Badnirak & Cobb Arrested at Presidential Debate

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.

 

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.

 

What are the "Big Two" afraid of?

 

The "big Two" are afraid of the truth, that must be why they seldom speak it.

 

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...

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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".

 

Are you sure? That doesn't seem right.

 

Apparently corporate sponsors donate the bulk of the funding for the Commission on Presidential Debates. Article on funding of Commission on Presidential Debates

 

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.

 

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.