PDA

View Full Version : Warning: Stein and Johnson shut out of debate



Peter1469
09-16-2016, 08:42 PM
Stein and Johnson shut out of debate (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/johnson-stein-fail-first-presidential-debate-228301)

This is another example of political corruption in the US. The establishment won't release its grip on the people.


Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein failed to make the cut for the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced on Friday afternoon, in a significant blow for their campaigns.

Though Johnson and Stein satisfied two of the criteria necessary to participate that they be constitutionally eligible and have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority neither met the threshold on polling.






The commission said Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have been formally invited to participate in the first presidential debate later this month, while their running mates, Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, have been invited to participate in the vice presidential debate on Oct. 4.

Luckily the younger generation is waking up.

zelmo1234
09-16-2016, 09:10 PM
Trumps First comment at the Debate should be?

I want to apologize to the American people, there should be 2 other people on this stage tonight, but my opponent did not want them here.

Peter1469
09-16-2016, 09:12 PM
Trumps First comment at the Debate should be?

I want to apologize to the American people, there should be 2 other people on this stage tonight, but my opponent did not want them here.

That would be a good move.

The Xl
09-16-2016, 09:12 PM
What a shame.

Peter1469
09-16-2016, 09:13 PM
We need to break the power of the corrupt two party system. Both of them are driving us over an economic cliff.

Common Sense
09-16-2016, 09:15 PM
I have mixed feelings. They should have a voice, but at the same time they are not in the running in any realistic way. They could be a distraction and actually could be used as pawns.

That being said, they should have had a least one debate with them.

AZ Jim
09-16-2016, 09:18 PM
That would be a good move.Except it is a fucking lie. Hillary Clinton has no more influence over who does or does not qualify for admittance into the debate. I assume you the other poster know this but choose to lie, as does your hero, Trump.

Chris
09-16-2016, 09:20 PM
Except it is a fucking lie. Hillary Clinton has no more influence over who does or does not qualify for admittance into the debate. I assume you the other poster know this but choose to lie, as does your hero, Trump.

You're right, the two major parties control it.

Mister D
09-16-2016, 09:23 PM
You're right, the two major parties control it.

Obviously. It's pretty scary that would need to be pointed out. Now if we need to connect the dots for those wondering how that aids Hillary Clinton's campaign...

The Xl
09-16-2016, 09:27 PM
Even if they hit the appropriate threshold, they'd have unquestionably underreported the actual number. No end in sight to this nonsense.

TrueBlue
09-16-2016, 09:28 PM
Stein and Johnson shut out of debate (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/johnson-stein-fail-first-presidential-debate-228301)

This is another example of political corruption in the US. The establishment won't release its grip on the people.



Luckily the younger generation is waking up.
Wrong. It is not the political corruption of the U.S. establishment. It is the people in America, the voters who just don't believe enough in either Johnson's or Stein's message who are keeping them out of the debates. Nothing else. If they believed in their message they would have both garnered enough votes to be in the upcoming debates Democrats and Republicans like it or not, but no such luck. Facts Are Facts.

Peter1469
09-16-2016, 09:31 PM
Except it is a fucking lie. Hillary Clinton has no more influence over who does or does not qualify for admittance into the debate. I assume you the other poster know this but choose to lie, as does your hero, Trump.

Watch your filthy mouth or get into the Hole and post as you wish.

Mister D
09-16-2016, 09:31 PM
Right. The American people refuse to have Stein and Johnson on the debates, Who knew?

gamewell45
09-16-2016, 09:31 PM
Stein and Johnson shut out of debate (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/johnson-stein-fail-first-presidential-debate-228301)

This is another example of political corruption in the US. The establishment won't release its grip on the people.



Luckily the younger generation is waking up.

Now, if only you can manage to rip the play station controls out of their hands and get them out to vote.

Peter1469
09-16-2016, 09:32 PM
Wrong. It is not the political corruption of the U.S. establishment. It is the people in America, the voters who just don't believe enough in either Johnson's or Stein's message who are keeping them out of the debates. Nothing else. If they believed in their message they would have both garnered enough votes to be in the upcoming debates Democrats and Republicans like it or not, but no such luck. Facts Are Facts.

The is patently false. There are many election laws put in place by the two main parties to shut third parties out of the election. Each and every one of those laws should be eliminated. Now.

Chris
09-16-2016, 09:36 PM
Wrong. It is not the political corruption of the U.S. establishment. It is the people in America, the voters who just don't believe enough in either Johnson's or Stein's message who are keeping them out of the debates. Nothing else. If they believed in their message they would have both garnered enough votes to be in the upcoming debates Democrats and Republicans like it or not, but no such luck. Facts Are Facts.

THe American people don't control who gets in the debate, the two major parties do. For some time now the American people have polled in favor of letting them debate. The two major parties no longer represent the people. Time for a Declaration.

TrueBlue
09-16-2016, 09:38 PM
THe American people don't control who gets in the debate, the two major parties do. For some time now the American people have polled in favor of letting them debate. The two major parties no longer represent the people. Time for a Declaration.
And just WHO are the two major parties comprised of if not the American People?

Mac-7
09-16-2016, 09:38 PM
The benchmark was 15% support in the polls and no third party candidate reached that number

TrueBlue
09-16-2016, 09:40 PM
The is patently false. There are many election laws put in place by the two main parties to shut third parties out of the election. Each and every one of those laws should be eliminated. Now.
The losing party/parties always cry the loudest.

Peter1469
09-16-2016, 09:41 PM
The losing party/parties always cry the loudest.


And the younger generations are turning against the Establishment.

TrueBlue
09-16-2016, 09:44 PM
The benchmark was 15% support in the polls and no third party candidate reached that number
Yes of course. But try explaining that to those who feel the "establishment" in the two major parties are against them and therefore, won't tear themselves away from that sad tale.

Chris
09-16-2016, 09:49 PM
And just WHO are the two major parties comprised of if not the American People?

We're talking party leaders, not the American people of which a majority want Johnson and Stein to debate.

Your argument smacks of the old liberal myth we are the government. Good grief.

The Xl
09-16-2016, 09:51 PM
Yes of course. But try explaining that to those who feel the "establishment" in the two major parties are against them and therefore, won't tear themselves away from that sad tale.

A benchmark created arbitrarily by the two parties, going by polls from establishment institutions.

Seems fair and legit.

Chris
09-16-2016, 09:51 PM
Some facts:


The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) sponsors and produces debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and undertakes research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988. The Commission's debates are sponsored by private contributions from foundations and corporations.[1]

The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and former White House press secretary Michael D. McCurry.[2] As of 2014,[3] the Board of directors consists of Howard Graham Buffett, John C. Danforth, Charles Gibson, John Griffen, Antonia Hernandez, John I. Jenkins, Newton N. Minow, Leon Panetta, Richard D. Parsons, Dorothy Ridings, Alan K. Simpson, Olympia Snowe, and Shirley M. Tilghman.

@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

valley ranch
09-16-2016, 09:51 PM
Well, after all that being said~I would think Clinton would want as many others there as possible.

TrueBlue
09-16-2016, 09:52 PM
And the younger generations are turning against the Establishment.
That is because they are obviously still quite wet behind the ears and need to do some serious growing up in order to understand and get down to the brass tacks of things. Once they realize that all that glitters is not gold, that the grass really isn't greener in the Republican or Libertarian or Green Party side and that they stand to lose the most by voting for those who are running in those political parties they will receive a rude awakening and should hopefully be able to wake up and smell the coffee of reality at that point.

Chris
09-16-2016, 09:52 PM
The benchmark was 15% support in the polls and no third party candidate reached that number


The losing party/parties always cry the loudest.


Great to see you two on the same side.

Mac-7
09-16-2016, 09:54 PM
We're talking party leaders, not the American people of which a majority want Johnson and Stein to debate.

Your argument smacks of the old liberal myth we are the government. Good grief.

If a majority of likely voters wanted johnson and stein in the debates they would have polled at least 15%

Mac-7
09-16-2016, 09:57 PM
Great to see you two on the same side.

I have even been known to agree with you at times.

the idea that every putz with a soapbox should be included in the presidential debates is silly

TrueBlue
09-16-2016, 09:58 PM
A benchmark created arbitrarily by the two parties, going by polls from establishment institutions.

Seems fair and legit.
If the minor political parties had some "pull" and could even be convincing enough to get their foot in the door things might be a bit different. But they don't. They try of course, but they fail every time and do not get any closer to becoming one of the major political parties just as they haven't since yesteryear. It is obvious that with greater public support even the "establishment" would not be able to contend with the major political parties' dictates and they could make some inroads. But they can't and they won't. The will to have anything other than Republican and Democrat is just not there in the blood of Americans. Doubt it ever will be.

TrueBlue
09-16-2016, 10:00 PM
Great to see you two on the same side.
On some things cooler heads prevail! :)

TrueBlue
09-16-2016, 10:02 PM
If a majority of likely voters wanted johnson and stein in the debates they would have polled at least 15%
Of course! Unequivocally! Foregone Conclusion!

Green Arrow
09-16-2016, 10:02 PM
Trumps First comment at the Debate should be?

I want to apologize to the American people, there should be 2 other people on this stage tonight, but my opponent did not want them here.

And then Hillary's retort should be - Not that he cares, he backed out of his promise not to show up on the stage if they weren't included just two days after making it.

Green Arrow
09-16-2016, 10:06 PM
Wrong. It is not the political corruption of the U.S. establishment. It is the people in America, the voters who just don't believe enough in either Johnson's or Stein's message who are keeping them out of the debates. Nothing else. If they believed in their message they would have both garnered enough votes to be in the upcoming debates Democrats and Republicans like it or not, but no such luck. Facts Are Facts.

62% of the American people want Stein and Johnson in the debates. The poll that shut them out wasn't asking if people wanted them in the debates, it was asking if people would vote for them.

Regardless, there ARE people who support them and THOSE Americans deserve an equal platform on which to have their voices heard. Therefore, Stein and Johnson should be in the debates. A DEMOCRATIC society (what you DEMOCRATS claim to support) would never have kept them out of the debates based on arbitrary and capricious standards.

TrueBlue
09-16-2016, 10:07 PM
And then Hillary's retort should be - Not that he cares, he backed out of his promise not to show up on the stage if they weren't included just two days after making it.
Bingo! There you go! :)

Common Sense
09-16-2016, 10:11 PM
I have to agree that there is a conflict of interest when it comes to the actual Commission on Presidential Debates. The Commission is controlled by a board of Directors, all of whom are Republicans and Democrats.

Chris
09-16-2016, 10:14 PM
If a majority of likely voters wanted johnson and stein in the debates they would have polled at least 15%

That would be true only if they polled the same people.

Chris
09-16-2016, 10:15 PM
If the minor political parties had some "pull" and could even be convincing enough to get their foot in the door things might be a bit different. But they don't. They try of course, but they fail every time and do not get any closer to becoming one of the major political parties just as they haven't since yesteryear. It is obvious that with greater public support even the "establishment" would not be able to contend with the major political parties' dictates and they could make some inroads. But they can't and they won't. The will to have anything other than Republican and Democrat is just not there in the blood of Americans. Doubt it ever will be.

Good grief.

Green Arrow
09-16-2016, 10:24 PM
Of course! Unequivocally! Foregone Conclusion!


Except again, the poll question was - would you vote for a, b, c, or d for president? So no, only about 10% said they'd vote for Johnson and 5% for Stein for president.

When the poll question was - should c and d also be in the debates with a and b? 62% said absolutely.

Polls shouldn't be relevant at all to debate access, but if you're going to make an arbitrary and capricious polling standard, at least make it for the second question rather than the first, or lower the threshold for the first question. Maybe only 10% would vote for Johnson now, but who says another 10% or more won't decide they want to vote for him after watching him debate Clinton and Trump?

Dr. Who
09-16-2016, 11:10 PM
The is patently false. There are many election laws put in place by the two main parties to shut third parties out of the election. Each and every one of those laws should be eliminated. Now.
I can see that there should be some threshold for participation in debates, but 15% is rather high. Third parties having to meet a 15% threshold will never be heard. As it stands, third parties need to barrage the internet to increase their public profiles and there should be non-major media debates that are held on the internet with the website deciding who can participate.

zelmo1234
09-16-2016, 11:13 PM
Except it is a $#@!ing lie. Hillary Clinton has no more influence over who does or does not qualify for admittance into the debate. I assume you the other poster know this but choose to lie, as does your hero, Trump.

Really? What do you think would have happened if she promised like Trump not to show up, unless they were invited?

zelmo1234
09-16-2016, 11:19 PM
And then Hillary's retort should be - Not that he cares, he backed out of his promise not to show up on the stage if they weren't included just two days after making it.

That would work to his advantage as well. He can rightly claim that he is the only one that took a stand in their defense, just as he is the only one taking a stand for the regular folks.

She can't win on this issue because she is such and elitist piece of Shit.

Common Sense
09-16-2016, 11:22 PM
That would work to his advantage as well. He can rightly claim that he is the only one that took a stand in their defense, just as he is the only one taking a stand for the regular folks.

She can't win on this issue because she is such and elitist piece of Shit.

I seriously doubt Trump's wanting of the third party candidates was some altruistic move. He knew that they would all be critical of her. It would be advantageous for him.

TrueBlue
09-16-2016, 11:23 PM
That would work to his advantage as well. He can rightly claim that he is the only one that took a stand in their defense, just as he is the only one taking a stand for the regular folks.

She can't win on this issue because she is such and elitist piece of Shit.
Trump taking a stand for regular folks? Are you kidding? You surely are! Your sour grapes can only bring many hates.

Mac-7
09-17-2016, 12:34 AM
That would be true only if they polled the same people.

If not likely voters then who?

syrian refugees?

prison inmates?

illegal aliens from mexico?

The 5th grade class at barrack obama elementary school?

or people who could vote but are just too lazy?

Green Arrow
09-17-2016, 07:08 AM
That would work to his advantage as well. He can rightly claim that he is the only one that took a stand in their defense, just as he is the only one taking a stand for the regular folks.

She can't win on this issue because she is such and elitist piece of Shit.

He didn't take a stand in their defense. He said he wouldn't show up to the debate unless they were included, and then two days later said they shouldn't be included.

Chris
09-17-2016, 07:20 AM
If not likely voters then who?

syrian refugees?

prison inmates?

illegal aliens from mexico?

The 5th grade class at barrack obama elementary school?

or people who could vote but are just too lazy?


You really don't understand how polls are put together? Even if the methodology is good there's always a selection and that selection is almost always biased.

Peter1469
09-17-2016, 07:26 AM
Some facts:



@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

Neither party should have control over the process. They are private organizations and should not have any official power.

Peter1469
09-17-2016, 07:28 AM
That is because they are obviously still quite wet behind the ears and need to do some serious growing up in order to understand and get down to the brass tacks of things. Once they realize that all that glitters is not gold, that the grass really isn't greener in the Republican or Libertarian or Green Party side and that they stand to lose the most by voting for those who are running in those political parties they will receive a rude awakening and should hopefully be able to wake up and smell the coffee of reality at that point.

All it takes is numbers. As the younger generations age they will increase in number as the oldsters die off. The two main parties will change or die off. We can see how the younger generations are already turning away from the main parties- particularly the democratic party.

Peter1469
09-17-2016, 07:29 AM
I have even been known to agree with you at times.

the idea that every putz with a soapbox should be included in the presidential debates is silly

That is not the topic. This thread is talking only about two third party candidates. Not all of them.

Chris
09-17-2016, 07:31 AM
Neither party should have control over the process. They are private organizations and should not have any official power.


The League of Women Voters used to run it, they gave in to Rep and Dem pressure:


Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984.[8] In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:[13]

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."[13]

The same year the two major political parties assumed control of organizing presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee.

Some have criticized the exclusion of third party and independent candidates as well as the parallel interview format as a minimum of getting 15 percent in opinion polls is required to be invited. In 2004, the Citizens' Debate Commission (CDC) was formed with the stated mission of returning control of the debates to an independent nonpartisan body rather than a bipartisan body. Nevertheless, the CPD retained control of the debates that year and in 2008.

@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates

Peter1469
09-17-2016, 07:32 AM
I can see that there should be some threshold for participation in debates, but 15% is rather high. Third parties having to meet a 15% threshold will never be heard. As it stands, third parties need to barrage the internet to increase their public profiles and there should be non-major media debates that are held on the internet with the website deciding who can participate.

They should be doing this.

Also I said that during the Republican primary season that the candidate could have co-opted the "media" run debates and used the internet to get their ideas across. Especially those not on the main debate stage.

Peter1469
09-17-2016, 07:34 AM
I seriously doubt Trump's wanting of the third party candidates was some altruistic move. He knew that they would all be critical of her. It would be advantageous for him.
That and many more dems are moving to the two third parties than are republicans.

IMPress Polly
09-17-2016, 08:46 AM
Green Arrow wrote:
62% of the American people want Stein and Johnson in the debates. The poll that shut them out wasn't asking if people wanted them in the debates, it was asking if people would vote for them.

Regardless, there ARE people who support them and THOSE Americans deserve an equal platform on which to have their voices heard. Therefore, Stein and Johnson should be in the debates. A DEMOCRATIC society (what you DEMOCRATS claim to support) would never have kept them out of the debates based on arbitrary and capricious standards.
62% of the American people want Stein and Johnson in the debates. The poll that shut them out wasn't asking if people wanted them in the debates, it was asking if people would vote for them.


Dr. Who wrote:
I can see that there should be some threshold for participation in debates, but 15% is rather high. Third parties having to meet a 15% threshold will never be heard. As it stands, third parties need to barrage the internet to increase their public profiles and there should be non-major media debates that are held on the internet with the website deciding who can participate.


The XL wrote:
Even if they hit the appropriate threshold, they'd have unquestionably underreported the actual number. No end in sight to this nonsense.

My standard would be quite simple: if you've got enough support to be on the ballot in at least one state, you're doing well enough to be included in the debates. That would give us, I believe, five candidates to choose from in this contest. That would be more inclusive without being unwieldy. Clearly the public wants more options (that they can actually see) when 62% plainly say as much when surveyed on the subject, after all!

We could also do with instant-runoff ballots (ballots where people list the candidates they wish to vote for in order of preference) so that people don't feel like casting a third party vote amounts to throwing away their vote. That way people in any state could, for example, vote for Jill Stein as their first choice and Hillary Clinton as their second choice should Stein fail to garner a larger number of votes, to just use how I'd like to vote in this election cycle.

But these sorts of options are rather unlikely to be implemented when the Congress and the commissions deciding these things are completely dominated by Republicans and Democrats who obviously have a direct interest in minimizing the threat that third party and independent candidates for any given office pose to their political dominance.

Mac-7
09-17-2016, 09:10 AM
That is not the topic. This thread is talking only about two third party candidates. Not all of them.

the bar was set at 15% and both Johnson and stein fell short

If you set it low enough we could find a dozen fringe candidates on the stage and the debate would be pointless

Peter1469
09-17-2016, 09:17 AM
the bar was set at 15% and both Johnson and stein fell short

If you set it low enough we could find a dozen fringe candidates on the stage and the debate would be pointless

As explained to you above, the bar is set by a corrupt system. Had the Establish thought third party candidates would get above 15% they would simply rise the threshold.

Chris
09-17-2016, 09:19 AM
My standard would be quite simple: if you've got enough support to be on the ballot in at least one state, you're doing well enough to be included in the debates. That would give us, I believe, five candidates to choose from in this contest. That would be more inclusive without being unwieldy. Clearly the public wants more options (that they can actually see) when 62% plainly say as much when surveyed on the subject, after all!

We could also do with instant-runoff ballots (ballots where people list the candidates they wish to vote for in order of preference) so that people don't feel like casting a third party vote amounts to throwing away their vote. That way people in any state could, for example, vote for Jill Stein as their first choice and Hillary Clinton as their second choice should Stein fail to garner a larger number of votes, to just use how I'd like to vote in this election cycle.

But these sorts of options are rather unlikely to be implemented when the Congress and the commissions deciding these things are completely dominated by Republicans and Democrats who obviously have a direct interest in minimizing the threat that third party and independent candidates for any given office pose to their political dominance.


I think the standard should be some number of states the candidate will appear on the ballot. One is not enough, no need for favorite sons. Not sure how many. Johnson will appear on all 50 states ballots, so definitely he should qualify.

Mac-7
09-17-2016, 09:22 AM
As explained to you above, the bar is set by a corrupt system. Had the Establish thought third party candidates would get above 15% they would simply rise the threshold.

Could be

Just another reason to work inside a major party instead of wandering around in a third party wilderness

Chris
09-17-2016, 09:28 AM
Reason to reject established parties.

Peter1469
09-17-2016, 09:40 AM
Could be

Just another reason to work inside a major party instead of wandering around in a third party wilderness

Working within the GOP is futile if you don't bow and scrape to the Establishment.

Mac-7
09-17-2016, 09:56 AM
Working within the GOP is futile if you don't bow and scrape to the Establishment.

But starting a third party that cant get into the debates is better at getting results?

I dont think so

Peter1469
09-17-2016, 10:01 AM
But starting a third party that cant get into the debates is better at getting results?

I dont think so

The correct answer is to remove the Establishment from the process that manages the elections.

Chloe
09-17-2016, 10:08 AM
Yes of course. But try explaining that to those who feel the "establishment" in the two major parties are against them and therefore, won't tear themselves away from that sad tale.

is it really that or is it the fear of the two biggest and richest political parties that once those third parties are in the debates then their polling numbers would quickly rise and therefore challenge the established oligarchy? The real sad tale is when a party, or in this case two parties, have to keep others out in order to remain relevant.

Mac-7
09-17-2016, 10:47 AM
The correct answer is to remove the Establishment from the process that manages the elections.

Thats what I have been suggesting

but libertarians want to do it the hard way from the outside in

Peter1469
09-17-2016, 11:28 AM
Thats what I have been suggesting

but libertarians want to do it the hard way from the outside in

Those two sentences deserve their own separate posts.

Green Arrow
09-17-2016, 12:46 PM
I think the standard should be some number of states the candidate will appear on the ballot. One is not enough, no need for favorite sons. Not sure how many. Johnson will appear on all 50 states ballots, so definitely he should qualify.

So let's compromise - get on the ballot in five states. That's 1/10th of the states.

Green Arrow
09-17-2016, 12:49 PM
But starting a third party that cant get into the debates is better at getting results?

I dont think so

Yes, it is. Johnson went from 1% or less last election to 10% now. That's a huge jump for just one election cycle and a sign that progress has been made. Maybe next time he does get to 15%, or 20%, or more.

Meanwhile conservatives still have jack shit.

Chris
09-17-2016, 01:47 PM
So let's compromise - get on the ballot in five states. That's 1/10th of the states.

That works.

Stein is way past that, btw...

https://i.snag.gy/VmJKE9.jpg

Mac-7
09-17-2016, 01:50 PM
Yes, it is. Johnson went from 1% or less last election to 10% now. That's a huge jump for just one election cycle and a sign that progress has been made. Maybe next time he does get to 15%, or 20%, or more.

Meanwhile conservatives still have jack $#@!.

20% gets johnson exactly nothing in presidential politics

meaning no matter who is sworn in as president it wont be him

Chris
09-17-2016, 01:58 PM
20% gets johnson exactly nothing in presidential politics

meaning no matter who is sworn in as president it wont be him

Trump started at 0%. Everyone does.

Green Arrow
09-17-2016, 02:25 PM
20% gets johnson exactly nothing in presidential politics

meaning no matter who is sworn in as president it wont be him

That's irrelevant.

Hal Jordan
09-17-2016, 03:48 PM
So let's compromise - get on the ballot in five states. That's 1/10th of the states.

My benchmark is being on enough ballots to have a possibility of receiving enough electoral college votes to win the election.

Hal Jordan
09-17-2016, 03:50 PM
That's irrelevant.

It also doesn't take into account that getting into the debates would boost him in the polling dramatically.

Peter1469
09-17-2016, 04:42 PM
It also doesn't take into account that getting into the debates would boost him in the polling dramatically.

Hence the reason the Establishment blocks them.

IMPress Polly
09-17-2016, 04:43 PM
Getting into the debates was the difference between Ross Perot getting 19% of the vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996. It definitely makes a difference! Perot was polling at 8% in 1992 as well going into the debates, but his support more than doubled as a result of them. I don't mean to hold up Perot as some kind of genuine folk hero (for those who are quick to forget about his leadership on the "Let's cut Social Security!" bandwagon), but it's an example of a candidate who wasn't either a Republican or a Democrat getting somewhere in American politics. But of course HE could: he was billionaire! He had the money! What about those who don't?

The standard I've proposed -- ballot access in at least one state -- would yield five candidates for the public to see in these: one statist (Donald Trump), one liberal (Hillary Clinton), one conservative (Evan McMullin), one progressive (Jill Stein), and one libertarian (Gary Johnson). I think that would present a healthier diversity of options without being too many for people to keep up with.

Mac-7
09-17-2016, 04:52 PM
Trump started at 0%. Everyone does.

Johnson has been campaigning for president for 5 years compared to 1 yr for trump

yet trump is polling 400% better than johnson and will be in the debate but johnson wont

Chris
09-17-2016, 04:55 PM
Johnson has been campaigning for president for 5 years compared to 1 yr for trump

yet trump is polling 400% better than johnson and will be on the debate but johnson wont

Everyone starts at zero. That negates your point.

Trump, an anti-establishment candidate running in an establishment party.

Chris
09-17-2016, 04:56 PM
Getting into the debates was the difference between Ross Perot getting 19% of the vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996. It definitely makes a difference! Perot was polling at 8% in 1992 as well going into the debates, but his support more than doubled as a result of them. I don't mean to hold up Ross Perot as some kind of genuine folk hero (for those who are quick to forget about his leadership on the "Let's cut Social Security!" bandwagon), but it's an example of a candidate who wasn't either a Republican or a Democrat getting somewhere in American politics. But of course HE could: he was billionaire! He had the money! What about those who don't?

The standard I've proposed -- ballot access in at least one state -- would yield five candidates for the public to see in these: one statist (Donald Trump), one liberal (Hillary Clinton), one conservative (Evan McMullin), one progressive (Jill Stein), and one libertarian (Gary Johnson). I think that would present a healthier diversity of options without being too many for people to keep up with.


It might actually be good to have a conservative voice in the debate.

Mac-7
09-17-2016, 05:00 PM
Everyone starts at zero. That negates your point.

Trump, an anti-establishment candidate running in an establishment party.

you are stuck on the irrelevant thought that everyone starts at zero

but I dont care what johnsons poll numbers were 10 years ago.

trump is beating the snot out of johnson in the polls TODAY.

Chris
09-17-2016, 05:06 PM
you are stuck on the irrelevant thought that everyone starts at zero

but I dont care what johnsons poll numbers were 10 years ago.

trump is beating the snot out of johnson in the polls TODAY.

And so? Apparently all you care about is your party wins. While we lose.

My earlier point was you start at 0% and work your way up. No one gets ahead by quitting. So maybe after the clown or the criminal are president for four years Johnson goes at it again gaining even more.

Bethere
09-17-2016, 06:31 PM
And so? Apparently all you care about is your party wins. While we lose.

My earlier point was you start at 0% and work your way up. No one gets ahead by quitting. So maybe after the clown or the criminal are president for four years Johnson goes at it again gaining even more.


Johnson and stein should sue to get in the debate.

Of course they have no standing, do they?

Bethere
09-17-2016, 06:35 PM
Hence the reason the Establishment blocks them.

The establishment has absolutely zero obligation to debate let alone debate in the manner that you prefer.

If hillary and trump want to debate stein and exclude johnson the debate would proceed in that way.

Peter1469
09-17-2016, 06:39 PM
Johnson and stein should sue to get in the debate.

Of course they have no standing, do they?


There are lawsuits in many states to eliminate some of the restrictive laws against third parties. I doubt that any will be resolved before the election.

Peter1469
09-17-2016, 06:39 PM
The establishment has absolutely zero obligation to debate let alone debate in the manner that you prefer.

If hillary and trump want to debate stein and exclude johnson the debate would proceed in that way.

I agree that the system is utterly corrupt.

Bethere
09-17-2016, 06:42 PM
I agree that the system is utterly corrupt.

Not unlike our situation here.

Guess what?

I am under no obligation to debate you.

Peter1469
09-17-2016, 06:47 PM
Not unlike our situation here.

Guess what?

I am under no obligation to debate you.

Thank the gods. :wink:

pragmatic
09-17-2016, 06:48 PM
I have mixed feelings. They should have a voice, but at the same time they are not in the running in any realistic way. They could be a distraction and actually could be used as pawns.

That being said, they should have had a least one debate with them.


Agree. Except for the part about the "one debate where we include them".

If the two of them want to debate each other they are welcome to do so. And all interested voters can tune in.

Hal Jordan
09-17-2016, 06:59 PM
The establishment has absolutely zero obligation to debate let alone debate in the manner that you prefer.

If hillary and trump want to debate stein and exclude johnson the debate would proceed in that way.

Actually, they have an obligation to the people to debate. You may not care that they are failing in that obligation, but apparently 62% of the population disagrees with you on that.

Bethere
09-17-2016, 07:05 PM
Actually, they have an obligation to the people to debate. You may not care that they are failing in that obligation, but apparently 62% of the population disagrees with you on that.

Gosh, presidential debates are a historic rarity. Johnson didn't debate goldwater. Nixon didn't debate humphrey or McGovern. Eisenhower debated no one. Truman debated no one. Fdr debated no one. Hoover debated no one. Neither did Coolidge, harding, wilson, taft, nor teddy.

Hal Jordan
09-17-2016, 07:09 PM
Gosh, presidential debates are a historic rarity. Johnson didn't debate goldwater. Nixon didn't debate humphrey or McGovern. Eisenhower debated no one. Truman debated no one. Fdr debated no one. Hoover debated no one. Neither did Coolidge, harding, wilson, taft, nor teddy.

Do you have a point?

Chris
09-17-2016, 07:12 PM
Gosh, presidential debates are a historic rarity. Johnson didn't debate goldwater. Nixon didn't debate humphrey or McGovern. Eisenhower debated no one. Truman debated no one. Fdr debated no one. Hoover debated no one. Neither did Coolidge, harding, wilson, taft, nor teddy.

And Washington had no one to debate... So?

Bethere
09-17-2016, 07:14 PM
And Washington had no one to debate... So?

Debates are 100% optional stuff.

Bethere
09-17-2016, 07:16 PM
Do you have a point?
Yes. You said they are obliged, but they have no obligation at all.

Hal Jordan
09-17-2016, 07:26 PM
Yes. You said they are obliged, but they have no obligation at all.

Like I said, there's an obligation to the American people. That doesn't mean that it's always followed through with. I'm sure you've had obligations that you didn't follow through with. It doesn't mean that the obligation isn't there.

donttread
09-17-2016, 11:55 PM
Stein and Johnson shut out of debate (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/johnson-stein-fail-first-presidential-debate-228301)

This is another example of political corruption in the US. The establishment won't release its grip on the people.



Luckily the younger generation is waking up.

Boycott. This is bullshit and the polling numbers are almost certainly donkephant controlled. Who sets these rules? Can't the hosting network invite anybody they want?
A competing network should bring in Johnson and Stein and ask them the same questions after playing Hillary and Donald's responses.
Does American jouralism have any balls left.

Ethereal
09-18-2016, 12:11 AM
According to polling data, most Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the two-party system and want other choices.

So there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be presented with more options in the presidential debates.

Some might respond by saying that Johnson and Stein's polling numbers are too low to merit inclusion, but the only reason they're that low is because the American people haven't been exposed to them.

The only way to find out if Johnson and Stein are what Americans want is to give them a chance to make their case directly to the American people.

Of course, the establishment won't let that happen because it threatens their monopoly on the political system.

So third parties need to find some other way to get exposed to the American people.

I think if the Libertarian and Green party tried to organize some kind of massive protest outside the debate, that would be a good way to go about it. Maybe they could even hold their own Lincoln-Douglas style debates in the streets and invite tons of independent media outlets.

They need to do something because there is no way that the establishment is going to do it for them.

Bethere
09-18-2016, 01:45 AM
There are lawsuits in many states to eliminate some of the restrictive laws against third parties. I doubt that any will be resolved before the election.

There are no laws associated specifically with presidential debates.

None at all.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2016, 01:56 AM
According to polling data, most Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the two-party system and want other choices.

So there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be presented with more options in the presidential debates.

Some might respond by saying that Johnson and Stein's polling numbers are too low to merit inclusion, but the only reason they're that low is because the American people haven't been exposed to them.

The only way to find out if Johnson and Stein are what Americans want is to give them a chance to make their case directly to the American people.

Of course, the establishment won't let that happen because it threatens their monopoly on the political system.

So third parties need to find some other way to get exposed to the American people.

I think if the Libertarian and Green party tried to organize some kind of massive protest outside the debate, that would be a good way to go about it. Maybe they could even hold their own Lincoln-Douglas style debates in the streets and invite tons of independent media outlets.

They need to do something because there is no way that the establishment is going to do it for them.

I think if Johnson and Stein were allowed in the debates, it would end the two party rule.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2016, 01:58 AM
There are no laws associated specifically with presidential debates.

None at all.

No, and the Republicans and Democrats have made certain that this is the case because they're afraid of the third parties.

Mac-7
09-18-2016, 02:12 AM
And so?

Apparently all you care about is your party wins. While we lose.

My earlier point was you start at 0% and work your way up. No one gets ahead by quitting. So maybe after the clown or the criminal are president for four years Johnson goes at it again gaining even more.

The guy cant get above 10% in the polls

if he is America's last hope then we are doomed.

After running for president for 5 years if johnson were going to apoeal to anyone other than a few people he would have done so by now.

all he can do is throw the election to hillary

Ethereal
09-18-2016, 03:13 AM
There are no laws associated specifically with presidential debates.

None at all.

Maybe there should be then.

After all, Democrats like yourself have never been averse to regulating anything, to include the political process.

We need to ensure that democracy is allowed to proceed uninhibited by collusion between the two major parties and their corporate donors.

Surely a Democrat like yourself would agree with that!

Ethereal
09-18-2016, 03:15 AM
I think if Johnson and Stein were allowed in the debates, it would end the two party rule.

I think it's already ending, albeit at a somewhat slow pace. Letting them in the debates would simply accelerate that process. But it's pretty clear the establishment has absolutely no intention of helping Libertarians and Greens dismantle the two-party duopoly, which means they will need to find creative ways around the establishment.

NapRover
09-18-2016, 08:46 AM
Maybe there should be then.

After all, Democrats like yourself have never been averse to regulating anything, to include the political process.

We need to ensure that democracy is allowed to proceed uninhibited by collusion between the two major parties and their corporate donors.

Surely a Democrat like yourself would agree with that!
only if votes for them would be taking away votes for republicans!
they can't allow anyone to take away votes from dems!

donttread
09-18-2016, 10:18 AM
According to polling data, most Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the two-party system and want other choices.

So there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be presented with more options in the presidential debates.

Some might respond by saying that Johnson and Stein's polling numbers are too low to merit inclusion, but the only reason they're that low is because the American people haven't been exposed to them.

The only way to find out if Johnson and Stein are what Americans want is to give them a chance to make their case directly to the American people.

Of course, the establishment won't let that happen because it threatens their monopoly on the political system.

So third parties need to find some other way to get exposed to the American people.

I think if the Libertarian and Green party tried to organize some kind of massive protest outside the debate, that would be a good way to go about it. Maybe they could even hold their own Lincoln-Douglas style debates in the streets and invite tons of independent media outlets.

They need to do something because there is no way that the establishment is going to do it for them.

I think you give our system too much credit "E". I have thought for years that third party candidates polling numbers and votes were higher than reported. After all the dems and repubs are constantly accusing each other of election fraud against each other. Or even within their own party. For example the oddly "Hilary friendly voting machines" in California and other primaries.
Imagine how well they could cheat third party candidates by working together, which they will do when their kingdom is threatened.
I think they've been cooking the books since Perot.

Peter1469
09-18-2016, 10:20 AM
There are no laws associated specifically with presidential debates.

None at all.

You often miss the forest for the trees (http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/miss%20the%20forest%20for%20the%20trees), don't you?

donttread
09-18-2016, 10:21 AM
I think if Johnson and Stein were allowed in the debates, it would end the two party rule.

At the very list it would help build a strong base for local, state, congressional candidates and for a real challenge in 2020. That's why the donekephant, which has almost zero accomplishments in the past 16 years cannot allow them in.

