Popcorn In the Fall

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Jun 18, 2004.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
  2. HGROKIT
    Offline

    HGROKIT Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Federal Way WA, USA
    Ratings:
    +19
    This should open a can of worms, but here I go.

    I think that anyone that has sufficient whatever (real politico term huh?), to get onto the ballot, should be allowed to debate. Crimeny, isn't this what it's all supposed to be about?

    Then we scratch our heads and wonder why people feel we only have a two party system. Then again, I scratch my head at allot of things. Maybe Head and Shoulders? :)
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    LOL I think tphal is going to kiss you. I hear where you are coming from, probably even agree with in theory. Problem for me is that there are serious issues to be raised and limited time. I don't want to listen to Kuchinich anymore or Sharpton.
     
  4. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    just another nail in the coffin for 3rd parties. I guess people will learn the hard way that a 2 party system is ultimately self defeating.
     
  5. HGROKIT
    Offline

    HGROKIT Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Federal Way WA, USA
    Ratings:
    +19
    God, I hope not.

    Good point and agreed on a couple candidates.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    :p: Knew the kiss would scare you.

    He's strongly for the Libertarian candidate, Bednarik. He has a good point that if a candidate is on a certain percent of state ballots, then should be able to debate. I still think that leaves it open to the Kucinich and Sharpton possibility. Also in all likelihood, Communist and Green.
     
  7. HGROKIT
    Offline

    HGROKIT Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Federal Way WA, USA
    Ratings:
    +19
    Price we pay for democracy I think.
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Could be, but I think that's why limits must be put on. We need to know the differences between those that can win. Those 3rd parties need to build their grassroots to get them to the 15% threshold.
     
  9. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    The criteria that they were trying to say i think is that if you are on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election, you should be in the debates. Sharpton and kucinich are not on any ballots and won't be on any unless some miracle happens at the democrats convention. Nader is last I heard only on AZ ballot so even he at this point would not qualify. Badnarik is on 30 states so I am guessing those particular 30 states are enough electoral votes to qualify him if that were the criteria.

    But the commision that runs the debate is a private organization so I really have no right to tell them how they should set it up. They do however pretend to be NONpartisan which I do have a right to show is completly false. They are a bipartisan commision designed to keep all but the two major parties from participating in the debates.

    Why do they want it this way? because there are many issues that the two parties are very similar on that disagree with the much of the nation. They like sharing the power despite their minor differences.

    Travis
     
  10. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    Getting on the ballot is itself a very difficult task for third parties. Many states have VERY different requirements for third parties than they do the major two. To get on the ballot requires a strong grassroots effort in a third party and requires basically no grassroots efforts for the major two parties candidates.

    Travis
     

Share This Page