If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Examiner)   Gary Johnson files anti-trust lawsuit against both the Republican and Democratic party for their refusal to sit Johnson at the Presidential debates   (examiner.com) divider line 238
    More: Interesting, Commission on Presidential Debates, Democrats, U.S. District, California Superior Court, ballot access, Sherman Anti-Trust Act, lawsuits  
•       •       •

1902 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Sep 2012 at 10:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



238 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-22 04:24:34 AM
Both he and Stein have the right to be there.
 
2012-09-22 08:58:45 AM

Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Both he and Stein have the right to be there.


Shouldn't there be some kind of threshold of support? Not just being on the ticket enough to 'have a mathematical shot' but whatever percentage of the polling, maybe even just 5%, to keep from having 20 people on the stage...
 
2012-09-22 09:15:40 AM

sno man: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Both he and Stein have the right to be there.

Shouldn't there be some kind of threshold of support? Not just being on the ticket enough to 'have a mathematical shot' but whatever percentage of the polling, maybe even just 5%, to keep from having 20 people on the stage...


If someone has 5, then the CPD (run by the Dems and Reps) will just bump the threshold to 10. Being on enough state ballots to mathematically win is enough of a barrier. Other than Obama and Romney, there are only two other candidates who meet that (Johnson and Stein).
 
2012-09-22 09:20:40 AM

sno man: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Both he and Stein have the right to be there.

Shouldn't there be some kind of threshold of support? Not just being on the ticket enough to 'have a mathematical shot' but whatever percentage of the polling, maybe even just 5%, to keep from having 20 people on the stage...


Actually, having a mathematical shot sounds like a good threshold. At least, as of right now. There are only 4 candidates that are on enough state ballots to get the 270 electoral votes needed to win (Obama, Romney, Johnson, and Stein), which is pretty how it usually plays out.
 
2012-09-22 09:27:41 AM

sno man: Shouldn't there be some kind of threshold of support? Not just being on the ticket enough to 'have a mathematical shot'


If you're on the ballot nationally that should be enough. The LP will on at least 47 ballots. The GP will be on at least 40 ballots. That's more than enough to win the Presidency. This is an election, not simply a popularity contest. There ought to be the widest range of views. Given that the GOP debates this year had 8 candidates on stage and managed fine, I think the Presidential debates can handle 4 or 5.
 
2012-09-22 09:31:51 AM

Somacandra: This is an election, not simply a popularity contest.


Unfortunately, it is a popularity contest, multiplied by a homecoming-queen vote, served in a reduction of money, television and bullshiat. The prettiest face with the prettiest lies wins.
 
2012-09-22 09:38:46 AM

Gulper Eel: Somacandra: This is an election, not simply a popularity contest.

Unfortunately, it is a popularity contest, multiplied by a homecoming-queen vote, served in a reduction of money, television and bullshiat. The prettiest face with the prettiest lies wins.


Well Romney has the prettiest face but his lies are coyote ugly.
 
2012-09-22 09:52:48 AM
Just about any bozo with enough time on their hands and some cash could get onto enough ballots to do that, and then troll the shiat out of the debate... While I might enjoy watching that train wreck, it is a little counter productive to the process, no?
 
2012-09-22 09:53:30 AM
Interesting because you would think the liberals would favor having the libertarian at the debates to siphon votes from Romney. Conversely, the republicans would insist that the liberal Green Party should appear.
 
2012-09-22 10:01:18 AM

Sir Cumference the Flatulent: sno man: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Both he and Stein have the right to be there.

Shouldn't there be some kind of threshold of support? Not just being on the ticket enough to 'have a mathematical shot' but whatever percentage of the polling, maybe even just 5%, to keep from having 20 people on the stage...

If someone has 5, then the CPD (run by the Dems and Reps) will just bump the threshold to 10. Being on enough state ballots to mathematically win is enough of a barrier. Other than Obama and Romney, there are only two other candidates who meet that (Johnson and Stein).


That's a whole other descussion, but the quick fix is take control of the debates away from the parties.
 
2012-09-22 10:01:55 AM
discussion... holy preview
 
2012-09-22 10:02:21 AM

EnviroDude: Interesting because you would think the liberals would favor having the libertarian at the debates to siphon votes from Romney. Conversely, the republicans would insist that the liberal Green Party should appear.


If Romney was leading I would agree. With Obama this far ahead, you don't want to fark with they dynamic. Romney could come out looking like the moderate centrist and Johnson would steal more votes from Obama than Romney. Not likely by why mess with a dynamic that is giving the election to Obama.
 
2012-09-22 10:16:18 AM
The problem is that the debates are not a formal part of our electoral process. If we change that, then we can start discussing this, but right now the debates are nothing more than a couple of mutually interested people getting together to put on a TV show. As such, they get to set the rules of their show. The court system cannot force them to act differently, it has to be legislative
 
2012-09-22 10:17:18 AM
I'm glad he is. He's the only true conservative in the race right now and his voice needs to be heard.
 
2012-09-22 10:18:09 AM
Good luck with that.

Seriously, good luck. It's ridiculous that 3d party candidates get shut out of debates.

/They're all still scared of another Ross Perot
 
2012-09-22 10:19:15 AM
Shouldn't the free market just sort this out. If people want him there then the TV stations will put him on because they will make money from people watching. Government shouldn't force a private company or organization to be "fair".


/love how libertarians don't believe in their own BS beliefs and cry to government when things don't go their way.
 
2012-09-22 10:19:22 AM
I like Johnson. He has balls.
 
2012-09-22 10:21:29 AM
I remember Badnarik and Cobb getting arrested in 2004 for trying to get into the debates; good times, good times.
 
2012-09-22 10:22:58 AM
FTA: If the lawsuit is successful, this year's CPD-sponsored debates will either expand to include the Libertarian candidates as well as the Green Party ticket of Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and Pennsylvania anti-poverty advocate Cheri Honkala, or be cancelled.

Romney: ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease!!!
 
2012-09-22 10:23:10 AM

TheOmni: sno man: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Both he and Stein have the right to be there.

Shouldn't there be some kind of threshold of support? Not just being on the ticket enough to 'have a mathematical shot' but whatever percentage of the polling, maybe even just 5%, to keep from having 20 people on the stage...

Actually, having a mathematical shot sounds like a good threshold. At least, as of right now. There are only 4 candidates that are on enough state ballots to get the 270 electoral votes needed to win (Obama, Romney, Johnson, and Stein), which is pretty how it usually plays out.


5 candidates according to the article. Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Cheri Honkala.
 
2012-09-22 10:23:59 AM

sno man: Just about any bozo with enough time on their hands and some cash could get onto enough ballots to do that, and then troll the shiat out of the debate... While I might enjoy watching that train wreck, it is a little counter productive to the process, no?


Romney's already in the debates
 
2012-09-22 10:24:17 AM
To be honest, yeah, it would be nice to see third party candidates in on these debates.

Good luck with that. We need a better discussion than MY SIDE/YOUR SIDE with essentially each being polar opposites...
 
2012-09-22 10:25:20 AM

Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Both he and Stein have the right to be there.


What 'right' is this?
 
2012-09-22 10:26:02 AM

sno man: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: sno man: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Both he and Stein have the right to be there.

Shouldn't there be some kind of threshold of support? Not just being on the ticket enough to 'have a mathematical shot' but whatever percentage of the polling, maybe even just 5%, to keep from having 20 people on the stage...

If someone has 5, then the CPD (run by the Dems and Reps) will just bump the threshold to 10. Being on enough state ballots to mathematically win is enough of a barrier. Other than Obama and Romney, there are only two other candidates who meet that (Johnson and Stein).

That's a whole other descussion, but the quick fix is take control of the debates away from the parties.


All of this, BUT:

If you think ballot access restrictions are tough now, wait till they are the criteria for inclusion in the debates, or anything else that might bring attention to competitors to the D/R oligarchy.

The point of ballot access restrictions is to make alternative parties waste their time, energy and money just getting on to the ballot, and restrict competition. Add that to the first-past the post, winner-take-all system we have and alternative party's with new ideas face an insurmountable handicap.

I have been involved in petition drives for ballot access for about 30 years. They have no place in a free country, but then, I don't think this has been a truly free country, politically, in my lifetime. Certainly not since the R/D coalition got together to put a stop to alternative parties actually winning seats in legislatures.
 
2012-09-22 10:27:34 AM

sno man: Just about any bozo with enough time on their hands and some cash could get onto enough ballots to do that, and then troll the shiat out of the debate... While I might enjoy watching that train wreck, it is a little counter productive to the process, no?


That pretty much sums up Romney and he's being allowed to debate. I don't see how Stein and Johnson could be any more trolly than Romney. Also, be careful with this argument of yours as it's along the same lines as arguments made to suppress voting rights (as in we don't want ignorant, poor people voting, just ignorant, rich people thank you very much).
 
2012-09-22 10:30:01 AM
i262.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-22 10:31:28 AM

EnviroDude: Interesting because you would think the liberals democrats would favor having the libertarian at the debates to siphon votes from Romney. Conversely, the republicans would insist that the liberal Green Party should appear.


FTFY. The people who vote Democrat are not all that liberal (compared to the other countries liberals, at least). Green party is more comparable to the liberals of other countries.

But yeah, both should be allowed at the debates. But the Republican and Democrat overlords would never allow that, since their candidates would get called out on their bullshiat.

Wake up, America
 
2012-09-22 10:31:43 AM

sno man: Shouldn't there be some kind of threshold of support?


No. Ballot access in enough states to win the amount of electoral states required for the presidency is the only objective measure

.

Corvus: Shouldn't the free market just sort this out. If people want him there then the TV stations will put him on because they will make money from people watching. Government shouldn't force a private company or organization to be "fair".


The Commission for Presidential Debates is a private company in the same way that SuperPacs are unaffiliated with campaigns: for appearances only with little substance in fact. I don't really care if the Libertarians are hypocritical here, the cartel-like control the major parties have over political power is a far, far deeper problem.
 
2012-09-22 10:34:01 AM

Lost Thought 00: The court system cannot force them to act differently, it has to be legislative


Well, if they're breaking the law, the courts certainly can. Unfortunately, since the group that is responsible for the debates is a non-profit organization (if memory serves), and the parties themselves are also non-profits, I don't think anti-trust law will apply. Good on Gary Johnson for trying, but nothing's going to come from it.
 
2012-09-22 10:35:47 AM

DamnYankees: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Both he and Stein have the right to be there.

What 'right' is this?


The right for private, partisan interests not to dictate who are acceptable candidates.
 
2012-09-22 10:37:21 AM

Urbn: sno man: Just about any bozo with enough time on their hands and some cash could get onto enough ballots to do that, and then troll the shiat out of the debate... While I might enjoy watching that train wreck, it is a little counter productive to the process, no?

That pretty much sums up Romney and he's being allowed to debate. I don't see how Stein and Johnson could be any more trolly than Romney. Also, be careful with this argument of yours as it's along the same lines as arguments made to suppress voting rights (as in we don't want ignorant, poor people voting, just ignorant, rich people thank you very much).


Question of the hour: if ballot access was the only requirement for the debates, do you think enough people would be in it for the lulz to get Vermin Supreme up on stage? Remember: frivilous parties have had surprising success in the past.
 
2012-09-22 10:37:33 AM

Corvus: Shouldn't the free market just sort this out. If people want him there then the TV stations will put him on because they will make money from people watching. Government shouldn't force a private company or organization to be "fair".


/love how libertarians don't believe in their own BS beliefs and cry to government when things don't go their way.


I was just loving the irony of a Libertarian asking the government for help.
 
2012-09-22 10:38:06 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: sno man: Shouldn't there be some kind of threshold of support?

No. Ballot access in enough states to win the amount of electoral states required for the presidency is the only objective measure

.Corvus: Shouldn't the free market just sort this out. If people want him there then the TV stations will put him on because they will make money from people watching. Government shouldn't force a private company or organization to be "fair".


The Commission for Presidential Debates is a private company in the same way that SuperPacs are unaffiliated with campaigns: for appearances only with little substance in fact. I don't really care if the Libertarians are hypocritical here, the cartel-like control the major parties have over political power is a far, far deeper problem.


Right they are a private group like I said so libertarians are being hypocrites having the government force this private group and private tv stations to be "fair".


They are hypocrites who don't even stick to the philosophy they expound as soon as things hurt them and run to government to fix it for them.
 
2012-09-22 10:41:14 AM

Grungehamster: Urbn: sno man: Just about any bozo with enough time on their hands and some cash could get onto enough ballots to do that, and then troll the shiat out of the debate... While I might enjoy watching that train wreck, it is a little counter productive to the process, no?

That pretty much sums up Romney and he's being allowed to debate. I don't see how Stein and Johnson could be any more trolly than Romney. Also, be careful with this argument of yours as it's along the same lines as arguments made to suppress voting rights (as in we don't want ignorant, poor people voting, just ignorant, rich people thank you very much).

Question of the hour: if ballot access was the only requirement for the debates, do you think enough people would be in it for the lulz to get Vermin Supreme up on stage? Remember: frivilous parties have had surprising success in the past.


And I'm saying we already have Vermin Supreme up on stage with the cartoonish Republican candidate. I don't think you'd get 20 people up there. I think you'd have less than 10 who would actually make it on stage, and probably only 1 would be an actual troll. Trolls don't typically have staying power; most would fall out before the election from boredom, lack of money, or just that they were trying to milk the system (sweet campaign donation welfare FTW) and have no interest in actually winning.
 
2012-09-22 10:41:37 AM
As well as they should! BRAVO! This so called "Democratic" system seems to only have room for 2 conveniently polarized dichotomies by mindless cacophony.
 
2012-09-22 10:43:31 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: DamnYankees: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Both he and Stein have the right to be there.

What 'right' is this?

The right for private, partisan interests not to dictate who are acceptable candidates.


Ah yes, the 52nd amendment
 
2012-09-22 10:44:57 AM
I guess a PBS or C-span debate might have to follow some sort of rules and let all people in, but commercial networks? Naah. Johnson might as well sue cable news for not having him on as guest enough. 

Gary, be interresting, and you're gonna get the attention.
 
