Gary Johnson

This is mainly to the americans on the site.

I've just been lucky/unlucky (delete where applicable) enough to view this:

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

Now I'm used to seeing broadcasts for parties, not their leaders.

My question are, is this guy well known in the states? Does anybody know what his policies are seeing as not one is mentioned in that video? Seeing as he is a presidential candidate why can't he take part in the debates? Does obama and the other dude who hates most americans and the english havev videos like this as well?

Cheers,


Og

He's not all that well known. He won't be included in any of the major debates because he only polls at something lower than 5% or whatever the major networks set the debate limit at.

Basically, neither of the major parties really wants to include him because his candidacy raises uncomfortable question that neither of the major parties will address because they both support them (various foreign wars, increased defense spending, the surveillance state, indefinite detention, etc.) And since both of the major parties basically control Washington DC and the media elites, they can control the debate as to who is and is not included.

american free speech at it's best then eh?

Quote:

Originally posted by 0ghash

american free speech at it's best then eh?

Just because he doesn't poll high enough to up there with Romney and Obama and such on privately operated debates doesn't mean that his freedoms are being violated. I can't stand publicly in a hosted and mediated debate with Obama and Romney, but I can still express my opinions just like Gov. Johnson can.
He is free to create and host his own debates. He can say whatever he wants within the guidelines of the First Amendment. His speech is not limited because he is not invited to the debates.
That's like saying that my freedoms have been restricted because I'm not allowed to walk uninvited through another person's house.

Yeah, it's not so much a stifling of free speech as it is an indictment of the two-party dominated system that's become the norm in the US.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

Yeah, it's not so much a stifling of free speech as it is an indictment of the two-party dominated system that's become the norm in the US.

Agreed. Politics is fucked up.

Fair enough, I stand corrected then!

It would appear to me that no one commenting to date actually watched the Republican primary debates. Or, as explained later, I don't grasp the conversation at hand. Governor Johnson was in the early debates. As the debates progressed, the participation was trimmed to allow more time for the front runners.

During the debates, my wife actually said "Who is this guy? He makes a lot of sense."

I did not watch the above video, as I am already familiar with him. If the vid is saying that he is excluded from the presidential debates yet to come, then shame on him for running first as a republican, and now splitting the vote as a Libertarian. If it's referring to primary debates, then it's old news.

Can't believe I never saw this thread until today. I will be voting Gary Johnson on election day.

There was actually a third party debate the other day which had Johnson, Jill Stein (green party), Virgil Goode (constitutional party) and Rocky Anderson (some other party) all debate each other. I thought it was pretty good, and the worst of those candidates (Mr. Goode, IMO, but your mileage may vary) was much better on a majority of issues I are about than either R-Money or Obummer

I did watch some of the third party debate and felt the same way. I've also watched some of Gary Johnson's online Q and A's during the national debates and it was interesting to see his take on the issues Obama and Romney were agree....i mean debating about.

He has my vote

I have to point out that our debate process is fucked. You need money for advertising to get well known enough to poll over 5%. But to get money you really need to be well know, which requires advertising which costs money.

Johnson has sued the Debate Commission for inclusion going forward. He is trying to change the 5% rule and change it to allow any candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to get 270 Electoral Votes to be involved in the debate. Seems a fair enough rule to me as getting on the ballot is hard enough. There are only 6 parties actually running who have candidates who could win under any circumstances (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Justice) and the last two can only win with a write-in campaign. So the debate would have probably included only the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Greens. And it would have been a lot more interesting. The Libertarians and Greens are less worried about making political points and more interested in advancing their own agenda.

The worst part about this is that most people, when presented with individual planks on the platform instead of candidates, fit more closely with the Libertarian Party than either of the mainstream candidates. Even after going through that and seeing that info, their first comment is along the lines of no third party ever winning and their vote being wasted. And don't let some folks here you voting for Johnson. I have dealt with accusations from both sides that "A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama\Romney" according to who their preferred candidate is. Hell, my state is safe for one of those two dumbasses so why shouldn't I vote for another party to get a chance to sit at the table. Anyone old enough to have voted in 92 or 96 remembers Ross Perot being in the debates. Who wouldn't love to see that again?