There are alternatives

[Gdjjr]

Free & Equal Elections: Third Open Presidential Debate Announced for October 24th


Ten presidential candidates have been invited. Criteria for debate inclusion requires the candidate be on the ballot in at least 8 states. The debate will use the cumulative debate format to provide a balanced and informative dialogue among the candidates.


From the comments:

It seemed to me all the candidates had similar views on military and foreign affairs as it relates to the US military. The candidates want the troops brought back home ASAP. That is also Jo’s view. There was disagreement on plans to improve healthcare, education, and economics. The Constitution Party candidate expressed free market ideas as it relates to healthcare, education, and economics. The other candidates expressed a more government activist point of view. I expressed support for tuition tax credits (I am not sure Jo’s views on this) as a way to improve education.

snip

The letter grade I give the debate is a B+. I would grade the debate higher but the questioners when giving questions made speeches. I and others commented it would be better if the questioners just ask the questions instead of making speeches. If comments must be made make them brief and ask the question to the candidates. Who lost this debate? I believe Jo lost by not participating in the debate which she should have. Also, Howie Hawkins of the Green Party wore a mask even though the candidates were social distancing. The mask did not look good and when speaking Howie Hawkins did not sound as good as the other candidates. Independent candidate Brock Pierce seemed to say what he felt the viewers wanted him to say.I and others commented he was saying what he thought we wanted him to say. Don Blankenship of the Constitution Party did a good job answering questions but there was a spark in his demeanor that was missing. He was the opposite of Gloria La Riva in that regard.

The entire comment can be read at the link

 

[initforme]

These candidates are much better choices than either the repukes or the Democrats.

 

[MarcATL]

Then you should vote for them OP.

No one is stopping you.

 

[MarathonMike]

Jo Jurgensen should not have been left out of the Presidential debates. She is on the ballot, why did the debate commission exclude her?

 

[JimBowie1958]

These candidates are much better choices than either the repukes or the Democrats.

As long as actually having a chance to win is not an important criteria,

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jo Jurgensen should not have been left out of the Presidential debates. She is on the ballot, why did the debate commission exclude her?

Because the debates were bought by a committee made up of members of the two major parties after the 1992 elections so that Third Party candidates can be excluded.

 

[Natural Citizen]

As long as actually having a chance to win is not an important criteria,

Depends on how one defines winning in the scheme/scope of things. Is just trying to hurry up and get elected winning? Given that policy doesn't much differ between the duopoly, I would contend that changing the course of history is how winning is really done. She's on the ballot in all 50 states. Other third party options are also increasing their places on the ballot. Just a few cycles ago, that was unheard of. The duopoly was able to keep them off the ballots by manipulating rules. The fact that they've managed to defeat the establishment's road blocks didn't just happen by itself. People worked toward that goal the old fashioned way pounding the pavement with their feet. And it's proven fruitful. End of the day, there are two kinds of people in this world. People who lead and people who want to be led.