If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Ross Perot says the fiscal mess the U.S. is in is bad. Holy shiat, Ross Perot is still alive   (politico.com) divider line 106
    More: Obvious, Ross Perot  
•       •       •

1213 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2012 at 11:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-02 08:26:05 AM

NYCNative: BeesNuts: 1992 marks the first and *only* time in history where three people stood at podiums for a general election debate.

It was the first and (thus far) only time than a third party candidate had enough support to warrant inclusion. I realize this can denigrate into a chicken-egg deal - you need the debate to get support - but it is what it is. Enough support will get a candidate on the debates.


He also happened to be a billionaire, but surely that's just a coincidence.
 
2012-10-02 08:29:48 AM

mcreadyblue: BeesNuts: NYCNative: BeesNuts: Fair. But ... where do PotUSA choices come from? Why aren't 3rd party candidates allowed on the debate stage with the major parties?

They usually don't have enough interest to warrant it. However when they do muster up enough support, they can be. For example, the guy this thread is about was on the debates.

1992 marks the first and *only* time in history where three people stood at podiums for a general election debate. CPD are dicks, being my main point. We all find debates to be pointless. Two candidates receive the questions beforehand so they can prepare their methods of dodging important issues while spewing established talking points followed by pre-arranged press narratives that muddy the already vague waters. Open that shiat up a little bit. We're getting poor quality control in our election process, the CPD seems like a good place to start for me.

Teddy Roosevelt would like you to remember the Bull-Moose Party.


I don't believe there were general election debates in 1912. Could be mistaken. (I'm not mistaken.)
 
2012-10-02 08:36:13 AM

BeesNuts: NYCNative: BeesNuts: 1992 marks the first and *only* time in history where three people stood at podiums for a general election debate.

It was the first and (thus far) only time than a third party candidate had enough support to warrant inclusion. I realize this can denigrate into a chicken-egg deal - you need the debate to get support - but it is what it is. Enough support will get a candidate on the debates.

He also happened to be a billionaire, but surely that's just a coincidence.


If it happened today, the candidate would have a Super PAC worth billions to support him. In a post Citizens-United world, it actually makes it easier to get a billion in the bank. Doesn't even have to be your own money.

But the fact is that he got onto the debates because he polled well and got onto the ballots of every state.
 
2012-10-02 02:17:30 PM

NYCNative: BeesNuts: NYCNative: BeesNuts: 1992 marks the first and *only* time in history where three people stood at podiums for a general election debate.

It was the first and (thus far) only time than a third party candidate had enough support to warrant inclusion. I realize this can denigrate into a chicken-egg deal - you need the debate to get support - but it is what it is. Enough support will get a candidate on the debates.

He also happened to be a billionaire, but surely that's just a coincidence.

If it happened today, the candidate would have a Super PAC worth billions to support him. In a post Citizens-United world, it actually makes it easier to get a billion in the bank. Doesn't even have to be your own money.

But the fact is that he got onto the debates because he polled well and got onto the ballots of every state.


What are we arguing about? If Perot ran today, he'd have superpac support? You give *far* too much credit to citizens united, which is more of a vehicle to launder money than to finance a campaign. Just read about the CDP, ok?


The Commission has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.

-----

Nader brought a lawsuit against them in a federal court, on the basis that corporate contributions violate the Federal Election Campaign Act. After a series of FEC actions and lower court decisions, the D.C. Circuit Court ultimately ruled in 2005 that because Congress vested discretionary power in the FEC (meaning that an FEC action would have to rise to the level of arbitrary and capricious to be challenged), the court would not overrule the FEC's determinations that "found that the third-party challengers had failed to provide 'evidence that the CPD is controlled by the DNC or the RNC,'"


Gary Johnston's jumping on that bandwagon this year citing the Sherman Act. Apparently the FEC, vested with discretionary power by a republican and democratic congress, finds that an organization jointly run by the DNC and RNC is not, in fact, controlled by the DNC *or* the RNC and that therefore there is no collusion to exclude third party candidates.

The debates ARE A FRAUD. They are informative and all, but they are part of the strategy to keep entrenched politicians entrenched. Like Gerrymandering, voter ID laws, etc. Only it's worse because the two major parties work together to keep the number or people sharing the pie down to two. That Ross Perot was literally able to BUY HIS WAY into the debates in '92 despite falling in the polls from July through October doesn't change that.
 
2012-10-02 03:45:24 PM
I videotaped a lot of Perot's graph heavy appearances.

I still have those tapes.
 
2012-10-02 04:05:46 PM

Kittypie070: I videotaped a lot of Perot's graph heavy appearances.

I still have those tapes.


Not as prestigious as the theorized video of Ross Perot's daughter's "heavy appearances", which delayed his announcement to stay in the race in 1992.

/It was a different time back then. nineteen diggity 2, diggity 3.
 
Displayed 6 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report