Obama, Romney refuse to debate Gary Johnson

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Nope. Looking at past polls at this time proves how wrong they end up being. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Nope. Looking at past polls at this time proves how wrong they end up being. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] You're going to have to explain and justify this and then show how it supports your original point.Pirate700

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] You're going to have to explain and justify this and then show how it supports your original point.Pirate700

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Because third party people aren't included in the polls. Only rarely included. And yet add up to 6+% in many elections over the last 30 years. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Because third party people aren't included in the polls. Only rarely included. And yet add up to 6+% in many elections over the last 30 years. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="Jesus-Jew"]RON PAUL 2016champion837

No thanks. Ron Paul has some very ridiculous policies.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Because third party people aren't included in the polls. Only rarely included. And yet add up to 6+% in many elections over the last 30 years. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]Again, you can't combine all third parties together as a stat for a single third pary having a chance to win. Abbeten

[QUOTE="champion837"]

[QUOTE="Jesus-Jew"]RON PAUL 2016mingmao3046

No thanks. Ron Paul has some very ridiculous policies.

lol since when has writing a book on something made you an expert on it :lol:

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="champion837"]

No thanks. Ron Paul has some very ridiculous policies.

chessmaster1989

lol since when has writing a book on something made you an expert on it :lol:

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I'm not I'm pointing out 6-10% of the popular vote is a lot of people. Therefore, we deserve more than two candidates debating. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"] yea ron paul is such a bad choice... .imgur.com/lhnOX.jpgmingmao3046

lol since when has writing a book on something made you an expert on it :lol:

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

lol since when has writing a book on something made you an expert on it :lol:

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] when you write a book about something, it shows you have a keen interest in said thing. nothing about book=expertmingmao3046

Having a different opinion alone does not mean that you are entitled to presenting it in a policy discussion. Ideally, it would be economists presenting these arguments, and politicians voting on them.

I hate the current politics in this country.

Anyway, you guys seem to know nothing. You should watch this video interview of Gary Johnson.http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/JohnsonL

Why would they? They literally have no reason to.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"]how so? federal reserve and income tax is when the government starting expanding rapidly and we got involved in wars we shouldn't have been inmingmao3046

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"]how so? federal reserve and income tax is when the government starting expanding rapidly and we got involved in wars we shouldn't have been inmingmao3046

It's a crime that notable third party members aren't allowed to debate. I understand we just can't have everyone up there giving their 2 cents but people like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson need to be given some attention.

I don't understand how any American with a bit of intelligence can support the current two party system. You twits want change then you should fvcking give it a chance.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"]how so? federal reserve and income tax is when the government starting expanding rapidly and we got involved in wars we shouldn't have been inmingmao3046

Not really. Limited printing of money can bolster short-run growth its true, but long run monetary neutrality roughly holds. So printing money is only really good as a short-run increase is spending. On the other hand, because printing money devalues currency, it is not good as a long-run solution to debt (since creditors will not be inclined to lend again if you pay them off with devalued currency).

So the Fed has little incentive to print money wildly, and the ability to print money is by no means a free lunch. Indeed when you look at the history of the Fed (especially over the last 30 years), it has typically worked to keep inflation at a low but positive rate, as it should.

It's a crime that notable third party members aren't allowed to debate. I understand we just can't have everyone up there giving their 2 cents but people like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson need to be given some attention.

I don't understand how any American with a bit of intelligence can support the current two party system. You twits want change then you should fvcking give it a chance.

whiskeystrike

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"]how so? federal reserve and income tax is when the government starting expanding rapidly and we got involved in wars we shouldn't have been inmingmao3046

to quote the infamous Sun_Jew:

You are bad at analogies.

Why give national publicity to a potential threat (more a spoiler than an actual competitor). The two party establishment want to keep their power and they do that by passing campaign regulations that the third parties spend almost all of their money on trying to follow. The minimum percentage required to get into these debates is nearly impossible to obtain (this is more of the media's fault). It is essentially limiting the presidential race to those with lots of money AKA Republicans, Democrats and Billionaire independents like Ross Perot. Legitimate third party candidates who are truly serious about running like the Greens and Libertarians don't have a chance and it is the caused by the democrats and republicans.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"]printing money out of thin air gives you the ability to go beyond your means...similar to a parent dropping off his 15 year old daughter at the mall with a credit card saying "have fun dear!". mingmao3046

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] This is an awful analogy because printing fiat currency is not at all the same concept as borrowing on credit.Abbeten

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] This is an awful analogy because printing fiat currency is not at all the same concept as borrowing on credit.Abbeten

Who's going to buy US treasuries once the Fed's gone?

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"]im not comparing borrowing on credit to fiat currency. Im comparing our government to a 15 year old girl. When it is given an endless supply of currency...it will expandMafiree

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"]im not comparing borrowing on credit to fiat currency. Im comparing our government to a 15 year old girl. When it is given an endless supply of currency...it will expandNeoklondiak

Who's going to buy US treasuries once the Fed's gone?

Really hate this thing going around that rates on government debt are only low because the Fed is buying it like crazy. It isn't. It has gone through two bouts of it, and rates have stayed stable after it stopped.

Third party candidates have no chance in winning. That said, I still find myself supporting Gary Johnson (because honestly, why should I vote for Robomney?) at the moment until something major happens.

I don't see why Gary Johnson or any other serious contender shouldn't be given the chance to debate. You can argue they won't win but that's not a good reason for excluding them from the debates.

I would've agreed to debate Johnson, this way if my main opponent didn't, I would look better than the guy who declined the debate.

There are roughly 43 political parties in the United States. If one includes Gary Johnson in the debate, should we include the other party nominees as well. If not, why not? What metric are we then to apply?

Ross Perot garnered enough popular support to be included in the debate. No current third party candidate can say that. Therefore, the debate will be between Obama and Romney.

Put more simply: Gary Johnson isn't qualified to be on the debate stage because he lacks the voter base. The onus is upon him to change that, and he hasn't done so.

lol Amusing.