Gary Johnson would have a chance if people voted solely on issues and not Party Brand

Don't blame the platforms, blame the media for just ignoring them in order to promote their own agenda. Why not, they do it for every other situation. That and the laziness of other people to consider other options.

 

Robert Burck (the Naked Cowboy) is running for President as an independent. Should the government force the private debate organization to have him in the debates? In your spirit of freedom, should he then be allowed to debate without any clothes on?

Circus.

 

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson. If Romney loses, and it's because of the GOP's treatment of Paul supporters who go on to support Johnson, you can only blame Romney. So when Romney loses maybe the GOP will have a wake up call and not only stop ignoring and disrespecting the liberty/libertarian voter, and actually embrace them and forward their ideas (TRUE limited government, low taxes, and peace).

There is nothing really in the GOP platform (and the Tea Party for that matter) that actually promotes liberty and less government. The GOP still wants to control what you do with your own body, they still want to watch your every move, and they still want to keep growing the size of the federal government.

 

If there are only two real candidates and GJ is not a threat then you should be happy.

 

What agenda does the media have? The media is a business who's goal is to sell a product to as many people as possible. They follow the crowd, not lead it. Most people are voting either democrat or republican so they will focus on that market, now if most people were following Gary Johnson they would follow that market.

Do you believe they have a vested interest in Romney or Obama? Do they have secret agreements where they will get favorable legislation if one of them is elected? Of course not, their bottom line is making money and you don't make money by using your valuable page space or air-time dedicating it to a person or party that very little people have interest in.

 

As I've said, the 1% he could possibly get might just be the difference in who is our next President.

 

Oh well, too bad, so sad. Maybe the RNC should have been more inclusive and pulled fewer nasty stunts.

 

I know you are referring to and wanted someone on the convention stage that is not supporting the GOPs presidential candidate, but that would be stupid for them to do so. And it would be stupid to include the Naked Cowboy in the presidential debates.

 

I am referring to all of the dirty tricks all throughout (and still continuing) the primary seasons, but what does it matter. Obviously, the RNC knows best and this won't effect Romney in the least.

 

I don't put it past media outlets to have agendas. Sure they're out to make money, and what better way than to go on promoting person X for whatever reason. Besides the media has tons of influence, enough that people will stop thinking for themselves and just go along with what they're saying.

 

Every conspiracy must be grounded in a factual reason for it happening. Under what conditions would the media prefer one candidate over the other. If what your saying is true then they would be throwing all their support behind whackos like Ron Paul because you know he's going to cause controversy which would sell more papers or get more people to turn into the news to hear about thereby increasing ad revenue for the media sites.

This obviously isn't happening though. So if your claiming that the media is puposefully blocking candidates in favor of others you need to first explain what they have to gain from doing that.

 

If they are not assassinated within hours of the inauguration, and can actually make some real changes to the political landscape in the first 6 months of office, actual tax reform not a new generic way of maneuvering money to the rich/elites, real election campaign reform that is really controlled/paid for by actual voters not special interest groups (political parties, unions, corporations, churches, foreign countries, ineligible voters, etc...), close the borders, lobbying reform, stop fraud and waste, stop rewarding big business for destroying the economy (fleecing and removing jobs), remove regulations that are only in place to create monopolies and eliminate competition, and actually attend to the oath they took. The two party scam would be exposed to the organized criminal organization of corporate owned traitors they are, and we could get back to attending to the best interest of the nation as a whole and not an elite minority.


Otherwise according to your own statement accept defeat, declare the plutocracy a dictatorship and be done with it. The fantasy that this is some kind of republic democracy is getting real old.

 

You don't understand political science very well. Politicians are formed by the political landscape, they don't form it. Society demands certain things of our government and politicians invariably must behave certain ways to accomplish those goals which funnels them down certain paths. Gary Johnson and his party will not fundamentally change how our government functions since it is pre-designed by society according to their expectations. They may be able to do a few things different but in the end they will still be held accountable for whether they achieved what was expected of them or not.

 

Big business is not the reason jobs are relocating overseas.

Free trade with low wage countries like China is the reason.

And that is a government policy that business is only responding to.

Talk to Bill Clinton and the other free traders if you want to know how to blame.

 

Several reasons why, the whole 2008 election with Obama vs. Clinton should be a start.

 

Political science is the study of government or the state, not the mold, pattern or nomenclature it must follow.

Politicians in this country are corporate owned sock puppets who do as their real masters dictate. The plutocracy demands it and depends on it. It's working so far.

Replace society with the rich/elites and you have a true statement as to what is going on in this country.

Driving it further down into the depths of bankruptcy is not what society as a whole wants from our country. That may be the goal of the plutocracy but that isn't what the people want. The people haven't been in charge in many decades, if they ever were.


What this country is deeply lacking in is true leadership. The pied pipers of the plutocracy have done enough damage in the last decade to last a few lifetimes don't you think? Why give them the keys to the bulldozer again.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. I would refer you to some of the realist writers throughout history who laid the foundations of political science precisley regarding the certain paths that government/state follows.

You may try these for starters.

Thucydides
Machiavelli
Hobbes
Locke
Grotius
Causewitz
Carr
Morgenthau

Read the works of those men and tell me they don't describe not only government and state but also the paths that certain actions must take and how it affects the leaders in administration, all the way from kings to your local mayor.

 

First and foremost big business owns the politicians on both sides of the aisle. If only they had to wear them patches like the race car drivers, you wouldn't make such ignorant comments. Follow the money trail and who holds the biggest pile, and all your questions about what is wrong with this country today will be answered.

Second, you cannot have free trade with a country that doesn't have a comparable economy or economic structure (minimum wage, cost of living, etc...), and/or doesn't share the agreement (AKA China), otherwise it is economic suicide (see American economy in it's present state for example of cause and effect).


And third who really gives a horses pa-toot which criminal political party is responsible for such an incompetent decision, but for the record, republicans plan, democrat president signed it, so it was a bipartisan treasonous act to appease the real masters, rich/elites. The two party scam, best government corporate money can buy.

 

Agreed....

 

A john doesn't own a whore, but he does get what he wants from her once the money's on the table.

Either you live in a fairy land where people don't have backroom deals and all people are honest (and please, if so, send us all directions so we can live there, too), or you're being completely disingenuous.

And people would never sell narcotics or illegal guns because the repercussions of getting caught outweigh any benefit they would receive, too...in fantasy land.

Come on!

The COI would then be too blatantly obvious.

 

There are numerous models of political science, some basic others more abstract, some extremely complicated and manipulative, like what we have today. Our government is a complete con, that gives the mark (the average citizen) the feeling they are in charge, when they are a slave to someone else's cause. An unwilling dupe if you will. Take your first guy;

This was about war, by the way.

 

I think you just need a boogyman to scare the kids into eating all their porridge.

And for you big business is it.

All your miseries can be blamed on them and I suppose that gives some people comfort.

But in fact big business had nothing to gain by opening our market to cheap foreign competition because business was doing just fine before Clinton gave our country away to the Chinese.

You seem to be hung up on using the word "free."

It may not be free trade in the way you mean but opening our economy to cheap imports from China is the policy and it goes by the label of free trade.

Whatever we call it you are the one defending the open market with China that is the real cause of American jobs leaving the country.

 

Of course it was about war. He was writing during the Peloponnesian war bewteen Athens and Sparta.

The task Thucydides set for himself was much more ambitious than simply describing what was occurring. Particular events were dealt with in great and vivid detail, but his goal was to say something significant not only about the events of his own time, but also about the nature of war and why it continually recurs. He was less interested in the immediate causes of the Peloponnesian War than he was in the underlying forces at work.

Political Science is about much more than just government and state.

 

He was discarded because he wasn't the manipulative sock puppet they need to tote the water for the rich/elites, just like Paul. Not a 'team' player. He (either of them actually) honestly wants to fix things for the better of the country as a whole, while the two party scam, won't stand for it and wants things to remain the same while encouraging the public to argue among themselves about the idiotic social non-issues, that mean nothing really, allowing them to run amok in stealth mode in broad daylight. Then when things still get worse, they will continue to blame one another (the two parties) as the partisan cheerleaders parrot the talking points, and vote the party line. It's pretty much a win-win for a small minority, while economic suicide for the mass majority.