• 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!

Jill Stein, Gary Johnson Shut Out of TV Debate...

Perotista said:
That was totally expected. If Johnson or Stein had managed to achieve the 15% you can bet your old coon dog that the so called bipartisan debate committee would have raised the threshold to 20%. Republicans and Democrats, our two major parties have a monopoly on our election system, they aren't about to give it up. It is the Republicans and Democrats who write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act.

Rigged, definitely. In our system, the appearance is give to the public that we have two utterly opposite parties. In fact we have but one, but that one party has two different wings, the Republican wing and the Democratic wing. Both parties owe their heart and soul to corporations, Wall Street Firms, Lobbyist, Special Interests and behind the scene mega,money donors. Neither can or will do anything to cross them, they won't bite the had that feeds them.

Personally, I believe if a candidate regardless of party can get on the ballot in all 50 states, that party's candidate should be included in the debates. In fact for the first debate, all candidates on enough state ballots to ensure 270 electoral votes should be included. It takes 270 to win. Then one could up it to 400 or so for the second debate and all states, 538 electoral votes for the third and final debate.

My two cents.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

:agree: This is not the way it's supposed to be, IMO, because it's not fair for anyone except the wealthy, which leaves the majority ignored! :thumbdown:
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

:agree: This is not the way it's supposed to be, IMO, because it's not fair for anyone except the wealthy, which leaves the majority ignored! :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

Yeah, the wealthy who donate their millions, tens of millions and hundreds of millions, most behind the scenes funding super pacs which allow the names to remain anonymous. Trump used to be one of those anonymous donors, now he is out front. Money rules our political system, we do have the best government money can buy. But that doesn't mean it is a good government for the people, only for those huge money donors.
 
Either one of them, Jill or Gary, would be better than what we have to pick from now.

I don't mean to sound like a stuck record but, "We're so screwed."
 
MickeyW said:
I'm not saying people should not vote their conscious, but voting that way won't help the country move ahead, it merely satisfies you.

I will never vote for Hillary, even if she ran unopposed. She is wrong for America on soooooo many levels.
Click to expand...
We have a gentlemans disagreement bevause i say voting my way is a push to move the country forward.

If im voting the lesser of evils im probably voting trump or maybe johnson. It hurts to even type those two names btw but thats me being honest. I only say that because of the tilt in political power at present i think clinton can do more damage than either of the other two can.

If i vote for either of them it sends a message to the ruling class that one of them is pallatable enough for me to vote for. That influences what puppet they will run in the next masquerade. Now you will argue that im throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I will counter with maybe the baby needs to be thrown out too.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Perotista said:
I disagree too. In a match up of Trump vs. Clinton, a third party vote is the only sane vote. One or the other may be considered the lesser of two evils, but voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. The sad part is a voter doing so, voting for the lesser of two evils knows they are voting for evil whereas a true believer, supporter of either Trump and/or Clinton doesn't realize they they voting for evil.

The only wasted votes this year are the ones voting for evil, Trump or Clinton.
Click to expand...
I actually perfer reading posts that disagree with me on this topic because it depresses me thinking im right. I really want someone to convince me im the one who is wrong this cycle. The only thing that sucks more than being wrong about those two is being right about them


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Who cares. Neither has an ice cube's chance on the sun of being elected. Put them in the debates, and they'd be in the same boat as whats-his-face [insert random democrat puppet] who had to stand there off to the side of the Hildabeast and the Socialist. More people would vote for Kim Kardashian than would vote for Jill Stein, and Gary Johnson is too much of a kook.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Who cares. Neither has an ice cube's chance on the sun of being elected. Put them in the debates, and they'd be in the same boat as whats-his-face [insert random democrat puppet] who had to stand there off to the side of the Hildabeast and the Socialist. More people would vote for Kim Kardashian than would vote for Jill Stein, and Gary Johnson is too much of a kook.
Click to expand...

Not sure, at least this election cycle, there is such a thing as "too much of a kook." We have one candidate that is actually scoring points for being a kook. Just sayin'....
 
Captain America said:
Not sure, at least this election cycle, there is such a thing as "too much of a kook." We have one candidate that is actually scoring points for being a kook. Just sayin'....
Click to expand...

There's a difference between just saying stupid stuff, and being a kook. Gary Johnson is a kook.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
There's a difference between just saying stupid stuff, and being a kook. Gary Johnson is a kook.
Click to expand...

It's all good. Gary swore off weed for the campaign so he would be able to keep a "clear head." He's been getting a little cranky lately. Maybe a couple of doobs will brighten his spirits. Re: Jill, it's gonna take a lot more than weed to settle her down. Jesus, she wants Snowden to advise NSA. She reminds me of The Roadrunner (Meep-Meep).
 
trouble13 said:
I actually perfer reading posts that disagree with me on this topic because it depresses me thinking im right. I really want someone to convince me im the one who is wrong this cycle. The only thing that sucks more than being wrong about those two is being right about them


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I first became interested in politics watching the Republican and Democratic conventions on TV back in 1956. Since then with all the two major party candidates regardless of whom they were I never felt both were horrible and both no matter who won would leave this country in far worst shape when they left office than when they first entered. That is regardless of political ideology or philosophy.

These two are like voting for doomsday, who do you want in charge when doomsday happens? Either that or it is a pick your own poison election, we can have cyanide Trump or Arsenic Clinton, either poison will leave you dead.
 
The US electoral system has been and still is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Voting is but a charade.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is a shame that the national polling percentage (15%?) must be so high. With he US voting age population at about 250 million, even using only half of that for "likely" voters, each 1% in the polls represents the interest of 1.25 million likely voting people. It would seem logical that a 5% national polling interest, which is significant crowd of 6.25 million likely voting people, would be sufficient to get a candidate included in a national debate.
Click to expand...

It's set so high so as to rig the system, I think. To make sure no third party or fourth or whatever can gain traction. Imagine how different our political landscape MIGHT be if, for 25 years, we'd had at least a third option presented to us on debate night. This isn't done for the benefit of the American people. It's done for the benefit of our two major parties.
 
MickeyW said:
Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein failed to make the cut for the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced on Friday afternoon, in a significant blow for their campaigns.

Johnson and Stein fail to make cut for first presidential debate - POLITICO


The system is rigged and has been for a long time.
Click to expand...

I tend to think that it is stupid to exclude number 3, but Johnson does have under 10 percent. So, while it would increase trust in the political system among the relatively small number of admirers, he hasn't been very successful in building momentum.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Because the Libertarians and green parties want to be considered legitimate political parties, and being a major party requires a lot more than 5% percent of the country.
Click to expand...

Wrong, 5% of the vote in a presidential election qualifies a party as a major party for federal funding
 
MickeyW said:
Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein failed to make the cut for the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced on Friday afternoon, in a significant blow for their campaigns.

Johnson and Stein fail to make cut for first presidential debate - POLITICO


The system is rigged and has been for a long time.
Click to expand...

Jill Stein is a nut bar who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an elected executive office and Gary Johnson has become an afterthought after his breathtakingly disqualifying admission that he didn't even know that Aleppo is a city, let alone where it was and what its significance may be.

For better or worse, Trump and Clinton are actually the two best choices in this motley group. To paraphrase Clinton, what a basket of deplorables you have running for your highest office.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Jill Stein is a nut bar who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an elected executive office and Gary Johnson has become an afterthought after his breathtakingly disqualifying admission that he didn't even know that Aleppo is a city, let alone where it was and what its significance may be.

For better or worse, Trump and Clinton are actually the two best choices in this motley group. To paraphrase Clinton, what a basket of deplorables you have running for your highest office.
Click to expand...
I dont like johnson and specifically its his foreghein affairs policy i like the least about him but him not recoginizing the name of a city is not that big of a deal.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom