Johnson/Weld Ad

[Rotobeast]

I think this is GREAT and I really hope they raise the money to get it on television.





There's another one on his Facebook, directed at the younger generation.
I will add it here, when I can.

[JustWinBaby]

Pretty good, although I could see older voters put off by the somewhat less-than-serious tone of that ad.

Unfortunately, the 3rd parties lost their lawsuit and the rules will not be changed to get them on stage for the debate. Looks like Johnson is slipping in the polls and won't get to the 15% threshold.

[Beaker]

They have my vote. I just wish more people would get past the "throwing away your vote" brainwashing the Dems and Reps have you believing.

[Aquapod770]

(08-13-2016, 12:20 AM)Beaker Wrote: They have my vote. I just wish more people would get past the "throwing away your vote" brainwashing the Dems and Reps have you believing.

If everyone would "waste their vote" on him, he'd win.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-13-2016, 01:04 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: If everyone would "waste their vote" on him, he'd win.

Indeed.

However, if Johnson really can't win then a vote for him is, in fact, "throwing your vote away".

I've had this argument many times.  There's nothing special or admirable about changing your vote to Johnson, or whatever 3rd party candidate, just because you don't like who the Dems and Repubs nominated.  If you really give a shit, then you get involved and you try to make an actual difference.

Otherwise you're basically just a whiner.

[Beaker]

(08-13-2016, 02:34 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Indeed.

However, if Johnson really can't win then a vote for him is, in fact, "throwing your vote away".

I've had this argument many times.  There's nothing special or admirable about changing your vote to Johnson, or whatever 3rd party candidate, just because you don't like who the Dems and Repubs nominated.  If you really give a shit, then you get involved and you try to make an actual difference.

Otherwise you're basically just a whiner.

I don't see that as the case at all. I feel that by voting for who actually represents closest to what I want, I am getting involved and trying to make a difference. To say he really can't win is not true. Any candidate ca win. Again, it's the brainwashing that you have to vote for one of the two major candidates that prevents anyone else from winning. Why should I vote for the "lesser of two evils" when there is a candidate available who represents my beliefs? You want to get involved and make a difference? Start telling people to really look at all the candidates and vote for the person you think is best for the job like democracy was originally intended....not for one of two candidates who you have been told you have to choose between.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-13-2016, 12:14 PM)Beaker Wrote: Any candidate ca win. Again, it's the brainwashing that you have to vote for one of the two major candidates that prevents anyone else from winning. 

No, it's simply a fact that until enough people think he can win and aren't wasting their vote no him....then he can't actually win.  And if everyone were split between two candidates, and ask you to break the tie....and you walk away or pick someone else then you wasted your vote.

To say it's "brainwashing" is simply absurd.  Maybe you'd have a point if he was polling 30-35%, but then we wouldn't be having this debate if he was anywhere near that. 

Vote for Gary Johnson if you want.  I am.  But I'm not pretending to be some agent of change or that "throwing my vote away" is somehow going to make Dems or Repubs stand up and take notice of what I want.

[BmorePat87]

(08-13-2016, 02:34 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Indeed.

However, if Johnson really can't win then a vote for him is, in fact, "throwing your vote away".

I've had this argument many times.  There's nothing special or admirable about changing your vote to Johnson, or whatever 3rd party candidate, just because you don't like who the Dems and Repubs nominated.  If you really give a shit, then you get involved and you try to make an actual difference.

Otherwise you're basically just a whiner.

Not really. If he reaches 5% nationally, he opens up his party to more federal funding for elections, which would be huge. That's not throwing your vote away if you want a third party to be able to compete. 

55% of Republican primary voters did not choose Trump. It's unfair to suggest they did not try to get involved. 

Also, a vote for your conscience is never a wasted vote.

[Rotobeast]

(08-12-2016, 10:16 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Looks like Johnson is slipping in the polls and won't get to the 15% threshold.

Granted it's his own site, but...


https://www.johnsonweld.com/we_re_climbing_in_the_polls?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=wall&utm_term=fans&utm_content=climbing-in-polls-01&utm_campaign=climbing-in-polls



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Benton]

(08-13-2016, 12:55 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, it's simply a fact that until enough people think he can win and aren't wasting their vote no him....then he can't actually win.  And if everyone were split between two candidates, and ask you to break the tie....and you walk away or pick someone else then you wasted your vote.

To say it's "brainwashing" is simply absurd.  Maybe you'd have a point if he was polling 30-35%, but then we wouldn't be having this debate if he was anywhere near that. 

Vote for Gary Johnson if you want.  I am.  But I'm not pretending to be some agent of change or that "throwing my vote away" is somehow going to make Dems or Repubs stand up and take notice of what I want.

Why's it a tie? It's not some hypothetical where there's only three people voting. You're talking about — most likely — a difference of several million votes.

And of the people that are voting for a 2-party candidate because they don't want to "waste" a vote, if 5-10 % end up voting third party, that's (roughly, depends on turnout which is probably going to be low) 10-15 million people. Combined with the people already planning on voting third party, that gets them well over the 5%, which means they can get federal funding and maybe actually get a candidate on a debate.

I've said for a few elections now, if people who are dissatisfied with the two party system voted for a third party in the next election it won't mean anything that year. But it could mean tons for the next several elections.

[Beaker]

(08-13-2016, 12:55 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, it's simply a fact that until enough people think he can win and aren't wasting their vote no him....then he can't actually win.  And if everyone were split between two candidates, and ask you to break the tie....and you walk away or pick someone else then you wasted your vote.

To say it's "brainwashing" is simply absurd.  Maybe you'd have a point if he was polling 30-35%, but then we wouldn't be having this debate if he was anywhere near that. 

Vote for Gary Johnson if you want.  I am.  But I'm not pretending to be some agent of change or that "throwing my vote away" is somehow going to make Dems or Repubs stand up and take notice of what I want.

Nope. The 2 party system has embedded your brain with the idea that a third option is a waste of time. They poll low because of that belief.

[Beaker]

(08-13-2016, 04:07 PM)Benton Wrote: I've said for a few elections now, if people who are dissatisfied with the two party system voted for a third party in the next election it won't mean anything that year. But it could mean tons for the next several elections.

Exactly. If you want things to change, you have to start somewhere.

[StoneTheCrow]

(08-13-2016, 05:04 PM)Beaker Wrote: Exactly. If you want things to change, you have to start somewhere.

Exactly. This election will be my "start somewhere" election.  I cannot, in good conscience, cast a vote for either one of those monsters. 

[JustWinBaby]

(08-13-2016, 05:03 PM)Beaker Wrote: Nope. The 2 party system has embedded your brain with the idea that a third option is a waste of time. They poll low because of that belief.

No, they poll low because people don't know who they are and don't agree with their positions.  Stop denying reality.  The Libertarian party has been around 40 years.  I've been hearing this same BS argument most of my voting life, and nothing has changed (even after Perot got nearly 20% of the popular vote as an independent).

You keep claiming your 3rd party vote is going to change things, and it doesn't.  That's the definition of throwing your vote away (or, as they say, "doing the same thing and expecting different results").

[JustWinBaby]

(08-13-2016, 04:07 PM)Benton Wrote: Why's it a tie? It's not some hypothetical where there's only three people voting. You're talking about — most likely — a difference of several million votes.

And of the people that are voting for a 2-party candidate because they don't want to "waste" a vote, if 5-10 % end up voting third party, that's (roughly, depends on turnout which is probably going to be low) 10-15 million people. Combined with the people already planning on voting third party, that gets them well over the 5%, which means they can get federal funding and maybe actually get a candidate on a debate.

I've said for a few elections now, if people who are dissatisfied with the two party system voted for a third party in the next election it won't mean anything that year. But it could mean tons for the next several elections.

I was using the hypothetical to explain the point.  In contested states, it's only about 1% of voters in that state that can swing an outcome - but if you vote 3rd party your impact is pretty much the same as not voting at all.

And "federal funding" is a drop in the bucket.  That's not the hurdle or catalyst that's going to make the Libertarian party relevant.  It's not going to happen at the Presidential level - you have to start electing Libertarians to Congress, and at the state level...and for that to happen, Libertarians have to actually RUN in those elections.

I'm a Libertarian, but I'm realistic.  If I was in a contested state, I'd be voting for Hillary....because a vote for Johnson won't help keep the ******* from winning.

[Beaker]

(08-13-2016, 08:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, they poll low because people don't know who they are and don't agree with their positions.  Stop denying reality. 

Most people dont know who they are because the 2 parties keep it that way to their advantage. That's the reality. And if they do take the time to find out, more often than not people find out they agree with the Libertarian platform more than the 2 major parties. The Libertarian platform of much more moderate and central than the left side dems and right side reps.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-13-2016, 05:04 PM)Beaker Wrote: Exactly. If you want things to change, you have to start somewhere.

Ditto. I won't be voting D or R simply because i don't like the options. Enough 3rd party votes makes the two sides take notice and hopefully make changes, it they want to get those people back in the future.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-13-2016, 08:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, they poll low because people don't know who they are and don't agree with their positions.  Stop denying reality.  The Libertarian party has been around 40 years.  I've been hearing this same BS argument most of my voting life, and nothing has changed (even after Perot got nearly 20% of the popular vote as an independent).

You keep claiming your 3rd party vote is going to change things, and it doesn't.  That's the definition of throwing your vote away (or, as they say, "doing the same thing and expecting different results").

Up to this point, that's been true. And there's always the chance (maybe even likelyhood) that it will remain that way. Enough dissatisfaction, along with the circus that this election cycle has produced, has a better chance of spurring some change than at any time before now. 

[*michaelsean*]

(08-13-2016, 08:06 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I was using the hypothetical to explain the point.  In contested states, it's only about 1% of voters in that state that can swing an outcome - but if you vote 3rd party your impact is pretty much the same as not voting at all.

And "federal funding" is a drop in the bucket.  That's not the hurdle or catalyst that's going to make the Libertarian party relevant.  It's not going to happen at the Presidential level - you have to start electing Libertarians to Congress, and at the state level...and for that to happen, Libertarians have to actually RUN in those elections.

I'm a Libertarian, but I'm realistic.  If I was in a contested state, I'd be voting for Hillary....because a vote for Johnson won't help keep the ******* from winning.

Well hell if you live in say CA, you are basically throwing your vote away if you vote Republican.  Or voting Dem in one of the square states.  Maybe people whose party has no chance of winning a state can vote 3rd party, and up their percentages.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-15-2016, 11:10 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well hell if you live in say CA, you are basically throwing your vote away if you vote Republican.  Or voting Dem in one of the square states.  Maybe people whose party has no chance of winning a state can vote 3rd party, and up their percentages.

I agree with that, especially if you don't support the R or D candidate.  But in many states, you can vote in either primary...and primaries are where real change starts to happen.

That's why I'm voting for Johnson, but only because Hillary will win my state handily.  I don't think I could in good conscience vote for Johnson if Trump had a chance to win my state.