Jill Stein: How the Debates Got Corrupted


From Jill2016.com, September 2nd, 2016:

Here’s the story of how the elites deceived the American public:

1988 was a milestone year.

Up until then, the League of Women Voters impartially sponsored presidential debates.

That setup didn’t cut it for Democrats and Republicans, which had corporate interests in mind.

So they teamed up to create a corporation called the Commission on Presidential Debates. They set out to deceive Americans by using an official-sounding word like “commission” in their name.

Think about it: Political opponents were willing to work together for the greater evil.

The League of Women Voters immediately withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates because the demands of the establishment parties would — in its own words — “perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.”

Even when Donald Trump ran for president in 2000, he said it was “disgraceful and amazing” that the commission on presidential debates could “get away with” keeping candidates out of the debates. In true Trump fashion, he threatened to sue if another presidential candidate’s lawsuit to open up the debates failed.

We’re done with being deceived.

We’re calling for a real debate — one run by an impartial group that isn’t swayed by the scent of the dollar or bullied by establishment elites.

And if Jill doesn’t get on the debate stage, you can bet we’ll be outside Hofstra University demonstrating for justice for the American people.

Please join us TODAY! Tell the media you will no longer be deceived. It’s time to open up the debates and allow all four candidates on stage.

It’s in our hands!

The Stein/Baraka Campaign Team

P.S. Write a letter to the media TODAY expressing your disgust in being deceived by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

10 thoughts on “Jill Stein: How the Debates Got Corrupted

  1. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Jill, the critical year was 1992, not 1988.

    Communication and collaboration are built into our being. Proponents of the Tabula Rasa concept for humanity were wrong. We are first and foremost animals, biological beings whose survival depended on cooperating with those around us and caring for each other.

    Today, these same drives are frustrated, especially politically. Connecting to others for action relieves the need for community, in many of us frustrated today. Connection also releases the explosion of innovation that exists in each of us.

    Brock d’Avignon, after inventing PhoneVoter, spent years as a teacher who found that kids, all kids, could see ways of solving problems which had evaded PhDs. In a world where credentials have come to be valued beyond these innner capacities, we know PhoneVoter can enble outcomes beyond imagining.

    At Hi TV Networks we are offering a real alternative to ease frustration and provide 360 Degrees of Communication, including with political candidates, or simulations of same. This is the first step of a revolution to bring peace and prosperity by allowing each of us to connect to the best within.

    About the 1992 Presidential Election

    Ross Perot was polling less than 7% on January 21, 1992 when he started using PhoneVoter. By the time he dropped out he was at 38%.

    7% would not have gotten him Larry King’s attention. What happened between January and February 20, when the plucky billionaire appeared on Larry King Live to discuss his sudden political visibility?

    The reason for this sudden, explosive, popularity was PhoneVoter, made available to Perot on January 21st by Brock d’Avignon, a cheerful and innovative participatory satellite TV pioneer. That was the day Brock launched Pallas Productions/Athena Graphics and began offering services to candidates for president. The services, PhoneVoter and satellite up-links, allowed voters to register their opinions on candidates and policy.

    Americans were starving for a voice in government. Brock provided it. From January to April only the PhoneVoter technology was available, and this alone impacted the positions of the Congressmembers receiving the compiled votes of the PhoneVoter users from their districts. But when transmissions began being up-linked to satellite and into millions of homes, the impact exploded.

    Brock d’Avignon is the only reason Bill Clinton was elected president. Hearing Brock’s advice, Clinton immediately took the plunge, rented a Satellite Up-link Truck, $35,000 a month, out of his last $50,000 and, only weeks before the primaries in NY and California. This rocketed his poll numbers from single digits to winning the Democratic nomination.

    You never heard this before because after the 1992 primary season ended, the potential for American voters to register their opinions in real time ended. The PhoneVoter Open Invitational Debate Tournament, which Brock had planned as his second innovation, did not take place. The major parties recognized the threat to their hold on control and eliminated the threat to their power.

    The Republican and Democratic parties united to create the private Debate Commission, stopping this threat of competition. They also agreed not to use PhoneVoter or satellites for campaigns.

    In 1996 the Dole-Kemp Ticket lost. They refused to use PhoneVoter, evidence of the agreement between the major parties. Haley Barbour and the DNC continued to cooperate 1992 policy of the major parties. Neither major party campaigned on Satellite (COS). This, despite General Collin Powell, Steve Forbes, and Phil Gramm’s expressed wish to use PhoneVoter technologies.

    In 2000 Cindy McCain commented, having been told about PhoneVoter, “If we had known about this technology you would be president!” to her husband, John, who had lost his early lead on Bush due to manipulations of another kind.

    If things had happened differently in the last twenty plus years the world would be different today. That is the past. Right now, due to the characters of the two major party candidates, corrective action is possible.

    Ordinary Americans can reclaim control of their government. For this to happen, a majority need to experience the power of taking action themselves in peaceful collaboration. PhoneVoter, improved and augmented, makes this possible.

    Judging the real qualifications of candidates for carrying out solutions to the problems we face will make candidates familiar, accessible, understood. At the same time Americans need to decide what solutions will work best, ignoring ideology and political loyalties. And no one knows better than Americans what the issues really are. We are confronting them every day.

    For every problem, there are solutions which improve our lives and protect the future. This does not refer to government enforced policy. We mean choices we make as individuals to relieve the intolerable conditions government and corporations have caused.

    You may doubt it is possible to enact change this rapidly. Take into account the build up of frustration and anger in Americans, now desperate for real solutions. Consider the negatives presented by Trump and Clinton. Let that energy be directed toward changes which are productive. This time, instead of ideologies, let us be guided by concern for each other and the earth on which we live. Trust the people.

    Are Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and Roque De La Fuente willing to trust the people to take the first steps into a future which holds all of us equal, as stated in the Declaration of Independence? These three people can, together, provide a fusion administration, carrying out the will of the people and acting as our employees. This is the kind of governance we need, candidates coming together, accepting the solutions the people want as public servants.

    We at Hi TV Networks confronted this question. We agreed to simply open the way so the people make their own choices. This is really the only choice because in America people are the government. What do you think?

  2. Massimo

    Why Stein mentions four candidates? Why not three? Why not five? Ten? Why four would be a Schelling point? Stein being fourth does not make it specially natural or relevant.

    Networks are private properties. They can do whatever they feel like doing, it is their business. As much as I would like to see Johnson in the debates, I would never coerce anybody to make his property available against his will.

  3. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    One must wonder which of the candidates qualified by ballot status she is excluding. She is not on in 50 states and it appears Rocky De La Fuente is successfully acquiring status through the same methods used by Libertarians, this time and in the past.

    We can only hope she clarifies and states her reasons.

  4. Just Some Random Guy

    Why Stein mentions four candidates? Why not three? Why not five? Ten? Why four would be a Schelling point? Stein being fourth does not make it specially natural or relevant.

    I believe that Trump, Clinton, Johnson, and Stein are the only candidates currently on the ballots in enough states to potentially win a majority of the electoral college and thus the election. The Constitution Party is technically at 51% right now I think (though that may have been achieved after this was announced, I believe it was pretty recently he got that) but due to the Idaho Constitution Party putting someone else on the ballot, Darrell Castle himself still doesn’t have access to a majority of the electoral college.

    So I don’t think four is unreasonable at the moment because there are only four on enough ballots to win a majority.

  5. Darcy G Richardson

    Rocky won’t be on the ballot in nearly as many states as the Green Party’s Jill Stein, not by a country mile, but he’s arguably the most interesting of the third party candidates for the presidency — a genuine outsider in a year when the American electorate is clearly hungering for something different. They’re obviously not looking for a governor or ex-governor, let alone two of them.

    If you doubt that, just ask Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Bob Ehrlich, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Martin O’Malley, George Pataki, Rick Perry and Scott Walker.

    Rocky is also a very decent and compassionate guy, a very down-to-earth and modest individual with an extraordinarily intriguing life story.

    He’s also a fighter and isn’t afraid to challenge the powers-that-be, whether it’s government bureaucracy or powerful corporations like General Motors.

    Pandering to neither the left or the right, Rocky’s candidacy contrasts nicely to the relatively stale Johnson-Weld Republican ticket masquerading as Libertarians and to the Green Party’s Jill Stein on the other end of the political spectrum.

  6. Andy

    “Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
    September 4, 2016 at 21:24
    Roque De La Fuente is a billionaire with the potential of impacting the election. His ballot status is slightly less than Stein’s but he has much more in resources.”

    I have not been able to find any confirmation that Rocky de la Fuente is a billionaire. He is very wealthy though, and if he is not a billionaire, he probably has a net worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

  7. Darcy G Richardson

    “Darcy, isn’t Darrell Castle also a true outsider?” — Andy

    Absolutely. No slight intended. I only mentioned Rocky’s candidacy because Melinda had specifically mentioned him in the previous comment.

  8. José C

    The criteria for being in the Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates should be:

    1. All candidates for President that are on the ballot in enough states that they could in theory win the Presidency via the Electoral College should participate in the debates.
    2. Or 15% in three nationally recognized polls regardless of ballet access. (This would be highly unlikely but just in case a candidate ever was polling at 15% that candidate should be in the debates).
    3. The candidates are eligible to serve as President and Vice-President under the requirements of the Constitution.

    This is it. In this election season this would mean Trump, Clinton, Stein, Castle, and Johnson and their running mates would be in the debates. And thus glasnost and perestroika would descend upon the land.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *