Yes, a debate about why America is mad on war and how it effects Main Street America. Talk about the elephant in the room that is using up all the oxygen.
Hey Richard Eskow, you want that stuff brought up in the debate, you want real issues? Then include at least the other two legitimate candidates also running for the office. Amazing, your whole screed and not one mention of Stein or Johnson. The best thing the debates could offer the American public is some attempt to expose truth, instead this will be an exposé of lies through omission, misrepresentation, and show biz.
The corporations and their media know that Johnson may and Stein would bring up issues that would turn the debate into a "real people's debate", addressing issues of consequence with discussion that would shine the light on corporate control of government, the last thing they want to see.
The people who tune into tonight's debate don't want to hear a debate about issues.
They want to see a food fight.
And we have the perfect candidates to make that happen.
The lunatic Donald Trump and the sick, old, corrupt, neoliberal, Capitalist beholden to every criminal corporation.
Clinton is corrupt.
Trump is an idiot.
Stein makes sense.
Both Clinton and Trump as president would be guided in their essential decisions by their "advisors", which would really be their controllers.
These controllers (such as The Bilderberg and The Council on Foreign Relations) are the same people serving both R and D under our one-party, two-faced system.
So it doesn't make any substantial difference which of these two is elected. The oligarchy wins in either case.
Thus if a vote for Stein rather than Clinton is really a vote for Trump, that's the path to take, since it will help build the Green Party for victory at the polls in the future.
And since R and D will both have the same controllers, voting Green (and not winning, which is probable) will have little or no effect on the quality of the nation's governance.
A Green Party Vote is a Wasted Vote
I voted for Ralph Nader in 1996 & 2000. After 20 years of running
candidates for US President/Vice-President the Green Party has been an
abysmal failure. Don’t waste your vote like I did.
1996 - Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke 0.71%
2000 - Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke 2.74%
2004 - David Cobb/Pat LaMarche 0.10%
2008 - Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente 0.12%
2012 - Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala 0.36%
2016 - Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka ?
AlisonHedges is either a realtor with nothing to sell or Hillary with a mask on. Also with nothing that anyone wants to buy.
By your logic, any losing vote is a wasted vote. So we should base our voting preference on who is most likely to win?
Are you suggesting that one's vote only wasted unless one votes for the candidate wins?
As an engineer who works on challenging problems, I am confronted, daily, by efforts that do not succeed. Success comes, not through only banking on the sure deals, but through persistent effort. I do not vote for progressives because I feel assured that they will win, but as part (a small part) of efforts to organize alternatives to the power structure.
Why is permanent war not worthy of being listed in this article? Why does no one in the mainstream suggest we deal with it as a large, large issue? It relates to all the other issues, doesn't it? How can war not be a focal issue?
Try, try again and all that. But as an engineer don't you think 20 years of failed experiments means it's time for a new strategy? The Green Party is a failed experiment. Time to try something new.
Both the Democratic and Republican Party's are failed experiments, but unfortunately we still have far too many people propping them up by voting for their ridiculous candidates.
People have been working for social justice in this continent for over 500
years. 20 years is not so long. A more 'scientific' approach is to
consider the performance of Greens in particular, and progressive parties
in general, throughout the world and at other moments in history.
I am not suggesting that the Green Party is the only alternative ever just
that it's the best at this moment of time.
Sure, that's what the big money does.
In the run-up to the 2006 mid-term election where by the way, whatever scales were left fell from my eyes, on a hunch I did some digging and found several well-documented reports that showed that the big money - aka, the oligarchy - were for the first time in over 15yrs giving more to Democratic candidates. Conservative political professionals by the score became overnight Democrats, and voila! the blue-dog kennel set up shop in the halls of Congress. Happened in my US House district; a one-termer, and the astute electorate of my district threw him out and opted for the real tea-party article next time around - Bill Johnson.
The lesson for me was clear. Even when the electorate tries to do the right thing (the 2006 mid-terms were a referendum against the Bush Administration) it won't get what it wanted.
The debate or whatever you want to call it will come down to zingers and post-debate spin because of cable news. With an entertainer running for president the TV ratings should be very high. Trump will probably bring his best comedy act since when it comes to substance he always gets an F. Can he be distracting for 90 minutes or will reality finally catch up with him?
It's not a "debate" without Stein and Johnson on the stage. Both "3rd Party" candidates plan on being there but are likely going to be arrested. They're asking for people to be there with them to engage in peaceful civil disobedience.
Already have a residence, thanks.
Well, I applaud the call for debate. But it cannot happen when the candidates who are willing to discuss issues are eliminated from the debate.
---Will Cock-a-doodle best Pandered-poodle?