should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the Pres

haymarket · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Montecresto said:
That's the whole point. Third party candidates are deliberately marginalized by the establishment, Americans don't get to hear and see them. That's the reason for a need to change the rules, get these people in the open, let Americans actually hear them.

Third parties have a much bigger problem than that. It called themselves. Consider that last year a Pew Research survey claimed that 11% of Americans identified themselves as being of libertarian persuasion. That is one out of nine Americans IF that number is correct. So at election item what happens? Those so called self identified libertarians go to the polls and 90% of them vote for somebody other than the LIBERTARIAN PARTY - most of them voting Republican.

Deal with that before you start getting on horseback and tilting at windmills you pretend are monsters.

CanadaJohn · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Thrilla said:
well, i think it all needs to start with ballot access laws.
there is a balance to strike here, of course, i mean, it shouldn't be a matter of just "sign up and you're in"... but it also shouldn't be insurmountable to gain access either.

I think if a party makes it on the ballot in the majority of states, it should automatically be allowed in the debates.... there should be no further thresholds to overcome.
there's no good reason why a party can be on the ballot in the majority of states, but not be allowed to debate.. not one.

as for filtering out the outliers and extremes, well, that's where the "majority of states" thing comes in... if you can gain access in 26 states, you're probably not some wacko party.

we have independents elected in Congress.. Bernie Sanders is a notable one..... and the independent party, or even independent candidates, is still not allowed to debate if they don't exceed the thresholds put in place by the CPD (polling above 15%.. nationally)
the Commission on Presidential Debates is not a government organization.. it's a private non-profit set up and entirely controlled by the RNC and DNC.. and they hold a monopoly on "official" presidential debates.
3rd parties can set up their own debates, but as we have seen,but the mainstream media will not cover it whatsoever.... few people even know there was even a 3rd party debate that actually happened .... I suspect collusion between the major media outlets and the CPD, but that's just a theory, as far as i know

so yeah, having people elected and in office doesn't mean anything when it comes to debates... it's entirely irrelevant in our corrupted system.

I appreciate what you're saying but I don't think Bernie Sanders is a good example - he's elected as independent but he doesn't represent a known independent party, does he? Is he financed by such a party? Libermann was the same way when he won as an independent. What I'm referring to is say the Tea Party incorporating and officially sponsoring and financing candidates for the House and/or Senate. They could probably get a few elected. At that point, I believe if they field a Presidential candidate, that candidate should be part of the debates. When I refer to independent I mean affiliated to a party but not with the two main parties.

haymarket · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Thrilla said:
that's true enough... however,in the absence of me providing you with an education, you might want to think about putting in a little work yourself.... you were allegedly an educator, you oughta know how to research by now.

I will not lift my little finger to help you do what you are responsible for doing yourself.

Thrilla · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

CanadaJohn said:
I appreciate what you're saying but I don't think Bernie Sanders is a good example - he's elected as independent but he doesn't represent a known independent party, does he? Is he financed by such a party? Libermann was the same way when he won as an independent. What I'm referring to is say the Tea Party incorporating and officially sponsoring and financing candidates for the House and/or Senate. They could probably get a few elected. At that point, I believe if they field a Presidential candidate, that candidate should be part of the debates. When I refer to independent I mean affiliated to a party but not with the two main parties.

that's a it backwards to me (requiring them to get elected first and then offering exposure)... and congresscritters have really nothing to do with Presidential races... there's no correlation in our system.

Thrilla · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
I will not lift my little finger to help you do what you are responsible for doing yourself.

I'm not responsible for your education.

haymarket · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Thrilla said:
I'm not responsible for your education.

That comment makes no sense in any way, shape or form as nobody wants you to be responsible for anything except your own claims, your own allegations and your own arguments.

If you cannot support that with evidence when challenged - its all meaningless verbage.

Thrilla · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
That comment makes no sense in any way, shape or form as nobody wants you to be responsible for anything except your own claims, your own allegations and your own arguments.

If you cannot support that with evidence when challenged - its all meaningless verbage.

you could have fully educated yourself on the issue by now...why haven't you?

Montecresto · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
Third parties have a much bigger problem than that. It called themselves. Consider that last year a Pew Research survey claimed that 11% of Americans identified themselves as being of libertarian persuasion. That is one out of nine Americans IF that number is correct. So at election item what happens? Those so called self identified libertarians go to the polls and 90% of them vote for somebody other than the LIBERTARIAN PARTY - most of them voting Republican.

Deal with that before you start getting on horseback and tilting at windmills you pretend are monsters.

You make my point. It's not in the establishments interest for third party candidates to have exposure. They are intentionally marginalized. Just for both republican and democratic candidates to skip, and therefore dismiss as irrelevant the third party debates sends the message to all r and d partisan Americans they don't need to pay attention to them. This would be why you have only 11% here and 7% over there. Let's change these rules and force the ass and the elephant into the same room with the TPC's.

haymarket · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Thrilla said:
you could have fully educated yourself on the issue by now...why haven't you?

And therein lies the folly of your false assumption.

haymarket · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Montecresto said:
You make my point. It's not in the establishments interest for third party candidates to have exposure. They are intentionally marginalized.

They marginalize themselves with their views.

Montecresto · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
They marginalize themselves with their views.

That's ridiculous. The vast majority of Americans don't know what they are. For the very reasons we've been pointing out to you. Like the establishment, you seem fearful of having anti-establishment voices in the same room with republicans and democrats.

earthworm · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

No vote , as the "none of the above option is missing .
Perhaps, the rules should be "tighter" , given the quality of the candidates...Particularly the so-called conservatives .. terrible .. panderers to scumbags ..

Thrilla · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
And therein lies the folly of your false assumption.

it's self evident you aren't educated on the matter.

haymarket · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Montecresto said:
That's ridiculous. The vast majority of Americans don't know what they are. For the very reasons we've been pointing out to you. Like the establishment, you seem fearful of having anti-establishment voices in the same room with republicans and democrats.

You underestimate the American people. They know a skull and crossbones on a medicine bottle when they see it.

haymarket · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Thrilla said:
it's self evident you aren't educated on the matter.

Another false assumption on your part.

Thrilla · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

earthworm said:
No vote , as the "none of the above option is missing .
Perhaps, the rules should be "tighter" , given the quality of the candidates...Particularly the so-called conservatives .. terrible .. panderers to scumbags ..

umm... be a bit more specific ... what rule should be "tightened"? , and what would be the outcome of tightening the rules?

Thrilla · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
Another false assumption on your part.

I'm sure you believe that..... now get back to arguing why you hate the idea of competition in politics.

Thrilla · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:
You underestimate the American people. They know a skull and crossbones on a medicine bottle when they see it.

:lol: this is nothing more than you saying " for your own good, we're not going to let you hear from people I personally hate"

authoritarians never change their stripes... :roll:

joko104 · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Montecresto said:
Clearly you miss the point. The establishment dismissal is the rub. And this needs to be changed. I want third party candidates debating the dinosaurs.

What you want is the media to artificially create support for 3rd party candidates.

Anyone can run as a major party candidate. IF that candidate has public appeal the candidate can win the primary. Instead, candidates who are niche topic and unpopular candidates declare that life and politics in unfair - and then run as 3rd party or independent candidates claiming they are being discriminated against.

What you want is a candidate who has 1% support to receive the same air time as a candidate who has 20% or 45% support; meaning you want a bias by the media for unpopular candidates. You can keep crying how unfair life and politics is, but nothing will change that an unpopular candidate is unpopular. The media will never agree to your wanting unpopular candidates being favored by the media for disproportionate air time.

joko104 · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Thrilla said:
I'm sure you believe that..... now get back to arguing why you hate the idea of competition in politics.

To the contrary, who hates competition is you. You want a media bias exactly opposite the views of the public. ANYONE can run as a candidate in ANY political party. If a candidate decides to run as a candidate of an unpopular political party they have nothing to cry about when they are treated like a candidate of an unpopular party.

YOU are who wants a media bias against the opinions of the public (their viewers) and it isn't going to happen. The media DOES how 3rd party debates - and virtually no one will watch them. It is the debate of the malcontent losers - and most people know that. YOU try to convert that to some unfairness. But the fact is that few people have interest in unpopular losers, unlike you.

joko104 · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Montecresto said:
That's ridiculous. The vast majority of Americans don't know what they are. For the very reasons we've been pointing out to you. Like the establishment, you seem fearful of having anti-establishment voices in the same room with republicans and democrats.

Maybe you want a law making it a criminal offense for people to not listen to 3rd party candidates to force people to listen to them. But you just keep harping on the word "anti-establishment" in your condemnations - which actually are condemnations of American voters who would behave they way you want them to.

Most 3rd Party candidates previously attempted to run as Democrats or Republicans - and were soundly rejected by voters. They then cry trying to blame the voters, the political parties, the media - anyone but the fact that they were rejected.

Montecresto · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

joko104 said:
Maybe you want a law making it a criminal offense for people to not listen to 3rd party candidates to force people to listen to them. But you just keep harping on the word "anti-establishment" in your condemnations - which actually are condemnations of American voters who would behave they way you want them to.

Most 3rd Party candidates previously attempted to run as Democrats or Republicans - and were soundly rejected by voters. They then cry trying to blame the voters, the political parties, the media - anyone but the fact that they were rejected.

Case in point, you. Dismissing all third party voices as pretentious and disgruntled republicans and democrats. You, and the dinosaurs you seek to protect from scrutiny are fearful of being in the same room at the sometime in prime time with TPC's, lol.

Cephus · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

earthworm said:
No vote , as the "none of the above option is missing .
Perhaps, the rules should be "tighter" , given the quality of the candidates...Particularly the so-called conservatives .. terrible .. panderers to scumbags ..

And the liberals, who are scumbags. As you say, there is no quality from any party whatsoever, we'd often be better off with no leadership at all.

Ironfist · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Ross Perot did pretty good for himself in the debates. However, his VP choice did not help him, to say the least.

joko104 · Mar 26, 2015

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Thrilla said:
well, i think it all needs to start with ballot access laws.
there is a balance to strike here, of course, i mean, it shouldn't be a matter of just "sign up and you're in"... but it also shouldn't be insurmountable to gain access either.

I think if a party makes it on the ballot in the majority of states, it should automatically be allowed in the debates.... there should be no further thresholds to overcome.
there's no good reason why a party can be on the ballot in the majority of states, but not be allowed to debate.. not one.

as for filtering out the outliers and extremes, well, that's where the "majority of states" thing comes in... if you can gain access in 26 states, you're probably not some wacko party.

we have independents elected in Congress.. Bernie Sanders is a notable one..... and the independent party, or even independent candidates, is still not allowed to debate if they don't exceed the thresholds put in place by the CPD (polling above 15%.. nationally)
the Commission on Presidential Debates is not a government organization.. it's a private non-profit set up and entirely controlled by the RNC and DNC.. and they hold a monopoly on "official" presidential debates.
3rd parties can set up their own debates, but as we have seen,but the mainstream media will not cover it whatsoever.... few people even know there was even a 3rd party debate that actually happened .... I suspect collusion between the major media outlets and the CPD, but that's just a theory, as far as i know

so yeah, having people elected and in office doesn't mean anything when it comes to debates... it's entirely irrelevant in our corrupted system.

You have anything to present that other political parties aren't corrupt and can't be corrupted?

should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the Pres

should it be made easier for more candidates in the Pres debates?

Yes

No

More options

haymarket

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative

haymarket

Thrilla

Thrilla

haymarket

Thrilla

Montecresto

haymarket

haymarket

Montecresto

earthworm

Thrilla

haymarket

haymarket

Thrilla

Thrilla

Thrilla

joko104

joko104

joko104

Montecresto

Cephus

Ironfist

joko104

should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the Pres

should it be made easier for more candidates in the Pres debates?

Yes

No

Canadian Conservative

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency