Third-Party Candidates Debate unday

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, unday?

unday?

I've got to call the local Bar and find out what the specials are. Will there be hotdogs and uns?

" Will there be hotdogs and uns? "

Posted by wisgod

ff!

I think this is a travisty. Shouldn't the third party candidates be debating alongside McCain and Obama?? After all they are seaking the same office. Seems utterly BULLSHIT to seperate the 2 Major ones with all of the rest. That is fucked up.

Larry

" Shouldn't the third party candidates be debating alongside McCain and Obama?? "

Yes.

I have to agree with Larry...they should be debating alongside all candidates. It's not going to happen, but it should.

Damn...I'm agreeing with Zatto and Larry? Is this what they call common ground?

I think it would be a great time for American1st stock up on Peptobismol. I know I would.

Larry

"Is this what they call common ground?"

Feels good, don't it????!!!

This is what I'm talkin' about....people forgetting partisanship, opening up their minds and thinking about what's best for the country! I don't care if it's just about a debate...it's a start!

I LOVEEEEEEEEEE you guys!!

Peptobismol? WTF for?

Hey, LisA! yOU KNOW i LOVE YOU,2!

dAMNED CAPLOCKS! hAHAHAH!!

"Peptobismol? WTF for?"

nausea heartburn indigestion upset stomach diareah HEY!

"Hey, LisA! yOU KNOW i LOVE YOU,2!"

I know!!

Lisa is a lucky girl!

Hey, if they appear on enough ballots to theoretically take enough Electoral Votes to actually win, there's no reason they shouldn't be up there with Obama and McCain.

Otherwise, I can kinda see why not.

Clinton conspired with Rethuglicans to take the debates away from The League of Women Voters.When they ran the debates there was something to be learned by listening. Now that the Republocrats run the show, its a carefully staged dog and pony show with third parties locked out.

McKinney & Clemente 2008!!!!!!!!

I voted Nader in 2000, and still don't regret it. I regret losing, but not voting.

BTW....How ya doin', Lisa? Miss ya at home!

"BTW....How ya doin', Lisa? Miss ya at home!"

Been good. Gotta cold right now. YUCK.

I'll poke around there soon.

How's you sweetie?

Doin' well, Thanks....good to hear from ya,Lisa..miss ya in FF, too!

" Gotta cold right now. YUCK."

Me too.
Been real counterproductive at work, lost two days, but they do not want to share viruses for some damn reason.

Me too.
Been real counterproductive at work, lost two days, but they do not want to share viruses for some damn reason.

with all the shit going on these days in the media about how the flu is going to wipe us all out...

people get antsy if you clear your throat.

Grow up, folks!

The big money seperates the men from the boys.
If everyone had 'equal footing' in elections,
there would be hundreds of political parties
and thousands of names on voting ballots.

Imagine a debate with 100 participants.

(Remember back in a previous California Governor's race? -
You could get your name on the ballot for about
$3,000. Too cheap; many applicants failed to dot
every "I" and/or cross every "T" - that's why there
were 100 names on the ballots instead of 1,000).

What a joke!

Speaking of jokes: The debate with these 3rd party weirdos will be fun!

" Shouldn't the third party candidates be debating alongside McCain and Obama?? "

Oh sure, everyone who wants to run for president should be there, it would be great. We'd have fifty or so people trying to debate each other. Utter chaos. Only candidates who can demonstrate large enough support to be potentially electable should be participating in the debates. Americans need to hear what the major candidates want to do about the problems we face, we don't need to waste time listening to the views of candidates who have absolutely no chance of winning. They are simply irrelevant ego maniacs.

Unfuckingbelievable Danni. So only the rich powerful candidates should have a voice and fuck the poor shmuck who doesn't stand a chance of winning being heard by the populace?? So You aren't really interested in true Democracy, To deny third party candidates the same platform You afford to the major political parties does a great disservice to the very meaning of a Governent For the PEOPLE by the PEOPLE of the PEOPLE. Not everyone is rich and well connected but they should be heard nonetheless. These third party candidates represent a certain segment of the population and when You deny them voice You do great harm to the rest of us.

Larry

Danni,

I am surprised, no wonder our country is in such a mess.

Just not interested in competition for your party I see, don't let those lower financial idiots in for the greater good. The rich political runners deserve all the peoples attention.

Welcome to feudal capitalistic democracy.

Ralph Nader will be on the ballot in 45 states and has qualified as a write-in candidate in the remaining five.

The debate committee (owned and operated by democrats and republicans) uses Gallop to determine who gets in the debates, but it wasn't until last week that they even mentioned ANY third party candidates in their polling questions. Their choices were Obama, McCain, Neither and Other.

Good job, Larry, at #'s 4 and 26. I'm going to send out some positive energy today for your continued improving health.

I would declare that third party candidates are the real political patriots because they offer up a dissenting view point from the Status Quo. I mean if every American supported either a Democrat or a Republican wouldn't that mean they supported different ends of the same side of the coin??

Larry

Ralph Nader will be on the ballot in 45 states and has qualified as a write-in candidate in the remaining five.

But he will just take time and votes away from Obama. that just isn't fair and besides that....I hate Ronald Reagan!!!

-danni

I mean if every American supported either a Democrat or a Republican wouldn't that mean they supported different ends of the same side of the coin??

#29 | Posted by LarryMohr

Yes.

Thanks HC I need all the positive vibes I can get.

Larry

HC and Larry

Thanks when I read danni's post my jaw hit the floor. I didn't even know what to say. Thats like the year my wife refused to sign a petition to keep libertarians on the ballot.

I mean if every American supported either a Democrat or a Republican wouldn't that mean they supported different ends of the same side of the coin??
posted by LarryMohr

#33 | Posted by TaoWarrior

Most on the left here recognize and support third candidates' right to run, even when they're competitors for Obama more than McCain (Where the hell is SARogue anyway?) but Danni, who on many other issues I agree with, is so blindly partisan that... that.... well I guess I don't have to explain that to you (I don't really know what to say about it either).

It's a bummer, really, because otherwise I think I like her. But what she believes in is not democracy but a stacked deck with an extremely limited choice, or, at worst, the mere appearance of a choice.

we don't need to waste time listening to the views of candidates who have absolutely no chance of winning
posted by Danni

They are simply irrelevant ego maniacs.
#25 | POSTED BY DANNI

----

A smarter man than me once said, "there are limits to intelligence, but no limits to stupidity." Danni is just another perfect example of this law.

Also Danni, the third party candidates are more relevant to the cause of democracy than you and your blind partisan hackery can ever hope to be. Enjoy your drubbing on this thread. You've managed to bring together left and right leaning posters on this one undeniable truth... you are a moron.

They are simply irrelevant ego maniacs.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2008-10-15 08:20 AM | Reply

Danni,

Everyone of the candidates in this third-party debate opposed the Iraq war and the $700 billion bailout. They must be "maniacs."

Yea, why would we want to hear alternative points of views. That's just crazy! I truly can't understand how someone could not only say something so incredibly stupid but actually believe it. How un-American of you and how anti-democracy of you.

#36 | Posted by dfiant at 2008-10-15 09:54 AM | Reply

Some people are pro-choice about everything except voting. It's unbelievable.

Hell, why not just have a one-party "debate." That would be much more orderly and efficient. Come to think of it, that is basically what we have now.

"Oh sure, everyone who wants to run for president should be there, it would be great. We'd have fifty or so people trying to debate each other. Utter chaos."

Actually, there are usually only 6 to 8 candidates on your ballot. Their voices should be heard. I'm sure the commission on presidential debates could work out a schedule to make it as enriching as possible. Maybe have a few people debate one night, a few the next. The fact that it might be complicated shouldn't prevent Americans from hearing other points of view.

Ralph Nader will be on the ballot in 45 states and has qualified as a write-in candidate in the remaining five.

The debate committee (owned and operated by democrats and republicans) uses Gallop to determine who gets in the debates, but it wasn't until last week that they even mentioned ANY third party candidates in their polling questions. Their choices were Obama, McCain, Neither and Other.

Good job, Larry, at #'s 4 and 26. I'm going to send out some positive energy today for your continued improving health.

#28 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-10-15 08:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

..then Nader, at least, should be right alongside Obama and McCain. This really _is_ just a fucking sham.

Green Candidate Cynthia "slugger" McKinney is always good for a few laughs.. Once when asked a tough question by reporters here in Atlanta she just starting chanting "who let the dogs out?" Cynthia speaks mainly in slogans, so coherence was never her long suit.

Even for the uber-liberal area she represented, she was a bit too nutty for them, and thankfully those lefties tossed her out of congress.

But, she was always good for laughs.

" Shouldn't the third party candidates be debating alongside McCain and Obama?? "

Oh sure, everyone who wants to run for president should be there, it would be great. We'd have fifty or so people trying to debate each other. Utter chaos. Only candidates who can demonstrate large enough support to be potentially electable should be participating in the debates. Americans need to hear what the major candidates want to do about the problems we face, we don't need to waste time listening to the views of candidates who have absolutely no chance of winning. They are simply irrelevant ego maniacs.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2008-10-15 08:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Just when everyone thought you couldn't GET MORE (never mind). You rail against the media (who have a lot to do with the candidates that get promoted) YET, you are against inclusive debates with candidates of other parties that participate in the American political scene. PATHETIC.

"Also Danni, the third party candidates are more relevant to the cause of democracy than you and your blind partisan hackery can ever hope to be. Enjoy your drubbing on this thread. You've managed to bring together left and right leaning posters on this one undeniable truth... you are a moron."

#37 | Posted by the_nether

Pretty much what he said.

I don't understand why anyone thinks that voting third party is a wasted vote. For me, it's at least a way to say I'm unhappy with my party, and that I'm going to vote for who better represents me instead; if they want my vote back, they have to shape up.

RON PAUL should be there

I find it more surprising that some of you fellas have just discovered how much of a p.o.s. partisan hack Danni is.

She's made the same post on multiple times.

She is no different than the so-called conservative hacks I work with. They're bitching about needing change in Washington, bail outs for the obscenely wealthy, health care..yadda yadda...

but when election time comes, "you have to choose the lesser of two evils."

No, you don't. You have to choose the candidate who most reflects your own standing on issues. You're never going to agree 100% with the person you vote for. Stop searching for that person. You are the problem. Rewarding bad behavior with re-election.

Vote. Third. Party.

I find it more surprising that some of you fellas have just discovered how much of a p.o.s. partisan hack Danni is.

they have known it for a while.

As a onetime (2000) Nader voter, I think I must note that THIS year we can't afford the luxury of third party candidates. It we DON"T unseat the GOP, we can kiss America good night. herm

As a onetime (2000) Nader voter, I think I must note that THIS year we can't afford the luxury of third party candidates. It we DON"T unseat the GOP, we can kiss America good night. herm

Herm, if we don't unseat the two party system, we can kiss it goodBYE.

I don't understand why anyone thinks that voting third party is a wasted vote.

#44 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-10-15 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess they believe it's like the Election Day equivalent of voting "Present"?

"Herm, if we don't unseat the two party system, we can kiss it goodBYE."

Kiss WHAT goodbye? With a new party to represent the people's interest, Demos lose ground and Repubs reign. The best way to assure Demo rule is to translate Bob Barr and Ron Paul into a viable party of the right. The Nether may not like it a bit, but that's how the good ole Murrican system works. herm

Kiss WHAT goodbye?
#52 | POSTED BY HERM
------

America Herm. You said...

"If we DON"T unseat the GOP, we can kiss America good night. herm"

then following that line of thinking, I said...

"Herm, if we don't unseat the two party system, we can kiss it goodBYE."

My point is, keep believing that one head of this two headed monster is better than the other and we all loose.