WHY ARE MINORITY PARTIES EXCLUDED FROM PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

[bilby]

What purpose would be served to anyone, including Nader, by having him there in another room?

That question makes no sense in a free country.

Let me know if anyone sets one up.

It makes a lot of sense in the USA.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That question makes no sense in a free country.

Let me know if anyone sets one up.

It makes a lot of sense in the USA.

I will agree with that.

 

[untermensche]

You are the one defending throwing somebody out illegally.

You are the one that thinks presidential candidates need some kind of special dispensation to merely watch the debates.

In another room.

You are on the side of petty tyranny here.

You don't get to say that in a free country.

Yes you fucking do.

What do you don't get to do is question the motives of people with tickets who want to enter the site their ticket is good for.

 

[bilby]

You don't get to say that in a free country.

Yes you fucking do.

Spoken like a true petty tyrant.

What do you don't get to do is question the motives of people with tickets who want to enter the site their ticket is good for.

Ahhh. So it's a free country as long as people only do what you want them to do. Gotcha.

You REALLY need to try to find out what the word 'free' means. Let me know if you do, and perhaps we can actually have a non-crazy discussion.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yes you fucking do.

Spoken like a true petty tyrant.

What do you don't get to do is question the motives of people with tickets who want to enter the site their ticket is good for.

Ahhh. So it's a free country as long as people only do what you want them to do. Gotcha.

You REALLY need to try to find out what the word 'free' means. Let me know if you do, and perhaps we can actually have a non-crazy discussion.

Freedom of speech implies freedom of speech for all the parties fielding candidates on a national level. Censorship of other views no matter how this is done does not constitute freedom of speech for all.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yes you fucking do.

Spoken like a true petty tyrant.

What do you don't get to do is question the motives of people with tickets who want to enter the site their ticket is good for.

Ahhh. So it's a free country as long as people only do what you want them to do. Gotcha.

You REALLY need to try to find out what the word 'free' means. Let me know if you do, and perhaps we can actually have a non-crazy discussion.

Freedom of speech implies freedom of speech for all the parties fielding candidates on a national level. Censorship of other views no matter how this is done does not constitute freedom of speech for all.

 

[untermensche]

Yes you fucking do.

Spoken like a true petty tyrant.

By saying all people that pose absolutely no risk with a valid ticket should be permitted to enter? As a court later ruled.

Were you born yesterday? There seems so much you don't know.

What do you don't get to do is question the motives of people with tickets who want to enter the site their ticket is good for.

Ahhh. So it's a free country as long as people only do what you want them to do. Gotcha.

You REALLY need to try to find out what the word 'free' means. Let me know if you do, and perhaps we can actually have a non-crazy discussion.

This has nothing to do with what I want. To even think that displays incredible ignorance.

This is about what ALL PEOPLE should be permitted to do in a free country.

You are on the side of petty tyrants in this.

Despicable!!!!

 

[bilby]

Spoken like a true petty tyrant.

By saying all people that pose absolutely no risk with a valid ticket should be permitted to enter? As a court later ruled.

Were you born yesterday? There seems so much you don't know.

What do you don't get to do is question the motives of people with tickets who want to enter the site their ticket is good for.

Ahhh. So it's a free country as long as people only do what you want them to do. Gotcha.

You REALLY need to try to find out what the word 'free' means. Let me know if you do, and perhaps we can actually have a non-crazy discussion.

This has nothing to do with what I want. To even think that displays incredible ignorance.

This is about what ALL PEOPLE should be permitted to do in a free country.

You are on the side of petty tyrants in this.

Despicable!!!!

Are you Daffy Duck in disguise?

 

[Sarpedon]

Freedom of speech implies freedom of speech for all the parties fielding candidates on a national level. Censorship of other views no matter how this is done does not constitute freedom of speech for all.

There is no censorship. No one is interested in hearing from these morons, so no one will pay to air or see their stupid views. They have exactly the same rights as other parties do to organize, buy and air ad time, organize debates and conventions, and appear on the ballots. The fact that they don't do these things as well as the big parties is their own problem.

I love listening to the libertarians whine about how they need help from the government to overcome problems that they are unequal to.

Here's Johnson getting some media attention and demonstrating why no one think's its worthwhile to give him more.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvULsrjLdI4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[whichphilosophy]

Freedom of speech implies freedom of speech for all the parties fielding candidates on a national level. Censorship of other views no matter how this is done does not constitute freedom of speech for all.

There is no censorship. No one is interested in hearing from these morons, so no one will pay to air or see their stupid views. They have exactly the same rights as other parties do to organize, buy and air ad time, organize debates and conventions, and appear on the ballots. The fact that they don't do these things as well as the big parties is their own problem.

I love listening to the libertarians whine about how they need help from the government to overcome problems that they are unequal to.

Here's Johnson getting some media attention and demonstrating why no one think's its worthwhile to give him more.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvULsrjLdI4[/YOUTUBE]

I would think a lot of moronic things are said at debates between the main presidential candidates. As it happens a slight shift has been occurring towards these minority groups. Why should news media sell time to political parties? In a true democracy they would devote time to political broadcasts or debates. They receive payment through advertising anyway. However, rather than wait for top dollars from parties funded by billionaires, allow the public to choose whether they watch the minority parties of switch off their sets.

The UK system of allowing minorities to broadcast on TV if they are fielding enough candidates has worked very well.

There are all kinds of excuses for censorship of political views but in such cases nearly all will be undemocratic.

 

[Sarpedon]

So the libertarians are calling for government mandated expropriation of private property for the greater good of the country at large?

(Oh, and the media doesn't get money from advertisements "anyway." Ad revenue depends on whether or not people watch the programs that the commercials are run on. If the show is boring and stupid and no one watches it, the advertisers won't pay to run their commercials during those shows.)

 

[whichphilosophy]

So the libertarians are calling for government mandated expropriation of private property for the greater good of the country at large?

(Oh, and the media doesn't get money from advertisements "anyway." Ad revenue depends on whether or not people watch the programs that the commercials are run on. If the show is boring and stupid and no one watches it, the advertisers won't pay to run their commercials during those shows.)

So democracy and free speech are determined by viewer ratings. The media in the US does get revenue from advertising anyway. Considering minority parties apart from Perot have never been included in debates there is nothing to suggest 'nobody will watch.'

 

[Sarpedon]

No, you are equating media attention with free speech. Everyone has a right to free speech. You have no right to force people to pay attention to you. Broadcasting is a business. Putting your dumb, sixth rate candidates on the air costs them money. If you can't pay to have air, then you are absolutely suggesting the government take their property by force if you want them to broadcast your stupid candidates.

The thing is, I agree with the idea that government should subsidize political speech to some extent. However, I cannot forgive the rank hypocrisy of Libertarians, and other right wing whiners, having created this big money politics by over years eroding good government practices with such notions that spending money=free speech, government intervention in anything other than national defence is entirely wrong, that companies should be completely unregulated, now have a fit when the system they carefully crafted suddenly doesn't work in their favor. It confirms my suspicion that Libertarians are unprincipled narcissists, who want rules and government only to service themselves and their privileges.

You whine about having to pay taxes to send poor people to school, but you want the government to subsidize your incompetent political party.

You made this bed, now die in it.

 

[ronburgundy]

What purpose would be served to anyone, including Nader, by having him there in another room?

That question makes no sense in a free country.

Your reply makes no sense in any country. A free country is exactly where my question makes sense. In a free country, people are allowed to have control over their private property, which includes privately funded events. In a free country, no one can or should force them to provide Nadar with such an accommodation. In a free country, the only reason he would or should be given such an accommodation is if the owners of that private event chose to because they see some purpose to having Nader present and supplying him with a room and a tv on which to watch it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That question makes no sense in a free country.

Your reply makes no sense in any country. A free country is exactly where my question makes sense. In a free country, people are allowed to have control over their private property, which includes privately funded events. In a free country, no one can or should force them to provide Nadar with such an accommodation. In a free country, the only reason he would or should be given such an accommodation is if the owners of that private event chose to because they see some purpose to having Nader present and supplying him with a room and a tv on which to watch it.

If you think your question makes sense in a free country, perhaps you should investigate the nature of what a free country is. Nader had a ticket, the government supported CPD sold him the ticket, then reneged on their agreement included in any purchase of a ticked because he would be a distraction (sic) if he is just sitting there in the audience. And in a free country the public shouldn't be exposed to too many options, right?

 

[ronburgundy]

What purpose would be served to anyone, including Nader, by having him there in another room? It is just a completely idiotic idea in the first place, so they were right to reject it.

You don't get to ask that in a free nation.

He had a ticket. A court determined his rights were violated.

What more do you need to condemn the petty tyranny?

A free country is exactly where you get to ask it. Only in the fascist state you desire are people not allowed to have and control their own private property, and the state can force people to use their property against their own interests. Plus, you are goal-post moving. You attacked them for not providing Nader with a private room to watch the debate, and I questioned what purpose that would serve? Now you are talking about him not being allowed in the audience.
As to whether they had the right to deny him entry, the ticket was non-transferable and thus not legit. They had every right to deny him access. Where are you getting you claim that the courts ruled in his favor? Everything I can find indicates that Nader's and all similar lawsuits have failed, as they should in any free country where a wannabe-tyrant like Nader cannot use the stormtroopers of government to force his way into private property.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's why I didn't write that you don't get to ask that, but instead asked that your question made no sense.

In a free country, at a government-supported public event, with a lawfully purchased ticked, it makes no sense to ask what purpose there would be in honoring the agreement of the ticket.

 

[ronburgundy]

Your reply makes no sense in any country. A free country is exactly where my question makes sense. In a free country, people are allowed to have control over their private property, which includes privately funded events. In a free country, no one can or should force them to provide Nader with such an accommodation. In a free country, the only reason he would or should be given such an accommodation is if the owners of that private event chose to because they see some purpose to having Nader present and supplying him with a room and a tv on which to watch it.

If you think your question makes sense in a free country, perhaps you should investigate the nature of what a free country is. Nader had a ticket, the government supported CPD sold him the ticket, then reneged on their agreement included in any purchase of a ticked because he would be a distraction (sic) if he is just sitting there in the audience.

The CPD did not sell him a ticket and never agreed to allow him entry. He obtained a non-transferable ticket from a third party. He had no right to enter, and only in a fascist state would the CPD be forced by government to allow him to enter.

And in a free country the public shouldn't be exposed to too many options, right?

They did not prevent him from getting exposure. They merely refused to pay for and provide their private property for him to use to give himself exposure. In a free country people are free to decide who they do and do not let use their property, especially when a person is seeking to use it to harm the property owner.
It is you who has no concept of freedom and equate it with the stormtroopers of government taking away people's private property and giving it to anyone that want to use it. Your definition of freedom is the same as that of Christian theocrats who get upset that their "rights" to use government to force religion on people is being violated.

The issue has nothing to do with free speech, a right which was in no way infringed. It is about Nader's attempt to violate other people's property rights.

As I previously argued, if society wants exposure to more options, they are free to publicly fund debates with fewer restrictions. And I agree that could be beneficial to the political discourse. They just are not free to destroy other people's freedom to pay for and create and control the parameters of their own political discussions, which is what Nader has sought to do.

 

[ronburgundy]

That's why I didn't write that you don't get to ask that, but instead asked that your question made no sense.

In a free country, at a government-supported public event, with a lawfully purchased ticked, it makes no sense to ask what purpose there would be in honoring the agreement of the ticket.

It was not a government-supported public event. It was a privately funded private event. All kinds of private events are held on University campuses. The event holders pay for use of the facilities, and thus they are legally similar to the event being a private club.
And Nader did not have a lawfully purchased ticket but a non-transferable ticket given free to UofM students invalidated by violating the CPD stated rules that specified the tickets were non-transferable and only for UofM students, such as these standard rules for last weeks debate at UNLV.

[P]
There are no tickets available for the general public, faculty, alumni, or parents. Only current UNLV students are eligible to enter the UNLV Presidential Debate Student Ticket Lottery. In order to be eligible to win a ticket, students must meet the following criteria:

Be enrolled full time (12 credits for undergraduates and 6 credits for graduate students).
Be in good academic standing: minimum of 2.0 GPA for undergraduates and 3.0 for graduate students.
Must not have any pending/outstanding student conduct violations or disciplinary action.
When entering the lottery, students must consent to the following conditions:

By applying to participate in the UNLV Presidential Debate Student Ticket Lottery, if I am selected to receive a ticket, I agree to attend the October 19, 2016 Presidential Debate.
By applying to participate in the UNLV Presidential Debate Student Ticket Lottery, I understand and consent to having my academic standing and student conduct status checked and verified by the University.
By applying to participate in the UNLV Presidential Debate Student Ticket Lottery, if I am selected as a winner, I agree to follow all rules laid out by the debate’s moderator and the CPD. The rules of audience conduct during the debate include being silent during the entire debate, not leaving the debate hall, and submitting to a security screening. Time taken up with audience reaction during a debate is time taken away from the debate participants and their views.
By applying to participate in the UNLV Presidential Debate Student Ticket Lottery, I understand and agree: tickets are non-transferable and cannot be sold.

[/P]

 

[whichphilosophy]

No, you are equating media attention with free speech. Everyone has a right to free speech. You have no right to force people to pay attention to you. Broadcasting is a business. Putting your dumb, sixth rate candidates on the air costs them money. If you can't pay to have air, then you are absolutely suggesting the government take their property by force if you want them to broadcast your stupid candidates.

The thing is, I agree with the idea that government should subsidize political speech to some extent. However, I cannot forgive the rank hypocrisy of Libertarians, and other right wing whiners, having created this big money politics by over years eroding good government practices with such notions that spending money=free speech, government intervention in anything other than national defence is entirely wrong, that companies should be completely unregulated, now have a fit when the system they carefully crafted suddenly doesn't work in their favor. It confirms my suspicion that Libertarians are unprincipled narcissists, who want rules and government only to service themselves and their privileges.

You whine about having to pay taxes to send poor people to school, but you want the government to subsidize your incompetent political party.

You made this bed, now die in it.

In the UK, party that chooses to field candidates in a certain number of seats is allowed broadcast time. This costs the parties nothing as it is free of charge. These are usually in short 5 minute slots. This also exists in Canada, Japan, Singapore the Republic of Ireland and Brazil.

However in the UK under the Communications Act 2003, political parties are banned from advertising on TV but instead can make short broadcasts.

This has nothing to do with assumptions that poor people go to school at the tax payers expense. In fact all children rich and poor can go to a state school free of charge if they choose to because the right and left accept education as a basic right.
Likewise free healthcare is still available to the very poor and low cost to the public.

A popular program called Question Time has discussions once a week, hence the parties can challenge each other there. The discussions and clashes focus on issues rather than attacking each other.

We don't give a bugger as to the importance of minority views are are because in a democracy the less popular and minority voices rights to challenge convention are respected.