Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

CNN Bans Gary Johnson from NH Debate

Rate this topic


CapitalistSwine
 Share

Recommended Posts

Link: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-excluded-from-nh-debate

‎"To our shock, at about 6:30 this morning, we learned that Governor Johnson was not invited, he was not going to be invited, and he would not be allowed to participate."-GJ's campaign office. Contact information of the debate administrators, and more details, are in the article.

I have sent e-mails, I am trying to get this story shared on as many FB walls as possible so people at least know that CNN is not above doing something like this.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't some grand anti-libertarian action, guys. Gary Johnson just doesn't have the name recognition. They have Ron Paul on this debate, I'm assuming?

He wasn't going to win anyway and he was a pretty awful public speaker IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul is too old to be elected President, whatever your evaluation of him is.

That is your argument? Really?

"This isn't some grand anti-libertarian action, guys. Gary Johnson just doesn't have the name recognition. They have Ron Paul on this debate, I'm assuming?"

It is true he is better in interviews, I can only assume this is because he hasn't had much debate experience etc. It is clear however they he is getting the treatment Ron Paul was getting in the 2008 election (whereas Paul is being treated like a normal candidate now, for the most part), he has had a number of artificial obstacles put in front of him, and he was getting shafted during that first debate. Whether or not he has the name recognition is not a good argument in this case, he has consistently gotten the same or better poll scores as 2 of the people attending, and they invited Donald Trump who said he wasn't running.

The point is that he is one of the most Libertarian styled candidates we have seen that isn't a joke, and it would be nice to get more than just Paul up on the stage to debate issues and to offer alternative viewpoints from that of the status quo, it helps spread awareness etc. Further, McCain is 74 and he was in far worse health than Ron Paul is now, and he showed in the 2008 debates that he is just as sharp as McCain for his age, regardless of your overall evaluation of him I just don't see this as a credible argument.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is your argument? Really?

Ron Paul will be 77 on election day in 2012. Reagan was 69 when he was elected, and was (I believe) the oldest person yet elected President. You don’t believe Ron Paul’s age will be a great enough concern for voters? McCain was 72, and commentators made hay of the fact, especially after his unbelievable choice of running mate.

I don’t believe I’m saying anything controversial here, Ron Paul’s age is a drawback for his candidacy, and I think it’s too great a drawback. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong.

pigfly.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats because most people were worried (rightfully so) that McCain would have a heart attack or his arm would fall off during the inauguration speech, I understand it will be of some concern but anyone that would even consider voting him cares more about the message he has that is different from the status quo, not his age. In all of these years I have seen probably 3 remarks about his age from people, that is why I don't think its that huge of a deal in his case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't get behind Ron Paul.

How can I seriously believe that a man who doesn't believe I have the right to my own body will stand up for my other rights?

Obama doesn't believe I own the fruits of my labor, therefore doesn't believe I own my body.

Ron Paul doesn't believe I own the functions of my body, at least as they pertain to how a woman may experience them, so again, I am left with no right to my own being.

They can both go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't going to be an Objectivist candidate. It would make sense to support the candidate that improved the relative condition of individual rights as compared with all other options (while opposing that candidate's failures.)

A positive side to Ron Paul's abortion stance is that he believes in state-by-state abortion policies, not a federal ban on abortion. Depending on what state you live in, even if RvW was overturned somehow, it would not affect you and would be impossible to push through in most of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul will be 77 on election day in 2012. Reagan was 69 when he was elected, and was (I believe) the oldest person yet elected President. You don’t believe Ron Paul’s age will be a great enough concern for voters? McCain was 72, and commentators made hay of the fact, especially after his unbelievable choice of running mate.

I don’t believe I’m saying anything controversial here, Ron Paul’s age is a drawback for his candidacy, and I think it’s too great a drawback. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong.

Seconded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get this line of complaint against Ron Paul. Do you know Ron Paul? Have you met Ron Paul? Do you know how sharp or slow he is? Do you know if he is mentally or physically deficient? Have you see any evidence of a deterioration? What if the guy happens to be pretty ripped and an athletic swimmer? Is there a younger candidate with a better ability to increase our relative long-range condition of individual rights? Or do you just look at his age and go “Yep. Too old.” and that settles it?

The only place I've seen his age being "an issue" is usually in conjunction with a long list of other nonobjective adjectives (like "extreme" "radical" "quack" "nut" "ugly" "fringe" "marginal") which constitutes the opinion-moulders' myth of a supposedly "viable candidate," which apparently means only someone sufficiently without principles and groomed for PR marketing, as opposed to whether the candidate has the right ideas or not, and is qualified to hold the office in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't get behind Ron Paul.

How can I seriously believe that a man who doesn't believe I have the right to my own body will stand up for my other rights?

Obama doesn't believe I own the fruits of my labor, therefore doesn't believe I own my body.

Ron Paul doesn't believe I own the functions of my body, at least as they pertain to how a woman may experience them, so again, I am left with no right to my own being.

They can both go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

Look I don't like his stance on abortion either, however, I can at least understand it, given his current and his past profession he has more reason for that belief than most Republicans, who usually simply appeal to faith. At any rate, I think the question on whether or not he will stand up for your other rights is a silly question, since he has attempted to defend these other rights consistently for decades. The real question you need to be asking is: who do you trust out of the other viable candidates to protect ANY of your rights? When you answer that question you will understand why so many people are attempting to support RP this time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or do you just look at his age and go “Yep. Too old.” and that settles it?

This. It spares me having to get into his positions. Being a president is hard when the job is taken seriously (unlike the present occupant who goes golfing in between vacations).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get this line of complaint against Ron Paul.

I stated the relevant data points, of course there’s room for disagreement. I know a dyed in the wool Democrat who was saying Obama would never get the nomination, early in 2008. Because he is black. I kid you not.

Ron Paul’s age is not the only strike against him, but I evaluate it as the tipping point to concluding that he can’t win. Neither the nomination nor the general election. This is coming up in the context of Gary Johnson, who is being excluded from debates just as Ron Paul was 4 years ago, when candidates with lower poll numbers were included and that fact was publicized.

Now this is admittedly conspiratorial, but could it be that Ron Paul is being included now because he can’t win, thus sidelining the more libertarian wing of the Republican party? Or, more plausibly, because “they” can’t exclude Ron Paul again, but still won’t allow two such candidates on the debating platform?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At any rate, I think the question on whether or not he will stand up for your other rights is a silly question, since he has attempted to defend these other rights consistently for decades. The real question you need to be asking is: who do you trust out of the other viable candidates to protect ANY of your rights? When you answer that question you will understand why so many people are attempting to support RP this time around.

Actually I've already asked myself the "real question" the real question being- can someone who believes they have the right to dictate what happens to my body truly believe I have any other rights at all?

The answer is no.

Just like when someone who is generally rights respecting says that they have the right to dictate something about my private property I know they don't truly believe I have any rights.

I believe it is far easier for a man to try to overlook Paul's stance on this as no man (under our current technology at least) will ever be forced to carry an unwanted child to full term. It is a very different perspective when you are a woman still (even if only remotely) on the spectrum of potential childbearing years.

I'm not saying I like anyone else much better at this moment, I don't think anyone who merits the presidency would be electable. But I think it is silly to believe that someone who wants the right to dictate your bodily functions believes in rights at all. Or, perhaps like our founding fathers, he believes that rights are something primarily belonging to the world of men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I've already asked myself the "real question" the real question being- can someone who believes they have the right to dictate what happens to my body truly believe I have any other rights at all?

The answer is no.

His track record seems to be in strong disagreement with your answer, there are a few key issues he wishes to leave to the states, in all other areas he has been solidly principled with respect to what it states is allowed in the Constitution etc., and this is why I am not satisfied with this particular line of reasoning. The suggestion that he believes you have no other rights *at all* or doesn't believe you have *any* rights is just a patently absurd statement to me. Under this logic, the only person you could possibly vote for is an Objectivist politician, and that will not be happening.

At any rate, Gary Johnson has, HIMSELF written an Op-Ed for Fox News asking why he is not being let into the CNN debate, and he cites that Bill Clinton polled similarly to him and then exploded in the polls, yet was allowed in the debates when polling similarly to Johnson, read it here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/07/why-wont-cnn-let-me-come-to-their-debate/#ixzz1OcSElUPM

(The video up top is unrelated)

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Only difference is- I could end up in a position to find out the hard way whereas you would never be forced to personally suffer the consequences of his stance if elected.

Even if elected, the probability of anybody being "forced to personally suffer the consequences of his stance" fade toward zero. Reagan was even more vehemently pro-life, yet abortion is still legal.

You are taking your eye off the ball here: abortion (along with several others) is a wedge issue that really will have no REAL impact no matter who is elected. Politically, it is effectively meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if elected, the probability of anybody being "forced to personally suffer the consequences of his stance" fade toward zero. Reagan was even more vehemently pro-life, yet abortion is still legal.

You are taking your eye off the ball here: abortion (along with several others) is a wedge issue that really will have no REAL impact no matter who is elected. Politically, it is effectively meaningless.

That depends a great deal on whether government healthcare stays in play.

Abortion I agree is a "wedge" issue. That some old man I never met sees fit to claim ownership over the reproductive organs of every woman in America on the other hand is a very real issue.

Ayn Rand thought it to be a very real issue as well and did not think highly of those who would take away a woman's basic right to her own body:

"The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.

I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.”By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion.

To social conservatives, it's partly a matter of personal responsibility. If you engage in the act of reproduction, and reproduction takes place, you bear the responsibility for it as you were fully aware of the risk and possible consequences. It all comes down to whether you believe in God or not, though. According to religion, all life is holy, and killing an innocent life would be a vicious way of avoiding responsibility for your own actions and promiscuity. I personally don't share this view as I'm not a religious man, but I do respect that people of faith are morally opposed to abortion, and don't think that hatred is involved.

Incidentally, Ron Paul does not want the federal government to ban or restrict abortion; he merely wants it to be decided democratically on the state level. This is not an ideal view, but it could certainly be much worse.

Edited by ENikolai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...