Why Gary Johnson for president?

[Boss]

Another interesting tidbit is that in reality two predominant parties is not the norm demonstrated through our history. In truth, most of our history has been marked by one party being the dominant party. First it was the Democratic-Republicans. Then it was (briefly) the Whigs. Then it was the Republicans. And the fall of the dominant party has always coincided with the rise of a new party that didn't previously exist. The modern day two party dominance system is relatively new.

Again... No... there is always one of the two parties who controls more of the political power. And no the dominant party doesn't always fall and become replaced by a new party. Sometimes the two parties change back and forth like the Democrats and Republicans have since 1860. The "two party system" is not relatively new, as I said, it's ALWAYS been a two party system... even before there were formal parties. In the beginning, it was Federalists and Anti-Federalists... Washington was a Federalist. The Anti-Federalists lost the Constitutional debate and morphed into Democratic-Republicans... who eventually morphed into Democrats. Federalists morphed into Whigs who morphed into Republicans. Through the years, several attempts have been made to make us a THREE party system... the Bull-Moose party, for example. It never works out because we're predominately a two party system. There is the party in power and their opposition. THAT is the two party system in a nutshell.

 

[emilynghiem]

Partisanship did not enter US politics until after the Presidency of Washington. Jefferson v Adams was the point where partisan divides set in to American politics.

Apparently you are unaware of history?

Our very founding was a fierce battle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

It may shock you to learn this, but one does not need a political party to have similar interests/beliefs as someone else. Nor does one need a political party to oppose conflicting interests/beliefs.

Dear SwimExpert if you'd like to join me in a national level class action lawsuit on this,
I do ask to either sue petition or hold both parties accountable for
"conspiring to violate equal civil rights"

Both parties have abused collective influence and resources to lobby and abuse
GOVT and especially COURTS to pass laws penalizing citizens
due to conflicting beliefs that should have been equally protected by law.

The last three I can count that I believe are actionable and require correction to be constitutional:
1. ACA mandates penalizing people who don't comply due to not believing in health care as a right through govt (where constitutional laws and beliefs were violated by establishing political beliefs through govt without the consent of taxpayers affected)
2. marriage equality ruling through courts that should be established through legislation
(and /or decided by consensus of the people where marriage involves personal beliefs not regulated by govt)
3. orientation/gender identity policies that are biased and faith based in
protecting or penalizing people by creed which is also discrimination by govt

I think the Libertarians are not afraid to challenge the system to the
point of looking "anarchist" in comparison to the Dems and GOP who have wimped out.
The Tea Party may have patriots willing to sue, but when I ask I get a bunch of
whining and fear about Constitutional conventions getting hijacked to toss out the Constitution.

Maybe the independent Trump supporters are not afraid to buck the legal system and lobby
that has most people running to support the Clinton monarchy again.
But they think they can do it on their own without teaming up with others.

I will ask again among the Greens and Libertarians and see if there
is enough support to get a lawsuit going, even if it means setting up
our own grievance/grand jury system and conference for representation by party.
To challenge the monopoly on the current party system and the courts that judge the laws
for constitutionality.

 

[Desperado]

Like everything he is for except for his stance on Immigration.

 

[emilynghiem]

Another interesting tidbit is that in reality two predominant parties is not the norm demonstrated through our history. In truth, most of our history has been marked by one party being the dominant party. First it was the Democratic-Republicans. Then it was (briefly) the Whigs. Then it was the Republicans. And the fall of the dominant party has always coincided with the rise of a new party that didn't previously exist. The modern day two party dominance system is relatively new.

Again... No... there is always one of the two parties who controls more of the political power. And no the dominant party doesn't always fall and become replaced by a new party. Sometimes the two parties change back and forth like the Democrats and Republicans have since 1860. The "two party system" is not relatively new, as I said, it's ALWAYS been a two party system... even before there were formal parties. In the beginning, it was Federalists and Anti-Federalists... Washington was a Federalist. The Anti-Federalists lost the Constitutional debate and morphed into Democratic-Republicans... who eventually morphed into Democrats. Federalists morphed into Whigs who morphed into Republicans. Through the years, several attempts have been made to make us a THREE party system... the Bull-Moose party, for example. It never works out because we're predominately a two party system. There is the party in power and their opposition. THAT is the two party system in a nutshell.

Dear Boss yes there is good and bad in organizing people and lobbying this way.
At this point, I think we have matured as a nation and can handle bigger ways than just this
polarized left/right option that isn't representing the entire nation. At most we are "taking turns"
flipping from one administration/Congress to the next takeover,
but the work required to fix our problems is CONSTANT and shouldn't depend on one side
taking control and dominating policy.

When we talk about equal protection of the laws, this doesn't say "taking turns
where your party gets elected and has control". So this is not equally representing people.
It's the best we can do for now, but there are ways to correct and improve or even perfect the process.

I think we are heading for representation by party
similar to a senate that allows this for states, even the tiny compared with the large,
to have equal voice in political process.

 

[Bush92]

Liberal media wants to split conservative vote. Why not Gary Johnson? He has no substantial support and a Hillary win would be a danger to the Republic.

 

[emilynghiem]

I asked you to prove otherwise

Because you can't support your own bullshit, so you are trying to shift the burden.

Dear SwimExpert You are both right.

Technically there is nothing in Constitutional laws or process that gives us this beholden
dependence on parties.
Same as there is nothing in the Constitution that outlines the Christian influence and traditions
that are an integral part of our nation and culture.

Boss is also right that these systems exist and are controlling the votes
and policies getting signed into law. Look at ACA: even the Singlepayer Universal care
advocates are SILENCED and IGNORED on the objection to the same mandates.
We don't hear about them in the media, and the Sanders factions are painted
as socialists and rejected by PARTY.

So party politics is controlling the narrative even though this is totally outside the Constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

Liberal media wants to split conservative vote. Why not Gary Johnson? He has no substantial support and a Hillary win would be a danger to the Republic.

Dear Bush92 because of this bias and exclusion by party politics colluding to violate equal rights and representation of others,
I think the Libertarians Greens and others could SUE to ask that either
* the federal complaints investigation or potential charges against Clinton
be fully resolved before allowing such people to take a public office that could otherwise
lead to the very real risk of foreign nations extorting or bribing the top leadership in the country
by threatening to expose incriminating evidence instead of requiring this to be established in advance.
* past Constitutional violations such as ACA and war contracts that cost taxpayers
in the trillions be assessed with a plan to pay it back before the responsible parties
who passed the contested legislation can fund and run other candidates for office.

 

[Bush92]

Liberal media wants to split conservative vote. Why not Gary Johnson? He has no substantial support and a Hillary win would be a danger to the Republic.

Dear Bush92 because of this bias and exclusion by party politics colluding to violate equal rights and representation of others,
I think the Libertarians Greens and others could SUE to ask that either
* the federal complaints investigation or potential charges against Clinton
be fully resolved before allowing such people to take a public office that could otherwise
lead to the very real risk of foreign nations extorting or bribing the top leadership in the country
by threatening to expose incriminating evidence instead of requiring this to be established in advance.
* past Constitutional violations such as ACA and war contracts that cost taxpayers
in the trillions be assessed with a plan to pay it back before the responsible parties
who passed the contested legislation can fund and run other candidates for office.

7-Up is the "uncola" and Trump is the "unpolitician."

 

[RandallFlagg]

That's sure a funny request for evidence. You're appeal to demonstrate the "two party system" is the widespread acceptance of the lie?

Well gee, while we're on that, can you tell me the last time a woman was President of the United States? Was it before your time? I guess we have a male system!

Well, give me ANY evidence that we're more than a two party system?

You can't just claim something is a lie and then not back your claim and expect people to accept your word. If I said it was a lie that only men have been president... you'd expect me to name a few women who have been president, or at least one... otherwise, the statement is false.

So tell us about the time when more than two parties were dominant in American politics? If you cannot do that, then it's not a lie that we're a two party system. Now, you might not LIKE that we're a two party system... you might WISH we weren't a two party system... you might want us to be MORE than a two party system... I understand all that. But to sit here and claim that's a lie is a bit bold for someone who has nothing to offer as evidence.

We have a predominately two party system. The two major party's hold almost all of the power in our goverment. But once in a while a third party or a write-in candidate will win a house or senate seat.

Johnson is on the ballet in all 50 states. He can win if he gets the votes. If you are not happy with Hillary or The Donald then there is another choice. This may be the strange election in which a third party will win.

This has been the year of the anti-establishment vote. If we want to send both the establishment republicans and establishment Democrats a message, put a third party candidate in as POTUS.

Your idealism is noted

There is ONE party in this country. It's called the MONEY party.

 

[Contumacious]

Read the below and tell me why not?

The thread was started by one dumb ass known as Comrade Jake Starkiev

He is the mother of all parasites
he hates self motivation
he hates initiative
he hates freedom
he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground
he hates the work ethic
he loves politicians who steal loot and plunder to satisfy their constituency
he hates AR15's or any other firearm that may stop his criminal ways
he lives in the public housing projects
ad nuseam

Well, let's kill the messenger why don't we?

You don't the difference between MESSENGER and PROPAGANDIST.


.

 

[Contumacious]

Partisanship did not enter US politics until after the Presidency of Washington. Jefferson v Adams was the point where partisan divides set in to American politics.

Apparently you are unaware of history?

Our very founding was a fierce battle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/03/laurence-m-vance/the-anti-federalists-were-right/
The Anti-Federalists Were Right
By Laurence M. Vance

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

~ James Madison, Federalist No. 45

History has shown this statement to be either wishful thinking or a deliberate falsehood. Regardless of which opinion you hold, the Anti-Federalists were right. They correctly predicted the unlimited power of a consolidated government under the Constitution. Not only were the Anti-Federalists right to a degree that they could never have imagined; I seriously doubt that the Federalists could have envisioned or would have approved of their new government becoming the monstrosity that it now is

 

[Contumacious]

Well, give me ANY evidence that we're more than a two party system?

We are a party irrelevant system. Here's my evidence.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

I'm sorry... where in the constitution does it say political parties are not allowed or relevant?

Where in the Constitution (1787) does it say that when a political party wins it has a MANDATE to AMEND the Constitution?

 

[Contumacious]

Read the below and tell me why not?

The thread was started by one dumb ass known as Comrade Jake Starkiev

He is the mother of all parasites
he hates self motivation
he hates initiative
he hates freedom
he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground
he hates the work ethic
he loves politicians who steal loot and plunder to satisfy their constituency
he hates AR15's or any other firearm that may stop his criminal ways
he lives in the public housing projects
ad nuseam

Hey Contumacious People have the right to their beliefs without discrimination.
Or else we'd all be on the chopping block every day. Oh wait a minute, that's what we do online.
Sorry I forgot, because I TRY NOT TO DO THAT!

I believe in equal religious AND political freedom for all people.
I believe in free speech and press and right to petition by due process
to establish truth and agreements on policy so EVERYONE is represented and protected.

The MAIN grievance I would have against JakeStarkey is only
blaming the right for regressive/reactionary politics
and not acknowledging the same behavior happens on the left
even though it is seen more like the Victim responding the the Oppressor,
same with why racism is painted as White being the dominant culture
and the Black/minorities being the victimized reaction to that.

I don't agree with this onesided way of framing the political backlash.
But I do recognize that if people HAVE this view, no amount of
bashing them is going to change that only make it WORSE.

Contumacious do you really want to keep making it worse?
Because that's all that leads to, so I ask let's accept people
who are beholden to their beliefs, even if we think they are
wrong because they think the same of us.

To JakeStarkey's credit, even where he totally disagrees
with me and thinks I'm going too far, he tries his very best
to be respectful and explain to me honestly, even where I
do the same back and think he's wrong.

I DO say he's wrong, to see the only the right and not the left
to blame. I also blame the left for rejecting Christian and spiritual
healing beliefs that are the solution to so many problems it's incredible.
So some of that rejection is their own doing and not the fault of
Christians and a country that gives them free choice to hang themselves if that's their
way of learning by experience.

If you want to fault him for being onesided about his views,
blaming others on the right but not holding the left equally accountable,
I would join you in expressing the same criticism I have of him and others
on both sides who do that. But NOT to the point of attacking him personally
just because he has contested or even wrong beliefs.

As a person and as someone who believes what he believes,
no, I would not agree to attack JakeStarkey "as a person" or ANYONE for having different beliefs on here. You can criticize beliefs you think are unfair or dangerous,
but attacking people personally just harms the relations and communications further
and does not help. It only makes defensiveness worse.
Please consider a more constructive approach, that you would also like the person you address to consider instead of coming across so "reactionary", and maybe we'd get somewhere.
I find we will all benefit from accepting and working through our differences and conflicts
without personal attacks / rejection, and be more effective in the longrun when we include each other
in more meaningful dialogue that points toward solutions that don't depend on changing each other's core beliefs we bring to the table.

Yours truly,
Emily

Not from my standpoint.

If your belief is based on DEDUCTIVE REASONING and you disclose the basis then kudos.

But if your "beliefs" are based on a desire to propagandize then thou shall be insulted.

 

[JoeMoma]

Another thing to think about is that if none of the canidatates in the general election get 270 electorial votes, then the house of representives gets to elect the president. If GJ can win a handful of states away from both Hillary and Trump then it's a whole new ballgame.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Another thing to think about is that if none of the canidatates in the general election get 270 electorial votes, then the house of representives gets to elect the president. If GJ can win a handful of states away from both Hillary and Trump then it's a whole new ballgame.

It surely is. Ryan may become president.

 

[JoeMoma]

Another thing to think about is that if none of the canidatates in the general election get 270 electorial votes, then the house of representives gets to elect the president. If GJ can win a handful of states away from both Hillary and Trump then it's a whole new ballgame.

It surely is. Ryan may become president.

Get your popcorn ready, this election will not be boring.

 

[JakeStarkey]