Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

10 Things To Know About The Upcoming Debates

Posted by timothy on from the unconscionable-fraud dept.

jSpectre writes "Connie Rice writes an interesting article about the 'Presidential Debates' found on NPR's web site. Did you know it's illegal for the candidates to debate anywhere other than CPD ('Cloaking-device for Party Deception') officially santioned debates? Read on for her 'Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates.'" Read more CPD criticism at Open Debates.

10 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. I call Bullsh*t by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    (7.) The secretly negotiated debate contract bars Kerry and Bush from any and all other debates for the entire campaign.

    "Under what I call the Debate Suppression and Monopolization Clause of the contract, it is illegal for the candidates to debate each other anywhere else during the campaign," Rice says. "We need a new criminal law for reckless endangerment of democracy."

    Ok, there is a contract that says you will not do something. This doesn't make doing it Illegal (as in congress passes a law, and an executive signs it) subject to criminal penalties - it is a negotiated term in a contract, that if/when you violate it you are subject to civil penalties specified in the contract.

    I'll agree with the spirit of what is being said in this article - but the author really needs to tone down and report on facts as they are, not as they want them to be

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    1. Re:I call Bullsh*t by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless you are referring to bylaws in their parties, then illegal is a valid term. For those who say that illegal should refer to "stuff made criminal under US [federal|state|local] law," get over it, man submits himself to all sorts of authorities.

    2. Re:I call Bullsh*t by Hard_Code · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Haha... third parties are a much greater threat to the duopoly that the other member of the duopoly. Do you think either party will really risk breaking the rules their duopoly has agreed to, which would lead to opening the debates to other candidates?

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  2. Has the CPD responded? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or is this news story too soon? I'd really be interested if the CPD has any response to this at all- and maybe we need to be addressing congress to make contracts between the major parties illegal to begin with.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:Has the CPD responded? by j0nb0y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      lol. Mod parent funny.

      Why would Congress pass such a law when it is controlled *by the two major parties*? They wouldn't be the two major parties if they didn't control Congress...

      --
      If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
  3. Umm.... by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If breaking a contract was legal how would a court impose penalties for doing so?

    The fact that a court can impose a penalty means that it was against the law. If it was not against the law to break the contract there would be no way a court could enforce the document.

    1. Re:Umm.... by haijak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People misinterpret the purpose of contracts all the time. Something written in a contract is not automatically illegal. Breaking a contract is not illegal ether. A contract is a an agreement between 2 or more parties. If any party does not comply with what is agreed upon in the contract the other parties involved have solid legal ground to sue the non-compliant for damages resulting from their breach of the contract.

      Basically in this case, if they participate in another debate, they would probably loose the resulting civil law suit. Now he would probably loose, it's not guaranteed. If they dose lose then they would have to pay the other party(s).

      So the contract is basically a way to make sure you can sue somebody later, if they do something you don't want. In no way does it make somthing legal or ilegal.

      --
      Don't judge me by my spelling
  4. Re:Article Correction by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It wasn't a mistake. They were making a point about the legality of the debates by changing what the organization's abbreviation stands for.

  5. Congress wont reform by superascal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Congress will never change the laws regarding the two party duopoly until some thrid party congress members are elected. Same thing with a national initiative or term limits. We're farked.

    --
    Dalbert
  6. Re:Reform is necessary... by BrynM · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What is to keep the independent candidates from buying prime-time TV air time and doing a real debate for the public.
    1. Money
    2. Cooperation from TV Networks
    3. Money
    4. Favors to the two main parties from the TV industry
    5. Money
    6. Having any real influence in Washington DC
    7. Money
    8. American Voter Ignorance
    9. Money
    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)