View Poll Results: Do you think third parties should be allowed on the national debates?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    70 88.61%
  • No

    6 7.59%
  • I dont know

    3 3.80%
Page 25 of 27 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 264

Thread: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

  1. #241
    Educator
    CaptinSarcastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 03:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,199

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    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.

  2. #242
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Debates don't win you votes. In fact debates don't sway public opinion at all because debates aren't about persuading anyone. Everyone on this site should already know that.

    You don't get into the debate until you have 5%, and that 5% is earned through advertising, not debates.
    Then let them in, I mean; having a national audience for speech stumping and platform arguments doesn't sway public opinion; yes? In fact, why do we even have elections in the first place? We should just do it off of straw polls that come out before the debates. I mean, they don't sway any votes and if you aren't polling enough to win enough electoral votes at the time, you're not going to win; right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The Republican Party is the original 3rd party. Republicans didn't need anything given to them. They took what they wanted.
    They also weren't under a system of rules and regulations aimed specifically to stall or stop their competition. Let us compete, what are you afraid of?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    1.5% is not competition.
    1.5% cannot be overcome until the third parties are allowed to compete.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #243
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I'm gona go out on a limb here and say that your party needs to at least be bigger than a poll's margin of error, in order to be relevant.
    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you ain't the god of politics. Why do you get to decide "relevant"? Just because your party is part of the "relevant"? It's a free country, we need a free and competitive election cycle in order to keep the Republic. That's what it's all about, keeping the Republic. We cannot do that in a closed and stagnate political system. It's irrational to uphold the values of the Republic while espousing commie political competition beliefs.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #244
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Then let them in.
    We don't need to hear from 40 different kook fringe wackos who each only muster 1-1.5%. We need to pay attention to the people who can actually be seated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you....
    Ah, going personal now. Nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    ain't the god of politics
    You were just asking my permission to let all these kook-fringe parties in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Why do you get to decide "relevant"?
    I can do math.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Just because your party is part of the "relevant"?
    I don't have a party. I have a lean, but I don't have a party. I could just as easily agree with a conservative Democrat as a conservative Republican; sadly there aren't many conservatives in power today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's a free country, we need a free and competitive election cycle in order to keep the Republic. That's what it's all about, keeping the Republic. We cannot do that in a closed and stagnate political system. It's irrational to uphold the values of the Republic while espousing commie political competition beliefs.
    Freedom isn't free, no one has to give you a god-damned thing so put your hand down before it get's cut off. If you want political power then you have to go out an earn it. 1.5% is truly pathetic.

  5. #245
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    We don't need to hear from 40 different kook fringe wackos who each only muster 1-1.5%. We need to pay attention to the people who can actually be seated.
    OK, but why then can we only here from 2 kook parties? Maybe 40 is right out, but why just 2? We're not paying attention as is, what's a few more added to the mix? Maybe enough to spur intellectual debate. Don't know, y'all don't want to have open political competition in an Republic....which is baffling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Ah, going personal now. Nice.
    Just used your own phrasing. Was there a problem with using your words?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You were just asking my permission to let all these kook-fringe parties in.
    I'm not asking your permission, you're demanding that I ask your permission. I want a system open to political competition and to allow the People to hear the platforms being presented by various politicians, not just two, so that they can better choose the candidate whom best represents their political ideology. You don't like that idea, not sure why, but you seem rather staunchly opposed. To such degree that you demand that they be viable according to you set by the standards you endorse and screw me or my ideals on it.

    I am not asking your permission, you are demanding I do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I can do math.
    yay for you, that does nothing of the argument. You have no clairvoyance of the future, so you can't tell where a party will finish off. You are not the god of politics and I don't think we should be basing a system off of your assumptions and denials of an open system. Particularly in a free Republic which requires such an open system to continue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I don't have a party. I have a lean, but I don't have a party. I could just as easily agree with a conservative Democrat as a Conservative Republican; sadly there aren't many conservatives in power today.
    Partly because of the closed down system, the parties don't actually have to listen to their constituents. Without third parties allowed to compete, there's nothing in the wings waiting to replace the main parties should they lose their way or act counter to their platform. If you happened to have an open system, you would be more aware of the various platforms (well maybe not you personally if you pay attention, but America on whole would certainly be presented with further options than the stagnate Republocrats), and could vote for a candidate best suited to your platform. Not being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils just because some guy over there says no other party is "viable" and thus they don't get to compete.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Freedom isn't free, no one has to give you a god-damned thing so put your hand down before it get's cut off. If you want political power then you have to go out an earn it. 1.5% is truly pathetic.
    Freedom ain't free, but that was a very stupid retort. The future of the Republic requires open political competition so the People can better servo the government. I don't know why this fact eludes you, or seemingly pisses you off to such extent; but it's true. The system is set up so that the third parties CANNOT OBTAIN the criteria you call for. Specifically set up to stifle their importance and their ability to participate because if they freely participate it can severely screw up the plans of the main party.

    But you call for the Catch-22, and it's illogical and irrational. Above all else, it is damaging to the very future of the Republic. All this is self-evident for anyone wishing to take the time to understand the system and what is at stake. For those who WANT to keep the Republic.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #246
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    OK, but why then can we only here from 2 kook parties? Maybe 40 is right out, but why just 2? We're not paying attention as is, what's a few more added to the mix? Maybe enough to spur intellectual debate. Don't know, y'all don't want to have open political competition in an Republic....which is baffling.
    I don't support the 2-party system. Just because I'm calling bull**** on a party who can only muster 1.5% does not mean I support the 2-party system.

    Ross Perot got about 25%. Where is the modern Ross Perot? Show me the candidate pulling 25% who is blocked from a debate.

  7. #247
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Ross Perot got about 25%. Where is the modern Ross Perot? Show me the candidate pulling 25% who is blocked from a debate.
    Ross Perot highlighted exactly what is wrong with the system. A rich madman was able to get, what did you say 25%, merely because he was rich enough to buy TV access. Now what happens when other parties are allowed that access? Fundraising restrictions mean that less you already have a large, established treasure chest (like the Republocrats do), you're going to have to be independently wealthy to successfully run against the main parties.

    Ross Perot demonstrated this, and that is the why that was the last time we ever saw a third party candidate invited. The rules changed rapidly after that to ensure that no other party could compete on the same level. All the rules are set so that you either get Republocrat or someone like Ross Perot. Specifically set that way. You keep pulling out 1.5%; but that's in a system designed to keep them capped at about 1.5%. You want them to gain more in a system designed against them gaining more. That's the truly insane aspect of your argument.

    Ross Perot....exactly Ross Perot. Ross Perot is the perfect example of the absolute absurdity of our current system.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #248
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,928
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Ross Perot highlighted exactly what is wrong with the system. A rich madman was able to get, what did you say 25%, merely because he was rich enough to buy TV access. Now what happens when other parties are allowed that access? Fundraising restrictions mean that less you already have a large, established treasure chest (like the Republocrats do), you're going to have to be independently wealthy to successfully run against the main parties.

    Ross Perot demonstrated this, and that is the why that was the last time we ever saw a third party candidate invited. The rules changed rapidly after that to ensure that no other party could compete on the same level. All the rules are set so that you either get Republocrat or someone like Ross Perot. Specifically set that way. You keep pulling out 1.5%; but that's in a system designed to keep them capped at about 1.5%. You want them to gain more in a system designed against them gaining more. That's the truly insane aspect of your argument.

    Ross Perot....exactly Ross Perot. Ross Perot is the perfect example of the absolute absurdity of our current system.
    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.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  9. #249
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Ross Perot highlighted exactly what is wrong with the system. A rich madman was able to get, what did you say 25%, merely because he was rich enough to buy TV access. Now what happens when other parties are allowed that access? Fundraising restrictions mean that less you already have a large, established treasure chest (like the Republocrats do), you're going to have to be independently wealthy to successfully run against the main parties.

    Ross Perot demonstrated this, and that is the why that was the last time we ever saw a third party candidate invited. The rules changed rapidly after that to ensure that no other party could compete on the same level. All the rules are set so that you either get Republocrat or someone like Ross Perot. Specifically set that way. You keep pulling out 1.5%; but that's in a system designed to keep them capped at about 1.5%. You want them to gain more in a system designed against them gaining more. That's the truly insane aspect of your argument.

    Ross Perot....exactly Ross Perot. Ross Perot is the perfect example of the absolute absurdity of our current system.
    If you want to make a new establishment, then yes you need to be interdependently wealthy, but more importantly you have to aggressively push for things Americans care about, such as modernizing the economy, radical social reform (Republicans ended slavery), and basically become the answer to every modern problem.

    No one cares about recreational drug use. Shut that **** right the **** up.

    It took the Republicans about 80 years of struggle to establish, and no one gave Republicans a damn thing. They took it, sometimes by force. Along the way, Republicans also gobbled up their competing 3rd parties, such as the Wigs. A given 3rd party has to be willing to destroy other 3rd parties along the way.

    So go on and keep crying about the rules if that supports your victim-identity, but understand that you will always be a victim, a looser, forever dominated by people who go out and kill for what they believe in (yes, literally kill, as in President Lincoln and the war). It took a civil war to bring the last 3rd party to power. Expect nothing less to bring another 3rd party into power.

    20 years ago you had one man who pulled abut 25%. That's a good start, but you have to keep it up, for a very long time...you have to keep spending your personal wealth, you have to sink your family's generational wealth into the movement....and before it's over, you will have to bleed. That's what it takes. So don't come at me with this weak 1.5% protest bull****. No one cares. I don't care. You shouldn't either.

    Nature has her bad designs eaten by her good ones.
    Last edited by Jerry; 02-25-13 at 06:48 PM.

  10. #250
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I saw the Secret Service, too.


    They sure did.


    They sure did.

    Was there a point to this post?
    Lets see here you said: "I didn't know there were armed guards keeping them out."


Page 25 of 27 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •