Why Won't America Vote Gary Johnston?

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Iv been noticing recently a lot of people are unhappy with Obama and others are unhappy with Mitt Romney.

I also HIGHLY doubt either side can honestly say they agree with 100% of their chosen candidates policies.

Then people mention Gary Johnston, whom people from both main parties on here have admitted they liked, that he did an excellent job in NM and his policies are goal orientated and pragmatic...but they won't vote him cos its a "wasted vote".

Are you all really so indoctrinated into the Commie-crat and Repulicunt "two part system" that you can't see that CLEARLY the best choice for president has no chance of winning because both sides will vote with their (retarded) party nominees?

Hope someone can clarify.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
i dont know how it goes in leprechaunland but here in the USofA politics is a bloodsport.

barack obama has so infuriated me with his lies deceptions and overall incompetence (eric holder still has a job, sotamayor on the supreme court, lyons at the DEA etc) his overbearing and superior attitude towards the people he supposedly works for, his pedantic and high handed comments which are just fucking retardedly wrong (supreme court would be "unprecedented" if they overturned a law, really? thats some constitutional scholar) that i would sacrifice a lot to ensure he doesnt get another 4 years to fuck me and the country.

the left meanwhile has painted mitt romney as some sort of circus sideshow freak (which is not true) and charaterized him as a loony thieving greedy mister monopoly, basically scrooge mcduck with a wacky cult giving him his marching orders. the end result is the left is as opposed to mitt (as they were against bush jr who in my opinion was also lackluster but infinitely superior to gore, or kerry) that they are unwillling to cast a vote for a dark horse candidate.

the two party system has created a program by which one of them always wins, and as a result their financiers (mostly goldman sachs, lehman brothers, and other big investement and capital companies) win either way.

the risk of voting for gary johnson is that if too many people vote johnson instead of romney (or ron paul, or some other no-chance charlie) they will undermine the chances of their lesser of two major evils allowing the greater evil (obama or romney respectively) to win by default.

in the past there have been a few successful (for losers) third party candidates, but it has invariably resulted in rage disappointment and regrets among the losing major candidate's people.

Theodore Roosevelt's third party third term bid basically split the republican vote, giving woodrow wilson the win, and he signed the federal reserve act which has been porking us up the butt for 100 years now.

Ross Perot handed bill clinton the victory of GHWBush (of course bush helped with his limpwristed governance and retarded gaffes) resulting in a MASSIVE increase in federal spending which consumed far more than the alleged "surplus" provided. which is why despite the reduction in the deficit to (allegedly) positive numbers,, the national debt went higher than ever before.

Ralph Nader even handed GWBush the small margin of electoral votes he needed to win against gore the first go-round.

if choosing a longshot costs you the rest of your wagers the longshot becomes less and less appealing.

i would love to vote gary johnson, but the risk of lketting BHO ooze back under the whitehouse door sickens me.

likewise im sure the left is equally dismayed at the prospect of a romney presidency which is why there is so much hyperbolic language flying around labeling mitt and a mormon-supremecist, detailing all the minutia of mormon beliefs, and ragging on and on about his tax returns and his old lady's enjoyment of dressage. (despite michelle seotoro's extravagant wardrobe and expensive habits which go unremarked by the leftist press except to gush over her latest style choice or her awesome lack of arm-fat)
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
The way I understand things it isn't about just Gary Johnston it's a serious flaw in how we promote the Candidates.

Just how many parties are there and who are their choices!
 

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
If only Ron Paul or Gary Johnston could hold their composure long enough to lie through the whole election process, we would probably get one of them elected. "They" the people, like for politicians to blow smoke up their asses and the majority get to choose which one faked it the best. Is it me or does it seem like people become more and more gullible as the years pass?
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
It's like when I want to watch some Saturday baseball. 90% of the time, it's Yankees vs Red Sox. Turn on SportsCenter, Yankees/Red Sox.
I HATE the Yankees, I HATE the Red Sox... I HATE American League baseball. The designated hitter should be ruled unconstitutional.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you're a Padres, Astros or Pirates fan, you don't hear much about your team. The only way you would know anything about them is you either live in that city or you must seek out information about that particular team.

The media panders to the largest audience. In sports and in politics.

Of course in baseball, there is always a chance for the underdog, but in politics it's worse because their Yankees/Republicans and Red Sox/Democrats have rigged the game so that only they can go to the World Series.
 

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
It's like when I want to watch some Saturday baseball. 90% of the time, it's Yankees vs Red Sox. Turn on SportsCenter, Yankees/Red Sox.
I HATE the Yankees, I HATE the Red Sox... I HATE American League baseball. The designated hitter should be ruled unconstitutional.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you're a Padres, Astros or Pirates fan, you don't hear much about your team. The only way you would know anything about them is you either live in that city or you must seek out information about that particular team.

The media panders to the largest audience. In sports and in politics.

Of course in baseball, there is always a chance for the underdog, but in politics it's worse because their Yankees/Republicans and Red Sox/Democrats have rigged the game so that only they can go to the World Series.
I get what you're saying. That's why I said "If only Ron Paul or Gary Johnston could hold their composure long enough to lie through the whole election process."Meaning that they should just lie about what party they represent, and create false views, all while slandering the other candidate. I'm willing to bet they would get further in the election process by doing so.
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
I get what you're saying. That's why I said "If only Ron Paul or Gary Johnston could hold their composure long enough to lie through the whole election process."Meaning that they should just lie about what party they represent, and create false views, all while slandering the other candidate. I'm willing to bet they would get further in the election process by doing so.
If they did that, they would be no better than Obama or Romney. The reason they are even being talked about is because they are the only two that speak the truth.
 

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
If they did that, they would be no better than Obama or Romney. The reason they are even being talked about is because they are the only two that speak the truth.
Exactly. That is their crutch.
I'm just saying that they should do it to get elected, then go by their true views afterwards. Savvy? :wink:
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
i dont know how it goes in leprechaunland but here in the USofA politics is a bloodsport.

barack obama has so infuriated me with his lies deceptions and overall incompetence (eric holder still has a job, sotamayor on the supreme court, lyons at the DEA etc) his overbearing and superior attitude towards the people he supposedly works for, his pedantic and high handed comments which are just fucking retardedly wrong (supreme court would be "unprecedented" if they overturned a law, really? thats some constitutional scholar) that i would sacrifice a lot to ensure he doesnt get another 4 years to fuck me and the country.

the left meanwhile has painted mitt romney as some sort of circus sideshow freak (which is not true) and charaterized him as a loony thieving greedy mister monopoly, basically scrooge mcduck with a wacky cult giving him his marching orders. the end result is the left is as opposed to mitt (as they were against bush jr who in my opinion was also lackluster but infinitely superior to gore, or kerry) that they are unwillling to cast a vote for a dark horse candidate.

the two party system has created a program by which one of them always wins, and as a result their financiers (mostly goldman sachs, lehman brothers, and other big investement and capital companies) win either way.

the risk of voting for gary johnson is that if too many people vote johnson instead of romney (or ron paul, or some other no-chance charlie) they will undermine the chances of their lesser of two major evils allowing the greater evil (obama or romney respectively) to win by default.

in the past there have been a few successful (for losers) third party candidates, but it has invariably resulted in rage disappointment and regrets among the losing major candidate's people.

Theodore Roosevelt's third party third term bid basically split the republican vote, giving woodrow wilson the win, and he signed the federal reserve act which has been porking us up the butt for 100 years now.

Ross Perot handed bill clinton the victory of GHWBush (of course bush helped with his limpwristed governance and retarded gaffes) resulting in a MASSIVE increase in federal spending which consumed far more than the alleged "surplus" provided. which is why despite the reduction in the deficit to (allegedly) positive numbers,, the national debt went higher than ever before.

Ralph Nader even handed GWBush the small margin of electoral votes he needed to win against gore the first go-round.

if choosing a longshot costs you the rest of your wagers the longshot becomes less and less appealing.

i would love to vote gary johnson, but the risk of lketting BHO ooze back under the whitehouse door sickens me.

likewise im sure the left is equally dismayed at the prospect of a romney presidency which is why there is so much hyperbolic language flying around labeling mitt and a mormon-supremecist, detailing all the minutia of mormon beliefs, and ragging on and on about his tax returns and his old lady's enjoyment of dressage. (despite michelle seotoro's extravagant wardrobe and expensive habits which go unremarked by the leftist press except to gush over her latest style choice or her awesome lack of arm-fat)

My compliments, Kyne, you do write well. You also explained the third party vote conundrum pretty well.

Personally, I am voting for Gary Johnson but I hold no illusions that he can win.

The bolded phrase delights me.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Again, lots of "Id vote for him but..."

My point was everyone seems to like him but no one will vote for him cos they're too busy trying to get the "lesser of two evils" elected instead of the guy with a record of results.

That my friends is a fucking retarded mentality and a massive part of why your country looks beautiful on the outside but fundamentally is fucked to the core unless there's some real change (Not Hussein style change).
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Again, lots of "Id vote for him but..."

My point was everyone seems to like him but no one will vote for him cos they're too busy trying to get the "lesser of two evils" elected instead of the guy with a record of results.

That my friends is a fucking retarded mentality and a massive part of why your country looks beautiful on the outside but fundamentally is fucked to the core unless there's some real change (Not Hussein style change).
you say they need to change so how are they supposed to do it?
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
their voting habits will be sorted by deficit reduction?
Oh I thought you were referring to the country.

Eh, the voting issue is pretty simple. Vote for the best candidate, not what retarded colour (red/blue) your parents said you are.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Oh I thought you were referring to the country.

Eh, the voting issue is pretty simple. Vote for the best candidate, not what retarded colour (red/blue) your parents said you are.
that doesnt say to how to get the country to shift vote in unison and does nothing to address the problem of getting the worst of the bunch

you can keep what you've already won or risk losing it all by making a bet on the speed boat

now the bet on the speedboat might be tempting if every things economically comfortable, but if you havent got a pot to piss in then its wiser to take the safer option
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
that doesnt say to how to get the country to shift vote in unison and does nothing to address the problem of getting the worst of the bunch

you can keep what you've already won or risk losing it all by making a bet on the speed boat

now the bet on the speedboat might be tempting if every things economically comfortable, but if you havent got a pot to piss in then its wiser to take the safer option
If you think Obama or Romney are better options than trying a new face with a history of results then you're too far gone.

America 2012 - "Vote for who you think will win, not who you actually agree with"

I can see the first debate:

Obama: "Derp"
Romney: "Derp"
 
Top