Gary Johnson It's time to throw our full weight behind Gary Johnson.

[cheapseats]

Veto Everything.

Extremist.

That is what that is labeled in the larger world where people will never read your arguments, and wouldn't understand them if they did.

MOREOVER, pre-JohnAshman, you were liberally and repeatedly throwing-at-the-wall-to-see-if-it-would-stick MISINFORMATION.

Whether you are a Liar in the larger world is between you and Whatever. But that you are intellectually dishonest is beyond dispute.

Unless you wanna cop to lack of understanding of some FUNDAMENTAL concepts.

You GET that the election is in November, and that the DEBATES precede the election, yes? Of course you do, you postulate that you are smarter than others.

All fine and swell for Theorists to continue with their customary MENTAL MASTURBATION, but that oughtta be down in PHILOSOPHY. Certainly, biased Moderators were JOHNNY ON THE SPOT to sanitize strategery threads in RON PAUL GRASSROOTS CENTRAL.

Note the lots and lots of conceptual real estate between THROWING WEIGHT BEHIND OBVIOUSLY DISTANT LAST-CHANCE LIBERTARIAN GARY JOHNSON, whose record as Governor blows away the competition, and your often-wrong-but-never-in-doubt SIDETRACKING.

 

[JohnAshman]

Gary Johnson has no chance to win. Going back to 1992, the Libertarian party has not even cracked a full 1% in the popular vote, and only did so once in 1980 with Clark coming in at 1.1%. Again, to think he has any chance is pure romantic fantasy.

Yes, because nothing like the internet or cell phones or texting has been invented since that changes communication.

I disagree. Ron Paul with a strong showing in those states that allow write ins demonstrate how many indie votes the GOP lost. If this % is larger than a % that Mitt loses by, it becomes even more important. And quite honestly, it reinforces our commitment to change the GOP. You need to look past 2012, and see the big picture.

Because the only thing less effective than voting third party is..............

It's not defeatist at all. It's common sense. Again, look at the track record of 3rd party candidates on average. We've acknowledged this, and have set a viable path to the white house, and that is continue what we're doing and take the GOP back. Don't get me wrong, I full agree we support a liberty candidate in 2016 should Mitt lose, and the GOP gives us yet another neo-con or Rockefeller Republican. However, and back to my point, the GOP may be less inclined to do this if we have documented proof of the size of our voter block, because they'll know what we will, and what we won't support. Not to mention any others we get into seats between now and then.

It's *unwittingly* defeatist, apparently.

 

[JohnAshman]

Cheapseats, relax dude, have a beer, maybe a shot of tequila.

No need to be angry.

 

[Travlyr]

Cheapseats, relax dude, have a beer, maybe a shot of tequila.

No need to be angry.

Or completely embarrass herself.

Anyone can go back through the thread to learn first hand that helmuth_hubener has been respectful, honest, intelligent, and asking very fair questions while providing links and proof of his positions.

 

[Intoxiklown]

Yes, because nothing like the internet or cell phones or texting has been invented since that changes communication.

I'm pretty sure all those things were around in 2008, and Barr scored an amazing .40%. The only person to run 3rd party and do well was Perot, because he had plenty of money to finance his campaign. This is why the other 3rd parties are fighting a futile fight against the two main parties as of right now. We're doing the smart thing, which is work to take one of the two main parties.

Because the only thing less effective than voting third party is..............

Not voting at all. Again, I agree that people unable to write in votes in the 8 states that don't allow it should unify under a 3rd party to make their voices heard. However, these voices are by and large Paul voices, and I'm sorry...I'm not going to give my voice to Johnson when I can write in Paul in my state.

It's *unwittingly* defeatist, apparently.

You guys can keep trying to throw this label around all you want, the facts are on my side. I'm supporting something that is already working, and yielding results. And you are saying that makes me a defeatist, because I won't abandon that, and hope that a 3rd party can buck the trends of poor popular votes and funding to actually compete with the big 2? Dress it up however you want, but I'd say you are the ones who are defeatists.

 

[cheapseats]

Cheapseats, relax dude, have a beer, maybe a shot of tequila.

No need to be angry.

First, don't tell me what to do.

Whatever trenches you've been in for the last several years, they weren't HERE. Whatever life you've lead, it hasn't been MINE. Perhaps these are not Hard Times for you. Perhaps you have NEVER known real hardship or loss.

Perhaps you enjoy overmuch the DEBATE process. Lawyers are NOTORIOUS for that.

Maybe in YOUR world, there is no need to be angry. Are you a paid Gary Johnson Campaign staffer, YES or NO? Are you paid by any other political organization, PAC, lobbying firm, et al...more broadly, do you earn a living within the Political Class, NO or YES?

In MY world, it is Rank & File Americans FAILURE to get mad...'cuz they don't wanna do what needs to be done...'cuz someone might get hurt, plus we treasure private property and laud non-aggression. SEND MORE MONEY...WE'VE GOT 'EM ON THE RUN!

Maybe in YOUR world, the crushing disappointment of Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney really DOES "just" constitute Opportunity. That WOULD be too pragmatic, if that's what Gary Johnson is peddling.

As well, it suggests that maybe Gary Johnson could NOT machete his way thru Congressional gridlock.

Maybe I'M the one who should be scrutinizing Gary Johnson more judgmentally. Hmmm... Or maybe someone WANTS to make me look sideways at Gary Johnson. Smoke, meet Mirrors.

TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Or not really, beyond Life being short.

You're a smart guy. Do you feel we are in no imminent danger...that this shit is just cyclical in the big picture?

WillianC is dead, did you hear? I only realized it last night, and I'm gonna post some ANGRY words about that. Your genteel presence will not be required or appreciated in that thread.

 

[Respect38]

I'm pretty sure all those things were around in 2008, and Barr scored an amazing .40%. The only person to run 3rd party and do well was Perot, because he had plenty of money to finance his campaign. This is why the other 3rd parties are fighting a futile fight against the two main parties as of right now. We're doing the smart thing, which is work to take one of the two main parties.

Barr didn't make it to the debates because of lack of polling support, which was in part due to Ralph Nader's interference. He was rarely put in polls, and in the ones he did get into, his best was worse that practically every one of Gary Johnson's polling.

Not voting at all. Again, I agree that people unable to write in votes in the 8 states that don't allow it should unify under a 3rd party to make their voices heard. However, these voices are by and large Paul voices, and I'm sorry...I'm not going to give my voice to Johnson when I can write in Paul in my state.

Probably more than 8 states. Has anyone even looked into the write-in qualifications to see which ones he qualifies for?

You guys can keep trying to throw this label around all you want, the facts are on my side. I'm supporting something that is already working, and yielding results. And you are saying that makes me a defeatist, because I won't abandon that, and hope that a 3rd party can buck the trends of poor popular votes and funding to actually compete with the big 2? Dress it up however you want, but I'd say you are the ones who are defeatists.

1) Who says we can't do both?

2) What are these "facts" that you are referring to? I haven't seen any that are relevant to the current situation we're in.

3) Money isn't really a problem, if we get into the debates, which the internet helps, considering how pro-Paul and therefore pro-liberty the internet is.

 

[cheapseats]

Or completely embarrass herself.

Anyone can go back through the thread to learn first hand that helmuth_hubener has been honest...

Bullshit.

 

[JohnAshman]

First, don't tell me what to do.

Whatever trenches you've been in for the last several years, they weren't HERE. Whatever life you've lead, it hasn't been MINE. Perhaps these are not Hard Times for you. Perhaps you have NEVER known real hardship or loss.

Perhaps you enjoy overmuch the DEBATE process. Lawyers are NOTORIOUS for that.

Maybe in YOUR world, there is no need to be angry. Are you a paid Gary Johnson Campaign staffer, YES or NO? Are you paid by any other political organization, PAC, lobbying firm, et al...more broadly, do you earn a living within the Political Class, NO or YES?

In MY world, it is Rank & File Americans FAILURE to get mad...'cuz they don't wanna do what needs to be done...'cuz someone might get hurt, plus we treasure private property and laud non-aggression. SEND MORE MONEY...WE'VE GOT 'EM ON THE RUN!

Maybe in YOUR world, the crushing disappointment of Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney really DOES "just" constitute Opportunity. That WOULD be too pragmatic, if that's what Gary Johnson is peddling.

As well, it suggests that maybe Gary Johnson could NOT machete his way thru Congressional gridlock.

Maybe I'M the one who should be scrutinizing Gary Johnson more judgmentally. Hmmm... Or maybe someone WANTS to make me look sideways at Gary Johnson. Smoke, meet Mirrors.

TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Or not really, beyond Life being short.

You're a smart guy. Do you feel we are in no imminent danger...that this shit is just cyclical in the big picture?

WillianC is dead, did you hear? I only realized it last night, and I'm gonna post some ANGRY words about that. Your genteel presence will not be required or appreciated in that thread.

That's all up to you, I'm just suggesting that in order to further our cause, we need to see and be seen as rational human beings, not a fringe element. And we need to stop viewing each other as less than the same faction. Divided we will truly fail.

 

[Intoxiklown]

Barr didn't make it to the debates because of lack of polling support, which was in part due to Ralph Nader's interference. He was rarely put in polls, and in the ones he did get into, his best was worse that practically every one of Gary Johnson's polling.

The point is the trends of 3rd party candidates, and their popular vote success, which is weak. To honestly say a 3rd party candidate has any chance (as of now) is simply fantasy.

Probably more than 8 states. Has anyone even looked into the write-in qualifications to see which ones he qualifies for?

http://www.anamericanvision.com/info/state_certifications.php

It's only 8 states that don't allow write ins.

1) Who says we can't do both?

2) What are these "facts" that you are referring to? I haven't seen any that are relevant to the current situation we're in.

3) Money isn't really a problem, if we get into the debates, which the internet helps, considering how pro-Paul and therefore pro-liberty the internet is.

I'm not saying people can't do both. This entire conversation started because the OP asked people to post why they disagreed if they did. And the facts I'm speaking to is the results of every 3rd party candidate who has ran for President in the past 30+ years (with the exception of Perot). And those numbers are very relevant when you have people saying we should abandon the work within the GOP, and pursue a 3rd party instead. And money is very much an issue. It is VERY expensive to run a campaign, more so if you're advocating doing it as a 3rd party candidate running against the two main parties. Pretty much the only way you're liable to see a 3rd party rise that can compete on a fast time scale would be for Mitt to win, and continue on with what Obama has been doing. And even then, it is a gamble enough Republicans would be disenfranchised enough to leave. On the reverse side of that coin, it would embolden the democrats.

People are free to vote for who they wish. However, some here seem to think we need to abandon the GOP strategy, and focus on a 3rd party. And quite honestly, they are out of their minds if they think that will work.

 

[Travlyr]

Bullshit.

Really? Everything I've read in this thread that helmuth_hubener has written is honest. If you have some evidence of his dishonesty, then post it.

 

[cheapseats]

Why thank you. I am an intelligent Richard at least...

My mission? Increase the herd.

Then you'll not want to make the same mistake Rand just made, alienating some to gain others.

Gary Johnson needs Women, Seniors and Boomers...just like Ron Paul failed dismally to win over.

I think WAY less of you. Not a little less, a LOT less.

No need to tell me YOU COULD CARE LESS WHAT I THINK. That is obvious, POW, just like that.

But some people DO agree with my Thinker. And this race IS getting down to the wire, date in ink 'n everything. And I believe there is a GREAT deal at stake...epic crossroads, hyperbole, the whole bit. That is why I mention such a thing in such Politically Correct Society.

 

[JohnAshman]

I'm pretty sure all those things were around in 2008, and Barr scored an amazing .40%. The only person to run 3rd party and do well was Perot, because he had plenty of money to finance his campaign. This is why the other 3rd parties are fighting a futile fight against the two main parties as of right now. We're doing the smart thing, which is work to take one of the two main parties.

Bob Barr's problem? He's Bob freaking Barr! There's no relabeling that, no possible amount of rebooting.

As far as taking the party from within, I'm all for it. I align with the Tea Party on that, the part that aren't really Neo-Cons.

Not voting at all. Again, I agree that people unable to write in votes in the 8 states that don't allow it should unify under a 3rd party to make their voices heard. However, these voices are by and large Paul voices, and I'm sorry...I'm not going to give my voice to Johnson when I can write in Paul in my state.

Okay with me, as long as YOU know it's a waste of time. I just hate to see people lose the power of their vote by accident.

You guys can keep trying to throw this label around all you want, the facts are on my side. I'm supporting something that is already working, and yielding results. And you are saying that makes me a defeatist, because I won't abandon that, and hope that a 3rd party can buck the trends of poor popular votes and funding to actually compete with the big 2? Dress it up however you want, but I'd say you are the ones who are defeatists.

I'm just saying, logically, factually, a vote for Johnson is more constructive in the current situation.

 

[JohnAshman]

Then you'll not want to make the same mistake Rand just made, alienating some to gain others.

Gary Johnson needs Women, Seniors and Boomers...just like Ron Paul didn't win over.

I think WAY less of you. Not a little less, a LOT less.

No need to tell me YOU COULD CARE LESS WHAT I THINK. That is obvious, POW, just like that.

But some people DO agree with my Thinker, and THIS race is getting down to the wire, and I believe there is a GREAT deal at stake...epic crossroads, hyperbole, the whole bit...that's why I mention it in Civilized Society.

Okay, I prescribe two beers then.

And a joint.

 

[JohnAshman]

Really? Everything I've read in this thread that helmuth_hubener has written is honest. If you have some evidence of his dishonesty, then post it.

Yeah, he was correct on some things about which I was wrong. Though, I do believe I found where he was mistaken but I'm not 100% sure about it. Accounting sucks, I'm 100% sure of that.

 

[Respect38]

The point is the trends of 3rd party candidates, and their popular vote success, which is weak. To honestly say a 3rd party candidate has any chance (as of now) is simply fantasy.

That point fails because third-party candidates that get to the debates actually have decent popular vote success. Point is null.

http://www.anamericanvision.com/info/state_certifications.php

It's only 8 states that don't allow write ins.

Those are states that don't allow write-ins in any scenario. I believe that some of the other states require their write-in candidates to register.

We don't know if Ron Paul would qualify, and, even if he did, if he would register himself for write-in votes. Ah, I don't know the process here... it does need to be looked into. I believe my state, Tennessee, has some restrictions regarding who can be written in.

I'm not saying people can't do both. This entire conversation started because the OP asked people to post why they disagreed if they did. And the facts I'm speaking to is the results of every 3rd party candidate who has ran for President in the past 30+ years (with the exception of Perot). And those numbers are very relevant when you have people saying we should abandon the work within the GOP, and pursue a 3rd party instead. And money is very much an issue. It is VERY expensive to run a campaign, more so if you're advocating doing it as a 3rd party candidate running against the two main parties. Pretty much the only way you're liable to see a 3rd party rise that can compete on a fast time scale would be for Mitt to win, and continue on with what Obama has been doing. And even then, it is a gamble enough Republicans would be disenfranchised enough to leave. On the reverse side of that coin, it would embolden the democrats.

Getting Gary Johnson into the debates would effectively remove the need to spend as much money to get the same amount of success. Money is not an issue. Heck, look at Ron Paul's success in the GOP primary. He's effectively the same as a third-party candidate, shouldn't we just have counted him out in August 2011?

People are free to vote for who they wish. However, some here seem to think we need to abandon the GOP strategy, and focus on a 3rd party. And quite honestly, they are out of their minds if they think that will work.

Because getting Gary Johnson to the debates and then voting for him is somehow "abandoning the GOP strategy"? There's absolutely nothing keeping both from happening at the same time.

 

[cheapseats]

Okay, I prescribe two beers then.

And a joint.

ImplausibleEndeavors ‏@MindOfMo
Heads Up to APOLITICAL Women, Kidz & Seniors: #RandPaul's endorsement of #MittRomney reflects like glass GRAND OLD PARTY leaning #Hardright.


Gary Johnson's former wife died of heart failure after their divorce, correct?

 

[Travlyr]

Yeah, he was correct on some things about which I was wrong. Though, I do believe I found where he was mistaken but I'm not 100% sure about it. Accounting sucks, I'm 100% sure of that.

Yeah, helmuth_hubener is one of the most respectful posters on this forum. For people to portray him otherwise is disingenuous.

 

[cheapseats]

Okay, I prescribe two beers then.

And a joint.

Here's how this plays out, Smart Richard.

I will cease posting about Gary Johnson until I figger out whether you are TRYING to get me to quit advocating Gary Johnson...or whether you ARE advocating Gary Johnson, and "simply" think that becoming my Adversary will endear you with the Ron Paul Support that WON'T endorse the Rand Endorsement and all that it heralds.

Then I'll know whether to pimp or bash Gary Johnson. Curiously, BASHING OPPOSING CANDIDATES is de rigueur in Polite Society.

Well played, Einstein.

 

[ZENemy]

Please put aside any hate for Alex Jones if you will, Gary was on Alex Jones today, I am looking into GJ so I thought I would share.