Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Is Gary Johnson a viable option?

Posted 10 years ago on Sept. 26, 2012, 2:45 a.m. EST by Builder (4202)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Just looking at the third possibility here. For some reason, Gary Johnson doesn't get an invite to presidential debates.

Is there a chance for him?



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

Rocky Anderson

Jill; Stein

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8307) from Phoenix, AZ 10 years ago

Nader isn't running this year?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

Doesn't look like Nader is running

[+] -5 points by Builder (4202) 10 years ago

Are they running mates?


[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

they are also running

[+] -5 points by Builder (4202) 10 years ago

Okay, I've passed that info on.


[-] 3 points by ericweiss (575) 10 years ago

Ok - folks - the truth is the truth

Obama wins

Anderson / Stein / Johnson may be more to your liking -
vote for them - it will not matter - but it might make you feel better

If you really want to DO something to hurt Obama - here are a few of your candidates :
Michelle Bachmann
Alan West
Virginia Foxx
Paul Ryan
Todd Akin
Louis Gomert
Eric Cantor

or any of the other Rs ( 95% ) who signed grover's pledge

FYI- the "debates" are literally owned by the D & R
for better or worse, if you really want to level the playing field you can
cripple the parties:
all candidate ads & PR must come from candidate money

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 10 years ago


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 10 years ago

Third parties are not ready for prime time yet. In order to make them viable and not just spoilers, we have to change our election laws in all 50 states. And that will never happen with Corp-GOP strangleholds on state governments. So, once again, that puts the ball in the American electorate's court. Vote like Iceland and the world is our 3rd, 4th, and 5th party oyster!

Here's how: http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=10394961

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

I posted this the other day, but it got little comment, so I'll try it again, since the subject has been broached again.


Don't ever be fooled by libertarianism. I once was, but it won't happen again.

[-] -1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Gary Johnson is a libertarian.

If you want a society where everyone fends for themselves so that the strong can dominate the weak until society is eventually ruled entirely by a small group of rich people, vote for Gary Johnson.

If you want society to be completely ruled and dominated by the 1%, vote Gary Johnson.

If you want a society where freedom only exists for the few at the top who have most of the money, vote Gary Johnson.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 10 years ago

Because your scenario is exactly what happened in New Mexico when he was governor for 8 years....right? The people weren't better off there, they were all living in the streets with no jobs to go around while the 1% enjoyed dominating every aspect of their lives.

Or...perhaps...if you look at the facts....Arizona added 20,000 new jobs and balanced the budget to create a surplus by the time he left, and cut taxes for everyone....sounds horrible.

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Since he was not dictator of New Mexico, I'm sure his ability to implement libertarian policies was limited. An unregulated market where everyone fends for themselves is brutal for most. Pick up a Mark Twain book. The days before labor regulations, OSHA, medicare, medicaid, social security, and all of the rest of the social gains ordinary people managed to get were a nightmare.

[+] -5 points by Builder (4202) 10 years ago

I'm assessing this option for some American friends on another site.

I'd never heard of Mr. Johnson before then.

In fact, to most people, there are only two options for prez, which is kinda sad, really. Agree?

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 10 years ago

When you go to vote you will find other candidates to vote for. There won't be just 2.

The public needs a socialist alternative. Most have no idea what socialism is and how it will benefit them.

[-] -1 points by freakyfriday (179) 10 years ago

There already IS a socialist alternative...his name is Barack Hussein Obama II.

[-] 4 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 10 years ago


The guy is a capitalist. He spent hundreds of billions bailing out capitalism. He has never claimed to want socialism and never offered any policy other than ones that support capitalism.

[-] 0 points by freakyfriday (179) 10 years ago

Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers. Ok...he's a student of Marxism, is that communist of socialist? I get them mixed up. He wants to redistrute wealth. His use of the word "fair" is code for Marx Theory. He can't openly 'claim' to want socialism and be elected as prez of US. He is the candidate being endorsed by the CPUSA (that's communist party of USA). If you tried getting your news somewhere else besides cbs, nbc,abc, nytimes, wapo or msnnbc you might actually learn something about his past.

