It’s official: When the first presidential debate takes place next Monday, a week from today, it will exclude third-party candidates from the debate stage. The Commission on Presidential Debates announced Friday that both Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party failed to qualify by polling at 15 percent or higher. This comes as polls show Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are among the least popular major-party candidates to ever run for the White House. We get reaction from four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who has previously been excluded from debates. He has a new book titled “Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think.”

Continue reading:  Two-Party Tyranny: Ralph Nader on Exclusion of Third-Party Candidates from First Presidential Debate

10 thoughts on “Two-Party Tyranny: Ralph Nader on Exclusion of Third-Party Candidates from First Presidential Debate

  1. Is this a democracy or not? If it is, then it’s up to “we the people” to wake up and realize the mock up, and mockery, inherent in lamestream media show biz debates. Boycott the debates completely. Turn off the TV’s and vote according to conscience, not commercialism. Nail another spike in lamestream media’s coffin and be done. Or live with the results of dependable sheeple acquiescence.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I am sorry but I think you are missing the point here. I have nothing against third party candidates, however neither of these is going to win. The votes they do take are not going to make a difference in their winning but will make a difference in which one of the two main parties will win. There are two very important things to remember. FIrst is the electoral college. The two main parties have set the stage so that you must get a set number of these to win. There is no way any one not of the two major parties can do that as the system currently stands. Popular vote will not help any candidate, remember Al Gore won the popular vote, lost the election. Second so many people focus on the White House, the Presidency as the only goal. This is a mistake the democrats make that has allowed the republicans to maintain such a gridlock in congress. Republicans went after local and state races, putting themselves in a great position for congressional wins. It also helps tremendously in presidential contests as we can see. Winning the Presidency is great but the President alone can’t advance a party’s platform.

    What the third party’s need to do to become viable is run for local elections, then state elections. Get the way power to effect the rules. Jump to congress when the get state power. That is what Bernie Sanders did. From congress they can then work to end the two party system. I agree I would like to end that system. I would like to end the Electoral College. It can not, and won’t happen by just running for President every four years and losing each time. That simply hurts the cause in my opinion.

    Last as I said about the protest vote. Again either Trump or Clinton will win. No chance it won’t happen. No matter how you feel about each candidate there is clear and complete difference between them. We will have to live with the consequences of who wins. Regardless of who wins that person will still have to deal with congress. You need to ask yourself how the things important to you, from the environment to food inspectors and from energy to the military, will be affected by a republican president and a republican congress. Congress now passes a lot of stuff that is stopped by a presidential veto or threat of one. Would Trump be more likely to sign a bill harmful to your interests if sent to him by his congress? Would Clinton try to block or veto such a bill? These are not small questions. If you are simply against H. Clinton or D. Trump, remember the harm each could do. I personally think the damage to the things I care about is greatly higher with Trump in office working with congress. SO I will do what I can and use my vote to block him from getting into office by Voting for Hillary, hoping she gets the presidency. If I vote third party as a protest to each, I will not help my cause at all. Thanks. Be well. Hugs


    • How could I possibly be “missing the point” by simply sharing an interview with Ralph Nader without offering any commentary of my own whatsoever?

      I agree with your electoral analysis; but, I will not vote for: 1) the lesser of two “evils,” or 2) a thoroughly corrupt politician like Hillary Clinton.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I was referring to the comments section. You have the right to do as you said. But by doing so you accept the consequences of what that may cause. I do not share your opinion of Hillary but I respect your right to the belief and also to act on it. I saw the consequence of Ralph Nader’s presidential election and the sad “butterfly ballot” had on the state of florida first hand. I was living in West Palm Beach at the time and the ballot was a horrible confusing mess. It was hard to believe it was not done deliberately. Be well . Hugs


        • Frankly my dear friend Scottie, I don’t give a damn anymore. The deterioration of this nation’s politics has already exceeded my tolerance threshold. If the grand American Experiment cannot survive without rampant institutional corruption, then it deserves to die.

          Liked by 1 person

      • The part that is always missed in two-party systems (which technically is a dictatorship) is that “the people” CAN elect someone outside the chosen crud. It’s the hurricane level brainwashing that keeps “the people” from casting their vote where they should rather than where they’re told to. If people understood that voting isn’t a competition and it’s not a question of rah-rah-ing for the home team but a matter of conscience, then you could actually make changes where it counts. The best candidate for US president at the moment is Jill Stein, hands down. So why can’t the whole country simply vote for her and ignore the grandstanding, the ignorance and the corruption that the enemies of the people have put up for election? If “they” can put so much pressure on you that you can’t vote freely, by choice of conscience then you are not in a democracy.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s