Be happy to stop when You stop attacking us Lefties.

No, you stop the personal attacks. If you can't control yourself
all you'll do is get yourself banned, and then it messes things
up for us who then must play to a bunch of mods who for all the
right reasons are watching us with very hard eyes.



edit:
As for calling some one a coward, it is an easy thing to do over the internet I think...

---

Be happy to stop when You stop attacking us Lefties.

No, you stop the personal attacks. If you can't control yourself
all you'll do is get yourself banned, and then it messes things
up for us who then must play to a bunch of mods who for all the
right reasons are watching us with very hard eyes.



edit:
As for calling some one a coward, it is an easy thing to do over the internet I think...

I'm trying to get banned.
Are You a mindless Parrot?
You may be a few years older than me, but i'm mega-years wiser than You.

i'm mega-years wiser than You.

Yes how foolish of me, it will never happen again.

---

BTW: Please stop with the personal attacks.

Be happy to stop when You stop attacking us Lefties.

"Attacking" Lefties is not a personal attack.
"Attacking" any politic idea is not a personal attack.
Upholding what in the US is the First Amendment is global. (more or less).
Just saying!

Let him say what he wishes to say and let him pay the price for it if he goes too far.
I didn't see a question from him because I have him blocked currently. I see no reason at present to remove him. All he's doing lately is attacking anybody and everybody and I will not be drawn into it. I can't force you to not respond to him, let alone quote him ... .
And if he hasn't been able to tell that I was one of the first in this country, as evidenced in Bob's Trump thread, to speak out against Trump, consistently, with good reasons and quite repeatedly? Well, it just goes to show wha I alluded to earlier ... he does not go back and read in-depth and does not connect dots.
I DO NOW AND ALWAYS HAVE DENOUNCED TRUMP!
Is that clear enough?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

P.S.-it is NOT a more realistic question. The REALITY is that Johnson IS on the ballot in all 50 states and, last I heard, Stein is on the ballot in about 23. Though I plan to respond further to Clyde, overall, it IS due to lack of attention and lack of being able to take part in the debates ruining their chances. The set up of the electoral votes will THEREFORE lead to a result of little or none won in the 2 states Clyde has mentioned and none elsewhere. Were it more like districts electing their Reps in the House, then district by district, they might do a little better.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Authoritarians come in several flavors: Conservative and Liberal.
Both would have all others live under their rules with no choice.
Neither flavor of Authoritarian is willing to uphold of all ten of the ammendments in the Bill of Rights.
The opposite of Authoritarian is Libertarian.
Libertarians believe in the freedom to choose... everything.
Libertarians are willing to uphold ALL ten ammendments in the Bill of Rights.
It's only the miopic media and those who accept the distortions created by them that make it seem that there is only Left and Right in politics.
If you are willing to put as much effort into rational thought as you are into baiting each other for argument, you will see that there are many areas of grey and areas of middle ground that can be agreed upon in politics.
Give that Bill of Rights another read with the light on.
It may be that you decide to vote Libertarian as well.
(Or you may just prefer to bow down to the Authoritarians.)

Thnx for the link.

---

And to answer a previous question... YES.
Being in the National Presidential Debates makes all the difference.
Before the arbitrary 15% rule in 2000 imposed by the 2 party controlled Debate Comission, John Anderson and Ross Perot both polled double and triple AFTER the debates than before. If the voters get a chance to hear another point of view, the only harm done is damage to the entrenched two party system.

---

BTW: Please stop with the personal attacks.

Be happy to stop when You stop attacking us Lefties.

guido...
I attack Ideologies.

Maybe we should do like Stuart Smalley when discussing politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIETlxquzY

The Johnson / Weld campaign printed a full page ad in the NY Times today requesting the Presidential Debate Commission include the Libertarians on the first debate in New York on September 24.
Each state has requirements that must be met to be included on the ballot. Some of these requirements are very difficult to make.
Gary Johnson has met all these roadblocks in ALL 50 states and will be on the November ballot.
It really doesn't make much sense to exclude a candidate from the national debates that is going to be on the ballot in all 50 states +...
(unless, of coarse, they wish to supress the ideas of the that candidate)
http://ballot-access.org/2016/09/14/gary-johnson-full-page-ad-in-new-york-times-on-debates/
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/09/gary-johnson-campaign-runs-full-page-ad-in-todays-new-york-times-calling-for-debate-inclusion/

Johnson's New York Times ad argues that there are metrics the debate commission should look at when considering his potential placement in the debates.
He cites a Quinnipiac poll that found that 62 percent of Americans want to see Johnson in the debates and also lists off a bunch of high profile newspaper endorsements, including those of the Chicago Tribune, the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Boston Herald.

When you want to hide a news release from public scrutiny, the best way to do it is to release it on Friday afternoon. The Commission on Presidential Debates did just that.

"In spite of polls showing that 54-76 percent of voters want Libertarian Gov. Gary Johnson included in debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) announced that it will not include Johnson in the September 26 debate, nor will it include Gov. William Weld in the October 4 vice presidential debate.

"In their attempt to bolster the chances of the two most hated presidential candidates in American history, the Commission’s decision makes a mockery of their stated mission to 'provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.'

"The American people overwhelmingly want to find out more about Gary Johnson, the most qualified candidate for President, and the only candidate, other than the two corrupt old party bullies, who will be on the ballot in all fifty states, plus D.C., giving every single American the opportunity to vote for him.

"Not having Gov. Johnson on the stage for the first debate turns it from the Super Bowl of politics into the Pro Bowl of politics; boring and unwatchable.

"The CPD is controlled by Democrats and Republicans. The only thing worse than supporting either of their nominees is colluding against the American people to support both of them.

"It's time to vote for freekin' Batman."

http://balancedrebellion.com/

This reasonably entertaining ad has been viewed by over 23,000,000 as of Sept.21,2016

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gary-johnson-future-human-race-space-exploration-article-1.2805788

"We do have to inhabit other planets. I mean, the future of the human race ... is space exploration. So, no, we should be prudent with the environment. We care about the environment," he said.

---

The National Bureau of Economic Research has found that newspaper endorsements matter little except when they are unexpected, which causes voters to take notice.
In New Hampshire the Union Leader has not endorsed anyone except a Republican for over 100 years. The Chicago Tribune and The Detroit News join The Richmond Times-Dispatch, The Winston-Salem Journal and the New Hampshire Union-Leader in endorsing Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson.

From the Chicago Tribune:



“Libertarians Gary Johnson of New Mexico and running mate William Weld of Massachusetts are agile, practical and, unlike the major-party candidates, experienced at managing governments. They offer an agenda that appeals not only to the Tribune's principles but to those of the many Americans who say they are socially tolerant but fiscally responsible…
“This year neither major party presents a good option. So the Chicago Tribune today endorses Libertarian Gary Johnson for president of the United States. Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles — and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016.”



From The Detroit News -



“Gary Johnson has excelled at public service. In his eight years as the Republican governor of New Mexico, he cut taxes while balancing the budget, and left the state in better fiscal shape than when he arrived. He also was a champion of school choice, and the state under his guidance made great strides in improving education….
“Johnson is joined on the ticket by William Weld, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, who likewise posted a record of good government and fiscal discipline. Johnson says he and Weld will govern as a team. That is encouraging. These are two honest, principled politicians who would put the interests of the nation first.”

As my last post to this thread, I offer a letter from Gary Johnson:

The Commission on Presidential Debates decides which candidates the American people will hear from.

The media decides whether the American people should know about that decision-making process.

Fact is, the Commission on Presidential Debates is, literally, a partnership between the Republican and the Democratic Parties. The same two parties that have a self-interest in keeping a third voice off the stage.

Fact is, the Commission on Presidential Debates, the Republican and Democratic Parties, the pollsters, and the media sponsors that are given the privilege of hosting the debates, have private agreements that govern who will and will not be allowed to participate.

The 15% rule is a publicly disclosed threshold. But nobody really knows the private agreements that lie beneath.

For all the talk about Trump not releasing his tax returns or the 33,000 emails Clinton intentionally deleted from her server, why doesn’t anyone demand that the CPD disclose the secretive agreements that have reduced our political discourse to a shouting match between two unpopular candidates?

Nobody makes these demands because the major media outlets, the two parties, their pollsters, their pundits, and partisan organizations like the CPD are all part of a system that has been designed to insulate the two parties from the competition of ideas.

We need to start scrutinizing all the components of the two-party system. Not just the parties, but the organizations that work beside it, the election law barriers that are erected to protect it, the media that is controlled by it, and the individuals who make a living within it.

They all have a self-interest in its preservation.

The public, however, deserves unbiased scrutiny of the facts.

It is a lack of scrutiny that allows us to focus on whether or not a third party candidate reaches the arbitrary 15% polling threshold to get into the debates, thus avoiding more fundamental questions like: is our presidential debate about who can win or lose according to a poll conducted before the debate, or who can win or lose after there has been an open exchange of ideas?

And it is a lack of scrutiny that allows us to accept the top-line analysis of these polls without regard to the nature of their conduct.

If our democracy is supposed to embrace a free exchange of ideas, we must scrutinize those who have set a standard of debate entry so high, that it excludes two former governors who have ballot access in all 50 states.

We should look deeper into the polls that exclude independent voters, young voters, low-income voters, and other substantial subsections of the electorate.

We should ask why media outlets make up headlines to suggest that our campaign is not 100% committed to offering voters an alternative to BOTH Clinton and Trump.

We should reject the notion that the American people are either red or blue.

And, finally, we should ask why more and more voters feel like our democracy is anything but democratic.

-Gov. Gary Johnson

---

Bill Weld, former Republican governor of Massachusetts and current Libertarian candidate for vice president, "vouches" for Clinton:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I4Fkiu2nak

He appears to suggest that wavering libertarian party supporters in swing states should vote for Clinton (Drumpf would be "chaos for the country").

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bill Weld, former Republican governor of Massachusetts and current Libertarian candidate for vice president, "vouches" for Clinton:

Racheal Maddow asks Gov. Weld to compare Clinton vrs. Trump and he is very clear in answering the question, He describes what he thinks is absolutely wrong with Trump (as a presidential candidate) and repeats it when Maddow, in typical MSNBC fasion tries again to bait him.
He does "vouch" for Clinton's abilities and character. He also explains that her policies are NOT his nor that of the LIBERTARIAN Party.
I thought he did quite well in his articulate, thoughtful, honest answers to Maddow's leading and convoluted question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I4Fkiu2nak
**start @ 3:55 for the last part.

He appears to suggest that wavering libertarian party supporters in swing states should vote for Clinton (Drumpf would be "chaos for the country").

No, NOT "should"
Better listen to it again Bobby. He did NOT "suggest" that. Only Maddow suggested that and tried over and over to get him to say it. What he said was that all voters will be voting for principles they believe and that Libertarians will be voting for their concience and in what they believe.
He repeated several times that he believes Hillary to be capable and Trump is not. He also said that the differences in Libertarian and Democrat platforms would be what Libertarians would likely be voting for.

Clinton supporters (like MSMBC) will believe the way you have suggested about this brief interview and have been blogging and posting this opinion of what they wanted to hear over and over. So what's new?

MSNBC is difficult to watch for me. I commend both Weld and Johnson for subjecting themselves to the coniving, twisted questioning of both Maddow and Mathews.

Bill Weld, former Republican governor of Massachusetts and current Libertarian candidate for vice president, "vouches" for Clinton:

Racheal Maddow asks Gov. Weld to compare Clinton vrs. Trump and he is very clear in answering the question, He describes what he thinks is absolutely wrong with Trump (as a presidential candidate) and repeats it when Maddow, in typical MSNBC fasion tries again to bait him.
He does "vouch" for Clinton's abilities and character. He also explains that her policies are NOT his nor that of the LIBERTARIAN Party.
I thought he did quite well in his articulate, thoughtful, honest answers to Maddow's leading and convoluted question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I4Fkiu2nak
**start @ 3:55 for the last part.

He appears to suggest that wavering libertarian party supporters in swing states should vote for Clinton (Drumpf would be "chaos for the country").

No, NOT "should"
Better listen to it again Bobby. He did NOT "suggest" that. Only Maddow suggested that and tried over and over to get him to say it. What he said was that all voters will be voting for principles they believe and that Libertarians will be voting for their concience and in what they believe.
He repeated several times that he believes Hillary to be capable and Trump is not. He also said that the differences in Libertarian and Democrat platforms would be what Libertarians would likely be voting for.

Clinton supporters (like MSMBC) will believe the way you have suggested about this brief interview and have been blogging and posting this opinion of what they wanted to hear over and over. So what's new?

MSNBC is difficult to watch for me. I commend both Weld and Johnson for subjecting themselves to the coniving, twisted questioning of both Maddow and Mathews.

I listened to it a number of times before posting, and it's why I started my sentence "he appears to", rather than an outright declaration of "Weld suggested" or "Weld endorsed"; though I'll admit that on a further re-listen, I should not have said "wavering libertarians", his comments were directed to people choosing between voting Libertarian or Democratic. To my mind Weld got as close as he could to saying a North Carolina voter should vote "tactically" for Clinton over the Libertarian Party without actually saying it. It may be that Weld almost advocated tactical voting as he does not want the Libertarians in North Carolina to be the target of the same kind of anger that was directed at Green Party supporters in Florida (and more specifically, at Nader) in 2000.

Like Nader in 2000, Weld wants neither the Democratic nor Republican Party candidate to be President; unlike Nader in 2000, he seems willing to accept to reality of the current election and address the question "if not Libertarian then who?", and as far as I can tell, his answer was Clinton ("competent, capable, business-like") not Drumpf ("chaos").

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

After listening again for the 5th time...

I (mostly) agree with your revised assessment.
If Maddow had not pushed the "gossemere ceiling" herself, she would have most likely got the same response from Weld that he had already given 3 times.

Most Libertarians vote for principles outlined in their party platform.
The new small "l" libertarians' vote will most likely be influenced by a huge variety of other reasons. I think that is the distinction that Weld did not want to articulate.

Libertarians really bristle at the charge of "spoiler" leveled by the two party duopoly.
It is the opposite of what they are trying to do; bring about political change.
That is a defeatist attitude that is promoted by Rep's & Dem's, and only in their self interest, despite what would be good for the nation as a whole.