Comments on: New Orleans/Google/YouTube Presidential Debate http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/05/new-orleansgoogleyoutube-presidential-debate/ Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:07:45 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: James http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/05/new-orleansgoogleyoutube-presidential-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-528654 James Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:56:46 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3593#comment-528654 I am wary of polls, as they are not entirely accurate and can be made intentionally biased. The rule where the candidates are on enough ballots to win the electoral college is a good one. We should not require all 50 states, because some are nearly impossible for a 3rd party to get on. Maybe we could make it challanging, and require slightly higher than 51%. Also, the democrats and republicans should be put on an equal playing field, as they have designed ballot access laws in their favor, against our constitution, which makes no reference to parties. George Washington warned us that parties would ursurp the power of the people and replace it with the will of the party, among other things. We should keep up on every body hosting a debate to include the 6 candidates who have a chance to win. The next one is this Thursday at Washington University. http://debate.wustl.edu/contact.htm The man who helped Ron Paul with his fund raising bomb is trying to open a 3rd party debates where all 6 candidates would be invited. Google/Yahoo backed out I believe when Obama said he would not attend, but we don't have to wait on Obama's whim to let others debate or not. All you have to do is a no minimum pledge to support it with anything you want, if we can make it happen. http://www.thirdpartyticket.com/ I am wary of polls, as they are not entirely accurate and can be made intentionally biased.

The rule where the candidates are on enough ballots to win the electoral college is a good one. We should not require all 50 states, because some are nearly impossible for a 3rd party to get on. Maybe we could make it challanging, and require slightly higher than 51%. Also, the democrats and republicans should be put on an equal playing field, as they have designed ballot access laws in their favor, against our constitution, which makes no reference to parties. George Washington warned us that parties would ursurp the power of the people and replace it with the will of the party, among other things.

We should keep up on every body hosting a debate to include the 6 candidates who have a chance to win. The next one is this Thursday at Washington University.
http://debate.wustl.edu/contact.htm

The man who helped Ron Paul with his fund raising bomb is trying to open a 3rd party debates where all 6 candidates would be invited. Google/Yahoo backed out I believe when Obama said he would not attend, but we don’t have to wait on Obama’s whim to let others debate or not. All you have to do is a no minimum pledge to support it with anything you want, if we can make it happen.
http://www.thirdpartyticket.com/

]]> By: Annie Garrison http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/05/new-orleansgoogleyoutube-presidential-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-525198 Annie Garrison Fri, 26 Sep 2008 01:55:21 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3593#comment-525198 First of all, that website is not about the $ price of u7ranium; it's about the human price contrasted to the dollar pice. Second, I think this country may be closer to civil war than many think. Third, since we have the largest arsenal ihn the world, much of it nuclear, I would rather not try to live through that. So I say once again, let Ralph and Matt debate, First of all, that website is not about the $ price of u7ranium; it’s about the human price contrasted to the dollar pice.

Second, I think this country may be closer to civil war than many think.

Third, since we have the largest arsenal ihn the world, much of it nuclear, I would rather not try to live through that.

So I say once again, let Ralph and Matt debate,

]]> By: Phil Sawyer http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/05/new-orleansgoogleyoutube-presidential-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-428170 Phil Sawyer Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:28:30 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3593#comment-428170 The establishment bourgeois news media is almost worthless. Why are we getting on our knees to them? We should go right around them (through mass demonstrations) and take over! We need a (peaceful) Revolution! The establishment bourgeois news media is almost worthless. Why are we getting on our knees to them? We should go right around them (through mass demonstrations) and take over!

We need a (peaceful) Revolution!

]]> By: Deemer from California http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/05/new-orleansgoogleyoutube-presidential-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-427712 Deemer from California Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:14:05 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3593#comment-427712 If I remember correctly, and if I'm wrong I would appreciate someone saying so, but in 1996 CNN held 3 alternate debates after the main debate. They included Harry Browne for the Libertarian Party, Hagelin from the Natural Law Party, Ralph Nader for the Green Party & Howard Phillips for the Taxpater's Party. Also, if I remember correctly in 1996 the Green Party was only on 22 states with 235 Electoral Votes. Of course, he was on several more states as a write-in candidate & that year he declared that he would spend less than $5,000. for the simplified filing with the FEC. So the Green Party could not have him at petitioning rallys that year. I felt that setup had worked out reasonably well & was disappointed when CNN declined to do that again in 2000 or 2004. I suppose if the it looks like a close election they would rather not be accussed of muddying up the Presidential vote. If I remember correctly, and if I’m wrong I would
appreciate someone saying so, but in 1996 CNN held 3
alternate debates after the main debate. They included
Harry Browne for the Libertarian Party, Hagelin from
the Natural Law Party, Ralph Nader for the Green Party
& Howard Phillips for the Taxpater’s Party. Also, if
I remember correctly in 1996 the Green Party was only
on 22 states with 235 Electoral Votes. Of course, he
was on several more states as a write-in candidate &
that year he declared that he would spend less than
$5,000. for the simplified filing with the FEC. So
the Green Party could not have him at petitioning
rallys that year. I felt that setup had worked out
reasonably well & was disappointed when CNN declined
to do that again in 2000 or 2004. I suppose if the it
looks like a close election they would rather not be
accussed of muddying up the Presidential vote.

]]> By: Tom McLaughlin http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/05/new-orleansgoogleyoutube-presidential-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-427665 Tom McLaughlin Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:14:05 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3593#comment-427665 How do you get 5% in the polls if your name isn't listed in the poll question. In two separate elections I was contacted by pollsters and asked who I was supporting in that Congressional race. Both times I was on the ballot but was not listed as a choice in the poll question. How do you get 5% in the polls if your name isn’t listed in the poll question. In two separate elections I was contacted by pollsters and asked who I was supporting in that Congressional race. Both times I was on the ballot but was not listed as a choice in the poll question.

]]> By: Pro-Democracy http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/05/new-orleansgoogleyoutube-presidential-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-427374 Pro-Democracy Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:53:36 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3593#comment-427374 Whatever you think the criteria should be for inclusion in debates, I encourage you to go to: www.neworleansdebate.org and click on the "Contact Us" link. Let them know how you feel about their candidate eligibility rules. Whatever you think the criteria should be for inclusion in debates, I encourage you to go to:

http://www.neworleansdebate.org

and click on the “Contact Us” link. Let them know how you feel about their candidate eligibility rules.

]]> By: Bob http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/05/new-orleansgoogleyoutube-presidential-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-427313 Bob Mon, 07 Jul 2008 03:10:36 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3593#comment-427313 As far as I'm concerned, poll numbers should be made irrelevant. A candidate's qualification for such debates should be: Is he on the ballot in enough states where the total number of electoral votes equal or exceed the number required (in this case, 270) for election. Period. As far as I’m concerned, poll numbers should be made irrelevant. A candidate’s qualification for such debates should be: Is he on the ballot in enough states where the total number of electoral votes equal or exceed the number required (in this case, 270) for election. Period.

]]> By: David Gaines http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/05/new-orleansgoogleyoutube-presidential-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-426773 David Gaines Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:29:15 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3593#comment-426773 The only requirement there should be for inclusion in any presidential debate is who the voters themselves want to see take part, period. There has consistently been a majority of those polled that has stated that it wants to see Nader, Perot, Buchanan and occasionally others in presidential debates/forums, whether or not the respondents intend to vote for these candidates. And why not? Do the people control the election process or not? The only requirement there should be for inclusion in any presidential debate is who the voters themselves want to see take part, period. There has consistently been a majority of those polled that has stated that it wants to see Nader, Perot, Buchanan and occasionally others in presidential debates/forums, whether or not the respondents intend to vote for these candidates. And why not? Do the people control the election process or not?

]]> By: Phil Sawyer http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/05/new-orleansgoogleyoutube-presidential-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-426755 Phil Sawyer Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:46:11 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3593#comment-426755 Actually, as long as the Electoral College is with us, it should be any presidential candidate who is officially on the ballot in any one state or territory. What we really need, after all this abuse by the two larger parties over these past forty-eight years, is a Revolution! One more Fourth of July has gone by and there is no Revolution started - nor any mass Party of the People to lead such a Revolution. Note: the Revolution will be Peaceful. Californians: Join the Peace and Freedom Party today! Everyone else: Join one of the (peaceful) revolutionary Parties! Actually, as long as the Electoral College is with us, it should be any presidential candidate who is officially on the ballot in any one state or territory. What we really need, after all this abuse by the two larger parties over these past forty-eight years, is a Revolution!

One more Fourth of July has gone by and there is no Revolution started – nor any mass Party of the People to lead such a Revolution. Note: the Revolution will be Peaceful. Californians: Join the Peace and Freedom Party today! Everyone else: Join one of the (peaceful) revolutionary Parties!

]]> By: Derek http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/07/05/new-orleansgoogleyoutube-presidential-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-426687 Derek Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:28:44 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3593#comment-426687 I agree that if it takes 5% to receive federal matching funds, the threshold to be in the debates should be 5%, although I would also include a candidate that's on as many state ballots to win the Electoral College as well. I agree that if it takes 5% to receive federal matching funds, the threshold to be in the debates should be 5%, although I would also include a candidate that’s on as many state ballots to win the Electoral College as well.

]]>