Richmond, VA Newspaper endorses Gary Johnson

[flacaltenn]

"Richmond Times-Dispatch endorses Gary Johnson for president"

Disagree.

Johnson is inconsistent and fundamentally wrong on most of the issues.

He claims to acknowledge a woman’s right to privacy and to be an advocate of environmental protection, yet would appoint to the Supreme Court reactionary conservative ideologues hostile to that very right and hostile to environmental protection jurisprudence.

He supports the wrongheaded notion of ‘term limits’ and says he’d veto any spending measure that fails to ‘balance’ the budget – which is extreme, reckless, and irresponsible, particular during an economic downturn.

Like most libertarians Johnson is a naïve, sophomoric utopian who has no business being president.

Really? You know who his Sup Ct would be? Or who his Atty Gen will be?

More spending is USUALLY ALWAYS the wrong answer when there are 4 or 6 REDUNDANT agencies who have NEVER had their budgets cut.

Well we know his philosophy of government is fundamentally different from mine.

He's a nice enough guy no doubt but government has a job to do and anyone who is president should understand that and not pretend that "small government" is desirable.

It's not the physical size of govt that's in question. . It's the SCOPE of govt and the perverse incentives that they have to perform. There is virtually NOTHING that they cannot meddle in now. Which creates the lobby and influence problems. They need to be out of the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. And spend more time ensuring health, safety and justice. Things like fair election processes and borders. Congress has lost control of oversight and ethics and managing the beast. Agencies that screw up --- get more money.

There is PLENTY of room for reform and better management. NOBODY is really doing that job anymore.

most so-called libertarians don't believe in any government except for putting the brakes on reproductive choice and marriage equality. johnson is different in that regard but the pretend libertarians don't like him for that.

and the radical right wants to starve the federal government until you can drown it in a bathtub (see, grover norquist)

i don't have a problem with the scope of government. we live in a complex society the idea that privatization of government services is good isn't something i agree with.

so i stand by what i said.

Where TF are you getting this Jillian? Read my post above about running an openly gay man in the 70s. In Cali, my LParty chapter prez was a famous SFran Tranny entertainer.

"don't believe in ANY Government"? That's flat wrong. We love the Constitution and the legal system. We are NOT anarchists.

What "brakes on reproductive choice". Johnson just put his ass on line defending Planned Parenthood. Perhaps a bit more than I am really comfortable with.

But that's a great example. Why should ONE private organization be the MAJOR RECIPIENT of fed funds for women's health? Are they the ONLY game in town? Is it SAFE to put all that in one basket?

The answer is -- they are the major benefactor because they launder money to the DNC. THeir mass mailings read like letters from Nancy Pelosi. In fact -- sometimes they ARE from Nancy Pelosi. That's way too cozy a relationship when the PURPOSE IS to see women in clinics. And attend to their health. And funding in that market needs to be opened up and broadened to include other service providers and encourage parity...

It was disappointing that you know so little about LParty -- yet have such strong opinions.

 

[flacaltenn]

The fact that he supported the death penalty -- even for children as young as 13 and 14 up until he was 43 years old is enough for me to have serious reservations about his mental stability.

The fact that he wants to raise retirement to age 75 is totally fucking nuts. What an ASSHOLE.

Apparently he's advocating zero corporate tax? This guy is out of his mind.

He says "No" on mandatory vaccines....he wants the parents to decide. Put this loon in office and he'd put the entire country at risk for diseases that have long been wiped out.

No thanks. This guy is one giant question mark, and one goofy looking clown to boot.

God Damn this is like GroundHog day.. SHOW me where Johnson says that children 13 and 14 NEED the death penalty?

Where did y'all get this trash from?

From the Lparty platform --- which is a GUIDELINE ONLY for candidates but most of ours actually pay attention to it. ----- for instance -- IF there IS a death penalty -- LP candidates will enforce it. Changing it depends on priorities.

1.8 Death Penalty
We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.



NEXT !!!!!! How many misinformed people are gonna weigh in here?

 

[SYTFE]

The fact that he supported the death penalty -- even for children as young as 13 and 14 up until he was 43 years old is enough for me to have serious reservations about his mental stability.

The fact that he wants to raise retirement to age 75 is totally fucking nuts. What an ASSHOLE.

Apparently he's advocating zero corporate tax? This guy is out of his mind.

He says "No" on mandatory vaccines....he wants the parents to decide. Put this loon in office and he'd put the entire country at risk for diseases that have long been wiped out.

No thanks. This guy is one giant question mark, and one goofy looking clown to boot.

God Damn this is like GroundHog day.. SHOW me where Johnson says that children 13 and 14 NEED the death penalty?

Where did y'all get this trash from?

From the Lparty platform --- which is a GUIDELINE ONLY for candidates but most of ours actually pay attention to it. ----- for instance -- IF there IS a death penalty -- LP candidates will enforce it. Changing it depends on priorities.

1.8 Death Penalty
We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.



NEXT !!!!!! How many misinformed people are gonna weigh in here?

Reading comprehension problems? I said he supported it until he was 43 years old. He no longer does. Don't you know anything about your candidate?

Got everything from ontheissues.org

 

[WelfareQueen]

An island of sanity in the 2016 Presidential clusterfuck:

Much of the country is distressed by the presidential candidates offered by the two conventional political parties. And for good reason. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton meets the fundamental moral and professional standards we have every right to expect of an American president. Fortunately, there is a reasonable — and formidable — alternative.

Gary Johnson is a former, two-term governor of New Mexico and a man who built from scratch a construction company that eventually employed more than 1,000 people before he sold it in 1999. He possesses substantial executive experience in both the private and the public sectors.

More important, he’s a man of good integrity, apparently normal ego and sound ideas. Sadly, in the 2016 presidential contest, those essential qualities make him an anomaly — though they are the foundations for solid leadership and trustworthy character. (At 63, he is also the youngest candidate by more than half a decade — and is polling well among truly young voters.)

As the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Johnson is expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. He is, in every respect, a legitimate and reasonable contender for the presidency — but only if the voters give him a fair hearing. And that can happen only if he is allowed to participate in the presidential debates that begin on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. If the Commission on Presidential Debates wants to perform a real service to its country, it will invite Gary Johnson onto the big stage.

Richmond Times-Dispatch endorses Gary Johnson for president

I lived in Richmond for many years and can officially say the Times Disgrace has jumped the shark. But hey....at least Gary can score them some good weed.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The fact that he supported the death penalty -- even for children as young as 13 and 14 up until he was 43 years old is enough for me to have serious reservations about his mental stability.

The fact that he wants to raise retirement to age 75 is totally fucking nuts. What an ASSHOLE.

Apparently he's advocating zero corporate tax? This guy is out of his mind.

He says "No" on mandatory vaccines....he wants the parents to decide. Put this loon in office and he'd put the entire country at risk for diseases that have long been wiped out.

No thanks. This guy is one giant question mark, and one goofy looking clown to boot.

God Damn this is like GroundHog day.. SHOW me where Johnson says that children 13 and 14 NEED the death penalty?

Where did y'all get this trash from?

From the Lparty platform --- which is a GUIDELINE ONLY for candidates but most of ours actually pay attention to it. ----- for instance -- IF there IS a death penalty -- LP candidates will enforce it. Changing it depends on priorities.

1.8 Death Penalty
We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.



NEXT !!!!!! How many misinformed people are gonna weigh in here?

Reading comprehension problems? I said he supported it until he was 43 years old. He no longer does. Don't you know anything about your candidate?

Got everything from ontheissues.org

Your candidate supported some pretty awful shit until not that long ago too. Nobody will be surprised to find out you've found the strength to look passed it.

 

[flacaltenn]

The fact that he supported the death penalty -- even for children as young as 13 and 14 up until he was 43 years old is enough for me to have serious reservations about his mental stability.

The fact that he wants to raise retirement to age 75 is totally fucking nuts. What an ASSHOLE.

Apparently he's advocating zero corporate tax? This guy is out of his mind.

He says "No" on mandatory vaccines....he wants the parents to decide. Put this loon in office and he'd put the entire country at risk for diseases that have long been wiped out.

No thanks. This guy is one giant question mark, and one goofy looking clown to boot.

God Damn this is like GroundHog day.. SHOW me where Johnson says that children 13 and 14 NEED the death penalty?

Where did y'all get this trash from?

From the Lparty platform --- which is a GUIDELINE ONLY for candidates but most of ours actually pay attention to it. ----- for instance -- IF there IS a death penalty -- LP candidates will enforce it. Changing it depends on priorities.

1.8 Death Penalty
We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.



NEXT !!!!!! How many misinformed people are gonna weigh in here?

Reading comprehension problems? I said he supported it until he was 43 years old. He no longer does. Don't you know anything about your candidate?

Got everything from ontheissues.org

He got smarter in office. When you sign those death certs --- you pay attention. I think that's BETTER than changing your opinion just to suit your party or to win an election. Don't you????

• Oct. 2001: Johnson states, "Swift and sure punishment deters crime," Johnson wrote. "Currently, I do not believe that New Mexico's death penalty serves as an effective preventative measure because it is neither swift or sure."
• Oct. 2001: Johnson writes, "Those opposed to the death penalty point out the disparities that exist with regard to individuals receiving the death penalty sentence. They argue persuasively that these disparities are a result of several factors including prosecutorial discretion as well as racial and economic discrimination."
• Dec. 2001: Governor Johnson states that he will place the repeal bill on the agenda if requested to do so. He also said that he was wrong to propose limits on death row appeals.
• Jan. 2002: Johnson states that he has "come to believe that the death penalty as a public policy is flawed."

That's the insight you get from ACTUALLY DOING THE JOB.. And that's why he's a public servant and NOT a meglomaniac power whore trying to influence polls.

 

[SYTFE]

What kind of scumbag would EVER support the death penalty for children? And for such a huge chunk of his life? Fuck him. Compare that with Stein, who has been a lifelong opponent of the death penalty. I'll take Stein over this Johnson nutjob any day.

 

[flacaltenn]

What kind of scumbag would EVER support the death penalty for children? And for such a huge chunk of his life? Fuck him. Compare that with Stein, who has been a lifelong opponent of the death penalty. I'll take Stein over this Johnson nutjob any day.

Good for you. I LOVE 3rd party choices. Just not into trashing Capitalism and replacing it with a nationwide Franchise network of communes all making their own local tires and paint.

I've worked with Greens on Ballot access issues over the years.

 

[toomuchtime_]

An island of sanity in the 2016 Presidential clusterfuck:

Much of the country is distressed by the presidential candidates offered by the two conventional political parties. And for good reason. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton meets the fundamental moral and professional standards we have every right to expect of an American president. Fortunately, there is a reasonable — and formidable — alternative.

Gary Johnson is a former, two-term governor of New Mexico and a man who built from scratch a construction company that eventually employed more than 1,000 people before he sold it in 1999. He possesses substantial executive experience in both the private and the public sectors.

More important, he’s a man of good integrity, apparently normal ego and sound ideas. Sadly, in the 2016 presidential contest, those essential qualities make him an anomaly — though they are the foundations for solid leadership and trustworthy character. (At 63, he is also the youngest candidate by more than half a decade — and is polling well among truly young voters.)

As the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Johnson is expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. He is, in every respect, a legitimate and reasonable contender for the presidency — but only if the voters give him a fair hearing. And that can happen only if he is allowed to participate in the presidential debates that begin on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. If the Commission on Presidential Debates wants to perform a real service to its country, it will invite Gary Johnson onto the big stage.

Richmond Times-Dispatch endorses Gary Johnson for president

He may be every bit as good as the article says he is but if he can't get 15% support in the polls by September 26, his presence on the stage would only be distraction from the real debate between Trump and Clinton. It is no good blaming he commission for not allowing him to debate if he fails to get 15%. If the potential support to elect him is out there he should have started earlier, worked harder and spent more money to meet the threshold. Being a good man is only half the qualification for being president, the other half is being able to persuade people you are.

 

[TheOldSchool]

An island of sanity in the 2016 Presidential clusterfuck:

Much of the country is distressed by the presidential candidates offered by the two conventional political parties. And for good reason. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton meets the fundamental moral and professional standards we have every right to expect of an American president. Fortunately, there is a reasonable — and formidable — alternative.

Gary Johnson is a former, two-term governor of New Mexico and a man who built from scratch a construction company that eventually employed more than 1,000 people before he sold it in 1999. He possesses substantial executive experience in both the private and the public sectors.

More important, he’s a man of good integrity, apparently normal ego and sound ideas. Sadly, in the 2016 presidential contest, those essential qualities make him an anomaly — though they are the foundations for solid leadership and trustworthy character. (At 63, he is also the youngest candidate by more than half a decade — and is polling well among truly young voters.)

As the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Johnson is expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. He is, in every respect, a legitimate and reasonable contender for the presidency — but only if the voters give him a fair hearing. And that can happen only if he is allowed to participate in the presidential debates that begin on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. If the Commission on Presidential Debates wants to perform a real service to its country, it will invite Gary Johnson onto the big stage.

Richmond Times-Dispatch endorses Gary Johnson for president

He may be every bit as good as the article says he is but if he can't get 15% support in the polls by September 26, his presence on the stage would only be distraction from the real debate between Trump and Clinton. It is no good blaming he commission for not allowing him to debate if he fails to get 15%. If the potential support to elect him is out there he should have started earlier, worked harder and spent more money to meet the threshold. Being a good man is only half the qualification for being president, the other half is being able to persuade people you are.

He would only be a distraction? Are you afraid he might make the 2 of them look like the fumbling baffoons that they are? One who people pray makes it off the stage without collapsing, and one who people pray makes it off the stage without starting WW3.

Being a good man is NOT half the qualification for being President. It is 100% being able to convince people you are, and what does that is money and having people in influential positions. It doesn't matter a smidge whether you're actually a good person or not.

That's why 3rd parties will never be included in the debates. Presidential candidates don't want to have to debate people who don't have blood on their hands like they do.

 

[toomuchtime_]

An island of sanity in the 2016 Presidential clusterfuck:

Much of the country is distressed by the presidential candidates offered by the two conventional political parties. And for good reason. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton meets the fundamental moral and professional standards we have every right to expect of an American president. Fortunately, there is a reasonable — and formidable — alternative.

Gary Johnson is a former, two-term governor of New Mexico and a man who built from scratch a construction company that eventually employed more than 1,000 people before he sold it in 1999. He possesses substantial executive experience in both the private and the public sectors.

More important, he’s a man of good integrity, apparently normal ego and sound ideas. Sadly, in the 2016 presidential contest, those essential qualities make him an anomaly — though they are the foundations for solid leadership and trustworthy character. (At 63, he is also the youngest candidate by more than half a decade — and is polling well among truly young voters.)

As the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Johnson is expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. He is, in every respect, a legitimate and reasonable contender for the presidency — but only if the voters give him a fair hearing. And that can happen only if he is allowed to participate in the presidential debates that begin on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. If the Commission on Presidential Debates wants to perform a real service to its country, it will invite Gary Johnson onto the big stage.

Richmond Times-Dispatch endorses Gary Johnson for president

He may be every bit as good as the article says he is but if he can't get 15% support in the polls by September 26, his presence on the stage would only be distraction from the real debate between Trump and Clinton. It is no good blaming he commission for not allowing him to debate if he fails to get 15%. If the potential support to elect him is out there he should have started earlier, worked harder and spent more money to meet the threshold. Being a good man is only half the qualification for being president, the other half is being able to persuade people you are.

He would only be a distraction? Are you afraid he might make the 2 of them look like the fumbling baffoons that they are? One who people pray makes it off the stage without collapsing, and one who people pray makes it off the stage without starting WW3.

Being a good man is NOT half the qualification for being President. It is 100% being able to convince people you are, and what does that is money and having people in influential positions. It doesn't matter a smidge whether you're actually a good person or not.

That's why 3rd parties will never be included in the debates. Presidential candidates don't want to have to debate people who don't have blood on their hands like they do.

If Johnson can't get to 15% he is not a serious contender for the office regardless of how good a debater he may be, so he would only be distraction from the debate between the two who might be president and that would do a disservice to voters who are trying to decide who to vote for. If he were a serious contender he would be able to persuade people to donate to his campaign in sufficient amount to compete, so it makes no sense to blame the system.

 

[TheOldSchool]

An island of sanity in the 2016 Presidential clusterfuck:

Much of the country is distressed by the presidential candidates offered by the two conventional political parties. And for good reason. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton meets the fundamental moral and professional standards we have every right to expect of an American president. Fortunately, there is a reasonable — and formidable — alternative.

Gary Johnson is a former, two-term governor of New Mexico and a man who built from scratch a construction company that eventually employed more than 1,000 people before he sold it in 1999. He possesses substantial executive experience in both the private and the public sectors.

More important, he’s a man of good integrity, apparently normal ego and sound ideas. Sadly, in the 2016 presidential contest, those essential qualities make him an anomaly — though they are the foundations for solid leadership and trustworthy character. (At 63, he is also the youngest candidate by more than half a decade — and is polling well among truly young voters.)

As the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Johnson is expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. He is, in every respect, a legitimate and reasonable contender for the presidency — but only if the voters give him a fair hearing. And that can happen only if he is allowed to participate in the presidential debates that begin on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. If the Commission on Presidential Debates wants to perform a real service to its country, it will invite Gary Johnson onto the big stage.

Richmond Times-Dispatch endorses Gary Johnson for president

He may be every bit as good as the article says he is but if he can't get 15% support in the polls by September 26, his presence on the stage would only be distraction from the real debate between Trump and Clinton. It is no good blaming he commission for not allowing him to debate if he fails to get 15%. If the potential support to elect him is out there he should have started earlier, worked harder and spent more money to meet the threshold. Being a good man is only half the qualification for being president, the other half is being able to persuade people you are.

He would only be a distraction? Are you afraid he might make the 2 of them look like the fumbling baffoons that they are? One who people pray makes it off the stage without collapsing, and one who people pray makes it off the stage without starting WW3.

Being a good man is NOT half the qualification for being President. It is 100% being able to convince people you are, and what does that is money and having people in influential positions. It doesn't matter a smidge whether you're actually a good person or not.

That's why 3rd parties will never be included in the debates. Presidential candidates don't want to have to debate people who don't have blood on their hands like they do.

If Johnson can't get to 15% he is not a serious contender for the office regardless of how good a debater he may be, so he would only be distraction from the debate between the two who might be president and that would do a disservice to voters who are trying to decide who to vote for. If he were a serious contender he would be able to persuade people to donate to his campaign in sufficient amount to compete, so it makes no sense to blame the system.

Wow aren't you dumb.

Maybe you're right though. Maybe the problem isn't the system, and that most people are stupid like you and succumb to the mass media and propaganda that money can buy for the GOP and the Democrat Party.

 

[toomuchtime_]

An island of sanity in the 2016 Presidential clusterfuck:

Much of the country is distressed by the presidential candidates offered by the two conventional political parties. And for good reason. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton meets the fundamental moral and professional standards we have every right to expect of an American president. Fortunately, there is a reasonable — and formidable — alternative.

Gary Johnson is a former, two-term governor of New Mexico and a man who built from scratch a construction company that eventually employed more than 1,000 people before he sold it in 1999. He possesses substantial executive experience in both the private and the public sectors.

More important, he’s a man of good integrity, apparently normal ego and sound ideas. Sadly, in the 2016 presidential contest, those essential qualities make him an anomaly — though they are the foundations for solid leadership and trustworthy character. (At 63, he is also the youngest candidate by more than half a decade — and is polling well among truly young voters.)

As the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Johnson is expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. He is, in every respect, a legitimate and reasonable contender for the presidency — but only if the voters give him a fair hearing. And that can happen only if he is allowed to participate in the presidential debates that begin on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. If the Commission on Presidential Debates wants to perform a real service to its country, it will invite Gary Johnson onto the big stage.

Richmond Times-Dispatch endorses Gary Johnson for president

He may be every bit as good as the article says he is but if he can't get 15% support in the polls by September 26, his presence on the stage would only be distraction from the real debate between Trump and Clinton. It is no good blaming he commission for not allowing him to debate if he fails to get 15%. If the potential support to elect him is out there he should have started earlier, worked harder and spent more money to meet the threshold. Being a good man is only half the qualification for being president, the other half is being able to persuade people you are.

He would only be a distraction? Are you afraid he might make the 2 of them look like the fumbling baffoons that they are? One who people pray makes it off the stage without collapsing, and one who people pray makes it off the stage without starting WW3.

Being a good man is NOT half the qualification for being President. It is 100% being able to convince people you are, and what does that is money and having people in influential positions. It doesn't matter a smidge whether you're actually a good person or not.

That's why 3rd parties will never be included in the debates. Presidential candidates don't want to have to debate people who don't have blood on their hands like they do.

If Johnson can't get to 15% he is not a serious contender for the office regardless of how good a debater he may be, so he would only be distraction from the debate between the two who might be president and that would do a disservice to voters who are trying to decide who to vote for. If he were a serious contender he would be able to persuade people to donate to his campaign in sufficient amount to compete, so it makes no sense to blame the system.

Wow aren't you dumb.

Maybe you're right though. Maybe the problem isn't the system, and that most people are stupid like you and succumb to the mass media and propaganda that money can buy for the GOP and the Democrat Party.

In other words, you don't like what I said but you can't figure out what's wrong with it.

 

[TheOldSchool]

An island of sanity in the 2016 Presidential clusterfuck:

Much of the country is distressed by the presidential candidates offered by the two conventional political parties. And for good reason. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton meets the fundamental moral and professional standards we have every right to expect of an American president. Fortunately, there is a reasonable — and formidable — alternative.

Gary Johnson is a former, two-term governor of New Mexico and a man who built from scratch a construction company that eventually employed more than 1,000 people before he sold it in 1999. He possesses substantial executive experience in both the private and the public sectors.

More important, he’s a man of good integrity, apparently normal ego and sound ideas. Sadly, in the 2016 presidential contest, those essential qualities make him an anomaly — though they are the foundations for solid leadership and trustworthy character. (At 63, he is also the youngest candidate by more than half a decade — and is polling well among truly young voters.)

As the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Johnson is expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. He is, in every respect, a legitimate and reasonable contender for the presidency — but only if the voters give him a fair hearing. And that can happen only if he is allowed to participate in the presidential debates that begin on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. If the Commission on Presidential Debates wants to perform a real service to its country, it will invite Gary Johnson onto the big stage.

Richmond Times-Dispatch endorses Gary Johnson for president

He may be every bit as good as the article says he is but if he can't get 15% support in the polls by September 26, his presence on the stage would only be distraction from the real debate between Trump and Clinton. It is no good blaming he commission for not allowing him to debate if he fails to get 15%. If the potential support to elect him is out there he should have started earlier, worked harder and spent more money to meet the threshold. Being a good man is only half the qualification for being president, the other half is being able to persuade people you are.

He would only be a distraction? Are you afraid he might make the 2 of them look like the fumbling baffoons that they are? One who people pray makes it off the stage without collapsing, and one who people pray makes it off the stage without starting WW3.

Being a good man is NOT half the qualification for being President. It is 100% being able to convince people you are, and what does that is money and having people in influential positions. It doesn't matter a smidge whether you're actually a good person or not.

That's why 3rd parties will never be included in the debates. Presidential candidates don't want to have to debate people who don't have blood on their hands like they do.

If Johnson can't get to 15% he is not a serious contender for the office regardless of how good a debater he may be, so he would only be distraction from the debate between the two who might be president and that would do a disservice to voters who are trying to decide who to vote for. If he were a serious contender he would be able to persuade people to donate to his campaign in sufficient amount to compete, so it makes no sense to blame the system.

Wow aren't you dumb.

Maybe you're right though. Maybe the problem isn't the system, and that most people are stupid like you and succumb to the mass media and propaganda that money can buy for the GOP and the Democrat Party.

In other words, you don't like what I said but you can't figure out what's wrong with it.

You said if a decent person who's a candidate can't outspend the awful Democrat and republican juggernaut candidates, then he/she shouldn't be allowed to debate them, even if he/she could crush them in a debate. Have I got that about right?

 

[toomuchtime_]

He may be every bit as good as the article says he is but if he can't get 15% support in the polls by September 26, his presence on the stage would only be distraction from the real debate between Trump and Clinton. It is no good blaming he commission for not allowing him to debate if he fails to get 15%. If the potential support to elect him is out there he should have started earlier, worked harder and spent more money to meet the threshold. Being a good man is only half the qualification for being president, the other half is being able to persuade people you are.

He would only be a distraction? Are you afraid he might make the 2 of them look like the fumbling baffoons that they are? One who people pray makes it off the stage without collapsing, and one who people pray makes it off the stage without starting WW3.

Being a good man is NOT half the qualification for being President. It is 100% being able to convince people you are, and what does that is money and having people in influential positions. It doesn't matter a smidge whether you're actually a good person or not.

That's why 3rd parties will never be included in the debates. Presidential candidates don't want to have to debate people who don't have blood on their hands like they do.

If Johnson can't get to 15% he is not a serious contender for the office regardless of how good a debater he may be, so he would only be distraction from the debate between the two who might be president and that would do a disservice to voters who are trying to decide who to vote for. If he were a serious contender he would be able to persuade people to donate to his campaign in sufficient amount to compete, so it makes no sense to blame the system.

Wow aren't you dumb.

Maybe you're right though. Maybe the problem isn't the system, and that most people are stupid like you and succumb to the mass media and propaganda that money can buy for the GOP and the Democrat Party.

In other words, you don't like what I said but you can't figure out what's wrong with it.

You said if a decent person who's a candidate can't outspend the awful Democrat and republican juggernaut candidates, then he/she shouldn't be allowed to debate them, even if he/she could crush them in a debate. Have I got that about right?

Not even close. I said that if he couldn't raise the money to get his poll numbers to 15% then he wasn't an electable candidate. Trump spent next to nothing during the primaries and still won. Clinton is outspending him by a factor of at least ten, and yet they are in a statistical tie in some national polls. Still money is an important factor and if Johnson is unable to persuade people to donate to his campaign he has failed the first test of American politics.

Johnson understands that he needs money if he is to be a contender, so why didn't he or couldn't he raise enough money to get to 15%? Imo, it is because his campaign is more of a gesture than a serious attempt to win the presidency.

 

[TheOldSchool]

He would only be a distraction? Are you afraid he might make the 2 of them look like the fumbling baffoons that they are? One who people pray makes it off the stage without collapsing, and one who people pray makes it off the stage without starting WW3.

Being a good man is NOT half the qualification for being President. It is 100% being able to convince people you are, and what does that is money and having people in influential positions. It doesn't matter a smidge whether you're actually a good person or not.

That's why 3rd parties will never be included in the debates. Presidential candidates don't want to have to debate people who don't have blood on their hands like they do.

If Johnson can't get to 15% he is not a serious contender for the office regardless of how good a debater he may be, so he would only be distraction from the debate between the two who might be president and that would do a disservice to voters who are trying to decide who to vote for. If he were a serious contender he would be able to persuade people to donate to his campaign in sufficient amount to compete, so it makes no sense to blame the system.

Wow aren't you dumb.

Maybe you're right though. Maybe the problem isn't the system, and that most people are stupid like you and succumb to the mass media and propaganda that money can buy for the GOP and the Democrat Party.

In other words, you don't like what I said but you can't figure out what's wrong with it.

You said if a decent person who's a candidate can't outspend the awful Democrat and republican juggernaut candidates, then he/she shouldn't be allowed to debate them, even if he/she could crush them in a debate. Have I got that about right?

Not even close. I said that if he couldn't raise the money to get his poll numbers to 15% then he wasn't an electable candidate. Trump spent next to nothing during the primaries and still won. Clinton is outspending him by a factor of at least ten, and yet they are in a statistical tie in some national polls. Still money is an important factor and if Johnson is unable to persuade people to donate to his campaign he has failed the first test of American politics.

Johnson understands that he needs money if he is to be a contender, so why didn't he or couldn't he raise enough money to get to 15%? Imo, it is because his campaign is more of a gesture than a serious attempt to win the presidency.

Not even close. I said that if he couldn't raise the money to get his poll numbers to 15% then he wasn't an electable candidate. Nobody's been able to do that in over 100 years. Not because they weren't electable, but because of the 2 party monopoly. Don't act stupid. Trump spent next to nothing during the primaries and still won. Trump spent a lifetime and millions upon millions of dollars building a media presence. Not to mention he was up against complete morons. Clinton is outspending him by a factor of at least ten, and yet they are in a statistical tie in some national polls. Not relevant to our conversation, and the polls you're talking about are a tiny minority anyways. Still money is an important factor and if Johnson is unable to persuade people to donate to his campaign he has failed the first test of American politics. Yes the first test, just as the founders intended... one of the oligarch's wins the crown

Johnson understands that he needs money if he is to be a contender, so why didn't he or couldn't he raise enough money to get to 15%? Because he isn't a member of the republican or Democrat parties. Are you that stupid? Imo, it is because his campaign is more of a gesture than a serious attempt to win the presidency. So 3rd parties are irrelevant. Spoken like a true tyrant you asshole.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If Johnson can't get to 15% he is not a serious contender for the office regardless of how good a debater he may be, so he would only be distraction from the debate between the two who might be president and that would do a disservice to voters who are trying to decide who to vote for. If he were a serious contender he would be able to persuade people to donate to his campaign in sufficient amount to compete, so it makes no sense to blame the system.

Wow aren't you dumb.

Maybe you're right though. Maybe the problem isn't the system, and that most people are stupid like you and succumb to the mass media and propaganda that money can buy for the GOP and the Democrat Party.

In other words, you don't like what I said but you can't figure out what's wrong with it.

You said if a decent person who's a candidate can't outspend the awful Democrat and republican juggernaut candidates, then he/she shouldn't be allowed to debate them, even if he/she could crush them in a debate. Have I got that about right?

Not even close. I said that if he couldn't raise the money to get his poll numbers to 15% then he wasn't an electable candidate. Trump spent next to nothing during the primaries and still won. Clinton is outspending him by a factor of at least ten, and yet they are in a statistical tie in some national polls. Still money is an important factor and if Johnson is unable to persuade people to donate to his campaign he has failed the first test of American politics.

Johnson understands that he needs money if he is to be a contender, so why didn't he or couldn't he raise enough money to get to 15%? Imo, it is because his campaign is more of a gesture than a serious attempt to win the presidency.

Not even close. I said that if he couldn't raise the money to get his poll numbers to 15% then he wasn't an electable candidate. Nobody's been able to do that in over 100 years. Not because they weren't electable, but because of the 2 party monopoly. Don't act stupid. Trump spent next to nothing during the primaries and still won. Trump spent a lifetime and millions upon millions of dollars building a media presence. Not to mention he was up against complete morons. Clinton is outspending him by a factor of at least ten, and yet they are in a statistical tie in some national polls. Not relevant to our conversation, and the polls you're talking about are a tiny minority anyways. Still money is an important factor and if Johnson is unable to persuade people to donate to his campaign he has failed the first test of American politics. Yes the first test, just as the founders intended... one of the oligarch's wins the crown

Johnson understands that he needs money if he is to be a contender, so why didn't he or couldn't he raise enough money to get to 15%? Because he isn't a member of the republican or Democrat parties. Are you that stupid? Imo, it is because his campaign is more of a gesture than a serious attempt to win the presidency. So 3rd parties are irrelevant. Spoken like a true tyrant you asshole.

Bullshit. Johnson was a lifelong Republican right up until he was defeated in the Republican primaries in 2012 and he only became a third party candidate because he couldn't cut it in a major party in national elections.

So why did Johnson lose in the 2012 primaries? It wasn't about money, it was that he just doesn't have broad appeal. Like Johnson, Bill Clinton was a popular governor from a small state who didn't have a lot of money when he entered the Democratic primaries in 1992, but he did have broad appeal. He polls at 10% but nearly all of it is in the West and among younger voters and you need broader appeal if you want to run for president. That's why he lost the Republican primaries in 2012 and that's why he can't raise enough money now to get his support up to 15%.

 

[tyroneweaver]

An island of sanity in the 2016 Presidential clusterfuck:

Much of the country is distressed by the presidential candidates offered by the two conventional political parties. And for good reason. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton meets the fundamental moral and professional standards we have every right to expect of an American president. Fortunately, there is a reasonable — and formidable — alternative.

Gary Johnson is a former, two-term governor of New Mexico and a man who built from scratch a construction company that eventually employed more than 1,000 people before he sold it in 1999. He possesses substantial executive experience in both the private and the public sectors.

More important, he’s a man of good integrity, apparently normal ego and sound ideas. Sadly, in the 2016 presidential contest, those essential qualities make him an anomaly — though they are the foundations for solid leadership and trustworthy character. (At 63, he is also the youngest candidate by more than half a decade — and is polling well among truly young voters.)

As the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Johnson is expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. He is, in every respect, a legitimate and reasonable contender for the presidency — but only if the voters give him a fair hearing. And that can happen only if he is allowed to participate in the presidential debates that begin on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. If the Commission on Presidential Debates wants to perform a real service to its country, it will invite Gary Johnson onto the big stage.

Richmond Times-Dispatch endorses Gary Johnson for president

You're the Duke. A number one.

 

[SYTFE]

Wow aren't you dumb.

Maybe you're right though. Maybe the problem isn't the system, and that most people are stupid like you and succumb to the mass media and propaganda that money can buy for the GOP and the Democrat Party.

In other words, you don't like what I said but you can't figure out what's wrong with it.

You said if a decent person who's a candidate can't outspend the awful Democrat and republican juggernaut candidates, then he/she shouldn't be allowed to debate them, even if he/she could crush them in a debate. Have I got that about right?

Not even close. I said that if he couldn't raise the money to get his poll numbers to 15% then he wasn't an electable candidate. Trump spent next to nothing during the primaries and still won. Clinton is outspending him by a factor of at least ten, and yet they are in a statistical tie in some national polls. Still money is an important factor and if Johnson is unable to persuade people to donate to his campaign he has failed the first test of American politics.

Johnson understands that he needs money if he is to be a contender, so why didn't he or couldn't he raise enough money to get to 15%? Imo, it is because his campaign is more of a gesture than a serious attempt to win the presidency.

Not even close. I said that if he couldn't raise the money to get his poll numbers to 15% then he wasn't an electable candidate. Nobody's been able to do that in over 100 years. Not because they weren't electable, but because of the 2 party monopoly. Don't act stupid. Trump spent next to nothing during the primaries and still won. Trump spent a lifetime and millions upon millions of dollars building a media presence. Not to mention he was up against complete morons. Clinton is outspending him by a factor of at least ten, and yet they are in a statistical tie in some national polls. Not relevant to our conversation, and the polls you're talking about are a tiny minority anyways. Still money is an important factor and if Johnson is unable to persuade people to donate to his campaign he has failed the first test of American politics. Yes the first test, just as the founders intended... one of the oligarch's wins the crown

Johnson understands that he needs money if he is to be a contender, so why didn't he or couldn't he raise enough money to get to 15%? Because he isn't a member of the republican or Democrat parties. Are you that stupid? Imo, it is because his campaign is more of a gesture than a serious attempt to win the presidency. So 3rd parties are irrelevant. Spoken like a true tyrant you asshole.

Bullshit. Johnson was a lifelong Republican right up until he was defeated in the Republican primaries in 2012 and he only became a third party candidate because he couldn't cut it in a major party in national elections.

So why did Johnson lose in the 2012 primaries? It wasn't about money, it was that he just doesn't have broad appeal. Like Johnson, Bill Clinton was a popular governor from a small state who didn't have a lot of money when he entered the Democratic primaries in 1992, but he did have broad appeal. He polls at 10% but nearly all of it is in the West and among younger voters and you need broader appeal if you want to run for president. That's why he lost the Republican primaries in 2012 and that's why he can't raise enough money now to get his support up to 15%.

Yup. In other words, he's a fraud.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Wow aren't you dumb.

Maybe you're right though. Maybe the problem isn't the system, and that most people are stupid like you and succumb to the mass media and propaganda that money can buy for the GOP and the Democrat Party.

In other words, you don't like what I said but you can't figure out what's wrong with it.

You said if a decent person who's a candidate can't outspend the awful Democrat and republican juggernaut candidates, then he/she shouldn't be allowed to debate them, even if he/she could crush them in a debate. Have I got that about right?

Not even close. I said that if he couldn't raise the money to get his poll numbers to 15% then he wasn't an electable candidate. Trump spent next to nothing during the primaries and still won. Clinton is outspending him by a factor of at least ten, and yet they are in a statistical tie in some national polls. Still money is an important factor and if Johnson is unable to persuade people to donate to his campaign he has failed the first test of American politics.

Johnson understands that he needs money if he is to be a contender, so why didn't he or couldn't he raise enough money to get to 15%? Imo, it is because his campaign is more of a gesture than a serious attempt to win the presidency.

Not even close. I said that if he couldn't raise the money to get his poll numbers to 15% then he wasn't an electable candidate. Nobody's been able to do that in over 100 years. Not because they weren't electable, but because of the 2 party monopoly. Don't act stupid. Trump spent next to nothing during the primaries and still won. Trump spent a lifetime and millions upon millions of dollars building a media presence. Not to mention he was up against complete morons. Clinton is outspending him by a factor of at least ten, and yet they are in a statistical tie in some national polls. Not relevant to our conversation, and the polls you're talking about are a tiny minority anyways. Still money is an important factor and if Johnson is unable to persuade people to donate to his campaign he has failed the first test of American politics. Yes the first test, just as the founders intended... one of the oligarch's wins the crown

Johnson understands that he needs money if he is to be a contender, so why didn't he or couldn't he raise enough money to get to 15%? Because he isn't a member of the republican or Democrat parties. Are you that stupid? Imo, it is because his campaign is more of a gesture than a serious attempt to win the presidency. So 3rd parties are irrelevant. Spoken like a true tyrant you asshole.

Bullshit. Johnson was a lifelong Republican right up until he was defeated in the Republican primaries in 2012 and he only became a third party candidate because he couldn't cut it in a major party in national elections.

So why did Johnson lose in the 2012 primaries? It wasn't about money, it was that he just doesn't have broad appeal. Like Johnson, Bill Clinton was a popular governor from a small state who didn't have a lot of money when he entered the Democratic primaries in 1992, but he did have broad appeal. He polls at 10% but nearly all of it is in the West and among younger voters and you need broader appeal if you want to run for president. That's why he lost the Republican primaries in 2012 and that's why he can't raise enough money now to get his support up to 15%.

Trump didn't have a broad appeal either. He won with a plurality, because the rest of the field was complete shit.

You don't want 3rd parties in the debates because you're afraid they'll make the 2 most unpopular candidates IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY look stupid and upset the 2 party balance. Admit it.