Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

David Cobb to Crash Debate, Risk Arrest

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the good-luck dept.

RobertB-DC writes "The Washington Post reports that Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb plans to travel to St. Louis to protest his exclusion from the presidential debate. In a press release, the Cobb campaign says to expect 'non-violent civil disobedience' as the candidate enters the restricted area around the debate site." Alan Keyes tried that once. So did Ralph Nader.

4 of 64 comments (clear)

  1. I don't understand by j0nb0y · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't understand what he's trying to accomplish. A few more people will hear about him this way, but most of them will think he's a whacko. This isn't a very good way to make a first impression...

    The media, in general, doesn't seem to be very friendly to protestors these days.

    --
    If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
    1. Re:I don't understand by dTaylorSingletary · · Score: 3, Insightful


      You say this and you have a Robert Anton Wilson quote in your sig? He's doing this because he can, because he should, and because it's his right and for the benefit of America that his voice is heard even if he is not allowed to speak aloud.

      He is not doing it for himself. Or for what the media is friendly towards. People can think he's a wacko, but people as a rule are stupid. Individuals are what's he after, not "people".

      There's a fine line in the difference, and it is abstract, perhaps intangible. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

      --
      d. Taylor Singletary,
      reality technician techra.el
  2. Re:At some point common sense must prevail by BillyBlaze · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Most of the reason none of those people have a chance is that they are excluded from the debates. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - nobody knows what these people stand for, so nobody will vote for them in polls (on which they're often not included), so they can't get into debates, so nobody knows what they stand for, and so on. And the election system is set up so that anyone with less than probably 20% of the popular vote won't get a single electoral vote, and so that a vote for a third party candidate is often a vote against your second choice.

    It's possible that you just don't want a multiple-party system, and that's fine. But be honest about it - it's not necessairily against our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, even if it's against yours. Frankly, I'd like it for an "outsider" to be able to ask questions in a debate - though first we should work on giving the two already in the debate the ability to do so, in order to, uh, debate. The whole thing's a sham.

  3. Re:Inconsistency by BlueFashoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, the debates were run by the LWV until 1984. The CPD let Perot debate in 1992, although these days they don't let third parties in by contractual agreement; which is hardly nonpartisan. See http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Commi ssion_on_Presidential_Debates

    --
    Nice Marmot