Jill Stein arrested outside of debate

[jbauer]

There's nothing to be desired on Stein's platform, so I really have no pity.

Thats not the point, the point is she's trying to do what our guys are to big of p###ies to do. She's got the same chance of winning as GJ so I'm glad she and her supporters are standing up against the 2...er 1 party machine.

 

[Matthew5]

This thread is a great study resource for political science students. Interesting to see the varied reactions here. How far do we support free speech?

 

[fr33]

Don't be fooled. Jill Stein is very much a part of that machine and she is promoting the same globalist crap that the establishment at the top of the two major parties are pushing.

All one big happy traitorous family.

Obama supports Small Government compared to Jill Stein.

All I care about is that she didn't back down from the gang in blue. I don't care about her politics. She's a nobody.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

There is no excuse why candidates that are on the ballot should not be at the debates. Of course the desired solution of the establishment is to prevent the other candidates them from being on the ballot in the first place. It will come. Problem solved.

 

[cjm]

Was that Jimmy Fallon that yelled, "Stand tall ladies" at the end of the clip?

 

[specsaregood]

This thread is a great study resource for political science students. Interesting to see the varied reactions here. How far do we support free speech?

What does this thread have to do with free speech?

 

[Matthew5]

What does this thread have to do with free speech?

It's odd that some would lack sympathy or be ok with this due to her opposite political views.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2012/09/27/imagine-all-voters/

Jill Stein, "Imagine the US where homeowners are bailed out instead of bankers & the military is used 4 defense, not offense."

“To go into the voting booth & vote for either Wall-St-backed candidate, that is the definition of throwing away your vote”

 

[specsaregood]

It's odd that some would lack sympathy or be ok with this due to her opposite political views.

Meh, free speech doesn't mean you have the right to be part of a privately held debate/event or have a right to be broadcast over their channel.

There is nothing stopping 3rd party candidates from going out and getting sponsors and holding their own event....except demand.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Meh, free speech doesn't mean you have the right to be part of a privately held debate/event or have a right to be broadcast over their channel.

There is nothing stopping 3rd party candidates from going out and getting sponsors and holding their own event....except demand.

Didn't they already do that?

Getting access to nearly every major channel for 2 hours at the same time is a nice trick too. Methinks it's not an easy thing to do.

 

[Matthew5]

Does the CPD use sponser money to purchase air time on all of these channels? Or do the TV networks not charge because they consider it a news event?

 

[jbauer]

Meh, free speech doesn't mean you have the right to be part of a privately held debate/event or have a right to be broadcast over their channel.

There is nothing stopping 3rd party candidates from going out and getting sponsors and holding their own event....except demand.

That would be true in ever other thing except public politics. The monopoly the D's and R's have on the debate system makes it impossible to change.

 

[specsaregood]

Didn't they already do that?
Getting access to nearly every major channel for 2 hours at the same time is a nice trick too. Methinks it's not an easy thing to do.

so you want to dictate what coverage channels give? if the 3rd party people got sponsors, the networks would air it.

That would be true in ever other thing except public politics. The monopoly the D's and R's have on the debate system makes it impossible to change.

except the debates are privately funded by sponsors, not taxpayers.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

so you want to dictate what coverage channels give? if the 3rd party people got sponsors, the networks would air it.

Are you saying that someone is paying for two hours of broadcasting at standard rates on nearly every major channel at the same time?

The point is that someone is already dictating. It's a closed system. And no, I don't believe that they would give that time to third Parties even if they paid, at least not the time that is dedicated to the two Party farce.

 

[specsaregood]

Are you saying that someone is paying for two hours of broadcasting at standard rates on nearly every major channel at the same time?

Sure, the advertisers are paying for that time.

 

[opal]

How is it that the women were blocking traffic but that throng of blue wasn't?

 

[juleswin]

It's odd that some would lack sympathy or be ok with this due to her opposite political views.

I have read all the comments to the point where you made you comment about free speech and the majority of the posters were sympathetic to her course. So why focus on the 1 or 2 people that weren't sympathetic to her because of her politics?

Also this is not an issue of free speech, the govt is not the one deciding who gets to participate in the presidential elections. Personally, I think there should be a reasonable standard for inclusion into the debates. Dont exactly know what that standard is but you just cannot let everybody into the debates

 

[FrankRep]

This thread is a great study resource for political science students. Interesting to see the varied reactions here. How far do we support free speech?

Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) stipulated that candidates would only be invited to debate if they had a 15% support level across five national polls.

Jill Stein does not meet the qualification.

SOURCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

 

[DeMintConservative]

so you want to dictate what coverage channels give? if the 3rd party people got sponsors, the networks would air it.


except the debates are privately funded by sponsors, not taxpayers.

Exactly. Maybe I should start asking for for my own prime-time tv show and claim free-speech is jeopardized if I don't get it.


In the end, networks want ratings. Third party candidates nobody cares about don't give them ratings.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Exactly. Maybe I should start asking for for my own prime-time tv show and claim free-speech is jeopardized if I don't get it.


In the end, networks want ratings. Third party candidates nobody cares about don't give them ratings.

And in a lot of cases, no one cares about them because they get no media coverage.

It's a vicious circle and it keeps coming back to me, at least, that we really, really, need a friendly TV network.