Skip to main content

Many of the most important issues will have been censored at the debate; and they can be expected to be censored from any other debate controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates. In 1988 the Commission on Presidential Debates negotiated with the two major political parties and the nominees for president at the time to establish new rules for participation in the debates that have been in place since then, more or less. Prior to this League of Women Voters used to sponsor debates but they refused to “help perpetrate a fraud” when the CPD made this decision. Notably absent from the decision making process about who will be allowed to debate or have much if any media coverage from the corporate media that gets preferential access to the airwaves from the government is the vast majority of the American public or any organization that has a reasonable claim to represent them.

The decision making process on who gets to debate or receive coverage is largely in the control of the corporate media and the Commission on Presidential Debates and their corporate sponsors.

As I begin writing this the debates haven’t happened yet; however by the time I post it I will have watched it and may provide an additional comments on whether they meet expectations or lack of them; this will include a major update about the fact that Democracy Now has done an “expand the debate” segment that includes Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson. The traditional corporate media hasn’t covered this but it isn’t being completely suppressed either which is important when it comes to successful propaganda so this could potentially be part of a major game changer. Many commentators have pointed out that both these candidates aren’t inclined to address many of the most important issues and that they hold the same position on a lot of them, especially when it comes to the interests of the corporations that finance the campaigns of both major parties and presidential candidates. This doesn’t mean that they don’t have some things they disagree on, of course; however it does mean that many issues aren’t even up for discussion and by preventing grass roots candidates from having access to the debates the corporations guarantee that this won’t change, at least in the mainstream media.

A small sample of the things that they agree on that aren’t in the best interest of the vast majority of the public include the fact that neither one of them is willing to discuss Single Payer Health Care which would dramatically reduce health care expenses by preventing the insurance companies from spending an enormous amount of the money they collect from premiums on advertising and lobbying and keep even more for profit; stop drone attacks that are killing many innocent people abroad and is increasing opposition to US military actions; stop the “surge” in troops which has had the opposite effect that they expected; protection of the environment that is backed up by actions not just words and many other things. An additional ten issues were reposted by Greg Orr on the Daily KO that initially came from Jill Stein. This; list includes many challenges to corporate power that defend the majority of the public but they don’t get discussed in the corporate media nor are they expected to be discussed at the debate.

This has been cross-posted with images at Open Salon   and Blogspot  

Mattea Kramer wrote, Tomgram: Mattea Kramer, A Recipe for American Decline That No One Will Be Debating which outlines many of the things that these two candidates have in common that almost certainly won’t be discussed at the presidential debates controlled by corporations. This was reposted in the Daily KO with an additional important topic added Open thread for night owls: Tough talk you won't hear in the debates. Where's climate change? There are many more articles that have pointed out how much these two have in common and the fact that they’re both under the same influence of corporate power including “Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On” written by the Black Agenda Report with a perspective from the left and Joshua Hedlund’s 218 reasons NOT to vote for Obama with a perspective from the right. In the case of Joshua Hedlund I happen to disagree with a couple of the most important issues that he raises like his position on immigration and I have at time disagreements with those at the Black Agenda or just about everyone else but they both raise many important issues that should stand on their own merits and are worth consideration.  

Barack Obama’s own law professor, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, has made it clear that he also believes that Barack Obama isn’t representing the majority of the public and he put out a video explaining his reasons.

There’s no shortage of coverage from many of the most important issues in many area’s that aren’t under the control of the corporate media but the corporate media doesn’t cover much if any of it and many people may have a hard time finding out about it. Fortunately there are an enormous amount of people that are now relying more on alternative media outlets (list of many outlets) but this needs to be turned into additional action and pressure to cover all important issues as it should happen in any sincere democracy.  

Neither Mitt Romney or Barack Obama even filled out their Project Vote Smart questionnaires which is the closest thing to a job application that I know of for the presidential election which is essentially a job interview process. If any applicant for a job in any other position refused to fill out an application then that would be the end of the interview process; they wouldn’t even be invited to an interview. Thanks to an enormous amount of corporate propaganda the majority of the public has been led to believe that this shouldn’t have any impact; mainly be declining to discuss this at all. In this corrupt debate process the people that did fill out the job applicants are being banned from the debates and only the two candidates sponsored and financed by the corporations are being allowed. This ensures that the power of the corporations won’t be challenged.

Or so they think.

As I said there have been an enormous amount of people that have been relying on alternative media outlets to get their news and, as you must know there have also been an enormous amount of protests going on throughout the country over the past year or much longer. However the corporate media hasn’t been covering more than a fraction of these protests and they haven’t been discussing the issues when they do. A relatively small indication of how many people seem to be fed up with the current system is that while preparing this article I googled the excerpt cited from tom Dispatch above and found that as of this writing there were sixteen pages full of excerpts from that article, a total of 160 web pages that presumably reposted it. And they cut off many more because they indicated that they were redundant.  

That means that the limited amount of news that the corporate media may not be adequate to assess what to expect during the election. However even if the elections do result in a majority accepting the corruption of the corporate choices there almost certainly will be an enormous amount of support for independent candidates like Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.

If people vote for either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama they will essentially be allowing their vote to be bought by the people that control the propaganda that they use to manipulate votes and the corporations will assume they can continue with business as usual. The truth of the matter seems to be that the Romney campaign is a disaster and there is no way that he can win despite all the propaganda that the corporate media is trying to promote to convince people otherwise. Barack Obama is relying on the threat of something much worse than he is, not on the job he has been doing which is horrible.

A vote for an independent will not be a wasted vote since it will be used to let them know that the corporations won’t be able to continue convincing the majority that they can only choose from the candidates that have been pre-selected by the corporations. Or as Jill Stein put it in the following excerpt, “The only wasted vote is one that goes unused,” or to a candidate that won’t look out for your interest I might add.

The only wasted vote is one that goes unused

Though, if you prefer to see America continue on its current path, a vote for Green Party Candidate, Dr. Jill Stein, would be a wasted vote.

Holding both parties accountable for 30 years of this country's largest transfer of wealth to the rich means coming to terms with the fact that neither are in a position to solve the challenges we face. While some partisan Democrats are once again claiming that a vote for the Greens is a vote for the Republicans; that argument falls flat with millions of disenfranchised voters who believe we can do better.

These are Americans who believe we must stop our descent into economic disparity, the erosion of our civil liberties, and the corruption of our political system by corporate power and massive wealth. They are Americans who understand the Democratic Party has been complacent, if not complicit, in this process and is now, as evidenced by an administration that has kept the policies of George W. Bush largely in place, institutionally incapable of any real reform.

The fact is, political parties change over time, so why shouldn't our votes change as well?

This is not the Democracy the revolutionaries of 1776 envisioned. They had just lived through a long, bloody war to throw off the shackles of an oppressive regime that had denied them rights and representation while pillaging their resources and their labor. It was not their intention that we live under a duopoly political system where a tiny handful of people control the purse strings and allegiances of both parties.

Votes aren't being stolen, they are being bought. complete article

Also for those of you who didn’t know if she were allowed to attend the debates it would be a rematch with Mitt Romney and it wouldn’t be the first time that a debate which later became famous had a candidate that lost a statewide election but went on to win the presidential election and establish a new political party. It would only be fitting that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, for that matter went out the same way the Republican Party went in. Jill Stein previously debated Mitt Romney for governor.   Last spring Romney even said, "I'm hoping she'll give me a rematch so that the voters can see that I have some substance too. Really, I do." And Jill Stein accepted Romney invite to debate rematch but he backed down. And now refuses to allow her to have an opportunity to present herself to the majority of the public. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have clearly indicated that they don’t think the majority of the public should have access to the information they need to make their decisions.

Supporters of Jill Stein have been protesting Romney in the lead up to the debate but there has, of course been little or no coverage of this in the corporate media that doesn’t want the public to have the information they need any more than the corporations that finance them and profit from the sale of deceptive ads.

Chickens picket Romney HQ in leadup to Denver debates protests

In the leadup to this Wednesday's first presidential debate, the movement for open debates has taken wing, quite literally in the case of New Englanders, who descended on Mitt Romney's national headquarters in Boston this past week decked in chicken suits and carrying signs accusing the Bain capitalist of being "too chicken to face Jill Stein in a rematch."

The message could not have been clearer, as organizer and U.S. Uncut founder Carl Gibson presented a Romney staffer with "The World's Biggest Chicken Award." Romney last faced Jill Stein in a 2002 gubernatorial debate (for video of debate see C-spanvideo) which Massachusetts media later declared Dr. Stein the winner. You can see the video by clicking here.

This action took place on the same day that the statement gained its 12,000th signer, and that the #OccupytheCPD Social Media Storm garnered over 1,000,000 views in just 24 hours. full article

A sample of the issues that she does a much better job addressing includes her recent articles, Stein says report shows urgent need to end drone warfare and even though this meeting has already come and gone she held the following town hall meeting, Join us online this Sunday for a live Q&A on climate change with Jill! Neither Mitt Romney or Barack Obama seems to be interested in a serious discussion about the destruction of the environment; Mitt isn’t even willing to acknowledge it exists and Barack Obama is only willing to give the issue lip service. If their campaign donors were the ones that were have their property destroyed and they were suffering from diseases sue to pollution they would but when their campaign donors are making massive profits by destroying the environment for everyone else they don’t seem to care.  

Samuel Jackson has recently said it’s “time to wake the fuck up,” I agree with him on that but if people think they’re “waking the fuck up,” by responding to Samuel Jackson’s ad by blindly accepting everything he says and voting for Obama so that he can do the will of the corporations without any regard for the will of the people they might as well just stay asleep; because their votes will continue to be controlled by demagogues. The same could of course be said for me; I don’t expect anyone to vote for Jill Stein just because I said so; but it is worth considering the issues and if you don’t think that Jill Stein is the best candidate to vote for then I don’t see why you shouldn’t consider one of the other candidates that have been presented on Project Vote Smart’s web page; if there are other candidates that filled out the application and you agree with them then that wouldn’t be a wasted vote but a vote for someone that is guaranteed to sell you out would be!

As I said Democracy now has run an expand the Debate segment which aired on their web site and where ever they are available by cable or satellite including Link TV. They started the evening out with their regular show which was about “As Obama, Romney Hold First Debate, Behind the Secret GOP-Dem Effort to Shut Out Third Parties.” (Transcripts included) This episode covers many of the details about how the Commission of Presidential Debates took control of the debates including some of the details already mentioned and more that I wasn’t previously aware of.

In order for their control of the debates to be successful, like any other successful propaganda, they have to prevent the opposition from being successfully heard. This hasn’t been entirely successful now that Amy Goodman has run this segment and hopefully will follow up with at least two more segments for the other Presidential Debates and one for the Vice Presidential Debates.

When I first started following Jill Stein and the alternative party movement as well as the Occupy Wall Street movements I began to think that this could be when they finally use their grass roots organization to provide a major challenge to the corporate media and possibly even win. It was never a sure thing and still isn’t; there is still a lot that needs to be done regardless of who wins this election but this could potentially be part of a major game changer. That doesn’t mean that any one event will be responsible for a total turn around, as they often make it seem in the corporate media; but if this is combined with a major effort to let people know about the debate and that the Commission of Presidential Debates has been rigging the debates then it could lead to a major increase in the votes for independent, possibly even a victory. Even if they don’t win a major increase in independent votes will put them on notice, informing them that if they continue to ignore the will of the people and give them nothing but propaganda many more people will start voting for independent that actually address the issues.

I’m not going to go into too much detail reviewing the issues they covered; you can see them just as well for yourself at Democracy Now! or if you’re interested in my responses to other details that I have reviewed in the past a couple of the best are A closer look at Jill Stein and Jill Stein supports Constitution unlike Romney and Obama!! these were both written without rushing and so was a lot of the material that Jill Stein provided on her web site. For that matter so was the material that Rocky Anderson provided in his Vote Smart questionnaire and on his web site. Either of these candidates would be far better than the candidates sponsored by the corporations; but, for what it’s is worth I think that it would be better to put the majority of the support behind one of them to defeat the entrenched candidates that have been corrupting the system; and my preference is, as you know Jill Stein, partly because I am more familiar with her and partly because she has much more ballot access and presumably support therefore a greater chance to win. However I don’t think this should lead to bickering among the alternative candidates and neither do they seem to; so it would be more important for people to make their own choices based on their own decision; which is the way democracy is supposed to work. In the long run we should have instant run-off election so that we won’t have to worry about unifying behind one candidate to avoid the lesser of evils.

They both did a far better job calling for Single Payer insurance and holding Wall Street accountable and ending wars based on lies as well as many other issues during the debate and on their web sites and elsewhere than either of the two major candidates sponsored by corporations. Mitt Romney has made it clear that he isn’t going to stand up to Wall Street and Barack Obama has a record to run on which includes breaking most if not all of his promises. This includes his promise to stand up to lobbyists; which he broke as soon as he started appointing many of them in his administration and his refusal to hold political allies like Jon Corzine accountable. He also broke promises about war and the environment and many other issues. One exception is the ending of the Iraq war and bringing the troops home but even that was misleading; he initially made it clear that he didn’t intend to do so then reversed himself only after Iraq refused to give troops immunity then he pretended he was bringing them home as part of his promise all along; and he still left a large presence behind in the embassy and private military contractors so it wasn’t even a complete withdrawal.

During the debate I thought that the alternative candidates were far better and that Mitt Romney was especially bad when he kept interrupting the moderator so this could be a game changer; when I watched the morning coverage of it I found that while I was coming to the conclusion that this might be a game changer for Jill Stein the corporate media was attempting to portray Mitt Romney as the big winner of the debate because of the interruptions that I thought were especially un-presidential!

While Democracy Now! Was holding debates in a mostly civil manner at least for the alternative candidates the corporate media was presenting it, as usual, for the most part, as a sporting event, not a discussion on the issues that are designed to educate the majority of the public in the most effective manner possible. The majority of the corporate pundits indicated that they thought that Mitt Romney was doing well at the debates and his behavior is an acceptable and even desirable way of debating; even Chris Wallace who has been critical of Romney has indicated that he thought Romney was winning the debate and was disappointed in Barack Obama for not being more aggressive. If he were to do so it wouldn’t have done much if anything to inform the public about the issues which seems to be what they have in mind. Instead this would continue past practices of turning the debates and campaigns into a circus that is all about hype. I suspect that the next debate might result in a more combative Obama that does even less to cover issues which will only increase the reliance on attack tactics in their propaganda ads and their speeches.  Many people may realize that many of the attacks they’re launching against each other are true and that neither one of them are any good and might smarten up if they realize there is an alternative, which there is!

They didn’t mention the fact that Democracy Now was doing an “expand the debate” feature that would include other candidates at all; but they had to know that it was happening and that it could have a major impact on the election. Intentionally or not by presenting this as what they called a “game changer” that could put Mitt Romney back in the race they may convince a lot of people that this is a close race and that they have to vote for Obama to stop Romney which is what they do every four years.

I’m not ruling out the possibility that this might have been done in this manner so that they could convince many people that respond to emotional appeals that they can’t risk voting for an alternative party once again.

However on at least one segment by a local ABC affiliate they interviewed some residences that were watching the debate and found that they weren’t interpreting it that way at all; in fact the ones they interviewed didn’t seem to impressed by the debate and said that it wouldn’t change their votes, although they didn’t indicate what their votes would be in this segment.

This is a clear example of the pundits on TV trying to tell the public how they should interpret the debate. On Current TV Al Gore wondered whether they would discuss Global Warming but he declined to mention the “expand the debate coverage” and his advocacy for environmentalism has always been limited and applied only when it suits his political purposes; when running for president or acting as vice president he was taking money from Occidental Petroleum and his position for environmentalism was limited to rhetoric but when he is out of power then he speaks out for it in a manner that generally doesn’t have an impact but he seems to expect this to present himself as the defender of the environment the same way he presents himself as the inventor of the internet. Many of the other so-called alternative media outlets declined to cover it as well but many others did. A small sample of the coverage from other outlets include The Huffington Post, Truthdig, Kevin Gosztola at My Fire Dog Lake, Crooks and Liars, Link TV who also broadcast it on satellite to a large audience, Free, and many of the web sites run by Occupy Wall Streets and their related organization as well as many other alternative media outlets, I’m sure.  

In addition to indicating support for the president this debate could indicate how much the public continues to trust the mainstream media which continues to refuse to cover many of the most important issues. With all these media outlets covering the alternative candidates and explaining how the debates have been hijacked it will be much more difficult for them to convince the public that they’re presenting credible coverage. If there is an enormous support for these candidates that comes from the grass roots despite the virtual blackout that the corporate media is implementing then it will be much more obvious that the corporate media isn’t doing an adequate job covering the news or anything else, as if it wasn’t already obvious.

The claim that the corporate media is trying to make about this putting Mitt Romney back in the game isn’t going to change the fact that he has been making one blunder after another and it is just a matter of time before he makes another. Even if he doesn’t his support isn’t because people like him or his policies; it seems to be because they don’t like Obama and Mitt Romney is the one that is being presented to them by the corporate media and the people that take the polls.

He isn’t even expected to win in Massachusetts or most of his other “home states!” None of these poll round ups put Massachusetts, Michigan, or California in favor of Mitt Romney; and most polls don’t put New Hampshire in favor of him either and this is one of the places where Gary Johnson is supposed to have the most support. The only one of his home states that favor him seems to be Utah, which is dominated by Mormons, and right or wrong, the fact that he is a Mormon is going to be a major part of the reason why he almost certainly won’t be able to keep the right wing base unified behind him. It is virtually guaranteed that a significant amount of people abandon him for Gary Johnson especially if it doesn’t appear as if he is going to win anyway; but many of these people have already made it clear that they won’t support him anyway, which means that it almost certainly will be a blow out although the corporate media will almost certainly try to present it as being close.

On the left there are just as many people fed up with the fact that Obama has betrayed just about every promise that he has made. Furthermore with all these protests that have been going on over the past year or so what do people expect all these protestors to do, give up and say “I tried but now I have to get in line behind Obama.”

I don’t think so; to do that would indicate that all these protests were for nothing. There are too many important issues to give in to the corporate propaganda and let them narrow down our choices to two candidates that both defend corporations over the best interest of the majority whenever people aren’t paying attention, or even when they are.

To allow them to buy the election would be to act like a bunch of zombies blindly believeing everything we’re told by the corporate media!

Originally posted to zacherystaylor on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:24 AM PDT.

Also republished by Trolls.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good lord (28+ / 0-)

    thankfully, I didn't read this whole screed of silliness.  

    My landlord is recovering from a serious motorcycle accident.  He's 72!!!  He's also diabetic.  Sooooo, I'm making an all American dinner:  meatloaf (mine is the best) with brown/mushroom gravy, mashed potatoes, string beans, fruit with whipped cream sweetened with agave nectar and now waiting for the final rise on

    Whole Wheat Agave Bread

    Prep Time: 2 hours ~ Bake Time: 45 min

    2 packets yeast

    ¼ C warm water

    ¼ C vegan butter (I'm not a vegan so used unsalted butter)

    2 C hot water

    ½ C agave nectar

    1 tsp salt

    3 C whole wheat flour

    2 C unbleached flour

    Put 2 C unbleached flour in a small bowl and set aside for later use.

    Dissolve 2 packets yeast in warm water; set aside.

    Put buttery spread (oil may be substituted), hot water, agave and salt in large bowl.  Cool til spread is dissolved and water is lukewarm.

    Add yeast mixture and mix well.

    Add 3 C whole wheat flour and beat with a wooden spoon, one cup at a time, until well blended.

    Prepare cutting board by sprinkling generously with unbleached flour. Add in the 2 C flour and blend well.

    Pour out the dough (it will be solid) onto the board. Begin kneading until all flour is blended, adding more until the dough is not sticky.

    Knead for about 5 min and set aside, covered, in a warm (not hot) place.

    Check back in 30-45 min. When bread has doubled in size, punch it down with your fist and knead it a few times.  Divide dough in half and shape into whatever form you would like (bread pans, braids, or large circular loaves).

    Allow bread to rise again for 30 min.

    Bake at 350º for about 45 min.

    Cool on racks.

    I hope it is ok!!!!  If not, we have store bought snowflake rolls.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:33:35 AM PDT

    •  If you don't check the issues then... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      you'll just base your vote on propaganda; that doesn't mean that you have to get your ideas from me which presumably you aren't but if you accept the propaganda presented by Obama then you'll just wind up supporting another corporate puppet.

      Let all candidates debate!

      by zacherystaylor on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:42:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Damm! (10+ / 0-)

      I am a Landlord and my tenants never make me anything except clogged drains.

      If you ever want to live in the NYC area, please look me up!

      •  Actually, you shouldn't complain about the drains (0+ / 0-)

        Your tenants are giving you their hard earned income to help you buy your property, and to help make you rich. With their money, you pay your mortgage and expenses.

        Cleaning those drains is just a small price you pay back to them for allowing you to have unequal power over them in the landLORD/tenant relationship. I hope you keep up the property and give back to your tenants, unlike so many landlords who milk the property for all it is worth while failing to keep up with repairs, and all the while raising rents to take advantage of the foreclosure crisis which has in turn driven up rents.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:03:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You have no understanding... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Unit Zero, Puddytat, kalmoth

          ...of East Coast Landlord/Tenant law, lol!

          If I was a real landLORD, I could call up my tenants for battle and we would ride to war against the evil Duke of Brooklyn!

          As it is, they pretty much own the property unless they stop paying rent for six months in a row, the time it takes to file a successful East Coast eviction.

          People who are good tenants misunderstand landlords because they have no idea how expensive a Bad Tenant can be.

          Even good drivers with no accidents don't get free car insurance! In every rent check you pay, there is a portion that goes toward compensating for the Bad Tenants.

          Some reforms that would lower rents and reduce blight:

          1) Allow evictions within 30-days of the rent being late.
          2) Allow lease terms that trigger automatic judgements for unpaid rent
          3) Allow wage garnishment for unpaid rent
          4) Tenants must be responsible for removal/storage of furniture left behind after an eviction
          5) Allow property tax assessments to be set at the actual sales price of a property.
          6) Extend housing court hours so tenants don't have to miss work to attend.
          7) Make lying on a rental application a Material Breach of the lease.
          8) Keep an accessible government database of housing court cases, so Bad Tenants can be identified.
          9) Allow lease terms to partially waive Warranty of Habitability (if tenant is an adult with no kids).

          There are other things that could be done.

          •  I've been on both sides of this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            in terms of my experience. I've owned properties and rental units.

            Most of your reforms are right wing, in my view, leading to increasing the inequality and unequal power relationships between the owner class and the propertyless working class.

            You want lower proerty taxes? Excuse me? It was just such a proposal, Prop 13, that wrecked California's social services network decades ago.

            And you want to throw people out on the street easier with shorter evictions?

            And "allowing" tenants to wave habitability? Holy shit... This is Ayn Rand on steroids.

            Automatic judgements, circumventing oversight from the courts and juries of one's peers? That is extremely authoritarian.

            I don't believe there should be black lists against people who can't pay their rent and are evicted. It isn't always the tenant's fault, and in this economy, it is often a choice of eating or paying the landlord.

            We need an entirely new system, in which people can own their own units (co-ops, for example, in which properties are tenant managed), and have a right to decent jobs and a place to live.

            No one should be put in a database to prevent them from obtaining housing. That is one of the worst examples of asserting capitalist, right wing power over the working class.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 01:24:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Databases are great. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Databases (rental, credit, etc.) take some of the guesswork out of finding good tenants.

              My grandmother used to rent property based on whether or not you went to her (Methodist) church! That was the only info she had on a person!

              Today, I can look at what you actually did. I can judge by actions, not who-you-know, or what-you-look-like.

              Waiving habitability would be for things like painting, holes in drywall, etc. The things that tenants promise to fix when they first move in. It wouldn't be for critical systems like electric, water, and heat.

              Shorter evictions are something that we should think about. If people need help, society should provide it. But "society" and "your landlord" are not the same!  By shortening evictions, you encourage me to take a chance on marginal tenants. I know that if I give them a chance, I won't risk Six Months Of Pain.

              As it is, I only permit the highest quality of tenants in my East Coast property. I know that if I pick wrong, I'll go through Hell. So many "marginal" people miss out and don't get to rent. If I could be assured of a swift, no-nonsense eviction, I could afford to be less discriminating.

              •  Databases need to be limited though (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ZhenRen, ManhattanMan

                Over on this coast they can check a persons entire criminal history. It is almost impossible for a ex-felon to rent in a decent area, even 20 years later after their crime. I agree in databases and having reasonable information available, but it needs to be time limited and restricted to relevant information.

                I'll go through your points as I see them:

                1. Perhaps 60 or 90 days? It seems that 30 days tosses people with short term problems on the street without a reasonable chance. There should be no credit for hit and miss payment, perhaps 90 days total late per year with 31 days late as the minimum at the time of eviction.
                2. No, courts render judgements. It shouldn't be an automatic part of any contract. It dismisses the concept of rule of law.
                3. With court judgement, see number 2.
                4. It's an eviction -- how do you expect to get blood from a turnip? You shouldn't be responsible for its safe keeping.
                5. As a Washington state resident I have grown up with, and believe in, all property being taxed as the current value. I suppose if homes and other property in the state is taxed based on purchase price then it would be fair for rental properties too. I don't think the California plan is a good idea.
                6. Good idea.
                7. Yes, provided it is relevant. If not it shouldn't even be asked.
                8. Yes, provided it is restricted. This goes back to the top of this comment.
                9. No. I think ZhenRen answered that correctly.

                A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                by notrouble on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 05:59:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  How about prosecuting landlords (0+ / 0-)

                when they fail to upkeep units? Automatically, without a need for oversight? And prosecute them for the rampant racism and other forms of social bigotry in renting policy. And blacklist them in a public database for all to see. If they evict too many tenants, put them on the blacklist for all to see.

                And take their property away if they violate more than three times, and hand over the deed to tenants to self-manage. That would be nice.

                You see? This can work both ways, but authoritarian capitalists never see it from the perspective of the renter class.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:01:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Much of that stuff is already in the books. (0+ / 0-)

                  In CT, if the tenants destroy the furnace, I have to fix it immediately or I will be arrested.  There is a not-for-profit organization that exists to help tenants do this to me.

                  Even if they broke the furnace themselves!

                  In NYC the worst landlords have their names posted by the government on the Internet.

                  I don't mind putting my name up for evicting people. Maybe that will make the others think twice about not paying! Besides, eviction is a court proceeding, the records should be public and searchable. Both Tenant and Landlord should be recorded.

                  If you can catch the racists, fine. The only way to do it is a sting operation with a pair of testers. In this environment, I bet the first person to walk thru the door will get the place, lol...

                  Landlords lose their property when the fines for blight charges, legal bills, and tenants from Hell become too high. Then you must walk away and give it to the bank or the city. The empty building creates blight.

                  Most of the Typical Liberal Complaints about landlords came from an earlier time when most landlords were rich and housing was scarce. This gave a small group of 1%-ers huge economic and social power that they often misused.

                  The world is different today. The country is littered with empty houses. There are more single family houses for rent than apartment units. The landlord is less likely to be a fat cat and more likely to be a regular guy.

        •  Um (1+ / 0-)
          Your tenants are giving you their hard earned income to help you buy your property, and to help make you rich.
          I kind of think the tenants are giving their landlord rent so he lets them stay in his apartment.
          •  Rent is a form of usary (0+ / 0-)

            The amount of money people pay for rent in the course of a lifetime could easily buy a much better living space than most people get as renters.

            Rent mostly benefits the wealthy owner class. It is exploitative, just as wage slavery is.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:52:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  then (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              don't rent. Simple.

              •  Nice capitalistic response, but extremely callous (0+ / 0-)

                Kind of like saying, "What, no bread? Then let them eat cake."

                In capitalism, those who have taken possession of the means of production are in a position in which they can exploit the working class.

                This leads to unequal power relationships in which one class dominates and controls another.

                Every person has the right to employment and a healthy living environment. People have the right to live. When people can't pay rent, it is often due to economic conditions they have no control over. In fact, it is often due to treating living people as a commodity, in which people are treated as if their labor is the same as, in a "free market", to bags of corn or flour. People are treated as if the market should determine if they work or not, eat or not, have a decent home or not, have health care or not, and even whether they live or die.

                I find this dog eat dog, go for the jugular, competitive and economically violent system to be the equivalent of wage slavery. This is why I'm an anti-capitalist.

                Obviously, you don't see any problem at all with this authoritarian, exploitative, enslaving system.

                That puts us rather far apart politically, since in my view, capitalism is pretty much evil, and is unfair to the vast majority of people living under it.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 03:32:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Then so to is every commercial transaction (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Virtually every transaction in life other than "can you loan me money for lunch until payday?" is a cost-plus-markup event. Your proclamation that all rents are a form of usuary - regardless of the relative values involved - seem possible only in a worldview that hold every act of commerce to be a sin.

              That's not left-wing or right wing, that's located somewhere along the imaginary axis. Good luck selling you political party to the masses.

              You'll need a lot of that luck, because your performance here shows you don't know how to interact with people.

              •  I'm an anti-capitalist (0+ / 0-)

                Yes, most modern transactions of the ruling, owner class are unfair to the working class.

                See my post upthread for a more in-depth response.

                As to interacting with people, I do quite fine. But I don't respond to authoritarian behavior by falling into line with your imagined superior status on this site.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 03:35:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Another stellar example (0+ / 0-)

                  Of your charm.

                  •  I don't really consider your opinion (0+ / 0-)

                    of my behavior to be of much value. You might want to try some introspection regarding your own approach on this forum.

                    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                    by ZhenRen on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 01:16:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not the one pretending to recruit 4 the Greens (0+ / 0-)

                      Please continue with your charm offensive. The new Green Party recruits are swooning under your spell. You are not being counterproductive at all. Viva Jill Stein! Or whatever her name is.

                      But of course you're not really here to recruit for the Greens are ya?

                      •  I'm not recruiting for greens (0+ / 0-)

                        Unlike you, I support open discussion about politics. I don't beleive in thinking within proscribed limits that people impose on themselves and others. No real analysis and discussion can be truly useful, accurate or effective when it must stay within the borders and perimeters set up by people who want to impose authority.

                        You have a strong authoritarian streak, and I base that observation on the fact that you seem to appear whenever there is an opportunity to shut down speech that doesn't kowtow to the standard party line.

                        You're a self-appointed enforcer, a blog cop, a person on the prowl looking for people who are out of line with the established structured order that you believe must be maintained, lest the status quo be upset. You see speech as a threat when it doesn't conform.

                        So you do your part in maintaining the little DKos autocracy of which you see yourself as a dependable enforcer, a "good citizen" bent on being aggressive toward anyone who goes against "the rules," which you find to be very, very important and essential and part of feeling "safe" in your conception of the world.

                        Bullyism, expecting submission and assuming privilege based on your self-perceived status, all the signs are present in your behavior.

                        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                        by ZhenRen on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 11:44:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  Wow You're sweet (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        My landlord tells me to throw drain cleaner down or call for a plumber and pay him myself.

        You could be my landlord anytime.

        PS:  The only time I hear from him is when he's done an auto renewal on my lease to inform me that my rent has gone up (again) and how much to start paying.

        There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

        by Puddytat on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 03:10:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're being exploited. (0+ / 0-)

          Goddamn the landlord who doesn't treat renters with respect and dignity. Goddamn them. And I've been landlord, as well as a tenant. I no longer cry tears for the landlord, owner class. I've seen what renters go through on low income.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:55:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  If you want to build a third party, build one (10+ / 0-)

    it's close, but it might not be too late to organize a third party run for 2016.

    This year?  You're fucking kidding me.

    I just genetically engineer them, I don't nominate them for President.

    by happymisanthropy on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:36:24 AM PDT

  •  HR for implying that Obama and Romney are the same (16+ / 0-)

    Also this is not a Green Party site, this is a site for Democrats and furthering the cause of the Democratic Party.

    Also, the debate commission has strict standards and with all due respect to Dr. Stein, she would be lucky to get 1% of the popular vote.   And if you're talking about third party, I think Virgil Goode being on the ballot in Virginia will have more of an impact on the election than Dr. Stein in any state.

    And I live in Massachusetts, and Dr. Stein ran against Romney in the 2002 gubernational, and IIRC she got less than 3% of the vote.

    •  I didn't imply that at all if you read it (0+ / 0-)

      Of course i did focus primarily on the things that they have in common and that they both represent corrupt issues but I also said, "This doesn’t mean that they don’t have some things they disagree on, of course..."

      This same statement was made to Greg Orr when he didn't say that either. The claim that this is a democratic party forum may have also been made but if they don't accept different points of view it isn't very democratic.

      The debate commission is a corporate enterprise that isn't interested in presenting democratic choices.

      They gave incredibly biased coverage in the gubernatorial race as well as part of their attempt to rig it and no sincere candidate was covered by the corporate press properly thn but people are learning how bad this is.

      Let all candidates debate!

      by zacherystaylor on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:49:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's a disgrace (7+ / 0-)

    that the two parties set up the Commission for Presidential Debates for the purpose of getting the League of Women Voters out of debate moderation, in order to have more control of debates, keep out the voice of the people, and allow ever more corporate influence over debates.

    We've all been scammed.

    I saw the Democracy Now expanded debated. More of that please!

    Everyone should watch that segment, which is stream-able on Democracy Now.  Broadcast television at its best.

    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

    by ZhenRen on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:43:18 AM PDT

  •  Irony (11+ / 0-)

    Citing Greg Orr's rightfully HR'ed diary in service to the same third party advocacy, for which this diary earns an HR as well.

    “I have a quantum car. Every time I look at the speedometer I get lost.” -- Steven Wright

    by tytalus on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:44:01 AM PDT

    •  Imagine that... (5+ / 0-)

      Democracy Now is willing to provide genuine, open access, in depth news coverage that expresses the voice of the people, while DKos habitues try to shut down dissent and open discussion.

      Cuz, ya know, you wouldn't want people to be influenced by anything other than the carefully scripted and canned theater created by corporate politics and media.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:49:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you want (16+ / 0-)

        to support third parties, you are welcome to do so.

        Not here. The site's purpose, as stated by its owner, is to elect more and better Democrats. Not Greens.

        If you don't like it, it's a big Internet out there. Go find someplace you like better.

        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

        by raptavio on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:51:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Given the rightward slant of many democrats, (6+ / 0-)

          including Obama, Greens are technically where the Democrats should be -- instead of being right-center.

          NOW SHOWING
          Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
          Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

          by The Dead Man on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:04:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not supporting third parties (4+ / 0-)

          in my comment. I'm supporting dissent, free, open discussion of issues, democracy, and a free news media that isn't controlled by institutional, corporate dominated parties who deliberately shut down the information pipeline.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:05:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And that has to do (8+ / 0-)

            with a "rah rah vote for Jill Stein" diary on KOS how?

            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

            by raptavio on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 02:05:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The diary is also (0+ / 0-)

              about the debate coverage by Democracy Now. Some of the material in the diary derives from the DNow broadcasts.

              If I'd had time, I would have written about the DNow's debate coverage, which was excellent.

              It deserves to be supported. Of course, supporters would be people who want to see a more informed populace, who support better news coverage, who think more inclusiveness in debates, not less, is a good idea. The expanded coverage on DN included a way to bring in third parties who had been deliberately kept out. Most civil libertarians and non-authoritarians support inclusiveness and free speech.

              It's sad to see Democrats turning to an authoritarian, non-democratic silencing of dissent.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 02:48:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're shitting me. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jiffypop, tytalus, Quicklund, pistolSO

                That third party candidates who have no chance whatsoever of winning a single electoral vote (Stein, Johnson) aren't being included in the debates is, to your twisted reasoning, "authoritarian, non-democratic"?

                You've jumped the shark, sirrah. (Again.)

                We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                by raptavio on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:26:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not at all... (0+ / 0-)

                  The problem with shutting out third parties is that the viewers of debates never hear unscripted answers that transcend the two party dialectics. WAs climate change mentioned in the debates? Peak oil? Bankster fraud, need for prosecutions? NDAA? Rendition? Kill lists? Drones? Of course not. Neither party will speak of these issues much, since they're both complicit.

                  Thus, the debates are a fraud. Viewers get a skewed sense of the news, since some of the serious issues of our times don't even get discussed.

                  It doesn't matter that they have no real chance of getting elected (and furthermore, that's something we should let the voter's decide. It's completely self serving and a self fulfilling prediction to decide in advance who has a chance in elections, and not at all democratic).

                  But what's most important is people deserve to hear topics discussed outside the controlled theater set up by the duopoly.  It's better news. It's better, more complete information.

                  No, it is not I who has jumped the shark, rather it is those who want to control speech and impose a limited, per-determined illusion in public elections. Disgusting.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 12:31:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're ridiculous. (0+ / 0-)

                    End of line.

                    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                    by raptavio on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 03:14:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And you're out of substantive replies (0+ / 0-)

                      You have no answer (as usual) and so  you resort to personal attacks (also as usual). Personal attacks almost always indicate a person who has run out of rational responses.

                      The fact is, my reply was quite reasonable.

                      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                      by ZhenRen on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:08:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You know what? (0+ / 0-)

                        You're partly right - you deserved a more thoughtful reply.

                        And here it is:

                        Your argument that the media should give more attention to third-party candidates, and that it would be to the benefit of our democracy to have them included to a greater extent in our national dialogue, is reasonable, and it would be a good thing to do so.

                        However, to leap from that to accusing those who don't do as you suggest "authoritarian" is, in fact, ridiculous, in that it is worthy of ridicule, and in the deepest irony of all, is in fact the very sort of personal attack which you pretend to loathe in your above post.

                        Now I truly have nothing further to say to you on the matter.

                        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                        by raptavio on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 06:00:37 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Much better... (0+ / 0-)

                          I'm glad you admit I have a good point, after all.

                          As to my calling another person in this comment section an authoritarian, I stand by it. If you look at the series of comments I was responding to, you'll see that I was responding to a series of ad hominems and spurious accusations. And the individual involved has a pattern of doing this. I think my response was well deserved, but I'm not surprised that you would defend his or her actions, considering that you both seem to show up together handing out hide rates to the same comments.

                          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                          by ZhenRen on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 09:10:33 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  I half expected this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Greg Orr had the same problem on his diary but for any rational person it was clear who was the one that was actually addressing the issues.

        I don't know how much longer I'll be here but if it is covered with people that don't address issues I'll assume that the smarter people won't be fooled by them.

        Let all candidates debate!

        by zacherystaylor on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:57:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If it was so canned (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund, kefauver

        why have so many here found the outcome unexpected and outrageous?  :D  So much canned fury! Bunch of thespians, the lot of you.

        “I have a quantum car. Every time I look at the speedometer I get lost.” -- Steven Wright

        by tytalus on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:09:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Oops... (0+ / 0-)

    Correction: "I saw the Democracy Now expanded debates."

    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

    by ZhenRen on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:45:11 AM PDT

  •  Sorry -- democrats only here (9+ / 0-)

    This site is about electing more and better Democrats.  Jill Stein is not a Democrat.  If Dr. Stein want sto come swim with the grown-ups, she can join the party and compete here; otherwise, sorry, no, diaries supporting her are inappropriate.

  •  Brave posting, but the Blue Tribalists (4+ / 0-)

    will flame you for threatening their orthodoxy.

    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:01:47 PM PDT

  •  Green is wasting time and votes (6+ / 0-)

    Always has, always will be. Hell there are republicans who pay people to run as green so they can bleed blue votes off down tickets.

    Wake up and get the majority, then once their in office THATS when you threaten and get crap done.

    HR'd cause we don't need this shit 34 days before the election

    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

    by idbecrazyif on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 01:56:07 PM PDT

  •  This diary goes too far (5+ / 0-)

    I would actually welcome having Jill Stein and Gary Johnson on the podium.  I would also welcome 5 debates to accomodate having more time for each and covering issues more thoroughly. (although, they'd have to be moderated a hell of a lot better than Lehrer did last night)

    Economy & Taxes
    Health Care
    Foreign Policy
    Social Issues (global warming, abortion, gay marriage, welfare, etc.)

    But don't tell me I'm blindly voting for Obama and give me all the Green Party talking points - take it to FDL if you want to go there, not here.

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by absdoggy on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 02:34:32 PM PDT

  •  The debates would be more enlightening if all the (3+ / 0-)

    candidates were included. But the voting advocacy here is only for Pres. Obama, as it should be.

    Remove that, and it's a topic to be explored. Before the debates take place.

  •  Third prties should be formed (4+ / 0-)

    bottom up.  You have to start at the state and local level, get these guys in Congress before you can seriously consider a Presidential bid.

    This is how the Green Party needs to proceed.  

    There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

    by Puddytat on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 03:12:51 PM PDT

  •  there's nothing preventing anyone else from (3+ / 0-)

    setting up their own debates. Getting the major party candidates to appear, and television stations to broadcast it, is unlikely, of course.

    "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

    by AaronInSanDiego on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:27:34 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site