Presidential Debate Commission Sued by Gary Johnson

Presidential Debate Commission Sued by Gary Johnson

www.latimes.com

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson earlier this month filed a lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates, claiming that the organization’s practices violate antitrust laws and alleging collusion between the commission and the country’s two dominant political parties.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Johnson and his lawyers are cleverly trying to use anti-trust commerce clause to try and get him into debates. Their rationale is that Johnson and his VP (both unemployed) are being denied a chance at Presidential salaries due to the Presidential Debate Commission exluding them from debates. The emphasis of this lawsuit is to paint the electoral process as 'commerce' related through being employed as a President. This lawsuit is a long shot by most legal standards, but is great to see nonetheless.


www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

GOOD FOR HIM. I vote absentee now and so I was able to vote for him last week.
I know he can't win .. but it was my protest vote against the stranglehold that the Dems and
Republicans have on the USA .. and my protest vote against Obama and Romney both.

I thought libertarians weren't against suing....

Thought the whole thing was against government... Guess I was wrong...

If anyone is interested in learning more about the hidden history of the fradulent Presidential Debate Commission, watch this video:



Here is another great and relevant video with Jesse Ventura and Piers Morgan:

reply to post by TheReligiousHoax


Good! The presidential debates are a scam and the "Commission on Presidential Debates" is bought and paid for by corporations like Budweiser and others. The questions are scripted and so are the answers. All of the questions are known beforehand, so the two candidates can prepare their answers. Third-party candidates are not allowed into their little two-party debate club.

See this thread for a good, must-watch video: *Documentary* Are the presidential debates a scam? Here is the truth

Edit: Ah, you beat me to it. That's the video there, the first one you posted. Good video.

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
I thought libertarians weren't against suing....

Thought the whole thing was against government... Guess I was wrong...

Yep, looks like they weren't against suing. And looks like it was against government hanky-panky. Guess you thought RiGHT!

It's a duopoly.

It has been for decades.

Where do you think the meme "Any vote for a third-party is thrown away." came from?

And of course the insidious corollary "Any vote for a third-party hurts your party."

The directors and script-writers, the people who orchestrate the questions, and every 'paid for' service of the media is geared to accommodate an "either/or" choice.... which is why people like Perot had to pay their own way if they wanted to speak with the American people without the media controlling the theater.

Originally posted by Maxmars
It's a duopoly.

It has been for decades.

Where do you think the meme "Any vote for a third-party is thrown away." came from?

And of course the insidious corollary "Any vote for a third-party hurts your party."

The directors and script-writers, the people who orchestrate the questions, and every 'paid for' service of the media is geared to accommodate an "either/or" choice.... which is why people like Perot had to pay their own way if they wanted to speak with the American people without the media controlling the theater.

edit on 2-10-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

Agree on all points. I think we are reaching the point where the two options being presented by the duopoly are so similar now that voting for a 3rd party is no longer considered as throwing your vote away. I argue that voting for either Obama or Romney equates to throwing your vote away, since they are nearly identical on every stance. Obama's 1st term = Bush's 3rd term.

The issus that matter to me most are civil liberties, ending the war on drugs, ending our ridiculous incarceration rate, holding financial institutions accountable for the recent recession and ending our corporate fuled wars in the ME. And guess what? Romney and Obama are identical on every one these issues. I won't betray my values just because the system is rigged. Hopefully more Americans start holding true to their principles, and do away with their 'lesser of two evils' mindset.

Well, good for Gary Johnson! Each presidential election becomes more painful and more irritating to watch.

I avoid watching these idiotic debates like the plague. They're a fraud, a sham, and a joke that isn't funny. The fact that only the dem and pub candidates are allowed to participate is a stain on America.

They're advertising this fantastic show now on the local noon news. Only a fool would think that those sock puppets who get to be on TV are actually speaking the truth, or even their own words.

Watching this election year is like watching a train wreck. It's horrible, and the end result is the same: Total destruction, and nobody will be happy with the outcome.

Originally posted by TheReligiousHoax

The issues that matter to me most are civil liberties, ending the war on drugs, ending our ridiculous incarceration rate, holding financial institutions accountable for the recent recession and ending our corporate fuled wars in the ME. And guess what? Romney and Obama are identical on every one these issues. I won't betray my values just because the system is rigged. Hopefully more Americans start holding true to their principles, and do away with their 'lesser of two evils' mindset.

Those issues are mostly the same that matter most to me as well. We should really hope they can get into the debates and get the exposure, and even more so that they could somehow pull off a win It may be our last best hope for this country.

We have a good momentum going into this, enough to really put a dent in their loco-motives and get it on the right track. One really big question will remain - can we still get an honest and accurate vote count?

reply to post by TheReligiousHoax


I'll bet a dozen donuts he loses or the case get's thrown out. The Justice system is bought and paid for. It also happens to be run by the two parties in question. They aren't going to let go anytime soon.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by TheReligiousHoax

 

I'll bet a dozen donuts he loses or the case get's thrown out. The Justice system is bought and paid for. It also happens to be run by the two parties in question. They aren't going to let go anytime soon.

Yeah, gee, that's reason enough to not even try. Might as well just all head to the slaughterhouse and save them the bother.

I don't expect this will give us a big fat win this November but we have to make every effort, no?

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by TheReligiousHoax

 

I'll bet a dozen donuts he loses or the case get's thrown out. The Justice system is bought and paid for. It also happens to be run by the two parties in question. They aren't going to let go anytime soon.

Yeah, gee, that's reason enough to not even try. Might as well just all head to the slaughterhouse and save them the bother.

I don't expect this will give us a big fat win this November but we have to make every effort, no?

edit on 2-10-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

I agree with Eron. If you watch the first Youtube video at the end they give you several ways to help end the corruption in Presidential elections. One way to do this is exactly what we are doing on this site: exposing the fraud and talking about it. I would also recommend posting that video to your FB wall (if you have an FB account), and help others understand that there is no choice between Obama and Romney. Just watch, the 2012 'debates' will be another series of "lovefests" as GWB described his 2000 debate with Al Gore. Let's just hope people open their eyes to see what is really going on here.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro


Yeah, gee, that's reason enough to not even try. Might as well just all head to the slaughterhouse and save them the bother.

I said no such thing. I simply stated the reality of the situation.

I thought a presidential debate by default logic had to allow all official presidential contenders into the debate - if not, it's bias and thats like vote fixing. It's like saying these two are the Only candidates, which is untrue.

reply to post by antonia

I'll bet a dozen donuts he loses or the case get's thrown out. The Justice system is bought and paid for. It also happens to be run by the two parties in question. They aren't going to let go anytime soon.

I normally bet between 0 and 25 cents, depending upon how sure I am of the outcome in any particular situation. I'll bet 24 cents that this suit is tossed, and it's not because the system is corrupt. Sometimes stupid suits win (remember the woman burned by Mcdonald's coffee?), and this one is stupid.

They're arguing "restraint of trade?" The debate business is being restrained? The ability of candidates to speak is being restrained?

And they're arguing that "the marketplace of ideas is being restricted." What sense does that make? Johnson is free to express any idea he wants. This private group (the Commision) isn't required to invite every candidate to its debates.

I suppose it's a way for Johnson to get his name in the papers, but beyond that, I don't see the point.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


A significant majority of Americans share your preconceived notion of Presidential debates, so you're definitely not alone. I highly encourage you to watch the YT video "Who's Afraid of an Open Debate". It is VERY well done with historical facts you don't know, and its only 20 minutes long. 20 minutes is a small sacrifice to make to truly understand the reality we live in regarding electing our most important politician. Spreading this message is vital to regaining the power we have lost.

reply to post by charles1952

They're arguing "restraint of trade?" The debate business is being restrained? The ability of candidates to speak is being restrained? And they're arguing that "the marketplace of ideas is being restricted." What sense does that make? Johnson is free to express any idea he wants. This private group (the Commision) isn't required to invite every candidate to its debates.

This "Commission" is a private group set up by one republican and one democrat with the rules made up by the two major candidates (who may choose to exclude anyone). This is why Johnson says it's "restraint of trade". It is essentially a cartel. Of course, I'm sure real democracy doesn't sit well when Johnson may shed voters from Romney.

reply to post by antonia

Dear antonia,

Perhaps I misunderstood you (or Johnson's suit). Let me try a different approach.

Who's the bad guy here? It must be the Commission, right? That's who everybody is talking about, and that's who Johnson is suing. Well, what are they doing wrong? Not inviting Johnson? Ok, assume they invite Johnson. As has been pointed out, the candidates have to agree to the rules of the debates or there are no debates.

The candidates have agreed that there will be no third party candidates. So, what's the commission supposed to do? They invite Johnson, Obama and Romney don't show, and the networks say "we're not giving two hours of national air time to this guy." Leaving Johnson speaking to an empty house, and Romney and Obama setting up their debates through some other organization.

I'm sorry, I just don't see the sense to this suit.

With respect,
Charles1952