• 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!

Is A Vote For Gary Johnson - - -

Is a vote for Gary Johnson - - -

  • A vote for Hillary Clinton?

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • A vote for Donald Trump?

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • A vote for Gary Johnson?

    Votes: 30 78.9%

  • Total voters
    38
Sorry, but it's just not, unless you've got some type of crystal ball indicating that if each person voting for Gary Johnson was forced on pain of death to vote for either Hillary or Trump, that they would all to a man pull the lever for Donald Trump.

No, it is. Of course nobody has a crystal ball, nor is anybody a mind reader, but the notion that a big enough percentage of people who would even consider voting for a Libertarian candidate would have voted for an uber-liberal like Clinton over any conservative, to the point that it would work in her favor, is fantasy-like denial. We can pretend to be objective, but reality is that plausible deniability doesn't work in this scenario.

If we were talking a Ralph Nader-like third party candidate, then the point would be likely that a vote for Nader would benefit Trump over Clinton.
 
No, it is. Of course nobody has a crystal ball, nor is anybody a mind reader, but the notion that a big enough percentage of people who would even consider voting for a Libertarian candidate would have voted for an uber-liberal like Clinton over any conservative, to the point that it would work in her favor, is fantasy-like denial. We can pretend to be objective, but reality is that plausible deniability doesn't work in this scenario.

If we were talking a Ralph Nader-like third party candidate, then the point would be likely that a vote for Nader would benefit Trump over Clinton.

Polls show him drawing pretty much evenly. And it's not too hard to find some reasons why that may be. Johnsons socially liberal and supports the legalization of marijuana. His non-interventionist foreign policy is something that appeals to a lot of young liberals. And there are a ton of people who simply don't like Hillary and see Johnson as a protest vote, not caring what he believes because he won't actually win.

Also, many Conservatives voting for Johnson wouldn't be voting for Trump if Johnson wasn't there. So I don't see that as a vote for Clinton either.
 
Polls show him drawing pretty much evenly. And it's not too hard to find some reasons why that may be. Johnsons socially liberal and supports the legalization of marijuana. His non-interventionist foreign policy is something that appeals to a lot of young liberals. And there are a ton of people who simply don't like Hillary and see Johnson as a protest vote, not caring what he believes because he won't actually win.

Also, many Conservatives voting for Johnson wouldn't be voting for Trump if Johnson wasn't there. So I don't see that as a vote for Clinton either.
I agree this is anything but a "typical" election.
 
I agree this is anything but a "typical" election.

It will be in one sense, despite having to shoulder Trump as their candidate, neither GOP nor DNC will push for open participation in the Presidential debates.
 
A vote for Gary Johnson is just a vote for Gary Johnson. I realize some die hard party-tards who don't mind principals taking a back seat just as long as their party wins will claim a vote for Johnson is a vote for Clinton or a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump.

I took the approach you disparaged. However, I do see your point.

Most voters see any third-party vote as taking away votes from one of the two party leaders. And since most Libertarians tend to lean Right, it can easily be construed that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary since since it'll be one-less Republican casting their party-line vote. But since Johnson isn't seen as a strong candidate even as a Libertarian, it's more likely any votes cast for him would simply be Independents casting an Independent vote as opposed to Republicans or Democrats looking for an alternative to either party choice.

It's going to be...interesting after the DNC next week to see how all this plays out.
 
A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for someone who openly advocates for unlimited, unrestricted money in politics (outside of transparency laws) despite its proven corruption and subversion of democratic governance; untenable regardless of the net electoral outcome.
 
A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for someone who openly advocates for unlimited, unrestricted money in politics (outside of transparency laws) despite its proven corruption and subversion of democratic governance; untenable regardless of the net electoral outcome.

What? Sounds like you are describing all parties to me, including the party of "crooked Hillary".
 
What? Sounds like you are describing all parties to me, including the party of "crooked Hillary".

Green party is vehemently against money in politics.

The progressive wing of the Democratic party is also vehemently against money in politics.

Not at all a fan of Hillary and think 'crooked' pretty well describes her, but she at least recognizes the issue in her speeches, even if the woman intends to ultimately only pay it superficial lipservice because she's been such a tremendous beneficiary of it.
 
Last edited:
A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson. Two and two do not equal five.
 
Back
Top Bottom