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.

(Huffington Post)   1 debate down.... & people are wondering, where was Gary Johnson last night?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 144
    More: Asinine, Eat Cake, Governor of New Mexico, human beings, voice vote, farewell address, independent candidates, Philips Electronics, representative democracies  
•       •       •

2082 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 5:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-04 01:55:32 PM  
No, they're not.
 
2012-10-04 01:55:37 PM  
As much as I like Gary Johnson, forcing him onto the debates goes against a principle freedom, the freedom of association.
 
2012-10-04 02:07:38 PM  
Whether you agree or disagree with the Libertarian (or Green Parties) they should be included in the debates. The political discourse in this country is stale and divisive. New ideas are needed and the major parties won't change without some new competition.
 
2012-10-04 02:14:20 PM  

slayer199: Whether you agree or disagree with the Libertarian (or Green Parties) they should be included in the debates. The political discourse in this country is stale and divisive. New ideas are needed and the major parties won't change without some new competition.


And that competition will mean absolutely nothing if it is forced into the debate as one-off "Well, someone has to be there" inclusions when the structure of the process itself prevents additional parties from gaining traction over the two main ones.
 
2012-10-04 02:16:20 PM  
I'm sure it was a finite, non-zero number of people who wondered this. But it was a very very small number.
 
2012-10-04 02:20:45 PM  

MaxxLarge: No, they're not.

 
2012-10-04 02:33:15 PM  
He's at home, washing his tights!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!
 
2012-10-04 02:41:16 PM  
IIRC Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states, Johnson is only on the ballot 47. Perot also had a lot more money.
 
2012-10-04 02:46:48 PM  

slayer199: Whether you agree or disagree with the Libertarian (or Green Parties) they should be included in the debates. The political discourse in this country is stale and divisive. New ideas are needed and the major parties won't change without some new competition.


Which is why they will never condescend to let any other party participate, even third parties that have been around for a while, such as the Greens and the Libertarians. If they are fringe, give them a fair shot in a debate and see if their ideas really are that far out there. It will never happen, though.
 
2012-10-04 02:48:32 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-04 02:49:12 PM  
Fresh news ideas like "50 laboratories of innovation"
 
2012-10-04 02:54:36 PM  

CommieTaoist: IIRC Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states, Johnson is only on the ballot 47. Perot also had a lot more money.



And Perot was polling with strong numbers, so he was considered a viable candidate.
 
2012-10-04 02:57:47 PM  

downstairs: CommieTaoist: IIRC Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states, Johnson is only on the ballot 47. Perot also had a lot more money.


And Perot was polling with strong numbers, so he was considered a viable candidate.


He had money. That was about it. And charts. Lots and lots of charts. But polling wise, I don't think he ever really polled higher than the low-twenties nationally. He as considered mainly a spoiler. A goofy, insane spoiler.
 
2012-10-04 03:05:29 PM  

Nabb1: But polling wise, I don't think he ever really polled higher than the low-twenties nationally.


39% in the summer of 92
 
2012-10-04 03:09:00 PM  

Jackson Herring: Nabb1: But polling wise, I don't think he ever really polled higher than the low-twenties nationally.

39% in the summer of 92


Really? He got that high? I think he pulled 19% after it was all said and done.
 
2012-10-04 03:10:38 PM  
The only beings thinking that are the folks who have Libertarian slogans and stickers scattered throughout their existence.

They're not even really people, anyway, so who cares?
 
2012-10-04 03:14:32 PM  

MaxxLarge: No, they're not.


Done in one.
 
2012-10-04 03:15:38 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: T

They're not even really people, anyway, so who cares?


Just like that little 4-eyes kid on the playground?
 
2012-10-04 03:17:58 PM  

cman: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: T

They're not even really people, anyway, so who cares?

Just like that little 4-eyes kid on the playground?


Or Canadians
 
2012-10-04 03:21:32 PM  

Nabb1: Jackson Herring: Nabb1: But polling wise, I don't think he ever really polled higher than the low-twenties nationally.

39% in the summer of 92

Really? He got that high? I think he pulled 19% after it was all said and done.



Yep, at least according to Wiki.  I do know he was in the lead mid-summer for sure.
 
tucsoncitizen.com
 
2012-10-04 03:29:27 PM  

downstairs: Nabb1: Jackson Herring: Nabb1: But polling wise, I don't think he ever really polled higher than the low-twenties nationally.

39% in the summer of 92

Really? He got that high? I think he pulled 19% after it was all said and done.


Yep, at least according to Wiki.  I do know he was in the lead mid-summer for sure.
 
[tucsoncitizen.com image 400x527]


And now, all we have left are memories. Memories of that "giant sucking sound."
 
2012-10-04 03:32:00 PM  
LOLbertarians.
 
2012-10-04 03:32:15 PM  

CommieTaoist: IIRC Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states, Johnson is only on the ballot 47. Perot also had a lot more money.


Number of states shouldn't matter. If it is mathematically possible (in the Electoral College) for a candidate to be elected President, why exclude them? Oh, and the LP has ~200,000 members and hundreds of elected officials around the country (so do the Greens, I believe). Perot didn't have a party backing him.
 
2012-10-04 03:35:18 PM  
They are?

/who?
 
2012-10-04 03:56:37 PM  
All 18 of them.
 
2012-10-04 04:09:27 PM  
Really though, if someone is on enough ballots to theoretically win the election, they should be invited to the debates. Even if they don't have a snowballs chance in hell.

The "We can't bring him because he's not viable" is just as retarded as the NFL going "We can't show games on TV unless they're sold out"
 
2012-10-04 04:15:02 PM  

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 439x927]


Where was the fat white Zoroastrian cat during the debates? I would certainly be interested in his point of view on domestic policy. Perhaps 50 laboratories of meat?
 
2012-10-04 04:16:54 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 439x927]

Where was the fat white Zoroastrian cat during the debates? I would certainly be interested in his point of view on domestic policy. Perhaps 50 laboratories of meat?


All men hereby banished
 
2012-10-04 04:23:57 PM  

downstairs: Nabb1: Jackson Herring: Nabb1: But polling wise, I don't think he ever really polled higher than the low-twenties nationally.

39% in the summer of 92

Really? He got that high? I think he pulled 19% after it was all said and done.


Yep, at least according to Wiki.  I do know he was in the lead mid-summer for sure.
 
[tucsoncitizen.com image 400x527]


He was the 3-way race leader as stated before he dropped out (39% in June).

Also, I distinctly recall NBC stating that exit polling showed that I think it was like either 42% of all voters, or maybe 42% of voters who didn't vote for Perot (a big difference I agree, but, in a 3-way race, even the former was significant) at one point thought about voting for Perot.

If he'd not dropped out, and had a VP candidate that could handle the debate, I think we'd have been very close to a President Perot... for whatever that would have done for the country, who knows.
 
2012-10-04 05:00:11 PM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

/establishment let Obama get elected, promptly tied both his hands behind his back
//supported Johnson until I did some critical thinking
///Obama took out OBL the perp declared behind 9/11 debacle -- that's good enough for me... you f*cking retards
 
2012-10-04 05:11:07 PM  

dletter: He was the 3-way race leader as stated before he dropped out (39% in June).

Also, I distinctly recall NBC stating that exit polling showed that I think it was like either 42% of all voters, or maybe 42% of voters who didn't vote for Perot (a big difference I agree, but, in a 3-way race, even the former was significant) at one point thought about voting for Perot.

If he'd not dropped out, and had a VP candidate that could handle the debate, I think we'd have been very close to a President Perot... for whatever that would have done for the country, who knows.


And that's how Perot's ridiculousness pushed the viability of third parties in America off a cliff.
 
2012-10-04 05:14:09 PM  
Curious, do equal time laws apply here?
 
2012-10-04 05:14:24 PM  
Gary Johnson has fantastic ideas and the experience to back it up (2 term governor and successful business leader). Sadly, he's god awful on camera. It's a shame he hasn't used some of his fortune to improve his on camera skills.
 
2012-10-04 05:15:24 PM  

Headso: Curious, do equal time laws apply here?


There are no equal time laws. But if there weren't, they wouldn't apply because he wouldn't meet the minimum support thresholds
 
2012-10-04 05:16:17 PM  
Gary Johnson and Jill Stein should have their own debate. Neither has a snowball chance in hell of winning the presidency but a debate between them would be interesting to watch and likely more informative than anything we'll get from Obomney.
 
2012-10-04 05:16:34 PM  

CommieTaoist: IIRC Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states, Johnson is only on the ballot 47. Perot also had a lot more money.


Plus having a non-partisan group host the debate instead of a DNC/RNC conspiracy helps.
 
2012-10-04 05:17:43 PM  
apparently no...

Since 1983, political debates not hosted by the media station are considered news events, thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates.
 
2012-10-04 05:18:53 PM  

urban.derelict: Obama took out OBL the perp declared behind 9/11 debacle -- that's good enough for me... you f*cking retards


good enough for you yet you call us retards?

 
2012-10-04 05:19:25 PM  
Wow, you libs appear shell-shocked today from the shellacking O received last night. I think you'll need therapy for the rest of the week. One easy way to fix it is to hug your mommy and suck your thumb. ;)
 
2012-10-04 05:19:30 PM  

cman: As much as I like Gary Johnson, forcing him onto the debates goes against a principle freedom, the freedom of association.


That's not a freedom recognized by Progressives - unless it's the suburban neighborhoods they live in that just happen to have their school district lines end before the poor neighborhood.
 
2012-10-04 05:20:09 PM  

Carth: Gary Johnson and Jill Stein should have their own debate.


There will be a Johnson vs. Stein debate on October 23rd at freeandequal.org. The candidates of the Constitution Party and the Justice Party will also participate. Never heard of the Justice Party before, but from what I remember of the Constitution Party, that guy is likely to become the breakout star of the debate.

/for bringing the lulz, not in getting anywhere in the polls
 
2012-10-04 05:20:09 PM  

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 439x927]


You win my "Thursday WTF award of non-sequitorialism"

/It's in the mail
 
2012-10-04 05:20:54 PM  

urban.derelict: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 600x194]
/establishment let Obama get elected, promptly tied both his hands behind his back
//supported Johnson until I did some critical thinking
///Obama took out OBL the perp declared behind 9/11 debacle -- that's good enough for me... you f*cking retards


I love you Urban.Derelict.

I also supported Johnson, now I'm leaning Stein. If I was in Ohio or Florida though, I'd be marching in the street campaigning for Obama. I'm in California though, so looks like a protest vote and a whole bunch of misleading initiatives are my focus...
 
2012-10-04 05:21:00 PM  

robsul82: Carth: Gary Johnson and Jill Stein should have their own debate.

There will be a Johnson vs. Stein debate on October 23rd at freeandequal.org. The candidates of the Constitution Party and the Justice Party will also participate. Never heard of the Justice Party before, but from what I remember of the Constitution Party, that guy is likely to become the breakout star of the debate.

/for bringing the lulz, not in getting anywhere in the polls


Awesome thank you. I'll have to make a note so i remember to tune in.
 
2012-10-04 05:22:03 PM  

Agneska: One easy way to fix it is to hug your mommy and suck your thumb.


Is this a coping mechanism you employ?
 
2012-10-04 05:22:05 PM  

Bloody William: slayer199: Whether you agree or disagree with the Libertarian (or Green Parties) they should be included in the debates. The political discourse in this country is stale and divisive. New ideas are needed and the major parties won't change without some new competition.

And that competition will mean absolutely nothing if it is forced into the debate as one-off "Well, someone has to be there" inclusions when the structure of the process itself prevents additional parties from gaining traction over the two main ones.


You sound like a commie!
 
2012-10-04 05:23:46 PM  

Nabb1: polling wise, I don't think [Perot] ever really polled higher than the low-twenties nationally.


Oh, so only five or six times higher than Gary Johnson is polling this year.
 
2012-10-04 05:23:47 PM  

Agneska: Wow, you libs appear shell-shocked today from the shellacking O received last night. I think you'll need therapy for the rest of the week. One easy way to fix it is to hug your mommy and suck your thumb. ;)


Not by far a lib but I'm basking in the shellacking Romney is getting today:

Link

Link
 
2012-10-04 05:24:10 PM  
Perot was polling very well in the summer of 1992. Then he had a meltdown over a possible threat of some kind against his daughter and nearly pulled out of the campaign entirely. He finally thought better of it, but the damage had been done and he was no longer viable.
 
2012-10-04 05:27:05 PM  
In a perfect world, Gary Johnson would've been the winner of last night's debaclte by virtue of not being there.

In our world, people like saving up their votes for something better. Why else would they fear "throwing their vote away"?
 
2012-10-04 05:27:45 PM  

Nabb1: Jackson Herring: Nabb1: But polling wise, I don't think he ever really polled higher than the low-twenties nationally.

39% in the summer of 92

Really? He got that high? I think he pulled 19% after it was all said and done.


Yeah, but that was after he pulled out of the race, then re-entered the race, then his running mate made a complete ass of himself at the debates.
 
2012-10-04 05:33:39 PM  

Nabb1:
And now, all we have left are memories. Memories of that "giant sucking sound."


I'm gonna riiiide my piggyman!!!!!

billyliggett.files.wordpress.com

GRIDLOCK.
 
2012-10-04 05:34:50 PM  
Johnson actually filed an antitrust lawsuit charging the RNC and DNC with conspiring in restraint of trade to exclude the consideration of third-party candidates in these nationally televised exchanges

Makes sense. Ever since 1987 the 2 parties have controlled the debate (they own the commission).
 
2012-10-04 05:38:49 PM  
Smoking bongs? I'm pretty sure he was pulling tubes last night.
 
2012-10-04 05:39:33 PM  
Not that anyone really cares, but the green party candidate Jill Stein actually has debated Romney before, here is a link to a youtube video. Ignore the editorializing of the guy about halfway through. Link
 
2012-10-04 05:41:30 PM  
I say bring on any challengers, my man Romney will wipe the floor with them just like he did bumblin'-bama.
 
2012-10-04 05:41:34 PM  
These aren't even debates. It's just two guys spouting the party line and lying their asses off (well, mostly Romney on that last one).

I guess it might fire up the True Believers, but for someone who is interested in nuanced answers about how to monitor bond ratings companies to make sure that they actually examine the bonds they create or whether or not failing to intervene in places like the Republic of the Congo and Rwanda is holding off Africa's economic renaissance (for two examples), it's all bullshiat anyway. Most of us already know who we're voting for (and as I refuse to vote for anyone with a [R] next to their names on the ballot, I'm a perfect example of that).
 
2012-10-04 05:41:58 PM  
I voted for Perot in 1996. He was cool.
 
2012-10-04 05:43:23 PM  

Nabb1: downstairs: CommieTaoist:
And Perot was polling with strong numbers, so he was considered a viable candidate.

He had money. That was about it. And charts. Lots and lots of charts.


Isn't Johnson's dad a billionaire? 
I mean, obviously anyone running for president will have money, but Johnson swims in it.

I trust rich libertarians even less than libertarians in general.
 
2012-10-04 05:45:25 PM  
Oh wait, scratch that. I'm thinking of Huntsman.
 
2012-10-04 05:46:16 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: Nabb1: downstairs: CommieTaoist:
And Perot was polling with strong numbers, so he was considered a viable candidate.

He had money. That was about it. And charts. Lots and lots of charts.

Isn't Johnson's dad a billionaire? 
I mean, obviously anyone running for president will have money, but Johnson swims in it.

I trust rich libertarians even less than libertarians in general.


Perot was only allowed to debate because the dem/repub candidates both thought he was taking more votes from the other guy instead of them.

Link
 
2012-10-04 05:48:59 PM  
Poor Gary might be a lolbertarian but he still dosent deserve to be forced to spend an evening talking to duoploy dogs.
 
2012-10-04 05:50:22 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: Oh wait, scratch that. I'm thinking of Huntsman.


Johnson had the money to climb Everest. I don't know what he is worth buy you don't spend $100,000+ to climb a mountain unless you are pretty rich.
 
2012-10-04 05:55:03 PM  
All candidates that technically have a chance of winning, by being on the ballot in enough states to enable a majority vote, should be included. That is a simple, objective criteria. At the very least it shows they have enough dedicated people, and good organizations, that support them. And in the case of the Green and Libertarian parties, they have decades of history in doing this.

Artificially handicapping alternative parties with onerous ballot access laws, while granting automatic inclusion and ballot access to the two old parties is NOT Democracy, and is a violation to the principle of equal protection under the law.

But try to get the courts to agree, they know who their masters are.
 
2012-10-04 05:58:00 PM  
"Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate."

"Go ahead, throw your vote away!"

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-04 06:00:37 PM  
There are 14 "third party" candidates running for president. Why should any one of them get to the debate without having them all there?
 
2012-10-04 06:03:40 PM  

Shaggy_C: I say bring on any challengers, my man Romney will wipe the floor with them just like he did bumblin'-bama.


That's right! We sure showed them that the Emperor has no clothes!
 
2012-10-04 06:05:32 PM  
1 debate down.... & people are almost nobody is wondering, where was Gary Johnson last night?

FIFY
 
2012-10-04 06:07:35 PM  

urban.derelict: Obama took out OBL the perp declared behind 9/11 debacle


He didn't shoot that. Some Navy Seal made that happen.
 
2012-10-04 06:09:46 PM  

Nabb1: downstairs: CommieTaoist: IIRC Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states, Johnson is only on the ballot 47. Perot also had a lot more money.


And Perot was polling with strong numbers, so he was considered a viable candidate.

He had money. That was about it. And charts. Lots and lots of charts. But polling wise, I don't think he ever really polled higher than the low-twenties nationally. He as considered mainly a spoiler. A goofy, insane spoiler.


So, why does a large percentage think that Romney is any different than Perot on fiscal issues? I voted for him because I thought everything needed shaken up. When he talked about blocking off city blocks and going in and arresting people to clean up the cities I thought, "What a kook." I was proven right.
 
2012-10-04 06:16:33 PM  

InspectorZero: If it is mathematically possible (in the Electoral College) for a candidate to be elected President, why exclude them?


Because that's not a very useful standard at all? 

Also, maybe because the viewers who are watching are interested in seeing Obama and Romney, but not so interested in seeing Gary Johnson.
 
2012-10-04 06:17:47 PM  

zipdog: urban.derelict: Obama took out OBL the perp declared behind 9/11 debacle

He didn't shoot that. Some Navy Seal made that happen.


...and that seal wouldn't have been within 100 miles of that compound unless Obama had ordered him to go in there and wipe OBL out.

By your logic, you get all the credit for your car's design and construction because you are driving it.
 
2012-10-04 06:19:33 PM  

beta_plus: Gary Johnson has fantastic ideas and the experience to back it up (2 term governor and successful business leader). Sadly, he's god awful on camera.


Yes, that's the only problem with Gary Johnson. The camera.

Gary Johnson is incredibly brilliant and articulate and clear thinking. But only when no one is watching.

As long as we have Gary Johnson hiding behind a curtain 24/7, he would be the greatest president in American history. But the moment that Gary Johnson is observed, he comes across as an idiot.
 
2012-10-04 06:25:56 PM  
Fark you libertarians, win a significant portion of state senate seats, governships and congressional seats and actually, i dunno, farking govern a little before emanding the white house.
 
2012-10-04 06:26:40 PM  

downstairs: Yep, at least according to Wiki.  I do know he was in the lead mid-summer for sure.


And then the death threats on his family started rolling in...

Ah, good times...
 
2012-10-04 06:29:29 PM  

Cataholic: There are 14 "third party" candidates running for president. Why should any one of them get to the debate without having them all there?


Only two of them have a mathematical chance of winning by being on an adequate number of ballots, Johnson and Stein.
 
2012-10-04 06:34:56 PM  

jigger: Only two of them have a mathematical chance of winning by being on an adequate number of ballots, Johnson and Stein


So basically, they should be there because it's impossible for them to win, but not legally impossible for them to win.

Wait, that sounds stupid. Why in the world should "not legally impossible" be the new standard again?
 
2012-10-04 06:44:33 PM  

Cataholic: There are 14 "third party" candidates running for president. Why should any one of them get to the debate without having them all there?


Do the combined electoral votes of states that you are on the ballot for meet or exceed the required amount to become the President?

If so, you are a legitimate candidate for the office, however unlikely your winning may be.
 
2012-10-04 06:48:15 PM  

slayer199: Whether you agree or disagree with the Libertarian (or Green Parties) they should be included in the debates. The political discourse in this country is stale and divisive. New ideas are needed and the major parties won't change without some new competition.


The presidential debates are not the forum for this. The regional elections are.

The presidential race is to "cap the pyramid" of pre-existing party races and established political momentum.

We are a representative democracy and the place to determine momentum for "new ideas" is at the grass roots of local elections. Introducing "new ideas" at the presidential by parties without a pre-existing legislative base is the wrong time. If those "new ideas" were so compelling, the voters would have acted on them already.
 
2012-10-04 06:55:49 PM  

lohphat: slayer199: Whether you agree or disagree with the Libertarian (or Green Parties) they should be included in the debates. The political discourse in this country is stale and divisive. New ideas are needed and the major parties won't change without some new competition.

The presidential debates are not the forum for this. The regional elections are.

The presidential race is to "cap the pyramid" of pre-existing party races and established political momentum.

