• 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
Ikari said:
Implying that you are just dismissing it now
Click to expand...
<1.5% of the popular vote = irrelevant. That's pretty easy to dismiss. You need at least 5% to be included in a debate. 3rd parties didn't make it, they had a tantrum, got arrested. Boo-****ing-hoo.

Ikari said:
Who cares about an open political system with proper political competition as it relates to keeping a democratic Republic?
Click to expand...
<1.5% of the popular vote =/= competition. You really thought a candidate was going to win the election with 1.5% of the popular vote?

Show me the 3rd party which is currently, today, pulling 40%+ of the popular vote and being denied access.

You want to champion a bunch of loud-mouthed losers, go for it, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
<1.5% of the popular vote = irrelevant. That's pretty easy to dismiss. You need at least 5% to be included in a debate. 3rd parties didn't make it, they had a tantrum, got arrested. Boo-****ing-hoo.
Click to expand...

So because you think they have no chance, we can arrest them? That's pretty sick. They went through our established system. Went to the courts, as one should, got a legal Order to Appear from the judge; anything wrong with that? Got arrested trying to serve it. The depths some of you are willing to go to hide yourselves from the self-evident truth of our current system is truly staggering.

Jerry said:
>1.5% of the popular vote =/= competition.

Show me the 3rd party which is currently, today, pulling 40%+ of the popular vote and being denied access.
Click to expand...

Yes, in a system specifically set up to prevent 3rd party competition, fund raising, etc. show me the one that has overcome the systematic odds placed ahead of them so that Jerry can decree them "viable" and thus we cannot arrest them. The system is set up against being able to compete, but "show you can compete in a system set against you competing, and we'll allow you to compete" is as retarded an argument as you can give. You need X before Y, but you need Y to get X...that's the ol' Catch-22 and that's what you're endorsing. Thanks.

This is a Republic if we can keep it, we don't have time to be dicking around with stupid rules which force the system into stagnation and prevent competition. What is so bad about an open political system? What do you fear would happen by allowing open political competition in a free and democratic Republic?
 
Ikari said:
So because you think they have no chance, we can arrest them? That's pretty sick.
Click to expand...
Without 5%, they had no right to be there. They were rightfully arrested, not being oppressed, and they knew it, and did it anyway so as to get sympathy.

And...it was an order to show cause addressed to the comity, not an order to appear...and it didn't apply to the candidates. They could have had anyone deliver it. Orders to appear apply to court hearings, not debates. You can't be ordered to appear at a debate. That's just ****ing retarded.

Ikari said:
Yes, in a system specifically set up to prevent 3rd party competition, fund raising, etc. show me the one that has overcome the systematic odds placed ahead of them so that Jerry can decree them "viable" and thus we cannot arrest them. The system is set up against being able to compete, but "show you can compete in a system set against you competing, and we'll allow you to compete" is as retarded an argument as you can give. You need X before Y, but you need Y to get X...that's the ol' Catch-22 and that's what you're endorsing. Thanks.

This is a Republic if we can keep it, we don't have time to be dicking around with stupid rules which force the system into stagnation and prevent competition. What is so bad about an open political system? What do you fear would happen by allowing open political competition in a free and democratic Republic?
Click to expand...
Nothing stops anyone from donating money to a cause of their choice. 3rd parties can't raise money because no one buys into their bull****.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Without 5%, they had no right to be there. They were rightfully arrested, not being oppressed, and they knew it, and did it anyway so as to get sympathy.
Click to expand...

Rightfully arrested for trying to serve legal, court ordered papers that would have let them compete!!!???? Seriously? Do you listen to yourself or is this just rapid fire despotism?

Jerry said:
Nothing stops anyone from donating money to a cause of their choice. 3rd parties can't raise money because no one buys into their bull****.
Click to expand...

Nothing does....except for McCain-Feingold and a variety of other campaign laws which restrict the individual while unbridling the corporation in terms of donations. 3rd parties can fundraise to various effects; but the rules are currently set up on the national stage such that you come up from one of the major parties or you must be independently wealthy to have a chance. The cutoff was listed well too high, the system purposefully set up to stop third parties from ever reaching that barrier for participation.

So again. What is so bad about an open political system? What do you fear would happen by allowing open political competition in a free and democratic Republic?
 
Ikari said:
Rightfully arrested for trying to serve legal, court ordered papers that would have let them compete?
Click to expand...
1.5% does not give you any right to debate. Anyone could have served those papers, and, were the papers served, the comitty would have had days to weeks to respond. No matter how you cut this, those losers had no right to be at the debate.

Even if the court ordered the comity to let these people in, that doesn't matter. You have to be invited by the comity and cleared through Secret Service. That's not going to happen on-the-spot.

Ikari said:
Nothing does....except for McCain-Feingold and a variety of other campaign laws which restrict the individual while unbridling the corporation in terms of donations. 3rd parties can fundraise to various effects; but the rules are currently set up on the national stage such that you come up from one of the major parties or you must be independently wealthy to have a chance. The cutoff was listed well too high, the system purposefully set up to stop third parties from ever reaching that barrier for participation.

So again. What is so bad about an open political system? What do you fear would happen by allowing open political competition in a free and democratic Republic?
Click to expand...
You get 40% of the vote behind you and any fine print stopping your fundraising today will be washed away...1.5% isn't going to cut it; most polls have a margin or error bigger than that. That's hardly a political presence at all.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
1.5% does not give you any right to debate. Anyone could have served those papers, and, were the papers served, the comitty would have had days to weeks to respond. No matter how you cut this, those losers had no right to be at the debate.
Click to expand...

So going through our system, obtaining proper order by judge, that doesn't cut it? They can be arrested and hauled off to jail because 1.5% doesn't cut it. No rights exist for those poling at 1.5%

Jerry said:
You get 40% of the vote behind you and any fine print stopping your fundraising today will be washed away...1.5% isn't going to cut it; most polls have a margin or error bigger than that. That's hardly a political presence at all.
Click to expand...

The system breaks when we do it this way. How f'n hard is it to understand? That 1.5% is artificially low, produced through rules and regulations specifically made to artificially limit it. And in all of this artificial restriction, it's "compete at a level you cannot until you are allowed to compete or you are not allowed to compete". That is your argument. Can you not see this? You do not keep a democratic Republic through stagnation of the political system into a one-party system. There must be mechanisms for competition, it must be promoted and held to. If we do not compete, then given the properties of our system we will stagnate at a single-party. Stagnation is slow death.

It may hardly be a political presence, but that's because the Republocrats have rigged to rules to eliminate third party political presence. Duh.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

You did see the police? Did they not have arms were they not guarding the debate? Did they not arrest them once they tried to enter the debates?
 
Ikari said:
So going through our system, obtaining proper order by judge, that doesn't cut it? They can be arrested and hauled off to jail because 1.5% doesn't cut it. No rights exist for those poling at 1.5%



The system breaks when we do it this way. How f'n hard is it to understand? That 1.5% is artificially low, produced through rules and regulations specifically made to artificially limit it. And in all of this artificial restriction, it's "compete at a level you cannot until you are allowed to compete or you are not allowed to compete". That is your argument. Can you not see this? You do not keep a democratic Republic through stagnation of the political system into a one-party system. There must be mechanisms for competition, it must be promoted and held to. If we do not compete, then given the properties of our system we will stagnate at a single-party. Stagnation is slow death.

It may hardly be a political presence, but that's because the Republocrats have rigged to rules to eliminate third party political presence. Duh.
Click to expand...
It's because no one buys their **** about legalizing all hard drugs, for starters. Radical isolationist foreign policy is another. It's not about the rules, it's about the 3rd-party message being bull****.
 
Jerry said:
It's because no one buys their **** about legalizing all hard drugs, for starters. Radical isolationist foreign policy is another. It's not about the rules, it's about the 3rd-party message being bull****.
Click to expand...

Is it that? Or are you assuming it's that? Because since the system is rigged against third party exposure and competition, you can't actually isolate this as solely a political platform problem. And I don't think assumptions are proper argument for a restrictive and stagnate system.
 
Jerry said:
Was there a point to this post?
Click to expand...

You claimed there was no armed guards preventing their competition, and you've been shown a couple scenarios in which armed guards prevented competition.
 
Ikari said:
You claimed there was no armed guards preventing their competition, and you've been shown a couple scenarios in which armed guards prevented competition.
Click to expand...
They weren't competition. You have to have 5% in order to compete. The 3rd parties had no more than 1.5%. They had no right to be there.
 
Jerry said:
They weren't competition. You have to have 5% in order to compete. The 3rd parties had no more than 1.5%. They had no right to be there.
Click to expand...

They cannot obtain the 5% because they are not allowed to compete. If they are given the open forum and allowed to participate the same as the main party, it will have higher percentages. It is a system specifically constructed to prevent that.

What is the issue with open political competition? What is it exactly that you fear from allowing the choices to be presented to the People so that the People may hear the various platforms, arguments, and make an educated decision for once? How is that a bad thing for a free and democratic Republic?
 
Ikari said:
They cannot obtain the 5% because they are not allowed to compete.
Click to expand...
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.

Ikari said:
If they are given the open forum and allowed to participate the same as the main party, it will have higher percentages. It is a system specifically constructed to prevent that.
Click to expand...
The Republican Party is the original 3rd party. Republicans didn't need anything given to them. They took what they wanted.

Ikari said:
What is the issue with open political competition?
Click to expand...
1.5% is not competition.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

Jerry said:
The Republican Party is the original 3rd party. Republicans didn't need anything given to them. They took what they wanted.
Click to expand...

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?

Jerry said:
1.5% is not competition.
Click to expand...

1.5% cannot be overcome until the third parties are allowed to compete.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
Then let them in.
Click to expand...
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.

Ikari said:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you....
Click to expand...
Ah, going personal now. Nice.

Ikari said:
ain't the god of politics
Click to expand...
You were just asking my permission to let all these kook-fringe parties in.

Ikari said:
Why do you get to decide "relevant"?
Click to expand...
I can do math.

Ikari said:
Just because your party is part of the "relevant"?
Click to expand...
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.

Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Jerry said:
Ah, going personal now. Nice.
Click to expand...

Just used your own phrasing. Was there a problem with using your words?

Jerry said:
You were just asking my permission to let all these kook-fringe parties in.
Click to expand...

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.

Jerry said:
I can do math.
Click to expand...

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.

Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jerry said:
Ross Perot got about 25%. Where is the modern Ross Perot? Show me the candidate pulling 25% who is blocked from a debate.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Jerry said:
I saw the Secret Service, too.


They sure did.


They sure did.

Was there a point to this post?
Click to expand...

Lets see here you said: "I didn't know there were armed guards keeping them out."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom