Does the Libertarian party deserve a spot at the debate podium?

[Taco John]

I'm curious to get people's answers to this.

[BucEyedPea]

I'd be great if they did...but then Nader and the Constitution Party would have to come.
Oh I am biased.

[Adept Havelock]

Sure. I don't see why not.

[Taco John]

People seem to believe that the two party system is the way to go. If that's going to be the case, I'd like to see a run-off party primary where parties are whittled down until there are only two left - whoever they may be.

Absent that system, I'd like to see the highest polling third party candidate invited to each debate to provide a third perspective on the issues - and present their own in deference to the constituency that is putting them there.

[Direckshun]

It's fairly arbitrary.

I'd say no, because I doubt Barr would even pull in 3% of the vote nationally. I think the bar (no pun intended) should be around 10-15% before you get a podium.

[2bikemike]

I am all for new Ideas in Govt. The problem as I see it is that if the 2 parties we currently have in power can't seem to get along and work together why would having an elected leader from a 3rd party make any difference?

Lately I think I have been leaning more libertarian.

[banyon]

I voted no for *this* election. The rules are already set. I'm for reforming them along the lines I suggested in the Wes Clark thread, 2%, then 5, then 9, then 12-15. I think it would be better that way and give third parties a real shot.

[BucEyedPea]

I am all for new Ideas in Govt. The problem as I see it is that if the 2 parties we currently have in power can't seem to get along and work together why would having an elected leader from a 3rd party make any difference?

Lately I think I have been leaning more libertarian.

I like when they don't work together. Look at what one party rule did, and now what bi-partisanship is doing.

[SNR]

I believe it's necessary for people to be exposed to the complete spectrum of the political system. Right now all I see are Democrats and other Democrats who like guns. And now it appears the gun difference is even gone as well.

That's not a good enough choice. Hell, I'd rather have 6 parties up there before I support the current system we have.

[jettio]

Any party that would nominate a johnny come-lately like Bob Barr who voted for the Patriot Act doesn't deserve a spot in the debates.

[bango]

I like when they don't work together. Look at what one party rule did, and now what bi-partisanship is doing.

Gridlock is the way to go when our government is such a joke.

[Taco John]

It's fairly arbitrary.

I'd say no, because I doubt Barr would even pull in 3% of the vote nationally. I think the bar (no pun intended) should be around 10-15% before you get a podium.


So how does a candidate get 10-15% without the free publicity of a podium?

Third parties don't get the national coverage of their primaries that the Republicans and Democrats do. You you might not have even known that the Libertarians had a Convention in May. Despite the fact that it *is* news, it didn't garner any.

And you can't base entrance on what you *think* a candidate might pull six months from now. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. "We're not going to give you entrance because "we the anointed" don't think you will garner 10-15%." There's no way any third party candidate could pull 10-15% without having a podium.... unless, of course, they're a tycoon like Ross Perot who can just buy his way in.

[Jenson71]

Any party that would nominate a johnny come-lately like Bob Barr who voted for the Patriot Act doesn't deserve a spot in the debates.

But now he's a great spokesmen against the Act. I don't think Barr is the best candidate for the party, but I do think the Libertarians deserve a spot at the podium. Absolutely.

[Taco John]

I voted no for *this* election. The rules are already set.

The rules are already set by who?

[Jenson71]

So how does a candidate get 10-15% without the free publicity of a podium?

Third parties don't get the national coverage of their primaries that the Republicans and Democrats do. You you might not have even known that the Libertarians had a Convention in May. Despite the fact that it *is* news, it didn't garner any.

And you can't base entrance on what you *think* a candidate might pull six months from now. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. "We're not going to give you entrance because "we the anointed" don't think you will garner 10-15%." There's no way any third party candidate could pull 10-15% without having a podium.... unless, of course, they're a tycoon like Ross Perot who can just buy his way in.

You are absolutely right, Taco.

[Direckshun]

So how does a candidate get 10-15% without the free publicity of a podium?

Third parties don't get the national coverage of their primaries that the Republicans and Democrats do. You you might not have even known that the Libertarians had a Convention in May. Despite the fact that it *is* news, it didn't garner any.

And you can't base entrance on what you *think* a candidate might pull six months from now. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. "We're not going to give you entrance because "we the anointed" don't think you will garner 10-15%." There's no way any third party candidate could pull 10-15% without having a podium.... unless, of course, they're a tycoon like Ross Perot who can just buy his way in.
I think that's a fair perspective.

My fear is that if we set the bar too low, let's say 2-3%, then acceptance of third parties is going to skyrocket (not that that's a bad thing), a good handful of third party candidates are going to reach that platform and all of a sudden we have one of those braindead super-debates that suck so much ass it's not even funny.

But that's me.

[banyon]

The rules are already set by who?

The Parties who sponsor the debate.

You're free to hold your own debate though, like the 3rd party one between Gary Coleman, the hooker, et al, in the Calif. gubernatorial debate.

It's not the best, but I don't think it's realistic to demand it for this debate when plenty of other viable third parties have planned otherwise.

[Taco John]

I will say this before I pick up my clubs and head out the door...


If the Libertarians had a podium at the debate, you want to know who would lose?

The run to the middle candidate who abandons his base to fool voters. A third party would keep the other parties honest about their positions.

[Direckshun]

I will say this before I pick up my clubs and head out the door...

If the Libertarians had a podium at the debate, you want to know who would lose?

The run to the middle candidate who abandons his base to fool voters. A third party would keep the other parties honest about their positions.
Nader and Perot did well for themselves as candidates and Bush, Gore, Clinton, and the other Bushes still spewed tons of bullshit. You're off base on this one.

I hope you hit a 134, by the way. I hope they name a bunker on the 7th after you, posting a sorry ass picture of you crying in the rough on a nearby tree.

[Taco John]

I think that's a fair perspective.

My fear is that if we set the bar too low, let's say 2-3%, then acceptance of third parties is going to skyrocket (not that that's a bad thing), a good handful of third party candidates are going to reach that platform and all of a sudden we have one of those braindead super-debates that suck so much ass it's not even funny.

But that's me.


Ugh, one more...

My opinion is that it shouldn't matter what the percentage is... 1% is enough, but just invite one third party. Whichever one is polling the highest gets the seat. Let the reform start there by just allowing that third perspective. If the next debate rolls around and a different party is polling higher at that point, then give the podium to that party.

Let the public decide what ideas are - or aren't trivial through their votes in November.

[Direckshun]

I genuinely don't think third parties have historically done well in America for practical reasons that won't go away even if you destroy the political reasons.

Americans on the right would prefer to rally around a generally conservative candidate, even if they disagree with that candidate on a host of issues, to prevent a generally liberal candidate from winning the election. Therefore they will be incredibly hesitant to split up the vote amongst two parties with relatively close ideologies. And thus we end up with two general parties.

Now, if we had something like Germany has with proportional representation, you could have a lot more parties break through.

[BigChiefDave]

Why are so many people so afraid of anything NOT republican or democrat? ****ing narrowminded people. And democrats call themselves 'progressives'...:rolleyes:

[irishjayhawk]

I voted I don't care because this election is too far along.

[HolmeZz]

Why are so many people so afraid of anything NOT republican or democrat? ****ing narrowminded people. And democrats call themselves 'progressives'...:rolleyes:

Uh, I'm pretty sure Democrats would be a lot more willing to have Barr in the debates than the Republicans would. Barr's much more of a threat to take votes away from their candidate than the Dem's.

[irishjayhawk]

Why are so many people so afraid of anything NOT republican or democrat? ****ing narrowminded people. And democrats call themselves 'progressives'...:rolleyes:

:spock:

The poll is overwhelmingly in favor.....

[bunnytrdr]

What I would really like to know, is if Brit Hume deserves a place as moderator.

[Guru]

People seem to believe that the two party system is the way to go. If that's going to be the case, I'd like to see a run-off party primary where parties are whittled down until there are only two left - whoever they may be.

Absent that system, I'd like to see the highest polling third party candidate invited to each debate to provide a third perspective on the issues - and present their own in deference to the constituency that is putting them there.
The top three candidates should always be up there. Hell, I would be for four too.

[BigChiefDave]

:spock:

The poll is overwhelmingly in favor.....:spock: Right back at you. I'm just sick of this 2-party BS.

[irishjayhawk]

FTR, I also voted "I don't care" because it shouldn't just be the Libertarian party. It should be any party. All parties.

It most certainly is a false choice to assume you only have 2 options. Sadly, people make false choices all the time and it isn't changing soon.

[Guru]

Why are so many people so afraid of anything NOT republican or democrat? ****ing narrowminded people. And democrats call themselves 'progressives'...:rolleyes:

:spock:

The poll is overwhelmingly in favor.....

:spock: Right back at you. I'm just sick of this 2-party BS.

I was taken aback by his statement at first too. Guess he wasn't referring to the results of the poll. Just the fact that we are still primarily a 2-party system.

[CRONUS]

What I would really like to know, is if Brit Hume deserves a place as moderator.
Anyone who works for FOX or MSNBC should be eliminated. Matter of fact I say pick professional debate moderators and avoid Network talking heads entirely.

[Guru]

Anyone who works for FOX or MSNBC should be eliminated. Matter of fact I say pick professional debate moderators and avoid Network talking heads entirely.

With Tim Russert gone, I totally agree with that.

[patteeu]

I'd be great if they did...but then Nader and the Constitution Party would have to come.
Oh I am biased.

I liked banyon's idea. I don't remember the details, but he suggested a series of debates with the first one having a pretty low threshold for inclusion and with the threshold for each subsequent debate being higher than the last to winnow the field.

Maybe have the first debate include every candidate who has made it on at least a majority of the state ballots and then set the bar for entry into subsequent debates on the basis of polling data starting at 5% and working it's way up to the current 15% for the final debate.

Edit: I see banyon reiterated his idea in this thread.

[patteeu]

I genuinely don't think third parties have historically done well in America for practical reasons that won't go away even if you destroy the political reasons.

Americans on the right would prefer to rally around a generally conservative candidate, even if they disagree with that candidate on a host of issues, to prevent a generally liberal candidate from winning the election. Therefore they will be incredibly hesitant to split up the vote amongst two parties with relatively close ideologies. And thus we end up with two general parties.

Now, if we had something like Germany has with proportional representation, you could have a lot more parties break through.

Right. As long as we have winner take all elections, a two party system is inevitable.

[BucEyedPea]

Anyone who works for FOX or MSNBC should be eliminated. Matter of fact I say pick professional debate moderators and avoid Network talking heads entirely.

Great idea. But even those could be chosen for political reasons with either party objecting.

[BucEyedPea]

Right. As long as we have winner take all elections, a two party system is inevitable.

I almost agree with you but I do think a winner take all could still have a 3P win. The problem is the stranglehold the 2 parties have over getting on ballots and media bias and control: Fox -Rs CNN-Ds. Control over what the mainstream gets to hear has far more to do with it, imo.

[HonestChieffan]

If a third party could come up with a realistic candidate, there wouldnt be a question. So far, since TR, it has not happened.

[Jenson71]

If a third party could come up with a realistic candidate, there wouldnt be a question. So far, since TR, it has not happened.

He had a nice advantage, didn't he?

[J Diddy]

I almost agree with you but I do think a winner take all could still have a 3P win. The problem is the stranglehold the 2 parties have over getting on ballots and media bias and control: Fox -Rs CNN-Ds. Control over what the mainstream gets to hear has far more to do with it, imo.


because they have more money

[BucEyedPea]

If a third party could come up with a realistic candidate, there wouldnt be a question. So far, since TR, it has not happened.

realistic=status quo and no change LMAO


Perot had a chance...then was threatened because he was showing for real he had a chance.
That's what this country is up against. It's also a battle between the two lefts: socialist vs fascists.

[BucEyedPea]

because they have more money

People have still won without a lot of money. Look at Mac in the recent primary. Money has much to do with it but so long as we have media annointed candidates (CNN- Obama) and (Fox-Mac) and so long as our major media which is backed by those connected to the two parties, our information and messages will be controlled.

[BigChiefDave]

If a third party could come up with a realistic candidate, there wouldnt be a question. So far, since TR, it has not happened.Democrats and Republicans haven't come up with real candidate, either. Still, people are going to vote for the douchenozzles running...

[HonestChieffan]

Democrats and Republicans haven't come up with real candidate, either. Still, people are going to vote for the douchenozzles running...

Good catch.

[BucEyedPea]

Democrats and Republicans haven't come up with real candidate, either. Still, people are going to vote for the douchenozzles running...

Sad but true. They do want change but vote for the same. People can and do vote for politicians who will wind up slaughtering them.

[eazyb81]

I hate the current two party system. It'd be great if other parties were given more exposure so we could new thoughts and ideas on probems that affect our country.

[Taco John]

Interesting to see who is on the fringe of this question. Not totally suprising, though...

[banyon]

Interesting to see who is on the fringe of this question. Not totally suprising, though...

For my part, I restricted my vote to this election only. I also offered a variant on the idea, which I presume you think is bad just because I was the one who proposed it, and not for any legitimate reasons.

[Taco John]

For my part, I restricted my vote to this election only. I also offered a variant on the idea, which I presume you think is bad just because I was the one who proposed it, and not for any legitimate reasons.


I think it's pretty arbitrary to vote against it for this election. There's no good rationalization for it.

[banyon]

I think it's pretty arbitrary to vote against it for this election. There's no good rationalization for it.

I gave my argument against it earlier in the thread. It's pretty arbitrary to start it this late in the 08 election as well.

[Taco John]

I gave my argument against it earlier in the thread. It's pretty arbitrary to start it this late in the 08 election as well.

Huh? The Libertarian convention was in May. The Republican and Democrats haven't even had their conventions yet. Start it this late? The Libertarians are EARLY.

There hasn't even been a single debate.

What are you talking about?

[banyon]

Huh? The Libertarian convention was in May. The Republican and Democrats haven't even had their conventions yet. Start it this late? The Libertarians are EARLY.

There hasn't even been a single debate.

What are you talking about?

You're aware that there are only 4 months until the election right?

[BigChiefDave]

You're aware that there are only 4 months until the election right?Um, so?

[Taco John]

You're aware that there are only 4 months until the election right?


So what?

You're aware that the Republicans and Democrats haven't even had their nomination conventions, right?

You're aware that the Libertarians had a nominee before the democrats even had a presumtive nominee, right?

You're aware that a single presidential debate hasn't taken place yet, right?

Any way you slice it, your position is arbitrary.

[banyon]

So what?

You're aware that the Republicans and Democrats haven't even had their nomination conventions, right?

You're aware that the Libertarians had a nominee before the democrats even had a presumtive nominee, right?

You're aware that a single presidential debate hasn't taken place yet, right?

Any way you slice it, your position is arbitrary.

So, the only points of view that matter are the Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians? Do I have that right?

[BigChiefDave]

You're aware that there are only 4 months until the election right?Wow. I'd like to see a explanation, because this makes NO sense, whatsoever.

[banyon]

Wow. I'd like to see a explanation, because this makes NO sense, whatsoever.

Ok, let me try this again:

It's not the best, but I don't think it's realistic to demand it for this debate when plenty of other viable third parties have planned otherwise.

IOW, given a new set of rules, those 3rd parties could have planned differently, perhaps picked up more viable candidates, allocated funds differently.

Taco is joined at the hip lately with Libertarians, and that's swell for him. But I've given my support in the past to the Greens. They've basically abdicated this election and the previous one with the anticipation that Obama will be friendly to enough of their interests. If they had a spot at the podium, though , they could've taken a much more aggressive approach with a lot more to gain.

[little jacob]

I voted no for *this* election. The rules are already set. I'm for reforming them along the lines I suggested in the Wes Clark thread, 2%, then 5, then 9, then 12-15. I think it would be better that way and give third parties a real shot.

that sounds good. let everyone polling 2% at the start participate but raise the bar for the following ones.

not sure the 2% would even get the LP in though

[BigChiefDave]

So, the only points of view that matter are the Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians? Do I have that right?What is wrong with having 4-5 people in a debate?

[banyon]

What is wrong with having 4-5 people in a debate?

Nothing, ceteris paribus.

But the ceteris isn't paribus.

[banyon]

that sounds good. let everyone polling 2% at the start participate but raise the bar for the following ones.

not sure the 2% would even get the LP in though

It probably would if it got them a spot at the podium, at least for the first couple of debates.

*edit* what I mean is I think the polls would shift a bit with the different set of rules.

[Taco John]

So, the only points of view that matter are the Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians? Do I have that right?


Now that's your argument? A minute ago, it was that it was too late (despite the fact that the Libertarians were early). Now your problem is the exclusion of the other parties?

[little jacob]

It probably would if it got them a spot at the podium, at least for the first couple of debates.

yeah, i'm sure more people would grow to like them, and i would love to have their perspective as a 1 in 3 participant on the political landscape.

my meaning was more like, they usually poll at one half of one percent or lower in the general, so that would probably be where they were starting from.

[irishjayhawk]

My problem is the exclusion of other parties.

Do I think they deserve a spot? Yes. Undoubtedly.
Do I think they are the only ones deserving of said spot? No. Undoubtedly.

So, that's why I answered the 3rd option. It's yes and no. Yes, if everyone else is allowed. No, if it's just them allowed.

[BucEyedPea]

my meaning was more like, they usually poll at one half of one percent or lower in the general, so that would probably be where they were starting from.

What a sad state of affairs for this republic that that's the case.
All the more reason for us Paulies to get our own tv and radio station...which is being worked on btw.

[little jacob]

What is wrong with having 4-5 people in a debate?

you have to narrow it down to people who are realistic at some point. i like having more around at the start, because it will get those alternative viewpoints out there. but if the election is a month away and Cukoo Kapital of the Green Party is polling at .1%, are we better served to give him more airtime when the public is clearly not interested in this candidate, or by giving them more information to make a choice between the ones that have a realistic chance?

it's like job interviews, for a big position, you would have a series, some don't make the first cut, some dont make the second cut

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by banyon
For my part, I restricted my vote to this election only.
Wow what a little fascist....trying to keep out an alternative to Obama 'ey?
At least be honest and admit to your bias.

[irishjayhawk]

you have to narrow it down to people who are realistic at some point. i like having more around at the start, because it will get those alternative viewpoints out there. but if the election is a month away and Cukoo Kapital of the Green Party is polling at .1%, are we better served to give him more airtime when the public is clearly not interested in this candidate, or by giving them more information to make a choice between the ones that have a realistic chance?

it's like job interviews, for a big position, you would have a series, some don't make the first cut, some dont make the second cut

There's no way to get polling up unless they're given time. So, you have yourself a chicken/egg argument.

[banyon]

Now that's your argument? A minute ago, it was that it was too late (despite the fact that the Libertarians were early). Now your problem is the exclusion of the other parties?

That's been my objection since the beginning. I quoted the earlier post where I first raised the point.

[banyon]

Wow what a little fascist....trying to keep out an alternative to Obama 'ey?
At least be honest and admit to your bias.

BRAND YOUR ENEMIES TO HONOR THE 4TH OF JULY!!!

Great form, really. :rolleyes:

And I explained myself, earlier. If you still haven't refined your logical skills well enough to address my arguments, perhaps you'd better play it safe and put me back on pseudo-ignore.

[Taco John]

My problem is the exclusion of other parties.

Do I think they deserve a spot? Yes. Undoubtedly.
Do I think they are the only ones deserving of said spot? No. Undoubtedly.

So, that's why I answered the 3rd option. It's yes and no. Yes, if everyone else is allowed. No, if it's just them allowed.


If other parties are organized enough, sure, let them in. The simple solution is to open spots for the highest polling third parties, whoever they may be. There are plenty of third parties that are well organized this year.

What bothers me about Banyon's answer is the "tied into the establishment" nature of it, combined with pretense that it would be unfair to the other third parties. Unfair? You've got to be kidding me! You're going to sit there, with these two jokes of a party monopolizing the discussion in this country, and you want to limit third parties in the interest of fairness.

Banyon is politically hopeless. A "dialed into the establishment progressive." A great shing example of what's wrong with the Democrat party. No underlying philosophy that they'll cop to, and thus nothing to really guide them but polls and other feel good indicators. Unfortunately, having no direction doesn't mean you're not going in one.

[banyon]

If other parties are organized enough, sure, let them in. The simple solution is to open spots for the highest polling third parties, whoever they may be. There are plenty of third parties that are well organized this year.

What bothers me about Banyon's answer is the "tied into the establishment" nature of it, combined with pretense that it would be unfair to the other third parties. Unfair? You've got to be kidding me! You're going to sit there, with these two jokes of a party monopolizing the discussion in this country, and you want to limit third parties in the interest of fairness.

While this post adequately conveys your exasperation, it doesn't, of course, address the fundamental point I made in any way. Changing the rules mid-game is usually unfair to someone no matter which game you are playing. The fair thing to do would be to change the rules next time around.

Banyon is politically hopeless. A "dialed into the establishment progressive." A great shing example of what's wrong with the Democrat party. No underlying philosophy that they'll cop to, and thus nothing to really guide them but polls and other feel good indicators. Unfortunately, having no direction doesn't mean you're not going in one.

This is patently ridiculous. I've railed as much against the two party system as much as anyone. I proposed what seems like a fair alternative, and I've been on record here many times saying that I favor proportional representation and instant runoff voting. I've also voted for the Green Party and supported them on many occasions to try to pull the Democrats on those issues.

I've also been fairly consistent on my preferred policies and political ideology. Maybe you could point to some great shift with the polling I have made?

I think my original comment was perhaps the most on the mark, and I'll quote Hamilton to reiterate:

"Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike."-A.H.

[patteeu]

I almost agree with you but I do think a winner take all could still have a 3P win. The problem is the stranglehold the 2 parties have over getting on ballots and media bias and control: Fox -Rs CNN-Ds. Control over what the mainstream gets to hear has far more to do with it, imo.

Yeah, a charismatic and/or wealthy 3rd party candidate has a small chance to catch lightning in a bottle, but as long as we have winner take all elections, such an occurrence will be highly improbable and we won't have a significant, persistent 3rd party that rivals the two majors year after year. We could have a 3rd party take over the number 2 slot, as has happened a few times in our history, but the system won't really support three ongoing parties.

[patteeu]

Goodness gracious. I don't see any big reason why the rules couldn't be changed for this year's debates, but the difference between banyon's position and someone who would adopt banyon's more inclusive process right now (i.e. me) is trivial in the larger scheme of things. To accuse him of being tied into the establishment or a member of "facists for Obama" over his sense of fairness (i.e. waiting until the next election to shake things up) seems a bit overblown to me.

[Ultra Peanut]

Biafra 08

[Dr. Van Halen]

Biafra 08

Ha! Good lord, is Jello still alive?

[Taco John]

Goodness gracious. I don't see any big reason why the rules couldn't be changed for this year's debates, but the difference between banyon's position and someone who would adopt banyon's more inclusive process right now (i.e. me) is trivial in the larger scheme of things. To accuse him of being tied into the establishment or a member of "facists for Obama" over his sense of fairness (i.e. waiting until the next election to shake things up) seems a bit overblown to me.



I don't believe I've accused anyone of being a member of the "facists for Obama." I'm just trying to figure out what rules he is imagining are being changed by including a third party on the stage this year.

And someone who takes the position "wait until the next election to shake things up" is most definitely tied into the establishment. That position is so arbitrary and meaningless - it serves only the Republicans and the Democrats and leaves everyone else out.

Nothing I said was irrational or incorrect. I'll point out that Banyon is, in fact, in the minority on this question, kept company by the likes of Kotter (who also doesn't have any sort of coherent political grounding).

[patteeu]

I don't believe I've accused anyone of being a member of the "facists for Obama." I'm just trying to figure out what rules he is imagining are being changed by including a third party on the stage this year.

And someone who takes the position "wait until the next election to shake things up" is most definitely tied into the establishment. That position is so arbitrary and meaningless - it serves only the Republicans and the Democrats and leaves everyone else out.

Nothing I said was irrational or incorrect. I'll point out that Banyon is, in fact, in the minority on this question, kept company by the likes of Kotter (who also doesn't have any sort of coherent political grounding).

It was BEP who called him fascist. I didn't mean to give anyone the impression that you did that.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with him on this particular point. I don't agree with him either. I just think it's a trivial difference and doesn't justify the overheated criticism he's received.

[BucEyedPea]

It was BEP who called him fascist. I didn't mean to give anyone the impression that you did that.

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with him on this particular point. I don't agree with him either. I just think it's a trivial difference and doesn't justify the overheated criticism he's received.

Well if you're fair and balanced you'd say the same about banyon when he dishes out his snark. ( and yes he started it with me) But to me anyone trying to suppress other viewpoints even if for this election only, but not later IS advocating a fascist idea. The point is a valid one. It may not be hard fascism but it is a soft fascism. The intention is to control messages for political purposes. If he supports more views later then why not now? It implies he wants to protect his guy and not water things down. I mean don't you agree with the title of Jonah's new book "Liberal Fascism?" Isn't Jonah one of your boys? Do you exempt him? Besides what's the differnce when banyon uses "anarchy" or "anarcho-capitalism" toward a free-marketer? Really, if banyon wants civility he should practice it too. Fact is he's no different.

[irishjayhawk]

Well if you're fair and balanced you'd say the same about banyon when he dishes out his snark. ( and yes he started it with me) But to me anyone trying to suppress other viewpoints even if for this election only, but not later IS advocating a fascist idea. The point is a valid one. It may not be hard fascism but it is a soft fascism. The intention is to control messages for political purposes. If he supports more views later then why not now? It implies he wants to protect his guy and not water things down. I mean don't you agree with the title of Jonah's new book "Liberal Fascism?" Isn't Jonah one of your boys? Do you exempt him? Besides what's the differnce when banyon uses "anarchy" or "anarcho-capitalism" toward a free-marketer? Really, if banyon wants civility he should practice it too. Fact is he's no different.

Perhaps but at least admit that you throw left and right and R/D/L/C around a lot. In fact, I'm not even sure the way you use them half the time is even accurate in, for the lack of a better word, reality.

[Adept Havelock]

Ha! Good lord, is Jello still alive?

I believe he's running on the "Too Drunk to F**k" platform, which promises everyone a ‘Tricky Dick Screwdriver’. It’s got 1 part Jack Daniels, two parts purple Kool-Aid and a Jigger of formaldehyde from a jar with Hitler's brain in it that we got in the back store room...Happy trails to you." ;)

[patteeu]

Well if you're fair and balanced you'd say the same about banyon when he dishes out his snark. ( and yes he started it with me) But to me anyone trying to suppress other viewpoints even if for this election only, but not later IS advocating a fascist idea. The point is a valid one. It may not be hard fascism but it is a soft fascism. The intention is to control messages for political purposes. If he supports more views later then why not now? It implies he wants to protect his guy and not water things down. I mean don't you agree with the title of Jonah's new book "Liberal Fascism?" Isn't Jonah one of your boys? Do you exempt him? Besides what's the differnce when banyon uses "anarchy" or "anarcho-capitalism" toward a free-marketer? Really, if banyon wants civility he should practice it too. Fact is he's no different.

I don't really think that banyon is as infatuated with Obama as many of the Obama worshipers around here. He may be an Obama supporter, but I don't think that's what is leading him to reject Libertarian participation in this year's debate. I believe it when he says that he sees it as an issue of fairness even if I don't really see it the same way.

I only fingered you for the "facist" remark because Taco, for some reason, seemed to think I was saying that he said it.

I'm not condemning all incivility here (or one side of the incivility war between you and Taco on the one hand and banyon on the other), I'm just tut tutting what I see as a big overreaction to such a minor difference of opinion.

[acesn8s]

Why are so many people so afraid of anything NOT republican or democrat? ****ing narrowminded people. And democrats call themselves 'progressives'...:rolleyes:
They are afraid of change...oh wait.:hmmm:

[acesn8s]

IMO, if a person has his/her name on a ballot then it is the right of the voters to be informed of their opinions. To exclude ANY canidate from ANY debate based on their poll numbers is an injustice to those that have a say(i.e. voters) as to whether or not they may fill the position.

[banyon]

IMO, if a person has his/her name on a ballot then it is the right of the voters to be informed of their opinions. To exclude ANY canidate from ANY debate based on their poll numbers is an injustice to those that have a say(i.e. voters) as to whether or not they may fill the position.

So you wouldn't set any polling threshold?

[acesn8s]

So you wouldn't set any polling threshold?
Not one bit.

[irishjayhawk]

So you wouldn't set any polling threshold?

Actually, I have to agree with him here. At some point people have to realize that there are more than Ds and Rs. And that there are different positions to take.

This could be one of the fastest ways to change things: opening up the floor.

[markk]

Not one bit.

We're going to have to allow everyone in America who wants to participate into the televised debate?

What should the standard be if not how realistic your chance is?

[acesn8s]

We're going to have to allow everyone in America who wants to participate into the televised debate?

What should the standard be if not how realistic your chance is?As I said before....get on the ballot.

[Amnorix]

It's fairly arbitrary.

I'd say no, because I doubt Barr would even pull in 3% of the vote nationally. I think the bar (no pun intended) should be around 10-15% before you get a podium.


Gotta agree. <10% is pretty fringe. This isn't Italy...

[Nightwish]

I think so. Aside from the Independent Party, the Libertarian Party probably has the highest number of registered voters outside of the two major parties. Although their candidates might not have much chance now, having both Libertarian and Independent Party candidates take place in the debates would go a long way toward legitimizing those parties and might pave the way for us to eventually move past the 2-party system.

[markk]

As I said before....get on the ballot.

Where?

So when 20 people hear this and get on the ballot, are we going to have 20 man debates?

[acesn8s]

Where?

So when 20 people hear this and get on the ballot, are we going to have 20 man debates?
Do you realize how many signatures you need to get on the ballot in each state? The people signing their name to require their canidate to be on the ballot deserve to have their canidate be heard. If 20 people end up on the ballot then, yes, they should be part of the debate. They did what was required to be on the ballot, they should be able to put their views out there as much as anybody else. I will never support censorship of one canidate over others because they do not poll well.

[patteeu]

I think so. Aside from the Independent Party, the Libertarian Party probably has the highest number of registered voters outside of the two major parties. Although their candidates might not have much chance now, having both Libertarian and Independent Party candidates take place in the debates would go a long way toward legitimizing those parties and might pave the way for us to eventually move past the 2-party system.

What Independent Party?

[whoman69]

You let the Libertrians in then you have to let a whole bunch of others in as well. If you're not even polling 1 % nationally, what purpose do they serve in the national debate. This kind of thinking would bring us back to those wonderful useless debates when the Republicans had 12 candidates and the Democrats 9. Do you think bringing them into the debate would give them a chance to win? Most likely their numbers would go down as Americans see what true loonies they are even compared to Democrats and Republicans.

