• 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 the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the Pres

should it be made easier for more candidates in the Pres debates?


  • Total voters
    32
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Ross Perot did pretty good for himself in the debates. However, his VP choice did not help him, to say the least.

Wait! Isn't it being claimed that people like H. Ross Perot were never allowed in debates and therefore it impossible he was ever in one with the 2 major party candidates?

Maybe the suggestion of the OP is outright false and it is only losers who essentially have no support that aren't allowed in the major debated and instead put into their own losers' 3rd party debates?
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

:lol: this is nothing more than you saying " for your own good, we're not going to let you hear from people I personally hate"

There is nothing in the way of a legal impediment stopping anyone from getting their message out.

Coming up with lame excuses blaming others is rather par for the course for those who cannot face the reality of their own weak position with the American people.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Wait! Isn't it being claimed that people like H. Ross Perot were never allowed in debates and therefore it impossible he was ever in one with the 2 major party candidates?

Maybe the suggestion of the OP is outright false and it is only losers who essentially have no support that aren't allowed in the major debated and instead put into their own losers' 3rd party debates?

He debated in the 1992 elections. I think as a result of that, the major parties blocked him in 1996.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Name the 3rd party presidential candidates that were on the presidential ballot in enough states to have an electoral college majority. Can any of you advocating 3rd party candidates do so?
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

He debated in the 1992 elections. I think as a result of that, the major parties blocked him in 1996.

What happened is he joined a 3rd party (The reform party) and there was an internal feud within that party for which half the supporters bailed out on Perot. But it is easier to blame everyone else and claim some conspiracy against him, isn't it?

Perot ran as a grudge against Republicans and was just a spoiler for the Democrats picking off Republican votes, nothing else.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

The rules should radically be changed so that it doesn't take millionaires hundreds of millions of dollars to be President.

The system sucks...
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

To the contrary, who hates competition is you. You want a media bias exactly opposite the views of the public. ANYONE can run as a candidate in ANY political party. If a candidate decides to run as a candidate of an unpopular political party they have nothing to cry about when they are treated like a candidate of an unpopular party.

YOU are who wants a media bias against the opinions of the public (their viewers) and it isn't going to happen. The media DOES how 3rd party debates - and virtually no one will watch them. It is the debate of the malcontent losers - and most people know that. YOU try to convert that to some unfairness. But the fact is that few people have interest in unpopular losers, unlike you.

yeah... up is down, right is wrong..left is right.... and i hate the thought of competition :lol:

in the category of mental gymnastics.. i'll give your routine a 9.5 ;)
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

You have anything to present that other political parties aren't corrupt and can't be corrupted?

it's pretty hard ot prove a negative... but if you have something that shows they are corrupt, i'm all ears.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Wait! Isn't it being claimed that people like H. Ross Perot were never allowed in debates and therefore it impossible he was ever in one with the 2 major party candidates?

Maybe the suggestion of the OP is outright false and it is only losers who essentially have no support that aren't allowed in the major debated and instead put into their own losers' 3rd party debates?

you do understand the rules have changed since Perot right?....it now takes 15% polling nationally to gain entry into the debates, that threshold didn't exist in 1992... or in 1996 when your parties disallowed Perot from those debates.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

There is nothing in the way of a legal impediment stopping anyone from getting their message out.

Coming up with lame excuses blaming others is rather par for the course for those who cannot face the reality of their own weak position with the American people.

they can't get them out in the arena that is provided for the 2 major parties to get their message out... and you defend this discrimination as proper.

lame excuses?... yeah, the 2 major parties stacking the deck against all other comers is a "lame excuse" :roll:

I'm sorry you don't understand that the majority of Americans want a 3rd party included ( 60%)... I'm sorry you feel the need to defend corruption... but neither of those are my problem... those are on you.

i'm confident we, as a nation, will work this out fairly...whether or not you stand in the way.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

they can't get them out in the arena that is provided for the 2 major parties to get their message out... and you defend this discrimination as proper.

lame excuses?... yeah, the 2 major parties stacking the deck against all other comers is a "lame excuse" :roll:

I'm sorry you don't understand that the majority of Americans want a 3rd party included ( 60%)... I'm sorry you feel the need to defend corruption... but neither of those are my problem... those are on you.

i'm confident we, as a nation, will work this out fairly...whether or not you stand in the way.

Give middle working class Americans a party for them and they will respond. The Libertarian Party is not that group - never has been that group - and never will be that group.

Nobody has to stack the deck against the Libertarian Party.They already do an excellent job at making themselves completely marginalized and completely not relevant to the lives of the vast vast majority of the American people. And even the vast majority of the pretend dilettante's who claim they share libertarian principles will not vote for them at election time.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Give middle working class Americans a party for them and they will respond. The Libertarian Party is not that group - never has been that group - and never will be that group.

Nobody has to stack the deck against the Libertarian Party.They already do an excellent job at making themselves completely marginalized and completely not relevant to the lives of the vast vast majority of the American people. And even the vast majority of the pretend dilettante's who claim they share libertarian principles will not vote for them at election time.

you are the only one talking about the Libertarian party.... the rest of us are talking about 3rd parties in general.

we understand the LP is your personal bogeyman.. but you're punishing all 3rd parties by protecting the corrupt status quo.
my position applies equally to the LP, or the Green party, or the Independent party,.. or whatever party may pop up in the future.

don't let your irrational fears screw it up for everybody.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

you are the only one talking about the Libertarian party.... the rest of us are talking about 3rd parties in general.

we understand the LP is your personal bogeyman.. but you're punishing all 3rd parties by protecting the corrupt status quo.
my position applies equally to the LP, or the Green party, or the Independent party,.. or whatever party may pop up in the future.

don't let your irrational fears screw it up for everybody.

"for everybody"????? Just who is "everybody"?

Yes - I am being specific and grounded in the real world. I realize that some here prefer to be general and vague and pretend that they are talking about one thing when they are really talking about something else. That is not my style.

Lets call a spade a spade and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

"for everybody"????? Just who is "everybody"?

Yes - I am being specific and grounded in the real world. I realize that some here prefer to be general and vague and pretend that they are talking about one thing when they are really talking about something else. That is not my style.

Lets call a spade a spade and let the chips fall where they may.

everybody = all Americans

I'm not sure why you choose to pretend the LP is the only 3rd party, but it's a pretty ****ing stupid position.

we'll have to force the chips to fall... and party loyalists like yourself will continue to fight for the corrupt status quo.
 
Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

everybody = all Americans

I'm not sure why you choose to pretend the LP is the only 3rd party, but it's a pretty ****ing stupid position.

we'll have to force the chips to fall... and party loyalists like yourself will continue to fight for the corrupt status quo.

Its called facing reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom