Gary Johnson polling at 15% (was 13%)

Originally Posted by glocktogo

You forgot one critical fact, the establishment's finger on the scale, the media. IF Johnson starts polling too high and threatens Hillary's ascension, the media will be called in to undermine him. We've always known this to be the case, but the DNC hack finally proved it. The number one reason Johnson's "chance" is purely theoretical, is because of the media. They will not allow it to happen.

I'd argue that, right now, the media will purposely try to make it look like he has a chance in an attempt to pull would be anti-Hillary voters from voting for Trump. Then, he's polling enough that Trump's numbers suffer, then turn on him and voila, Hillary wins the election.

Originally Posted by glocktogo

You forgot one critical fact, the establishment's finger on the scale, the media. IF Johnson starts polling too high and threatens Hillary's ascension, the media will be called in to undermine him. We've always known this to be the case, but the DNC hack finally proved it. The number one reason Johnson's "chance" is purely theoretical, is because of the media. They will not allow it to happen.

I'd think Trump being the GOP nominee shows the establishment does not have total control there, unless you're in the camp that thinks Trump a plant by the DNC. End of the day I think the DNC and GOP are more interested in maintaining control between them than allowing a third party and traction, much less a win. That does not mean I'll role over and vote for who the power brokers want regardless and I think there's actually a high % of people in the media and system also not at all happy with their choices willing to stir the pot and such by intentionally giving GJ some coverage as we are seeing. The people's democracy, the internet, is the major game changer that prevents them from controlling the flow of information, much to their dismay. The media is now reacting and following development on the 'net more than the reverse and that's a game changer. They don't have the control they think they do.

Considering CNN's Sunday interview guy just called Trump a Bullshit Artist I have no doubt, if Johnson looked like a threat to Hillary we would see him get both barrels.
If Sanders would have tried going third party immediately he would have received the same treatment. He got out of the race endorsed Hillary and then went Independent.

Originally Posted by Singlestack Wonder

If hilliary wins by 700,000 votes and 750,000 votes went to Gary Johnson instead of Trump, then it's crystal clear as to why you are wrong. 3rd party candidates have zero chance in this day and age. Maybe in 20-30 years things will change, but by that point, we will be a monarchy again....

What they need to do is get enough seats in the House to be able to determine who becomes speaker and set key committee chairmanships and get the Liberterian solutions in effect and get some press for the potential candidates. This Hail Mary, while blindfolded and on fire probability every four years is more of an ego boost for the Lib candidate and a distraction from real politics.

CNN has another Johnson/Weld town hall coming soon.
I'm in the camp that thinks we need to "shake up" the system. If not for this election, to bolster the libertarian party for future elections.
More importantly, I want the Republican Party to wake the eff up and realize it's time to evolve or die off. Actually maybe dying off is a good thing, then we can still have a two party system of dems and libertarians.

If that means I end up being the reason HRC gets elected, my conscience is clean.
The sky is falling chicken little voters are the reason nothing ever changes in our political system.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a lengthy but very good interview with GJ that gets into some real details vs the talking points and hyperbole.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/edito...nap-story.html

I'm a Libertarian; nothing gets me more excited politically than the thought of a true Libertarian being elected as president.

That said, Johnson is a joke. He said he wanted to ban burqas to fight radical islam, then flipped on the issue when everyone pointed out that it was very non-Libertarian to do so.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/07/go...ban-my-respons

Johnson and Weld think that several anti-gun, left-wing government deferential judges would be good Supreme Court nominees:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/2...rrick-garland/

Believes in implementing a 23% sales tax (experts have repeatedly shown the optimum number is between 10-18%, and is closer to 13%):
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Gary...Tax_Reform.htm

Johnson's VP (Weld) believes his permanent adoption of the 1994 AWB was a "modest" implementation of gun control:
http://independentpoliticalreport.co...abbing-neocon/


And so on and so on. He's just another authoritarian who happens to be pro-marijuana. There is virtually nothing actually Libertarian about Johnson. The irony is that most Libertarians are so bent on voting philosophically that they're blind to the fact that the only thing Libertarian about Johnson is the name of the his party.

Originally Posted by Skyyr

I'm a Libertarian; nothing gets me more excited politically than the thought of a true Libertarian being elected as president.

No one claims GJ is a true Libertarian. He's a left of center GOP with some Libertarian positions. Many in the LP party not happy with him for those reasons, but it's no longer an intellectual debate but a put money on the table time: compared to the other choices, I'd take GJ over HC or Dump any day. If we are talking people who had one position, then did a 180, we have Trump supporting the AWB and saying "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons,” and longer waiting times, etc, to now pretending to be a staunch supporter of 2A. If 2A is an essential issue, GJ wins by miles and has been consistent there.

At this point, it's Trump, HC, or GJ if he is able to get into the debates and get some traction, which is not likely. If you feel Trump is the guy, vote for him, but don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining if we are comparing anyone who did a total 180 on most major issues.

GJ has altered some of this positions over the years to be sure, but he's not even close to Trump or HC in that respect if that's our litmus test.

Isn't Bill Weld anti-2A?

Originally Posted by Skyyr

I'm a Libertarian; nothing gets me more excited politically than the thought of a true Libertarian being elected as president.

That said, Johnson is a joke. He said he wanted to ban burqas to fight radical islam, then flipped on the issue when everyone pointed out that it was very non-Libertarian to do so.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/07/go...ban-my-respons

Johnson and Weld think that several anti-gun, left-wing government deferential judges would be good Supreme Court nominees:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/2...rrick-garland/

Believes in implementing a 23% sales tax (experts have repeatedly shown the optimum number is between 10-18%, and is closer to 13%):
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Gary...Tax_Reform.htm

Johnson's VP (Weld) believes his permanent adoption of the 1994 AWB was a "modest" implementation of gun control:
http://independentpoliticalreport.co...abbing-neocon/


And so on and so on. He's just another authoritarian who happens to be pro-marijuana. There is virtually nothing actually Libertarian about Johnson. The irony is that most Libertarians are so bent on voting philosophically that they're blind to the fact that the only thing Libertarian about Johnson is the name of the his party.

Agreed. But any gains the party can make and exposure it can muster is a good deal for the future of the party as a whole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk