Two Sponsors Pull Out From Debates Over Exclusion Of Gary Johnson

[Taco John]

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...-gary-johnson-

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Literature

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

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 ****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.

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

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]

Originally Posted by Literature

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]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

Originally Posted by Literature

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]

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)