PDA

View Full Version : Elections Will the Libertarian Candidate get any facetime during the debates?


Deberg_1990
09-28-2012, 08:24 PM
Anyone know and if not, then why not?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4x9bkXVccAs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 08:31 PM
Anyone know and if not, then why not?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4x9bkXVccAs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

No--No chance of winning the election. Of course they are still letting Romney participate...

J Diddy
09-28-2012, 08:32 PM
No--Barely any support is likely the reason.

He definitely is in it to piss off both parties.

Deberg_1990
09-28-2012, 08:34 PM
Complete BS....not saying id vote for him, but if hes on the ballot, he deserves just as much airtime as the other two IMO.

Mr. Kotter
09-28-2012, 08:34 PM
No.

Because he is irrelevant to the Presidential Election. Like it, or not...it's true.

Deberg_1990
09-28-2012, 08:38 PM
No.

Because he is irrelevant to the Presidential Election. Like it, or not...it's true.

I dont care if he only gets 1 vote. he deserves to have his voice heard. Im tired of only having two viewpoints and i think alot of Americans are as well.


fed up....

Mr. Kotter
09-28-2012, 08:40 PM
I dont care if he only gets 1 vote. he deserves to have his voice heard. Im tired of only having two viewpoints and i think alot of Americans are as well.


fed up....

No one else that matters anyway, seems to agree. Enjoy your lunatic fringe status.

Deberg_1990
09-28-2012, 08:41 PM
No one else that matters anyway, seems to agree. enjoy your lunatic fringe status.

i will......but i hear people everyday say the same thing.......although, when it comes down to it, no one follows through on it. Everyone just votes repub or dem like drones...

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 08:43 PM
Complete BS....not saying id vote for him, but if hes on the ballot, he deserves just as much airtime as the other two IMO.

He's not on the ballot everywhere. If you can pull a 15% in a national poll, you can quallify. If there's not a reasonable chance you might win, why should you get to participate in a debate between those who do have a reasonable chance of winning?

Cannibal
09-28-2012, 08:43 PM
I notice he didn't mention anything dealing with taxes and wealth redistribution (whether up or down). That's probably because he want to redistibute up like Romney

Cannibal
09-28-2012, 08:45 PM
I was totally behind his foreign policy and social issue presentation though! :)

Deberg_1990
09-28-2012, 08:47 PM
He's not on the ballot everywhere. If you can pull a 15% in a national poll, you can quallify. If there's not a reasonable chance you might win, why should you get to participate in a debate between those who do have a reasonable chance of winning?

I guess im just more fed up in the American people and overall political system more than anything. Everyone always says they want change, but nobody every follows through on it. Like i said, the typical american voter is a brain dead drone.

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 08:47 PM
I dont care if he only gets 1 vote. he deserves to have his voice heard. Im tired of only having two viewpoints and i think alot of Americans are as well.


fed up....

Well, he doesn't deserve anything. And he can earn his way on by showing a minimal level of national support.

And you would draw the line where? Declare yourself a party, get on a ballot, and you're in the national debate for president? We'd have 20 nuts up there.

SNR
09-28-2012, 08:47 PM
He would be the most badass motherfucking president since Teddy Roosevelt if elected.

Climbed Mount fucking Everest.

Mr. Kotter
09-28-2012, 08:50 PM
He would be the most badass mother****ing president since Teddy Roosevelt if elected.

Climbed Mount ****ing Everest.

Really?...too bad he's a brain-dead kook. Oh, well...lesser of two bad choices, the same as it ever was.

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 08:51 PM
I guess im just more fed up in the American people and overall political system more than anything. Everyone always says they want change, but nobody every follows through on it. Like i said, the typical american voter is a brain dead drone.

No doubt it is tough for a third-party to break in and manage to play on that level, but it happens occasionally. It will probably take someone who is already well-known AND somewhat respected in order to get the media coverage and fundraising necessary to mount a serious run.

SNR
09-28-2012, 08:51 PM
Really?...too bad he's a brain-dead kook. Oh, well...lesser of two bad choices, the same as it ever was.

Just sayin heh?