For years these third parties have wanted to media spotlight handed to them despite that they have made only paltry attempts to win Congressional seats and can't compete at anything higher than county water board. Right now the Libertarians are the largest third party out there. Care to guess how much of a grass roots organization they have put in? The answer is they have no mayors in anything larger than a small town, no one in state legislature, and crow about it when one of their congressional candidates can get 19% of the vote. Until they are more than a footnote they are right to be excluded.

They squat on uncontested elections.

[banyon]

Do you realize how many signatures you need to get on the ballot in each state? The people signing their name to require their canidate to be on the ballot deserve to have their canidate be heard. If 20 people end up on the ballot then, yes, they should be part of the debate. They did what was required to be on the ballot, they should be able to put their views out there as much as anybody else. I will never support censorship of one canidate over others because they do not poll well.

So, on the ballot in any state?

Currently, you'd be adding these folks to the debate:

Gene Amondson Prohibition Leroy Pletten
Chuck Baldwin Constitution Darrell Castle baldwin2008.com
Bob Barr Libertarian Wayne Allyn Root bobbarr2008.com
Róger Calero Socialist Workers Alyson Kennedy
Charles Jay Boston Tea Thomas L. Knapp CJ08.com
Gloria La Riva Socialism & Liberation Eugene Puryear votepsl.org

Brian Moore Socialist Stewart Alexander votesocialist2008.org
Ralph Nader Independent Matt Gonzalez votenader.org

TBD Green TBD

[Adept Havelock]

Gene Amondson Prohibition Leroy Pletten


There is actually a "Prohibition Party"?

[/Googles]

http://www.prohibition.org/

:doh!: What a pack of dunderheads.

Didn't these idiots learn from the last time it simply doesn't work? Oy gevalt. :shake:

Oh well, I'll pour one in their honor. :toast:

[banyon]

There is actually a "Prohibition Party"?

[/Googles]

http://www.prohibition.org/

:doh!: What a pack of dunderheads.

Didn't these idiots learn from the last time it simply doesn't work? Oy gevalt. :shake:

Oh well, I'll pour one in their honor. :toast:


The important thing is to get them to the podium so we can discuss issues regular people care about.

[pikesome]

The important thing is to get them to the podium so we can discuss issues regular people care about.

I hear enough mindless drivel from the Dem and Repub candidates, why bring an even worse class of pols in?

[patteeu]

So, on the ballot in any state?

Currently, you'd be adding these folks to the debate:

Gene Amondson Prohibition Leroy Pletten
Chuck Baldwin Constitution Darrell Castle baldwin2008.com
Bob Barr Libertarian Wayne Allyn Root bobbarr2008.com
Róger Calero Socialist Workers Alyson Kennedy
Charles Jay Boston Tea Thomas L. Knapp CJ08.com
Gloria La Riva Socialism & Liberation Eugene Puryear votepsl.org

Brian Moore Socialist Stewart Alexander votesocialist2008.org
Ralph Nader Independent Matt Gonzalez votenader.org

TBD Green TBD

How about an initial threshold of being on the ballot in a certain number of states (majority, 2/3rds, 90%, all 50)? After that first debate, narrow the field for subsequent debates on the basis of polling results as in your model.

[Amnorix]

There is actually a "Prohibition Party"?

[/Googles]

http://www.prohibition.org/

:doh!: What a pack of dunderheads.

Didn't these idiots learn from the last time it simply doesn't work? Oy gevalt. :shake:

Oh well, I'll pour one in their honor. :toast:

That's some good reading their (their website).

Quite amazing, really -- they seem very libertarian, but then want to prohibit gambling, alcohol and drugs. Bit of a non-sequitur there really.

[banyon]

How about an initial threshold of being on the ballot in a certain number of states (majority, 2/3rds, 90%, all 50)? After that first debate, narrow the field for subsequent debates on the basis of polling results as in your model.

Yeah, I like my suggestion better too. :p

[acesn8s]

How about an initial threshold of being on the ballot in a certain number of states (majority, 2/3rds, 90%, all 50)? After that first debate, narrow the field for subsequent debates on the basis of polling results as in your model.
I would be willing to accept that a canidate must be on the ballot of enough states to actually win the election. However, I also believe that these other canidates should be able to have a few minutes to respond similar to that of the Dems/Reps after a State of the Union speech.