WHY ARE MINORITY PARTIES EXCLUDED FROM PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm not comparing them as politicians or human beings, but comparing the banal and vapid assertion by their supporters that their opponents' actions towards them were driven by fear and not by derision and contempt.

Also, have you ever read Eon by Greg Bear? There's a group of people from the future who come back in time and one of the major political groups amongst them is called the Naderites because they see Nader as a prophet who correctly predicted a lot of the ad things which happened to humanity and following his teachings after various devastations helped save the species.

I see.

You are not saying Nader and Palin are the same thing.

But their supporters are.

Sorry. I misread the exact ignorance you were spewing.

No, I'm not saying that at all and you shouldn't accuse other people of ignorance if you yourself lack the ability to understand basic sentences. I'm saying that a single argument is being shared by their supporters and both groups of supporters are wrong about that one argument for the same reason. I did not reference anything else about either group.

If you want to read additional things into the statement which aren't there, that's between you and Satan, but your difficulties in comprehension are your problem and not somebody else's problem.

 

[arkirk]

Why are minority parties being excluded from Presidential debates.

If they are standing nationwide, or covering a sufficient number of states then this should be permissible.

Discuss

Johnson and Stein offer nothing to the equation. Their parties are unrepresented in Congress and their plans are even less likely to work than Trump's or Clinton's.

I think the Presidential Debate Commission (or whatever it is called) should have a rule that says if your party has at least 5 members in Congress, you automatically get into the Presidential debate.

This graph shows that 43% of the people belong to NEITHER of the duopoly parties and that in fact the duopoly parties are both minority parties. Odd how a couple of minority parties can write all our laws, control all of the debates, dictate conditions to those not in these parties. The system is broken. When you get to choose between a crotch grabbing racist and a crooked pay to play politician, you really cannot expect good government. This needs to be fixed. When the League of Woman Voters ran the debates they had wider spectrum of debaters. Now the debates have been privatized. Why don't the just privatize the elections themselves?
Bilby believes apparently that the ability to accumulate money amounts to political virtue. How misguided!

 

[Bomb#20]

...The direct reason minority parties are being excluded is because we have competing privately owned TV networks and a First Amendment that stops the government from compelling those networks to comply with anybody's philosophical notion of who should and shouldn't be excluded...

The networks do not decide.

That's what I said. If one tried to decide differently from what the candidates want the candidates would simply take their business elsewhere. The networks face the same problem with the candidates that non-unionized employees face with management in a natural monopoly industry, and they come to the same solution: knuckling under.

The 2 major parties do.

In the primaries, yes, probably. But in the general election, why do you believe that?

Let's imagine the two major parties for some reason decided it was in their best interests to let Johnson and Stein into the debates, and they told the networks and the candidates that was how it was going to be. How do you figure they would make it happen? Imagine the Democrats tell Clinton to go debate the other three candidates. The Republicans tell Trump to go debate the other three candidates. Clinton and Trump, for their own respective reasons, refuse.

What do you think happens then? Do you think the parties say "We insist." and Clinton and Trump say "Oh, well, okay then."?!?

What happens then is that either Trump or Clinton invites all the networks that the two parties didn't pick for their four-way event to host a separate 1-on-1 event. Those networks, having been asked to jump, all say "How high?" Whichever network comes up with a formula Clinton and Trump can both live with gets the deal and makes all the arrangements. Then Trump and Clinton go there for their joint appearance. And the two parties just fume impotently.

Of course this is a hypothetical. Of course the actual parties don't want Stein and Johnson included any more than their candidates do. But don't let that confuse you as to whether it's the party or the candidate who's in a position to get to make the decision.

 

[untermensche]

The networks do not decide.

The 2 major parties do.

In the primaries, yes, probably. But in the general election, why do you believe that?

Because the presidential debates are just a show the networks buy.

A show owned by the two major parties.

And they, like the petty dictators they are, make ALL the rules.

That is why they were able to throw Nader out.

 

[blastula]

As if if the Green Party were one of the two major parties, they would behave any differently about the debates.

 

[untermensche]

I see.

You are not saying Nader and Palin are the same thing.

But their supporters are.

Sorry. I misread the exact ignorance you were spewing.

No, I'm not saying that at all and you shouldn't accuse other people of ignorance if you yourself lack the ability to understand basic sentences. I'm saying that a single argument is being shared by their supporters and both groups of supporters are wrong about that one argument for the same reason. I did not reference anything else about either group.

If you want to read additional things into the statement which aren't there, that's between you and Satan, but your difficulties in comprehension are your problem and not somebody else's problem.

Nader had superior ideas.

Palin babbled nonsense.

The major parties feared Nader, and laughed at Palin.

The major parties prevented Nader from even watching. They couldn't face their hypocrisy and fear.

And they don't give two shits what Palin does.

- - - Updated - - -

As if if the Green Party were one of the two major parties, they would behave any differently about the debates.

Yes.

All things are the same.

And nothing ever changes.

How astute.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No, I'm not saying that at all and you shouldn't accuse other people of ignorance if you yourself lack the ability to understand basic sentences. I'm saying that a single argument is being shared by their supporters and both groups of supporters are wrong about that one argument for the same reason. I did not reference anything else about either group.

If you want to read additional things into the statement which aren't there, that's between you and Satan, but your difficulties in comprehension are your problem and not somebody else's problem.

Nader had superior ideas.

Palin babbled nonsense.

The major parties feared Nader, and laughed at Palin.

The major parties prevented Nader from even watching. They couldn't face their hypocrisy and fear.

And they don't give two shits what Palin does.

- - - Updated - - -

As if if the Green Party were one of the two major parties, they would behave any differently about the debates.

Yes.

All things are the same.

And nothing ever changes.

How astute.

Are you kidding me! Negative. The republicans fully supported Nader and contributed greatly to his campaign. He never would have survived without republican support.

 

[untermensche]

Are you kidding me! Negative. The republicans fully supported Nader and contributed greatly to his campaign. He never would have survived without republican support.

They may have wanted Nader to have advertising dollars.

But they feared having to withstand his questions and ideas at an open debate.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Are you kidding me! Negative. The republicans fully supported Nader and contributed greatly to his campaign. He never would have survived without republican support.

They may have wanted Nader to have advertising dollars.

But they feared having to withstand his questions and ideas at an open debate.

Negative Chief. The reps always knew that the far left would bend, but not the far right. The republicans control our government even though they are a minority party. Nader was never more than a republican tool.

 

[untermensche]

They may have wanted Nader to have advertising dollars.

But they feared having to withstand his questions and ideas at an open debate.

Negative Chief. The reps always knew that the far left would bend, but not the far right. The republicans control our government even though they are a minority party. Nader was never more than a republican tool.

That's a negatory peewee.

They knew they would completely drown out any Nader message.

But some would hear it and vote for him.

Which would most likely take a vote from Gore.

You can say they used his ideas, which were superior, to try to harm Gore, sure.

But they FEARED facing the man in a recognized debate watched by millions.

He made them shit their pants.

 

[bilby]

Johnson and Stein offer nothing to the equation. Their parties are unrepresented in Congress and their plans are even less likely to work than Trump's or Clinton's.

I think the Presidential Debate Commission (or whatever it is called) should have a rule that says if your party has at least 5 members in Congress, you automatically get into the Presidential debate.

View attachment 8483

This graph shows that 43% of the people belong to NEITHER of the duopoly parties and that in fact the duopoly parties are both minority parties. Odd how a couple of minority parties can write all our laws, control all of the debates, dictate conditions to those not in these parties. The system is broken. When you get to choose between a crotch grabbing racist and a crooked pay to play politician, you really cannot expect good government. This needs to be fixed. When the League of Woman Voters ran the debates they had wider spectrum of debaters. Now the debates have been privatized. Why don't the just privatize the elections themselves?
Bilby believes apparently that the ability to accumulate money amounts to political virtue. How misguided!

Please quote me saying that or withdraw it. I believe nothing of the kind.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Bah, in our media saturated country, they should be able to get all the coverage they want, if only people were interested in hearing them. There is no shortage of outlets and networks are very interested in finding content...if it will draw viewership.

The fact is that the minor parties tend to be sub-par. A talented libertarian would do better as a libertarian/Republican rather than as a libertarian.

Interesting idea, libertarians running under the Republican or Democrat banner, whichever is dominant in their district or whenever there is an opening.

By the way, I added an equally valid option that you unintentionally left out.

 

[bilby]

Interesting idea, libertarians running under the Republican or Democrat banner, whichever is dominant in their district or whenever there is an opening.

That seems to be the methodology used by the Australian Christian Lobby to gain a degree of representation in Australia that FAR outweighs their actual support in the community.

It's a great idea, if you are an extremist. Not so good for the rest of us though.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As if if the Green Party were one of the two major parties, they would behave any differently about the debates.

In Europe the parties at National level when allowed to present their case do not act 'differently' as free speech for all involved at that level is more recognized. They have proportional representation. Often coalitions are formed in such places as Italy, Germany and other countries. The UK does not have proportional representation which is sometimes some have been campaigning before. This is a flaw in the English system though it allows broadcasting to all nationwide parties.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What is Aleppo? (Gary Johnson)

If one of the top two candidates doesn't know an answer, that one simply makes stuff up. If the other doesn't know, the other simply lies.

Johnson's willingness to admit he isn't omniscient sure makes him a horrible candidate.

- - - Updated - - -

The presidential debates are completely owned by the two major parties.

No other information is necessary.

It is the tyranny of absolute control.

They would not even allow Ralph Nader to watch the debates in another room. He even had a ticket but was not allowed in by the "owners" of the debates.

They feared his mere presence.

Sure they did.

Just like my primary school teacher feared my mere presence when she threw me out of class.

She said I was being disruptive and pointlessly distracting the other students. But I can tell she was scared.

Simply being in the audience saying nothing and doing nothing is as distracting as an elementary school student being deliberately disruptive? I think you just proved unter's point.

 

[Terrell]

If one of the top two candidates doesn't know an answer, that one simply makes stuff up. If the other doesn't know, the other simply lies.

Johnson's willingness to admit he isn't omniscient sure makes him a horrible candidate.

That was refreshing to see him admit that, but I do think that it hurt him. I'd even admit that was a bit of a "gotcha" since they said Aleppo as opposed to saying Syrian refugee crisis.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If you're running for President you need to know about Syria and not be an ignorant redneck.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If you're running for President you need to know about Syria and not be an ignorant redneck.

The Americans have yet to elect a president who knows or understands anything about Syria, hence the current mucking fuddle.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're running for President you need to know about Syria and not be an ignorant redneck.

The Americans have yet to elect a president who knows or understands anything about Syria, hence the current mucking fuddle that has followed others.

 

[bilby]

If one of the top two candidates doesn't know an answer, that one simply makes stuff up. If the other doesn't know, the other simply lies.

Johnson's willingness to admit he isn't omniscient sure makes him a horrible candidate.

- - - Updated - - -

The presidential debates are completely owned by the two major parties.

No other information is necessary.

It is the tyranny of absolute control.

They would not even allow Ralph Nader to watch the debates in another room. He even had a ticket but was not allowed in by the "owners" of the debates.

They feared his mere presence.

Sure they did.

Just like my primary school teacher feared my mere presence when she threw me out of class.

She said I was being disruptive and pointlessly distracting the other students. But I can tell she was scared.

Simply being in the audience saying nothing and doing nothing is as distracting as an elementary school student being deliberately disruptive? I think you just proved unter's point.

Your presumption that, had he been admitted as an audience member, he would have said nothing and done nothing is unfounded.

They expected him to be disruptive, and excercised their right to deny him access.

If his plan was to say and do nothing, then his exclusion did him no harm - he could equally well say and do nothing in front of the TV in his hotel room.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If one of the top two candidates doesn't know an answer, that one simply makes stuff up. If the other doesn't know, the other simply lies.

Johnson's willingness to admit he isn't omniscient sure makes him a horrible candidate.

- - - Updated - - -

The presidential debates are completely owned by the two major parties.

No other information is necessary.

It is the tyranny of absolute control.

They would not even allow Ralph Nader to watch the debates in another room. He even had a ticket but was not allowed in by the "owners" of the debates.

They feared his mere presence.

Sure they did.

Just like my primary school teacher feared my mere presence when she threw me out of class.

She said I was being disruptive and pointlessly distracting the other students. But I can tell she was scared.

Simply being in the audience saying nothing and doing nothing is as distracting as an elementary school student being deliberately disruptive? I think you just proved unter's point.

Your presumption that, had he been admitted as an audience member, he would have said nothing and done nothing is unfounded.

They expected him to be disruptive, and excercised their right to deny him access.

If his plan was to say and do nothing, then his exclusion did him no harm - he could equally well say and do nothing in front of the TV in his hotel room.

How did they 'expect' him to be disruptive; was this through telepathy. Sounds like suppression of free speech disguised as keeping order.

- - - Updated - - -

If one of the top two candidates doesn't know an answer, that one simply makes stuff up. If the other doesn't know, the other simply lies.

Johnson's willingness to admit he isn't omniscient sure makes him a horrible candidate.

- - - Updated - - -

The presidential debates are completely owned by the two major parties.

No other information is necessary.

It is the tyranny of absolute control.

They would not even allow Ralph Nader to watch the debates in another room. He even had a ticket but was not allowed in by the "owners" of the debates.

They feared his mere presence.

Sure they did.

Just like my primary school teacher feared my mere presence when she threw me out of class.

She said I was being disruptive and pointlessly distracting the other students. But I can tell she was scared.

Simply being in the audience saying nothing and doing nothing is as distracting as an elementary school student being deliberately disruptive? I think you just proved unter's point.

Your presumption that, had he been admitted as an audience member, he would have said nothing and done nothing is unfounded.

They expected him to be disruptive, and excercised their right to deny him access.

If his plan was to say and do nothing, then his exclusion did him no harm - he could equally well say and do nothing in front of the TV in his hotel room.

How did they 'expect' him to be disruptive; was this through telepathy. Sounds like suppression of free speech disguised as keeping order.