Interview with Gary Johnson

#76
#76
volinbham said:
Great but voting against the status quo will still yield the status quo.

Put another way, it is equally principled to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils than to vote against the status quo.
Click to expand...


How is voting for a candidate because he's not the "other" guy as principled as voting for a candidate because you truly believe in his political stances?
 
#77
#77
Pepe_Silvia said:
How is voting for a candidate because he's not the "other" guy as principled as voting for a candidate because you truly believe in his political stances?
Click to expand...

simple - if the truly believe guy has no chance in hell winning then it is principled to cast your vote for the choice you believe can win and is the better choice of the two that could win.

voting for the one that matches best but cannot win often results in helping elect the one that matches least - ask the Nader voters and Al Gore...

Should die hard Ron Paul fans vote for Gary Johnson? He's not the guy that most closely fits - they should write in Ron Paul or not vote since their guy ain't on the ballot.
 
#78
#78
volinbham said:
Should die hard Ron Paul fans vote for Gary Johnson? He's not the guy that most closely fits - they should write in Ron Paul or not vote since their guy ain't on the ballot.
Click to expand...


I would say there's nothing wrong voting for your fallback choice because you're #1 choice isn't running - as opposed to fighting your gag reflex and casting a ballot for a candidate because he's the "lesser of two evils."

Ron Paul would be my number one choice. Given that he will not be on the ballot, I have absolutely no reservations about voting for Gary Johnson. His views and mine parallel each other very well.
 
Last edited:
#79
#79
we took a loss with Obama 4 years ago to get away from the right. Now golfballs (and just about everyone else) is willing to take what appears to be a loss with Romney just get away from Obamaism. It's never going to stop until people start seriously looking at other parties. I don't agree with Johnson on everything, but on just about every important issue right now, I find him spot on. I really wish other people would take their vote to a third party.
 
#80
#80
volfanbill said:
we took a loss with Obama 4 years ago to get away from the right. Now golfballs (and just about everyone else) is willing to take what appears to be a loss with Romney just get away from Obamaism. It's never going to stop until people start seriously looking at other parties. I don't agree with Johnson on everything, but on just about every important issue right now, I find him spot on. I really wish other people would take their vote to a third party.
Click to expand...

This.

I know the idea is to make this election a referendum vote on Obama, but Obama was the result of a referendum election about the guy before him. When does it stop? In 2008, well over half of America felt about the GOP the same way most people on here feel about the sitting POTUS.

I will give the Obama campaign credit, in that they need to make this election about a choice -- then people will see that they both suck. Now the trick is getting somebody on TV that can challenge the fundamental premises that the two major parties operate on.
 
#81
#81
For those in the "when does it stop" camp - do you believe that things will be no better and possibly worse with Obama?

Every instinct I have says Romney will be better than Obama (although that's a low bar).

Like it or not it's going to be one of the two. I consider it to be quite appropriate to pick the one of the two who will win that I think will be better for the country.
 
#82
#82
volinbham said:
For those in the "when does it stop" camp - do you believe that things will be no better and possibly worse with Obama?

Things would be better with Romney. But, IMO, the difference would be negligible. The entrenched two-party system is the main problem.

Like it or not it's going to be one of the two. I consider it to be quite appropriate to pick the one of the two who will win that I think will be better for the country.
Click to expand...


So how and when does the cycle end?

Should Americans just keep voting against candidates (instead of for a candidate) until our country collapses?
 
#83
#83
volinbham said:
For those in the "when does it stop" camp - do you believe that things will be no better and possibly worse with Obama?

Every instinct I have says Romney will be better than Obama (although that's a low bar).

Like it or not it's going to be one of the two. I consider it to be quite appropriate to pick the one of the two who will win that I think will be better for the country.
Click to expand...

Do you think Romney will be good for the US or simply better than Obama?
 
#84
#84
volinbham said:
For those in the "when does it stop" camp - do you believe that things will be no better and possibly worse with Obama?

Every instinct I have says Romney will be better than Obama (although that's a low bar).

Like it or not it's going to be one of the two. I consider it to be quite appropriate to pick the one of the two who will win that I think will be better for the country.
Click to expand...
W was a mighty low damn bar, and Obama's managed to just barely limbo under that for the most part.

Making the vote a referendum is an excuse for whoever the opposition party is to run whichever dog crap candidate they can find, and try to not have people take both people into account because the focus is on how much the other guy sucks. More often than not, the replacement ends up sucking worse. Harding. FDR. Nixon. Carter. Obama.

I'd like to take you at your word about Romney, but the dude can't give anybody so much as a straight answer about what he had for dinner last night, and the worst part about that some old BS this year is so much money is going into the election via non-disclosed methods (particularly on Romney's side) that we can't even begin to glean how he actually might run things because we don't know who his biggest contributors are.
 
#85
#85
milohimself said:
W was a mighty low damn bar, and Obama's managed to just barely limbo under that for the most part.

Making the vote a referendum is an excuse for whoever the opposition party is to run whichever dog crap candidate they can find, and try to not have people take both people into account because the focus is on how much the other guy sucks. More often than not, the replacement ends up sucking worse. Harding. FDR. Nixon. Carter. Obama.

I'd like to take you at your word about Romney, but the dude can't give anybody so much as a straight answer about what he had for dinner last night, and the worst part about that some old BS this year is so much money is going into the election via non-disclosed methods (particularly on Romney's side) that we can't even begin to glean how he actually might run things because we don't know who his biggest contributors are.
Click to expand...

Let me take a shot at who the contributors are.
Goldman Sachs
Bank of America
JPMorgan Chase
Morgan Stanley
Credit Suisse
Citigroup
These guys are some of Obamas top contributors also. Bankers run these guys, not the people.
 
#86
#86
myrobbins7 said:
Let me take a shot at who the contributors are.
Goldman Sachs
Bank of America
JPMorgan Chase
Morgan Stanley
Credit Suisse
Citigroup
These guys are some of Obamas top contributors also. Bankers run these guys, not the people.
Click to expand...
When it comes to finance, the two couldn't be more identical.

The financial sector is far and away makes up the largest portion of lobbyists and campaign donors in Washington, and neither party can afford to alienate them. Obama has had multiple instances where he sends a top aide or shows up himself to meetings on the DL with financial execs to basically say "Don't worry about what I said on the stump speech, I still have your back. I can haz moneyz?"

I take that part for granted, what I'm talking about is on the margins and what comes from who else in which industries and/or groups. This is the first presidential election for which nobody will have any clue until whoever wins is already in office.
 
#87
#87
volinbham said:
For those in the "when does it stop" camp - do you believe that things will be no better and possibly worse with Obama?

Every instinct I have says Romney will be better than Obama (although that's a low bar).

Like it or not it's going to be one of the two. I consider it to be quite appropriate to pick the one of the two who will win that I think will be better for the country.
Click to expand...

That's like figuring out how to kill yourself based on how painless it is.
 
#90
#90
Pepe_Silvia said:
So how and when does the cycle end?

Should Americans just keep voting against candidates (instead of for a candidate) until our country collapses?
Click to expand...

Personally, I think the cycle has a better chance of ending at the Congressional level first. Change the Congress-mentality. The POTUS has limited powers (although the last 2 are certainly putting that to the test). We've already seen how Tea Party Congressional members have been reluctant to go along with anything that expands the government.

Speaking practically again, neither Ron Paul nor Gary Johnson would get much of their agenda accomplished without a compliant Congress.
 
#92
#92
volinbham said:
Personally, I think the cycle has a better chance of ending at the Congressional level first. Change the Congress-mentality. The POTUS has limited powers (although the last 2 are certainly putting that to the test). We've already seen how Tea Party Congressional members have been reluctant to go along with anything that expands the government.

Speaking practically again, neither Ron Paul nor Gary Johnson would get much of their agenda accomplished without a compliant Congress.
Click to expand...

He can still veto right? He might not get much actively done, but he could stop some damage. Pretty much everything that gets passed nowadays is stuffed with so much bs to get votes, that it's always a net negative.
 
#93
#93
Weezy said:
He can still veto right? He might not get much actively done, but he could stop some damage. Pretty much everything that gets passed nowadays is stuffed with so much bs to get votes, that it's always a net negative.
Click to expand...


Yes he could veto. He could stack agencies with administrators that do nothing even though they would still need to spend according to prior Congressional authorizations.

So we'd have 4 years of no action. May be appealing but it wouldn't be fundamental reform of anything. Tax code, entitlements, defense spending, healthcare - how would these change unless he could get Congress to buy into his minimalist view of government?

That's why I say Congressional transformation (while a longer process) is more critical to fundamental reform.

Put another way, a pro-big government POTUS has a much easier time getting his/her agenda through because Congress as it stands is inherently pro-big government in some form or fashion. A small government POTUS might cause a 4 year break but that's about it.
 
#94
#94
rjd970 said:
Why is there zero chance? What policy difference is there?

If it is simply because it hasn't reached critical mass yet, then the tea party is a bunch of hypocrits with none of real values they like to tout.
Click to expand...

They aren't? The TP movement died a long time ago when it was hijacked by the GOP, IMHO. They might as well either do away with it or just change the name to "We Hate Obama".
 
#95
#95
rjd970 said:
Why is there zero chance? What policy difference is there?

Not sure if you are asking why there is zero chance the TP would support Johnson or why even with TP support Johnson would not win the general. I meant the latter.

If it is simply because it hasn't reached critical mass yet, then the tea party is a bunch of hypocrits with none of real values they like to tout.
Click to expand...

Every group is hypocritical even Independents.

I'll say it again - I don't consider it to be hypocritical to vote with an eye towards practicality. If I rate the candidates as Johnson (best), Romney (acceptable) and Obama (unacceptable) and I know Johnson will not win then voting for Romney makes perfect sense to me.

Recognizing reality and going for a partial win over a total loss is not hypocritical.
 
#96
#96
volinbham said:
Every group is hypocritical even Independents.

I'll say it again - I don't consider it to be hypocritical to vote with an eye towards practicality. If I rate the candidates as Johnson (best), Romney (acceptable) and Obama (unacceptable) and I know Johnson will not win then voting for Romney makes perfect sense to me.

Recognizing reality and going for a partial win over a total loss is not hypocritical.
Click to expand...



Romney is going to win Bama period.

If you look at it the way you are rating your candidate, your number 2 pick is going to win your state. The unacceptable, Obama. has no chance to win Bama.

In that scenario, why not make a small statement and vote against the 2 parties.
Until we stop voting for the lesser of the 2 evils, things will never change.

I live in TN, same scenario for me.
 
#97
#97
Gramps said:
Romney is going to win Bama period.

If you look at it the way you are rating your candidate, your number 2 pick is going to win your state. The unacceptable, Obama. has no chance to win Bama.

In that scenario, why not make a small statement and vote against the 2 parties.
Until we stop voting for the lesser of the 2 evils, things will never change.

I live in TN, same scenario for me.
Click to expand...

I see the point but not sure the small statement has more value for me than casting a vote among the two real contenders. And that has been my point all along - personally, I feel like I am voting on principle if I choose among the 2 contenders rather than pick a 3rd party who will not win or sit it out in protest. Any are acceptable, principled decisions IMHO and it comes down to personal view of things.
 
#98
#98
volinbham said:
I see the point but not sure the small statement has more value for me than casting a vote among the two real contenders. And that has been my point all along - personally, I feel like I am voting on principle if I choose among the 2 contenders rather than pick a 3rd party who will not win or sit it out in protest. Any are acceptable, principled decisions IMHO and it comes down to personal view of things.
Click to expand...


I use to feel the same way.
This will be my first election voting third party for POTUS .

In 2012 neither one of the 2 major party candidates are POTUS material , imo.

I want to exercise my right to vote, at the same time, I cannot vote for Obama or Romney. That leaves me with only a third party option.

As you stated it is a personal view.
 
#99
#99
Seems to me that if everyone who said "I like Johnson, but I know he won't win, so I'm voting ______" just voted for Johnson then he would actually win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top