English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In the 2004 election I heard little to nothing about the 3rd party candidates, if we live in a country of choice, shouldn't the 3rd party candidates be allowed in the Presidential debates? If they only allow a Republican and a Democrat, wouldn't that just mean it is a 2 party dictatorship where nothing is ever really changing. As of 2008, Ron Paul is the best one for the office of President. Look at his voting record. It will speak for itself.

2007-02-23 17:58:03 · 14 answers · asked by SickandTired 2 in Politics & Government Elections

To Memnoch: in the 2004 election, the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik was arrested and detained while he was trying to enter into a Presidential debate...here is the story..."Update Posted October 09, 2004

On October 8th at 9 p.m., two third party candidates were arrested for attempting to enter the Washington University complex holding the second presidential debate.

The candidates, Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party, chose civil disobedience to fight the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

Over half of Americans believe third party candidates should be included, yet politicians continue to funnel public funds into the bi-partisan Commission. S.W.A.T. teams were used to deny the will of the American people while mainstream media ignored this historic event, a shameless suppression of political diversity. Americans deserve to know about the unjust takeover of our political process."

2007-02-26 18:57:27 · update #1

14 answers

You are correct we don't see anything about Paul,Hunter,or Tancredo what a surprise they all are tough on illegal immigration and the media is on the take.It's all getting quite old and many people fall for it it's a sad time for the people who truly care about our country.My question is why do you have to have money to participate in debates?

2007-02-23 18:09:10 · answer #1 · answered by jason s 4 · 0 0

I agree with you about Ron Paul. If he runs I will donate, volunteer and actually vote Republican for the first time in many, many years.

I think the plausible justification of the two major parties is that they will have to open the floodgates for every other party, e.g. - the Stripper Party, the Professional Wrestler Party, etc.

I think the debates should be open to any candidate that is registered in all 50 states.

I have always thought it would be a publicity boon if the Libertarian Party and the Green Party hosted a debate and invited the Democrat and Republican. If they major party candidates fail to appear, they can have cardboard cut-outs standing behind podiums and the other debaters can take turns giving the stale, scripted Dem/Repub answer.

2007-02-24 02:14:48 · answer #2 · answered by Jesus Jones 4 · 1 0

You are right. If the media truly wanted to inform the public, they would make more of an effort to give equal time to ALL candidates. I guess it all comes down to ratings, though. That and money. Several candidates have had to drop out of the 2008 race already because they just can't keep up financially. I think that stinks, too. How many people who would actually make good presidents don't run because of the financial aspect? I'd rather vote for a person who'd actually be a strong leader, not the best fundraiser.

2007-02-24 12:52:10 · answer #3 · answered by BethS 6 · 1 0

The only reason that the two party system exists and dominates the political scene is because the people allow it to. If enough people really shared our view on this, and worked for it instead of merely whining about it, then things would change. After 19 years in politics though I've found that citizens are just as wishy washy as the politicians we elect - for the most part. And that's why we get the wishy washy politicians we get.

I'm with Ron Paul all the way. The rest of the candidates are merely puppets for the owners of the Federal Reserve. http://www.freedomtofascism.com

http://www.ronpaulexplore.com

2007-02-24 05:42:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Third parties don't have the money to go to such events. Now, I agree that this is a lame reason, but it is the reason. I mean, people have already blown upwards of a million and we haven't even gotten to the preliminaries. Just getting to the I am going to run stage, and some are dropping cause they are out of cash.

Maybe what we should do is put all the money into a big fund and whoever wants to go gets to, but they all have to stay at third rate hotels and hope they don't get lice. I'll bet youd weed out half the guys who are in it for the notoriety.

2007-02-24 02:03:17 · answer #5 · answered by Memnoch 4 · 2 0

No, you're NOT alone. The so called "media" in this country leave A LOT to be desired! They border on traitorous acts as far as I'm concerned. They mis-inform and degrade the very country that GARAUNTEES their freedom of speech! They are THE purest form of manipulators that there is! Do they EVER talk of the good that the U.S.does? Not nearly as much as they degrade us! WHY ANYONE would want to call themselves a PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST is beyond me! Journalists are one step BELOW white supremistists. They DO NOT care about ANYTHING other than getting their so called "story" on the air,they have virtually NO morals and very FEW values. They make me SICK!! They will talk about drugged up celebrities, before they talk about TRUE Americans such as our Honored Veterans! What do they care,at least they LOOK good...in THEIR opinoin.

2007-02-27 02:24:38 · answer #6 · answered by Pat A 1 · 0 0

I'm with you politically in many ways but I've learned through painful experience that candidates who are not associated with one of the two major parties have a very hard time getting elected unless they are already famous before they ever run for office as an independent or 3rd party candidate.

2007-02-24 02:03:04 · answer #7 · answered by Investor 2006 3 · 4 0

No, you're not the only one who feels like the media try to hand feed us the candidates for president. The media want to sell papers, get viewers' attention, draw surfers to their websites. When political season comes up it's a prolonged Saturday Night Smackdown, so they're going to hype it up for all it's worth (and more so, actually).

Yes, the media SHOULD tell the stories of the 3rd party candidates, the underdogs, but the media are comprised of people who have their own agenda and seek to put them forth in various guises. Our responsibility is to filter through all of that -- and it gets harder to do as time goes on.

Maybe the key is to read/watch one liberal outlet, one conservative outlet and two other outlets that are somewhat middle of the road. Where the heck you find those is truly God's mystery. But, we have to try.

2007-02-24 13:18:31 · answer #8 · answered by cboni2000 4 · 2 1

Newspapers are a business, a dying business. Their job is to sell papers. The more controversy, the more papers sold. 3rd Party candidates don't sell papers. The news service is prostituting itself by not doing the job of informing - that's dull - and doing a job of fanning flames.

2007-02-24 02:04:13 · answer #9 · answered by patsyplq2 2 · 2 0

The media is controlled! vote for ron paul he will take care of it! obviously, there are millions that like ron paul, but do you see him on CNN or FOX? they keep pushing hillary, obama, guliani? WE KNOW WHATS UP! Keep spreading the word of the good doctor on the internet because the media betrayed us. again.

2007-02-27 04:37:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers