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

reply to post by hawkiye

Dearhawkiye,

Hi, again. I'm sorry my writing is so bad. I seem to confuse people left and right. I'll try to work on it, but I'm not sure where the problem is.

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.

I agree that Obama is getting nearly immeasureable amounts of free publicity, Romney significantly less. (Good publicity, I mean) But I must disagree with you here:

So you whole premise is flawed.

You see, I'm afraid I didn't have a premise. I wasn't making an argument, I was making a suggestion. Shall I re-word it? Let's try:

"I think it would be wonderful to have a third-party candidate in the debates, but I think it's a little late this year. Tell you what, let's get the lads from OWS, and the Libertarians, and Ron Paul's group together, and start a new party. We can have parades, protests, websites, guest speakers, oh, anything we can think of. People will start liking us a lot and our support will grow, and in four years we'll be up on the debate platform with those running dog, capitalist, lackeys. We'll show 'em."

Is that a little clearer?

With respect,
Charles1952

No I would not.... he can't win, it's impossible =

wasted time.

Originally posted by Signals
No I would not.... he can't win, it's impossible =

wasted time.

Sometimes it's not about winning or losing; rather, it is about bringing ideas and issues to the table that the establishment would rather not discuss. Forbidden discussion of today may become the platform of tomorrow.

reply to post by eLPresidente

Dear eLPresidente,

As I've just confessed to hawkiye, my writing is terrible and confusing to almost everyone.

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

I love open discussions, and I wish there were more than three Presidential debates. I wish there would have been more open discussion earlier in the year. Right now, even though I wouldn't mind having such a discussion, it's just too late. We're what, 7, maybe 8 weeks from the election? Maybe 10% of the population is either undecided or third party? At this point, in this year's election cycle, it's not time to try to force a spot on the debates, for reasons I mentioned above.

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

I don't know, I've never heard him talk about it. But if he did agree with me, does that make me wrong?

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?

Blast my sloppy writing, that's not even close to what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that to get into the debates, you really should have the support of more than 5% of the population. You don't need 30%, the magic number is somewhere in between. Now, how does a third-party get up to the, say 20% support level? By getting it's message out, anyway they can, in the preceeding four years. Then using the support they've gained to get into the debates.

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?

I must not be making sense if I've given you the idea that that's my opinion. Have five parties debating nationally if you want. All I want to eliminate from the debates are those "fringe" groups that can't get, say 10% of the nation's support.

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?

Well, as I hope I've shown you, I'm not wedded to a two party debate system. As far as elite, I'm having a tough time not laughing. My mini-profile says "just a guy," and my signature says I'm not "the sharpest bulb in the drawer. What do you mean elite? Having 1% levels of wealth? I can't begin to tell you how wildly wrong that is. But, if you think it's important, I suppose we can discuss it.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Dear eLPresidente,

As I've just confessed to hawkiye, my writing is terrible and confusing to almost everyone.

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

I love open discussions, and I wish there were more than three Presidential debates. I wish there would have been more open discussion earlier in the year. Right now, even though I wouldn't mind having such a discussion, it's just too late. We're what, 7, maybe 8 weeks from the election? Maybe 10% of the population is either undecided or third party? At this point, in this year's election cycle, it's not time to try to force a spot on the debates, for reasons I mentioned above.
With respect,
Charles1952

Oh so I didn't misunderstand you after all. You are literally saying that you are FOR open discussions, just NOT THIS TIME. There is no other way for you to twist it no matter how hard you try.

How can you say you are for third parties to be in the debates then to say in the same paragraph that it is already too late for a third party candidate to have a say, especially when the first national debate has not even begun?

Now I'm just confused if you're trolling of if you're just being unknowingly stubborn.

Sorry Charles, you sort of seem like a nice guy but your B.S. just needs to be called out.

Like I suggested earlier in this thread specifically for you.
You should watch this:

reply to post by eLPresidente

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

I think Johnson should MOST DEFINITELY be part of the debate but I know the candidates and the commission will NEVER allow it.

It’s a shame what a scam the debate process is…..for those who haven’t seen this video I urge you to watch it; especially if you’re looking forward to the debates beginning in 12 days.



(Edit to add) WHOOOOPS! Just saw that you posted 'the video' already! Regardless, anyone who hasn't seen it should watch and then watch the upcoming debates with a more skeptical eye!

reply to post by seabag


I consider it a civic duty to post this video as much as possible, especially during the presidential elections.

reply to post by eLPresidente


He does not take me as trolling or being a shill or disingenuous in anyway. To me he simply is realistic. The argument about the two party systems has been going on longer than you or I have been alive and I think it will be raging long after we are gone. I have voted a couple times for independents so please do not label me as a troll shill whatever the new term may be.

Ron Paul was not my candidate I disagreed with his views on foreign policy but other than that I could have voted for him. That isn’t the issue here though. The problem with a third party this election is there just isn’t enough support for one. I personally like Gary Johnson and if I thought there was any chance of him being elected I would vote for him. That being said I would still like to see him in the debate but I understand Charles’s viewpoint and I respect him for expressing it. I am sure he knew it wouldn’t be popular with most people on here but he still came out and said it.

Accusing someone of trolling or being a shill because they do not see things the same as you is not going to win support for your views. I think you will have a hard time ever getting support for your ideas if that is the way you go about it.

reply to post by eLPresidente and seabag

Gentlemen,

Thanks for the video link. I must say you've gained your revenge on me, now I'm confused. I will admit that I only watched the first 10 minutes of the video. The impression I gained is that the major party candidates have agreed that if they're going to debate each other, they will have to follow rules designed to make the candidates look good.

Here's my first confusion. If the debates are so rigged, why does Johnson want to participate? If he agrees to follow the rules, then the debate is useless. If he doesn't, he's not allowed on. The only solution I see is to open up the debate commission to a third party. But, why should they? America isn't crying out to see Johnson on the platform, nearly nobody cares. (Sorry, guys.) The reasons I'm not for them this time were given earlier, but add the fact that neither Johnson, nor Paul, nor anyone else, has any significant number of people saying they should be up there.

I would like to have the World Heavyweight Championship belt, but I don't have the stuff to allow me to compete, let alone win. And until a third-party does, I can't figure out any way for them to say "Hey! Move over! I gotta a right to be on this platform, and if you don't like it, me and about 25 million voters will tear up this election, got it? Now I want in!"

Oh so I didn't misunderstand you after all. You are literally saying that you are FOR open discussions, just NOT THIS TIME. There is no other way for you to twist it no matter how hard you try.

You're right, sort of. Can you seperate the idea of "open discussion" from "Presidential debate" for a second? I'm a huge fan of open discussion. I believe the Presidential debates should be between all of the candidates who have even a possible chance of winning. This time there are only two. If we ever have more than two, then get them on the stage.

I'm certainly not trolling. I may be stubborn or stupid, or something else. But I'm not excited about having the debates open to everybody. I don't want to see NORML, or the CPUSA, or the American Patriot Party (if there is such a thing), or any of a dozen or so other "parties," on the stage getting in everybody's way.

Well, Charles1952, why not the Libertarians? Let me ask why they should be up there? Nothing they could possibly say would win them the Presidency. In 1980, they got over 1% of the vote, but in every other presidential election it's been 1/2 % or less. They did get one candidate elected to a lower house in a state, but I think that's it. Sure they have a different position, but so does everyone else. Even in election where everybody hates both major candidates, the Libertarians can't get 2 million Americans to vote for theirs.

Sorry Charles, you sort of seem like a nice guy but your B.S. just needs to be called out.

Good!! Call me out. I don't want to go through life full of BS.

I really want to thank you for your responses. How else will I learn?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

He does not take me as trolling or being a shill or disingenuous in anyway. To me he simply is realistic. The argument about the two party systems has been going on longer than you or I have been alive and I think it will be raging long after we are gone. I have voted a couple times for independents so please do not label me as a troll shill whatever the new term may be.

Ron Paul was not my candidate I disagreed with his views on foreign policy but other than that I could have voted for him. That isn’t the issue here though. The problem with a third party this election is there just isn’t enough support for one. I personally like Gary Johnson and if I thought there was any chance of him being elected I would vote for him. That being said I would still like to see him in the debate but I understand Charles’s viewpoint and I respect him for expressing it. I am sure he knew it wouldn’t be popular with most people on here but he still came out and said it.

Accusing someone of trolling or being a shill because they do not see things the same as you is not going to win support for your views. I think you will have a hard time ever getting support for your ideas if that is the way you go about it.

Well first of all, I never brought up Ron Paul in this thread so I don't know why you did.

I never accused anybody of trolling or shilling. I DID say I was confused if he was trolling was just being unknowingly stubbon, he could've clarified that himself if he wanted to because I honestly couldn't tell the difference.

I don't get why there is so much debate on why people believe there should be open debates but make exceptions when its convenient. Anybody could say that they're all good for open debates just not this year because this year is an important election and then repeat the same rhetoric four years down the line.

It seems pretty black and white to me, either you support open debates or you don't. If we have open debates, it means we have options. If we have closed debates, our options are limited.

