Cornell to host Third Party Presidential Debate

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by JGrubbs, Sep 29, 2004.

  1. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cornell's Mock Election student group presents the 2004 Third Party Presidential Debate on Oct. 6 at 8 p.m. in Schwartz Auditorium, Rockefeller Hall. The debate will feature Green Party candidate David Cobb, Socialist Party candidate Walt Brown, Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik and Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka. Independent candidate Ralph Nader declined the Mock Election group's invitation.

    Tickets are free and are available at the Willard Straight Hall box office.

    SOURCE
     
  2. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to the Cornell Web site, "This debate will be nationally televised." [​IMG]
     
  3. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, this is good news. I hope Nader reconsiders. Although I disagree with him, I think that, unlike Kerry, he genuinely represents the viewpoint of many liberals, and it's important to have all sides represented for a good debate.
     
  4. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Cornell Debate will air on C-SPAN at 6:30PM ET on Sunday, October 10.
     
  5. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Download an MPEG4 of the entire debate here
    75 megs, Quicktime video.
     
  6. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you miss the 6:30 broadcast on C-SPAN they will be re-airing the debate at 9:30PM ET.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I watched some of last night on CSpan. It became very apparent very quickly why these people are third party candidates, and it became very apparent why including them in teh presidential debate would have been absolutely the wrong thing to do. IMO, it was a horrible attempt at dealing with issues, and very poorly handled. It looked like it was in teh basement of some bar somewhere.

    It seems appropo that it was sponsored by the Mock Election group from Cornell.
     
  8. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    You must have been watching a different debate, or maybe you agree with the two major parties that "dealing with issues" means the government taxing everyone to redistribute the wealth through government programs, etc. I guess you had already made up your mind about the third-party candidates before ever turning on the debates.

    I thought it was a breath of fresh air to see that there still are conservative alternatives to the two socialist major parties. If it were not for the the third parties in this election, I would be staying home on November 2nd, or just voting for the local runnings and leaving the presidential section of my ballot blank.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The part that I saw contained no answers of substance. It showed Peroutka repeating the nonsense about a "declaration of war" in clear ignorance (apparently since I don't assume he would lie about it) that the UN Congress authorized the president to take this action in Iraq. David Cobb fo the Green Party sounded so out of touch with reality that it was a wonder anyone takes him seriously. Apparently very few do.

    To get to the national scene, you ought to have a clue about what is going on in the world and how politics work. You ought to have to have a showing in teh national polls of at least 15% to prove yourself a viable candidate. If you watched the Democratic debates in teh spring, you know how absolutely stupid it was to have 9 people involved, 5 of whom did not have a chance in teh world to win. The presidential debate would be no different if there were not standards of support. I am all for third party candidates having a voice. I have said many times that if Michigan in not in play on Election DAy I will consider voting for Peroutka to help a third party in the next election. But I will not shirk my duty and help this country regress faster by failing to vote for the best electable candidate if he needs my vote to sin. That is just common sense ... Unfortunately, it ain't all that common.

    We have a responsibility of stewardship in teh country that many are exercising unwisely. We need better candidates, but we have to live with the ones we have right now.
     
  10. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only problem with your "understanding" is that you fail to recognize, as Peroutka has, that the US Constitution does NOT give Congress the right to "authorize the president to take action" without a "declaration of war".

    The problem with American government is that most people in American, including most conservative Christians, believe that the Supreme Court is the "supreme law of the land", and that what ever Congress says and does along with the President has to be right and lawful simply because they did it.
     
  11. ballfan

    ballfan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    I saw that debate. It was weak and pathetic. After all the hoopla I've read about Peroutka I expected more from him. He comes off as a lightweight. It was easy to see why those people have little support.
     
  12. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    I missed it, but I can't imagine it was any worse than Bush and Kerry arguing over how best to expand the federal government.
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, not actually. The declaration of war does not have to be in those exact words. The congress very clearly authorized the president to take this action, and it is by definition a declaration of war.

    That indeed is a problem but it must be addressed by the three branches of government. The way it is currently run, the Supreme Court does have the power to decide the constitutionality of laws and thus, is the supreme law applier at the time. The Congress and President do have to work in that system. That is why this election is so important. A vote for Bush is a vote for more conservative judges who will likely restrain the power of the judiciary. A vote for Kerry or Peroutka is a vote for more liberal judges who will legislate from the bench through judicial activism. Which do you want? I believe the former is the better choice.
     
  14. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your not being 100% truthfull, or you are simply ignoring the facts.

    A vote for Bush is a vote for both pro-abortion and pro-life judges. And, if he is a man of his word, he will NOT use abortion as a litmust test when selecting judges.

    A vote for Kerry is a vote for more pro-abortion judges. And, maybe some liberal pro-life judges. Not all Democrats are pro-abortion.

    A vote for Peroutk ais a vote for Peroutka, he may not get the chance to nominate judges, but has promised if he does, they will all be 100% pro-life and will all acknowledge God.

    You really shouldn't criticize those who refuse to compromise, but instead vote their convictions based on principles. :(
     
  15. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    He can't understand, JGrubbs.
     
  16. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you missed the debate, you can view it online using RealPlayer on the C-SPAN site:

    rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_rwh101004.rm
     
  17. ballfan

    ballfan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Protect Reproductive Health Services for Federal Employees
    Take Action — The Bush administration recently announced its latest initiative to shape federal programs to match its own anti-choice ideological agenda: a Catholic health care plan for federal employees that does not provide coverage for contraception, abortion, sterilization, or artificial insemination. Urge the US Office of Personnel Management to make sure federal employees have access to the full range of health care services"

    Thats from planned parenthood.


    Peroutka isn't being honest. He knows he won't be able to do what he states. He knows its not that simple but trys to fool people into thing it is.

    Kerry just supports pure evil in partial birth abortion.
     
  18. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the link, JGrubbs. I use a dial-up connection so it won't work for me, but hopefully others will use it.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    [qutoe]Your not being 100% truthfull, or you are simply ignoring the facts.[/quote]Actually, neither. Contrary to Jim's false statement, I do understand. Contrary to your false statement, I am being truthful and not ignoring the facts.

    Bush has said that he will appoint judges who believe in strict constructionism, which most rightfully understand to mean pro life. The pro abortion crowd fears Bush because for they understand what some on the Christian right do not, for some reason. They understand he is a threat to abortion.

    I have said that Bush may appoint a pro choice judge. But he may not. Kerry will definitely appoint a pro choice judge. Peroutka will appoint no judges. Therefore, voting for Bush is the only chance for life. If you value life, as I do, then I think you should vote for the person who gives life the best chance, and then next time we can progress even further. The risk with Kerry is the furtherance of the court to the left and that will not be overcome for at least 20 years. Right now, we have a chance to get some small victories. I do not believe in the all or nothing theory. I think you take what you can get and work for the rest.

    Now, you are not being 100% truthful and are ignoring the facts. Peroutka "will not" get the chance. There is no "may" about it. He does not show up in any national poll that I know of. Three weeks before the election, virtually no one knows who he is. He could not win a mayor's race, much less a presidential race. I would think that in the interest of honesty, we need to point that out. You have always been honest in here so far as I know and I appreciate your comments, though I disagree with them at times. I would have expected that statement out of others, but not out of you.

    I agree. I haven't criticized. I have said that I think you guys mean well, but are making a wrong choice. That is not criticism, anymore than you telling me I shouldn't vote for Bush is criticism. I am voting my convictions based on principle. You apply the same convictions in a different way and that is fine. I believe there is too much at stake to vote for someone with absolutely no chance of winning. In politics, you take your best shot and go with it. Life is not ideal; you have to live in reality. As I have told Jim before, we likely agree on 99% of the issues. But we choose different paths to accomplish that goal.
     
  20. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    "...a Christian's decision should never be based upon the potential outcome of his decision, but upon the rightness of his decision." -- Chuck Baldwin

    "... it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen to set brush fires in people's minds..." -- Samuel Adams
     

Share This Page

Loading...