Home | About | Donate

Jill Stein Blasts 'Two-Party Cartel' Controlling Presidential Debates


#1

Jill Stein Blasts 'Two-Party Cartel' Controlling Presidential Debates

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

The presidential debates have been transformed into "a choreographed and carefully scripted farce that prevents honest discussion of the real issues our country faces," Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein declared in an op-ed on Tuesday.


#2

This lady says it like it is: Including her in the televised debates will provide a much needed alternative to the current corrupt duopoly who have taken turns exploiting the nation's (and world's) natural, human and institutional resources of favor of the plutocratic 1 per cent.

She has already earned MY respect and will get my vote, this time!


#5

Jill cuts to the chase and isn't afraid to call things what they are. I love that she says everything so politely but can slam dunk comments like this one.
She's no nonsense and no spin. She will have my vote this year.
Keep signing those petitions and making calls.


#6

That's a nice little speech Ms. Stein.

Now SUE somebody!


#7

Hillary has already been chosen by the oligarchy to be the next president.
Bernie knows it and Trump knows it and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

But if you can't govern then the game ends.
And Hillary will not be able to govern.
The Left is already beginning to celebrate that outcome.


#8

Our elections are fixed.


#9

18,000 signatures is nothing. If they could mobilize people to collect signatures on the streets, they could get a massive number of signatures. Also, if articles like this would provide an email address or phone number to contact an influential party, that would help.


#10

That's old news.
The new news is that the people are waking up to that fact.


#11

I hope that you are right.


#12

Unfortunately, we've been destined to die from her wars or from his global warming.


#13

The 15% rule is in place because many polls list only the Democratic Party and GOP nominees in the poll questionaire, creating a high, if not impossible bar for third party candidates to achieve 15%.

Third Party candidates are excluded from debates because the cartel knows that their participation in the debates is third party candidates' only ticket to achieving 15%.


#14

How can anyone trust the polling. They have had Jill Stein at 3% forever and
I just don't buy it.


#15

Here is a link to a petition you can sign if you have not already done so:
http://www.jill2016.com/openthedebatespetition

Also, you can contact the CPD directly and ask for the debates to be open to all four candidates:

Commission on Presidential Debates
Janet Brown
Executive Director
email: jb@debates.org
Phone: (202) 872-1020

Also you can email:
media@debates.org


#16

Looks like the 18,000 signatures is now almost 100,000 signatures !


#17

That and the fact that third party candidates in the debates would shine a spotlight on just how wretched and gamed the two party scam really is. Can't have voices of reason at the podium... it would be untenable for the real bosses.


#18

The last time a third party candidate was in the debates was when Ross Perot faced off against Bill Clinton and George HW Bush. I think Perot did so well in the debates it probably scared the major parties away from including any more third party candidates. Perot's vice presidential pick however did not do very well. A military guy, he had to admit during the debate that he knew nothing about domestic issues. The one plus that I see in having only Trump and Clinton is that Trump has no experience in this type of arrangement with only two candidates and probably his ignorance on critical issues should be fully exposed. With four candidates Trump would have an easy time turning it into a circus as he did in the Republican primaries. Johnson was in the marijuana business. Trump would have had a field day with that. I guess with Stein he would have just called her a communist or something to that effect. Of course with Trump it is impossible to predict what he will say or how low he will sink.


#19

If you plan on voting for Hillary Clinton and you are sure that she is the best candidate, then you would have nothing to lose by signing the petition for Jill Stein to be included in the debates. Healthy competition can only serve the public's welfare. It was thanks to the abolitionist [third] party that the newly formed Lincoln's Republican Party ended slavery back in the day.

http://www.jill2016.com/openthedebatespetition


#20

Or from any number of other things.
But old age is the real killer.


#21

Who cares what Trump will say? A majority polled believe marijuana should be legalized (and taxed). Jill can more than handle Hillary or Trump.

It's actually less likely that Trump will look like the idiot he is... If there are others who can return Hillary's barbs. Hillary will spend her time obfuscating her record.


#22

Suppose for a moment that someone were to take the approach of defining their focus as being humanitarian issues which are fundamentally important, yet frequently overlooked by the mainstream. I think it's fair to say that this, to a large degree, describes the Green Party.

It would make sense to say that this group should have a certain political priority - the issues that they champion are, by definition, important, and likely to be overlooked if they do not receive priority. Mainstream humanitarian issues, by contrast, are far more likely to be accounted for regardless of who's in power, simply by virtue of the fact that they are mainstream. In fact, it may be an advantage to treat these mainstream humanitarian views as common sense, rather than to politicize them by treating them as something which favors Democrats and maligns Republicans - Democrats would have less incentive to armor policies with party-friendly agenda, and Republicans would be less likely to reject them on the grounds of political favoritism.

It's also likely that the group would independently arrive at views that are very similar to the core humanitarian beliefs prevalent in large but politically unpopular groups (so for example, a nation like Russia or a religion like Islam), by virtue of the fact that those kinds of views are prevalent enough to ensure that they're sustainable, but sufficiently excluded in US culture to represent a deficiency. The result is that the low polling numbers of the Green Party are not a result of lack of campaign infrastructure, or whatever the excuse, but are sustained primarily by bullshit (ie the Islamophobia and Russophobia which indirectly impacts the reach of the campaign). Thus the fact that the Greens are not in immediate contention for the presidency relies on the indefinite persistence of a non-neutral environment, assisted by an unbounded tolerance for imperialism. In a neutral environment, the disadvantages faced by a progressive group like the Greens would evaporate instantly, and we'd see that nothing would really hold the group back beyond the fact of it being held back (this isn't just hypothetical, this is exactly what happened during the Democratic primary).

Calling for open debates is just calling for the same rules for everybody. Maybe it's about time that the better parties get a chance.