Yeah millions of people would be aware of something they weren't before... what's wrong with more options? Why are we always forced to choose between these same two people that are already decided for us? It would absolutely make a 3rd party more seen just by simply including them. The two parties don't want anyone messing with those monopoly.
I completely agree that a thrid, fourth, fifth etc party is needed, but including them in a presidential debate is hardly likely to sway anyone to their side, give Jo Jorgensen a mic and ,spot at the next presidential election, the only thing that happens is both the Democrats and Republicans attacking her and her positions to discredit her, they have interest in keeping their power struggles between themselves, and ganging up on Liberterian or Green is the best way to do that.
Wasn't 1988 the year the moderator asked for the first question if Dukakis would want the death penalty if a man raped and killed his wife?
No wonder they changed it up. What kind a question is that?
A tough one, but a controversial issue a lot of people care about too. I'd personally be more inclined to watch debates if they were actually put on the hotplate a bit.
It's an abysmal question because it leaves absolutely no room for genuine debate on the merits and philosophy of judicial reform. It's designed to elicit exactly the response that the moderator wants to hear because there's no answer other than "yes" that doesn't make you look like a douchebag.
In other words, it's a loaded question.
"My wife is staunchly opposed to the death penalty and has been for as long as I have known her. I could never tarnish her memory by betraying our purest and most sincere beliefs to satisfy my own petty feelings of vengeance, no matter how tempted I might be in such a situation."
Sounds way better than "Well, I can't NOT execute people if they wrong me."
I mean...I came up with it on the spot. I'd expect someone running for office to be quick witted and good at communication. I'm not even very good at it.
Yes. It’s a debate. If their ability to articulate their beliefs in the moment is irrelevant then it’s kind of a pointless activity to begin with.
It doesn’t have to be stated exactly that way, but it could be similar and have the same effect.
There's a reason they chose that phrasing, and that's to fish for a soundbite or an easy news article. They could have asked, "would you outlaw the death penalty in all cases?" which is technically harder of a question but harder to twist.
Okay, but that question is just sensational. It makes good dramatic TV, but doesn’t say anything useful. It’s not something we actually expect a president to have to deal with. Boring policy questions about “how do you deal with XYZ tricky issue in the Middle East that’s ongoing” are significantly more useful because they describe the world we actually live in.
Well it was sorta relevant because one of the main criticisms of Dukakis had been not being “tough” on crime, including the infamous Willie Horton [saga](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton#Horton_in_the_1988_presidential_campaign).
He vetoed a bill that prohibited first degree murderers from the furlough program, a murder did a bunch of bad stuff while out, then later got blasted for it.
Bush Sr worked up to it. The Bush campaign was already hammering Dukakis in ads over letting a known repeat offender rapist out on work release, where he would offend again.
Dukakis didn't have an answer to the question, he was labeled "du-cock-less" by the unwashed masses.
Screw debates. Make them take tests. The civics test that all new citizens have to take for starters. Then give them a blank map of the U.S. and have them fill in all 50 States and Capitals like we did in 4th grade. Then give them harder tests on ethics and such. If they get a question wrong, they’re off the ballot. And no this isn’t like poll taxes or questionnaires that barred people from voting back in the day. If you’re gonna be the leader of this country then you have to know shit about the country.
My biggest issue with the current debate structure is they've thrown away even the pretense of a vibrant democracy by limiting them to trump and Biden. I think there's a high chance the precedent will be of two person debates here on in.
So, the facade of a debate between presidents (1700's american non-presidential debates went for 7+ hours and citizens loved them. Look it up) is indeed just a stage production?
This is why RFK Jr, the most successful third party candidate since Perot in 1996 - regularly polling between 10% and 15% with ballot access to 225 EVs and climbing - has been excluded from the upcoming Trump/Biden debate. Ridiculous.
Per the statement released by CNN "The CNN debate will be "open to any presidential candidate who consistently polls above 15 percent in approved public surveys and is on enough state ballots to win a majority of electoral college votes." [Link](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/15/biden-trump-presidential-debates/)
So don't worry, if he gets on enough ballots to theoretically win, and his polling stays above 15%, you'll still get to see your guy embarrass himself on a national stage.
Here's why we're getting third-party candidates are sooo mistreated posts:
>A more plausible outcome is the No Labels ticket secures enough Electoral College votes to deny either party an outright majority. That means that the House of Representatives would elect the next the president, with each state delegation receiving one vote. Republicans currently represent the majority in 26 states, **meaning that the House of Representatives would almost certainly vote to install Trump for a second term**
FairVote.org is how you work for third party representation without handing the country over to a dictator, fwiw.
source from April 2023: . https://popular.info/p/the-opaque-70-million-scheme-that
I guess, though it was pretty clear about a year into the Biden administration that Trump was going to win the popular vote in 2024. If you want to talk about people handing the country over to a dictator, talk to ol Genocide Joe - what happens next is all his fault.
How Third Parties Are Kept Out Of Presidential Debates
[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-the-hell-how-third-p\_b\_11277474](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-the-hell-how-third-p_b_11277474)
Must exclude third party, must control "choice"
dont think a presidential debate would make a third party any more popular.
Yeah millions of people would be aware of something they weren't before... what's wrong with more options? Why are we always forced to choose between these same two people that are already decided for us? It would absolutely make a 3rd party more seen just by simply including them. The two parties don't want anyone messing with those monopoly.
I completely agree that a thrid, fourth, fifth etc party is needed, but including them in a presidential debate is hardly likely to sway anyone to their side, give Jo Jorgensen a mic and ,spot at the next presidential election, the only thing that happens is both the Democrats and Republicans attacking her and her positions to discredit her, they have interest in keeping their power struggles between themselves, and ganging up on Liberterian or Green is the best way to do that.
Wasn't 1988 the year the moderator asked for the first question if Dukakis would want the death penalty if a man raped and killed his wife? No wonder they changed it up. What kind a question is that?
A tough one, but a controversial issue a lot of people care about too. I'd personally be more inclined to watch debates if they were actually put on the hotplate a bit.
It's an abysmal question because it leaves absolutely no room for genuine debate on the merits and philosophy of judicial reform. It's designed to elicit exactly the response that the moderator wants to hear because there's no answer other than "yes" that doesn't make you look like a douchebag. In other words, it's a loaded question.
"My wife is staunchly opposed to the death penalty and has been for as long as I have known her. I could never tarnish her memory by betraying our purest and most sincere beliefs to satisfy my own petty feelings of vengeance, no matter how tempted I might be in such a situation." Sounds way better than "Well, I can't NOT execute people if they wrong me."
So a very carefully worded and succinct answer that they have to come up with and deliver on the spot.
I mean...I came up with it on the spot. I'd expect someone running for office to be quick witted and good at communication. I'm not even very good at it.
Thanks for proving why politics is a joke now.
What do you think a debate is?
Yes. It’s a debate. If their ability to articulate their beliefs in the moment is irrelevant then it’s kind of a pointless activity to begin with. It doesn’t have to be stated exactly that way, but it could be similar and have the same effect.
There's a reason they chose that phrasing, and that's to fish for a soundbite or an easy news article. They could have asked, "would you outlaw the death penalty in all cases?" which is technically harder of a question but harder to twist.
Okay, but that question is just sensational. It makes good dramatic TV, but doesn’t say anything useful. It’s not something we actually expect a president to have to deal with. Boring policy questions about “how do you deal with XYZ tricky issue in the Middle East that’s ongoing” are significantly more useful because they describe the world we actually live in.
Well it was sorta relevant because one of the main criticisms of Dukakis had been not being “tough” on crime, including the infamous Willie Horton [saga](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton#Horton_in_the_1988_presidential_campaign). He vetoed a bill that prohibited first degree murderers from the furlough program, a murder did a bunch of bad stuff while out, then later got blasted for it.
Bush Sr worked up to it. The Bush campaign was already hammering Dukakis in ads over letting a known repeat offender rapist out on work release, where he would offend again. Dukakis didn't have an answer to the question, he was labeled "du-cock-less" by the unwashed masses.
It's a good question.
my answer is castration + death penalty.
What's the point of castration if death penalty will come after it?
Castration for the rape and death penalty for the murder.
It's not 1988 anymore.
Hang on
more like 1984 (i’m sorry, someone had to say it)
[https://freakonomics.com/podcast/americas-hidden-duopoly\_radio/](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/americas-hidden-duopoly_radio/)
I’m almost completely numb. If someone could go ahead and open some debt prisons I could finally feel nothing.
Debates are utterly redundant in the internet age. Let’s see them play chess instead.
I’d watch that.
Google en peasant, Jack.
Bold of you to assume Trump knows how any of the pieces in chess move. Actually, you're right. I'd love to watch that.
I'm sure he's an expert at the pigeon strategy.
get help
What sort of debate would it be if they were arguing with the host? And who would go to that debate?
Screw debates. Make them take tests. The civics test that all new citizens have to take for starters. Then give them a blank map of the U.S. and have them fill in all 50 States and Capitals like we did in 4th grade. Then give them harder tests on ethics and such. If they get a question wrong, they’re off the ballot. And no this isn’t like poll taxes or questionnaires that barred people from voting back in the day. If you’re gonna be the leader of this country then you have to know shit about the country.
Women ...am I right? /s
>to avoid "tough" questions I'm not seeing that in the article.
This is why you had valid 3rd party candidates banned or held outside. Your choices are illusions.
Why dont they go back?
My biggest issue with the current debate structure is they've thrown away even the pretense of a vibrant democracy by limiting them to trump and Biden. I think there's a high chance the precedent will be of two person debates here on in.
So, the facade of a debate between presidents (1700's american non-presidential debates went for 7+ hours and citizens loved them. Look it up) is indeed just a stage production?
This is why RFK Jr, the most successful third party candidate since Perot in 1996 - regularly polling between 10% and 15% with ballot access to 225 EVs and climbing - has been excluded from the upcoming Trump/Biden debate. Ridiculous.
lol
Per the statement released by CNN "The CNN debate will be "open to any presidential candidate who consistently polls above 15 percent in approved public surveys and is on enough state ballots to win a majority of electoral college votes." [Link](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/15/biden-trump-presidential-debates/) So don't worry, if he gets on enough ballots to theoretically win, and his polling stays above 15%, you'll still get to see your guy embarrass himself on a national stage.
Considering he wasn’t even at 15% of democrats when he dropped out of that primary…
RFK is a joke. Vaccine denialist. He was put up to run by Steve Bannon to try and split the democrat vote so Trump can win.
Is that the antivaxxer RFK ? Is it that one ? We need another Kennedy like we need a hole in the head.
The only hole in his head is the one the worm ate.
Someone is out there avenging Rosemary by making sure every Kennedy ends up with a hole in their head.
Damn that's funny!
It is my personal headcanon.
Yeah, I'm not sure they limit third party candidates. RFK Jr would've been on the debate stage if they were in charge of this year's debates.
Yeah I’m sure Mr. Worm-Ate-My-Brain would have some real hard hitting intellectual takes
Here's why we're getting third-party candidates are sooo mistreated posts: >A more plausible outcome is the No Labels ticket secures enough Electoral College votes to deny either party an outright majority. That means that the House of Representatives would elect the next the president, with each state delegation receiving one vote. Republicans currently represent the majority in 26 states, **meaning that the House of Representatives would almost certainly vote to install Trump for a second term** FairVote.org is how you work for third party representation without handing the country over to a dictator, fwiw. source from April 2023: . https://popular.info/p/the-opaque-70-million-scheme-that
I guess, though it was pretty clear about a year into the Biden administration that Trump was going to win the popular vote in 2024. If you want to talk about people handing the country over to a dictator, talk to ol Genocide Joe - what happens next is all his fault.
😂
In 8 months I'll be relieved to say I was wrong... but I'm not, and I'm terrified.
How Third Parties Are Kept Out Of Presidential Debates [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-the-hell-how-third-p\_b\_11277474](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-the-hell-how-third-p_b_11277474)