What would it take to elect Gary Johnson as president?
We may never agree on the small things, but who wants war, tyranny and economic strife? The Demopublicans and Republicrats both want more war, tyranny and government spending. With $16+Trillion in debt, we can't afford more of the same. With the Constitution already in tatters, we're losing America. It's already a felony to protest. The wars overseas were based upon lies just so Corporate Party profits could be increased. What can we do to get America prosperous and back on track?
It would take convincing a vast majority of America to let go of their allegiances to these two failed parties and put their trust in a new group of leaders. Leaders who might not pander and cater to every petty belief system and issue out there, but who will follow a pragmatic and responsible path for the country. A path that will do the most to protect the lives, freedoms, and prosperity of the most Americans possible.
Unfortunately, a majority of voters rather banter about empty ideals, religious smoke screens, meaningless sound bites, and who looks better on TV. They rather stick to their party. And behind the scenes their party is sticking it to them, their friends, their family, and the rest of us.
Nicely put, @thegecko. Ego gets in the way. So many talk about voting for a winner and voting for the lesser of 2 evils. What an upside down mentality. If things get bad enough, they might wake up, but it might be too late to do anything about it.
I've never even heard of Gary Johnson, so I'd say a good first step would be for him to get a better press agent.
Very funny, except that the Corporate Party press is biased. They're busy marginalizing anyone who poses a threat to their dismantling of America. Just like they don't say much about Obama's treason (Kill List, etc).
This guy isn't like Chris Cristy, from a busy state. He's the governor of New Mexico. That's like being the mayor of Bedrock. If Hubpages is the largest forum for his platform, he has some serious fund raising to do. Hubpage SuperPac? Never.
It would take divine intervention. The Lord, however, seems not to care much about politics.
It's really a shame that he doesn't get more press and media attention, because I really feel that he could be a wonderful president for America. The media has this way of just shoving the two party system down our throats, and the sad thing is we, the American people, sort of allow it. It is also drilled into the public that if you vote for someone NOT Republican or Democrat, then you are "wasting your vote." I for one think this is horrible, because in my opinion a vote that is cast is never wasted.The only way for a third party candidate to actually have a fighting chance is to allow them to be in the debates (all of the debates, not just one or two) AND give them more media attention. That way those candidates voices can be heard.
(I will be voting for Gary Johnson in November.)
Let me suggest the idea that the wasted votes are not those cast for candidates other than those of the two major parties, but those cast for candidates the voter does not like but feels he has to vote for or else waste his vote. A paradox, of sorts.
Attikos, you couldn't have said it better. If ANY vote is a wasted vote, it would definitely be what you suggested!
I just watched a video where Gary Johnson was saying that he was suing the ones organizing the debates on anti-trust grounds.
There is no basis for suing the debates on anti-trust grounds. Debate set guidelines for who will participate, usually based on poll numbers. In this case, the criteria was the nominees of the two major parties in Congress.
I understand, Larry, but I don't think those are fair criteria, especially since the ones setting the rules are Democrats and Republicans, and the Corporate Party controls public access and perception to the degree it does.
Comm. on Presidential Debates began in 1987 by the Dem.& Rep. parties to establish the way that presidential election debates are run between candidates for President. The Comm. is a non-profit,whose debates are sponsored by private contributions
My point, exactly, Larry. Adolph Hitler could've created a "non-profit," and the Rockefellers and Rothschilds could've donated a few pennies of their vast fortunes to make it plump with funds.
No third party candidate has every won the presidency. This is because they usually do not have enough money to finance a campaign, and the Congress is still going to be composed of the two major parties, thus giving voters the idea that the administration will not cooperate with the Congress.
Ross Perot had enough money. However, he only succeeded in splitting the conservative vote, thus allowing Bill Clinton to win. You can check the popular vote and see that George H.W. Bush and Perot had more popular votes than Clinton. Admittedly, I have not check the electoral college vote to see if we would had been face with another George W. Bush vs. Al Gore situation.
I consider myself fairly informed, but I know virtually nothing about Gary Johnson, probably because he did not have the money to get his message out to the people. However, I still do not envision a third party candidate winning in my life time. I am 61.
He is very viral on the Internet. If you were looking at the ballots and who actually ran, you would know about him and Jill Stein
The problem with life in America (and I now live in Philippines) is that the Corporate Party decides what it wants made visible.
That's why the New World Order is frantically trying to censor the Internet. SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, TPP and more!
Despite the widespread use of the internet, and I am on it everyday, the only place I come across his name is on the Hub. No one offers a link. While he may be very viral on the Web, he is still not getting to a large portion of the population.
I understand, Larry. There can be lots of traffic, but if it doesn't pass in front of your house, you're not aware of it. But if every person who learned of it told 2 other people right away, everyone in America could know within a few weeks.
You make a good point about word of mouth advertising. The problem is that I am suspect of almost everything I read on the internet about political candidates. People say the networks are bias. They give Internet a pass on objectivity.
Being suspect is a good attitude to have with everything, including your own beliefs. Only with an empty cup can the Lord fill it with Truth.
Everyone likely has an agenda. And the Lord said that you can know a tree by the fruit it bears
So the question is... what kind of fruit does Gary Johnson bear? Probably red apples... who doesn't like red apples?
@thegecko... red apples? LOL! Cute! That, by itself, should go viral...
Here's a Gary Johnson YouTube video that spells out what kind of man he is:
And here's one with him being interviewed in Ohio. He mentions he's suing the debate organizers on grounds of anti-trust laws:
Why does America need him rather than Obama or Romney?
Because both Obama and Romney are essentially the same on everything critically important to America's future:
* Economic turmoil
Both of them are for more of the same!
Here's some of the tyranny Obama has perpetrated (acts of treason and breaks with his Oath of Office):
Kill list with Americans on it:
NDAA with its indefinite detention clauses for Americans (no charges, no attorney, no trial, no phone call).
And both halves of the Corporate Party (Republicrats and Demopublicans) have trashed voting and Roberts Rules of Order. Elections are now a thinly veiled sham:
All of these erosions of the Constitution go back to one major lie -- 9/11. Why a lie? Because 9/11 was an inside job and there's tons of scientific proof.
Just watch the 3-video series starting with,
for a High School physics lesson that proves Controlled Demolition.
Want a chuckle? Here's several good reasons why Bush's Conspiracy Theory is full of holes:
It isn't just a "nice" idea to have Gary Johnson as president. It's vital that neither Obamney nor Rombama become president, otherwise America is dead and we're all slaves to Goldman-Sachs and the Rockefellers.
I know this is hard to believe for someone saturated with the Corporate Party media, but you have to do your own research. Let the above videos be your starting point.
And help us come up with some better ideas.
It is too late. Electors in my state are obligated to Barrack Obama. They are committed on the first couple of ballots. If a third party candidate wants to win, he has to hae a party, he has to make some noise, he must raise money and spread his idea
Then, Larry, it looks as though tyranny has won. We can look forward to more of the Constitution being shredded until it's gone and all who would protest are in concentration camps ("residential centers") or dead. Sieg heil
I made a mistake. Delegates in my state are pledged to Romney. Still does not help a third party candidate. Also, I do not check out You Tube every day. If he wants to reach me, he has to go a little more mainstream. You Tube is not fully impartial.
Alas, it would take money to buy the news---which the 2 parties have done andare able to do.
Unfortunately, a Republic is which we live only allows a two-party system. Democrats and Republicans alike made sure of that----and all they want is your money.
Worse, I thought word-of-mouth works better than it has for any third party. If the government were a business, it would have been out of business a long time ago....
Insane, I was told by both dyed-in-the-wool democrat and republican card holders that I'm wasting my vote on Libertarians. Stupid me to think that a vote not cast is the wasted vote.
I digress. It would take buying the news outlets and like any business, news outlets want paid.
I think the problem is that people only pay attention to the national election. They only pay attention to the Presidential election. To gain any traction with a 3rd party, one must begin locally and expand. Hoping to win a Presidential election is like becoming a pro boxer and taking on the champ in your first pro fight. To get anywhere with a 3rd party candidate: begin with local government, move onto the state government, and then move onto the national stage.
Excellent, @cjames2783. Keep spreading the good word.
good advice cjames but the Libertarian party already has occupied numerous local offices and seats across the United States. Libertarians are the most prominent 3rd party office holders here in Pennsylvania where I live.
by Rod Martin Jr5 years ago
Both Romney and Obama want more war. Looks like we're staying in Afghanistan for many more years to come. And Iraq? Heck, "combat" troops have been renamed "trainers." All for a good Corporate buck....
by Nicola Thompson5 years ago
Mitt Romney or Obama? Why?I already know who I'm voting for, but I feel like I haven't heard good arguments for either side as to why either one should win, other than - "lesser than the two evils". I want to...
by David Stillwell5 years ago
As voters, Why are we excepting either Romney or Obama as presidential candidates for 2012.The argument over leadership and leadership abilities, lost job, jobs sent overseas, economic policy, foreign policy, national...
by H C Palting5 years ago
Is a vote for Gary Johnson a wasted vote?
by Rod Martin Jr5 years ago
A recent YouTube News report by WXIX Fox19's Ben Swann reveals something you're not like to find out about on the evening news. Obama is ignoring a federal court order regarding his actions under the NDAA (National...
by Mary Krenz5 years ago
Do you believe that we are better off with Obama or better off without him and why?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.