An interesting 5 minute video on why we don't ever see any other parties in the debates.
 

This is why you won't see Gary Johnson, or any other party candidate, in the debates....



Can you say rigged? The two parties have locked out any competition up to this point, but perhaps that will change soon....







.:2 cents:

...and BTW, did anyone else notice how many times the moderator had to say, "Ok, so you have shown that there are clear differences between you, right?". It was like he was begging them to not let the American people realize that there is very little choice between those two....





.

Pretty interesting, thanks.

.

that was a very interesting video and very informative.

side note: as I watched it I was I thought to myself that it is a shame that local fox news affiliates sometimes get painted with the same brush as their big brother in new york

that was a very good report

People are becoming so blinded by "our side" vrs "their side", that reports like this don't get paid any attention.... Even here on this board.




:(




.

bookmarked

That was very interesting, It was like a moderator at a high school debate. In Canada there are at least three parties so the candidates have to put forth different ideas so they can be unique. The moderator tried hard to differentiate the two point of views that were very similar

exactly!!






:(.

Same here Fox Philly is the best fucking news in the city most indepth and balanced and has nothing to do with fox regular news, how does that work? I never understood, abc nbc etc are just like and run by their big bros but fox is a franchise or something and anyone can license the name locally or something? It is very very different than the Fox news on cable.

I think that what is more interesting is that it came from a Fox news channel. Fox as a voice of reason?

More people are starting to realize what they are fed and being told is steak, is actually shit.

I'm going to watch the video now, but rhetorically, how would a 3rd party candidate get anything done when the rest of the government is still split into 2 parties?

The 3rd party candidate would likely lean right and caucus with the Republicans, or lean left and caucus with the Democrats, no?

Not the Libertarian party. On the fiscal side he would probably side more with Republicans, and on social/war issues, more with Democrats.



.:2 cents:

That's the local Fox affiliate here in Cincy, he has always done some great vids just like this if you are hungry for more. http://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^6

A 3rd party guy would be able to do more than Obama has in the last 4 years. That's the Democrat talking point...they can't do ANYTHING because of the Republicans.

So a Libertarian president would fare no worse than a Democrat by that logic.

And I'd MUCH rather have a Libertarian than either a Dem or Repub

thank you for posting this :)

That's outrageous. How can anybody get 15% in the polls if nobody ever gets to see or hear them?

Just another reason to vote for Gary Johnson and stop voting for Dems and Republicans

There is always the green party! plenty of room under their tent :P

http://www.jillstein.org/

A strong Libertarian in the race can keep the other two parties off balance as the video suggested. When neither side has a majority because of a third party, that third party wields a lot of power, Thats why the Dems and the Reps want to keep third parties out, they want to make the indys think they have no other real choice, thats why you get the imbeciles that say a Libertarian vote is a wasted vote, the Dems and the Reps WANT you to believe that so both parties perpetuate it

That is totally false.

He had a very successful term. He CHOSE not to run for a second term because he said the media hounded his family. He had a surplus in the budget and was very popular as governor. Of course the media hated him (surprise).

But NO...he did not "fail" to get a second term. He chose not to run.

"After a trade mission to China in 2002, he announced that he would not run for a second term, stating that he no longer felt dedicated enough to his job to run again as well as what he viewed were constant attacks on his family by the media.Ventura accused the media of hounding him and his family for personal behavior and belief while neglecting coverage of important policy issues. Ventura later told a reporter for The Boston Globe that he would have run for a second term if he had been single, citing the media's effect on his family life."

Personally I have had my fill of "true politicians". Our system was set up for people to go represent their communities for a time, then go back and live their lives under the rules that they had created for everyone, not to be "true politicians" that spend their whole career in government and make rules for everyone else that don't apply to them.


I think we need to have strict term limits and start getting the "true politicians" out of the game altogether.




.

Actually, it was his 4 terms that prolonged the great depression, and in fact made it "great", (with things like the NRA), and war did not get us out of it, per se, becoming the only developed country with an unimpaired industrial infrastructure, and therefore the largest exporter of goods, did.

In fact, if it wasn't for Scheckter poultry V The US, we might never have recovered. As it was, it took us years to get over it.


There are plenty of books on the subject, but one of the simplest is this one...

http://www.amazon.com/New-Deal-Raw-E.../dp/1416592377




.

Here's a pretty interesting argument to the contrary which is also definitely worth a watch:

I have to disagree. I've read a lot of posts right here by Robbie, sperbonzo, Minte, and others that more than suggest there's a big difference between the two.

Hey Monkeys have feelings too! Don't talk about them! :upsidedow:1orglaugh

https://gfy.com/image.php?u=13061&dateline=1346298506https://gfy.com/image.php?u=13061&dateline=1346298506https://gfy.com/image.php?u=13061&dateline=1346298506

Gary Johnson is proud to state that he's further right than the Republicans on fiscal issues, and further left than the Democrats on social issues. That alone highlights how different the parties are.

The President is just one part of the equation. He still has to deal with all the politicians in Congress. How would Gary Johnson handle them differently? If the two parties are so much about shutting him out, what makes you think they'd work with him?

It will change when oil companies and GE types say it will change.

Wow very informative i thought there was 2

Until independent parties UNITE they will never accomplish anything.

A teacher just learned a week or so ago that there are more than two candidates? #fail

As far as no one has a chance, if they had enough supporters, they should be able to get enough donations to get on the ballot in the cheap states.

It was Minnesota and I voted for him to send a message to repubs and democrats that I was sick of the 2 party system. I think that's why most people voted for him in the state.

Did he do the best job as Governor, no. Was he the worst one this state has seen? Hell no.

He did a lot of good things like eliminating emissions stations when renewing car tabs. It was a total waste of money as most cars passed. He also did a lot of stupid shit.

At the end of the day you may not have agreed with what he said but he never sugar coated anything and spoke the truth as he saw it. I do believe he had the peoples best interest in mind when he was making decisions.

If anyone has time watch this. Again he says a lot of stupd shit but he is not bought and sold like most canidates. He doesn't have a shot in hell of winning a position in office but there are a lot of interesting points brought up.