Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

pan6467 · 08-06-2004, 11:52 AM

The problem with putting EVERYONE that is on a ballot somewhere for President is you can get some real kooks out there that take up the time for the people (LP, Nader, ETC) that could truly ude the time.

Would you want to see 150 people on an hour or 2 hour debate? There has to be some cut off, in order for the true candidates who do have a message and who can win over voters a chance.

Does anyone really want to give LaRouche airtime in a debate? or the Nazi party, the Communist party, the Socialist Party, the Aryan Party, and so on?

You'd have a lot of hateful people up there and chances are the big 2 and LP and Nader wouldn't waste their time as debates are voluntary anyway. Then the press wouldn't cover and their voices wouldn't be heard anyway.

Look at what Cali. just went through you had a porn actress, Gary Coleman and some 150 others running it would have been a circus and laughable to have them try to debate each other.

By giving debate tiime to every single person that is running for president would encourage kooks to get on their state's ballot just for air time.

I understand what you are saying but you have to have a cut off or the debaters would just have their points lost and it would be nothing more than a sitcom. There has to be attrition.

There is a reason LP's are on the ballot in every state, they have a stance that has attracted people.

To me a debate should consist of people who are only on all 50 ballots because those are the only people that even stand a chance of winning. It would get out the sides that truly had any support or following.

08-06-2004, 11:52 AM	#9 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	The problem with putting EVERYONE that is on a ballot somewhere for President is you can get some real kooks out there that take up the time for the people (LP, Nader, ETC) that could truly ude the time. Would you want to see 150 people on an hour or 2 hour debate? There has to be some cut off, in order for the true candidates who do have a message and who can win over voters a chance. Does anyone really want to give LaRouche airtime in a debate? or the Nazi party, the Communist party, the Socialist Party, the Aryan Party, and so on? You'd have a lot of hateful people up there and chances are the big 2 and LP and Nader wouldn't waste their time as debates are voluntary anyway. Then the press wouldn't cover and their voices wouldn't be heard anyway. Look at what Cali. just went through you had a porn actress, Gary Coleman and some 150 others running it would have been a circus and laughable to have them try to debate each other. By giving debate tiime to every single person that is running for president would encourage kooks to get on their state's ballot just for air time. I understand what you are saying but you have to have a cut off or the debaters would just have their points lost and it would be nothing more than a sitcom. There has to be attrition. There is a reason LP's are on the ballot in every state, they have a stance that has attracted people. To me a debate should consist of people who are only on all 50 ballots because those are the only people that even stand a chance of winning. It would get out the sides that truly had any support or following. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"