Gary Johnson/Libertarian Questions [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson/Libertarian Questions


alabaster
10-07-2012, 21:56
Okay, so I have a reasonable idea of who I'm voting for this election. Still, I can't help but notice a couple things that make me wonder what's going on here with this years upcoming election.

1) If Gary Johnson is on all 50 ballots, why should he not be in the debates?

2) Can someone explain to me why some think it's okay for a R or a D to tell a voter that voting L is throwing away or wasting a vote?

3) If we're not going to start looking at truly non-partisan politics now, then when will it happen and what will finally get us to look at all angles instead of party lines?

4) I hope I don't get heat over this thread, I noticed 2 others on Gary johnson had been closed. I'm not trying to flame, just inquire GT'ers thoughts and opinions.

countrygun
10-07-2012, 22:19
You will get most of your answers by actually reading the other threads.

So what was your purpose with this one?

Syclone538
10-07-2012, 22:29
Okay, so I have a reasonable idea of who I'm voting for this election. Still, I can't help but notice a couple things that make me wonder what's going on here with this years upcoming election.

1) If Gary Johnson is on all 50 ballots, why should he not be in the debates?

2) Can someone explain to me why some think it's okay for a R or a D to tell a voter that voting L is throwing away or wasting a vote?

3) If we're not going to start looking at truly non-partisan politics now, then when will it happen and what will finally get us to look at all angles instead of party lines?

4) I hope I don't get heat over this thread, I noticed 2 others on Gary johnson had been closed. I'm not trying to flame, just inquire GT'ers thoughts and opinions.

This is coming from someone who is voting for him, so don't take it the wrong way.

1) Because he is not going to win.

2) Because he is not going to win. Not that I agree that it's a wasted vote, but that's the reason.

3) Probably never. The upcoming election is always the most important election ever, and you have to chose the lesser evil, just this one time.

4) All the authoritarian Republicans know that most of us that are voting LP would chose Romney over Obama if they were the only two choices, so they get mad a say that we could cost Romney the election.

I promise, if Obama wins Ohio by 1 vote, and therefore the election, I will vote a straight R ballot for the next 10 years.

Zombie Surgeon
10-07-2012, 22:32
Oh goodie, another Ronulan thread...

Let me jump in with some news:

RNC Chairman Dismisses Third Party Candidate Gary Johnson (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/rnc-chairman-dismisses-third-party-candidate-gary-johnson/)

The Maggy
10-07-2012, 23:01
This is coming from someone who is voting for him, so don't take it the wrong way.

1) Because he is not going to win.

2) Because he is not going to win. Not that I agree that it's a wasted vote, but that's the reason.

3) Probably never. The upcoming election is always the most important election ever, and you have to chose the lesser evil, just this one time.

4) All the authoritarian Republicans know that most of us that are voting LP would chose Romney over Obama if they were the only two choices, so they get mad a say that we could cost Romney the election.

I promise, if Obama wins Ohio by 1 vote, and therefore the election, I will vote a straight R ballot for the next 10 years.

Who gets to decide that? If a candidate manages to be placed on the ballot of every state, that candidate should have open access to the national debates.

This line of thinking really gets under my skin because if it was applied to any other competition, it would be boring. Pick two teams in the NFL that you think are most likely to win, disenfranchise the rest. Nascar... pick to drivers; there's no point of allowing anyone else on the track because they can't win.

It's simply a power play by the republicans and democrats; squeeze out the minority opposition and you have a 50/50 shot of keeping the power over the people.

Syclone538
10-07-2012, 23:21
Who gets to decide that? If a candidate manages to be placed on the ballot of every state, that candidate should have open access to the national debates.
...

I really don't know how the debates are run, but if cnn wants to invite Romney and Obama to have a debate and not invite Johnson, they should be free to do so.

...
This line of thinking really gets under my skin because if it was applied to any other competition, it would be boring. Pick two teams in the NFL that you think are most likely to win,
...

who have won every game for the last 100+ years

...
disenfranchise the rest. Nascar... pick to drivers;
...

who have won every race for the last 100+ years

...
there's no point of allowing anyone else on the track because they can't win.

It's simply a power play by the republicans and democrats; squeeze out the minority opposition and you have a 50/50 shot of keeping the power over the people.

The Maggy
10-08-2012, 00:53
I really don't know how the debates are run, but if cnn wants to invite Romney and Obama to have a debate and not invite Johnson, they should be free to do so.


The debates are sponsored and regulated by the "Commission on Presidential Debates" a non-profit organization.

It's not a private company like CNN hosting that can exercise their freedom to who they invite, it is a non-profit organization, that receives benefits from the government. The current chairman also appears to be a former RNC chairman.



who have won every game for the last 100+ years



who have won every race for the last 100+ years

This doesn't address the issue at all, it is simply just a rewording of the "won't win so don't let them show up" mentality. The logic is really quiet circular. You don't let other people have a chance to compete because the other people have never won... and your Monday Night Football selection would either be The Cardinals vs. The Bears or The Bears vs. The Cardinals; the two oldest teams so there no need for any other teams because one of those two teams is always going to win.

Honestly, not allowing the voters to see everyone on the ticket only harms potential voters. Allowing the voters to see every candidate on the ballot would only chip away at the power of the two major parties.

aspartz
10-08-2012, 04:11
I agree that he should be in the debate. I realize he is not going to win the election, but if even 10% of the questions were asked that showed the difference between the two major parties and the Libertarians, perhaps people would realize that there is far more difference between the Libertarian and either Democrat or Republican candidates than there is between the two major players.

ARS

Bren
10-08-2012, 05:06
Okay, so I have a reasonable idea of who I'm voting for this election. Still, I can't help but notice a couple things that make me wonder what's going on here with this years upcoming election.

1) If Gary Johnson is on all 50 ballots, why should he not be in the debates?


Because he can't be elected president, so it would be a waste of time.


2) Can someone explain to me why some think it's okay for a R or a D to tell a voter that voting L is throwing away or wasting a vote?
because there is no chance, not even the slightest chance, of a Libertarian being elected president in your lifetime (unless zombies eat all the republicans and democrats). Voting Libertarian has 0 chance of your guy winning, but a slight chance of influencing the election in favor of the Democrat candidate.

3) If we're not going to start looking at truly non-partisan politics now, then when will it happen and what will finally get us to look at all angles instead of party lines?

We are looking at the Libertarians - not much to see there.

4) I hope I don't get heat over this thread, I noticed 2 others on Gary johnson had been closed. I'm not trying to flame, just inquire GT'ers thoughts and opinions.
Not sure why anybody would get excited about Gary Johnson - he has slightly less chance of being elected than most of his voters do.

Goaltender66
10-08-2012, 06:42
The debates are sponsored and regulated by the "Commission on Presidential Debates" a non-profit organization.

It's not a private company like CNN hosting that can exercise their freedom to who they invite, it is a non-profit organization, that receives benefits from the government. The current chairman also appears to be a former RNC chairman.



This doesn't address the issue at all, it is simply just a rewording of the "won't win so don't let them show up" mentality. The logic is really quiet circular. You don't let other people have a chance to compete because the other people have never won... and your Monday Night Football selection would either be The Cardinals vs. The Bears or The Bears vs. The Cardinals; the two oldest teams so there no need for any other teams because one of those two teams is always going to win.

Honestly, not allowing the voters to see everyone on the ticket only harms potential voters. Allowing the voters to see every candidate on the ballot would only chip away at the power of the two major parties.

The Commission requires a showing of at least 15% support in major polls. Now we can quibble about the polling and all of that, but the upshot is that the debates are *not* there to create visibility for the candidates. That's what the individual campaigns are for. The debates are to provide a forum for realistic contenders to discuss issues and solutions in real time.

Incidentally, the Commission on Presidential Debates is a private non-profit organization funded through private donations. If Libertarians were really all about private enterprise over government diktat, I'd think they'd work to sponsor their own debate commission rather than try to get government to force the CPD to do something.

lethal tupperwa
10-08-2012, 06:52
in a case of who are you voting AGAINST a vote for a third party

Is a vote for (not against) the one you don't want.

Diesel McBadass
10-08-2012, 08:05
isn't johnson polling at half percent. Not even a full percent of the country likes him, why waste time putting him in the debate? Nobody whined nader wasn't in on the action and nader polled higher when he ran than gary johnson

Snowman92D
10-08-2012, 10:41
The Democrats don't want Johnson to get any more public exposure than they can manage. They're terrified that if their liberal membership sees that GJ supports drug legalization it'll siphon their votes to him, and away from Obama. :smoking:

GAFinch
10-08-2012, 14:54
Oh goodie, another Ronulan thread...

Let me jump in with some news:

RNC Chairman Dismisses Third Party Candidate Gary Johnson (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/rnc-chairman-dismisses-third-party-candidate-gary-johnson/)


From the article:

Johnson considers himself a headache for both Obama and Romney.

"I'm more conservative than Romney on dollars and cents. I'm more liberal than Obama when it comes to social issues," he said in an interview with The Associated Press.

:whistling:

G29Reload
10-08-2012, 15:44
Okay, so I have a reasonable idea of who I'm voting for this election. Still, I can't help but notice a couple things that make me wonder what's going on here with this years upcoming election.

1) If Gary Johnson is on all 50 ballots, why should he not be in the debates?

Because his utter lack of polling numbers makes him inconsequential and not worth our time.


2) Can someone explain to me why some think it's okay for a R or a D to tell a voter that voting L is throwing away or wasting a vote?

Because its the truth, and we still have free speech. The choice is down to two candidates, and only one of those two will win.

Pick.


3) If we're not going to start looking at truly non-partisan politics now, then when will it happen and what will finally get us to look at all angles instead of party lines?

When something not on the usual roster gets play with the American people, and it gains enough traction to be worthwhile. You have to have popular support for something or it won't work. If there's a groundswell of support behind New Topic A and it just keeps coming up and coming up after years of being ignored, politicians realize they better decide where they stand and make a call one way or the other. There's a usually a parallel of some kind that will put it in one camp or the other.


4) I hope I don't get heat over this thread, I noticed 2 others on Gary johnson had been closed. I'm not trying to flame, just inquire GT'ers thoughts and opinions.

Because the desperation over losing is pushing the troll button and barrage posting is all they have left. The mods have enough of it and they get canned.

G19G20
10-08-2012, 16:02
Okay, so I have a reasonable idea of who I'm voting for this election. Still, I can't help but notice a couple things that make me wonder what's going on here with this years upcoming election.

1) If Gary Johnson is on all 50 ballots, why should he not be in the debates?

2) Can someone explain to me why some think it's okay for a R or a D to tell a voter that voting L is throwing away or wasting a vote?

3) If we're not going to start looking at truly non-partisan politics now, then when will it happen and what will finally get us to look at all angles instead of party lines?

4) I hope I don't get heat over this thread, I noticed 2 others on Gary johnson had been closed. I'm not trying to flame, just inquire GT'ers thoughts and opinions.

1. Because the Debate Commission, which is quietly funded by corporations, sets the polling cut off so high that nobody but their two bought-and-paid-for puppets get to participate. The media, also controlled by said corporations, ignores the 3rd party candidates, thus self fulfilling the racket. You mistake this for a free Republic country. It is not. It is a creeping mix of socialism and fascism. Either way, gov't and corp work together.

2. Because even suggesting voting for someone other than the two puppets reminds people that they don't have to play the two-sides-of-the-same-coin game. This game is why nothing changes for the better in this country for any appreciable length of time.

3. We need a smarter country, yet the population is becoming demonstrably more ignorant. The average voter, and you see many of them on this forum, simply aren't very bright and are incapable of critical thinking. Fortunately, the smart ones are getting involved and working INSIDE the system so the system you mention may be attainable at some point. Instituting a voter IQ test would be great but obviously that's not constitutional and one moron's vote is worth as much as one genius' vote. The problem is that there's a lot more morons than geniuses.

4. Reince says GJ is irrelevant, but then the RNC and Romney campaign are filing lawsuits across the country to get him removed from the ballots. That's a lot of time and money spent over something irrelevant.

Ruble Noon
10-08-2012, 16:04
Okay, so I have a reasonable idea of who I'm voting for this election. Still, I can't help but notice a couple things that make me wonder what's going on here with this years upcoming election.

1) If Gary Johnson is on all 50 ballots, why should he not be in the debates?

2) Can someone explain to me why some think it's okay for a R or a D to tell a voter that voting L is throwing away or wasting a vote?

3) If we're not going to start looking at truly non-partisan politics now, then when will it happen and what will finally get us to look at all angles instead of party lines?

4) I hope I don't get heat over this thread, I noticed 2 others on Gary johnson had been closed. I'm not trying to flame, just inquire GT'ers thoughts and opinions.

WTF dude? Didn't you get the memo that your supposed to have a tingle up your leg because Romney won the debate? Geez, try to keep up. We have moved past the point of caring that our candidate is a gun banning progressive liberal socialized medicine man.

Lee-online
10-08-2012, 16:05
Here is the thing, I am voting for GJ. If he was in the debates i would watch them and i may change my mind on who gets my vote depending on how the debate goes. Leave him out and what is going to change my mind?

Oh, If my vote for GJ is a vote for O, then i guess my vote for O would be worth double?

427
10-08-2012, 16:09
1) It takes 15% polling to be invited the debates.

2) The fact that third Parties don't win elections.

3) If third parties Caucus with one of the two major parties how can a third party be non partisan?

Ruble Noon
10-08-2012, 18:02
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/c23.0.403.403/p403x403/282247_446974435355489_1377765968_n.jpg

countrygun
10-08-2012, 18:05
You are still failing to prove anyway, at this point, voting for your new Libertarian idol will keep Obama out of office.

Grow up. Your team isn't in the game.

G19G20
10-08-2012, 18:11
You are still failing to prove anyway, at this point, voting for your new Libertarian idol will keep Obama out of office.

Not sure what language this is but it's not english.


Grow up. Your team isn't in the game.

Keep up your wonderful brand of voter outreach!

G29Reload
10-08-2012, 18:12
If GJ isn't competent enough to remove the current menace from office, he's no friend of Liberty.

Bren
10-08-2012, 18:28
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/c23.0.403.403/p403x403/282247_446974435355489_1377765968_n.jpg

Well, no - it's not actually better. Most libertarians, if forced to choose between the democrat and the republican, would vote republican (assuming that must vote, and only 2 choices).

If that is correct, then voting Libertarian, means electing Obama. If electing Obama means throwing away your country, the voting Libertarian means throwing away your country.

Even if that is not correct - if electing EITHER Romeny or Obama means throwing away your coutry, then voting libertarian still means throwing away your vote.

However, it's a catchy slogan.:upeyes: