General Music Chat

I'm going to spam post this thread to get it to page 2 so we don't have to wade throught this slop to stay in this discussion....

...

...

...

if elected president i will sentence all spammers to a minimum of 20 yrs hard labor.

Anyway, Kramer, I admit to not watching the video. I'm running late this morning. Perhaps my question was addressed in it.

'Who, what, where, why and how' decides who gets into the national candidate election process?

Well, they did address Election reform. If you are asking how it's done today, well that's a long story, and disheartening, as our entire election system favors money and special interests.

The great thing about this debate is that it's 4 independents, 2 are liberals and 2 are conservatives. The Green party, Justice Party, Libertarian Party, and I forgot the last one.. but it's a really great debate where you see how much we are all (independents) alike when the stupid wedge issues are cast aside and real progress is discussed.

Not that they all agreed on everything. In fact, there was plenty of disagreement, but it was good debate, not snarky quips and lies and verbal attacks like the national R vs D debates, it was actual debate.

It's worth watching, I hope you do see it.

I have stood behind the green party - Jill Stein all this time, and I DO strongly believe in the green party platform, but after this debate, I'm actually swaying towards a different candidate now, and if he's on the ballot, he's going to get my vote, otherwise Jill IS on the ballot here, and she will be the runner-up choice.

if elected president i will sentence all spammers to a minimum of 20 yrs hard labor.

I will sentence them to a pineapple up the ass once a day on top of that.

Vote for the "Guy" Ticket!

w a platform like that....how can we lose?

Kramer, my question was not how things got this way, but who should decide, and why and when and where and how does this group decide who gets on a ballot and gets into debates at the national level?

A certain number of signatures in every state? A percentage of write-in votes in every election cycle and a certain percentage counted towards entrance? Buy their way in? (I jest)

Each state has their own laws, and they should. It is the United States of America, not the United Federal Government of America.

I know much of what has been posted on this thread is for humors sake, but it still is telling people want politicians to make laws to control everything at national levels. THAT is how we got into the mess we are in.

I honestly dont see any difference between state and federal government.

Either way, you have a government body telling you what you can and can't do. Either way, the same corruptions and scandals exist.

I do believe there are issues that need federal laws, such as environmental.

Let's say state "A" allows toxic dumping without regulation of any kind, and state "B" next to it doesn't ... what happens when a company dumps a huge amount of radioactive waste 1 mile from the border and now an entire city in state "B" is suffering total contamination including thousands of deaths, cancers, birth defects, etc.?

Well, no legal recourse. Of COURSE that's what corporations want.. a state - ANY state that they can take over and control the entire electorate. Same with election laws.. if governed by the state, well.. they can just change those laws via bought-out state lawmakers.

I think the big deception here is that somehow reducing the federal government size and giving powers to the states will make 'government' smaller. It won't, it will just make government more confusing and when states make all the laws, now you have 50 different laws for every one federal law, and sh*t will no doubt slide under the radar and our slide into fascism will only accelerate.

To answer your question, I'm not sure if you are asking how it is now or asking what are the candidates proposing?

You made it clear that you are not asking how we got here, but the rest still remains vague.

As far as solutions, I think the candidates had good ideas- mostly revolving around term limits for congress, public funding for elections, guaranteed equal airtime for candidates, etc.

As far as how it is now- my belief is that candidates have to get a certain amount of signatures to get on the ballot. The number of signatures depends on each individual state, every state is different.

How many votes a party's candidate gets in the general election affects whether or not they can participate in the debates of next presidential election. It goes by percentage, I think maybe 10 or 15%? I don't know, but I bet it wouldn't be hard to look up.

I don't disagree with getting X amount of signatures to be on the ballot, but I do disagree about the debates- anyone who can get on the ballot should be able to participate.

And the primary elections and debates? Forget it- Remember Kucinich was running for prez (trying to) in 2008? In las vegas, he was refused entry to the primary debates with obama, clinton, etc.. A court told them it was an affront to liberty and ruled they couldn't refuse to let him participate, citing fairness and election laws. Within hours, a higher judge ruled that yes they can, without citing any such law.

The powers that be only wanted "their" candidates in the primaries, and general elections. That incident garnered almost NO media attention, and none of the candidates on either side of the table (R or D) spoke out against it.