Fennis
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Gary Johnson suing to be included in debates (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Fennis
- Start date
Fennis
Footballguy
The 7 page complaint is posted here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/gary-johnson-files-anti-trust-lawsuit-to-get-into
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/gary-johnson-files-anti-trust-lawsuit-to-get-into
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
She can file her own lawsuit instead of riding Governor Johnson's coattails.If he wins I suppose Jill Stein would also be included.
17seconds
root of all aliai
How many Libertarians have been on stage in a GOP/Dem Presidential debate?
Rayderr
Footballguy
only time in recent history when a third party was included in the debates was 92 when they added in Perot.
the moops
Footballguy
The suit contends that anyone on enough state ballots that could theoretically get the 270 should be allowed.She can file her own lawsuit instead of riding Governor Johnson's coattails.If he wins I suppose Jill Stein would also be included.
I haven't tried to analyse a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act since law school, but this seems like it may be more of a publicity stunt than a meritorious action. (It may be somewhat effective as a publicity stunt, though. It calls attention to the fact that the system is rigged in favor of Republicans and Democrats, and I think a lot of people would like to see a few more people in at least some of the debates.)
Here's Section 1 of the Act:
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.
There are at least a couple of potential problems with Gary Johnson's position.First, it's not clear that what the Commission on Presidential Debates is doing is a restraint of "trade or commerce." Does participation in a debate qualify as commercial activity? (Johnson's complaint says that it's commerce because the President is paid a salary, but I'm not sure if that will hold up.)
Second, even if "trade or commerce" is being restrained, it's not clear that what's restraining it is a "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy." As I understand things, the debate rules are set unilaterally by the Commission on Presidential Debates — not by contract between the Commission and the major political parties. (Johnson's complaint alleges that the Commission has held secret meetings with the major political parties to devise the rules. Will Johnson be able to support this claim with evidence?)
I hope Johnson wins, but I'm not sure he has much of a chance.
Here's Section 1 of the Act:
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.
There are at least a couple of potential problems with Gary Johnson's position.First, it's not clear that what the Commission on Presidential Debates is doing is a restraint of "trade or commerce." Does participation in a debate qualify as commercial activity? (Johnson's complaint says that it's commerce because the President is paid a salary, but I'm not sure if that will hold up.)
Second, even if "trade or commerce" is being restrained, it's not clear that what's restraining it is a "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy." As I understand things, the debate rules are set unilaterally by the Commission on Presidential Debates — not by contract between the Commission and the major political parties. (Johnson's complaint alleges that the Commission has held secret meetings with the major political parties to devise the rules. Will Johnson be able to support this claim with evidence?)
I hope Johnson wins, but I'm not sure he has much of a chance.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not a lawyer nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn but that was my take from recent Sherman Act suits that I have followed. I imagine the suit was brought in California not only because of Judge Gray's residential standing, but also his legal standing and based on the "best chance" assumption?
I do agree, also, that the publicity is worthwhile. I think this suit would get dragged out enough, either way, to avoid this election cycle. If the action assists with re-organization of the debate process in the future, it will have been worthwhile in my opinion.
I do agree, also, that the publicity is worthwhile. I think this suit would get dragged out enough, either way, to avoid this election cycle. If the action assists with re-organization of the debate process in the future, it will have been worthwhile in my opinion.
ren hoek
Footballguy
I'd vote for Vermin Supreme over Jill Stein.If he wins I suppose Jill Stein would also be included.
the moops
Footballguy
ThanksI'd vote for Vermin Supreme over Jill Stein.If he wins I suppose Jill Stein would also be included.
Rayderr
Footballguy
The commission is controlled by the 2 parties. No need for secret meetings when the heads of the commission are Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and former Massachusetts Senator Paul Kirk, a former head of the Democratic National Committee.
quickhands
Footballguy
You know who won't be included in debates? Gary Johnson......
Booooooooyaaaaaaaa
Booooooooyaaaaaaaa
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Now back to that Halo tourney.ThanksI'd vote for Vermin Supreme over Jill Stein.If he wins I suppose Jill Stein would also be included.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Exactly.'Sinrman said:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
How so?
Topes
Footballguy
Actually, there is. Said candidate must simply meet their requirements. One of those is 15% support in national poll. There are surely others. They're very restrictive. But it's not a matter of "no way." Perot was in on the debates in 1992.
Rayderr
Footballguy
But as I mentioned in the "are polls skewed" thread, the poll I've taken Johnson was not offered, nor accepted as an answer for who I was voting for. So, that makes it very difficult to get that 15%.
Ursa M
Footballguy
Pretty much. The vetting of the questions, the avoidance of direct answers and the general sham ambiance all point to the debates being a charade.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
They're going to say as little as they can get away with. The country will be much better off hearing a new perspective.
Fennis
Footballguy
Rayderr
Footballguy
This makes no sense. "We need to hear more! But not from him. Only those 2." Perhaps we should apply this logic to the FFA. No more posting in political threads from you Tim. You're just a distraction. We need to hear more from Jim11 and cr8f. And only those 2.
Fennis
Footballguy
This is the very first debate that the topics of each question in the debate were released to the candidates. Three questions will be devoted to the economy, one to health care, one to the "role of government" and one to "governing".
The debates are more and more of a joke every year.
The debates are more and more of a joke every year.
- disappointed we didn't get a "Johnson is an idiot" in there as well. Obama ran through debates and campaigning 4 years ago (with the argument made that he has been campaign mode since) - we heard plenty; how much has been true (rhetorical). Romney has campaigned for the last ever how many years (with the argument made that he flip flops so much that we don't really know what he is for and against). The "masses" have already heard enough sound bites. The partisans already have their minds made up (regardless of who ran). There is a bigger group of "disinterested" individuals who are tired of hearing from both and are curious what others have to say (I admit to not know much about Stein or other 3rd parties and would like to hear more besides just Johnson). There is ZERO harm "to the country" with letting qualified (i.e. - on enough state ballots to have a legitimate chance to take the electoral vote) individuals debate.
- funny though
the moops
Footballguy
Having a third or fourth person at the debates, while it would mean we would hear less from Obama/Romney, we would actually learn more about them. The inclusion of a Libertarian and/or Green perspective would bring less talked about subjects to the forefront. Instead of avoiding things that they two parties generally agree upon, they would be forced to at least talk about things that the public wants to know about (Patriot Act, foreign affairs, universal health care, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, federal reserve, etc)
Yeah, it's much better for the country to hear two douches blame the other side for our problems, tell outright lies about each other, and lie some more about how they care so much about the country and everything will be fine if you just vote for them. We need more of that!
The public doesn't need to hear more words from Obama and Romney. The public needs to hear more meaningful words from Obama and Romney.Including someone like Gary Johnson who would challenge both candidates on stuff they can't effectively challenge either other on (since they're both lousy at them) would help.
Obama has been a huge disappointment on civil liberties issues, but Romney can't challenge him effectively because he'd probably be even worse. Johnson, however, could clobber him.
Romney is really lacking a coherent budgetary or fiscal plan, but Obama can't challenge him effectively because — look at the current deficit. Johnson, however, could clobber him.
Johnson could also put pressure on both candidates on stuff like the War on Drugs.
An Obama-Romney debate would be far, far better if it included Johnson as well — even if we really cared only about Obama's and Romney's views.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I see there's a lot of disagreement, which I anticipated. That's fine, but I'm not fishing here.
What you guys don't seem to, or don't want to realize, is that the vast majority of people watching these debates know almost nothing about either Obama or Romney. They are not the "informed public." They need to learn about Obama and Romney in order to even have the pretense of making an educated choice. No matter how rehearsed, how superficial the answers are, it's still better for the public to learn something. Most of these people don't watch the news, they don't listen to speeches; this will all be new to them.
I think it's easy for those of us who discuss politics in this forum to forget that we are incredibly informed: we pay attention. We know a zillion times more than the average voter. if the debate were being held for our viewership, then I would have no problem with Johnson participating; in fact I would insist upon it, if I had any say. But we are not the primary viewers. Before you can teach algebra to a third grader, you need to teach them basic math.
What you guys don't seem to, or don't want to realize, is that the vast majority of people watching these debates know almost nothing about either Obama or Romney. They are not the "informed public." They need to learn about Obama and Romney in order to even have the pretense of making an educated choice. No matter how rehearsed, how superficial the answers are, it's still better for the public to learn something. Most of these people don't watch the news, they don't listen to speeches; this will all be new to them.
I think it's easy for those of us who discuss politics in this forum to forget that we are incredibly informed: we pay attention. We know a zillion times more than the average voter. if the debate were being held for our viewership, then I would have no problem with Johnson participating; in fact I would insist upon it, if I had any say. But we are not the primary viewers. Before you can teach algebra to a third grader, you need to teach them basic math.
timschochet
Footballguy
The one example we have of a third party participating (Ross Perot) didn't turn out the way you're describing. More recently, the inclusion of Ron Paul in the Republican primaries served no useful purpose whatsoever in learning about the candidates with a chance of winning. Paul challenged the main guys on most of the issues you have brought up. They responded by not responding; they simply ignored him.
My wife didn't know anything about McCain or Obama the last election cycle and I asked if she wanted to watch the debates with me - that was a no. NOW, she COULD tell you who should be voted off Survivor, Idol and/or any other reality show out there. This uniformed public you speak of, tim, will remained uninformed and not watch the debates.
I don't know whether to find it laughable, condescending or naive that you claim there are a group of individuals who "know nothing about Obama" (yes, you said both candidates) after 4 years - and then that those individuals will watch debates.
PS - as a side note. My then 12 year old son DID watch the debates from 2008 because I told him to quit being influenced by his teachers and educate himself (I was proud of him for doing so). After he watched the first debate, I asked what he thought. Him "I think they are both liars and I don't trust either one". Out of the mouth of babes.
I don't know whether to find it laughable, condescending or naive that you claim there are a group of individuals who "know nothing about Obama" (yes, you said both candidates) after 4 years - and then that those individuals will watch debates.
PS - as a side note. My then 12 year old son DID watch the debates from 2008 because I told him to quit being influenced by his teachers and educate himself (I was proud of him for doing so). After he watched the first debate, I asked what he thought. Him "I think they are both liars and I don't trust either one". Out of the mouth of babes.
I disagree on the inclusion of Paul. I, and I assume others, did learn about Romney and the other candidates. This is the segment of voters (however large or small) that has traditionally voted Republican (always or often) but is changing course because it was obvious there were no plan or ideas presented. I learned quite a bit from the debates this year - what I learned wasn't good. Anecdotal but I have to assume I am alone on this.
timschochet
Footballguy
Touche on the typo - how's that?
NCCommish
Footballguy
Claptrap. Adding another opinion to the mix isn't a problem. We have heard from both of them ad nausem. Romney refuses to say anything and if he does it will change soon. Obama has his fingerprints on stuff so we know what he wants to do. I don't know about you but I am not particularly impressed with Romney's blow up the budget plan. And I am not particularly impressed with the continuation of the "how many ways can we lock people up with as little recourse as possible" agenda under Obama. I'd like to hear someone else's answer. He is on at least 48 state ballots, he has done the work and he deserves a shot.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Good lord. The average voter doesn't know anything about Romney or the President of the United States so we need to make sure those are the only two views they hear? First, I doubt hardly if the uninformed voters will be tuning in at all; it's even more unlikely that they'll suddenly think, "hey, I haven't been paying attention up till now, I'd better get in on this." Second, if they do, they might just hear something they like from the other guy.
It's a pretty undemocratic opinion on Tim's part. Seems like he's more for the maintenance of the status quo than anything else.
It's a pretty undemocratic opinion on Tim's part. Seems like he's more for the maintenance of the status quo than anything else.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not democratic.
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
tim's shown himself to be an elitist who thinks few others are capable of his brilliance. Iirc, he's even against every citizen in America having a vote. No big shock to see him take this stance, as sad and disgusting as it is.
timschochet
Footballguy
Not correct at all. I'll explain when I'm not driving.