GARY JOHNSON FOR PRESIDENT

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

Just an aside: why do people refer to it as a "two party system". It's actually not a system. If it were, more than two parties wouldn't even be an option.

Because of the way our process for voting for President works, the electoral college actually casts the votes and I believe all but two states have a winner take all system in place. So it is very difficult for a 3rd party to have much of an impact. System may have been a poorly chosen word on my part.

No, I didn't mean that it was a poor choice on your part. It's a commonly used term now. I'm just questioning the term itself. I feel like it's misleading. And the reason I brought it up now is because just yesterday someone told me that he thought it wasn't even legal or possible in the US for there to be more than two parties, since it's a "two party system". Yeah, he needs to read about politics more, lol, but he's right in that the term is very misleading.

some article about some guy in san fran having his rent increased 400% without advanced notice by his landlord ... there is a rent board but they won't hear his case for a few months so, he's on the hook ... that's the "free market" at work there ... that's what it means to live in world without a social infrastructure and regulation ...

PJ_Soul said:

polaris_x said:

some article about some guy in san fran having his rent increased 400% without advanced notice by his landlord ... there is a rent board but they won't hear his case for a few months so, he's on the hook ... that's the "free market" at work there ... that's what it means to live in world without a social infrastructure and regulation ...

Wtf? There aren't annual rent increase caps in the US??

I would imagine the landlord (and renter) have to abide by the terms of the lease agreement they signed.

That's how it typically works.

PJPOWER said:

I know it's not really a scientific analysis, but several of my Facebook friends that used to support Bernie are now pushing Gary Johnson... I think this movement is about not supporting corrupt politicians and the vast majority of Bernie supporters that I have had discussions with think Hillary fits that bill. Many of them do not identify with Democrats even though Bernie chose that as his platform. Libertarian candidates appeal to liberals and conservatives in several ways. For example, legalization of marijuana is very libertarian. While it and socialism are definitely in conflict, Bernie aligned himself with the philosophy that corrupt politicians are a huge problem and need to have their power taken away. I think most libertarians align with that philosophy as well. I do not see many Bernie supporters aligning with Hillary's personality if nothing else, voters are finicky.

No Bernie's philosophy was that corporations and money were corrupting politicians (government). Big difference. Bernie believes in government and wants to improve it. The libertarian party wants to diminish government because they don't believe in it. Anyone who supported Bernie and is going to Trump or Johnson is a very confused voter.

InHiding80 said:

Lifted said:

PJPOWER said:

I know it's not really a scientific analysis, but several of my Facebook friends that used to support Bernie are now pushing Gary Johnson... I think this movement is about not supporting corrupt politicians and the vast majority of Bernie supporters that I have had discussions with think Hillary fits that bill. Many of them do not identify with Democrats even though Bernie chose that as his platform. Libertarian candidates appeal to liberals and conservatives in several ways. For example, legalization of marijuana is very libertarian. While it and socialism are definitely in conflict, Bernie aligned himself with the philosophy that corrupt politicians are a huge problem and need to have their power taken away. I think most libertarians align with that philosophy as well. I do not see many Bernie supporters aligning with Hillary's personality if nothing else, voters are finicky.

No Bernie's philosophy was that corporations and money were corrupting politicians (government). Big difference. Bernie believes in government and wants to improve it. The libertarian party wants to diminish government because they don't believe in it. Anyone who supported Bernie and is going to Trump or Johnson is a very confused voter.

I'm confused because I pick person over party? I can't understand how anyone can believe Hillary is more progressive than Gary, I'm sorry. Last time I checked, it was the libertarian who is anti war, pro marijuana and anti Monsanto.

Exactly. The confused voter is the one who votes for a candidate based on party rather than position on issues and previous record. There are plenty of progressive voters who aren't confused and will vote for Johnson over Clinton. There are also conservatives who are not confused and will vote Clinton over Trump. It should be a vote about position on issues that are most important to the voter, rather than what letter is next to their name on the ballot.

polaris_x said:

some article about some guy in san fran having his rent increased 400% without advanced notice by his landlord ... there is a rent board but they won't hear his case for a few months so, he's on the hook ... that's the "free market" at work there ... that's what it means to live in world without a social infrastructure and regulation ...

San Francisco has rent control. Must be more to the story.

Indifference71 said:

Polling at 13%. Almost to the 15% he needs to be at to get invited to the debates in the fall. It would still take a miracle, but he's the only one I could stomach voting for.

I really hope he hits that 15% threshold. It would be refreshing to have him there so we could have 2 of the 3 candidates actually discuss policy issues. I also want Johnson there to talk about foreign policy and use of force, and weed legalization.

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

Indifference71 said:

Polling at 13%. Almost to the 15% he needs to be at to get invited to the debates in the fall. It would still take a miracle, but he's the only one I could stomach voting for.

I really hope he hits that 15% threshold. It would be refreshing to have him there so we could have 2 of the 3 candidates actually discuss policy issues. I also want Johnson there to talk about foreign policy and use of force, and weed legalization.

It is REALLY fucked up that 5% or 10% or 14.9% of the country can support a candidate and that candidate still can't participate in the debates. Who in the hell approved that stupid rule??

The 2 major parties made that rule, of course! It keeps the hard questions from being asked, and makes sure that we only hear mainstream, establishment positions on issues. For a quick overview of the Commission on Presidential Debates who produces and sponsors the debates check out this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

"The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.

In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.[5] This rule is considered controversial[6] as Americans tune into the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two main parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered "major" for having organization in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered "minor"."

Degeneratefk said:

I've been trying to convince people that don't like trump or Clinton to vote for johnson. They all say the same thing: "who?" I tell them it's irrelevant who the candidate is. Just get more parties involved. Especially if you're not going to vote for the other 2 assholes.

Are you kidding?