• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Gary Johnson sues the Commission on Presidential Debates

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Why wouldn't he take nearly as many votes away from Obama? He truly is a "social liberal" and many liberals are very unhappy with Obama since they didn't see it in 08. Also, Romney and Obama are the same to libertarians on stuff like the deficit and taxes... they both want to maximize revenue and increase spending and Romney always has and always will 100% support repeal of Pelosicare. Johnson could also cause Romney to win CO and maybe even CA (but that's really stretching it) because of the Marijuana issue, which is his pet issue like Dr. Paul's is the Fed and legal tender. Repeal of the Fed and replacement with nothing would probably put the state's growth to a halt because the Fed is the lifeblood of the state and the state is the lifeblood of wallstreet's continued growth.
In theory, libertarians should be at least equally inclined to vote dem as rep. However, in practice, the majority seem to lean to the GOP. Hence, a libertarian candidate with high public visibility would likely cost the GOP candidate more votes than the dem candidate.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,392
31
91
You missed the word "organizations" in the OP.
Nothing I said has anything to do with what they are called, only what they practice. A Presidential debate is not commerce. On November 6th, the People of the United States will elect Barack Obama to the office of President of the United States. They will not be "purchasing a Negro."
The debates do not market a commercial product.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Nothing I said has anything to do with what they are called, only what they practice. A Presidential debate is not commerce. On November 6th, the People of the United States will elect Barack Obama to the office of President of the United States. They will not be "purchasing a Negro."
The debates do not market a commercial product.
No commercial product? They use a commercial product to broadcast it, they have full intentions of interrupting their broad cast to pimp commercial products, explain to me how it is not a commercial product?

In fact with all the knowledge we have going into the debates we know full well that they are produced, before hand and they are for consumption. There is even a value to it, monetary and non-monetary. Sounds completely like a commercial effort to me. Just because it's done in the guise of Government doesn't change that.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
In theory, libertarians should be at least equally inclined to vote dem as rep. However, in practice, the majority seem to lean to the GOP. Hence, a libertarian candidate with high public visibility would likely cost the GOP candidate more votes than the dem candidate.
You're probably right, but I don't know much about anything.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
The question is and remains, did the libertarian party of Gray Johnson win enough 2008 or 2012 votes to get on the printed ballot or be included in the debates? The probable answer is no, and why sue the democrats as its only Romney supporters who are trying to prevent Gary Johnson from getting on the ballot in all 50 states.

Where is the line from allowing every Tom Dick and Harry individual from being on the printed ballot making such a printed ballot look like the NYC phone directory.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
The question is and remains, did the libertarian party of Gray Johnson win enough 2008 or 2012 votes to get on the printed ballot or be included in the debates? The probable answer is no, and why sue the democrats as its only Romney supporters who are trying to prevent Gary Johnson from getting on the ballot in all 50 states.

Where is the line from allowing every Tom Dick and Harry individual from being on the printed ballot making such a printed ballot look like the NYC phone directory.
Not sure if serious? Johnson is, as far as we know, going to be on all 50 State Ballots including Washington DC. Why should he not be allowed to debate? Not only him, but why not Jill Stein who has the opportunity to win if she pulled enough electoral college votes? Pfft.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
In theory, libertarians should be at least equally inclined to vote dem as rep. However, in practice, the majority seem to lean to the GOP. Hence, a libertarian candidate with high public visibility would likely cost the GOP candidate more votes than the dem candidate.
Yep.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
The lawsuit accuses the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and Commission on Presidential Debates of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, which prohibits certain business activities that reduce competition, and requires the federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of being in violation. The relevant part of the law is Section 2, which reads:

“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.”
I don't see how this applies to Presidential debates, in general, and in specific to who is included in them.

Somebody above claims broadcasting is 'commerce', fair enough but I don't see where there is any monopoly on broadcasting (debates or anything else for that matter).

Fern
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
No problems here hurting the Republican Party. I do not support political parties and I have my doubts about the Libertarian Party affiliation Johnson flies now, but he seems less worried about the whole "party" thing in general compared to the rest of the candidates.

Fern, the President gets a lot of say in economic matters. One could argue that the President is constantly doing business and if we look at their staff we'll find it full of businessmen and businesswomen. In fact he has a whole group of business leaders he meets up with to discuss the future of the economy. It is a very easy draw to make and IMO goes to show just how overarching our Federal Government has reached.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Not sure if serious? Johnson is, as far as we know, going to be on all 50 State Ballots including Washington DC. Why should he not be allowed to debate? Not only him, but why not Jill Stein who has the opportunity to win if she pulled enough electoral college votes? Pfft.
I'm too lazy ATM to confirm via google, but I thought there was a long established polling threshold for entrance to such debates. I.e., he doesn't meet established criteria.

Fern
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,392
31
91
No commercial product? They use a commercial product to broadcast it, they have full intentions of interrupting their broad cast to pimp commercial products, explain to me how it is not a commercial product?
How are you having difficulty with the concept that there are no human beings for sale in this?
As far as the broadcast is concerned, the networks aren't being sued here. And while Fox News may have cornered the market on selling televised conservative propaganda, that's a different thing.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I'm too lazy ATM to confirm via google, but I thought there was a long established polling threshold for entrance to such debates. I.e., he doesn't meet established criteria.

Fern
Well "long established" is a little bleh, but yeah he doesn't meet the polling criteria. That's actually part of the argument he's making in this case I believe though as it was something both the Dems and Reps came together on to work against opposition. I may be wrong though.

There is a ton of commercial influence into this DS, every level of the way, this is no less commercial than the Super Bowl.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
-snip-
Fern, the President gets a lot of say in economic matters. One could argue that the President is constantly doing business and if we look at their staff we'll find it full of businessmen and businesswomen. In fact he has a whole group of business leaders he meets up with to discuss the future of the economy. It is a very easy draw to make and IMO goes to show just how overarching our Federal Government has reached.
Well, my thinking is that the debate itself is not commerce. He wants to participate in the debate, so the logic of using the Sherman Anti-Trust (SA-T) act, which is about participating in commerce, as a tool to force his way into the debates confuses me. It's just not commerce.

If you can use the S.A-T act to get into the debates, why can't everyone else? Why would that law only apply to him?

If he's relying on some sort of logic that those with some prospect to actually get elected should be included - well I'll just say I find that counterproductive to his case for inclusion.

Edit: Forgot to add that he's using the S.A-T act to sue three parties who are nonprofits and not engaged in any sort of commerce, not by any known use of that term. I find the whole thing counter-intuitive.

Fern
 
Last edited:

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Well, my thinking is that the debate itself is not commerce. He wants to participate in the debate, so the logic of using the Sherman Anti-Trust (SA-T) act, which is about participating in commerce, as a tool to force his way into the debates confuses me. It's just not commerce.

If you can use the S.A-T act to get into the debates, why can't everyone else? Why would that law only apply to him?

If he's relying on some sort of logic that those with some prospect to actually get elected should be included - well I'll just say I find that counterproductive to his case for inclusion.

Fern
I could see that, I'll have to do more reading on the act and see if there are any other cases where it has been used similarly to this.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
Well, my thinking is that the debate itself is not commerce. He wants to participate in the debate, so the logic of using the Sherman Anti-Trust (SA-T) act, which is about participating in commerce, as a tool to force his way into the debates confuses me. It's just not commerce.

If you can use the S.A-T act to get into the debates, why can't everyone else? Why would that law only apply to him?

If he's relying on some sort of logic that those with some prospect to actually get elected should be included - well I'll just say I find that counterproductive to his case for inclusion.

Edit: Forgot to add that he's using the S.A-T act to sue three parties who are nonprofits and not engaged in any sort of commerce, not by any known use of that term. I find the whole thing counter-intuitive.
Agreed. I mean, I don't know why he'd expect judges not appointed by libertarians to twist legislation into meaning something it reasonably doesn't... Why the hell would sherman have wanted his party to debate with libertarians?

In any event, i dont think it really matters what we lowly non rulers think the constitution means since it says it means what the judicial power means even if it made the executive the most powerful. I think it's time to break free of that tyrannical piece of shit... even if no one but me cares about what I think.
 
Last edited:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
'' Originally Posted by bfdd View Post
http://www.examiner.com/article/gary...ential-debates


I hope they win this. The horse and pony show needs to end. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would destroy either Obama or Romney in an actual debate.''
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As maybe the real problem lies in the end sentence of "Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would destroy either Obama or Romney in an actual debate.''

As posters like bffd may sincerly believe that statement is true. But it may be true only for them.

In terms of the real arbiters of the 2012 debates, namely the collective set of all 2012 American voters who watch the debates, plus give Gary Johnson and Jill Stein some of their attention in listening to their message, I very much doubt that far larger audience will agree with bfdd in coming to that same conclusion. As bfdd has a right to express his opinion, but claiming majority status is quite an incredible stretch that is extermely unlikely to happen. As I can't resist saying, bfdd does not stand a Paulbots chance in hell in claiming majority status.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,652
1,327
126
The guy who is the veep on that ticket should be ashamed. As a former federal judge he should know that this lawsuit is frivolous. I guess this just goes to show that even the biggest wackos can become a judge.

As fern and others stated, there is no commerce here. With no commerce there can be no antitrust violation. There may be commerce surrounding the debates but the debates themselves are not commerce.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Just going to say that nonprofits can be found in antitrust violation. Most the cases i read included the nonprofit using its powers in such a way to promote one company over another or blocking one from doing business with them. To me this is realky just the same thing, i fail to see how the government is any different when picking whIch groups can't participate because the two have written the rules in their favor. Oh well we'll see what happens, but i hope they win.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
The polling figures were changed when Perot ran. It was lower but after seeing the damage that was done both parties agreed to block anyone else from debating. If anyone polled the 15 percent needed they would probably raise it to 35 percent and give a big fuck you to the rest of America.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
The guy who is the veep on that ticket should be ashamed. As a former federal judge he should know that this lawsuit is frivolous. I guess this just goes to show that even the biggest wackos can become a judge.

As fern and others stated, there is no commerce here. With no commerce there can be no antitrust violation. There may be commerce surrounding the debates but the debates themselves are not commerce.
as a former federal judge, he should know that judges interpret legislation, not you. Just saying:)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY