To see a full-size view of the images posted, just click on them.

RULES FOR POSTING COMMENTS: This blog is meant to be interactive. Please utilize the comment feature to respond to posts that prompt a reaction. You do not have to agree with me to post, but I do ask that your comment pertain to the post itself. I also ask that "anonymous" guests attach some sort of name to their comments so readers can tell everyone apart. (If you cannot follow these simple rules, your post may be DELETED or at the very least mocked for the entertainment of those who can respect my guidelines.)

Thursday, September 29, 2016

"I can't hear you!"


Today we will take a short break from our reversals theme to change gears a bit. I want to ask you some serious questions: In your life experience have you ever had someone tell you, "oh you don't need to listen to that person!" and have you ever had someone say instead, "let them talk. I have nothing to fear from them."? In your mind, which person seemed most secure, confident, and credible?


The Commission on Presidential Debates has done you a favor, so they think, by limiting the television debates to just the two parties.( The same two parties who comprise the Commission by the way.........but that's probably just a coincidence, right? ) There's no need for you to hear what anyone else has to say.............even if he is a candidate on the ballot in all 50 States, and one with a petition with over 1 million signatures to allow him to debate, and who has a higher polling percentage than Ross Perot did when he was allowed to debate, and who has had 62% of people polled say he should be allowed on that stage.

But no need to worry about any of that! The Commission is going to protect you. They are like the person in my first example; you don't need to listen to him. They say their rules flatly decree that he needs to be at 15% in the polls before you can watch him debate. In other words...their self-serving criteria has conveniently disqualified him. "We can't let people hear you until a lot of them are already for you, even though to be for you, they do really need to hear you." (Joseph Heller's "Catch 22"?)

Before there was the Commission on Presidential Debates the League of Women Voters ran the debates. But isn't it better to have a commission run by the two major parties controlling what you can hear? (read more)

My main point here is not "Vote for Gary Johnson". ( read more) My point is that the American people are being done a great disservice, one that runs contrary to everything a democracy stands for........................and as a people we seem to be OK with that. The same people who wave the flag at veterans and wipe away a tear at the sacrifices made for freedom are blithely content to throw those hard-earned freedoms into the shitter when it comes to travesties like this.

Why not let the man speak? Then, if he comes across as an idiot, or just someone who does not share your views.......don't vote for him. BUT LET HIM SPEAK ON THAT SAME STAGE. HE EARNED THAT RIGHT BY GETTING ON THE BALLOT IN ALL 50 STATES!


4 comments:

  1. I've actually watched various interviews with Gary Johnson, and while he doesn't impress me with what he's said so far (Alas!) I would prefer him over Donald Trump any day.

    I would be very interested in listening to him at a Presidential Debate with Clinton and Trump. People need to hear what he has to say so they can at least make a better informed decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's OK for anyone to like or not like a candidate. (I happen to like what Johnson says, but I've been a small'L' Libertarian for decades.) What bugs me is how the two parties have now made it impossible for anyone to challenge them by directly controlling the debates. Debates should be moderated and run by impartial committees. But what bugs me most is the ignorance and apathy of the American voter weighed against their propensity to complain.

      Delete
  2. Perhaps because the last time a third-party candidate was allowed in the debates, he took 19 percent of the popular vote and tilted the vote to Bill Clinton? I don't think either of the parties (or both of them) should have any control over Presidential debates. It may well be difficult to get "impartial" committees (non-partial politicians? I don't think so) but anything would be better than this. Hell, give it back to the League of Women Voters. At least they did a respectable job...

    I'm also vehemently against California's "top two finishers" rule which all too often gives us a choice between two members of the same party and eliminates all other choices. What kind of shit is that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I definitely miss when "the League" ran them. Everything in politics is so broken right now.

      And that California rule sounds crazy! How did something like that ever come about?

      Delete