The Classic Off-Topic forum is a place where games or platforms discussions are taboo. Here, you can talk about just about anything outside of games, just make sure to stay classy and follow the rules.
Forum Rules:
- Follow the Terms of Use and read the FAQ.
- Keep your discussions friendly and respectful of others.
- Keep the discussions work friendly. More details in the FAQ (For something more laid back go to Off Topic: After Hours
- Game and platform discussions NOT allowed (For that go to the Primary Games Board or System Wars.
- Do NOT post or bump extremely abusive discussions.
- Hate speech not permitted.
Shouldn't Gary Johnson be allowed to join the Presidential debates?
| Sure,I see no problem with adding them. | 81% [38] |
| Only Garry Johnson | 9% [4] |
| Only Jill Stein | 0% [0] |
| Heck no! | 11% [5] |
(Note: you must be a registered member to participate in polls. Sign in or sign up now!)
- They may as well admit write in candidates as well, I'd love to see ALF at the podium.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 7, 2012 9:30 pm GMT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fear of failure: True ruler of the world since the beginning of consciousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This topic came up prior to the first debate. In order to allow them on the stage, one must redefine what measuring stick we wish to use for those of whom wish to have a podium. There are roughly 43 political parties in the U.S. If each one nominates a candidate and gets an equal amount of time, no one gets much substance in a 90 minute debate. If we only wish to allow the five major party candidates (Dem., Rep. Libertarian, Reform, Green) we must have a measuring stick that clearly shows why these five belong there, and the other 38 do not. Otherwise we end up with 6th party supporters making the same argument that 3rd party supporters are making now, only without clear guidelines. The current guidelines are available from the Federal Election Commission. One additional thing of note: the qualifications for being on the stage are the same as for qualifying for the $91.2 million campaign matching funds, so this could get absurdly expensive, very quick.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 7, 2012 10:39 pm GMT
[QUOTE="hoola"]Yes. All third parties should be allowed to. 15% to join the debates is way too much considering the only way to get a good percentage in the polls is to advertise yourself and advertising yourself requires money which is all spent on just getting on the ballots for third parties. That essentially limits any third party/independent candidate to those who are really rich.
[/QUOTE] it is not as limiting as the polls not including third party players, but what does one expect when the democrats and republicans formed the Commission on Presidential Debates after the League of Woman voters stopped overseeing the debates- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 7, 2012 10:52 pm GMTBMD004 wrote:I understand exactly what you are saying. I just know you're wrong.Nibroc420 wrote:Once you've given money to an organization, corporation, or government. You do not have that money any more. Do you not understand that?Cave Johnson would be a far better candidate.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Ok, I am running for president. Let me in the debates, no reason not to!
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 8, 2012 10:12 am GMT

Nobody is saying everyone would should be allowed. I just think its rather obvious that they chose 15% with the knowledge no 3rd party candidate would ever reach it.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 8, 2012 10:18 am GMTOnly if he changes his name to Harry Johnson.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 8, 2012 10:20 am GMTyes he should be able to be in it. would be nice seeing some actual contrast for once
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 8, 2012 10:26 am GMT
SNIPER4321 wrote:AussieePet wrote:SNIPER4321 wrote:AussieePet wrote:Are you calling me a barbie doll?barbie, dora, hello kitty, hanna montana or any other crap why it matter?
I assume you have all that inside your room
what? Im Hardcore PC gamer and cant put these casual/girly/animish/pink stuff.[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="sexyweapons"]I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed [/QUOTE] Really? What if those putting on/administrating the debate don't him to participate?[/QUOTE] what happens if they don't like Romney or Obama,you expect them to not let them participate?- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 8, 2012 10:36 am GMT
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Cave Johnson would be a far better candidate.[/QUOTE]He has a strong stance on lemons.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 8, 2012 1:48 pm GMT
The best podcast in the universe
[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]What is the criteria to be in the debates?[/QUOTE] You know it already. But here it is for everyone else. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDQsIKbQLFY&feature=plcp
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 8, 2012 4:28 pm GMT[QUOTE="sexyweapons"][QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="sexyweapons"]I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed [/QUOTE] Really? What if those putting on/administrating the debate don't him to participate?[/QUOTE] what happens if they don't like Romney or Obama,you expect them to not let them participate?[/QUOTE] That's not very likely. They're the 2 leading candidates for the position. I do not expect that. Now. please try to answer my question.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.






