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

[Ikari]

The facts of the matter are (1) Johnson has zero chance of being elected, despite the choices the two major parties have made in their candidates, and (2) even if he were to be elected, he wouldn't get much of his agenda past Congress.

But, that said, a vote for Johnson is a vote against the hegemony of the two major parties, and a vote to cut back the size and power of the federal government. It's a vote against authoritarian rule. It's mostly a symbolic vote, but one that could, just possibly, bring about some changes eventually.

Maybe eventually, but we never know unless we vote for it.

I think the whole "3rd parties have zero chance of being elected" mantra is just self-fulfilling prophecy. We tell ourselves 3rd party candidates cannot win, so we don't vote for them, and since we don't vote for them they don't win. so long as we pass off that mantra to enough folk, we make it so 3rd parties cannot win.

So perhaps a vote for them is purely symbolic, but we cannot elect them if we do not vote for them, so I'll vote 3rd party. When the alternative is the single Republocrat party with their ever worsening candidates, I don't think there is much of a choice left.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Maybe eventually, but we never know unless we vote for it.

I think the whole "3rd parties have zero chance of being elected" mantra is just self-fulfilling prophecy. We tell ourselves 3rd party candidates cannot win, so we don't vote for them, and since we don't vote for them they don't win. so long as we pass off that mantra to enough folk, we make it so 3rd parties cannot win.

So perhaps a vote for them is purely symbolic, but we cannot elect them if we do not vote for them, so I'll vote 3rd party. When the alternative is the single Republocrat party with their ever worsening candidates, I don't think there is much of a choice left.

Exactly, it's a catch 22. We don't vote for them because they can't win, and they can't win because we don't vote for them. This election between a fraud and a dynasty provides a unique opportunity to cast enough third party votes to at least get the electorate thinking about alternatives to the two parties and maybe break that catch 22 eventually.

 

[Ikari]

Exactly, it's a catch 22. We don't vote for them because they can't win, and they can't win because we don't vote for them. This election between a fraud and a dynasty provides a unique opportunity to cast enough third party votes to at least get the electorate thinking about alternatives to the two parties and maybe break that catch 22 eventually.

I think so, I'm hopeful, but we're going to have to see. Even though it's Hillary v. Trump, neither is going to want to allow third party participation and they'll both look to suppress it as much as possible. This is standard Republocrat tactic.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I think so, I'm hopeful, but we're going to have to see. Even though it's Hillary v. Trump, neither is going to want to allow third party participation and they'll both look to suppress it as much as possible. This is standard Republocrat tactic.

Of course they will.
They will also try to suppress as many votes for their opponent as possible. Now, if the voters would simply Tivo out all of the political ads, they would have a lot less influence.

 

[Aberration]

I think after 4 years of Trump or Hillary the Libertarian Party is going to get a HUUUUUGE bump. At least I am hopeful they will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EvaPeron]

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 read the link - don't know much about him but what was posted there had a lot of good points. So much has changed in the last few years that what was said in 2011 or earlier is really not as important to me as what is being said today. Honesty in the White House and putting America first is the number one priority for me personally.

 

[EvaPeron]

Exactly, it's a catch 22. We don't vote for them because they can't win, and they can't win because we don't vote for them. This election between a fraud and a dynasty provides a unique opportunity to cast enough third party votes to at least get the electorate thinking about alternatives to the two parties and maybe break that catch 22 eventually.

It's so funny because in your post you say the election between a fraud and a dynasty - honestly in this election and with all the truly honest opinions, I don't know who is who. At first I thought you mean Trump the fraud and Hillary the Dynasty but then realized you could be talking about Hillary the Fraud and Trump the Dynasty. This election is so confusing.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It's so funny because in your post you say the election between a fraud and a dynasty - honestly in this election and with all the truly honest opinions, I don't know who is who. At first I thought you mean Trump the fraud and Hillary the Dynasty but then realized you could be talking about Hillary the Fraud and Trump the Dynasty. This election is so confusing.

Trump can't be a dynasty as his family hasn't been in power before. He can, however, be a conman and fraud.

 

[blackjack50]

None of the Republocrats believe that. They want to maintain their power, so they want to restrict choice from the People and present the Republocrats as the only choice one can make.

Really? That is why a republican started this thread huh?


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

 

[blackjack50]

He doesnt really have much control over his visibility unfortunately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So very true. But he has made some statements and decisions on his campaign that don't help. And he needs to force himself into the media and on YouTube and Facebook and so on.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

 

[blackjack50]

I think after 4 years of Trump or Hillary the Libertarian Party is going to get a HUUUUUGE bump. At least I am hopeful they will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I foresee that as the only other option. And it has to be 4 years of campaigning for the libertarians


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

 

[blackjack50]

Maybe eventually, but we never know unless we vote for it.

I think the whole "3rd parties have zero chance of being elected" mantra is just self-fulfilling prophecy. We tell ourselves 3rd party candidates cannot win, so we don't vote for them, and since we don't vote for them they don't win. so long as we pass off that mantra to enough folk, we make it so 3rd parties cannot win.

So perhaps a vote for them is purely symbolic, but we cannot elect them if we do not vote for them, so I'll vote 3rd party. When the alternative is the single Republocrat party with their ever worsening candidates, I don't think there is much of a choice left.

Libertarians don't start campaigning early enough either. By the time they get noticed there are already settled camps left and right.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.

 

[Hawk41]

I'll be voting for Johnson because I align with him on most issues from American Imperialism to over-reaching government to limited drug-prohibition elimination. If nothing else his relative popularity should exert influence on platform changes in both parties, and hopefully bring about some actual constructive dialogue in mainstream politics.

