• 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
Thrilla said:
I vote 3rd parties, but it's never a protest vote... I always vote for those whom align with me the closest.... not who will win, not who is the lesser evil... just those whom I agree with.

the 2 parties, and their supporters, seem to believe that our votes belong to them by default and it's somehow "bad" if we don't give it to them.... **** em', my vote is mine, it goes exactly where i want it to.... it never belonged to the GOP or the Dems... or even the LP
sure, in the grand scheme, my vote didn't win the day.. or even come remotely close.
but that's not the point of voting though.. the point is casting for those whom you want to represent you, nothing more, nothing less.

me voting for Dems or the GOP is nonsensical.. I don't want them representing me .so why on god's green earth would I vote for either of them?
Click to expand...
By protest vote I don't mean I am not aligned with who I am voting for. It is a "protest" vote because I am fully aware the person I am voting for will not win. Other than that semantic difference, we are in agreement.
 
ModerateGOP said:
I didn't answer that non-existent question. I told you what I thought about his chances and why I am not voting for him. Why do people who say they are voting for him require nothing but that statement, but others who say no require an "intelligent and respectful" explanation? Makes no sense to me :2wave:
Click to expand...

Glad to see you're one of the Americans who votes for who he thinks will win instead of the candidate who best represents him. Then you come into this thread to mock us for voting for our beliefs when you don't?

How's that status quo working out for you?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Glad to see you're one of the Americans who votes for who he thinks will win instead of the candidate who best represents him. Then you come into this thread to mock us for voting for our beliefs when you don't?

How's that status quo working out for you?
Click to expand...

Gary Johnson does not represent ME and I don't think he would win so why should I vote for him anyway? your argument makes no sense.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Gary Johnson does not represent ME and I don't think he would win so why should I vote for him anyway? your argument makes no sense.
Click to expand...

So then you're saying the GOP candidates have accurately represented your beliefs? When's the last time a "moderate GOP" candidate has ever even gotten the nomination?

You're ridiculing us for voting for what we believe in while you sit there and re-elect the same establishment republicans over and over again. Yes, how much more noble you are.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
1. So then you're saying the GOP candidates have accurately represented your beliefs? When's the last time a "moderate GOP" candidate has ever even gotten the nomination?

2. You're ridiculing us for voting for what we believe in while you sit there and re-elect the same establishment republicans over and over again. Yes, how much more noble you are.
Click to expand...

1. I can't speak for others, but I've voted for Romney my entire voting life 2008 onwards. I agree 95% with his platform.
2. I never said I was more noble, I said it just makes sense, for candidates to use Obama methods instead of what your ignorant candidates have done in the past.
 
Yes, I will vote for the libertarian.



The oddest thing though are the left wingers who will vote for the libertarian or thier favorite far left statist kook like sanders, or the green party.


I haven't been able to understand this. Libertarians believe you are the master of your own destiny, sanders and the green party do not, it's a fundamental core philosophy differences from the two.

Let me ask, would you be happy in gary johnsons libertarian society? the green parties, sanders? answer all three or none please. and explain.
 
ModerateGOP said:
1. I can't speak for others, but I've voted for Romney my entire voting life 2008 onwards. I agree 95% with his platform.
2. I never said I was more noble, I said it just makes sense, for candidates to use Obama methods instead of what your ignorant candidates have done in the past.
Click to expand...

So in the next election the GOP nominates someone who doesn't represent you at all. What do you do?

- Vote for the guy you don't want.
- Vote for a third party that better represents you
- Don't vote.

The fact that you come in here and mock us for taking option #2 is rather ridiculous. Will Gary Johnson win the 2016 election? No, probably not. However, if he can get a decent % of the voter base the party could be seen as more viable and people like yourself wouldn't make the idiotic argument that we should all vote for the lesser evil. When you do that you're still electing evil.
 
ModerateGOP said:
1. I can't speak for others, but I've voted for Romney my entire voting life 2008 onwards. I agree 95% with his platform.
2. I never said I was more noble, I said it just makes sense, for candidates to use Obama methods instead of what your ignorant candidates have done in the past.
Click to expand...
How does it make sense? If anything, voting to (re-)elect someone you know you'll dislike makes even less sense than voting for someone you like but know has no chance of winning.

If you vote for a 3rd party or independent, because you actually approve of the majority of their views, at the least when the country remains crap in a hand basket you can honestly proclaim, "Don't blame me. I didn't do it." If you vote for the status quo, you've really forfeited any legitimate right to complain.

Note: Points made presume the whole of society, not just you.
 
Sometimes I feel like people who insist on voting for a candidate that has a chance of winning are actually insecure. Insecure in the sense that they need to identify with the group rather than stand up for their principles.
 
radcen said:
How does it make sense? If anything, voting to (re-)elect someone you know you'll dislike makes even less sense than voting for someone you like but know has no chance of winning.

If you vote for a 3rd party or independent, because you actually approve of the majority of their views, at the least when the country remains crap in a hand basket you can honestly proclaim, "Don't blame me. I didn't do it." If you vote for the status quo, you've really forfeited any legitimate right to complain.

Note: Points made presume the whole of society, not just you.
Click to expand...

I don't use my vote for a social agenda for change. I pick who I like and vote for him/her. I'm also not complaining about the state of the nation. Never have. Here, on this thread, I'm just complaining about the antics of certain libertarians.
 
I doubt I will be voting for any 3rd party candidate. I'd prefer to vote for someone who has an actual shot at winning.


Unless the main title ticket is between two utter a-holes I can't see any difference between....
 
radcen said:
Sometimes I feel like people who insist on voting for a candidate that has a chance of winning are actually insecure. Insecure in the sense that they need to identify with the group rather than stand up for their principles.
Click to expand...



More like concerned that "bleh" will lose and "worse" will win, if they don't.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So in the next election the GOP nominates someone who doesn't represent you at all. What do you do?

- Vote for the guy you don't want.
- Vote for a third party that better represents you
- Don't vote.

The fact that you come in here and mock us for taking option #2 is rather ridiculous. Will Gary Johnson win the 2016 election? No, probably not. However, if he can get a decent % of the voter base the party could be seen as more viable and people like yourself wouldn't make the idiotic argument that we should all vote for the lesser evil. When you do that you're still electing evil.
Click to expand...

We'll see. In 2008 I didn't vote McCain. I wrote in Romney. A lot of his supporters did that. I highly doubt this time it will be someone I don't like. It will probably be Bush. Which I will be ecstatic to vote for since I was too young to vote for his Brother.
 
Goshin said:
I doubt I will be voting for any 3rd party candidate. I'd prefer to vote for someone who has an actual shot at winning.


Unless the main title ticket is between two utter a-holes I can't see any difference between....
Click to expand...



Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is the reason we are where we are today.
 
ModerateGOP said:
We'll see. In 2008 I didn't vote McCain. I wrote in Romney. A lot of his supporters did that. I highly doubt this time it will be someone I don't like. It will probably be Bush. Which I will be ecstatic to vote for since I was too young to vote for his Brother.
Click to expand...

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?

radcen said:
Sometimes I feel like people who insist on voting for a candidate that has a chance of winning are actually insecure. Insecure in the sense that they need to identify with the group rather than stand up for their principles.
Click to expand...

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'?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is the reason we are where we are today.
Click to expand...



And 3rd parties are not going to bring us back from where we are. Not until they figure out how to turn hype into enough votes to at least scare a mainstream nominee.
 
Goshin said:
More like concerned that "bleh" will lose and "worse" will win, if they don't.
Click to expand...

There have been times that I felt so strongly against one candidate that I voted for the other. The recent Iowa Senate race is a perfect example. Politically, I detest Bruce Braley, so I voted for Joni Ernst, even though Ernst didn't thrill me in the least either. In this case keeping Braley out was more important to me.

I could have voted Libertarian, but that guy died in a small plane crash a month before the election (for real). Talk about nowhere to go!
 
Goshin said:
And 3rd parties are not going to bring us back from where we are. Not until they figure out how to turn hype into enough votes to at least scare a mainstream nominee.
Click to expand...



we have to start somewhere. We now have a ruling elite who really don't govern much differently from each other as in bailouts for giant corporations, tax breaks for pet corporations (GE, NFL, GM, etc), who really don't care for you other than to see how much power they can bleed from you while eroding your constitutional rights.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
we have to start somewhere. We now have a ruling elite who really don't govern much differently from each other as in bailouts for giant corporations, tax breaks for pet corporations (GE, NFL, GM, etc), who really don't care for you other than to see how much power they can bleed from you while eroding your constitutional rights.
Click to expand...


If you could mobilize "The Great Unwashed", the nearly 50% who could vote but don't bother and often aren't even registered, you could win elections.


But you haven't found the key to that door, and the more extreme planks of the Libertarian Party tend to turn off most Dems and Repubs as too far out, so at this point it is a pipe dream.
 
Goshin said:
If you could mobilize "The Great Unwashed", the nearly 50% who could vote but don't bother and often aren't even registered, you could win elections.


But you haven't found the key to that door, and the more extreme planks of the Libertarian Party tend to turn off most Dems and Repubs as too far out, so at this point it is a pipe dream.
Click to expand...



The only "key" to that door is to kill thier television and other hand held i-devices.... As long as their is some housewife making a fool of herself on tv, no one will care.



As for the extreme planks? doesn't the democrat and republican party have thier own extremes? does any party get 100% of what they want? Do you or I if we become a member of a party, do we have to believe in all the facets or follow the basic principles?


Thaat may be another discussion, but to me it seems, that if there is a "Disappearing middle class" as some claim, that time may come.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The only "key" to that door is to kill thier television and other hand held i-devices.... As long as their is some housewife making a fool of herself on tv, no one will care.



As for the extreme planks? doesn't the democrat and republican party have thier own extremes? does any party get 100% of what they want? Do you or I if we become a member of a party, do we have to believe in all the facets or follow the basic principles?


Thaat may be another discussion, but to me it seems, that if there is a "Disappearing middle class" as some claim, that time may come.
Click to expand...




Personally I think we're screwed, and I'm just fiddling while Rome burns. :D
 
Goshin said:
If you could mobilize "The Great Unwashed", the nearly 50% who could vote but don't bother and often aren't even registered, you could win elections.

But you haven't found the key to that door, and the more extreme planks of the Libertarian Party tend to turn off most Dems and Repubs as too far out, so at this point it is a pipe dream.
Click to expand...
If the goal is to effect change in political behavior, I don't think you even need to harp on third parties as being the panacea. I believe that if the voters would simply stop reflexively re-electing the same schmucks all the time that we'd see change. If we could get the re-election rate down from 90% to even 50%... in other words make them know that their lifetime gig isn't guaranteed at all... we'd see huge change in how they treat us, because we'd suddenly become important and not to be taken for granted.
 
radcen said:
If the goal is to effect change in political behavior, I don't think you even need to harp on third parties as being the panacea. I believe that if the voters would simply stop reflexively re-electing the same schmucks all the time that we'd see change. If we could get the re-election rate down from 90% to even 50%... in other words make them know that their lifetime gig isn't guaranteed at all... we'd see huge change in how they treat us, because we'd suddenly become important and not to be taken for granted.
Click to expand...


My understanding is this election just past was one of the biggest Congressional turnovers in living memory... yet it was probably less than 20%, despite many millions of disgruntled people. I've been thru "re-elect NOBODY" campaigns before where 95% of incumbents were re-elected regardless.


Way I figure, it is going to take something BIG to disrupt the status-quo, something that really shakes the American people to the core and kicks our entire society in the pants, like a total economic collapse or losing a war so badly we have to beg for a peace treaty.... but all things considered, I figure the American People will, when that happens, jump the entirely wrong way...
 
TeleKat said:
Gary Johnson has tossed his hat in the ring for 2016 as a Libertarian Party candidate. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Gary Johnson was my governor and, while certainly not a close acquaintance, I know him personally. He is straight forward, honest, and for the most part embraces commendable values and has his head on straight. He was a good governor for New Mexico except that, in my opinion, he used dreadful judgment in choosing a cabinet/team to work with him.

On the plus side, he is pro life but not fanatically so, pro business, pro states rights, pro balanced budget, pro maximum liberty, and getting the federal government out of education.

On the negative side he is almost to the libertarian right of Ron Paul in his opposition to any form of foreign entanglements, he is pretty much pro live and let live as far as illegal immigration is concerned, he is almost fanatical in his opposition to any federal or state control over drug use, and, like Ron Paul, he exhibits a kind of naivete in recognizing dangers of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism or others who would very much like to hurt us.

From a pure aesthetic perspective that will raise eyebrows and possibly hurt him in some camps, he and his wife are separated--not sure if there has been a divorce--and, while he was raised Christian, he is not active with any religious group and whether he in fact considers himself a Christian is somewhat in question.

I would vote for Gary over anybody the Democrats will likely put up and would prefer him over some the GOP could nominate. But he is by no means even among the top prospective candidates I would like to see on the ballot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom