Anyone heard of Gary Johnson that's running for President?

[MikeW]

I was listening to Joe Rogan's podcast and he was on. He is a Libertarian - and former Governor of New Mexico. I personally hate both Clinton and Trump. After listening to what Gary Johnson had to say, I would rather vote for him over the other two. The problem is, the masses don't know who he is. He is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. He was just making sense over and over. I really liked what he had to say. I need to do more research, but I was hoping to see if anyone knew about him and if there is anything negative about him to be wary about?  

[NewBeginning16]

Look into Bernie Sanders. He is still very much in the race and a proven force of nature in the Senate. 

[mooie]

I looked into Bernie Sanders. Then I looked at Venezuela and other socialist countries. Nah, I don't choose to live that way.   While the other 2 are not my choices either, voting for an unheard of candidate is as good as a non vote.

[fisthardcheese]

6 hours ago, mooie said:

While the other 2 are not my choices either, voting for an unheard of candidate is as good as a non vote.

 

False.

 

Voting for a viable 3rd party candidate (viable in the sense that they will be on the ballot in all 50 states for the general election in November, which Gary Johnson will be) is the step toward breaking up the political monopoly that has created the current "two terrible choices" situation, of which there is no real discernible differences.  Voting for someone you actually like and believe in is never a "throw away" vote.  Not to mention that vote will go towards the threshold needed so that other future third party candidates can participate in the national debates and get the funding needed to actually win in the future.

 

Going with the status quo just because you want to be a part of the winning team is a sure way to never change a corrupt, broken mono-party system.  And that is even before I get into all of the facts that unless you live in one of about 4 states that actually are "swing-states", then your vote is mathematically irrelevant anyway, so why not actually make that vote worth something by boosting the third party numbers so they are no longer "unheard of" and a real choice in the future

[mooie]

@fisthardcheese, I'm not going to say that I disagree with what you posted. You present many good points in what you had to say. I rarely vote 'party' as I believe all candidates are worthy of a good hard look before I punch the card with my choice. We've had many pretty darn good 3rd party candidates that barely got a look and I feel that people are so indoctrinated on the two party system, they simply don't know what to do with a third one.

Actually, we as a nation should push to allow the 3rd party to debate with the other two candidates and I'm not sure why it isn't happening other than the obvious political pressure for it not to happen. From what I've read, Johnson did a remarkable job in New Mexico, and should be able to stand with the other two candidates when the debates start. Can't see why not? Can't say that I support all his ideas either, but he deserves a chance. Right about now, I'm wishing Pat Paulsen was running. At least he was funny.   

[shellieh98]

I can't stand Bernie, Hillary, or trump. Austin Petersen is looking better and better by the minute. I was a Republician, but that party left me when they voted Trump.?

[fisthardcheese]

14 hours ago, mooie said:

Actually, we as a nation should push to allow the 3rd party to debate with the other two candidates and I'm not sure why it isn't happening

Because the commission that runs the debate has decided (by pressure from the 2 major parties) that a 3rd party candidate must have at least 15% in the polls to be included in a debate.  The problem with that is most national polling companies never mention the 3rd party when they call to ask people who they support.  If you only name 2 people and ask someone to pick, then the 3rd person will never get the 15% needed in the results just to appear on the debate stage.  That is why the system is rigged. The two major parties do not like nor want competition because it allows them to perpetuate the false narrative that you must choose A or B for every possible position.  In reality, the overwhelming majority of people like a little of A and a little of B depending on the topic.  That is why I believe a 3rd party could thrive.  I happen to believe that almost everyone would agree with most libertarian positions if only they actually knew about them.

10 hours ago, shellieh98 said:

I can't stand Bernie, Hillary, or trump. Austin Petersen is looking better and better by the minute. I was a Republician, but that party left me when they voted Trump.?

Austin Peterson reminded me of what the Republicans used to be before they were co-opted by the crazy religious right.  Although, he did not get nominated as the LP candidate yesterday, so it is unlikely he will be on the ballot as a choice in November.  I happen to really like Gary Johnson so I was happy that he has become their nominee again.

[mooie]

I think the polls are a joke anyway. I wonder if the polling places were to include a 3rd party, if people would even know who the candidate was. And 85% of the people would never know, because they are not brought into the mainstream by allowing them to debate with the big 2. And it's happened time and again where the big 2 candidates refused to debate against an independent party.

How in the world did we end up with the 3(Sanders, Clinton, Trump) worst possible candidates ever to run? 

[MikeW]

I really hope Johnson does get a chance to get into the debate, I think he was around the 11% mark before he went on Joe Rogan's show. I really hope he can get 4% more and show his skills to the masses.