Open up the debates
 

Any candidate that is on the ballot in enough states to win the necessary amount of electoral votes to be elected should be in the debates.

Democracy lost long ago.

John McCain has a comprehensive economic plan that will create millions of good American jobs, ensure our nation's energy security, get the government's budget and spending practices in order, and bring relief to American consumers. Click to learn how the McCain Economic Plan will help bring reform, prosperity and peace to America. Read More.

And that's all I have to say about that...... http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

I don't think debates are that important. I don't care what the guy in the second video says, debates have always been for entertainment purposes only. Each individual can study the issues for themselves. They don't need a couple of bullshitters up there putting on a show to make a decision.

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I take exception to the word debate as it is being used in this thread as the Presidential debates are anything but. However, even if we did have real debates Nader and co wouldn't have a right to be in thier due to thier low poll numbers. Unless a party polls above 10% in national polls, they don't really have any right to be included in a national debate. Sure, that way parties that don't poll over 10% don't poll over 10%.

I am also wondering why exactly 10%. Is it because that is what Google says (unless they have changed it by now)? Why not 15% like CPD says? Or 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30? Is it because ten base feels somehow more natural?

It would be nice to have more voices involved in the govt than we have, but since the GOP & dems can only lose power by this arrangement, and they decide the rules... ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Originally posted by SlowwHand


First point. I was a young boy when Kennedy and Nixon had the first televised debate. I have a lot of experience in watching. Kennedy was calm, cool and collected. He spoke to the point. By contrast, Nixon looked extemely uncomfortable. Perspiring profusely. Even as a boy, ithe contrast was evident.

Second point. I don't care about Ron Paul, Clinton or anyone else at this point. For better or for worse, this country has pretty much always been a 2 party system.
That's who I want to hear. On the first point you have to elaborate, I could try to assume what you mean but don't really want to.
On your second point, you are mistaking them for third party candidates, one ran as D other as R and neither is going independent. I would look up what third parties have done for your country if you really think that is the case with only 2 parties having influence, or perhaps blacks should get back on the cotton fields and women should not be allowed to vote. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif
Even if third parties didn't have that history I still don't think "well it's been that way" is a good argument to have no progress.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
A) Elaborate how? Largely based off that debate, Kennedy became president. Did you know he was president? Am I assuming too much?

B) I used different examples for a reason. It wasn't a mistake. A) Explain what do you mean and how does it have to what you quoted.
B)What reason?

Speaking of 3rd candidate:

I work for an online gaming site, right? So someone just called in, and insisted on making a wager on Hillary Clinton to win. I informed her that she wasn't a nominee for any party, so we had no odds on her. She insisted that the Democrats were going to nominate her in the next few days, in a "sudden change of mind"

Originally posted by Kidicious


Nixon also banged his knee on the car door on the way. Nixon is running...again?http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/eek.gif

Well, I Like Ike..so lets get em both up therehttp://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/cool.gif

Because he's a parrot. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/nod.gif