• 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
Here's a thought, maybe nobody cares about 3rd party candidates except Libertarians and other disgruntled political minorities?

Here's a thought, let the minor parties compete on a level playing field and then we'll know!
 
Here's a thought, let the minor parties compete on a level playing field and then we'll know!

One of the bad things about democracy is that 'level playing field' is subjective. As an example: 3rd parties are able to disseminate their message just as the 2 parties are. It still remains a fact that only 1% of Americans choose to vote for them.
 
One of the bad things about democracy is that 'level playing field' is subjective. As an example: 3rd parties are able to disseminate their message just as the 2 parties are. It still remains a fact that only 1% of Americans choose to vote for them.
It's the whole 'legalize all drugs' thing that gets me....no, it's also the 'consenting adult' bull****.

Politically I'm a Functionalist, I think you need to be concerned about more than yourself. However, if you aren't harming anyone, sure, do what you want....the problem is the 'consenting adults' types are usually harming others by extension and don't give a ****.
 
Sure why not? especially if the party is really popular.
 
One of the bad things about democracy is that 'level playing field' is subjective. As an example: 3rd parties are able to disseminate their message just as the 2 parties are. It still remains a fact that only 1% of Americans choose to vote for them.

Well, you've got Jerry on your side. That speaks volumes in itself.
 
And you're a Libertarian. I guess we're even?

Coming from a "very liberal" I take that as a compliment. I somehow suspect you don't enjoy the association with Jerry as much as I enjoy a big-government authoritarian disparaging my lean. So no, we're not even, I'm up on you.
 
Coming from a "very liberal" I take that as a compliment. I somehow suspect you don't enjoy the association with Jerry

Jerry's been a respected member of this forum and friend of mine for about 6 years now. Regardless of his lean. Remind us of who you are again? Well, as the same suggests: A guy nobody notices. Unless he flaunts around his cued up big government diatribes from time to time and even then, still a nobody on this forum. The existence of the Libertarian is a reaction to nobody caring about you in your everyday life. So you flaunt the individuality shtick as if supporting government in one way or another is something be ashamed off. Spare us the 16 year old reaction. We've seen it before. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
I didn't know there were any.

Yep. The videos are on YouTube. Not exactly inspiring stuff. Part of the problem is third party candidates tend to be single issue parties that attract a lunatic fringe. That's been the libertarians problem with their continued insistence on falling back to the drug legalization issue.
 
That's the best you have? Some green-tards trying to enter a restricted aria? Thank you for proving my point.

You said there were not "armed guards" keeping them out of the debates. Did that not show armed guards not allowing them into the debates?
 
You said there were not "armed guards" keeping them out of the debates. Did that not show armed guards not allowing them into the debates?

It did not. It showed 2 loons knowing they would get arrested for trespassing just like anyyone else. It did not show any political party being discriminated against.
 
I didn't know there were armed guards keeping them out.

Badnarik and Cobb (Libertarian and Green party Presidential Candidates respectively) were arrested outside the Presidential debates and held in jail until the debates were over. All while trying to serve a legal "Order to Appear" document.
 
One of the bad things about democracy is that 'level playing field' is subjective. As an example: 3rd parties are able to disseminate their message just as the 2 parties are. It still remains a fact that only 1% of Americans choose to vote for them.

Actually they are not. Due to various campaign finance laws and the ability to participate openly in the debates; third parties are well more restricted than the main party in being able to get the message out, having access to the system, and competing on the national stage.
 
I think if a 3rd party can get enough support then they should be allowed in national debates.

What if they can't get the aggregated support everyone talks about as barrier to entry less they can compete openly and fairly?
 
Should they be allowed? Sure. Do they have a right to be involved in a debate? Of course not. Freedom of association is a two way street.

The government has no right to freedom of association.
 
Badnarik and Cobb (Libertarian and Green party Presidential Candidates respectively) were arrested outside the Presidential debates and held in jail until the debates were over. All while trying to serve a legal "Order to Appear" document.
They were trying to use a court order as an excuse to disrupt a debate. Wow how classy.
 
They were trying to use a court order as an excuse to disrupt a debate. Wow how classy.

They were two Presidential candidates on all 50 State ballots who obtained legal order to appear at the debates and were arrested and held until the debates were over.

Is there something wrong with that? How classy indeed to ARREST POLITICAL CANDIDATES AT A DEBATE, and to hold them until the debate is over. Do you seriously not see issue with any of this?
 
They were two Presidential candidates on all 50 State ballots who obtained legal order to appear at the debates and were arrested and held until the debates were over.

Is there something wrong with that? How classy indeed to ARREST POLITICAL CANDIDATES AT A DEBATE, and to hold them until the debate is over. Do you seriously not see issue with any of this?
I think there's more to the story you're purposefully forgetting. I guess if I gave a **** about anything the green party has to say on any issue I would look further into it.
 
I think there's more to the story you're purposefully forgetting.

No, there really isn't. There's A LOT of the story YOU'RE forgetting; but that's about it. But you ran your mouth saying "I didn't know there were armed guards keeping them out.". Now you've been presented with that actually happening; and what do you have? Backtracking and deflection. That's it. Nothing more.

In America, land of the free, 2 Presidential Candidates outside the Presidential Debates were arrested and held until the debates were over, and you are apparently OK with that level of Mao-esk communist tactics. Well good show. Don't stop to think, don't stop to research and find out, don't ponder the implications of doing so. Just trudge forward, head in sand, thinking there's no problem. That's how solutions are found. :roll:
 
No, there really isn't. There's A LOT of the story YOU'RE forgetting;...
....implying I knew about it in the first place.

In America, land of the free, blah blah etc etc from the top of my soap box...
If they had a right to be there they would have been let in. Obviously something was amis.

Who cares about the green party anyway? How about we defend someone relevant?
 
....implying I knew about it in the first place.

Implying that you are just dismissing it now

If they had a right to be there they would have been let in. Obviously something was amis.

Who cares about the green party anyway? How about we defend someone relevant?

Who cares about an open political system with proper political competition as it relates to keeping a democratic Republic? Did you seriously just say that?
 
Back
Top Bottom