Arnold Schwarzenegger Wants Gary Johnson in the Debates - Polidicks

[QUOTE]"The American people want to hear the voices of Governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld in the debates this fall. ... I completely agree," Schwarzenegger wrote. To qualify for the debates, Johnson must receive an average of 15% support in five post-Labor Day national polls. So far, he's hovered at around 10%. "Our political system benefits when we open the conversation instead of closing it — which is why I fought for and the voters passed open primaries in California and why I hope the Commission on Presidential Debates will listen to the people and include the governors," wrote Schwarzenegger, a Republican who served as California's governor from 2003 through 2010.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-arnold-schwarzenegger-let-the-1473445207-htmlstory.html[/url]

Support his policies or not, I do believe he should be in the debates

I think Johnson and Stein should be in the debates, but there's no point if neither of them stand a chance of winning. The just take away votes from one of the people who will win. Optimistically putting them in the debates could break the cycle, who knows?

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51026806]I think Johnson and Stein should be in the debates, but there's no point if neither of them stand a chance of winning. The just take away votes from one of the people who will win. Optimistically putting them in the debates could break the cycle, who knows?[/QUOTE] stein literally has a warrant out for her arrest

[QUOTE=TheHydra;51026817]stein literally has a warrant out for her arrest[/QUOTE] I get the whole protest thing, but like getting arrested [I]during the campaign[/I] looks bad on almost anyone running for office

So our choices for president this year are: A libertarian who has no chance of winning, a person who some people consider a criminal (despite being shown innocent by several republican led committees and courts), a literal criminal with a warrant out for her arrest (who also has the same stance on vaccines as Jenny McCarthy), and an orange alien with a toupee. Reality truly is stranger then fiction

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51027036]So our choices for president this year are: A libertarian who has no chance of winning, a person who some people consider a criminal (despite being shown innocent by several republican led committees and courts), a literal criminal with a warrant out for her arrest (who also has the same stance on vaccines as Jenny McCarthy), and an orange alien with a toupee. Reality truly is stranger then fiction[/QUOTE] dont even mention their primary opponents, every republican + the kitchen sink (carson), john 'smokes bens' mcafee, a socialist and im drawing a blank on stein because i think she ran unopposed also martin omalley who deserves a shoutout for closing up shop after the first bit of pressure

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51027036]So our choices for president this year are: A libertarian who has no chance of winning, a person who some people consider a criminal (despite being shown innocent by several republican led committees and courts), a literal criminal with a warrant out for her arrest (who also has the same stance on vaccines as Jenny McCarthy), and an orange alien with a toupee. Reality truly is stranger then fiction[/QUOTE] Sounding a bit biased there, Hilary is not a criminal, but she is a liar and a manipulator, and not far from a cheater.

I hope Gary Johnson manages to get into the debates, not because he has a chance to win the election, but it'll get some topics brought up that need to be brought up. Especially regarding the electoral process and the sacrifice of personal freedoms/privacy. [QUOTE=Sableye;51027128]dont even mention their primary opponents, every republican + the kitchen sink (carson), john 'smokes bens' mcafee, a socialist and im drawing a blank on stein because i think she ran unopposed also martin omalley who deserves a shoutout for closing up shop after the first bit of pressure[/QUOTE] do people still unironically think sanders is a socialist

To be fair he should be in the debates. He'd be fantastic at taking votes from Trump :^) No but seriously he should be in the debates. Not sure about Stein, since her party is weird as fuck, does not have any hope (while Johnson has some hope) and she's an actual criminal now :V

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51027779]do people still unironically think sanders is a socialist[/QUOTE] Are you unaware that he describes himself as socialist or making some sort of point about him not being a true socialist or something?

Saying Bernie is a socialist is like saying your son in law is blood related.

[QUOTE=TheHydra;51026817]stein literally has a warrant out for her arrest[/QUOTE] What the fuck? Did I miss something?

[QUOTE=ThatSprite;51028016]What the fuck? Did I miss something?[/QUOTE] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1533678]Apparently.[/url]

[QUOTE=Megadave;51027955]Saying Bernie is a socialist is like saying your son in law is blood related.[/QUOTE] Hey as long as he wants to keep calling himself that I'll call him it too.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51026806]I think Johnson and Stein should be in the debates, but there's no point if neither of them stand a chance of winning. [b]The just take away votes from one of the people who will win.[/b][/QUOTE] Wait, what's the problem with this? The person who wins still wins, but this way there will be a clearer picture of what the American people actually want

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51026806]I think Johnson and Stein should be in the debates, but there's no point if neither of them stand a chance of winning. The just take away votes from one of the people who will win. Optimistically putting them in the debates could break the cycle, who knows?[/QUOTE] By your logic, what's the point of third parties then? Let's just not have them, eh? Since they'll take away votes from the two parties that would [I]actually[/I] win?

[QUOTE=Chrille;51028179]Wait, what's the problem with this? The person who wins still wins, but this way there will be a clearer picture of what the American people actually want[/QUOTE] Because if enough people jump ship from a major candidate they sort of like, to a minor candidate they really like, they make it easier for the other major candidate that they despise to win. That exact thing happened in 2000 when the Green candidate Ralph Nader stole enough votes which would have otherwise went to Democrat Al Gore, to allow George Bush to win more votes than each other candidate (despite the combined votes for Gore and Nader outnumbering the votes for Bush), and therefore to win the election. Tl;dr if you sort of like a major candidate, absolutely despise the other major candidate and really like a minor candidate, then (in America) a vote for the minor candidate is effectively a vote for that major candidate that you despise. [editline]11th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Omilinon;51028200]By your logic, what's the point of third parties then? Let's just not have them, eh? Since they'll take away votes from the two parties that would [I]actually[/I] win?[/QUOTE] There's no point for third parties in America. Except for perhaps one group of people being sinister by creating a dud party to try to to split the vote that goes to opposing parties (eg imagine if the Green Party was created by the Republicans to split the Democrat-leaning vote and therefore make it easier for the Republicans to win elections - not that that is true though).

[QUOTE=sb27;51028238]Tl;dr if you sort of like a major candidate, absolutely despise the other major candidate and really like a minor candidate, then (in America) a vote for the minor candidate is effectively a vote for that major candidate that you despise. [/QUOTE] Actually a vote for johnson/stein/verminsupreme/deeznutz is a vote for johnson/stein/deeznuts/verninsupreme and not a vote for clinton or trump, unless you want to play in imaginary made up hypothetical land

Bernie is a socialist. No shit, where have u been?

[QUOTE=sb27;51028238]Because if enough people jump ship from a major candidate they sort of like, to a minor candidate they really like, they make it easier for the other major candidate that they despise to win. That exact thing happened in 2000 when the Green candidate Ralph Nader stole enough votes which would have otherwise went to Democrat Al Gore, to allow George Bush to win more votes than each other candidate (despite the combined votes for Gore and Nader outnumbering the votes for Bush), and therefore to win the election. Tl;dr if you sort of like a major candidate, absolutely despise the other major candidate and really like a minor candidate, then (in America) a vote for the minor candidate is effectively a vote for that major candidate that you despise. [editline]11th September 2016[/editline] There's no point for third parties in America. Except for perhaps one group of people being sinister by creating a dud party to try to to split the vote that goes to opposing parties (eg imagine if the Green Party was created by the Republicans to split the Democrat-leaning vote and therefore make it easier for the Republicans to win elections - not that that is true though).[/QUOTE] But I was never going to vote for Trump or Clinton in the first place, so how can that vote go to them?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51027944]Are you unaware that he describes himself as socialist or making some sort of point about him not being a true socialist or something?[/QUOTE] sanders isn't a socialist, plenty of political commentators have pointed this out. it's a buzzword he used very effectively to rally people to his cause and distance himself from hillary, but you'd definitely find a sanders presidency to be more in tune with european liberalism than any kind of social democracy / socialism. compared to socialists in the UK especially, he is definitely a centrist.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;51028352]Actually a vote for johnson/stein/verminsupreme/deeznutz is a vote for johnson/stein/deeznuts/verninsupreme and not a vote for clinton or trump, unless you want to play in imaginary made up hypothetical land[/QUOTE] Say only Clinton and Trump contest the election, where the electorate is 100 people (where turnout is 100%. Also, ignore the electoral college). 55 vote for Clinton; 45 vote for Trump. Clinton wins. Say instead that Stein also contests the election. A fifth, or 11, of the people who would have otherwise voted for Clinton instead decide to vote for Stein. They may feel that Clinton sort of represents them, but they sincerely prefer Stein. The results are 45 votes for Trump, 44 votes for Clinton, and 11 votes for Stein. Trump wins. This isn't 'hypothetical land'. This is a real thing called the spoiler effect. And you can thank the spoiler effect, as exploited by Ralph Nader, for eight years of a George W Bush presidency.

[QUOTE=Bobie;51028384]sanders isn't a socialist, plenty of political commentators have pointed this out. it's a buzzword he used very effectively to rally people to his cause and distance himself from hillary, but you'd definitely find a sanders presidency to be more in tune with european liberalism than any kind of social democracy / socialism. compared to socialists in the UK especially, he is definitely a centrist.[/QUOTE] I agree that that's what his presidency would likely be and what people expected from it, and I was prepared to disagree and say that the positions you fight for in your career as a politician do not change how you personally identify politically, and that compromise to effect real change toward what you want instead of pushing something ineffectually that the public would never go for is a perfectly valid strategy as a politician, but after finding this quote on Wikipedia just now: [quote]In defining what democratic socialism means to him, Sanders said: "I don’t believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production [...]"[/quote] I agree that he's definitely not a socialist. Social democrat would be more accurate.

[QUOTE=Megadave;51028369]But I was never going to vote for Trump or Clinton in the first place, so how can that vote go to them?[/QUOTE] Because if you were smart and cast a compromise vote, then you would have instead voted for whichever major candidate you disliked the least, to prevent whichever major candidate you disliked the most from being elected.

[QUOTE=sb27;51028417]Say only Clinton and Trump contest the election, where the electorate is 100 people (where turnout is 100%. Also, ignore the electoral college). 55 vote for Clinton; 45 vote for Trump. Clinton wins. Say instead that Stein also contests the election. A fifth, or 11, of the people who would have otherwise voted for Clinton instead decide to vote for Stein. They may feel that Clinton sort of represents them, but they sincerely prefer Stein. The results are 45 votes for Trump, 44 votes for Clinton, and 11 votes for Stein. Trump wins. This isn't 'hypothetical land'. This is a real thing called the spoiler effect. And you can thank the spoiler effect, as exploited by Ralph Nader, for eight years of a George W Bush presidency.[/QUOTE] I know it's called the spoiler effect, I'm just saying that it's still hypothetical bullshit that is just used to perpetuate guilting voters into the "lesser of two evils", and at the end of the day a vote for not clinton is not automatically a vote for trump unless you're just pretending that the voter would have automatically voted for clinton otherwise

[QUOTE=Megadave;51027754]Sounding a bit biased there, Hilary is not a criminal, but she is a liar and a manipulator, and not far from a cheater.[/QUOTE] I said the exact opposite of Hllary being a criminal though? My literal criminal remark was reserved for Stein

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51028441]I said the exact opposite of Hllary being a criminal though? My literal criminal remark was reserved for Stein[/QUOTE] Yeah, I probably should've worded that a bit better, I was mostly saying while you are correct, that Hilary is not a criminal, she is still a liar, etc.

[QUOTE=Megadave;51028460]Yeah, I probably should've worded that a bit better, I was mostly saying while you are correct, that Hilary is not a criminal, she is still a liar, etc.[/QUOTE] Nothing I said denied that she's lied.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;51028436]I know it's called the spoiler effect, I'm just saying that it's still hypothetical bullshit that is just used to perpetuate guilting voters into the "lesser of two evils", and at the end of the day a vote for not clinton is not automatically a vote for trump unless you're just pretending that the voter would have automatically voted for clinton otherwise[/QUOTE] It's not hypothetical bullshit, and it's not pretending. They actually do pollings for these very things. They polled Nader voters after the 2000 presidential election and found out that if Nader had not contested the election, 45% would have voted for Gore instead, 27% would have voted for Bush instead, and 28% would not have voted at all. In Florida where only ~500 votes separated Gore and Bush (with Bush in the lead), that polling shows that Gore would have won if Nader never contested, and carrying Florida would have been enough for Gore to win the entire presidential election. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/us/2004-campaign-independent-relax-nader-advises-alarmed-democrats-but-2000-math.html?_r=0[/url] [quote]Among Nader voters, 45 percent said they would have voted for Mr. Gore, 27 percent said they would have voted for Mr. Bush, and the rest said they would not have voted. In California, where Mr. Nader received 4 percent of the vote, 46 percent said they would have voted for Mr. Gore and only 14 percent said they would have gone for Mr. Bush. Because there is no reason to believe the breakdown was not similarly lopsided in other states, it is safe to assume that Mr. Nader cost Mr. Gore states that Mr. Bush narrowly won. In Florida, Mr. Nader received 97,488 votes, 1.6 percent of the total, and Mr. Bush carried the state by 537 votes. In New Hampshire, Mr. Nader won 22,198 votes, 3.9 percent of the total, and Mr. Bush carried the state by 7,211 votes. Had Mr. Gore won in either state, he would have become president.[/quote] "Hypothetical bullshit" "Pretending"