Two Sponsors Pull Out From Debates Over Exclusion Of Gary Johnson

[Taco John]

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

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by Literature

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]

It's still quaint.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by 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)

"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...dential-debate

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Literature

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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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]

Originally Posted by SNR

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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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.