It's official. he will not be on the stage. According to the polls utilized only 10% of the electorate (average) would vote for him, so he is out of the first debate.
The two party lock has never been more obvious, and while there have been electoral outcomes I disliked and disagreed with this is the first time since I've been eligible to vote that I am legitimately disappointed by the system itself.
The former New Mexico governor added that the commission "may scoff at a ticket that enjoys ‘only’ 9 or 10% in their hand-selected polls, but even 9% represents 13 million voters, more than the total population of Ohio and most other states."
You're disappointed that the guy who has a 0% chance of being president isn't in the debates to figure out who should be president?
Being one of just 3 candidates that is on the polls in all 50 states + carrying more than 10% of the electorate with very limited media coverage, fundraising and support structures is not insignificant. For a small d democrat, I'm surprised that you'd be so interested in limiting the public's right to know and make an informed decision.
Also, do you think Donald Trump actually has a legitimate chance of winning?
That was not entirely what I meant, though. To be clear: I am wondering if there are a reasonable number of realistic scenarios under which a 3rd party hits 15% again. If not, I think a lot of people would agree that we've got a problem.
There are many such scenarios, but they all start with a third party adopting a platform which is not comically out of touch with Americans.
When you say platform, are you talking about the party's written platform?
He has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. His VP has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. He's polling at 10%+ nationwide with very limited media coverage. Multiple high profile politicians (including Mitt Romney and ex-governors like Schwarzenegger) have voiced their interest in having him at the debates. The two big party candidates are probably the most reviled duo in modern election history. There are only THREE candidates on all 50 state ballots and guess who the 3rd is?
If he can't qualify for the debates, who else will ever have that chance in this media climate?
Someone polling at 15% or above, clearly.
Unless they move the target up again and why the heck not? They've done it before and they have a vested interest in doing it again.
That was not entirely what I meant, though. To be clear: I am wondering if there are a reasonable number of realistic scenarios under which a 3rd party hits 15% again. If not, I think a lot of people would agree that we've got a problem.
Why cede control of our election to the big parties and the media?
I know you think that the Libertarian party is this put upon party and if only people knew about them they'd get more votes.
That's not unusual for anyone that believes that their conclusions are derived from a proper understanding of reality - whether they be Christians or Atheists, libertarians or socialists. In fact, your repetition of the word "ignorance" hereafter seems to suggest that you too believe that very same thing, only in reverse. If people only had a proper understanding of history, economics, etc. then they wouldn't be libertarians. Yeah, I get that, we disagree.
In this scenario, though, I think I'm making a much more modest proposal: that, if equally informed, the American people as a whole might dislike Gary Johnson less than they dislike Trump and Hillary. Not than every Democrat or every Republican, but than these two specifically.
[quote] As though their only problem were lack of exposure. But it isn't. There's one reason people are Libertarians, and that's ignorance. Ignorance of economics. Ignorance of history. Ignorance of law. Ignorance of foreign policy. Ignorance.
Yeah, I get it, we disagree.
But you know, we're not exactly talking about radicals here. Yes, I'm sure you could isolate some radical elements within their agenda but Johnson and Weld were both elected as Republicans to the office of governor for 2 different Democratic states. They're not exactly Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner. Heck, they're not even Ron Paul.
Gary Johnson would make a better president than Donald Trump. But that's about all I can say, and really, that's faint praise.
Blinking Spirit with all due respect I think you're wrong. The voters in this election are far more disenfranchised with the available options from the leading 2 parties than they were in the '92 election. The voters want a third option, and Johnson in the debates will show them there is one.
Everyone knows there are third options. The question is whether or not there are any viable third options, which of course Johnson is not.
This is reflected in Johnson's inability to qualify for the debates. The qualifying number is 15% support, which Johnson does not have.
He has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. His VP has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. He's polling at 10%+ nationwide with very limited media coverage. Multiple high profile politicians (including Mitt Romney and ex-governors like Schwarzenegger) have voiced their interest in having him at the debates. The two big party candidates are probably the most reviled duo in modern election history. There are only THREE candidates on all 50 state ballots and guess who the 3rd is?
If he can't qualify for the debates, who else will ever have that chance in this media climate?
Why cede control of our election to the big parties and the media?
The threshold used to be lower than 15%, mind you. Why did it change? Ross Perot?
Quote from Tiax »
So the standard for fair questions is "common knowledge"? We can't expect the candidates to know more than the average uninformed American?
I guarantee you Hillary Clinton knows what Aleppo is.
I guarantee you that Gary Johnson knew as well. He said he did in his statement after the fact, and the dude spends plenty of time talking about foreign policy/the Syrian refugee crisis. Do you really think he didn't know what Aleppo was just because he had a brain cramp when it was brought up completely out of context as a "gotcha" question? I guarantee you that Barack Obama knew there were only 50 states, too.
Can I ask why no Lava Dart in any of these builds? That's 2 spells and 2 damage for R at instant speed.
2 spells for 1 mana are really gourgeous, but..
It eats you mountains, and only mountains, and it kills almost nothing. My main problem is removing big creatures that could kill me fast (I think about Affinity and Gurmag Angler).
I find it more suitable for a mono red build, or very aggro lists like goblins, where every single damage can make the difference and it has to cost 1 or less.
Thanks. Would the stuff that you're having trouble with all be answered by Lightning Bolt or is there a need for something like Vapor Snag?
Most libertarians believe that taxation should be used to fund whatever protects our rights. This includes law enforcement, courts, and the military. Some libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism.
If there was no taxation, would your money be going to the exact places that the taxation was sending it in the exact amounts? Not for most people, so taxation is theft.
Your conclusion does not logically follow your setup there... Your tax dollars go to fund things that the market does not provide for that you do benefit from so taxation it is not theft.
Let's start with the latter justification. If you take someone's car in the middle of the night without their permission but leave behind a bag containing ten times its value in cash, have you still stolen from that person?
Thanks for the reply motley. Can someone help? I am currently looking at this site on my phone because that's the only way it will work. On my PC, I can't use the site, it gets clunky and freezes on Firefox, Chrome, I.E. On Firefox, I am getting something about a script.
I tried using NoScript but that was creating a terrible experience for me. It's blocking all of these things and I couldn't get it to stop. All I wanted it to do was make this site usable. The only places I have trouble browsing are this site and maybe 2 other forums, other than that, the performance is fine.
BTW: Many people think Libertarianism is basically classical liberalism reincarnated.
Speaking as a classical liberal: no it's not.
It's very broad, obviously. Would you consider Bastiat to be a classical liberal? Because I think it would be very fair to call him libertarian as well.
As far as Mr. Johnson in particular stands, the hard truth is that if you don't want Clinton to win, you are better off voting for Trump, and if you don't want Trump to win, you are better off voting for Clinton. If you don't want either to win, well, tough, because one of them is going to (and I don't like it either). Johnson's not even going to get enough ballots to serve as a visible and viable protest vote. You might as well have just stayed home.
I'm in New York. Hillary is taking New York. That's almost as certain as the fact that one of the two will win the overall election. So even if I thought that one was preferable to the other (I don't), what point would there be? If I dislike both candidates, what point would there be in voting for either of them?
In that context, it makes perfect sense for those of us who want to make this statement (and don't live in swing states) to do so.
You say that Johnson is not going to get enough ballots to serve as a visible and viable protest vote. He's currently polling above 10%+. If he gets anywhere near 10% that is far, far more than enough to make it worthwhile, IMO.
Heck, the Republican party is falling to pieces. We're probably going to see a lot of re-organization in the future. If there was ever a time to cast a Libertarian vote, now would be the time as we may be able to influence which direction they take in the future.
If the Greens (and I guess the Libertarians as well) would spend some time and effort to win small, local elections to prove that they can actually govern and put their ideas into practice, they would do a lot better. Instead, they waste time and money every four years trying to make waves in presidential races they have no chance of winning. The fact is that even if by some miracle they won the presidency, they won't be able to do anything since they have no support in Congress.
Both of the men on our ticket were governors. They've got just as much political experience on the local level as anyone.
Quote from Tiax »
Voting for Jill Stein is like voting for the crazy lady at your homeowners' association who won't shut up about how the chemtrails are poisoning her children. She has the same amount of actual political experience, and believes in the same amount of pseudoscience idiocy. She's a complete joke.
Well that's a bit harsh but yeah, she definitely has a kooky anti-science bent. Incidentally, that's kind of bad considering the party is supposed to be the standard bearers for... environmental science.
I just saw she's pushing for full student loan amnesty too which is another wacky thing.
My question is: I wouldn't die, right? After all this is over, I would have 17 life?
Alternatively, if instead of activating Lin Sivvi's ability, let's say that I played an instant spell that said, "Search your library for a card named Children of Korlis and put it onto the battlefield under your control." Would I still survive that way? Thanks.
We have two demagogues running for President and both are arguably sociopaths but somehow Gary Johnson is considered "edgy." LOL. Oh no, don't vote for Gary, he might push for marijuana decriminalization and minor tax cuts... how scary! This electorate cracks me up. He's the Bud Light of libertarianism, but he's still got my vote over those two.
Anyway, if it has to be Trump or Hillary then I guess my poison is Trump. Because they're both equally evil to me, so I'm going with spite. I don't take kindly to the way SJWs have tried to hijack this election and threatened (and even enacted) violence upon those who dared defy them. They will no doubt riot and burn our cities when Trump is elected and, as usual, they will blame it on Trump since they are incapable of wrongdoing. But I would compare it to the Garland, Texas case: if someone threatens to kill us for drawing cartoons, I'd rather be with the cartoonists than the killers.
Also in what seems like a similar situation to me, different issue, I didn’t particularly like the DNC parading out illegal immigrants to tell their sob stories on day 1 of the convention. At worst, someone committed the crime of abetting an illegal immigrant on a deportation order, or violating campaign laws that prohibit the participation of foreign nationals in our elections process. But even at best, it shows immense disrespect for our immigration laws to have granted a forum as prestigious as that to persons who have admittedly violated the law. So even if not overtly criminal, certainly it was ignorant and careless.
Really? You think it might be "abetting an illegal immigrant on a deportation order" to have someone covered by DACA appear at a convention?
For it or against it, a would-be executive flaunting her own unwillingness to enforce federal law is actually a big deal. Not unprecedented, I'm sure, but definitely noteworthy.
In light of the fact that one of the more frequent criticisms of Trump by the Democratic establishment is a willingness to violate federal law or fail to enforce federal law, it looks wildly hypocritical.
That's not to mention her handling of classified material which posed a serious threat to national security. She can't blame Russia for that one, can she?
After Donald Trump's speech (which I assume was subtitled "America is garbage, Donald Trump is awesome"), do you still think that the RNC is not about bashing America?
Well if Trump believes that American principles aren't important because they were all the product of "dead white men" then he'd fit right in at the DNC, right? the DNC is going to be even worse: just a bunch of Europhilic SJWs that will offer nothing but the same tired "Trump is racist!" speeches because they have nothing to offer themselves.
I for one am very impressed that for once you've managed to give a straight answer to a question instead of diving head-first into one of your SJW rants! Good job!
Oh wait...
Yes, I still believe that the RNC is not primarily about senselessly bashing America. I look forward to the DNC for that.
It's un-American in the same way that it's Islamophobic to talk about the threat of radical [redacted] killing people in the name of [redacted].
After Donald Trump's speech (which I assume was subtitled "America is garbage, Donald Trump is awesome"), do you still think that the RNC is not about bashing America?
Well if Trump believes that American principles aren't important because they were all the product of "dead white men" then he'd fit right in at the DNC, right? the DNC is going to be even worse: just a bunch of Europhilic SJWs that will offer nothing but the same tired "Trump is racist!" speeches because they have nothing to offer themselves.
Being one of just 3 candidates that is on the polls in all 50 states + carrying more than 10% of the electorate with very limited media coverage, fundraising and support structures is not insignificant. For a small d democrat, I'm surprised that you'd be so interested in limiting the public's right to know and make an informed decision.
Also, do you think Donald Trump actually has a legitimate chance of winning?
When you say platform, are you talking about the party's written platform?
Unless they move the target up again and why the heck not? They've done it before and they have a vested interest in doing it again.
That was not entirely what I meant, though. To be clear: I am wondering if there are a reasonable number of realistic scenarios under which a 3rd party hits 15% again. If not, I think a lot of people would agree that we've got a problem.
That's not unusual for anyone that believes that their conclusions are derived from a proper understanding of reality - whether they be Christians or Atheists, libertarians or socialists. In fact, your repetition of the word "ignorance" hereafter seems to suggest that you too believe that very same thing, only in reverse. If people only had a proper understanding of history, economics, etc. then they wouldn't be libertarians. Yeah, I get that, we disagree.
In this scenario, though, I think I'm making a much more modest proposal: that, if equally informed, the American people as a whole might dislike Gary Johnson less than they dislike Trump and Hillary. Not than every Democrat or every Republican, but than these two specifically.
Yeah, I get it, we disagree.
But you know, we're not exactly talking about radicals here. Yes, I'm sure you could isolate some radical elements within their agenda but Johnson and Weld were both elected as Republicans to the office of governor for 2 different Democratic states. They're not exactly Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner. Heck, they're not even Ron Paul.
Add Hillary to that list and we're good.
He has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. His VP has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. He's polling at 10%+ nationwide with very limited media coverage. Multiple high profile politicians (including Mitt Romney and ex-governors like Schwarzenegger) have voiced their interest in having him at the debates. The two big party candidates are probably the most reviled duo in modern election history. There are only THREE candidates on all 50 state ballots and guess who the 3rd is?
If he can't qualify for the debates, who else will ever have that chance in this media climate?
Why cede control of our election to the big parties and the media?
The threshold used to be lower than 15%, mind you. Why did it change? Ross Perot?
I guarantee you that Gary Johnson knew as well. He said he did in his statement after the fact, and the dude spends plenty of time talking about foreign policy/the Syrian refugee crisis. Do you really think he didn't know what Aleppo was just because he had a brain cramp when it was brought up completely out of context as a "gotcha" question? I guarantee you that Barack Obama knew there were only 50 states, too.
Thanks. Would the stuff that you're having trouble with all be answered by Lightning Bolt or is there a need for something like Vapor Snag?
Let's start with the latter justification. If you take someone's car in the middle of the night without their permission but leave behind a bag containing ten times its value in cash, have you still stolen from that person?
I tried using NoScript but that was creating a terrible experience for me. It's blocking all of these things and I couldn't get it to stop. All I wanted it to do was make this site usable. The only places I have trouble browsing are this site and maybe 2 other forums, other than that, the performance is fine.
It's very broad, obviously. Would you consider Bastiat to be a classical liberal? Because I think it would be very fair to call him libertarian as well.
I'm in New York. Hillary is taking New York. That's almost as certain as the fact that one of the two will win the overall election. So even if I thought that one was preferable to the other (I don't), what point would there be? If I dislike both candidates, what point would there be in voting for either of them?
In that context, it makes perfect sense for those of us who want to make this statement (and don't live in swing states) to do so.
You say that Johnson is not going to get enough ballots to serve as a visible and viable protest vote. He's currently polling above 10%+. If he gets anywhere near 10% that is far, far more than enough to make it worthwhile, IMO.
Heck, the Republican party is falling to pieces. We're probably going to see a lot of re-organization in the future. If there was ever a time to cast a Libertarian vote, now would be the time as we may be able to influence which direction they take in the future.
Both of the men on our ticket were governors. They've got just as much political experience on the local level as anyone.
Well that's a bit harsh but yeah, she definitely has a kooky anti-science bent. Incidentally, that's kind of bad considering the party is supposed to be the standard bearers for... environmental science.
I just saw she's pushing for full student loan amnesty too which is another wacky thing.
My question is: I wouldn't die, right? After all this is over, I would have 17 life?
Alternatively, if instead of activating Lin Sivvi's ability, let's say that I played an instant spell that said, "Search your library for a card named Children of Korlis and put it onto the battlefield under your control." Would I still survive that way? Thanks.
Anyway, if it has to be Trump or Hillary then I guess my poison is Trump. Because they're both equally evil to me, so I'm going with spite. I don't take kindly to the way SJWs have tried to hijack this election and threatened (and even enacted) violence upon those who dared defy them. They will no doubt riot and burn our cities when Trump is elected and, as usual, they will blame it on Trump since they are incapable of wrongdoing. But I would compare it to the Garland, Texas case: if someone threatens to kill us for drawing cartoons, I'd rather be with the cartoonists than the killers.
For it or against it, a would-be executive flaunting her own unwillingness to enforce federal law is actually a big deal. Not unprecedented, I'm sure, but definitely noteworthy.
In light of the fact that one of the more frequent criticisms of Trump by the Democratic establishment is a willingness to violate federal law or fail to enforce federal law, it looks wildly hypocritical.
That's not to mention her handling of classified material which posed a serious threat to national security. She can't blame Russia for that one, can she?
Yes, I still believe that the RNC is not primarily about senselessly bashing America. I look forward to the DNC for that.
Well if Trump believes that American principles aren't important because they were all the product of "dead white men" then he'd fit right in at the DNC, right? the DNC is going to be even worse: just a bunch of Europhilic SJWs that will offer nothing but the same tired "Trump is racist!" speeches because they have nothing to offer themselves.