Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Gundude, Oct 4, 2012.
This is the "clean" version of the thread...
Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
Didn't Gary Johnson drop out of the Republican primary because he got even less votes than MoRon Paul?
Ah, if only time were frozen like in the drawing. Then, we could step out of the loop and enter nirvana.
It's not. There was a time in the process for the better man--one *both* more qualified and more electable--to step up. None did. So now we get to deal with the choices we have, and not the choices we could invent.
Let's all agree that his positions aren't Republican positions.
Is there anything about him, apart from his inability to get elected, that makes him a worse choice than Romney?
If you didn't "belong" to a party, and there was no Obama to kick out, and you had a choice between Romney and Johnson, who would you pick?
Lets see here.
Obama gets spanked in a debate and the Paul supporters squeal.
Any question that requires us to assume things contrary to reality isn't an important question.
Wow, two anti-Romney threads with IDENTICAL titles. What are the odds?
Not today's republican's for sure.
I was at a TEA Party rally in D.C. where Gary Johnson was one of a host of guest speakers they had lined up. He was such an uninspiring speaker, you could literally feel some of the enthusiasm ebb from the crowd, like air seeping out of a balloon. He muddled through his 10-15 minutes, and walked off the podium to very scattered applause (calling it "polite" applause would be generous).
Now maybe we just caught Gary on a bad day, and he's a regular ball of fire otherwise. But he didn't really seem to show that in the instances he had a chance during the primaries either.
Perhaps, in an ideal world, we shouldn't confer so much priority to the ability to energize a crowd with a speech. But that's a reality with which we have to deal. A dud, even an earnest, well-meaning, and intelligent one, will still fail to build enough of a coalition to matter.
Unfortunately, the era of Silent Cal is over. We have been a media-driven nation since at least JFK, and if a person doesn't have at least a modicum of ability to connect with a wide enough swath of Americans, he really needs to focus his aspirations on a smaller scale.
Johnson is like Paul, unelectable. Both would lose head to head against Obama.
It's fascinating that the words "Gary Johnson" and "Ron Paul" appear identical to some.
Even more fascinating how it's impossible for some people to refrain from introducing Ron Paul into places it's uncalled for. It seems Ron Paul is the ultimate straw man.
For the unimaginative, anything that's not right in front of their face is unimportant.
So for those who want to think it through, if you had to vote between Johnson and Romney, without allegiance to a party and without a boogeyman waiting in the wings, for whom would you vote?
Thank you for accepting the question at face value and giving an honest answer.
Thats a fact....Hmmm...go figure!
I've seen him on tv before...wasn't all that impressed. Romney is a better overall candidate for POTUS.
So you copped someone elses visual aid and took the name out and we are just supposed to pretend and play along?
How about we quit dancing around it and just refer to them, in total, as "The libertarian losers" since there is no one, who actually exists in this reality, you could be talking about?
For the "imaginative" its always a question of if your aunt had balls would she be your uncle?
Its not a matter of being imaginative or not. Just realistic. Those of us "unimaginative" are just too busy living in reality rather than hyping hypotheticals. Its an exercise not worthy of our time.
The fringe Pauls and Johnson's are an irrelevance because they don't have a chance. The largest success in third party EVARR in modern times was Ross perot, and he got 19%, putting Clinton in the White HOuse. That's a fact not lost on us and why many see the fringe candidates as dangerous, not helpful in the least.