Johnson/Weld Ad

[Rotobeast]

It's not Hillary money, but Johnson just raised $1.5 million in less than two weeks.
Hopefully the advertising from that money will help him get over the 15%.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-15-2016, 07:38 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: It's not Hillary money, but Johnson just raised $1.5 million in less than two weeks.
Hopefully the advertising from that money will help him get over the 15%.

Saw a quote from the CPD that said they may let Johnson in if he's close but short of 15%.  Whatever that means.

There's 3 debates - I think he's polling high enough to at least be in the first one.  Then if you want to have a hard 15% rule so be it.

[Rotobeast]

(08-15-2016, 07:59 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Saw a quote from the CPD that said they may let Johnson in if he's close but short of 15%.  Whatever that means.

There's 3 debates - I think he's polling high enough to at least be in the first one.  Then if you want to have a hard 15% rule so be it.

I seen that article the other day.
It looks like they are sticking hard on the 15%, now.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/15/presidential-debate-commission-criteria
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/15/media/commission-on-presidential-debates-polls/index.html

[JustWinBaby]

(08-15-2016, 08:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I seen that article the other day.
It looks like they are sticking hard on the 15%, now.

Too bad.  I get the logic, but the media coverage is so lacking that it seems very un-democratic not to have the exposure in at least 1 national debate.

I thought there was a rule requiring equal coverage of candidates?  But apparently that must only apply to the Dems and Repubs because there is no way Johnson has received equal coverage, or even been offered the opportunity.

But at least CNN, Fox and Bill Maher have had him on.  I see Fox is having a Libertarian town hall later this month...unfortunately it's on FBN with Stossel.

[Rotobeast]

(08-15-2016, 10:00 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Too bad.  I get the logic, but the media coverage is so lacking that it seems very un-democratic not to have the exposure in at least 1 national debate.

I thought there was a rule requiring equal coverage of candidates?  But apparently that must only apply to the Dems and Repubs because there is no way Johnson has received equal coverage, or even been offered the opportunity.

But at least CNN, Fox and Bill Maher have had him on.  I see Fox is having a Libertarian town hall later this month...unfortunately it's on FBN with Stossel.

Yeah, but I'm hoping it gets replayed later.
Stossel will put Johnson at ease and I feel it will come off well.
The CNN town hall with Anderson Cooper had Johnson nervous and he didn't show well.
He looked great with Greg Gutfield, the other day.

A friend of mine, who is a media rep for the Green Party told me the other day that should Stein drop out, he felt the majority of the people he worked with would be going LP.

Not much, but I thought it interesting.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-15-2016, 10:45 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Yeah, but I'm hoping it gets replayed later.
Stossel will put Johnson at ease and I feel it will come off well.
The CNN town hall with Anderson Cooper had Johnson nervous and he didn't show well.
He looked great with Greg Gutfield, the other day.

A friend of mine, who is a media rep for the Green Party told me the other day that should Stein drop out,  he felt the majority of the people he worked with would be going LP.

Not much, but I thought it interesting.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Johnson would do well to take a page from Bernie's playbook, and exploit the powers of social media. YouTube will likely have the Libertarian Town Hall video, which is easily shared on Facebook, Twitter etc. There is an amazing amount of exposure available to him, in a relatively short amount of time if he organizes himself a little better.

[Rotobeast]

(08-16-2016, 12:29 AM)wildcats forever Wrote: Johnson would do well to take a page from Bernie's playbook, and exploit the powers of social media. YouTube will likely have the Libertarian Town Hall video, which is easily shared on Facebook, Twitter etc. There is an amazing amount of exposure available to him, in a relatively short amount of time if he organizes himself a little better.

He's been working it, reasonably well.
He made sure to have the CNN town halls on YT.
Johnson is actually the top candidate with young voters.
I would attribute that to his social media team.
His platform on the federal legalization of marijuana may have something to do with it, too.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[fredtoast]

The problem with the Libertarian Party and all other third parties is that I agree with some of their positions but disagree with others.

I agree with Libertarians that we should reduce military spending and foreign aid.  i also agree that we shoudl de-criminalize certain activities like drug use and prostitution.  BUt at the same time we can not ignore the problems caused by the epidemic of drug abuse.  it is simple to say that all drug addicts need to pay the price for their own addiction, but in reaity that would lead to the destruction of many families and even entire communities.  

For example I believe the government is needed to protect the environment.  I also think the government should oppose monopolies and price fixing.  I think the government needs to use its power to insure that banks and insurance companies have funds on reserve to pay their obligations.  I believes that the government should be involved in providing free public education and try to make sure that it is fair and equal across the country.  I believe that the government should be responsible for ensuring that our food and drugs are safe.  I believe that the government shoudl help oppose discriminatio and oppression of minorities.

The government needs to protect the citizens.  Otherwise it is useless.  I hate paying taxes as much as anyone, but I also realize that with out government action many innocent people are going to suffer terribly.

[Rotobeast]

(08-16-2016, 01:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem with the Libertarian Party and all other third parties is that I agree with some of their positions but disagree with others.

I agree with Libertarians that we should reduce military spending and foreign aid.  i also agree that we shoudl de-criminalize certain activities like drug use and prostitution.  BUt at the same time we can not ignore the problems caused by the epidemic of drug abuse.  it is simple to say that all drug addicts need to pay the price for their own addiction, but in reaity that would lead to the destruction of many families and even entire communities.  

For example I believe the government is needed to protect the environment.  I also think the government should oppose monopolies and price fixing.  I think the government needs to use its power to insure that banks and insurance companies have funds on reserve to pay their obligations.  I believes that the government should be involved in providing free public education and try to make sure that it is fair and equal across the country.  I believe that the government should be responsible for ensuring that our food and drugs are safe.  I believe that the government shoudl help oppose discriminatio and oppression of minorities.

The government needs to protect the citizens.  Otherwise it is useless.  I hate paying taxes as much as anyone, but I also realize that with out government action many innocent people are going to suffer terribly.

I agree with you, Fred.
We may differ on size and scope, but I agree.
I don't believe that any of us have a candidate that 100% represents us.
We just have to pick the one who has a plan to repair the most severe issues.
That doesn't mean it's a forever solution, just right now.
We also have the checks and balances to avoid anything too radical.
My main concerns this election cycle are our national debt, economy, and the relationships within our population.
I don't think Johnson is perfect, but I believe he will address my concerns most responsibly.
I feel like the other two have larger, self-serving (or corporate-serving) agendas, like the majority of politicians.
Johnson could have one of those agendas (involved in the marijuana industry), but I feel that it would eventually have a positive effect.

We need a mix of policy, instead of a hard line on either side of the isle.
We've spent too long in gridlock (said in Admiral James Stockdale's voice), with career politicians insuring their job security.
Let's shake it up and pull together.


In other related news:
Johnson has received $2.7 million in online donations, for the month of August, so far.
Things are looking up.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/gary-johnson-surpasses-27-million-online-donations/

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[BengalHawk62]

Anyone wanna bet a soda that even if Johnson gets to the 15%, he won't be allowed in any of the debates?  The current system has it so rigged, there is no way they are going to let an "outsider" in to crash their little debate party. 

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2016, 08:06 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: 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.

This.

If it was possible to get just 10% of congress from third parties (doesn't even have to be one single "third" party) it would break some of the gridlock.  Different coalitions could be formed for different issues.  There would be a little "give-and-take" and congress could start passing some laws to address the problems we have in this country.

Instead all we have right now are two parties yelling and pointing their fingers at each other without getting anything done.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(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 always vote third party, and have worked on an independent candidate's campaign team as a volunteer.....so no.  I'll NEVER vote for either syndicate's candidate.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-13-2016, 01:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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.

Exactly Pat, and there are A LOT of voters out there who don't even know who Stein or Johnson even are.  I had a conversation with one just a couple of weeks ago.  I even managed to convince her to at least research them and decide for herself if she would stick with the duopoly or step across the aisle.

Having worked on one of these campaigns at a state level, I can tell you the biggest obstacle is media acknowledgement.  The Courier Journal (Louisville's lead paper, and biggest in the state) wouldn't even acknowledge our candidacy in their list of competitors for the gubernatorial bid.  This was a guy well known in Kentucky, somewhat nationally known in hemp circles, and had more than triple the required signatures on a petition to be on the ballot.  Why?  He didn't take corporate donations, and set a cap on private donations.  However, the difference here, he was allowed to debate, and scored the highest percentage in state history for an independent on the back end of the debates.

Until the Debate Commission is disbanded, and an independent, non partisan entity is over the nationally televised debates, these problems of getting your name out there if you aren't a sellout will continue to plague us.  If you are on the requisite number of ballots, you should be allowed to debate, PERIOD.  Once the people have heard ALL stances, platforms, and voices, let them decide....not the mainstream media and mudslinging tv ads.  FTS.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-15-2016, 08:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I seen that article the other day.
It looks like they are sticking hard on the 15%, now.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/15/presidential-debate-commission-criteria
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/15/media/commission-on-presidential-debates-polls/index.html

.....and they raised that number to 15% after Perot handed them their collective asses on national tv.  Wonder why a debate commission controlled by Dems and Repubs would do such a thing?  Hmmmmmm.......

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-16-2016, 03:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

If it was possible to get just 10% of congress from third parties (doesn't even have to be one single "third" party) it would break some of the gridlock.  Different coalitions could be formed for different issues.  There would be a little "give-and-take" and congress could start passing some laws to address the problems we have in this country.

Instead all we have right now are two parties yelling and pointing their fingers at each other without getting anything done.

Agreed.....

[*Nately120*]

(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.

What if I'm voting for Gary Johnson because I *GASP* actually feel like he is the best candidate for the job?

[Rotobeast]

(08-16-2016, 07:02 PM)Nately120 Wrote: What if I'm voting for Gary Johnson because I *GASP* actually feel like he is the best candidate for the job?

Hipster !


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*Nately120*]

(08-16-2016, 07:10 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Hipster !


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Hipster?  Who...me?

Look I just like to collect LPs, no good bands started after 1978, I'm a Bengals fan from Pittsburgh for ironic reasons, sure...I'm actually near-sighted so I DO need the glasses, and I have one of those stupid fade haircuts because it's the only type I can give myself.  The facial hair I've had long before hipsters started doing it.

[Rotobeast]

(08-16-2016, 11:13 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Hipster?  Who...me?

Look I just like to collect LPs, no good bands started after 1978, I'm a Bengals fan from Pittsburgh for ironic reasons, sure...I'm actually near-sighted so I DO need the glasses, and I have one of those stupid fade haircuts because it's the only type I can give myself.  The facial hair I've had long before hipsters started doing it.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-16-2016, 01:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem with the Libertarian Party and all other third parties is that I agree with some of their positions but disagree with others.

I agree with Libertarians that we should reduce military spending and foreign aid.  i also agree that we shoudl de-criminalize certain activities like drug use and prostitution.  BUt at the same time we can not ignore the problems caused by the epidemic of drug abuse.  it is simple to say that all drug addicts need to pay the price for their own addiction, but in reaity that would lead to the destruction of many families and even entire communities.  

For example I believe the government is needed to protect the environment.  I also think the government should oppose monopolies and price fixing.  I think the government needs to use its power to insure that banks and insurance companies have funds on reserve to pay their obligations.  I believes that the government should be involved in providing free public education and try to make sure that it is fair and equal across the country.  I believe that the government should be responsible for ensuring that our food and drugs are safe.  I believe that the government shoudl help oppose discriminatio and oppression of minorities.

The government needs to protect the citizens.  Otherwise it is useless.  I hate paying taxes as much as anyone, but I also realize that with out government action many innocent people are going to suffer terribly.

Well, now, it looks like I'm going to vote for Johnson. 

(08-16-2016, 03:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

If it was possible to get just 10% of congress from third parties (doesn't even have to be one single "third" party) it would break some of the gridlock.  Different coalitions could be formed for different issues.  There would be a little "give-and-take" and congress could start passing some laws to address the problems we have in this country.

Instead all we have right now are two parties yelling and pointing their fingers at each other without getting anything done.

Democrats started it.