- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,595
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The murder and the death?
Foreign Policy (granted lies and the theft apply here too) and Abortion (or at the very least return it to the states)
The murder and the death?
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 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.
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.
They teeter-totter, with thelp from the people. Were you watching the news on November 3?
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?
the bolded part disturbs me a bit, almost sounds like you are speaking in shadow government terms.
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