2012-09-22 10:45:22 AM
Even though I actually like Obama, and will be voting for him (not just against Republicans), I am depressed that in a country of 300 million people, only 2 people ever make it on stage for these debates, and this year only one of them is a viable candidate (I really do feel Romney has some serious mental health and personality disorders that would be dangerous for our country if he were in a position of this kind of power and it's not just because he's Republican).

It's time this country got away from the 'there's only 2 sides to anything and everything and 2 sides only' mentality. It's killing us.
 
2012-09-22 10:45:45 AM
Wait, but aren't the debates hosted by private TV companies, to an extent? I mean, they're not debates presided over and sanctioned by CONGRESS or anything, are they?

As such, doesn't it go against libertarian principles to try and *force* them to accept him as a third party to the debates? Isn't this government interfering with private enterprise? It's not like they're keeping him off the ballot.
 
2012-09-22 10:46:58 AM

Corvus: Karma Curmudgeon: sno man:

Right they are a private group like I said so libertarians are being hypocrites having the government force this private group and private tv stations to be "fair".



How "private" can a tv station really be? Aren't they just renting space on publicly-owned airwaves?
 
2012-09-22 10:47:16 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: DamnYankees: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Both he and Stein have the right to be there.

What 'right' is this?

The right for private, partisan interests not to dictate who are acceptable candidates.


I thought allowing private partisan interest to dictate to do what they want without government forcing them to be "fair" was pretty much the crux of libertarianism.
 
2012-09-22 10:47:17 AM

Corvus: Right they are a private group like I said so libertarians are being hypocrites having the government force this private group and private tv stations to be "fair".


And that has no bearing on the question they raise or the arguments about it. But keep pounding that strawman, because the hypocrisy of Libertarians is what's important to highlight here , not the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party hiding behind the CPD to deny the people the ability to actually engage in a broader democracy.
 
2012-09-22 10:48:21 AM

Somacandra: If you're on the ballot nationally that should be enough. The LP will on at least 47 ballots. The GP will be on at least 40 ballots. That's more than enough to win the Presidency. This is an election, not simply a popularity contest. There ought to be the widest range of views. Given that the GOP debates this year had 8 candidates on stage and managed fine, I think the Presidential debates can handle 4 or 5.


Yeah but no one cared about the GOP debates or primary. Not even the Republicans cared.
 
2012-09-22 10:48:27 AM

pippi longstocking: As well as they should! BRAVO! This so called "Democratic" system seems to only have room for 2 conveniently polarized dichotomies by mindless cacophony.


Those polarized dichotomies being:

Dems: Maybe we should -
Reps: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!1111!!!!11!!!!!
 
2012-09-22 10:49:01 AM

Corvus: Karma Curmudgeon: DamnYankees: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Both he and Stein have the right to be there.

What 'right' is this?

The right for private, partisan interests not to dictate who are acceptable candidates.

I thought allowing private partisan interest to dictate to do what they want without government forcing them to be "fair" was pretty much the crux of libertarianism.


And i thought democratic politics was about giving people choices, not restricting them
 
2012-09-22 10:49:01 AM

wellreadneck: Corvus: Karma Curmudgeon: sno man:

Right they are a private group like I said so libertarians are being hypocrites having the government force this private group and private tv stations to be "fair".



How "private" can a tv station really be? Aren't they just renting space on publicly-owned airwaves?


Oh so libertarians believe now that tv stations should be government controlled? I was not aware this is part of libertarianism. Government control of media.
 
2012-09-22 10:50:13 AM
Are the political debates either trade or commerce?

Trade is the transfer of ownership of goods and services from one person or entity to another by getting something in exchange from the buyer. Commerce is the exchange of goods, products, or any type of personal property.

I am not sure that Section 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act would apply.
 
2012-09-22 10:51:07 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: Corvus: Karma Curmudgeon: DamnYankees: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Both he and Stein have the right to be there.

What 'right' is this?

The right for private, partisan interests not to dictate who are acceptable candidates.

I thought allowing private partisan interest to dictate to do what they want without government forcing them to be "fair" was pretty much the crux of libertarianism.

And i thought democratic politics was about giving people choices, not restricting them


But that's not the issue I am talking about.

If you don't want to discuss the issue I am talking about DON'T RESPOND TO IT.

how hard is that to understand?
 
2012-09-22 10:51:42 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: And i thought democratic politics was about giving people choices, not restricting them


And I thought free markets were about creating competition, not allowing cartels to control access to the marketplace. Break up the CfPD and break up the NFL while you're at it.
 
2012-09-22 10:51:51 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: DamnYankees: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Both he and Stein have the right to be there.

What 'right' is this?

The right for private, partisan interests not to dictate who are acceptable candidates.


Isn't Gary Johnson the libertarian candidate?
 
Displayed 50 of 238 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report