• 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!

Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

Do you think third parties should be allowed on the national debates?


  • Total voters
    71
Exactly, very true. Because the League of Women Voters allowed Ross to take part in the debate, the Republicans and Democrats grabbed the debats away from forming what they called a bipartisan debate committee. They did this voing that no third party candidate would ever be able to take part in the presidential debates again.

Now the Republicans and Democrats write all the election laws and they do this as a mutual protection act. All election laws are designed to discourage a third party run and discourage is a very nice soft word to jury rigging the system in favor of the two major parties.

Then your point about money, about a third party candidate having to be independently wealthy. Very true as the Republicans and Democrats have the big cash benifcators tied up. The special interests, lobbyist, corporations, Wall Street, super pacs, money bundlers, huge money donors etc. these are the people who have bought and paid for the two major parties to do their bidding. It is in the monied peoples interest to limit the system to two parties, they do not want to have to add or divide up their cash among a third party in an attempt to buy them too.
And should another 3rd party come into power, they're going to do the exact same thing, and all the other little 1%ers out there are going to cry about it.
 
Lets see here you said: "I didn't know there were armed guards keeping them out."
Yes, where "them" = a party who had a right to be there. You have to earn 5% to have the right to debate. These guys did not have 5%, the better of the two had 1.5%, which means they did not have a right to be there. Thank you for proving my point.
 
And should another 3rd party come into power, they're going to do the exact same thing, and all the other little 1%ers out there are going to cry about it.

So you are all for a system that guarentees who the winner will be of 400 out of 435 house seats due to gerrymandering. Jury rigging the elections if you will be fore the first votes are cast. You are for a system in which money and political negative ads decides the winner instead of character, ideas, solutions of the candidates. You are for any candidate of the two major parties being so indebted to special interests, big money that regardless of who is elected, they must take care of all those people who gave them the money first, the American people second if the American people rank that high.

But alas, you are probably right, if a third party candidate won, the corupting influence of all the money involved would soon corupt them too. The founding fathers, the framers of the Constitution had it right, they feared political parties, they called them factions. The founding fathers and framers were afraid if political parties arose soon our elected officals would begin to put party over country, that has come to pass.

It has been the Republicans and Demcrats that have gotting this country into the mess it is in today. They have no ideas or solutions to get us out of it. All they are worried about is the next election. But with our present system the two major parties have a monopoly on elections. In reality there is only one political party in the United States, but it has two wings, the Democratic and Republican wings. The folks with the money will ensure it reamins as such.
 
The government has no right to freedom of association.

TV Networks do. If they wish to associate with only certain parties by including them and them alone in a debate, they're more than free to do so.
 
What if they can't get the aggregated support everyone talks about as barrier to entry less they can compete openly and fairly?

Then they don't get put on TV for the national debates. To my knowledge the national debates are not a legal thing, but rather a TV sponsored thing that have become the norm. There should be a screening process with the factor being public support/interest. Some party that exists to represent the rights of nematodes could start up. Just because they exist doesn't mean that they have an automatic right to be on the national debates.
 
Of course third parties should be part of the national debate, but it doesn't matter, they will be as they have been, marginalized by the corporatist media and the corporatist campaign finance system.
The third parties have consistently marginalized THEMSELVES. It is why they are irrelevant. That comes from someone that is a registered Libertarian and has in fact attended caucus meetings. There is a REASON why there is no real third party representation ANYWHERE. Very frustrating to see such potential squandered on single issue mentalities.

Every once in a while, a third party will develop a little momentum...a respectable candidate. Rather than BUILD on that and address across the board issues...they piss it away by their candidate and platform choices.
 
Then they don't get put on TV for the national debates. To my knowledge the national debates are not a legal thing, but rather a TV sponsored thing that have become the norm. There should be a screening process with the factor being public support/interest. Some party that exists to represent the rights of nematodes could start up. Just because they exist doesn't mean that they have an automatic right to be on the national debates.

And it's also no reason to exclude ALL the third parties. So we can tit for tat on this all day if you want. But in the end, open political competition is a necessity for a free Republic. There is no reason it should only be two just because it was those two that made all the rules to exclude the others. "They can't go on the debates until they generate the support they'd need to be on the debates in order to generate" argument is completely illogical and no one has given any answer other than "nan nan nan nan na boo boo, it's our way so suck it" argument.

With the way in which the debates and press dominate the course of the elections, it is imperative to have open and free competition. There is no reason to hide options from the People, other than protecting the status quo.
 
So you are all for a system that guarentees who the winner will be of 400 out of 435 house seats due to gerrymandering. Jury rigging the elections if you will be fore the first votes are cast. You are for a system in which money and political negative ads decides the winner instead of character, ideas, solutions of the candidates. You are for any candidate of the two major parties being so indebted to special interests, big money that regardless of who is elected, they must take care of all those people who gave them the money first, the American people second if the American people rank that high.

But alas, you are probably right, if a third party candidate won, the corupting influence of all the money involved would soon corupt them too. The founding fathers, the framers of the Constitution had it right, they feared political parties, they called them factions. The founding fathers and framers were afraid if political parties arose soon our elected officals would begin to put party over country, that has come to pass.

It has been the Republicans and Demcrats that have gotting this country into the mess it is in today. They have no ideas or solutions to get us out of it. All they are worried about is the next election. But with our present system the two major parties have a monopoly on elections. In reality there is only one political party in the United States, but it has two wings, the Democratic and Republican wings. The folks with the money will ensure it reamins as such.
I'm less concerned about party and more concerned with lean. Most of our representatives today are liberals. Liberal democrats want a nanny state. Liberal republicans want massive military and forign aid.

I don't support either one. Liberals suck regardless of the party they belong to. If the next President is a Liberal Democrat like Obama, a Liberal Republican like Bush, or some Liberal Liberiterian or Liberal Green Party...it's still a Liberal and so it's still the wrong answer.

Give me the Conservative Democrat who supports abortion and reinforces the importance of waiting to have sex, knowledge and importance of using BC, and of people acting more responsible for their lives even if they still choose abortion. Give me the Conservative Democrat who wants to strengthen NICS for gun buyers but reasserts, through tangible legal action, the right of any citizen who passes all such screening to own virtually any firearm their heart desires. Give me the Conservative Democrat who support same-sex marriage but also addresses the 50% divorce rate, and for the same reason: healthy marriages are good for society.

I will take the Conservative over the Liberal every day of the week, even when the Conservative comes from a party I don't otherwise agree with. Liberals are always divisive, always polarizing, always negative and on the attack. Liberals are a hateful breed. Hell, of the lowest, most destructive economic styles, the socialist, give me the Conservative from among them who will actually balance the budget while establishing the nanny state; if the nanny state is to be then let it be for a thousand years in peace.

There are bigger concerns than party, more important things than recreational drug use.

Besides, I'm half convinced America would be better served by a Parliament than a President anyway.
 
Last edited:
Liberals are always divisive, always polarizing, always negative and on the attack. Liberals are a hateful breed. Hell, of the lowest, most destructive economic styles, the socialist, give me the Conservative from among them who will actually balance the budget while establishing the nanny state; if the nanny state is to be then let it be for a thousand years in peace.

You forgot that we eat babies, don't forget that we eat babies Jerry. Now go fetch me a toothpick, Hatuey had a big meal of fetus in chianti.
 
You forgot that we eat babies, don't forget that we eat babies Jerry. Now go fetch me a toothpick, Hatuey had a big meal of fetus in chianti.

Can you pass me the constitution, I need to whipe my ass.
 
I'm less concerned about party and more concerned with lean. Most of our representatives today are liberals. Liberal democrats want a nanny state. Liberal republicans want massive military and forign aid.

