Gary Johnson? (Page 2)

I definitely feel the way you do about Hillary, but I genuinely like Trump and feel that he's the right person at the right time.  If you believe what the media has portrayed him as, then yes he's a dunce, but when you look at the real man it's a whole different story. 

How is that any different than what I do? Actually, the only time the popular vote matters is for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (that little $3 box you can check on your taxes). If Johnson can pull 5% of the popular vote this year, Libertarians get access to a chunk of that money in 2020. So when you think about it, my insignificant throw-away vote is slightly less meaningless than an Illinois vote for Trump or an Alabama vote for Hillary.

And here's how to wear an a$$hat...

I can't remember where I saw it, but there was an interesting article a few weeks back that looked at polls with Gary and without Gary and he seemed to be drawing support equally from Trump/Hillary.  Meaning that no matter what percentage he gets it's likely to not have much of an impact on the overall race.

There have been quite a few.  Pretty much every poll indicates that Johnson's presence in the race impacts Trump's and Clinton's numbers roughly equally.  Some indicate about 1% more impact to Clinton, but the margin of error of the polls is greater than that.

Like lactic acid accumulation causing soreness post exercise, the idea that Perot cost Bush the '92 election is a myth that refuses to die.  He're one of many articles that discuss it:  http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm

Also, doesn't being on the ballot in all 50 states make him a viable candidate?  Why isn't he viable?  Because he can't win?

More political executive experience maybe.   

However, in this political climate the more government experience you have the worse off you are.

Gary Johnson is brought up in almost every political FB post I have seen lately. 

Whatever offensive thing Trump did lately has turned even my most staunch republican friends to comment they are fed up.

Interesting

I watched last night the talking political heads at MSNBC almost in a panic looking at polls where whenever Johnson is included in the polls it helps Trump more than Hillary.  Granted, she is still ahead in the 3 way polls but her margin over Trump is way less.  The MSNBC folks didn't really know how to process this.

That's interesting, because those two posts seem to contradict each other.

Gary Johnson absolutely takes away from Trump more than Hillary, because conservatives identify with him more.  Depressed Bernie fans are going to vote Jill Stein way before they vote for Gary Johnson.

That's not correct.  Polls over the last few months have consistently indicated that his presence in the race impacts Trump's and Clinton's numbers roughly equally.  Some indicate that Clinton's numbers decrease about 1% more than Trump's, but that's not conclusive, because the margin of error is greater than 1%.

My point about the posts seeming to contradict each other was that if people were upset with Trump (per Trigal's post), that should hurt Trump, but then Mike's post said that people on MSNBC were concerned about his inclusion helping Trump.

I made it a point to watch the Libertarian Town Hall earlier this week to really see what Johnson had to say and honestly, I was not very impressed with Johnson. I liked Weld more than I did Johnson. So for me, he really did not make me want to consider the third option for President, and if anything, he made me lean more towards Trump (cause I do not support Hillary at all)

It has been pretty interesting to watch everyone this election for sure.

With the RNC there's been an obvious group that has issues getting behind Trump and that's been all the talk, but there's an equal or potentially larger group in the DNC that is having a hard time getting behind Clinton.  I was reading several FB posts the past few days of my hard core Libby friends and they absolutely hate her with a passion (you'd think they were Tea Party members) and just don't know what to do.

I'm a Trump fan, but I do still like the idea of getting more exposure and votes outside of the two party system.

As Trump might say, "Think!"

I wouldn't call him a dunce but he's easily led astray.  Policy ideas are all over the place and rarely consistent.

His advisors?  Geezus... go research that and tell me if you're not scared.

Paul Manafort, Roger Stone - their firm worked for a lot of dirty nation clients, including Yanukovych (basically Putin's pawn) when he was president in Ukraine.  Jim Murphy worked with Manafort back on the Dole campaign, worked for the DCI group (climate change denial, more dirty clients like the Myanmar junta).  Carter Page just gave a speech last month at the New Economic School in Moscow where he torched U.S. foreign policy.

Do you really want these people advising our next president?

And now you have former CIA director Michael Morell calling out Trump directly as being manipulated by Putin.

"President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

I have to say that's a new line of attack I haven't heard before on the Russian angle.  /golf clap
It's easy to pick apart people who work on the campaigns.  I see tons of articles going on and on about the various radicals working on Clintons campaign as well but tend to ignore them because they're usually quite a stretch to meet a conclusion that the author already made. 

I'm happy to research either side's campaign advisors.  I'll read Clinton's tonight if you want.  I just saw Morell in the news (who has worked for both Republican and Democrat administrations) and thought hm let's see if there's more to this.  And there was.  Golf clap if you want, but it should concern you.

I think all the comments about "who has the nuclear codes" are a little silly.  The bigger concern to me is that Trump is easily manipulated.

With Clinton I expect to see historical ties to big money donors and Wall Street, but I'll look for any other common thread between her staff.

With the whole "nuclear codes" thing I agree that it's silly as well and it was one of the big arguments against Obama back in the day.  Basically a "not even" one term senator with virtually zero national government experience having the codes.  Even if Trump were truly crazy and running around telling people to Nuke people there's zero chance in the world anyone would do it no matter who he was surrounded by.  Same thing with Obama and Hillary.  I'm not fans of either, but I have no issues with them having access to "the big red button".

On a side note: I think our government does far more damage with our interventionist laden foreign policies (Bush, Obama, and Clinton) than we do with the nuclear button.  I am still a little curious on Trumps plan to wipe out ISIS.  I know he vows to wipe them out and work with Russia and whoever else wants to come play, but that's obviously a lot easier said than done.  I would much prefer we were completely out of the middle east which I believe Trump subscribes to as well, but being where we are there's no way anyone can just leave without fixing things (at least a little bit)
As best I can tell Hillary doesn't seem to even believe there's much of a problem over there because I haven't seen any solutions peddled.  Not saying she doesn't have one, I just haven't seen anything yet.  My gut tells me she'll continue on with the Bush legacy as Obama has which is not a good thing IMHO. 

I only heard two things so far: that she also will deal with ISIS, and that she also, like Obama, doesn't want to send ground troops but rather train local forces.

I haven't heard either side talk about what's going on in Turkey :/  I hope that stabilizes because they have a large military that would help us stay out of there like you said.  But they seem to be going the route of other dictatorships in the region.

Wow.  This isn't going to help him any.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0

Gary Johnson is not going to become POTUS.  I don't believe that anyone voting for him believes that he will be POTUS.  People are voting for him, and Jill Stein, because they are sick and tired of the collusive oligopoly which produced the likes of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the Democrat and Republican alternatives.

I agree he likely won't get anywhere close, but this really isn't helping him.  He needs to get to that magic 15% threshold to get into the debates and this is a big time flub.  I can see where the average Joe may not know what Aleppo is but he sure as hell should.