Its funny I'm being told that I make a fuss about other peoples opinions when I enjoy open debates yet you guys are against it (oops! not usually against it, JUST WHEN ITS CONVENIENT).

reply to post by charles1952


After reading several of your posts this is my conclusion of your opinion.

Any third party candidate that doesn't have a national presence BEFORE the debates, should not be allowed in the debates, EVER.

You say Gary Johnson doesn't have support, well I guess we'll never know because he isn't allowed to debate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, you didn't really attempt to correct it in your last post though, you generally agreed with it

My commentary: The point of the national debates are for people to see who their options and who represents their view the best, so they can make an informed decision. You, along with the two party circus, wants to take that away from the voters. So long as the two party maintain their hold over the presidential elections, we will never have a third party and you seem to be just fine with that. Don't dissent folks...we don't want to irritate the establishment, its not good for their business, obviously.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Strange now I am confused I don’t remember ever saying I was against open debates. I am not sure how you came to that conclusion especially because I said the opposite. I didn’t think it would be a problem bringing up Ron Paul is that subject off limits or something? How very confusing. It certainly seemed like you were calling him a troll but this seems to be very confusing to you and I.

He didn’t confuse me though I understand his viewpoint very well he made it clear I thought. As far as this election being important I believe it is but I believe every election is important not just this one. Like I said before I would like to see Garry Johnson in the debates but I don’t think he has the slightest chance at winning the election. If he was allowed in it would make it a bit more interesting but I do not suffer from any delusions by thinking he has a chance. I simply stated I understand Charles’s position I think he was very clear with his reasoning.

I hope that wasn’t confusing.

Originally posted by Signals
No I would not.... he can't win, it's impossible =

wasted time.

Wasted time or not, I couldn't look at myself in the mirror knowing I voted for either one of the sick **** heads that are running as Democrat or Republican.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Strange now I am confused I don’t remember ever saying I was against open debates. I am not sure how you came to that conclusion especially because I said the opposite. I didn’t think it would be a problem bringing up Ron Paul is that subject off limits or something? How very confusing. It certainly seemed like you were calling him a troll but this seems to be very confusing to you and I.

He didn’t confuse me though I understand his viewpoint very well he made it clear I thought. As far as this election being important I believe it is but I believe every election is important not just this one. Like I said before I would like to see Garry Johnson in the debates but I don’t think he has the slightest chance at winning the election. If he was allowed in it would make it a bit more interesting but I do not suffer from any delusions by thinking he has a chance. I simply stated I understand Charles’s position I think he was very clear with his reasoning.

I hope that wasn’t confusing.

I thought you were for open debates except in the case of Charles' opinion. If I was wrong about that, my bad.

I still don't know what Ron Paul has to do with any of this, I like him but this thread is about GJ. I'd love to see Ron in the debates but GJ is on all 50 states ballots (Romney is fighting this legally because he doesn't want GJ to take votes away from him).

Yes I think I summed up Charles' opinion pretty well in my last post.

As long as a third party candidate is not popular enough for an open debate, he should never be allowed in any open debates, even though that is exactly what the debates are for. We should not disturb the two party system, they don't like the noisy peasants banging on their doorsteps.

reply to post by eLPresidente


As a New Mexico native I definitely want to see Johnson in the "debates" and it won't happen. He's also said repeatedly he'd not be running if RP was on the "Uffishul" ticket. (Donkeys & Elephants) But, hey, i KNOW it's a rigged game, and I'm tired of deleting my rants. YES - HE SHOULD!!
Since RP is only a write in, seems that Johnson is the best choice that is on the ballot in ALL 50 STATES (and DC, the District of Corruption... Columbia, sorry). Thanks OP,

If you want to know what Johnson's stand is, this is a good vid.

reply to post by eLPresidente

Dear eLPresidente,

May I say first that I have gained a lot of respect for you because of the way you've handled yourself in your responses to me? I am really impressed. I admire your patience. You've just entered the fairly small circle of guys that I'd like to have a pizza and beer with.

I think you understand me pretty well, with just a few rough edges to clear up.

After reading several of your posts this is my conclusion of your opinion.
Any third party candidate that doesn't have a national presence BEFORE the debates, should not be allowed in the debates, EVER. . . .Correct me if I'm wrong, you didn't really attempt to correct it in your last post though, you generally agreed with it

I'd have to check your definition of "national presence," but I think you're correct here. (Oh, how I like agreement.)

You say Gary Johnson doesn't have support, well I guess we'll never know because he isn't allowed to debate.

