The Official 2012 SDMB False Presidential Debate Thread

Politics & Elections
1

Hello everyone and welcome to the 2012 Presidential Debate thread. I’m your moderator Jonathan Chance and I’ll be hosting our little run at history.

Our candidate, stelios, snowmaster, Tripler and Sage Rat have all volunteered to represent their parties in this debate. Each has their own unique perspective on the events that confront the United States and I’m certain that each will give a good accounting of themselves in response to questions.

My background is as a political journalist. In real life I have both been moderator of political debates up to the congressional level and been a questioner. In one odd episode I was even a candidates. I felt, because of this background, I was qualified to be our master of ceremonies.

The debate will begin April 15, 2012 and continue for a minimum of 10 days. During that time I will ask a minimum of one question per day. Here are the debate rules that each of our candidates have agreed to via PM:

Those in the audience that wish to participate may toss questions out there but, as mentioned, the candidates have no requirement to answer any but the ones I present. If an audience member wishes a question to be considered for ‘official’ status he or she should private message me the question for consideration. I will consider all presented.

Let’s make sure we have some fun here, folks. I’ve gotten buy in from The Powers that Be (Thanks, Jenny!) so we’ll have a certain positive aura about us.

2

Can we start with a rundown on each of the candidates, the party they represent, and what makes them suitable material for President? And why they aren’t up against Mitt Romney right now? :wink:

3

Irishman,

Each of the candidates will post a brief introductory statement prior to the questions. In such they’ll have to declare their party (I would be doubtful they’ll have any particular existing party in mind) and their basis for running.

Again, if you have particular questions in mind please private message them to me. I’ve gotten several already and am looking for more to run with.

4

You mean they are just going to create parties and platforms unrelated to any genuine existing parties and platforms?

What benefit do you (or the “candidates”) expect any of us to gain from this exercise?

'Cause I can play too – as a member of the “Wing It Pragmatic Party”. I can answer any question in, like, 30 seconds. :p.

5

Hello, I’m Tripler, and I’m running for the Presidency of the United States with the “Damned Good Third Choice” Party.

About me, I come from a military background. I’ve observed the politicking of the past 12 years, both in and outside of military circles. The collaboration between those in power and private corporations scares the living bajeezus out of me. Corporations have become too intertwined with this nation’s political power base—both sides’ greed has sunk its teeth into just about every level of the Federal government. Channeling Eisenhower, I think we’ve waned in our guard against unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex, and that poor influence has expanded to a number of other corporations and departments of the government. For multiple reasons, I support term limits on Senators, Representatives and their respective staffs.

On the other hand, I recognize that our military has its place, but should be the last resort—to paraphrase Clausewitz, “Only an idiot goes to war without a clear purpose and a method to achieve it.” Over the past eleven years, the nobility and right of the legitimate purposes to go to war have been squandered through deceit and misinformation for political and corporate gain. There are times to use military force: when the diplomatic, economic, or informational instruments of power have failed, or when time is of such essence and the threat so vital precludes debate—it has its place and time. But blood should be the last effort that is ponied up as a first viable option. We are a nation of intelligent, thoughtful, wise people, and we owe it to our global community and future generations to think about a problem to craft a wise, equitable solution before we allow greed and political power to dictate our courses of action.

I’m a firm believer in States’ and individual rights, but also in holding States and individuals accountable for the responsibility of their rights. For example, it’s absolutely fundamental for States to determine their own firearms policies. I agree that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, but I think it’s vital that State legislatures determine for their own what is and is not permissible within their own borders—the one million citizens of Montana have a far different outlook on concealed carry than do the 800,000 citizens of one county in New Jersey. The Tenth Amendment spells it out clearly, and I agree with it. One could call me a strict Constitutionalist, and I’d say that’s a fair shake.

I despise the “talking heads” of the media. They no longer really report news, but are self-serving advertisers to either promote an agenda, or to promote their own existence to sell airtime to viewers. “Big media” is a propaganda machine, either for its own goals or someone else’s.

In short, the “new monopolies” need to be broken up, with political power to start working its way back to the citizens—the best way to do that is to set conditions for the public to have absolute transparency in government, and to re-empower the citizens through information and lawful, Constitutionally-forced periodic changes in government.

Tripler
I thank you for your time, and look forward to your support this November.

6

Hello, I’m Sage Rat of the Dimer party.

It is fairly clear from a reading of the Federalist Papers - particularly the 10th - that the founders of our nation believed in and expected a non-partisan government over our nation. Our representatives would be chosen by the people as someone whom they trusted to be intelligent, caring, and diligent in his duties to examine all sides of an issue and implement policy on this basis. We view it as being our duty to work for everyone in the nation, to maintain the Founder’s intent to consider and protect the minority interest, and to ensure that there are solid reasons behind every decision, not to just follow party politics. We have no policy stance as a group and expect that our members can only ever give a position based on what he currently knows of the issue. We will always be willing to turn on a dime as we learn more about an issue and try to come up with solutions for the country.

A solid start to the process of bringing non-partisan politics into the Federal government is by electing me as the President of the United States. By job description, our representatives should already be representing the whole nation, making sure that they understand the issues, and that they are making honest - even if hard - decisions. With the power of veto, I would be able to ensure that the legislature was acting as a whole to create solid policy, based on real world solutions, not the ivory tower beliefs of the majority party.

I don’t think that you can divide up every issue in the world into two possible answers. I certainly don’t think you can divide the answers to every problem in the world to just two world views. Ultimately, our nation needs at least a small, referee-like body of politicians to make sure that partisan politics don’t drive out good policy. With the health of our economy and Europe’s still low, the deficit crisis forecasted for 2030, and rising competition from China and India, now is the right time to cut out the baloney and make the hard decisions to get our nation on a stable footing and competitive on the world stage.

7

Can we post our questions here as well as PMing them to you?

8

I would prefer that your questions, prior to the debate beginning, be submitted privately to me.

Remember the rules. Only questions that I pose are required to be answered. If you pose them during the debate (which you are welcome to do) the candidates have the right to ignore them as ‘unofficial’. But if you submit them to me and I choose to use them they have no way to dodge.

9

Thanks, glad I erred on the side of caution (assuming you got my PM).

Given the participants’ freedom to respond at will to questions from the peanut gallery, will you let us know if our questions are rejected so we can post there here to maximize the chance that a debater will have free time to consider answering?

…

Speaking of cat-calls from the peanut gallery: Tripler how do you reconcile being a “strict Constitutionalist” with selective incorporation? With incorporation at all?

10

While probably not a debate question I do wonder if these fine candidates have a list of potential running mates. :slight_smile:

11

I echo this sentiment. The only value I see is entertainment. I’m okay with that, I just want to be clear up front.

12

You and Boyo Jim seem to be of the idea that this is designed to explore the attitudes of the two parties. It’s not. These four volunteered to do so to represent themselves and their beliefs before those who view the thread. They needed a moderator and I, with experience in the political arena both as a reporter, moderator and candidate, volunteered to fill that role (again, as I have in real life). the ‘parties’ that they will represent are a late addition and goof inserted by me when I decided to ask for opening statements. If you feel that detracts from what we are doing feel free to browse GD. I feel certain there’ll be a party oriented circle jerk along shortly.

It’s my hope that we can get to some level of truth here. It is EASY to make points on a message board and it is HARD to do so as a candidate for office. I plan to attempt to simulate that experience as best I can.

One thing I cannot do is to bring the immediacy of a televised debate to this thing? I will have no ability to force the candidates to think on their feet. We will just have to live with that.

First question in THREE days, folks. Be prepared.

13

Good Evening Mr. Moderator, my distinguished opponents, and members of the Straight Dope. My name is Snowmaster and I’m very pleased to be here with you tonight and to have this great opportunity to share with you the plan I have for our country. I feel that as a nation; as a government we are in so many ways headed in the wrong direction. Although I’ve voted republican all my life, upon looking back I find myself compelled to say that we’ve been going in that wrong direction for far longer than just the term of the current administration.

I’m a pretty conservative guy, a strict constitutionalist and a big believer in capitalism. I have a number of new ideas to decrease the scope of government and increase the personal freedoms of every citizen; what our forefathers so eloquently called “securing the blessings of liberty.” I also believe in some things you’ve probably heard in a political debate before, and like many of you, I’ve been sorely disappointed when my candidate’s ideas and promises fall by the wayside on inauguration day. Our leaders at the very top of our government have stumped for and promised of many of the common sense policies that this nation sorely needs, yet even when they are president, even when their party has a majority in congress, even when they have the votes, genuine positive change that is good for citizens and good for businesses goes nowhere. The usual dreck of tax cuts for donors and likely voters, ill advised regulation or deregulation, grants, subsidies and forgivable loans to damn near anyone and hostilities in which the United States has no strategic interest, that, however, positively monopolizes the time of both congress and president.

My favorite part of the constitution is “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects … shall not be violated…” Personal freedom and personal responsibility are the very basis of American society in my view. I believe government would do well to just get out of the way of citizens in most cases. I believe that beyond very strict consumer, environmental and anti-competition regulations, government ought to similarly get out of the way of businesses in most cases. I’m a strong advocate for a constitutional right to privacy.

I also stand strong for starting from scratch on our tax code. It should be simple to understand, far less invasive of our privacy, less social engineering oriented, and oh yes, cost the average person much less than they pay now. Hand in hand with a new tax plan, I believe that revenues should be directly and instantly tied to spending so that our elected officials can no longer use creative accounting to hide how much of your money of your kids’ money they’re spending. Your tax rate stays low and you’re happy with how government is serving its people? Great! Your tax rate goes up and you think they’re wasting it? Throw the bums out. We have an obligation, NOW, to stop running our government on borrowed money and live within our means.

I look forward to telling you more about the way back that I envision for America and rigorous debate with my opponents. I encourage you to read my declaration of candidacy declaration of candidacy to learn a little more about where I see that we are and where I hope we’re going. As head of the young but proud Live free or die party I’m honored to share my plan with you and humbly ask you for your vote.

Until debate night,

Snowmaster

14

I would like to know what changes the candidates would make if they were Hitler.

15

Let’s ignore him, shall we?

We now have ONE day until the candidates must post their opening statements and TWO days until the first question!

16

Hmm…so far, I don’t see anyone with a backbone made of steel who staunchly will represent the far Left and push for more liberal policies. Opening statements are already ho-hum. If you put all three statements in one speech, you could be Mitt Romney on tour in Ohio.

17

The premise here is that the Democrats have a nominee already, not that I’m conceding that the incumbent president has a backbone of steel, mind you.

18

Indeed they do, which is why some of us are hoping that there’s a leftist candidate to round out the field.

19

I’d like to being by thanking those in attendance, as well as our moderator Mr. Chance, for your attention. Hopefully, you will all come away from this debate with a clearer idea of what each of us believes in.

The Egalitarian party has been repeatedly misconstrued by the media as being, by turns, mysterious, rudderless, and lacking an agenda. I hope my appearance tonight will dispel these misconceptions. Truth be told, I believe that the vast majority of Americans already know just what the Egalitarian party stands for. It’s just that they agree with so much of our platform that our stance on the issues of the day is barely distinguishable from their own. Time and again, polling has shown that the Egalitarian party resides, on many of today’s thorniest issues, not on the extreme left or the extreme right, but in the middle. In the vast and tranquil gulf of rationality that comes under the soubriquet, “Common Sense”.

If I could sum up the Egalitarian party’s general stance in one sentence, it would be this: Personal freedom, in social matters and matters of commerce, plus security, plus financial caution in matters of governance, equals a prosperous society. Now, in order to really get where I’m coming from, I need to define “Personal Freedom”, “Security”, and “Financial caution in matters of governance”. What do I mean when I speak of personal freedom? I mean simply the freedom to interact with our fellow citizens as we see fit, be that socially or in matters of business. I believe that each of us has the right to care for our own affairs. We have the right to choose who we do business with, the terms on which we do business, and the lion’s share of the profits from that business. We also have the right to treat our own bodies with as much respect as we see fit.

By “Security”, I simply mean the power to conduct these affairs free from the threat of coercion. We believe that the state should be limited to a custodial role, to keeping citizens safe to conduct their affairs freely. This requires the state be responsible for, among other things, the armed services, the emergency services, the police, health care, and the provision of a social safety net, to enable citizens to both return to work and to empower them to take the entrepreneurial risks on which our prosperous economy depends. We believe that a lack of security, a lack of personal safety and a lack of access to the most basic necessities of life, actually stifles the risk-taking entrepreneurial spirit which serves as the guidewire pulling the economy into more plentiful terrain.

By “Financial caution in matters of governance” I simply mean that government’s few responsibilities should be carried out in a fiscally responsible manner, with a minimum of waste, and that our nation’s outflows should be evenly matched by revenues. This calls for a progressive tax platform in which those citizens who benefit the most from our infrastructure, whose shops are most profitably served by our roads, whose multiple properties require commensurately greater police and fire protection, and who employ greater numbers of people who may depend on public health services, pay an amount which, relative to the amount paid by others, reflects the benefits they reap from life in our society.

These are the broad strokes of the Egalitarian party platform. I hope that, over the course of this debate, I will be afforded the opportunity to discuss our platform at greater length.

Stelios.

20

One day until the first question!