CNN to Host Green Party Town Hall!

[IMPress Polly]

Well CNN has finally decided to be fair and host a town hall with the Green Party's presidential nominee Dr. Jill Stein and her running mate Ajamu Baraka! (http://www.jill2016.com/townhall) It will be on TONIGHT at 9 PM Eastern Time. I've been waiting for this for some time! They've hosted Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party in more than one of their town halls now I believe, so it's about time for the left alternative to get some much-needed mainstream media attention! If you're as tired as I am of seeing the left shut out of the corporate news coverage of the presidential race, then I think you'll want to check this out. I know I'm looking forward to it! Who's planning on watching?

(If it gets posted online later, I'll try and share it here in case anyone misses it.)

[Bethere]

Well CNN has finally decided to be fair and host a town hall with the Green Party's presidential nominee Dr. Jill Stein and her running mate Ajamu Baraka! (http://www.jill2016.com/townhall) It will be on TONIGHT at 9 PM Eastern Time. I've been waiting for this for some time! They've hosted Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party in more than one of their town halls now I believe, so it's about time for the left alternative to get some much-needed mainstream media attention! If you're as tired as I am of seeing the left shut out of the corporate news coverage of the presidential race, then I think you'll want to check this out. I know I'm looking forward to it! Who's planning on watching?

(If it gets posted online later, I'll try and share it here in case anyone misses it.)

I am watching with an open mind.

[IMPress Polly]

It's on in another hour. Just shamelessly plugging!

[IMPress Polly]

So what did you think, Bethere?

[The Xl]

I personally found it to be honest and refreshing. A lot of stuff I agreed and disagreed with, but it was very nice to hear from a candidate who isn't openly bought by corporate interests. Thought she summed up Clinton real well.

[kcvet]

I thought that was the Clinton News Network

[Chris]

I was impressed with her, she's intelligent and articulate.

I liked what she said about disliking Trump for his words but disliking Hillary for her actions even more. And what she said about voting with the courage of convictions.

I wasn't impressed with her parroting Keynesian economics like paying off student loads will leave us indebted to ourselves.

[Bethere]

So what did you think, Bethere?

I, too, was impressed with her, as I was before the event. You deserve and will get a more in depth evaluation later, but I did like what she had to say--except I am not wild about her assessment of 21st century politics.

More later. Thanks for being patient.

[IMPress Polly]

I agreed with the overwhelming majority of what Stein had to say, from her principled stand against American imperialism (including her ability to connect it directly to the origins of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda before them) to her call for not only the abolition of college tuition (a la Sanders), but also for the cancellation of student debt, as well as her advocacy for the Green New Deal, a truth and reconciliation commission on race relations, and more. But I thought that a CNN did a poor job of choosing the questions overall. For example, the polls consistently show that economics are the main issue on the minds of voters in this election, yet there was not one question on that subject presented. I also found it remarkable that the GREEN PARTY's candidate wasn't given a single question on the environment. It is the Green Party after all! That would seem appropriate.

There were some minor areas of disagreement for me, but they're hardly even worth mentioning. Perhaps the most important thing for me and for most viewers I think though was that Stein did a good job of justifying her run by pointing out that "lesser evil" politics does have a record and a result. I have only once voted for a candidate I considered to not be fundamentally good (by my definition; it was John Kerry in 2004) and it's a vote I regret.

[The Xl]

Stein sadly won't make the debates. Johnson has a punchers chance. Hopefully, they're both in the debates in 2020. If they made the debates, one of the two would win.

[The Xl]

I was impressed with her, she's intelligent and articulate.

I liked what she said about disliking Trump for his words but disliking Hillary for her actions even more. And what she said about voting with the courage of convictions.

I wasn't impressed with her parroting Keynesian economics like paying off student loads will leave us indebted to ourselves.

I'm not sure what to do about student loans, but it's a massive problem that projects to get even worse.

[Chris]

I'm not sure what to do about student loans, but it's a massive problem that projects to get even worse.

Forgiving them has a certain appeal, but it comes with a price to other Americans.

The solution to me is the government needs to stop promoting these loans. It's creating an education bubble similar to the housing bubble.

[Bethere]

So what did you think, Bethere?

Thanks for waiting, it allowed me to watch it again. Thus the first segment evaluates her as a pro might, and I am a pro.

The Second looks at her as a voter might.

A.

"We don't really have a future right now to offer our younger generation."

This quote is a shame. You don't win elections with doom, especially in times of improving fortunes. You can make the case we could be better, but you cannot deny that we are in the strongest position economically, socially, and defensively of any country in the world. Ask trump. People are not buying this stuff.

She's stiff. Which shocks me considering her background. With some coaching she could excell on the stump.

Boycotting Israel cuts one of her potentially better allies off at the knees. Not bright. I agree that likud is a huge problem. But likud isn't israel any more than the Republicans are America. Even so, as long as gaza, the west bank, and the golan heights are still massive refugee camps there will be no peace. And if your answer is likud settlers in their place then we might as well have that third world war now.

Baraka's whole, "uncle tom," bit is equally tone deaf. It makes me wonder who is in charge? Who on the staff really said, "whoa! With a measley 96% approval rating among blacks we could score big by attacking obama!"

Not smart.

Finally, equating the tragedy of a actually trump victory with the likelihood of a Clinton victory tells me she does not understand the dangers trump presents, or the horrors of 50 more years of gop dominated supreme courts.

My professional opinion: she's not ready for prime time.

B.

I agree with her whole heartedly about isis. While they are a daily threat they are no more of a threat than any disaffected member of thus board could be.

What was worse san Bernardino or new town? Catch my drift? There really is no difference.

And as you probably already know I agree that our foreign policy over the last 50 years is the lone driver of Islamic ire vis a vis the usa.

As for closing bases I have to be careful what I share, but let me say that there a reason for each and every one of them. They need to be addressed individually. You would be surprised by some of the reasons.

Try to keep an open mind.

I am a big time supporter of doing something about student loans. I was lucky. I had spending money because I was a musician, and everything else was clear because I was a merit scholar (and mom and dad).

I was very very lucky. Two years ago Michelle and Barack finally paid off their student loans.

By the grace of God I didn't have to do that, and I can think of no better investment this country could make than in the education of its children. Period.

So she and I are cool on student loans. I think the issue touches most families making it a very easy sell.

I ws puzzled that the green party candidate didn't spend more time on green energy. You know, I hate to use Germany as a goo example of anything, but they are going to be energy independent before we even get started.

That's a tremendous economic advantage we gave them for free. She's a little militant on these issues in my view, but I agree with her on principal about ALL of it.

I agree with her on single payer.

I agree with her on civil rights, lgbt or otherwise.

And I totally am with her on citizens united.

My personal opinion: I like her, but her mechanics suck. She can't compete let alone win. And a trump win would be devastating. 50 more years of Republican supreme courts would transform our country into a lesser, darker place.

I was the lead writer for a metro independent paper in 2000. My girlfriend and the editors of the paper were Nader voters. They ALL came to regret putting Bush in office. 16 years later they still bring up their folly, I never have to abuse them. They resort to self flagellation.

It makes them feel better.

Don't do that to yourself..

[Hal Jordan]

Stein sadly won't make the debates. Johnson has a punchers chance. Hopefully, they're both in the debates in 2020. If they made the debates, one of the two would win.

If they can make it into the debates, that's the end of the duopoly.

[IMPress Polly]

Bethere wrote:
My personal opinion: I like her, but her mechanics suck. She can't compete let alone win. And a trump win would be devastating. 50 more years of Republican supreme courts would transform our country into a lesser, darker place.

I was the lead writer for a metro independent paper in 2000. My girlfriend and the editors of the paper were Nader voters. They ALL came to regret putting Bush in office. 16 years later they still bring up their folly, I never have to abuse them. They resort to self flagellation.

It makes them feel better.

Don't do that to yourself..

Thanks for fully sharing your views, Bethere! I appreciate that. I'm just going to focus on this summation because otherwise there would be too much to respond to.

I don't think anyone on the left should feel guilty about "electing Bush" because he didn't win. As the subsequent full vote recount in Florida revealed, Gore won more votes in that state and therefore should have carried its electoral votes and therefore should've been the next president. The only reason the next president was Bush is because the Republican-controlled Supreme Court simply gave him the White House in a party-line vote. I find it therefore remarkable that the Democrats always opt to blame the left for Bush's "election" instead of the Republican right. Kinda tells you something about whom they consider the real enemy to be, doesn't it?

I, along with almost the entire American left, bought into this guilt-trip in 2004 and opted to rally around Kerry based on the simple belief that he wasn't quite as bad a Bush overall. So how did that work out for us? It didn't. Kerry was legitimately defeated! The Democratic nominee fared better in 2000 when he had a competing force pulling him to the left. I think we progressives should really quit guilting ourselves for the actions of Republican officials back in 2000.


This quote is a shame. You don't win elections with doom, especially in times of improving fortunes. You can make the case we could be better, but you cannot deny that we are in the strongest position economically, socially, and defensively of any country in the world. Ask trump. People are not buying this stuff.

I disagree. When the national median income is thousands of dollars lower today than it was at the turn of the century, people can feel it. People know their economic condition today isn't any better than it was the day the current president took office. Especially working people. You can cite the unemployment rate and record corporate profits all you want, but there's no getting around the falling workforce participation rate, the higher poverty rate, and the lower national median income level people face today even relative to 2009. The simple fact is that not only did neo-liberal economics get us into this mess, but that they're also NOT getting us out. And we haven't even touched on the topic of the GLOBAL poor yet!

The only reason the voters (currently) prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump is because the latter is a fucking lunatic fascist! I think working people would find it nice to have a more sympathetic to the status quo.


The XL wrote:
I'm not sure what to do about student loans, but it's a massive problem that projects to get even worse.

There's nothing that can be done about them without government action because it's precisely government INaction that created said problem in the first place. The core reason college tuition has soared to its present heights is that after the Cold War, state governments began investing less and less in college education, thus forcing colleges and universities to pass their expenses on to students. Once you understand that that's the root of the problem, you understand that only government action can resolve it.


Hal Jordan wrote:
If they can make it into the debates, that's the end of the duopoly.

Maybe and maybe not. Ross Perot making it into the debates in 1992 didn't end it, though it did make a difference in the outcome of that election and put his pet issue on the national agenda of the victor. Getting into the debates can only help (which is why it's the most important thing to fight for at this time!), but it guarantees nothing.

[Chris]

There's nothing that can be done about them without government action because it's precisely government INaction that created said problem in the first place.

Incorrect. It was government action that made the loans far too easy to obtain and incentivized those who could never afford it to take loans out. This is a repeat of the housing bubble. The government needs to stop messing with the natural business cycle. Bailing students out will be just as bad as bailing banks.

Here's a novel idea, no government needed: More Employers Offer Student Loan Repayment Benefits (http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/student-loan-ranger/articles/2016-03-09/more-employers-offer-student-loan-repayment-benefits).

[Hal Jordan]

Maybe and maybe not. Ross Perot making it into the debates in 1992 didn't end it, though it did make a difference in the outcome of that election and put his pet issue on the national agenda of the victor. Getting into the debates can only help (which is why it's the most important thing to fight for at this time!), but it guarantees nothing.

Ah, but in 1992 we didn't have the situation we have today. People are disillusioned with the duopoly. The candidates they've selected hasn't helped them. Both parties are tearing themselves apart from the inside. We're in a far different climate than we were then.

[Chris]

Ah, but in 1992 we didn't have the situation we have today. People are disillusioned with the duopoly. The candidates they've selected hasn't helped them. Both parties are tearing themselves apart from the inside. We're in a far different climate than we were then.

Can't happen soon enough.

[IMPress Polly]

I'm curious to know @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) 's opinion on how the town hall went since she's been supporting Stein from the beginning!

But anyway...


Hal Jordan wrote:
Ah, but in 1992 we didn't have the situation we have today. People are disillusioned with the duopoly. The candidates they've selected hasn't helped them. Both parties are tearing themselves apart from the inside. We're in a far different climate than we were then.

Yes and no. It's true to say that economic conditions are generally worse today than they were in 1992, but not by all that much. When the 1992 election rolled around, the U.S. economy was in recession, for example. The difference in our day and age though is that the current state of economic malaise is more structural and permanent in nature. It requires structural solutions that were not required to end the 1992 crisis. It is thus more than possible that the longer this malaise drags on, the more frustrated people will become with it -- and the bolder they will get in terms of the solutions they may seek. Therein lies both great danger and great hope. Here's hoping that this year lays the groundwork for such an outbreak. I do sense that we've reached something of a turning point this year. This election really does seem different that way, with the record unpopularity of the two major party candidates.

[Mini Me]

Well, when is CNN doing the Stien thing?

[IMPress Polly]

It aired yesterday, Dr. Strangelove!

[Hal Jordan]

I'm curious to know @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) 's opinion on how the town hall went since she's been supporting Stein from the beginning!

But anyway...



Yes and no. It's true to say that economic conditions are generally worse today than they were in 1992, but not by all that much. When the 1992 election rolled around, the U.S. economy was in recession, for example. The difference in our day and age though is that the current state of economic malaise is more structural and permanent in nature. It requires structural solutions that were not required to end the 1992 crisis. It is thus more than possible that the longer this malaise drags on, the more frustrated people will become with it -- and the bolder they will get in terms of the solutions they may seek. Therein lies both great danger and great hope. Here's hoping that this year lays the groundwork for such an outbreak. I do sense that we've reached something of a turning point this year. This election really does seem different that way, with the record unpopularity of the two major party candidates.

I wasn't talking about just the economic conditions. They are one of the papercuts involved, but there are thousands of others as well. The end result is that people are getting fed up with the parties in power. I wouldn't be surprised if the parties were fully broken by the next presidential election. I don't feel that the damage done in this cycle is reversible.

[Captain Obvious]

On one hand this is cool, third parties need exposure.

On the other hand... CNN

[Chloe]

I'm curious to know @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) 's opinion on how the town hall went since she's been supporting Stein from the beginning!

But anyway...



Yes and no. It's true to say that economic conditions are generally worse today than they were in 1992, but not by all that much. When the 1992 election rolled around, the U.S. economy was in recession, for example. The difference in our day and age though is that the current state of economic malaise is more structural and permanent in nature. It requires structural solutions that were not required to end the 1992 crisis. It is thus more than possible that the longer this malaise drags on, the more frustrated people will become with it -- and the bolder they will get in terms of the solutions they may seek. Therein lies both great danger and great hope. Here's hoping that this year lays the groundwork for such an outbreak. I do sense that we've reached something of a turning point this year. This election really does seem different that way, with the record unpopularity of the two major party candidates.

I thought that it was pretty good. I didn't like how they spent virtually no time on the environment, conservation initiatives, land use, and topics like that though. Overall I think Stein did as well as I expected and came across as affable and intelligent. Some people criticize her for not answering more like a seasoned confident professional but she's not a professional politician and so I try to look past that sort of thing. My mom isn't as political as I am but she perked up a little when that pediatrician asked Stein about vaccines, so that was at least cool for me to see something that got my mom interested since she is a pediatrician as well. I'm still not a big fan of her VP choice though to be honest.

[Chris]

I thought that it was pretty good. I didn't like how they spent virtually no time on the environment, conservation initiatives, land use, and topics like that though. Overall I think Stein did as well as I expected and came across as affable and intelligent. Some people criticize her for not answering more like a seasoned confident professional but she's not a professional politician and so I try to look past that sort of thing. My mom isn't as political as I am but she perked up a little when that pediatrician asked Stein about vaccines, so that was at least cool for me to see something that got my mom interested since she is a pediatrician as well. I'm still not a big fan of her VP choice though to be honest.


Don't you think that's because environment isn't a big topic for most Americans? Host and audience are going to ask about what concerns them.

[Chloe]

Don't you think that's because environment isn't a big topic for most Americans? Host and audience are going to ask about what concerns them.

Ignoring the core principle and core reason for the founding of the party is irresponsible by the host to recognize in my opinion. It would be like never mentioning limited government when asking questions to a republican candidate. Also many of the people in the audience were people that were on the fence and skeptical Clinton supporters looking for an alternative. Vaccines aren't a big topic for "most Americans" but that question was asked. A VP candidate mentioning someone else being an uncle tom isn't more important than global climate change yet Cuomo focused on that. Part of my criticism is also aimed at Dr. Stein as well for not focusing a good amount of time on green issues too. I know that from a political point of view and a party point of view they want to try and appeal to people in a broader way, but the party if called the Green Party for a reason.

