Jill Stein is suing to get into the presidential debates

[Manopolus]

100 thousand people? .3% of the population? It might be a lot of people but in the big picture it's not a significant number of people.

There's probably 100 thousands bronies.

Well, just think how many more that might be if they weren't actively and maliciously degraded or ignored by the mainstream press. I just think this country needs more than a dysfunctional bipolar form of politics resembling a mental disorder. I'm not particularly fond of most of the alternatives out there (they tend to be a bit extremist), but the bi-opoly isn't working out very well, and never has.

 

[Spindrift]

Well, just think how many more that might be if they weren't actively and maliciously degraded or ignored by the mainstream press.

101 thousand?

 

[Suddenly]

Well, just think how many more that might be if they weren't actively and maliciously degraded or ignored by the mainstream press.

The press "actively and maliciously" ignores all sorts of things that virtually nobody cares about. You make it sound like a conspiracy, which is laughable. If a Green even started to look competitive, the press would be all over it as it would be a sort of "man bites dog" story. America loves an underdog.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I don't even understand why the green party is running this year since many of their positions seem to be close enough to Bernie Sanders that they should just endorse him.

Why didn't the Democrats endorse Ralph Nader in 2000, instead of running Al Gore? They're two different parties with very different goals and platforms. I don't think that very many Greens take Sanders seriously, though. I sure don't. He's drawing a lot of liberals into the party right now, but after he loses the nomination he's going to turn around and tell everybody to vote for Clinton. (Or whoever winds up actually getting the nomination.) It's questionable what kind of progress that's going to achieve, and it could even set the liberal cause back due to all the disillusioned Sanders voters.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, just think how many more that might be if they weren't actively and maliciously degraded or ignored by the mainstream press. I just think this country needs more than a dysfunctional bipolar form of politics resembling a mental disorder. I'm not particularly fond of most of the alternatives out there (they tend to be a bit extremist), but the bi-opoly isn't working out very well, and never has.

we've done pretty well these last 230 years, although not compared to multiparty nirvanas like Italy.

lolz, by the way, take the actively and maliciously degraded nonsense to conspiracy theories.

 

[Manopolus]

we've done pretty well these last 230 years, although not compared to multiparty nirvanas like Italy.

lolz, by the way, take the actively and maliciously degraded nonsense to conspiracy theories.

You don't think that leaving a party out of the national discussion entirely is intentional? No, it's not a conspiracy. It comes from the fact that those parties don't tend to raise enough money to pay any of the major networks for much advertising.

I know it's just business... that's the way the system functions. If you advertise, you also get a little kickback in "news" stories, as well... you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours sort of a thing. That also makes the "grass roots" concept a bit of a thing of the past unless people wake the hell up. Money determines everything. Despite not having a "state press" per se, a press in a democratic society that is completely controlled by money to the exclusion of all other factors makes a country and a culture that is completely controlled by moneyed interests. If you don't think the content of your programming is strongly affected by the advertisers, you're just plain naive.

I'm not saying that the smaller parties don't regularly screw themselves over in the way that they function, mind you. Getting one person elected in one district (concentrated localized effort) would be a much better start than trying to run for president before having senators. I suspect that this problem is likely all about making money as well.

Basically, as long as the press continues to be monopolized, there's absolutely no chance for a new political organization to rise to legitimacy. The internet has the potential to change that somewhat, but in some ways it just makes it worse (targeted search results, "social networking" sites where people don't actually interact with anyone that wasn't already in their peer groups, mostly inaccurate and intentionally viral political garbage, etc.).

Seriously, dude. You really are being intentionally manipulated. No, it's not a "conspiracy" per se, since many of the players are competitors, but that's sort of what advertising, and by extension, everything that makes money from advertising (which would include the debates), is designed to do. The thing they all have in common is that they have enough money available to play the game.

 

[The Big Dog]

You don't think that leaving a party out of the national discussion entirely is intentional? No, it's not a conspiracy. It comes from the fact that those parties don't tend to raise enough money to pay any of the major networks for much advertising.

I know it's just business... that's the way the system functions. If you advertise, you also get a little kickback in "news" stories, as well... you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours sort of a thing. That also makes the "grass roots" concept a bit of a thing of the past unless people wake the hell up. Money determines everything. Despite not having a "state press" per se, a press in a democratic society that is completely controlled by money to the exclusion of all other factors makes a country and a culture that is completely controlled by moneyed interests. If you don't think the content of your programming is strongly affected by the advertisers, you're just plain naive.

I'm not saying that the smaller parties don't regularly screw themselves over in the way that they function, mind you. Getting one person elected in one district (concentrated localized effort) would be a much better start than trying to run for president before having senators. I suspect that this problem is likely all about making money as well.

Basically, as long as the press continues to be monopolized, there's absolutely no chance for a new political organization to rise to legitimacy. The internet has the potential to change that somewhat, but in some ways it just makes it worse (targeted search results, "social networking" sites where people don't actually interact with anyone that wasn't already in their peer groups, mostly inaccurate and intentionally viral political garbage, etc.).

Seriously, dude. You really are being intentionally manipulated. No, it's not a "conspiracy" per se, since many of the players are competitors, but that's sort of what advertising, and by extension, everything that makes money from advertising (which would include the debates), is designed to do. The thing they all have in common is that they have enough money available to play the game.

I like when people complain about media monopolies on the *********** Internet
By the way, there is nothing you posted that would seem even the slightest bit out of place on prison planet.

On the other hand, I have spent more time than I wanted to talking about third parties, so success?

 

[Manopolus]

I like when people complain about media monopolies on the *********** Internet
By the way, there is nothing you posted that would seem even the slightest bit out of place on prison planet.

On the other hand, I have spent more time than I wanted to talking about third parties, so success?

Umm... no. I don't subscribe to wacko conspiracy nonsense. I just know how the world of advertising works. I've been around it just a little bit, as a matter of fact. There's no "conspiracy" involved... the biases are purely the results of the mechanics of the systems involved, but that doesn't mean that bias doesn't exist.

Oh, and the internet also functions primarily as an advertising outlet. It's not like any major site you've ever been to doesn't have some connection to advertising supporting it. The details are slightly different and as yet disorganized, but it's already getting a lot more money-centric than it used to be, and I'm quite sure that this trend will continue. I guess ISF doesn't sell advertising that I know of, but it's not the norm by a long shot. Most people will never know this site ever existed.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Do you think that the Democrats and Republicans controlling the debates is a conspiracy theory, too?

The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.

At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.

But, hey! I'm sure the CPD has our best interests at heart! They just don't want us to waste our time listening to candidates who can't possibly get elected, right?

 

[dudalb]

It's the fantasy of radicals on both sides of the political spectrum:That if only they were not kept by "The Establishement" from getting their message out,they would sweep the next elections.
It's nonsense, kiddies.
This is a two party system. If any smaller party comes up with a good idea,one of the major parties will swipe it.
And, as pointed out, where do you draw the line? How do you keep the debates from degenerating into a circus?
It should be based strictly on the percentage of votes gotten in the last election.

 

[Suddenly]

But, hey! I'm sure the CPD has our best interests at heart! They just don't want us to waste our time listening to candidates who can't possibly get elected, right?

Easy to criticize. Harder to come up with objective criteria known in advance that will allow Greens in without opening the floodgates to anyone with a thirst for publicity and time to plan.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

And, as pointed out, where do you draw the line? How do you keep the debates from degenerating into a circus?
It should be based strictly on the percentage of votes gotten in the last election.

Easy to criticize. Harder to come up with objective criteria known in advance that will allow Greens in without opening the floodgates to anyone with a thirst for publicity and time to plan.

At the risk of repeating myself: the debates should be open to all of the major parties. In the USA, a "major party" is defined as a party which has ballot lines in a majority of the states. Currently, five parties meet this criterion: Green, Libertarian, Democratic, Republican, and Constitution. A five-way debate would hardly be a "circus", and I'm sure it would be more interesting than the snore-fests we have now.

 

[Suddenly]

At the risk of repeating myself: the debates should be open to all of the major parties. In the USA, a "major party" is defined as a party which has ballot lines in a majority of the states. Currently, five parties meet this criterion: Green, Libertarian, Democratic, Republican, and Constitution. A five-way debate would hardly be a "circus", and I'm sure it would be more interesting than the snore-fests we have now.

...and once you set that rule in stone, we will have a lot of others. It only works as a criteria if others aren't trying to game it. You also seem to leave out an independent candidate.

Plus, a majority of the states seems a bit arbitrary. Wouldn't "on the ballot in enough states where it is possible for that candidate to win a majority in the EC" be a little more relevant? I now recall hearing that articulated as a standard. At least then the debate would be among those with a chance, no matter how far fetched.

 

[Suddenly]

Also, having someone like Michael Badnarik or Chuck Baldwin in the debate would be less of a "snore-fest," but I was unaware entertainment value was the goal. Might as well sign up Mark Maron... I'd vote for him before anyone those parties are likely to nominate, and he'd at least be trying to be funny rather than the painful unintentional comedy we'd get from the type of hacks third parties generally nominate.

 

[The Big Dog]

Lolz, the greens are going to be pushed out by Donald trump.

 

[Manopolus]

It's the fantasy of radicals on both sides of the political spectrum:That if only they were not kept by "The Establishement" from getting their message out,they would sweep the next elections.
It's nonsense, kiddies.
This is a two party system. If any smaller party comes up with a good idea,one of the major parties will swipe it.
And, as pointed out, where do you draw the line? How do you keep the debates from degenerating into a circus?
It should be based strictly on the percentage of votes gotten in the last election.

Last I knew, there was nothing whatsoever in The Constitution about how many political parties are allowed. As a matter of fact, most of the signers of The Constitution were against the idea of having any political parties at all initially. Admittedly, I have no idea how a democracy could be properly organized without some sort of a system of political parties, but this was not the vision of those who founded the country initially at all.

So... actually, NEITHER of those two parties is actually sanctioned by law in any shape or form, nor is any other party explicitly banned by law (although admittedly they did sort of ban members of the communist party from serving in the military at one time, as well as some other sanctions, even they weren't banned from getting elected) and it would probably be against standing law to take such a step.

There is no autocracy forcing us to accept this bi-polar monopoly either -- we're doing it to ourselves, partially by allowing them to dictate the conversation. The pertinent question here is, why are people so resigned to accepting it? Obviously it isn't working out very well in recent years. Both houses of government have been completely frozen, and the public is becoming increasingly polarized by the propaganda.

That said, there isn't a third party in particular that I support. The Green Party comes the closest, but I'd still prefer Bernie Sanders over Jill Stein... I'm not so sure about Hillary though. I may vote for Stein if Hillary gets her apparently pre-destined nomination. It's kind of funny, because I actually strongly supported her husband. There's just something about Hillary Clinton I don't like though -- and I absolutely HATE the idea of family dynasties in the presidency. I'm actually a registered Democrat, BTW. I'd just like to see more parties in order to give us more choices.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

...and once you set that rule in stone, we will have a lot of others. It only works as a criteria if others aren't trying to game it.

How so? Getting on the ballot in a majority of states is not trivial. Far from it, in fact.

 

[Suddenly]

How so? Getting on the ballot in a majority of states is not trivial. Far from it, in fact.

Well, if the Constitution Party is capable of it, I would argue it is somewhat trivial by definition. That is admittedly somewhat circular.

You are dangling a rather nice carrot out there by offering debate access. As of now third parties measure success by self created largely meaningless metrics. Ballot access, showing in local races, etc. When your majority rule is etched in stone, that suddenly becomes not only the main criteria these off-brand parties use, it will be a hugely valuable one that they will focus on. Trump probably revives the Reform Party banner and goes for ballot access rather than just annoying the GOP, that sort of thing.

Send. In. The. Clowns.

 

[NoahFence]

It's the fantasy of radicals on both sides of the political spectrum:That if only they were not kept by "The Establishement" from getting their message out,they would sweep the next elections.
It's nonsense, kiddies.

That may be the fantasy, but couldn't reality be that they might just make some inroads? Some progress?

This is a two party system. If any smaller party comes up with a good idea,one of the major parties will swipe it.

I guess it depends on the idea.

And, as pointed out, where do you draw the line? How do you keep the debates from degenerating into a circus?

Good question.

It should be based strictly on the percentage of votes gotten in the last election.

Good answer.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Well, if the Constitution Party is capable of it, I would argue it is somewhat trivial by definition. That is admittedly somewhat circular.

You are dangling a rather nice carrot out there by offering debate access. As of now third parties measure success by self created largely meaningless metrics. Ballot access, showing in local races, etc. When your majority rule is etched in stone, that suddenly becomes not only the main criteria these off-brand parties use, it will be a hugely valuable one that they will focus on. Trump probably revives the Reform Party banner and goes for ballot access rather than just annoying the GOP, that sort of thing.

Send. In. The. Clowns.

Yes! By all means. We need more representation. I don't agree with the Libertarians on a lot of issues, and I agree with the Constitution Party even less, but those people have a right to be represented in the debates just as much as anybody else. Why should the corporations get a voice in the debates, but nobody else does?