Richmond, VA Newspaper endorses Gary Johnson

[toomuchtime_]

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.

I wouldn't mind a viable third party candidate in the debate but Johnson has shown he is not a viable candidate, and I take the debate and the election seriously while you appear to only think of it as entertainment.

 

[TheOldSchool]

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.

I wouldn't mind a viable third party candidate in the debate but Johnson has shown he is not a viable candidate, and I take the debate and the election seriously while you appear to only think of it as entertainment.

Look at you, demanding that the 2 most unpopular candidates IN AMERICAN HISTORY (literally here, I'm not even joking) be allowed to run unopposed.

Some American you are.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

I wouldn't mind a viable third party candidate in the debate but Johnson has shown he is not a viable candidate, and I take the debate and the election seriously while you appear to only think of it as entertainment.

Look at you, demanding that the 2 most unpopular candidates IN AMERICAN HISTORY (literally here, I'm not even joking) be allowed to run unopposed.

Some American you are.

They are opposing each other. I am opposed to Johnson providing a sideshow solely for your entertainment.

 

[Pilate]

How is this news? Like who cares?

 

[TheOldSchool]

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.

I wouldn't mind a viable third party candidate in the debate but Johnson has shown he is not a viable candidate, and I take the debate and the election seriously while you appear to only think of it as entertainment.

Look at you, demanding that the 2 most unpopular candidates IN AMERICAN HISTORY (literally here, I'm not even joking) be allowed to run unopposed.

Some American you are.

They are opposing each other. I am opposed to Johnson providing a sideshow solely for your entertainment.

Well I enjoy your 4 years (at least) of Hillary then asshole

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are advocating for candidates who can't win.

They "can't win" exactly because of people like yourself, protecting your party's monopoly on our government by parroting their fearmongering.

No, they can't win because not enough people will vote for them.

Do you know how long the Libertarian Party has been around? No?

Go look it up.

We were right then -- now America has come over to our solutions and creative problem solving ways.
On DOZENS of issues.

I have no idea what that means.

Of course you don't. Because you think everything just happens by magic and that Congress is composed of geniuses who are chosen for their problem solving. We were right on school choice, charters and vouchers. Most of the original work on that came out of Cato Institute -- the Libertarian think tank. .

Let's start here:

The Libertarian Case Against Vouchers - The Future of Freedom Foundation

 

[ChrisL]

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.

He's raised millions of dollars. The problem is that he has a hard time getting the publicity for his campaign because he is not allowed to debate the candidates from the main two parties until he reaches 15% polling numbers . . . which is BS.

 

[ChrisL]

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%.

Who CARES? He is still a better candidate than the other two clowns!

 

[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.

He's raised millions of dollars. The problem is that he has a hard time getting the publicity for his campaign because he is not allowed to debate the candidates from the main two parties until he reaches 15% polling numbers . . . which is BS.

Johnson is no novice to politics and if he has raised enough money he can build an organization that will get him supporters by interviewing on TV and radio talk shows and by solicitations on the Internet and by mail and phone calls. Regardless of what his ideas or personal qualities are, if he hasn't done this to have 15% he is not a viable contender and has no business in the debates.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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%.

Who CARES? He is still a better candidate than the other two clowns!

If he can't win, he is not a viable candidate.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Hey -- you diagnosed the problem right there and didn't even know it..

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.

Trump rose solely on the practice of being a bullying asshole. Discovered a whole NEW currency in politics. Got about 14 HOURS a week of coverage on cable news and DOMINATED the press.

Now I ask you --- who's fault is it if I and 10Mill others write GIANT checks to Gary Johnson and that message gets drowned out and wasted by ClintTrump dominating the news with a coughing fit or nude pix of their spouses or outrageous tweets or leaked emails?

I'm CERTAIN Johnson would get 15% if he paraglided into his next 3 stops and had Weld join him with an AR 15 on the stage !!! Maybe light up a doobie on "Face the Nation".. Maybe climb Mt Mckinley and plant an LParty flag on the summit..

That's NOT what we are in this for.. America has to get seriously desperate to break the bad habit of REWARDING that obnoxious and damaging behavior.

The polls are skewed intentionally. EVERY precinct in America RANDOMIZES the position of the choices on the ballot to REDUCE bias error. Polls don't do that. 3rd party candidates are always at the END of the poll content. And sound science says -- that's probably 8 to 12% bias right there.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If a candidate can get on the ballot in all 50 states....he or she deserves to be on the stage.

That said...I'd never vote for a candidate who thinks that universal health care, clean water and air, and economic justice will be brought about by deregulating corporate America.

 

[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.

Hey -- you diagnosed the problem right there and didn't even know it..

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.

Trump rose solely on the practice of being a bullying asshole. Discovered a whole NEW currency in politics. Got about 14 HOURS a week of coverage on cable news and DOMINATED the press.

Now I ask you --- who's fault is it if I and 10Mill others write GIANT checks to Gary Johnson and that message gets drowned out and wasted by ClintTrump dominating the news with a coughing fit or nude pix of their spouses or outrageous tweets or leaked emails?

I'm CERTAIN Johnson would get 15% if he paraglided into his next 3 stops and had Weld join him with an AR 15 on the stage !!! Maybe light up a doobie on "Face the Nation".. Maybe climb Mt Mckinley and plant an LParty flag on the summit..

That's NOT what we are in this for.. America has to get seriously desperate to break the bad habit of REWARDING that obnoxious and damaging behavior.

The polls are skewed intentionally. EVERY precinct in America RANDOMIZES the position of the choices on the ballot to REDUCE bias error. Polls don't do that. 3rd party candidates are always at the END of the poll content. And sound science says -- that's probably 8 to 12% bias right there.

You see? You diagnosed the problem and didn't even know it. If, as you say, Johnson can't stand up to Trump and Clinton then he is not a viable candidate and has no place in the debates.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Hey -- you diagnosed the problem right there and didn't even know it..

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.

Trump rose solely on the practice of being a bullying asshole. Discovered a whole NEW currency in politics. Got about 14 HOURS a week of coverage on cable news and DOMINATED the press.

Now I ask you --- who's fault is it if I and 10Mill others write GIANT checks to Gary Johnson and that message gets drowned out and wasted by ClintTrump dominating the news with a coughing fit or nude pix of their spouses or outrageous tweets or leaked emails?

I'm CERTAIN Johnson would get 15% if he paraglided into his next 3 stops and had Weld join him with an AR 15 on the stage !!! Maybe light up a doobie on "Face the Nation".. Maybe climb Mt Mckinley and plant an LParty flag on the summit..

That's NOT what we are in this for.. America has to get seriously desperate to break the bad habit of REWARDING that obnoxious and damaging behavior.

The polls are skewed intentionally. EVERY precinct in America RANDOMIZES the position of the choices on the ballot to REDUCE bias error. Polls don't do that. 3rd party candidates are always at the END of the poll content. And sound science says -- that's probably 8 to 12% bias right there.

You see? You diagnosed the problem and didn't even know it. If, as you say, Johnson can't stand up to Trump and Clinton then he is not a viable candidate and has no place in the debates.

You're kidding right? Did the point fly over your head? The base degrading nature of having 2 arrogant meglomaniacs dominating the news with their lying, and deceptions and name-calling and scandals is not the competition we want to be part of..

How did you miss that? That's not competition. That's dysfunction and crumbling political integrity.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Hey -- you diagnosed the problem right there and didn't even know it..

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.

Trump rose solely on the practice of being a bullying asshole. Discovered a whole NEW currency in politics. Got about 14 HOURS a week of coverage on cable news and DOMINATED the press.

Now I ask you --- who's fault is it if I and 10Mill others write GIANT checks to Gary Johnson and that message gets drowned out and wasted by ClintTrump dominating the news with a coughing fit or nude pix of their spouses or outrageous tweets or leaked emails?

I'm CERTAIN Johnson would get 15% if he paraglided into his next 3 stops and had Weld join him with an AR 15 on the stage !!! Maybe light up a doobie on "Face the Nation".. Maybe climb Mt Mckinley and plant an LParty flag on the summit..

That's NOT what we are in this for.. America has to get seriously desperate to break the bad habit of REWARDING that obnoxious and damaging behavior.

The polls are skewed intentionally. EVERY precinct in America RANDOMIZES the position of the choices on the ballot to REDUCE bias error. Polls don't do that. 3rd party candidates are always at the END of the poll content. And sound science says -- that's probably 8 to 12% bias right there.

You see? You diagnosed the problem and didn't even know it. If, as you say, Johnson can't stand up to Trump and Clinton then he is not a viable candidate and has no place in the debates.

You're kidding right? Did the point fly over your head? The base degrading nature of having 2 arrogant meglomaniacs dominating the news with their lying, and deceptions and name-calling and scandals is not the competition we want to be part of..

How did you miss that? That's not competition. That's dysfunction and crumbling political integrity.

Again, if Johnson can't wage an effective campaign against Clinton and Trump he doesn't belong in the debates.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Hey -- you diagnosed the problem right there and didn't even know it..

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.

Trump rose solely on the practice of being a bullying asshole. Discovered a whole NEW currency in politics. Got about 14 HOURS a week of coverage on cable news and DOMINATED the press.

Now I ask you --- who's fault is it if I and 10Mill others write GIANT checks to Gary Johnson and that message gets drowned out and wasted by ClintTrump dominating the news with a coughing fit or nude pix of their spouses or outrageous tweets or leaked emails?

I'm CERTAIN Johnson would get 15% if he paraglided into his next 3 stops and had Weld join him with an AR 15 on the stage !!! Maybe light up a doobie on "Face the Nation".. Maybe climb Mt Mckinley and plant an LParty flag on the summit..

That's NOT what we are in this for.. America has to get seriously desperate to break the bad habit of REWARDING that obnoxious and damaging behavior.

The polls are skewed intentionally. EVERY precinct in America RANDOMIZES the position of the choices on the ballot to REDUCE bias error. Polls don't do that. 3rd party candidates are always at the END of the poll content. And sound science says -- that's probably 8 to 12% bias right there.

You see? You diagnosed the problem and didn't even know it. If, as you say, Johnson can't stand up to Trump and Clinton then he is not a viable candidate and has no place in the debates.

You're kidding right? Did the point fly over your head? The base degrading nature of having 2 arrogant meglomaniacs dominating the news with their lying, and deceptions and name-calling and scandals is not the competition we want to be part of..

How did you miss that? That's not competition. That's dysfunction and crumbling political integrity.

Again, if Johnson can't wage an effective campaign against Clinton and Trump he doesn't belong in the debates.

The LP ticket is TOTALLY qualified and prepared to campaign. But on the ISSUES, not the drama and the rot that the media PREFERS to cover. In a REAL debate --- we'd kill them. Because Clinton is guilty as sin for being part of our dysfuntional WRECKING of the MidEast and Corporate welfare and Trump is nothing but a bully with very little political principle or solutions to guide him..

It's CLEARLY a choice between humility and arrogance. Between executive competency and pandering. Between NEW choices and actual log jam clearing and a further descent into the mud of cross-blaming.

Any party that is ON 50 state ballots should be in the debates. THat's a high enough bar -- believe me. Maybe you need to look at the partisan SHILLS that compose the "debate commission" for answers.

When ya want to fix all this? When it's TOO LATE? The 2 party system needs to be put in time-out to reverse this course. The message is there -- our ads are PHENOMENALLY good and positive.

But the diff is ---- we are ASKING for votes. The other 2 brand names just simply EXPECT them...

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Hey -- you diagnosed the problem right there and didn't even know it..

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.

Trump rose solely on the practice of being a bullying asshole. Discovered a whole NEW currency in politics. Got about 14 HOURS a week of coverage on cable news and DOMINATED the press.

Now I ask you --- who's fault is it if I and 10Mill others write GIANT checks to Gary Johnson and that message gets drowned out and wasted by ClintTrump dominating the news with a coughing fit or nude pix of their spouses or outrageous tweets or leaked emails?

I'm CERTAIN Johnson would get 15% if he paraglided into his next 3 stops and had Weld join him with an AR 15 on the stage !!! Maybe light up a doobie on "Face the Nation".. Maybe climb Mt Mckinley and plant an LParty flag on the summit..

That's NOT what we are in this for.. America has to get seriously desperate to break the bad habit of REWARDING that obnoxious and damaging behavior.

The polls are skewed intentionally. EVERY precinct in America RANDOMIZES the position of the choices on the ballot to REDUCE bias error. Polls don't do that. 3rd party candidates are always at the END of the poll content. And sound science says -- that's probably 8 to 12% bias right there.

You see? You diagnosed the problem and didn't even know it. If, as you say, Johnson can't stand up to Trump and Clinton then he is not a viable candidate and has no place in the debates.

You're kidding right? Did the point fly over your head? The base degrading nature of having 2 arrogant meglomaniacs dominating the news with their lying, and deceptions and name-calling and scandals is not the competition we want to be part of..

How did you miss that? That's not competition. That's dysfunction and crumbling political integrity.

Again, if Johnson can't wage an effective campaign against Clinton and Trump he doesn't belong in the debates.

The LP ticket is TOTALLY qualified and prepared to campaign. But on the ISSUES, not the drama and the rot that the media PREFERS to cover. In a REAL debate --- we'd kill them. Because Clinton is guilty as sin for being part of our dysfuntional WRECKING of the MidEast and Corporate welfare and Trump is nothing but a bully with very little political principle or solutions to guide him..

It's CLEARLY a choice between humility and arrogance. Between executive competency and pandering. Between NEW choices and actual log jam clearing and a further descent into the mud of cross-blaming.

Any party that is ON 50 state ballots should be in the debates. THat's a high enough bar -- believe me. Maybe you need to look at the partisan SHILLS that compose the "debate commission" for answers.

When ya want to fix all this? When it's TOO LATE? The 2 party system needs to be put in time-out to reverse this course. The message is there -- our ads are PHENOMENALLY good and positive.

But the diff is ---- we are ASKING for votes. The other 2 brand names just simply EXPECT them...

Voters are not interested in a candidate who complains everyone is being unfair to him. They want candidates who have the ability to rise up and overcome difficulties. If Johnson had that ability, he would have 15% and be in the debates.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey -- you diagnosed the problem right there and didn't even know it..

Trump rose solely on the practice of being a bullying asshole. Discovered a whole NEW currency in politics. Got about 14 HOURS a week of coverage on cable news and DOMINATED the press.

Now I ask you --- who's fault is it if I and 10Mill others write GIANT checks to Gary Johnson and that message gets drowned out and wasted by ClintTrump dominating the news with a coughing fit or nude pix of their spouses or outrageous tweets or leaked emails?

I'm CERTAIN Johnson would get 15% if he paraglided into his next 3 stops and had Weld join him with an AR 15 on the stage !!! Maybe light up a doobie on "Face the Nation".. Maybe climb Mt Mckinley and plant an LParty flag on the summit..

That's NOT what we are in this for.. America has to get seriously desperate to break the bad habit of REWARDING that obnoxious and damaging behavior.

The polls are skewed intentionally. EVERY precinct in America RANDOMIZES the position of the choices on the ballot to REDUCE bias error. Polls don't do that. 3rd party candidates are always at the END of the poll content. And sound science says -- that's probably 8 to 12% bias right there.

You see? You diagnosed the problem and didn't even know it. If, as you say, Johnson can't stand up to Trump and Clinton then he is not a viable candidate and has no place in the debates.

You're kidding right? Did the point fly over your head? The base degrading nature of having 2 arrogant meglomaniacs dominating the news with their lying, and deceptions and name-calling and scandals is not the competition we want to be part of..

How did you miss that? That's not competition. That's dysfunction and crumbling political integrity.

Again, if Johnson can't wage an effective campaign against Clinton and Trump he doesn't belong in the debates.

The LP ticket is TOTALLY qualified and prepared to campaign. But on the ISSUES, not the drama and the rot that the media PREFERS to cover. In a REAL debate --- we'd kill them. Because Clinton is guilty as sin for being part of our dysfuntional WRECKING of the MidEast and Corporate welfare and Trump is nothing but a bully with very little political principle or solutions to guide him..

It's CLEARLY a choice between humility and arrogance. Between executive competency and pandering. Between NEW choices and actual log jam clearing and a further descent into the mud of cross-blaming.

Any party that is ON 50 state ballots should be in the debates. THat's a high enough bar -- believe me. Maybe you need to look at the partisan SHILLS that compose the "debate commission" for answers.

When ya want to fix all this? When it's TOO LATE? The 2 party system needs to be put in time-out to reverse this course. The message is there -- our ads are PHENOMENALLY good and positive.

But the diff is ---- we are ASKING for votes. The other 2 brand names just simply EXPECT them...

Voters are not interested in a candidate who complains everyone is being unfair to him. They want candidates who have the ability to rise up and overcome difficulties. If Johnson had that ability, he would have 15% and be in the debates.

You're missing the point. Voters don't care anymore about issues and competency. They CARE about the SPECTACLE that the DemReps have created to distract the electorate from their incompetency and collusion and polarization.

When you've polarized the electorate as far as it's gone, most people don't CARE for humility and public service or issues. We are gonna run on SOLUTIONS, ISSUES and MEDIATING the cross-blaming and polarization.

If the people WANT that -- they will vote for it. We're not gonna pander or stoop to get elected.

 

[TNHarley]

What isn't sane is the Libertarian platform. Read it. Its unworkable

I thought bernies policies were unworkable? Right until hildabitch made them hers?

 

[TNHarley]

Who wouldn't love open borders?