Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-03-2012, 08:47 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Why are There only 2 Candidates in the Presidential Debates?

Quote:
It’s only natural that the Democratic incumbent, Barack Obama, and the Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, should participate in tonight’s first presidential debate, but in fact there are two other candidates who qualified for the ballot in enough states that they could, technically, win the election.

Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is on the ballot of 48 states and Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party is on 39 state ballots. In a pure democracy it would be considered a given that Johnson and Stein would join Obama and Romney on stage, but in the United States elections don’t work that way. That’s because the three presidential debates are run not by the government, but by a nonprofit organization, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The CPD was created in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties as a bipartisan—rather than a nonpartisan—effort.

The current co-chairmen of the CPD are Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry. Fahrenkopf is a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, while McCurry was President Bill Clinton’s press secretary. Not surprisingly, Fahrenkopf and McCurry have set a high bar to keep out third party candidates.

To qualify for the debates, candidates must “have demonstrated a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results [as of September 21].” Of course it’s almost impossible to earn the support of 15% of the electorate if you don’t have regular access to network television or to the debates themselves.
http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stori...03?news=845846

Do you think that is right that other Presidential candidates are ignored by the mainstream media debates?
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-03-2012, 12:35 PM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,751
iTrader: 5 / 100%
2 Candidates???

Who's running against Obamney?
 
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 10-03-2012, 12:50 PM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
2 Candidates???

Who's running against Obamney?
2 candidates from the same corporation
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 10-03-2012, 01:20 PM
bxy bxy is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 03-04-11
Posts: 64
iTrader: 0 / 0%
What, you thought the Debates were anything but a Punch and Judy Show? Of course their exclusive, we wouldn't want real Democracy here. That is why they are Bipartisan, as in TWO. The real story is who is trying to climb the political ladder, and interestingly that is Anheuser Busch and CocaCola, among others.

Anyhow DemocracyNow.org will be hosting an adjacent Debate that will inject equal time for the other two candidates, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. That is the Cowards Debate will be paused while Stein and Johnson each get their say.
__________________
Jill Stein for President
* Green New Deal, puts us back to work, and back in our homes, homes made better and more energy efficient by the GND.
 
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 10-03-2012, 04:52 PM
bxy bxy is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 03-04-11
Posts: 64
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I must correct this. I was told Gary Johnson would be in these Debates, but he will not be. (Sad) Rocky Anderson will be the other candidate participating.
__________________
Jill Stein for President
* Green New Deal, puts us back to work, and back in our homes, homes made better and more energy efficient by the GND.
 
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 10-03-2012, 05:02 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,127
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Like it or not 3rd party candidates do not stand much of a chance in a general election so there isn't much purpose in hearing what they have to say. The best they can hope for is to steal enough votes to skew the election. Better not done IMO.
__________________
I do not put ads or pop-ups in my posts and I have no control of what shows there. I do not endorse any product displayed in my post.
Scriptman's Playhouse || Ramblings from an old man
 
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 10-03-2012, 09:02 PM
bxy bxy is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 03-04-11
Posts: 64
iTrader: 0 / 0%
ScriptMan. You know I heard that same Victim Mentality all of my life. Your vote, in fear, IS the problem. I have more respect for those who believe in Obama or Romney then I do for someone that votes for one because they are afraid their vote wont count.
__________________
Jill Stein for President
* Green New Deal, puts us back to work, and back in our homes, homes made better and more energy efficient by the GND.
 
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 03:50 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 10-04-12
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Actually, there is also a fifth candidate. Virgil Goode.
 
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 06:20 AM
TechWizard's Avatar
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Just as a curiosity question...

What actually qualifies someone as a vetted candidate in a general presidential election to you?

Just a general question, curious as to what everyone thinks.
__________________
Get A PC Helper
Virus Malware Removal | Remote Computer Repair
And More...
www.pchelper123.com


 
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 06:22 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,751
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
Like it or not 3rd party candidates do not stand much of a chance in a general election so there isn't much purpose in hearing what they have to say. The best they can hope for is to steal enough votes to skew the election. Better not done IMO.
1. It's thinking like that which has the US locked into the two party system, which is really a one party dictatorship. The Demopublicans are for increased wars, increased debt, increased militarism, less freedom, banker bailouts, tax cuts for the wealthy, corruption, less rights for the citizenry and more governmental power for themselves.
They no longer represent the people because they know they don't have to as long as the false two party paradigm exists.

2. So what if Gary Johnson has no chance of winning in your opinion? Why not have him included simply because he has 6% of support nationally? That means 6% of US citizens want him there. Why not allow them that? Why not allow Gary Johnson the opportunity to participate in the framework of the discussion, instead of falling back on the false two party paradigm? Maybe, if he were allowed to weigh in on the issues, some of the rest of you would see just how identical the policies of the Demopublicans are.

Seriously.
If the Demopublicans are so freakin' fantastic, why not have them proudly defend their policies against Gary Johnson???
Why do people falsely believe that would be a waste of time or effort?
I mean... Isn't a presidential election a serious affair? Worthy of trying to acquire the absolute BEST candidate?
Or is it just not that important?
 
