Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 61

Thread: Let Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates!

  1. #1

    Let Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates!

    “War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
    Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I'd like to see a debate between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  4. #3
    Someone I know took the test at http://www.isidewith.com to see who they would most likely want to vote for and it come up with Jill Stein which kind of surprised me, wouldn't mind seeing that debate.
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by orenbus View Post
    I'd like to see a debate between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.
    You and the other 0.003% of the voting population that would tune in for it. :P
    "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
    ~ President John Q. Adams ~

  6. #5
    I bet they'll let Jill debate, but not Gary.
    Statistics don't lie, people do.

  7. #6
    They should let every candidate with ballot acces to enough states to get 270 electoral votes debate.
    Rand Paul 2016

  8. #7
    only 97000 more to go.
    The wisdom of Swordy:

    On bringing the troops home
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They are coming home, all the naysayers said they would never leave Syria and then they said they were going to stay in Iraq forever.

    It won't take very long to get them home but it won't be overnight either but Iraq says they can't stay and they are coming home just like Trump said.

    On fighting corruption:
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Trump had to donate the "right way" and hang out with the "right people" in order to do business in NYC and Hollyweird and in order to investigate and expose them.
    Fascism Defined

  9. #8
    I don't have a problem with Stein in the debates. I'm just not interested in hearing her speak, especially about economics. Her economic policies are worse than Obama and Romney.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by orenbus View Post
    Someone I know took the test at http://www.isidewith.com to see who they would most likely want to vote for and it come up with Jill Stein which kind of surprised me, wouldn't mind seeing that debate.
    Read her website. Nobody on this site that I know of would agree with her policies.

  12. #10

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Darguth View Post
    You and the other 0.003% of the voting population that would tune in for it. :P
    Well that still more then who watch the NHL

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by jbauer View Post
    Well that still more then who watch the NHL
    Psh, I'm from Metro Detroit. Huge chunk of the population watches the NHL here
    "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
    ~ President John Q. Adams ~

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by tttppp View Post
    Read her website. Nobody on this site that I know of would agree with her policies.
    Yea it wasn't someone on this website, just someone I know that was planning on voting for Ron Paul, probably had crossover appeal with some Foreign Policy, Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties issues.
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  16. #14
    I would vote for Jill Stein.
    I have no problems with universal health insurance and social programs for the least fortunate. (It's really not a whole lot different than police. The police are their to protect our freedom from other people. Health insurance is there to protect our freedom from the unlucky random possibility of becoming sick.)
    And I care about the environment. And I do think the rich should pay more in taxes. There is a lot of evidence that in free markets, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. They own land, they have more start up resources. They playing field is not as level as libertarians pretend. I see no reason why the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes. Throughout most of US history before 1950, the richest Americans were paying over 90% in taxes. Obama made a decent point. Rich people don't become rich all on their own. They use a lot of society's resources, and with the playing field tilted in their favor, there is no reason they shouldn't give more back to society.

    Say whatever you want about how it's wrong to steal from someone to save someone else. But consider this:
    America produces enough food to feed the entire world FACT
    Billions of people die every year from hunger FACT
    Billions of people are malnourished FACT
    Billions live on less than $1 a day FACT
    Something is very wrong here, and if you really care about freedom, this is where you should start--the billions of people who have almost no freedom.
    Last edited by cdc482; 09-10-2012 at 02:51 PM.
    “War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
    Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by cdc482 View Post
    I would vote for Jill Stein.
    I have no problems with universal health insurance and social programs for the least fortunate. (It's really not a whole lot different than police. The police are their to protect our freedom from other people. Health insurance is there to protect our freedom from the unlucky random possibility of becoming sick.)
    And I care about the environment. And I do think the rich should pay more in taxes. There is a lot of evidence that in free markets, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. They own land, they have more start up resources. They playing field is not as level as libertarians pretend. I see no reason why the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes. Throughout most of US history before 1950, the richest Americans were paying over 90% in taxes.
    Are you being serious or sarcastic?

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by orenbus View Post
    Yea it wasn't someone on this website, just someone I know that was planning on voting for Ron Paul, probably had crossover appeal with some Foreign Policy, Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties issues.
    She addresses a lot of the same problems as Ron Paul and does have some good ideas, but when it comes to economics, its all more regulations and government solutions. In many ways she's the anti Ron Paul



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by tttppp View Post
    She addresses a lot of the same problems as Ron Paul and does have some good ideas, but when it comes to economics, its all more regulations and government solutions. In many ways she's the anti Ron Paul
    We call it regulations. Others call it leveling the playing field. If you look at the details of what she proposes, I think you'll find it's all pretty reasonable, even if it does take away some freedom.

    To give you just one example of the semantics between what we call regulations and others call reasonable, consider Rand Paul's crusade for people's right to bigger toilets. Assuming there were not far bigger issues in this country and this issue was something worth dealing with, why do we have a right to bigger toilets? There is a fixed supply of water. A central authority, our government, manages this supply of water for the benefit of everyone and the environment. I think this is only fair.
    "How can we be free, when the water we drink is owned by some company." Ultimately, this could happen in an American libertarian society (and it has happened in other countries). So while it is partially true, that the size of our toilets is regulated, it doesn't really limit freedom as much as freedom would be limited by removing the regulation.
    “War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
    Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by cdc482 View Post
    I would vote for Jill Stein.
    I have no problems with universal health insurance and social programs for the least fortunate. (It's really not a whole lot different than police. The police are their to protect our freedom from other people. Health insurance is there to protect our freedom from the unlucky random possibility of becoming sick.)
    And I care about the environment. And I do think the rich should pay more in taxes. There is a lot of evidence that in free markets, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. They own land, they have more start up resources. They playing field is not as level as libertarians pretend. I see no reason why the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes. Throughout most of US history before 1950, the richest Americans were paying over 90% in taxes. Obama made a decent point. Rich people don't become rich all on their own. They use a lot of society's resources, and with the playing field tilted in their favor, there is no reason they shouldn't give more back to society.

    Say whatever you want about how it's wrong to steal from someone to save someone else. But consider this:
    America produces enough food to feed the entire world FACT
    Billions of people die every year from hunger FACT
    Billions of people are malnourished FACT
    Billions live on less than $1 a day FACT
    Something is very wrong here, and if you really care about freedom, this is where you should start--the billions of people who have almost no freedom.
    How does this guy have more rep than me?
    "Look, the American people have chosen to have a fiat money standard because they want a welfare state. You cannot have a gold standard and a welfare state at the same time. You have to make the choice. We have made a decision as a society that we’ll be dealing with the welfare state." -Alan Greenspan

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by cdc482 View Post
    We call it regulations. Others call it leveling the playing field. If you look at the details of what she proposes, I think you'll find it's all pretty reasonable, even if it does take away some freedom.

    To give you just one example of the semantics between what we call regulations and others call reasonable, consider Rand Paul's crusade for people's right to bigger toilets. Assuming there were not far bigger issues in this country and this issue was something worth dealing with, why do we have a right to bigger toilets? There is a fixed supply of water. A central authority, our government, manages this supply of water for the benefit of everyone and the environment. I think this is only fair.
    "How can we be free, when the water we drink is owned by some company." Ultimately, this could happen in an American libertarian society (and it has happened in other countries). So while it is partially true, that the size of our toilets is regulated, it doesn't really limit freedom as much as freedom would be limited by removing the regulation.
    Or a more common sense alternative is to not let the government manage the water supply. "how can we be free when the water we drink is owned by some company?" Be free and pay for your water
    "Look, the American people have chosen to have a fiat money standard because they want a welfare state. You cannot have a gold standard and a welfare state at the same time. You have to make the choice. We have made a decision as a society that we’ll be dealing with the welfare state." -Alan Greenspan

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by dbill27 View Post
    Or a more common sense alternative is to not let the government manage the water supply. "how can we be free when the water we drink is owned by some company?" Be free and pay for your water
    Tell that to the billions of people working 70 hour weeks in China, India, and Africa who are still undernourished. Are they free?
    If you study the effects of what Americans call free markets, you would not be surprised that some people become extraordinarily wealthy while many become poorer and poorer. Adam Smith himself was a government regulator. He believed in regulations on markets and laid out very specific criteria for which a true free market could operate. He is often quoted by conservatives, but if you actually read his works, you will find that he was more in line with modern day progressives.
    “War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
    Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul

  24. #21
    Say what you want about the rights of businesses. All I know is that something is very wrong when Apple makes >40% profit, the CEO makes billions per year, the board of directors makes hundreds of millions per year, the stockholders get double digit returns for DOING NOTHING and the people who make the actual product work 70 hour weeks JUST TO SURVIVE, living in a $#@!ty room with 7 other equally depressed people, eating $#@!ty food.
    If you really care about freedom, you wouldn't be touting the free market so much.
    “War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
    Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by cdc482 View Post
    Tell that to the billions of people working 70 hour weeks in China, India, and Africa who are still undernourished. Are they free?
    If you study the effects of what Americans call free markets, you would not be surprised that some people become extraordinarily wealthy while many become poorer and poorer. Adam Smith himself was a government regulator. He believed in regulations on markets and laid out very specific criteria for which a true free market could operate. He is often quoted by conservatives, but if you actually read his works, you will find that he was more in line with modern day progressives.
    If I study the effects of what americans call free markets? What americans? what free markets? Tell china to stop buying our debt if their people are undernourished.
    "Look, the American people have chosen to have a fiat money standard because they want a welfare state. You cannot have a gold standard and a welfare state at the same time. You have to make the choice. We have made a decision as a society that we’ll be dealing with the welfare state." -Alan Greenspan

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by cdc482 View Post
    We call it regulations. Others call it leveling the playing field. If you look at the details of what she proposes, I think you'll find it's all pretty reasonable, even if it does take away some freedom.

    To give you just one example of the semantics between what we call regulations and others call reasonable, consider Rand Paul's crusade for people's right to bigger toilets. Assuming there were not far bigger issues in this country and this issue was something worth dealing with, why do we have a right to bigger toilets? There is a fixed supply of water. A central authority, our government, manages this supply of water for the benefit of everyone and the environment. I think this is only fair.
    "How can we be free, when the water we drink is owned by some company." Ultimately, this could happen in an American libertarian society (and it has happened in other countries). So while it is partially true, that the size of our toilets is regulated, it doesn't really limit freedom as much as freedom would be limited by removing the regulation.
    I'm sure there is a better free market solution to that problem, but for arguments sake, Ill give you that. What Stein proposes is flat out overregulation. Government should ideally have a FEW laws and strict enforcement. Just like any business. Stein wants a law for everything. It just doesn't work. She's just another example of a small minded person in politics. If someone commits a crime, her solution is they should just add more laws. She never considers that they should just eenforce the laws we already have or enable greater competition which could eliminate the problem better and with less costs. That's why I like Ron Paul. He gets to the root of the problem.

  27. #24
    mm
    Quote Originally Posted by cdc482 View Post
    Say what you want about the rights of businesses. All I know is that something is very wrong when Apple makes >40% profit, the CEO makes billions per year, the board of directors makes hundreds of millions per year, the stockholders get double digit returns for DOING NOTHING and the people who make the actual product work 70 hour weeks JUST TO SURVIVE, living in a $#@!ty room with 7 other equally depressed people, eating $#@!ty food.
    If you really care about freedom, you wouldn't be touting the free market so much.
    BTW, tell the mexican people who immigrated here from their socialist country who are living seven deep in an apartment that free(er) markets aren't better.
    "Look, the American people have chosen to have a fiat money standard because they want a welfare state. You cannot have a gold standard and a welfare state at the same time. You have to make the choice. We have made a decision as a society that we’ll be dealing with the welfare state." -Alan Greenspan



