fmccap Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 We need to quit all this nonsense and start paying attention people. Open Debates The Presidential debates -- the single most important electoral event in the process of selecting a President -- should provide voters with an opportunity to see the popular candidates discussing important issues in an unscripted manner. But the Presidential debates fail to do so, because the major party candidates secretly control them. The majority of likely voters support the inclusion of Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr in the 2008 presidential debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates was created by and for the Republican and Democratic Parties. In 1986, the Republican and Democratic National Committees ratified an agreement “to take over the presidential debates” from the League of Women Voters. Fifteen months later, then-Republican Party chair Frank Fahrenkopf and then-Democratic Party chair Paul Kirk incorporated the Commission on Presidential Debates. Fahrenkopf and Kirk still co-chair the Commission on Presidential Debates, and every four years, it excludes candidates that most voters want to see debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 (edited) We need to quit all this nonsense and start paying attention people. Open Debates If people really want that, they should push for it. Our debates were not going to include the leader of the Green party until the people made it happen. They pressured the leaders who didn't want it to happen and forced them to change their mind. Voters don't realize how powerful they really are. Canada.com Edited September 13, 2008 by suv_guy_19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 (edited) Nice one, Edstock. Edited September 14, 2008 by RangerM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted September 14, 2008 Author Share Posted September 14, 2008 This should tell us all something. Commission on Presidential Debates The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to establish the way that debates between candidates for President of the United States are run. The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and Paul Kirk, a former head of Democratic National Committee. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter". In 2004, the CPD faced harsh criticism of their debate structure and technique. Citing the CPD's 32 page debate contract, citizen groups and Connie Rice of NPR called the CPD debates "news conferences," and "a reckless endangerment of democracy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 In some years it would make sense to include viable third party candidates. Perot certainly made the debates more interesting. I don't see what Nader or McKinney would ad to the debates this year since neither of them will be on the ballot in all 50 states. It looks like Barr may make it on in almost all of the states. Opening the dabates to anyone would just make the debates a joke. It wouldn't make much sense to have the Communist candidate or someone like Lyndon LaRouche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted September 14, 2008 Author Share Posted September 14, 2008 In some years it would make sense to include viable third party candidates. Perot certainly made the debates more interesting. I don't see what Nader or McKinney would ad to the debates this year since neither of them will be on the ballot in all 50 states. It looks like Barr may make it on in almost all of the states. Opening the dabates to anyone would just make the debates a joke. It wouldn't make much sense to have the Communist candidate or someone like Lyndon LaRouche. First look at what these people have to do and the amount of money required to get on all the ballots, it's a joke. I have not looked into it but I think they have enough to get the required amount of electoral votes. Well the communist candidate probably wouldn't last long, but who knows in this country. A joke is what they are now. When do they ever directly respond to real issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 First look at what these people have to do and the amount of money required to get on all the ballots, it's a joke. I have not looked into it but I think they have enough to get the required amount of electoral votes. Well the communist candidate probably wouldn't last long, but who knows in this country. A joke is what they are now. When do they ever directly respond to real issues? I'd like to see the candidates be forced to answer the damn questions and for the moderators to be forced to ask revevant questions in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted September 14, 2008 Author Share Posted September 14, 2008 (edited) I'd like to see the candidates be forced to answer the damn questions and for the moderators to be forced to ask revevant questions in the first place. 100% agreed. You do know that they decide on how it goes between the two of them? As far as Nader, why not? Look at Perot in 92 dropped out(which many say hurt him very bad) them back in and recieved almost 20% of the vote. Then in 1996 was not allowed in the debates, why? This was the 1992 election. At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton). Just prior to the debates, Perot received 7-9% support in nationwide pollsThis was just about one month before the election.. It is likely that the debates played a significant role in his ultimate receipt of 19% of the popular vote. Edited September 14, 2008 by fmccap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted September 28, 2008 Author Share Posted September 28, 2008 I'd like to see the candidates be forced to answer the damn questions and for the moderators to be forced to ask revevant questions in the first place. So, Who Won The Debate? Jim Lehrer Wins The Debate For the first time in history, I am proclaiming a moderator to be the winner of the debate. Jim Lehrer asked very good, pointed questions that neither candidate would answer. Better yet, he forcibly kept at it, attempting to no avail to get some answers on the economy. Lehrer gave a superb performance compared to McCain's "Rope A Dope" and Obama's "Tiptoe Through The Tulips" strategies. By the way, please don't tell me Hillary would have been better. She is simply another pea in the same rotten pod. Jim Lehrer, you won the debate. Please take a bow. Everyone else, especially the public, lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 What part of "No non-automotive threads permitted" do you people not understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts