#letherspeak

First topic message reminder :




What could it hurt?

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

You do realise Victorian Britain was absolute hell for the majority of working people? The Thames was basically a sewage dump, the working week was colossal, pay was poverty levels, pollution diabolical. Health and safety didn't exist. Equal rights were nonexistent (of almost any kind). I don't know as much about the US in the 19th century, but I imagine it was no easy ride for most people either.

The more government involved, regulatory changes from around the turn of the 20th century until now have nearly all been to the benefit of working people. The idea of rolling back to any degree is pretty unappealing to most people.

The system that the US had to start with may have been better than what they had under the rule of Britain, but it doesn't measure up to modern standards. Those with power (the rich) would still have power, only more concentrated, more obvious and likely with more terrible results for the average Joe.

Society has changed a great deal since then too.  So has government.  I guess the question is who led who to change.  

The people, organized in a constitutional government, are the both the creators and the beneficiaries.  After all the successes of government, it is deserving of hero status.  You would have a hard time making out government to be the villain for anyone but the criminals.  

Maddog wrote:Did government lead society to be more tolerant and compassionate or was it the other way around?

You are essentially asking whether chance is better than reason.  Libertarianism—ie, with minimal governance—leaves society largely to chance.  However, it is reason, applied to good and necessary government, with core values such as equality, self-determination and consideration for others, that has achieved the success that government has had.  Chance is a storm without shelter.

Libertarians ask us to return to some divine status where “society”, like a driverless car, steers itself away from obstacles and magically finds some Xanadu.  It’s almost a religious claim.  Ancient liberals, like Adam Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), spoke of an “invisible hand” that delivers unintended social benefits to an individual's self-interested actions.  Since then, we've learned it doesn’t quite happen that way (see, my last post for US; and Les', above, for UK).

I’ll go you one further: libertarians want a return to an unrestrained and ungoverned terrain, where they can become grifters and opportunists, taking advantage of trusting souls.  (Those trusting souls are "suckers" and "losers", to use the terms of one of their number.)  Maybe even some such libertarians might become rich…maybe one, an absolute dictator.  (This is why I continually ask them, what is behind the curtain?)  Anyway, it’s a certain return to status and authority, which we don’t need.

The great revolution of the 17th-century was to cast aside monarchy and church, and bring life down to the people.  The people, then, apply reason through good government.  Nothing further needed.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course. She chooses not speak, engaging rather in more mundane political rhetoric...giving all things to all people. What politician doesn't do that? Phffft...

The choice to debate has been made for her. Dont try gaslighting people asshole.

I gather you are afraid of ideas, but you needn't be afraid of me. I am just the messenger; you need to focus on the message, out there —>

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The choice to debate has been made for her.  Dont try gaslighting people asshole.

I gather you are afraid of ideas, but you needn't be afraid of me.  I am just the messenger; you need to focus on the message, out there —>

You gathered wrong.

You lie, you get called an asshole.

Ever wonder why you are the only person that gets this treatment from me?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Society has changed a great deal since then too.  So has government.  I guess the question is who led who to change.  

The people, organized in a constitutional government, are the both the creators and the beneficiaries.  After all the successes of government, it is deserving of hero status.  You would have a hard time making out government to be the villain for anyone but the criminals.  

Maddog wrote:Did government lead society to be more tolerant and compassionate or was it the other way around?

You are essentially asking whether chance is better than reason.  Libertarianism—ie, with minimal governance—leaves society largely to chance.  However, it is reason, applied to good and necessary government, with core values such as equality, self-determination and consideration for others, that has achieved the success that government has had.  Chance is a storm without shelter.

Libertarians ask us to return to some divine status where “society”, like a driverless car, steers itself away from obstacles and magically finds some Xanadu.  It’s almost a religious claim.  Ancient liberals, like Adam Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), spoke of an “invisible hand” that delivers unintended social benefits to an individual's self-interested actions.  Since then, we've learned it doesn’t quite happen that way (see, my last post for US; and Les', above, for UK).

I’ll go you one further: libertarians want a return to an unrestrained and ungoverned terrain, where they can become grifters and opportunists, taking advantage of trusting souls.  (Those trusting souls are "suckers" and "losers", to use the terms of one of their number.)  Maybe even some such libertarians might become rich…maybe one, an absolute dictator.  (This is why I continually ask them, what is behind the curtain?)  Anyway, it’s a certain return to status and authority, which we don’t need.

The great revolution of the 17th-century was to cast aside monarchy and church, and bring life down to the people.  The people, then, apply reason through good government.  Nothing further needed.

What is the government comprised of? Mere mortals or some other species?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I gather you are afraid of ideas, but you needn't be afraid of me.  I am just the messenger; you need to focus on the message, out there —>

You gathered wrong.

You lie, you get called an asshole.

Ever wonder why you are the only person that gets this treatment from me?

To respond would be gratuitous.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The people, organized in a constitutional government, are the both the creators and the beneficiaries.  After all the successes of government, it is deserving of hero status.  You would have a hard time making out government to be the villain for anyone but the criminals.  

You are essentially asking whether chance is better than reason.  Libertarianism—ie, with minimal governance—leaves society largely to chance.  However, it is reason, applied to good and necessary government, with core values such as equality, self-determination and consideration for others, that has achieved the success that government has had.  Chance is a storm without shelter.

Libertarians ask us to return to some divine status where “society”, like a driverless car, steers itself away from obstacles and magically finds some Xanadu.  It’s almost a religious claim.  Ancient liberals, like Adam Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), spoke of an “invisible hand” that delivers unintended social benefits to an individual's self-interested actions.  Since then, we've learned it doesn’t quite happen that way (see, my last post for US; and Les', above, for UK).

I’ll go you one further: libertarians want a return to an unrestrained and ungoverned terrain, where they can become grifters and opportunists, taking advantage of trusting souls.  (Those trusting souls are "suckers" and "losers", to use the terms of one of their number.)  Maybe even some such libertarians might become rich…maybe one, an absolute dictator.  (This is why I continually ask them, what is behind the curtain?)  Anyway, it’s a certain return to status and authority, which we don’t need.

The great revolution of the 17th-century was to cast aside monarchy and church, and bring life down to the people.  The people, then, apply reason through good government.  Nothing further needed.

What is the government comprised of? Mere mortals or some other species?

The people should run government.  Libertarians believe in magic, as the CATO Institute announces:

CATO Institute wrote:The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously...

"Spontaneous order?"     Is that like spontaneous fire or perpetual motion?  Does order magically befall societies?  Do angels appear spontaneously in the sky, to bring that order?  Or is that an open invitation for some dictator to waltz in and take over: get rid of these nuisance governments, and let me have the money?  

It sounds very theistic...are you sure libertarianism isn't a religion?  At least a cult?  Would you like to have rational people paying attention to governing, or some metaphysical "invisible hand" as libertarians believe?  Frankly, I don't believe in magic.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The libertarian platform is basically the same as the classic liberals that formed the US (and the UK to a degree). We just through out slavery and ill treatment of women. It's not some crazy idea that hasn't been tried, or hasn't worked.

You do realise Victorian Britain was absolute hell for the majority of working people? The Thames was basically a sewage dump, the working week was colossal, pay was poverty levels, pollution diabolical. Health and safety didn't exist. Equal rights were nonexistent (of almost any kind). I don't know as much about the US in the 19th century, but I imagine it was no easy ride for most people either.

The more government involved, regulatory changes from around the turn of the 20th century until now have nearly all been to the benefit of working people. The idea of rolling back to any degree is pretty unappealing to most people.

The system that the US had to start with may have been better than what they had under the rule of Britain, but it doesn't measure up to modern standards. Those with power (the rich) would still have power, only more concentrated, more obvious and likely with more terrible results for the average Joe.

Society has changed a great deal since then too.  So has government.  I guess the question is who led who to change.  

Did government lead society to be more tolerant and compassionate or was it the other way around?

If we look at a lot of change that has happened, it tends to start with special interest groups (within society) who push for change, which then gradually garners support both from society at large AND within government. And they bounce off one another. So I'd say both. When big changes came for gay people (being the area I'm most familiar with I'll use that example) it often came when a large chunk of society still opposed it, but liberal minded governments pushed ahead regardless.

If those in power had no interest in making changes (eg. the rich/the establishment) had no interest in making those changes, then those changes would never have been made. A democratic system where the government has real involvement is always going to be in service of the people to some extent. Interest groups can have a say in that system that would be reduced in a purely libertarian system - where the mega corporations would have way too much power and say over everything.

In the most extreme case, libertarianism would lead to private armies and having to pay for firefighters to put out a fire etc. I don't expect that kind of libertarianism is what you support, but if that is libertarianism in its purist form, then it isn't desirable. Much as communism and fascism in their purist forms aren't desirable. Which means that even a watered down version would be riddled with openings for the rich that would lead to misery for others.

What we have now is 'all right' it just needs tweaks and better people to take an interest in being politicians.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Society has changed a great deal since then too.  So has government.  I guess the question is who led who to change.  

Did government lead society to be more tolerant and compassionate or was it the other way around?

If we look at a lot of change that has happened, it tends to start with special interest groups (within society) who push for change, which then gradually garners support both from society at large AND within government. And they bounce off one another. So I'd say both. When big changes came for gay people (being the area I'm most familiar with I'll use that example) it often came when a large chunk of society still opposed it, but liberal minded governments pushed ahead regardless.

If those in power had no interest in making changes (eg. the rich/the establishment) had no interest in making those changes, then those changes would never have been made. A democratic system where the government has real involvement is always going to be in service of the people to some extent. Interest groups can have a say in that system that would be reduced in a purely libertarian system - where the mega corporations would have way too much power and say over everything.

In the most extreme case, libertarianism would lead to private armies and having to pay for firefighters to put out a fire etc. I don't expect that kind of libertarianism is what you support, but if that is libertarianism in its purist form, then it isn't desirable. Much as communism and fascism in their purist forms aren't desirable. Which means that even a watered down version would be riddled with openings for the rich that would lead to misery for others.

What we have now is 'all right' it just needs tweaks and better people to take an interest in being politicians.

Governments generally have pretty good public support when they make the change. Look at Obama and his turnaround on gay marriage. He got elected opposing it and made it legal before he left. That was because we changed as people and politicians being politicians reacted to that.

I support libertanism pretty much in line with the Libertarian Party and their presidential nominee which still has a functioning federal government that understands its constitutional limitations. No doubt there are anarchists in the party that support the abolition of the federal government.

I cant go there.

Remember, one of the guiding principles of the Libertarian Party is the NAP. It's very clear that harming others except in the case of self defense will not be tolerated.

Waffle.

There are 195 nations on Earth. Seventy of them, plus some territories, have nearly 800 U.S. military bases. These bases are expensive. They also create friction, leading to enemies we don’t need.

The correct number of bases that the U.S. should have in foreign countries isn’t seventy, it’s zero.

The Military-Industrial Complex, along with their Democratic and Republican allies, want a steady flow of new enemies to justify constantly growing budgets. I want the opposite. I want lower military expenses and fewer friction points with the rest of the world.

I want the U.S. to be well-armed but neutral. If elected President I will give our allies a year’s notice of our intention to depart, starting with major bases in Europe, so they can prepare. But after that, the moving vans will start to roll.


https://jo20.com/dr-jo-jorgensen-wants-to-close-foreign-military-bases/?fbclid=IwAR2vkp96e10eG8yKigtcELHmLhBDf-PQrrTNko6MNQkA0U4GeXJScEqzQUg

Maddog wrote:There are 195 nations on Earth. Seventy of them, plus some territories, have nearly 800 U.S. military bases. These bases are expensive. They also create friction, leading to enemies we don’t need.

The correct number of bases that the U.S. should have in foreign countries isn’t seventy, it’s zero.

The Military-Industrial Complex, along with their Democratic and Republican allies, want a steady flow of new enemies to justify constantly growing budgets. I want the opposite. I want lower military expenses and fewer friction points with the rest of the world.

I want the U.S. to be well-armed but neutral. If elected President I will give our allies a year’s notice of our intention to depart, starting with major bases in Europe, so they can prepare. But after that, the moving vans will start to roll.

https://jo20.com/dr-jo-jorgensen-wants-to-close-foreign-military-bases/?fbclid=IwAR2vkp96e10eG8yKigtcELHmLhBDf-PQrrTNko6MNQkA0U4GeXJScEqzQUg

That's one thing we totally agree on.  When we look at the military budget (70% or more) it's insane.  We are buying toys for admirals and generals, yet we watch children die of chronic diseases.

That's why I am for combining the Department of Defense and the Department of Health into one cabinet department.  The mission of both is the same: to protect the population from hostile elements. That is brought home but this present pandemic.  The bloated defense department could help alleviate worries over funding of healthcare.  It's absolutely silly to fret about the cost of healthcare, when we have so much in the defense coffers to spend.  It's an artificial argument.  

So she's gonna be a fresh of fresh air?
Gonna sweep the cobwebs and offer something new?
Well whoopidedoo ......where have I seen that promise before??



From Trump of course.
That was the EXACT ticket on which he was elected.
"I'll be different from anything you've seen before"

How right he was.
1st Potus to turn Fed troops on American citizens
1st Potus to cower in a bunker
1st Potus to lie and lie att, and have his adviser tell us "it's  not lies, we call them alternative facts."
etc - many other "1sts"



Laters folks, I 'll pop in next month.

JulesV wrote:So she's gonna be a fresh of fresh air?
Gonna sweep the cobwebs and offer something new?
Well whoopidedoo ......where have I seen that promise before??



From Trump of course.
That was the EXACT ticket on which he was elected.
"I'll be different from anything you've seen before"

How right he was.
1st Potus to turn Fed troops on American citizens
1st Potus to cower in a bunker
1st Potus to lie and lie att, and have his adviser tell us "it's  not lies, we call them alternative facts."
etc - many other "1sts"



Laters folks, I 'll pop in next month.

I can barely wait.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course.  She chooses not speak, engaging rather in more mundane political rhetoric...giving all things to all people.  What politician doesn't do that?  Phffft...

The choice to debate has been made for her.  Dont try gaslighting people asshole.

Don't try lying, cuckold. If she had something of interest to say, I would expect they would let her into the debate. The plain fact is, people aren't interested in another unworkable system.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The choice to debate has been made for her.  Dont try gaslighting people asshole.

Don't try lying, cuckold.  If she had something of interest to say, I would expect they would let her into the debate.  The plain fact is, people aren't interested in another unworkable system.  

They're scared of girl. Much like you princess.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Don't try lying, cuckold. If she had something of interest to say, I would expect they would let her into the debate. The plain fact is, people aren't interested in another unworkable system.

They're scared of girl. Much like you princess.

Are you all of ideas to support your libertarian plan, cuckold? I have an idea. If you are fond of 18th-century political philosophies where government spontaneously disappears, try Marxism. It, too, is fantasia, and your Russo-Republican friends might even be familiar with it.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They're scared of girl. Much like you princess.

Are you all of ideas to support your libertarian plan, cuckold?  I have an idea.  If you are fond of 18th-century political philosophies where government spontaneously disappears, try Marxism.  It, too, is fantasia, and your Russo-Republican friends might even be familiar with it.

Then I guess letting her debate wont be a problem now will it sweetie?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you all of ideas to support your libertarian plan, cuckold?  I have an idea.  If you are fond of 18th-century political philosophies where government spontaneously disappears, try Marxism.  It, too, is fantasia, and your Russo-Republican friends might even be familiar with it.

Then I guess letting her debate wont be a problem now will it sweetie?

It's up to the powers that be, old cucky.  I have no objections.  But TV time is expensive, and what she says is BORING.  They could lose big money plugging her in.  Dubious.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Then I guess letting her debate wont be a problem now will it sweetie?

It's up to the powers that be, old cucky.  I have no objections.  But TV time is expensive, and what she says is BORING.  They could lose big money plugging her in.  Dubious.  

The powers that be are the DNC and RNC. They won't let her in that stage. Not with the Orange Idiot and Kiddy Sniffer.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's up to the powers that be, old cucky.  I have no objections.  But TV time is expensive, and what she says is BORING.  They could lose big money plugging her in.  Dubious.  

The powers that be are the DNC and RNC. They won't let her in that stage.  Not with the Orange Idiot and Kiddy Sniffer.

Eh....nobody's interested in discussing an out-of-date, 19th-century philosophy.  These are serious people, who have serious matters at hand, and no one has the time to listen to a senior lecturer at Clemson University spout off about Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Another time, maybe.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The powers that be are the DNC and RNC. They won't let her in that stage.  Not with the Orange Idiot and Kiddy Sniffer.

Eh....nobody's interested in discussing an out-of-date, 19th-century philosophy.  These are serious people, who have serious matters at hand, and no one has the time to listen to a senior lecturer at Clemson University spout off about Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Another time, maybe.

So you would rather listen Trump?,

Kk

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:

Laters folks, I 'll pop in next month.

I can barely wait.

Too bad.
Patience is a virtue!
I've popped for just 2 minutes  to register my disgust at some supremacist jokes, that's all.  

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Eh....nobody's interested in discussing an out-of-date, 19th-century philosophy.  These are serious people, who have serious matters at hand, and no one has the time to listen to a senior lecturer at Clemson University spout off about Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Another time, maybe.

So you would rather listen Trump?

An accident of fate. No one knew the Republicans were that weak, and without morals.

They'll be gone soon.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So you would rather listen Trump?

An accident of fate.  No one knew the Republicans were that weak, and without morals.

They'll be gone soon.

So you're OK with Trump debating but not Jo?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

An accident of fate. No one knew the Republicans were that weak, and without morals.

They'll be gone soon.

So, you're OK with Trump debating but not Jo?

I'm OK with Jo, too.

But I understand why they leave her out. She's not a big attraction. People won't tune in to see her. TV time costs too much money to waste on someone who is a side-show.

But it's not my money. Let her debate if someone wants to pay for it.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So, you're OK with Trump debating but not Jo?

I'm OK with Jo, too.

But I understand why they leave her out.  She's not a big attraction.  People won't tune in to see her.  TV time costs too much money to waste on someone who is a side-show.

But it's not my money.  Let her debate if someone wants to pay for it.

There are 3 people on every ballot. What would it cost to have all 3 debate?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm OK with Jo, too.

But I understand why they leave her out.  She's not a big attraction.  People won't tune in to see her.  TV time costs too much money to waste on someone who is a side-show.

But it's not my money.  Let her debate if someone wants to pay for it.

There are 3 people on every ballot. What would it cost to have all 3 debate?

Maybe a lot of viewers. They make money by advertising. If it gets too boring, viewers will shut it off.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There are 3 people on every ballot. What would it cost to have all 3 debate?

Maybe a lot of viewers.  They make money by advertising.  If it gets too boring, viewers will shut it off.

Horseshit. Plenty of people watched when Perot debated.

Try some other excuse.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maybe a lot of viewers.  They make money by advertising.  If it gets too boring, viewers will shut it off.

Horseshit.  Plenty of people watched when Perot debated.

Try some other excuse.

No they didn't. Fewer still heard, or remember, today. All Perot did was split the Republican vote, and usher in the Clinton administration.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Horseshit.  Plenty of people watched when Perot debated.

Try some other excuse.

No they didn't.  Fewer still heard, or remember, today.  All Perot did was split the Republican vote, and usher in the Clinton administration.

The outcome is irrelevant. The important thing is everyone on the ticket got to debate.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No they didn't.  Fewer still heard, or remember, today.  All Perot did was split the Republican vote, and usher in the Clinton administration.

The outcome is irrelevant. The important thing is everyone on the ticket got to debate.  

You forgot about capitalism. Networks exist to make money, not perform some public service. If no one is interested, they won't give it the time of day.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The outcome is irrelevant. The important thing is everyone on the ticket got to debate.  

You forgot about capitalism.  Networks exist to make money, not perform some public service.  If no one is interested, they won't give it the time of day.

The networks do not decide who is at the debates. And please do not fabricate some story saying they do.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You forgot about capitalism.  Networks exist to make money, not perform some public service.  If no one is interested, they won't give it the time of day.

The networks do not decide who is at the debates. And please do not fabricate some story saying they do.

Your being short-sighted. Perhaps the networks are not involved in who the Republicans and Democrats pick as candidates, but the networks set the broader parameters. One of those parameters is relevance. If the forum hosting the debates came up with a proposal to run short clips of The Simpsons, or something equally inane, no doubt the networks would step in and say NO.

The same with outsider candidates. After all, the networks are extending the invitation to the forum by offering to air the debates. They could easily back out if they see a ratings disaster.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The networks do not decide who is at the debates. And please do not fabricate some story saying they do.

Your being short-sighted.  Perhaps the networks are not involved in who the Republicans and Democrats pick as candidates, but the networks set the broader parameters.  One of those parameters is relevance.  If the forum hosting the debates came up with a proposal to run short clips of The Simpsons, or something equally inane, no doubt the networks would step in and say NO.

The same with outsider candidates.  After all, the networks are extending the invitation to the forum by offering to air the debates.  They could easily back out if they see a ratings disaster.

The networks do not decide which parties can attend. The Commission on Presidential Debates does. That commission was formed by the two major parties. This has nothing to do with the networks.


Wrong again boy.

All politic waffle aside, what happened to free speech?

eddie wrote:All politic waffle aside, what happened to free speech?

She is allowed to speak. This is about being invited to the debates, and that entirely down to what you call "political waffle".

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:All politic waffle aside, what happened to free speech?

She is allowed to speak. This is about being invited to the debates, and that entirely down to what you call "political waffle".

I know it’s about being invited to debates. So I still say, what happened to free speech?

This topic isn't really about freedom of speech anyway, but about denying some people a platform to propogate their speech from while giving access to it to others.

You could see the presidential debates as the same thing as Twitter or YouTube. Someone runs these things and decides what sort of people get to put their ideas out on them.

The people who organize the presidential debates typically will use the current popularity of a candidate to decide whether to include them, which is a bit like how the bank won't lend you money unless you have enough money that you probably don't need to borrow it anyway.

But back on topic -- why would the people who organize the presidential debate exclude a particular candidate? It ain't because they're all biased political operatives who are afraid of the people hearing about libertarianism, or the views of the Green Party (funny how we tend to forget about them in the U.S.), or the Constitution Party, or the Communist Party.

It's more likely down to the fact that in 2016, 30 seconds of advertising time during the presidential debate cost $120,000.

In order to sell as many commercials as possible, the debate organizers surely want to present a simple one-on-one conflict, easily digestible as a sort of political boxing match. Who wants to watch a boxing match in which three fighters are trying to come out on top? (Well, I do -- desperately -- but I'm a bit weird.)

Bottom line -- the presidential debate is an entertainment commodity, and complexity doesn't sell as nearly well as a simple conflict.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Your being short-sighted. Perhaps the networks are not involved in who the Republicans and Democrats pick as candidates, but the networks set the broader parameters. One of those parameters is relevance. If the forum hosting the debates came up with a proposal to run short clips of The Simpsons, or something equally inane, no doubt the networks would step in and say NO.

The same with outsider candidates. After all, the networks are extending the invitation to the forum by offering to air the debates. They could easily back out if they see a ratings disaster.

The networks do not decide which parties can attend. The Commission on Presidential Debates does. That commission was formed by the two major parties. This has nothing to do with the networks.

Wrong again boy.

The Commission on Presidential Debates is a nonprofit operation established under the joint auspices of the Democratic and Republican parties. It has no authority whatsoever...it just does the legwork.

And if you are looking to a commission of Democrats and Republicans to invite outsiders, you've got a long wait. In any case, the networks have all of the power, and they'll shut it down if you start letting boring candidates intrude and cheapen the content.

Wrong again, cracker.

Ben Reilly wrote:This topic isn't really about freedom of speech anyway, but about denying some people a platform to propogate their speech from while giving access to it to others.

You could see the presidential debates as the same thing as Twitter or YouTube. Someone runs these things and decides what sort of people get to put their ideas out on them.

The people who organize the presidential debates typically will use the current popularity of a candidate to decide whether to include them, which is a bit like how the bank won't lend you money unless you have enough money that you probably don't need to borrow it anyway.

But back on topic -- why would the people who organize the presidential debate exclude a particular candidate? It ain't because they're all biased political operatives who are afraid of the people hearing about libertarianism, or the views of the Green Party (funny how we tend to forget about them in the U.S.), or the Constitution Party, or the Communist Party.

It's more likely down to the fact that in 2016, 30 seconds of advertising time during the presidential debate cost $120,000.

In order to sell as many commercials as possible, the debate organizers surely want to present a simple one-on-one conflict, easily digestible as a sort of political boxing match. Who wants to watch a boxing match in which three fighters are trying to come out on top? (Well, I do -- desperately -- but I'm a bit weird.)

Bottom line -- the presidential debate is an entertainment commodity, and complexity doesn't sell as nearly well as a simple conflict.

It's because the debate organizers have been the DNC and RNC for the past few decades. It's an exclusive party where non members are excluded.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course.  She chooses not speak, engaging rather in more mundane political rhetoric...giving all things to all people.  What politician doesn't do that?  Phffft...

The choice to debate has been made for her.  Dont try gaslighting people asshole.

Too fookin' bad, you cuckold southern scum.  If she had anything to sell, she would find buyers.  Jo Jorgensen is like the small business in the marketplace of politics.  She doesn't sell, and so the distributors (networks, donors, endorsements) are not going to handle her product.

As Dundee once said, "Oy, ya kin eat it, but it tastes like shit!"

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:This topic isn't really about freedom of speech anyway, but about denying some people a platform to propogate their speech from while giving access to it to others.

You could see the presidential debates as the same thing as Twitter or YouTube. Someone runs these things and decides what sort of people get to put their ideas out on them.

The people who organize the presidential debates typically will use the current popularity of a candidate to decide whether to include them, which is a bit like how the bank won't lend you money unless you have enough money that you probably don't need to borrow it anyway.

But back on topic -- why would the people who organize the presidential debate exclude a particular candidate? It ain't because they're all biased political operatives who are afraid of the people hearing about libertarianism, or the views of the Green Party (funny how we tend to forget about them in the U.S.), or the Constitution Party, or the Communist Party.

It's more likely down to the fact that in 2016, 30 seconds of advertising time during the presidential debate cost $120,000.

In order to sell as many commercials as possible, the debate organizers surely want to present a simple one-on-one conflict, easily digestible as a sort of political boxing match. Who wants to watch a boxing match in which three fighters are trying to come out on top? (Well, I do -- desperately -- but I'm a bit weird.)

Bottom line -- the presidential debate is an entertainment commodity, and complexity doesn't sell as nearly well as a simple conflict.

It's because the debate organizers have been the DNC and RNC for the past few decades. It's an exclusive party where non members are excluded.

Whoops.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (the “CPD”) is a private, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization. As a 501(c)(3) organization, it is eligible under federal law to serve as a debate sponsor. The CPD’s primary mission is to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates are held every four years between and among the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States. The CPD is an independent organization. It is not controlled by any political party or outside organization, and it does not endorse, support, or oppose political candidates or parties. It receives no funding from the government or any political party, political action committee or candidate. The CPD has sponsored general election presidential debates in every election since 1988.

Blah...blah...blah. Try to hold a debate without Network TV.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's because the debate organizers have been the DNC and RNC for the past few decades. It's an exclusive party where non members are excluded.

Whoops.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (the “CPD”) is a private, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization. As a 501(c)(3) organization, it is eligible under federal law to serve as a debate sponsor. The CPD’s primary mission is to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates are held every four years between and among the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States. The CPD is an independent organization. It is not controlled by any political party or outside organization, and it does not endorse, support, or oppose political candidates or parties. It receives no funding from the government or any political party, political action committee or candidate. The CPD has sponsored general election presidential debates in every election since 1988.

I stand corrected. It was created by members of the DNC and RNC.
Now its "independent".

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Whoops.

I stand corrected. It was created by members of the DNC and RNC.
Now its "independent".

And still not in control of the broadcasting.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I stand corrected. It was created by members of the DNC and RNC.
Now its "independent".

And still not in control of the broadcasting.

No, but it would be broadcasted regardless of if there were 2 or 3 debaters.

It's the commission that doesnt want all 3 candidates debating. And the candidates themselves because of the unpredictability of some fresh ideas being put forth.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And still not in control of the broadcasting.

No, but it would be broadcasted regardless of if there were 2 or 3 debaters.  

It's the commission that doesnt want all 3 candidates debating.  And the candidates themselves because of the unpredictability of some fresh ideas being put forth.  

I don't doubt it. But the DNC/RNC is listening to the networks. No money in it.

Thank God Jo wasnt at that debate. She may have turned it into a shit show.