Third US Presidential Debate (Video)

[w1z4rd]

What do you mean by support? Money? People? Polls?

All of the above.

The idea of having elections is to see which candidate as most votes, support in other words. The other candidates were cheated out of the debates because the democrats and republicans own the presidential debates.

No, none of those parties are the official opposition and their support bases are too small (people).

There is little to no difference when it comes to policy between the Republicans or Democrats.

Of course there is. To say otherwise is absurd. Republicans are focusing on things like anti-immigration laws, abortion and should english be the official language. Democrats are focusing on development and the economy.

This is why I used the analogy between ANC and other political parties. The ANC doesn't debate because it doesn't want their policies to be ridicule by the opposition. This isn't any different to what the Republicans and Democrats are doing.

Again, its completely different. If it was the same, the Zille would be able to have a public debate with Zuma. What you are complaining about is the equivalent of the ACDP or UDM not being invited to the Zille/Zuma debate.

 

[empirex]

I think that Agerbon doesn't actually understand the American political context, but is trying to comment anyway. There would be no point in having candidates for the minnow parties present in the debate as their policy positions will never have a bearing on the running of the country.

wtf

Democracy be damned hey.

 

[hellfire]

wtf

Democracy be damned hey.

How is it undemocratic to have the two leading candidates debate only each other?
Once again, it's about context. The US election is not like many other democratic countries whereby parties (and thus their candidates) rely on coalitions and other wrangling/alliances with other parties. The winner of the election will either be a Democrat or a Republican and the winner will not have to rely on anyone else to gain a majority. Hence no need to have the minnows included in this kind of event - public perception of the smaller opposition parties is largely irrelevant as the winner won't have to get into bed with any of them

 

[agerbon]

I think that Agerbon doesn't actually understand the American political context, but is trying to comment anyway. There would be no point in having candidates for the minnow parties present in the debate as their policy positions will never have a bearing on the running of the country.

I get the American political context just fine. I'm commenting because I don't agree with it and the way these two parties monopolize power in America is quite disgusting and worrisome.

 

[empirex]

How is it undemocratic to have the two leading candidates debate only each other?
Once again, it's about context. The US election is not like many other democratic countries whereby parties (and thus their candidates) rely on coalitions and other wrangling/alliances with other parties. The winner of the election will either be a Democrat or a Republican and the winner will not have to rely on anyone else to gain a majority. Hence no need to have the minnows included in this kind of event - public perception of the smaller opposition parties is largely irrelevant as the winner won't have to get into bed with any of them

The other parties were banned from the debate.
Big money wins elections.

Just look what happened when Ron Paul actually started getting some airtime in America. He almost took the Republican nomination. He started making big waves that shook the crap out of the Republican establishment and they had to resort to dirty tricks to ensure Paul was kept at bay.

In the Republican debates for example, Ron Paul received huge support even though he was a little known candidate at that time. What he said resonated with the people. Those debates gave him huge exposure and boosted his profile significantly, and he experienced huge turnouts at his rallies. The rest is history.

Put the likes of Gary Johnson on the stage who can actually provide the American voter a chance to vote for something other than war; increased debt; bank bailouts; unilateral interventions; not allowing an audit of the (private) Federal Reserve; drone killings of innocents; proxy wars; etc; etc.

The two-party system is deliberately reinforced by the Democrats and Republicans by not allowing anyone else on the stage. The Democrips and Rebloodlicans openly admit this. Big money wins the day.

 

[OzzieCapie]

No one is 'banned' from any debate.

Here in Australia sometimes they have debates pre election , other times they don't ...both the debatees have to agree to a debate.
So next election if Gillard and/or Abbott do not want debate each other then they don't. The electorate can infer from that what they want , i.e. that one or the other is hiding something. So if Zuma doesn't want to debate Zille, he is not 'banning' her or being undemocratic, unless there is a law that he is breaking that says he 'has to' debate pre election for him to validate himself.

On the other hand, if candidate #10 wants to debate candidate #9, they are free to hire a hall and do so...may not have a big audience or no TV, but they can debate if they wish. If candidate # 10 wants to to debate Obama why should he accept, he has to worry about Romney.

Again, the ANC do a lot of things wrong but FFS on MyBB they are blamed for everything. Just laughable.

 

[2026]

Again, the ANC do a lot of things wrong but FFS on MyBB they are blamed for everything. Just laughable.

:wtf: Comparing USA debates to SA debates is expected on a south african forum discussing USA debates. But to suddenly jump to this conclusion that MyBB blame ANC for everything is really something.

 

[icyrus]

The two-party system is deliberately reinforced by the Democrats and Republicans by not allowing anyone else on the stage. The Democrips and Rebloodlicans openly admit this. Big money wins the day.

Yeah because in this day and age it is impossible to get your message out without being on the televised debates.

If these alternatives had any kind of real following they would be part of the debates.

 

[empirex]

Yeah because in this day and age it is impossible to get your message out without being on the televised debates.

If these alternatives had any kind of real following they would be part of the debates.

In this case money = exposure and speech.

If there was only public funding for candidates these parties would have a much larger following.
If not, then at the least full disclosure of funding for the parties, so we can see just who is funding them.

Those 3 debates were a complete and utter joke.
They never tackled many major issues:

NDAA
Patriot Act
FED
Money (and control) in politics
Bought and paid for politicians
Excessive crack down on whistle blowers
Drone deaths
America has become the largest rogue state in history, doing what it wants, when it wants.
etc, etc.

The Dem's and Rep's do not want to change this rogue status-- while the third party candidates are demanding this change.

That is why the Dem's and Rep's do not want to the other parties on stage, because they DO NOT EVEN WANT TO RAISE THE ISSUES.
They are afraid to even tackle those points.

Because they know they will get crucified. After all how the **** can you even begin to defend indefinite detention of US citizens. And guaranteed most US citizens don't even know about the law. It will expose the 2-party farce for what it is.

The main debates are a sideshow meant to give the impression of a choice between two candidates (that are both backed by the same big money), while many many other important issues are ignored and covered up. It's a joke.

 

[OzzieCapie]

:wtf: Comparing USA debates to SA debates is expected on a south african forum discussing USA debates. But to suddenly jump to this conclusion that MyBB blame ANC for everything is really something.

Read what I said...I was referring to the comment that Zuma not debating another candidate was 'undemocratic'....there is no real political reason to debate someone when it is to their benefit and not yours...it is no reflection on how democratic he is.

The other parties were banned from the debate.
The two-party system is deliberately reinforced by the Democrats and Republicans by not allowing anyone else on the stage. The Democrips and Rebloodlicans openly admit this. Big money wins the day.

Most western 'so called democratic' countries have a two party tweedledum and tweedledee situation. As time has gone by the two parties move closer and closer to each other to get the 'swing' vote in the middle ground. In Australia we have littel political difference between Labor and Liberal and it is becoming more 'presidential' i.e. people will vote based on whether they like Gillard or Abbott and it is only the close electorates that matter i.e. where the 'swing' can win it and they end up spending more time, money etc in those electorates.
In UK same deal now, Labour has moved to the right and the conservatives to left or coallescing.

This is what is disenfranchising people and making it more undemocratic. People have themselves to blame really because they don't support the minor parties....however the minor parties also don't have the experience and policies that cover everything