We are a representative democracy and the place to determine momentum for "new ideas" is at the grass roots of local elections. Introducing "new ideas" at the presidential by parties without a pre-existing legislative base is the wrong time. If those "new ideas" were so compelling, the voters would have acted on them already.


NO!!! You don't understand! No one understands! If you would just let us explain you would UNDERSTAND! We need ot win the whole government structure in one fell swoop, that is the only way it works!!! GARY JOHPAUL!

/idiots
 
2012-10-04 06:58:04 PM  

schrodinger: jigger: Only two of them have a mathematical chance of winning by being on an adequate number of ballots, Johnson and Stein

So basically, they should be there because it's impossible for them to win, but not legally impossible for them to win.

Wait, that sounds stupid. Why in the world should "not legally impossible" be the new standard again?


Well, there could be one debate with everyone with a mathematical chance of winning. A week after that, anyone polling over 15% can keep debating.

15%? Why such a low standard? Someone polling at 15% is somehow going to magically win the presidency? Why such a low standard?
 
2012-10-04 06:59:49 PM  
A corollary of Catch 22 keeps 3rd party candidates out of the debates. You can't be in the debates if you're not a viable candidate and you can't be a viable candidate if you're not in the debates.
 
2012-10-04 07:09:07 PM  

oryx: A corollary of Catch 22 keeps 3rd party candidates out of the debates. You can't be in the debates if you're not a viable candidate and you can't be a viable candidate if you're not in the debates.


If Obama and Romney didn't have any debates would there be no viable candidates?
 
2012-10-04 07:09:44 PM  

oryx: A corollary of Catch 22 keeps 3rd party candidates out of the debates. You can't be in the debates if you're not a viable candidate and you can't be a viable candidate if you're not in the debates.


I would disagree. Perot was actually doing damn good before the debates.
 
2012-10-04 07:10:42 PM  
Oh ffs.

We ALREADY have enough problems with things/people/ideas/etc. being included "so it will be fair for everyone". I mean, I like the idea of a 3d party as much as anyone; but if we have to include Johnson so it will be fair to the Libertarians, where does it end? We gonna have a freaking choir up there for the debates and have 119 potential candidates all yelling and shrieking for his/her/its/their turn at the mike?

You want a viable 3d party, get one together at the base. Get it to where a 3d party candidate has a real shot at being president because your 3d party is actually 1/3 of Congress. (or at least 1/4) Then we'll talk about adding a 3d person to the debates. Till then, stop trotting out some random guy who didn't win his party's nod running as "independent' or "Libertarian" or "Sour grapes" and pretending he's got a shot at the Oval Office.
 
2012-10-04 07:11:10 PM  

oryx: A corollary of Catch 22 keeps 3rd party candidates out of the debates. You can't be in the debates if you're not a viable candidate and you can't be a viable candidate if you're not in the debates.


Made even more hilarious by the fact that ONLY the candidates NOT of the republican or democratic parties would find the debate process useful.
 
2012-10-04 07:12:00 PM  

FOUND HIM
c'mon, can you imagine O or R trusting people enough to do that?
 
2012-10-04 07:12:36 PM  
It is the two parties controlling the system... I mean, if you go back to the primary debates, there were people in the primary debates that you could argue had less of a chance at winning the presidency than Gary Johnson.... of course, Gary was in the Republican primary as well (supposedly), but, wasn't allowed in those debates either.
 
2012-10-04 07:17:52 PM  

tomWright: FOUND HIM
c'mon, can you imagine O or R trusting people enough to do that?


I can picture Alan Keyes doing it. (google it)

2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com
2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com
 
2012-10-04 07:23:47 PM  

HeartBurnKid: oryx: A corollary of Catch 22 keeps 3rd party candidates out of the debates. You can't be in the debates if you're not a viable candidate and you can't be a viable candidate if you're not in the debates.

I would disagree. Perot was actually doing damn good before the debates.


It was the stepstool that did him in, IIRC.
 
2012-10-04 07:41:34 PM  
A bunch of my FB friends are ranting and raving about Gary Johnson, and I've noticed that these are many of the same people who don't give a damn about politics except during the month of October every four years. They don't know crap about policy, the political system, or really much of anything that doesn't show up on prime time TV, but they sure do feel pretty happy with themselves, being so high above the political fray and all.
 
2012-10-04 07:54:35 PM  

The solution is obvious:

www.mediabistro.com
presents the
uscentrist.org
OPEN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!

Featuring:

• ROCKY ANDERSON (Justice Party) •
• VIRGIL H. GOODE (Constitution Party) •
• GARY JOHNSON (Libertarian Party) •
• JILL STIEN (Green Party) •

Any and all other Presidential Candidates
who are on the ballot in at least one State
are also cordially invited to participate, including:

• President BARACK OBAMA (Democratic Party incumbent) •
• Former Governor MITT ROMNEY (Republican Party) •

Co-Moderated by:
www.mediabistro.com & www.addictinginfo.org

With Questions Submitted by a Panel of jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com Correspondents!

What do we have to do to make this happen?
 
2012-10-04 07:54:48 PM  

beta_plus: Sadly, he's god awful on camera.


And this is what is most important. He sucks on TV. Shun him. SHUN.

Gyrfalcon: Get it to where a 3d party candidate has a real shot at being president because your 3d party is actually 1/3 of Congress


Legislatively, a president's veto amounts to the power of a third of the votes in the House and a third of the Senate...so if your best chance is to get people to focus on -one- person, that one person should be the presidential candidate.
 
2012-10-04 07:55:24 PM  
The requirements to be in the debate are to be eligible to run for president, to be on enough ballots to mathematically win the electoral college, and to have a level of support of at least 15% in an aggregate of national polls. That last requirement was enacted in 2000. The Commission on Presidential Debates, in their mission statement, states that it exists to provide the best possible information to voters. If they believed that, it would be important to include the national third parties. Even if they weren't competitive, they would be able to push the two major parties to talk about topics they'd rather avoid. The CPD is a nonpartisian organization, but that doesn't mean it's without a political party. It's chaired by both Republicans and Democrats, and neither side sees anything for them to gain by introducing radically new ideas. The reason third parties don't poll as well is because they are cut out of the race on every level - no names in polls, no debates, no significant news coverage, and it is done intentionally by the establishment, and voters are not better off or more informed.

/libertarians are clowns
//vote Jill Stein (unless you're in a swing state)
 
2012-10-04 08:02:42 PM  
I'm sure Gary Johnson was out having champaign and caviar with his cronies. I mean, out of some 300 million in funds, he spent 900$ on advertising and the rest on his "campaign management".

In other words, he wowed America with his libertarian "ethics" by taking the donation money gullible shiats gave him and just used it to enrich his cronies with a big payday. Sounds about right for the shiat stain that passes for libertarianism in the post bush world. Humanist libertarianism dies, replaced with objectivism and corporate worship.

You are bigger shiathead than mittens
 
2012-10-04 08:05:22 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: The requirements to be in the debate are to be eligible to run for president, to be on enough ballots to mathematically win the electoral college, and to have a level of support of at least 15% in an aggregate of national polls. That last requirement was enacted in 2000. The Commission on Presidential Debates, in their mission statement, states that it exists to provide the best possible information to voters. If they believed that, it would be important to include the national third parties. Even if they weren't competitive, they would be able to push the two major parties to talk about topics they'd rather avoid. The CPD is a nonpartisian organization, but that doesn't mean it's without a political party. It's chaired by both Republicans and Democrats, and neither side sees anything for them to gain by introducing radically new ideas. The reason third parties don't poll as well is because they are cut out of the race on every level - no names in polls, no debates, no significant news coverage, and it is done intentionally by the establishment, and voters are not better off or more informed.

/libertarians are clowns
//vote Jill Stein (unless you're in a swing state)


You say libertarians are clowns then go on to suggest Jill Stein? Kettle meet pot

neongoats: I'm sure Gary Johnson was out having champaign and caviar with his cronies. I mean, out of some 300 million in funds, he spent 900$ on advertising and the rest on his "campaign management".

In other words, he wowed America with his libertarian "ethics" by taking the donation money gullible shiats gave him and just used it to enrich his cronies with a big payday. Sounds about right for the shiat stain that passes for libertarianism in the post bush world. Humanist libertarianism dies, replaced with objectivism and corporate worship.

You are bigger shiathead than mittens


Ahh, the uninformed American; if you aren't on my side you are the scum of the earth and I will believe anything anyone tells me without thinking
 
2012-10-04 08:08:58 PM  
Perot was sure right about that 'giant sucking sound' during Clinton's presidency

Am i right, monica?

NTTAWWT
 
2012-10-04 08:14:03 PM  

Omahawg: Perot was sure right about that 'giant sucking sound' during Clinton's presidency

Am i right, monica?

NTTAWWT


www.blogcdn.com

/so not sure what's going on at the Clinton house
 
2012-10-04 08:16:11 PM  

cman:

neongoats: I'm sure Gary Johnson was out having champaign and caviar with his cronies. I mean, out of some 300 million in funds, he spent 900$ on advertising and the rest on his "campaign management".

In other words, he wowed America with his libertarian "ethics" by taking the donation money gullible shiats gave him and just used it to enrich his cronies with a big payday. Sounds about right for the shiat stain that passes for libertarianism in the post bush world. Humanist libertarianism dies, replaced with objectivism and corporate worship.

You are bigger shiathead than mittens

Ahh, the uninformed American; if you aren't on my side you are the scum of the earth and I will believe anything any ...


More like well informed former card carrying libertarian who grew disgusted when the self proclaimed party of individual human liberty became the GOPs objectivist, corporate monolith loving stalking horse party.

That you are so retarded that you never noticed the change proves where the "uninformed American" is.
 
2012-10-04 08:19:47 PM  

neongoats: cman:

neongoats: I'm sure Gary Johnson was out having champaign and caviar with his cronies. I mean, out of some 300 million in funds, he spent 900$ on advertising and the rest on his "campaign management".

In other words, he wowed America with his libertarian "ethics" by taking the donation money gullible shiats gave him and just used it to enrich his cronies with a big payday. Sounds about right for the shiat stain that passes for libertarianism in the post bush world. Humanist libertarianism dies, replaced with objectivism and corporate worship.

You are bigger shiathead than mittens

Ahh, the uninformed American; if you aren't on my side you are the scum of the earth and I will believe anything any ...

More like well informed former card carrying libertarian who grew disgusted when the self proclaimed party of individual human liberty became the GOPs objectivist, corporate monolith loving stalking horse party.

That you are so retarded that you never noticed the change proves where the "uninformed American" is.


"Retarded"? What are you, 12?
 
2012-10-04 08:30:34 PM  

cman: neongoats: cman:

neongoats: I'm sure Gary Johnson was out having champaign and caviar with his cronies. I mean, out of some 300 million in funds, he spent 900$ on advertising and the rest on his "campaign management".

In other words, he wowed America with his libertarian "ethics" by taking the donation money gullible shiats gave him and just used it to enrich his cronies with a big payday. Sounds about right for the shiat stain that passes for libertarianism in the post bush world. Humanist libertarianism dies, replaced with objectivism and corporate worship.

You are bigger shiathead than mittens

Ahh, the uninformed American; if you aren't on my side you are the scum of the earth and I will believe anything any ...

More like well informed former card carrying libertarian who grew disgusted when the self proclaimed party of individual human liberty became the GOPs objectivist, corporate monolith loving stalking horse party.

That you are so retarded that you never noticed the change proves where the "uninformed American" is.

"Retarded"? What are you, 12?


No, actually I'm 35, 12 year olds think retarded is a bad word.

You know, someone who is old enough to have actually seen the fall and disgrace of what used to be a party that championed the cause of human freedom.
 
2012-10-04 08:55:09 PM  

neongoats: cman: neongoats: cman:

neongoats: I'm sure Gary Johnson was out having champaign and caviar with his cronies. I mean, out of some 300 million in funds, he spent 900$ on advertising and the rest on his "campaign management".

In other words, he wowed America with his libertarian "ethics" by taking the donation money gullible shiats gave him and just used it to enrich his cronies with a big payday. Sounds about right for the shiat stain that passes for libertarianism in the post bush world. Humanist libertarianism dies, replaced with objectivism and corporate worship.

You are bigger shiathead than mittens

Ahh, the uninformed American; if you aren't on my side you are the scum of the earth and I will believe anything any ...

More like well informed former card carrying libertarian who grew disgusted when the self proclaimed party of individual human liberty became the GOPs objectivist, corporate monolith loving stalking horse party.

That you are so retarded that you never noticed the change proves where the "uninformed American" is.

"Retarded"? What are you, 12?

No, actually I'm 35, 12 year olds think retarded is a bad word.

You know, someone who is old enough to have actually seen the fall and disgrace of what used to be a party that championed the cause of human freedom.


I have to side with neongoats here. I was and remain a Libertarian in the true sense of the word: one who puts the Inherent and Unalienable Rights of Natural Persons above all other considerations.

The "Libertarian" Party, while not quite as ironically named as the "Constitution" Party (which is right up there with "Best" Korea calling itself the Democratic Republic of North Korea), has become more the Corporatist / Ayn Randian Objectivist and Neo-Confederate Party than the true libertarian Party.

If you believe that corporations are persons in any sense other than the legal fiction of Aggregate Personhood and thus that they have Rights, or that States have Rights (as opposed to mere Powers as the Tenth Amendment says), and especially if by word or action you demonstrate that you put either of those above the Inherent and Unalienable Rights of Natural Persons (as Ron Paul has repeatedly done), you are not a libertarian.

I'm considerably older than you, neongoat. I campaigned for Ron Paul back in 1988.
 
2012-10-04 09:00:43 PM  
where was Gary Johnson last night?

I assume he was honoring a private corporation's decision to not include him in the debates, and letting the free market decide how to respond instead of going to the Big Bad Government to sort it out for him.

/just kidding
//he was suing and demanding the government step in
 
2012-10-04 09:06:22 PM  

MaxxLarge: No, they're not.


Done in one.
 
2012-10-04 09:28:46 PM  

urban.derelict: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 600x194]
/establishment let Obama get elected, promptly tied both his hands behind his back
//supported Johnson until I did some critical thinking
///Obama took out OBL the perp declared behind 9/11 debacle -- that's good enough for me... you f*cking retards


You don't strike me as a critical thinker
 
2012-10-04 09:40:53 PM  
COMALite J:

*fist bump*

It it very literally depressing to me that so many farking idiots so blatantly confuse, or worse, deliberately confuse objectivism with libertarianism.

They take a philosophy that pretty much measures the amount of freedom you are permitted based on your GDP, and try and pass it off as championing human liberty. Objectivism is, by design, intended to laud and support and create a hereditary economic aristocracy, while grinding the general populace to dust. And if you don't like it, your overlords will abandon you.

I would absolutely vote for a REAL libertarian, a champion of human liberty, someone who believes in the primacy of HUMAN freedom.

Gary Johnson And the LP are pretty much just what we would have called neocons a few years ago. Pro war, pro militarist, authoritarian, pro jesus neo confederate right wingers.

It's too bad actual libertarianism is a centrist philosophy, not merely the farm team for GOP hopefuls to cut their teeth on.
 
2012-10-04 09:43:55 PM  
Typical FarkLibtard tactic. Try to turn it into a 3 man race, so the right is splitting their votes, and the Fartbongo wins with 40% of the vote.

Ain't gonna work this time. You're boy's toast.

/did anyone notice Romney sounds like Reagan? It's over.
 
2012-10-04 09:51:32 PM  

cman: neongoats: cman:

neongoats: I'm sure Gary Johnson was out having champaign and caviar with his cronies. I mean, out of some 300 million in funds, he spent 900$ on advertising and the rest on his "campaign management".

In other words, he wowed America with his libertarian "ethics" by taking the donation money gullible shiats gave him and just used it to enrich his cronies with a big payday. Sounds about right for the shiat stain that passes for libertarianism in the post bush world. Humanist libertarianism dies, replaced with objectivism and corporate worship.

You are bigger shiathead than mittens

Ahh, the uninformed American; if you aren't on my side you are the scum of the earth and I will believe anything any ...

More like well informed former card carrying libertarian who grew disgusted when the self proclaimed party of individual human liberty became the GOPs objectivist, corporate monolith loving stalking horse party.

That you are so retarded that you never noticed the change proves where the "uninformed American" is.

"Retarded"? What are you, 12?


Hell, I got my American Uniform on.
 
2012-10-04 09:52:12 PM  

Tumunga: Typical FarkLibtard tactic. Try to turn it into a 3 man race, so the right is splitting their votes, and the Fartbongo wins with 40% of the vote.

Ain't gonna work this time. You're boy's toast.

/did anyone notice Romney sounds like Reagan? It's over.


No, sorry, didn't see that part. I saw mittens blatantly lie about 27 times though. And hint: comparing mitt to the guy that created saddam and Osama bin laden, And put our nation permanently in debt so he could crusade against social programs is hardly a ringing endorsement.

You probably love that farking lying traitor Ollie North too.
 
2012-10-04 09:57:37 PM  

COMALite J: The solution is obvious:[www.mediabistro.com image 585x170]
presents the
[uscentrist.org image 636x300]
OPEN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!

Featuring:

• ROCKY ANDERSON (Justice Party) •
• VIRGIL H. GOODE (Constitution Party) •
• GARY JOHNSON (Libertarian Party) •
• JILL STIEN (Green Party) •

Any and all other Presidential Candidates
who are on the ballot in at least one State
are also cordially invited to participate, including:

• President BARACK OBAMA (Democratic Party incumbent) •
• Former Governor MITT ROMNEY (Republican Party) •

Co-Moderated by:
[www.mediabistro.com image 300x445] & [www.addictinginfo.org image 449x411]

With Questions Submitted by a Panel of [jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com image 230x66] Correspondents!
What do we have to do to make this happen?


You could start by spelling Jill Stein's name right.
 
2012-10-04 09:58:21 PM  
Putting a 3rd party candidate as a choice in the polls is a start. Most polls only have two choices.
 
2012-10-04 10:00:39 PM  

Tumunga: Typical FarkLibtard tactic. Try to turn it into a 3 man race, so the right is splitting their votes, and the Fartbongo wins with 40% of the vote.

Ain't gonna work this time. You're boy's toast.

/did anyone notice Romney sounds like Reagan? It's over.



stop drinking the bong water
 
2012-10-04 10:01:18 PM  

neongoats: Gary Johnson And the LP are pretty much just what we would have called neocons a few years ago. Pro war, pro militarist, authoritarian, pro jesus neo confederate right wingers.


I think you have Gary Johnson confused with someone else. Unlike the other two, he is for actually bringing the boys back home. And actually cutting the defense budget.
 
2012-10-04 10:04:35 PM  

ManRay: neongoats: Gary Johnson And the LP are pretty much just what we would have called neocons a few years ago. Pro war, pro militarist, authoritarian, pro jesus neo confederate right wingers.

I think you have Gary Johnson confused with someone else. Unlike the other two, he is for actually bringing the boys back home. And actually cutting the defense budget.


Maybe he should have spent some of that budget on getting the damn message out, instead of making a few buddies rich instead :/
 
2012-10-04 10:10:12 PM  
Wasn't he involved in debates already this year? When he was a Republican? Who couldn't gain traction against Gingrich or Santorum?

That politically expedient switch alone should remove him from serious consideration by anyone who isn't a complete moron.
 
2012-10-04 10:12:08 PM  
I really f*cking despise the disdain straight ticket voters on both sides of this sh*t two party system have towards third party candidates.

Voting for a frontrunning brain-dead sh*thead somehow means you get to be condescending.

I vote my conscience every 4 years, and it gets more depressing each time.
 
2012-10-04 10:30:47 PM  
Gary Johnson wasn't present at the debates last night because the Republican Party already had a representative.
 
2012-10-04 10:41:53 PM  

ManRay: Putting a 3rd party candidate as a choice in the polls is a start. Most polls only have two choices.


Come to California, we've got six.
 
2012-10-04 11:00:00 PM  

neongoats: COMALite J:

*fist bump*

It it very literally depressing to me that so many farking idiots so blatantly confuse, or worse, deliberately confuse objectivism with libertarianism.

They take a philosophy that pretty much measures the amount of freedom you are permitted based on your GDP, and try and pass it off as championing human liberty. Objectivism is, by design, intended to laud and support and create a hereditary economic aristocracy, while grinding the general populace to dust. And if you don't like it, your overlords will abandon you.

I would absolutely vote for a REAL libertarian, a champion of human liberty, someone who believes in the primacy of HUMAN freedom.

Gary Johnson And the LP are pretty much just what we would have called neocons a few years ago. Pro war, pro militarist, authoritarian, pro jesus neo confederate right wingers.

It's too bad actual libertarianism is a centrist philosophy, not merely the farm team for GOP hopefuls to cut their teeth on.


Fist bump right back atcha.


Krieghund: COMALite J: The solution is obvious:[www.mediabistro.com image 585x170]
presents the
[uscentrist.org image 636x300]
OPEN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!

Featuring:

• ROCKY ANDERSON (Justice Party) •
• VIRGIL H. GOODE (Constitution Party) •
• GARY JOHNSON (Libertarian Party) •
• JILL STIEN (Green Party) •

Any and all other Presidential Candidates
who are on the ballot in at least one State
are also cordially invited to participate, including:

• President BARACK OBAMA (Democratic Party incumbent) •
• Former Governor MITT ROMNEY (Republican Party) •

Co-Moderated by:
[www.mediabistro.com image 300x445] & [www.addictinginfo.org image 449x411]

With Questions Submitted by a Panel of [jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com image 230x66] Correspondents!
What do we have to do to make this happen?

You could start by spelling Jill Stein's name right.


Yes, I noticed that after I clicked ‶Add Comment′′ when intending to click ‶Preview′′ one more time (I′m still used to the ‶Preview before posting′′ checkbox). All that work on the HTML, only to fall prey to my keyboard's slightly sticky [E] key which sometime causes it to delay a bit, thus appearing after the key I press immediately after it if I type too quickly.

I do know how to spell ‶Stein.′′

But what do you think of the idea itself? And does anyone here have an account at the Daily Show forums with enough earned credibility to make this suggestion and be taken seriously? If so, please feel free to copy, edit, and paste my HTML there. It'd be awesome to have a debate not under the thumb of the Commission on Presidential Debates, and yet be on a popular enough media outlet as to have some sort of impact.

Of course, the CPD contracts (at least the ones they made public back in 2004 ― the ones since then have been private and undisclosed) would forbid Obama or Romney from participating in such a debate, but the invitation would be open to them as well.

Who here would watch such a debate?
 
2012-10-04 11:11:49 PM  

schrodinger: beta_plus: Gary Johnson has fantastic ideas and the experience to back it up (2 term governor and successful business leader). Sadly, he's god awful on camera.

Yes, that's the only problem with Gary Johnson. The camera.

Gary Johnson is incredibly brilliant and articulate and clear thinking. But only when no one is watching.

As long as we have Gary Johnson hiding behind a curtain 24/7, he would be the greatest president in American history. But the moment that Gary Johnson is observed, he comes across as an idiot.


I'm invisible. But only when nobody is looking.
 
2012-10-04 11:51:51 PM  
Last time I saw Gary Johnson in Denver, he was on stage speaking at the High Times Medical Cannabis Cup. Still not enough to get me to vote for his other ruinous policies.
 
2012-10-04 11:54:31 PM  
I don't know if he's on the ballot in every state, but if he is, he should be part of the debates.
 
2012-10-05 12:03:55 AM  

COMALite J: The solution is obvious:[www.mediabistro.com image 585x170]
presents the
[uscentrist.org image 636x300]
OPEN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!

Featuring:

• ROCKY ANDERSON (Justice Party) •
• VIRGIL H. GOODE (Constitution Party) •
• GARY JOHNSON (Libertarian Party) •
• JILL STIEN (Green Party) •

Any and all other Presidential Candidates
who are on the ballot in at least one State
are also cordially invited to participate, including:

• President BARACK OBAMA (Democratic Party incumbent) •
• Former Governor MITT ROMNEY (Republican Party) •

Co-Moderated by:
[www.mediabistro.com image 300x445] & [www.addictinginfo.org image 449x411]

With Questions Submitted by a Panel of [jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com image 230x66] Correspondents!
What do we have to do to make this happen?


YOU are my new GOD.
 
2012-10-05 12:08:09 AM  

cepson: I don't know if he's on the ballot in every state, but if he is, he should be part of the debates.


We have six people on the ballot in CA, should they all be part of the debates?
 
2012-10-05 01:53:10 AM  
Smokin' pot, gettin' laid and evading taxes. Living the Libertarian Life.
 
2012-10-05 02:43:53 AM  
& people are wondering, where was Gary Johnson last night

No they aren't.
 
2012-10-05 05:10:34 AM  

teto85: Smokin' pot, gettin' laid and evading taxes. Living the Libertarian Life.



Sounds like a kid who takes his christmas present and runs into the woods to play with it on his own
 
2012-10-05 05:21:49 AM  

TwoBeersOneCan: The Commission on Presidential Debates, in their mission statement, states that it exists to provide the best possible information to voters. If they believed that, it would be important to include the national third parties.


If science class is to provide the best possible information to science students, then it's important for them to include young Earth creationism as science.

Even if they weren't competitive, they would be able to push the two major parties to talk about topics they'd rather avoid.

Yes. Like whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. Or whether vaccines cause cancer.
 
2012-10-05 09:33:29 AM  

schrodinger: TwoBeersOneCan: The Commission on Presidential Debates, in their mission statement, states that it exists to provide the best possible information to voters. If they believed that, it would be important to include the national third parties.

If science class is to provide the best possible information to science students, then it's important for them to include young Earth creationism as science.

Even if they weren't competitive, they would be able to push the two major parties to talk about topics they'd rather avoid.

Yes. Like whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. Or whether vaccines cause cancer.


Well, to be fair, 9/11 WAS an inside job (but the Jews were the insiders), and vaccines cause autism, not cancer.
 
2012-10-05 09:37:17 AM  
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-10-05 09:46:58 AM  

God-is-a-Taco: Nabb1: downstairs: CommieTaoist:
And Perot was polling with strong numbers, so he was considered a viable candidate.

He had money. That was about it. And charts. Lots and lots of charts.

Isn't Johnson's dad a billionaire? 
I mean, obviously anyone running for president will have money, but Johnson swims in it.

I trust rich libertarians even less than libertarians in general.


If Gary Johnson was a billionaire there would be a lot more TV ads of him. He was a self made millionaire. I got the impression his parents were middle class. But he didn't post his parents financials.

asmodeus224: Fark you libertarians, win a significant portion of state senate seats, governships and congressional seats and actually, i dunno, farking govern a little before emanding the white house.


He did. He was a very loved Governor of NM. Especially after he came out as pro pot. He did for NM, what this country disparately needs.

HeartBurnKid: oryx: A corollary of Catch 22 keeps 3rd party candidates out of the debates. You can't be in the debates if you're not a viable candidate and you can't be a viable candidate if you're not in the debates.

I would disagree. Perot was actually doing damn good before the debates.


Yes, but Perot had money. Contrary to Fark Beliefs libertarians don't have that much money. If libertarians had money they'd be running the system. Go Figure.
 
2012-10-05 10:25:38 AM  

ZombieApocalypseKitten: HeartBurnKid: oryx: A corollary of Catch 22 keeps 3rd party candidates out of the debates. You can't be in the debates if you're not a viable candidate and you can't be a viable candidate if you're not in the debates.

I would disagree. Perot was actually doing damn good before the debates.

Yes, but Perot had money. Contrary to Fark Beliefs libertarians don't have that much money. If libertarians had money they'd be running the system. Go Figure.


Well, no shiat, Perot had money. That was kind of my point; that money and charisma is the barrier, not the debates. Look at this year; damn near everybody already made up their minds who they were going to vote for way before the debates even happened.

As for libertarians not having money, their presidential nominee this year was the founder of a multi-milion-dollar corporation. If he cared to put some of his own money on the line, and spent more than nine hundred freaking dollars on media buys, maybe he'd get somewhere.

It's the incessant whining of third parties that gets me. Yeah, it is harder for a third party to get a hearing on their views. Some of this is because the big guys have thrown up roadblocks, some of it is just the natural result of the way the system is constructed (for example, first-past-the-post voting is going to eventually end up with one or two "big tent" parties, just by the nature of the beast). Instead of whining about it, work for it. And if that means you have to work 10 times as hard as anybody else, work 10 times as hard. That's kind of the libertarians' thing, no? That ordinary individuals can succeed without the help of the government, if they only work hard enough? So prove it.
 
2012-10-05 11:16:26 AM  

HeartBurnKid: As for libertarians not having money, their presidential nominee this year was the founder of a multi-milion-dollar corporation. If he cared to put some of his own money on the line, and spent more than nine hundred freaking dollars on media buys, maybe he'd get somewhere.


His total fundraising amounts to a fraction of what Obamney would pull in during a single fundraising dinner in NYC. Looks like he's had to spend a decent chunk of it on ballot- and debate-access lawsuits.

Even if he had the full amount to spend on media, it's still a pittance compared to what the GOP and Democrats have...so why the fark spend it two months before the election?
 
2012-10-05 11:42:13 AM  

Gulper Eel: Even if he had the full amount to spend on media, it's still a pittance compared to what the GOP and Democrats have...so why the fark spend it two months before the election?


Saving it for one big ad blitz?
 
2012-10-05 11:53:12 AM  

Gulper Eel: HeartBurnKid: As for libertarians not having money, their presidential nominee this year was the founder of a multi-milion-dollar corporation. If he cared to put some of his own money on the line, and spent more than nine hundred freaking dollars on media buys, maybe he'd get somewhere.

His total fundraising amounts to a fraction of what Obamney would pull in during a single fundraising dinner in NYC. Looks like he's had to spend a decent chunk of it on ballot- and debate-access lawsuits.

Even if he had the full amount to spend on media, it's still a pittance compared to what the GOP and Democrats have...so why the fark spend it two months before the election?


Well, if he's not going to spend it, maybe he and his supporters shouldn't whine about the fact that nobody knows who he is or what he stands for.
 
2012-10-05 12:30:32 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Wasn't he involved in debates already this year? When he was a Republican? Who couldn't gain traction against Gingrich or Santorum?

That politically expedient switch alone should remove him from serious consideration by anyone who isn't a complete moron.


He was ahead of Santorum and Cain. That's what was so depressing
 
2012-10-05 01:02:37 PM  

ZombieApocalypseKitten: He did. He was a very loved Governor of NM. Especially after he came out as pro pot. He did for NM, what this country disparately needs.


He was governor under the GOP, try again.

Win some seats and govern under LIBERTARIANISM.
 
2012-10-05 03:31:50 PM  

asmodeus224: ZombieApocalypseKitten: He did. He was a very loved Governor of NM. Especially after he came out as pro pot. He did for NM, what this country disparately needs.

He was governor under the GOP, try again.

Win some seats and govern under LIBERTARIANISM.


He was a RINO. How else did he get elected in a democrat state? It's real hard to find an actual fiscal conservative in the republican party. They're like unicorns.
 
2012-10-05 08:49:13 PM  
For the 3rd party issue... if you are trying to get a "centrist" party that will actually work to get stuff done because they are not on the deep ends:

http://thatsmycongress.com/house/

Between Weakly Liberal, Mushy Middle and Milquetoast Conservatives there are 102 house members and 34 members of the senate. Now, I don't think all of them would be considered really "middle of the road" (Rand Paul somehow made it in the list), but, if you got 75 and 20 lets say, I think you could start a pretty formidable 3rd centrist party, which if they could hold their seats, they would have to be bargained with, since neither of the other two parties could get a majority, and you get the benefit that they are already known names and in office, so, the money could follow them to this party, as opposed to trying to totally start from "scratch".

Probably a crazy idea, but, if you had someone with multi-billions of dollars who really wanted to do it (ie, put $500 million towards making the party viable) and then got the key players in the same room and said "Who is with me?"... who knows.
 
2012-10-05 09:58:56 PM  
A third party will not be able to compete because the average American voter is a shallow tribal "my team vs your team"-mentality moran. The reasonable people in the center aren't powerful enough to make a stand.
 
2012-10-06 12:19:27 AM  

Gulper Eel: His total fundraising amounts to a fraction of what Obamney would pull in during a single fundraising dinner in NYC. Looks like he's had to spend a decent chunk of it on ballot- and debate-access lawsuits.


Really? Gary Johnson's financial expenditures are online. How much has he spent on law firms for this election cycle?

Since you're the one making this claim, I'm sure you can cite actual numbers to support it?
 
2012-10-06 02:05:25 AM  

buffalosoldier: COMALite J: The solution is obvious:[www.mediabistro.com image 585x170]
presents the
[uscentrist.org image 636x300]
OPEN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!

Featuring:

• ROCKY ANDERSON (Justice Party) •
• VIRGIL H. GOODE (Constitution Party) •
• GARY JOHNSON (Libertarian Party) •
• JILL STIEN (Green Party) •

Any and all other Presidential Candidates
who are on the ballot in at least one State
are also cordially invited to participate, including:

• President BARACK OBAMA (Democratic Party incumbent) •
• Former Governor MITT ROMNEY (Republican Party) •

Co-Moderated by:
[www.mediabistro.com image 300x445] & [www.addictinginfo.org image 449x411]

With Questions Submitted by a Panel of [jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com image 230x66] Correspondents!
What do we have to do to make this happen?

YOU are my new GOD.


Thanks!
(Well, I don't wanna blaspheme...)

Again, if you yourself, or anyone you know, has some clout over on the Daily Show / Colbert Report forums, please feel free to post this idea there. As I said above, it'd be awesome to have a debate not under the thumb of the Commission for Presidential Debates (which was invented and still run by the GOP and Democratic Parties [by their former chairs no less!], with rules specifically designed to lock all others out), and yet be on a popular enough media forum to have some impact.
 
2012-10-06 08:42:36 AM  

COMALite J: Again, if you yourself, or anyone you know, has some clout over on the Daily Show / Colbert Report forums, please feel free to post this idea there. As I said above, it'd be awesome to have a debate not under the thumb of the Commission for Presidential Debates (which was invented and still run by the GOP and Democratic Parties [by their former chairs no less!], with rules specifically designed to lock all others out), and yet be on a popular enough media forum to have some impact.


The problem would be, the Daily Show is there to get a laugh, and, with these fringe candidates that have in some cases some pretty far off views (especially like Constitution party), you be laughing them out of the building. It wouldn't be as serious as you'd like it to be.
 
2012-10-06 04:19:34 PM  

dletter: COMALite J: Again, if you yourself, or anyone you know, has some clout over on the Daily Show / Colbert Report forums, please feel free to post this idea there. As I said above, it'd be awesome to have a debate not under the thumb of the Commission for Presidential Debates (which was invented and still run by the GOP and Democratic Parties [by their former chairs no less!], with rules specifically designed to lock all others out), and yet be on a popular enough media forum to have some impact.

The problem would be, the Daily Show is there to get a laugh, and, with these fringe candidates that have in some cases some pretty far off views (especially like Constitution party), you be laughing them out of the building. It wouldn't be as serious as you'd like it to be.


Oh, I wasn't hoping for serious. The laughs are why Comedy Central would be interested in this!

But along with the laughs, people just might get some honest to goodness information about real alternatives to the Big Two that they might otherwise not get.
 
Displayed 144 of 144 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report