Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

This may be early...

THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 10:44:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But, if you want something changed, you have to start early, and in this case very, very, very, early, 4 years early in fact. This is a petition which I have started, online of course, I want to see how much support it would get and whether it would even be possible to implement through popular support. Signing it only takes a few minutes (if you want to read it of course). I realize that it is not a literary masterpiece, but it eventually gets to the point :P

https://www.change.org...

DISCLAIMER: I don't want to start a sh!t-storm here. Like I have seen in the past. So if anyone feels the need to start one, you can kindly go fvck yourself. Discussion is good. Cursing and ridiculing each other is not.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 10:53:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If ONLY there was some way where third party candidates could somehow purchase ads on television to broadcast their message, or buy ad space on popular radio stations to get their message out, or purchase ads in newspapers and billboards to try to raise interest in their campaign, or make numerous public appearances to raise interest on a local level, or do other kinds of things to increase public support for their campaign enough to get them into national debates and have earned it rather then refuse to acknowledge that maybe the reason they arent in presidential debates is because none of them can even get more then 2% of the vote.....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 10:57:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I heard a long time ago (back with Ross Perot), that one needs 5% of the vote to get something; either federal campaign dollars or a spot in the election. The law may have changed, and I am aware this is largely a Catch-22, but it would make sense, especially if it applied to debates.

My question is: do you remember the RNC primary debates? How many people got little to no time? Very little was actually discussed. If third parties were allowed in these debates, we would have had 27 people on stage.

Where does one draw the line, and how is that fair to the others?
My work here is, finally, done.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 10:59:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 10:57:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard a long time ago (back with Ross Perot), that one needs 5% of the vote to get something; either federal campaign dollars or a spot in the election. The law may have changed, and I am aware this is largely a Catch-22, but it would make sense, especially if it applied to debates.

My question is: do you remember the RNC primary debates? How many people got little to no time? Very little was actually discussed. If third parties were allowed in these debates, we would have had 27 people on stage.

Where does one draw the line, and how is that fair to the others?

Read my proposal. Only those which are on the ballots in a majority of the states get into the debates.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 11:16:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 10:59:01 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 11/7/2012 10:57:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard a long time ago (back with Ross Perot), that one needs 5% of the vote to get something; either federal campaign dollars or a spot in the election. The law may have changed, and I am aware this is largely a Catch-22, but it would make sense, especially if it applied to debates.

My question is: do you remember the RNC primary debates? How many people got little to no time? Very little was actually discussed. If third parties were allowed in these debates, we would have had 27 people on stage.

Where does one draw the line, and how is that fair to the others?

Read my proposal. Only those which are on the ballots in a majority of the states get into the debates.

Sorry, I didn't read your proposal, but do you care to address the issue?

If all 27 parties that were on at least one ballot could get on the ballot in 26 states (as now they would have a real reason to attempt this), then these debates would have 27 debaters. Realistically, I would say probably six or seven from the Green, Libertarian, Socialist, DNC, RNC, and maybe a few others.

Either way, is this a quality debate? Were the primary debates of any use to anyone? Why was there a third-party debate with four people, then only two?
My work here is, finally, done.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 11:16:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Debates with multiple candidates are fine in the primary season but eventually it is best for the country to settle with two finalists. A third party candidate will inevitably lean closer to one of the other candidates and wind up splitting taking what would have been their votes. This happens in politics all the time and usually results in the stronger candidate losing.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 11:34:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 10:44:07 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
But, if you want something changed, you have to start early, and in this case very, very, very, early, 4 years early in fact. This is a petition which I have started, online of course, I want to see how much support it would get and whether it would even be possible to implement through popular support. Signing it only takes a few minutes (if you want to read it of course). I realize that it is not a literary masterpiece, but it eventually gets to the point :P

https://www.change.org...

DISCLAIMER: I don't want to start a sh!t-storm here. Like I have seen in the past. So if anyone feels the need to start one, you can kindly go fvck yourself. Discussion is good. Cursing and ridiculing each other is not.

Third parties will never be able to go against the two party system, not enough money or power.

That leads us to the fact that America is on a slow roll to hell with the rest of the world. Not because Democrats are evil and Republicans are saviors. The general population of the US is the cause. The American people have become lazy and complacent, the majority think and want someone else to handle their problems for them.

But to be honest I welcome utter destruction, things will have to get that bad before anything will really change.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 10:25:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 11:16:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/7/2012 10:59:01 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 11/7/2012 10:57:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I heard a long time ago (back with Ross Perot), that one needs 5% of the vote to get something; either federal campaign dollars or a spot in the election. The law may have changed, and I am aware this is largely a Catch-22, but it would make sense, especially if it applied to debates.

My question is: do you remember the RNC primary debates? How many people got little to no time? Very little was actually discussed. If third parties were allowed in these debates, we would have had 27 people on stage.

Where does one draw the line, and how is that fair to the others?

You draw the line at ballot access. If a candidate can officially get on a majority of state's ballots, then they can debate. I don't see how this is unfair to any political party, it is actual more fair to the third parties.


Read my proposal. Only those which are on the ballots in a majority of the states get into the debates.

Sorry, I didn't read your proposal, but do you care to address the issue?

