Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 3 months ago
    While I do not care for Johnson any more than the other two its wrong to exclude him from the debate process. Johnson has a significant enough following to warrant a good look if only to provide him with the opportunity to disqualify himself when he speaks.

    I agree CBJ a large amount of noise should be made to see that he's afforded the opportunity to present himself to the nation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 3 months ago
    It would be good to have Johnson spread a little Libertarianism into the debates, But the set-up to the debates is very exclusionary. Most likely, the only way we'll hear from Johnson is through Trump if he brings it up.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 3 months ago
    Me dino does not think there will be much of a backlash if any because most Americans just plain do not care.
    I would love for Johnson to debate. I would love for him to tell an amplified national audience that all you need for a ten foot fence is an eleven foot ladder, that illegal immigrants can be taxpayers, that we should not destroy ISIS for not even being over there and all the other--whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
    Illegal immigrants? My bad.
    I most especially want to see Johnson throw a tantrum on stage when The Donald calls Gary's "undocumented immigrants" "illegal aliens."
    That would be a sight. I'd be laughing like I did when I previously saw him go bug-eyed and get his panties all in a wad over that..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 3 months ago
    The Democrat establishment would be terrified to give Jill Stein a place on the stage, as she makes a better argument for Bernie Sanders' policies that Bernie himself did.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 3 months ago
    Look at the clowns on the CPD:
    Howard G. Buffett, Chairman and CEO, The Howard G. Buffett Foundation
    John C. Danforth, Former U.S. Senator
    Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., President, Purdue University
    Charles Gibson, Former Anchor, ABC World News with Charles Gibson
    John Griffen, Managing Director, Allen & Company LLC
    Jane Harman, Director, President and CEO, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
    Antonia Hernandez, President and CEO, California Community Foundation
    Reverend John I. Jenkins, President, University of Notre Dame
    Jim Lehrer, Former Executive Editor and Anchor of the NewsHour on PBS
    Newton N. Minow, Senior Counsel, Sidley Austin LLP
    Richard D. Parsons, Senior Advisor, Providence Equity Partners LLC
    Dorothy S. Ridings, Former President, the League of Women Voters and former President and CEO, Council on Foundations
    Olympia Snowe, Former U.S. Senator
    Shirley M. Tilghman, Former President, Princeton University

    3 college presidents
    Two former republican senators ( but I kind of like Olympia)
    Two media company representatives
    California Community Foundation, Woodrow Wilson Foundation and League of Women Voters - clearly no axes to grind here
    God knows what the remaining LLCs/LLPs are all about

    Non-partisan, my petutie! Two party system reigns supreme!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Jer 8 years, 3 months ago
    All those who feel that Johnson should be in the debates might boycott the first debate and see what the reaction is. Get several million viewers to simply not tune in and the sponsors may notice.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 3 months ago
    15% might be a little high of a threshold, but there does need to be a cutoff or we would have the Green Party chick with her 3% and tying herself to a tree or whatever she did last week, the communist party candidate, etc. and soon is devolved into the 15 people on stage like a Republican primary free-for-all.

    If a person is below 10 or 15% though, realistically, I would be amazed if they got any electoral votes. Johnson might get New Mexico if he left the governorship in good shape (I have no idea).

    There is only one certainty, if you value personal freedoms, 4 or 8 more years of ObamaCare, cap & trade, and picking winners and losers in the economy while sucking every drop of blood out of enterprise might be more than our way of life can survive.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
    No one is entitled to be in an advertiser funded debate. What gets you invited is your ability to get people to watch the debate. Johnson apparently wouldnt pay his way in terms of advertising revenue.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 3 months ago
      Re: " What gets you invited is your ability to get people to watch the debate." Not true, what gets you invited is meeting the "qualifications" set forth by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a Republican/Democrat controlled group set up to make it impossible for third-party candidates to participate. The advertisers have no say in the matter.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
        But who pays to put it on?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 3 months ago
          Advertisers pay the networks, and consumers pay the advertisers. But advertisers do not dictate the structure or content of the shows where their ads appear (except for infomercials). This is especially true for news and news-related shows. Example, they do not choose who does and does not appear on the Sunday interview shows.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
            Advertisers pay the bills, so one way or another they assert their influence on the shows and the networks. Whether it be behind the scenes, or directly, advertisers control whats done. Consumers can affect what advertisers do through boycotts and threats to boycott, but only if there are a LOT of consumers that get together.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 8 years, 3 months ago
    strongly recommend reading...Two Tyrants...book about the democratic/republican stranglehold on the our election process...