Peter1469
09-18-2016, 10:22 AM
I think it's already ending, albeit at a somewhat slow pace. Letting them in the debates would simply accelerate that process. But it's pretty clear the establishment has absolutely no intention of helping Libertarians and Greens dismantle the two-party duopoly, which means they will need to find creative ways around the establishment.

The corrupt two party rule is ending because of demographics. The younger cohorts have not fallen for their b.s. Game over in the long run.

Mac-7
09-18-2016, 10:34 AM
The corrupt two party rule is ending because of demographics. The younger cohorts have not fallen for their b.s. Game over in the long run.

So we're going to have a corrupt 3 party system instead?

Because unless godless liberals are recruiting angels from heaven we will still end up with fallible humans in office

Peter1469
09-18-2016, 10:45 AM
So we're going to have a corrupt 3 party system instead?

Because unless godless liberals are recruiting angels from heaven we will still end up with fallible humans in office

Probably so. But the GOP and Dems are dead parties walking. Good riddance.

Mac-7
09-18-2016, 11:41 AM
But the GOP and Dems are dead parties walking.

The Republican Party maybe

But the wipe-every-nose democrats aren't going anywhere

Peter1469
09-18-2016, 11:44 AM
The Republican Party maybe

But the wipe-every-nose democrats aren't going anywhere
You are not paying attention. The young liberals are abandoning the Dems and Hillary. They are shifting to the third parties and a higher rate than the young conservatives are doing so.

Chris
09-18-2016, 11:56 AM
So we're going to have a corrupt 3 party system instead?

Because unless godless liberals are recruiting angels from heaven we will still end up with fallible humans in office


Which is what you sanction when you vote, and why I don't.

Mac-7
09-18-2016, 03:31 PM
You are not paying attention. The young liberals are abandoning the Dems and Hillary. They are shifting to the third parties and a higher rate than the young conservatives are doing so.

If I know young liberals they want to go more left than where the democrats are today

And the dems are more than willing to go there

Mac-7
09-18-2016, 03:33 PM
Which is what you sanction when you vote, and why I don't.

Don't get me started on why you don't vote or I might hurt your feelings

Chris
09-18-2016, 03:40 PM
Don't get me started on why you don't vote or I might hurt your feelings

What, mac, you looking for a safe space?

AZ Jim
09-18-2016, 03:49 PM
Actually, they have an obligation to the people to debate. You may not care that they are failing in that obligation, but apparently 62% of the population disagrees with you on that.Let's get real. First of all "they" (the candidates) do not make the invitation to debate, they are merely guests of the sponsor. The sponsor has no obligation to allow minor participants if they choose not too. Personally I feel in this case they set a low bar to qualify for the admittance into the fray and neither of the third party candidates comes close to the 15% criterion.

Chris
09-18-2016, 03:56 PM
Let's get real. First of all "they" (the candidates) do not make the invitation to debate, they are merely guests of the sponsor. The sponsor has no obligation to allow minor participants if they choose not too. Personally I feel in this case they set a low bar to qualify for the admittance into the fray and neither of the third party candidates comes close to the 15% criterion.

The sponsor consists of members of the Rep and Dem party.

Do you really think the parties should control it?

AZ Jim
09-18-2016, 05:43 PM
The sponsor consists of members of the Rep and Dem party.

Do you really think the parties should control it?I don't care if there are debates. I voted a long time before there were debates without a problem.

Chris
09-18-2016, 05:45 PM
I don't care if there are debates. I voted a long time before there were debates without a problem.

OK.

AZ Jim
09-18-2016, 05:50 PM
OK.Yes, it is.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2016, 05:54 PM
I don't care if there are debates. I voted a long time before there were debates without a problem.

There were debates before you were born, so that's not possible. Yes, there have been periods without debates, but that doesn't mean that there weren't debates before that.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2016, 05:58 PM
Let's get real. First of all "they" (the candidates) do not make the invitation to debate, they are merely guests of the sponsor. The sponsor has no obligation to allow minor participants if they choose not too. Personally I feel in this case they set a low bar to qualify for the admittance into the fray and neither of the third party candidates comes close to the 15% criterion.

First, when you quote me, put my name in there, please. I never said the candidates make the invitation, the parties do, since they forced out the non-partisan controllers of the debates in the 80s. There should be no polling entry into the debates, as the debates are where the polling really begins to matter. Perot was at a lower percentage than Johnson is at this point, but after the debates ended up with 20% of the vote. The debates are huge for elections.

Chris
09-18-2016, 06:51 PM
There were debates before you were born, so that's not possible. Yes, there have been periods without debates, but that doesn't mean that there weren't debates before that.

I think Jim is older than dirt, literally.

Just kidding, Jim. :D

Bethere
09-18-2016, 07:16 PM
There were debates before you were born, so that's not possible. Yes, there have been periods without debates, but that doesn't mean that there weren't debates before that.

Name one. After you fail, apologize to our friend.

Chris
09-18-2016, 07:49 PM
Name one. After you fail, apologize to our friend.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates.

Peter1469
09-18-2016, 08:27 PM
Name one. After you fail, apologize to our friend.

You need to stop bossing people around.

Bethere
09-18-2016, 08:30 PM
Lincoln-Douglas Debates.

Lincoln and Douglas were running for the senate.

We are still looking for presidential debates that happened before our friend jim was born.

Bethere
09-18-2016, 08:53 PM
What have we established?

1. There is no requirement for debates.
2. There are no debate laws.
3. Stein and Johnson would have no standing to sue.
4. There is but a limited history of debates.
5. Stein and Johnson have no right to expect to be a part of the debates.

Peter1469
09-18-2016, 08:58 PM
We haven't established a damn thing. Your opinion is just that.

The two party system is corrupt and citizens ought not allow them to interfere with the election process.

Bethere
09-18-2016, 09:05 PM
We haven't established a damn thing. Your opinion is just that.

The two party system is corrupt and citizens ought not allow them to interfere with the election process.

Ok.

1. Name a legal requirement for debates.
2. Quote a debate law.
3. Explain how stein or Johnson would have standing to sue.
4. Help hal and chris find presidential debates that happened before jim was born.
5. What constitutional provisions are there for direct presidential elections let alone presidential debates.

Your turn.

Peter1469
09-18-2016, 09:08 PM
Ok.

1. Name a legal requirement for debates.
2. Quote a debate law.
3. Explain how stein or Johnson would have standing to sue.
4. Help hal and chris find presidential debates that happened before jim was born.
5. What constitutional provisions are there for direct presidential elections let alone presidential debates.

Your turn.

Request denied. Go find someone who can tolerate you.

Bethere
09-18-2016, 09:09 PM
Request denied. Go find someone who can tolerate you.

You can't hang.

Good times.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2016, 09:09 PM
Lincoln and Douglas were running for the senate.

We are still looking for presidential debates that happened before our friend jim was born.

They may have been state senate debates, but they were still key to the presidential election.

Anyway, I'm not 100% sure on what year Jim was born but if it was after 1948, you have Dewey-Stassen for presidential primary. Either way, I highly doubt he voted for a long time before 1960.

Another thing is you don't set standards for my discussion. First, clarify where I limited my comment to presidential debates. We are looking for debates period before he was born. You have no right to demand an apology from me anyhow. It would be stupid to demand an apology, as they only have value when freely offered. Had there been no debates period before he was born, I would have offered one on my own without your demand, but since one was demanded, I would not have offered it. It would have been worthless.

If you try to control my discussion, it will not go well for you.

Bethere
09-18-2016, 09:12 PM
They may have been state senate debates, but they were still key to the presidential election.

Anyway, I'm not 100% sure on what year Jim was born but if it was after 1948, you have Dewey-Stassen for presidential primary. Either way, I highly doubt he voted for a long time before 1960.

Another thing is you don't set standards for my discussion. First, clarify where I limited my comment to presidential debates. We are looking for debates period before he was born. You have no right to demand an apology from me anyhow. It would be stupid to demand an apology, as they only have value when freely offered. Had there been no debates period before he was born, I would have offered one on my own without your demand, but since one was demanded, I would not have offered it. It would have been worthless.

If you try to control my discussion, it will not go well for you.

Dewey and strassen were both Republicans.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2016, 09:15 PM
Dewey and strassen were both Republicans.

So you only noted those names and not another word of the post?

Mister D
09-18-2016, 09:16 PM
Dewey and strassen were both Republicans.

Did "primary" give it away? lol

Bethere
09-18-2016, 09:20 PM
So you only noted those names and not another word of the post?

Stein and Johnson seek to be part of presidential debates. I view your moving of the goal posts as a sign of weakness.

We still have no examples of presidential debates before jim's birth.

No one wants your thread.

Bethere
09-18-2016, 09:21 PM
Did "primary" give it away? lol

Obviously.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2016, 09:24 PM
Stein and Johnson seek to be part of presidential debates. I view your moving of the goal posts as a sign of weakness.

We still have no examples of presidential debates before jim's birth.

No one wants your thread.

You're the one that moved goalposts here. Still can't find anywhere I limited what I was talking about to presidential debates? Gee, I wonder why.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2016, 09:26 PM
Did "primary" give it away? lol

I mean, I thought I was clear enough that his comment was pointless. Maybe I just try to think too highly of the intelligence of others.

Bethere
09-18-2016, 09:26 PM
You're the one that moved goalposts here. Still can't find anywhere I limited what I was talking about to presidential debates? Gee, I wonder why.

Lol.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2016, 09:28 PM
Lol.

Finally joining the rest of us in laughing at you?

Bethere
09-18-2016, 09:32 PM
Finally joining the rest of us in laughing at you?

Tell me:How can it be your thread when, in fact, it is pete's thread?

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy!


Another thing is you don't set standards for my discussion..If you try to control my discussion, it will not go well for you.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2016, 09:53 PM
Tell me:How can it be your thread when, in fact, it is pete's thread?

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy!



I never said it was my thread. Tighten up.

Chris
09-18-2016, 10:06 PM
Lincoln and Douglas were running for the senate.

We are still looking for presidential debates that happened before our friend jim was born.

Still those debates influenced the presidential election of Lincoln.

Next was in 1948, a radio debate was held in Oregon between Thomas E. Dewey and Harold Stassen, Republican primary candidates for president. @ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates

If Jim was voting then how old would that make him?

Chris
09-18-2016, 10:08 PM
Stein and Johnson seek to be part of presidential debates. I view your moving of the goal posts as a sign of weakness.

We still have no examples of presidential debates before jim's birth.

No one wants your thread.

He said he was voting before any debates. Nice try.

Bethere
09-18-2016, 10:17 PM
I never said it was my thread. Tighten up.

It wasn't your discussion either, or you are an escapee from pete's sock drawer.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2016, 10:22 PM
It wasn't your discussion either, or you are an escapee from pete's sock drawer.

So now I didn't say anything? You do understand what discussion is, right? Are you going to continue showing yourself as foolish here?

Bethere
09-18-2016, 10:23 PM
Still those debates influenced the presidential election of Lincoln.

Next was in 1948, a radio debate was held in Oregon between Thomas E. Dewey and Harold Stassen, Republican primary candidates for president. @ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates

If Jim was voting then how old would that make him?

Stein and Johnson aren't crying because they can't get in a senate debate. Nor are they crying because they can't get in a Republican primary debate.

Bethere
09-18-2016, 10:24 PM
So now I didn't say anything? You do understand what discussion is, right? Are you going to continue showing yourself as foolish here?

Never admit defeat.

Good times.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2016, 10:26 PM
Never admit defeat.

Good times.

So, you're continuing to show yourself as foolish.

Good times indeed.

Chris
09-18-2016, 10:27 PM
It wasn't your discussion either, or you are an escapee from pete's sock drawer.

Stop trying to moderate threads. You're too insulting when you try. Leave moderation to the moderators. Use the Report button.

hanger4
09-18-2016, 10:28 PM
Never admit defeat.

Good times.

Then you admit delusion.

Bethere
09-18-2016, 10:40 PM
Then you admit delusion.

There were absolutely zero presidential debates before 1960. There are no laws that specifically mention presidential debates. Stein and Johnson have no standing to sue to get in the debates. Neither party has any obligation to include third party candidates.

Good times.

hanger4
09-18-2016, 11:16 PM
There were absolutely zero presidential debates before 1960. There are no laws that specifically mention presidential debates. Stein and Johnson have no standing to sue to get in the debates. Neither party has any obligation to include third party candidates.

Good times.

I see that flew over your head.

Hal Jordan
09-18-2016, 11:40 PM
I see that flew over your head.

It seems that a lot of things do.

Dr. Who
09-19-2016, 12:04 AM
It's strange, but according to Wikipedia third parties need only poll 5% nationally:

The Citizens' Debate Commission (CDC) employs criteria developed by the Appleseed Citizens' Task Force on Fair Debates, a project of the Appleseed Electoral Reform Project at American University's Washington College of Law.


The Appleseed Task Force criteria includes all candidates on enough state ballots to win an electoral college majority who either 1) register at five percent in national polls or 2) register a majority in national polls asking eligible voters which candidates they would like to see included in the presidential debates.


The Appleseed criteria attempts to ensure that popular third party challengers are allowed to participate without drowning out the voices of the two leading contenders for the presidency. In 1984 and 1988, only the major party candidates fulfilled the Appleseed criteria; in 1996 and 1992, only H. Ross Perot and the major party candidates managed to meet the Appleseed threshold; and in 2000, only Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan and the major party candidates satisfied the criteria.


The CDC says the two prongs of the Appleseed criteria that trigger inclusion, five percent and majority support, are sensible because they are rooted in democratic principles and federal law. The five percent threshold matches the public financing threshold for minor parties, which is the only legislative standard for measuring the viability of non-major parties. Elected officials codified five percent in the Federal Election Campaign Act, and taxpayers finance candidates whose parties attract five percent of the popular vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Debate_Commission

Green Arrow
09-19-2016, 12:17 AM
What the hell? They've met both of those criterion.

AZ Jim
09-19-2016, 12:38 AM
Don't flatter yourself, I didn't quote you.

donttread
09-19-2016, 07:21 AM
The corrupt two party rule is ending because of demographics. The younger cohorts have not fallen for their b.s. Game over in the long run.

How long will it take and how many more rigged voting machines can they install between now and then?

Truth Detector
09-19-2016, 07:22 AM
Stein and Johnson shut out of debate (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/johnson-stein-fail-first-presidential-debate-228301)

This is another example of political corruption in the US. The establishment won't release its grip on the people.

Luckily the younger generation is waking up.

So, should they change the rules just for these two loons? I would love to see them engage in the debate so that everyone can see what dimwits they really are; but there are rules....should they be changed just because?

Truth Detector
09-19-2016, 07:24 AM
We need to break the power of the corrupt two party system. Both of them are driving us over an economic cliff.

WE? All one percent of the population? These loons seldom garner much more than 1% of the vote. Now if they were viable candidates with brains and two whacked out loons, then yes, I am willing to bet they could get a large part of the voting public interested. But not this election.

Mac-7
09-19-2016, 09:02 AM
WE? All one percent of the population? These loons seldom garner much more than 1% of the vote. Now if they were viable candidates with brains and two whacked out loons, then yes, I am willing to bet they could get a large part of the voting public interested. But not this election.

Most of the third party malcontents do not really want to win an election anyway

they are much happier being the disloyal opposition that is always on the sidelines criticizing others.

and they couldn't do that if they admitted support for a wining candidate.

because then they would have to share responsibilty along with the rest of us

Bethere
09-19-2016, 09:14 AM
Most of the third party malcontents do not really want to win an election anyway

they are much happier being the disloyal opposition that is always on the sidelines criticizing others.

and they couldn't do that if they admitted support for a wining candidate.

because then they would have to share responsibilty along with the rest of us

Exactly.

Safety
09-19-2016, 10:06 AM
You have an incredible outlook.

Address the post, not the poster

Green Arrow
09-19-2016, 10:51 AM
WE? All one percent of the population? These loons seldom garner much more than 1% of the vote. Now if they were viable candidates with brains and two whacked out loons, then yes, I am willing to bet they could get a large part of the voting public interested. But not this election.

One percent? Johnson is averaging 10% in the polls and Stein is averaging 3-6%.

Even if it was half of a percent, the Americans that support them have the right to see them on that stage with Hillary and Trump.

Peter1469
09-19-2016, 03:42 PM
How long will it take and how many more rigged voting machines can they install between now and then?


A lot. I imagine it will be another two generations to finally bury the (D)s and (R)s for good.

Bethere
09-19-2016, 04:42 PM
One percent? Johnson is averaging 10% in the polls and Stein is averaging 3-6%.

Even if it was half of a percent, the Americans that support them have the right to see them on that stage with Hillary and Trump.

They really don't. I agree that it sounds appropriate, but what right would that be exactly?

Truth Detector
09-19-2016, 04:47 PM
One percent? Johnson is averaging 10% in the polls and Stein is averaging 3-6%.

That is a massive pile of wishful thinking; but on election day it will probably be more like less than a percent.


Even if it was half of a percent,

Agreed...most likely result would be half a percent.


the Americans that support them have the right to see them on that stage with Hillary and Trump.

There is no RIGHT to have a seat at the debate podium. They have established RULES for that. I am not saying I necessarily agree with the rules and believe that they should have a seat to debate; but then, it opens the door to than claiming that any nutbag who runs should have a seat at the podium and that would just make a mockery of the debate.

Truth Detector
09-19-2016, 04:49 PM
A lot. I imagine it will be another two generations to finally bury the (D)s and (R)s for good.

They will only be different in name. The ONLY way you can promote REAL change is by demanding they abolish the current Tax Code and supplant it with the Fair Tax and by forcing our politicians to agree with term limits. Abolishing all Federal subsidies would also go a long way.

Anything less than the above is mere window dressing and will do NOTHING to reign in the out-of-control spending and desire to turn this nation into a welfare state.

nic34
09-19-2016, 04:52 PM
Stein and Johnson shut out of debate (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/johnson-stein-fail-first-presidential-debate-228301)

This is another example of political corruption in the US. The establishment won't release its grip on the people.



Luckily the younger generation is waking up.


The younger generation should have been paying attention for a YEAR now!


There could have been better debates if all were included in the primaries.

sachem
09-19-2016, 04:56 PM
They should be in the debates.

Bethere
09-19-2016, 05:15 PM
They should be in the debates.

On what would your case be built in court if you sued?

Green Arrow
09-19-2016, 05:33 PM
They really don't. I agree that it sounds appropriate, but what right would that be exactly?

The right to free, democratic elections.

Chris
09-19-2016, 05:37 PM
They really don't. I agree that it sounds appropriate, but what right would that be exactly?

It's about appropriateness. The duopoly is simply acting in bad faith to the American people.

Bethere
09-19-2016, 05:39 PM
The right to free, democratic elections.

No one is standing between you and your voting booth.

Oh, and the constitution gives you no rights at all to vote directly for president.

Surely there's another case for you to make to get stein and Johnson onstage?

Bethere
09-19-2016, 05:40 PM
It's about appropriateness. The duopoly is simply acting in bad faith to the American people.

Perhaps, but they have every right to 'act in bad faith' don't they?

Did you see Ohio State play Oklahoma Saturday? It would have made for a much better game if Ohio State wasn't allowed to play man to man pass defense.

But under what obligation were they to provide a mutually entertaining game?

Their job was to win, and they did.

Green Arrow
09-19-2016, 05:44 PM
No one is standing between you and your voting booth.

Actually, several states are forcing non-Republicans/Democrats to go through arbitrary hoops just to get on the ballot. So those states certainly are standing between their citizens and a voting both.


Surely there's another case for you to make to get stein and Johnson onstage?

A truly democratic society would allow them into the debates. Blocking them is something tin pot dictators in one-party states do.

Chris
09-19-2016, 05:47 PM
Perhaps, but they have every right to 'act in bad faith' don't they?

Did you see Ohio State play Oklahoma Saturday? It would have made for a much better game if Ohio State wasn't allowed to play man to man pass defense.

But under what obligation were they to provide an entertaining game?

Their job was to win, and they did.



Yes...and pay the price of public opinion turning against them. Just one more nail in the coffin of the demise of the duopoly.

Bethere
09-19-2016, 05:52 PM
Actually, several states are forcing non-Republicans/Democrats to go through arbitrary hoops just to get on the ballot. So those states certainly are standing between their citizens and a voting both.A truly democratic society would allow them into the debates. Blocking them is something tin pot dictators in one-party states do.Ballot access is an entirely different critter than private debate access, or voting booth access.And of course we are a republic, not a truly democratic society.

Bethere
09-19-2016, 05:55 PM
Yes...and pay the price of public opinion turning against them. Just one more nail in the coffin of the demise of the duopoly.

Whoa! I think the three of us are in agreement here now that we've eliminated the legal mumbo jumbo and moved on to a 100% emotional argument.

Chris
09-19-2016, 05:59 PM
Whoa! I think the three of us are in agreement here now that we've eliminated the legal mumbo jumbo and moved on to a 100% emotional argument.

I'm talking about people's sense of what right and what's wrong. No, not legal, but then not emotional either.

Tahuyaman
09-19-2016, 06:01 PM
Watch your filthy mouth or get into the Hole and post as you wish.

Give him a break. Senility can make people say bad things.

Green Arrow
09-19-2016, 06:07 PM
Ballot access is an entirely different critter than private debate access, or voting booth access.And of course we are a republic, not a truly democratic society.

Ballot access is about what's even in the voting booth, it's nonsensical to consider them different. If Donald Trump was the only candidate on the ballot in my state, my right to vote is compromised.

*EDIT* Further, a republic is a form of democracy.

Bethere
09-19-2016, 06:10 PM
Ballot access is about what's even in the voting booth, it's nonsensical to consider them different. If Donald Trump was the only candidate on the ballot in my state, my right to vote is compromised.

*EDIT* Further, a republic is a form of democracy.

That may be true, except they really are different questions entirely. And the resolution of either question--or both--fails to get either stein or johnson in a private debate.

Chris
09-19-2016, 06:13 PM
That may be true, except they really are different questions entirely. And the resolution of either question--or both--fails to get either stein or johnson in a private debate.

Oh, really, how about we invoke the law liberals so love, public accommodation?

Bethere
09-19-2016, 06:20 PM
Oh, really, how about we invoke the law liberals so love, public accommodation?

Ok. I'm listening. Make your case for stein or johnson's inclusion based on public accommodation.

Not enough wheel chair ramps? Maybe we should provide some unisex restrooms?

Chris
09-19-2016, 06:25 PM
Ok. I'm listening. Make your case based on public accommodation.

Not enough wheel chair ramps? Maybe we should provide some unisex restrooms?


Were it private property I would agree that legally the commission can do as it pleases, leaving their decision to the market place of public opinion. But lecture halls are considered public accommodation. I suppose though the Johnson and Stein are not a protected group.

Bethere
09-19-2016, 06:28 PM
Were it private property I would agree that legally the commission can do as it pleases, leaving their decision to the market place of public opinion. But lecture halls are considered public accommodation. I suppose though the Johnson and Stein are not a protected group.

There you go!

Neither is a protected class. The argument could be made that their physical access to the stage must be insured. But you can't win an argument that they must be allowed to debate when they get there.

But even if it is private property you might have had a case. The lobby of the trump tower, for example, is a private place that is in terms of the law a public space.

Impressive, Chris!

Green Arrow
09-19-2016, 06:54 PM
That may be true, except they really are different questions entirely. And the resolution of either question--or both--fails to get either stein or johnson in a private debate.

They are hardly private debates when the Commission that puts them on is run by political parties that are funded by tax dollars.

Bethere
09-19-2016, 07:00 PM
They are hardly private debates when the Commission that puts them on is run by political parties that are funded by tax dollars.

False.

The debate commission is a non profit run with 100% private funds.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

Otherwise? A very nice try!

Green Arrow
09-19-2016, 08:20 PM
False.

The debate commission is a non profit run with 100% private funds.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

Otherwise? A very nice try!

I never said the commission was funded by tax dollars. Try again.

TrueBlue
09-19-2016, 08:53 PM
Well you know, the good thing about this is that both Johnson and Stein can try again in 2024. They shouldn't be that old by then. Oh wait.....

Bethere
09-19-2016, 10:02 PM
I never said the commission was funded by tax dollars. Try again.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans are non profit 527 organizations. Unless the presidential candidates accept federal funds for the general election they don't fit your scenario either.

It's been a long time since anyone accepted federal funds for a general election campaign. I believe mccain was the last one.

Are we having fun yet?

Bethere
09-19-2016, 10:03 PM
Well you know, the good thing about this is that both Johnson and Stein can try again in 2024. They shouldn't be that old by then. Oh wait.....

Good times!

Hal Jordan
09-20-2016, 01:23 AM
Well you know, the good thing about this is that both Johnson and Stein can try again in 2024. They shouldn't be that old by then. Oh wait.....

Since the Democratic party will be irrelevant by then, good times indeed.

Green Arrow
09-20-2016, 08:02 AM
Well you know, the good thing about this is that both Johnson and Stein can try again in 2024. They shouldn't be that old by then. Oh wait.....

Johnson is 63, he'll only be a year or two older than Hillary Clinton is now in 2024.

Besides, you skipped a cycle. The next presidential election is 2020.

Green Arrow
09-20-2016, 08:03 AM
Both the Democrats and the Republicans are non profit 527 organizations. Unless the presidential candidates accept federal funds for the general election they don't fit your scenario either.

It's been a long time since anyone accepted federal funds for a general election campaign. I believe mccain was the last one.

Are we having fun yet?

Where did I say anything about funding general election campaigns?

Strike two. Tighten up.

Common
09-20-2016, 08:04 AM
Pelosi is whining incessantly that Gary Johnson and Stein are ruining hillary Lol


From the creator of Oflimflamcare
Pelosi: Those Damn Third Party Candidates Are Ruining Clintonhttp://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/09/19/pelosi-those-damn-third-party-candidates-are-ruining-clinton-n2219402

Bethere
09-20-2016, 08:41 AM
Where did I say anything about funding general election campaigns?

Strike two. Tighten up.

My candidate is in the debates. Yours isn't.

Common
09-20-2016, 08:43 AM
Johnson is 63, he'll only be a year or two older than Hillary Clinton is now in 2024.

Besides, you skipped a cycle. The next presidential election is 2020.

yeah but hillary can hardly walk up to a podium.

Green Arrow
09-20-2016, 09:02 AM
My candidate is in the debates. Yours isn't.

Yep. The system is broken.

Chris
09-20-2016, 09:19 AM
False.

The debate commission is a non profit run with 100% private funds.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

Otherwise? A very nice try!


From your link: "The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties...."

Otherwise? A very nice try!

donttread
09-20-2016, 10:07 AM
My candidate is in the debates. Yours isn't.


Only because your candidate is scared to death that Stein and Johnson can do something in the debate which is unthinkable for the donkephant. Tell the truth and support plans with "Gasp the horror" real world evidnece" , logic and facts.

Bethere
09-20-2016, 11:35 AM
From your link: "The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties...."

Otherwise? A very nice try!

Controlled does not mean funded by.

Bethere
09-20-2016, 11:38 AM
Only because your candidate is scared to death that Stein and Johnson can do something in the debate which is unthinkable for the donkephant. Tell the truth and support plans with "Gasp the horror" real world evidnece" , logic and facts.

It's not my candidate's call. She merely accepted the recommendation of the independent debate commission.

Chris
09-20-2016, 11:44 AM
Controlled does not mean funded by.

Right, controlled by means controlled by.

Funding is from corporations, which is why Nader sued the CPD in 2000. Johnson, now joined by Stein, have sued for anti-trust practices.

Bethere
09-20-2016, 02:53 PM
Right, controlled by means controlled by.

Funding is from corporations, which is why Nader sued the CPD in 2000. Johnson, now joined by Stein, have sued for anti-trust practices.

So, we've established that they are corporately funded, not by the parties--my point all along.

And the dc circuit court established that nader had no case when this suit lost there in 2005.

Since then, any further attempt to challenge corporate funding of politics has been crushed by the citizens united ruling.

Ethereal
09-20-2016, 02:57 PM
A Clinton supporter is defending his party's duopoly on political discourse in America. I'm shocked!

Chris
09-20-2016, 03:05 PM
So, we've established that they are corporately funded, not by the parties--my point all along.

And the dc circuit court established that nader had no case when this suit lost there in 2005.

Since then, any further attempt to challenge corporate funding of politics has been crushed by the citizens united ruling.


Rent seeking corporations. Read corruption. And you support it.

Bethere
09-20-2016, 05:21 PM
Rent seeking corporations. Read corruption. And you support it.

I didn't tell you whether I support it or not, I merely argued and won this disagreement.

Thanks for being an adult about it.

Chris
09-20-2016, 05:30 PM
I didn't tell you whether I support it or not, I merely argued and won this disagreement.

Thanks for being an adult about it.

Won what?

And now you're against it?

Bethere
09-20-2016, 05:34 PM
And now you're against it?

Am I? Did I say? Go back and check.

Chris
09-20-2016, 05:37 PM
Am I? Did I say? Go back and check.

Then speak clearly, are you for a system to invites corruption?

Newpublius
09-20-2016, 05:41 PM
Stein and Johnson shut out of debate (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/johnson-stein-fail-first-presidential-debate-228301)

This is another example of political corruption in the US. The establishment won't release its grip on the people.



Luckily the younger generation is waking up.

NFL can stage competitions and not invite the AFL.....or they can. Meaning the Republicans and Democrats are under no obligation to invite third party candidates to debates. Same ti the holder of the debates. This is not done by government dictat.

Peter1469
09-20-2016, 05:44 PM
NFL can stage competitions and not invite the AFL.....or they can. Meaning the Republicans and Democrats are under no obligation to invite third party candidates to debates. Same ti the holder of the debates. This is not done by government dictat.

Society then should not grant them monopoly power to control elections.

Chris
09-20-2016, 05:46 PM
NFL can stage competitions and not invite the AFL.....or they can. Meaning the Republicans and Democrats are under no obligation to invite third party candidates to debates. Same ti the holder of the debates. This is not done by government dictat.

Agree, it's a private organization controlled by Reps and Dems and funded by corporations so it is up to them.

What's your take on Johnson's suing under anti-trust. He lost but was there merit?

Bethere
09-20-2016, 07:24 PM
Agree, it's a private organization controlled by Reps and Dems and funded by corporations so it is up to them.

What's your take on Johnson's suing under anti-trust. He lost but was there merit?

No. We've already noted that he has no standing, nor can he prove damages. This is not a tort.

Bethere
09-20-2016, 07:29 PM
Then speak clearly, are you for a system to invites corruption?

Yours is a loaded question. I don't believe this situation invites corruption. Stein and Johnson remain free to spend their time as they see fit.

If your question is should Hillary slash her own throat by loading the stage with irrelevant candidates who would gang up on her? The answer is bethere says no.

Should Hillary unilaterally give up the opportunity to stress the hapless trump by forcing him into a 90 minute one on one debate instead of a 90 minute debate with a dozen irrelevant candidates who eat up all of the time and allow him to skate with short sound bite bullshit? The answer is: bethere says no.

Clinton is under no obligation to make things easy for her competition.

Bethere
09-20-2016, 07:36 PM
Society then should not grant them monopoly power to control elections.

And no one has. I agree with you on ballot access and chuckle at my lawyer colleague's lack of understanding concerning tort law and the privately controlled debates.

Good times. Bethere laughs.

Candidates are free to associate with whomever they choose. As you don't give up your status as a regular poster by being a mod, Clinton and trump don't give up their right to freely associate just because they are candidates.

Peter1469
09-20-2016, 07:48 PM
And no one has. I agree with you on ballot access and chuckle at my lawyer colleague's lack of understanding concerning tort law and the privately controlled debates.

Good times. Bethere laughs.

Candidates are free to associate with whomever they choose. As you don't give up your status as a regular poster by being a mod, Clinton and trump don't give up their right to freely associate just because they are candidates.

I didn't mention tort law.

But continue to make strawmen to attack. It gives you hope.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artbydonnagilbertson.com%2Ffil es%2Ftn_CouldntGiveAToss2.jpg&f=1

Bethere
09-20-2016, 08:00 PM
I didn't mention tort law.


No doubt!

You said: "Society then should not grant them monopoly power to control elections."

That leaves you with few options. 1. A judicial one that frankly isn't open to you. 2. A second ammendment option.

That the lawyer needs a professional musician to explain that to him is a riot.

16190

Peter1469
09-20-2016, 08:04 PM
No doubt!

You said: "Society then should not grant them monopoly power to control elections."

That leaves you with few options. 1. A judicial one that frankly isn't open to you. 2. A second ammendment option.

That the lawyer needs a professional musician to explain that to him is a riot.

16190

lol

/fail

Let's try again: I didn't mention tort law. You did. Even if you argued that case well, it isn't relevant to me. It has zero to do with my position.

Bethere
09-20-2016, 08:10 PM
lol

/fail

Let's try again: I didn't mention tort law. You did. Even if you argued that case well, it isn't relevant to me. It has zero to do with my position.

Why not be an adult like chris and accept the fact that after a well-fought argument you can't force your opponent to comply?

This forum would be a better place to post if everyone understood that. Here's your chance to lead by example.

Your friend,

BETHERE!

Peter1469
09-20-2016, 08:20 PM
Why not be an adult like chris and accept the fact that after a well-fought argument you can't force your opponent to comply?

This forum would be a better place to post if everyone understood that. Here's your chance to lead by example.

Your friend,

BETHERE!

You have yet to actually address my argument. That is why.

Bethere
09-20-2016, 08:21 PM
You have yet to actually address my argument. That is why.

This forum is doomed.

Mister D
09-20-2016, 08:33 PM
This forum is doomed.

With Beevee gone I don't know what we're going to do. He was kind enough to troll the forum irregularly. Now we've offended him and he'll troll some other forum irregularly. I hope we learned our lesson.

Peter1469
09-20-2016, 08:35 PM
This forum is doomed.

why? we get rid of trolls that can't follow the rules.

Bethere
09-20-2016, 08:36 PM
With Beevee gone I don't know what we're going to do. He was kind enough to troll the forum irregularly. Now we've offended him and he'll troll some other forum irregularly. I hope we learned our lesson.
Well, there are only 7 or 8 Democrats left. Soon you could have a political forum totally free of opposing viewpoints.

Is that your goal?

Bethere
09-20-2016, 08:37 PM
why? we get rid of trolls that can't follow the rules.

And yet, here you are.

Is this previously exemplary thread now a thread about Pete?

Peter1469
09-20-2016, 08:46 PM
And yet, here you are.

Is this previously exemplary thread now a thread about Pete?

Your posts are uniformly off topic and directed at a singular goal. Were you the cause of your last forum to fold?

You will fail in your plans for this form. I promise you that. :wink:

Mister D
09-20-2016, 08:50 PM
Well, there are only 7 or 8 Democrats left. Soon you could have a political forum totally free of opposing viewpoints.

Is that your goal?

I argue with Republicans and libertarians all the time. In fact, I have my more interesting disagreements with them and libertarians especially. Our progressives tend to make poor, irrational arguments and just aren't particularly interesting in intellectual terms.

Bethere
09-20-2016, 08:50 PM
Your posts are uniformly off topic and directed at a singular goal. Were you the cause of your last forum to fold?

You will fail in your plans for this form. I promise you that. :wink:

Have a great day, Pete. We'll meet again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj5DccgBYeM

Mister D
09-20-2016, 08:52 PM
why? we get rid of trolls that can't follow the rules.

Without Beevee's corny snark what will you do? I mean he averaged almost 2 posts a day!

Peter1469
09-20-2016, 08:59 PM
Have a great day, Pete. We'll meet again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj5DccgBYeM

You would be best served by not addressing me, my posts, or threads. Post like an honest member only interested in debate and not someone who goes from forum to forum to crash them down.

Bethere
09-20-2016, 10:20 PM
You would be best served by not addressing me, my posts, or threads. Post like an honest member only interested in debate and not someone who goes from forum to forum to crash them down.

I have never crashed a forum. The last forum closed because the domain was purchased for big bucks by CBS and Maxpreps.

And if you don't want comments, don't post.

Threatening another poster, Peter, is a violation of rule #2, and "won't be tolerated. "

Peter1469
09-21-2016, 05:32 AM
I have never crashed a forum. The last forum closed because the domain was purchased for big bucks by CBS and Maxpreps.

And if you don't want comments, don't post.

Threatening another poster, Peter, is a violation of rule #2, and "won't be tolerated. "

You need to stop.