• 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!

Why don't you hear news of public figures endorsing Johnson?

Risky Thicket said:
Trump is a buffoon and I believe he will come across that way when debating Johnson. As for Johnson and Hillary, I believe Johnson's successful strategy will be to remain truthful and to try to force Hillary to remain truthful and not divert to other topics as she frequently does when she is in a corner. Truth is not Hillary's friend.
Click to expand...

Neither is it a friend to Johnson. He is a politician after all...
 
ecofarm said:
We were tired of the Dems talking Green and doing nothing. Bill and Gore did nothing. So, it was time they lost our vote. I know I, and all of my colleagues (Miami Dade county), were happy when our Green votes pushed Gore out of office. That Gore lost his mind and went ManBearPig was icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

You're just upset that your pregnant chad was accidentally cast for Patrick Buchannan.
 
d0gbreath said:
You're just upset that your pregnant chad was accidentally cast for Patrick Buchannan.
Click to expand...

Can't be angry 'bout acts of God. (he's a thumper, right?)
 
SDET said:
Many people agree that both Clinton and Trump are utterly unqualified to be President. Why don't we see more public figures endorsing Johnson by default? Johnson ain't much but at least he's not a traitor nor a dangerous buffoon.
Click to expand...

Stuff like that will be kept out of the news because the Repulocrats do not want to encourage a "spoiler" candidate. And particularly in this race, where it's Hillary v. Trump and no one really wants either; they cannot risk a third party candidate gaining popularity. So everything will be kept very tight-lipped.
 
SDET said:
Many people agree that both Clinton and Trump are utterly unqualified to be President. Why don't we see more public figures endorsing Johnson by default? Johnson ain't much but at least he's not a traitor nor a dangerous buffoon.
Click to expand...

Clinton is qualified. She is just a terrible liar.
 
ecofarm said:
We were tired of the Dems talking Green and doing nothing. Bill and Gore did nothing. So, it was time they lost our vote. I know I, and all of my colleagues (Miami Dade county), were happy when our Green votes pushed Gore out of office. That Gore lost his mind and went ManBearPig was icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

If you want a contender to the two main sides that is not of the two main sides, then maybe a merger with one of the parties is in order? alternatively, the green party could get in the news more, or try to merge with other small parties, even if it is just to get into the news?

This johnson guy from the green party of america has been mentioned on a debate forum now, a place where people look for alternatives. if the rest of the world was to look for alternatives, instead of listening to the 'mud slinging match' - taking an interest in the elections, then we would see a lot to choose from for the people, yes? if there were more choices, then there would be too many people to 'attack' and instead they would be busy promoting their own ends.

Voters see what the nominees do all the time - if they were to rather spread a good image than try to reduce the image of the other, all the news would be about them, yes? this would put a great knowledge of that party into the minds of voters, a turn around to this pessimistic focusing on failures we see today.
 
BrettNortje said:
If you want a contender to the two main sides that is not of the two main sides, then maybe a merger with one of the parties is in order? alternatively, the green party could get in the news more, or try to merge with other small parties, even if it is just to get into the news?

This johnson guy from the green party of america has been mentioned on a debate forum now, a place where people look for alternatives. if the rest of the world was to look for alternatives, instead of listening to the 'mud slinging match' - taking an interest in the elections, then we would see a lot to choose from for the people, yes? if there were more choices, then there would be too many people to 'attack' and instead they would be busy promoting their own ends.

Voters see what the nominees do all the time - if they were to rather spread a good image than try to reduce the image of the other, all the news would be about them, yes? this would put a great knowledge of that party into the minds of voters, a turn around to this pessimistic focusing on failures we see today.
Click to expand...

The purpose of a two party system is to force compromise at the ground level. Instead of deals being made at the top, by representatives, each person must compare one's own platform to those available. In the past, I've found voting 3rd party very satisfying. I'm conservative economically, liberal socially and interventionist foreign policy. I said from the git: if Bush wins the primary I vote repub, Trump wins I vote Dem, neither I vote third party. I'm happy to get a socially liberal hawk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom