Presidential Debates

Wow! The GOP has a large field to choose from.

 

What is your opinion on Scott Walker? That is who I like so far.

Also, is immigration an important issue to you?

 

Debates are pointless.

They should instead have collaborations. Take the candidates, give them a problem and see what solutions they come up with together.

 

Not really. I will mostly vote based on who will cut government the most. He panders to billionaires and corporate elites too much so I don't trust him. I get the impression that Paul and Cruz are probably the only two legitimate candidates who are serious about cutting spending. I won't vote for Bush, Rubio, Walker, or Kasich although I expect one of them to be the nominee. I'll go 3rd party.

 

The president alone cant do much.

Don't other candidates do this as well? Rand Paul is changing his positions a lot.

That's fair enough.

 

The disfunction of our government would seem to indicate that they wouldn't come up with anything ever.

 

Exactly ^^^ We end up on about 90% of the issues in a with a "verses" government, and about the only time they work together successfully is when they are screwing over the people.

 

I am in total, unequivacal agreement.

 

Here's a thought: They can bring (*)(*)(*)(*)ing notes to the podium, they have advisors, and what they do for a living is campaign to rule the nation. If they can't take the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing time to memorize some stats, some talking points, advice, and have a decent grasp of each serious issue facing the nation, then they are INCOMPETENT. It doesn't take a degree to be aware of the salient facts of an issue, especially when you're a millionaire with a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing support staff. It takes an agile, intelligent, well functioning mind, coupled with time and dedication. A president should be such a person. The fact that you do not expect them to be such and do not even think they SHOULD be such is what is the sad commentary on our electoral process.
You're freely acknowledging that these candidates cannot educate themselves on an issue which they wish to RULE over, and getting offended when someone says "man that's really sad that we hold them to that low a standard". THAT is what is sad.

 

I would like to see more debates as well

- - - Updated - - -

ain't that the truth....

 

Any Party on all State Ballots should qualify for the debates!

Stop the RepubloCratic dominion of the process!

 

That is a very hard thing to do. I mean get a third party or an independent candidate on all 50 state ballots. Republican and Democratic candidates all get automatic ballot access, they write the election laws. They write them as a mutual protection act to make it very hard for any other party to get on the ballot. There were no third party candidates in 2012 whom qualified for ballot access in all 50 states.

In 2012 Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate was on the ballot of 48 states, next was the Green Party who was on 38 state ballots followed by the Constitutional Party on 28 state ballots. There were 22 other political parties who made it on the ballot of at least one state. So even with your threshold, the presidential debates still would have been a 2 party affair.

The last non-Republican-Democratic presidential candidate who made it on all 50 state ballots was Ross Perot.

I would suggest any candidate on enough state ballots that can achieve 270 electoral votes should be included in at least one of the presidential debates. Any candidate on enough state ballots that can achieve 350 electoral votes be included in two of the three and any candidate on enough state ballots that can achieve 400 electoral votes be included in all three.

 

This seems like a very sensible and reasonable rule. And it would sometimes put the Greens and Libertarians in but not every year. I think you are very correct to not put a candidate in if they can't hit 270.

 

You're, in my opinion, right, because of their transparency, which increases by its reason. But their shouldn't be too much of it because it'll get a little bit boring but every two months once having an official big debate won't be too much. And when there is election campaign there should be at least 4 presidential debates. I agree with you

 

It's certainly not too much to ask that our National representative be able to entertain extensive debates.

 

I think they should have follow up debates where they can answer for all the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) they made up in the initial debate that have already be proven false or debunked. Talk about being able to judge ones character and a bonus effect of losing lip service/gerrymandering .