• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gary Johnson for President

And you felt this way for Nader and Perot voters also ?
This is what I stated in the third post of this thread.

If a person normally votes libertarian there is nothing really wrong with doing so now.
But not voting for the party you normally do because you do not like the candidate and instead voting for a non-electable third party is asinine, as it takes away votes from getting your normal party elected.

To ask the question you did, you would have to think that what I said did not apply. How is that?
 
That was not the meaning of my post, as I believe you know. I will not vote for either Trump or Clinton under any circumstances.
So you are not going to hold to your word huh? Figures.

Thus showing ...
1. You willingly throw your vote away on a meaningless candidate.
2. Who the SCt nominee is (and the future of the United States as influenced by SCt rulings), matters not one bit to you.
Again; Figures.
 
So you are not going to hold to your word huh? Figures.

Thus showing ...
1. You willingly throw your vote away on a meaningless candidate.
2. Who the SCt nominee is (and the future of the United States as influenced by SCt rulings), matters not one bit to you.
Again; Figures.

Another thing I don't care about is your opinion of my voting decision.
 
I like some of Gary Johnson's positions. But think about this. What would it take to cause neither candidate to get 270? Let's say for a minute that none of the three have 270. The election goes to the House of Representatives with each state only having one vote. This is key. The House of Representatives would have to decide who gets the Presidency. Keep in mind that the Republican delegations outnumber the Democrat delegations by far, so one would think that would rule Hillary out, leaving it a choice between Gary Johnson and Donald Trump.

The Senate would choose the Vice President with each Senator getting one vote.
 
I like some of Gary Johnson's positions. But think about this. What would it take to cause neither candidate to get 270? Let's say for a minute that none of the three have 270. The election goes to the House of Representatives with each state only having one vote. This is key. The House of Representatives would have to decide who gets the Presidency. Keep in mind that the Republican delegations outnumber the Democrat delegations by far, so one would think that would rule Hillary out, leaving it a choice between Gary Johnson and Donald Trump.

The Senate would choose the Vice President with each Senator getting one vote.

Interesting to watch.
 
Another thing I don't care about is your opinion of my voting decision.
While funny, that's nice.

Like I said;
You are more than welcome to throw your vote away on someone who has absolutely no chance at winning.


My first comments were in-general and applied to any side of the isle. Only after you took the conversation to your personal "beliefs" did it get focused on the specifics of your voting, as you broached it.
 
Last edited:
Interesting to watch.

I think so, too. But I think the left would be a bit pissed. Especially when you look at it state by state neutralizing California and New York to the same status as Alaska and Wyoming.
 
While funny, that's nice.

Like I said;
You are more than welcome to throw your vote away on someone who has absolutely no chance at winning.

Whether GJ can win is not important to me.
 
I think so, too. But I think the left would be a bit pissed. Especially when you look at it state by state neutralizing California and New York to the same status as Alaska and Wyoming.

Yes. What's the downside?
 
Another thing I don't care about is your opinion of my voting decision.

And yet you keep opening it up to reply. (see following quote.)
Strange.


Whether GJ can win is not important to me.
Like I said.
Thus showing ...
1. You willingly throw your vote away on a meaningless candidate.
2. Who the SCt nominee is (and the future of the United States as influenced by SCt rulings), matters not one bit to you.
Again; Figures.
 
And yet you keep opening it up to reply. (see following quote.)
Strange.



Like I said.
Thus showing ...
1. You willingly throw your vote away on a meaningless candidate.
2. Who the SCt nominee is (and the future of the United States as influenced by SCt rulings), matters not one bit to you.
Again; Figures.

I do not forfeit my right to free speech by being indifferent to your view.
 
Last edited:
A vote for Hillary would be disreputable. A vote for Trump would be dishonorable. Do I agree with the Libertarians on everything? No. But I can vote for Johnson and Weld with a clear conscience.

Gary Johnson-Bill Weld 2016 Libertarian ticket offers 'third way' in ...

johnson-bill-weld-2016-li...

The Libertarian Party put forward Sunday the strongest presidential ticket in its history, throwing down the gauntlet in an election that has the two major parties poised to nominate divisive candidates with soaring unfavorability ratings.
Delegates to the Libertarian National Convention chose in separate votes a pair of former Republican governors — New Mexico’s Gary Johnson and Massachusetts’ William Weld — despite objections from party loyalists who booed them as “failed Republicans” and questioned their commitment to party principles.
Mr. Johnson won the party’s presidential nomination on the second ballot with 55.8 percent of the delegate vote, giving him a second shot at the presidency after winning about 1.72 million votes as the party’s candidate in 2012.

While Mr. Johnson’s nomination was all but assured, much less certain was whether the delegation would warm up to Mr. Weld, who joined the party two weeks ago and had been denounced by critics as “Libertarian lite.”
After squeaking onto the ticket with 50.8 percent on the second ballot, Mr. Weld assured the crowd that he would adhere to Libertarian principles while running a race that he said would appeal to both Republican and Democratic voters unhappy with their parties’ nominees.

Libertarian vice presidential candidate Bill Weld (right) speaks with Joe Hunter, communications ... more >
“This is a national ticket,” Mr. Weld told the crowd at the Rosen Centre Hotel in Orlando, Florida.

#FeeltheJohnson
 
Kasich will never be Trump's VP. Regardless, I will not vote for Trump under any circumstances.

You strike me as a Johnson/Weld type.

They only need 15 % in a poll to make the big show.

And Chief of Staff Christie will talk Kasich into the VP.

Can you envision a Kasich/S. Brown/Weld VP debate ?
 
You strike me as a Johnson/Weld type.

They only need 15 % in a poll to make the big show.

And Chief of Staff Christie will talk Kasich into the VP.

Can you envision a Kasich/S. Brown/Weld VP debate ?

I can imagine the left squealing about how the Republicans get to run two candidates because Johnson and Weld were both Republican governors. There's Trump who won the GOP nomination.
 
I can imagine the left squealing about how the Republicans get to run two candidates because Johnson and Weld were both Republican governors. There's Trump who won the GOP nomination.

You can imagine all sorts of things about the left, can't you?

What really concerns you is Johnson/Weld pulling another Perot !
 
You strike me as a Johnson/Weld type.

They only need 15 % in a poll to make the big show.

And Chief of Staff Christie will talk Kasich into the VP.

Can you envision a Kasich/S. Brown/Weld VP debate ?

As I said, I do not believe Kasich will ever run as Trump's VP.
 
You can imagine all sorts of things about the left, can't you?

What really concerns you is Johnson/Weld pulling another Perot !

Not really. Right now the only national poll with Trump / Clinton / Johnson has Trump still winning. Now we in here all realize that it would be state by state because of electoral college. I still think that if Trump can turn New York red, Hillary won't get the 270.
 
Not really. Right now the only national poll with Trump / Clinton / Johnson has Trump still winning. Now we in here all realize that it would be state by state because of electoral college. I still think that if Trump can turn New York red, Hillary won't get the 270.

How would your New York calculus change if HRC takes Sen. Gillibrand as her VP?

Sent from my iPhone with very spotty reception.

Back to the horseshoe pits where I'm playing Curry/Thompson style--just ringers need apply .
 
How would your New York calculus change if HRC takes Sen. Gillibrand as her VP?

Sent from my iPhone with very spotty reception.

Back to the horseshoe pits where I'm playing Curry/Thompson style--just ringers need apply .

She can't. Choosing to use New York as her home of record is a double edged sword.
 
I have never said either of those things.

I don't condemn liberaltarianism because it's an unpopular view, but because it's rationally incoherent.

Techinally you never said to "crucify" gays, but you have stated a preference for executing them.
 
Back
Top Bottom