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 06:28 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,751
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
Like it or not 3rd party candidates do not stand much of a chance in a general election so there isn't much purpose in hearing what they have to say. The best they can hope for is to steal enough votes to skew the election. Better not done IMO.
And let's just clarify one other thing, here, ScriptMan.

Votes don't SKEW an election. They are the very PURPOSE of an election.
The votes of supporters of a third party are no less valuable or deserving than votes for the Demopublicans.
 
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 06:36 AM
ScriptMan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,127
iTrader: 4 / 100%
I think a convincing argument can be made that Ross Perot caused Bush I to lose the second term. You may disagree.

I am all for changing the nomination process to be more inclusive. That is the proper time for multiple candidates to present themselves. The final election should be between two individuals and not two parties. I do firmly believe that should be limited to two candidates.
__________________
I do not put ads or pop-ups in my posts and I have no control of what shows there. I do not endorse any product displayed in my post.
Scriptman's Playhouse || Ramblings from an old man
 
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 06:38 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 10-04-12
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
Like it or not 3rd party candidates do not stand much of a chance in a general election so there isn't much purpose in hearing what they have to say. The best they can hope for is to steal enough votes to skew the election. Better not done IMO.
Except for the purpose in hearing I agree with you. HOWEVER, in other countries (in particular Asia and Middle East) neglecting one party because it doesnt stand any chance is criticised as silencing the opposition and is basically depicted by the western media as dictatorship.

The current situation is just sad and Zap kinda summarised it.
 
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 06:43 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,751
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
I think a convincing argument can be made that Ross Perot caused Bush I to lose the second term. You may disagree.
If that is the will of the people, isn't that what matters most?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
I am all for changing the nomination process to be more inclusive. That is the proper time for multiple candidates to present themselves. The final election should be between two individuals and not two parties. I do firmly believe that should be limited to two candidates.
Anyone paying attention to the RNC and the DNC this year with an open mind can tell you the nomination process was a farce.
Those of you who aren't, should be concerned.
And, other than standing on tradition, why should only two candidates be presented for election?
I have to restate my question. Is the job of President of The United States not important enough to warrant the selection of the absolute best candidate? And if so, why, then, limit the selection process to only two?
As is the case currently, there are far too many folks voting for the lesser of two evils. A huge part of the reason for that is the fact that there are only two choices presented. Does the US not deserve better than evil?
 
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 06:52 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 10-04-12
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
Is the job of President of The United States not important enough to warrant the selection of the absolute best candidate? And if so, why, then, limit the selection process to only two?
Also, how would you narrow it down to two candidates if you five, six, seven running for it?
 
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 06:57 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
There is another important factor: Money

I don't know if some of you followed the Ron Paul compaign, but he didn't have enough money to run the compaign like he should.

In other words, a candidate needs to have tons of money to get a chance. Unfortunately, the candidate having the highest amount of money have a good chance to win, which make me think that people don't elect a President for excellent ideas or great philosophy but rather because he had enough money to convince the people everywhere.

This kind of election fatally will stay a two political parties fight because they are each powerful enough to pay for their candidate's compaign.

Sadly, people that don't fit in the two political party philosophies will not vote.
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 07:00 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,751
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by neroux View Post
Also, how would you narrow it down to two candidates if you five, six, seven running for it?
I think you need to think outside the box a bit.
The idea is not to narrow the field to two. The idea is to select one.

The current system just allows two parties to cooperatively share a dictatorship and that's precisely what they've been doing. Neither party represents the people anymore and it's because they don't have to. There's nobody to challenge them, no competition. The Demopublicans win every election.
Allow a real voice to other candidates and the Demopublicans would quickly learn that they need to smarten up their act if they ever hope to lead again.
 
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 08:52 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 10-04-12
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
I think you need to think outside the box a bit.
The idea is not to narrow the field to two. The idea is to select one.
I dont think you understood what I meant.

If the selection only allows two but you have five, six or whatever, how are you going to narrow it down to two?
 
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 09:24 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,751
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by neroux View Post
I dont think you understood what I meant.

If the selection only allows two but you have five, six or whatever, how are you going to narrow it down to two?
You're right. I don't understand what you mean.

Unless you plan to have 2 simultaneous Presidents, running the country at the same time, why would you need to narrow the choices down to 2?
You only need one President. Therefore, you only need one winner of the election.
What is this "selection" you refer to that "only allows two"?
 
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2012, 09:29 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 10-04-12
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
You're right. I don't understand what you mean.

Unless you plan to have 2 simultaneous Presidents, running the country at the same time, why would you need to narrow the choices down to 2?
You only need one President. Therefore, you only need one winner of the election.
What is this "selection" you refer to that "only allows two"?
To narrow it down to two candidates for the election. What you initially quoted.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Senate debates tax increases on companies that move jobs overseas Franc Tireur Controversial Social Issues 10 09-26-2010 10:13 AM
Candidates that are still fighting... jabo Controversial Social Issues 2 05-16-2008 08:40 AM
Presidential debate ferret77 Controversial Social Issues 352 10-13-2004 07:56 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Escalate Media




Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.