I agree with this. It's what I've been saying for years. I think that all candidates should be invited to participate in all debates. The quickest, most efficient way to see a viable 3rd party emerge is to allow them to participate in the debates.

:thumb::thumb:

Ross Perot earned his place because he is a billionaire and was able to spend enough of his own money to get his name out there. He was wasting money for ballot access, but it didn't really matter because he had a virtual unlimited supply. Plus, many states changed their access laws post-Perot, making 3rd party candidates waste even more time and money.

 

Until the actual election if you are on enough state ballots to recieve 270 electoral college votes you can truly win...so wouldn't that make you viable enough to be in the debate? They let everyone in the primary debates why not the big one?

 

Finally, I think the American public isn't going to learn anything about McCain or Obama they didn't already know by these "debates", lets make them real debates with people who aren't afraid to say how they really feel.

 

 

As a person who voted for Ross Perot...I think Americans are being misled about what can actually be accomplished in Washington.

 

Here's a gem from one of my favorite authors:

 

There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.

Alexis de Tocqueville

As a person who voted for Ross Perot...I think Americans are being misled about what can actually be accomplished in Washington.

 

Here's a gem from one of my favorite authors:

 

 

Alexis de Tocqueville

I didn't mean anything against Ross Perot at all...I most likely would've voted for him as well. I was just trying to say that he is a special case due to his wealth.

Ross Perot earned his place because he is a billionaire and was able to spend enough of his own money to get his name out there. He was wasting money for ballot access, but it didn't really matter because he had a virtual unlimited supply. Plus, many states changed their access laws post-Perot, making 3rd party candidates waste even more time and money.

 

Until the actual election if you are on enough state ballots to recieve 270 electoral college votes you can truly win...so wouldn't that make you viable enough to be in the debate? They let everyone in the primary debates why not the big one?

 

Finally, I think the American public isn't going to learn anything about McCain or Obama they didn't already know by these "debates", lets make them real debates with people who aren't afraid to say how they really feel.

If a candidate cannot attract the support of at least 5 or 10 percent of the electorate, they have no business taking time away from candidates who can.

 

I am opposed to unreasonable restrictions to ballot access but I am also opposed to making it so easy to get on the ballot that it becomes difficult to find legitimate candidates.

 

Ross Perot earned his spot because he was a very effective communicator with some great ideas and he forced the two major candidates to shift positions in response to those ideas. Had he been a bad candidate, no amount of money would have made him viable.

I didn't mean anything against Ross Perot at all...I most likely would've voted for him as well. I was just trying to say that he is a special case due to his wealth.

 

I agree. But a viable third party will never emerge until the American people realize they are being duped by the two-party system. I'm not holding out much hope for that one. It's more likely one of the parties will collapse and split in two, but most factions will be absorbed into one of the two major parties.

If a candidate cannot attract the support of at least 5 or 10 percent of the electorate, they have no business taking time away from candidates who can.

 

I am opposed to unreasonable restrictions to ballot access but I am also opposed to making it so easy to get on the ballot that it becomes difficult to find legitimate candidates.

 

Ross Perot earned his spot because he was a very effective communicator with some great ideas and he forced the two major candidates to shift positions in response to those ideas. Had he been a bad candidate, no amount of money would have made him viable.

The underlined part I do agree with. But I think Ron Paul is the same and I don't think he made the debates in '88. The bolded part, I disagree with tremendously.

I agree. But a viable third party will never emerge until the American people realize they are being duped by the two-party system. I'm not holding out much hope for that one. It's more likely one of the parties will collapse and split in two, but most factions will be absorbed into one of the two major parties.

You may be right...but I intend to keep trying.

You may be right...but I intend to keep trying.

 

:thumb:

If a candidate cannot attract the support of at least 5 or 10 percent of the electorate, they have no business taking time away from candidates who can.

Forgot to address this part. A lot of the polls don't even include them...so maybe if they did they would have more support. People tend to favor 3rd party candidates more at the beginning of the election, and after having the D's and R's rammed down their throats all year they end up forgetting about the people they originally supported.

 

The American politcal system is divided between the "haves" and the "have nots". The "haves" are determined to keep the "have nots" out of it.

Forgot to address this part. A lot of the polls don't even include them...so maybe if they did they would have more support. People tend to favor 3rd party candidates more at the beginning of the election, and after having the D's and R's rammed down their throats all year they end up forgetting about the people they originally supported.

 

The American politcal system is divided between the "haves" and the "have nots". The "haves" are determined to keep the "have nots" out of it.

Third parties need to prove themselves in local and state elections. Until they do that, I really do not want them wasting my time by participating in national debates.

 

I disagree with you on Ross Perot as well. Ross Perot convinced millions of Americans that he had a shot at winning the presidency. I agree with Ron Paul on most issues but he would not be a serious candidate no matter how well financed he was.

Third parties need to prove themselves in local and state elections. Until they do that, I really do not want them wasting my time by participating in national debates.

 

I disagree with you on Ross Perot as well. Ross Perot convinced millions of Americans that he had a shot at winning the presidency. I agree with Ron Paul on most issues but he would not be a serious candidate no matter how well financed he was.

Here is where we differ. I think McCain and Obama wasted everyone"s time during the debate by going over the same bits and pieces of their campaign speeches that we have all already heard.