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 BucEyedPea

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]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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]

Originally Posted by SNR

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.

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

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]

You might be too stupid to discuss politics when you can't operate a tooth brush.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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]

Originally Posted by Lzen

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]

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.

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

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]

Gary Johnson

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by ChiTown

Gary Johnson

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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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.

[Saul Good]

In fairness, Johnson had a better showing at the debate than Obama.