Originally Posted by hippie_hunter
Explain what? That third parties will never be viable in this country. Because I've thoroughly explained it to you already and yet you keep thinking that some pointless debate commission is the problem as opposed to the electoral system itself.
What's there to explain? A Republican and Democrat run the Commission. Most people are Republicans or Democrats. Even though I lean libertarian, I'm still a registered Republican. And it would be better to have people who have experience with campaigns and the executive branch because they know the protocol involving debates.
And Paul Kirk is right, third party candidates should be excluded from the debates. When you register less than 1% in the polls, you're not worth the time and effort. There's also the simple fact that debates really don't matter at all. Obama was slightly leading in the polls before the debates and guess what? He won the election slightly. Kennedy was leading over Nixon before the infamous Kennedy/Nixon debate; and guess what? Kennedy won! The 15% threshold is very fair, it shows that you have an impact on the election and that a significant amount of people are considering you.
And Ron Paul kinda drowning him out.
I think it depends on the field of candidates in 2016. If we get the jokers that we got in 2008, then I think that Rand Paul would have a very good chance of winning the nomination. He's a good candidate, much more politically savvy than his father, and has the grassroots support. Right now Paul just appeals to the libertarian base of the Republican Party, but he has a lot of potential to go beyond that, something his father never could do.
But if the AAA Republicans decide to run in 2016 like Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and Jeb Bush, Paul will have a harder time. They have appeal to multiple bases of the party and the Super PACs like American Crossroads are going to pour their money into a candidate that is more likely guaranteed to win the general election.
The reason why we haven't had a libertarian President, because overall, America isn't a libertarian country. It's mostly a center/conservative one. When libertarians like Ron Paul start talking **** against entitlements and our foreign policy, people don't like it.
So? They have the right to complain about the practices of the Commission, doesn't mean that their opinion has any intelligence to it. Even if third parties were admitted to the debates (which they shouldn't), it still wouldn't change a damn thing. Your point has no meaning to it.
So, let me ask this. If or when the country has a monetary collapse, are people still going to keep voting for the two parties that caused a monetary collapse? No party wants to cut spending in D.C. They just want to reduce the amount of spending, no real cuts. Our dollar is horrible right now.
Also, both parties are idiotic.