• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Issa says Obama administration is 'one of most corrupt'

Things like McCain/Feingold and such did wonders to close down the system. If you're independently wealthy, you can run third party (as Perot showed...man was crazy but because he was rich he was able to get coverage and ended up with 10% of the vote); but otherwise it's Republocrat or go home. Additionally, the "debates" are nothing of the sort. It's completely closed off to third party candidates, it's nothing more than a show put on with pre-determined questions and stump speeches at hand. It does nothing for us. I would make it so individuals can contribute money as they see fit. Corporations are not entities with rights, but the individual is. I'd like to see the League of Women Voters take over the Presidential debates again and I'd like there to be proper coverage of third party candidates and a system open to their participation. I use this example a lot. During the Bush/Kerry elections, Michael Badnarik and David Cobb (libertarian and green party candidate respectively) were arrested outside the Presidential debates. Handcuffed, put in the back of a police cruiser, and taken off to jail. 2 Presidential candidates were arrested outside the Presidential Debates. Does that sound like a good thing? Does that even sound American? We're arresting political candidates because they aren't in the "right" party. Wow. It blows my mind that there wasn't coverage and outrage at this. How can you say we legitimately have a democratic Republic when we're arresting Presidential candidates outside the Presidential Debates?

I liked Perot, even voted for him. I thought it was a fresh approach. As for those arrested outside Debates, are you referring to Dixon?

I understand the notion that we can't let everybody in because if we have 15 candidates at a Presidential debate, we can't get any real information. However, we currently cannot get any real information anyway. And there's no reason why the number has to be limited to 2. Maybe 5, those 5 being the 5 which had the highest popular votes in the last election. That's a bit better. What we truly need is proper political competition. Without competition things will stagnate and parties will entrench themselves. Because of the winner take all system we have, we will be stable at 2 main parties; and that's fine. So long as those parties understand that they are there only for as long as they can remain a competitive and proper political party. We can always have parties waiting in the wings to take over, and we'll have to cycle parties often because all parties will corrupt over time.

the bolded part disturbs me a bit, almost sounds like you are speaking in shadow government terms.

If we want to control the government, then we need to have control over the parties as well. Which means informed voting decisions, and data on all the candidates involved. The rules must be set up to allow the individual to participate, and to allow proper political competition and debate.

Sort of an anti trust division of elections....interesting.


j-mac
 
They teeter-totter, with thelp from the people. Were you watching the news on November 3?

I understand that we ourselves have let the system slip into its present state. It's one of the major failings of We the People. After the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what we have. He said a Republic if we can keep it. And that's really what it comes down to. This is a Republic, if we can keep it. We have duty and obligation to the Republic, to proliferate our freedoms and liberties, to constrain government to its proper role and size. That's our job, and we need to do it; if we don't we will lose the Republic. We've unfortunately set ourselves into quite the vicious little circle where through our own negligence, we've allowed the system to break down. And through that break down the main party designed it to encourage more voter negligence. And we go round and round and round. There has to be a shift in voter perception. We cannot keep the Republic by continually voting for a lesser of two evils. We have to think, we have to research, we have to read, we have to do work. The only way the system works is if we make educated and researched decisions as it relates to our votes.

People like to say that freedom isn't free. And it's true. Freedom is tough, freedom is hard, freedom requires continual input of work and perseverance to keep. That is the duty of all freemen.
 
I liked Perot, even voted for him. I thought it was a fresh approach. As for those arrested outside Debates, are you referring to Dixon?

It was St. Louis. Badnarik and Cobb had obtained a show cause order, which would have let them into the debates. When they tried to serve the papers, they were arrested.

the bolded part disturbs me a bit, almost sounds like you are speaking in shadow government terms.

Everything would be open. What I mean by waiting in the wings (and it may have been a poor choice of words) is that with the inclusion of the third parties into the process, you'll have viable parties with infrastructure already established participating in the process. If one of the main parties becomes too corrupt, too inefficient, or loses legitimacy in some manner; then you have a set of parties already established and participating in the system of which you could promote one to main party status thus replacing the broken main party.
 
It was St. Louis. Badnarik and Cobb had obtained a show cause order, which would have let them into the debates. When they tried to serve the papers, they were arrested.

And they broke police lines illegally, was that ok?


j-mac
 
And they broke police lines illegally, was that ok?


j-mac

They were serving legal papers to allow them to participate in the Presidential Debate, yes it was ok. I understand the generalized idea that you have a police line and if you let everyone run through there wouldn't be security or order. However, when these two Presidential candidates it's not the same as a mob. They were there to serve legal papers requiring their participation in the Presidential Debates since they were Presidential candidates. You can say that well they crossed the police line and got arrested for it, fair enough. But I have to wonder what sort of society we're in when we're going to use police lines to prevent political candidates of other parties from entering in the debate through force if necessary even if they have legal papers demanding their participation. Seems a bit draconian to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom