Badnarik: I will debate or be arrested

[shanek]

Actually, I don't see why there should be any limit at all. I suppose that in order for the debate not to be too unwieldy one could perhaps limit it to the top 6-8 candidates.

If you go by those top two criteria, then for this year 6 candidates is all you get anyway.

 

[Larspeart]

That is a lie and a strawman!!

 

[CFLarsen]

Not as long as the CPD insists their polls, with all their problems and biases, are valid.

Now you want it both ways: You want to point to the poll, but also say that polls are invalid.

You fit the data to suit your political agenda. You switch standpoint, if it suits you.

Uh, yes, you have. You are defending the CPD's 15% polling requirement while saying that Badnarik's citing of the 68% poll is invalid. That is EXACTLY what you are doing.

Stop telling me what I am doing, especially when I have already told you that I don't give a rat's patooie about the CPD. I am not "defending" it, OK?

No, because he fulfills two conditions THE CONSTITUTION says is necessary to fulfill.

Man doesn't live by the constitution alone. Is it illegal to exclude Badnarik from the debates?

 

[CFLarsen]

Again, I have used no profanity. You are a desperate person slinging ad hominems.

It isn't necessary to use profanity to have a foul mouth. You constantly sneer at people (especially those who disagree with you, or outsmart you), ridiculing them, trying to brush them off this way.

If you are right, it shouldn't be necessary for you to use that constant negative tone.

If you are wrong, it only strengthens the image of a loser.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think the simple point shanek continues to not be able to grasp is that the CPD is a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. They can include or exclude whoever they wish. They can change the rules every 5 minutes if they wish. If you meet all the criteria, they can still say no.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think the simple point shanek continues to not be able to grasp is that the CPD is a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. They can include or exclude whoever they wish. They can change the rules every 5 minutes if they wish. If you meet all the criteria, they can still say no.

In other words, shanek wants a political party (his) to dictate how a private company should act, so the political party (his) will benefit.

The irony is quite staggering...

 

[Sushi]

In other words, shanek wants a political party (his) to dictate how a private company should act, so the political party (his) will benefit.

The irony is quite staggering...

From debates.org:

Our Mission

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000.

The CPD receives nonpartisan tax benefits yet is controlled primarily entirely by the two political parties and has set standards that make it almost impossible for anyone new to enter.

This isn't some game show, this is the United States' electoral process.

 

[varwoche]

From debates.org: The CPD receives nonpartisan tax benefits yet is controlled primarily entirely by the two political parties and has set standards that make it almost impossible for anyone new to enter.

Almost impossible? Hardly. Two of the past four elections (counting 2004) there have been 3 people on stage debating.

If the 3rd-nth parties would nominate someone within shouting distance of sanity, that might help as well.

 

[Sushi]

Almost impossible? Hardly. Two of the past four elections (counting 2004) there have been 3 people on stage debating.

If the 3rd-nth parties would nominate someone within shouting distance of sanity, that might help as well.

How much of his own money did Perot spend?

 

[CFLarsen]

The CPD receives nonpartisan tax benefits yet is controlled primarily entirely by the two political parties and has set standards that make it almost impossible for anyone new to enter.

This isn't some game show, this is the United States' electoral process.

Is the CPD a private or government organisation?

 

[Sushi]

Is the CPD a private or government organisation?

I, personally, would consider them to be "private" (although controlled by the same regimes that control our government) but not in compliance with their "nonpartisan" tax benefit status.

In a libertarian, which our government is now most obviously very un-libertarian, obviously such tax systems wouldn't exist. But they do now, and as such must comply with whatever criteria needed for their tax benefits.

 

[varwoche]

How much of his own money did Perot spend?

It takes megabucks to run for president, regardless of party. Surely you are not suggesting that 3rd party candidates be given special dispensation.

Or, maybe you're advocating public financing of elections. (I'm for this.)

edit to add: Welcome to the forum.

 

[CFLarsen]

I, personally, would consider them to be "private" (although controlled by the same regimes that control our government) but not in compliance with their "nonpartisan" tax benefit status.

In a libertarian, which our government is now most obviously very un-libertarian, obviously such tax systems wouldn't exist. But they do now, and as such must comply with whatever criteria needed for their tax benefits.

There you go, then. Shanek wants to dictate a private company what to do, so his political party benefits.

 

[Cleon]

Is the CPD a private or government organisation?

Yes.

The problem is that the Democratic and Republican Parties, as well as "subgroups" like the CPD, sit on a bizarre line between "public" and "private."

The Republicrat parties, for example, aren't membership organizations; you don't join them the way you do the Libertarian or Green parties. When you register to vote, you declare yourself a "member" of sorts. (This is what people mean when they say "I'm a registered Republican/Democrat.") In most states, this is what makes you "eligible" to vote in the primaries--federally sponsored elections for the two major parties to pick their candidates.

So right there, the question of whether the Republicrats are "government" or "private" organizations is a little fuzzy. Any group controlled by them--such as the CPD--has the same issue. It's both public and private at the same time.

 

[Sushi]

It takes megabucks to run for president, regardless of party. Surely you are not suggesting that 3rd party candidates be given special dispensation.

Or, maybe you're advocating public financing of elections. (I'm for this.)

edit to add: Welcome to the forum.

It takes megabucks to run for president, that we both agree. However, maximum amount for campaign contributions ( Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, Bipartison is not non-partison) are limited ($2,000), making it near impossible for third-parties to be able to spread their message unless the person running spends millions of their own money.

Unless you think that people will suddenly snap their fingers and become a member of a particular party without hearing about it.

Either we have only the rich who are allowed to run for president and spend their own money (in the millions) on televised ads, already have a large following (which is impossible because the message needs to heard first), or those who already have the backing of the status quo they belong to.

Since third parties cannot become popular unless they are heard, they need to be heard first. If an organization granted special priviledges by the government is to be non-partisan, it shouldn't require impossible hurdles for the third parties to follow.

There you go, then. Shanek wants to dictate a private company what to do, so his political party benefits.

When a libertarian usually says "private", they usually don't mean "is given special government priviledges under the current system". You have to account for additional conditions.

As for the arguments presented by Cleon above, I really don't know. I'm no expert in that area, and I could be wrong either way. But even regardless of tax status and benefits, something does seem wrong about the way the system is working.

 

[Rob Lister]

It takes megabucks to run for president, regardless of party. Surely you are not suggesting that 3rd party candidates be given special dispensation.

Or, maybe you're advocating public financing of elections. (I'm for this.)

edit to add: Welcome to the forum.

Perhaps this belongs in its own thread but how would public financing of elections change the level of the political playing field? Take CFR for example. This was supposed to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the amount of soft money flowing into campaigns. Instead, it seems to have not only increased it, but provided both parties with a certain degree of separation from the manner in which those funds are expended.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes.

The problem is that the Democratic and Republican Parties, as well as "subgroups" like the CPD, sit on a bizarre line between "public" and "private."

The Republicrat parties, for example, aren't membership organizations; you don't join them the way you do the Libertarian or Green parties. When you register to vote, you declare yourself a "member" of sorts. (This is what people mean when they say "I'm a registered Republican/Democrat.") In most states, this is what makes you "eligible" to vote in the primaries--federally sponsored elections for the two major parties to pick their candidates.

So right there, the question of whether the Republicrats are "government" or "private" organizations is a little fuzzy. Any group controlled by them--such as the CPD--has the same issue. It's both public and private at the same time.

You got a problem, then.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In other words, shanek wants a political party (his) to dictate how a private company should act, so the political party (his) will benefit.

The irony is quite staggering...

As Ed McMahon used to say - "You are CORRECT sir!"

Yes, the irony is beyond measurement by current technology.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Is the CPD a private or government organisation?

Private. The fact that it is organized as a non-profit is irrelevant. Besides, the loonies are welcome to organize their own similar organization and have it organize debates that include or exclude whoever they wish. Why don't they do that?

 

[Sushi]

As Ed McMahon used to say - "You are CORRECT sir!"

Yes, the irony is beyond measurement by current technology.

You're a poor excuse for a troll.

The fact that it is organized as a non-profit is irrelevant.

It's non-partisan. They either must ditch their tax break or comply with the nonpartisan status.