NYTimes: Jill Stein Green Party Candidate [for POTUS] & the Chances of Making a Difference

[Kilmer17]

I hope she does REALLY REALLY well this year.

[thebluefood]

I agree with the premise that anyone nominated by a formal party to run for president should be allowed to participate in all the same debates. Its crap that they arent allowed.

Agreed. The system is rigged to keep this nation under a broken two party system. Look what happened in '92 when they let Ross Perot in on it. From what I understand, he even led in the polls in a few states during the course of the campaign season.

You run third party or even vote for a third party candidate and they'll do everything they can to paint you as a nut job, whether or not you actually are.

[Koolblue13]

I think They (R's and D's) think that way, but I dont think thats the way its really defined.

While probably not technically, I'd assume it closer to the way it is. IMO anyway.

There is a huge difference between the Repulicrats and any other minor party.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Who would a Green Third Party hurt or help more I wonder?

[thebluefood]

Who would a Green Third Party hurt or help more I wonder?

I'd guess it would hurt the Democrats more since it would take away liberal voters, just like Libertarian Party candidates take voters away conservative that would usually vote Republican.

The Green Party and Libertarian Party troll the two party system the best they can and I applaud them for it.

[Kilmer17]

Who would a Green Third Party hurt or help more I wonder?

In the major races, it would hurt the Dem candidates. But down ballot races (those without a Green Party candidate) it would help Dems.

[Koolblue13]

I'd guess it would hurt the Democrats more since it would take away liberal voters, just like Libertarian Party candidates take voters away conservative that would usually vote Republican.

The Green Party and Libertarian Party troll the two party system the best they can and I applaud them for it.

I feel zero representation from the RD, so how are they trolling it? I get that you have the two (one) main groups that everybody would technically be coming from, I guess I just don't agree with it or I've broken away from it already.

[Ellis]

Fist: Obama has come out STRONGLY against Romney's position that corporations are people. To say that both parties agree that they are is a lie. If you cant get that simple fact straight, why should I listen to you?

LOL! I said "political parties" have agreed that corporations are people. The top two largest political parties are currently benefiting from the ruling of Citizens United vs FEC. I don't see either one of them boycotting funds from corporations... or shutting down super PAC's. I don't see either one of them calling for a reversal of the ruling before this election comes up. If you think only the republicans are benefiting from it, then you're in denial. if you think Obama won't benefit in this election season from the ruling of Citizens United vs FEC, then once again I must conclude... you are in complete denial.

Additionally, the fact that YOU can't get the facts of my simple sentence straight leads me to ask myself why I should bother listening to you. "The current political parties have agreed that corporations are people. THAT'S radical." That's what I said. Not Romney. Not Obama. "Political Parties."

Second: No matter how frustrated you are with the current political situation, choosing the wrong replacements for the current crop of politicians will not make things better. It will make things worse.

It may make things worse for you and what you believe in... but it won't makes things worse for me and what I believe in. This is how politics work. People pick sides based on what they believe in.

[88Comrade2000]

the one thing the R's and D's work together on is keeping the American Political System just for themselves. If you hate this and especially if you live in a state where you know its going to go for Obama or Romney already, vote for a 3rd party person. Without increasing numbers in their favor, it only gets hard when the next election year hits. I didn't vote for Obama in 08. I won't vote for him in 12. Maryland is as blue as our economy is better than most states. There is no reason for folks to go Red for the most part. But if a Libertarian or Green Party Candidate can get more votes than they did in 08. That's a good thing.

Here here. While we have no real choice regardinig the 2 men who realistically will be president; giving third parties an increasing share could help make them one of the majority parties in the future.

We all know what will happen with the 2 idiots:

Obama who I currently give a 60% chance of winning will give us this:

1. Obama wins and gets a full Dem Congress- he will go full fledge to the left and finish his transformation of the US to a European Socialist Style Country.

2. Obama wins but has a split congress- more of the same of the last 2 years. Meaning, nothing meaningful will be done

3. Obama wins but has a full Republican congress- I personally think there would be impeachment hearings at some point during his second term if that's the result. I think he will break the presidential record for vetos. Nothing will be done and they will just bicker, positioning themselves for the 214 midterms.

Romney who I currently give a 40% chance of winning will give us this:

1. Romney wins and gets a full Dem Congress. I expect it would be similar to his failed term as governor. Will probably lose his renomination bid in 2016.

2. Romney wins and gets a split congress. Some things actually might be done but nothing real major.

3. Romney wins and gets a full Republican congress. He will be nothing more than a puppet of a right wing congress that will take this country to far to right. This will lead to Dems winning big in 2014 and Hillary in 2016.

Personally, I don't see any of the problems facing this country being solved in the next 4 years. The Dems and Repubs won't solve them, only caring about the issues they care about. So anything to give third parties more voice,I am all for it.

---------- Post added July-12th-2012 at 04:52 PM ----------

So many things need to be changed. Viable 3rd and maybe even 4th party. Perhaps a single 6 year term for President so once elected they can stop running for office. Actually term limits on the hill so guys like Reid and Boehner and McConnell wouldn't be there anymore...along with a banning from lobbying for working with a lobbying firm after holding official office. Bottom line is corruption and how can we get rid of it?

No term limits the way you want per se, I am in favor of a modified term limit that many states have for governor. I think the voters should have the right to be able to vote their congressmen,senator and president out. Still, you need to let these politicians spend time back in the real world.

I would do this:

House

You can run for 4 consecutive 2 year terms, for a total of 8 years. Then you have to wait 4 years before you can run for congress again.

President

First I would change the Presidential term to 3 years. A one time 6 year term is too long. My suggestions gives us a chance to get rid of a bad president sooner.

You can run for 3 consecutive 3 year terms, for a total of 9 years. Then you would have to wait 6 years before being able to run again.

Senate

I would change the term for Senator to 4 years.

You can run for 2 consecutive 4 year terms, for a total of 8 years. You would then have to wait 4 years to be able to run again.

---------- Post added July-12th-2012 at 05:04 PM ----------

As for debates, I would do this:

September-

Around Mid Sept. - Debate 1: You have one debate where all candidates, including third party candidates are welcomed.

Late Sept. - Debate 2a: Obama vs Romney - A third or more candidate would only be allowed if they are polling 5% nationally.

Late Sept. - Debate 2b: All the other candidates not polling at least 5% get their own debate.

2nd Week of October: Debate 3: OBama vs Romney- A third or more candidate would only be allowed if they are polling 5% nationally.

Week before Election: Debate 4a: OBama vs Romney- A third or more candidate would only be allowed if they are polling 5% nationally.

Debate 4b: All the other candidates not polling at least 5% get their own debate.

By having everyone in the first debate, it gets alternative views out there and maybe a third party guy can catch on fire. By limiting the remaining debates to people over 5% I think is fair because you want to hear the 2 people who will actually win it go head to head but you set a 5% threshold so someone else could be included. See Ross Perot in 1992. The little guys though will get 2 of their own debates.

Who knows, maybe some can catch on fire and upset the big idiots in Obama and Romney.

[@DCGoldPants]

3 years for the President is way too short. Even when its not true (because it is this time), it takes time to make changes on that level and potentially fix the mess the guy left before you. Its not like you go into office and all the sudden the crashing economy is yours. For whatever reason its too hard for people to even see on a chart huge job loses slowing down and turning into even small gains....and giving you credit.

3 consecutive 3 year terms....man. I couldn't handle that even if Teddy Roosevelt came back from the grave and made my lifetime by winning it all.