ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   U.S. Issues Two Sponsors Pull Out From Debates Over Exclusion Of Gary Johnson (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=264552)

Taco John 10-02-2012 01:27 AM

Two Sponsors Pull Out From Debates Over Exclusion Of Gary Johnson
 
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...-gary-johnson-

qabbaan 10-02-2012 06:10 AM

Quote:

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 09:39 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 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qabbaan (Post 8969706)
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 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John (Post 8969619)
Two Sponsors Pull Out From Debates Over Exclusion Of Gary Johnson Reply to Thread

Well, bye.

Deberg_1990 10-02-2012 10:54 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 10:57 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 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 8970110)
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 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 8970132)
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 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 8970145)
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 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 8970145)
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 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 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 8970173)
Here is a list 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 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 8970195)
Rosanne Barr! ROFL

She might add some spice to the debates.

Taco John 10-02-2012 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 8970121)
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 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John (Post 8970337)
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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.