Guy Incognito
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 11,216
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Here's a thought, maybe nobody cares about 3rd party candidates except Libertarians and other disgruntled political minorities?
Here's a thought, let the minor parties compete on a level playing field and then we'll know!
It's the whole 'legalize all drugs' thing that gets me....no, it's also the 'consenting adult' bull****.One of the bad things about democracy is that 'level playing field' is subjective. As an example: 3rd parties are able to disseminate their message just as the 2 parties are. It still remains a fact that only 1% of Americans choose to vote for them.
I didn't know there were armed guards keeping them out.
One of the bad things about democracy is that 'level playing field' is subjective. As an example: 3rd parties are able to disseminate their message just as the 2 parties are. It still remains a fact that only 1% of Americans choose to vote for them.
Well, you've got Jerry on your side. That speaks volumes in itself.
And you're a Libertarian. I guess we're even?
Coming from a "very liberal" I take that as a compliment. I somehow suspect you don't enjoy the association with Jerry
I didn't know there were any.
I didn't know there were armed guards keeping them out.
That's the best you have? Some green-tards trying to enter a restricted aria? Thank you for proving my point.
That's the best you have? Some green-tards trying to enter a restricted aria? Thank you for proving my point.
You said there were not "armed guards" keeping them out of the debates. Did that not show armed guards not allowing them into the debates?
I didn't know there were armed guards keeping them out.
One of the bad things about democracy is that 'level playing field' is subjective. As an example: 3rd parties are able to disseminate their message just as the 2 parties are. It still remains a fact that only 1% of Americans choose to vote for them.
And you're a Libertarian. I guess we're even?
I think if a 3rd party can get enough support then they should be allowed in national debates.
Should they be allowed? Sure. Do they have a right to be involved in a debate? Of course not. Freedom of association is a two way street.
They were trying to use a court order as an excuse to disrupt a debate. Wow how classy.Badnarik and Cobb (Libertarian and Green party Presidential Candidates respectively) were arrested outside the Presidential debates and held in jail until the debates were over. All while trying to serve a legal "Order to Appear" document.
They were trying to use a court order as an excuse to disrupt a debate. Wow how classy.
I think there's more to the story you're purposefully forgetting. I guess if I gave a **** about anything the green party has to say on any issue I would look further into it.They were two Presidential candidates on all 50 State ballots who obtained legal order to appear at the debates and were arrested and held until the debates were over.
Is there something wrong with that? How classy indeed to ARREST POLITICAL CANDIDATES AT A DEBATE, and to hold them until the debate is over. Do you seriously not see issue with any of this?
I think there's more to the story you're purposefully forgetting.
....implying I knew about it in the first place.No, there really isn't. There's A LOT of the story YOU'RE forgetting;...
If they had a right to be there they would have been let in. Obviously something was amis.In America, land of the free, blah blah etc etc from the top of my soap box...
....implying I knew about it in the first place.
If they had a right to be there they would have been let in. Obviously something was amis.
Who cares about the green party anyway? How about we defend someone relevant?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?