    posted to facebook...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 3 months ago
    Strike by encouraging everyone to boycott the monopoly controlled debates.
    The mainstream media are not going to do this for Johnson. A few published articles encouraging the monopoly board to include Johnson, but it was done as a typical move to obscure their real objectives. The mainstream media are part of the problem, not the solution.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
      Arent the "debates" really just advertising revenue generators for the media? They make the decision as to which candidates will help them generate the most revenue. Johnson wouldnt generate conflict like the two parties would. No one thinks Johnson is a viable candidate (translate that to "not a threat to anyone")
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 3 months ago
        The problem is Johnson is a threat to both, but and both are cowards
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
          He could never win over either of them. If the election is very close anyone who siphoned off a few electoral college votes could possibly throw it to the house to decide I suppose. So maybe you are right. But I think Johnson would siphon off trump votes (anti establishment) rather than establishment Hillary votes
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 3 months ago
            What you think (re: siphoning) doesn't appear to be supported by the polls, but as you know, polls can be manipulated. It's all just a circus to cover up the con that both parties are running on all of us. Trump is in on it. Hillary is in on it. And it's mostly legal (since they create the laws), albeit unethical and unconstitutional if the constitution is applied ethically.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
              I heard that they were saying Johnson siphons from Hillary supporters. Who knows really. It just didn't make sense to me given Johnson is anti establishment and Hillary is the poster child for the establishment
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 3 months ago
                There are a bunch of Democrats who are turned off by her ethical issues and are now concerned about her health issues. Then you have the die-hard Sanders supporters. They would probably never vote for Trump, but Gary is an acceptable second choice for many of them. The polls are reflecting this sentiment.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  -
                • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
                  It's encouraging to see that happen. Just hard to imagine a true blue establishment socialist voting for a libertarian
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    -
                  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 3 months ago
                    To some of them Johnson is a lesser evil compared to Trump nad Hillary. Others(often the younger ones) are discovering they agree more with libertarians than with socialists. When they perceived the choice was between Trump, Hillary, and Bernie, they chose Bernie, not because he was a socialist, but because he was seen as more ethical than Hillary and less authoritarian than Trump. They see now that Johnson is ethical and represents what they really believe.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      -
                    • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
                      That's a good thing, but it's a little disturbing they would vote for a personality trait rather than what they would do in office. Although Bernie had the nice benevolent temperament, he is as much of the evil witch as Hillary and immediately sided with her instead of splitting off his movement from her. Bernie hasn't sided with Johnson either. And Johnson also praised Hillary. What an intellectually confused mess !!
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 3 months ago
        RE: "Arent the 'debates' really just advertising revenue generators for the media? They make the decision as to which candidates will help them generate the most revenue."

        The advertisers don't decide anything. They go along with whatever the Commission on Presidential Debates decides. And the Commission is composed exclusively of Republicans and Democrats, who answer to their respective parties rather than to the advertisers or the viewers.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
          I didn't think it was the advertisers themselves who decide, but someone pays the bills and in the end they would have to be the ones to set the rules
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 3 months ago
            The rules are set and enforced by a group whose primary allegiance is to the two-party political structure, not to the TV networks or their advertisers. I have yet to hear an advertiser weigh in on who should or should not be in the debates. Nor has Gary Johnson ever suggested that advertisers are blocking his bid to be on the debate stage.

            Furthermore, a three-way or four-way debate might actually draw in more viewers, since the two main candidates are so disliked.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 8 years, 3 months ago
              I think a libertarian view would be very refreshing and would attract a few more viewers. But Johnson having a whopping 8% doesnt say much for his appeal.

              You would never hear an advertiser weigh in. All those decisions are made in smoke filled rooms behind the scenes. I agree the two parties control things, and they wouldnt want a third party candidate to have any influence in the election.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 3 months ago
    I tend to think the article is correct about Democrat fears of Johnson are true because if Democrats thought he would only draw votes from Trump, I would expect the Democratic establishment with the help of some anti-Trump Republicans would work under the radar to get Johnson included.

    Edit: When I said this article was correct about Democrat fears, I was referring to the similar article freedomforall posted: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
    I liked both articles. My speculation about the Democrat establishment is based on quotes from the other article.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 3 months ago
      I suspect both candidates are afraid to have Johnson on the same stage with them. If the first debate does not go well for either or both candidates, public pressure is likely to mount for Johnson to be included in later debates.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo