Results 1 to 10 of 10
-
09-08-2008, 12:11 AM #1
Ralph Nadar >>>Is right
http://current.com/items/89192660_ra...t_into_debates
I believe he has the right when he says he should be allowed in the debate anyone disagree?
-
-
09-08-2008, 12:19 AM #2
He would probably disrupt the flow of the debate more than anything. Debates run so much more smoothly when there are only two candidates. It allows for a lot more of the back and forth style. Although it would be entertaining to see Nader throw jabs at both of them.
Not saying independents or third party views should be ignored, but I can understand why he wouldn't be included.
-
09-08-2008, 12:25 AM #3
Because only two parties run this country and they strickly controll the debate that's why they don't want him there because in 2004 he took over 3 million votes
-
-
09-08-2008, 12:35 AM #4
I would welcome every official candidate from there half dozen or so parties for a couple debates. Things aren't right if all of our needs are met with either one party or another.
-
09-08-2008, 09:43 AM #5

I think if a person is on the ballot, they should be required to be in the debates. If people have to make a choice to vote for them or not, they should know something about them and the candidate should have an opportunity to put their message out there. That's one of the main reasons a smaller party can't grow past an underground, grassroots movement, because the Reps and Dems are all over tv, newspapers, magazines, etc and the smaller parties never get the opportunity to really step into the national spotlight, aside from election commentators talking about how they stole some votes.
-
-
09-08-2008, 10:15 AM #6
Maybe Bob Barr should be allowed in too
-
09-08-2008, 11:16 AM #7
-
-
09-08-2008, 11:31 AM #8

Maybe you mean "..CAN steal votes..."?
-
09-08-2008, 11:43 AM #9
-
09-09-2008, 09:27 AM #10
Hey, Perot did it in 92. Maybe if Nader had any amount of supporters that weren't penniless hippies he could raise enough money to buy himself into the debates too.
-















