The US Republican race is dominated by ignorance, lies and scandals. The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The Grand Old Party is ruining the entire country's reputation.
Yay, more tripe from another clueless European journalist. I love how only republican gaffes get reported and emphasized. No one ever talks about Obama's gems (57 states, anyone?) or general bungling (any time he's off a teleprompter). The real problem is the over-emphasis upon the faults or mistakes of the candidates rather than an honest analysis of what they actually are bringing to the table (and the American media is as guilty of this as anyone).
The "57 states"-incident is all you can come up with in defense? Seriously? You must be trolling or something.
And you're flaming. He was just pointing out that with all the time these guys spend on camera, they're bound to say some stupid shit, and that this news source was focusing only on the Republican Foot-in-Mouth moments.
You know, posts like this are honestly the reason why many Americans on this site wish Europeans would stay out of threads like this. You don't see me or others going in the New Zealand Politics thread (for example) and shitting it up because I don't agree with the policies they have in place or other things that have happened. You're going to have to respect that things operate differently over here, as I do with many of the more "progressive" places in the world. I have no problem with you Europeans chatting here if you don't flame other posters over stupid shit, If you don't like something, just say you disagree.
This will sound egocentric and make me seem like an arrogant American. I do apologize.
However, New Zealand politics do not effect me. I would certainly be interested in them and will read about what's going on all around the world. I'm particularly interested in British politics but the politics of other countries, while interesting to me, are not so important for me to weigh in on them much. In a nutshell, I don't really care too much what New Zealand politicians do because it doesn't effect me.
American politics effect everyone. It's only natural that those from other countries will voice their opinion. Like it or not, the Republicans of today are dominated by people who believe some fucked up crazy shit that most people in other countries find laughable. That's not to say there aren't Democrats who don't believe some of that insane babble but they aren't as outspoken and generally the Presidential candidates for the Democratic party appear far more sane than those of the Republicans.
Also, and this is a bit nit picky, New Zealand is not in Europe. You criticized Europeans coming into a thread about American politics and then pointed out that you don't go into a thread about New Zealand politics.
Such a pathetic mother to use her son like that. fyi the kid said "My mommy -- Miss Bachmann, my mommy's gay but she doesn't need fixing"
Who's to say the kid just didn't do it on his own pretenses? He's right anyways
Look at his mother prodding him, "Don't you have something to say?" "You can say it louder." 8 year olds are too young to be political activists and formulate their own opinions. Of course none of us know for sure but I doubt an 8 year old asked his mom to drive him to a bookstore that was having a Michelle Bachmann book signing so that he could shyly confront her.
The US Republican race is dominated by ignorance, lies and scandals. The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The Grand Old Party is ruining the entire country's reputation.
Yay, more tripe from another clueless European journalist. I love how only republican gaffes get reported and emphasized. No one ever talks about Obama's gems (57 states, anyone?) or general bungling (any time he's off a teleprompter). The real problem is the over-emphasis upon the faults or mistakes of the candidates rather than an honest analysis of what they actually are bringing to the table (and the American media is as guilty of this as anyone).
There's a big difference between saying something that you obviously don't believe or think like Obama's 57 states and actually believing something that is completely ridiculous and absurd. All candidates people say things that they don't mean from time to time. Does Obama actually believe that homosexuality is against God's will as some of the Republican candidates do? Does Obama deny evolution? Has Obama ever once pulled the race card even though plenty of white news anchors have?
As for the actual topic, I don't see any candidate that isn't Mitt Romney winning the nomination.
You don't understand that pretty much everyone except Ron Paul is run by the same corporate interest right?
You know who funded Bush campaign, who funded Obama campaign and who finds Mitt Romney and Rick Perry campaign?
You better wake up about the left-right paradigm they use to control the elections and vote for peoples character, conviction and if he is a real person or not. Ron Paul is a real person guided by principles and not paid off by corporate interest.
You realize that Romney or Newt or Obama is just going to be the same old thing? You realize that both republicans and democrats all do the exact same things?
You wonder why things never change? Its because both parties are run by the same people. The top elites are the same people for both parties and are running the candidates.
This is why Mitt Romney and Obama get 80% of their funds from banks, Perry gets 90% of his funding from military industrial complex and Ron Paul gets most of him money from the army, navy and airforce.
You better realize that Obama is an empty suit teleprompter reader and he never intended to do the things he promised at his campaign. Its going to be the same with Mitt or Newt or Perry because they are all bought and paid for by the same interest and until you Americans wake up to the scam and start voting for principled man who never lied and never changed their positions like Ron Paul you are going to continue getting conned.
Such a pathetic mother to use her son like that. fyi the kid said "My mommy -- Miss Bachmann, my mommy's gay but she doesn't need fixing"
Who's to say the kid just didn't do it on his own pretenses? He's right anyways
Look at his mother prodding him, "Don't you have something to say?" "You can say it louder." 8 year olds are too young to be political activists and formulate their own opinions. Of course none of us know for sure but I doubt an 8 year old asked his mom to drive him to a bookstore that was having a Michelle Bachmann book signing so that he could shyly confront her.
People concerned about the child's development should question the mother thrusting him onto the national spotlight.
They should also question the fact that every day of his life, people like Bachmann are telling him that his family is morally repulsive. That his parents are an abomination. That God caused things like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina to happen because this country has families like his.
Such a pathetic mother to use her son like that. fyi the kid said "My mommy -- Miss Bachmann, my mommy's gay but she doesn't need fixing"
Who's to say the kid just didn't do it on his own pretenses? He's right anyways
absolutely agree with Blackjack here - I myself find some of the beliefs of Mrs. Bachmann questionable to say the least, but that was just a cheap political stunt... as we so often see it on both sides of the aisle, this time from a progressive activist.
The US Republican race is dominated by ignorance, lies and scandals. The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The Grand Old Party is ruining the entire country's reputation.
Yay, more tripe from another clueless European journalist. I love how only republican gaffes get reported and emphasized. No one ever talks about Obama's gems (57 states, anyone?) or general bungling (any time he's off a teleprompter). The real problem is the over-emphasis upon the faults or mistakes of the candidates rather than an honest analysis of what they actually are bringing to the table (and the American media is as guilty of this as anyone).
The "57 states"-incident is all you can come up with in defense? Seriously? You must be trolling or something.
And you're flaming. He was just pointing out that with all the time these guys spend on camera, they're bound to say some stupid shit, and that this news source was focusing only on the Republican Foot-in-Mouth moments.
You know, posts like this are honestly the reason why many Americans on this site wish Europeans would stay out of threads like this. You don't see me or others going in the New Zealand Politics thread (for example) and shitting it up because I don't agree with the policies they have in place or other things that have happened. You're going to have to respect that things operate differently over here, as I do with many of the more "progressive" places in the world. I have no problem with you Europeans chatting here if you don't flame other posters over stupid shit, If you don't like something, just say you disagree.
This will sound egocentric and make me seem like an arrogant American. I do apologize.
However, New Zealand politics do not effect me. I would certainly be interested in them and will read about what's going on all around the world. I'm particularly interested in British politics but the politics of other countries, while interesting to me, are not so important for me to weigh in on them much. In a nutshell, I don't really care too much what New Zealand politicians do because it doesn't effect me.
American politics effect everyone. It's only natural that those from other countries will voice their opinion. Like it or not, the Republicans of today are dominated by people who believe some fucked up crazy shit that most people in other countries find laughable. That's not to say there aren't Democrats who don't believe some of that insane babble but they aren't as outspoken and generally the Presidential candidates for the Democratic party appear far more sane than those of the Republicans.
You have good points there. I just want to get rid of the senseless whining / flaming regarding issues in this country that don't majorly affect people in other countries (Social issues in particular). Foreign policy and Foreign Economic Policy I can understand being a major point of interest from people outside of the US.
Also, and this is a bit nit picky, New Zealand is not in Europe. You criticized Europeans coming into a thread about American politics and then pointed out that you don't go into a thread about New Zealand politics.
Eh, cut me some slack. That was the first one I could thing of off the top of my head.
So can I quickly off tangent this one. Ron Paul has the most comprehensive plan out of the candidates, and is generally the least crazy among them. Newt divorced his wife while she was undergoing cancer treatment. WHO DOES THAT?
This guy hears one of the top political minds of the last century making a point about about the difficulties in international governance and foreign policy today that didn't exist decades ago (which he presents without context) and hears, "Oh my god, the elites are coming to get us." I see essentially no relationship between what the host is saying and what Brzezinski is saying. Unless this video is missing large amounts of time from one or both of them, it's almost a complete non sequitur, and sounds ridiculously paranoid.
To make matters worse, you've posted it here, in a thread in which it does not belong and to which it does not relate, without a description and without relating it to anything relevant. Even if I understood and agreed with what the host in the video was trying to say (and I want to stress, I don't), I still wouldn't know what point you're trying to make.
Why aren't people voting for the only anti-war candidate is beyond me. Especially when we have the war drums beating at this very moment with Iran. Them shooting down one of our drone spy planes and their guardsmen getting ready for war...Does anyone know what kind of implications this will have for our future? -_-;;
This guy hears one of the top political minds of the last century making a point about about the difficulties in international governance and foreign policy today that didn't exist decades ago (which he presents without context) and hears, "Oh my god, the elites are coming to get us." I see essentially no relationship between what the host is saying and what Brzezinski is saying. Unless this video is missing large amounts of time from one or both of them, it's almost a complete non sequitur, and sounds ridiculously paranoid.
To make matters worse, you've posted it here, in a thread in which it does not belong and to which it does not relate, without a description and without relating it to anything relevant. Even if I understood and agreed with what the host in the video was trying to say (and I want to stress, I don't), I still wouldn't know what point you're trying to make.
I'm trying to imply as the top elite power player Brezinski who helped create the trilateral commission and is a long standing member of bilderberg and all the rest of the secret societies that are responsible for USA politics and its not Obama or Bush junior and I agree with him that people are politically awake for the first time in all of human history about what is happening behind closed doors and that Obama and Bush are just front men for the people in the background pulling the strings.
On December 05 2011 16:03 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 05 2011 15:22 aksfjh wrote:
On December 05 2011 13:14 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 04 2011 17:10 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 16:03 screamingpalm wrote:
On December 04 2011 14:12 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:39 stevarius wrote: [quote]
If you were to provide the polarity Paul has in comparison to Obama, I think Paul could win that election.
And then we remember we live in the real world and not some strange fantasy world. Paul doesn't stand a chance even in Republican primary, where the Tea Party largely adopts his platform. How would he stand a chance in a general election when he advocates policies the left and independents would NEVER agree with?
I doubt he'll get the nomination, but I think people are so fed up with the corruption that they are willing to put aside ideology in order to gain some integrity. Paul has shown a willingness to work with progressives on some very important core issues (more so than Obama). Of course I disagree with him on damn near everything else, but we need to have some ethics and be able to hold public officials accountable before anything else matters.
The only "progressive" issue he has shown attachment to is Social Security, and only because people have paid into it and are expecting a return out of it. Every other program and executive department is up to the chopping block. Seriously, how would you sell a platform to environment conscious independents without the EPA, or blue collar support without the Dept. of Labor, or college students without the Dept. of Education (which runs the government backed student loans)? The minute you start shining a light on the things he would love to get rid of, you realize huge interest groups that would be devastated. As much as people respect integrity, they would much rather protect their personal prosperity. That is why somebody like Ron Paul is rare in politics.
Are you saying true "progressives" are for war? Because last time I checked Ron Paul was the only candidate to pull troops from all over the world. I hope you realize we had public education before the DOE. I never understood fear mongers that say that it will be the end of public education once he gets rid of DOE. Also, your wrong when it comes to college tuition. He said he would keep that a long with other list of things Democrats would be happy with. See here for more info: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
First of all, pulling troops from all over the world isn't something progressives necessarily agree with. The progressive stance has more to do with ending the military industrial complex which creates incentive to engage in wars (like Iraq). This would largely be accomplished by dismantling our nuclear program and HUGE military R&D budget. If you even look at the very page you linked, you'll see that he actually leaves the military budget relatively untouched compared to almost EVERY social program, which leads me to believe he would ONLY shut down operations overseas while leaving every other portion of the military intact. More F35s, aircraft carriers, and 747s with lasers attached to them at the expense of all levels of social assistance. I'm sure that would sell to progressives.
As for education, public education would probably still exist on some level, but almost all higher education assistance would be completely gone. He completely ELIMINATES the federal portion of the program, leaving the current generation of students high and dry. What's left is a group of Americans being educated who could already afford to do so. Sounds progressive to me!
First of all, how is expanding wars over seas and having bases everywhere progressive? If anything that itself is bankrupting our country. I don't think you even looked at the page I gave you because you keep bringing up the social issues like he's going to cut all of them. He's going to pay for some of these programs themselves by cutting over seas spending which is something you don't support I guess? Also, I think people get confused with his stances because he gives off his own opinions on things rather than give the people what he would really do as president. Please do some research before you off spouting stuff that isn't true.
It's not about wars overseas. It's about cutting military spending to the point where we would be incapable of launching an attack without serious premeditation. Ron Paul's budget shows that the only savings would come from ending the wars we are currently engaged in, with little to address a defense budget that has ballooned out of control starting with Reagan, with only a minor adjustment when Clinton was in office.
Also, you know social programs encompass more than just SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, right? He would completely eliminate the Dept of Housing and Urban Development, Dept. of Education, and cut half or more from Medicaid, SCHIP, and Foodstamps. He even advocates the elimination of minimum wage. No matter how you paint it, Ron Paul would NEVER be labeled as a champion of social assistance. The absolute best he could come up with would be a change in subject, citing a different source of the "ire" of the poor and a seemingly indirect approach. That would take an entire political shift which would take an entire generation to fully realize, which is far longer than the year we have before the election.
On December 05 2011 15:45 Kiarip wrote:
On December 05 2011 15:22 aksfjh wrote:
On December 05 2011 13:14 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 04 2011 17:10 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 16:03 screamingpalm wrote:
On December 04 2011 14:12 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:39 stevarius wrote: [quote]
If you were to provide the polarity Paul has in comparison to Obama, I think Paul could win that election.
And then we remember we live in the real world and not some strange fantasy world. Paul doesn't stand a chance even in Republican primary, where the Tea Party largely adopts his platform. How would he stand a chance in a general election when he advocates policies the left and independents would NEVER agree with?
I doubt he'll get the nomination, but I think people are so fed up with the corruption that they are willing to put aside ideology in order to gain some integrity. Paul has shown a willingness to work with progressives on some very important core issues (more so than Obama). Of course I disagree with him on damn near everything else, but we need to have some ethics and be able to hold public officials accountable before anything else matters.
The only "progressive" issue he has shown attachment to is Social Security, and only because people have paid into it and are expecting a return out of it. Every other program and executive department is up to the chopping block. Seriously, how would you sell a platform to environment conscious independents without the EPA, or blue collar support without the Dept. of Labor, or college students without the Dept. of Education (which runs the government backed student loans)? The minute you start shining a light on the things he would love to get rid of, you realize huge interest groups that would be devastated. As much as people respect integrity, they would much rather protect their personal prosperity. That is why somebody like Ron Paul is rare in politics.
Are you saying true "progressives" are for war? Because last time I checked Ron Paul was the only candidate to pull troops from all over the world. I hope you realize we had public education before the DOE. I never understood fear mongers that say that it will be the end of public education once he gets rid of DOE. Also, your wrong when it comes to college tuition. He said he would keep that a long with other list of things Democrats would be happy with. See here for more info: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
First of all, pulling troops from all over the world isn't something progressives necessarily agree with. The progressive stance has more to do with ending the military industrial complex which creates incentive to engage in wars (like Iraq). This would largely be accomplished by dismantling our nuclear program and HUGE military R&D budget. If you even look at the very page you linked, you'll see that he actually leaves the military budget relatively untouched compared to almost EVERY social program, which leads me to believe he would ONLY shut down operations overseas while leaving every other portion of the military intact. More F35s, aircraft carriers, and 747s with lasers attached to them at the expense of all levels of social assistance. I'm sure that would sell to progressives.
As for education, public education would probably still exist on some level, but almost all higher education assistance would be completely gone. He completely ELIMINATES the federal portion of the program, leaving the current generation of students high and dry. What's left is a group of Americans being educated who could already afford to do so. Sounds progressive to me!
Where's a complete list of cuts that a progressive democratic candidate wants to make? No one has cut defense in a long time, and no one really knows just how much needs to be cut. Ron Paul is cutting it 15% up front. Do you know just how much 15% is? I doubt it, neither do I.
As for education... since when does absolutely everyone need to go to College? It eats up 4 years of a person's life.
I know that 15% isn't close to the ~30% it's grown in the past 10 years...
I agree that not everybody should go to college. However, how would you sell such a drastic cut to people who want and should go to college? How would you justify the complete elimination of help from the government when some people are on the verge of going to college and receiving much needed aid?
Well if you cut 15% of 130%, it's actually at 19.5% increase from when it 100%.
and then if you factor in the inflation from 10 years... yeah it's actually a pretty good cut.
As, for college, the tuitions will go down when the guaranteed loans go away.
It was a ~30% increase when factoring in inflation. In using a consistent formula for percentage, it comes out to an overall increase of ~10% since 2000 after Paul's cuts.
We don't know what would happen to college tuition rates if Federal spending was cut. On the Ron Paul side, many think that college tuition rates have increased because of increased access (and federal aid). On the other side, states have been reluctant to increase funding for higher education to match the increase in demand for it. Bigger pool of applicants for aid, same pool of aid to give.
Lays out spending and public funding trends. For a large portion of the decade, public funding has decreased or stagnated. Not a good mix for education costs.
Depends on what rate of inflation they've been using for their calculations.
As for the education... yeah the public spending could have decreased, but there's still guaranteed student loans, as well as other *cough cough* regulations that make it hard for people out of high school to get a job.
Such a pathetic mother to use her son like that. fyi the kid said "My mommy -- Miss Bachmann, my mommy's gay but she doesn't need fixing"
Who's to say the kid just didn't do it on his own pretenses? He's right anyways
Look at his mother prodding him, "Don't you have something to say?" "You can say it louder." 8 year olds are too young to be political activists and formulate their own opinions. Of course none of us know for sure but I doubt an 8 year old asked his mom to drive him to a bookstore that was having a Michelle Bachmann book signing so that he could shyly confront her.
Wow I totally missed that. -.-. My computer likes to skip the first few seconds of videos occasionally...=/
Such a pathetic mother to use her son like that. fyi the kid said "My mommy -- Miss Bachmann, my mommy's gay but she doesn't need fixing"
Who's to say the kid just didn't do it on his own pretenses? He's right anyways
Look at his mother prodding him, "Don't you have something to say?" "You can say it louder." 8 year olds are too young to be political activists and formulate their own opinions. Of course none of us know for sure but I doubt an 8 year old asked his mom to drive him to a bookstore that was having a Michelle Bachmann book signing so that he could shyly confront her.
Wow I totally missed that. -.-. My computer likes to skip the first few seconds of videos occasionally...=/
Personally I'm going to tune it for the laughs, mostly because Donald Trump is a complete asshole with idiotic beliefs.
What never ceases to amaze me in this election is how readily republicans gratuitously shit on their own party members.
I think that the trump debate will be interesting if for no other reason than you know that he won't pull any punches and he will take some of the candidates way out of their comfort zone.
Such a pathetic mother to use her son like that. fyi the kid said "My mommy -- Miss Bachmann, my mommy's gay but she doesn't need fixing"
Who's to say the kid just didn't do it on his own pretenses? He's right anyways
Look at his mother prodding him, "Don't you have something to say?" "You can say it louder." 8 year olds are too young to be political activists and formulate their own opinions. Of course none of us know for sure but I doubt an 8 year old asked his mom to drive him to a bookstore that was having a Michelle Bachmann book signing so that he could shyly confront her.
Wow I totally missed that. -.-. My computer likes to skip the first few seconds of videos occasionally...=/
I don't know what to make of the Trump debate. I know very little about Trump and the little I do, I don't like. Is he a major political thinker? No, but then neither is the media for that matter. But given his rather ridiculous birther comments/ that PR fiasco, I'd distance myself from that guy.
See, I'm not sure what to make of these special interest groups running the debates in the first place. And that's not just Trump, but also that Family group, or the Jewish council, or for that matter Rick Warren from the last election cycle. Does it give too much control to these groups (they can, for instance choose to exclude certain candidates- like the Jewish council and Ron Paul.) I just haven't thought about what the impact is (or perhaps it's minimal). Is that how it's always been? If you have enough clout, then you can host your own personal debate? It has the potential to politicize even the decision to accept an invitation to a debate. If an atheist think-tank hosted a debate for instance, or a Muslim group. You can be sure that candidates would use their decision to attend the debates (or decline as is more likely) as part of their campaign. But will that be a growing trend where attendance or non-attendance is itself part of the debate? It would seem to erode the very notion of debate. Attendance of a debate ought to be non-partisan.
I'm mostly familiar with our Canadian consortium of media networks with two leader's debates: one in English and one in French. I think in 2006, we had all of four. But it was a media consortium, not the Fraser Institute or rich Canadian moguls hosting debates.
On December 07 2011 08:27 Happylime wrote: So can I quickly off tangent this one. Ron Paul has the most comprehensive plan out of the candidates, and is generally the least crazy among them. Newt divorced his wife while she was undergoing cancer treatment. WHO DOES THAT?
She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer.
The US Republican race is dominated by ignorance, lies and scandals. The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The Grand Old Party is ruining the entire country's reputation.
Yay, more tripe from another clueless European journalist. I love how only republican gaffes get reported and emphasized. No one ever talks about Obama's gems (57 states, anyone?) or general bungling (any time he's off a teleprompter). The real problem is the over-emphasis upon the faults or mistakes of the candidates rather than an honest analysis of what they actually are bringing to the table (and the American media is as guilty of this as anyone).
The "57 states"-incident is all you can come up with in defense? Seriously? You must be trolling or something.
And you're flaming. He was just pointing out that with all the time these guys spend on camera, they're bound to say some stupid shit, and that this news source was focusing only on the Republican Foot-in-Mouth moments.
You know, posts like this are honestly the reason why many Americans on this site wish Europeans would stay out of threads like this. You don't see me or others going in the New Zealand Politics thread (for example) and shitting it up because I don't agree with the policies they have in place or other things that have happened. You're going to have to respect that things operate differently over here, as I do with many of the more "progressive" places in the world. I have no problem with you Europeans chatting here if you don't flame other posters over stupid shit, If you don't like something, just say you disagree.
Except New Zealand politics have little influence on the world while who rules the US can have a great influence, especially for Europe, so forgive us if we have an opinion.
Also starting out with "Yay, more tripe from another clueless European journalist" is also not the best way to counter anything... Big surprise you get a response like Maenander's.
Also you may not go to a New Zealand Politics thread but other Americans would so I don't see your point. Just go to any thread that is about politic decisions in other countries and you see americans give their opinion on the matter as well.
On December 07 2011 15:04 Falling wrote: That could be a very lonely debate.
I don't know what to make of the Trump debate. I know very little about Trump and the little I do, I don't like. Is he a major political thinker? No, but then neither is the media for that matter. But given his rather ridiculous birther comments/ that PR fiasco, I'd distance myself from that guy.
See, I'm not sure what to make of these special interest groups running the debates in the first place. And that's not just Trump, but also that Family group, or the Jewish council, or for that matter Rick Warren from the last election cycle. Does it give too much control to these groups (they can, for instance choose to exclude certain candidates- like the Jewish council and Ron Paul.) I just haven't thought about what the impact is (or perhaps it's minimal). Is that how it's always been? If you have enough clout, then you can host your own personal debate? It has the potential to politicize even the decision to accept an invitation to a debate. If an atheist think-tank hosted a debate for instance, or a Muslim group. You can be sure that candidates would use their decision to attend the debates (or decline as is more likely) as part of their campaign. But will that be a growing trend where attendance or non-attendance is itself part of the debate? It would seem to erode the very notion of debate. Attendance of a debate ought to be non-partisan.
I'm mostly familiar with our Canadian consortium of media networks with two leader's debates: one in English and one in French. I think in 2006, we had all of four. But it was a media consortium, not the Fraser Institute or rich Canadian moguls hosting debates.
There's nothing wrong with allowing interest groups running debates - so what if they choose to exclude certain candidates and include others? So what if they have agendas? It's a free country and people are free to be informed in whichever ways they wish. Why should news stations and universities have monopolies on where candidates put forward their messages? And what the fuck why shouldn't an atheist group be allowed to host a debate? Presidents should be challenged on their beliefs and held accountable to people who are interested to know.
EPT