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by tttppp View Post
    I'm sure there is a better free market solution to that problem, but for arguments sake, Ill give you that. What Stein proposes is flat out overregulation. Government should ideally have a FEW laws and strict enforcement. Just like any business. Stein wants a law for everything. It just doesn't work. She's just another example of a small minded person in politics. If someone commits a crime, her solution is they should just add more laws. She never considers that they should just eenforce the laws we already have or enable greater competition which could eliminate the problem better and with less costs. That's why I like Ron Paul. He gets to the root of the problem.
    I can agree with this, and I'm sure Jill Stein could too. Simpler law is better for many reasons, especially because the American public can understand it.
    “War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
    Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by cdc482 View Post
    I can agree with this, and I'm sure Jill Stein could too. Simpler law is better for many reasons, especially because the American public can understand it.
    Then why doesn't she change her website and explain this more effectively? She keeps talking about more laws, she never mentions less laws and more competition.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by tttppp View Post
    I'm sure there is a better free market solution to that problem, but for arguments sake, Ill give you that. What Stein proposes is flat out overregulation. Government should ideally have a FEW laws and strict enforcement. Just like any business. Stein wants a law for everything. It just doesn't work. She's just another example of a small minded person in politics. If someone commits a crime, her solution is they should just add more laws. She never considers that they should just eenforce the laws we already have or enable greater competition which could eliminate the problem better and with less costs. That's why I like Ron Paul. He gets to the root of the problem.
    Unfortunately, that won't work. Much like the Republican Party, welfare for the disadvantaged and least well off is not very popular in "communist" China.
    I believe the idea is something along the lines of:
    Those who were born in rural communities that are now industrialized will have to work their way to the top just like Donald Trump did. How dare I suggest that those who work 70 hours per week in a factory STEAL money from those who worked just as hard are now making 100 times as much in cushy office jobs.
    Please correct me if I'm wrong, because that idea seems incredibly stupid, contrary to freedom, and selfish.
    “War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
    Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by dbill27 View Post
    mm

    BTW, tell the mexican people who immigrated here from their socialist country who are living seven deep in an apartment that free(er) markets aren't better.
    Last time I checked, Mexico was not a socialist country. Am I wrong?
    Also, there are LOTS of counter examples to this. The countries with the highest standard of living (a better measure of wealth IMO) in the world are socialist (or as they call it, progressive). Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and the list goes on...
    The USA may be the richest, but the lower standard of living shows just how corrupt and greedy the people can be.
    Last edited by cdc482; 09-10-2012 at 03:21 PM.
    “War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
    Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by tttppp View Post
    She addresses a lot of the same problems as Ron Paul and does have some good ideas, but when it comes to economics, its all more regulations and government solutions. In many ways she's the anti Ron Paul
    Although I agree with you that she has her share of differences with Ron Paul on economics and government's role, I tend to think what she is saying is what she would actually do if in office, I can't say the same about Obama or Romney so in that sense if I had to I'd probably vote for her over Obama or Romney if I had to choice between those three. Of course if you add in Gary Johnson or a write-in Ron Paul option, I'm going to go with one of those choices first.
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by dbill27 View Post
    How does this guy have more rep than me?
    He has 800 more posts than you do, it's a numbers game.
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Gary Johnson vs. Jill Stein debate tonight @ 9 EST
    By emazur in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 11-06-2012, 01:58 AM
  2. IVN presidential debate: Gov. Gary Johnson and Dr. Jill Stein.
    By phill4paul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-21-2012, 09:39 AM
  3. Gary Johnson Johnson and Jill Stein debate live online (Oct 18)
    By farreri in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-16-2012, 01:05 AM
  4. Let Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates!
    By cdc482 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 09-16-2012, 03:52 PM
  5. Gary Johnson If Gary Johnson got into the debates
    By GeorgiaAvenger in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 06:41 AM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •