Should the Third Party Candidates debate each other?
Who are you are going to vote for, if not Rom-Bama?*
It is a good time to start looking at the Other Party's candidates. Here's someone I had not heard of : Merlin Miller of the American Third Position party
He speaks plenty of sense here. And it is worth looking at the clip showing how the item regarding Jerusalem was pushed through on a miscounted voice-vote (Does this look like 2/3rds support?):
(IF you watch the video, you will see that delegates were shocked, as I was, that a vague mention of God is tied to a resolution "recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel". (Do doubt some zionist DNC backers required this resolution as a condition of their campaign contributes. This certainly clarifies whose interests are being served by the party.)
I don't know how the third party candidates are going to get publicity. Perhaps, two or three of them should debate each other - maybe with Ron Paul as a moderator. What do you think?
The debate could then be covered on YouTube. == ==
"Those of us who really yearn for a return to first principles, the natural law, the Constitution, a government that only has powers that we have consented it may have... are frustrated by the choice between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney," says Judge Andrew Napolitano, author of the upcoming book "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Your Constitutional Freedoms," Fox Business contributor, and former host of "Freedom Watch."
Reason Magazine's Matt Welch sat down with Napolitano at FreedomFest 2012 and discussed the ramifications of the Supreme Court's ruling on the individual mandate and whether or not there's a substantive difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney from a libertarian perspective.