• 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

Would You Consider Voting For Gov. Gary Johnson?

  • Total voters
    36
RabidAlpaca said:
So let me get this straight. You wrote in Romney, who had zero chance of winning because he wasn't even running anymore, then you come in here and whine about us wasting our votes? Jesus, you're just here to ****ing troll aren't you?

Are you here to try to convince us to vote for the GOP?



I agree, for them it becomes more about "My team won the election" instead of what's better for the country or what he or she believes in. But hey, without that mentality who would derail our threads with snide remarks about 'winning'?
Click to expand...

That was my first election, I didn't completely realize what I was doing at the time. I'm not trying to convert anyone. Not sure where you got that from.I just have a different viewpoint than you. No need to get butt hurt about it.
 
AGENT J said:
if only 3rd parties had a real chance in america right now . . . .
thats no knocking him thats knocking our political world in 2015.
Click to expand...

If 3rd parties were allowed access, I think we could probably end up with a bit more political competition and overall better candidates. And while it is true that 3rd parties have no realistic chance, it's either vote for the status quo, don't vote, or vote third party. I choose the latter.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Not to be disrespectful, if Ross Perot with his money, profile and everyman charm could only garner about 20% of the vote, and Ralph Nader with his career fighting against corporate malfeasance on behalf of the little guy could only garner less than 10% of the vote, what possible hope does Gary Johnson have to make any kind of impact on the Presidential race?

Perhaps a Michael Bloomberg or a Sarah Palin could garner the public interest and attention to have an impact as an independent or third party candidate. 90% of America or more haven't a clue who Gary Johnson is. That's reality.
Click to expand...

Ross Perot is one of the reasons the rules changed. Because some crazy dude who was able to engage in the political system was able to take almost 20% of the popular vote. That was the last year the League of Women Voters got to run the Presidential Elections, the government took over and started instituting the rules and control that would keep third parties out of the public eye. If they were to gain some traction, it would be a threat to Republocrat control.
 
Ikari said:
If 3rd parties were allowed access, I think we could probably end up with a bit more political competition and overall better candidates. And while it is true that 3rd parties have no realistic chance, it's either vote for the status quo, don't vote, or vote third party. I choose the latter.
Click to expand...

I agree . . .

when people were having a discussion on personal "government wants" and opinions one of mine tried to address this issus.

Id love to have the presidential race regulated/budgeted in terms of money. Same TV time an budget that they can choose how they spend it. It will always be at least 3 parties. Doesnt matter what three parties but the candidates should be picked by some type of primary that doesnt exist yet and the houses should never have a "VOTING" majority

its not like i had any REAL details worked out lol that was just my fantasy
 
I voted for him last go around and if the 2 parties go the way they usually do, I'll do so again.
 
TeleKat said:
Gary Johnson has tossed his hat in the ring for 2016 as a Libertarian Party candidate. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Same stance as I've said before with him or a libertarian. Three ways I'd consider voting for a libertarian POTUS candidate; one laughably unlikely and one very unlikely.

1. If I politically preferred them over the other two main candidates and I had a reasonable expectation that they could garner either a sizable chunk of the electoral or popular vote (somewhere around 15-20%). I've pointed out repeatedly on this forum in a variety of threads why that notion is likely laughable anytime in the near future given precedence.

2. I aboslutely and completely cannot stand the democratic candidate, and feel that the republican candidate has the legitimate potential to do something significantly damaging to the country in a fashion I can simply not in good consciousness endorse

Of the two, number 2 is more likely. Had Santorum won in 2012 I likely would've been more apt to vote for Johnson. That's about the extent of the likelihood in my mind. Generally, I view the lesser of two evils...taken in the entire scope of how our governmental system works...as being worthwhile enough in what good they can do, and what bad they'd block, compared to the alternative that it is worth more than what is essentially nothing but a protest vote having no tangible usefulness other than perhaps trying to assuage my own conscious or to make me somehow feel superior than others.

I have no qualms with anyone voting for him and don't bleive anyone is "throwing their vote away". Thee Aare many factors that go into and shape why a person votes, and no persons personal factors are inherently better, more important, or truer than anyone else's. I detest people telling someone they're "wasting their vote" by going third party, as well as people telling someone who's voting for one of the two major parties based on a pragmatic view of the process that they are "wasting their vote".
 
Just my opinion, but if the Libertarian Party were honestly serious they'd put more effort to winning some House and Senate seats first. Serious effort, not just throwing some yahoo on the ballot just to have a name there. Build a base from there from which to launch a serious Presidential campaign.

Some state legislature people would be good, too.
 
I want to know his fiscal policy.

Blindly advocating for his election just because he is a classic liberal and I'm a classic liberal makes no sense.
 
Zyphlin said:
Same stance as I've said before with him or a libertarian. Three ways I'd consider voting for a libertarian POTUS candidate; one laughably unlikely and one very unlikely.

1. If I politically preferred them over the other two main candidates and I had a reasonable expectation that they could garner either a sizable chunk of the electoral or popular vote (somewhere around 15-20%). I've pointed out repeatedly on this forum in a variety of threads why that notion is likely laughable anytime in the near future given precedence.

2. I aboslutely and completely cannot stand the democratic candidate, and feel that the republican candidate has the legitimate potential to do something significantly damaging to the country in a fashion I can simply not in good consciousness endorse

Of the two, number 2 is more likely. Had Santorum won in 2012 I likely would've been more apt to vote for Johnson. That's about the extent of the likelihood in my mind. Generally, I view the lesser of two evils...taken in the entire scope of how our governmental system works...as being worthwhile enough in what good they can do, and what bad they'd block, compared to the alternative that it is worth more than what is essentially nothing but a protest vote having no tangible usefulness other than perhaps trying to assuage my own conscious or to make me somehow feel superior than others.

I have no qualms with anyone voting for him and don't bleive anyone is "throwing their vote away". Thee Aare many factors that go into and shape why a person votes, and no persons personal factors are inherently better, more important, or truer than anyone else's. I detest people telling someone they're "wasting their vote" by going third party, as well as people telling someone who's voting for one of the two major parties based on a pragmatic view of the process that they are "wasting their vote".
Click to expand...

Agreed with a lot of this and definitely with what Radcen pointed out.

There needs to be a base for the libertarian party. They need to get some control in congress rather than just throw **** on the wall during the presidential election and see what sticks.

A useless vote "against the status quo" is in the end a useless and idiotic waste of a right IMO, but whatever, that's why it's their right to make useless votes.

I wouldn't mind in some cases having a libertarian candidate, it's just that he needs to have a realistic chance, there needs to be some backing in congress, etc. Voting for a 1%er is moronic and a waste of time, a tiny bit of money, and effort.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Agreed with a lot of this and definitely with what Radcen pointed out.

There needs to be a base for the libertarian party. They need to get some control in congress rather than just throw **** on the wall during the presidential election and see what sticks.

A useless vote "against the status quo" is in the end a useless and idiotic waste of a right IMO, but whatever, that's why it's their right to make useless votes.

I wouldn't mind in some cases having a libertarian candidate, it's just that he needs to have a realistic chance, there needs to be some backing in congress, etc. Voting for a 1%er is moronic and a waste of time, a tiny bit of money, and effort.
Click to expand...

which libertarian party?
capital 'L' Libertarian or small case 'l' libertarian?
even within those splinter groups there is limited consistency

to be effective, i believe a third party must consist of something more than those with libertarian views
 
Luftwaffe said:
I want to know his fiscal policy.

Blindly advocating for his election just because he is a classic liberal and I'm a classic liberal makes no sense.
Click to expand...

go research the fiscal policies he implemented while governor
but for term limits, he would still be governor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom