Badnirak & Cobb Arrested at Presidential Debate

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Monergist, Oct 12, 2004.

  1. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    NEWS ARTICLE LINK

    Should the "Third Party" candidates be allowed to participate in the major debates? Why, or why not?
     
  2. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    If they have ballot access in enough statest to win the electoral vote, then they should be allowed to participate. Why? Because, if they do, then the two major parties will have to deal with the real issues, and explain to the nation why they are ignoring the US Constitution and destroying our Constitutional Republic.
     
  3. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "debates" are funded with tax money. These men are on the ballot. The ones who should be arrested are the people who run the "debates", who are stealing from the people by only allowing their favored parties to participate.
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    What are the "Big Two" afraid of?
     
  5. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The "big Two" are afraid of the truth, that must be why they seldom speak it.
     
  6. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMHO...

    If either had been a viable electable candidate instead of a 'mere' distraction they would have been a part of the debate...

    I do agree, however, that the debates are 'closed' and should have included questions these people wanted answers to...

    Pre-screening and weaning out 'difficult' questions defeats a major part of the whole reason for even having a debate...
     
  7. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the sponsors of the debates are going to have the power to decide who is a "viable candidate", why not just call off the elections and let them appoint the president?
     
  8. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it's fear. I think it's power. The "big boys" who control the two major parties have developed avenues to bypass the democratic process, to their benefit. Control of the debates is one of them.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Viable candidacy is rightly determined by who shows up in teh polls. Someone who polls at a very low number (less than 15% or so, IMO) is not a viable candidate. The tax payers should not be giving free advertising and face time to a person who cannot drum up the support for a serious candidacy. The third party debate last weekend was a clear testimony to teh validity of the current system. Those guys have no support for a reason. A near election debate is not the place to try to build a candidacy. You have four years until 2008. Start now and build your candidacy. And if by Oct of 2008 you can get a fairly low level of support, then you should be included. I think I might do that starting now.
     
  10. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Candidacy is determined by the process of getting on the ballot. It is not easy, and there is a set process in each state.

    Once a candidate is on the ballot, nobody but the voters has a right to judge who is viable, and the voters will judge that on election day, and not a minute sooner.

    Other methods place money and control of raw political power above the will of the people at the ballot.
     
  11. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    You show how little you know about the current election system. A candidate can not show 15% in polls that they are not included in.

    The taxpayers should not be giving free advertising to any candidate! Peroutka and the Constitution Party refused any federal funding! Both Bush and Kerry recieved well over $75 million in us taxpayer funds to pay for their campaigns.

    If you think the debates with the two major parties are the best form of debates, with both candidates promising how they will ignore the US Constitution and who will give the most to the American people, then you have a bad understanding of the purpose of government.

    According to the current two party stronghold election and ballot access laws, the third-parties can't start working on their 2008 presidential campaigns untill 2008. There are timeframes for signature gathering, and limits on the ammount of money individuals are allowed to give to the candidates and the parties.

    I will be working toward 2006 and 2008, but I can't just compromise my vote in November, because some people ignorantly say that Peroutka is not "viable".
     
  12. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you sure? That doesn't seem right.
     
  13. Jeff Weaver

    Jeff Weaver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    2,056
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you sure? That doesn't seem right. </font>[/QUOTE]You are probably right. I thought that I remembered that it was funded by the FEC, but Jeff Weaver's source, and a few others that I checked indicate otherwise. Sorry for the bad info.
     
  15. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the other hand, exactly what do you mean by "funded"? The government pays for the roads that lead up to the building where the debates are held. I love the truth, and you have a history of lying...

    Just kidding. :D
     

Share This Page

Loading...