Welcome to Gaia! ::

The_Enigmatic_SEF's avatar

Invisible Pieslinger

13,650 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Way Too Many Pies 300
I think it is a shame they aren't even allowed in the debates.
I'm upset that our US elections are basically controlled by the media at this point. Upset and ashamed.
The_Enigmatic_SEF
I think it is a shame they aren't even allowed in the debates.
I'm upset that our US elections are basically controlled by the media at this point. Upset and ashamed.
Indeed, what happened to Democracy? How can we have a democracy when other view points aren't even allowed to debate in something that is supposed to be "national". I think the elections should be held like survivor. We vote for the people we DON'T want to get rid of them. A third party would win so quickly because the left and right wing would take itself out quickly.
The_Enigmatic_SEF's avatar

Invisible Pieslinger

13,650 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Way Too Many Pies 300
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
I think it is a shame they aren't even allowed in the debates.
I'm upset that our US elections are basically controlled by the media at this point. Upset and ashamed.
Indeed, what happened to Democracy? How can we have a democracy when other view points aren't even allowed to debate in something that is supposed to be "national". I think the elections should be held like survivor. We vote for the people we DON'T want to get rid of them. A third party would win so quickly because the left and right wing would take itself out quickly.
Technically that would always be true if there were three parties.
I think we are told the lie of two party government to keep us complacent. I think they just want to stay in power as long as possible, so they have gotten into bed with each other to play at being antagonistic. They have completely forgotten that the government was set up to take care of the problems of the people, not to be a problem in and of itself.
In a way we should thank the two parties. They have shown us that two party systems can be as corrupts and useless as the many multiple party systems in other countries.
The_Enigmatic_SEF
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
I think it is a shame they aren't even allowed in the debates.
I'm upset that our US elections are basically controlled by the media at this point. Upset and ashamed.
Indeed, what happened to Democracy? How can we have a democracy when other view points aren't even allowed to debate in something that is supposed to be "national". I think the elections should be held like survivor. We vote for the people we DON'T want to get rid of them. A third party would win so quickly because the left and right wing would take itself out quickly.
Technically that would always be true if there were three parties.
I think we are told the lie of two party government to keep us complacent. I think they just want to stay in power as long as possible, so they have gotten into bed with each other to play at being antagonistic. They have completely forgotten that the government was set up to take care of the problems of the people, not to be a problem in and of itself.
In a way we should thank the two parties. They have shown us that two party systems can be as corrupts and useless as the many multiple party systems in other countries.
What do you believe in?
The_Enigmatic_SEF's avatar

Invisible Pieslinger

13,650 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Way Too Many Pies 300
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
I think it is a shame they aren't even allowed in the debates.
I'm upset that our US elections are basically controlled by the media at this point. Upset and ashamed.
Indeed, what happened to Democracy? How can we have a democracy when other view points aren't even allowed to debate in something that is supposed to be "national". I think the elections should be held like survivor. We vote for the people we DON'T want to get rid of them. A third party would win so quickly because the left and right wing would take itself out quickly.
Technically that would always be true if there were three parties.
I think we are told the lie of two party government to keep us complacent. I think they just want to stay in power as long as possible, so they have gotten into bed with each other to play at being antagonistic. They have completely forgotten that the government was set up to take care of the problems of the people, not to be a problem in and of itself.
In a way we should thank the two parties. They have shown us that two party systems can be as corrupts and useless as the many multiple party systems in other countries.
What do you believe in?
My life philosophy and religion are both complicated enough that I could talk about either for days.
The Very Shortest answers:
Political Stance: Libertarian (fiscally conservative socially liberal)
Life Philosophy: Christian and Taoist
Religion: Gnostic Christian. (look them up on the internet, then ask questions)
The_Enigmatic_SEF
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
I think it is a shame they aren't even allowed in the debates.
I'm upset that our US elections are basically controlled by the media at this point. Upset and ashamed.
Indeed, what happened to Democracy? How can we have a democracy when other view points aren't even allowed to debate in something that is supposed to be "national". I think the elections should be held like survivor. We vote for the people we DON'T want to get rid of them. A third party would win so quickly because the left and right wing would take itself out quickly.
Technically that would always be true if there were three parties.
I think we are told the lie of two party government to keep us complacent. I think they just want to stay in power as long as possible, so they have gotten into bed with each other to play at being antagonistic. They have completely forgotten that the government was set up to take care of the problems of the people, not to be a problem in and of itself.
In a way we should thank the two parties. They have shown us that two party systems can be as corrupts and useless as the many multiple party systems in other countries.
What do you believe in?
My life philosophy and religion are both complicated enough that I could talk about either for days.
The Very Shortest answers:
Political Stance: Libertarian (fiscally conservative socially liberal)
Life Philosophy: Christian and Taoist
Religion: Gnostic Christian. (look them up on the internet, then ask questions)
I know what a Gnostic Christian is haha.
The_Enigmatic_SEF's avatar