Deberg_1990
09-28-2012, 08:52 PM
No doubt it is tough for a third-party to break in and manage to play on that level, but it happens occasionally. It will probably take someone who is already well-known AND somewhat respected in order to get the media coverage and fundraising necessary to mount a serious run.

yes this^^^

Perot was about as close as it gets in 92 and 96.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 09:29 PM
No because these debates have a polling threshold for participation iirc and it's high enough that none of this year's third parties will achieve it.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 09:30 PM
yes this^^^

Perot was about as close as it gets in 92 and 96.

Mayor Bloomberg thought about it this year. He's got the personal wealth (way more than Perot) that he could probably at least get into the debates and if everything broke right for him he might have a shot, but it would be very expensive for him.

Hoover
09-28-2012, 09:42 PM
No he will not get any face time.

And he's effin weird

When I interviewed him last year, I asked what he did between Jan of 2003 and 2011.

He gave me a strange look. Said he was in a parasailing accident, got pretty messed up, and then, ya know.... I took that to mean he sat around and smoked pot.

He's a nice guy. I actually like him a lot, but he's not presidential

Chocolate Hog
09-28-2012, 09:45 PM
I dont care if he only gets 1 vote. he deserves to have his voice heard. Im tired of only having two viewpoints and i think alot of Americans are as well.


fed up....

There's not really 2 different view points anymore.

Chocolate Hog
09-28-2012, 09:46 PM
No he will not get any face time.

And he's effin weird

When I interviewed him last year, I asked what he did between Jan of 2003 and 2011.

He gave me a strange look. Said he was in a parasailing accident, got pretty messed up, and then, ya know.... I took that to mean he sat around and smoked pot.

He's a nice guy. I actually like him a lot, but he's not presidential

ROFL

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 10:05 PM
No he will not get any face time.

And he's effin weird

When I interviewed him last year, I asked what he did between Jan of 2003 and 2011.


So, who are you/what do you do? I gather you're involved in politics in some fashion, but can you elaborate?

Dave Lane
09-28-2012, 10:16 PM
I was totally behind his foreign policy and social issue presentation though! :)

I pretty much was too. Actually I think the rich are going to be able to hang in there till the next election. Just a hunch though, they are in the countrys prayers.

Chocolate Hog
09-28-2012, 10:20 PM
Why Gary switched over to the Libertarian ticket where he'll never win instead of running for Senate in New Mexico where he's liked is beyond me.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2012, 10:42 PM
Why Gary switched over to the Libertarian ticket where he'll never win instead of running for Senate in New Mexico where he's liked is beyond me.

Being on an Independent ticket would be better but it's just difficult to get I's on the ballot. The LP already on the ballot in every state. Despite the GOP, trying to get him removed from the ballot in about 7 states.

DementedLogic
09-29-2012, 03:09 AM
I think the polling threshold for the debates is too high. If you can get on the ballot in 45+ states, I think polling 5% should be enough to get in the debates. 15% of people haven't even heard of Gary Johnson. I guarantee if he got in the debates, his support would increase tremendously.

whoman69
09-29-2012, 12:56 PM
Why shouldn't they? Because they have a top end of 1% of the vote. Because they don't have a single member in congress. Because they don't have a single member of a state legislature. They need to put in a grass roots effort to become a national party, not have some sense of entitlement that they should be considered because they formed a party that can't get anyone elected above the county level.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-29-2012, 01:35 PM
Why shouldn't they? Because they have a top end of 1% of the vote. Because they don't have a single member in congress. Because they don't have a single member of a state legislature. They need to put in a grass roots effort to become a national party, not have some sense of entitlement that they should be considered because they formed a party that can't get anyone elected above the county level.

Yes because every American has to fit into one of the two groups?

<iframe width="854" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fZK847isBnw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BigRedChief
09-29-2012, 03:02 PM
Complete BS....not saying id vote for him, but if hes on the ballot, he deserves just as much airtime as the other two IMO.He has as much chance as winning as the dipshits that write in Mickey Mouse on their ballots.

BigRedChief
09-29-2012, 03:04 PM
So, who are you/what do you do? I gather you're involved in politics in some fashion, but can you elaborate?Hoover is active in republican politics.

Chocolate Hog
09-29-2012, 10:06 PM
Hoover will be working for Rand Paul in a few years I bet

chiefzilla1501
09-30-2012, 08:05 AM
Gary Johnson and Paul are irrelevant for the election, except that the more popular they are as write-ins, the more it becomes assured that Obama will win 4 more years.

BigRedChief
09-30-2012, 08:11 AM
Gary Johnson and Paul are irrelevant for the election, except that the more popular they are as write-ins, the more it becomes assured that Obama will win 4 more years.And I will admit it probably has more to do with the Republicans not presenting any new ideas but just more tax cuts weighted towards the rich and deregulations of businesses. People know those policies didn't work under Bush, why should we want to try them again.

I also think Clinton's speech moved many independents into Obama's column with his speech.

chiefzilla1501
09-30-2012, 08:20 AM
And I will admit it probably has more to do with the Republicans not presenting any new ideas but just more tax cuts weighted towards the rich and deregulations of businesses. People know those policies didn't work under Bush, why should we want to try them again.

I also think Clinton's speech moved many independents into Obama's column with his speech.

I don't think that's the case. I think the issue is that the Republicans have a lot of infighting. There are two grassroots movements. The extreme social right and the extreme "libertarian" right. And the Republican candidate gets caught in the middle because he knows an extreme spending cut or social position is the only way to win those bases, and neither of those positions will win elections.

The only Republican that seems like they could win over the base is a heavy social conservative who demands extreme spending cuts. And those are two positions that are going to be VERY unpopular outside the base.

chiefzilla1501
09-30-2012, 08:22 AM
And I will admit it probably has more to do with the Republicans not presenting any new ideas but just more tax cuts weighted towards the rich and deregulations of businesses. People know those policies didn't work under Bush, why should we want to try them again.

I also think Clinton's speech moved many independents into Obama's column with his speech.

And I am mostly an independent. Clinton's speech moved me, but to me, it moreso made a distinct contrast between Clinton and the joke of a President we have in Obama.

BigRedChief
09-30-2012, 08:27 AM
I don't think that's the case. I think the issue is that the Republicans have a lot of infighting. There are two grassroots movements. The extreme social right and the extreme "libertarian" right. And the Republican candidate gets caught in the middle because he knows an extreme spending cut or social position is the only way to win those bases, and neither of those positions will win elections.

The only Republican that seems like they could win over the base is a heavy social conservative who demands extreme spending cuts. And those are two positions that are going to be VERY unpopular outside the base.We will see after the election as to why the voters rejected Romney.

The Republicans base cannot win an election by itself. How the reach out to other votes beyond that base has to change.

chiefzilla1501
09-30-2012, 08:45 AM
We will see after the election as to why the voters rejected Romney.

The Republicans base cannot win an election by itself. How the reach out to other votes beyond that base has to change.

That's exactly my point. You can't win the election unless you're on one of the two-party tickets. And you can't win the Republican nomination without having a socially conservative platform. And PROVE that you stick to that. And the fact is, outside of that nut job base, those socially conservative positions are very unpopular.

Now we're throwing in another wrench. I think people are open to reducing the size of government, but not to the extreme that the libertarian base wants. But if the Republican doesn't adopt a very extremist "reduce government" platform, we're seeing that this base will choose to vote for their candidate instead.

The Republican party is in a state of chaos. You have two very influential bases tugging the Republican candidate to take on positions that are wildly unpopular outside of those bases. The problem is, I think Mitt in his heart would be very effective at appealing to independents. But he's being neutered by his party's unpopular platforms. Because Mitt seems to resist being an extreme right candidate, his base is pushing back. And because Mitt is being pushed to adopt unpopular positions just to win credibility with his base, the independents don't like him.

I think if Mitt was allowed to be Mitt, he'd be playing strong.

Ace Gunner
09-30-2012, 08:45 AM
Why do ppl even give a shit about this? He's not corporate backed. End of story folks.

With your 2012 vote you will decide which corporations get your tax dollars. Nothing more. But hey, have fun watching your pageant. ****ing stupid america.

BigRedChief
09-30-2012, 08:51 AM
Why do ppl even give a shit about this? He's not corporate backed. End of story folks.

With your 2012 vote you will decide which corporations get your tax dollars. Nothing more. But hey, have fun watching your pageant. ****ing stupid america.well your just full of cheer.

Ace Gunner
09-30-2012, 08:52 AM
well your just full of cheer.

I forgot to include the blow - softening "IMO", didn't I:D

Hoover
09-30-2012, 09:20 AM
So, who are you/what do you do? I gather you're involved in politics in some fashion, but can you elaborate?
I don't know what you would call me.... Political columnist? Talking head? Opinion Leader?

I worked for Steve Forbes in 2000.
Helped launch a political goods website in 2001.
Political consultant
Owned a political fundraising company for a while
Still dabble in fundraising, but do more general consulting for political groups.
Own and operate a political website that focuses on Iowa Politics.
I'm kind of become a go-to guy for Iowa politics. I end up doing a lot of national print interviews, do a lot of radio, and some TV stuff here and there, but since I'm short and fat, I don't do a lot of that. :)

I don't hang out in the political lounge much because it feels too much like work. CP has been my daily get-a-way since 2000. Love my Chiefs.

patteeu
09-30-2012, 09:30 AM
And I will admit it probably has more to do with the Republicans not presenting any new ideas but just more tax cuts weighted towards the rich and deregulations of businesses. People know those policies didn't work under Bush, why should we want to try them again.

I also think Clinton's speech moved many independents into Obama's column with his speech.

Let's take the Romney tax position as an example. Romney wants a major tax reform that reduces top rates and eliminates deductions. While GWBush may or may not have wanted this kind of tax reform, he never pursued it. This puts the lie to your "back to Bush policies" argument which brings us to the "why would we want to try [it]". We can look to the President's own commission on the deficit for an answer here since Bowles-Simpson recommended this very approach. The answer, of course, is that would be the most efficient way to raise revenue for the government while enabling the economic growth we desperately need to right our economic ship and reduce the deficit.

Obama, otoh, wants higher rates and more deductions (ie targeted tax cuts for politically favored behaviors). The opposite of what Bowles-Simpson recommended.

BigRedChief
09-30-2012, 09:36 AM
Let's take the Romney tax position as an example. Romney wants a major tax reform that reduces top rates and eliminates deductions. While GWBush may or may not have wanted this kind of tax reform, he never pursued it. This puts the lie to your "back to Bush policies" argument which brings us to the "why would we want to try [it]".Until Romney says how he is going to find $7,000,000,000,000.00 in tax loopholes that dont hurt the middle class and dont favor the rich, its still the Bush policies warmed over. More BS politician promises that pander to the electorate. Same thing you slam Obama for.

Hoover
09-30-2012, 09:38 AM
Using that logic once could say that Obama will raise taxes by $7,000,000,000,000.00 if we believe that he will reduce the deficit and balance the budget.

BigRedChief
09-30-2012, 09:43 AM
Using that logic once could say that Obama will raise taxes by $7,000,000,000,000.00 if we believe that he will reduce the deficit and balance the budget.That would be BS too.

patteeu
09-30-2012, 09:43 AM
Until Romney says how he is going to find $7,000,000,000,000.00 in tax loopholes that dont hurt the middle class and dont favor the rich, its still the Bush policies warmed over. More BS politician promises that pander to the electorate. Same thing you slam Obama for.

You don't have a very solid understanding of tax policy. Your post makes no sense in economic terms although it may make some sense in terms of political demagoguery.

BigRedChief
09-30-2012, 09:47 AM
You don't have a very solid understanding of tax policy. Your post makes no sense in economic terms although it may make some sense in terms of political demagoguery.My understanding of the tax code is irrelevant. I'm going off Romney's own words on how he understands the tax code.

Romeny says he is going to cut taxes $5 trillion. I will find find $5 trillion in tax loopholes.

IMHO, there isn't $5 trillion worth of tax loopholes to close.

Hoover
09-30-2012, 09:53 AM
A more favorable tax climate can also spur the economy.

Tax cuts allow people to spend more, thus increasing sales tax collections. Would also spur the economy. You can piss all over supply side economics, but there are factors you must consider. Letting people keep more of their money doesn't cost the government, it forces them spend the money they have more wisely.

patteeu
09-30-2012, 09:55 AM
My understanding of the tax code is irrelevant. I'm going off Romney's own words on how he understands the tax code.

Romeny says he is going to cut taxes $5 trillion. I will find find $5 trillion in tax loopholes.

IMHO, there isn't $5 trillion worth of tax loopholes to close.

If he can't find $5 trillion (a number that has already dropped by $2 trillion in just a few posts time), he may have to reduce the amount of the rate cut, but even if such a compromise occurs, he'll be moving the tax code in the right direction not the wrong one. None of this gives your original assertion about a return to failed policies of the past even a whiff of being true.

alnorth
09-30-2012, 10:34 AM
It will probably take someone who is already well-known AND somewhat respected in order to get the media coverage and fundraising necessary to mount a serious run.

Nope.

It would take someone with money. Lots and lots and lots of money. That person would also have to look like he's not nuts, and sound like a minimally-acceptable presidential candidate when he opens his mouth.

If an enormously rich libertarian multi-billionaire decided he wanted to run for president, and he was willing to drop at least half a billion on it, he'd be able to force his way into the debates.

alnorth
09-30-2012, 10:38 AM
That's exactly my point. You can't win the election unless you're on one of the two-party tickets. And you can't win the Republican nomination without having a socially conservative platform. And PROVE that you stick to that. And the fact is, outside of that nut job base, those socially conservative positions are very unpopular.

Given enough time and enough lost elections, parties will adapt. The socially conservative christian coalition folks might be in trouble, but long-term the Republican party is not because they will inevitably shift ideologically.

Perhaps they will need to lose the next 3 or 4 presidential elections before they lose the politically toxic socially conservative positions, but they'll eventually get there.

edit: If the extremely-unlikely "rich libertarian" scenario happened, the GOP nominated a Santorum type of candidate, and he finished third, that might hasten their demise.

BigRedChief
09-30-2012, 04:06 PM
If he can't find $5 trillion (a number that has already dropped by $2 trillion in just a few posts time), That was the tax cut only #

His own numbers:
a new $5 trillion tax cut
Keep the Bush tax cuts = $1 trillion
New department of defense spending = $2 trillion

Total = $8 trillion

I think if you are plannning to spend $8 trillion, we need to see those loopholes you plan on closing. We know your are FOS, there are not $8 trillion in loopholes to close. It's arithmetic. Unless your plan is to blow up the deficit and if it is we need to know that plan.

patteeu
10-01-2012, 07:34 AM
That was the tax cut only #

His own numbers:
a new $5 trillion tax cut
Keep the Bush tax cuts = $1 trillion
New department of defense spending = $2 trillion

Link?
Link?
and Link?

I don't know whose numbers those are, but they're not Romney's. In any event, whatever the real numbers are, he's not planning on countering them entirely by closing loopholes. For example, there's no reason to believe that his stated goal of expanding the naval fleet back to a satisfactory level to perform it's global mission is going to be fresh spending added to the existing defense budget. Instead, the reasonable assumption (indeed, his stated position) is that other defense programs will be reviewed and the ones that don't make any sense or aren't cost-effective anymore will be cancelled or modified.

I think if you are plannning to spend $8 trillion, we need to see those loopholes you plan on closing. We know your are FOS, there are not $8 trillion in loopholes to close. It's arithmetic. Unless your plan is to blow up the deficit and if it is we need to know that plan.

I think that if people like you had any real concern about spending promises, arithmetic and expanding the deficit 4 years ago we wouldn't be in this position right now.

None of this addresses my point though that Romney is arguing for an approach that raises necessary government revenues efficiently while maximizing economic growth (by taking a Bowles-Simpson approach to taxation) while Barack Obama has repeatedly proposed going in the opposite direction.