PDA

View Full Version : Kucinich was excluded from todays debate....




Seanmc30
01-06-2008, 12:55 AM
Ok, this may have been posted here but I didn't see it.

Did anyone notice Kucinich was excluded from the ABC debate today? Do any of you find it strange that BOTH candidates challenging the status quo of their parties have been excluded from at least one NH debate?

yongrel
01-06-2008, 12:59 AM
The debate would have been much better if Kucinich had been there.

Soccrmastr
01-06-2008, 01:01 AM
this is Ron Paul ABC/Facebook debate forum... about Ron Paul... not Kucinich.. there's other forums on here for tlaking about other candidates

RonPaulCult
01-06-2008, 01:02 AM
no...... Kucinich has 0% chance of getting the nomination, has no money, is a socialist, and is going to drop out soon.

Shame on you for saying about Dennis Kucinich the same things that people say about Ron Paul. Yes of course he has little money and isn't doing well in the polls but I just wonder if he were given the same attention in the debates and in the MSM if he would WIN.

Only facists want to exclude candidates from debates.

Noleader
01-06-2008, 01:04 AM
Kucinich should have been included. Sad to hear folks in this forum say he should be excluded just because they do not support him.

AcidReign
01-06-2008, 01:07 AM
Shame on you for saying about Dennis Kucinich the same things that people say about Ron Paul. Yes of course he has little money and isn't doing well in the polls but I just wonder if he were given the same attention in the debates and in the MSM if he would WIN.

Only facists want to exclude candidates from debates.

I hear ya, but do you really think the republican debate would have been better with Duncan Hunter included? He really should bow out gracefully.

CountryboyRonPaul
01-06-2008, 01:09 AM
There were requirements for this one.

ronpaulyourmom
01-06-2008, 01:12 AM
I'm sad to see Dennis go. The reason he was excluded was because he wasn't able to generate 5% in either national or NH polls.

Ron Paul Fan
01-06-2008, 01:13 AM
There were specific requirements for this debate and Kucinich didn't meet them. Shame on those people who are defending a gun grabbing socialist.

disciple
01-06-2008, 01:15 AM
No one should be excluded before the early primaries.

Noleader
01-06-2008, 01:15 AM
There were requirements for this one.

Thats what they are saying about the Fox News one as well... Requirements can be placed so you can exclude who you like when you like. If Paul polled 10% nationally Fox would have just said we took the top 5 from the list based on Poll numbers. Had Paul polled ahead of someone a week before the debate they could have said they were going to use a 2 month average of the polls to pick the 5... It is easy to set the requirements the way you want.

ronpaulyourmom
01-06-2008, 01:16 AM
There were specific requirements for this debate and Kucinich didn't meet them. Shame on those people who are defending a gun grabbing socialist.

Don't get me wrong I didn't want him to win... but I enjoy and respect him showing everybody else how most of the democratic candidates are big ole fascists.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-06-2008, 01:17 AM
Well I don't know how much Dennis has in terms of $$$ and poll percentages. He got 0% in Iowa as far as I know.

The issues is whether he has any money or poll numbers or something to make him legit.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-06-2008, 01:18 AM
No one should be excluded before the early primaries.


Well that's just silly, because then you would have 200 people on the stage.

CountryboyRonPaul
01-06-2008, 01:22 AM
Thats what they are saying about the Fox News one as well... Requirements can be placed so you can exclude who you like when you like. If Paul polled 10% nationally Fox would have just said we took the top 5 from the list based on Poll numbers. Had Paul polled ahead of someone a week before the debate they could have said they were going to use a 2 month average of the polls to pick the 5... It is easy to set the requirements the way you want.

BILL MOYERS: As you were coming in, I was reading another story on the Internet about Fox News excluding you from the Republican debate this weekend in New Hampshire. What was the rationale they gave you?

RON PAUL: They wouldn't give us one. We kept calling. And matter of fact, even the Fox affiliate in Houston came and interviewed me, and they were interested in the story. And they called, and they couldn't even get an answer. Of course, they were getting a lot of calls from our supporters in Texas wanting to-- why he's excluded. But the affiliate wasn't even told why. They don't tell us what the criteria is. And so it's all speculation. But I think in the long run they're going to be more embarrassed than I will be.



