This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
A candidate for President of the United States was arrested at the debates, and It didn't make headlines?
The Green Party Candidate, Jill Stein, on the ballot in 85% of states, along with her Vice Presidential Candidate Cheri Honkala, were arrested for protesting being left out of the the last presidential debate. Don't worry though... This isn't news... No one needs to know about this.
"We were held at a facility, especially created for detaining protesters at the debates. It appeared to be a warehouse which had been specially equipped. It was obviously-you know, they were prepared to handle a lot of people. They had 13 officers there and three plainclothesmen. For most of the time, it was just Cheri Honkala and myself, yet they felt the need to keep us in tight plastic restraints, tightly secured to metal chairs."
So who is Jill Stein... and why are people afraid of her? Well, basically, she's the lefts answer to Gary Johnson. She's against the war on drugs, and against the use of drones... I'm starting to notice a pattern here... Every candidate that doesn't have the backing of one of the two major parties, is against the war on drugs, and flying killer robots. It's almost as though sane, rational Americans, who don't follow party lines, might be against the war on drugs, and flying killer robots.
Don't worry though, you won't have to hear any of what she has to say on the main stream news... Just as you didn't hear anything about Ron Paul... Or Gary Johnson. The two candidates we have, are both so stellar, there couldn't possibly be a need for any other voice on the stage.
I personally think we should allow third party and fourth party candidates on the stage... I think it's much simpler to agree however, that this woman did not present a threat to the two candidates, and there was no reason to detain her. What do you think?
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/jill-stein-arrested-at-debate-13835324
Larry King moderates the third party candidate debate online soon... I call it the sane people debate.
Closing Statement from David Hamilton
I meant for this to be a one month debate, but oh well... To Edward, Stein was not eliminated... She ran in a political party not run by sociopaths. It is a noble decision. Her protest was sitting in the street with an American flag, possibly blocking traffic. I salute her for caring about her country. The Green, and Libertarian candidates, as well as the new Justice party candidate would be on the stage if this election were not rigged, to force us into voting for one sociopath, over another. The Onion breaks it down quite simply... http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-tunes-in-to-see-which-sociopath-more-likabl,29946/
Gail . 50+
Salim Solaiman 50+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
UPI said they were sitting blocking traffic.
Somewhere I saw that the requirement for participating in the debate is that you have a certain percentage of the likely vote.
I am not remembering- when John Anderson was the third part candidate, was he in the debates?
I looked it up. (No one is probably surprised). John Anderson qualified for the Fall presidential debate on the basis of having a projected 15% of the vote or higher. This made Carter choose to sit out the debate, so Anderson debated only with Reagan.
Andres Aullet 10+
We should not be too surprised. Presidential campaigns are much less an exposition of the candidates proposals for the next four years, as they are marketing campaigns to sell us one over the other.
Don't think so? well, how about not allowing commercial tv or radio spots then? let the candidates publish their proposals online and open for everybody to dissect. Why do they need to use marketing techniques to drill preferences in the electorate?
And like any other marketing campaigns, their whole point is not to discuss what are the similarities between, but only bring up their minute differences and pretend that those are the most important issues, and use those to divide public opinion and collect votes.
If they allowed a third candidate in the debate who proposed eliminating the drone domestic surveillance program, them both Obama and Romney would be forced to discuss openly, in prime time tv, that they both support domestic surveillance using drones and why.
And that makes for pretty bad publicity.
Barry Palmer 50+
They are also being rude and stupid. If that continues the other parties will become more popular. The USA electorate tends to punish rudeness and likes to think that their president has some smarts.
Rick Ryan 10+
Like Edward said, by this time in any Presidential campaign, it has pretty much been narrowed down to who the probable candidates are who could win. Allowing 100 other candidates on the stage would not solve any problem. It would just create chaos.
Like David said, Stein is on 85% of the state's ballots. If enough people want to vote for her, she can still get elected. But it's not likely that will happen. Ask Perrot how that works, even as the "third party" candidate who was the most visible candidate on a nationwide Presidential ballot.
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+