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 10 years ago

So he is a secret socialist who implements capitalist policies?

Are you thinking through what you are writing?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

FLAKESnews for instance?

You know what they about FLAKESnews, don't you?

It creates flakes. I hope you haven't been watching, or listening.

[-] 0 points by freakyfriday (179) 10 years ago

There are 2 sides to every story. Did you hear that obama said that 'the future must not belong to those that would slander the prophet of islam" yesterday at the UN? probably not since I googled it and not one of the above (save wapo) returned a hit.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

There are?

What in the world makes you think so, and why are there only two?

Plus WTF does anything at all have to do with FLAKESnews?

Tell the truth now. You've been watching it again.


[-] 0 points by ericweiss (575) 10 years ago

from your lips to God's ear !
sadly, I doubt it
Although, BHO will have a lot more spine next year
he will not have the House


[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

The film, "Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing," received a standing ovation and thunderous applause. Directed by Oscar-winner Barbara Kopple with Cecilia Peck, daughter of late film legend Gregory Peck, "Shut Up and Sing" chronicles the group's journey since igniting a political firestorm in 2003 when they told a London audience they were embarrassed that Bush came from Texas.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213586,00.html#ixzz27cFMbzHY

[-] -3 points by Builder (4202) 10 years ago

The word has been demonised, just like the word "progressive".

Germany is a socialist democracy, and a powerhouse of productivity.

Education is what is important. Not soundbytes.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Germany is a capitalist country. It is not socialist!

Yes, clearly people need to be educated.

[+] -5 points by Builder (4202) 10 years ago

Germany and the majority of European Countries are what would be best described as Social Capitalists, they encourage private enterprise and private wealth creation but impose high levels of taxation in order to fund extensive social provision.

As do many Americans, you seem to have confused Socialism with Communism, socialist in a European sense doesn't mean Communist. It simply means there is a 'social' dimension in the State.

The UK, despite years of New Labour, is among the least 'social' countries while the Nordic and Mediterranean countries are among the most 'social', Germany is roughly in the middle.

[-] 3 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 10 years ago

You are confusing welfare capitalism with socialism.

But that is understandable since most socialists have given up on the hope of a revolution replacing capitalism with socialism. So they have settled for now just trying to make capitalism more humane. Although this may be pragmatic, they have confused an entire generation on what socialism is.

Communism is the final stage of society theorized by Marx where everything is free because scarcity has been overcome and all menial jobs have been automated.

Socialism is the stage after capitalism and before communism. The means of production are publicly owned so that workers can get paid without being exploited. Worker income is no longer determined by the market because the market allows the people with bargaining power to exploit those who do not have bargaining power.

So socialism is an entirely different economic system. It is not welfare programs within a capitalist economic system.


American libertarian socialist Benjamin Tucker defines socialism best: It's simply a system where workers get paid the full value of what they produce.

It's summed up in the socialist slogan, "To each according to their contribution" which means income in the economy is allocated based on how much you contribute.

Socialism is defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary as, "a stage of society in Marxist theory between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."

Karl Marx in Critique of the Gotha Program wrote, "Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society - after the deductions have been made - exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor."

Socialism is a worker movement against capitalism because most workers get exploited in capitalism - they only get paid a tiny fraction of what they produce. I explain how socialism works in this post and why it opposes capitalism in this post.


In order to pay workers the full product of what they produce, a socialist economy would pay 100% of the income to workers, since they do 100% of the work, and pay no income to investors.

In capitalism, half of all the income that workers produce, as shown here, gets paid to a small handful of gamblers who got lucky investing in the market like bankers and entrepreneurs.

Investment income is just welfare for the lucky. It allows guys like Mitt Romney to get paid $20 million per year, every year, without working a single day merely because he got lucky in the market a few decades ago. Workers produce that $20 million every year, not Mitt Romney.

Just like the central bank can provide the economy with the necessary supply of money, it can provide the economy with the necessary supply of investment money as explained here.

Workers don't need to pay anything to private investors. They don't have to work for free for 6 months every year just to pay off the gambling winnings of investors.

And in order to pay workers based on how much they contribute, a socialist economy would allocate that income among workers based on how hard they work.

Income would no longer be allocated based on how much bargaining power you get from being unique. It would no longer pay athletes or Kim Kardashian hundreds of times more than a brain surgeon for each hour worked merely because they are more unique.

Instead, it will pay you based on how hard you work which you do by limiting differences in income between workers to only what is necessary to get them to do hard jobs and to give their maximum performance in performance based jobs.


If the economy was socialist and paid workers 100% of the income and paid them based on how hard they work, it would pay workers from $115,000 to $460,000 per year, as explained here, for working just 20 hours per week, as explained here.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

Im not sure if I agree with it all, but this was an excellent post!

[-] 0 points by freakyfriday (179) 10 years ago

gary Johnson has stated he would decriminalize marijuana. That alone is enough reason to vote for him.

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 10 years ago

No, better not to take part in the fraud http://www.anti-politics.ws/

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 10 years ago

That's defeatist, darrenlobo

The romulan/remus campaign is all about preventing the usual voters from voting.

Are you a part of that campaign?

[-] 9 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 10 years ago

him and thoreau42 both I'd wager

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 10 years ago

How much do you want to bet? Whatever, I'll PM you the address to mail the check to. :-)

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 10 years ago

Congrats on the top rated post! What does it say about the forum that this is the top rated post today?

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 10 years ago

It says were on to you o.0

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 10 years ago

Wait, you're saying that THIS election will finally make a difference! Sweet!! Can't wait for it to happen again in 200 years!

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 10 years ago

The corporate media has everyone convinced that there are really only two options. It's down to the internet, and how we use it, to convince voters that they still have the power to really change this.

[-] 4 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 10 years ago

I agree

[+] -5 points by darrenlobo (204) 10 years ago

What's defeating you is chasing your tail in electoral politics. Let's start building a culture of resistance rather than one of subservience. Voting for 3rd parties is not resistance.

[-] 9 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 10 years ago

If you think you can resist by failing to vote, your likely to think you can fight the one percent by punching yourself in the face.


[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 10 years ago

We prepare people mentally to resist by getting them to stop voting. Only then, when they see how voting is obedience, will they reisist.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 10 years ago

Bro, welcome to the Matrix. Only in America, where voting has failed for 200 years of immediate history, will the vote certainly succeed this time. THIS TIME, in getting THE RIGHT PERSON/PEOPLE into office. And not a moment too soon...whew!

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 10 years ago

How about resisting the culture of going along with one of two parties? Voting third party or Independent definitely resists this flow. If you step away from the flow, you won't create any resistance.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

I believe voting for a third party at this juncture is selfish, especially considering there ain't a snow balls chance in hell you will get enough people to vote for one of the many third party candidates.

People are greedy because it makes them feel good inside; the same could be said about the small minority who vote for a contender who has not proved themselves. I may feel good about my self after voting for a third tier president, but if he or she don't win, then the feel good feeling will slowly subside, especially if the greater of the two evils wins.

But who knows, maybe you guys who are so fed up with the 'Quo might be the real trend setters. There is no historical proof that a third party candidate has a chance, but that don't mean it ain't possible, just not probable.

The biggest problem I have with any third party response is the fact that Republicans, here in Arizona, have been known to finance green party candidates as ringers. One example is the Green Scheme Siphon Scandal in 2010. I hope you really think your actions through.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 10 years ago

People who will not change are the reason why things don't change. Thankfully, MLK and Ghandi didn't listen to people who thought their goals were impossible. They chose justice. Will you choose corruption?