Just a little confusion on my part remains. Couldn't that be said of any of the candidates from any of the myriad parties, or even me? We can't all get up there. I know you're not suggesting that, but still, wouldn't the fourth largest party then say, "What about me?"

My commentary: The point of the national debates are for people to see who their options and who represents their view the best, so they can make an informed decision. You, along with the two party circus, wants to take that away from the voters.

This may be our only area of remaining disagreement. I have two difficulties here. One, as has been argued by the video, the debates have nothing to do with informed decisions by the voters. (Or, should we reject the video?) Two, I've thought (and this is where I may be going wrong) that the time to make yourself known to the voters was during the campaign and the years before that. There is all the time in the world to get a candidate's message to the country. Not all at once, but on the other hand, the candidate can adjust and tailor his message to each audience. Somehow, the third parties have to persuade people that a vote for them is not wasted. If they can't do that, they can't get elected.

What I'd kind of like to see is a third party focus it's efforts in one region, or state, or county even, and show that they can win something. That a vote for them can make a difference and it's not a waste. If they can point to victories in County "A," then they can go to County "B" and use their success to further mobilize people. If there can be any kind of significant victories, then the organization in the other states can say, "Hey, if they can do that there, we can do it here." There is now a national movement to be reckoned with. I don't think you can do that by standing at a lectern with two minutes to answer Tom Brokaw.

So long as the two party maintain their hold over the presidential elections, we will never have a third party

Forgive me, but that seems to be rather tautological. You seem to be saying that as long as we have a two party system, we won't have a three party system. Guess I have to agree again.

and you seem to be just fine with that.

No, no, a thousand times no. If the two parties aren't meeting the needs of the citizens, we need a third party. Heck, we probably would have to replace the two we've got. The new parties just have to show they can get people dissatisfied enough that they are willing to vote for them.

Don't dissent folks...we don't want to irritate the establishment, its not good for their business, obviously.

I'm happy to irritate the establishment, especially if it's the Washington establishment. If they don't bend and adapt, they'll get brittle and either die themselves as a party, or kill the country.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by eLPresidente


C'mon ElPresidente, why would any sane person want the American people to be able to weigh their options with fair debates from real presidential candidates on the ballot? Why would we not want the big elite bankers controlling the 2 "parties" first deciding who we get to vote for in un-fair rigged primaries, then second, changing their rules to not allow anyone without the support of Goldman Sachs and friends to even have a chance? Why would you be calling for some "other guy" who's on the ballot to be in the debates for Americans to watch? You're kookoo for Cocoa Puffs if you think Americans should be educated and informed about those who control their future. Sheesh what is wrong with you??

Really ElPresidente? Why won't you just ACCEPT it and shut up!!







/sarcasm

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Dearhawkiye,

Hi, again. I'm sorry my writing is so bad. I seem to confuse people left and right. I'll try to work on it, but I'm not sure where the problem is.

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.

I agree that Obama is getting nearly immeasureable amounts of free publicity, Romney significantly less. (Good publicity, I mean) But I must disagree with you here:

So you whole premise is flawed.

You see, I'm afraid I didn't have a premise. I wasn't making an argument, I was making a suggestion. Shall I re-word it? Let's try:

"I think it would be wonderful to have a third-party candidate in the debates, but I think it's a little late this year. Tell you what, let's get the lads from OWS, and the Libertarians, and Ron Paul's group together, and start a new party. We can have parades, protests, websites, guest speakers, oh, anything we can think of. People will start liking us a lot and our support will grow, and in four years we'll be up on the debate platform with those running dog, capitalist, lackeys. We'll show 'em."

Is that a little clearer?

With respect,
Charles1952

Yes it is as clear as a bell. Your premise (yes you do have one look up the definition) is that 3rd party candidates are not popular enough to warrant being on the stage with Obamney. it is flawed, Obamney didn't have to work for 4 years to get their name out there when they first came on the scene all they did was run and the the media did the rest. You are advocating a double standard for libertarians. Ron Paul easily has the Support of these two but the media blacks him out or attacks him.

Johnson was told the same thing when he ran for governor and was polling at 2% But he got his name out there and won. Its not too late if Johnson got on TV as much as Obamney he could easily over take them. They are afraid of him if he does!

reply to post by charles1952


If a candidate is on the ballots, they should be in the debates, period. Shouldn't really matter what you think or what the establishment thinks as they (the candidate/s) have earned their spot on the ballot. Last I heard, Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in all 50 states pending "litigation" in 3 of those 50. "Popularity" before the debates is moot since the whole point of the debates is to increase popularity. This really isn't rocket science.