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
    More: Asinine, Eat Cake, Governor of New Mexico, human beings, voice vote, farewell address, independent candidates, Philips Electronics, representative democracies  
•       •       •

2099 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 5:11 PM (3 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 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 44 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 »
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