Forum Post: Three Major Sponsors have pulled advertising from the Presidential Debates in protest...
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 1, 2012, 8:51 a.m. EST by john23
(-272)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Philips is the latest:
Write the rest of the sponsors and demand that they stop their sponsorship if the Commission on Presidential Debates continues to play partisan politics and not allow any competition in the debates in the form of 3rd parties. The rest of the sponsors:
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=national-debate-sponsors
Anyone not aware of how corrupt this system is should watch this youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NXhoP5bQ2M&list=PLE63E9519A47A2177&index=81&feature=plpp_video
Tuesday, October 23rd: -Third Party Debate in Chicago
Sponsored by Free & Equal
Confirmed candidates: Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Virgil Goode, Rocky Anderson
This is a very encouraging development.
This is the same old story every major election. The republicrats will maintain their stranglehold on power until Americans realize that only the destruction of those two parties will lead to real change.
There was a lawsuit filed this past week by Gary Johnson challenging the 15% rule. It denies consensus democracy. In a Constitutional world he cannot lose, but he will not win.
I will catch the highlights of the debate but I will not grant it influence. Because it's a media circus that serves only to further the parties and enrich the networks.
Jesse Ventura is one of my personal heroes.
There were four presidential candidates for the 1860 election; Lincoln carried the election with only 40% of the popular vote; the majority had voted for someone else. Since slavery was to later prove a pivotal issue, and the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas Senate debates were published prior to the election, increasing Lincoln voter support, there is a tendency of historians to think of them in the context of Presidential debates - because as published, in essence, they were Presidential debates.
Both candidates ran as moderates, neither was wholly pro-slavery nor wholly anti-slavery.
But had the CPD existed in 1860, there would have been no third or fourth party and Lincoln would not have won the election. Had it existed then, a Douglas-Lincoln styled debate, which served to intensify, and ultimately empower that intensity, could not have occurred because slavery was integral to the economic apparatus and the resultant political power structure of the wealthy. Slavery, in short, would exist to this day because it would still be integral to that economic apparatus, and the abolitionist, no matter the extent of organization or number of their societies, would never have gained a voice sufficient to generate the war necessary to dismantle this economic apparatus.
I don't believe that economic industrialization would have entirely eliminated it, either. Because businessmen don't like business investment, and they abhor change, and the labor of a machine is initially a very costly change, of a labor resource, which even mechanized and automated is never entirely free. There would be no need to seek the cheaper labor of a third world slavery to manufacture; those slaves would still be in America. The white indentured slave would still exist; wage slavery would never have been born; unionized labor rights would not exist, nor the need to replace this costlier labor with machines - this would be a very different world.
This where y'all call me a racist again.
"Power to the people."