I'm in a swing state, but have no interest in being bullied into thinking that I have to choose between the lesser of two evils. I agree with relatively little of the other candidates platforms, and that doesn't even take into account the issues I take with them personally.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I think after 4 years of Trump or Hillary the Libertarian Party is going to get a HUUUUUGE bump. At least I am hopeful they will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In my opinion, if the libertarian party were ever going to become a viable and influential party, they would have by now. Part of the problem is that they have run the occasional nutjob like Ron Paul.

 

[Dittohead not!]

In my opinion, if the libertarian party were ever going to become a viable and influential party, they would have by now. Part of the problem is that they have run the occasional nutjob like Ron Paul.

Now, the Republicans are following suit, running a nutjob as their candidate. I'd vote for Ron Paul any day over Donald Trump.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Now, the Republicans are following suit, running a nutjob as their candidate. I'd vote for Ron Paul any day over Donald Trump.

I would not vote for either of them. However you are incorrect. Trump is a bombastic buffoon, however he is not nuts. Ron Paul is a drooling nutjob. So is Hillary for that matter.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I would not vote for either of them. However you are incorrect. Trump is a bombastic buffoon, however he is not nuts. Ron Paul is a drooling nutjob. So is Hillary for that matter.

I don't really think any of them are nutty. It's their followers I'm not so sure about.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I don't really think any of them are nutty. It's their followers I'm not so sure about.

Ron Paul really does not matter at this time, as he is not running for anything, so I'll just mention the other nutjob....which is the one who more then once on national television claimed to have dodged sniper fire in Bosnia when everyone else who went on that trip with her, as well as the video of the landing disputed her claims. I don't think the followers of Hillary or Trump are nutjobs. Trump's folllowers are merely pissed off at do nothing status quo establishment politicians and Hillary followers only care that she has a capital "D" in front of her name on the ballot.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Ron Paul really does not matter at this time, as he is not running for anything, so I'll just mention the other nutjob....which is the one who more then once on national television claimed to have dodged sniper fire in Bosnia when everyone else who went on that trip with her, as well as the video of the landing disputed her claims. I don't think the followers of Hillary or Trump are nutjobs. Trump's folllowers are merely pissed off at do nothing status quo establishment politicians and Hillary followers only care that she has a capital "D" in front of her name on the ballot.

Yes, that D does hold a lot of influence, just as the R does in front of Trump's name (this despite the fact he's really a Democrat at heart). They also care that she's not Donald Trump. It's really too bad the Republicans didn't choose a better candidate. They could have won handily with any one of several choices, but it's too late for them now.

If the Trumpeteers are really pissed off and want changes, the best way to do it would be to replace the incumbents in Congress. Doing so would, however, entail voting across party lines, so that's not likely to happen. Gerrymandering of Congressional districts has pretty much made any real change impossible.

at least until the voters really get fed up with the two party system and start voting for the candidate regardless of party affiliation.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Yes, that D does hold a lot of influence, just as the R does in front of Trump's name (this despite the fact he's really a Democrat at heart). They also care that she's not Donald Trump. It's really too bad the Republicans didn't choose a better candidate. They could have won handily with any one of several choices, but it's too late for them now.

It's not too late. Crooked Hillary has some major quicksand ahead as well. However I agree that the republicans could have chosen a better candidate.

If the Trumpeteers are really pissed off and want changes, the best way to do it would be to replace the incumbents in Congress. Doing so would, however, entail voting across party lines, so that's not likely to happen.

Actually I think they are getting the message across, I just don't think it has sunk in enough yet., They picked an outsider or non-status quo nominee. I juist don't think they picked the best one. And I don't think crossing party lines is the answer. I am protesting in my own way by not voting at all in November.

Gerrymandering of Congressional districts has pretty much made any real change impossible.

Actually the gerrymandering advantage has brought changes, at least in the number of republicans elected to the house. And many of them are the "freedom Caucus" types who are going against the grain and pushing change. If you do not believe it, ask John Boehner.

at least until the voters really get fed up with the two party system and start voting for the candidate regardless of party affiliation.

I do that anyway. I vote for conservatives or not at all. Not much chance I would vote for a democrat, however one possible exception would have been Zell Miller.

 

[blaxshep]

I would not vote for either of them. However you are incorrect. Trump is a bombastic buffoon, however he is not nuts. Ron Paul is a drooling nutjob. So is Hillary for that matter.

Paul is not nuts, he a constitutionalist, that's why nobody wants him to even run. I never seen a campaign completely shut down by the media as Paul was. Even when he would win the media would announce the 2nd and 3rd place and not even mention Paul.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Paul is not nuts, he a constitutionalist, that's why nobody wants him to even run. I never seen a campaign completely shut down by the media as Paul was. Even when he would win the media would announce the 2nd and 3rd place and not even mention Paul.

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, Ron Paul is a drooling nut job who belongs at a funny farm. many of his foreign policy statements were bizzare......such as his justifying the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 by saying: "They attacked us because we were in their country."

 

[Thoreau72]

I think Johnson is a fine candidate. His record as governor in New Mexico is pretty good as far as I know.

I'm voting for him again.

 

[Patrickt]

Johnson did well for New Mexico when he was governor.

Interesting you commented on the Republican side of things but nothing regarding the Democratic party.:mrgreen:

It would be interesting to see how Congress worked with a third party candidate.

Congress seems to be inhabited by eunuchs who won't fight. I see the Democrats as far-left and the Republicans as left-lite.

In fact, Gov. Johnson and Gov. Weld are conservative Democrats. Sen. Clinton is a Socialist Democrat and Mr. Trump is a lying Democrat, which I realize is a redundant phrase.