Cornell to host Third Party Presidential Debate

If he were included in the debates, this would not be the case. The powers in the media and politics don't like him because he takes a Christian stand. So, they shut him out, and people like you go along with it.

I know it's a waste of time to discuss with you, Larry, so this is for others who might be interested.

 

If he had a serious campaign he would have been included in the debates. People who are electable are included in the debates. The last third party candidate that met that criteria was Ross Perot. Listen, I would have loved to have Peroutka in the debates. I would have liked to have heard what he had to say. But he does not have the support. If you let every third party candidate in, how can you have a debate? It becomes a circus. You have people running just to get on TV. That would be absurd. That is why there is a standard.

HOw do you know that is why they shut him out? They also shut out Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader. Was that for their Christian stand? Or do you think there might be another reason?

I didn't go along with it. In fact, no one even asked me.

Actually, it is not a waste of time at all if you actually want to discuss issues. If all you want to do it take cheap shots at people who disagree with you, then it is waste of time. I wish you would actually discuss more issues civilly without resorting to personal attacks. I enjoy those kinds of discussions.

 

True to be sure ... but that is begging the question. What is the right decision? I believe the right decision is to do what we can in this election to keep us in the best possible spot for the future. And that is by electing the best electable candidate.

Adams knew better. It does take a majority to prevail. OFtentimes, that majority springs from an irate, tireless minority, but the only place a minority wins is in the courts. In the elections, it takes a majority. I would be curious to see the full quote here to see what Adams was actually talking about.

 

There is no "right" to debate. If they weren't there, tough. I watched the Third party debate. The people there weren't running to do the bidding of the American people. They were running to do their own bidding. Thats why they're off the radar screen.

 

When I go to the polls, there will be several names on the ballot for president. Not hundreds, not dozens, but I think about five. THEY ARE THE CHOICES, put on the ballot by legal process. I should have had a chance to hear all of them in a debate or at least, as has been pointed out, those who are on enough state ballots to win the election.

Any debate process that only includes the candidates of the parties that control the debates is a disgrace. What is this, the Soviet Union?

 

Not to bust your bubble but that is a large part of the function of the government.

 

It might get down to semantics on this one, even without PL in the discussion.

But, I'm curious as to why you, Ballfan, would perceive that the third party guys are out for themselves, but Bush and Kerry are selflessly working for the average American?

 

I don't think the founding fathers had myopic vision at all.

 

Because I watched the third party candidates and saw how limited in scope they were in general.

 

For example?

 

It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

 

Do you agree with my last post?

 

Thats where its from, #41.

"it may inflame the passions of the unthinking and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment."

They're not argueing that the government shouldn't have powers other that those specifically mentions but that certain other powers are needed for the general welfare of the public. To be sure there are warnings to be on caution against perversions of power but also the recognition that application of power cannot be perfect but that the greater good and lesser evil must be considered. Thats where your arguement of strictly limiting the power of the federal government fails because you refuse to consider the greater good or the lesser evil. Your application would stifle all progress. The founding fathers did not intend that.