I don't support either one. Liberals suck regardless of the party they belong to. If the next President is a Liberal Democrat like Obama, a Liberal Republican like Bush, or some Liberal Liberiterian or Liberal Green Party...it's still a Liberal and so it's still the wrong answer.

Give me the Conservative Democrat who supports abortion and reinforces the importance of waiting to have sex, knowledge and importance of using BC, and of people acting more responsible for their lives even if they still choose abortion. Give me the Conservative Democrat who wants to strengthen NICS for gun buyers but reasserts, through tangible legal action, the right of any citizen who passes all such screening to own virtually any firearm their heart desires. Give me the Conservative Democrat who support same-sex marriage but also addresses the 50% divorce rate, and for the same reason: healthy marriages are good for society.

I will take the Conservative over the Liberal every day of the week, even when the Conservative comes from a party I don't otherwise agree with. Liberals are always divisive, always polarizing, always negative and on the attack. Liberals are a hateful breed. Hell, of the lowest, most destructive economic styles, the socialist, give me the Conservative from among them who will actually balance the budget while establishing the nanny state; if the nanny state is to be then let it be for a thousand years in peace.

There are bigger concerns than party, more important things than recreational drug use.

Besides, I'm half convinced America would be better served by a Parliament than a President anyway.


Very interesting Jerry. Quite a bit of what you describe would be classic liberalism, not to be associated with what the Democratic Party or most American’s think of liberalism today. The same can be said of traditional conservatism which has nothing to do with the conservatism of today.

Our founding fathers, the likes of John Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington, et al were the liberals of their day and what could be classified as classic liberals. A liberalism that was against the Monarchy, against any aristocratic forms of government or any other type of totalitarian, authoritarian types of government. They believed in individual freedom, individual liberty not in group security that liberalism of today has become at the very expense of what Classic Liberalism was all for. Classic Liberalism believes in individual liberty within the scope of a Democratic government.

You speak of the nanny state, when a widow from the revolutionary war approached George Washington, then president about a widows pension, President Washington refused. He didn’t believe taxpayers should foot the pension, but he gave her money out of his own pocket. This is the sign of a classic liberal, giving freely of ones own time, energy and money. Not taking other peoples money to give to others, but giving of ones own. Just keep in mind, our country was founded on Liberalism, classical or traditional liberalism. Not what is called Liberalism today.

Ben Franklin once said, “Those who choose security over liberty soon shall have neither.”

Thomas Jefferson said, “A government strong enough to give you everything you want, is also strong enough to take everything you have.”
 
Very interesting Jerry. Quite a bit of what you describe would be classic liberalism, not to be associated with what the Democratic Party or most American’s think of liberalism today. The same can be said of traditional conservatism which has nothing to do with the conservatism of today.

Our founding fathers, the likes of John Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington, et al were the liberals of their day and what could be classified as classic liberals. A liberalism that was against the Monarchy, against any aristocratic forms of government or any other type of totalitarian, authoritarian types of government. They believed in individual freedom, individual liberty not in group security that liberalism of today has become at the very expense of what Classic Liberalism was all for. Classic Liberalism believes in individual liberty within the scope of a Democratic government.

You speak of the nanny state, when a widow from the revolutionary war approached George Washington, then president about a widows pension, President Washington refused. He didn’t believe taxpayers should foot the pension, but he gave her money out of his own pocket. This is the sign of a classic liberal, giving freely of ones own time, energy and money. Not taking other peoples money to give to others, but giving of ones own. Just keep in mind, our country was founded on Liberalism, classical or traditional liberalism. Not what is called Liberalism today.

Ben Franklin once said, “Those who choose security over liberty soon shall have neither.”

Thomas Jefferson said, “A government strong enough to give you everything you want, is also strong enough to take everything you have.”

Indeed, and this is why it is imperative that the system be open and competitive. What the Republocrats have become is exactly because everyone thinks they're the only options. Because they are always presented as the only options. They have no fear of losing power; they cannot lose power not when group think is strong enough. Not when it's "they can't do anything, so we can't present them to the People". It's very baffling on many fronts.

As the Republocrats further isolate themselves from the People, they will become more and more out of control, they will serve us less, they will go against their platforms and promises so that they may serve the corporations which fund them. So why is there so much resistance to opening the system up? To presenting more options? To force the Republocrats to defend their positions and follow through with their words otherwise we'll replace them with a party that can?

The future of the Republic is at stake, this is serious business; and so many people seem to want to revel in and cheer for the status quo which only causes us to lose freedom. Every election is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich; but we have to take it because there's no other viable option. And there will not be another "viable" option until you allow third parties the ability to freely participate and compete with the main party.
 
Indeed, and this is why it is imperative that the system be open and competitive. What the Republocrats have become is exactly because everyone thinks they're the only options. Because they are always presented as the only options. They have no fear of losing power; they cannot lose power not when group think is strong enough. Not when it's "they can't do anything, so we can't present them to the People". It's very baffling on many fronts.

As the Republocrats further isolate themselves from the People, they will become more and more out of control, they will serve us less, they will go against their platforms and promises so that they may serve the corporations which fund them. So why is there so much resistance to opening the system up? To presenting more options? To force the Republocrats to defend their positions and follow through with their words otherwise we'll replace them with a party that can?

The future of the Republic is at stake, this is serious business; and so many people seem to want to revel in and cheer for the status quo which only causes us to lose freedom. Every election is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich; but we have to take it because there's no other viable option. And there will not be another "viable" option until you allow third parties the ability to freely participate and compete with the main party.

Why is there no other viable other options? I have posted most of what I have to say before. Reason one is the Republicans and Democrats write the election laws as a mutual protection act. They write them to discourage any third party from becoming viable, to even get on the ballot, to challenge them. The two major parties got really peeved that the League of Women’s voters allowed Ross Perot into the presidential debates, so they, the two major parties took the debates away from the League of Women’s Voters and formed their own so called bipartisan debate commission. Never again will any third party candidate be allowed to participate in the presidential debates.

Reason two is money, when each of the major parties are able to raise a billion dollars, each party raised a billion, the Republicans a billion, the democrats a billion. Probably closer to two billion if you count the senate and house candidates, governors etc. from corporations, Wall Street firms, special interests, lobbyists, big money donors that donate millions, super pacs and money bundlers, probably some more I forgot, any third party does not stand a chance in the money race.

These special interests have a vested interest in keep just the two major parties viable and no other party. It would cost them another billion or more to buy them off like they have the Republicans and Democrats. Better to keep all this campaign cash just going to the major parties, it is a lot cheaper that way and both major parties know where their bread and butter comes from. They make sure all these special interests are well taken care of.

I have said many times that we really have only one political party in the United States, but that party has two wings, the Republican one and the Democratic one. They give us a grand illusion of being polar opposites. They are in their rhetoric which is all the voters and party members pay attention to. But if one were to step back a few paces, remove their deep colored red or blue tinted glasses and only watch how these two parties govern, they would see very little difference. It is the rhetoric, the talking points, the slogans that are 180 degrees apart. Not how they govern.

When the vast majority of Americans buy the rhetoric as fact, when the vast majority of Americans do not check or research into how these parties govern, there will never be a viable third party. The one party with two wings will continue to run things and do their legislative favors for all those who donate the money to them, putting America and her people way down the list of priorities.
 
Yes, where "them" = a party who had a right to be there. You have to earn 5% to have the right to debate. These guys did not have 5%, the better of the two had 1.5%, which means they did not have a right to be there. Thank you for proving my point.

Ah wait a sec. You earlier said no one was keeping third parties out and that armed guards were not letting them enter. Then i proved to you there are armed guards keeping them out now you seem to be retracting your statements.
 
Back
Top Bottom