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

[cdc482]

http://www.change.org/petitions/ope...ok&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=7094331

 

[orenbus]

I'd like to see a debate between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

 

[orenbus]

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.

 

[Darguth]

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.

 

[RonRules]

I bet they'll let Jill debate, but not Gary.

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

They should let every candidate with ballot acces to enough states to get 270 electoral votes debate.

 

[Todd]

only 97000 more to go.

 

[tttppp]

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.

 

[tttppp]

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.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

 

[jbauer]

You and the other 0.003% of the voting population that would tune in for it.

Well that still more then who watch the NHL

 

[Darguth]

Well that still more then who watch the NHL

Psh, I'm from Metro Detroit. Huge chunk of the population watches the NHL here

 

[orenbus]

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.

 

[cdc482]

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.

 

[tttppp]

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?

 

[tttppp]

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

 

[cdc482]

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.

 

[dbill27]

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?

 

[dbill27]

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

 

[cdc482]

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.