Johnson erecting in the polls, almost enough to participate in national debates this fall - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Big Bang;50745211]Johnson needs to get deep into it.[/QUOTE] I just hope the establishment doesn't cockblock him. Nobody wants Johnson being jerked around

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;50744978]why do they need 15% they should make an exception for both green and libertarian parties they cant get the exposure they need without the debates and they cant get in the debates without the exposure[/QUOTE] Yeah instead of requiring 15% it should just be the x top candidates in the polls. With x being more than 2.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50745230]Yeah instead of requiring 15% it should just be the x top candidates in the polls. With x being more than 2.[/QUOTE] I think there should be a % cutoff, I think it would have been stupid in 2008/2012 to have anyone else given the pathetic polling numbers of third parties in those elections. But if a third party gets maybe 7.5% I think they should be included. Though all numbers are arbitrary.

[QUOTE=OvB;50744975]Would be interesting to see how a Libertarian President would fare with a congress/senate of Republicans and Democrats. You wouldn't be able to pass some of the more fringe Libertarian things, but you might get some kind of odd Balance or just total gridlock since the President is not particularly in cahoots with either side.[/QUOTE] Johnson notoriously used the veto during his time as Arizona governor. I'm almost certain he'd just veto the shit out of the majority of expenses and force most bills back to the house to move past him. The guy vetoes a lot. Not something conducive to a solid working government - and look at that, obviously government is inept, so it needs to be replaced and privatized! Still about as much of a chance of Johnson winning as Donald Duck.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50744903]Johnson is the alternative for moderate and disenfranchised Republicans. He's theoretically a bigger threat to Trump than Clinton as he can go after the GOP base.[/QUOTE] It's sad that "moderate" has come to mean "not a racist" in the GOP. libertarians are FAR from moderates

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50745309]Johnson notoriously used the veto during his time as [B]New Mexico[/B] governor. I'm almost certain he'd just veto the shit out of the majority of expenses and force most bills back to the house to move past him. The guy vetoes a lot. Not something conducive to a solid working government - and look at that, obviously government is inept, so it needs to be replaced and privatized! Still about as much of a chance of Johnson winning as Donald Duck.[/QUOTE] Fixed that for you. And it's not showing government is inept when he vetoes but when spending is out of control.

[QUOTE=OvB;50744975]Would be interesting to see how a Libertarian President would fare with a congress/senate of Republicans and Democrats. You wouldn't be able to pass some of the more fringe Libertarian things, but you might get some kind of odd Balance or just total gridlock since the President is not particularly in cahoots with either side.[/QUOTE] If the Libertarian party managed to achieve such a massive, decisive victory it would probably be very, very bad news for the future of the Republican party as it would offer the Republican establishment a real chance to escape from a massively unpopular party ridden with passive-aggressive infighting and potentially rebrand themselves. And without the establishment, the Republican party would collapse to 3rd party status.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50745539]Fixed that for you. And it's not showing government is inept when he vetoes but when spending is out of control.[/QUOTE] Thanks - little too sleep deprived and it's showing. Looking at his actual veto record, though - the only time he vetoed a budget was in his last year as governor. Pretty much all of NM's spending and fiscal policy was handled by Congress. New Mexico's yearly budget went up from $2.7 billion when Johnson entered office, and it was $3.9 billion when he left. Plus the state congress was ~60% Democrat. He wasn't particularly successful at cutting expenses - his crown jewel is that he lowered the top income tax bracket from 8.2% to 4.9%... without adjusting lower state income tax brackets to compensate. Meaning he just lopped money off for the wealthiest and shifted the burden down onto the poorer. And then he failed to cut back on the budget to compensate for the lower government tax income. So the poor just footed a higher percentage of income tax for a growing budget. There's fiscal conservatism for you.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50744887]He'd get crushed in debates. Libertarians believe some wonky shit. He'd almost sound as crazy as donald trump. Probably would give hillary a boost honestly[/QUOTE] I wouldn't quite say that, even if I absolutely hate his economic policies it'd be such a breath of fresh air to have someone up on the stage that isn't saying "GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTIES AND I'LL MAKE YOU JUST SLIGHTLY SAFER." It'd help make those sorts of topics into being important rather than just being shoved aside.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50744928]My biggest selling point for Johnson is the idea of setting a limit on congressional terms. That's super important, and I'd whole-heartedly support that[/QUOTE] Term limits are awful though, all it does is create lazy politicians who don't bother in their second term because it doesn't matter.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50745463]It's sad that "moderate" has come to mean "not a racist" in the GOP. libertarians are FAR from moderates[/QUOTE] That's Trump for you, he's digging up all the hidden racial sentiments in the lower class of the GOP>

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50746193]Term limits are awful though, all it does is create lazy politicians who don't bother in their second term because it doesn't matter.[/QUOTE] Like the politicians without term limits aren't useless and corrupt already... Term limits help bring in new political blood easier onto the playing field which is better than having the same old fart sitting in office benefitting only himself, his constituents, and/or his benefactors for 20 or so years. On topic: I hope both Johnson and Jill get a place on national debates honestly so their parties can get more coverage and attention from the voting base.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;50746479]Like the politicians without term limits aren't useless and corrupt already... Term limits help bring in new political blood easier onto the playing field which is better than having the same old fart sitting in office benefitting only himself, his constituents, and/or his benefactors for 20 or so years. On topic: I hope both Johnson and Jill get a place on national debates honestly so their parties can get more coverage and attention from the voting base.[/QUOTE] Term limits were only brought in as a reaction to FDR, overall term limits just leave politicians with no reason to do anything in their second term, like what we've seen with Obama for instance. I know we all like to make cynical comments about politicians all being "corrupt and useless", but a good was to make a politician really useless is to put in term limits and give him no reason to work for re-election.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50744887]He'd get crushed in debates. Libertarians believe some wonky shit. He'd almost sound as crazy as donald trump. Probably would give hillary a boost honestly[/QUOTE] So Ghandi believes in wonky shit? Don't lump all of one thing together because it's one end of the political spectrum, not a tiny portion of it. You likely have no idea what you're talking about as usual.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50746545]Term limits were only brought in as a reaction to FDR, overall term limits just leave politicians with no reason to do anything in their second term, like what we've seen with Obama for instance. I know we all like to make cynical comments about politicians all being "corrupt and useless", but a good was to make a politician really useless is to put in term limits and give him no reason to work for re-election.[/QUOTE] Legal gerrymandering means they don't have to try very hard even without the term limit.

I think it's like 91% of Congressmen are reelected excluding those who step down

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50746545]Term limits were only brought in as a reaction to FDR, overall term limits just leave politicians with no reason to do anything in their second term, like what we've seen with Obama for instance. I know we all like to make cynical comments about politicians all being "corrupt and useless", but a good was to make a politician really useless is to put in term limits and give him no reason to work for re-election.[/QUOTE] So? If they don't work the same they do as if they had a chance at being elected then they don't need to be in congress. If you aren't willing to help the people at the end of your term then you aren't going to do a good job at all during the term either. Term Limits simply expose the corrupt politicians a lot better.

[QUOTE=Megadave;50747293]So? If they don't work the same they do as if they had a chance at being elected then they don't need to be in congress. If you aren't willing to help the people at the end of your term then you aren't going to do a good job at all during the term either. Term Limits simply expose the corrupt politicians a lot better.[/QUOTE] How does that help in any way? The whole point of democracy is to incentivise politicians to do what people want, if you take that incentive away then it kind of defeats the purpose.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50744768]Do these people even know what Johnsons policies are or are they just voting for him out of protest? I couldn't see how any sane person could vote for Gary "abolish the department of education" Johnson[/QUOTE] Gary "lets cut 50% of our federal government" Johnson

Most of Johnson's support is coming from the left, hilariously. I had an ex-Sanders friend on Facebook who endorsed him, and I literally just listed his policies in a comment and he deleted the post. Most of his support is from angry pop Sanders supporters who don't care about actual policy - they read four sentences on what Johnson wants to achieve and don't bother learning how he wants to achieve it. Funny enough, everyone I know who likes Johnson is a student relying on FAFSA for a good chunk of their education - yet they don't even know that Johnson wants to end all federal student loans. No replacements. Just end it.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50745128]It depends what you mean by libertarianism. It has a whole spectrum to 'within reality' to 'so fucking insane it makes trump look normal' and can mean vastly different things to different people.[/QUOTE]Even the interior labels have their own spectrum, I happen to be a "small L libertarian" but I'm probably more like Johnson in that I find compromise with "big government" things easy. Sure it would be neat if everything were privatized but a lot of things would be neat if people weren't raging assholes and fucked up everything through either callousness or blind idiocy. Do I think some government agencies are unnecessary in their current form? [I]Hell yes.[/I] Do I think the EPA, DOE, IRS, and other scary, scary agencies need to be burned to the ground? No, that's retarded. [QUOTE=Big Bang;50745145]The laissez-faire Reddit/4chan variety with all the pseudo-intellectualism that comes with it. It's so pervasive you can recognize which posters are [I]that[/I] kind of libertarian just by what they say.[/QUOTE]These people are usually either idiots who don't understand how the world works or [I]are completely fucking insane.[/I] I peeked in on those reddit discussions once, I immediately abandoned that shit because I'm the type of person they think would fix the world and I know for a fact that I'm a distinct minority. Hell, I'll come right out and say it: being self-employed sucks a [U]lot[/U] at least two thirds of the time because contrary to popular belief real life is not a game of Patrician III. Small businesses are a great thing to base your economy on but at some point they do grow, so then you have a decision between keeping a true free market or trying to make little corrections to keep things nice. Unfortunately that means making laws which means having politicians which require money to campaign and money comes from, yes you guessed it, corporations. True "big L Libertarianism" looks at this and goes "yeah well why have regulations, the free market will fix itself." Thing is the free market often imposes it's own regulations by itself, the black market is full of that shit and that's about as free of a market as you can get. (simultaneously proving why ancaps are delusional) Of course in an ideal world somebody would come along and go "hey, a free market is great, let's make regulations that protect everything it touches while letting it run wild!" and hitting a nice middle ground between libertarian thinking and socialist thinking. Things like environmental protection, consumer protection, and libel/slander laws are [I]probably[/I] the most necessary caps on the market and I think in that environment crony capitalism/corporatism couldn't flourish because it relies on market regulations to keep the elite on top. What we have now is a jungle of red tape for anyone who's self-employed or starting a small business, and the way taxes work in this country it really fucks things up for anyone trying to grow or sometimes merely keep their head above the water. That's not a good thing and we really need a lot of reform to fix these problems, but while that goes on we have large corporations and banks getting hand-outs because if they fail the system they helped fund and build will collapse. Our 2008 economic crisis was 100% the fault of our financial industry and at the end of the day [U]nobody[/U] was held accountable for plunging the world into a recession. This is kind of a big deal for libertarians, a lot of whom aren't articulate enough to explain everything I just said. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;50747413]How does that help in any way? The whole point of democracy is to incentivise politicians to do what people want, if you take that incentive away then it kind of defeats the purpose.[/QUOTE]Lack of term limits show very clearly why we need them though, those incentives you speak of clearly aren't motivation enough. Plus without term limits we have asshole senators who make a career out of doing some fucking thing at least 51% of their constituents like and fuck things up for everyone else. I think the best example of this is the Dixiecrats who are pretty much responsible for introducing extreme bigotry into the Republican Party when Johnson ran them out, it took decades for those old fucks to die off and they made a career out of fucking things up. [editline]20th July 2016[/editline] Adding on to my above point I have to say that term limits aren't really an ideal solution, I don't think "career politician" should be a negative epithet because some career politicians like Bernie Sanders do greatly care about people. I think maybe expanding on what could be construed as a bribe and changing our voting system to better represent people would probably be a better way to go. Having more independents and small party candidates in office would probably deeply cut into the unofficial political process, but really I think simply coming down hard on gerrymandering would do the most good in the shortest possible time.

[QUOTE=OvB;50744990]You answered your own question. It's to keep the two current parties in power.[/QUOTE] yeah ok i don't think CNN is a secret conspiracy

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50746193]Term limits are awful though, all it does is create lazy politicians who don't bother in their second term because it doesn't matter.[/QUOTE] Lol you think a dood who sits in a comgressional seat for 40 years doesnt get lazy into his second term, or his 10th, or 20th, or 30th....... Term limits are a necessity for any political position. Being a congressmen or senator used to be about public service, not about the yearly wage or the lobbying benefits. Congressmen now get a 100k$+ a year salary that they continue to get if they step down or dont get reelected and lasts till they day the die, even if they find a job. Thats insanity. A good example as to why we shouldn't have senators and congressmen serving for decades is Strom Thurmond. He served for nearly 50 years as a senator, despite opposing all civil rights acts. He served until 2003 where he was 100 years old. How the fuck can you justify having a 100 year old bigot maintain a seat in senate for nearly 50 years? This is the shit that needs to stop. We need fresh blood in the senate, not these bigoted old crooks that are pushing 30 year old politics.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50752713]Lol you think a dood who sits in a comgressional seat for 40 years doesnt get lazy into his second term, or his 10th, or 20th, or 30th....... Term limits are a necessity for any political position. Being a congressmen or senator used to be about public service, not about the yearly wage or the lobbying benefits. Congressmen now get a 100k$+ a year salary that they continue to get if they step down or dont get reelected and lasts till they day the die, even if they find a job. Thats insanity. A good example as to why we shouldn't have senators and congressmen serving for decades is Strom Thurmond. He served for nearly 50 years as a senator, despite opposing all civil rights acts. He served until 2003 where he was 100 years old. How the fuck can you justify having a 100 year old bigot maintain a seat in senate for nearly 50 years? This is the shit that needs to stop. We need fresh blood in the senate, not these bigoted old crooks that are pushing 30 year old politics.[/QUOTE] If the people weren't happy with their incumbent representative, it's simple: They'd vote for someone else. If a representative was being useless and not doing anything for their constituency, all it would take is a candidate to oppose them in their party's nomination or in the general election. If the people are happy with their representative, why not let them serve? This isn't directed at you specifically btw, but I think it's funny how at the moment everyone has forgotten that Facepunch's favourite politician, good ol' Bernie Sanders, is literally a career politician who would have been affected by any term limits. [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=joshuadim;50746479]Like the politicians without term limits aren't useless and corrupt already... Term limits help bring in new political blood easier onto the playing field which is better than having the same old fart sitting in office benefitting only himself, [b]his constituents[/b], and/or his benefactors for 20 or so years. On topic: I hope both Johnson and Jill get a place on national debates honestly so their parties can get more coverage and attention from the voting base.[/QUOTE] How is that a bad thing? That is literally why [i]representatives[/i] exist in the first place.

[QUOTE=sb27;50752813]If the people weren't happy with their incumbent representative, it's simple: They'd vote for someone else. If a representative was being useless and not doing anything for their constituency, all it would take is a candidate to oppose them in their party's nomination or in the general election. If the people are happy with their representative, why not let them serve? This isn't directed at you specifically btw, but I think it's funny how at the moment everyone has forgotten that Facepunch's favourite politician, good ol' Bernie Sanders, is literally a career politician who would have been affected by any term limits. [/QUOTE] Trust me, I don't support Sanders or any career politician in any regard. This doesn't mean I support Trump btw Yea heres the thing about Midterms Elections though: Nobody votes in the Midterms. 2012 had around 30% voter turnout. Another issue is that most Americans don't know who their local or state representatives are, let alone know what their political standing is. I'm sure if a lot of people were up to date on who represented them in Congress and Senate, then we would have a lot bigger turnout during the Midterms. But most people just don't care because they know their vote has absolutely no bearing on where this country is headed. It's like being on a passenger train thats derailed; you might as well just sit tight and hope for the best since you can't do anything to change whats happening. If we had term limits for Congress and Senate it would force people to give a shit about their reps, and even if it didn't work in getting people out to the polls, you at least wouldn't have some ass hole sitting in a seat for 20 or 30 years past the point of their political relevancy. You might get some smuck who does nothing but bad but at least he'll only sit their for 12 years instead of 40.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;50752873]Trust me, I don't support Sanders or any career politician in any regard. This doesn't mean I support Trump btw Yea heres the thing about Midterms Elections though: Nobody votes in the Midterms. 2012 had around 30% voter turnout. Another issue is that most Americans don't know who their local or state representatives are, let alone know what their political standing is. I'm sure if a lot of people were up to date on who represented them in Congress and Senate, then we would have a lot bigger turnout during the Midterms. But most people just don't care because they know their vote has absolutely no bearing on where this country is headed. It's like being on a passenger train thats derailed; you might as well just sit tight and hope for the best since you can't do anything to change whats happening. If we had term limits for Congress and Senate it would force people to give a shit about their reps, and even if it didn't work in getting people out to the polls, you at least wouldn't have some ass hole sitting in a seat for 20 or 30 years past the point of their political relevancy. You might get some smuck who does nothing but bad but at least he'll only sit their for 12 years instead of 40.[/QUOTE] Term limits aren't solutions to those problems. People won't suddenly care about their representatives; most people will only vote either Democrat or Republican as they always do, while perhaps only a minority of swing voters will consider the candidates for who they are rather than just the party they're standing for. But I do agree, democracy is a bit of a mess in America. There are so many elections that democracy has become so diluted and accountability has been thrown out the window. Mid-term elections are stupid; members of Congress should be elected for four-year terms and at the same time as the President, while Senators should be elected for eight-year terms. Local and state government in the US need the most reform. Their doesn't need to be three levels of local government (county, municipality and special-purpose districts); Australia gets by with a single level of local government with a single elected body (a council, rarely their will be a separately-elected mayor) in each local government area. And in state government, state Senates are just so useless as they are elected in the same way as the lower houses, only representing larger constituencies. Either the state Senates need to go, or they should at least be elected in a different way (such as proportional vote, which is what we do for our upper houses). You don't impose term limits to make representatives become more accountable. You consolidate the huge number of representatives for any given area into a much smaller number that the average person working full-time will be able to keep track off - and therefore accountable. Example for people wondering where I'm coming from: Elections in Australia (except Queensland which is a bit different) Local government: A council often with a mayor appointed from amongst the Councillors State government: MPs in the lower house, and MLCs in the upper house Federal government: MPs in the House, and Senators in the Senate Elections in the US Local government: Municipal councillors, mayors, county administrators/councillors, county clerks, sheriffs, an average of I think 5 elected special-purpose districts such as utilities and school districts in any given area, and even fucking judges State government: Members of the lower house, Senators, Governors, Lieutenant Governors, Secretaries of State, treasurers, District Attorneys etc Federal government: Members of Congress, Senators and the Presidency Where uncontested elections are also fairly common in local and state government