Tell me about Gary Johnson

[Genx87]

You can vote for him if you want for the placebo effect, but it will be exactly same as not voting for president.

If somebody is sick of the status quo. Throwing their vote at the status quo is a waste of a vote. If the goal is to win with your vote to somehow validate yourself, you are doing it wrong.

Neither party is going to change if people continue to vote for them.

 

[theeedude]

People saying he can't win or it's a wasted vote aren't following the polls.

Hillary nor Trump are making a majority happy. They have vocal minorities behind them. Polls typically put them each at 30-35% at best. In those same polls, Gary is getting 10-15%.

Gary's also been climbing in the polls, quickly. And he's actually doing even better among important demographics. Gary is polling higher among the active military than Donald Trump!

Only about half the country has decided they're Trump or Hillary. There's a huge, huge chunk of the voter base that doesn't like either, and if Gary's the only other legit option (Jill Stein isn't, she doesn't have the traction nor is on all ballots in all states), he might find himself getting a windfall of votes.

Gary's also flat out more qualified for the job than either Trump or Hillary. It's a no contest.

Ralph Nader.

 

[TechBoyJK]

You can vote for him if you want for the placebo effect, but it will be exactly same as not voting for president.

That's not true. Total fallacy. Gary's polling high enough and with enough of a recent increase to be a credible threat. He's already polling higher than Donald Trump among the active military, and he's rapidly climbing among other groups.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Ralph Nader.

The past. Gary isn't Ralph. Ralph wasn't competing against a crook and an ego maniac. The theater is different.

 

[PricklyPete]

Gary Johnson is a libertarian (individual rights and defense issues) with a strong conservative lean (domestic and economic issues). Based solely on your post quoted above, it doesn't sound like he'd be a good fit for you. Either that or you don't have a liberal lean.

He seems to be pretty "liberal" on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc. I understand that this only encompasses a small part of "liberal" stances...but they are the stances I most identify with. Sorry if the way I labeled myself was misleading.

Edit: i also agree with his liberal slant on environmental issues

 

[woolfe9998]

That's not true. Total fallacy. Gary's polling high enough and with enough of a recent increase to be a credible threat. He's already polling higher than Donald Trump among the active military, and he's rapidly climbing among other groups.

Gary Johnson's actual performance will be lower than his polls numbers. This happens with every third party candidate.

 

[Cozarkian]

He's same as not voting.

Your vote will not decide the election between Clinton and Trump. Thus, voting for either of them is at least as pointless as voting for Johnson, which, by your logic, means a vote for Clinton or Trump is the same as not voting.

 

[glenn1]

You can vote for him if you want for the placebo effect, but it will be exactly same as not voting for president.

If my choice is placebo effect or giving my vote to validate Trump or Clinton then I'm picking placebo. There is absolutely nothing you could say or do that would influence me to vote for either of those assclowns.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Gary Johnson's actual performance will be lower than his polls numbers. This happens with every third party candidate.

That's not necessarily true nor something to wager on.

Especially since the interest in 3rd parties is at its all time high, his numbers are skyrocketing, and a majority of the country doesn't want either Hillary or Trump. Gary's a remarkably better choice and is obviously so to any reasonable person that isn't afraid to go outside party lines.

 

[theeedude]

The past. Gary isn't Ralph. Ralph wasn't competing against a crook and an ego maniac. The theater is different.

That's what Nader supporters thought too.

 

[TechBoyJK]

That's what Nader supporters thought too.

So? That has no bearing on the current situation. 'Because it happened in the past' is not something that wins arguments.

 

[theeedude]

If my choice is placebo effect or giving my vote to validate Trump or Clinton then I'm picking placebo. There is absolutely nothing you could say or do that would influence me to vote for either of those assclowns.

It's a personal preference.
But remember, you will have to live with one of them, and it could make a big difference to you personally which one, even if you are one of those people who thinks it has nothing to do with you.

Recent example:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36864273

Britain's decision to leave the EU has led to a "dramatic deterioration" in economic activity, not seen since the aftermath of the financial crisis.
Data from IHS Markit's Purchasing Managers' Index, or PMI, shows a fall to 47.7 in July, the lowest level since April in 2009. A reading below 50 indicates contraction.

 

[theeedude]

So? That has no bearing on the current situation. 'Because it happened in the past' is not something that wins arguments.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Genx87]

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Funny coming from the guy voting for a Bush 5th term.

 

[TechBoyJK]

It's a personal preference.
But remember, you will have to live with one of them, and it could make a big difference to you personally which one, even if you are one of those people who thinks it has nothing to do with you.

Recent example:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36864273

I don't think that's going to convince anybody. If someone doesn't want to vote for Trump or Hillary, it's likely for good reason, and no matter the outcome they'll sleep easier having voted for someone else.

Voting for someone you don't believe in is far more of a wasted vote than voting 3rd party.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Weak sauce.

Times change. Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it will keep happening. That's insane.

Those that make decisions based solely on the past are doomed to remain there.

 

[dullard]

He seems to be pretty "liberal" on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc. I understand that this only encompasses a small part of "liberal" stances...but they are the stances I most identify with. Sorry if the way I labeled myself was misleading.

No need to apologize. The problem is having parties. They try to lump people together into distinct categories whereas there often should be no correlation between certain issues.

For example, immigration and federal government size have only a little to do with each other. You should be able to have any of the four different viewpoints:
1) Pro-immigration, pro-small government.
2) Pro-immigration, pro-large government.
3) Anti-immigration, pro-small government.
4) Anti-immigration, pro-large government.
Our 2-party system makes us think that only #2 (democrats) and #3 (republicans) are feasible. Yet, if you really think about it, #1 and #4 are more likely combinations (to have a strong border with lots of border guards necessarily requires more regulations and larger government to enforce it) and vise-versa.

 

[glenn1]

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Yeah, like "don't vote for the black guy because there's no way he can win" kinda history?

 

[dullard]

The past. Gary isn't Ralph. Ralph wasn't competing against a crook and an ego maniac. The theater is different.

You forgot he is running against Clinton too.

 

[Genx87]

Yeah, like "don't vote for the black guy because there's no way he can win" kinda history?

Zing

 

[theeedude]

Like I said, you can vote third party for the placebo effect if you want, but that's all you'll get. Exactly same as not voting for President.

 

[glenn1]

Like I said, you can vote third party for the placebo effect if you want, but that's all you'll get. Exactly same as not voting for President.

Feature not a bug.

 

[dullard]

Like I said, you can vote third party for the placebo effect if you want, but that's all you'll get. Exactly same as not voting for President.

That is true in all but the one swing state that will end up mattering this election.

 

[Genx87]

Like I said, you can vote third party for the placebo effect if you want, but that's all you'll get. Exactly same as not voting for President.

Some of us vote for the people who we believe would make a qualified president. Apparently some of us also vote for president so they can say their vote won or because or stupid party loyalty.

 

[PricklyPete]

No need to apologize. The problem is having parties. They try to lump people together into distinct categories whereas there often should be no correlation between certain issues.

For example, immigration and federal government size have only a little to do with each other. You should be able to have any of the four different viewpoints:
1) Pro-immigration, pro-small government.
2) Pro-immigration, pro-large government.
3) Anti-immigration, pro-small government.
4) Anti-immigration, pro-large government.
Our 2-party system makes us think that only #2 (democrats) and #3 (republicans) are feasible. Yet, if you really think about it, #1 and #4 are more likely combinations (to have a strong border with lots of border guards necessarily requires more regulations and larger government to enforce it) and vise-versa.

Agreed 100%.