Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Nowhere Man]

possibly with 3rd party participants...


Sorry, but I don't have a proper link to this, but as I understand it, Google wants to host its own presidential debate this fall.

[EDIT: I'm posting the link from later in the thread:]

http://tinyurl.com/5gq67c

Google is apparently sympathetic to demand for 3rd party representation at debates, and Nader is of course sympathetic to Google's position.

I think it's an outstanding idea. Why?

1) Debates are free advertising for the big 2. Share the wealth.

2) Where there are only 2 parties involved, the talk is narrowed to the Big 2's party platforms.

3) Third parties get shafted 3 ways to Sunday in our current system.

4) We're talking one debate. Why do all the debates have to have the same format and be hosted by a very limited number of entitties? Variety would be nice.

Love to hear thoughts as well as get any links to this.

[Ya-ta Boy]

Can you explain more about the format? Right now I have visions of candidates at computers furiously typing away, making all sorts of grammar and spelling mistakes, a la Dan Quayle.

[mises]

Maybe they would be like the excellent "Authors at Google" video series?

http://www.google.com/talks/authors/index.html

[Nowhere Man]

Well, based on what I read, they're suggesting a debate similar to the ones we already have in the sense that the candidates would be up on stage and whatnot. The key difference is that it would be broadcast on the net instead of TV. So, the conundrum here was whether the candidates would accept such a debate IF the 3rd parties were also allowed to participate.

That may seem not-so-different, but consider also that network TV and CNN do the Big 2 the favor of themselves (the networks) not allowing the 3rd parties into their debates. If Google were to host a debate where the 3rd's were invited , that would put the ball in the candidates' courts. Given that they're trying to present themselves as able to lead the nation, I don't think they'd have much leeway to decline. It would look a bit cowardly.

I believe all this is linked to Google owning Youtube and expanding on the youtube questioners featured in one of the early debates.

[Kuros]

I agree that third-parties should be allowed into their debate, unless this is their third run for President, in which case they should be ignored.

[Nowhere Man]

[agentX]

I think it's a wonderful idea to have a 3rd-party only debate.

I would love to see Cynthia McKinney go up on stage against John Bowles (the White people's candidate) and hopefully kick his ass.
It would also prove amusing to see Brian Moore of the Socialist party go up against Bob Barr. Battle of the Crazies!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_presidential_candidates%2C_2008

[Kuros]

[Nowhere Man]

Oh yes. Excellent point.

No "irritation candidates".

Very substantive.

But I'm all for it. Of course, if we get rid of all the irritation candidates, then Gary Coleman might run for president unopposed.

This is pretty interesting:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4052162

So, other than having a Nader hate-on, what do you think about the Commission on Presidential Debates, Kuros?

By the way, I do like Nader, but I'd like to see a new Green candidate. In any case, I'm voting for McCain this fall and in 2012 for him or his replacement GOP-er. Gotta love our system. Electoral College FTW!

I'm even going to remove Nader from the thread title just to make you happy.

[ontheway]

All debates should be open to any Presidential candidate who has qualified for enough state ballots to have a theoretical chance of being elected by the Electoral College.