Why Gary Johnson for president?

[GHook93]

Read the below and tell me why not?

I like Johnson and I agree with him on nearly every stance, but one. The one I disagree with him on is the most important - illegal immigration. He is an open border guy, that is toxic to me.

 

[Boss]

Because dumb fucks like you have swallowed the lie that it's a "two party" system, and thus feel obliged to ignore other parties.

It's not a lie it's a fact of history. I asked you to prove otherwise and you couldn't.

 

[SwimExpert]

I asked you to prove otherwise

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

 

[dblack]

Read the below and tell me why not?

I get that you're just doing this because you think it will pull votes away from Trump, which is fine with me, but I think you might be surprised.

 

[Boss]

If it was a two party system, then we would still be Democratic-Republicans vs Federalists. The fact that neither of those parties exist nowadays disproves your bullshit.

But it doesn't disprove what I said because I never said that we only have two parties and those are the only two parties we've ever had. I said we are a two party system... I explained that to you three times now and you still aren't getting it. Different parties have come and gone through the years... only TWO are ever dominant at any given time in our history. You will not find an instance where more than two parties have dominated the political structure in America, except for a very brief period before the Civil War. Even then, the third party was the odd man out and was essentially irrelevant.

We are a two party system... MEANING... we function with two major political parties in control. That does not mean that we only have two parties. We have dozens of parties. We can have hundreds of parties. Only two will ever be in control at any given point in time... it's just the way it works in a two party system. Now you can keep on being a myopic little nit wit who doesn't understand what is being said... I can't help you with that problem... you're on your own... but I've made my case and this debate is done.

 

[Boss]

I get that you're just doing this because you think it will pull votes away from Trump, which is fine with me, but I think you might be surprised.

Every poll I've seen shows that Johnson is pulling just as many from Hillary as Trump.

 

[JoeMoma]

The fact is that it is possible for a third party candidate such as GJ to win the presidential election. However, if enough voters beleive that Johnson cannot win because he is third party and do not vote for him for that reason, then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that a third party candidate can't win.

It seems to me that there are people all over that are very unhappy with both candidates of the two major parties. If all these people will simply come together behind a third party candidate, then we will not have to settle for Trump or Hillary.

 

[JoeMoma]

If it was a two party system, then we would still be Democratic-Republicans vs Federalists. The fact that neither of those parties exist nowadays disproves your bullshit.

But it doesn't disprove what I said because I never said that we only have two parties and those are the only two parties we've ever had. I said we are a two party system... I explained that to you three times now and you still aren't getting it. Different parties have come and gone through the years... only TWO are ever dominant at any given time in our history. You will not find an instance where more than two parties have dominated the political structure in America, except for a very brief period before the Civil War. Even then, the third party was the odd man out and was essentially irrelevant.

We are a two party system... MEANING... we function with two major political parties in control. That does not mean that we only have two parties. We have dozens of parties. We can have hundreds of parties. Only two will ever be in control at any given point in time... it's just the way it works in a two party system. Now you can keep on being a myopic little nit wit who doesn't understand what is being said... I can't help you with that problem... you're on your own... but I've made my case and this debate is done.

Well, maybe it is time for another party to transition into the place of one of the two major parties.

 

[Toro]

Because he's better than the other two options.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read the below and tell me why not?

I get that you're just doing this because you think it will pull votes away from Trump, which is fine with me, but I think you might be surprised.

I am doing it only because I can't vote for Trump or Hillary. If you are suggesting Trump will win, you will be unhappily surprised.

 

[deltex1]

Read the below and tell me why not?

He won't take votes from Hillary because he has a dick. He won't hurt Trump because he is a dick.

 

[Boss]

He won't take votes from Hillary because he has a dick. He won't hurt Trump because he is a dick.

FEEL THE JOHNSON!! lol

 

[emilynghiem]

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

 

[Boss]

Well, maybe it is time for another party to transition into the place of one of the two major parties.

Well now you're talking! I happen to think the GOP has just about run it's course. It's high time for another political party to step up and take their place. I doubt that's going to start with the presidential race and I seriously doubt it's going to be a kook libertarian who strips at his own convention.

 

[dblack]

Well, maybe it is time for another party to transition into the place of one of the two major parties.

Well now you're talking! I happen to think the GOP has just about run it's course. It's high time for another political party to step up and take their place. I doubt that's going to start with the presidential race and I seriously doubt it's going to be a kook libertarian who strips at his own convention.

That sort of change will never be about one person. If it is, it won't last.

 

[SwimExpert]

If it was a two party system, then we would still be Democratic-Republicans vs Federalists. The fact that neither of those parties exist nowadays disproves your bullshit.

But it doesn't disprove what I said because I never said that we only have two parties and those are the only two parties we've ever had. I said we are a two party system... I explained that to you three times now and you still aren't getting it. Different parties have come and gone through the years... only TWO are ever dominant at any given time in our history. You will not find an instance where more than two parties have dominated the political structure in America, except for a very brief period before the Civil War. Even then, the third party was the odd man out and was essentially irrelevant.

We are a two party system... MEANING... we function with two major political parties in control. That does not mean that we only have two parties. We have dozens of parties. We can have hundreds of parties. Only two will ever be in control at any given point in time... it's just the way it works in a two party system. Now you can keep on being a myopic little nit wit who doesn't understand what is being said... I can't help you with that problem... you're on your own... but I've made my case and this debate is done.

*yawn*

You keep tap dancing, but that's all you have. Political parties didn't even exist in this country until after two Presidential elections went by. The founders tended to view political parties skeptically. As Washington penned his departing address to the nation he warned of the perils of political parties, as they were just beginning to emerge by the end of his time in office. But by all means, keep going on about how we have a two party system. Make your excuses. "Well, it's a two party system per se. But it really only works with two parties, so we should just treat it like it's a two party system." All you are doing is repeating the very lie that has been pushed by the predominant parties, in you effort to deny that the lie has been pushed by the predominant parties.

It's really quite telling....you keep demanding that I disprove we have a two party system, when you cannot provide proof to support your claim in the first place. The best you have is to simply repeat your claim over and over again. You sound just like a liberal crying for gun control. And then, when I did provide evidence and argumentation that refutes your claim, you dismiss it as irrelevant. If what you are claiming were true, then we would never see any change in the top two dominant parties. The reality is that the dissolution and emergence of several political parties into prominence, and this fact alone emphatically disproves your claim.

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.

And that is why the politicians lie to you and tell you it's a two party system. They want you to believe it, because they know that as soon as enough people figure out it's not true, then their time in the sun is over. They want you to choose between Trump or Clinton, because as long as the people are forced to choose between the lesser of two idiots, they never have to be held accountable.

 

[JoeMoma]

Well, maybe it is time for another party to transition into the place of one of the two major parties.

Well now you're talking! I happen to think the GOP has just about run it's course. It's high time for another political party to step up and take their place. I doubt that's going to start with the presidential race and I seriously doubt it's going to be a kook libertarian who strips at his own convention.

Life can be stranger than fiction. Most people did not think Trump would be the Republican nominee a year ago.

 

[Harry Dresden]

2 reasons for me. Well, 3 actually. I am not a social conservative. I don't want a pothead in office. Some of the things he wants to remove has me turned off.
He is homely. OOPS that is 4. So sorry.

like trump or hillary has never toked up,right Kat?......

I D K. Unless they say they have I have no way to know.

you dont care if they do,but this guy it matters?.....you know dam well they have,but i cant wait to hear their answers when they get asked...

Where did I say I don't care?? I said IDK = I DON'T KNOW

thats what happens when you use initials.....but im very sure they both have smoked pot many times and unlike her husband im sure hillary inhaled....

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Boss and SwimExpert
I find you are BOTH right.

Boss what I think we can do is find a way to go back to the
first and second spot getting the Presidency and VP positions.

Because of the different styles of leadership where the Dems seem to focus
on internal domestic social programming (that doesn't belong on federal levels
BTW which is why they focus there while the conservative parties do not)
I would recommend creating dual roles of external/internal for
both Pres/VP positions, so there are 4 positions.
And let the top 2 pairs share these positions.

Divide the responsibilities as External/Internal President
and External/Internal VP and delegate tasks appropriately.

That way we can keep a strong Conservative type leader like
Allen West in charge of military and at the same time
have leaders who may not have military experience like Obama
focus on domestic policies without distraction from foreign affairs
that are a full time job. Why not separate these two as internal/external
and recognize the roles call for different approaches to management and leadership?

I think we can find a better way than the same two
dominant parties trying to get the top position,
and then the opposite party fighting to take back Congress to check that.

We waste more time energy and resources fighting these internal
elections instead of investing those resources in solutions that
all parties can take on in teams and partnerships instead of
bullying back and forth fighting to take over the same office.
Why not create jobs and positions for more people, split
their salaries in half, and make them work part time while
they share duties with the people who represent the people they don't?
Why can't we require decisions to be made by REAL consensus
(so we don't get messes like ACA forced through that NOBODY consented
to except the insurance lobbies and other people getting benefits off the deal)

I'd like to ask the Libertarians and Greens to call for
a Constitutional conference to address the party system,
the Pres/VP positions and possible solution of creating split positions
to accommodate team leaders representing a broader spectrum than
just one party dominating over the rest, splitting the health care
and benefits system by party to offer equal political choices,
and setting up a third level of law for Constitutional complaints
and compliance, mediation and local policies that can better
address conflicting beliefs on a local level but using the
same federal protections as in the Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics.

 

[Boss]

All you are doing is repeating the very lie that has been pushed by the predominant parties, in you effort to deny that the lie has been pushed by the predominant parties.

Well, no... I am stating what is a reality in American politics. Reality isn't a lie unless you're fucking high on mushrooms or something. You're a Johnson supporter so maybe that's your problem?