Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

2086 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 144 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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