Gary Johnson

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.
 
bravesnumberone said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
yeezus said:
The rule has always been 15% to debate. Why should it be broken for Johnson?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
sturg33 said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
bravesnumberone said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
bravesnumberone said:
I wonder what Ron would say about his son.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
cajunrevenge said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 ?
 
[video=youtube;k3O01EfM5fU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU[/video]
 
57Brave said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top