files formal FEC complaint against media bias

[Crystallas]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/15/gop-candidate-insists-free-tv-time-is-a-political-donation/

Read the link, this topic has nothing to do with Ron vs Gary. It is a complimentary position to our cause, without Ron being the one who throws himself under the bus.

[bluesc]

It belongs in opposing candidates, because he is an opposing candidate. We are for Ron Paul here.

[Echoes]

If he doesnt drop out before the primaries, ill never support him in the future. He knows he has no shot and knows he'll be takin votes away from Ron.

[low preference guy]

I have a hard time picturing Ron Paul trying to use government force to tell private companies what to do.

[maqsur]

If he doesnt drop out before the primaries, ill never support him in the future. He knows he has no shot and knows he'll be takin votes away from Ron.

Same used to be said about Nader back in '00. If Dr. Paul can't win on his own merit, don't blame Johnson (or anyone else). No one taking votes away from anyone else. People have to earn their votes.

[John F Kennedy III]

If he doesnt drop out before the primaries, ill never support him in the future. He knows he has no shot and knows he'll be takin votes away from Ron.

I second this.

[kylejack]

If he doesnt drop out before the primaries, ill never support him in the future. He knows he has no shot and knows he'll be takin votes away from Ron.
That's okay, plenty of others of us think candidates earn votes on their own merits and message and will continue to encourage Johnson to be active in politics.

[kylejack]

There are major differences between Paul and Johnson, most notably abortion.

[bluesc]

There are major differences between Paul and Johnson, most notably abortion.

"Humanitarian" wars. Fair Tax. Foreign policy.

[specsaregood]

I have a hard time picturing Ron Paul trying to use government force to tell the private companies what to do.

Yeah, not too libertarian of him.

[kylejack]

Are they private companies, or is it an incestuous media-government glob that protects itself from alternative viewpoints? General Electric is one of the biggest defense contractors and owns NBC.

[low preference guy]

Are they private companies, or is it an incestuous media-government glob that protects itself from alternative viewpoints? General Electric is one of the biggest defense contractors and owns NBC.

Whatever, the government shouldn't tell the media what to do.

[specsaregood]

Whatever, the government shouldn't tell the media what to do.

i wonder if johnson has qualified for public financing yet.

[jasonxe]

Im all for it if someone drops. Way too many people up on stage. Get bachmann, santorum, huntsman to drop in trade for gary.

[qh4dotcom]

If he doesnt drop out before the primaries, ill never support him in the future. He knows he has no shot and knows he'll be takin votes away from Ron.

He needs to drop out after New Hampshire...he's putting all his chips there.

And you got the same mentality about votes as the mainstream media. Votes cannot be taken away, they are earned. Ron Paul does not own them.

[klamath]

Yeaw you are right you have to earn votes and Johnson may very well be losing future votes that he will never be able to earn.

[Crystallas]

Way to go off topic in 1 second flat LOL. Thanks guys. Read the link, save the Ron vs GJ for a Ron vs GJ thread.

[klamath]

Way to go off topic in 1 second flat LOL. Thanks guys. Read the link, save the Ron vs GJ for a Ron vs GJ thread.
I think less of him because of this and no you can't try and limit critcismof him because you think GJ is not a opposing candidate. He is, just like the rest.

[Crystallas]

I think less of him because of this and no you can't try and limit critcismof him because you think GJ is not a opposing candidate. He is, just like the rest.

Ugh. On THIS TOPIC! The one here, the one presented in the article, he is not in opposition.

[69360]

I don't think any less of him. I'd still support him in future elections.

[specsaregood]

Ugh. On THIS TOPIC! The one here, the one presented in the article, he is not in opposition.

His position is in opposition to Dr. Pauls on this topic.

[Crystallas]

His position is in opposition to Dr. Pauls on this topic.

Wait, so Ron doesn't think the media is picking winners and losers, and giving unfair time on debates? hmmmmm?

[specsaregood]

Wait, so Ron doesn't think the media is picking winners and losers, and giving unfair time on debates? hmmmmm?

He doesn't think you should whine and complain to the govt and get the govt to tell the media what to do, he'd argue the marketplace should decide. Using the government is what statists do.

Next ya know GJ will arguing for the fairness doctrine.

[Crystallas]

He doesn't think you should whine and complain to the govt and get the govt to tell the media what to do, he'd argue the marketplace should decide. Using the government is what statists do.

Next ya know GJ will arguing for the fairness doctrine.

http://www.straferight.com/photopost/data/500/medium/double-facepalm.jpg

When the media is in bed with the government, there is no free market of media. I wouldn't expect or support Ron to file a FEC complaint, but someone else doing it, now, at this point and time of the primaries, has the potential to put a ton of pressure on the media, and favor Ron. It can backfire on Gary, but it wont backfire on Ron.

[low preference guy]

When the media is in bed with the government, there is no free market of media. I wouldn't expect or support Ron to file a FEC complaint, but someone else doing it, now, at this point and time of the primaries, has the potential to put a ton of pressure on the media, and favor Ron. It can backfire on Gary, but it wont backfire on Ron.

*triple facepalm*

Since there is no free market, maybe the government should regulate what I do in my house too. You know that public schools were used to train my employees? Maybe the government has a say because I'm earning money thanks to them!

[klamath]

Wait, so Ron doesn't think the media is picking winners and losers, and giving unfair time on debates? hmmmmm?
Going to the government will only enhance the power and links between the government and media. GJ is doing us NO favors.

[Crystallas]

Going to the government will only enhance the power and links between the government and media. GJ is doing us NO favors.

As Judge Nap would say. Don't tell Judges they are part of the Government. (Assuming they don't legislate.)

[Crystallas]

*triple facepalm*

Since there is no free market, maybe the government should regulate what I do in my house too. You know that public schools were used to train my employees? Maybe the government has a say because I'm earning money thanks to them!

*quadruple * infinity facepalm*

hyperbole much?

[low preference guy]

*quadruple * infinity facepalm*

hyperbole much?

The precedent of the government telling the media what to do will encourage further restrictions on freedom of speech, whether they're in bed with the government or not. You're against freedom of speech. You should re-examine your position.

[69360]

Precedent? The government already tells the media what to do.

The FCC???

[low preference guy]

Precedent? The government already tells the media what to do.

The FCC???

The more it interferes, the less freedom of speech there is.

[specsaregood]

The precedent of the government telling the media what to do will encourage further restrictions on freedom of speech, whether they're in bed with the government or not. You're against freedom of speech. You should re-examine your position.

oh come on! the govt is here to help! freedom of speech is only good if it is govt regulated, licensed and approved speech.

[specsaregood]

Precedent? The government already tells the media what to do.
The FCC???

you like the fcc?

[69360]

The more it interferes, the less freedom of speech there is.

Yet you fault Gary for using the system in place to gain more freedom of speech?

[low preference guy]

Yet you fault Gary for using the system in place to gain more freedom of speech?

Gary's action will result in LESS freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is about using your property to express yourself, not forcing other people to do things they don't want.

[Crystallas]

The precedent of the government telling the media what to do will encourage further restrictions on freedom of speech, whether they're in bed with the government or not. You're against freedom of speech. You should re-examine your position.

But it is not the speech, or the First Amendment that is in question here. It's exposing the methods determined by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates on a different platform. Much like taking the War Powers Act to the courts over Libya, this is an attempt to hold accountability to the debates. CBS has leaked the most documentation on their blatant bias, so they get called out by name, but this is much bigger than just CBS.

[kylejack]

Corporations aren't allowed to donate to Gary, yet corporations donate to the other candidates by giving them airtime.

[69360]

you like the fcc?

Yes and no. We need some order to prevent chaos on the airwaves. We could probably replace it with proper legislation.

[low preference guy]

Corporations aren't allowed to donate to Gary, yet corporations donate to the other candidates by giving them airtime.

And the solution is to allow corporations to donate to Gary, not to have more infringements in freedom of speech.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[low preference guy]

But it is not the speech, or the First Amendment that is in question here. It's exposing the methods determined by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates on a different platform. Much like taking the War Powers Act to the courts over Libya, this is an attempt to hold accountability to the debates. CBS has leaked the most documentation on their blatant bias, so they get called out by name, but this is much bigger than just CBS.

It's a violation of the freedom of speech of companies to tell them what they should broadcast.

[69360]

Gary's action will result in LESS freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is about using your property to express yourself, not forcing other people to do things they don't want.

When the political system is in bed with the media, it restricts our freedom. Gary is making a stand about it, I think rightfully so. The net result will be more freedom for all.

[low preference guy]

When the political system is in bed with the media, it restricts our freedom. Gary is making a stand about it, I think rightfully so.

Yeah, when somebody else steals, I have a right to steal as well!

[specsaregood]

Corporations aren't allowed to donate to Gary, yet corporations donate to the other candidates by giving them airtime.

uhm, why aren't corporations allowed to give GJ donations via airtime?

[Crystallas]

It's a violation of the freedom of speech of companies to tell them what they should broadcast.

Not quite. That is a runaway interpretation of the First Amendment under these circumstances, because the network is the one that benefits, and the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates is what dictates the rules. The media has some wiggle room for adjusting the rules, but the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates is what PREVENTS free speech.

[69360]

Yeah, when somebody else steals, I have a right to steal as well!

No it's the same concept as when you have polluting companies in bed with the EPA.

[specsaregood]

No it's the same concept as when you have polluting companies in bed with the EPA.

and giving the epa more power isn't the solution, enforcing property rights is.

[low preference guy]

No it's the same concept as when you have polluting companies in bed with the EPA.

This is pretty simple. Companies should broadcast what they want, period. Anyone who wants to impose rules on them are against freedom of speech.

[NeoconTea]

If Ron Paul did this everyone would love it :D

[low preference guy]

Not quite. That is a runaway interpretation of the First Amendment under these circumstances, because the network is the one that benefits, and the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates is what dictates the rules. The media has some wiggle room for adjusting the rules, but the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates is what PREVENTS free speech.

Isn't the CPD a private entity, not a governmental one? Isn't abiding by their rules voluntary?

[low preference guy]

If Ron Paul did this everyone would love it :D

I wouldn't, and he already said he wouldn't do that.

[kylejack]

Why does CBS own the airwaves they transmit on?

[1836]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/15/gop-candidate-insists-free-tv-time-is-a-political-donation/

Read the link, this topic has nothing to do with Ron vs Gary. It is a complimentary position to our cause, without Ron being the one who throws himself under the bus.

I'm not necessarily opposed to this. But it strikes me as odd that a free-marketer like Johnson would go and ask a big government agency to bring out the hammer like this.

Before you go off on me, yes, I understand how spectrum allocation works.

[specsaregood]

If Ron Paul did this everyone would love it :D

not even close.

[klamath]

This is really demonstrating how GJ and his supporters are not compatable with the philosophy of RP. When push comes to shove they run to the governement.

[Crystallas]

This is pretty simple. Companies should broadcast what they want, period. Anyone who wants to impose rules on them are against freedom of speech.

I agree, but you're missing some details here. Much like immigration, if you have a welfare state, you can't have open borders. The same goes if we have a regulated media that crushes free entry onto the market. The same free entry that many networks now enjoy, but others need to jump through somewhat impossible hoops to reach. If freedom of speech isn't there completely, you need to attack the system from ALL angles, that includes from within. And Gary Johnson isn't a bad person to do it.

[specsaregood]

Why does CBS own the airwaves they transmit on?

if you or GJ were arguing in favor of increasing the # of stations, making it easier and less restrictive to start your own media outlet I'd cheer you on.

[low preference guy]

I agree, but you're missing some details here. Much like immigration, if you have a welfare state, you can't have open borders. The same goes if we have a regulated media that crushes free entry onto the market. The same free entry that many networks now enjoy, but others need to jump through somewhat impossible hoops to reach. If freedom of speech isn't there completely, you need to attack the system from ALL angles, that includes from within. And Gary Johnson isn't a bad person to do it.

Exactly. You need to give up your free market principles in order to save the free market.

