^I’m ready for that day to come now. We’d survive. We’d just be forced to adapt in ways that are currently unimaginable.
But, back to the 3rd party debate for a second… did anyone but me and col Forbs watch?
It was bizarre, to say the least. But, I also think it was eye opening in the sense that both Obama and Romney seem far more together than anyone on that stage last night did. Likely the result of training and the ability to afford that training… but I still found it interesting that none of the 3rd party candidates were able to present themselves as someone that could actually handle the presidency.
^ To be honest dooj, I think one of the main differences is the “no coaching” thing, or not having the resources for it. The biggest difference though in my opinion is the way it was ran by the moderators. They really shouldn’t have allowed people to clap, it interrupted the candidates and threw the whole “flow” off. Also, I think why they seemed so mad, or in a hurry was because with the time they had and 4 people total, they really didn’t have time to “debate” but more or less put their ideas out there. Also, as a side note, Larry King sucked as a moderator 
How many times did he really interrupt the people talking to move on.
I don’t think any of the candidates looked “presidential” and I also don’t think the debate was done in a professional way. It seemed like the people running it wanted to be different from the “norm” so bad that they ended up having a side show instead. I think that some of these parties really do have good ideas, and our government could really benefit from their inclusion into the House and Senate, but right now besides being shut out by big corporate media, their biggest problem is themselves. It’s okay to be different, its great, but be serious if you want to be taken serious.
Jill Stein has great ideas, but I don’t think she would ever be cut out to be a Presidential Candidate. The green party really needs to find an ex-politician who wants to change Washington and has their ideas. She apparently has never been elected for anything. Middle of the road people would never vote for someone like that.
^Yeah, I just expected more from Johnson. He was governor of New Mexico, he should know how to speak to a crowd and in front of cameras without seeming so erratic. I agree with a lot of both his and Stein’s ideas, but I couldn’t imagine either of them sitting down and negotiating with other members of government or foreign leaders.
On the environmental issue… I’ve always thought if you’re really serious about treading more lightly on this earth it doesn’t come down to riding your bike to the store or buying a prius or something… it would be far better to not have any children… each child you have uses xx amt of oil, food, you name it, for a lifetime… then they have kids etc etc… just by not having children you save a huge amount on our resources and reduce your impact greatly. right? thats what i call a sacrifice.
The environmental movement is largely a racket anyway… I’m sure people are sincere about it but I can’t get behind politicized issues like global warming… before “an inconvenient truth” Al Gore was worth 2 mil… now worth 100mill… something like that.
Totally agree!! That is why I am a firm believer in adoption over procreation.
Not true. There are good people doing good work and making good progress. Stop watching so much TV!!
^^its a thought… but could you imagine living in China where they have the one child policy? Talk about government control… That is hard on a society. I wonder if it has helped control their population… will have to do some research on the numbers later.
I saw a documentary a while back and families wanted boys so they would abort or… in some cases kill the girl… talk about horrific unintended consequences.
^I don’t support government mandated child limits. But, that’s the type of crap unelected governments bring to their people. China is an absolute shithole.
It would be nice, however, if people realized on their own that having multiple children really does nothing positive for society in this day and age.
Yeah…It’s crazy. My aunt adopted a girl from China. Love that kid. 
^thats awesome, seriously…
Yeah, it’s ridiculous how many unclaimed children are out there just waiting for someone to love and raise them.
Also, it’s funny how many issues we agree on that we could be working on together instead of spending all our time fighting about the few things we disagree on. But, I guess that’s human nature, eh?
^ Yeah dooj, but that’s the way the gov. wants it. Divide and conquer. If they can make all of us focus on the essentially “small” stuff, and not pay attention to what they are really doing, then they can get away with whatever they want. I know that sounds conspiracy theorist but its true. Make the middle class hate the poor, make the poor hate the wealthy, make the Christians hate the Muslims, make Whites hate Hispanics. Think about how many divides there are, and then think about how many people you know in each group of people that you know personally and how different they really are from what they are “supposed” to be.
It’s all a scam, the sad thing is we all fall into our biases…
^I’m not quite as pessimistic as that, but I get what you’re saying. To me, it’s more a bi-product of a society that got too comfy and ambivalent and now insists that all politicians are the same. So, the current members of our government, more so than ever, believe it’s essential for them to prove that they’re different from the other guy by focusing on the most polarizing issues. Also they know that with every issue that comes up, they are more likely to say something certain voters won’t like. So, the philosophy has been “I won’t bring it up, if you don’t” and the media does a terrible job of correcting that.
I think your right about needing to prove that they are different from one another. That is the sad thing though, they are so much more similar than they want the rest of the country to believe. While corporations and billionaires can still give politicians as much money as they want, and there is no limit on campaign spending, the country won’t change. There may be a small difference in the corporations that each candidate gets funding from, but at the root of it is they are still taking money from corporations that have a lot of leverage and essentially run the country in terms of policies. I know this doesnt effect social policies as much, but as far as economic policies go, this is the key factor in our governments decisions.
I wouldn’t call what I think pessimistic as much as I would call it informed realism. I mean if someone can show me where these ideas are completely off base please do because I would much rather perceive that I live in a world that isn’t ran like this
I watched a little bit and agree that it should have been more like the regular debates in terms of moderation. I also agree that no one stood out as a leader, but maybe that has to do with our perception of the commander in chief elected politician. Any thoughts on that?
Yeah I think your very correct in the idea that it is our own perceptions on what debates and candidates are supposed to look like and how they are supposed to act. We have been told our entire lives what a president looks like and how he acts, so we probably bring those expectations into something like last night and see something very different, and for most that is off putting.
I think this is why I believe that if the other parties want to be taken seriously, they should have done something much more structured. I’m not saying that the way debates or candidates act for Rep/Dem is right or wrong, but with the built in perceptions of society, I think it is very important to at least from the start curtail yourself to what others expect.
Very very good question 
Right. And I’ve been seeing this a lot lately in the changing tides of my life. You can’t just present an idea. You have to think about how average people will perceive it, and you.
The funny thing is that third party candidates’ stances and opinions aren’t that out of left field, but because we don’t have the normal exposure to them as we do with the other big guys, and because they don’t have the exposure to how the big tough Washington DC works, or whatever, they are perceived as tree-hugging, tea-sipping, pacifists.
And so, we need to start locally and work our way up. It’s the only way I’m ever going to feel satisfied about what I do to try to enact change in my town, county, state, and country.
Yeah thats why I posted earlier about needing to bring attention to their causes in the years between an election, not a month or so before. I think it is very important to get these parties attention, in a good way. Our governmental structure doesn’t work with only 2 parties. It leads to stalemates on issues that really need to be handled.
I don’t know the best way to get the word out, but there has to be some way to go about it. I also think the parties themselves need to reevaluate their strategies and realize you are never going to be taken seriously if you dont “play by the rules”. It’s not their fault our perceptions are what they are, but knowing that, they need to play to that as a strength. If they do what they did last night they will never move past where they are right now. Very open minded people, who are over the whole Rep/Dem thing will still pay attention, but they have to remember that the majority of voters and citizens dont pay attention to politics but a couple months a year. They need to “Look like the big boys” but have a different message to get peoples attention.