As you can see, if there are requirements for this Fox Forum, they are not being made public.

ChickenHawk
01-06-2008, 01:23 AM
Well that's just silly, because then you would have 200 people on the stage.


Probably more. If they new they would be guaranteed a spot on national TV just think how many more people would sign up to run. You always have candidates that are running for fun, to sell a book they wrote or whatever. You can't put them all in the debate it would render it a complete joke. Yes, Kucinich is a complete joke and a commie.

Ryokucha
01-06-2008, 01:24 AM
There were specific requirements for this debate and Kucinich didn't meet them. Shame on those people who are defending a gun grabbing socialist.

Whoa... it is that kind of thinking that Faux uses to keep Ron Paul out of their debate. I don't care if you don't like Kucinich's message, but when you take his right away to speak it is no different then what faux is doing to Ron Paul tomorrow.

This is America, There are people out there that do belive in his message they should have every right to be able to get their message out on the same format as the rest of the "Top Teir" candidates. I might not belive in his message, but I will defend his right to have it broadcast like a "Top Teir", because I belive in the constitution even more then if the message does not match my own.

RonPaulCult
01-06-2008, 01:29 AM
If you in a high office and you are going around the country running as a presidential candidate I say IN THE INTEREST OF DEMOCRACY you should be included in all debates. You should be talked about equally on air by fair and ethical journalist. And you should have the same amount of time given to you in the debates.

I am shocked that you as Ron Paul supporters do not feel this way too. You are outraged when it's your guy but mock others that it is happening to?

Less than 1% of the votes have been cast in this election. How dare you, Fox News, ABC or ANYBODY decide who is and who is not viable.

This is the kind of talk that results in us only having a douche and a turd to select from in the general election.

Freiheit
01-06-2008, 01:31 AM
lol @ people not caring that Dennis got excluded, but if Ron Paul gets excluded from something they bitch, moan, and complain.

CountryboyRonPaul
01-06-2008, 01:35 AM
Whoa... it is that kind of thinking that Faux uses to keep Ron Paul out of their debate. I don't care if you don't like Kucinich's message, but when you take his right away to speak it is no different then what faux is doing to Ron Paul tomorrow.

This is America, There are people out there that do belive in his message they should have every right to be able to get their message out on the same format as the rest of the "Top Teir" candidates. I might not belive in his message, but I will defend his right to have it broadcast like a "Top Teir", because I belive in the constitution even more then if the message does not match my own.

I'm not defending anybodies exclusion from the debates, but the truth is that ABC is a privately owned company, just like FOX.

They can exclude anyone they want, as long as they are prepared for the blowback.

FOX is seeing it with the NH GOPs withdrawal of support over the RP fiasco.

ABC announced it's requirements long in advance, FOX has yet to announce it's requirements.

I'm willing to take on FOX for Paul, but do I really care about Kucinich?

No, like someone earlier said, he's a gun grabbing socialist. And I don't really understand why so many people here expect other RP supporters to support him too.

EDIT: Let the Kucinich supporters worry about it.

ChickenHawk
01-06-2008, 01:40 AM
If you in a high office and you are going around the country running as a presidential candidate I say IN THE INTEREST OF DEMOCRACY you should be included in all debates. You should be talked about equally on air by fair and ethical journalist. And you should have the same amount of time given to you in the debates.

I am shocked that you as Ron Paul supporters do not feel this way too. You are outraged when it's your guy but mock others that it is happening to?

Less than 1% of the votes have been cast in this election. How dare you, Fox News, ABC or ANYBODY decide who is and who is not viable.

This is the kind of talk that results in us only having a douche and a turd to select from in the general election.

Okay, so we put 30-40 people on stage and give them all equal time. The average American looks at it and sees a bunch of candidates that nobody is ever going to support and decides it is just a joke. At that point the important messages never get out because it just a jumbled mess of nobodies.

If someone has anything remotely close to the broad appeal needed be competitive they will be able to establish themselves in the polls and raise money indicating that they are real candidate. It is completely within reason for candidates to be excluded if they don't meet some level of seriousness.

Kucinich being excluded is nothing like Ron being excluded from the Fox forum. Ron is polling higher and has raised more money than several of the invited competitors. Kucinich is going now where and everyone knows it. This despite have been at numerous debates up to this point.

Ron Paul Fan
01-06-2008, 01:48 AM
That's ridiculous to include everybody. Nobody would be able to speak for more than 30 seconds with as many people as you guys want to include. The difference between ABC and Fox is that ABC has specific criteria that was released well beforehand. Kucinich, Gravel, and Hunter didn't meet it. It's their decision. Fox News didn't release anything and didn't even tell Paul why he was excluded. It was never made public. But it's still their decision, and they have to deal with the backlash.

dawnbt
01-06-2008, 01:52 AM
Kucinich should have been included. Sad to hear folks in this forum say he should be excluded just because they do not support him.

I agree. How dare we protest because we are excluded and then say it is OK for Kucinich to be excluded. He is not a neo-con, like us, and deserves to be heard, just as Ron Paul.

RonPaulCult
01-06-2008, 01:57 AM
Okay, so we put 30-40 people on stage and give them all equal time. The average American looks at it and sees a bunch of candidates that nobody is ever going to support and decides it is just a joke. At that point the important messages never get out because it just a jumbled mess of nobodies.

If someone has anything remotely close to the broad appeal needed be competitive they will be able to establish themselves in the polls and raise money indicating that they are real candidate. It is completely within reason for candidates to be excluded if they don't meet some level of seriousness.

Kucinich being excluded is nothing like Ron being excluded from the Fox forum. Ron is polling higher and has raised more money than several of the invited competitors. Kucinich is going now where and everyone knows it. This despite have been at numerous debates up to this point.

Where are you guys getting this 30 to 40 to 200 people figure? If you read the first few words of my post you would have seen me say people in HIGH OFFICES. Not just Joe down the street that is running for president.

Last time Ron Paul was excluded from a debate (in Iowa months ago) he was hardly polling above Kucinich. Everybody said the same things about him that they say about Kucinich now.

The corporations only pay attention to their corporate candidates and those that aren't owned by the corporations like Ron Paul and LIKE KUCINICH have to fight.

Win or lose - this revolution must continue on in the next few years. And that SHOULD include fighting for fairness even for people or groups we may not agree with.

noztnac
01-06-2008, 01:59 AM
Include everyone.

I'm shocked that nobody is crying racism over Alan Keye's exclusion.

Ryokucha
01-06-2008, 02:00 AM
That's ridiculous to include everybody. Nobody would be able to speak for more than 30 seconds with as many people as you guys want to include. The difference between ABC and Fox is that ABC has specific criteria that was released well beforehand. Kucinich, Gravel, and Hunter didn't meet it. It's their decision. Fox News didn't release anything and didn't even tell Paul why he was excluded. It was never made public. But it's still their decision, and they have to deal with the backlash.
Then don't get mad at faux for not including Ron Paul, as ChickenHawk said in his argument, they are a Privately owned company. Based on that they are free to exclude Ron Paul for whatever reason they want, heck they could say we just don't have the room for him, oh wait that is what they said.

The problem that comes in to play is then breaking the FEC rules, which is why you do not see networks broadcast just the candidate they stand for. They are suppose to be giving each candidate equal air time, or not to report on the elections at all.

On to the issue of time, why can they not speak for 30 secs at a time? Because networks like to place time limits on debates. Make a second debate, make the debate longer. Don't have room for the candidates, find a bigger place. There are lots of options out there, the excuses are just to get around the FEC rules.

ChickenHawk
01-06-2008, 02:02 AM
Where are you guys getting this 30 to 40 to 200 people figure? If you read the first few words of my post you would have seen me say people in HIGH OFFICES. Not just Joe down the street that is running for president.

So you would have to be a career politician to get in the debates?

Ryokucha
01-06-2008, 02:04 AM
Include everyone.

I'm shocked that nobody is crying racism over Alan Keye's exclusion.

I really hope in this day and age people can get over race, religion, sex, ect. I know I live in my own little dream world, but come on really we are better then that.

Ron Paul Fan
01-06-2008, 02:05 AM
I'm not mad at them for excluding Ron Paul. I actually think it'll help him more being excluded. If the FEC rules that they are violating the law, then they should be punished. People are saying that they'd only include people in high office. So I guess they would have excluded Steve Forbes back when he was running for President in 2000 even if he's polling 2nd. The networks are running the debates and can choose how they run them! Even Paul has acknowledged this! He's just upset, as am I, that there hasn't been a reason given for his exclusion from the Fox News Forum. If they want to exclude him, fine, but give a legitimate reason like ABC did!

thoughtbombing
01-06-2008, 02:08 AM
There were specific requirements for this debate and Kucinich didn't meet them. Shame on those people who are defending a gun grabbing socialist.


Shame on you for excluding a man who said RON PAUL would be his choice of running mate... or a man who was one of the ONLY people to vote with Ron Paul on a good majority of those votes of conscience. Different political Philosophy--but of all the gun grabbers, I think Kucinich is actually a person who would be doing it for peaceful reasons. I disagree with that stance, because I don't share his optimism for the goodness of mankind--but God damnit, he's got AS MUCH principle as Ron Paul does. We need people like him in the congress.. and he'd be an AWESOME VICE PRESIDENT... or perhaps Secretary of State!

Personally, I was writing Bush to make Ron Paul Attorney General recently before Mukasy got in.

thoughtbombing
01-06-2008, 02:11 AM
And BY THE DAMN WAY... RON PAUL HAS SAID THAT IF HE IS THE NOMINEE, HE'D MAKE SURE ALL THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES SHARED THE STAGE IN DEBATES, OR HE'D BOYCOTT THE DEBATE HIMSELF.

NOW THAT IS PRINCIPLE.

Ron Paul Fan
01-06-2008, 02:12 AM
Shame on you for excluding a man who said RON PAUL would be his choice of running mate... or a man who was one of the ONLY people to vote with Ron Paul on a good majority of those votes of conscience. Different political Philosophy--but of all the gun grabbers, I think Kucinich is actually a person who would be doing it for peaceful reasons. I disagree with that stance, because I don't share his optimism for the goodness of mankind--but God damnit, he's got AS MUCH principle as Ron Paul does. We need people like him in the congress.. and he'd be an AWESOME VICE PRESIDENT... or perhaps Secretary of State!

Personally, I was writing Bush to make Ron Paul Attorney General recently before Mukasy got in.

Buddy, I didn't exclude anybody. If I were running ABC, I would have included Kucinich even though I disagree with him. Also, can you please cite where Ron Paul says Dennis Kucinich(the socialist gun grabber) would be his choice for VP? Hey, didn't Kucinich vote for the Iraq Liberation Act calling for regime change in Iraq? Wasn't that Bill Clinton's policy?

RonPaulCult
01-06-2008, 02:14 AM
So you would have to be a career politician to get in the debates?


I would have to answer yes and no to this question.

I think there is some merit in selecting a president that has some political experience. Having a record to break down is helpful to the voter in predicting what they can expext from him or her.

Often prominent members of the military run for president also. I would want such candidates to be invited to the debates.

You might also have well known businessmen (Ross Perot) or famous people such as actors (not that I like it but - Fred Thompson isn't have the troubles that Ron Paul is having is he?)

It all comes down to who is SERIOUSLY running in an election. Who is on the ballot. Who is going around shaking hands. Who is giving speeches.

If you are doing that - then allow the people to have access to your viewpoints on tv. Then let the people and not the media decide whom to choose.

Ryokucha
01-06-2008, 02:25 AM
He's just upset, as am I, that there hasn't been a reason given for his exclusion from the Fox News Forum. If they want to exclude him, fine, but give a legitimate reason like ABC did!

They did give the reason, they do not have enough room and when with who they belive was the most viable. I think the problem is then, at what point do they say, we only have room for one guy, he is the most viable and will win, just elect this person, thanks!

RonPaulCult
01-06-2008, 02:30 AM
They did give the reason, they do not have enough room and when with who they belive was the most viable. I think the problem is then, at what point do they say, we only have room for one guy, he is the most viable and will win, just elect this person, thanks!

Also I just read in an abc article they said he is "polling below 10% nationally"

angrydragon
01-06-2008, 02:31 AM
They agreed to the rules and standards for being in the debate.

Plus this is the Ron Paul forum, not the other candidates forum. Yah it sucks they didn't get invited, but their supporters should be fighting like we do.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gjh7i72QlPs1j5mdjTogPjGGlCnQD8TV70I00

ABC anchor Charles Gibson will moderate both debates.

The network set up benchmarks to narrow the field for the debates. Candidates had to meet at least one of three criteria: place first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys.

ABC said the rules were quite inclusive, and that none of the candidates objected ahead of time. Its decision was made easier by Democrats Joe Biden and Chris Dodd dropping out of the race Thursday night.

BreakYourChains
01-06-2008, 02:44 AM
Well I don't know how much Dennis has in terms of $$$ and poll percentages. He got 0% in Iowa as far as I know.

The issues is whether he has any money or poll numbers or something to make him legit.

I respectfully disagree. Kucinich fulfilled the state requirements to be put on the ballot, and he did the same in Iowa, which I think many of us know from experience in our own states, perhaps is not that easy. He did not try to campaign in Iowa, as they were the first state to exclude him from the debates (because he wasn't paying his campaign manager there a salary). It is dirty on both sides of the party aisles.

Yes, New Hampshire is a bit different. Anyone can pay $1000 there and run for president. But, Kucinich is a candidate who is fighting against the status quo in the dem party, and they did not want him on the stage telling the truth to people about all of the lobbying/special interests and scams of their own platforms, just like they do not want Ron Paul on the stage.

We should be interested in justice, not party affiliations. Who has the right to judge which candidate speaks? All should be allowed to speak. We cannot fall for that line of thinking, or we are guilty of the same thing that we are upset at Fox News about.

We love Ron Paul, but all should be allowed to speak, including Duncan Hunter. He has invested his time and life and money into this as well. We need to remember this for the future, and try to be just in our own actions and words, even if we know our guy is the best possible guy for the job. The best man will win. None of the "lower tier candidates" got a fair share of debate time going into this thing, and we know that without a media platform, no one even hears of some of these candidates names, thus how can these bogus polls show a person's true support?

The polls are what is the problem....they are running the show. The media flocks around the latest poll like flies on honey. To some of you younger members, I certainly do remember a time not too long ago when there were no polls. Now, they rule the entire political spectrum. In fact, when I had to wait two hours today to get the latest poll results from CNN, ( I knew there were others out, but wanted to see what they were spewing today) I began to think perhaps they got the Rasmussen poll first and didn't like the results, so they took another quicky poll from one of the universities there in New Hampshire.

As to money, isn't it sad, that we have so many people in this country who are hungry and have no homes, and are sick with no care, and soldiers who are fighting for healthcare, and yet this political process spends this much money? I find it disgusting. I also see that it only matters about the money raised if you are a chosen candidate. Again, we put up with this perverted system, and this is what we get. You have to have money or you do not have a chance. Then, those with the most money, get to rule over us as a result, instead of the other way around.

Yes, we have to keep funding Dr. Paul in order to win. But, let us not forget the injustice of this entire system, and perhaps we can fight to change it for the future.

fcnz
01-06-2008, 03:27 AM
Buddy, I didn't exclude anybody. If I were running ABC, I would have included Kucinich even though I disagree with him. Also, can you please cite where Ron Paul says Dennis Kucinich(the socialist gun grabber) would be his choice for VP? Hey, didn't Kucinich vote for the Iraq Liberation Act calling for regime change in Iraq? Wasn't that Bill Clinton's policy?

I think it's the other way around, Kicinich said he would have RP as his VP if he was elected.

Ball
01-06-2008, 12:44 PM
Kucinich doesn't add anything to the debate.

Gravel on the other hand doesn't mind mixing it up!

sunny
01-06-2008, 12:47 PM
kucinich has ALREADY dropped out! ????

nate895
01-06-2008, 12:49 PM
Shame on you for saying about Dennis Kucinich the same things that people say about Ron Paul. Yes of course he has little money and isn't doing well in the polls but I just wonder if he were given the same attention in the debates and in the MSM if he would WIN.

Only facists want to exclude candidates from debates.

Excluding some candidates is OK, because there are around 50 people seeking the GOP nomination, according to politcs1.com (http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm), so it would be ridiculous to include everybody.

Battlecruiser
01-06-2008, 12:54 PM
Yeah, it sucked. Kucinich is a true democrat and Ron Paul is a true republican. It is no surprise that they are both being excluded. MSM is a bunch of status quoers.