Popcorn In the Fall

[Annie]

:cof: Debates sceduales, not likely to include Nader. :

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&e=7&u=/nm/20040617/us_nm/campaign_debates_dc

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by Kathianne
:cof: Debates sceduales, not likely to include Nader. :

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&e=7&u=/nm/20040617/us_nm/campaign_debates_dc

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?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
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?

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.

 

[DKSuddeth]

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.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by Kathianne
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.

God, I hope not.

Good point and agreed on a couple candidates.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
God, I hope not.

Good point and agreed on a couple candidates.

: 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.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by Kathianne
: Knew the kiss would scare you.

Also in all likelihood, Communist and Green.

Price we pay for democracy I think.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
Price we pay for democracy I think.

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.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Kathianne
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.

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

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Kathianne
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.

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

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
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.

I seek a one party system, which will spread individual rights and free markets around the globe and kill anyone opposed to that. Don't be afraid dk. Come to the light.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I seek a one party system, which will spread individual rights and free markets around the globe and kill anyone opposed to that. Don't be afraid dk. Come to the light.

you're not my fatherrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you're not my fatherrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rotflmao: