Would you like to see Gary Johnson in the presidential debates?

I took about 15 to fill out 3 short lines in this form because I'd like to see a third party join in on the presidential debates.

Now, it may happen or it may not, doesn't really matter, I don't care because I personally would like to see a third opinion, especially from a governor who knows a thing or two about civil liberties, smaller government, and helping to grow an economy.

Before you decide to sign the petition, you might want to watch this 'expose' on the 'commission on presidential debates.'

libertarianpetition.com...

I'd rather see Ron Paul but, yes, Johnson wouls be okay too.

Yes.

Yes, I would.

But what I don't understand is why don't they let him?

What is their reasons?

Why is he excluded?

Who's in charge of the debates?

Originally posted by Frankenchrist
Yes.

Yes, I would.

But what I don't understand is why don't they let him?

What is their reasons?

Why is he excluded?

Who's in charge of the debates?

please refer to this thread to answer pretty much all of your questions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by eLPresidente

Yes, a third voice is needed.

Gary Johnson isnt a bad guy but hes just no Ron Paul (not even close).

Ron Paul has a 30 year track record of being consistent, being incorruptible (no lobbyists) and being right.

His knowledge and understanding of the economy alone is staggering.

Then theres the Constitutional aspect. Forget about it.

He is the champion of liberty.

RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL

There will NEVER be another Ron Paul.

Well seeing as how we have had 2 candidates names rammed down our throats when there were still 4 or more candidates available I am all for a 3rd option. Screw choosing between an evil and a lesser evil as we have right now.

Its ridiculous we have been at this for months and still barely have any well laid out plans to vote on.

What is the point of debates and campaigning when we don't have any new information to base our vote on? The election process is straight up dumb.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Wonderful thing to bring to all of our attention, sir. The debates will come to Denver at one point this year, and I expect it to be the fiercest of competition due to Jefferson County playing a HUGE role in the determination of Colorado's political future, in a country where perhaps Colorado could decide the election. Haha to see Gary Johnson own the debates... would be like seeing Ron Paul minus 1 in the debates, so that is pretty damn good.

Hope everything pans out, eh?

I like Johnson a lot more than I ever liked Paul.

The answer is yes overwhelmingly yes.

I posted some info in a thread a while back that may be relevant here....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is the phone number for the Commission for Federal Debates: (202) 872-1020. Call and ask them to include Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and Virgil Goode in the Presidential Debates. They are extending invitations through Mid September, so time is short to make it happen. BE POLITE.

Chances are, making this happen will be a difficult process and probably won't even happen this year.. it will be a process, but if we won't do it. It won't happen. No one will do it for you.

Honestly, I would not bother signing any petition. It is a waste of time. Chances are invitations will not be sent out to anyone else at this time, and if the time has not already passed, it cant be but a couple days away. Call the number. It's too late for petitions now.

As I said in that old post I quoted, it may not even happen in this election cycle. Getting third party candidates into the national debates will be a process. After the Perot run, many rules were written or changed to make it harder and keep a 2 party stranglehold on this Country. So it will be a process and we will have to keep fighting. IN my opinion a realistic goal is we can make it happen next election.... I do not see it being possible to accomplish this goal during this election cycle.

Absolutely! He is the only guy in the race making any sense and on the ballot in all 50 states. End the wars, bring the troops home, balance the budget, end foreign aid, cut spending!

Unfortunately I doubt the other campaigns will agree to debate with him even if he has the numbers.\

Dont bother wasting your time or money on a phone call. The whole system was set up so that you have a two party system. Either with us or against us. As a brit I could not believe what I saw in the greatest democracy in the world. Ron Paul was completely ignored by every one . The MSM totally ignored him and lied about him every which way they could. The system changed the rules on the spot, so that he couldnt even talk. The elected delgates, were ignored at the convention. The whole thing is a complete and utter sham. Your leaders are selected and not by the people. The only way that you are going to have a proper and fair election in the states, is when the people rise up and over throw the system. An American spring? No they would never allow it to happen. The troops would be on the streets rounding people up. In the land of the free.
Gary johnson? Wont happen and if it does then he will be either bought off or murdered, if he gos against the system.

The Johnson movement is really a libtard movement to steal votes for Obama.
Everyone knows that a third party would mean a certain Obama win.
This is why Ron Paul would not do it.

Just vote Romney and get rid of this homosexual retard we have now please.

I don't think I've ever disagreed with everybody before, it's a strange feeling. But, no, I'd rather not have Gary Johnson in the debates.

Either Obama or Romney will be the next President, no other possible outcome, the decision is which of those two it is. Consider a restaurant which serves Cola and Coffee as it's two beverages. Putting up an advertisement for tea doesn't help anything. Who knows? Maybe Johnson is the best candidate, but he will not be elected this time around.

Second, depending on your politics you may believe Romney to be a flip-flopper, or Obama to be a pathological liar, or both. I really welcome the opportunity to see them answer questions with no place to hide. I don't want them to have to give up time to Johnson. (that means fewer questions they have to face.) And I don't want them to be able to refer to Johnson to help hide their answers, or distract from the question.

Sure, having Johnson in would be good for spreading his message, but that's not what the debates are for. He's not really a Presidential possibility this time. Spread his message over the next four years.

I wouldn't mind seeing Gary Johnson participate in the debates, so long as Jill Stein is included too. In fact, I think that it is a disgrace that only 2 of the 4 qualifying candidates are allowed to be involved in the process.

Originally posted by charles1952
I don't think I've ever disagreed with everybody before, it's a strange feeling. But, no, I'd rather not have Gary Johnson in the debates.

Either Obama or Romney will be the next President, no other possible outcome, the decision is which of those two it is. Consider a restaurant which serves Cola and Coffee as it's two beverages. Putting up an advertisement for tea doesn't help anything. Who knows? Maybe Johnson is the best candidate, but he will not be elected this time around.

Second, depending on your politics you may believe Romney to be a flip-flopper, or Obama to be a pathological liar, or both. I really welcome the opportunity to see them answer questions with no place to hide. I don't want them to have to give up time to Johnson. (that means fewer questions they have to face.) And I don't want them to be able to refer to Johnson to help hide their answers, or distract from the question.

Sure, having Johnson in would be good for spreading his message, but that's not what the debates are for. He's not really a Presidential possibility this time. Spread his message over the next four years.

Wow you actually support closed debates where the two major parties control everything. Still betting on the red horse vs blue horse huh?

Don't like open conversation? Don't feel the country is in need of a third opinion? You're satisfied with the two turds selected by the establishment of both sides?

You've had enough time spent here and post often enough on ATS to know what is really going on yet you still play the game like Obama vs Romney is going to bring you any actual change.

You never stopped to consider that people are offered coffee and cola but actually LIKE tea? they just haven't had the option for tea for so long that they didn't even know they had the choice?

Its just confusing.

You should watch this:

reply to post by eLPresidente

Dear eLPresidente,

I appreciate the questions, it gives me a chance to work on clearing up the confusion I caused.

Wow you actually support closed debates where the two major parties control everything.

At this particular time, yes. Gary Johnson, or Ron Paul, or Jesse Ventura, or anyone, has four years to create a campaign supported by the people and become able to get, say, a fifth of the vote. If that happens, then sure, have a three way debate. What are the Libertarians at now, 5%?

Don't like open conversation? Don't feel the country is in need of a third opinion?

Sure, I love open conversation. We need third opinions and fourth opinions. But do you mean this is their only chance to get their opinion out? I don't think so. With a leader that has any kind of personality, the internet and alternative news sites, and a group of passionate supporters to start with, there are plenty of opportunities to persuade the people of your ideas.

You're satisfied with the two turds selected by the establishment of both sides?

Nobody's ever really satisfied with the candidates. To steer away from the Presidency for a moment, what in the world is Joe Biden doing on any political ticket, anywhere?

You've had enough time spent here and post often enough on ATS to know what is really going on yet you still play the game like Obama vs Romney is going to bring you any actual change.

Yes, I think there will be a difference depending on who is elected. There will still be pressure on the President from many sources, the world economy will continue to be terrible, the Mid-East will still be ready to explode at a moment's notice, but Obama and Romney have different beliefs, goals, strengths, and personalities. Yes there will be a difference, just like electing McCain would have resulted in a difference.

You never stopped to consider that people are offered coffee and cola but actually LIKE tea? they just haven't had the option for tea for so long that they didn't even know they had the choice?

I suspect lots of people like tea, that's why they created that party. But, seriously, that's what a political movement is supposed to do. There are four years to ask people if they are satisfied with what they've got and to offer an alternative. If you can offer an attractive alternative, you'll win elections. That's what the Tea Party did in the House in 2010. Libertarians, or any other group, could do it too, if they have something the people want.

With respect,
Charles1952

So long as their views were a genuine third party voice, just about anyone would be better than obama and romney. Maybe Johnson's motto should be 'anyone but those two'.

reply to post by charles1952

At this particular time, yes. Gary Johnson, or Ron Paul, or Jesse Ventura, or anyone, has four years to create a campaign supported by the people and become able to get, say, a fifth of the vote. If that happens, then sure, have a three way debate. What are the Libertarians at now, 5%?

Give Gary Johnson all the free publicity that Obamney gets and he would probably be leading the polls right now. Demopublicans do not have to work to get publicity it is given to them freely by a bought and paid for MSM. So you whole premise is flawed.

The idea that he shouldn't be in the debates because people are not interested in him is a false argument. People have not had the opportunity to hear about him so they don't know if they are interested. If he was given equal opportunity then more people would be interested in him.

reply to post by charles1952


So from what I gathered, you are for an open discussion, just not this time?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like something Romney would say.

And that a third party doesn't necessarily deserve to be in the national debates because there are other ways of getting their message out? So by your logic, we just shouldn't even have national debates or parties because if people like the message, they'll support the candidate? In the end, all you're basically saying is that the national debates are exclusive and all third parties are not allowed to play. You're not really making sense here?

The national debates are the ONLY time for all candidates to get a fair shot at hearing their policies, their message, their ideas, and their way on how they would run the country as president but you're saying Johnson should be left out because he didn't get his message heard in last four years? By saying that I hope you understand you are strongly advocating the continuation of the status quo exclusive two party system as long as they can maintain that iron grip on the presidential elections.

You tend to carry an elitist mentality when it comes to the exclusive two party scam, and you're not even an elite..or are you?

reply to post by filosophia


I believe his slogan is "waste your vote on me" sarcasm obviously.
I would love to see him in the debate, seeing him speak I feel he would own Obama or Romney.