Thu Nov 28 02:14:21 EST 2013
Tonight I've been watching - the
Third-Party Presidential Debate. I recorded this from C-SPAN on Sunday 2012 Oct 28. While we see significant differences between the Democrats and Republicans, there's a lot of issues they were not discussing, and these also-rans are a refreshing alternative. I'd take 3 of these 4 candidates over either Obama or Romney - Green, Justice, Libertarian (although #3 here needs grammar lessons, repeatedly using "I" when "me" is actually correct). Of course, the election was a year ago. And I wasn't voting for any of them, because like most people who weren't voting for someone who could possibly win, I was making my most effective vote against someone unacceptable who could win.
The debate was held in a hotel auditorium in Chicago, and there were a lot of empty seats. I'd have expected there'd have been enough interest to fill a room. I didn't watch much of the 2-party debates. Anybody who's paid even a little attention over the years must have a good idea of the two parties' positions on most of the issues. I don't understand the viewers who need to get a sense of the candidates as people, because there's little chance they're going to do anything in conflict with those party platforms. If you already know what they're going to (try to) do, isn't it obvious from that whom you should vote for? (Or against, if neither party merits a "for" from you?) If, by the time you are old enough to vote, you haven't figured out which party is a better match to your interests and how you think the country should be run, you probably have no business voting. (Sadly, many voters base their decisions on things other than what the candidates/parties (say they) intend to do. These people have no business voting either.)
[This entry was originally posted as
http://syntonic-comma.dreamwidth.org/641598.html on Dreamwidth (where there are
comments).]