Elections Gary Johnson at 12% (3% away from debates), potential game changer

[PolishHeadlock]

Didn't Clinton win that election?

Yeah but Perot obviously had an affect on that election. If you can get 19% over the vote as a 3rd party candidate that can really change the game

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Yeah but Perot obviously had an affect on that election. If you can get 19% over the vote as a 3rd party candidate that can really change the game

I agree with this post, but it doesn't apply to this election. No one of significance is expecting Hillary to lose.

 

[kpt018]

I'd love to see a genuine person like GJ enter the debates just to offset some of the insanity.

I'm generally a fan your posting but have to disagree here. Gary Johnson offsetting insanity is like saying we should throw gas on a fire to put it out.

His tax plan is by far the most regressive of the three and the least plausible andvery unlikely to get passed (by unlikely I mean next to zero chance). He would demolish all progress made on climate change since he's one of those "no regulation" nut jobs. He would crush the safety net.

I really do get the appeal here. The guy can be very very reasonable on a lot of issues but he's really bad on the big stuff. I also am not a fan of his isolationist ideas with regards to foreign policy but I find that area much more defensible.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I really do get the appeal here. The guy can be very very reasonable on a lot of issues but he's really bad on the big stuff. I also am not a fan of his isolationist ideas with regards to foreign policy but I find that area much more defensible.

I don't think he's reasonable on anything, and I don't see where he has an appealing message. Their motto should be "upward redistribution without the racism." No one is buying. It's like alcohol-free beer.

 

[kpt018]

I don't think he's reasonable on anything, and I don't see where he has an appealing message. Their motto should be "upward redistribution without the racism." No one is buying. It's like alcohol-free beer.

He is in favor of legalizing marijuana (and open to other drugs) and good on social issues (supports right to choose, SSM, etc.). Otherwise he is a total can of a candidate (like I said, he's really bad on the big stuff). He's a horrendous candidate for sure but I can imagine he appeals to people who are conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues.

I should have been clearer and said he has zero appeal for me but I can see why he appeals to a certain type of voter.

 

[Jack V Savage]

He is in favor of legalizing marijuana (and open to other drugs) and good on social issues (supports right to choose, SSM, etc.). Otherwise he is a total can of a candidate (like I said, he's really bad on the big stuff). He's a horrendous candidate for sure but I can imagine he appeals to people who are conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues.

I got you, but "people who are conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues" are an insignificant portion of the electorate. There are a lot of people who tolerate stupid "conservative" ideas on economics because of identity politics (whether white nationalism or religious identity). Take out that last appeal, and there's nothing left for most people. That very small slice of people who are still true believers in right-wing economic ideas despite everything and aren't attached to identity politics is disproportionately represented in the media and as a result in the WR, but it's a delusion that Johnson would attract more support with more attention.

 

[kpt018]

I got you, but "people who are conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues" are an insignificant portion of the electorate. There are a lot of people who tolerate stupid "conservative" ideas on economics because of identity politics (whether white nationalism or religious identity). Take out that last appeal, and there's nothing left for most people. That very small slice of people who are still true believers in right-wing economic ideas despite everything and aren't attached to identity politics is disproportionately represented in the media and as a result in the WR, but it's a delusion that Johnson would attract more support with more attention.

I'm with you. I'm certainly not arguing this guy should be a significant contender for the presidency either or deserves broad appeal. But I don't think it's fair to say he isn't reasonable on anything.

From what I can see most of the people in his camp are completely ignorant of his positions and the issues in general and are solely supporting him to protest Hillary and Trump (mostly based on ignorance).

 

[DangDaGawd]

Just what America needs a libertarian.

It's too bad they can't even get a real libertarian as the Libertarian Party's nominee. Gary Johnson is a just a Republican reject.

 

[kpt018]

It's too bad they can't even get a real libertarian as the Libertarian Party's nominee. Gary Johnson is a just a Republican reject.

Aren't they all though?

 

[sickc0d3r]

I'm generally a fan your posting but have to disagree here. Gary Johnson offsetting insanity is like saying we should throw gas on a fire to put it out.

His tax plan is by far the most regressive of the three and the least plausible andvery unlikely to get passed (by unlikely I mean next to zero chance). He would demolish all progress made on climate change since he's one of those "no regulation" nut jobs. He would crush the safety net.

I really do get the appeal here. The guy can be very very reasonable on a lot of issues but he's really bad on the big stuff. I also am not a fan of his isolationist ideas with regards to foreign policy but I find that area much more defensible.

Yeah, I know, and I am generally in lock-step with your thoughts on most subjects around here. But it's all about priorities I guess. Right now I'd say I am going through a phase. All I want from the president is to be a strong anti-interventionist (not really an isolationist), leave people alone on pretty much every social issue, and basically stick to the constitution. I'm good with free trade and making it easier for hard working immigrants to come here and contribute, and I feel like the economy works itself out for the most part without much help from the gov't. We should focus on eliminating corporate lobbies, cronyism, and corruption right now. I'm fine with his record of vetoing everything that doesn't pay for itself, as I'd rather the federal gov't just not do anything at all. Lately I'm leaning towards state's rights more than I used to inasmuch as I really think people are better off when they can make significant decisions through local policy, and the federal role should be more about block funding and general frameworks, and less about administration.
As far as the environment is concerned, he doesn't deny climate change, he's a big clean energy proponent, and he supports nuclear energy. Dude rides his bike across New Mexico every year and created a new MJ edible, ffs. He governed a very blue state that is big into its environment and he won his second term in a rout. He just happens to be a market based solutions guy, and the jury is still out for me on what that looks like for some things.
He has a lot of ideas about the economy that I do not agree with, but I have said before I don't pretend to be an expert in that area, and I like the fact that he's been very forthcoming to admit when he's wrong and will embrace alternative ideas. He's also stated repeatedly he would never pull the rug out from under the most vulnerable citizens, and would craft policies accordingly.
Honestly, I disagree with about half of his platform when I look at it (private prisons? wtf? but guess what, he's reduced overcrowded prisons in NM with his policies so who knows, maybe it is worth the discussion). I suppose I just like the guy's sincerity, and I really don't like the direction my party, the dems, have been marching in over the last few years. I'm pissed about droning children to death, pissed about the invasion of privacy of citizens, with the government shoving a microscope up every orifice in our bodies, and as much as I think Hillary is a very predictable and safe choice overall, I'm pissed that she could be so careless with sensitive information when she was in charge of the security of our country. I'd at least like a fresh voice in there mixing it up in the debates because it's going to be a shitshow with objectively the worst candidate ever in Trump, and the least like-able in Hilldawg.
All that said, I live in a state that is almost certainly going Clinton's way, so I have the luxury of voting without any consequences. Take it for what it's worth.

Edit: Sorry for the wall of text, lol.

 

[in the]

Gary Johnson supports TPP and said he'd sign the deal. Why do you like him, Pimp?

 

[DangDaGawd]

Aren't they all though?

Nope.

 

[Greoric]

@Cubo de Sangre you especially might like this.

 

[ineverpost]

Big money politics will just conspire with the media to change the rules again. If he gets to 15%, they will invalidate his polls, change the rules, or just completely ignore the rules and exclude him. They can do whatever they want to him because he doesn't have $50 million dollars to battle them in a decade long legal battle.

So no matter what happens, you can forget about him getting exposure from the establishment. He is anti establishment, why would those who make the rules care about them?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Pay into a program that you'll never end up seeing a dime from? Awesome!

Keep more of what you earn and be in charge of your own saftey net? Ewww

Dependency for the win! Shut up and take my money government!

 

[kpt018]

Nope.

The mainstream ones certainly are. Notice that the Pauls ran in Republican primaries.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Whether you do or don't want Libertarian Gary Johnson as Prez, I think everyone should want a 3rd voice in the debates. This would be fantastic. I keep hoping the silver lining of the fucking Trump vs. Hilary card is that it's the beginning of the end of the two party system

 

[ucunc156]

I'm generally a fan your posting but have to disagree here. Gary Johnson offsetting insanity is like saying we should throw gas on a fire to put it out.

His tax plan is by far the most regressive of the three and the least plausible andvery unlikely to get passed (by unlikely I mean next to zero chance). He would demolish all progress made on climate change since he's one of those "no regulation" nut jobs. He would crush the safety net.

I really do get the appeal here. The guy can be very very reasonable on a lot of issues but he's really bad on the big stuff. I also am not a fan of his isolationist ideas with regards to foreign policy but I find that area much more defensible.

Bingo. Considering taxes, and the subsequent government spending associated with them is my single biggest issue as its basically all encompassing, he's an absolute no go. As you say, its totally regressive. That being said, he's still much more reasonable on several issues and I personally like the non intervention stuff, which is more a to each his own.

I don't think he's reasonable on anything, and I don't see where he has an appealing message. Their motto should be "upward redistribution without the racism." No one is buying. It's like alcohol-free beer.

Still better than what the republican motto is currently of "upward redistribution by using racism to trick a larger population of the population and appealing to white nationalists" but I feel like thats too wordy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Still better than what the republican motto is currently of "upward redistribution by using racism to trick a larger population of the population and appealing to white nationalists" but I feel like thats too wordy.

*I* think Johnson is better than other Republicans. Not as smart or well-educated as you expect a presidential candidate to be, and with a terrible set of policies, but certainly better than Trump. But what I'm saying (for example with the alcohol-free beer comparison) is that the racism is what makes an otherwise extremely unpopular set of policies sell.

Whether you do or don't want Libertarian Gary Johnson as Prez, I think everyone should want a 3rd voice in the debates.

In terms of economic policy, Johnson and Trump are very similar. I don't really care to see the same basic message with two voices, especially when that message is really dumb. Though I like the idea, as it strengthens the support for sane policies.

A welcome "third voice" would be a second educated one.

And generally, the idea that you start a successful third party by electing a president is really bad. Why not try to win seats in Congress first? Build a reserve of "libertarian" (or Green) friendly Congressfolk, policy analysts, intellectuals, etc. Then try to elect a president to draw on all that. That's what you do if you're really serious.

 

[Greoric]

In terms of economic policy, Johnson and Trump are very similar. I don't really care to see the same basic message with two voices, especially when that message is really dumb. Though I like the idea, as it strengthens the support for sane policies.

Another anti fact. The key to your posts is to read them and then think of the opposite.

Trump is for economic isolationism. Johnson is not.
Trump is for raising tariffs. Johnson is not.
Trump is about increasing expenditures, especially for the military. Johnson is not.
Trump hints that another government program is the solution to healthcare. Johnson does not.

Go back to the fatherland Goebbels.