Last Night's Presidential Debate

[slayda]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Well, Harry, there is nothing particularly rational about the American campaign process. Sometimes it seems like it's all about the slogan and the sound bite.

So, I ignore the debates. I tend to decide on certain key points that really matter to me (such as Palin's view that freedom of choice should not be allowed even in cases of rape or incest (or incestuous rape). That's the gigantic speed bump over which the Republican Party lost my vote this year.

That is always a contentious topic. I could argue either side of the issue with equal passion. However I decided long ago that since I can never be pregnant, I should not have a vote. I'm sure that others who also could never be would not agree with such a restriction.

[NatCh]

That makes it a really good topic to not go into here, don't you think?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I wasn't criticising the American system - I have no cause to, since our own system has plenty of flaws of its own. It just struck me as being radically different to the way that we do things. Here, members of parliament at least pretend to be gentlemen, and insulting the opposition just "isn't cricket" . It's actually refreshing, in a way, to see that American politicians actually have the honesty to do their back-stabbing in public.

Many years ago we realized here that no gentleman would ever become a politician. So the question is, what kind of a crook is he/she. Are they ones who'll steal your way.

Our campaigns reflect this attitude...

[nekokami]

Sigh. Yeah, negative campaigning. Bleah. Unfortunately, our candidates seem to think that attacking the other candidate's position is safer than stating a position themselves.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Sigh. Yeah, negative campaigning. Bleah. Unfortunately, our candidates seem to think that attacking the other candidate's position is safer than stating a position themselves.

Well, is it better to be the bullet or the target.....

[pdurrant]

spending on election campaigns in the UK is strictly limited, see

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...snpc-03413.pdf

for details, but essentially any candidate standing for election to the House of Commons can only spend up to £11,000 - about $19,000.

Recently limits have also been imposed on spending nationally by parties on election campaigning. This is currently around £30,000 per constituency being contested, or around £19 million if all seats are being contested, as with the major parties..

So there's still a bit of scope for large donors the have undue influence, although that is now mitigated by compulsory declaration of large donations.

Paul

Originally Posted by NatCh

Now you're making me jealous.

Your campaigns are probably not so influenced by "soft money" and fundraising prowess either, I expect.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Oh, nuts... now McCain-Palin ads are appearing on this page. I'm unsubscribing, as of now.

[nekokami]

I'm still getting the National Geographic fix-big-broken-things ad.

[Falbe Publishing]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Unfortunately at this stage of the process, we have devolved to the "My opponent is Satan on a cracker" stage of electioneering. The votes open for persuasion are very narrow in scope and it is felt that the best way to sway those votes is to scare the bejeezuz out of them. It makes for very tedious weeks of attack ads for the next month. I'd love to have a parliamentary form of government at times like this.

Yes, the final weeks of a presidential campaign are always abonimable and pathetic.

You are quite right about the candidates now are only speaking to the few who have yet to decide.

To answer the question that started the thread, for one to find out what the policies/beliefs of a candidate are likely to be, one should watch the acceptance speeches at the conventions. The debates are more about getting to see the candidates side by side and how they perform under pressure (sort of.)

[RWood]

No matter who wins in November the cold will come this winter and the rains in the spring. The grass will grow and we will mow it (if the price of gas [petro to you Harry] is not too high.) Real life goes on despite the best efforts of the government.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by slayda

That is always a contentious topic. I could argue either side of the issue with equal passion. However I decided long ago that since I can never be pregnant, I should not have a vote. I'm sure that others who also could never be would not agree with such a restriction.

Originally Posted by NatCh

That makes it a really good topic to not go into here, don't you think?

I didn't bring it up to actually debate the topic. It's not a topic that I would care to debate because I think it's a very personal choice and something that should never be the subject of governmental, religious or even personal intrusion.

That said ... having heard her position on the matter, that is simply why I am not bothering with the debates. I have made my decision based on that and other policies, and have no need whatsoever to spend additional time listening to debates.

Of course, I also don't waste time watching American Idol, or Deal or no Deal ... so I suppose that puts me in the minority.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Oh, nuts... now XxXxxx-Xxxxx ads are appearing on this page. I'm unsubscribing, as of now.

Ach. That all by itself is an excellent reason not to mention any candidate by name here!

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I didn't bring it up to actually debate the topic.

I didn't think you had, actually, I was hoping to head off anyone who might wander by and decide they were going to do so anyway.

Politics are a pretty hot button for a lot of folks, so we tend to tread lightly when discussing them here. But this isn't really a discussion of politics, per se, but rather a quite interesting discussion of how various political systems work ... or how they're supposed to work anyway.

It's a mark of the sophistication, intelligence, maturity (etc., etc.), of this community that it can occur at all, let alone refrain from descent into chaos.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Recently limits have also been imposed on spending nationally by parties on election campaigning. This is currently around £30,000 per constituency being contested, or around £19 million if all seats are being contested, as with the major parties..

So there's still a bit of scope for large donors the have undue influence, although that is now mitigated by compulsory declaration of large donations.

Paul

Thanks for that information, Paul - as I said in an earlier post, I knew that they were discussing bringing in limits on campaign spending following the "cash for honours" thing, but I didn't know that it had actually been implemented. I'm happy to hear that it has been.

[pdurrant]

Having the limit is good. It still seems a bit high to me - effectively three times the constituency limit.

Perhaps a more sensible (& easily defined) limit would be to say that the party limit should be the same as the sum of the constituency limits for the constituencies the party is contesting. That would put the party national limit at around £6.5 million.

One can hope. I was rather surprised the party limit happened at all.

Paul

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thanks for that information, Paul - as I said in an earlier post, I knew that they were discussing bringing in limits on campaign spending following the "cash for honours" thing, but I didn't know that it had actually been implemented. I'm happy to hear that it has been.