Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Where's the Johnson hype on 2+2? Where's the Johnson hype on 2+2?

10-09-2016 , 08:21 AM
All of that effort to get on all the ballots on the small chance one of the major candidates turns out to be a nut and the Libertarian party couldn't get someone halfway competent up there in the one election where it might have mattered.

Anyway who knew the basics of what's going on in the world from a political standpoint probably would be polling above 15% and get into the final debate.
10-09-2016 , 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by +rep_lol
TIRED OF ONE ******? VOTE FOR THE MORE SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE ONE INSTEAD!
Scott Adams was shilling Trump SO hard until now

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1515525...nson-this-week

and now he endorsed Johnson after having endorsed Trump in the past after having endorsed Hillary in the past

He just needs to endorse Jill Stein next week to complete the package
10-09-2016 , 08:56 AM
He is still shilling Trump.
10-09-2016 , 09:22 AM
not sure how....credulous you have to be to read Adams "endorsement" any other way.
10-09-2016 , 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sholar
All of that effort to get on all the ballots on the small chance one of the major candidates turns out to be a nut and the Libertarian party couldn't get someone halfway competent up there in the one election where it might have mattered.

Anyway who knew the basics of what's going on in the world from a political standpoint probably would be polling above 15% and get into the final debate.
They let Ross Perot debate when he was polling at 9%, but then they decided to raise the requirement to 15% just so they could exclude third parties harder. If the Libertarian nominee was pulling 15% they'd just cherry-pick polls that make it look like it's below 15%.
10-09-2016 , 04:16 PM
Isn't your theory that "they'd just cherry-pick polls" to exclude anyone undercut by the fact that "they let Ross Perot debate at 9%"?

Maybe if the Libertarian party had nominated someone who was less of an idiot than Johnson one could credibly make the case that their nominee was relevant. Better luck next time a major-party candidate implodes!
10-09-2016 , 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sholar
Isn't your theory that "they'd just cherry-pick polls" to exclude anyone undercut by the fact that "they let Ross Perot debate at 9%"?

Maybe if the Libertarian party had nominated someone who was less of an idiot than Johnson one could credibly make the case that their nominee was relevant. Better luck next time a major-party candidate implodes!
Gary Johnson gets 9% in the polls and they don't let him debate.
10-10-2016 , 08:09 AM
10-10-2016 , 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iopq
Gary Johnson gets 9% in the polls
says who?

10-10-2016 , 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Rata
says who?

I meant in September he did, before the first debate. You know, at the point where Ross Perot was included in the debate and Gary Johnson wasn't?
10-10-2016 , 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iopq
ok, this is gold
10-10-2016 , 11:10 PM
My family is looking at me like I'm crazy after laughing out loud. Great stuff
10-12-2016 , 01:21 PM
Listening to Larry Johnston on the Axe Files podcast, this guy is such a ditz.
11-08-2016 , 12:13 AM
You guys should vote for Gary Johnson because he's projected 4.8% of the vote.

Most states are not swing states in this election and your vote doesn't matter. Each vote for Gary Johnson matters because it gives ballot access to the Libertarian party for the next election.
11-08-2016 , 07:48 AM
I don't think the Libertarian party has much use for ballot access if, in the election most friendly to third party candidates in 50 years, the best they could muster was Gary Johnson.
11-08-2016 , 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iopq
You guys should vote for Gary Johnson because he's projected 4.8% of the vote.

Most states are not swing states in this election and your vote doesn't matter. Each vote for Gary Johnson matters because it gives ballot access to the Libertarian party for the next election.
Vote for Johnson because all the cool kids are doing it?

Johnson will get closer to 48 votes then 4.8%. Also he's terrible.
11-08-2016 , 11:26 AM
the only reason for voting Johnson is if you have bet on him getting 5% (in which case lol).
11-08-2016 , 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iopq
You guys should vote for Gary Johnson because he's projected 4.8% of the vote.

Most states are not swing states in this election and your vote doesn't matter. Each vote for Gary Johnson matters because it gives ballot access to the Libertarian party for the next election.
Why the living **** would somebody want that tho?
11-08-2016 , 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dids
Why the living **** would somebody want that tho?
Because the Republican party is pretty terrible right now, and it would be better if the Libertarian party replaced it as a major party.
11-08-2016 , 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iopq
You guys should vote for Gary Johnson because he's projected 4.8% of the vote.

Most states are not swing states in this election and your vote doesn't matter. Each vote for Gary Johnson matters because it gives ballot access to the Libertarian party for the next election.
How about no.
11-08-2016 , 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
How about no.
All Republican positions. He's also much better on personal liberties, war, etc.

A Libertarian major party would be in every way better than the Republican party.

      
m