WHY ARE MINORITY PARTIES EXCLUDED FROM PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you think there is no government support of the CPD, I'm not the one who is crazy.

Oh, I get it. The CPD sponsors the debates, the government sponsors the CPD, but the government doesn't sponsor the debate. Ah, 2 degrees of separation means they are separate.

 

[blastula]

Government doesn't fund the CPD.

 

[bilby]

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.

Failure to broadcast somebody's opinion is not censorship.

Not one TV station has ever broadcast my opinions, because I, like everyone else, am not entitled to free access to an expensive platform for my views.

TV stations will air the views of people they expect will attract an audience. Declaring this behaviour to be 'censorship' is nonsense.

 

[laughing dog]

If you think there is no government support of the CPD, I'm not the one who is crazy.

Oh, I get it. The CPD sponsors the debates, the government sponsors the CPD, but the government doesn't sponsor the debate. Ah, 2 degrees of separation means they are separate.

The CPD is a nonprofit organization. Do you have any evidence that receives funding from any level of government?

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Failure to broadcast somebody's opinion is not censorship.

Not one TV station has ever broadcast my opinions, because I, like everyone else, am not entitled to free access to an expensive platform for my views.

TV stations will air the views of people they expect will attract an audience. Declaring this behaviour to be 'censorship' is nonsense.

During an election, parties who field a certain number of candidates are permitted 5 minutes broadcasting time free of charge. Such broadcasts occur between programs.

If you set your own party up and a lot of candidates stood you could make such broadcasts.

One man and his dog standing for election in one seat will not qualify for broadcasting time on national media.

 

[untermensche]

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.

You don't get to ask people with tickets to events what the purpose of their presence is.

Allowing people to attend events when they have a ticket is freedom.

Selectively throwing individuals you don't like out is not.

And this was not an issue of controlling private property from intruders.

It was an issue of not allowing a person with a valid ticket entry for no valid reason.

And Nader won this in court.

You are arguing for law breaking by the two parties.

And don't even know it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you think there is no government support of the CPD, I'm not the one who is crazy.

Oh, I get it. The CPD sponsors the debates, the government sponsors the CPD, but the government doesn't sponsor the debate. Ah, 2 degrees of separation means they are separate.

The CPD is a nonprofit organization. Do you have any evidence that receives funding from any level of government?

Look at the bolded part of what you wrote. Think about it. Ponder it. See if it means anything important.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

You don't get to ask people with tickets to events what the purpose of their presence is.

Allowing people to attend events when they have a ticket is freedom.

Selectively throwing individuals you don't like out is not.

And this was not an issue of controlling private property from intruders.

It was an issue of not allowing a person with a valid ticket entry for no valid reason.

And Nader won this in court.

You are arguing for law breaking by the two parties.

And don't even know it.

Getting people to understand what democracy actually is, tends to be rather like teaching sex to a virgin. Yet the US governments are happy to destroy whole countries in the name of introducing democracy.

 

[laughing dog]

The CPD is a nonprofit organization. Do you have any evidence that receives funding from any level of government?

Look at the bolded part of what you wrote. Think about it. Ponder it. See if it means anything important.

A simple "No" or "Yes" would have answered my question. Please produce the actual evidence that the CPD receives funding from any level of government to support your claim.

 

[blastula]

That it's tax exempt doesn't mean it's government operated nor does it mean it can't decide who attends their events.

 

[untermensche]

That it's tax exempt doesn't mean it's government operated nor does it mean it can't decide who attends their events.

Owning some property does not give anybody the right to discriminate with it.

You own a restaurant you have to serve black people as well as white.

You have an event you have to let in all ticket holders, not just the people you approve based on political ideology.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That it's tax exempt doesn't mean it's government operated nor does it mean it can't decide who attends their events.

Owning some property does not give anybody the right to discriminate with it.

You own a restaurant you have to serve black people as well as white.

You have an event you have to let in all ticket holders, not just the people you approve based on political ideology.

The US only ended segregation 50 years or so years so time is required for it to catch up on political segregation.

 

[blastula]

That it's tax exempt doesn't mean it's government operated nor does it mean it can't decide who attends their events.

Owning some property does not give anybody the right to discriminate with it.

You own a restaurant you have to serve black people as well as white.

You have an event you have to let in all ticket holders, not just the people you approve based on political ideology.

That's a reach. The debate wasn't a public accommodation. The ticket didn't even belong to him, he didn't buy it. And he wasn't denied because of ideology, he was denied because they didn't want a disruption.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Owning some property does not give anybody the right to discriminate with it.

You own a restaurant you have to serve black people as well as white.

You have an event you have to let in all ticket holders, not just the people you approve based on political ideology.

That's a reach. The debate wasn't a public accommodation. The ticket didn't even belong to him, he didn't buy it. And he wasn't denied because of ideology, he was denied because they didn't want a disruption.

It depends what you mean by disruption. A one party state will regard any opposition voice as disruptive.

The problem is parties who put up a substantial amount of candidates are not allowed to present their views due to various excuses as we have seen on this thread.
Debates can get noisy sometimes tempers flare, but that is also democracy in progress providing violence doesn't ensue.

 

[bilby]

That's a reach. The debate wasn't a public accommodation. The ticket didn't even belong to him, he didn't buy it. And he wasn't denied because of ideology, he was denied because they didn't want a disruption.

It depends what you mean by disruption. A one party state will regard any opposition voice as disruptive.

The problem is parties who put up a substantial amount of candidates are not allowed to present their views due to various excuses as we have seen on this thread.
Debates can get noisy sometimes tempers flare, but that is also democracy in progress providing violence doesn't ensue.

Of course they are allowed to present their views.

What they are not allowed to do is demand an audience or a platform. Nobody has to debate anybody. If Clinton and Trump agree to debate each other, they remain under no compulsion to debate anyone else.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It depends what you mean by disruption. A one party state will regard any opposition voice as disruptive.

The problem is parties who put up a substantial amount of candidates are not allowed to present their views due to various excuses as we have seen on this thread.
Debates can get noisy sometimes tempers flare, but that is also democracy in progress providing violence doesn't ensue.

Of course they are allowed to present their views.

What they are not allowed to do is demand an audience or a platform. Nobody has to debate anybody. If Clinton and Trump agree to debate each other, they remain under no compulsion to debate anyone else.

The UK has party political broadcasts rather than debates. Parties fielding a substantial number of candidates are allowed a 5 minute or slot which is equal length to the main parties.

It is also good to hear what these party representatives say first hand rather than via Presstitutes.

In the US the debates are organized by the two party Commission on Presidential Debates hence opens the doors to a conflict of interest which corrupted the value of free speech.

 

[untermensche]

Owning some property does not give anybody the right to discriminate with it.

You own a restaurant you have to serve black people as well as white.

You have an event you have to let in all ticket holders, not just the people you approve based on political ideology.

That's a reach. The debate wasn't a public accommodation. The ticket didn't even belong to him, he didn't buy it. And he wasn't denied because of ideology, he was denied because they didn't want a disruption.

Any tyrant can say they are throwing out their political opponents because of some imaginary disruption.

Only idiots believe that nonsense though.

If the mere presence of people is a disruption then everything is a disruption.

It is not a rational objection. To even put it forth shows a lack of rational thinking.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's a reach. The debate wasn't a public accommodation. The ticket didn't even belong to him, he didn't buy it. And he wasn't denied because of ideology, he was denied because they didn't want a disruption.

Any tyrant can say they are throwing out their political opponents because of some imaginary disruption.

Only idiots believe that nonsense though.

If the mere presence of people is a disruption then everything is a disruption.

It is not a rational objection. To even put it forth shows a lack of rational thinking.

In an autocracy opposition is appearance and questioning is considered sedition, unpatriotic and disruptive. The US isn't that bad by any means but some of this does come through (questioning).