[Chris]

Ignoring the core principle and core reason for the founding of the party is irresponsible by the host to recognize in my opinion. It would be like never mentioning limited government when asking questions to a republican candidate. Also many of the people in the audience were people that were on the fence and skeptical Clinton supporters looking for an alternative. Vaccines aren't a big topic for "most Americans" but that question was asked. A VP candidate mentioning someone else being an uncle tom isn't more important than global climate change yet Cuomo focused on that. Part of my criticism is also aimed at Dr. Stein as well for not focusing a good amount of time on green issues too. I know that from a political point of view and a party point of view they want to try and appeal to people in a broader way, but the party if called the Green Party for a reason.


Right, but that's the responsibility of Stein and the Green Party, not the CNN host and audience. All I'm saying is the host and audience can't be expected to focus on anything but their own interests. Stein and her VP candidate had the responsibility to shift focus.

[Chloe]

Right, but that's the responsibility of Stein and the Green Party, not the CNN host and audience. All I'm saying is the host and audience can't be expected to focus on anything but their own interests. Stein and her VP candidate had the responsibility to shift focus.

I'm pretty sure I said that in my last couple of sentences

[Chris]

I'm pretty sure I said that in my last couple of sentences

OK. Just explaining myself.

[The Xl]

For better or worse, even if she gained traction, Ajamu Baracka would probably sink her, seems to have said quite a bit of controversial things.

[Chloe]

For better or worse, even if she gained traction, Ajamu Baracka would probably sink her, seems to have said quite a bit of controversial things.

I'm not very enthusiastic about him. I think there were a lot of better choices out there.

[The Xl]

I'm not very enthusiastic about him. I think there were a lot of better choices out there.

Maybe, but you might want to reevaluate her then, because she seems to back BLM, social justice, and some of the more radical things he said. To choose a VP who openly attacked Sanders seemed like a very politically stupid move too.

[Chloe]

Maybe, but you might want to reevaluate her then, because she seems to back BLM, social justice, and some of the more radical things he said. To choose a VP who openly attacked Sanders seemed like a very politically stupid move too.

There are a few things that i'm not very happy about. One thing is for sure though and that is i'm not going to vote for Trump or Clinton regardless.

[IMPress Polly]

Chloe wrote:
I thought that it was pretty good. I didn't like how they spent virtually no time on the environment, conservation initiatives, land use, and topics like that though. Overall I think Stein did as well as I expected and came across as affable and intelligent. Some people criticize her for not answering more like a seasoned confident professional but she's not a professional politician and so I try to look past that sort of thing. My mom isn't as political as I am but she perked up a little when that pediatrician asked Stein about vaccines, so that was at least cool for me to see something that got my mom interested since she is a pediatrician as well. I'm still not a big fan of her VP choice though to be honest.

I agree. In fact, I'm not even sure I'd want Stein to come off as a seasoned candidate. I don't want her to sound like Hillary Clinton: like a robot. I prefer that she be a real person; that she be honest about her opinions rather than someone who has learned to poll test every statement they make. When surveys find that most of the population would be fine with replacing every member of Congress with people selected at random from the phone book, I think it safe to say that experience is not an important qualification for public office in the minds of most people at this point, who are really, really tired of being lied to. Competence is more important to people, I think, and Stein displayed competence. The task before her in essence was making the case that left wing views writ large are not crazy just because they're different from what people are used to hearing and I think she succeeded at that to the extent that she was given the opportunity to present them. I mean think about the all but unanimous applause that Stein's reasoning for closing down all U.S. military bases abroad got, for example! The public is so sick of neo-liberal economics, imperialism, bought-off politicians, etc., that large numbers of people are open to bold ideas today so long as you can back them up with both sound reasoning and heart and Dr. Stein came off as a candidate capable of meeting both of those criteria when given a fair chance. That's my view of it anyway.

I'll have to also agree with you on her running mate Ajamu Baraka at this point in that, this being my first direct exposure to him, he did not inspire my confidence. Right from the outset, you could tell the network was trying to discredit him rather than talk about issues with him...and he played their game, remaining on defense most of the time and avoiding specific policy proposals at all costs. The opening question to Baraka about having once described President Obama as an "Uncle Tom" set this tone when Baraka responded by saying in essence 'Don't worry 90% white viewing audience, I was just lying when I said that to an all-black audience back when; I'm not actually serious about black liberationism. I would never say anything controversial to your face.' You know, just look over the remarks on this thread: most white people are going to be offended just because you're a black man who talks about race relations. Doesn't matter how politely you phrase it.

I for one would've liked to hear from the real Ajamu Baraka: the one who called the president a race traitor for a reason. Projecting confidence has the effect of projecting competence so long as you don't overplay your hand. I would've liked to hear him make the case for why he considers Obama a race traitor because I actually think there is a case to be made. I mean I observed that a long time ago. Going as far back as the 2008 election contest, look at how quickly Obama disowned his pastor and mentor of 20 years once it became politically expedient for him to do so. Or consider the fact that President Obama has managed to speak at the funerals of police officers shot by a black civilian in protest of police violence against black people, but that when it came to the funerals for oh say Alton Sterling or any of the other hundreds of black people killed by the police in recent years, he couldn't be bothered to attend or to even weigh in in their defense for fear of offending white people again and having to host another stupid beer party like in 2009. Some might call that taking sides in the determination of who deserves to live and who doesn't. So yeah, just as a couple illustrations there concerning why I think there's a case to be made and I would've like to hear it from him rather than this cozy reassurance that he would never hurt my feelings. I for one am not looking to be pandered to! I'm looking to be told the truth! Honesty matters. To this end, I hope he gets more comfortable being himself in the future.

That's neat though that the interview got your mom politically interested! My mom is politically interested, but only in a nominal sense. Like most of my family, she's a hardcore partisan Democrat to a truly mindless degree, by which I mean that she never pays the news any attention and simply votes straight-ticket Democrat in every election cycle. (I know because she tells me.) She'd never bother watching an event like this. I wish she had enough critical thinking skills to try.


Ignoring the core principle and core reason for the founding of the party is irresponsible by the host to recognize in my opinion. It would be like never mentioning limited government when asking questions to a republican candidate. Also many of the people in the audience were people that were on the fence and skeptical Clinton supporters looking for an alternative. Vaccines aren't a big topic for "most Americans" but that question was asked. A VP candidate mentioning someone else being an uncle tom isn't more important than global climate change yet Cuomo focused on that. Part of my criticism is also aimed at Dr. Stein as well for not focusing a good amount of time on green issues too. I know that from a political point of view and a party point of view they want to try and appeal to people in a broader way, but the party if called the Green Party for a reason.

I agree completely that that was basically CNN's fault. I mean what they hosted was called a town hall and everything, but it's not like it was a real town hall. CNN selected the audience members and their questions in advance in addition to the ones Cuomo himself fielded. It's not as if this was a process of random people asking spontaneous questions like in real town halls. We shouldn't pretend that there was more democracy to this than there was. The decision to focus on character questions nobody's ever heard of before more than on questions about substantive policy issues like economic and environmental topics hence reflected what CNN figured would garner ratings and thus higher profit margins for their advertisers. THIS...is CNN!

That said, I think you're also right that the candidate could've done more to forcibly insert the issue into at least some of her responses. She managed to bring economic issues into a number of her responses despite (quite absurdly, IMO) never being asked a single question directly pertaining to the subject. Why couldn't she do the same for the Green Party's foundational issue?


Captain Obvious wrote:
On one hand this is cool, third parties need exposure.

On the other hand... CNN

:shocked::shocked::shocked:...First of all, Captain you astound me! You actually responded to one of my threads in good faith for the first time in at least two years! Please continue to surprise me in the future. :smiley:

Anyway...I think I understand the sentiment you express here. Beggars cannot be choosers, however.


Hal Jordan wrote:
I wasn't talking about just the economic conditions. They are one of the papercuts involved, but there are thousands of others as well. The end result is that people are getting fed up with the parties in power. I wouldn't be surprised if the parties were fully broken by the next presidential election. I don't feel that the damage done in this cycle is reversible.

With this (the bolded) I would agree. To that end, I hold out hope, but just not deterministically. I think there's a great danger of demoralization in determinism.

[Chris]

If only Stein could learn a little economics.

[Subdermal]

I thought that was the Clinton News Network

Corrupt Narrative Network

Sometimes the same exact thing.

[Subdermal]

If they can make it into the debates, that's the end of the duopoly.

Disagree.

What it would end are crappy mainstream political selections. Both Stein and Johnson's views are often found in the mainstream party vernacular; they are imply suppressed: some because they're extremely fringe, and some because they challenge the hegemony of these main parties.

I think their participation would force the two major parties to be more honest, and better reflect the views of their constituencies.