[1836]

This is really demonstrating how GJ and his supporters are not compatable with the philosophy of RP. When push comes to shove they run to the governement.

Bingo. Yes, this is an odd move. Gary Johnson is a smart guy and has done some brilliant things. He'd be a top pick for a Paul administration. But this doesn't mesh with what he says is his philosophy about government. It just doesn't.

[John F Kennedy III]

There are major differences between Paul and Johnson, most notably abortion.

And CFR ties. I'll never understand how a liberty minded person could support Gary Johnson.

[Crystallas]

Exactly. You need to give up your free market principles in order to save the free market.

Save what free market? Where does this free market exist? Not here, not with a bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

[low preference guy]

Save what free market? Where does this free market exist? Not here, not with a bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

It's shocking how easily you can justify violence. You know that telling a private company what they should do is an act of violence, right? All your rationalizations don't justify it.

[John F Kennedy III]

He needs to drop out after New Hampshire...he's putting all his chips there.

And you got the same mentality about votes as the mainstream media. Votes cannot be taken away, they are earned. Ron Paul does not own them.

He needs to drop out now.

[Crystallas]

It's shocking how easily you can justify violence. You know that telling a private company what they should do is an act of violence, right? All your rationalizations don't justify it.

What violence? Again, hyperbole.

[John F Kennedy III]

Im all for it if someone drops. Way too many people up on stage. Get bachmann, santorum, huntsman to drop in trade for gary.

I like this trade.

[low preference guy]

What violence? Again, hyperbole.

lol! I'm done here.

[John F Kennedy III]

Ugh. On THIS TOPIC! The one here, the one presented in the article, he is not in opposition.

Yes he is in opposition. And i think less of him for this too.

[John F Kennedy III]

The precedent of the government telling the media what to do will encourage further restrictions on freedom of speech, whether they're in bed with the government or not. You're against freedom of speech. You should re-examine your position.

This.

[ChrisDixon]

Isn't there something ironic about a libertarian filing a complaint with a government agency over a private corporation deciding what it will do with its product?

[John F Kennedy III]

*quadruple * infinity facepalm*

hyperbole much?

Calm down and think your posts through before hitting submit.

[John F Kennedy III]

Yes and no. We need some order to prevent chaos on the airwaves. We could probably replace it with proper legislation.

Why do we need order?

[Crystallas]

Isn't there something ironic about a libertarian filing a complaint with a government agency over a private corporation deciding what it will do with its product?

GJ is a fair-weather libertarian, hardly a real libertarian.

[Crystallas]

Calm down and think your posts through before hitting submit.

What is not calm about a *quadruple * infinity facepalm* ??

I am perfectly calm. Just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean I am not calm. Are you calm?

[John F Kennedy III]

If Ron Paul did this everyone would love it :D

Not me.

[low preference guy]

This was a good threat to distinguish who are the real supporters of freedom of speech from the posers who would abuse government force as long as they can get away with it.

[Crystallas]

Yes he is in opposition. And i think less of him for this too.

Disagree. He is not in opposition here. Opposition would mean he is doing something in opposite form. While he is not taking the same steps as Ron verbatim, he is not opposition. Different method, maybe.

[Crystallas]

This was a good threat to distinguish who are the real supporters of freedom of speech from the posers who would abuse government force as long as they can get away with it.

Or distinguish the anarchists from the libertarian-republicans.

[John F Kennedy III]

This is really demonstrating how GJ and his supporters are not compatable with the philosophy of RP. When push comes to shove they run to the governement.

Bingo. GJ: "I don't want big government except in situations that benefit me"

[69360]

This is pretty simple. Companies should broadcast what they want, period. Anyone who wants to impose rules on them are against freedom of speech.

Not anything. We can't legislate morality, but we do have and have had throughout the history of our country laws about decency.

But back on topic. Gary is alleging in his complaint that the media corporations have undue influence in elections. He posits that the airtime they give to the candidates they select for the debates is in effect a donation. I agree and think it's a wrong that should be righted.

But in this era of unlimited super pacs, what's to stop wealthy corporate backers from buying as much airtime as they please.

[low preference guy]

But in this era of unlimited super pacs, what's to stop wealthy corporate backers from buying as much airtime as they please.

And nothing should stop them. It's their money. They should be able to do what they want with it.

[John F Kennedy III]

Isn't there something ironic about a libertarian filing a complaint with a government agency over a private corporation deciding what it will do with its product?

Lol yes.

[69360]

Nothing should stop them. It's their money. They should be able to do what they want with it. Do you want the government to tell you how you can spend your money?

I'm for limited government, not no government. Limited government will prevent undue influence in the political process.

[low preference guy]

I'm for limited government, not no government. Limited government will prevent undue influence in the political process.

Not if you believe in the first amendment. The first amendment says "Congress shall write no law...". It doesn't have a "undue influence" exception. I'm for limited government, as were those who wrote the first amendment.

[69360]

Not if you believe in the first amendment. The first amendment says "Congress shall write no law...". It doesn't have a "undue influence" exception.

So if the Koch brothers buy every minute of airtime and advertise on every webpage on the internet for Cain, you are fine with that?

[John F Kennedy III]

What is not calm about a *quadruple * infinity facepalm* ??

I am perfectly calm. Just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean I am not calm. Are you calm?

Nothing to do with us disagreeing. And I am calm. But your rapid fire posting where you are completely missing the facts made me think you were upset. I apologize.

[low preference guy]

So if the Koch brothers buy every minute of airtime and advertise on every webpage on the internet for Cain, you are fine with that?

I agree with the statement below. I'll let you do the math.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

[69360]

I agree with the statement below. I'll let you do the math.

You didn't answer the question.

[John F Kennedy III]

This was a good threat to distinguish who are the real supporters of freedom of speech from the posers who would abuse government force as long as they can get away with it.

I agree. Notes have been taken.

[Crystallas]

And nothing should stop them. It's their money. They should be able to do what they want with it.

Then someone should step up, and eliminate the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates that dictates how these debates are done, and what influence the government has within the system. Hmmmm.... how do we do that? Hmmmmm? We have 2 months until the nomination voting process, and Ron is no spring chicken. I'm willing to bet that any solution you have would be too little, too late. But I'm more open minded than you think, why don't you give me your solution? Mind you, CBS has leaked the documents that already displayed their corrupt methods to go along with the false advertising of a "fair" debate.

[low preference guy]

You didn't answer the question.

of course I answered it. if you don't understand the meaning of "shall make no law", it's useless to talk with you.

[John F Kennedy III]

Disagree. He is not in opposition here. Opposition would mean he is doing something in opposite form. While he is not taking the same steps as Ron verbatim, he is not opposition. Different method, maybe.

?

He is running against Dr. Paul.

This makes him an opponent.

Which means he is opposition.

[kylejack]

Congress has already determined that only certain companies may broadcast on the airwaves. Johnson just wants his fair cut of the airtime. I see it like Ron Paul submitting earmarks for unconstitutional spending.

[69360]

of course I answered it. if you don't understand the meaning of "shall make no law", it's useless to talk with you.

Well since you refuse to answer, I will have to assume you don't have a problem with corporate money influencing elections.

[Crystallas]

Nothing to do with us disagreeing. And I am calm. But your rapid fire posting where you are completely missing the facts made me think you were upset. I apologize.

I accept your apology. Now what facts did I miss? And why did you call me out for "rapid fire posting" but turn and agree with lpg when he did the same? Double standard.

[Crystallas]

Congress has already determined that only certain companies may broadcast on the airwaves. Johnson just wants his fair cut of the airtime. I see it like Ron Paul submitting earmarks for unconstitutional spending.

It's a stretch(earmark reference), but I can see that.

[qh4dotcom]

And nothing should stop them. It's their money. They should be able to do what they want with it.

What about the ones who got bailed out? Should they do what they want to do with taxpayer money?

[John F Kennedy III]

So if the Koch brothers buy every minute of airtime and advertise on every webpage on the internet for Cain, you are fine with that?

I wouldn't like it, but it would be their Constitutional right to do so.

[musicmax]

Can't believe folks who blast CBS for giving RP 89 seconds are defending CBS for locking GJ out of the building.

[low preference guy]

What about the ones who got bailed out? Should they do what they want to do with taxpayer money?

That could've happened if they had a contract saying that they couldn't spend the money on certain things if they received the bailout. Otherwise it's not possible unless you amend the Constitution and add exceptions to the "shall make no law" rule of the First Amendment.

Another alternative is taking back the bailout money.

[low preference guy]

Can't believe folks who blast CBS for giving RP 89 seconds are defending CBS for locking GJ out of the building.

That's like saying that whoever defends freedom of speech is in favor of racism. Ridiculous. Nobody is defending CBS. We are attacking Gary's big government approach to solve problems.

[Uriah]

Same used to be said about Nader back in '00. If Dr. Paul can't win on his own merit, don't blame Johnson (or anyone else). No one taking votes away from anyone else. People have to earn their votes.

Exactly.

+rep

[Crystallas]

Can't believe folks who blast CBS for giving RP 89 seconds are defending CBS for locking GJ out of the building.

Shhh, don't use this logic. You'll get hyperbole in return.

[69360]

I wouldn't like it, but it would be their Constitutional right to do so.

The founding fathers never intended for constitution to protect the right to influence the election process.

[John F Kennedy III]

I accept your apology. Now what facts did I miss? And why did you call me out for "rapid fire posting" but turn and agree with lpg when he did the same? Double standard.

If you would like to review the facts just look at LPG's posts in this thread.

[Crystallas]

The founding fathers never intended for constitution to protect the right to influence the election process.

Some people think we should sit on our hands because they think the system self-corrects by the imaginary market, and somehow, human action is not a part of that very same market.

[Crystallas]

If you would like to review the facts just look at LPG's posts in this thread.

That's what I thought.

[69360]

Some people think we should sit on our hands because they think the system self-corrects by the imaginary market, and somehow, human action is not a part of that very same market.

This isn't the market, this is the leadership of our country. Filing an FEC complaint to ensure fair elections is hardly big government.

[Crystallas]

This isn't the market, this is the leadership of our country. Filing an FEC complaint to ensure fair elections is hardly big government.

Believe me, I agree. I think you misread my last comment. It wasn't aimed at you.

[John F Kennedy III]

That's like saying that whoever defends freedom of speech is in favor of racism. Ridiculous. Nobody is defending CBS. We are attacking Gary's big government approach to solve problems.

This.

[John F Kennedy III]

Can't believe folks who blast CBS for giving RP 89 seconds are defending CBS for locking GJ out of the building.

Can't believe people don't understand the first amendment.

[Crystallas]

This. That's your fact?


We are attacking Gary's big government approach to solve problems.
Big government approach? That's a fact now?

So what approach has worked to attack the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates???

[John F Kennedy III]

Shhh, don't use this logic. You'll get hyperbole in return.

That's not logic.

[John F Kennedy III]

The founding fathers never intended for constitution to protect the right to influence the election process.

What does that have to do with anything?

[specsaregood]

./

[69360]

The FEC isn't big government. It's necessary limited government. You all simply don't understand the nature of his complaint.

[Crystallas]

That's not logic. Yep, it sure is. It's great logic and irony.

[69360]

What does that have to do with anything?

You're all shouting first amendment here. That's not the issue. Gary's complaint is that the air time is a defacto campaign donation.

[low preference guy]

You're all shouting first amendment here. That's not the issue. Gary's complaint is that the air time is a defacto campaign donation.

But it's also a form of speech, and therefore no law can regulate it.

[specsaregood]

You're all shouting first amendment here. That's not the issue. Gary's complaint is that the air time is a defacto campaign donation.

It isn't, it is news coverage.

[John F Kennedy III]

But it's also a form of speech, and therefore no law can regulate it.

This.

[Crystallas]

Ron is in a close race for the top spots in many states, he can't jeopardize himself. The facts are clear, CBS advertised a fair debate, but they leaked a conflicting document that regarded blatant unfairness. That is a violation. Think what you want about Gary Johnson, but he is making a good case, and exercising his options at a time when Ron or one of Ron's supporters would not benefit from doing so themselves.

I'm still waiting on solutions for getting rid of the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. Everyone who thinks Gary is wrong, seems to avoid this major fact and flaw in our system that can't go touched without using the system one way or another.

[John F Kennedy III]

You're all shouting first amendment here. That's not the issue. Gary's complaint is that the air time is a defacto campaign donation.

The first amendment is the issue here.

[specsaregood]

I'm still waiting on solutions for getting rid of the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. Everyone who thinks Gary is wrong, seems to avoid this major fact and flaw in our system that can't go touched without using the system one way or another.

What does the commission have to do with primary debates?

[69360]

But it's also a form of speech, and therefore no law can regulate it.

Laws already do regulate it. Gary filed a complaint to have them enforced.

[low preference guy]

Ron is in a close race for the top spots in many states, he can't jeopardize himself. The facts are clear, CBS advertised a fair debate, but they leaked a conflicting document that regarded blatant unfairness. That is a violation.

It is a violation, a violation of journalistic ethics but not a violation of the law. If you don't exercise weekly, that's a violation of good health habits but it doesn't mean the government can use force to fix that violation. Same thing occurs when someone uses freedom of speech offensively. The government shouldn't interfere.

[low preference guy]

Laws already do regulate it. Gary filed a complaint to have them enforced.

All those laws are unconstitutional and therefore void.

[69360]

The first amendment is the issue here.

No fairness in the election process is.

[low preference guy]

No fairness in the election process is.

Where in the constitution is "fairness in the election process" defined?

[69360]

All those laws are unconstitutional and therefore void.

If you are going to dismiss laws, we're done here. My point is already made.

[low preference guy]

If you are going to dismiss laws, we're done here. My point is already made.

So you think government enforced discrimination was proper because Jim Crow laws were laws at the time? Very good to know.

[Crystallas]

What does the commission have to do with primary debates?

Everything. Ron rightfully blames the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates on why we do not see fair(to free market rules) debates, and therefore fairness for elections, also hinders all 3rd parties. He has faulted the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates for our lack of choices in elections, the way he faults the Federal Reserve for choices in currency.

The bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates is a MAJOR issue with Ron, but he's not pushing it while he has a chance. He pushed it, with Nader, Barr, Baldwin ect in 2008 after the convention. Due to how the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates interferes with media selections, we didn't hear a whole lot about it, but you can hear him talking about it in quite a few of his post-run 2008 speeches outside of congress. Maybe even more than that.

[69360]

Where in the constitution is "fairness in the election process" defined?

Article 2, and 12th, 14th,15th,19th,20th,22nd,23rd,24th,25th,26th ammendments

[low preference guy]

Article 2, and 12th, 14th,15th,19th,20th,22nd,23rd,24th,25th,26th ammendments

LOL. You have a weird notion of what "definition" means.

[69360]

So you think government enforced discrimination was proper because Jim Crow laws were laws at the time? Very good to know.

straw manning

[Crystallas]

So you think government enforced discrimination was proper because Jim Crow laws were laws at the time? Very good to know.

Hmm, I should try this hyperbole method too. Do you think we should stop driving on public roads because it conflicts with our movement?

[low preference guy]

straw manning

How? That was the law.

[John F Kennedy III]

Where in the constitution is "fairness in the election process" defined?

Nowhere.

[69360]

How?

I'm done with you, that's it.

[John F Kennedy III]

straw manning

Trolling.

[low preference guy]

I'm done with you, that's it.

Haha. This has been great fun. I point out that the laws are unconstitutional therefore the laws are not valid. Since I questioned "the law", I'm not to be taken seriously according to you. But if you question the Jim Crow laws it's ok. Because you do it. Let me tell you that laws don't determine what is right. If a law violates the first amendment it is no law. You've done a great job embarrassing yourself and entertaining us at the same time. Thanks.

[69360]

Haha. This has been great fun. I point out that the laws are unconstitutional therefore the laws are not valid. Since I questioned "the law", I'm not to be taken seriously according to you. But if you question the Jim Crow laws it's ok. Because you do it. Let me tell you that laws don't determine what is right. If a law violates the first amendment it is no law. You've done a great job embarrassing yourself and entertaining us at the same time. Thanks.

We have rule of law in our country. Nobody has given YOU the right to arbitrarily dismiss a law.

"Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect."


Your rudeness and straw man arguments are the embarrassment here.

[Brian4Liberty]

What does the commission have to do with primary debates?

Good question. AFAIK, it has no role in the Primary debates. It is a private organization that supposedly sets the rules for Democrat/Republican debates. It is a farce. It is appropriate for the Federal government to have predefined and unchanging rules for how the Federal elections take place. A Constitutional Amendment would work. The current situation with arbitrary and changing rules in the middle of the process is hardly acceptable. In addition, the Parties themselves should have predefined debate rules for their Primaries.

[specsaregood]

Everything. Ron rightfully blames the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates on why we do not see fair(to free market rules) debates, and therefore fairness for elections, also hinders all 3rd parties. He has faulted the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates for our lack of choices in elections, the way he faults the Federal Reserve for choices in currency.

The bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates is a MAJOR issue with Ron, but he's not pushing it while he has a chance. He pushed it, with Nader, Barr, Baldwin ect in 2008 after the convention. Due to how the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates interferes with media selections, we didn't hear a whole lot about it, but you can hear him talking about it in quite a few of his post-run 2008 speeches outside of congress. Maybe even more than that.

They have nothing to do with the Primary debates AFAIK. Political parties are private organizations, with the right to determine and govern internally as they see fit.

[Dianne]

I'm glad he filed !!!

[Crystallas]

They have nothing to do with the Primary debates AFAIK. Political parties are private organizations, with the right to determine and govern internally as they see fit.

Tell that to Ron who disagrees with this post on this issue. Just like the Federal Reserve is a private organization.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm glad he filed !!!

Yep, nothing wrong with him utilizing the system as it exists today.

[specsaregood]

Tell that to Ron who disagrees with this post on this issue.

Show me where Dr. Paul thinks that the government should dictate the internal affairs of political parties.

[Charlie Harris]

People stop getting angry with Johnson. He isn't the enemy. He is on our side. I hope he does drop out and endorse Ron though. I would love to see Johnson as VP.

[Crystallas]

Show me where Dr. Paul thinks that the government should dictate the internal affairs of political parties.Why? I never made this claim. He recognizes the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, much like the Federal Reserve is recognized as a private entity but entwined with the government. See Ron's 2008 3rd party debates(not 1988).

[Brian4Liberty]

Just for fun, here's an interesting article on the Constitutional Process for electing the POTUS. It is all about the Electors, and there is no Constitutional Law about Primaries or debates. Perhaps we need one (a Constitutional law about debates and Primaries), though with the corruption and absolute domination of the two Parties, a fair and balanced solution would probably not be possible.

History of the College of Electors:
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

An interesting background on intent, which has obviously been completely and utterly circumvented:



• believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry
St John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not
downright evil, and
• felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying
was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the
office.").
How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without
national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance
between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the
States and the federal government on the other?

[specsaregood]

Why? I never made this claim. He recognizes the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, much like the Federal Reserve is recognized as a private entity but entwined with the government. See Ron's 2008 3rd party debates(not 1988).

Once again, having nothing to do with the party primaries, which is the topic.

[Aratus]

The TRUMP Administration has filed a suit that contends that Facebook's business model is discriminatory.

[Aratus]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/15/gop-candidate-insists-free-tv-time-is-a-political-donation/

Read the link, this topic has nothing to do with Ron vs Gary. It is a complimentary position to our cause, without Ron being the one who throws himself under the bus.

Gary Johnson tried to alert people to this! Back in 2012!

[Aratus]

http://www.straferight.com/photopost/data/500/medium/double-facepalm.jpg

When the media is in bed with the government, there is no free market of media. I wouldn't expect or support Ron to file a FEC complaint, but someone else doing it, now, at this point and time of the primaries, has the potential to put a ton of pressure on the media, and favor Ron. It can backfire on Gary, but it wont backfire on Ron.

I can feel sorta sorry for Gary, even now...