PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Two Sponsors Pull Out From Debates Over Exclusion Of Gary Johnson


Taco John
10-02-2012, 12:27 AM
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/10/01/two-sponsors-pull-out-from-debates-over-exclusion-of-gary-johnson-

qabbaan
10-02-2012, 05:10 AM
Over the last month, however, it became clear that Johnson did not have the polled support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, one of the commission's three debate participation requirements.

So this is the policy and always has been?

KILLER_CLOWN
10-02-2012, 08:39 AM
I liked this part

"I've been trying this since 2004 ... and this is first time any sponsor has peeled off from supporting the commission," says George Farah of Open Debates, who wrote the book No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates. "For this to happen on the eve of the first presidential debate is a remarkable act."

Secretly? That is hardly the case.

patteeu
10-02-2012, 08:42 AM
So this is the policy and always has been?

I don't know when they started doing this, but it wasn't this year.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 09:43 AM
Two Sponsors Pull Out From Debates Over Exclusion Of Gary Johnson Reply to Thread


Well, bye.

Deberg_1990
10-02-2012, 09:54 AM
Good for them!




Of course the Dems and Repubs dont want a different voice to take anything away from their "face Time"

Mile High Mania
10-02-2012, 09:57 AM
Gary Johnson is a waste of time... if he had any business being at the debate, he'd be there - he has no support. There are probably a half dozen others that would have a greater justification for being there.

patteeu
10-02-2012, 10:00 AM
Good for them!




Of course the Dems and Repubs dont want a different voice to take anything away from their "face Time"

That is, of course, true. But there is a legitimate question that has to be answered about what criteria should be used to admit candidates to the debate. If every 3rd party candidate is included, the stage will be packed and no one will learn about any of the candidates.

Deberg_1990
10-02-2012, 10:03 AM
That is, of course, true. But there is a legitimate question that has to be answered about what criteria should be used to admit candidates to the debate. If every 3rd party candidate is included, the stage will be packed and no one will learn about any of the candidates.

Who are the other fringe candidates running this year?

Part of the problem is the media only focuses on the two big parties and not enough on the other parties. ALot of people have no idea other canidates are even running or their viewpoints.

Swanman
10-02-2012, 10:08 AM
Who are the other fringe candidates running this year?

Part of the problem is the media only focuses on the two big parties and not enough on the other parties. ALot of people have no idea other canidates are even running or their viewpoints.

I know there is one guy, Virgil Goode, that is running only in Virginia for the Constitution Party. He has the potential to peel off some votes for Romney and if the state totals are close, could make a difference.

patteeu
10-02-2012, 10:09 AM
Who are the other fringe candidates running this year?

Part of the problem is the media only focuses on the two big parties and not enough on the other parties. ALot of people have no idea other canidates are even running or their viewpoints.

Here is a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012) of 22 of them. I don't know if it includes every candidate on at least one state ballot or not.

Deberg_1990
10-02-2012, 10:18 AM
Here is a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012) of 22 of them. I don't know if it includes every candidate on at least one state ballot or not.

Rosanne Barr! ROFL

patteeu
10-02-2012, 10:28 AM
Rosanne Barr! ROFL

She might add some spice to the debates.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 11:15 AM
Gary Johnson is a waste of time... if he had any business being at the debate, he'd be there - he has no support. There are probably a half dozen others that would have a greater justification for being there.

I don't see how anybody could reasonably hold to this opinion given the current political climate. Right now, congress has as little support as it's ever had in its history. There is political gridlock unlike anything we've ever had. We have movements on the right (Tea Party) and movements on the left (OWS) that are taking to the streets. And were in a financial crisis unlike anything we've ever faced - with more just around the corner given the way the deck is stacked. To top that off, libertarianism is on the rise and is proving to be an influential point of view.

Makes no sense to me that someone could argue that Gary Johnson has no place in the debates. Who has better justification than the nominee of the third largest political party in America? It blows my mind that people would actively seek to disenfranchise large swaths of people, and purposefully narrow the conversation in this country right now. "We're in a crisis! Why don't we ONLY listen to the parties that got us here." Pretty stupid.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 11:25 AM
Makes no sense to me that someone could argue that Gary Johnson has no place in the debates. Who has better justification than the nominee of the third largest political party in America?

It blows my mind that people would actively seek to disenfranchise large swaths of people, and purposefully narrow the conversation in this country right now. "We're in a crisis! Why don't we ONLY listen to the parties that got us here." Pretty stupid.

The third largest is tiny. If you let in the third, why not the fourth? If he could manage a small amount of support, he could get in, its as simple as that. At this point, the debates shouldn't be mucked up with people who have absolutely no chance of winning (although they are still allowing Mitt to participate).

Who is being disenfranchised? His supporters are still allowed to vote.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 11:53 AM
The third largest is tiny. If you let in the third, why not the fourth? If he could manage a small amount of support, he could get in, its as simple as that. At this point, the debates shouldn't be mucked up with people who have absolutely no chance of winning (although they are still allowing Mitt to participate).

Who is being disenfranchised? His supporters are still allowed to vote.

From little minds come small thoughts. Thanks for your contribution...

La literatura
10-02-2012, 11:56 AM
Who has better justification than the nominee of the third largest political party in America?

Nobody, except the nominees of the two largest political parties. That's why no one except the nominees of the two largest political parties will be at the debate.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 11:59 AM
From little minds come small thoughts. Thanks for your contribution...

I'm not sure why the concept is so difficult. He barely has any support. He can't win. Therefore, he doesn't advance to the next round.

Regardless of whatever merits he might have, he hasn't been able to gather much support. End of story.

FishingRod
10-02-2012, 12:13 PM
The Republicans and Democrats make the rules and rig the game. This allows them to continue to do the “stellar” job they have done and reward each other by voting in in their own raises, own pension plans and make sure they not be bound by the pesky rules the rest of us must regarding things like insider trading laws.

Anyone who manages to serve 5 years in the House is set for life with at least a modest lifestyle. A third party candidate with any oratory skill could anger enough of the sheep to really cause some problems. The trough is too full and, both sides too dirty to let this happen.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 12:24 PM
Nobody, except the nominees of the two largest political parties. That's why no one except the nominees of the two largest political parties will be at the debate.


Nobody deserves to be heard except the parties with the most amount of money coming into their coffers. A real progressive attitude...

Here's the funny part - why don't you share with the class your thoughts on the what's and whys of your opinion on the Citizens United ruling so that we can all get a laugh on how conflicted and hypocritical you are.

Iowanian
10-02-2012, 12:32 PM
Gary Johnson came off as a complete lunatic on the last interview of his that I heard.

He's not president of the PTA material.

SNR
10-02-2012, 12:37 PM
Gary Johnson came off as a complete lunatic on the last interview of his that I heard.

He's not president of the PTA material.Apparently he's popular governor of New Mexico material, though?

La literatura
10-02-2012, 12:38 PM
Nobody deserves to be heard except the parties with the most amount of money coming into their coffers. A real progressive attitude...

Here's the funny part - why don't you share with the class your thoughts on the what's and whys of your opinion on the Citizens United ruling so that we can all get a laugh on how conflicted and hypocritical you are.

The Citizens United ruling says that speech (in the form of monetary donations) should be less restricted than the law Congress passed. I disagree with it. I also agree that a speech forum put together by some media outlets can be restricted when it comes to primetime presidential debates a month before the election.

Not enough people care about Gary Johnson to allocate him any time in this debate. People have a real choice between Obama and Romney, and they care about only those two. Thus, the media outlets made the appropriate decision to only include those two.

I also don't think you should be on the stage on Wednesday. Or me. Is my speech being restricted? Yes, by media outlets. Neither I nor you, nor Gary Johnson, nor Romney or Obama, have a right to be on the stage.

SNR
10-02-2012, 12:48 PM
I think they should allow the Libertarian and Green Party nominees into the debates. No, I don't have a premise for that belief like polling numbers or anything. It's just they are the two third parties that share the most beliefs and concerns of the country. There are plenty of far left voters who believe Obama doesn't suitably champion true progressive reforms. Likewise, there are plenty of far right voters who believe that Romney and most other Republican candidates are fiscally irresponsible and stuck decades behind in social reforms.

That's all I got. I don't have a reason for picking those two parties over, say, the Constitution Party or the Socialist Party. They just seem to be the parties most people would identify with in a televised debate. After all, it's the TV producers who make the rules, not the laws of government. It would be very easy to just arbitrarily decide that we now have four parties on stage.

One of these days this country is going to have to reform the Electoral College, too. As a Wisconsin resident, my vote is going to be pretty important to the election. Meanwhile, my folks who live in North Dakota don't even fucking matter- they are from a state with 3 measly electoral votes that's going to elect Romney by at least 60% of the vote. It's like their voices don't count when it comes to the race for president.

Second choice voting is the only way I see out of this mess, both to break the stranglehold the two-party system has over the neck of this country, and to guarantee equal dispersal of a vote's "value" regardless of where a person lives.

Chocolate Hog
10-02-2012, 01:04 PM
Gary Johnson came off as a complete lunatic on the last interview of his that I heard.

He's not president of the PTA material.

You have no problems with lunatics you voted for Rick Santorum.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 01:50 PM
People have a real choice between Obama and Romney, and they care about only those two.

That's like having a real choice between Coke and Pepsi. You're getting one version of cola or the other. Sure, it's a choice, but at the end of the day, it's cola.

There's no real choice. It's all a set up, and when the circus is done, they'll pack it all up and get ready to put an another show in another 4 years, and they'll limit the discussion to those in their show then too.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 01:51 PM
Gary Johnson came off as a complete lunatic on the last interview of his that I heard.

He's not president of the PTA material.

Said the Rick Santorum voter. Thanks for your input. Now go vote for Romney like a good little bleater. Nothing like taking a stand against Obama by voting for the guy who his landmark legislation was sourced from.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 01:58 PM
That's like having a real choice between Coke and Pepsi. You're getting one version of cola or the other. Sure, it's a choice, but at the end of the day, it's cola.

There's no real choice. It's all a set up, and when the circus is done, they'll pack it all up and get ready to put an another show in another 4 years, and they'll limit the discussion to those in their show then too.

No, there are billions of dollars, government policies and regulations, judicial appointments, the direction of the national economy, and foreign policies at stake between the two candidates. There are real and significant differences between the candidates that matter to Americans who are going to vote next month.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:04 PM
No, there are billions of dollars, government policies and regulations, judicial appointments, the direction of the national economy, and foreign policies at stake between the two candidates. There are real and significant differences between the candidates that matter to Americans who are going to vote next month.


No, really, there's not. You'll get nearly identical policies from either guy, just different appointments, and minor differences in tone. There's no real choice here, only the illusion of choice. Any real choice is being shut out of the conversation, not even to be discussed or even presented as an option, despite the fact that they have ballot access in every state.

vailpass
10-02-2012, 02:07 PM
Is the purpose of a debate to win? Or is it to introduce ideas into the general discussion and spur further thought and dialogue?
I'd be interested to hear what the appointed representative of the Libertarian party has to say; and how the R & D candidates respond to those thoughts.
(not that anyone appointed Johnson, don't even know if there is such a thing as a Libertarian nominee)

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 02:09 PM
Gary Johnson came off as a complete lunatic on the last interview of his that I heard.


I'm guessing he didn't make enough farting/anus/rectum/pooping references for you?

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:15 PM
No, really, there's not. You'll get nearly identical policies from either guy, just different appointments, and minor differences in tone. There's no real choice here, only the illusion of choice. Any real choice is being shut out of the conversation, not even to be discussed or even presented as an option, despite the fact that they have ballot access in every state.

Okay, if billions of dollars, government policies and regulations, judicial appointments, the direction of the national economy, and foreign policies are "minor differences" to you, that's fine. To the rest of the country, they are very significant.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:17 PM
Is the purpose of a debate to win? Or is it to introduce ideas into the general discussion and spur further thought and dialogue?
I'd be interested to hear what the appointed representative of the Libertarian party has to say; and how the R & D candidates respond to those thoughts.
(not that anyone appointed Johnson, don't even know if there is such a thing as a Libertarian nominee)

Yes, there is a Libertarian Party nominee, and yes, Gary Johnson is it. He's got ballot access - but what he doesn't have is the same media platform that the major parties have to get his ideas out. Apparently he's supposed to poll at 15% before he can be considered worth hearing - which makes absolutely zero sense considering only the entrenched parties with the billion dollar backers get the media time.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:20 PM
Okay, if billions of dollars, government policies and regulations, judicial appointments, the direction of the national economy, and foreign policies are "minor differences" to you, that's fine. To the rest of the country, they are very significant.

The differences between the two candidates are minor enough. The importance of these differences to "the rest of the country" is also pretty minor when you consider voter turnout. I can't understand why you find it in your interest to disenfranchise people like me from the process, but whatever... Your pretend intellectualism is nothing but a facade for a trapped intellect.

Donger
10-02-2012, 02:22 PM
It's still quaint.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:22 PM
Is the purpose of a debate to win? Or is it to introduce ideas into the general discussion and spur further thought and dialogue?
I'd be interested to hear what the appointed representative of the Libertarian party has to say; and how the R & D candidates respond to those thoughts.
(not that anyone appointed Johnson, don't even know if there is such a thing as a Libertarian nominee)

"Gary Johnson may not be on the debate state in Denver on Wednesday night but he plans to offer his 2 cents during the debate. He will offer online commentary for the debate via a Google Hangout and his Twitter account during the debate."

http://www.examiner.com/article/gary-johnson-will-participate-a-presidential-debate

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:24 PM
The differences between the two candidates are minor enough. The importance of these differences to "the rest of the country" is also pretty minor when you consider voter turnout. I can't understand why you find it in your interest to disenfranchise people like me from the process, but whatever... Your pretend intellectualism is nothing but a facade for a trapped intellect.

Gary Johnson not being invited to a debate does not disenfranchise you. You don't have a right to have the world bend to your wants. Get over it.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 02:27 PM
I think they should allow the Libertarian and Green Party nominees into the debates. No, I don't have a premise for that belief like polling numbers or anything. It's just they are the two third parties that share the most beliefs and concerns of the country. There are plenty of far left voters who believe Obama doesn't suitably champion true progressive reforms. Likewise, there are plenty of far right voters who believe that Romney and most other Republican candidates are fiscally irresponsible and stuck decades behind in social reforms.

That's all I got. I don't have a reason for picking those two parties over, say, the Constitution Party or the Socialist Party. They just seem to be the parties most people would identify with in a televised debate. After all, it's the TV producers who make the rules, not the laws of government. It would be very easy to just arbitrarily decide that we now have four parties on stage.



Actually, it is this group that makes the rules. http://debates.org/

I find it fairly ridiculous for people to suggest that candidates polling in the low single digits deserve to move on to the championship round with the big boys. No matter what merits they might have, and no matter what obstacles are in the way, at the end of the day it is a popularity contest and they simply are not in a position to win it. It's not like it is impossible to qualify; others have done it.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:27 PM
Gary Johnson not being invited to a debate does not disenfranchise you.

It not only disenfranchises me, but an entire movement of political thought that is has become a major influence in the national debate over the last 4 years. There is literally zero good reason to keep libertarian ideas out of a presidential debate when you have a candidate that has the ballot access that Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party have - your small-mindedness and phony intellectualism notwithstanding.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:28 PM
It not only disenfranchises me, but an entire movement of political thought that is has become a major influence in the national debate over the last 4 years. There is literally zero good reason to keep libertarian ideas out of a presidential debate when you have a candidate that has the ballot access that Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party have - your small-mindedness and phony intellectualism notwithstanding.

You can still vote for Gary Johnson. There is good reason to keep him out of the debate: he sucks out the time for the people who can actually win the election. You might not like that reason, but it's a good reason.

Fish
10-02-2012, 02:29 PM
No, there are billions of dollars, government policies and regulations, judicial appointments, the direction of the national economy, and foreign policies at stake between the two candidates. There are real and significant differences between the candidates that matter to Americans who are going to vote next month.

That's pretty much exactly the mindset I had before the 2008 election. Not anymore. The system is setup so one side will never allow the other to progress further than petty bickering. It's a 4 year fight, with no actual progress made for the good of the country, until it's time for the next show. And until we take the money out of politics, it's never gonna get better for either side.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 02:29 PM
Yes, there is a Libertarian Party nominee, and yes, Gary Johnson is it. He's got ballot access - but what he doesn't have is the same media platform that the major parties have to get his ideas out. Apparently he's supposed to poll at 15% before he can be considered worth hearing - which makes absolutely zero sense considering only the entrenched parties with the billion dollar backers get the media time.

The market has spoken. It doesn't like Gary Johnson.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:29 PM
Actually, it is this group that makes the rules. http://debates.org/

I find it fairly ridiculous for people to suggest that candidates polling in the low single digits deserve to move on to the championship round with the big boys. No matter what merits they might have, and no matter what obstacles are in the way, at the end of the day it is a popularity contest and they simply are not in a position to win it. It's not like it is impossible to qualify; others have done it.

Debates are not popularity contests, they are exchanges of ideas. There is no reason why candidates with ballot access shouldn't be invited to participate.

Deberg_1990
10-02-2012, 02:30 PM
One of these days this country is going to have to reform the Electoral College, too. As a Wisconsin resident, my vote is going to be pretty important to the election. Meanwhile, my folks who live in North Dakota don't even ****ing matter- they are from a state with 3 measly electoral votes that's going to elect Romney by at least 60% of the vote. It's like their voices don't count when it comes to the race for president.

Second choice voting is the only way I see out of this mess, both to break the stranglehold the two-party system has over the neck of this country, and to guarantee equal dispersal of a vote's "value" regardless of where a person lives.

been saying this for years. The electoral college system and the entire nomination process with the primaries and cacauses is an outdated joke.

They should go to a popular vote or get rid of the winner take all format. If your a minority voter in a state that's voted repub or dem for decades, you really have no voice at all.

The primary races are too long and drawn out. Created when candidates would travel by train and it would takes days and weeks for news to get around the country. It just doesn't make sense in today's modern world.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 02:33 PM
It not only disenfranchises me, but an entire movement of political thought that is has become a major influence in the national debate over the last 4 years. There is literally zero good reason to keep libertarian ideas out of a presidential debate when you have a candidate that has the ballot access that Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party have - your small-mindedness and phony intellectualism notwithstanding.

Pretty sure you don't know what "disenfranchise" means.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:33 PM
You can still vote for Gary Johnson. There is good reason to keep him out of the debate: he sucks out the time for the people who can actually win the election. You might not like that reason, but it's a good reason.

No, it's not a good reason at all. These debates are nothing more than two candidates running to the center. It's not even an actual debate. It's just two people bloviating for the bleating masses who aren't allowed to be presented with actual choices or variety in thoughts.

vailpass
10-02-2012, 02:34 PM
"Gary Johnson may not be on the debate state in Denver on Wednesday night but he plans to offer his 2 cents during the debate. He will offer online commentary for the debate via a Google Hangout and his Twitter account during the debate."

http://www.examiner.com/article/gary-johnson-will-participate-a-presidential-debate

Thanks but that doesn't help. I'm interested in seeing the Libertarian candidate interact with the other candidates and hearing those candidates responses.

vailpass
10-02-2012, 02:35 PM
The market has spoken. It doesn't like Gary Johnson.

The market has spoken. It doesn't like you.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:35 PM
Pretty sure you don't know what "disenfranchise" means.

Pretty sure I don't fucking care about a word your dumbass has to say - like everyone else here.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:36 PM
Thanks but that doesn't help. I'm interested in seeing the Libertarian candidate interact with the other candidates and hearing those candidates responses.

"Gary Johnson will be participating in a debate on October 23rd hosted by Free and Equal Elections Foundation. Green Party nominee Jill Stein, Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode and Justice Party nominee Rocky Anderson will join Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson in this debate. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have declined to participate in this debate."

Same article.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 02:36 PM
Debates are not popularity contests, they are exchanges of ideas. There is no reason why candidates with ballot access shouldn't be invited to participate.

Elections are popularity contests. This debate is for people with a chance at winning.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:38 PM
No, it's not a good reason at all. These debates are nothing more than two candidates running to the center. It's not even an actual debate. It's just two people bloviating for the bleating masses who aren't allowed to be presented with actual choices or variety in thoughts.

Yes, it's a very good reason. The real choices for the election are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Only one of them will win. No third person will win, so Americans want to focus on which of the two candidates is better, and not on what a third person's irrelevant opinion is.

Chocolate Hog
10-02-2012, 02:38 PM
Elections are popularity contests. This debate is for people with a chance at winning.

Holy shit you are a moron.

vailpass
10-02-2012, 02:38 PM
"Gary Johnson will be participating in a debate on October 23rd hosted by Free and Equal Elections Foundation. Green Party nominee Jill Stein, Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode and Justice Party nominee Rocky Anderson will join Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson in this debate. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have declined to participate in this debate."

Same article.

Looks like a fruit and nut convention. What is your purpose for posting this?

*edit* I think I see now. By "other canddiates" I meant the R & D candidates. Sorry I was unclear.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 02:39 PM
Thanks but that doesn't help. I'm interested in seeing the Libertarian candidate interact with the other candidates and hearing those candidates responses.

So start something called "Dickhead's super awesome candidate interaction festival," invite everyone, and see who shows up.

vailpass
10-02-2012, 02:40 PM
Yes, it's a very good reason. The real choices for the election are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Only one of them will win. No third person will win, so Americans want to focus on which of the two candidates is better, and not on what a third person's irrelevant opinion is.

What if Romney and obama's responses to the Libertarian candidate are helpful to some on the fence between the two in deciding for whom to cast their vote?

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 02:40 PM
The market has spoken. It doesn't like you.

And I didn't get invited to the debate either. And I'm only a few points behind Gary Johnson in the polls.

vailpass
10-02-2012, 02:41 PM
And I didn't get invited to the debate either. And I'm only a few points behind Gary Johnson in the polls.

I don't doubt you find yourself behind Johnsons and polls with great frequency.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 02:41 PM
Pretty sure I don't ****ing care about a word your dumbass has to say - like everyone else here.

You also don't seem to care what "disenfranchise" means.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:43 PM
Yes, it's a very good reason. The real choices for the election are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Only one of them will win. No third person will win, so Americans want to focus on which of the two candidates is better, and not on what a third person's irrelevant opinion is.

Apparently people who hold Libertarian views aren't Americans.

What's the point of getting ballot access in all 50 states if we're not even allowed to participate in the national dialogue?

You have a small, regressive mind. No surprise you're rowing the same boat as Cosmo.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:44 PM
What if Romney and obama's responses to the Libertarian candidate are helpful to some on the fence between the two in deciding for whom to cast their vote?

It's not enough advantage to outweigh its disadvantage.

vailpass
10-02-2012, 02:46 PM
It's not enough advantage to outweigh its disadvantage.

By who's judgement?
I'm surprised you are in favor of limiting the discourse for our nations' highest office to two parties.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 02:46 PM
I don't doubt you find yourself behind Johnsons and polls with great frequency.

Yes, his name is slang for a penis. Good one, Johnson.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:46 PM
It's not enough advantage to outweigh its disadvantage.

**** this political process and **** your tiny, fenced intellect.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:46 PM
Apparently people who hold Libertarian views aren't Americans.

What's the point of getting ballot access in all 50 states if we're not even allowed to participate in the national dialogue?

You have a small, regressive mind. No surprise you're rowing the same boat as Cosmo.

People can still vote for Gary Johnson. With his campaign, he still has a voice. Votes: that's the point of being on the ballot -- not so he can be in a presidential debate.

People who hold Libertarian views can vote for Gary Johnson. They didn't need Gary Johnson being in Wednesday's debate to trigger that ability.

Donger
10-02-2012, 02:47 PM
LMAO

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:48 PM
By who's judgement?
I'm surprised you are in favor of limiting the discourse for our nations' highest office to two parties.

I'm not in favor of limiting the discourse. I'm in favor of placing significant restrictions for who gets to be invited to this important debate. If you make the cut, you can talk about anything you think is important.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:49 PM
**** this political process and **** your tiny, fenced intellect.

Find a country with a better political process that has as much diversity as our country, and we can go over it.

Donger
10-02-2012, 02:49 PM
What's the point of getting ballot access in all 50 states if we're not even allowed to participate in the national dialogue?

None. You wasted your time, and some have been telling you that for over a year.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:49 PM
People can still vote for Gary Johnson. With his campaign, he still has a voice. Votes: that's the point of being on the ballot -- not so he can be in a presidential debate.

People who hold Libertarian views can vote for Gary Johnson. They didn't need Gary Johnson being in Wednesday's debate to trigger that ability.

What's the point of voting when we get ballot access but don't get a voice in the national debate? What's the point of participating at all? Why not follow your lead and just give the nation over to the billionaires and put our heads down?

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:50 PM
I'm not in favor of limiting the discourse. I'm in favor of placing significant restrictions for who gets to be invited to this important debate. If you make the cut, you can talk about anything you think is important.

Ballot access is a significant restriction.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 02:51 PM
Apparently people who hold Libertarian views aren't Americans.

What's the point of getting ballot access in all 50 states if we're not even allowed to participate in the national dialogue?

You have a small, regressive mind. No surprise you're rowing the same boat as Cosmo.

Maybe when he actually gets on the ballot in 50 states you should revisit this.

Donger
10-02-2012, 02:51 PM
What's the point of voting when we get ballot access but don't get a voice in the national debate? What's the point of participating at all? Why not follow your lead and just give the nation over to the billionaires and put our heads down?

You aren't getting a voice because of the product that your candidate(s) are selling. They are fringe right now and the vast majority of the country don't agree with most of what they are pitching.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:51 PM
None. You wasted your time, and some have been telling you that for over a year.

I've always known you have a tiny mind. Jenson, on the other hand, pretends that he's some great intellect around this place - when he's really just a small mind like yourself.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:51 PM
What's the point of voting when we get ballot access but don't get a voice in the national debate? What's the point of participating at all? Why not follow your lead and just give the nation over to the billionaires and put our heads down?

The point of voting is still to elect candidates to serve public office.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:52 PM
Maybe when he actually gets on the ballot in 50 states you should revisit this.


http://www.lp.org/2012-ballot-access

Donger
10-02-2012, 02:52 PM
I've always known you have a tiny mind. Jenson, on the other hand, pretends that he's some great intellect around this place - when he's really just a small mind like yourself.

That's cute. Then again, I'm not the one who deluded himself into actually believing that a revolution was taking place.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:52 PM
Ballot access is a significant restriction.

Yes. Good for Gary Johnson for making it on the ballots. Then he just has to make it to the next threshold to make it on this debate.

But if you think that threshold is high, you should see the threshold for actually becoming President of the United States.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:53 PM
http://www.lp.org/2012-ballot-access

So close.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:53 PM
The point of voting is still to elect candidates to serve public office.

F*ck you.

vailpass
10-02-2012, 02:54 PM
I'm not in favor of limiting the discourse. I'm in favor of placing significant restrictions for who gets to be invited to this important debate. If you make the cut, you can talk about anything you think is important.

When you restrict the participants you restrict the discourse. You know that.
It seems like we further limit the chance of ever having a Potus that is not R or D by restricting the debate in this way.

Chocolate Hog
10-02-2012, 02:56 PM
You aren't getting a voice because of the product that your candidate(s) are selling. They are fringe right now and the vast majority of the country don't agree with most of what they are pitching.

This is hilarious coming from the guy who's pissed off atleast 47% of the country.

Tell us more about quality candidates.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 02:57 PM
http://www.lp.org/2012-ballot-access

Maybe when he actually gets on the ballot in 50 states you should revisit this.

Donger
10-02-2012, 02:57 PM
This is hilarious coming from the guy who's pissed off atleast 47% of the country.

Tell us more about quality candidates.

:spock:

Donger
10-02-2012, 02:58 PM
F*ck you.

Reported.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 02:58 PM
F*ck you.

Stop disenfranchising me.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 02:58 PM
Reported.

lol

have fun with that

Deberg_1990
10-02-2012, 03:00 PM
You aren't getting a voice because of the product that your candidate(s) are selling. They are fringe right now and the vast majority of the country don't agree with most of what they are pitching.

I think these parties are kept fringe ring by the media and the two parties in power. Of course they don't want these parties to grow larger.


I hear people all the time talk about how fed up with Washington they are, how they don't like either candidate but will vote one way or another because candidate X is the lesser of two evils......or stuff like "I'd like to vote for him, but he's not electable"


The process is broke.

Chocolate Hog
10-02-2012, 03:00 PM
:spock:

We should all vote for Mitt Romney because he's a great candidate.

Or is it because he has the same positions as the other guy he's just not black.

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:02 PM
I think these parties are kept fringe ring by the media and the two parties in power. Of course they don't want these parties to grow larger.


I hear people all the time talk about how fed up with Washington they are, how they don't like either candidate but will vote one way or another because candidate X is the lesser of two evils......or stuff like "I'd like to vote for him, but he's not electable"


The process is broke.

No, they are just fringe. Ron Paul was at every GOP debate and basically showed just how fringe he is. Sorry. If people agreed with the message and the policies, Ron Paul would have been the nominee. Since they don't, he isn't.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 03:02 PM
When you restrict the participants you restrict the discourse. You know that.
It seems like we further limit the chance of ever having a Potus that is not R or D by restricting the debate in this way.

This debate isn't limiting the chance of a non-R or D winning the election. That was already at 0%.

Third parties have a significant uphill battle in our system. I'm not suggesting that that's good or that we shouldn't do something about it. I'm saying that 1) it's irrelevant, even irresponsible to do something about it at this point for this election and 2) it's not a right

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:02 PM
We should all vote for Mitt Romney because he's a great candidate.

Or is it because he has the same positions as the other guy he's just not black.

I know that's the mantra of the Paul followers, but like most things Paul, it's wrong.

Chocolate Hog
10-02-2012, 03:07 PM
I know that's the mantra of the Paul followers, but like most things Paul, it's wrong.

LMAO So you're voting for Romney because of the health care plan you oppose?

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:08 PM
LMAO So you're voting for Romney because of the health care plan you oppose?

I'm voting for Romney because he was and is the best candidate to beat Obama.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 03:08 PM
No, they are just fringe. Ron Paul was at every GOP debate and basically showed just how fringe he is. Sorry. If people agreed with the message and the policies, Ron Paul would have been the nominee. Since they don't, he isn't.

No. That's not how Romney got elected at all. He got elected because he has the establishment (both the media and the party) and its money behind him. It took him forever to secure the nomination because the people didn't really want him. In the end it's the money that carried the day, not his ideas.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 03:08 PM
Stop disenfranchising me.

The libertarians maybe need to take another look at thier philosophy--because it seems like there is an awful lot of bitching about a private organization setting up rules for its event.

Waaa--they won't let me participate, and all because after a year of campaigning I'm only getting 5% support.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 03:10 PM
No, they are just fringe. Ron Paul was at every GOP debate and basically showed just how fringe he is. Sorry. If people agreed with the message and the policies, Ron Paul would have been the nominee. Since they don't, he isn't.

Hey, its not over yet. /BEP

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:12 PM
No. That's not how Romney got elected at all. He got elected because he has the establishment (both the media and the party) and its money behind him. It took him forever to secure the nomination because the people didn't really want him. In the end it's the money that carried the day, not his ideas.

Heh. You do realize that you just acknowledged that Paul is fringe, right?

Taco John
10-02-2012, 03:21 PM
Heh. You do realize that you just acknowledged that Paul is fringe, right?

Everyone who doesn't have the backing of the billionaires that Romney and Obama do are fringe.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 03:24 PM
Everyone who doesn't have the backing of the billionaires that Romney and Obama do are fringe.

So what's your thought on Citizens United?

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:28 PM
Everyone who doesn't have the backing of the billionaires that Romney and Obama do are fringe.

Well, when you have a candidate actually arguing that commercial aircraft pilots should do their own navigating and tracking because there's nothing in the Constitution about the FAA, yeah, that's fringe.

And it has nothing to do with money.

vailpass
10-02-2012, 03:39 PM
Well, when you have a candidate actually arguing that commercial aircraft pilots should do their own navigating and tracking because there's nothing in the Constitution about the FAA, yeah, that's fringe.

And it has nothing to do with money.

Huh?

Taco John
10-02-2012, 03:41 PM
Well, when you have a candidate actually arguing that commercial aircraft pilots should do their own navigating and tracking because there's nothing in the Constitution about the FAA, yeah, that's fringe.


Except that isn't true and you just made it up.

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:42 PM
Huh?

It was during one of the debates. Paul was asked about some government regulation (such as the FAA) and he went on a Paul rant about privatizing the FAA.

Just general goofy Paul stuff.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 03:43 PM
This is a lot more close on Ron Paul's take on the FAA than "pilots should do it themselves."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/solve-the-faa-problem-by-privatization/

Taco John
10-02-2012, 03:44 PM
It was during one of the debates. Paul was asked about some government regulation (such as the FAA) and he went on a Paul rant about privatizing the FAA.

Just general goofy Paul stuff.


Well there you have it. You conflate "privatizing the FAA" with "Pilots should do it themselves." You don't have any grasp of the ideas. You're merely mimicking a caricature of them.

Paul's position is fiscally and ideologically conservative. The position you are defending is both fiscally and ideologically leftist.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 03:46 PM
By the way - Canada has a privatized Aviation system. GOOFY!


Canada's ATC system has been fully commercialized.30 In 1996, Canada set up a private, nonprofit ATC corporation, Nav Canada, which is self-supporting from charges on aviation users. The Canadian system has been widely praised for its sound finances, solid management, and its investment in new technologies.31 The Canadian system is a very good reform model for the United States to consider.

Nav Canada's corporate board is composed largely of aviation stakeholders.32 It has 4 seats for the airlines, 3 for the government, 2 for employees, and 1 for the non-commercial aviation industry. Those 10 stakeholders select 4 directors from outside aviation, and then those 14 select the company president, who becomes the 15th board member. To further strengthen governance, neither elected officials nor anyone connected with suppliers to Nav Canada can serve on the board. Nav Canada also has a 20-member outside Advisory Committee.

A number of studies have found that ATC commercialization has generally resulted in improvements to service quality, better management, and reduced costs.33 At the same time, air safety has remained the same or improved in the countries that have pursued reforms to set up independent ANSP organizations.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/airports-atc

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:47 PM
Well there you have it. You conflate "privatizing the FAA" with "Pilots should do it themselves." You don't have any grasp of the ideas. You're merely mimicking a caricature of them.

Paul's position is fiscally and ideologically conservative. The position you are defending is both fiscally and ideologically leftist.

Or, maybe I'm not:

WILLIAMS: Well, 30 seconds more for devil's advocate here, because would you then put it on the drug companies to say, "No, we're bringing this to market, trust us, it's a fantastic drug"? All the pilots in the sky, to add to their responsibilities, their own air traffic control, in an organic way?

PAUL: What I said is, theoretically, you could -- it could be privatized, but who ends up doing the regulations on the drugs?

Taco John
10-02-2012, 03:51 PM
Theoretically, you could.


Well, stop the presses... You think you've made a point here?

Taco John
10-02-2012, 03:52 PM
We already have a working model of privatizing the FAA. There is nothing groundbreaking about this idea. It's already being done with success.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 03:53 PM
So what's your thought on Citizens United?

You seemed to have a thought about it earlier.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 03:54 PM
You seemed to have a thought about it earlier.

I endorse the ACLU's position on it, much better expressed here:

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

and here:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/fixing-citizens-united-will-break-constitution


I think it's better to allow too much speech than not enough.

Donger
10-02-2012, 03:56 PM
Theoretically, you could.


Well, stop the presses... You think you've made a point here?

Yes, that Paul is a fringe kook who thinks that having pilots do what the FAA does is a good idea. Or, he didn't listen or understand the question. It's just another example of his nuttiness.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 03:57 PM
I endorse the ACLU's position on it, much better expressed here:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/fixing-citizens-united-will-break-constitution


I think it's better to allow too much speech than not enough.

And your thoughts on where billionaires' donations come into play? It seemed you were concerned with that earlier.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 03:58 PM
Yes, that Paul is a fringe kook who thinks that having pilots do what the FAA does is a good idea. Or, he didn't listen or understand the question. It's just another example of his nuttiness.

Another example of you refusing to actually consider the point, and purposefully obfuscate it. But you wouldn't be Donger if you didn't do that. Everybody knows your style.

Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word "theoretically."

J Diddy
10-02-2012, 03:58 PM
What's the point of voting when we get ballot access but don't get a voice in the national debate? What's the point of participating at all? Why not follow your lead and just give the nation over to the billionaires and put our heads down?

The ballot is the difference maker, not the debate. I can also say I've heard everything I need to know from him to decide he's not my guy.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 04:00 PM
And your thoughts on where billionaires' donations come into play? It seemed you were concerned with that earlier.

Didn't I just make that clear? I'll repeat myself:
I think it's better to allow too much speech than not enough.

Taco John
10-02-2012, 04:02 PM
The ballot is the difference maker, not the debate. I can also say I've heard everything I need to know from him to decide he's not my guy.

That's fair enough, but I'd bet a thousand dollars that in an open debate Gary Johnson would say something (or cause the other candidates to say something) that you would put you in agreement with him (on that issue) more than either Mitt or Obama. And for some people, that stuff would add up.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 04:05 PM
Didn't I just make that clear? I'll repeat myself:
I think it's better to allow too much speech than not enough.

So what's the purpose of ranting about billionaires?

Donger
10-02-2012, 04:08 PM
Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word "theoretically."

Sure I do. Theoretically, Ron Paul stood a chance to become POTUS.

qabbaan
10-02-2012, 04:08 PM
The Green Party could probably garner more support than Gary Johnson if all four were included.

J Diddy
10-02-2012, 04:11 PM
That's fair enough, but I'd bet a thousand dollars that in an open debateGary Johnson would say something (or cause the other candidates to say something) that you would put you in agreement with him more than either Mitt or Obama.

I'm sure that is possible, but one issue doesn't make the candidate.

BucEyedPea
10-02-2012, 04:12 PM
This is hilarious coming from the guy who's pissed off atleast 47% of the country.

Tell us more about quality candidates.

And yet what, 80% want another choice in this election. They must all be fringe.

BucEyedPea
10-02-2012, 04:18 PM
The market has spoken. It doesn't like Gary Johnson.

Nope. Not when you look at his issues and the poll numbers on them. Remember, 80% want two different choices over what's being fed them.

BucEyedPea
10-02-2012, 04:19 PM
Gary Johnson is a waste of time... if he had any business being at the debate, he'd be there - he has no support. There are probably a half dozen others that would have a greater justification for being there.

Must be why the GOP is trying to kick Johnson off the ballot in about 7 states then.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 04:24 PM
Nope. Not when you look at his issues and the poll numbers on them. Remember, 80% want two different choices over what's being fed them.

If only there was some process where people could be allowed to pick the nominees, instead of being forced fed the nominees.

Iowanian
10-02-2012, 04:25 PM
It's cute when the coffee house fanboi libertarians get all riled up.

I didn't disagree or hate everything the guy said and for a little while wanted to like him, but when he was pressed at all, he snapped like a premenstrual woman who hadn't taken her mood meds.

Iowanian
10-02-2012, 04:31 PM
You have no problems with lunatics you voted for Rick Santorum.


Anyone who spends their nights dreaming of watching for UFO's with ronpaul can't really do any better than use that same, tired line over and over and over.

I would vote for Ralph Mouth from Happy Days over Obama, that's for certain.

Iowanian
10-02-2012, 04:32 PM
Said the .



Shouldn't you be over at DonkeyMinge not allowing Chief fans to post. TacObama?

SNR
10-02-2012, 04:58 PM
Find a country with a better political process that has as much diversity as our country, and we can go over it.

Off the top of my head:

UK (the monarchy is nothing more than pomp and flair)
Germany
Austria
Netherlands
All Scandinavian countries

If I did more research, I bet I could find still more countries whose democratic processes are far more fair than our own.

But then again, I don't really give a shit about democracy. I think it's a dumb idea.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 05:01 PM
Off the top of my head:

UK (the monarchy is nothing more than pomp and flair)
Germany
Austria
Netherlands
All Scandinavian countries

If I did more research, I bet I could find still more countries whose democratic processes are far more fair than our own.

But then again, I don't really give a shit about democracy. I think it's a dumb idea.

Okay, none of those countries has as much diversity as we do. In fact, no country in the world has as much diversity as we do.

SNR
10-02-2012, 05:05 PM
Okay, none of those countries has as much diversity as we do. In fact, no country in the world has as much diversity as we do.

What does diversity have to do with anything? Germany has black people.

La literatura
10-02-2012, 05:07 PM
What does diversity have to do with anything? Germany has black people.

Because in a winner take all system like we have, political parties have to connect to a ton of groups, and diversity makes that extremely hard

Of course Germany has black people. Probably most of those countries do. But none of them has as much diversity as this country.

patteeu
10-02-2012, 05:16 PM
They should hold a debate for all the candidates besides Obama and Romney on CSPAN2 for anyone who's interested in watching.

BucEyedPea
10-02-2012, 05:22 PM
Break up the two party hold on ballot access....or break both parties up into 4 quadrants instead. Have the first four all debate. Then team them up against each other. No commericial advertising just allow these debates to replay all the time on TV and on the net. They can have websites where they have their commercials and ads. Print ads can be allowed.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 05:55 PM
Nope. Not when you look at his issues and the poll numbers on them. Remember, 80% want two different choices over what's being fed them.

And despite wanting someone else, they don't want Gary. MARKET.

cosmo20002
10-02-2012, 06:01 PM
Break up the two party hold on ballot access....or break both parties up into 4 quadrants instead. Have the first four all debate. Then team them up against each other. No commericial advertising just allow these debates to replay all the time on TV and on the net. They can have websites where they have their commercials and ads. Print ads can be allowed.

What in the hell are you talking about?

BucEyedPea
10-02-2012, 07:37 PM
And despite wanting someone else, they don't want Gary. MARKET.

Not if they don't know about him. That takes the big guns of the media. That's corporate control—not market.
Then there's the horse race mentality—they like him but feel he can't win.

J Diddy
10-02-2012, 09:57 PM
They should hold a debate for all the candidates besides Obama and Romney on CSPAN2 for anyone who's interested in watching.

All the weed legalizers will be watching for sure. Probably too high, though.

Iowanian
10-02-2012, 10:31 PM
Off the top of my head:

UK (the monarchy is nothing more than pomp and flair)
Germany
Austria
Netherlands
All Scandinavian countries

If I did more research, I bet I could find still more countries whose democratic processes are far more fair than our own.

But then again, I don't really give a shit about democracy. I think it's a dumb idea.

Interesting. Austria is difficult to enter and live, prices for basic things like jeans are out very heavily taxed, and if you immigrate to Austria, you have to pass a test as a fluent verbal and written communicator in their native language or your visa is immediately revoked.

We've kicked Germany's ass twice for world atrocities, tore down the wall and saved them from communism and our military supports a large part of their economy and defends them.

Chocolate Hog
10-02-2012, 11:24 PM
Anyone who spends their nights dreaming of watching for UFO's with ronpaul can't really do any better than use that same, tired line over and over and over.

I would vote for Ralph Mouth from Happy Days over Obama, that's for certain.


That's funny you fantasize about muslims invading your cornfield with a Christian fundamentalist.


Because he's black. Why else would vote for the other guy with the same policies?

Iowanian
10-02-2012, 11:59 PM
You might be too stupid to discuss politics when you can't operate a tooth brush.

Lzen
10-03-2012, 08:29 AM
That is, of course, true. But there is a legitimate question that has to be answered about what criteria should be used to admit candidates to the debate. If every 3rd party candidate is included, the stage will be packed and no one will learn about any of the candidates.

While that is true, I think 15% is too high. Perhaps 3-5%?

patteeu
10-03-2012, 08:36 AM
While that is true, I think 15% is too high. Perhaps 3-5%?

If you set it at 3-5%, you could conceivably have the major party candidates polling at a combined 85% and still have a stage crowded with 6 or 7 candidates, which is way too many. I think the goal here is to keep it to two unless a well funded candidate, like Ross Perot in the 90s, has demonstrated the ability to attract a significant following and I think that's a good goal. YMMV

whoman69
10-03-2012, 07:47 PM
Third party candidates should not expect any support unless that party is ready to work at a grass roots level to get their people elected to statehouses and Congress before moving on to the Presidency.

Chocolate Hog
10-03-2012, 09:12 PM
You might be too stupid to discuss politics when you can't operate a tooth brush.

Says the guy who voted for Rick Santorum.

ChiTown
10-04-2012, 08:25 AM
Gary JohnsonLMAO

Taco John
10-04-2012, 08:59 AM
Gary JohnsonLMAO

This attitude is why politics in this country is broke and will never be fixed. It doesn't matter if you agree with Gary Johnson. What matters is that the conversation in this country is hijacked by the two parties - both of which are bought and paid for by the same interests.

The debate last night would have been infinitely more interesting with a third party to keep both of the others in check. Romney ran away with it, but he wouldn't look so rosy right now if he had someone to the right of him making him stammer. Gary Johnson was a much better, more conservative executive as governor of New Mexico than Romney.

patteeu
10-04-2012, 09:26 AM
This attitude is why politics in this country is broke and will never be fixed. It doesn't matter if you agree with Gary Johnson. What matters is that the conversation in this country is hijacked by the two parties - both of which are bought and paid for by the same interests.

The debate last night would have been infinitely more interesting with a third party to keep both of the others in check. Romney ran away with it, but he wouldn't look so rosy right now if he had someone to the right of him making him stammer. Gary Johnson was a much better, more conservative executive as governor of New Mexico than Romney.

Yes, but Romney was a much better, more conservative executive as governor of Massachusetts than Johnson. :p

Saul Good
10-04-2012, 10:20 AM
In fairness, Johnson had a better showing at the debate than Obama.

teedubya
10-04-2012, 10:44 AM
Germany got ****ed by the Nazis... and so they needed to create a better system.

Now, you vote for the "party" you want... in order of preference. There are 5-7 major parties. Then they take all of the votes into consideration and then allot a certain amount of seats to each party. So maybe I'd vote: [example from 1st choice to least]

Libertarian Party
Green Party
Democratic Party
Republican Party
NeoCon Party

German Congress "Bundestagswahl" party allotment in 2009 through "personalised proportional representation."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Sitze_Bundestagswahl_2009.svg/550px-Sitze_Bundestagswahl_2009.svg.png

Having 2 main parties is way to easy to manipulate, especially with the large PACs of cash going to the candidates. The smaller parties have no chance to get their message out in this current US political environment.

Eventually, after the Dem$$$ and Rep$$$ ruin everything... we will have to have a reboot.

Taco John
10-04-2012, 11:19 AM
Yes, but Romney was a much better, more conservative executive as governor of Massachusetts than Johnson. :p

Not even close. Gary Johnson has a much better record as a conservative.

patteeu
10-04-2012, 12:03 PM
Not even close. Gary Johnson has a much better record as a conservative.

As governor of Massachusetts?

Chocolate Hog
10-04-2012, 01:14 PM
As governor of Massachusetts?

New Mexico was 2/3rd Democrat and Johnson didn't raise taxes.

FishingRod
10-04-2012, 01:18 PM
New Mexico was 2/3rd Democrat and Johnson didn't raise taxes.


Perhaps I may be of assistance


You can argue all you want but it still won't change that Johnson was never

"governor of Massachusetts"

patteeu
10-04-2012, 01:52 PM
Perhaps I may be of assistance


You can argue all you want but it still won't change that Johnson was never

"governor of Massachusetts"

Thank you, sir.

Chocolate Hog
10-04-2012, 02:33 PM
Perhaps I may be of assistance


You can argue all you want but it still won't change that Johnson was never

"governor of Massachusetts"

Thanks for the help.

SNR
10-04-2012, 10:55 PM
If you set it at 3-5%, you could conceivably have the major party candidates polling at a combined 85% and still have a stage crowded with 6 or 7 candidates, which is way too many. I think the goal here is to keep it to two unless a well funded candidate, like Ross Perot in the 90s, has demonstrated the ability to attract a significant following and I think that's a good goal. YMMVWhen's the last time a 3rd party earned more than 3% of the total votes in an election, not counting Ross Perot?

The system is fucking broke in this country and isn't coming back.