Gary Johnson

[57Brave]

Threw out the other day the thought that maybe (R) and Gary Johnson getting together
Politically it makes perfect sense. A squeaky clean candidate without the social policy baggage and a political infrastructure that would serve Johnson well.
Wondering anyone else's thought on what percentages he could pull with the (R) analytics,ground game, contacts and money behind him
Top of my head says 45% floor



Saw this last night


Matthew Yglesias Verified account
‏@mattyglesias

Would it be so hard for GOP elected officials to salvage some dignity and endorse Gary Johnson?

[57Brave]

http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/07/03/gary-johnson-gives-hillary-pass/

[acesfull86]

I read a while back that Romney was considering supporting Johnson, but marijuana legalization was his big sticking point. Which made me chuckle, considering it came after he had just gotten done ripping Trump as a racist and misogynist.

[Oklahomahawk]

I saw Gary Johnson on Bill Maher the other night and I thought he did a good job, I would actually consider voting for the guy after that interview. I'll tell you this though, he'll NEVER get the Repub establishment to either support him or allow any of their minions to support him either and it isn't because of the pot thing.

Who can tell me why the Repub establishment would rather have Trump OR Hilldog than Johnson? Watch this 8 minute video and you'll know the answer, if you didn't already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbmoEBskXbA

[sturg33]

Most republicans I've talked to have a big problems with Johnson's view on drugs and abortion.

I think drugs are changing regardless, and abortion will never change.. so it's silly not to support someone based on that.

I do wish he was more articulate though... I cringe the way he talks. Bill Weld shows well, though

[50PoundHead]

I read a while back that Romney was considering supporting Johnson, but marijuana legalization was his big sticking point. Which made me chuckle, considering it came after he had just gotten done ripping Trump as a racist and misogynist.

The joke sets itself up: "You mean legalization of dope is holding up a dope's endorsement?" Send it to joke clinic, but I think everyone here gets the idea. I'm alright with Johnson. If Sanders had been the Democratic nominee, I would have seriously considered voting for him.

I think a large portion of the more secular side of the Republican party would have no trouble with Johnson, but the Dobson/Family Research Council side would have big time problems with him.

[Oklahomahawk]

Most republicans I've talked to have a big problems with Johnson's view on drugs and abortion.

I think drugs are changing regardless, and abortion will never change.. so it's silly not to support someone based on that.

I do wish he was more articulate though... I cringe the way he talks. Bill Weld shows well, though

Did you guess the #1 wart he has that will cause Repubs to run from him like he has the plague? I would think if anyone would be able to it would be you, probably without even watching that interview.

[Oklahomahawk]

The joke sets itself up: "You mean legalization of dope is holding up a dope's endorsement?" Send it to joke clinic, but I think everyone here gets the idea. I'm alright with Johnson. If Sanders had been the Democratic nominee, I would have seriously considered voting for him.

I think a large portion of the more secular side of the Republican party would have no trouble with Johnson, but the Dobson/Family Research Council side would have big time problems with him.

Those might be the folks who were loudest against him, but that's not the bunch that would NEVER allow their people to support him.

[Krgrecw]

Did you guess the #1 wart he has that will cause Repubs to run from him like he has the plague? I would think if anyone would be able to it would be you, probably without even watching that interview.



He's a wuss? When I used to watch Red Eye on fox, I enjoyed Johnson when he would regularly appear on the show.

[57Brave]

Most (R) are out of touch with mainstream Americans. Both abortion and marijuana poll 180degrees from (R) stances.

Funny thing to me is, I proposed to Bedell after watching Sarah Palin win the who has the biggest dick contest that was the (R) in the 2008 general that what (R) needed was a Charley Crist type candidate. Granted Crist per se might not have been the ideal but I think you get the point.
Someone that doesn't live in an isolated bubble where white is the only color and far right Christianity is the only religion .

Reagan has been gone for close to 30 years and it really is time to move on

I disagree with Johnson on most everything in his platform -- but good lord he would be a breath of fresh air.
Pretty sure he wouldn't announce his candidacy in Philadelphia , Mississippi then shrug and say, "who, me !!"

In other words, though we disagree on virtually everything I feel like Johnson would treat me with respect. No (R) since 1960 comes to mind that has given me that sense.

Question, in Obama's 8 years, has he been respectful to his disagree ers ?
I think he has given them too much respect

[50PoundHead]

Those might be the folks who were loudest against him, but that's not the bunch that would NEVER allow their people to support him.

The Bill Kristol/Dick Cheney Axis of Simplistic Answers would probably make the most noise.

[Oklahomahawk]

He's a wuss? When I used to watch Red Eye on fox, I enjoyed Johnson when he would regularly appear on the show.

Nope, but you are on the cusp of the right answer. Just keep going in that direction. Honestly I have no idea if he's a wuss or not, I don't know that much about him, but since he's a Libertarian that would make him, generally speaking, against getting involved in foreign wars, etc., just because of his beliefs. So if he was against these things whose sugar daddy relationship would he be effing with big time?

[Oklahomahawk]

The Bill Kristol/Dick Cheney Axis of Simplistic Answers would probably make the most noise.

Ah, you're getting close, especially with the Vlad Cheney mention.

[57Brave]

but since he's a Libertarian that would make him, generally speaking, against getting involved in foreign wars, etc., just because of his beliefs.

Being for or against foreign wars is such a broad and easy way out concept, Generally no one wants to go to war. <generally>
Foreign policy is such an easy and hard topic at the same time because events dictate policy as opposed to policy dictating events

My feelings about (L) remain
"everyone is a (L) until their house is 10 feet under water

[Oklahomahawk]

Being for or against foreign wars is such a broad and easy way out concept, Generally no one wants to go to war. <generally>
Foreign policy is such an easy and hard topic at the same time because events dictate policy as opposed to policy dictating events

My feelings about (L) remain
"everyone is a (L) until their house is 10 feet under water

I would agree that most people are against going to war unless it's unavoidable but there are exceptions, that's why I brought up the Vlad Cheney mention by Fitty. His protege Tom Cotton (mouth) would be another example. There are even people who I'd consider "hawks" from a foreign policy standpoint that wouldn't take the decision to go into a war lightly, but then there are those like Vlad. That's why I brought them up as the precursor to the #1 reason BY FAR why the Repub hierarchy will NEVER support GJ.

[Krgrecw]

JW: Speaking to that, her solution to ISIS, the interventionist solution, would be to invade. What would be the non-interventionist, the libertarian, solution to ISIS?

GJ: Well let’s start with that idea military intervention. Let’s say that that’s an option. That should be instigated by Congress. That’s a mechanism that’s been lost and Congress should modernize a mechanism for actually weighing in on military interventions. That’s first and foremost. Right now, it’s something that’s become an administrative prerogative, an executive prerogative, in conjunction with the military. Well that’s not right.

GJ: The alternative is to cut funding off to ISIS to contain what’s happening over there and make sure it stays over there. Brains not bombs. Cut off their funding and involve Congress for declaring war if that’s what we’re gonna do. If we’re going to put boots on the ground that’s war.

JW: So either fully go to war with Congressional approval or don’t go at all?

GJ: Well, get Congressional approval. It would be a terrific dialogue for Congress to be having. That would also be a terrific debate that would be going on nationwide. Here are the reasons for, here are the reasons against, and see how the American public weighs in on it all. As President I still would perhaps disagree with those outcomes if we do in fact militarily intervene. But, when do we militarily intervene? When attacked. And you could argue that we have been attacked by ISIS, you could argue that.

[50PoundHead]

A little off-topic, but since we've broached the subject of modern warfare, I caught a little bit of the Showtime documentary The Spymasters: CIA in the Crosshairs while eating my Cracklin' Oat Bran this morning. I only watched the last half hour, but I am going to watch the whole thing at some point. Appeared to be a very interesting documentary. Say what you want about Michael Hayden, but that guy's got a real set on him.

[Oklahomahawk]

JW: Speaking to that, her solution to ISIS, the interventionist solution, would be to invade. What would be the non-interventionist, the libertarian, solution to ISIS?

GJ: Well let’s start with that idea military intervention. Let’s say that that’s an option. That should be instigated by Congress. That’s a mechanism that’s been lost and Congress should modernize a mechanism for actually weighing in on military interventions. That’s first and foremost. Right now, it’s something that’s become an administrative prerogative, an executive prerogative, in conjunction with the military. Well that’s not right.

GJ: The alternative is to cut funding off to ISIS to contain what’s happening over there and make sure it stays over there. Brains not bombs. Cut off their funding and involve Congress for declaring war if that’s what we’re gonna do. If we’re going to put boots on the ground that’s war.

JW: So either fully go to war with Congressional approval or don’t go at all?

GJ: Well, get Congressional approval. It would be a terrific dialogue for Congress to be having. That would also be a terrific debate that would be going on nationwide. Here are the reasons for, here are the reasons against, and see how the American public weighs in on it all. As President I still would perhaps disagree with those outcomes if we do in fact militarily intervene. But, when do we militarily intervene? When attacked. And you could argue that we have been attacked by ISIS, you could argue that.

This sounds pretty reasonable to me, though with the current Congress and their absolute hatred/loathing for the current president I'm not sure they could even get together to talk about something like another good old war. But with that said, GJ sounds like a fairly constitutional guy, unlike most of the usual suspects the R's trot out there who have to try and act like badasses.

Who's JW by the way?

[57Brave]

as a lifelong pragmatic peacenic I find his response sophomoric.

Of course the administration has cut off whatever funding they can and this Congress cant keep Puerto Rico from defaulting, pass a highway bill or effectively find funds to combat a deadly mosquito virus.
I read an article last night about how John Boehner is laughing into his sleeve when he reads about the travails of Paul Ryan.
Over (R) sponsored legislation !!

By the time they come to a resolution on something this serious we could all be bowing to the east 5 times a day.
Like I was saying about 10' of water

[Oklahomahawk]

A little off-topic, but since we've broached the subject of modern warfare, I caught a little bit of the Showtime documentary The Spymasters: CIA in the Crosshairs while eating my Cracklin' Oat Bran this morning. I only watched the last half hour, but I am going to watch the whole thing at some point. Appeared to be a very interesting documentary. Say what you want about Michael Hayden, but that guy's got a real set on him.

I'll have to check that out, IF I ever get any spare time. For anyone who's interested in US-Middle Eastern relations, especially those involving Al Qaeda, there's a GREAT book by an Lebanese born former FBI agent named Ali Souffan (not sure about the spelling) called The Black Banners. It tells about how they formed, when they formed, the major players, etc. Souffan did a great job, and since he is a Muslim he would just go in and start talking to those guys and they start talking about religion and so on and before long they'd be giving him their Facebook password, and pretty much everything else. He even got Saddam to tell him a bunch of stuff after he was captured. He did our first profile on bin Laden, which he was working on before 9/11. Did you guys know one of bin Laden's top assistants (non military stuff, just a really important gopher so to speak) turned on them for $500? It really is good stuff, fascinating. I prefer it on audio book but that's just me.

[Krgrecw]

This sounds pretty reasonable to me, though with the current Congress and their absolute hatred/loathing for the current president I'm not sure they could even get together to talk about something like another good old war. But with that said, GJ sounds like a fairly constitutional guy, unlike most of the usual suspects the R's trot out there who have to try and act like badasses.

Who's JW by the way?



The interviewer from some libertarian website. The interview was from three months back.


The Brains not Bomb defense is stupid. Very Chamberlian-esque.

[Oklahomahawk]

as a lifelong peacenic I find his response sophomoric.

Of course the administration has cut off whatever funding they can and this Congress cant keep Puerto Rico from defaulting, pass a highway bill or effectively find funds to combat a deadly mosquito virus.

By the time they come to a resolution on something this serious we could all be bowing to the east 5 times a day.
Like I was saying about 10' of water

That word is the key, the folks who are always bitching about how much we spend on social programs are always neck deep in payola themselves, and Vlad Cheney is at or at least towards the top of the heap. If you all will watch that 8 minute interview GJ talks about cutting funding to the DoD and Maher tries to get him to commit to a percentage, which of course noone could do honestly if they aren't already president, but he said the Pentagon folks themselves said around 20% would be doable without hurting our defense, so that would be his goal. The hardcore Repubs like Vlad would NEVER allow $1 to be cut from defense spending since that's their slush fund, just like the Dems have the DoE and some union pension accounts as slush funds. I don't know for sure but I would imagine both parties have their own teats at the Fed set aside and earmarked with their names monogrammed on said teats.

[57Brave]

Hurting the defense is the least of it.
Our country would suffer debilitating un employment should we cut the DOD to campaign rhetoric levels

[Oklahomahawk]

The interviewer from some libertarian website. The interview was from three months back.


The Brains not Bomb defense is stupid. Very Chamberlian-esque.

Ah, OK. I haven't seen or read the thing and most of what I know about GJ was what I hear around here and the Maher interview. I would say after 8 years of W and his carpet bombing everything in sight and saying we had to fight the War on Terror as a conventional war, using the military, and now almost 8 of Obama droning everything in sight and saying we have to fight it with just intelligence and surgical strikes, can we admit that both methods work to a point, at least in the short term, but neither has eliminated the problem in the long term?

Brains do come in handy sometimes, but then it doesn't hurt to have some firepower around too. I don't know why we have to be so "either or" as a nation. I think that's one of the biggest problems with politics, both sides may have A good point about a particular thing, but that isn't good enough, they have to take it to their own little comfort zone of extreme left or extreme right. Most of the people I know live somewhere in the middle.

[acesfull86]

Most (R) are out of touch with mainstream Americans. Both abortion and marijuana poll 180degrees from (R) stances.

Funny thing to me is, I proposed to Bedell after watching Sarah Palin win the who has the biggest dick contest that was the (R) in the 2008 general that what (R) needed was a Charley Crist type candidate. Granted Crist per se might not have been the ideal but I think you get the point.
Someone that doesn't live in an isolated bubble where white is the only color and far right Christianity is the only religion .

Reagan has been gone for close to 30 years and it really is time to move on

I disagree with Johnson on most everything in his platform -- but good lord he would be a breath of fresh air.
Pretty sure he wouldn't announce his candidacy in Philadelphia , Mississippi then shrug and say, "who, me !!"

In other words, though we disagree on virtually everything I feel like Johnson would treat me with respect. No (R) since 1960 comes to mind that has given me that sense.

Question, in Obama's 8 years, has he been respectful to his disagree ers ?
I think he has given them too much respect

Johnson claims he got like a 73% match with Sanders on the "isidewith" quiz...I don't think you disagree with Johnson as much as you think you do...

[Oklahomahawk]

Hurting the defense is the least of it.
Our country would suffer debilitating un employment should we cut the DOD to campaign rhetoric levels

Yes, just like when Obama was thinking about allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire all you saw on Fox was "Largest Tax Increase in History" crap 24/7. Until we all get past the susceptibility of any and all fear mongering tactics working like we were Pavlovian veteran test subjects things aren't going to get any better. Social programs are going to have to be cut, so is the DoD, so is everything else, and we're going to have to get those who profit the most from this nation to stop being able to hide what they've profited. Jon Stewart did a thing not too long ago about how all young people should have to serve (don't recall the amount of time) in some sort of public service after HS. He said that's why so many have lost their feeling of connection with their country. I agree with him at least in principle.

[57Brave]

Johnson claims he got like a 73% match with Sanders on the "isidewith" quiz...I don't think you disagree with Johnson as much as you think you do...

our fundamental difference is his notion that economy/society works from the top down.

[57Brave]

Yes, just like when Obama was thinking about allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire all you saw on Fox was "Largest Tax Increase in History" crap 24/7. Until we all get past the susceptibility of any and all fear mongering tactics working like we were Pavlovian veteran test subjects things aren't going to get any better. Social programs are going to have to be cut, so is the DoD, so is everything else, and we're going to have to get those who profit the most from this nation to stop being able to hide what they've profited. Jon Stewart did a thing not too long ago about how all young people should have to serve (don't recall the amount of time) in some sort of public service after HS. He said that's why so many have lost their feeling of connection with their country. I agree with him at least in principle.

Be like turning the Queen Mary around in skating rink.
Yes in principle and yes funds need slashing yada yada yada

http://www.ncsl.org/research/military-and-veterans-affairs/military-s-impact-on-state-economies.aspx

[sturg33]

Johnson is not my ideal candidate by any stretch... but as 57 has taught me... I won't make perfect the enemy of the good

[57Brave]

Johnson is not my ideal candidate by any stretch... but as 57 has taught me... I won't make perfect the enemy of the good

This could be a very interesting election should (R) come to grips with their "daddy issues"

I think a 4 person debate between HRC-Warren -Johnson and Weld
Same stage

[50PoundHead]

our fundamental difference is his notion that economy/society works from the top down.

That would be my primary difference with him as well, but he doesn't worship the lucky like Mitt Romney does.

[57Brave]

“Who’s Harriet Tubman?” Johnson asked.

[57Brave]

I wonder where Gary Johnson is this week ?

[sturg33]

Probably somewhere sticking to his principles and not selling out.

[57Brave]

But not you know -- participating

Is " sticking to his principles and not selling out. " a white boys way of saying

Chill ?

[57Brave]

" – not the timid souls who criticize from the sidelines, but someone “who is actually in the arena… '

[acesfull86]

I wonder where Gary Johnson is this week ?

Campaigning and fighting to get on the debate stage

[57Brave]

not what but where ?

[Julio3000]

I wonder where Gary Johnson is this week ?

Not assembling a governing coalition out of various often disparate interests. Not balancing debts, favors, and obligations to interests across the board. Not coordinating a national organization that has to function from the precinct level to the international stage. Not considering how to actually govern the country when the rubber meets the road. Those are unpleasant and often unseemly things that major-party bigwigs have to do. Gary Johnson—and Jill Stein, for that matter—can focus on their respective strong suits—like ideological purity, holier-than-thou posturing, and smug sideline sniping.

[sturg33]

Not assembling a governing coalition out of various often disparate interests. Not balancing debts, favors, and obligations to interests across the board. Not coordinating a national organization that has to function from the precinct level to the international stage. Not considering how to actually govern the country when the rubber meets the road. Those are unpleasant and often unseemly things that major-party bigwigs have to do. Gary Johnson—and Jill Stein, for that matter—can focus on their respective strong suits—like ideological purity, holier-than-thou posturing, and smug sideline sniping.

You mean like... run a state? Something neither Hilary nor Donald have ever done?

[jpx7]

Gary Johnson—and Jill Stein, for that matter—can focus on their respective strong suits—like ideological purity, holier-than-thou posturing, and smug sideline sniping.

Et tu, Julio? Sad to see you using that strawman truncheon.

[Julio3000]

Et tu, Julio? Sad to see you using that strawman truncheon.

Yeah, me too. I've been critical of the Republicans allowing their party to be ruled by purity-testers whose knife-arms are really only long enough to reach their own noses. I'm not interested in watching the Democrats do the same thing, irrespective of the fact that I'm ideologically aligned with them. I'm with 50# here, in this situation, in preferring a technocrat to a doomed revolutionary.

I don't think a progressive legislative agenda has a snowball's chance in hell until there are some baseline changes that are going to take both Supreme Court action and a broad, probably bipartisan congressional majority. Citizens United has to be overturned and access to the polls has to become both broader and easier. Neither a protest vote nor a vote of conscience is going to deliver either of those things, but a vote for a seriously flawed but viable top-ticket candidate actually could. Being a middle-aged ****, I am more comfortable with 50% of something instead of 100% of nothing.

[acesfull86]

not what but where ?

Philadelphia, according to his Twitter

[jpx7]

Yeah, me too. I've been critical of the Republicans allowing their party to be ruled by purity-testers whose knife-arms are really only long enough to reach their own noses. I'm not interested in watching the Democrats do the same thing, irrespective of the fact that I'm ideologically aligned with them. I'm with 50# here, in this situation, in preferring a technocrat to a doomed revolutionary.

I don't think a progressive legislative agenda has a snowball's chance in hell until there are some baseline changes that are going to take both Supreme Court action and a broad, probably bipartisan congressional majority. Citizens United has to be overturned and access to the polls has to become both broader and easier. Neither a protest vote nor a vote of conscience is going to deliver either of those things, but a vote for a seriously flawed but viable top-ticket candidate actually could. Being a middle-aged ****, I am more comfortable with 50% of something instead of 100% of nothing.

I've closely followed elections since 2000, and voted consistently and regularly (even in midterms!) for Democratic candidates since I could legally vote (which began with the 2004 election). I've always been left of the party, but I've grown further left while they've seemingly grown further right; likewise, all the progressive promises the party's made in the past fifteen-plus years have either fallen far short, or—far too often—actually ended with backsliding.

You can fairly place some blame, especially over the past half-decade, on an uncompromising, intractable, mostly bellicose right. But you can also pretty fairly blame the party for a doubling-down on neoliberal, meritocratic-fallacy politics. This policy perspective was initially implemented under the first Clinton's regime, and I think is best summed by its focus on the slimy, right-pandering euphemistic programs to help for the "working poor" (because **** the rest of the poor, right?); obviously there was pressure of an unfriendly Congress, but these ideals nonetheless buttressed the devastating "welfare reform" Clinton put into practice. It's also seen, more recently and at the more local level (and this one's close to home—or former home, at least), in the technocratic embrace of projects like charter schools, which are largely pro-corporate and anti-union and statistical-model-obsessed. And lastly, but perhaps most viscerally, it's detectable in the haute-smug, "we have the facts" tactics—furiously on display this cycle—that seeks to deny the agency of sentiment in politics, and which belies the putatively-progressive and -democratic goodwill of party actors. In any instantiation, it's the emergent coefficient to a greater coziness with capital and a further disregard for—and even an endgame dissolution of—labor (and with it, obviously, non-elite solidarity). In Clinton redux—even though I find her a more capable public servant than her husband, on the balance—it's almost a tripling-down of this posture; and—given the vitriol disseminated by the establishment and its surrogates through the primary season (and continuing beyond the primaries, despite Sander's capitulation)—it feels like a bald and icy repudiation of the left as a real flank within the Democratic Party.

Maybe that should inspire me to struggle even more to modify the party from within, but the tea-leaves just don't read like that for me at this point (and the last time leftists tried that, it didn't work out so well (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/democratic-party-realignment-civil-rights-mcgovern-meany-rustin-sanders/)). Maybe the Democratic Party's deeply disappointing me my entire voting life—even in spite of the fact that I understand that institutional politics is, to a large extent, a practice in disappointment—has simply soured me. Maybe the party's salting that disappointment by taking my support as a given—or worse, something owed—has irrevocably broken my investment in their tent. Maybe I'm still young enough, with at least a decade left before middle-age, that I can swallow starting over while there's still time.

Regardless, it's not "ideological purity", nor a putting the perfect before the good, nor holier-than-thou out-grouping, nor a wish (unlike some far leftists) to burn the thing down to 100% of nothing rather accept a highly-qualified something. Not for me, at least—and not for a lot of others expressing dissent with the Democratic Party. For me, it's a belief that there will always be a boogeyman to collapse left energy back into the liberal hegemony, but at a certain point it ceases to be worth voting from that place of fear. For me, it's the belief that the party isn't really going to let itself be pushed from within—not substantially, anyways; not enough—and so there comes a time when it's more worthwhile to push them from without.

[57Brave]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/sally-bradshaw-jeb-bush-donald-trump-florida/

Bradshaw said she hasn't yet decided who she'll vote for -- though "it obviously won't be Trump. I haven't made a decision yet between Clinton, Gary Johnson or writing in a candidate."
"If the race in Florida is close, I will vote for Hillary Clinton," she said.

[weso1]

I honestly think Gary Johnson is only a libertarian because of pot. Other than that I think he'd wind up being pretty moderate.

[57Brave]

The good news today?

After Trump --- Johnson - Weld getting traction.
Guessing they cross the 15% marker by Sept 1.
and I'd wager he gets on the debate stage then perhaps overtake Trump. Perhaps
Provided there still is a Trump

I still don't think him a good candidate for two reasons.
1) Here is one policy example. He favors privatizing the prison system
2) I don't think he has the experience for the national and/or international stage.
wonder if HRC would use him in her administration in some role, cabinet or Ambassador

Seeing how the Libertarian Party is another (R) party, I wonder why he or Weld didn't get involved in (R) Presidential politics in 2013 or 14
Just one more of those questions that won't be answered for another 10 years.
Can't wait to read about this election once the dust settles and it becomes history

[acesfull86]

Seeing how the Libertarian Party is another (R) party, I wonder why he or Weld didn't get involved in (R) Presidential politics in 2013 or 14

You saying this doesn'tt make it true. From a non-interventionist foreign policy, to supporting a woman's right to choose, to wanting to end the war on drugs, to being pro-gay marriage, to being free trade, I'm not seeing how Johnson fits in with the current GOP platform. I guess they agree on the 2nd amendment.

[acesfull86]

Duplicate post

[57Brave]

Seeing how the Libertarian Party is another (R) party, I wonder why he or Weld didn't get involved in (R) Presidential politics in 2013 or 14

You saying this doesn'tt make it true. From a non-interventionist foreign policy, to supporting a woman's right to choose, to wanting to end the war on drugs, to being pro-gay marriage, to being free trade, I'm not seeing how Johnson fits in with the current GOP platform. I guess they agree on the 2nd amendment.

The similarity ( the Hooverism) is the unflinching desire to cut the New Deal off at the knees.
Deregulation
Top down government

Social issues come and go but this overriding philosophy has endured
In the 1990's (I think) one of the Koch Brothers was the VP nominee to Libertarian Party
Tell me,
Does anyone really think the Koch Brothers give 2 rats asses about a womans right to choose ?
The war on drugs? Gay Marriage ?

How deos that old saying go, "follow the money"

[Tapate50]

The good news today?

After Trump --- Johnson - Weld getting traction.
Guessing they cross the 15% marker by Sept 1.
and I'd wager he gets on the debate stage then perhaps overtake Trump. Perhaps
Provided there still is a Trump

I still don't think him a good candidate for two reasons.
1) Here is one policy example. He favors privatizing the prison system
2) I don't think he has the experience for the national and/or international stage.
wonder if HRC would use him in her administration in some role, cabinet or Ambassador

Seeing how the Libertarian Party is another (R) party, I wonder why he or Weld didn't get involved in (R) Presidential politics in 2013 or 14
Just one more of those questions that won't be answered for another 10 years.
Can't wait to read about this election once the dust settles and it becomes history

And this was a lot of folks primary gripe with BO resume at the time.

[57Brave]

Agree to a point.
Obama was a member of the US Senate when he ran with hands on access to current legislation and briefings .
Johnson hasn't held office for over 15years (?) and that was Governor of a state with a population less than that of Brooklyn, NY.
Not disqualifying but to my eyes, doesn't check the experience box.

I am curious what he does or what he gets offered after the election.
As in willing to grow from this experience - recruit down ballot (L) or even become a member of a Clinton Administration

[57Brave]

I am listening to an interview with Gary Johnson and thinking Mitch MCConnell , Chuck Shumer , Nancy Pelosi and Ted Cruz would eat him for lunch.
What he and Jane Stein say sound great but, the rubber will always meet the road.

Nor to mention had he been on the (R) debate stage.
If we are electing a Sunday School teacher, I might vote for Johnson.
Otherwise all those nice sounding things he says stand 0 chance of becoming law.

He is not going to cut military spending by closing bases.
He is not going to completly restructure Social Security
and
He will not eliminate corporate and income taxes.

All of those things are at best 25-30 years down the road
That road does not start from the White House.
All of the bridges he would burn by even bringing those issues up at the national level would politically leave him beyond ineffective
As I watch Johnson and Stein I think you have to give Sen Sanders credit for recognizing the process and that the ship of state doe not turn around in a swimming pool

I did see one person running for Congress from the (L)
I haven't seen anyone from the Green Party

[57Brave]

Has anyone else actually heard this candidate grilled on his "policies" and temperament.

Let me put it this way, if he was running for Sheriff of Mayberry RFD he'd have my vote
He can gosh and golly with the best of them.

Toward the end of the interview his feet were held to the fire, because when you get right to it, he does have competing interests. In a nut shell he became testy and kept repeating "2 term Governor in a red state"
as if ...
////

should he get to the debate stage -- he will get gutted

[sturg33]

Has anyone else actually heard this candidate grilled on his "policies" and temperament.

Let me put it this way, if he was running for Sheriff of Mayberry RFD he'd have my vote
He can gosh and golly with the best of them.

Toward the end of the interview his feet were held to the fire, because when you get right to it, he does have competing interests. In a nut shell he became testy and kept repeating "2 term Governor in a red state"
as if ...
////

should he get to the debate stage -- he will get gutted

I love how you act like he has no experience.

When in fact he has the most governing experience of any candidate in the race

[acesfull86]

I'll take my chances of him getting "gutted"...just get him on the stage...

[57Brave]

I love how you act like he has no experience.

When in fact he has the most governing experience of any candidate in the race

The Mayor of Brooklyn has more experience and from my last hearing thicker skin
and has actually governed since the rise of Twitter, text messaging , Uber , widespread use of analytic's in sport, Facebook, etc etc etc.
oh yeah, Barrack Obama was still an unknown Illinois State Senator the last time Tommy Laste ... I mean Gary Johnson governed.
wow, Obama still hadn't said "no red states-blue staes ..."
Hillary Clinton was in the US Senate for 8 years and Sec of State for 4. It is mathamatically impossible to back up the statement Johnson has
' the most governing experience of any candidate in the race "
So Sandersesque

I think you get the idea

[sturg33]

The Mayor of Brooklyn has more experience and from my last hearing thicker skin
and has actually governed since the rise of Twitter, text messaging , Uber , widespread use of analytic's in sport, Facebook, etc etc etc.
oh yeah, Barrack Obama was still an unknown Illinois State Senator the last time Tommy Laste ... I mean Gary Johnson Governed.
wow, Obama still hadn't said "no red states-blue staes ..."

I think you get the idea

You're a sad dude.

If you were as much of a Bernie supporter as you claim... I'm surprised you're not more favorable to the governor.

Only difference is Johnson's made decisions that affect the lives of real people... and was immensely successful in doing so.

Bernie has just gotten rich in our rich country by complaining about rich people for his career

[57Brave]

I'll take my chances of him getting "gutted"...just get him on the stage...


Said, Lil Marco, Lyin Ted,Low Energy Jeb ...

[weso1]

Speaking of that, what kind of nicknames do you think Trump would have for Gary Johnson? lil Johnson might have hit too close to home for Trump.

[57Brave]

" A new poll shows Trump’s support all the way down to 9% with voters under 30, as reported by The Washington Post. The poll has Hillary Clinton at 41% in first place. Enjoying second place is Gary Johnson at 23%. Shockingly, Jill Stein is polling 7% above Trump at a whopping 16% in third place. "

Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/new-poll-trump-nose-dive/#ixzz4HF5u1SQZ
Follow us: @TheLibRepublic on Twitter

[57Brave]

One area of disagreement I have with Gary Johnson is privatizing the prison system.
Or, Prison for Profit.

In that light

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/18/justice-department-says-it-will-end-use-of-private-prisons/?postshare=8911471534632611&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.55b32ddb1db9

[Hawk]

What is Aleppo?

Damn, talk about taking isolationism to an extreme ...

[goldfly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTsnfxxu3qk

[The Chosen One]

What is Aleppo?

Damn, talk about taking isolationism to an extreme ...

I was gonna say, that minding our own business foreign policy narrative really went out of the ballpark for libertarians on that.

[sturg33]

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian.

And we should mind our own business.

[Julio3000]

That's what you get when you wake n' bake before doing media.

[chop2chip]

What is Aleppo?

Damn, talk about taking isolationism to an extreme ...

I'm not a Gary Johnson stan by an means, but I don't see why this is a big deal. When the host elaborated on his vague question, Johnson understood the issue at hand and offered, IMO, a good strategy to combat it.

[cajunrevenge]

God forbid he doesnt know the name of a Syrian city. Guess we should just **** all that freedom **** and vote for an authoritarian candidate so they can continue destroying lives with their war on poor people. Maybe if his foreign policy was to throw a dart at a world map and bomb wherever it lands he would get the approval of the Sean Hannity types that think we currently have a sane foreign policy.

[The Chosen One]

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian.

And we should mind our own business.

How could you vote for this guy the last two election cycles? It's like you're as much of a sellout as Bernie.

[sturg33]

How could you vote for this guy the last two election cycles? It's like you're as much of a sellout as Bernie.

You're a salty dude. Your boy is a sellout. Just embrace it

I don't love Gary Johnson. But he espouses individual liberty, low taxes and spending, and non-interventionist foreign policy. All of which are the most important things to me.

He aslo has a great track record, unlike the other choices

[goldfly]

God forbid he doesnt know the name of a Syrian city.

that is beyond a valid question to ask someone asking for votes for the job for president and it should be known where and what is going on there

too think otherwise is silly

[zitothebrave]

What is Aleppo?

Damn, talk about taking isolationism to an extreme ...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/08/new_york_times_aleppo_story_inception_but_for_corr ections.html

Honestly I don't get the big deal. Aleppo is in the news, but if you kept up with every political event that happened in the world you'd go insane. FI'm guessing like all other presidents, he'll have a cabinet filled with experts to work on things like that.

[Oklahomahawk]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/08/new_york_times_aleppo_story_inception_but_for_corr ections.html

Honestly I don't get the big deal. Aleppo is in the news, but if you kept up with every political event that happened in the world you'd go insane. FI'm guessing like all other presidents, he'll have a cabinet filled with experts to work on things like that.

Just more "gotcha" moments. I suppose expecting the potentially most powerful "person" in the world to know pretty much everything about everything is fair game, but can you imagine the other 2 candidates' responses to the same question?

Trump: Yeah I've been there, it's YUGE!!!!! I made a deal with them, it was a great deal, not like the ones "Crooked Hillary" made.
Hilldog: Yes, I know exactly where Aleppo is, they contributed to the Clinton foundation....oh and also it's where I buried some of the bodies.

[zitothebrave]

Well I doubt those 2 would take interviews without knowing what would be asked. Johnson probably just went in.

[AerchAngel]

Just more "gotcha" moments. I suppose expecting the potentially most powerful "person" in the world to know pretty much everything about everything is fair game, but can you imagine the other 2 candidates' responses to the same question?

Trump: Yeah I've been there, it's YUGE!!!!! I made a deal with them, it was a great deal, not like the ones "Crooked Hillary" made.
Hilldog: Yes, I know exactly where Aleppo is, they contributed to the Clinton foundation....oh and also it's where I buried some of the bodies.

Haven't laughed this hard from reading posts on this board in a long time. Well played and exactly how I would pitcher the exchange.

[Hawk]

What is Fallujah?

[zitothebrave]

First off you have to realize the questioning was poor s well.

He was asked what would your do about Aleppo. Not how would you deal with the situation in Aleppo, or anything like that. It would be like asking Trump what would he do about Providence.

[57Brave]

A third party niche candidate meaninglessly flubs an interview while this goes another day un noticed

Donald Trump is shifting to “responsible candidate” mode now, so his remarks on foreign policy Wednesday night sounded relatively restrained — until you begin parsing the details.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/dont-be-fooled--donald-trumps-foreign-policy-is-as-scary-as-ever/2016/09/08/28419e80-75e7-11e6-be4f-3f42f2e5a49e_story.html?utm_term=.7497e7f1379f&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

......

I agree with many here who say "hey I don't know what Aleppo was"
because they stand as much a chance of occupying the White House in January as Johnson.

On the other hand, all the while being distracted by the shiny thing ... again
Stay focused people

[AerchAngel]

57, how much of the dirty money that sHillary is paying you to be an asshole on here that props the felon?

[57Brave]

First off you have to realize the questioning was poor s well.

He was asked what would your do about Aleppo. Not how would you deal with the situation in Aleppo, or anything like that. It would be like asking Trump what would he do about Providence.


No, Barnicle was asking the most straightforward question possible: What is the strategic, diplomatic, and moral route to ending the prolonged slaughter in Syria? Johnson’s inability to locate Aleppo, where men, women, and children are being eradicated every day, most recently by chlorine-gas attacks, was pathetic, the equivalent of a candidate for President in 1964 being unable to summon the location of Hanoi or Saigon. It’s not enough that Johnson has a vague isolationist ideology—that, like Ron and Rand Paul, he is against an interventionist foreign policy. That’s a legitimate viewpoint, but it doesn’t seem overly demanding to insist that he read a newspaper, a Web site, anything—that he ought to know something about the wars that are being fought in the world, especially given that America has an active, if limited, involvement in Syria now. And shouldn’t knowing nothing—in his case, or in Trump’s—be disqualifying? At the D.M.V., if you flunk the written exam, you can’t get behind a steering wheel with the motor running. Perhaps there should be a remotely similar bar for cluelessness in a Presidential campaign.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-is-aleppo

....

Not to mention he hasn't been puched in the mouth yet.
Niche candidate.
Niche is French for irrelevant

[AerchAngel]

No, Barnicle was asking the most straightforward question possible: What is the strategic, diplomatic, and moral route to ending the prolonged slaughter in Syria? Johnson’s inability to locate Aleppo, where men, women, and children are being eradicated every day, most recently by chlorine-gas attacks, was pathetic, the equivalent of a candidate for President in 1964 being unable to summon the location of Hanoi or Saigon. It’s not enough that Johnson has a vague isolationist ideology—that, like Ron and Rand Paul, he is against an interventionist foreign policy. That’s a legitimate viewpoint, but it doesn’t seem overly demanding to insist that he read a newspaper, a Web site, anything—that he ought to know something about the wars that are being fought in the world, especially given that America has an active, if limited, involvement in Syria now. And shouldn’t knowing nothing—in his case, or in Trump’s—be disqualifying? At the D.M.V., if you flunk the written exam, you can’t get behind a steering wheel with the motor running. Perhaps there should be a remotely similar bar for cluelessness in a Presidential campaign.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-is-aleppo

....

Not to mention he hasn't been puched in the mouth yet.
Niche candidate.
Niche is French for irrelevant

Better than a clown - Trump
Better than a felon - sHillary

[zitothebrave]

No, Barnicle was asking the most straightforward question possible: What is the strategic, diplomatic, and moral route to ending the prolonged slaughter in Syria? Johnson’s inability to locate Aleppo, where men, women, and children are being eradicated every day, most recently by chlorine-gas attacks, was pathetic, the equivalent of a candidate for President in 1964 being unable to summon the location of Hanoi or Saigon. It’s not enough that Johnson has a vague isolationist ideology—that, like Ron and Rand Paul, he is against an interventionist foreign policy. That’s a legitimate viewpoint, but it doesn’t seem overly demanding to insist that he read a newspaper, a Web site, anything—that he ought to know something about the wars that are being fought in the world, especially given that America has an active, if limited, involvement in Syria now. And shouldn’t knowing nothing—in his case, or in Trump’s—be disqualifying? At the D.M.V., if you flunk the written exam, you can’t get behind a steering wheel with the motor running. Perhaps there should be a remotely similar bar for cluelessness in a Presidential campaign.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-is-aleppo

....

Not to mention he hasn't been puched in the mouth yet.
Niche candidate.
Niche is French for irrelevant

That wasn't the question asked.

ANd it's not similar because we aren't at war with Korea like we were with Vietnam.

Also Johnson isn't an isolationist. He believes there are times we should intervene militarily in foreign wars, he mentioned Kosovo as a specific time he would agree with the US intervention.

I get the reason for the attacks from democratic shills like NYT are going after him because Johnson is a direct threat to Clinton because Clinton wants those votes.

Here's another article on this

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/08/media-and-pundits-dont-know-what-aleppo-is-but-they-try-to-explain-it-to-gary-johnson/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/08/i-asked-gary-johnson-about-aleppo-i-don-t-blame-him-for-not-knowing.html

First is pointing out the hypocrisy of this whole thing. People with time to research Aleppo get it wrong. Johnson was asked point blank. I bet if I was talking to you before yesterday and asked you what is Aleppo on the spot you'd be confused.

Second discusses that Johnson is a human. He admitted he screwed up and should know it. Shocker, a politician who can admit they're human and not perfect. Holy ****.

Last one is from the man who asked the question. My favorite 2 paragraphs

"Don’t blame Gary Johnson for his ignorance or his inability to speak to what is happening in a piece of the world that is a cauldron of terror, combat, and refugees. He’s not alone. Neither of the two major candidates—Trump and Clinton—have been asked the same simple question recently: What would you do about Aleppo?

Maybe it’s because one is a bit paranoid about the press and the other simply does not care. Hillary Clinton appears tortured, robotic, unable to speak in a straight line and in a permanent defensive crouch when she does find the time to answer a few questions. Trump just lies or makes it up while we shrug our shoulders and treat him like he is still the host of The Apprentice rather than a candidate for president of the United States. We laugh at him, apparently unaware the joke is on us."

[zitothebrave]

Perhaps there should be a remotely similar bar for cluelessness in a Presidential campaign.

I agree. LIke someoen who says

“We’ve got to say to the gun lobby, you know what, there is a constitutional right for people to own guns, but there’s also a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that enables us to have a safe country where we are able to protect our children and others from this senseless gun violence,”
Shouldn't be elected president as they confuse the Declaration with the Constitution.

[Runnin]

Aleppo, okay. But East Korea???

[zitothebrave]

Aleppo, okay. But East Korea???

Umm you know that the Borowitz Report is fake, right?

[Runnin]

Umm you know that the Borowitz Report is fake, right?
LOL. I didn't notice that. It's really hard to tell the real from the parody anymore.

[zitothebrave]

LOL. I didn't notice that. It's really hard to tell the real from the parody anymore.

NOt really. At least not with Google. Johnson made a gaffe and Hillary's hitmen are going after him. Same thing they did with Stein earlier with the vaccination thing. Little do they know that people who're looking at Stein or Johnson don't give a **** about **** like this and are voting because they care about the issues, and Hillary is weak on the issues.

[57Brave]

" sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
going to the candidates debates
laugh about it
shout about it
when you got to choose
any way you look at it
you lose


where have you gone Joe DiMaggio a nation turns it's lonely eyes to you
wooo woo woo oo
what's that you say Mrs Robinson
Joltin joe has left and gone away

hey hey hey

hey hey hey "

[zitothebrave]

Do you realize the irony of what you just posted? Probably not.

[cajunrevenge]

that is beyond a valid question to ask someone asking for votes for the job for president and it should be known where and what is going on there

too think otherwise is silly


I dont have a problem with asking the question I have just have a problem with people acting like its a big deal that he had to ask for clarification. And I'm sorry about whats happening halfway across the world but we need to end the mass incarceration of innocent people before we worry about Syrians. We have our own civil war to fight.

[goldfly]

I dont have a problem with asking the question I have just have a problem with people acting like its a big deal that he had to ask for clarification. And I'm sorry about whats happening halfway across the world but we need to end the mass incarceration of innocent people before we worry about Syrians. We have our own civil war to fight.

well, i believe we should be adult enough to handle 2 things at once

the Syria stuff, whatever, people will make their excuses for whomever they support. no need to get into the argument if they aren't being honest about their "guy"/"gal"

[zitothebrave]

well, i believe we should be adult enough to handle 2 things at once

the Syria stuff, whatever, people will make their excuses for whomever they support. no need to get into the argument if they aren't being honest about their "guy"/"gal"
I would say the only people being honest about their guy/gal are the people "defending" Johnson. You honestly thing Hillary or Trump would have answered much better?

My guess on what they would have done.

Hillary would have delayed and been vague then sent her goons after the reporter. Instead of a NYT article criticising Johnson, we'd have seen a NYT article bringing up that Mike Barnicle resigned in disgrace from the Boston Globe.

Trump would have deflected in 2 seconds and started talking about building a wall or not letting Muslims in the country.

Again, I'd bet the majority of people who criticize Johnson for not knowing ALeppo, don't really know it themselves. Aside from it being a city in Syria and it being a huge civil war battle ground, that's about where my knowledge ends.

The issue isn't knowing 2 things, it's everyone expects them to know everything. And that's impossible. To me who comes out bad in this is the media, because they all got on their high horses immediately, then all looked stupid as **** when they didn't know what Aleppo was and had the time to do a quick Google that Johnson didn't.

[57Brave]

Do you realize the irony of what you just posted? Probably not.

Of course I did.
In 1968.

[zitothebrave]

Of course I did.
In 1968.

OK, so you don't get it. It has to do about Eleanor Roosevelt and her inability to become president. Which is a plight much more akin to the 3rd party candidates like Stein and Johnson than any major party.

[57Brave]

The working title to Yesterday was Scrambled Eggs. You know what that meant --- right ?

Lucy in the Sky was never about LSD but a picture Lennon's son drew and taped to the refrigerator --
and all we're left with is , Joltin joe has left and gone away
hey hey hey

Coo Coo CaChoo was a referring to the lesbian affair between Marilyn Monroe and Mrs Robinson or Eleanor Roosevelt
had nothing to do with 3rd party politics in 2016
The irony


Gracie Allen once ran for President under the banner of the Surprise Party. The **** we learn

[zitothebrave]

Coo coo ca choo is a zeitgeist type of statement involving the famous line from I am the Walrus.

But whatever, you don't see the irony, I mean you are daft, I get it. Remember when you pretended to like Bernie? THat was fun.

[57Brave]

Coo coo ca choo is a zeitgeist type of statement involving the famous line from I am the Walrus.

.

that is your take?
Mine is more fun if you think about it

I read somewhere on the internet that was Paul Simon's reading of john Lennon's filler line of Coo Coo Cachoo.
really
.........................

You walk into a room
with your
pencil in your hand

[57Brave]

Jill Stein flew to the wrong city to give a speech.
You see that as Presidential timber --- that is a problem

[cajunrevenge]

When it was clarified they were talking about the Syrian crisis Johnson said he would work out a deal with Russia. Days later Kerry announces a deal with Russia to deal with the Syrian crisis. Still want to pretend like he doesnt know whats going on in Syria?

[sturg33]

When it was clarified they were talking about the Syrian crisis Johnson said he would work out a deal with Russia. Days later Kerry announces a deal with Russia to deal with the Syrian crisis. Still want to pretend like he doesnt know whats going on in Syria?

The best part about this is that 57 thinks this is a disqualified... but sees no issues with the emails or the pay for play corruption.

Classic

[57Brave]

I don't think it disqualifies him but what it did do is left the taste in the casual voters mouth that he doesn't know Middle School geography.
As in it was his "in what respect Charley " moment
Warranted or not.


I have always wanted him on the debate stage - I think he has points and they deserve being heard.
Though those points are (R) with a smiley face and sophomoric But given what else (R) has to offer -
Niche candidates can't afford to have those kinds of slips. He may not get another crack
Warranted or not

[zitothebrave]

Aleppo is not middle school geography. The people on twitter who called Aleppo the capital of Syria when it's Damascus, that's middle school geography.

[acesfull86]

Though those points are (R) with a smiley face

You continuing to say this doesn't make it any more true

[57Brave]

you get my point.
it left him looking like a fool (stoner ? )

If you have to explain what he meant, there is a problem
warranted or not

[57Brave]

You continuing to say this doesn't make it any more true

Never said it was true.
Just my opinion
agree or disagree - I don't care

[sturg33]

Never said it was true.
Just my opinion
agree or disagree - I don't care

Why would you have an opinion of something that you don't think is true?

[57Brave]

Oh Sturg --- I don't claim to hold truth --
All I have are opinions that are more often than not borne out by history.

Your question reminds me of the 2012 election where one of the hot topics was off shore drilling.
When one candidate or the other changed to be against OSD. One fellow poster opined that he could no longer vote for a candidate that would abandon his "core values" so easily.
Really ? The political issue of Off Shore Drilling is a metric of "core values "
....

My opinion of (L) is it is (R) with an emoji

[acesfull86]

The difference between Johnson and Trump is greater than the difference between Clinton and Trump.

[57Brave]

Voting Third Party is the Electoral Equivalent of Sending Thoughts and Prayers



Which is why voting third party is mostly an empty gesture meant to telegraph a person’s own virtue without actually involving real work. If Stein really wanted to do some progressive good or even pass her bonkers woo ideas, she’d be a Democrat or at least an Independent who works with Democrats like Sanders. If Johnson actually cared about letting you smoke weed hassle-free, he should have done something about it when he was a Republican in actual power.

http://www.freepresshouston.com/voting-third-party-is-the-electoral-equivalent-of-sending-thoughts-and-prayers/

[sturg33]

[SIZE=5]Voting Third Party is the Electoral Equivalent of Sending Thoughts and Prayers




http://www.freepresshouston.com/voting-third-party-is-the-electoral-equivalent-of-sending-thoughts-and-prayers/

I'd much rather send thoughts and prayers than implement bad policy.

[weso1]

The difference between Johnson and Trump is greater than the difference between Clinton and Trump.

I'm not convinced of that.

[cajunrevenge]

Voting Third Party is the Electoral Equivalent of Sending Thoughts and Prayers



Which is why voting third party is mostly an empty gesture meant to telegraph a person’s own virtue without actually involving real work. If Stein really wanted to do some progressive good or even pass her bonkers woo ideas, she’d be a Democrat or at least an Independent who works with Democrats like Sanders. If Johnson actually cared about letting you smoke weed hassle-free, he should have done something about it when he was a Republican in actual power.

http://www.freepresshouston.com/voting-third-party-is-the-electoral-equivalent-of-sending-thoughts-and-prayers/


He was a Republican Governor of a Blue State not a dictator. He was the first Governor to publicly come out for legalization of pot. This was in 1999. It was considered career suicide to say something like that. He helped get the ball rolling.

[57Brave]

Oh wow, I didn't know that ~ He was rreally a (R) Governor in a blue state ???/ -- wow


the article, if you read it, was not about the people / resume Johnson or Stein per se
......
Both you an Sturg have pretty much made the writers point

[57Brave]

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle/

[57Brave]

Privatizing prisons is a cornerstone Johnson policy
Don't "we" read because all you see are the shiny things his handlers (yes, he has handlers. See above link) want you to see.
................

Walnut Grove was run by Management and Training Corp., a Utah-based company that is among the nation’s largest private prison contractors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/mississippi-closes-private-prison-walnut-grove.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=1

......

Why does the term "Utah based" keep coming up in anything you read about Johnson ?

[acesfull86]

I'd much rather send thoughts and prayers than implement bad policy.

Expect the onslaught of "you're wasting your vote!" "Johnson is a far right-winger!" "Koch Bros!" from 57 and his ilk as the race tightens and the Hillary people crap themselves when they look at polling data of young people when the question is posed as a 4 way race rather than a 2 way race. No amount of "private prisons!" are going to make me abandon Johnson for Clinton and her abhorrent positions/decades of corruption, but it's amusing to watch the democrats squirm.

[50PoundHead]

Expect the onslaught of "you're wasting your vote!" "Johnson is a far right-winger!" "Koch Bros!" from 57 and his ilk as the race tightens and the Hillary people crap themselves when they look at polling data of young people when the question is posed as a 4 way race rather than a 2 way race. No amount of "private prisons!" are going to make me abandon Johnson for Clinton and her abhorrent positions/decades of corruption, but it's amusing to watch the democrats squirm.

Vote for whomever you'd like, but private prisons are a nightmare (just like private armies are a nightmare). But I agree that's a blip on the screen of the big picture.

[sturg33]

At the same point in 1992, Ross Perot was polling lower than Gary Johnson is right now.

He got in the debate and made a real impact.

It is shameful, that the democratic/republican controlled commission for presidential debates is not allowing a candidate who is polling double digits, and will be on the ballot in all 50 states, in the presidential debates.

The system is rigged, indeed

[sturg33]

I saw a clip of sellout Bernie urging young people to vote for Hilary, rather than a "protest" third party candidate, simply because Trump is so horrible.

And people want to think Bernie has principles? LOL...

[Runnin]

I saw a clip of sellout Bernie urging young people to vote for Hilary, rather than a "protest" third party candidate, simply because Trump is so horrible.

And people want to think Bernie has principles? LOL...
Principles based in fantasy aren't worth anything.

[57Brave]

I saw a clip of sellout Bernie urging young people to vote for Hilary, rather than a "protest" third party candidate, simply because Trump is so horrible.

And people want to think Bernie has principles? LOL...

Bernie Sanders ‏@BernieSanders 4h
4 hours ago

When @HillaryClinton says she’s going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, you know what? That's a very big deal.

[57Brave]

At the same point in 1992, Ross Perot was polling lower than Gary Johnson is right now.

He got in the debate and made a real impact.

It is shameful, that the democratic/republican controlled commission for presidential debates is not allowing a candidate who is polling double digits, and will be on the ballot in all 50 states, in the presidential debates.

The system is rigged, indeed

Isn't the cut off 15% ? Double digit -- but not 15 -is that correct ?

It isn't that they aren't "allowing" him to debate. He doesn't qualify

Are you advocating changing the rules at this point in the game to suit Johnson ?
Why is this an issue now and wasn't back in January-February-March when Johnson was in witness protection.
What did he do then to ensure a spot?

[jpx7]

It isn't that they aren't "allowing" him to debate. He doesn't qualify

Talk about doublespeak.

[jpx7]

Vote for whomever you'd like, but private prisons are a nightmare (just like private armies are a nightmare). But I agree that's a blip on the screen of the big picture.

I'm not sure that the private prisons issue is so minor of a thing, actually—but the situation is nightmarish.

[jpx7]

I saw a clip of sellout Bernie urging young people to vote for Hilary, rather than a "protest" third party candidate, simply because Trump is so horrible.

What bothers me, in that calculus, is not the "Trump is so horrible" clause; I do believe that he is both a terrible candidate and would be demonstrably worse for the US than Hillary Clinton. But I also believe Hillary Clinton would/will be bad for the US. If I, or any one else, truly think there's a third or fourth or fiftieth option out there that would actually be good for the US—or would even be, minimally, better than either major-party candidate—why shouldn't we cast our vote in that direction?

It's funny: Sanders supporters, on the left, were initially attacked from the liberal middle for demanding the ballyhooed ideological purity in a candidate. Now that some are defecting to Stein, Johnson, or other non-duopoly candidates, the attacks from the same liberal middle follow the tenor of, "Well they're not perfect, either!"

---

On a somewhat related note, I have to say I'd find the establishment Democrats a lot more palatable if they simply admitted Clinton was faulty, but argued more coherently that she's a lot less faulty than Trump. (For instance: I'd rather buy a 2008 Passat with misleading emissions standards than a 2002 Mercedes whose engine is actually a bird's nest and whose gas-tank is filled with candy-corn—neither's a great purchase, but one probably won't explode as soon as I drive it off the lot.) Presenting Clinton as this perfect candidate—the best we've ever seen, dammit!—beyond reproach, and essentially ready for hagiography—nay, apotheosis—before she's even seen her coronation ... well that's pretty ****ing off-putting from a party that should be spending less time courting Henry Kissinger's blessing and a hellofalot more time convincing its cynical and youthful left-wing that Clinton isn't great, but she's maybe good enough for now whynot.

[sturg33]

Isn't the cut off 15% ? Double digit -- but not 15 -is that correct ?

It isn't that they aren't "allowing" him to debate. He doesn't qualify

Are you advocating changing the rules at this point in the game to suit Johnson ?
Why is this an issue now and wasn't back in January-February-March when Johnson was in witness protection.
What did he do then to ensure a spot?

The commission has basically assured that no third party can ever get on the stage.. 15% is nearly impossible for someone who - no matter how qualified - is always described as fringe and has no chance of winning.

Like Perot, you won't get to 15% without the opportunity of the national debates... But you can't get in the debates without 15%.

And the commission is controlled by republicans and democrats.

You see no issue there, I assume?

[sturg33]

Bernie Sanders ‏@BernieSanders 4h
4 hours ago

When @HillaryClinton says she’s going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, you know what? That's a very big deal.



I saw that tweet...

I tweeted back to him: "Shouldnt you first understand WHY college is not affordable? Of course you don't, because you don't understand math"

Unfortunately, he didn't respond

[zitothebrave]

Public colleges should be tuition paid, but exclusive.

[sturg33]

Expect the onslaught of "you're wasting your vote!" "Johnson is a far right-winger!" "Koch Bros!" from 57 and his ilk as the race tightens and the Hillary people crap themselves when they look at polling data of young people when the question is posed as a 4 way race rather than a 2 way race. No amount of "private prisons!" are going to make me abandon Johnson for Clinton and her abhorrent positions/decades of corruption, but it's amusing to watch the democrats squirm.

I was in Australia for a week, so it was nice to have a big break from the action. As I've come back, I've noticed the orchestrated campaign from the left about not "wasting your vote" on the third party

I guess they can read the polls.

I'm surprised Trump's not threatening to sit out debates without Johnson. He should recognize that he helps him more than he hurts.

[jpx7]

I saw that tweet...

I tweeted back to him: "Shouldnt you first understand WHY college is not affordable? Of course you don't, because you don't understand math"

Unfortunately, he didn't respond


Public colleges should be tuition paid, but exclusive.

I'm a socialist who, following Aristotle's Politics, believes education should be central and state-sponsored to ensure best government.

But barring a real dictatorship of proletariat, there are a lot of reasonable concessions I'd be quite happy to see. One of the first would be "public colleges [being] tuition paid"—with varying degrees of exclusivity across institutions, in terms of admissions, and an independent arbitration-panel to adjudicate that—but robust funding throughout the public system (and with dumbasses like myself, who want to go to an elite private university, left to **** themselves over for that subtle but non-trivial pedagogic benefit).

However, even before that, I'd also like to see college-level education cease to be a requirement for so many entry-level positions, since—even though I think that level of education is a real and tangible public good for everyone*—it's not really a feasible mandate under our current, mostly-capitalist system. Indeed, I've held a few positions in my (relatively young) life for which a college degree was preferred (read: essentially required), but which was by no means necessary, or even very relevant.

*US society could also probably meet that standard of public good by meaningfully improving high-school-level education. Nobody say I'm not amenable to multiple types of solutions.

[57Brave]

I saw that tweet...

I tweeted back to him: "Shouldnt you first understand WHY college is not affordable? Of course you don't, because you don't understand math"

Unfortunately, he didn't respond

yu are again confusing policy with politics.
Your argument began in the political realm but slid inot a totally different discussion

Meaning, Bernie has not sold out - just found an ally

[sturg33]

yu are again confusing policy with politics.
Your argument began in the political realm but slid inot a totally different discussion

Meaning, Bernie has not sold out - just found an ally

Oh... Bernie has sold out alright... which should have surprised nobody

[sturg33]

I'm a socialist who, following Aristotle's Politics, believes education should be central and state-sponsored to ensure best government.

But barring a real dictatorship of proletariat, there are a lot of reasonable concessions I'd be quite happy to see. One of the first would be "public colleges [being] tuition paid"—with varying degrees of exclusivity across institutions, in terms of admissions, and an independent arbitration-panel to adjudicate that—but robust funding throughout the public system (and with dumbasses like myself, who want to go to an elite private university, left to **** themselves over for that subtle but non-trivial pedagogic benefit).

However, even before that, I'd also like to see college-level education cease to be a requirement for so many entry-level positions, since—even though I think that level of education is a real and tangible public good for everyone*—it's not really a feasible mandate under our current, mostly-capitalist system. Indeed, I've held a few positions in my (relatively young) life for which a college degree was preferred (read: essentially required), but which was by no means necessary, or even very relevant.

*US society could also probably meet that standard of public good by meaningfully improving high-school-level education. Nobody say I'm not amenable to multiple types of solutions.

I'm a big advocate of your second point... but I of course would leave that to the business to decide

Unfortunately, what has happened - is that the government has encouraged all to go to college (a noble goal, but a misguided one)... they've given kids the easy access to money, so there is no longer an excuse not to.

Now everyone is going to college, which is essentially making a degree much less valuable. College is the new high school - and many employers see it as a pre-requisite just to prove you're not lazy/stupid.

[weso1]

I'm a socialist [/i]

Why are you a socialist?

[jpx7]

Why are you a socialist?

Because—despite my nostalgic affinity for late-nineteenth / early-twentieth century upper-middle-class and aristocratic European culture—I believe in radical equality of economic means.

[weso1]

Because—despite my nostalgic affinity for late-nineteenth / early-twentieth century upper-middle-class and aristocratic European culture—I believe in radical equality of economic means.

That doesn't really answer my question. Why are you a socialist as compared to a pure capitalist? Both seek economic equality.

[jpx7]

Why are you a socialist as compared to a pure capitalist? Both seek economic equality.

... not really.

Capitalism, at least in a pure and unfettered realization, seeks economic liberty. That's very different from economic equality.

To put it another way: capitalism sees economic justice as that meted out by the market, according to principles of exploiting motives of supply and demand. Socialism—in equally and admittedly basic terms—sees economic justice as the equitable distribution of resources, largely irrespective of market considerations.

[AerchAngel]

... not really.

Capitalism, at least in a pure and unfettered realization, seeks economic liberty. That's very different from economic equality.

To put it another way: capitalism sees economic justice as that meted out by the market, according to principles of exploiting motives of supply and demand. Socialism—in equally and admittedly basic terms—sees economic justice as the equitable distribution of resources, largely irrespective of market considerations.

Communism?

[57Brave]

The commission has basically assured that no third party can ever get on the stage.. 15% is nearly impossible for someone who - no matter how qualified - is always described as fringe and has no chance of winning.

Like Perot, you won't get to 15% without the opportunity of the national debates... But you can't get in the debates without 15%.

And the commission is controlled by republicans and democrats.

You see no issue there, I assume?

Wasn't the time to voice these concerns 2014-15 ?
You remind me of the baseball parent that can't understand why her/his kid isn't playing SS because if only given more opportunity he could eventually make the throw to first on less than two hops. In spite of the fact there is another that can make the throw

Yes it is rigged -- do the work and un rig it. As someone did that set the mark at 15%
Personally I don't care if it is 7% or 20%.
But there has to be a cut off - as long as everyone knows that number going in.
What number do you see as fair ?

In real politik, if you spent the time you / (L) spend on debunking Bernie Sanders (who is no longer a candidate for anything) promoting Gary Johnson he might have made the cut

[sturg33]

Wasn't the time to voice these concerns 2014-15 ?
You remind me of the baseball parent that can't understand why her/his kid isn't playing SS because if only given more opportunity he could eventually make the throw to first on less than two hops. In spite of the fact there is another that can make the throw

Yes it is rigged -- do the work and un rig it. As someone did that set the mark at 15%
Personally I don't care if it is 7% or 20%.
But there has to be a cut off - as long as everyone knows that number going in.
What number do you see as fair ?

In real politik, if you spent the time you / (L) spend on debunking Bernie Sanders (who is no longer a candidate for anything) promoting Gary Johnson he might have made the cut

I was voicing the concerns in 2012.

Unfortunately, there's not a lot that can be done because the system is corrupt. I've signed all the petitions. I've donated. I've volunteered. The commission doesn't care. They are private and they have a vested interest in keeping third parties out. If a third party ever did make the threshold, then I'm certain the rules would change - just like they did at the RNC and DNC.

I think Johnson's got a petition with a million signatures on it. Doesn't matter.

I agree... there should be a cutoff. You know what I think that cutoff should be? If you are on the ballot in all 50 states, you can debate.

[57Brave]

If a candidate can't make it to 15% 5-6 weeks before the election -- the writing is kinda on the wall

Johnson/Stein have had 4 years to get their message out -- with polling at 10% max it obviously isn't resonating - why give them valuable featured time
Like I said, they have had 4 years -- just like Rubio,Sanders,Cruz etal.
My guess is Cruz or Sanders would poll higher than Johnson or Stein and make the ballot in all 50 states .

Perhaps elinminate the primary selection process as we know it to include Johnson and Stein.
Why just the exclusive (R) or (D) debates - have them mix it up to include niche candidates.

For example a O'Malley -Trump and Johnson debate in February. Or Clinton-Cruz -Sanders and Rubio etc etc etc
Shoot even include Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Webb early on
...

[acesfull86]

IMO, if you get on enough state ballots where you can gain enough electoral votes to win the office , you should be on the stage. I think that is a fairer than setting an arbitrary "15%" polling number, especially when exposure/performance in the debates themselves will influence those poll numbers.

[57Brave]

interesting readon debates:

http://billmoyers.com/story/theres-no-debate/

[50PoundHead]

IMO, if you get on enough state ballots where you can gain enough electoral votes to win the office , you should be on the stage. I think that is a fairer than setting an arbitrary "15%" polling number, especially when exposure/performance in the debates themselves will influence those poll numbers.

Get ready for 10 people on stage if that's the standard. Not saying you are wrong, but for what you suggest to work, you would probably need a higher standard to get on state ballots.

As per the education question, I am not an educator, but I have worked on educational policy for thirty years and from my observation, the first thing we need to do is re-design our E-12 system. I'm not saying go full European model where tests are administered in middle school and the results of those tests put you on an academic or technical education track, but I think we need to do more in the early grades on core knowledge, use middle school to both firm up that knowledge and allow for exploration, and then work in the upper grades to combine the last two years of high school and the first two years of college. I don't know if free four-year college makes all that much sense, but extending high school to have two free years of community/junior or technical college may be the way to go. That is being pursued in several states and I will be curious to see the results. College has become extended adolescence for many (which is nothing really new) and the high price of college is making that a luxury most cannot afford.

[acesfull86]

Get ready for 10 people on stage if that's the standard. Not saying you are wrong, but for what you suggest to work, you would probably need a higher standard to get on state ballots.


I'd defer to you on that because you would know better than me, but I'd be fine with the higher standards if that was a necessary piece. I was under the impression that ballot access was a pretty significant hurdle...I think Johnson is the only 3rd party on all ballots and Stein is on 45. I'd prefer a scenario where there were a few more people on stage (in this cycle, two) than the more arbitrary polling standard, which only further entrenches the two party stranglehold. Especially in an election like this one where you have two depressingly unpopular candidates

[50PoundHead]

I'd defer to you on that because you would know better than me, but I'd be fine with the higher standards if that was a necessary piece. I was under the impression that ballot access was a pretty significant hurdle...I think Johnson is the only 3rd party on all ballots and Stein is on 45. I'd prefer a scenario where there were a few more people on stage (in this cycle, two) than the more arbitrary polling standard, which only further entrenches the two party stranglehold. Especially in an election like this one where you have two depressingly unpopular candidates

It depends state-by-state, but if someone could get on the ballot in the 12 largest states (the number it would take to get a majority in the electoral college), they would be on-stage under your scenario. It would still be a challenge, but I think what you would see is splinter parties really work the largest states to meet the ballot requirements there. To that end, I think there would have to be a national standard for getting on the ballot in each state.

[sturg33]

It depends state-by-state, but if someone could get on the ballot in the 12 largest states (the number it would take to get a majority in the electoral college), they would be on-stage under your scenario. It would still be a challenge, but I think what you would see is splinter parties really work the largest states to meet the ballot requirements there. To that end, I think there would have to be a national standard for getting on the ballot in each state.

That's why I'm OK with making it 50 states... which is not easy to do, unless you have a pretty good following.

[50PoundHead]

That's why I'm OK with making it 50 states... which is not easy to do, unless you have a pretty good following.

I think at the very least it should have to be a party with an organization in all 50 states that is registered with whatever body regulates the election process in each state and then have to gather the requisite number of signatures or whatever (sometimes there is a percentage of the vote threshold) to be recognized as a legitimate party.

[57Brave]

Why did CPD Select 15 Percent as the Polling Threshold for Inclusion in the Debates?

The CPD first adopted the 15 percent level of support criterion in 2000. Its initial adoption, and its adoption in subsequent cycles, was preceded by careful study and reflects a number of considerations. It was the CPD’s judgment that the 15 percent threshold best balanced the goal of being sufficiently inclusive to invite those candidates considered to be among the leading candidates, without being so inclusive that invitations would be extended to candidates with only very modest levels of public support, thereby jeopardizing the voter education purposes of the debates. Notably, the League of Women Voters struck the balance in the same way. Fifteen percent was the figure used in the League of Women Voters’ 1980 selection criteria, which resulted in the inclusion of independent candidate John Anderson in one of the League’s debates.

Prior to adopting the 15 percent standard, the CPD conducted its own analysis of the results of presidential elections over the modern era and concluded that a level of 15 percent support of the national electorate is achievable by a significant third party or independent candidate who captures the public's interest. In making this determination, the CPD considered, in particular, the popular support achieved by George Wallace in 1968 (Mr. Wallace had achieved a level of support as high as 20 percent in pre-election polls from September 1968); by John Anderson in 1980 (Mr. Anderson’s support in various polls reached 15 percent when the League of Women Voters invited him to participate in one of its debates); and by Ross Perot in 1992 (Mr. Perot’s standing in 1992 polls at one time was close to 40 percent and exceeded that of the major party candidates, and he ultimately received 18.7 percent of the popular vote).

The CPD's nonpartisan candidate selection criteria and 15 percent threshold have been found by the FEC and the courts to comply with federal election law. The same is true for the earlier criteria CPD used in 1988, 1992 and 1996.

http://debates.org/index.php?page=overview

[sturg33]

Funny that polls showing 2/3 of the American people wanting a 3rd party debater... the CPD doesn't think that is sufficient.

Nah... only let us here from 2 people that the majority of the country finds undesirable.

Good stuff

[57Brave]

The Neilson Rating has Friends as one of the best TV shows ever.

66% of the people want a third party on the debate stage but only ~10% see Johnson as Presidential timber.

Where are the other 55% of the people?

.....

Three words for you.

Wallace
Anderson
Perot

[jpx7]

Communism?

Communism is a form of socialism, which—again defining things in both very general and basic terms—goes beyond "equitable distribution of resources" and aspires to fully common ownership of society's economic machinery ("means of production") foremost, which thereby (theoretically) removes all class divisions from society; it also often intends to eliminate currency/money/fiat media of exchange, and in some very radical/anarchic versions even advocates the obliteration of any state apparatus. It might be helpful to think of communism as super-charged to hyper-articulated socialism.

(For what it's worth, I do not consider myself a communist.)

[jpx7]

The Neilson Rating has Friends as one of the best TV shows ever.

It obviously isn't, but at least it gets to fight it out on the stage with Arrested Development and 30 Rock and Seinfeld and South Park.

[sturg33]

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14333210_10207292786182245_6229244405017768789_n.j pg?oh=413c0dee2ae3a6722963fc71153132ba&oe=5873B0BF

Maybe one of these days when the young voters are the majority... the two party system will crumble.

But I also fear they will all be socialists

[keithlaw]

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14333210_10207292786182245_6229244405017768789_n.j pg?oh=413c0dee2ae3a6722963fc71153132ba&oe=5873B0BF

Maybe one of these days when the young voters are the majority... the two party system will crumble.

But I also fear they will all be socialists

I'm just grateful that nobody got hurt in that poll

[sturg33]

The Neilson Rating has Friends as one of the best TV shows ever.

66% of the people want a third party on the debate stage but only ~10% see Johnson as Presidential timber.

Where are the other 55% of the people?

.....

Three words for you.

Wallace
Anderson
Perot

You do understand that a lot of people would like to hear from someone else, if they don't support them, yes?

Isn't that the point of debates? To be convinced to give someone your support? Or must you already have made up your mind before hand?

You also understand that polls don't ask the question very well... Often times, they say "Trump, Hilary, or someone else"... When "someone else" is chosen, they don't count that for Gary Johnson.

You do understand that pollster do not reach out to cell phones.

You do understand that pollsters basically ignore young people.

So, we have polls showing that half the country does not believe the Republicans or Democrats represent their views.

We have polls showing that 60% of people would like to see Gary Johnson debate, even if they don't support him, yet.

We have two HATED candidates.

We have a former Republican Governor (i.e. - not a complete random dude) who is on the ballot in all 50 states, and despite hardly being mentioned and getting 0 media coverage, is polling at 10%

And you don't think that deserves a seat at the table?

You're pathetic. You support everything that is wrong with the country (and there is a ****ing lot wrong with it)

[sturg33]

Why did CPD Select 15 Percent as the Polling Threshold for Inclusion in the Debates?

The CPD first adopted the 15 percent level of support criterion in 2000. Its initial adoption, and its adoption in subsequent cycles, was preceded by careful study and reflects a number of considerations. It was the CPD’s judgment that the 15 percent threshold best balanced the goal of being sufficiently inclusive to invite those candidates considered to be among the leading candidates, without being so inclusive that invitations would be extended to candidates with only very modest levels of public support, thereby jeopardizing the voter education purposes of the debates. Notably, the League of Women Voters struck the balance in the same way. Fifteen percent was the figure used in the League of Women Voters’ 1980 selection criteria, which resulted in the inclusion of independent candidate John Anderson in one of the League’s debates.

Prior to adopting the 15 percent standard, the CPD conducted its own analysis of the results of presidential elections over the modern era and concluded that a level of 15 percent support of the national electorate is achievable by a significant third party or independent candidate who captures the public's interest. In making this determination, the CPD considered, in particular, the popular support achieved by George Wallace in 1968 (Mr. Wallace had achieved a level of support as high as 20 percent in pre-election polls from September 1968); by John Anderson in 1980 (Mr. Anderson’s support in various polls reached 15 percent when the League of Women Voters invited him to participate in one of its debates); and by Ross Perot in 1992 (Mr. Perot’s standing in 1992 polls at one time was close to 40 percent and exceeded that of the major party candidates, and he ultimately received 18.7 percent of the popular vote).

The CPD's nonpartisan candidate selection criteria and 15 percent threshold have been found by the FEC and the courts to comply with federal election law. The same is true for the earlier criteria CPD used in 1988, 1992 and 1996.

http://debates.org/index.php?page=overview

Feel free to educate yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIAh9mlvLmo#t=572

[57Brave]

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48864/gary-johnson-climate-change/


Between Johnson on climate change, and Jill Stein's conviction that a Republican congress will obstruct a Republican president, the argument for more political parties in this country is not faring well.

[57Brave]

Aleppo-2016


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtDlPriXgAANEWs.jpg:large

[sturg33]

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48864/gary-johnson-climate-change/


Between Johnson on climate change, and Jill Stein's conviction that a Republican congress will obstruct a Republican president, the argument for more political parties in this country is not faring well.

LOL you do know he was joking about the sun thing, right?

[sturg33]

Aleppo-2016


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtDlPriXgAANEWs.jpg:large

I like Gary Johnson's plan for Syria much more than Obama's... don't you?

[57Brave]

LOL you do know he was joking about the sun thing, right?

no

What else is he joking about?

Perhaps turning the National Parks over to the highest bidder ?

Abandoning Child Labor Laws?
....

Is he running for POTUS or to replace Jimmy Kimmel ?

[sturg33]

no

What else is he joking about?

Perhaps turning the National Parks over to the highest bidder ?

Abandoning Child Labor Laws?
....

Is he running for POTUS or to replace Jimmy Kimmel ?

Well Hilary just went on between two ferns so I guess you're pissed off about that, right? I mean, is she running for President or a funny or die internet program?!!?!?!?!?

