• 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!

Gary Johnson: On the Issues: Would you vote for him?

The winner of the election requires a majority in the Electoral college, but only a plurality in the individual states to get its slate of electors. Therefore if the main candidates are D and R and someone whose second choice would be D votes for first choice of I, then that helps R get the plurality.

That ASSUMES one would vote for the D or R at all.
 
It's because the word "libertarian" became hip and people thought themselves cool if they used it, but in then end most are just republicans trying to make it seem like they aren't part of the sheeple contributing to the same corrupt system.

And there is the reason that libertarians have failed at gaining any meaningful traction. They think they have all the answers because they are professional fence sitters. Honestly, as a republican, I usually see libertarians as idealist children who will eventually grow up. It takes a complete flop on the part of 2 parties for people to consider libertarians. ;)


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
 
And there is the reason that libertarians have failed at gaining any meaningful traction. They think they have all the answers because they are professional fence sitters. Honestly, as a republican, I usually see libertarians as idealist children who will eventually grow up. It takes a complete flop on the part of 2 parties for people to consider libertarians. ;)


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

There are a few reasons as to why they haven't gained traction. Though libertarian philosophy isn't necessarily about "fence sitting". It will take a flop of candidates from the Republocrats to get some of the spotlight shined on the libertarian party. Something like a Trump v. Hillary.
 
Correct political positions have to be all over the map because the map is faulty.

Think outside the map.

Legalize drugs and the legal drugs will be taxed heavily and expensive.

The thugs will grow or make their own and sell it to other thugs and crime in the ghetto infestations of America will go on unchecked

That is not what happened to alcohol. And legal drugs will have advertising. They will be safer. They will have consistent quantities. You won't risk getting shot or robbed. Look at tobacco or alcohol. How much do you think is made on illegal tax free alcohol or tobacco? Not much. And it is hardly enough for it to be a big trade.



The tax thing bothers me more. The guy seems to have no plan for taxing the people at the top.

That eliminates him as a serious candidate.

Does he have a plan that states he will raise taxes on the poor?


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
 
Nope. No chance in hell.
 
Vote for him? NO.

He's a Libertarian, grrrrrreat... but a vote for him is a vote for Hillary.

I'd rather walk through an ISIS controlled region wearing an American flag than give that criminal any shot at the White House.

It really isn't. I don't think Hillary is goin end up smelling pleasant to Bernie fans and that is a big deal.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
 
Having less things that are illegal generally means that people have less probability to break the law. It follows then that it would be expected that if you legalize something that you will likely see a decrease in crime. Not arresting people for drugs will obviously lead to less people being arrested and less people going to prison.

That is just nonsense.
Legalizing drugs doesn't lower crime.
In fact it has the opposite effect.
 
Gary Johnson on the Issues

Just wondering how many people would actually support him over the establishment candidates? Personally? I HATE Trump. As a republican, I just cannot bring myself to vote for him. He is a Democrat to me. And an authoritarian. Not something I want again in the presidency.

So I have posted this up with his record. Take a peak. Do you see yourself agreeing with him on his stances? Or do you have too much of a problem with his social or fiscal views? Or does he have to reach a certain amount in polls for you to consider him?


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

I'm thinking of voting for him, but I'm leaning towards Jill Stein at this point. While I don't agree with him much when it comes to his fiscal views, that's totally fine, because at least he's more trustworthy and likable than the two garbage frontrunners.
 
That ASSUMES one would vote for the D or R at all.

Correct. That's not an unreasonable assumption, however. Do you think it likely that people who would otherwise not vote at all would register and vote specifically for a third party candidate? Not many would. And many people would not vote at all rather than vote for a third party candidate.

So while not strictly accurate, it is true that many, probably most, of the votes that go to Johnson would otherwise go to the Republican candidate. Mine would go to almost any other Republican except Trump. And for him, I would make an exception and vote for almost any Democrat except Clinton.
 
That's stupid. Trump is a complete moron, Clinton is corrupt, incompetent and only believes in gun control and her own power, while Johnson on the other hand is a solid candidate that while not perfect as a libertarian candidate by a long shot isn't terrible.

but again I'm not libertarian. That's like me saying you should vote for Clinton
 
I wont argue that.

Listen, I understand the argument and probabilities. Given the massive restrictions on political competition and the near shutout of third parties by the media, the system is set to elect a D or an R. So we sit here and say here is the D, here is the R; one of them is so bad that you have to vote for the other. That’s essentially the argument, which one is so bad depends on which side you support.

So we take this relative scale and the best we can come up with is X is so bad we have to vote for Y. I can’t vote for Z because Z can’t win and I need to prevent X. And Z won’t win for as long as enough people convince themselves that Z can’t win. But that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy for a different time.

If this were stand alone, if it were just one election when the choices were so bad that we just have to hold our nose and vote for Y to stop X, it would be one thing. But this is now the trend. A trend is radically different than a stand alone. Each election becomes X is so bad, you have to vote for Y. Each election, the choices get worse, and by participating in that system, you encourage it to become worse. You embolden the status quo to continue the path we are on.

You won’t change the status quo by supporting the status quo

Because it is a trend, it is unsustainable. There’s only so many times we can pull this lever before we’ve irrevocably damaged the Republic. The only way to stop it is to stop it. It’s to stop supporting the status quo since it is the status quo that is slowly taking us down the road to hell. So maybe it will certainly be X or Y, but on the absolute scale X and Y are both horrible. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and if you make a trend of it then you make a trend of supporting evil.

So here we sit, yet again, at a presidential election cycle where the best argument isn’t how wonderful a candidate is, what a great job they can do, what a complete platform they have, oh look at the plans they laid out to accomplish a, b, and c; it’s intelligent and will benefit us all. No, it’s once again, X is so bad you have to vote for Y. But both X and Y are horrid, bottom of the barrel (though next election cycle, they’ll find a lower bottom) tripe that will do harm to the Republic.

Do I support this system? Do I pay into it with my vote? If I do so, I’m just encouraging it. If I vote for them, I embolden them. I give them the excuse to do it all over again the next time. And they will, and the choices will once again get worse. It’s hard to imagine a worse than Hillary or Trump….but they will find it. I am left with NO choice but to support third parties regardless of their probability of winning. Not voting and voting Republocrat will only result in the same thing, encouraging the status quo. But I don’t like the status quo, I don’t like this bigger government, bigger war, bigger brother, bigger debt, bigger “nation building” track that we are on.

So in the end, I need to evaluate what to do. How can I affect the system? Not voting and voting Republocrat produce the same outcome. The only chance I have, even if it’s a remote outside change, the only one I have is third party support. There is no other lever.

And in the end, third parties do not need to win to be effective. They need to aggregate enough votes to disrupt the power balance of the Republocrats. Force one side to continually lose, that side will have to change its platforms and candidates to regain power. It’s not much of a chance, it does suck, it is a hard row to hoe…but it’s what we got. I’m going to take it, I have to. Either Hillary or Trump will be a disaster, I’m done supporting disasters.
 
How does that logic even work? Voting for someone is voting of them. There is no bizarre connection to some vote for some other candidate going on.

every vote for Johnson is a vote that could have kept Hillary out of office

most people that will vote for him are independents, republicans, and libertarians that think Trump is the biggest moron this side of the Atlantic

i dont completely disagree....he can be a buffoon

BUT....the next president will select at least 2, probably 3 people to the supreme court.....and those decisions will be the most important to our country in a long time

we are at a crossroads imo.....and the court is already swinging more liberal....if we allow Hillary to put 2-3 very liberal justices on the bench, well that is a disaster i just dont want to think about

That is what a vote for Johnson is.....

Just be aware....and make sure you are ready for the consequences
 
Correct. That's not an unreasonable assumption, however. Do you think it likely that people who would otherwise not vote at all would register and vote specifically for a third party candidate? Not many would. And many people would not vote at all rather than vote for a third party candidate.

So while not strictly accurate, it is true that many, probably most, of the votes that go to Johnson would otherwise go to the Republican candidate. Mine would go to almost any other Republican except Trump. And for him, I would make an exception and vote for almost any Democrat except Clinton.

If it weren't for Johnson, I'd vote for no one as neither Hillary nor Trump deserve my vote. I hope Johnson grabs a good hunk of the vote, maybe next time the GOP will try to put up someone who can recapture those votes instead of some orange meglomaniac with no experience.
 
How much do you think is made on illegal tax free alcohol or tobacco? Not much. And it is hardly enough for it to be a big trade.

Does he have a plan that states he will raise taxes on the poor?

Drugs are different than alcohol and tobacco. Many, many options for a high and far more powerful and intensely addictive.

Raise taxes on the poor??

Fascists ALWAYS raise taxes on the poor, the Working Class and the Middle Class.
 
every vote for Johnson is a vote that could have kept Hillary out of office

most people that will vote for him are independents, republicans, and libertarians that think Trump is the biggest moron this side of the Atlantic

i dont completely disagree....he can be a buffoon

BUT....the next president will select at least 2, probably 3 people to the supreme court.....and those decisions will be the most important to our country in a long time

we are at a crossroads imo.....and the court is already swinging more liberal....if we allow Hillary to put 2-3 very liberal justices on the bench, well that is a disaster i just dont want to think about

That is what a vote for Johnson is.....

Just be aware....and make sure you are ready for the consequences

Trump IS the biggest moron this side of the Atlantic. Maybe beyond.

Hillary is as bad, they will both damage the Republic.

That's why I'm voting for Johnson, I'm tired of the "lesser of two evils", I want the good guy to win.
 
Trump IS the biggest moron this side of the Atlantic. Maybe beyond.

Hillary is as bad, they will both damage the Republic.

That's why I'm voting for Johnson, I'm tired of the "lesser of two evils", I want the good guy to win.

but what we want, and what is really possible are two different things

third party candidates dont stand a chance.....

Perot i think has done the best and he got what, 18% of the vote?

Johnson will be lucky if he gets 10%

i dont like it....but we have a country full of morons who refuse to look at anything but a D or an R

so in reality....it is Trump or Hillary.....two piles of crap....both smell awful and both could do irreparable harm to the republic

one we know is crooked....one we know is a buffoon....wonderful choices we have here
 
I most certainly am voting for Johnson.
 
He stands, and stridently so, for unlimited money in politics, so he is obviously an untenable candidate; I could never vote for the man, being cognizant of the massive damage to democracy already flawed and corroded campaign finance and lobbying laws have done (as well as the efforts to further weaken and repeal them) which have permitted private money to be more influential than ever: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Unlimited money in politics amounts to unlimited corruption and plutocracy.

Maybe Hillary and Clinton are 'worse guys' depending on your perspective, but Johnson is certainly no 'good guy'.
 
He stands, and stridently so, for unlimited money in politics, so he is obviously an untenable candidate; I could never vote for the man, being cognizant of the massive damage to democracy already flawed campaign finance and lobbying laws have done that have permitted private money to be more influential than ever: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Unlimited money in politics amounts to unlimited corruption and plutocracy.

Maybe Hillary and Clinton are 'worse guys' depending on your perspective, but Johnson is certainly no 'good guy'.

Money in politics means nothing. Voters are free to educate themselves and vote accordingly. No amount of money in politics impedes their ability to do that. Only laziness does.

As for corruption, it's also something the voters can take care of.
 
Money in politics means nothing. Voters are free to educate themselves and vote accordingly. No amount of money in politics impedes their ability to do that. Only laziness does.

As for corruption, it's also something the voters can take care of.

Consider the link I provided examining this issue; the voters haven't taken care of anything; rather they've been taken care of. The academic research is in: money in politics via campaign finance and lobbying does in fact mean plutocracy.
 
Back
Top Bottom