If all 27 parties that were on at least one ballot could get on the ballot in 26 states (as now they would have a real reason to attempt this), then these debates would have 27 debaters. Realistically, I would say probably six or seven from the Green, Libertarian, Socialist, DNC, RNC, and maybe a few others.

If my proposal was in effect this year, it would be the DNC, RNC, Libertarian, Green Constitution and Justice Party. It is unrealistic to think there will be 27 debaters.


Either way, is this a quality debate?

Actually, yes. It would be more quality as the Libertarians are more likely to bring up issues which the DNC and RNC want to avoid. I believe it would be more substantive. Potentially, the networks could devote more time to the debates and chances are they would due to the high numbers of viewers who watch the debates.

If you watched the third party debate, it was MORE substantive with less time AND with double the amount of people (Green party, Libertarian party, Justice Party, and Constitution party). They were all represented by their respective candidates. So why exactly do you think adding more people would take away substance? The third parties are more likely to address issues than the Republican and Democratic parties.

Were the primary debates of any use to anyone?

Why was there a third-party debate with four people, then only two?

You do realize that in any debate a candidate can just not go right? I mean Obama did not have to go to the second presidential debate if he did not want to, that would just be political suicide. Also, the third-party debates are set up differently than the ones set up by the Commission on Presidential debates for the RNC and DNC.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 12:33:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let me get this straight, you don't want cursing in the thread so people should understand that if they intend to curse, they can go fvck themselves?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 12:37:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 11:34:30 PM, jharry wrote:
That leads us to the fact that America is on a slow roll to hell with the rest of the world. Not because Democrats are evil and Republicans are saviors. The general population of the US is the cause. The American people have become lazy and complacent, the majority think and want someone else to handle their problems for them.

Do you have a basis for your utter nonsense?
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 12:51:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/8/2012 12:33:57 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Let me get this straight, you don't want cursing in the thread so people should understand that if they intend to curse, they can go fvck themselves?

Insulting and ridiculing =/= cursing...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 1:00:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/8/2012 12:51:40 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 11/8/2012 12:33:57 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Let me get this straight, you don't want cursing in the thread so people should understand that if they intend to curse, they can go fvck themselves?

Insulting and ridiculing =/= cursing...

"you can kindly go fvck yourself. Discussion is good. Cursing and ridiculing each other is not."
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 1:05:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 11:16:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
Debates with multiple candidates are fine in the primary season but eventually it is best for the country to settle with two finalists. A third party candidate will inevitably lean closer to one of the other candidates and wind up splitting taking what would have been their votes. This happens in politics all the time and usually results in the stronger candidate losing.

Why is that a bad thing? The governments powers are or rather should be derived by the consent of the people, why would it be so bad for the Green Party and the Libertarian Party to be in the debates? Because they will "steal" votes? So what? A vote is an expression of what and who you believe to be the best leader. The strength of a candidate cannot truly be based on objective data, there is some semblance of subjectivity. Tell me objectively whether Wilson was a strong or weak president? Give me objective statistics which tell you that Wilson was a strong or weak president. Or better yet, Obama, separating what you believe from everything else tell me, is Obama a good or bad president? You may believe he is good or bad, but objective data can only bring you so far. Let's take Vermin Supreme, is he a good or bad candidate? Well an anarchist would think he was an awesome candidate while a Democrat or Republican would think he is horrible. So is Vermin Supreme Objectively "strong" or "weak." It is your interpretation of objective data and of the candidate which brings you to your conclusion. If we could objectively determine whether a president was "strong," what would be the point of debate? Since there is no objective means of showing whether a president is "strong" or "weak" or anything in between, you cannot base your problem with having third parties in the debate solely off the conclusion that a third party candidate might steal votes from a Democrat or Republican simply because we cannot objectively determine who is the best of them all and who would be the best president of them all. A Libertarian would think Former Governor Gary Johnson would be the best president while a member of the Green Party would think Dr. Jill Stein would be the best president. A member of the Democratic Party would think Barrack Obama would be the best president. So, who is right?
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 1:07:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/8/2012 1:00:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/8/2012 12:51:40 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 11/8/2012 12:33:57 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Let me get this straight, you don't want cursing in the thread so people should understand that if they intend to curse, they can go fvck themselves?

Insulting and ridiculing =/= cursing...

"you can kindly go fvck yourself. Discussion is good. Cursing and ridiculing each other is not."

ehh....okay? It gets point across...

Do you have anything else to add? I mean you're here so do you support this or not?
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 1:08:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 11:34:30 PM, jharry wrote:
At 11/7/2012 10:44:07 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
But, if you want something changed, you have to start early, and in this case very, very, very, early, 4 years early in fact. This is a petition which I have started, online of course, I want to see how much support it would get and whether it would even be possible to implement through popular support. Signing it only takes a few minutes (if you want to read it of course). I realize that it is not a literary masterpiece, but it eventually gets to the point :P

https://www.change.org...

DISCLAIMER: I don't want to start a sh!t-storm here. Like I have seen in the past. So if anyone feels the need to start one, you can kindly go fvck yourself. Discussion is good. Cursing and ridiculing each other is not.


Third parties will never be able to go against the two party system, not enough money or power.

Allowing third parties to gain recognition in this manner will allow them to gain supporters and as a result, political power.