[zitothebrave]

LOL you do know he was joking about the sun thing, right?

Sadly steaksauce wouldn't care if it was. After all the Democrats are so scared about JOhnson they're watching 5 year old press conferences.

[AerchAngel]

Sadly steaksauce wouldn't care if it was. After all the Democrats are so scared about JOhnson they're watching 5 year old press conferences.

He is more terrified of Centrist/Independents/Libertarians than Republicans on this board. Because if the Republicans won't defend Trump, they won't because he is not worthy to defend, but they can attack the B*tch all they want and he has to defend the con at all cost. If they don't vote for sHillary he can posts all the Don clownish moments, which are daily, and the Republicans don't care. They ain't voting for Drumpf and they ain't voting for Crooked sHillary. The Independent group is voting for neither also. So his parading all the bad things about Drumpf is not working and we all know that sHillary is a felon that has titanium walls built around her, either kill those who speaks or send a lot of money to an agency to look the other way like Obi Wan Kenobi. Even though I think Bernie is bat**** crazy with his thinking of paying everything, he would be a better president than the Clown and the Felon that can't be touched.

Congress would never let him do the things he want which is good, but sHillary has shown in the past if she doesn't get what she wants, you would be either Cheneyed or paid off, depending on individuals or agencies.

[sturg33]

Johnson is polling first among independents, first among active military, and 2nd among under 35 (slightly behind Clinton)...

But nah, shouldn't be allowed to debate

[sturg33]

A Reading Guide to Lefty Panic Attacks about Gary Johnson (http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/23/a-reading-guide-to-lefty-panic-attacks-a)

[goldfly]

Can't name one foreign leader either :facepalm

[57Brave]

A Reading Guide to Lefty Panic Attacks about Gary Johnson (http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/23/a-reading-guide-to-lefty-panic-attacks-a)

Alan Mundy ‏@idontwan2know 12h12 hours ago

I outgrew my libertarianism right around the time I lost my virginity. I'm not saying the two are related but I'm not ruling it out.



...................

Johnson down to 6% and Stein at 1.
That Conservative guy is 2%

[weso1]

Get your **** together Gary Johnson. Good heavens. Libertarians should have picked the young guy.

[zitothebrave]

Alan Mundy ‏@idontwan2know 12h12 hours ago

I outgrew my libertarianism right around the time I lost my virginity. I'm not saying the two are related but I'm not ruling it out.



...................

Johnson down to 6% and Stein at 1.
That Conservative guy is 2%

Funny you mention that as it's one poll, and that one poll was done by PPP which is a democrat poll. Johnson's been routinely polling around 10%. You pick one of the polls that he polls below 7%. Realize that polling is the operative word. Young people who'll typically support Johnson or Stein are routinely under polled. We'll see how it shakes out. Obama was carried to office by the youth vote, now we're told that young people won't show up to vote. Should be fun.

[goldfly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXhR41lsEJY

[sturg33]

Get your **** together Gary Johnson. Good heavens. Libertarians should have picked the young guy.

Peterson is definitely an impressive dude... has some embarrassing moments from his younger days that can be found online.

Johnson is a horrid public speaker. His record is still the best of the three... but nobody cares about actions

[57Brave]

what actions ?


NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—In an appearance Friday on CNN, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Presidential nominee, promised that as President he would get tough on East Korea.

“This behavior is unacceptable,” he said. “The East Koreans are making us look like idiots.”

While stressing that he remained, for the most part, an isolationist, he said, “I will do everything in my power as President to support our allies in West Korea.”

He also blasted the Obama Administration for its “lack of transparency” in conducting foreign policy. “I think it’s unconscionable that I just found out about these countries today,” he said.

[zitothebrave]

what actions ?


NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—In an appearance Friday on CNN, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Presidential nominee, promised that as President he would get tough on East Korea.

“This behavior is unacceptable,” he said. “The East Koreans are making us look like idiots.”

While stressing that he remained, for the most part, an isolationist, he said, “I will do everything in my power as President to support our allies in West Korea.”

He also blasted the Obama Administration for its “lack of transparency” in conducting foreign policy. “I think it’s unconscionable that I just found out about these countries today,” he said.

Holy **** you're dumb.

[zitothebrave]

We reject the cliche that a citizen who chooses a principled third-party candidate is squandering his or her vote.
— Chicago Tribune Editorial Board

[57Brave]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make sound ?

[57Brave]

But recently, people have begun to give Johnson the attention he’s been demanding incessantly for the last year, and it turns out — he’s an idiot.
-Gail Collins

[zitothebrave]

But recently, people have begun to give Johnson the attention he’s been demanding incessantly for the last year, and it turns out — he’s an idiot.
-Gail Collins

Idiots are people who post fake news articles. See, yourself.

[zitothebrave]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make sound ?

I wonder how many people only see this post because I'm quoting it.

[57Brave]

Advanced analytics say a thread titled Gary Johnson might get 7% of forum members

[Runnin]

I'd vote for Trump over Gary Johnson. At least he would ruin the Republican party forever and be fun to watch.

[acesfull86]

Advanced analytics say a thread titled Gary Johnson might get 7% of forum members

For someone you apparently think is irrelevant, you sure do make a lot of posts about GJ

[sturg33]

For someone you apparently think is irrelevant, you sure do make a lot of posts about GJ

I haven't seen this much attention for national media and figures regarding a third party every in my life (I'm only 27)... Gary Johnson was completely ignored in 2012... but not he is a plausible threat to Hilary, and the media is out in full force against him...

According to 538, there is a plausible scenario for Johnson to deny both Trump and Clinton the 270... he really needs to win New Mexico - so he should be putting all his resources into that state... even then, chances are tiny, but they are at least plausible.

Here is the article:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/

http://i1.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/screen-shot-2016-10-02-at-10-26-15-am.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1

[Oklahomahawk]

I haven't seen this much attention for national media and figures regarding a third party every in my life (I'm only 27)... Gary Johnson was completely ignored in 2012... but not he is a plausible threat to Hilary, and the media is out in full force against him...

According to 538, there is a plausible scenario for Johnson to deny both Trump and Clinton the 270... he really needs to win New Mexico - so he should be putting all his resources into that state... even then, chances are tiny, but they are at least plausible.

Here is the article:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/

http://i1.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/screen-shot-2016-10-02-at-10-26-15-am.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1

I can't see it turning out like this, but it would be pretty sweet. Who do you see the House voting for if it were to come to this?

[sturg33]

I can't see it turning out like this, but it would be pretty sweet. Who do you see the House voting for if it were to come to this?

Probably Trump... but you'd have to think a lot of them would be tempted to vote Johnson... the issue is, the Republicans would have to be united on this one, as all democrats would vote for HRC.

[Oklahomahawk]

Probably Trump... but you'd have to think a lot of them would be tempted to vote Johnson... the issue is, the Republicans would have to be united on this one, as all democrats would vote for HRC.

It certainly would be interesting. Personally I think they'd go Hilldog by quite a bit or they might go GJ just as a lark (from their perspective). I really can't see them going Trump, especially since Hilldog is owned by most of the same interests who own most of them. It's like when some athletes become free agents they get recruited by athletes who have the same agent.

For anyone who wants to know more about the process and the history of it, check out the election of 1824 and the "corrupt bargain".

[cajunrevenge]

Ron Paul on if he is going to endorse GJ "maybe if he was Libertarian....". People keep attacking GJ using strawman arguments against the Libertarian beliefs when GJ and Weld are just sane Republicans.



Weld increased gun control, environmental regulations, and used eminent domain. He later supported the Iraq war, Obama care, and even endorsed Obama in 2008.

[bravesnumberone]

Trump can force a 269-269 tie by winning Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire and keeping all of Romney's wins. Probably more likely than Johnson winning New Mexico, and you'd get the same result. It would be fascinating to watch if House Republicans were divided over Trump in that scenario. But as a group, they're further to the right than the Senate, so Trump would still likely win.

[bravesnumberone]

Ron Paul on if he is going to endorse GJ "maybe if he was Libertarian....". People keep attacking GJ using strawman arguments against the Libertarian beliefs when GJ and Weld are just sane Republicans.



Weld increased gun control, environmental regulations, and used eminent domain. He later supported the Iraq war, Obama care, and even endorsed Obama in 2008.

I wonder what Ron would say about his son.

[bravesnumberone]

Apparently Bill Weld has given up on the race and is focused on defeating Trump.

[zitothebrave]

Latest Rasmussen, NBC, CBS, etc. HAve Johnson polling closer and closer to 10%. I think the tipping point will be getting a moderate republican, like Romney for example, to endorse him and that could push him up to the number he needs to get on the debate stage, once that happens, who knows what can happen.

[sturg33]

Latest Rasmussen, NBC, CBS, etc. HAve Johnson polling closer and closer to 10%. I think the tipping point will be getting a moderate republican, like Romney for example, to endorse him and that could push him up to the number he needs to get on the debate stage, once that happens, who knows what can happen.

The game is rigged... they won't let him in

[AerchAngel]

Holy **** you're dumb.

Jeez, Zeet, you should have known that years ago.

I am thinking sheople, Dementia or Alzheimers.

[zitothebrave]

Jeez, Zeet, you should have known that years ago.

I am thinking sheople, Dementia or Alzheimers.

Dumb part is that someone brought it up earlier, see post 85, and I pointed out that it was a joke blog before. Now we get the same post when later.

[yeezus]

Apparently Bill Weld has given up on the race and is focused on defeating Trump.

Not what he said on NPR today

[bravesnumberone]

Not what he said on NPR today

It is what he told the Boston Globe.

[yeezus]

Most people I know who scream "Gary Johnson!" don't know anything about him other than he's not trump or Clinton.

The rule has always been 15% to debate. Why should it be broken for Johnson?

[yeezus]

It is what he told the Boston Globe.

Interesting, do you have a source? Not calling you wrong, just curious. I wonder if the NPR interview was a couple days old.

[bravesnumberone]

Interesting, do you have a source? Not calling you wrong, just curious. I wonder if the NPR interview was a couple days old.

Saw it first on New York Magazine. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/libertarian-vp-candidate-just-wants-to-stop-trump-presidency.html

I didn't read the whole thing. I don't think he's necessarily leaving the ticket, but he's pretty much saying he's about stopping Trump, not advancing Johnson.

[bravesnumberone]

On a side note, neither the Libertarian party nor any third party will ever have a chance to gain any real traction if they continue to run people who are so prone to bad, bad gaffes. Gary Johnson's apparent lack of knowledge of current foreign affairs is astounding.

[yeezus]

On a side note, neither the Libertarian party nor any third party will ever have a chance to gain any real traction if they continue to run people who are so prone to bad, bad gaffes. Gary Johnson's apparent lack of knowledge of current foreign affairs is astounding.

Johnson is obviously more qualified than trump, but trump has his niche of supporters and perpetuates fear and racism. Johnson isn't that kind of guy and can't afford those kind of gaffes.

[sturg33]

The rule has always been 15% to debate. Why should it be broken for Johnson?

This is not true, of course.

Johnson was polling higher than Perot before the first debate...

the debates matter. over 60% of the country doesn't even know who he is (over 30% of the country doesn't know who Joe Biden is)... It's difficult to get your name out there without that opportunity

[bravesnumberone]

I know it was less than 50 at one point, but isn't the Johnson/Weld ticket on the ballots of all 50 states now?

If so, that candidate should be allowed to debate, as should any candidate who's on enough states to add up to 270.

[57Brave]

This is not true, of course.

Johnson was polling higher than Perot before the first debate...

the debates matter. over 60% of the country doesn't even know who he is (over 30% of the country doesn't know who Joe Biden is)... It's difficult to get your name out there without that opportunity

Perot ran in what, 1992.
Were you even born yet ?

The 15% rule (I linked it earlier in the thread) was put in place in 2000 I think.
Even so, that was 2 wars,a financial meltdown,iphone and youtube ago

As to your 2nd point, Johnson is/was better off before people "know who he is"
Peaked at roughly 10% few weeks back - the more he talks the deeper he digs

....

Few weeks back I was all for him getting on the debate stage. I've changed my mind.
Couple reasons, first being he is not a serious contender to be POTUS, After reading the 50 state ballot argument explained by 50 showed me where the signifigance of making 50(7) ballots just doesn't mean what it used to in the information age. If Julio 3000 started tomorrow with an eye toward 2020 he could feasibility round up enough signatures. It is not like Gary Johnson ( or a surrogate) had to stand on street corners getting people to sign his petition. Which at one time was what it took

Secondly. he would take time from Donald Trump. Watching the debates this season Trump has proven the more he talks the better he is understood.

HRC gets that , (R) didn't

[Hawk]

These fringe politicians should take a page from Great Britain's 2010 general election and unite to form a coalition party. Compromise on major economic and social platforms, say that the rest will be left up to congress and the electorate.

[zitothebrave]

I know it was less than 50 at one point, but isn't the Johnson/Weld ticket on the ballots of all 50 states now?

If so, that candidate should be allowed to debate, as should any candidate who's on enough states to add up to 270.

Yup, and that should be the rule. Or at least a candidate in say 90% of the states (aka 45)

[cajunrevenge]

On a side note, neither the Libertarian party nor any third party will ever have a chance to gain any real traction if they continue to run people who are so prone to bad, bad gaffes. Gary Johnson's apparent lack of knowledge of current foreign affairs is astounding.

Republicans are running a Democrat who commits about 10 gaffes a day and Hillary is so fake even saying the "right thing" looks bad when she says it.


The sad thing is GJ doesn't need to know anything about foreign policy to be better than Clinton/Trump. American foreign policy right now is insane. Makes us less safe, creates more people who want to kill us, and puts our troops in harms way. Osama Bin LADEN might as well have written our foreign policy because this war on terror is exactly what he wanted and it will NEVER end until we go through world war 3. Let's continue down that path though. It's not like our troops know best and enthusiastically supported Ron Paul who was going to end this ****. We are just as much terrorists as the ones who attack us. We just call it collateral damage when we do it to them.

[cajunrevenge]

I wonder what Ron would say about his son.


There's a lot of people who think Rand is "playing the game" so our masters wont rig the primaries against him like they did his Dad. I am not sure but am not the biggest fan of Rand. At this point I am convinced anyone who would end our war of terror will be assassinated before they could do it.

[yeezus]

Johnson was asked who the leader of North Korea is and wouldn't answer. LOL

[57Brave]

just finished the NYTimes report and considered posting.

But then thought, what for ?

[bravesnumberone]

Regardless of what your opinion on foreign policy is, if you can't name foreign leaders and understand relationships between countries and regions of the world and understand the cause and effect of whatever foreign policy path you choose, then you can't be taken seriously. You just can't. This is 2016.

[bravesnumberone]

There's a lot of people who think Rand is "playing the game" so our masters wont rig the primaries against him like they did his Dad. I am not sure but am not the biggest fan of Rand. At this point I am convinced anyone who would end our war of terror will be assassinated before they could do it.

My point on that is whenever people start looking for ideological purity, that's bad news bears. That's what allows people like Ted Cruz to rise up, and he would have been the nominee if it weren't for the Trump Clown Circus Cart. Looking at the traditional libertarian platform, Gary Johnson is arguably more libertarian than Ron Paul in many areas. Rand has shown a lot more "moderation" if you will in his libertarian views, but sure, a lot of that comes from being in the Senate.

[57Brave]

holding steady a 7%.

In baseball terms.
15% is the Mendoza Line

7% would then be equivalent to hitting , generously, .100.

How many .100 hitters are everyday players ?

[goldfly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU

[cajunrevenge]

holding steady a 7%.

In baseball terms.
15% is the Mendoza Line

7% would then be equivalent to hitting , generously, .100.

How many .100 hitters are everyday players ?


He just can't compete with the Republicrats love of raping women. Maybe if he went on a raping tour he would be more popular. Find a drug user, rape them, then claim they deserved it.

[57Brave]

No, actually have policies that resonate with the voting public then do the work of selling you as a deliverer of said policies.
His policies haven't resonated and as far as selling himself ----- he kinda blew it
It is all about filling pot holes and convincing voters you can fill them better and faster than the next candidate.
Gary Johnson doesn't do that.

Granted he can't compete with (R) post Palin
But he can't compete with (D) either because , speaking as a (D), his policies are non starters

Guess that is what makes him a niche' candidate.
Niche' is a French word

[Hawk]

Guess that is what makes him a niche' candidate.
Niche' is a French word

That doesn't have an apostrophe after it.

[Hawk]

Everybody has enjoyed mocking Sturg for supporting Gary Johnson, but if they bothered to look at polls in swing states they would realize that the amount of votes he's likely to get could very well make him a kingmaker in this election.

[57Brave]

And I might be the King of Siam

[Hawk]

Feel free to prove me wrong.

But I guess we could talk about Chris Christie instead :)

[57Brave]

we'll have to see.

Nah, let's just say Christie's transgressions are water under the bridge

[57Brave]

5 % per todays ABC -WaPo poll

[sturg33]

I'm stunned to see a candidate who gets no media attention and is not allowed to participate in the debates because it may threaten the duopoly ruling state in this country struggle to get support.

STUNNED!!!

[57Brave]

Can't say they didn't try !

But every time in the spotlight he pisses all over his shoes

[57Brave]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-went-wrong-for-gary-johnson/?addata=espn:frontpage

[cajunrevenge]

No, actually have policies that resonate with the voting public then do the work of selling you as a deliverer of said policies.
His policies haven't resonated and as far as selling himself ----- he kinda blew it
It is all about filling pot holes and convincing voters you can fill them better and faster than the next candidate.
Gary Johnson doesn't do that.

Granted he can't compete with (R) post Palin
But he can't compete with (D) either because , speaking as a (D), his policies are non starters

Guess that is what makes him a niche' candidate.
Niche' is a French word



You mean like this guy?




https://youtu.be/N-eOazoZt1g


Let's see how that went.



https://youtu.be/o_WBo4sfmi4

[yeezus]

hahahaha "cheated out of presidency."

[sturg33]

Man - seeing that media manipulation against Paul just pisses me off all over again. The actions in Maine, Iowa, and Nevada were so laughably criminal it's sad. And then what they did at the convention.

It's made me completely lose faith in the integrity of our elections. And it played out again this year with Bernie

[cajunrevenge]

hahahaha "cheated out of presidency."

We will never know now. No matter how far you think he would have got there is no denying there was major voting fraud committed by the RNC against Paul and he was largely ignored by the media which is absurd considering the support he had.


I have a hard time seeing Paul lose to Obama in a general election. The party shills like Limbaugh and Hannity would have got on board. You can't tell me Paul is too extreme for them now that they are backing Trump. Paul is a strong Christian so the sky fairy nut jobs should support him. I think his message ending our wars of aggression both foreign and domestic would resonate with a lot of young voters that typically vote democrat. They were less than enthused with Obama at the time.



The only way I see Paul losing to Obama is if there was a revolt by some of the Republican base like what happened to Trump. What would they do, vote Libertarian? Not to mention Paul dominates every debate and would have humiliated Obama in a live debate.

[cajunrevenge]

Man - seeing that media manipulation against Paul just pisses me off all over again. The actions in Maine, Iowa, and Nevada were so laughably criminal it's sad. And then what they did at the convention.

It's made me completely lose faith in the integrity of our elections. And it played out again this year with Bernie

Me too. I think someday historians will point to this election as the end of American democracy. Both candidates have over 50% unfavorability ratings. When **** like this happens in other countries we question the integrity of their election.


I think it's time to nationalize the primaries. If only 2 parties are allowed to run for president then we can't allow them to rig the election so we can only choose from **** sandwich or a giant douche.



Really I think a parliamentary system is what we need. We need to get back to voting for people in our elections instead of voting against people. I would estimate only 25% of the people who will vote actually like their candidate. The rest just want to prevent the other side from winning.

[yeezus]

yeah blame the media for ron paul being a ****, nutso candidate. what's that self-responsibility thing mean, again?

[sturg33]

yeah blame the media for ron paul being a ****, nutso candidate. what's that self-responsibility thing mean, again?

Staying out of war. Balanced budget. Sound currency. Civil liberties. Constitutional government/

NUTS!!!!!!!!

[goldfly]

it's a good thing he didn't compromise in anyway at all on anything.

it did a lot of good

or else he might would get elected and actually have to do something

[57Brave]

So cut Johnson some slack, libertarians. If anything, Trump’s conquest of the GOP shows that a message based on cultural conservatism and economic collectivism (in the sense of an all-powerful president “solving” economic problems by battling with other governments over trade, currency, and immigration policies) is a lot stronger than the old social liberal–fiscal conservative combination the libertarians offer. In the end, Johnson will at least double or triple his showing of four years ago, when he won less than one percent of the vote. Beyond that, there’s always future hope for libertarianism each time an adolescent picks up a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/right-on-schedule-gary-johnsons-poll-numbers-are-crashing.html

[sturg33]

So cut Johnson some slack, libertarians. If anything, Trump’s conquest of the GOP shows that a message based on cultural conservatism and economic collectivism (in the sense of an all-powerful president “solving” economic problems by battling with other governments over trade, currency, and immigration policies) is a lot stronger than the old social liberal–fiscal conservative combination the libertarians offer. In the end, Johnson will at least double or triple his showing of four years ago, when he won less than one percent of the vote. Beyond that, there’s always future hope for libertarianism each time an adolescent picks up a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/right-on-schedule-gary-johnsons-poll-numbers-are-crashing.html

Everytime you post it's clearer and clearer you have no idea what libertarianism is

[57Brave]

of course i do.
It is 5% and falling like a rock
niche


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cvt67JmWIAA9tH0.jpg:large

[57Brave]

Guess I don't know what Libertarianism is after all !!

It is 4% and losing ground to Joan Stein

New Suffolk national poll:
Clinton 47 Trump 38 Johnson 4 Stein 2

[sturg33]

I truly wonder if you're mentally handicapped.

[chop2chip]

Guess I don't know what Libertarianism is after all !!

It is 4% and losing ground to Joan Stein

New Suffolk national poll:
Clinton 47 Trump 38 Johnson 4 Stein 2

Joan "Allepo" Stein

[bravesnumberone]

As much as young people participation is (allegedly) up, I'm somewhat surprised Stein isn't polling higher.

[zitothebrave]

As much as young people participation is (allegedly) up, I'm somewhat surprised Stein isn't polling higher.

I know no one who I know who says they're supporting Stein who's gotten a polling call. Young people I'd argue are disproportionately polled and when they are the polls are so leading that they often get the result they want.

[cajunrevenge]

it's a good thing he didn't compromise in anyway at all on anything.

it did a lot of good

or else he might would get elected and actually have to do something


It's hard to compromise when your positions are based on what the constitution says. Your not supposed to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to obey.






yeah blame the media for ron paul being a ****, nutso candidate. what's that self-responsibility thing mean, again?


How about letting the voters decide who the nut jobs are. What some call a niche I call a passionate base. The guy you call a nutso out raised all other GOP candidates combined in donations from the military in the primaries.


I think we all know the reason he was black listed, he wanted to bring our troops home and stop invading other countries. Warmongering and empire building will be our downfall. This middle east **** is eventually going to lead to ww3. One day some kid whose parents were collateral damage from one of our hundreds of thousands of bombs is going to grow up and pull off a very major attack in a major city. Then the real war starts.

[goldfly]

It's hard to compromise when your positions are based on what the constitution says. Your not supposed to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to obey.



this might carry weight if the oh so precious document didn't have amendments added to it showing that it isn't infallible imo

"Your not supposed to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to obey."

of course you can. the first amendment gives me that right

you're btw

[yeezus]

It's hard to compromise when your positions are based on what the constitution says. Your not supposed to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to obey.








How about letting the voters decide who the nut jobs are. What some call a niche I call a passionate base. The guy you call a nutso out raised all other GOP candidates combined in donations from the military in the primaries.


I think we all know the reason he was black listed, he wanted to bring our troops home and stop invading other countries. Warmongering and empire building will be our downfall. This middle east **** is eventually going to lead to ww3. One day some kid whose parents were collateral damage from one of our hundreds of thousands of bombs is going to grow up and pull off a very major attack in a major city. Then the real war starts.

The voters spoke, and they didn't say Ron's name. Hence why he never made actual noise. Again: Stop blaming the media for it. If the people truly wanted him, he'd be there. They didn't, so he never was.

[zitothebrave]

"Your not supposed to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to obey."

of course you can. the first amendment gives me that right
http://images.uncyclomedia.co/uncyclopedia/en/1/13/DrWhoFacepalm.png

[sturg33]

The voters spoke, and they didn't say Ron's name. Hence why he never made actual noise. Again: Stop blaming the media for it. If the people truly wanted him, he'd be there. They didn't, so he never was.

The voters spoke... and then the rules were changed.

[Oklahomahawk]

The voters spoke... and then the rules were changed.

What would you think about a write in campaign for RON Paul in this election? I realize it wouldn't matter mathematically speaking, but I"m starting to think this may be the only approach I can actually live with, given the current "Top 4" and assuming I"m actually sober when I go to the polls, which the closer we get to election day less certain that becomes.

[Hawk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvULsrjLdI4

Jesus, he really is losing it. I thought he was going to bite the reporter at the end of the video.