Presidential Debates

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by CourtJester, Apr 18, 2015.

  1. Moriah

    Moriah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    7,646
    Likes Received:
    2,126
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Wow! The GOP has a large field to choose from.
     
  2. Super21

    Super21 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    507
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What is your opinion on Scott Walker? That is who I like so far.

    Also, is immigration an important issue to you?
     
  3. smallblue

    smallblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    570
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Debates are pointless.

    They should instead have collaborations. Take the candidates, give them a problem and see what solutions they come up with together.
     
  4. Independent Thinker

    Independent Thinker Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Not really. I will mostly vote based on who will cut government the most. He panders to billionaires and corporate elites too much so I don't trust him. I get the impression that Paul and Cruz are probably the only two legitimate candidates who are serious about cutting spending. I won't vote for Bush, Rubio, Walker, or Kasich although I expect one of them to be the nominee. I'll go 3rd party.
     
  5. Super21

    Super21 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    507
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The president alone cant do much.

    Don't other candidates do this as well? Rand Paul is changing his positions a lot.

    That's fair enough.
     
  6. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The disfunction of our government would seem to indicate that they wouldn't come up with anything ever.
     
  7. smallblue

    smallblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    570
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly ^^^ We end up on about 90% of the issues in a with a "verses" government, and about the only time they work together successfully is when they are screwing over the people. :roll:
     
  8. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am in total, unequivacal agreement.
     
  9. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,550
    Likes Received:
    7,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's a thought: They can bring (*)(*)(*)(*)ing notes to the podium, they have advisors, and what they do for a living is campaign to rule the nation. If they can't take the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing time to memorize some stats, some talking points, advice, and have a decent grasp of each serious issue facing the nation, then they are INCOMPETENT. It doesn't take a degree to be aware of the salient facts of an issue, especially when you're a millionaire with a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing support staff. It takes an agile, intelligent, well functioning mind, coupled with time and dedication. A president should be such a person. The fact that you do not expect them to be such and do not even think they SHOULD be such is what is the sad commentary on our electoral process.
    You're freely acknowledging that these candidates cannot educate themselves on an issue which they wish to RULE over, and getting offended when someone says "man that's really sad that we hold them to that low a standard". THAT is what is sad.
     
  10. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,744
    Likes Received:
    63,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would like to see more debates as well

    - - - Updated - - -

    ain't that the truth....
     
  11. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    19,294
    Likes Received:
    7,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Any Party on all State Ballots should qualify for the debates!

    Stop the RepubloCratic dominion of the process! :rant:
     
  12. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,974
    Likes Received:
    5,723
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is a very hard thing to do. I mean get a third party or an independent candidate on all 50 state ballots. Republican and Democratic candidates all get automatic ballot access, they write the election laws. They write them as a mutual protection act to make it very hard for any other party to get on the ballot. There were no third party candidates in 2012 whom qualified for ballot access in all 50 states.

    In 2012 Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate was on the ballot of 48 states, next was the Green Party who was on 38 state ballots followed by the Constitutional Party on 28 state ballots. There were 22 other political parties who made it on the ballot of at least one state. So even with your threshold, the presidential debates still would have been a 2 party affair.

    The last non-Republican-Democratic presidential candidate who made it on all 50 state ballots was Ross Perot.

    I would suggest any candidate on enough state ballots that can achieve 270 electoral votes should be included in at least one of the presidential debates. Any candidate on enough state ballots that can achieve 350 electoral votes be included in two of the three and any candidate on enough state ballots that can achieve 400 electoral votes be included in all three.
     
  13. JoshuaZ

    JoshuaZ New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2015
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This seems like a very sensible and reasonable rule. And it would sometimes put the Greens and Libertarians in but not every year. I think you are very correct to not put a candidate in if they can't hit 270.
     
  14. right

    right New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2015
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're, in my opinion, right, because of their transparency, which increases by its reason. But their shouldn't be too much of it because it'll get a little bit boring but every two months once having an official big debate won't be too much. And when there is election campaign there should be at least 4 presidential debates. I agree with you ;)
     
  15. E_Pluribus_Venom

    E_Pluribus_Venom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    15,691
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's certainly not too much to ask that our National representative be able to entertain extensive debates.
     
  16. Alchemist

    Alchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,022
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think they should have follow up debates where they can answer for all the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) they made up in the initial debate that have already be proven false or debunked. Talk about being able to judge ones character and a bonus effect of losing lip service/gerrymandering .
     

Share This Page