Crooked federal judge appointed by the duopoly. Catch 22, no popularity cause no ability to express views leads to no popularity which leads to......disgusting. How stupid are we ??? we accept this shit...vote for neither D or R. MSM, MIC, congress , nothing but gangsters.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
So, the private debate corporation, which is dealing with suppressing an active eligible electorate of plus or minus 50% now has judge respond to its business model - not governance model - of a third party candidate needing to poll at 15%.
Apparently, in the 2016 primaries, Rs saw 17.3% and Ds saw 11.7%
Whats wrong with this picture?
Just another microcosm of how modern humans conduct their affairs across this planet: the mob never wants to think or know of anything outside itself.
Unlike academic debates in high schools and colleges, the POTUS campaign 'debates' are not informed debates, they are contrived to distract voters from issues of consequence. After Ross Perot actually raised issues of consequence in the 1992 campaign, the oligarchs will make sure that no third party candidate goes near a POTUS 'debate'.
The poll that has 3rd party candidates polling less than 15%:
Who will you vote for in the upcoming general election:
A. Hillary Clinton
B. Donald Trump
I wonder why 3rd party candidates can't get the needed 15%?
What can we the people do at this point to see that Stein and Johnson are on the debate stages with Clinton and Trump?
Shouldn't those who pay for the election process make the rules, who pays forthe actual process of voting?
Here's how I'd force a debate amongst all parties. 26 states have an initiative process for people to put issues directly to the voters (a list of the states is at http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/chart-of-the-initiative-states.aspx). Pick the state amongst those where it is easiest to get an initiative on the ballot.
My initiative would say that to appear on the ballot of this state a Presidential candidate must take part in a 3 hour debate in our state including 90 minutes on domestic policy and 90 minutes on foreign policy.
I believe that type of referendum would be popular and would force any party that wants to compete for those electoral votes to participate.
As Nominee, Stein Says She Wants to Assume Mantle of Sanders' Revolution
Push their numbers to 15%.
Hate to do this, friend, because your point was more relevant, but I think you meant Marvin Gaye. .
The judge just pissed off millions more voters of all political persuasions than usual in an election year. Throughout history, establishments have remained tone deaf at their own peril in times of discontent (think Louis XVI or Nicholas II). This year, the discontent is building because both major candidates are showing themselves--res ipsa loquitur--to be unqualified for the presidency.
The country needs and deserves a free, open, respectful discussion no matter how long it takes.
Because the oligarchy takes the polls and they don't want no damn 3rd parties mucking things up.
5% gets the Greens matching funds.
15% gets them a seat at the table.
60 million votes gets them the presidency.
That 60 million ain't gonna happen.
So what's plan B?
A free, open, respectful discussion we get.
What they won't give us is power.
Oh, and money.
The oligarchy has dibs on all of that.
Do you mean acceptable mainstream progressive party?
Because there is the Socialist Party of America out there working hard for our vote.
If we're actually interested in changing politics and shaking up the status quo in November then we should all vote every incumbent out of office.
Throw the baby out with the bathwater and get rid of every incumbent.
None of them have done a damn thing for us anyway.
Except bend us over a table and tell us to squeal like pigs.
The Green Party is on the ballot in 24 states.
That won't even get them close to winning.
The best we can do in November is to prevent a Hillary mandate.
Specifics or links, please and thanks!