Big media outlets and the major parties...

Radar · 10-11-2004, 12:42 PM

The major parties have practiced exclusionary tactics against third-parties for decades, and its been fairly clear that the major media (newspapers, network television, radio networks, etc) have gone alone with it, but never before has it been so obvious as it was this weekend.

http://badnarik.org/BallotAccess/new...ail.php?p=1346

They have refused to cover our candidate even though he's on the ballot in enough states to have a chance to win the election. In fact he's on in many more states than Nader. When he attempted to serve a paper, he was arrested. This is a major news item. Two presidential candidates are arrested merely for trying to take serve a paper on those who are excluding others who should be in them and the news doesn't even cover it.

You can bet your ass if Bush or Kerry farted on camera, it would be all over the news, let alone if either of them were arrested.

It's unfuckingbelievable

elSicomoro · 10-11-2004, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

They have refused to cover our candidate even though he's on the ballot in enough states to have a chance to win the election.

That's because he's has absolutely no chance of winning.

Cyber Wolf · 10-11-2004, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamore

That's because he's has absolutely no chance of winning.

The irony is he'd have more of a chance if he was given decent coverage.

elSicomoro · 10-11-2004, 01:25 PM

Not this year...too much polarity.

Radar · 10-11-2004, 03:15 PM

Anyone that is on the ballot in enough states to get 270 electoral votes has a chance of winning and those who claim otherwise don't know shit. The Libertarian party candidate has appeared on the ballot in all 50 states for the three previous elections and would have been on in all 50 this time if the Republican party and the Republican registrar of voters in New Hampshire hadn't fraudently thrown out our signatures.

Anyone who is on the ballot in enough states to get 270 electoral votes or more should automatically be in all debates. The expense and number if signatures required to appear on the ballot is enough to show you have a chance.

That brings up another bullshit part of the elections. Republicans and Democrats don't have to provide signatures to appear on the ballots. Only other parties do. Even if we've been on the ballot for the last 10 elections. They don't have to use the resources, and get together the manpower to gather the signatures which again is a way to hurt other parties.

And with the major media outlets blatantly blocking our candidate from having the same level of access to the media as the major party candidates, it's truly a crock of shit. They mention Nader in all the polls, and in the paper, but they don't mention our candidate who is on the ballot in far more states than Nader. Why? Because they know Nader is a kook and he can be laughed off, but Libertarians have the best message, and solutions that work in real life and they know we can genuinely hurt the major parties who give them millions of tax-payer dollars.

Republicans even more so than Democrats fear us, because they talk the talk of small government, and we walk the walk.

elSicomoro · 10-11-2004, 03:35 PM

Any chance of Badnarik winning this election starting disappearing on 9/11, and completely died when the US went to war in Iraq. In 2000, some folks were willing to make a statement and voted for a third party. This year, it's more about keeping Bush firmly in place or getting rid of him.

The third parties are irrelevant this year, including Nader. That's not necessarily a good thing...it just is.

wolf · 10-11-2004, 08:07 PM

I will be very, very surprised if either Nader or Badnarik manages even 2% of the vote. I would even be willing to SPOT them 1%.

I will not, however, make any promises to engage in any embarrassing activities should either of them, particularly Badnarik, make a showing.

10-11-2004, 12:42 PM	#1
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Big media outlets and the major parties... The major parties have practiced exclusionary tactics against third-parties for decades, and its been fairly clear that the major media (newspapers, network television, radio networks, etc) have gone alone with it, but never before has it been so obvious as it was this weekend. http://badnarik.org/BallotAccess/new...ail.php?p=1346 They have refused to cover our candidate even though he's on the ballot in enough states to have a chance to win the election. In fact he's on in many more states than Nader. When he attempted to serve a paper, he was arrested. This is a major news item. Two presidential candidates are arrested merely for trying to take serve a paper on those who are excluding others who should be in them and the news doesn't even cover it. You can bet your ass if Bush or Kerry farted on camera, it would be all over the news, let alone if either of them were arrested. It's unfuckingbelievable __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

10-11-2004, 03:15 PM	#5
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Anyone that is on the ballot in enough states to get 270 electoral votes has a chance of winning and those who claim otherwise don't know shit. The Libertarian party candidate has appeared on the ballot in all 50 states for the three previous elections and would have been on in all 50 this time if the Republican party and the Republican registrar of voters in New Hampshire hadn't fraudently thrown out our signatures. Anyone who is on the ballot in enough states to get 270 electoral votes or more should automatically be in all debates. The expense and number if signatures required to appear on the ballot is enough to show you have a chance. That brings up another bullshit part of the elections. Republicans and Democrats don't have to provide signatures to appear on the ballots. Only other parties do. Even if we've been on the ballot for the last 10 elections. They don't have to use the resources, and get together the manpower to gather the signatures which again is a way to hurt other parties. And with the major media outlets blatantly blocking our candidate from having the same level of access to the media as the major party candidates, it's truly a crock of shit. They mention Nader in all the polls, and in the paper, but they don't mention our candidate who is on the ballot in far more states than Nader. Why? Because they know Nader is a kook and he can be laughed off, but Libertarians have the best message, and solutions that work in real life and they know we can genuinely hurt the major parties who give them millions of tax-payer dollars. Republicans even more so than Democrats fear us, because they talk the talk of small government, and we walk the walk. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

10-11-2004, 08:07 PM	#7
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	I will be very, very surprised if either Nader or Badnarik manages even 2% of the vote. I would even be willing to SPOT them 1%. I will not, however, make any promises to engage in any embarrassing activities should either of them, particularly Badnarik, make a showing. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

10-11-2004, 01:25 PM	#4
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Not this year...too much polarity.

10-11-2004, 03:35 PM	#6
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Any chance of Badnarik winning this election starting disappearing on 9/11, and completely died when the US went to war in Iraq. In 2000, some folks were willing to make a statement and voted for a third party. This year, it's more about keeping Bush firmly in place or getting rid of him. The third parties are irrelevant this year, including Nader. That's not necessarily a good thing...it just is.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)