I believe having 3rd party candidates in T.V. debates is ridiculous thing to do. Everyone in America has heard of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader. The problem is that the majority of Americans immediately dismiss them because we all know they’re not going to win. There is various reasons they’re not going to win, too many to enumerate here. Possibly the biggest reason is because the corporate controlled news never gives them attention, and when they do, it’s negative attention. We cannot change corporate controlled news, nor can we control what these corporations want on TV, and as long as both sides of the “linear spectrum” still work for corporations (as evident), you will never, ever see viable 3rd party candidates.

Now, suppose Ron Paul, in all his amazing abilities, was actually successful with his viral campaign marketing abilities, and he did receive the majority of the vote, would he be in office? Look no further than the elections of 2000 for your answer. Thomas Jefferson, “If once elected, and at a second or third election outvoted by one or two votes, he will pretend false votes, foul play, hold possession of the reins of government.”

I am much more concerned with how to restore democracy, more than I am trying to participate in this…thing…what ever the fuck type of government we have.

Oh hey! Check out this video, “Unequal Democracy” …the sound kinda sucks though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJHrw8tO0U8
I <3 Paul Krugman

Make good choices.

Thanks again for reading and commenting,
John

The two parties have worked very hard for their duopoly and they are not about to give it to Nader.

Naomi spells it quite well.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
“The estimated population of the United States is 304,867,321
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $33,428.98.”

Clearly, our congress doesn’t give a damn about making correct decisions, they’re simply bought and sold like mortgage securities.

Jefferson proposed a simple solution to this problem:
“I dislike, and strongly dislike… the abandonment in every instance of the principle of rotation in office and most particularly in the case of the President. Reason and experience tell us that the first magistrate will always be re-elected if he may be re-elected. He is then an officer for life. This once observed, it becomes of so much consequence to certain nations to have a friend or a foe at the head of our affairs that they will interfere with money and with arms. A Galloman or an Angloman will be supported by the nation he befriends. If once elected, and at a second or third election outvoted by one or two votes, he will pretend false votes, foul play, hold possession of the reins of government, be supported by the States voting for him, especially if they are the central ones lying in a compact body themselves and separating their opponents; and they will be aided by one nation of Europe while the majority are aided by another… It may be said that if elections are to be attended with these disorders, the less frequently they are repeated the better. But experience says that to free them from disorder, they must be rendered less interesting by a necessity of change. No foreign power, nor domestic party, will waste their blood and money to elect a person who must go out at the end of a short period. The power of removing every fourth year by the vote of the people is a power which will not be exercised, and if they were disposed to exercise it, they would not be permitted.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. (Forrest version) ME 6:389

He also said, in that same letter, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

I still like Voltaire.

I didn’t watch the debates, I didn’t feel it was necessary to. I’ve watched them before, and seen how the two candidates will side-step each other and never answer anything. This is not a new practice. Someone once described the Politician as “saying a whole lot, without saying anything at all.”

I still love your writing style.

A question: why would any side of the political spectrum wish to preform the moral act of opening up the debates, when so many American people are told (and believe) that these debates are highly effective, pristine and perfect in practice, and a cornerstone of the election process?

If you seek it, you could find new sources enumerating the intense political points one candidate made, but not the other. One person clearly won, but you go to another news source, the other candidate clearly won. How do you account for these discrepancies in news reporting? How many major news sources will critique the process, and not the candidate?

I suppose we’re lucky to live in the internet world, imagine if the only accounting of the debates was newspapers, we would never be able to have an open dialog like this that any American can stumble upon.

Jefferson said, “Educate and inform whole masses of the people, enable them to see it is in their interest to preserve order and liberty, and they will preserve them.”

<3