Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Johnson is polling at an average of 8% right now. How exactly is he going to win any states at all? At best, he affects the percentages between Hillary and Donald, and to the extent that is happening, he seems to be taking away voters from Trump.
Johnson does not have the reputation as a liar. Quite the opposite. He can be truthful to a fault.
I'll relay this story again. I saw him at the WV (L) Convention. He was asked about his statements concerning smoking pot. The gist of the question went......"You have admitted to smoking pot. I don't know when this was but since you have admitted to breaking laws how can I trust you to uphold other laws".
He said something along the lines of "well, that would be about two weeks ago............"
I can't believe so many people here are against including Johnson in the "debates".
This is the c-d forum, right? where so many people rail against the "republicrats"? where everyone is talking about whose candidate has more unfavorable ratings? where so many people complain that the nomination was stolen from Sanders? where so many people are railing about both of the major party establishments? Where so many people are convinced that the election are rigged?
Sheesh. We need MORE ideas in the presidential campaign, not fewer! How do you expect that to happen if you don't take third-party candidates seriously enough to give them a public platform to go to head-to-head with the Big Two candidates??????
Personally, I'd lower the bar for participating in the "debates" to 5%.
I'm not personally against him being in the debates, but I think the 15% threshold is reasonable. I would possibly even support it going down to 10%. Below that, I think you end up with too many people in the debates - not as bad as the 17 seat clown car, but there are a limited number of general election debates, and I want to hear from the people who have some reasonable chance to be president, and not be distracted by a sideshow with candidates who aren't going to get elected and haven't earned the right to have that platform.
Alternatively, I'd say getting on the ballot in all 50 states might be another reasonable way to determine eligibility, which would put Johnson in there too.
What I don't think should happen is changing the standards along the way and making it up was we go.
And trump admitted he bought off politicians for influence. That's also bluntly honest. I never heard any other politician admit something so bluntly. Do you therefore believe everything else that he says?
In the end, Johnson is a politican. That's all we need to know.
When you can post where he lies your post is worthless as an argument. Just because you support a habitual liar does not mean all politicians are.
Not if they take a gander at the libertarian platform OR watch their convention on television.
The convention where everyone was allowed their say? Where no one walked out? Where no one protested by placing tape over their mouths or had their signs taken from them?
Alternatively, I'd say getting on the ballot in all 50 states might be another reasonable way to determine eligibility, which would put Johnson in there too.
I think you're right, getting on the ballot in 50 states is a better standard than a percentage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
What I don't think should happen is changing the standards along the way and making it up was we go.
Why not? The "debates" are sponsored by private organizations, they can change their standards if they want.
Although I will say I thought they were better when the League of Women Voters sponsored them. Better and more thoughtful questions.
As for "Just because you support a habitual liar does not mean all politicians are."
Now I'm not sure if I should keep laughing at the bolded statement or get frightened that you truly feel there are politicians out there who don't lie and do it often. You're not serious, are you? You state such a thing on a public forum? *Yikes*.
oh, and sander's got a fair shake in the primary says the party of no lies/we were told this for months....hey, "wiki" wait a minute there!
Why are we even talking about these third party candidates.
Because people want to hear other voices from someone other than two habitual liars in Trump and Hillary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTRIDER AZ
They should of run on the DNC Ticket when they had the chance.
Laughable. Gary is no Democrat, he even ran as a Republican in the 2011 primaries. And Bill Weld was a very successful Republican governor. I can see the Trump supporters are gathering their list of excuses to use after Trump loses.
Johnson/Weld have in just the last week polled at 12%, 10%, and 10%. The debate commission has stated if they are in the margin of error, they will consider putting him in the debate, despite not technically at 15%. The margin of error on these polls is 3%+/-. So technically he already meets what they stated in one poll. I believe it has to be 3 polls that meet their requirements within a months time. So Johnson is theoretically close.
His rolling average (while important) on the RCP doesn't matter, it's his 3 best polls have to match the debate commissions requirements, and he's not that far off.
If the debate commission is making statements on Johnson, then they are already watching him and considering letting him debate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.