has not demonstrated measurable public support for his campaign to date, he has not received an invitation. But we have not excluded him (or anyone) from the debate. If he meets our criteria between now and the debate, he will certainly get an invitation.
That's right, the same media who has denied him any name-recognition or airtime now says they won't allow him to debate again unless he has "measurable public support". As if they could silence him so easily.

Of the people, by the people, for the people! Spread the word...

P.S. this guy can't survive using "conventional" means, the other candidates are all underwritten by lobbyists and whatnot -.- The Internet is key.
xepher puts the SEXY in DYSLEXIA

My Music!
FreeBASIC rox hard


First off, a warning/disclaimer. This is the first of what's likely to be many political threads as the U.S. goes into this "tragically early" election season. Political discussion tends to bring out the worst in people, and as such, isn't usually conducive to community welfare. This being, above all, an internet  community, I don't want to see people get divided or hurt by political debates. With that said however, I think most of the regulars here are fairly sane and rational people, capable of separating political discourse and disagreement from the other aspects of life. Keeping that in mind, I'm going to allow political topics and discussion here, even if it gets heated, so long as the participants remain at least somewhat civil, and do NOT carry grudges or issues over into non-political threads, or other anything else they might be involved with here on

Now, onto my own thoughts about this actual topic. I think Gravel came off as a hardline myopic. That is, he's so focused on his single point, that he's oblivious to larger reality. He may be frank about his personal views, and that's somewhat refreshing, but he danced completely around several of the direct questions that were asked of him. He took quotes of other candidates so far out of context so as to accuse them of of literally supporting the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. When someone says "nothing's off the table" it means "I'll be polite and at least listen to your argument before I say no" not "I want to nuke them." By the exact same language, he could accuse them of kicking puppies, eating babies, or setting kittens on fire. As such, his tactics earn him very low marks in my book. As for his actual stance... That he wants out of Iraq and not act imperialist... A majority (or near majority) of the entire nation has that stance, so there's nothing unique there.

As for universal healthcare... I personally think it's the wrong way to go about it. Rather than spend even more money giving overpriced medicine to everyone, we should spend that money furthering research (in OPEN ways, not subsidizing huge companies owned by people with political connections) and breaking up the current biotech/pharmaceutical monopolies. We'd accomplish much more in the long term if the actual price is lowered, and that also benefits the rest of the world as well... especially developing nations.

On the federal ballot... Didn't hear him talk about it, just what you mention above, but I think it's a good idea in principal. A better idea would be reforming the ENTIRE electoral system, moving towards a more direct democracy. We have computers now, and all sorts of technological wonders our founding fathers couldn't have dreamed of when they devised our current system. Vote counting was DIFFICULT in the old days, which is why our ancestors wisely choose a representative democracy. However, if we could ever get off our bums and get a real, nationwide electronic voting system, that WASN'T built by some party shill... Well, imagine the idea of direct democracy. Don't vote for a candidate, just because you agree with more of his ideas than the next candidate. Vote for actual issues! Vote directly on the things you care about, so your vote actually count each time, and every time. With our current system, we all vote, and one with 51% majority wins. And if you only agreed with 51% of his policy when you voted for him, well, that leaves EVERYONE unhappy nearly half the time. It's one-size-fits-all democracy, and god help you if you're not right smack in the middle of that bell curve. I say we should all get to vote directly on issues. If it's stuff no one cares about, then only the people who care about it will be involved in the voting. If it's something everyone's divided over, then we'll get a very accurate vote of what America wants, not what some lobbyist-flirting politician gets persuaded to "want."

So as for Gravel... he's too loud and radical, without actually being radical enough to matter. In other words, he's just like the rest of them, but he's just making more noise to get attention. See where he is in another year. I'm betting John McCain is a good predictor. Two or three years ago, I thought I'd really like to see John McCain as president, because he spoke up about real issues, wasn't afraid to say what he thought or criticize people, and genuinely seemed to have some good/novel ideas. Now that's he's up there at the head of the race with an actual chance, he's towing the party line so hard it hurts. Washington Eats Souls! :-)


In my short opinion, if you look at the past ALL candidates make "promises" of this and that, and very very rarely actually keep up to them (or can keep up to them). So exactly how will this or any other candidate be any different?

... then again, just about anything would be better than George W ...
(\_/)    ~Relakuyae D'Selemae
(")_(")  [Libre Office] [Chrome]


But there's the great thing about this election. We're in "automatic win" mode here, as it HAS to be someone other than W.


true, but sadly there's no guarantee that the next person will be better.
(\_/)    ~Relakuyae D'Selemae
(")_(")  [Libre Office] [Chrome]


Ah yes, that's certainly true, but the thing about the american people... well, people in general... is that it doesn't actually matter if it's better or worse, because it always SEEMS better, until it goes on a bit, then it seems worse. "The grass is always greener..." is very, very accurate when talking about politics. There's also the filters of nostalgia to consider. Everything was better/cheaper/etc. in the past. 30 years from now, I seriously doubt George W. Bush will be more than a footnote president, right up there with the other 30 of them you can't name.


The Daily Show last night had a great bit about the democratic debates. I will say they totally got the same vibe from Gravel that I did. :-)