180 votes

Historic Presidential Debate - October 23

Don’t miss this historic Presidential debate, moderated by Larry King, broadcast online, and via satellite worldwide!

This debate is the only 2012 Presidential debate where the top six Presidential candidates have been invited to participate. Confirmed candidates include:

Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party | Jill Stein, Green Party | Virgil Goode, Constitution Party | Rocky Anderson, Justice Party

Unlike the “debates” between Romney and Obama, these candidates aren’t afraid to provide more than rehearsed talking points for answers. Our debate is sure to feature some heated exchanges and a wide array of viewpoints.

Please click here to RSVP to watch the live stream of the debate right now!

Step away from the mainstream two-party stranglehold and learn what’s being discussed outside the rigged political system... Make sure to RSVP right now.

This historic Presidential debate will take place on October 23rd at 8pm Central
Time in Chicago.

Moderated by Larry King and hosted by the Free and Equal Elections Foundation
with lots of special guests in attendance!

The four confirmed candidates represent a balanced blend of left and right leaning
ideas to engage, educate and enlighten a worldwide audience.

Questions include foreign policy, the economy, civil rights, and other critical policy
issues that affect not only Americans, but the rest of the world as well.

Free & Equal is here to promote inspiring and real candidates with fresh ideas to guide us towards a free, peaceful, and prosperous future for everyone.

Please click here to RSVP and Free and Equal will send you a reminder before the event happens and keep you updated with all the latest developments.

Tune in at freeandequal.org/live on October 23 at 8pm CDT to see this historic Presidential debate!

”All elections shall be free and equal”

Special promotional feature

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Mock presidential debate...

http://www.dailypaul.com/259647/mock-presidential-debate . The Republican and Libertarian agree most of the time in this debate.The Democrat just sounds crazy .

Ron/Rand Paul 2016! Constitution Party 2016!

LIBERTY2ME's picture

The address

Can anyone tell me where this is going be held? I don't see this in the article, other than just Chicago.

Spinning your wheels

Hi Folks! I voted for RP in the GOP primary in my state and I greatly admire Dr. Paul and Gary Johnson for their efforts towards bringing back liberty to America. But I can't help but feel that these "third party" debates totally de-legitimize Johnson and ultimately our cause. We must move out of the fringe! In fact my feelings on this point are so strong that you have inspired me to blog about it :-D. Cross Posted:


If you forced me to label my political beliefs into a single and identifiable term, I'd probably pick "libertarian." However, I tend to avoid this term entirely just because the range of self-identified "libertarians" spans so far that it gives the term a sometimes vague and often pejorative connotation. Mainstream ideas about libertarianism stray so far from the mark that I would not want to be forced to defend many of these purported positions.

We all know that libertarians have a fragmentation problem. Even today, when we are lucky to see libertarianism at its current peak in the American consciousness, libertarians are hardly a monolithic lot, and it's not hard to see why. After all, a group of people whose entire world view hinges on a rejection of collectivist ideology may not be the most primed for the sort of team cohesiveness that you need to succeed in American politics.

Correspondingly, libertarians also tend to have a morose insistence on ideological purity and a distaste for compromise. This is a death sentence in representative politics. Constituencies are made up of locales and not national voting blocks; the structure of our two-party system works in accordance with this reality. America is not a parliamentary democracy and so moderation - or at least the perception thereof - is an important feature of the two-party system.

It comes as no surprise, then, that libertarians consistently pick and choose the wrong policy battles. I would venture that in 1776, your average American would have been appalled by the NDAA's circumvention of due process. And this author, for one, finds it appalling just the same. But we have to accept a reality, which is that most Americans simply do not care about this issue. I point out the 86 "Democratic" and "Republican" senators who are not on the hot seat for supporting this bill. We can rail all we want on The Daily Paul about how tyrannical the provision is, but at the end of the day, we're just spinning our wheels.

The elephant in the room - Ron Paul and his supporters - must also be addressed. Ron Paul has done a great service to America in promoting some of his views, and he is truly a great American, but he and his supporters must realize that the long-term home for those who believe as he does is not in the GOP. I am talking to all of you Ron Paul fanatics out there - you too are spinning your wheels. You will never find a home in a party that encourages the teaching of "creation science" in schools; you will never find a home in a party that actively promoted the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; you will never find a home in a party that supports 20-year mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. Your idealism is refreshing but ultimately for nil; you cannot work alongside Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann and expect any kind of significant result.

If there is one point to take home here, it's that libertarians should all be great at aligning tires because we sure do excel at spinning our wheels. We are not going to get Americans to support the repeal of the NDAA, the income tax, or widespread entitlements anytime soon. Our exercise in futility is just that, and we can either continue to spin our wheels or look for a way forward.

I contend that the way forward is to build a national coalition not unlike our friends have on the "Democratic" and "Republican" sides of the aisle. Democrats, despite supporting the drug war, enjoy 90% or more of the black vote. Republicans enjoy a similar percentage of the white, Anglo-Saxon protestant rural vote. These groups have built effective coalitions on hypocrisy, and I contend that is the right strategy for us as well.

To all of you libertarians out there shaking your head in disgust, calling me a sellout, a traitor, or a statist - let me tell you something. You are the problem. This post is meant to address all you folks out there who find my argument distasteful, disgraceful, and disgusting.

Let me reiterate - you are the problem. I know you feel that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" and that "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." That's great, man! In fact, I used to feel the same way. The difference is that I can see the writing on the wall. Barry Goldwater, the American hero to whom that quote is attributed, lost in one of the biggest electoral landslides in history.

In other words, moderation (or hypocrisy, if you will) is what makes America go around.

I've created this blog to invite commentary on how we can build an effective national coalition as well as to hear from my libertarian friends why this is such a bad idea. Sorry, but our current coalition is made up of the Ron Paul people, ACLU supporters, and not much else. We need to open the tent, market our point of view, and be willing to accept stupidity and unfairness as part of the game.

American electoral politics is a game, and until we accept that, we will continue to be spinning our wheels.

"At the end of the day..."

I think anybody who uses the old cliche "at the end of the day" should be summarily executed.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

At the minimum, they should

At the minimum, they should be shunned (the non-violent alternative).

Don't expect any help from the MSM

Judge Jim gray explains the bias against third party candidates.



Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

For those that missed it.

I posted the entire third party debate from the Huffington Post. It's separated into about 6 videos.


I can't wait. Maybe it will be a real debate?

Because the CPD debates sure don't seem to be.


How long before...

Establishment catches on and tries to get Larry pulled from this amazing historic event?

Who will be the Phoenix

Reborn from the ashes of revolution? out of those i hope its Gary Johnson but my mind can still change on this.



Larry wants your social media ?s #AskEmThisLarry

Well this should be interesting: http://www.ora.tv/ora2012/thirdparty

There are at least 2 TV channels that will be carrying it,

RT (Russia Today) and Al-Jazeera. The Greens and Libertarians can organize debate parties, not to be confused with partys, for this event, which don't have to be in someone's home, where refreshments are served. The ad for this on the ----> should have a picture swap between Goode and Anderson, or between Constitution & Justice.

Has anybody heard interviews from these 4 on RT/ Coast-to-Coast AM/ GCN (Genesis Communications Network)? Coverage would most likely be provided from those sources.

For some reason, we're expected to know every law that exists in America & in our state so we don't break it. We're supposed to know this when we're 18. There's no litmus test for them, as in the 10 commandments or rhyme or reason. C.U.R.E.

No...You can click "other"

No...You can click "other" and put in any amount you want.

(In reply to another comment below. Oops)

P. Au. L. Can you

put the date of the debate in the first paragraph or something so those who just skim over it know when the debate is?

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

When you sign up they ask

When you sign up they ask if you want to donate 5 dollars and if you say yes they take you to a page that has a minimum donation of 10. bate and switch...

It's "BAIT"

"Bate" is a real word, so your spellchecker won't catch it - but GEEZE! Can't you people learn what's the right or wrong word in a given cliche?

Freedom is my Worship Word!

I would like to see Ron Paul

involved in this, either debating or co-hosting and directing the questions. Many still plan to vote for Ron Paul.

My write-in is already in the snail mail

Mexifornia sent me a mail-in ballot, which has provisions for a whole passel of write-in votes, so I wrote in Ron Paul and sent it off the other day. But Mexifornia is an all-or-none electoral state - of 55 electoral votes, whoever gets 50.0001% of the vote gets ALL FIFTY-FIVE ELECTORAL VOTES!!!!!

To whom would I appeal to get this fixed?

Freedom is my Worship Word!


I will stay in the same direction I started Vote for RON PAUL
right his name Baby !!!!


Stay Consistent My Friends!

See tagline for Write-In...(Check with your State if applicable)

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."


There is no duration defined in the Oath

not voting for a viable

not voting for a viable candidate is the same thing as not voting and thus supporting the statist two party system. make you vote at least count.

and on the other hand, voting

and on the other hand, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. roll that in your pipe and smoke it...

also, third party candidates have to reach a certain percentage to be on the ballots next cycle, or something like that. Taking your advice ENSURES the two party system.

where in my post did i

where in my post did i encourage people to vote for either major party?

i said if you vote for a candidate who is not even running (ie Paul), it is the same thing as wasting a vote instead of doing good and voting for a viable third party option.

guess I misunderstood your

guess I misunderstood your use of "viable", assumed you meant "has a chance at winning", not "is actually running". mea culpa...


Can't whoever is running this get it on a cable channel like CSPAN or something please. We want to hold debate watching parties in our local sports bars and other establishments.


Bomb C-Span with requests....

I sent one yesterday!

How about a link or number?

Then maybe the writer of this could UPDATE and include that information.


Mr. Merlin Miller

Should be invited as well! How unfortunate it would be for this un-mainstream debate to employ mainstream tactics and exclude other equal, willing and eager candidates. That would be ironic, in a bad way.

He's only on a couple ballots?

If my research is correct, it looks like he is only on a couple states' ballots. I read the qualification for the debate are as follows: "Candidates must have sufficient ballot access plus write-in status to be mathematically eligible to obtain the minimum 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency"

Should be a good debate. Nice

Should be a good debate. Nice to have a name like Larry King to do it, but we need real question and not the soft lob tosses by the MSM.

I just submitted mine

It was asking if they would agree with the four principles Ron Paul laid out in 2008 for McKinney, Barr, Baldwin, and Nader.


reedr3v's picture

Great question


Looking forward to a real debate.

This one I'll watch. I'm still voting for Ron Paul but this is worth my time.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

The Lorax rules. I'm also

The Lorax rules. I'm also voting for Paul, in Florida. doesn't it feel great to hold on to principle like our lives depend on it?

I am voting for the candidate I prefer, among all

the one that is the clear best, RON PAUL!

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Ron Paul

I know it's not his style and he probably has reasons why he would not but wouldnt it be great if RP hosted this debate or at least co hosted with King. I realize king will draw some viewers but I would love to hear RP direct this debate in the right direction..

Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge.

James Wilson

I've actually...

read the platforms for these parties. These four candidates actually should be consolidated into two parties. Justice and Green Party should form one party called the Green Justice Party. Their platform leans to the left and are very similar to one another.

Constitution Party and Libertarian Party only differ on few issues like Gay marriage and abortion. But if they can agree on 85% of the issues, they should consolidated into a new party called the Constitutional Liberty Party.

If they consolidate their parties, they'll have more leverage over voters.

The Libertarian Party, irrelevant since 1971.

the LP and CP differ in one

the LP and CP differ in one major regard, imo. That being the role the bible should play in effecting public policy.

Party's Suck

Party's Suck

+1 AmeriRock Some moron downvoted you for pointing out

the obvious fact you noted succinctly-Parties do Suck! Only a moron or someone that wishes to join a gang to rule over INDIVIDUALS would fail to see that or be for parties(factions).

For the time being we must play the party game-we must become gangsters to rid ourselves of scheming gangsters.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Don't be absurd. The

Don't be absurd. The so-called "Constitution Party" is yet another neo-con-ish cover for Christians to rule America. They will never join with Libertarians. You must not have read very much, because you are way, way off here.

It's more likely for neo-cons to abandon the GOP and join the CP.

this is true

a big part of the constitution party platform is their belief that the country was founded on "christian principles," and such. They are similar to the libertarians with their small government ideas but not so much on the separation of church and state, and other social issues. Last time i checked, i didn't notice a radical difference between the constitution platform and the republicans (or at least, what they claim to be). Let me know if I'm way off on this.

btw i say this as a lifelong christian. i just don't think religious values should be mandated for everyone. thats why i side much more with the libertarian party.

Neoconservatism and Christianity have nothing in common.

Your comment is a perfect example of why (L)ibertarians have never been able to build coalitions. It's their way or the highway.

not quite

It's our way or the aggression way.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Or...It's our definition of aggression

or we keep getting stomped election after election. Have it your way, but, don't be surprised that the Libertarian Party never sees the light of day on election day.

we have different goals

I want principles to prevail and I want people to educate themselves. I am not interested in winning elections at any cost. Abandoning principles to win an election is not a win for me.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus