Are America's Elections Rigged To Favor The Duopoly?

[Classic Liberal]

My ballot has 7 candidates for the Presidency on it, but there are only 2 candidates in the national debates. If a candidate qualifies for enough state ballots to have a possibility of winning the electoral college vote, why shouldn’t that candidate be in the national debates? Has the Democrat & Republican Duopoly rigged America’s elections?

[aboutime]

My ballot has 7 candidates for the Presidency on it, but there are only 2 candidates in the national debates. If a candidate qualifies for enough state ballots to have a possibility of winning the electoral college vote, why shouldn’t that candidate be in the national debates? Has the Democrat & Republican Duopoly rigged America’s elections?


Classic Liberal. How long has it been since someone first spoke that word, or introduced it to you...namely...Duopoly?

Sad to say. You sound much like many other formerly, totally uninformed Liberal, Democrat Americans who had never seen, heard, or read about the word DISENFRANCHISEMENT...until Jesse Jackson used it the first time to convince Black Americans that ALL WHITE Americans are their enemy, and want to kill them.

Is that how it works for you too?

[revelarts]

My ballot has 7 candidates for the Presidency on it, but there are only 2 candidates in the national debates. If a candidate qualifies for enough state ballots to have a possibility of winning the electoral college vote, why shouldn’t that candidate be in the national debates? Has the Democrat & Republican Duopoly rigged America’s elections?

The simple answer is yes.

[fj1200]

Rigged? No. Suited for 2? Probably. Could it be more conducive to 3rd parties? Sure.

[revelarts]

Rigged? No. Suited for 2? Probably. Could it be more conducive to 3rd parties? Sure.

"suited"? is it just natural or has it been orchestrated and planned to make it very difficult and labyrinthine for 3rd parties to get ballot access?

And did you notice the articles i posted on laws suits set up to keep 3rd parties out, and 3rd party candidates arrested for coming near debates. And debate forums standards and access run by party hacks.

suited seems to be a bit mild of a characterization.

[fj1200]

Suited, yes as opposed to your characterization. If we had a parliament then we would have many parties but we have Congress so we have two. It has created a more stabile govt IMO as opposed to the other.

[Gaffer]

Simple question rev and CL. Do you want a constitutional republic or a European style parliamentary system. Very simple question doesn't take 15 paragraphs with links and footnotes.

Don't like the parties? change them. The libs changed the democrat party back in 72. It's now the democrat socialist party. The GOP hung on to it's good old boys. That's being changed now by the tea party, that nonexistent, dead entity of right wing voters.

You want communism? vote democrat. You want a constitutional republic? vote republican. Anything else is a waste of time and your vote. But until the libs get their totalitarian state established you still have the freedom to chose.

[Classic Liberal]

Classic Liberal. How long has it been since someone first spoke that word, or introduced it to you...namely...Duopoly?

Actually, the first I heard it was several years ago when spoken by Ralph Nader. I thought it then, and still do, to be very descriptive of America’s dictatorial political system.


Sad to say. You sound much like many other formerly, totally uninformed Liberal, Democrat Americans who had never seen, heard, or read about the word DISENFRANCHISEMENT...until Jesse Jackson used it the first time to convince Black Americans that ALL WHITE Americans are their enemy, and want to kill them.

Is that how it works for you too?[/QUOTE]

Actually, it doesn’t work at all for me, to begin with the word “other” as used by you accuses me of being a “leftist” Democrat, when nothing could be further from the truth. I’m anti- leftist & anti-rightist, I’m a Classical Liberal in the traditions of the “liberalism” of our Bill Of Rights & and a Classical Conservative in the traditions of our Constitution’s “limits on government.” In other words I’m a limited government, strict constructionist constitutionalist, fiscal conservative, socially liberal, libertarian, (small l).

I think Jesse Jackson is a two bit phony race baiter, how about you, what’s your opinion of ole Jesse?

[red states rule]

The simple answer is yes.

Rev, are you STILL pissed off over Ron Paul losing every primary and getting near zero support from the voters?

You need to get over it and move on Rev. IMO Ron Paul needs to go back to the home and spend his days playing checkers with John McCain (yes I want John to go away as well)

[mundame]

My ballot has 7 candidates for the Presidency on it, but there are only 2 candidates in the national debates. If a candidate qualifies for enough state ballots to have a possibility of winning the electoral college vote, why shouldn’t that candidate be in the national debates? Has the Democrat & Republican Duopoly rigged America’s elections?


There aren't any such candidates this election, are there? I can remember when there were a third candidate on stage: John Anderson and Ross Perot.

I'm not for minor-minor-minor publicity seekers wasting our time in the debates: communists and LaRouchies and I don't know what-all.

Nader and Buchanan caused a LOT of trouble in Florida in 2000, as most of us remember, and I don't want to go through that again.

[red states rule]

There aren't any such candidates this election, are there? I can remember when there were a third candidate on stage: John Anderson and Ross Perot.

I'm not for minor-minor-minor publicity seekers wasting our time in the debates: communists and LaRouchies and I don't know what-all.

Nader and Buchanan caused a LOT of trouble in Florida in 2000, as most of us remember, and I don't want to go through that again.

Why the hell would anyone vote third party when we have to kick Obama out of office, repeal Obamacare, lower taxes, cut regulations, avenge the murders of our people at the embassy, increase US energy production, stop Iran from getting nukes, putting people back to work and off welfare

Voting third party is simply a vote for Obama and more of the hope and change we have gotten for the last 4 years

You might as well vote for Obama

[jimnyc]

Actually, it doesn’t work at all for me, to begin with the word “other” as used by you accuses me of being a “leftist” Democrat, when nothing could be further from the truth. I’m anti- leftist & anti-rightist, I’m a Classical Liberal in the traditions of the “liberalism” of our Bill Of Rights & and a Classical Conservative in the traditions of our Constitution’s “limits on government.” In other words I’m a limited government, strict constructionist constitutionalist, fiscal conservative, socially liberal, libertarian, (small l).

I think Jesse Jackson is a two bit phony race baiter, how about you, what’s your opinion of ole Jesse?

CL - please don't keep making your posts in bold. Thx!

[jimnyc]

As for "rigged", that's laughable, and sounds like the crap we heard in the primaries when Ron Paul only received 10% of the vote and his cult whined about it.

[red states rule]

As for "rigged", that's laughable, and sounds like the crap we heard in the primaries when Ron Paul only received 10% of the vote and his cult whined about it.

and don't forget the massive impact Paul had when he was on the ballot in 1984

United States presidential election, 1988 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988):


George H. W. Bush (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/George_H._W._Bush)/Dan Quayle (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Dan_Quayle) (R) - 48,886,597 (53.4%) and 426 electoral votes (79.18%, 40 states carried)
Michael Dukakis (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Michael_Dukakis)/Lloyd Bentsen (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Lloyd_Bentsen) (D) - 41,809,476 (45.6%) and 111 electoral votes (20.63%, 10 states and D.C. carried)
Lloyd Bentsen (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Lloyd_Bentsen)/Michael Dukakis (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Michael_Dukakis) (D) - 1 electoral vote (0.19%, West Virginia (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/West_Virginia) faithless elector (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Faithless_elector))
Ron Paul/Andre Marrou (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Andre_Marrou) (LBT) - 431,750 (0.5%)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Ron_Paul

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Simple question rev and CL. Do you want a constitutional republic or a European style parliamentary system. Very simple question doesn't take 15 paragraphs with links and footnotes.

Don't like the parties? change them. The libs changed the democrat party back in 72. It's now the democrat socialist party. The GOP hung on to it's good old boys. That's being changed now by the tea party, that nonexistent, dead entity of right wing voters.

You want communism? vote democrat. You want a constitutional republic? vote republican. Anything else is a waste of time and your vote. But until the libs get their totalitarian state established you still have the freedom to chose.

Bullseye! Could not be more accurate..--:beer:--Tyr

[Classic Liberal]

Simple question rev and CL. Do you want a constitutional republic or a European style parliamentary system. Very simple question doesn't take 15 paragraphs with links and footnotes.

Well, unless you can explain in a few simple terms how having more than 2 parties creates a “parliamentary system,” you might be well promoted to provide 15 paragraphs with links and footnotes.

We already have several political parties and a “Constitutional Republic,” the rub is they’re ignored by Wall Street and other special interest because they have no power to offer legislative bribes for campaign donations from the special interest. They’re ignored by major media because media needs no access to their power structure and major media is owned and operated by biased political ideologues either on the right or the left, i. e. RNC loyalist or DNC loyalist. Together the D & R Duopoly creates ballot access in every state usually with excessive and cumbersome requirements for ballot access. Together, the Duopoly controls and decides all national media debate formats excluding third party candidates based on polling data that both Democrats and Republicans complain about as being skewed and unreliable.

So, I’m simply asking “WHY” access to the national debate shouldn’t be based on a much more reliable qualification such as enough ballot access in enough states to present the possibility that a candidate could win the electoral college vote?

[red states rule]

Well, unless you can explain in a few simple terms how having more than 2 parties creates a “parliamentary system,” you might be well promoted to provide 15 paragraphs with links and footnotes.

We already have several political parties and a “Constitutional Republic,” the rub is they’re ignored by Wall Street and other special interest because they have no power to offer legislative bribes for campaign donations from the special interest. They’re ignored by major media because media needs no access to their power structure and major media is owned and operated by biased political ideologues either on the right or the left, i. e. RNC loyalist or DNC loyalist. Together the D & R Duopoly creates ballot access in every state usually with excessive and cumbersome requirements for ballot access. Together, the Duopoly controls and decides all national media debate formats excluding third party candidates based on polling data that both Democrats and Republicans complain about as being skewed and unreliable.

So, I’m simply asking “WHY” access to the national debate shouldn’t be based on a much more reliable qualification such as enough ballot access in enough states to present the possibility that a candidate could win the electoral college vote?

I can make it real easy for you. The third parties have little or no support from the voters so that is why they get little coverage

So you can either act like an adult and vote for either Mitt or Obama - or you can act like a spoiled child and stay home and pout

[Classic Liberal]

There aren't any such candidates this election, are there? I can remember when there were a third candidate on stage: John Anderson and Ross Perot.

I'm not for minor-minor-minor publicity seekers wasting our time in the debates: communists and LaRouchies and I don't know what-all.

Nader and Buchanan caused a LOT of trouble in Florida in 2000, as most of us remember, and I don't want to go through that again.

“Go through” what? It put you through a painful time of turmoil and political suffering to actually have to hear a different message as opposed to the Duopoly’s? How interesting!

Oh please! Let’s not have any “trouble” that might dilute the duopoly dictatorship’s lock on power and it’s trashing of our Constitution!

[red states rule]

“Go through” what? It put you through a painful time of turmoil and political suffering to actually have to hear a different message as opposed to the Duopoly’s? How interesting!

Oh please! Let’s not have any “trouble” that might dilute the duopoly dictatorship’s lock on power and it’s trashing of our Constitution!

If the tird party candidates had a legit message, then they would get more than 5% support

What Mundame ignores is that the liberal media di their own FL recount and found that Bush did win FL by a little over 500 votes

Once again her version of history is desroyed by facts

[revelarts]

...On February 25, 2013, a U.S. District Court in Colorado will hear Riddle v Hickenlooper. This is the case over the constitutionality of a state law that says individuals may donate twice as much money to a candidate for the legislature who is nominated by primary than to a candidate for the legislature who is nominated by convention or petition. The lead plaintiff, Joelle Riddle, wants to donate $400 to an independent candidate for the legislature, Kathleen Curry. But the state law only permits her to donate $200. Yet if Riddle wanted to donate to a Republican or a Democrat who is running for the same seat, Riddle could donate $400. This case was also filed in 2010....
rigged or just suited to a no parliamentary system?



A Libertarian candidate hasn't been on Oklahoma's presidential ballot since 2000. In 2004 and 2008, Oklahoma was the only state that had only Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Write-in candidates are not allowed.



“In Oklahoma you can have any candidate you want as long as it's red or blue,” he said.
To have names placed on state ballots, a political party has to get signatures of registered voters that equal at least 5 percent of the votes cast for the office at the top of the previous ticket, or for this year, the total votes cast in the 2010 gubernatorial race. The party needed 51,739 valid signatures.
The Libertarian Party earlier this year turned in about 56,000 signatures, of which 41,070 were determined to be registered voters. Americans Elect turned in about 90,000 signatures. It was determined 68,424 signatures were registered voters.

but still not allowed on the ballot.





Read more: http://newsok.com/third-party-oklahoma-voters-seek-easier-ballot-access/article/3717072#ixzz29ws0wL33


rigged


...Georgia requires a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters to place anyone on the ballot for state legislature (or for U.S. House,...), except that the nominees of parties that polled 20% of the vote in the last election for President or Governor need not petition. Georgia also requires a filing fee of 3% of the office’s annual salary, even for candidates who are required to petition. This fee is the second highest filing fee in the nation for non-presidential office.

Legislation to ameliorate these ballot access laws has been repeatedly defeated in the Georgia legislature during the last 40 years. A measure to reduce the petition was defeated in 2012. It would have reduced the petition to 5% of the last presidential vote...


rigged


...In certain states, ballot access laws have been held unconstitutional and it should be especially easy to find sponsors, because the legislature has an obligation to write new laws to replace the old void ones. This is true right now in California, Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Vermont. Also the South Carolina legislature will surely be ready to amend the ballot access laws, given the large number of Republicans and Democrats who were kept off primary and general election ballots this year due to unclear laws....
rigged


...On October 18, Gary Johnson and his campaign sued the Commission on Presidential Debates, charging that he is being illegally kept out of the CPD debates because he meets the requirements. The Commission on Presidential Debates has kept Johnson out of the debates because the Commission does not believe that Gary Johnson meets the 15% poll rule. However, the rule does not say that the poll must include any particular set of candidates....
The CPD rules just say that the candidate must be at or above 15%, when five different national polls are averaged together. Under the literal language of the CPD rules, Johnson qualifies. The case is Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, U.S. District Court, 1:12-cv-1711. Here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/110496549/Complaint-Against-Commission-on-Presidential-Debates) is the Complaint...
Rigged

Just a few i picked up from http://www.ballot-access.org/

I could post examples to fill the thread All day long of rigging to systems to favor the Ds and Rs and incumbents, some challenged legally some not.

PLEASE don't tell me 'Well they took it court to remedy the problems. That's the way it suppose to work that way, what your problem?' to dodge the facts.
The point is you folks are saying that the process is naturally defaulted to 2 parties NOT that the laws have been written by Ds & Rs and systems set up by Ds & Rs to keep independents and 3rd parties OFF the ballot by making it HARDER for none 2 party members to get access to the Ballot and THEN make it hard for them to get access to the public debates, financing etc etc..

that may translate to suited or because we are not a parliamentarian system or sour grapes to some but it seems to me it's just plain rigged and AT least as wrong as the supposed horrors of Acorn.

I just don't understand why folks would ignore these issues and pretend it's a level playing field or try to justify it by claiming it's simply weighted toward 2 parties by reason of our republican format. That's just BS, sorry.

Those in power don't really want new blood. And will make up laws and systems to keep power. And will SUE if they have to...

Around the country, the Republican Party is mounting legal challenges to keep third-party candidates off the ballot in November....
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/12660-republican-convention-rules-changes-how-the-establishment-stole-the-gop

That's called suited?
that a republic vs parliamentary system?

BS.

[red states rule]

Rev, this is one long temper tanturm you are having. You really need to get over the fact your guy lost and move one

[mundame]

Why the hell would anyone vote third party when we have to kick Obama out of office, repeal Obamacare, lower taxes, cut regulations, avenge the murders of our people at the embassy, increase US energy production, stop Iran from getting nukes, putting people back to work and off welfare

Voting third party is simply a vote for Obama...



"Why the hell would anyone vote third party..."


Someone might the hell vote third party because it suited them to do so. And good for them!

A vote for anyone NOT named Obama is NOT a vote for Obama. That's just silly.

A vote for any named person is a vote for that named person. That's it. That's how it works.

Every four years this nonsense about how if you vote for ANYONE ELSE besides MY PRECIOUS CANDIDATE it's a vote for his EVIL-DOING MAJOR-PARTY OPPONENT. That's just silly. People vote for whom they vote for, and then someone counts the votes, that's all. If your candidate loses, it's because not enough people wanted him in the White House.

[red states rule]

"Why the hell would anyone vote third party..."


Someone might the hell vote third party because it suited them to do so. And good for them!

A vote for anyone NOT named Obama is NOT a vote for Obama. That's just silly.

A vote for any named person is a vote for that named person. That's it. That's how it works.

Every four years this nonsense about how if you vote for ANYONE ELSE besides MY PRECIOUS CANDIDATE it's a vote for his EVIL-DOING MAJOR-PARTY OPPONENT. That's just silly. People vote for whom they vote for, and then someone counts the votes, that's all. If your candidate loses, it's because not enough people wanted him in the White House.


Eh you were just posting how Nader screwed up the 2000 election Mundame - so what is the difference?

We know you hate Mitt because he is a Mormon and your bigotry has shown through very clear in your posts. So please spare us your posts that drip with the usual drama your are famous for

[Classic Liberal]

Why the hell would anyone vote third party when we have to kick Obama out of office, repeal Obamacare, lower taxes, cut regulations, avenge the murders of our people at the embassy, increase US energy production, stop Iran from getting nukes, putting people back to work and off welfare

Voting third party is simply a vote for Obama and more of the hope and change we have gotten for the last 4 years

You might as well vote for Obama

Why the hell would anybody want to vote for Obama or Flipper Mitt Romney? That’s the real question.

Obama has simply continued the G. W. Bush agenda continuing the unconstitutional undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threatening Iran and increasing G. W. Bush’s isolationist sanctions, promoting the world police force, the insane Drug War and creating more socialist programs and Wall Street bailouts And if we listen to Flipper, (The father of American mandated socialist healthcare, Romneycare), we’re in for more of the same.

Actually, folks that refuse to perpetuate the Duopoly Dictatorship and actually vote their conscience and principles are the only true patriots there are IMO. It’s likely even smarter to not bother voting at all in rigged elections.

“Don’t vote it just encourages the bastards” (P. J. O’Rourke)

[jimnyc]

Interesting that Rev would post laws and regulations and then claim "rigged". If it were rigged, it wouldn't be laws and regulations. The citizens simply need to go to their local/state and perhaps the federal government and seek change. The people who made these laws and regulations were voted in by someone.

I'm betting that if RP received enough votes to contend for the presidency, we wouldn't be hearing this same crap. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately for us, no one really wanted him to go any further than he did. And it's really that simple for the other candidates, work harder, get a message out that people want, bring a candidate forth that the people want. What's happening here isn't "rigged", but rather the lack of support/votes for candidates that the people simply don't want.

[red states rule]

Why the hell would anybody want to vote for Obama or Flipper Mitt Romney? That’s the real question.

Obama has simply continued the G. W. Bush agenda continuing the unconstitutional undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threatening Iran and increasing G. W. Bush’s isolationist sanctions, promoting the world police force, the insane Drug War and creating more socialist programs and Wall Street bailouts And if we listen to Flipper, (The father of American mandated socialist healthcare, Romneycare), we’re in for more of the same.

Actually, folks that refuse to perpetuate the Duopoly Dictatorship and actually vote their conscience and principles are the only true patriots there are IMO. It’s likely even smarter to not bother voting at all in rigged elections.

“Don’t vote it just encourages the bastards” (P. J. O’Rourke)

Lets see, Obama had doubled the deficit, and gas prices. Has increased spending by around 30%; ignored bankruptcy laws and put taxpayers on the hook for over $20 billion with the auto bailout. Obama has taken welfare spending to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS annually. Thanks to Obama America has a record number of people on food stamps.

If you want more of the same then vote for Obama

I am voting for Mitt since I see 4 more years of Obama will take America right into bankruptcy court

[jimnyc]

Why the hell would anybody want to vote for Obama or Flipper Mitt Romney? That’s the real question.

Some think that about other candidates, you think that about these 2. But the bottom line is, the people ARE having their say, and while you may not like their choices, it is their choice.

[Classic Liberal]

I can make it real easy for you. The third parties have little or no support from the voters so that is why they get little coverage



So how does that “simplify” your assertion that more than 2 parties somehow creates a parliamentary system?

Have you ever considered the “fact” that the reason third parties have little support is because they don’t get any coverage from a supposed unbiased media?


[quote] So you can either act like an adult and vote for either Mitt or Obama - or you can act like a spoiled child and stay home and pout

I’ve already executed my other patriotic option and voted for Gary Johnson on my mail in ballot.

[revelarts]

Rev, are you STILL pissed off over Ron Paul losing every primary and getting near zero support from the voters?

You need to get over it and move on Rev. IMO Ron Paul needs to go back to the home and spend his days playing checkers with John McCain (yes I want John to go away as well)


Rev, this is one long temper tanturm you are having. You really need to get over the fact your guy lost and move one

Red Have I ever said i like Romney's position, I gave you guys a chance to convince me that Romney was really different from Obama. i got no replies. I asked again and got ridiculed and was told i just needed to "defeat Obama" without a good reason how that would be better and then insults over my support for Ron Paul. Way to win vote for the party.

I'll vote for ANYONE who I think will support what has been promoted here by Gaffer and yourself as republican values.

Gaffer said the Constitution, I can list 9 different ways Romney doesn't support it. Or I could just HOPE he has CHANGED and really does now, because while he was Gov he did not. And He's promised that some unconstitutional stuff he's just for, for the good of the country.

Sorry, I've mentioned often that I'll never vote for another Republican candidate promising to govern as a conservative but doing the same old thing or worse.
I'm doing what I think is best for the country. Not rubber stamping more of the same. You vote how you want my friend. I'll do the same.

[revelarts]

Interesting that Rev would post laws and regulations and then claim "rigged". If it were rigged, it wouldn't be laws and regulations. ?!!?!! The citizens simply need to go to their local/state and perhaps the federal government and seek change. ?!!?!! The people who made these laws and regulations were voted in by someone.?!!?!!

I'm betting that if RP received enough votes to contend for the presidency, we wouldn't be hearing this same crap. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately for us, no one really wanted him to go any further than he did. And it's really that simple for the other candidates, work harder, get a message out that people want, bring a candidate forth that the people want. What's happening here isn't "rigged", but rather the lack of support/votes for candidates that the people simply don't want.

:facepalm99:



I hope we won't hear any more carrying on about Acorn or other voter problems because no one ever acts or should act on or think about things because they are right or wrong.

Carry on folks

[Classic Liberal]

Some think that about other candidates, you think that about these 2. But the bottom line is, the people ARE having their say, and while you may not like their choices, it is their choice.

What “choice?” The only difference between Obama and Romney is “WHO” they’ll allow to feed at the government trough first. The election is rigged so that only the Duopoly media gets to offer NO real choice. Obama or Romney isn’t a choice it’s a “CRIME!”

[mundame]

If the tird party candidates had a legit message, then they would get more than 5% support

What Mundame ignores is that the liberal media di their own FL recount and found that Bush did win FL by a little over 500 votes

Once again her version of history is desroyed by facts



No, I think Bush won by 324 votes, right? That's what I remember. If you've got an actual FACT, with references, as opposed to empty assertion, trot it out.

[Classic Liberal]

If the tird party candidates had a legit message, then they would get more than 5% support

Have you ever considered the “FACT” that the third parties don’t get much support because few ever get to see and hear their message because the supposed unbiased major media is owned and operated by biased partisan leftist and rightist hacks who’s major political agenda is access to political power?

[mundame]

“Go through” what? It put you through a painful time of turmoil and political suffering to actually have to hear a different message as opposed to the Duopoly’s? How interesting!

Oh please! Let’s not have any “trouble” that might dilute the duopoly dictatorship’s lock on power and it’s trashing of our Constitution!



Okay, you are right, I am wrong.

I didn't really mean the minor candidates shouldn't get a voice --- they do, and wow, they sure affected the 2000 election. And maybe that big effect is why the Tea Party formed and the Libertarians have risen -- well, some. Not enough, but some. So I agree --- more power to 'em all.

I really just meant that I'm okay with not having debates with a guzumpteen publicity seekers from the Scientologists and that church that pickets veterans' funerals and so on and on having to be on stage with the serious pols. A rule saying that the candidate has to be eligible in enough states that he could win is okay by me. That allowed both Anderson and Perot to get on stage; good enough.

If Ron Paul hadn't decided to stick with the GOP, he'd certainly have been on stage in the debates.

[DragonStryk72]

My ballot has 7 candidates for the Presidency on it, but there are only 2 candidates in the national debates. If a candidate qualifies for enough state ballots to have a possibility of winning the electoral college vote, why shouldn’t that candidate be in the national debates? Has the Democrat & Republican Duopoly rigged America’s elections?

Yeah, pretty much. They freaked a bit after Perot nearly won the presidency in 92, an Ind. candidate. If he hadn't taken himself outta the race early, he would likely have been president, not Bill Clinton, and we would have had our first 3rd party President. The air of it is so pervasive that the number 3rd party candidates has gone down across the board since then.

Think about it like this: If we had a 3rd party candidate at the debates, what would happen to the A or B strategy that both parties now use exclusively? It only works as long as the majority of the people know about only those options.

[mundame]

Yeah, pretty much. They freaked a bit after Perot nearly won the presidency in 92, an Ind. candidate. If he hadn't taken himself outta the race early, he would likely have been president, not Bill Clinton, and we would have had our first 3rd party President. The air of it is so pervasive that the number 3rd party candidates has gone down across the board since then.

Think about it like this: If we had a 3rd party candidate at the debates, what would happen to the A or B strategy that both parties now use exclusively? It only works as long as the majority of the people know about only those options.


Well said. I have ALWAYS thought Perot would have won, if he hadn't gone crazy and did that awful thing. I voted for him anyway, but I hated myself afterward.

Classic Liberal is making me think, that the big problems caused by third party candidates in 2000 has actually been why such parties ARE coming back up again. It encouraged them they could have an effect.

[jimnyc]

:facepalm99:



I hope we won't hear any more carrying on about Acorn or other voter problems because no one ever acts or should act on or think about things because they are right or wrong.

Carry on folks

Difference being, Acorn broke laws and regulations. Sad that you can't see the difference, or more likely sour grapes still since your candidate couldn't get a HS to vote for him as president let alone an entire nation. You rant about things being the wrong way but apparently can't figure out the right way to fix things. Ranting alone won't do it, Rev, but I think you know that already, which brings us back to someone whining because his candidate not only got burned, but looked like an idiot in the process.

[jimnyc]

What “choice?” The only difference between Obama and Romney is “WHO” they’ll allow to feed at the government trough first. The election is rigged so that only the Duopoly media gets to offer NO real choice. Obama or Romney isn’t a choice it’s a “CRIME!”

And that's your OPINION, and it appears that millions and millions disagree with you. These other parties have a chance every election season and every season they put forth bags of garbage that the people have no interest in. Oh, wait a minute, I think Roseanne Barr is running! LOL

[Noir]

Its not just things like who gets TV airtime, the acutall voting mechanism, 'First Past The Post', only favours a 2 parties at a time.
Duoploy is built into the system.

[jimnyc]

No, I think Bush won by 324 votes, right? That's what I remember. If you've got an actual FACT, with references, as opposed to empty assertion, trot it out.

What I do know is fact, is that many were involved in recounts, even Democrat supported and liberal groups, as well as non-partisan groups. EVERY SINGLE ONE found that Bush won.

[revelarts]

Difference being, Acorn broke laws and regulations. Sad that you can't see the difference, ....
Sooo it's Ok to rig the process if you get in power and make it "legal" and have the Courts OVERTURN TURN IT as ILLEGAL LATER,
but if it's illegal up front then THAT'S REALLY wrong and horrible and is worthy of mention.
I see.

I stand corrected i guess.:rolleyes:

[Classic Liberal]

Lets see, Obama had doubled the deficit, and gas prices. Has increased spending by around 30%; ignored bankruptcy laws and put taxpayers on the hook for over $20 billion with the auto bailout. Obama has taken welfare spending to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS annually. Thanks to Obama America has a record number of people on food stamps.

If you want more of the same then vote for Obama

I am voting for Mitt since I see 4 more years of Obama will take America right into bankruptcy court

I’ve already submitted that Obama put G. W. Bush’s bailout strategy and annual deficit and increasing the national debt agenda on steroids instead of allowing banks and insurance companies to file for bankruptcy. Then we had un-paid-for wars, 2 of them, and the Bush socialist agenda of “prescription Drugs for Seniors,” “No Child Left Behind” and that good ole “Faith Based Welfare Initiative.” Then ole Georgie gave us the unconstitutional bonus of the Patriot Act.

Actually, G. W. Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain are the major reason that the communist Obama got elected in the first place.

Aside from all of that you haven’t a clue what Flipper Mitt Romney will do as President, his rhetoric suggest that he doesn’t plan on balancing a federal budget for 30 years, (The Ryan Plan). It suggest he’s more likely to go to war with Iran. It suggest that he’s more likely to meddle even more in the middle east and put America’s kids at risk to defend Israel. It suggest that he has no plan to eliminate the unconstitutional Obamacare legislation, but simply to “replace” it with more unconstitutional socialist legislation Romney style.

But we’ll never know for sure until he is President, if ever, because he’s a stuffed shirt phony who’s been on every side of every issue depending on his audience.

[jimnyc]

Sooo it's Ok to rig the process if you get in power and make it "legal" and have the Courts OVERTURN TURN IT as ILLEGAL LATER,
but if it's illegal up front then THAT'S REALLY wrong and horrible and is worthy of mention.
I see.

I stand corrected i guess.:rolleyes:

Again, WHO made these laws and regulations? WHO voted the people in who made these changes? WHO has the ability to vote in people who will change things to their liking? Don't like it, make changes with your votes. Just don't be angry when you vote for a simpleton who the rest of the country disagrees with, and then complain about the person who wins. The majority of the country disagrees with you, get over it.

[revelarts]

Again, WHO made these laws and regulations?
Crooks
WHO voted the people in who made these changes?
innocent Dupes probably voting the party line.
WHO has the ability to vote in people who will change things to their liking? ..
People who open their eyes to the problem and are honest enough to admit there is one.

and Courts willing to throw out unconstitutional and illegal regs.

[revelarts]

What I do know is fact, is that many were involved in recounts, even Democrat supported and liberal groups, as well as non-partisan groups. EVERY SINGLE ONE found that Bush won.

Another Case of Not seeing what you don't want to see.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/co...0_felons2.html (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/election2000/election2000_felons2.html)

Felon purge sacrificed innocent voters
Election 2000: Fla. Vote
May 27, 2001
By Scott Hiaasen, Gary Kane and Elliot Jaspin
Palm Beach Post Staff Writers

While millions of Floridians spent Nov. 7 casting their votes for president, Clarence Mayville was fighting, and failing, to clear his name.

Mayville went to his precinct in Polk County's Auburndale that Tuesday morning to cast his vote for George W. Bush. Poll workers told him he was on a state list of suspected felons, making him ineligible to vote.

Mayville, 50, a diesel mechanic and Army veteran, said it was a mistake. But a day of haggling with election workers failed to clear up the mess.

"I'm madder than hell," Mayville said. "I called them over there (at the elections office) and I raised hell. ... You can't get an answer from them."

Finally Mayville tore up his voter registration card and stomped out without voting. It wasn't until March that he received a letter from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement telling him what he already knew: He had no criminal record. By then, the damage was done.

In the months since the election, no one has been able to say with any certainty just how many legitimate Florida voters like Mayville were turned away from the polls.

But a Palm Beach Post computer analysis has found at least 1,100 eligible voters wrongly purged from the rolls before last year's election - the collateral damage from an aggressive and ill-conceived state plan to prevent felons from voting.

With Bush winning Florida and the presidency by a scant 537 votes over Democrat Al Gore, these voters - some wrongly identified as felons, and many more wrongly turned away based on felony convictions in other states - could have swayed the election had they been allowed to vote.
And while the state's attempt to police the voter rolls victimized scores of legitimate voters, it still failed to prevent thousands of felons from casting their ballots. In Florida, felons are banned for life from voting unless granted clemency.

State lawmakers decided to weed out felons and other ineligible voters in 1998 after a Miami mayoral election was overturned because votes had been cast by the convicted and the dead. Election officials subsequently hired Database Technologies Inc. of Boca Raton to help with the daunting task of scanning the state's massive database of registered voters for felons and dead people. They paid DBT $3.3 million during the past two years.

The company, now a subsidiary of ChoicePoint of Atlanta, produced a list of 82,389 "probable" and "possible" felons before last year's election. The list identified thousands of legal voters as criminals, forcing them to prove their innocence before they could cast a ballot.

But that was just one of many damaging consequences of the state's anti-felon campaign - an effort born of an unwieldy law, founded on less-than-reliable data and made worse by decisions of elections officials, The Post found. For example:

At least 108 law-abiding people were purged from the voter rolls as suspected criminals, only to be cleared after the election. DBT's computers had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of cases they did not share the same name, birthdate, gender or race. One Naples man was told he couldn't vote because he was linked with a felon still serving time in a Moore Haven prison.

Florida officials cut from the rolls 996 people convicted of crimes in other states, though they should have been allowed to vote. Before the election, state officials said felons could vote only if they had written clemency orders, although most other states automatically restore voting rights to felons when they complete their sentences. This policy conflicted with a 1998 court ruling that said Florida had "no authority" to deny civil rights to those who had them restored in other states. After the election, the state changed its policy.

State officials told DBT to use broad parameters to identify as many likely felons as possible, despite warnings that this would disenfranchise legitimate voters.

County elections supervisors were told not to discount names on the list, even if they didn't match.

Records used to create the felon list were sometimes wrong. A state database of felons wrongly included dozens of people whose crimes were reduced to misdemeanors. Furthermore, clemency records were incomplete.

Skeptical of the list's accuracy, elections supervisors in 20 counties (including Palm Beach) ignored it altogether, thereby allowing thousands of felons to vote.

Since the election, the felon purge has become a public-relations nightmare for the state.

Civil rights groups saw it as a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise black voters: Blacks accounted for 88 percent of those removed from the rolls, though they make up only about 11 percent of Florida's voters.

The list was a major issue in post-election hearings before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and it's being challenged in an NAACP lawsuit.

But a review of state records, internal e-mails of DBT employees and testimony before the civil rights commission and an elections task force showed no evidence that minorities were specifically targeted.

Blacks make up nearly 89 percent of the felons convicted in the state, according to the FDLE, so any purge of felons would include a disproportionate number of blacks.

Records show that DBT told the state it would not use race as a criterion to identify felons. The list itself bears that out: More than 1,000 voters were matched with felons though they were of different races.

DBT officials say they aren't to blame for snaring legal voters.

They simply followed the state's orders, handed down by officials who were too cavalier about the felon purge. James Lee, a spokesman for ChoicePoint, said his company will never again get involved in cleansing voting rolls.

"We are not confident any of the methods used today can guarantee legal voters will not be wrongfully denied the right to vote," Lee told a group of Atlanta-area black lawmakers in March.

Clay Roberts, director of the state Division of Elections, said legislation signed this month by Gov. Jeb Bush should provide more safeguards for legitimate voters.

The state will soon create a new voter database accessible to local supervisors and using more reliable court data to identify suspected felons.

"The benefit of the doubt is going to go to the voter," Roberts said. "If the supervisor cannot be absolutely sure they are felons, they should leave them on" the rolls.

Input always imperfect

Some problems with the felon purge were inevitable. Computer databases are never perfect; they're only as accurate as the people putting information into them.

So state officials were left with two unpalatable options: Use strict guidelines in identifying felons and risk losing some, or use broad guidelines and risk catching non-felons in the net. The state chose the latter.

Even so, the number of voters wrongly disenfranchised by the felon purge appears to be far less than the "thousands" its critics have claimed.

Though DBT developed the list, it was up to the 67 county elections supervisors to use it.

The supervisors wrote warning letters to the suspected felons, giving them one to two months to appeal before they were dropped from the rolls.

Several supervisors said they ignored "possible" matches that were obviously wrong.

Many counties didn't use the list at all.

Ultimately, less than half of the names on the DBT list were purged, state records show.

"There were names on the list that I knew were not felons," said Babs Montpetit, the elections supervisor in Union County. "One was a youth director in our church."

Said Leon County supervisor Ion Sancho: "If you weren't careful, you would disenfranchise people."

People like Matt Frost.

The 33-year-old Tampa businessman and Gore supporter was linked by DBT with a convict named Chadwick Chowanetz. Based on this "match," the Hillsborough County elections office sent Frost a letter saying he couldn't vote unless he could prove the list wrong.

Frost, whose only brush with the law was a misdemeanor reckless driving charge, appealed to the state. When he received notice that his polling precinct had changed, he assumed he had been cleared.

On election day, Frost went to his new precinct only to be told he couldn't vote because he was a felon. "Right in front of a bunch of people," Frost said. "The more I'm going to protest, the more it looks like I've got something to hide."

Embarrassed, Frost walked away - but not before grabbing an "I voted" decal. He couldn't take the shame of going home without the little sticker on his shirt. "God, it was humiliating," he said.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ClTxaY8Uy5U?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[fj1200]

rigged or just suited to a no parliamentary system?

...

That's called suited?
that a republic vs parliamentary system?

BS.

Yup, suited even with political party high jinks. If we had a Parliament then 10% of the vote would receive 10%ish representation, right now 10% of the vote gets no representation outside of some positions being co-opted by a major party. Our representative republic encourages voters to support national parties so that their voices can be combined into a stronger voice on the national stage. Now if you would like to support some types of reform that would give more voice to third parties as I mentioned before like requiring run-offs to assure 50%+1 that will be a start but I see no foreseeable future where third parties have any type of chance. Complain and find all the circumstantial evidence you feel like but unless you look at the political basis you'll be wasting time.

[fj1200]

Yeah, pretty much. They freaked a bit after Perot nearly won the presidency in 92, an Ind. candidate. If he hadn't taken himself outta the race early, he would likely have been president, not Bill Clinton, and we would have had our first 3rd party President. The air of it is so pervasive that the number 3rd party candidates has gone down across the board since then.

Highly debatable. But Perot's candidacy was personality driven with two major issues (debt, NAFTA) driving support. That's unlikely to be repeatable every four years.

[jimnyc]

People who open their eyes to the problem and are honest enough to admit there is one.

and Courts willing to throw out unconstitutional and illegal regs.



What a retarded reply. You sound more and more like a sore loser of a child. Would it be realistic if I call those who made certain laws "crooks" because I disagree with them? I think there are plenty of laws out there I disagree with, coming from candidates and such that I never voted for. The horror of it all, all these crooks that got into office, I can't believe the people don't realize all the laws being broken by these people making laws and regulations after they were voted in by the people. It's rigged, it's all a conspiracy! :lol:

[revelarts]

Yup, suited even with political party high jinks. If we had a Parliament then 10% of the vote would receive 10%ish representation, right now 10% of the vote gets no representation outside of some positions being co-opted by a major party. Our representative republic encourages voters to support national parties so that their voices can be combined into a stronger voice on the national stage. Now if you would like to support some types of reform that would give more voice to third parties as I mentioned before like requiring run-offs to assure 50%+1 that will be a start but I see no foreseeable future where third parties have any type of chance. Complain and find all the circumstantial evidence you feel like but unless you look at the political basis you'll be wasting time.

de-nile is not just a river in Egypt.

[jimnyc]

Another Case of Not seeing what you don't want to see.

Sure, I don't dream of conspiracies and live them every day. I didn't cry when RP made an ass out of himself. I'm not the one crying in my wheaties because government doesn't look the way I want. I see clearly, as I'm not wearing my tinfoil cap today. :laugh:

[jimnyc]

de-nile is not just a river in Egypt.

Stupidity is, well, stupidity.

[revelarts]

What a retarded reply. You sound more and more like a sore loser of a child. Would it be realistic if I call those who made certain laws "crooks" because I disagree with them? I think there are plenty of laws out there I disagree with,... And where found illegal by the courts Jim.
Not just disagreed with by me. making illegal laws makes a lawmaker a crook, pretty simple really.

Your dodges denials and petty little attacks are pitiful and sad.

later folks

[jimnyc]

And where found illegal by the courts Jim.
Not just disagreed with by me. making illegal laws makes a lawmaker a crook, pretty simple really.

Your dodges denials and petty little attacks are pitiful and sad.

later folks

Sure, and half of the country thinks Obamacare is illegal, and even some supreme court justices agreed. Does that mean it was mostly written by crooks? There are TONS of laws out there that were eventually found unconstitutional, and removed - but that HARDLY makes the people who drew them up "crooks". Laws and regulations are brought before courts all the time, and very rarely, if ever, does a lawmaker get criminal charges brought against them - which is what would happen if things were rigged and they were crooks. Oh, nevermind, I'm sure it doesn't happen because other crooks are covering for them. :lol:

[fj1200]

de-nile is not just a river in Egypt.

Why are you denying our founding documents?

[jimnyc]

And where found illegal by the courts Jim.
Not just disagreed with by me. making illegal laws makes a lawmaker a crook, pretty simple really.

Your dodges denials and petty little attacks are pitiful and sad.

later folks

Oh, and I really don't think calling you a sore loser is an attack, or a child as an attack. The fact of the matter is, you're angry ever since RP made an ass out of himself and got mocked off the national stage. That's basically the textbook definition of a sore loser. Then when one stomps their feet, gets upset and is going to take their ball and go home, is very reminiscent of a child to me. I've dodged absolutely nothing. I've denied absolutely nothing. And you obviously haven't paid attention to me over the years if you think that was an "attack".

[aboutime]

Actually, the first I heard it was several years ago when spoken by Ralph Nader. I thought it then, and still do, to be very descriptive of America’s dictatorial political system.



Is that how it works for you too?

Actually, it doesn’t work at all for me, to begin with the word “other” as used by you accuses me of being a “leftist” Democrat, when nothing could be further from the truth. I’m anti- leftist & anti-rightist, I’m a Classical Liberal in the traditions of the “liberalism” of our Bill Of Rights & and a Classical Conservative in the traditions of our Constitution’s “limits on government.” In other words I’m a limited government, strict constructionist constitutionalist, fiscal conservative, socially liberal, libertarian, (small l).

I think Jesse Jackson is a two bit phony race baiter, how about you, what’s your opinion of ole Jesse? [/QUOTE]






Honestly. If I actually voiced my opinion of Jesse, and even Al (notso)Sharpton here.
I would instantly be branded as nothing more than a RACIST. Much like I and many others have been labeled, and branded.
Based on our honesty about disagreement with Obama policies...that....just as quickly become qualification by liberals...as Racist as well.
When you claim to be Anti-Choose-One. That sounds very much like someone who is unwilling to fully take responsibility for anything.
Much like our Phony President who easily appeases our enemies by Apology for being America.

[DragonStryk72]

Highly debatable. But Perot's candidacy was personality driven with two major issues (debt, NAFTA) driving support. That's unlikely to be repeatable every four years.

Why, are we out of debt now? Are we not arguing Free Trade? Both of those were issues in 08 as well, and '10. If anything, Bush's 8 years in office, Obama's 4, and the current campaign run should have rammed into us the point that the A or B scale isn't working anymore.

Hell, the candidates even have to unanimously agree on the moderator, and all of the questions before a debate now. There are no real surprises anymore, and a number of topics are off-limits in the debate that shouldn't be. They actually choose who gets invited, not all of the candidates, just the big two.

[fj1200]

Why, are we out of debt now? Are we not arguing Free Trade? Both of those were issues in 08 as well, and '10. If anything, Bush's 8 years in office, Obama's 4, and the current campaign run should have rammed into us the point that the A or B scale isn't working anymore.

Hell, the candidates even have to unanimously agree on the moderator, and all of the questions before a debate now. There are no real surprises anymore, and a number of topics are off-limits in the debate that shouldn't be. They actually choose who gets invited, not all of the candidates, just the big two.

There's nothing to stop the rest from renting a auditorium and having it out gladiator style. As far as debt goes, one could argue that Perot got his wish and debt was reined in with the surpluses but even then it was the House clamping down on the spending and Clinton going along with it; Could Perot have done anything without a go along Congress would be the question. As far as the debt issue goes now the Republicans have that one solidly wrapped up even with their atrocious track record under Bush. Free trade? Most people are for that one too.

[gabosaurus]

First of all, how did Ross Perot "almost" win the 1992 election with zero electoral votes? He could have campaigned down to the final day and not obtained more than 20 percent of the vote.

[Classic Liberal]

And that's your OPINION, and it appears that millions and millions disagree with you. These other parties have a chance every election season and every season they put forth bags of garbage that the people have no interest in. Oh, wait a minute, I think Roseanne Barr is running! LOL

But that’s simply the point, “other parties” don’t have a chance because the media is bought and paid for, the national debate system is unfairly rigged by the Duopoly and the Duopoly has all of the campaign loot arrived at by the bribery system with Wall Street and the special interest.

And though it seems to be your “opinion” that libertarianism and it’s constitutionalism amount to “bags of garbage,” I never looked at the Constitution in those derogatory terms. Actually, I’ve come to recognize that it’s the 2 major parties that have become the “bags of garbage.” It is they who have bankrupted my country, trounced and trashed my Constitution, created the world police force and killed off and maimed my nation’s children in undeclared, unnecessary unconstitutional wars.

[Classic Liberal]

RP made an ass out of himself and got mocked off the national stage..

Might I ask when that was? Is that simply your opinion, or do you have some evidence to back it up?

[jimnyc]

But that’s simply the point, “other parties” don’t have a chance because the media is bought and paid for, the national debate system is unfairly rigged by the Duopoly and the Duopoly has all of the campaign loot arrived at by the bribery system with Wall Street and the special interest.

And though it seems to be your “opinion” that libertarianism and it’s constitutionalism amount to “bags of garbage,” I never looked at the Constitution in those derogatory terms. Actually, I’ve come to recognize that it’s the 2 major parties that have become the “bags of garbage.” It is they who have bankrupted my country, trounced and trashed my Constitution, created the world police force and killed off and maimed my nation’s children in undeclared, unnecessary unconstitutional wars.

Care to point out where I stated the bold portion? Or are you perhaps exaggerating or changing what I said for effect? I could have sworn I was speaking about the horrid candidates put forth outside of the Democrats and Republicans, and I also don't even think I mentioned a specific 3rd party, only a candidate in Roseanne Barr. Feel free to change words or rewrite them when replying, we have a pretty darn intelligent community here and they don't fall for that kind of crap.

[jimnyc]

Might I ask when that was? Is that simply your opinion, or do you have some evidence to back it up?

Yes, he was literally laughed at in the one debate with him that I watched. He followed that up by garnering less than 10% of the vote in the majority of states he campaigned in. IMO, that's laughable, and quite frankly, a simple search around the internet will show that he's kind of a running joke.

[aboutime]

Might I ask when that was? Is that simply your opinion, or do you have some evidence to back it up?



Classic Liberal. Ask yourself that same question. It's not anyone's opinion. IS RON PAUL still running? Did he win at the Convention?

[jimnyc]

Classic Liberal. Ask yourself that same question. It's not anyone's opinion. IS RON PAUL still running? Did he win at the Convention?

He's a long distant memory at this point. Almost everyone in the nation knew he had zero chance from day 1, except for his very tiny cult following. Hell, even RP himself more or less admitted he'd never be in the White House.

[Classic Liberal]

Care to point out where I stated the bold portion? Or are you perhaps exaggerating or changing what I said for effect? I could have sworn I was speaking about the horrid candidates put forth outside of the Democrats and Republicans, and I also don't even think I mentioned a specific 3rd party, only a candidate in Roseanne Barr. Feel free to change words or rewrite them when replying, we have a pretty darn intelligent community here and they don't fall for that kind of crap.
“Horrid candidates put forth outside of the Democrats and Republican?”

You’re kidding right? What’s NOT horrid about Commie Barrack Obama and Flipper Mitt Romney?

Do you have a problem with Gary Johnson and libertarianism and constitutionalism?

[jimnyc]

“Horrid candidates put forth outside of the Democrats and Republican?”

You’re kidding right? What’s NOT horrid about Commie Barrack Obama and Flipper Mitt Romney?

Do you have a problem with Gary Johnson and libertarianism and constitutionalism?

Thank you for proving that I never said what I placed in bold in your last post - And though it seems to be your “opinion” that libertarianism and it’s constitutionalism amount to “bags of garbage,”

[Classic Liberal]

Yes, he was literally laughed at in the one debate with him that I watched. He followed that up by garnering less than 10% of the vote in the majority of states he campaigned in. IMO, that's laughable, and quite frankly, a simple search around the internet will show that he's kind of a running joke.

Laughed at by who, an audience with a 90% majority of RINO Neo-Con Republicans? Do you recall what the topic was that got the roaring laughter from that majority?

[jimnyc]

Laughed at by who, an audience with a 90% majority of RINO Neo-Con Republicans? Do you recall what the topic was that got the roaring laughter from that majority?

Everything, he's a joke. Just like you and a very small percentage don't care for Romney or Obama - a HUGE portion of the nation thinks RP is not worthy of the presidency - and they also think Romney and Obama are. I guess you'll have to learn to deal with that.

[Classic Liberal]

Thank you for proving that I never said what I placed in bold in your last post - And though it seems to be your “opinion” that libertarianism and it’s constitutionalism amount to “bags of garbage,”

It’s provable Jimmy, I just haven’t taken the time to look up your quote, I’ll reserve that right if it’s OK with you?

Thank you for avoiding answering the question about Gary Johnson.

[jimnyc]

It’s provable Jimmy, I just haven’t taken the time to look up your quote, I’ll reserve that right if it’s OK with you?

Thank you for avoiding answering the question about Gary Johnson.

The quote is right there by me - These other parties have a chance every election season and every season they put forth bags of garbage that the people have no interest in.

So reserve your lies all you like, I NEVER stated what was in bold, you simply made it up, and then you expect me to have an honest debate with you?

[Classic Liberal]

Classic Liberal. Ask yourself that same question. It's not anyone's opinion. IS RON PAUL still running? Did he win at the Convention?


He's a long distant memory at this point. Almost everyone in the nation knew he had zero chance from day 1, except for his very tiny cult following. Hell, even RP himself more or less admitted he'd never be in the White House.

Why would Ron Paul or his followers ever think he had a chance at winning the nomination of the majority RINO Neo-Con party when factually, RINO Neo-Con Fox news did their best to ignore RP and give plenty of face time and promotions to all of the RINO Neo-Con candidates and ignore Ron Paul and Gary Johnson because they’re anti-unconstitutional-unnecessary-undeclared war candidates and Fox and the RINO Neo-Cons love unconstitutional wars and the world police force. Hell, Fox even canceled Judge Napolitano’s “Freedom Watch” on Fox business channel because the Judge was promoting Ron Paul. Hell, Ron Paul came in second in one primary before the mob of neo-cons dropped out and every Sunday morning political show, Face The Nation, Meet The Press and even Fox Sunday Morning was giving out face time to Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney and nary a one of them interviewed Ron Paul or even mentioned his second place finish. It was a pathetic sickening display of media bias and intentional ignorance.

[jimnyc]

Why would Ron Paul or his followers ever think he had a chance at winning the nomination of the majority RINO Neo-Con party when factually, RINO Neo-Con Fox news did their best to ignore RP and give plenty of face time and promotions to all of the RINO Neo-Con candidates and ignore Ron Paul and Gary Johnson because they’re anti-unconstitutional-unnecessary-undeclared war candidates and Fox and the RINO Neo-Cons love unconstitutional wars and the world police force. Hell, Fox even canceled Judge Napolitano’s “Freedom Watch” on Fox business channel because the Judge was promoting Ron Paul. Hell, Ron Paul came in second in one primary before the mob of neo-cons dropped out and every Sunday morning political show, Face The Nation, Meet The Press and even Fox Sunday Morning was giving out face time to Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney and nary a one of them interviewed Ron Paul or even mentioned his second place finish. It was a pathetic sickening display of media bias and intentional ignorance.

So no retraction of your made up comments about me?

[Classic Liberal]

Everything, he's a joke. Just like you and a very small percentage don't care for Romney or Obama - a HUGE portion of the nation thinks RP is not worthy of the presidency - and they also think Romney and Obama are. I guess you'll have to learn to deal with that.

What “huge percentage?” half of registered voters don’t bother to vote and 45% of the ones that do vote for Democrats and the other 45% vote for Republicans and 10% vote for third party candidates, write ins or independents. So you think 22.5% of registered voters is somehow a “huge majority?” Absurd!

[jimnyc]

What “huge percentage?” half of registered voters don’t bother to vote and 45% of the ones that do vote for Democrats and the other 45% vote for Republicans and 10% vote for third party candidates, write ins or independents. So you think 22.5% of registered voters is somehow a “huge majority?” Absurd!

You know what I meant. Out of registered voters, the overwhelming majority will be going with Obama or Romney - and the overwhelming majority want nothing to do with a Ron Paul. Considering about 130 million people voted in 2008, I would say that's an awful lot who don't want a dummy like RP in the office. Hell, even if only 10% of that didn't want him, that's STILL MORE votes than the dolt received in the primaries!

[jimnyc]

Here's how Ron Paul did based on popular vote in the primaries, his wins being in yellow. I know, I know, you may need a magnifying glass to find it, but it's there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C _2012.svg/800px-Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C _2012.svg.png

[red states rule]

Jim, the Ron Paul supporters sound just like the Al Gore and John Kerry supporters when their guy lost

The election was stolen. All the votes were not counted. There was vote fraud. Bla Bla Bla

It is damn near impossible to tell them apart except they are all sore losers

[gabosaurus]

You know what I meant. Out of registered voters, the overwhelming majority will be going with Obama or Romney - and the overwhelming majority want nothing to do with a Ron Paul. Considering about 130 million people voted in 2008, I would say that's an awful lot who don't want a dummy like RP in the office. Hell, even if only 10% of that didn't want him, that's STILL MORE votes than the dolt received in the primaries!

Ron Paul is such a crackpot that even the most liberal Democrats thought he was crazy. I read all of his positions and the vast majority of them were totally unworkable.

[aboutime]

What “huge percentage?” half of registered voters don’t bother to vote and 45% of the ones that do vote for Democrats and the other 45% vote for Republicans and 10% vote for third party candidates, write ins or independents. So you think 22.5% of registered voters is somehow a “huge majority?” Absurd!



Classic Liberal. If the title of this thread, and you are...in any way correct. As in Elections being Rigged.

Tell us what your CRYSTAL BALL says now. WHO WON the November, Presidential Election?

Just give us the name. And we can stop talking about it. There will be no need for an election, and Americans who vote for Obama can learn...If he is the Name you give us....What it feels like to have a liar tell you TAXES will not go up...As April 15, 2013 arrives, and you, with every other American learns....OBAMA LIED AGAIN, as the IRS sends you the bill.

[DragonStryk72]

First of all, how did Ross Perot "almost" win the 1992 election with zero electoral votes? He could have campaigned down to the final day and not obtained more than 20 percent of the vote.

Gabs, learn to read: I said had he not pulled out of the race, then jumped back in, that he could have taken it instead of Clinton. He was leading in the polls. After he he dropped out, people lost faith in him, and so wouldn't vote for him, hence the 0 electoral votes.

[Classic Liberal]

The quote is right there by me - These other parties have a chance every election season and every season they put forth bags of garbage that the people have no interest in.

So reserve your lies all you like, I NEVER stated what was in bold, you simply made it up, and then you expect me to have an honest debate with you?

And here’s my quote,

“And though it seems to be your “opinion” that libertarianism and it’s constitutionalism amount to “bags of garbage,” I never looked at the Constitution in those derogatory terms.”

So where’s the lie? You’re apparently saying that 3rd, parties i. e. “other parties,” are putting out “bags of garbage” every year. You didn’t mention “candidates,” you said “other parties.” For your information, the Libertarian Party is one of the “OTHER” parties. Thus you think that libertarianism and thereby the libertarian’s constitutionalism agenda is APPARENTLY a “BAG OF GARBAGE,” right?

[DragonStryk72]

There's nothing to stop the rest from renting a auditorium and having it out gladiator style. As far as debt goes, one could argue that Perot got his wish and debt was reined in with the surpluses but even then it was the House clamping down on the spending and Clinton going along with it; Could Perot have done anything without a go along Congress would be the question. As far as the debt issue goes now the Republicans have that one solidly wrapped up even with their atrocious track record under Bush. Free trade? Most people are for that one too.

Did I ever say anything to the contrary of that, with regards to Perot? Of course he would need Congress, that's part of being President.

Are we in debt now? That was the question, with nothing to do with Perot. You brought up that free trade and debt were the issues that let him get ahead a bit, but those are still problems now.

As to the other parties renting an auditorium, it's the whole "separate but equal" argument? Never mind that the Presidential debate, which should have all the presidential candidates if it is to call itself that, got prime time access on *every* major news network, commercial-free. You're really going to try and spin that they would get the same? Really?

Then let's talk about the fact that the two big parties and now up to literally spending billions to outdistance any competition other than each other. Come on, it's just flat out rigged, fj.

[Classic Liberal]

So no retraction of your made up comments about me?

Why would I ever retract what I was perfectly right about?

[jimnyc]

And here’s my quote,

“And though it seems to be your “opinion” that libertarianism and it’s constitutionalism amount to “bags of garbage,” I never looked at the Constitution in those derogatory terms.”

So where’s the lie? You’re apparently saying that 3rd, parties i. e. “other parties,” are putting out “bags of garbage” every year. You didn’t mention “candidates,” you said “other parties.” For your information, the Libertarian Party is one of the “OTHER” parties. Thus you think that libertarianism and thereby the libertarian’s constitutionalism agenda is APPARENTLY a “BAG OF GARBAGE,” right?

And if you could comprehend what I wrote, I was speaking of candidates, not libertarianism or constitutionalism. Whatever though.

[jimnyc]

Why would I ever retract what I was perfectly right about?

Sure, when you can't comprehend, my comments were CLEARLY about the candidates and NEVER even wrote the words "libertarianism" or "constitutionalism". So how can it be perfectly right when I never even wrote those words?

[Classic Liberal]

You know what I meant.

Yeah, I knew what you meant to do, you figured you’d just add Obama’s 22.5% to Romney’s 22.5% and make it look like 45% of actual registered voters that will actually vote was some kind of overwhelming majority of something or other, huh?

Fact is, at least half of Americans eligible to vote couldn’t care less about voting in a rigged Duopoly Dictatorship election and who can blame them?


Out of registered voters, the overwhelming majority will be going with Obama or Romney - and the overwhelming majority want nothing to do with a Ron Paul.

Well then Jimmy, I’ll just have to argue that if we add the 50+% that won’t bother to vote at all in the Duopoly’s rigged election to Ron Paul’s 10% if he were running, it looks to me like the “QVERWHELMING” 60% majority want nothing to do with Romney or Obama.

Considering about 130 million people voted in 2008, I would say that's an awful lot who don't want a dummy like RP in the office. Hell, even if only 10% of that didn't want him, that's STILL MORE votes than the dolt received in the primaries![/QUOTE]

I’d say considering that over 200 million folks are actually eligible to vote and less than half of them will bother to vote in the rigged duopoly election and the half of the half that do don’t like anybody running I’d say that’s a sad, sad statement about America’s duopoly rigged elections.

[Classic Liberal]

Ron Paul is such a crackpot that even the most liberal Democrats thought he was crazy. I read all of his positions and the vast majority of them were totally unworkable.

Name one!

[jimnyc]

Yeah, I knew what you meant to do, you figured you’d just add Obama’s 22.5% to Romney’s 22.5% and make it look like 45% of actual registered voters that will actually vote was some kind of overwhelming majority of something or other, huh?

Fact is, at least half of Americans eligible to vote couldn’t care less about voting in a rigged Duopoly Dictatorship election and who can blame them?

Sure, and that's still 65 million people, and how many wanted to vote for RP? No matter how you spin it, no matter how you dice it, the majority of Americans or voters do NOT want a dolt like RP as our president, not even remotely close.

[jimnyc]

Btw, CL, are you going to post a list of these criminals, crimes, convictions and such that I requested? Or are you too going to make claims and then avoid the difficult questions?

[Classic Liberal]

Classic Liberal. If the title of this thread, and you are...in any way correct. As in Elections being Rigged.

Tell us what your CRYSTAL BALL says now. WHO WON the November, Presidential Election?

Just give us the name. And we can stop talking about it. There will be no need for an election, and Americans who vote for Obama can learn...If he is the Name you give us....What it feels like to have a liar tell you TAXES will not go up...As April 15, 2013 arrives, and you, with every other American learns....OBAMA LIED AGAIN, as the IRS sends you the bill.

Who needs a crystal ball to realize that the duopoly dictatorship has rigged the elections? You? I’ve laid it all out for you from the Duopoly/Wall Street and special interest BIG loot bribery scam to the duopoly lock on major media and their lock on the national debate system. Have you not listened, or are you simply cursed with biased partisan lovin eyes that never see?

Obama lied? Wow what a revelation! When did he ever tell the truth? When did Flipper Mitt ever tell the truth and which side of every issue he’s been on did you like best? Sad!

[Classic Liberal]

And if you could comprehend what I wrote, I was speaking of candidates, not libertarianism or constitutionalism. Whatever though.


Sure, when you can't comprehend, my comments were CLEARLY about the candidates and NEVER even wrote the words "libertarianism" or "constitutionalism". So how can it be perfectly right when I never even wrote those words?

Please post your quote where you said “CANDIDATES.”

Your quote said explicitly, “OTHER PARTIES.”

Here, I’ll post your quote again.

[QUOTE=jimnyc;586935]The quote is right there by me - These other parties have a chance every election season and every season they put forth bags of garbage that the people have no interest in.

[Classic Liberal]

Btw, CL, are you going to post a list of these criminals, crimes, convictions and such that I requested? Or are you too going to make claims and then avoid the difficult questions?

I never avoid questions but I may have missed one here and there. So what’s the question again?

[jimnyc]

Please post your quote where you said “CANDIDATES.”

Your quote said explicitly, “OTHER PARTIES.”

Here, I’ll post your quote again.


The quote is right there by me - These other parties have a chance every election season and every season they put forth bags of garbage that the people have no interest in.


And that equated to "libertarianism and constitutionalism" to you? LOL Funny how you can accuse someone of stating something where the very words you accuse them of saying were never said. Doesn't make much sense, now does it? I'm sure others can comprehend what I wrote, I'm not going to waste anymore time on someone who presents himself as a liberal and is dishonest in quoting and changing what others stated.

[jimnyc]

I never avoid questions but I may have missed one here and there. So what’s the question again?

Oh my, I have my hands full with you, don't I? You kind of just quoted the questions I asked of you.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh my, I have my hands full with you, don't I? You kind of just quoted the questions I asked of you.

Perhaps he has been taking lessons from Dillo..-:laugh2:

[fj1200]

Did I ever say anything to the contrary of that, with regards to Perot? Of course he would need Congress, that's part of being President.

Are we in debt now? That was the question, with nothing to do with Perot. You brought up that free trade and debt were the issues that let him get ahead a bit, but those are still problems now.

As to the other parties renting an auditorium, it's the whole "separate but equal" argument? Never mind that the Presidential debate, which should have all the presidential candidates if it is to call itself that, got prime time access on *every* major news network, commercial-free. You're really going to try and spin that they would get the same? Really?

Then let's talk about the fact that the two big parties and now up to literally spending billions to outdistance any competition other than each other. Come on, it's just flat out rigged, fj.

The issue is Perot then and his two issues, the debt issue was solved then and free trade isn't a problem then or now, and who is taking up the mantle of those issues now. The Republicans have completely dominated the major messages of the political day, the debt, taxes, and repealing BOcare; where do you expect any major threat to co-opt that message. Third parties are completely personality driven, even Perot didn't run on an actual party ticket IIRC, he was able to spend his own millions to get his message out.

Do you remember the Republican debates with 9 candidates sitting up there bucking for time? Even with four up there it would be completely distracting IMO and utterly pointless. The Constitution guarantees free speech but it doesn't guarantee that anyone is going to be there to listen to you.

As I attempted to explain earlier there are structural issues that drive towards our current two party system IMO. Are there laws and regulations that harm the ability of minor parties to get recognition, raise money, etc.? Sure, campaign finance laws, most votes win, etc. but there's no magic bullet that's going to make them relevant.

[aboutime]

Gabs, learn to read: I said had he not pulled out of the race, then jumped back in, that he could have taken it instead of Clinton. He was leading in the polls. After he he dropped out, people lost faith in him, and so wouldn't vote for him, hence the 0 electoral votes.

Just asked myself. "Myself. Why does anyone bother to answer any post from Gabby since Gabby insists she is smarter than all of us?"

Answer. "Because Misery Loves Company. And Gabby claims to be a teacher, and has proven to be a miserable one, at that."

[Classic Liberal]

And that equated to "libertarianism and constitutionalism" to you?

Well now let’s see Jimmy, you said “other parties deliver up bags of garbage that nobody is interested in,” right? The Libertarians are one of those other parries, right? Thus, you’re saying that libertarianism and the constitutionalism thereof is “a bag of garbage nobody is interested in,” right?


LOL Funny how you can accuse someone of stating something where the very words you accuse them of saying were never said. Doesn't make much sense, now does it?

Oh yes Jimmy it makes perfect sense unless you’re now denying that folks say all kinds of things in not so many exact words but often by INSINUATION, are you denying that?


I'm sure others can comprehend what I wrote, I'm not going to waste anymore time on someone who presents himself as a liberal and is dishonest in quoting and changing what others stated.

What was my dishonesty and what did I change Jimmy? Why are you appealing to “others?” If your statement was so comprehendible as you claim to have intended it, why would you need to appeal for moral support?

[Classic Liberal]

Oh my, I have my hands full with you, don't I? You kind of just quoted the questions I asked of you.

Excuse me! What questions?

[jimnyc]

Excuse me! What questions?

I'm not playing your stupid games. You quoted the questions and then asked which questions. Try just looking back in the thread, or continue to be dishonest. Either way, I don't care, especially when the person I have asked questions of appears more and more to have comprehension issues and a learning disorder.

[aboutime]

I'm not playing your stupid games. You quoted the questions and then asked which questions. Try just looking back in the thread, or continue to be dishonest. Either way, I don't care, especially when the person I have asked questions of appears more and more to have comprehension issues and a learning disorder.



jimnyc: Classic Liberal just isn't worth the time, or effort. We are just seeing the deadly, liberal disease of emptiness, and vacancy being demonstrated by someone who has no intention of being honest, for any reason. Other than to bring disruption, and cause hate, and discontent...between liberal ears.

[Classic Liberal]

I'm not playing your stupid games. You quoted the questions and then asked which questions. Try just looking back in the thread, or continue to be dishonest. Either way, I don't care, especially when the person I have asked questions of appears more and more to have comprehension issues and a learning disorder.

Why not just make up your mind and decide whether I’m “stupid” or “dishonest?” If I’m stupid would it kill you to repeat the questions? If I’m dishonest repeat the questions and my quoting them and prove I knew all along about them.

I never avoid questions but I may miss them sometimes.

Speaking of questions, I ask you twice what your problem was with Gary Johnson and you either missed it twice or you ignored it. I won’t accuse you of ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty, I won’t debate that way, it’s beneath me. So, I’ll ask again, what’s your problem with Gary Johnson?

[Classic Liberal]

jimnyc: Classic Liberal just isn't worth the time, or effort. We are just seeing the deadly, liberal disease of emptiness, and vacancy being demonstrated by someone who has no intention of being honest, for any reason. Other than to bring disruption, and cause hate, and discontent...between liberal ears.

That’s it? That’s the best you can do? No relevant argument? Just personal insults? Does that mean you can’t handle the truth? Does it mean you’re out of bullets?

[aboutime]

That’s it? That’s the best you can do? No relevant argument? Just personal insults? Does that mean you can’t handle the truth? Does it mean you’re out of bullets?


Just to keep you happy, and feeling as miserable as you are. Unfortunately for you. That's gonna be all you deserve. I've wasted enough time trying to appease your need to get the last word here. So. Call it any way you like.

Don't worry about my bullets. Words destroy people like you. Far better than you would ever know.

SO...HERE YA GO......4013

[Classic Liberal]

Just to keep you happy, and feeling as miserable as you are. Unfortunately for you. That's gonna be all you deserve. I've wasted enough time trying to appease your need to get the last word here. So. Call it any way you like.

Don't worry about my bullets. Words destroy people like you. Far better than you would ever know.

SO...HERE YA GO......4013

Bye now!!! It’s been entertaining!

[aboutime]

Bye now!!! It’s been entertaining!
4014