politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Uh.. there's a lot of people looking forward to the debate between Trump and Biden, however some of us find it unfair that RFK Jr. isn't involved.
RFK Jr. isn't on the ballot in enough states to be considered a serious candidate.
He's on the ballot in Michigan (15), Oklahoma (7), and Utah (6). Total of 28 electoral college votes, far short of the 270 needed, even if he won all three (which he won't.)
He CLAIMS he has enough support to get on the ballot in 10 more, however this is unproven and he's still not on the ballot here:
California (54), Nevada (6), Idaho (4), Texas (40), Nebraska (5), Iowa (6), Ohio (17), North Carolina (16), Delaware (3), and New Hampshire (4), however all of those are unconfirmed.
https://elections2024.thehill.com/
Even if all of that is correct, and he won all of them, it would still only be 183 electoral college votes, 87 short of what's required to be President.
Debates are for actual Presidential candidates.
Thanks for your response, that makes sense.
Brain worms can't debate if they're dead
I don't care if RFK Jr. is in the debate or not. But any left leaning person actually entertaining voting for that moron is as bad as a Trump voter. It amounts to the same thing anyway.
I'm only saying it's unfair because it appears he's being blocked.
CNN already put out the conditions required for him to be part of the debate. Needs to get 15% in 4 high quality national polls and be on the ballot in enough places to be able to get elected.
15% is a pretty low bar in a winner take all election, and being able to possibly win seems like a reasonable standard if the goal is to have a real debate. In that case I would include the top 5 polling candidates, no matter how low their percentage is. That way there is a chance for sokething to be important other than the talking points of the two major parties.
I don't think it would be better, but then again the 'debates' are pointless any as they are just another place to spout campain slogans, and no actual debate occurs.
It doesn't matter how high they are polling if they aren't on the ballot in enough states to win.
Kennedy, Stein, and West COMBINED aren't on the ballot in enough states to win.
Out of curiosity, why does a news media outlet have the rights or the authority to set conditions? Is it just because they're hosting the debate? That's my assumption.
Yes, they "have the authority" because Biden and Trump agreed to have them host the debate. RFK Jr. (big emphasis on Junior) is intentionally excluded because he's nuts, and that's before the brainworms.
There's a person for the democrats, there's one for the republicans. Due to the voting system only two parties matter. Why invite someone else? Doesn't make sense. Don't get why you make that as blocking.
On October 9, 2023, RFK Jr. said that he would run as an independent candidate. Technically if he's independent, he too should be on the stage.
Don't get it mixed up, I'm not vouching for RFK Jr., I just believe in what's fair. But you're right, the U.S. seems to be a two party system, so they make the rules.
Are you not from the US? It’s pretty standardized, but not necessarily in a good way, from much of the world.
Saying you're running isn't enough, you have to be on the ballot and RFK isn't on the ballot in enough states to win.
True.
If you let every independent unaffiliated unnominated person running for president on stage it would be chaos. There have to be barriers to entry for it to be anything but.