Invisible Pieslinger

13,650 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Way Too Many Pies 300
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
I think it is a shame they aren't even allowed in the debates.
I'm upset that our US elections are basically controlled by the media at this point. Upset and ashamed.
Indeed, what happened to Democracy? How can we have a democracy when other view points aren't even allowed to debate in something that is supposed to be "national". I think the elections should be held like survivor. We vote for the people we DON'T want to get rid of them. A third party would win so quickly because the left and right wing would take itself out quickly.
Technically that would always be true if there were three parties.
I think we are told the lie of two party government to keep us complacent. I think they just want to stay in power as long as possible, so they have gotten into bed with each other to play at being antagonistic. They have completely forgotten that the government was set up to take care of the problems of the people, not to be a problem in and of itself.
In a way we should thank the two parties. They have shown us that two party systems can be as corrupts and useless as the many multiple party systems in other countries.
What do you believe in?
My life philosophy and religion are both complicated enough that I could talk about either for days.
The Very Shortest answers:
Political Stance: Libertarian (fiscally conservative socially liberal)
Life Philosophy: Christian and Taoist
Religion: Gnostic Christian. (look them up on the internet, then ask questions)
I know what a Gnostic Christian is haha.
O _____ O Usually I have to explain it six ways from Sunday. Color Me Surprised.
The_Enigmatic_SEF
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
Technically that would always be true if there were three parties.
I think we are told the lie of two party government to keep us complacent. I think they just want to stay in power as long as possible, so they have gotten into bed with each other to play at being antagonistic. They have completely forgotten that the government was set up to take care of the problems of the people, not to be a problem in and of itself.
In a way we should thank the two parties. They have shown us that two party systems can be as corrupts and useless as the many multiple party systems in other countries.
What do you believe in?
My life philosophy and religion are both complicated enough that I could talk about either for days.
The Very Shortest answers:
Political Stance: Libertarian (fiscally conservative socially liberal)
Life Philosophy: Christian and Taoist
Religion: Gnostic Christian. (look them up on the internet, then ask questions)
I know what a Gnostic Christian is haha.
O _____ O Usually I have to explain it six ways from Sunday. Color Me Surprised.
Well I actually appreciate gnostic Christians, I've been through it as well as a "Natsarim" as well as Sacred Namer. It's good stuff to seek knowledge and truth always. ^^ I always found the main point Yahusha, Jesus, Isa, however you call him was trying to teach us love as well as worshiping our creator alone.
The_Enigmatic_SEF's avatar

Invisible Pieslinger

13,650 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Way Too Many Pies 300
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
YahuShalum
The_Enigmatic_SEF
Technically that would always be true if there were three parties.
I think we are told the lie of two party government to keep us complacent. I think they just want to stay in power as long as possible, so they have gotten into bed with each other to play at being antagonistic. They have completely forgotten that the government was set up to take care of the problems of the people, not to be a problem in and of itself.
In a way we should thank the two parties. They have shown us that two party systems can be as corrupts and useless as the many multiple party systems in other countries.
What do you believe in?
My life philosophy and religion are both complicated enough that I could talk about either for days.
The Very Shortest answers:
Political Stance: Libertarian (fiscally conservative socially liberal)
Life Philosophy: Christian and Taoist
Religion: Gnostic Christian. (look them up on the internet, then ask questions)
I know what a Gnostic Christian is haha.
O _____ O Usually I have to explain it six ways from Sunday. Color Me Surprised.
Well I actually appreciate gnostic Christians, I've been through it as well as a "Natsarim" as well as Sacred Namer. It's good stuff to seek knowledge and truth always. ^^ I always found the main point Yahusha, Jesus, Isa, however you call him was trying to teach us love as well as worshiping our creator alone.
I'm glad to meet with someone who has an open mind.
It is a weakness of mine that I can't understand other Christians pointed dislike of Knowledge. I know it stems from the story of the garden, but Adam and Eve sinned because they disobeyed God's will, Not because they gained knowledge. Its not the tool, it is how the tool is used.
Then again, Not everything is for me to know.
Prince Ikari 's avatar

Conservative Cat

The_Enigmatic_SEF
I think it is a shame they aren't even allowed in the debates.
I'm upset that our US elections are basically controlled by the media at this point. Upset and ashamed.

The question is though why are we going to waste time allowing candidates who do not have any money or a sliver of a chance of winning precious air-time? If you've ever watched the primaries it is hard to get in any real questions and answers when you have multiple candidates on stage. Johnson and Stein will probably not even break 1% of the vote, or maybe 1% combined. You actually have to poll decently to be included in the debates. Giving a candidate that will likely get 0.4% or 0.5% of the vote 30 or so minutes in a debate that could be given to a candidate with a good shot to me is useless. Most voters have made up their minds before the two main candidates debate anyways, so even having other candidates in the debate would not sway voters opinions, and debating would be hard since third party candidates are fringe candidates that no one, not even the main candidates know about. And neither the Greens or Libertarians hold any real offices so neither party has any record that could determine how they would govern. Why bother letting them debate when their party holds no elected offices in the United States? Party registrations for those do not even add up but to a few thousand. Not too mention most Americans are either conservatives, moderates, or liberals, not libertarians or socialists.
But I do agree that the media has too much control in the elections. But as far as I am concerned the media in the United States with the exception of a few outlets has become another wing of the Democratic Party, not a source for fair and balanced news.
Mayor Gravity's avatar

Questionable Borg

Prince Ikari
The_Enigmatic_SEF
I think it is a shame they aren't even allowed in the debates.
I'm upset that our US elections are basically controlled by the media at this point. Upset and ashamed.

The question is though why are we going to waste time allowing candidates who do not have any money or a sliver of a chance of winning precious air-time? If you've ever watched the primaries it is hard to get in any real questions and answers when you have multiple candidates on stage. Johnson and Stein will probably not even break 1% of the vote, or maybe 1% combined. You actually have to poll decently to be included in the debates. Giving a candidate that will likely get 0.4% or 0.5% of the vote 30 or so minutes in a debate that could be given to a candidate with a good shot to me is useless. Most voters have made up their minds before the two main candidates debate anyways, so even having other candidates in the debate would not sway voters opinions, and debating would be hard since third party candidates are fringe candidates that no one, not even the main candidates know about. And neither the Greens or Libertarians hold any real offices so neither party has any record that could determine how they would govern. Why bother letting them debate when their party holds no elected offices in the United States? Party registrations for those do not even add up but to a few thousand. Not too mention most Americans are either conservatives, moderates, or liberals, not libertarians or socialists.
But I do agree that the media has too much control in the elections. But as far as I am concerned the media in the United States with the exception of a few outlets has become another wing of the Democratic Party, not a source for fair and balanced news.
But if we allowed the other parties to have air time, this country might be in better shape.
Prince Ikari
The_Enigmatic_SEF
I think it is a shame they aren't even allowed in the debates.
I'm upset that our US elections are basically controlled by the media at this point. Upset and ashamed.

The question is though why are we going to waste time allowing candidates who do not have any money or a sliver of a chance of winning precious air-time? If you've ever watched the primaries it is hard to get in any real questions and answers when you have multiple candidates on stage. Johnson and Stein will probably not even break 1% of the vote, or maybe 1% combined. You actually have to poll decently to be included in the debates. Giving a candidate that will likely get 0.4% or 0.5% of the vote 30 or so minutes in a debate that could be given to a candidate with a good shot to me is useless. Most voters have made up their minds before the two main candidates debate anyways, so even having other candidates in the debate would not sway voters opinions, and debating would be hard since third party candidates are fringe candidates that no one, not even the main candidates know about. And neither the Greens or Libertarians hold any real offices so neither party has any record that could determine how they would govern. Why bother letting them debate when their party holds no elected offices in the United States? Party registrations for those do not even add up but to a few thousand. Not too mention most Americans are either conservatives, moderates, or liberals, not libertarians or socialists.
But I do agree that the media has too much control in the elections. But as far as I am concerned the media in the United States with the exception of a few outlets has become another wing of the Democratic Party, not a source for fair and balanced news.
You're as bad as Romney with your lies. Ron Paul for example was polling far ahead of Romney in many states (He gained many delegates until you scandalous party changed the rules last minute, I wonder what they were afraid of). 1%? Really now, where did you get that? The other candidates don't know about them? Johnson and Paul debated with Romney and they fear the third party thus the msm shut out. The msm is a private industry and extremely biased supporting the left right paradigm. If you think this country is headed in the right direction vote for Romney or Obama. Both parties have failed us with wars and over spending while keeping you set on voting for them with their cult of personality. If you believe the country is headed in a wrong direction you better choose someone outside of the game. Obama = Bush Romney= Obama same turd wrapped in a different wrapper.
Prince Ikari 's avatar

Conservative Cat

Mayor Gravity
Prince Ikari
The_Enigmatic_SEF
I think it is a shame they aren't even allowed in the debates.
I'm upset that our US elections are basically controlled by the media at this point. Upset and ashamed.

The question is though why are we going to waste time allowing candidates who do not have any money or a sliver of a chance of winning precious air-time? If you've ever watched the primaries it is hard to get in any real questions and answers when you have multiple candidates on stage. Johnson and Stein will probably not even break 1% of the vote, or maybe 1% combined. You actually have to poll decently to be included in the debates. Giving a candidate that will likely get 0.4% or 0.5% of the vote 30 or so minutes in a debate that could be given to a candidate with a good shot to me is useless. Most voters have made up their minds before the two main candidates debate anyways, so even having other candidates in the debate would not sway voters opinions, and debating would be hard since third party candidates are fringe candidates that no one, not even the main candidates know about. And neither the Greens or Libertarians hold any real offices so neither party has any record that could determine how they would govern. Why bother letting them debate when their party holds no elected offices in the United States? Party registrations for those do not even add up but to a few thousand. Not too mention most Americans are either conservatives, moderates, or liberals, not libertarians or socialists.
But I do agree that the media has too much control in the elections. But as far as I am concerned the media in the United States with the exception of a few outlets has become another wing of the Democratic Party, not a source for fair and balanced news.
But if we allowed the other parties to have air time, this country might be in better shape.

The other parties could do no better. I could never see a Libertarian or Green actually winning an election. Libertarians like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson tried running in the Republican Party, but were doomed from the start because typically Libertarians are fiscally conservative but really liberal on social issues, and the Republicans are a party of strong fiscal and social conservatives. Their philosophies are not accepted as a viable form of governance. Same with the social democracy and progressivism of the Greens. Sure the two main parties screw up but we have had both good and bad times with them running the show. The two-party system has been around for more than 240 years and most Americans accept that at this point.
Mayor Gravity's avatar

Questionable Borg

Prince Ikari
Mayor Gravity
Prince Ikari
The_Enigmatic_SEF
I think it is a shame they aren't even allowed in the debates.
I'm upset that our US elections are basically controlled by the media at this point. Upset and ashamed.

The question is though why are we going to waste time allowing candidates who do not have any money or a sliver of a chance of winning precious air-time? If you've ever watched the primaries it is hard to get in any real questions and answers when you have multiple candidates on stage. Johnson and Stein will probably not even break 1% of the vote, or maybe 1% combined. You actually have to poll decently to be included in the debates. Giving a candidate that will likely get 0.4% or 0.5% of the vote 30 or so minutes in a debate that could be given to a candidate with a good shot to me is useless. Most voters have made up their minds before the two main candidates debate anyways, so even having other candidates in the debate would not sway voters opinions, and debating would be hard since third party candidates are fringe candidates that no one, not even the main candidates know about. And neither the Greens or Libertarians hold any real offices so neither party has any record that could determine how they would govern. Why bother letting them debate when their party holds no elected offices in the United States? Party registrations for those do not even add up but to a few thousand. Not too mention most Americans are either conservatives, moderates, or liberals, not libertarians or socialists.
But I do agree that the media has too much control in the elections. But as far as I am concerned the media in the United States with the exception of a few outlets has become another wing of the Democratic Party, not a source for fair and balanced news.
But if we allowed the other parties to have air time, this country might be in better shape.

The other parties could do no better. I could never see a Libertarian or Green actually winning an election. Libertarians like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson tried running in the Republican Party, but were doomed from the start because typically Libertarians are fiscally conservative but really liberal on social issues, and the Republicans are a party of strong fiscal and social conservatives. Their philosophies are not accepted as a viable form of governance. Same with the social democracy and progressivism of the Greens. Sure the two main parties screw up but we have had both good and bad times with them running the show. The two-party system has been around for more than 240 years and most Americans accept that at this point.
I understand that, but my point is, we don't just have 2 parties anymore (not that we ever did). The other parties, even if the chance of winning is slim, deserve air time.
Prince Ikari
Mayor Gravity
Prince Ikari
The_Enigmatic_SEF
I think it is a shame they aren't even allowed in the debates.
I'm upset that our US elections are basically controlled by the media at this point. Upset and ashamed.

The question is though why are we going to waste time allowing candidates who do not have any money or a sliver of a chance of winning precious air-time? If you've ever watched the primaries it is hard to get in any real questions and answers when you have multiple candidates on stage. Johnson and Stein will probably not even break 1% of the vote, or maybe 1% combined. You actually have to poll decently to be included in the debates. Giving a candidate that will likely get 0.4% or 0.5% of the vote 30 or so minutes in a debate that could be given to a candidate with a good shot to me is useless. Most voters have made up their minds before the two main candidates debate anyways, so even having other candidates in the debate would not sway voters opinions, and debating would be hard since third party candidates are fringe candidates that no one, not even the main candidates know about. And neither the Greens or Libertarians hold any real offices so neither party has any record that could determine how they would govern. Why bother letting them debate when their party holds no elected offices in the United States? Party registrations for those do not even add up but to a few thousand. Not too mention most Americans are either conservatives, moderates, or liberals, not libertarians or socialists.
But I do agree that the media has too much control in the elections. But as far as I am concerned the media in the United States with the exception of a few outlets has become another wing of the Democratic Party, not a source for fair and balanced news.
But if we allowed the other parties to have air time, this country might be in better shape.

The other parties could do no better. I could never see a Libertarian or Green actually winning an election. Libertarians like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson tried running in the Republican Party, but were doomed from the start because typically Libertarians are fiscally conservative but really liberal on social issues, and the Republicans are a party of strong fiscal and social conservatives. Their philosophies are not accepted as a viable form of governance. Same with the social democracy and progressivism of the Greens. Sure the two main parties screw up but we have had both good and bad times with them running the show. The two-party system has been around for more than 240 years and most Americans accept that at this point.
Well since you're a Romney supporter tell me what his plan is to create jobs please.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games