Gary Johnson suing to be included in debates (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Let me return to the algebra analogy: suppose you noticed mistakes in an introductory algebra textbook, and you figured out certain changes that could be made that would make the textbook much easier to understand. Would your next step be to invade a junior high school algebra classroom, interrupt the teacher, tell her that the textbook is incorrect? All you would do is confuse the students who are trying to learn something. Obviously, that is not the solution.Historically, the way that new ideas have been absorbed into the two parties is through writing- journals which are read by political thinkers. Think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Reason Foundation, the Cato Institute. I could give you plenty of historical examples, but the two most famous are probably the FDR Administration absorbing socialist ideas of the 1920s (and discarding the extremist ones) while ennacting the New Deal, and the Reagan Administration absorbing the "trickle down" ideas of 1970s conservative economists. They didn't absorb these ideas through national debates. They got them by reading journals and paying attention to the think tanks. That's how it gets done, and I think it's a good system.

Oh, sweet Jesus.I knew those crazy kids in Selma should have been writing in scholarly journals. Also, way to reduce the American labor movement to a few socialist articles from the 20s.

Yes, protests can also be a means to produce social change- not often, but it can happen.However, I thought this discussion was about debates. I don't recall those crazy kids in Selma winning their rights as a result of being added to a Presidential debate. Which makes your example a non-sequitur.My comments about the 20s socialists were a quick summary and not meant to be a dismissal.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Yes, protests can also be a means to produce social change- not often, but it can happen.

However, I thought this discussion was about debates. I don't recall those crazy kids in Selma winning their rights as a result of being added to a Presidential debate. Which makes your example a non-sequitur.

My comments about the 20s socialists were a quick summary and not meant to be a dismissal.

You made a specific claim about how "ideas are incorporated into a political party." You did not cabin that statement to only say that scholarship is used as a vehicle more often than debate appearances. Which is good, because that would be a spectacularly vapid point.But whatever. Do you really think the impediment to an acceptance of libertarian ideas is a lack of scholarship on the issue? I mean, seriously? We have entire fields of scholarship devoted to libertarian approaches to law, politics, and economics. Gary Johnson isn't going to pen an article that makes people say, "Gee, Nozick was never convincing to me, but now that I've read Johnson I'm sold!"

 

[timschochet]

Yes, protests can also be a means to produce social change- not often, but it can happen.

However, I thought this discussion was about debates. I don't recall those crazy kids in Selma winning their rights as a result of being added to a Presidential debate. Which makes your example a non-sequitur.

My comments about the 20s socialists were a quick summary and not meant to be a dismissal.

You made a specific claim about how "ideas are incorporated into a political party." You did not cabin that statement to only say that scholarship is used as a vehicle more often than debate appearances. Which is good, because that would be a spectacularly vapid point.But whatever. Do you really think the impediment to an acceptance of libertarian ideas is a lack of scholarship on the issue? I mean, seriously? We have entire fields of scholarship devoted to libertarian approaches to law, politics, and economics. Gary Johnson isn't going to pen an article that makes people say, "Gee, Nozick was never convincing to me, but now that I've read Johnson I'm sold!"

Lack of scholarship is not why I don't want to see Gary Johnson. Scholarship was my answer to the response of, "How else are we going to get new ideas absorbed by the two parties?" It was a secondary argument. The primary argument that I have had to face here is that we should have Gary Johnson in these debates because our two party system is unsatisfactory: there should be more political parties for the public to choose from. Putting aside the point that this is already, theoretically, the case (there is no law that would prevent anyone from voting for Johnson, and if he wins enough electoral votes he will be President,) I don't believe that our two party system is unsatisfactory and I see no purpose in attempting to weaken it. That seems to put me at odds with the majority in this thread.

 

[drummer]

. That seems to put me at odds with the majority in this thread.

Yep, I was right. This is about you.

 

[Brady Marino]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by timschochet . View it anyway?

Can't take it anymore, Tim. There was a time when your musings were amusing. Now, they're just insane and self-serving. The world doesn't revolve around your orbit, and your ignorance to this fact really makes me worry about you as a human being.Happy trails.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Just got another phone survey. My options were 1. Barack Obama, 2. Mitt Romney, 3. Someone Else, 4. Undecided. Can't figure out why Johnson can't show up in the polls.

Hit star for the secret menu. He's on there.

 

[timschochet]

. That seems to put me at odds with the majority in this thread.

Yep, I was right. This is about you.

I gave my opinion, people disagreed with me, I explained myself. That's all.

 

[timschochet]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by timschochet . View it anyway?

Can't take it anymore, Tim. There was a time when your musings were amusing. Now, they're just insane and self-serving. The world doesn't revolve around your orbit, and your ignorance to this fact really makes me worry about you as a human being.Happy trails.

Sorry you feel that way. Self-serving? My orbit? Insane? Not sure how anything I've written in this thread could cause someone to reach that conclusion. But it's a free country.

 

[Offa]

I'd say libertarian think tanks and scholarship has already been pretty influential. The US conservative intelligentsia have absorbed a lot of libertarian ideas, and libertarianism itself has almost gone mainstream. Especially compared to where it was say 20 or 30 years ago, when it was a fringe philosophy akin to anarchism.

 

[timschochet]

I'd say libertarian think tanks and scholarship has already been pretty influential. The US conservative intelligentsia have absorbed a lot of libertarian ideas, and libertarianism itself has almost gone mainstream. Especially compared to where it was say 20 or 30 years ago, when it was a fringe philosophy akin to anarchism.

I agree with you 100%.

 

[Slapdash]

Maybe adding a third rail to the fence makes it harder for Tim to straddle it.

Very true.

 

[timschochet]

Maybe adding a third rail to the fence makes it harder for Tim to straddle it.

Very true.

That's a funny line. I missed that post the first time around.

 

[drummer]

. That seems to put me at odds with the majority in this thread.

Yep, I was right. This is about you.

I gave my opinion, people disagreed with me, I explained myself. That's all.

That seems to put me at odds with the majority in this thread.

This is total ME vs. the FFA, which could have been left out while still making your point.

 

[timschochet]

. That seems to put me at odds with the majority in this thread.

Yep, I was right. This is about you.

I gave my opinion, people disagreed with me, I explained myself. That's all.

That seems to put me at odds with the majority in this thread.

This is total ME vs. the FFA, which could have been left out while still making your point.

I don't take any pleasure in so many people disagreeing with me. I don't get off on being some kind of argument martyr.

 

[drummer]

. That seems to put me at odds with the majority in this thread.

Yep, I was right. This is about you.

I gave my opinion, people disagreed with me, I explained myself. That's all.

That seems to put me at odds with the majority in this thread.

This is total ME vs. the FFA, which could have been left out while still making your point.

I don't take any pleasure in so many people disagreeing with me. I don't get off on being some kind of argument martyr.

I call bull####, and you added one more tim issue that whole FFA will disagree with. I see you working. You can't slip that one past the goal. Heck, I'll just do this for you once more, clarified:

That seems to put me at odds with the majority in this FFA.

 

[timschochet]

After giving some thought to this, I'm changing my position. I still believe that it is generally a poor idea to have extra people in the national Presidential debate, but there is an exception to every rule, and in this particular election there is a crucial issue which both Romney and Obama refuse to discuss.

That issue is the war on Afghanistan. Both Romney and Obama are essentially on the same side: they want it to continue, despite the fact that the situation over there is now worse than ever. The "surge" hasn't worked. These two guys need to be challenged on this issue and they're not doing so to each other. So in this one instance, I think a third party up there, such as a Gary Johnson, would be valuable.

 

[drummer]

After giving some thought to this, I'm changing my position. I still believe that it is generally a poor idea to have extra people in the national Presidential debate, but there is an exception to every rule, and in this particular election there is a crucial issue which both Romney and Obama refuse to discuss. That issue is the war on Afghanistan. Both Romney and Obama are essentially on the same side: they want it to continue, despite the fact that the situation over there is now worse than ever. The "surge" hasn't worked. These two guys need to be challenged on this issue and they're not doing so to each other. So in this one instance, I think a third party up there, such as a Gary Johnson, would be valuable.

tiMoney?

 

[UniAlias]

After giving some thought to this, I'm changing my position. I still believe that it is generally a poor idea to have extra people in the national Presidential debate, but there is an exception to every rule, and in this particular election there is a crucial issue which both Romney and Obama refuse to discuss.

That issue is the war on Afghanistan. Both Romney and Obama are essentially on the same side: they want it to continue, despite the fact that the situation over there is now worse than ever. The "surge" hasn't worked. These two guys need to be challenged on this issue and they're not doing so to each other. So in this one instance, I think a third party up there, such as a Gary Johnson, would be valuable.

I, for one, am completely shocked by this development.

 

[Sarnoff]

I'm changing my position

Has it been 4 days already?

 

[timschochet]

I'm changing my position

Has it been 4 days already?

I didn't expect to. Not in this case. But the more I thought about it, I decided I was wrong. That's all.

 

[drummer]

I'm changing my position

Has it been 4 days already?

I didn't expect to. Not in this case. But the more I thought about it, I decided I was wrong. That's all.

So this is still about you, yes?

 

[The Z Machine]

After giving some thought to this, I'm changing my position. I still believe that it is generally a poor idea to have extra people in the national Presidential debate, but there is an exception to every rule, and in this particular election there is a crucial issue which both Romney and Obama refuse to discuss. That issue is the war on Afghanistan. Both Romney and Obama are essentially on the same side: they want i t to continue, despite the fact that the situation over there is now worse than ever. The "surge" hasn't worked. These two guys need to be challenged on this issue and they're not doing so to each other. So in this one instance, I think a third party up there, such as a Gary Johnson, would be valuable.

Jill Stein is equally, if not more, qualified to discuss that issue.

 

[NCCommish]

I'm changing my position

Has it been 4 days already?

I didn't expect to. Not in this case. But the more I thought about it, I decided I was wrong. That's all.

Well evolving opinions are fine and it takes some guts to say I was wrong. Of course a lot of these guys aren't going to let you off the hook that easy but I'm good with it.

 

[Fennis]

It was all explained in post 31 if anyone cares.

 

[Fennis]

Someone has to stand up and call this what it is—a rigged system designed entirely to protect and perpetuate the two-party duopoly. That someone will be the Johnson campaign.

 

[humpback]

I'm changing my position

Has it been 4 days already?

I didn't expect to. Not in this case. But the more I thought about it, I decided I was wrong. That's all.

Well evolving opinions are fine and it takes some guts to say I was wrong. Of course a lot of these guys aren't going to let you off the hook that easy but I'm good with it.

It's better than his original stance, but it's still a squishy position.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Just got another phone survey. My options were 1. Barack Obama, 2. Mitt Romney, 3. Someone Else, 4. Undecided. Can't figure out why Johnson can't show up in the polls.

Do you get more options if you choose 3?

 

[identikit]

After giving some thought to this, I'm changing my position. I still believe that it is generally a poor idea to have extra people in the national Presidential debate, but there is an exception to every rule, and in this particular election there is a crucial issue which both Romney and Obama refuse to discuss. That issue is the war on Afghanistan. Both Romney and Obama are essentially on the same side: they want it to continue, despite the fact that the situation over there is now worse than ever. The "surge" hasn't worked. These two guys need to be challenged on this issue and they're not doing so to each other. So in this one instance, I think a third party up there, such as a Gary Johnson, would be valuable.

There's nearly always a 'crucial' issue that isn't discussed enough in every election year.You got your attention.

 

[timschochet]

After giving some thought to this, I'm changing my position. I still believe that it is generally a poor idea to have extra people in the national Presidential debate, but there is an exception to every rule, and in this particular election there is a crucial issue which both Romney and Obama refuse to discuss. That issue is the war on Afghanistan. Both Romney and Obama are essentially on the same side: they want it to continue, despite the fact that the situation over there is now worse than ever. The "surge" hasn't worked. These two guys need to be challenged on this issue and they're not doing so to each other. So in this one instance, I think a third party up there, such as a Gary Johnson, would be valuable.

There's nearly always a 'crucial' issue in every election year.

Disagree. I think it's rare that there is a crucial issue which both sides agree upon and therefore neither side will discuss. Afghanistan is of immediate, vital importance.

 

[Rayderr]

Just got another phone survey. My options were 1. Barack Obama, 2. Mitt Romney, 3. Someone Else, 4. Undecided. Can't figure out why Johnson can't show up in the polls.

Do you get more options if you choose 3?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Obama has committed to stopping combat operations in Afghanistan by 2013, pulling 23,000 troops out this week and ending all operations by 2014. Romney tentatively agrees with the 2014 deadline but has claimed he doesn't agree with the first two commitments. Johnson hasn't given a timeline, and has said that he would end the war in Afghanistan but wouldn't rule out keeping US troops at bases in Afghanistan.

I don't really see much contrast that Johnson provides on Afghanistan. Certainly not compared to something like the Drug War, but of course, that policy difference is hardly new or unique to this election.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Johnson lost his motion for a temporary restraining order today. Probably timchochet's fault.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

I was wrong.

 

[Slapdash]

After giving some thought to this, I'm changing my position. I still believe that it is generally a poor idea to have extra people in the national Presidential debate, but there is an exception to every rule, and in this particular election there is a crucial issue which both Romney and Obama refuse to discuss. That issue is the war on Afghanistan. Both Romney and Obama are essentially on the same side: they want it to continue, despite the fact that the situation over there is now worse than ever. The "surge" hasn't worked. These two guys need to be challenged on this issue and they're not doing so to each other. So in this one instance, I think a third party up there, such as a Gary Johnson, would be valuable.

Squishy, squishy.

 

[Fennis]

Obama has committed to stopping combat operations in Afghanistan by 2013, pulling 23,000 troops out this week and ending all operations by 2014. Romney tentatively agrees with the 2014 deadline but has claimed he doesn't agree with the first two commitments. Johnson hasn't given a timeline, and has said that he would end the war in Afghanistan but wouldn't rule out keeping US troops at bases in Afghanistan.

I don't really see much contrast that Johnson provides on Afghanistan. Certainly not compared to something like the Drug War, but of course, that policy difference is hardly new or unique to this election.

That's not true. Johnson's position (one I don't agree with) is for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.

ETA:

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Obama has committed to stopping combat operations in Afghanistan by 2013, pulling 23,000 troops out this week and ending all operations by 2014. Romney tentatively agrees with the 2014 deadline but has claimed he doesn't agree with the first two commitments. Johnson hasn't given a timeline, and has said that he would end the war in Afghanistan but wouldn't rule out keeping US troops at bases in Afghanistan.

I don't really see much contrast that Johnson provides on Afghanistan. Certainly not compared to something like the Drug War, but of course, that policy difference is hardly new or unique to this election.

That's not true. Johnson's position (one I don't agree with) is for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.

ETA:

I'm going on an interview he gave the Daily Caller. Johnson's foreign policy pronouncement are, at best, somewhat cryptic. He denounces the drone program but stops short of saying he will end it, saying he'd "leave all options on the table." He leaves open the possibility of keeping soldiers on bases. He opposes interventionism but supports a possible military mission to capture Joseph Kony.Maybe it's lost in translation. The Daily Caller isn't exactly my go to site for anything other than bow tie tips. But I just don't see a great difference going forward. The arguement that we've been there 10 years too long is compelling, but not really a differentiator in the election.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't really know what a good policy on Afghanistan is at this point.

 

[timschochet]

I don't really know what a good policy on Afghanistan is at this point.

Neither do I.But it needs to be addressed, urgently. And the problem is that neither candidate seems to want to talk about it. Now I recognize that those who disagreed with me from the start of this thread will point out that there are lots of issues neither candidate will talk about that a guy like Johnson would (for instance, drug legalization), but almost all of these are static issues- while they're not going away, it is not imperative to take immediate action. Afghanistan is a dynamic issue, and it's highly unusual that there would be a dynamic issue that neither major presidential candidate wants to address. That's why, this one time, it might be positve to have another guy in there.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't really know what a good policy on Afghanistan is at this point.

I think we had a chance to change course and blew it. We were too wedded to Karzai to do anything much different. What we should have done is empowered the tribal chiefs locally as far as state level courts, law enforcement, making the trains run, etc. And setup a limited federal government to handle national security, federal courts/enforcement, diplomacy and trade.

 

[Fennis]

Obama has committed to stopping combat operations in Afghanistan by 2013, pulling 23,000 troops out this week and ending all operations by 2014. Romney tentatively agrees with the 2014 deadline but has claimed he doesn't agree with the first two commitments. Johnson hasn't given a timeline, and has said that he would end the war in Afghanistan but wouldn't rule out keeping US troops at bases in Afghanistan.

I don't really see much contrast that Johnson provides on Afghanistan. Certainly not compared to something like the Drug War, but of course, that policy difference is hardly new or unique to this election.

That's not true. Johnson's position (one I don't agree with) is for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.

ETA:

It is fair to say he is not an isolationist. He believes in military involvement in some circumstances, trade agreements, and foreign relations. He has clarified (corrected) the remarks to the Daily Caller after he made them. Here is a huff post article that is very clear.

I Will End the War in Afghanistan and Bring Our Troops Home Now

You can read the article, but in it he clearly specifies:

1) cut military spending by 43%

2) withdraw completely from Afghanistan immediately

3) he was against the intervention in Libya

4) drastically cut our nuclear arsenal

5) drastically cut troop presence in Europe and Asia

6) use military when required (attack against US or in extreme cases that require US military action, the example he used was to prevent another Holocaust, Killing of Bin Laden)

 

[Two Deep]

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.

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!

 

[Fennis]

I don't really know what a good policy on Afghanistan is at this point.

IMO, withdrawal in a controlled manner. I think the Obama plan is as good as it gets.

 

[Two Deep]

I don't really know what a good policy on Afghanistan is at this point.

IMO, withdrawal in a controlled manner. I think the Obama plan is as good as it gets.

Pull completely out, occasionally bait some open field with weapons, and bomb the taliban when they go to retrieve them. And just for conditioning purposes blow #### up occasionally with drones. This will keep them looking over their shoulder which is very effective in controlling people.

 

[Fennis]

3 of the 10 sponsors of the debate have now dropped out from sponsoring the debates, Philips, BBH, and YWCA. Hopefully more to come.http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/philips-pulls-presidential-debate-sponsorship-137053.html[snip]

Philips Electronics has dropped its sponsorship of the 2012 presidential debates, citing a desire not to associate itself with "partisan politics," POLITICO has learned. Philips is the third and by far the largest of the original ten sponsors to pull its support, following similar decisions by British advertising firm BBH New York and the YWCA over the last week. Their decision to do so is seen as the result of intense lobbying efforts by advocacy organizations -- primarily Libertarian supporters of former Gov. Gary Johnson -- who oppose the exclusion of third-party candidates and who therefore believe the Commission on Presidential Debates is an anti-Democratic institution.

[/snip]

 

[NCCommish]

3 of the 10 sponsors of the debate have now dropped out from sponsoring the debates, Philips, BBH, and YWCA. Hopefully more to come.http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/philips-pulls-presidential-debate-sponsorship-137053.html[snip]

Philips Electronics has dropped its sponsorship of the 2012 presidential debates, citing a desire not to associate itself with "partisan politics," POLITICO has learned. Philips is the third and by far the largest of the original ten sponsors to pull its support, following similar decisions by British advertising firm BBH New York and the YWCA over the last week. Their decision to do so is seen as the result of intense lobbying efforts by advocacy organizations -- primarily Libertarian supporters of former Gov. Gary Johnson -- who oppose the exclusion of third-party candidates and who therefore believe the Commission on Presidential Debates is an anti-Democratic institution.

[/snip]

Good. Even if Gary doesn't get in maybe we'll get some changes.

 

[B-Deep]

y'all'z too tough on timmy

 

[SacramentoBob]

3 of the 10 sponsors of the debate have now dropped out from sponsoring the debates, Philips, BBH, and YWCA. Hopefully more to come.http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/philips-pulls-presidential-debate-sponsorship-137053.html[snip]

Philips Electronics has dropped its sponsorship of the 2012 presidential debates, citing a desire not to associate itself with "partisan politics," POLITICO has learned. Philips is the third and by far the largest of the original ten sponsors to pull its support, following similar decisions by British advertising firm BBH New York and the YWCA over the last week. Their decision to do so is seen as the result of intense lobbying efforts by advocacy organizations -- primarily Libertarian supporters of former Gov. Gary Johnson -- who oppose the exclusion of third-party candidates and who therefore believe the Commission on Presidential Debates is an anti-Democratic institution.

[/snip]

Nice.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I had no idea the debates were sponsored. They should have revolving signage around the stage, like a soccer match.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I had no idea the debates were sponsored. They should have revolving signage around the stage, like a soccer match.

This next question is brought to you by Nexium, the healing Purple Pill.

 

[B-Deep]

i think the debates need the college game day crew beforehand

i want lee corso to put on a giant elephant or donkey head