Gary Johnson?

Libertarian candidate on the ballet in all 50 states.    

should he have a podium at the debates?

https://youtu.be/LGD8gJt7weU

No.  He is not a viable candidate so why viewers' time listening to his opinions? 

Oh the other hand, Ross Perot gave Clinton the election in 1992.

That mentality is why America will soon be electing it's most disliked president in the history of the US.

I forget the percentage, but he will be in the debates if he manages to pull a certain amount of support (think it's 10%-15%) in national polls.

I don't know a lot about him personally, but I saw an interview with him where he was calling Trump the P word (derogatory feline) over and over which seemed very presidential (not).  lol

15%, and I didn't know that, but can you imagine that debate?  your a P word.  my D is YUGE, I've never had a problem with that, ask my model wife.

And all that going on while Hillary just stood there not knowing what to say or do.  lol

for once in her life, she is speechless.  I think this could be a great SNL skit

That mentality is why America will soon be electing it's most disliked president in the history of the US.

I forget the percentage, but he will be in the debates if he manages to pull a certain amount of support (think it's 10%-15%) in national polls.

I don't know a lot about him personally, but I saw an interview with him where he was calling Trump the P word (derogatory feline) over and over which seemed very presidential (not).  lol

The 15% is a rule established by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a group which (shockingly ) was created by the Democrat and Republican parties. I could go on about how polls can be inaccurate, biased, and easily manipulated based on how they're taken, or how the CPD conveniently hasn't stated which five polls will be used for determining a candidate's eligibility for the debates, but that's really not the point I was trying to make.

Rogillio stated that Johnson is not a viable candidate. That's a sentiment that the vast majority of Americans share, and I personally think that that attitude is a huge problem. There's this mindset in America that if you vote for a 3rd party, you're throwing away your vote. So people dismiss 3rd party candidates, then get upset with the direction the country is headed. The same two parties have controlled the White House and Congress for over a century. Every war, national deficit, social program, government shutdown, tax increase, trade agreement, bailout, etc. etc. that has brought us to where we currently are has been made by these two parties. 532 of the 534 seated members of Congress are either Republican or Democrat. Congress is less popular than lice, root canals, and Nickelback, and yet they enjoy a retention rate of something like 90%. In November, we will elect to the most powerful position in the world either the candidate with the highest ever unfavorability rating in modern US politics (Trump), or the candidate with the second highest unfavorability rating (Clinton). 

Meanwhile, there's a candidate who will be on the ballot in all 50 states. He started a business from scratch and built it into a multimillion dollar corporation (business experience, awesome!). He was a pretty successful two term governor (executive branch experience, wow!) who left office with a high approval rating and left New Mexico with a billion dollar surplus. Yet he's not a viable candidate because he doesn't have an (R) or (D) after his name. I'm not saying Johnson is for everyone, but the fact that he's ignored and out-right dismissed from the conversation is (IMO) a bunch of bullchit.

By the way, you should check him out. He's fiscally conservative socially liberal, believes in limited government, states rights, protecting the second amendment, and a balanced budget. And he's got one heck of an Ironman PR.  Kind of sounds like your type of candidate.

The 15% is a rule established by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a group which (shockingly ) was created by the Democrat and Republican parties. I could go on about how polls can be inaccurate, biased, and easily manipulated based on how they're taken, or how the CPD conveniently hasn't stated which five polls will be used for determining a candidate's eligibility for the debates, but that's really not the point I was trying to make.

Rogillio stated that Johnson is not a viable candidate. That's a sentiment that the vast majority of Americans share, and I personally think that that attitude is a huge problem. There's this mindset in America that if you vote for a 3rd party, you're throwing away your vote. So people dismiss 3rd party candidates, then get upset with the direction the country is headed. The same two parties have controlled the White House and Congress for over a century. Every war, national deficit, social program, government shutdown, tax increase, trade agreement, bailout, etc. etc. that has brought us to where we currently are has been made by these two parties. 532 of the 534 seated members of Congress are either Republican or Democrat. Congress is less popular than lice, root canals, and Nickelback, and yet they enjoy a retention rate of something like 90%. In November, we will elect to the most powerful position in the world either the candidate with the highest ever unfavorability rating in modern US politics (Trump), or the candidate with the second highest unfavorability rating (Clinton). 

Meanwhile, there's a candidate who will be on the ballot in all 50 states. He started a business from scratch and built it into a multimillion dollar corporation (business experience, awesome!). He was a pretty successful two term governor (executive branch experience, wow!) who left office with a high approval rating and left New Mexico with a billion dollar surplus. Yet he's not a viable candidate because he doesn't have an (R) or (D) after his name. I'm not saying Johnson is for everyone, but the fact that he's ignored and out-right dismissed from the conversation is (IMO) a bunch of bullchit.

By the way, you should check him out. He's fiscally conservative socially liberal, believes in limited government, states rights, protecting the second amendment, and a balanced budget. And he's got one heck of an Ironman PR.  Kind of sounds like your type of candidate.

The reason that sentiment is so prevalent is because it is true. What do you believe you accomplish by voting for a candidate that there has no possible way of winning? I did not vote for Trump even though he was a slam-dunk in Alabama. I voted for someone else so he had one less vote to bloat his ego. I will vote for him in the general election....mostly to make sure Hillary doesn't win. The only way I can see Hillary winning is if a 3rd candidate splits the vote....which is why I'd never vote for a 3rd candidate what wasn't at least polling 33%.

The only reason it's true, is because the public has allowed it be true. Ya know, that whole government of the people, by the people, for the people thing. Hillary and Donald have the two highest unfavorability ratings of any candidate in modern US politics. But the two parties have bamboozled the populace in to thinking a vote for a third party candidate is the same thing as a vote for the other team. And in doing so, they've eliminated competition from third parties. It's quite brilliant actually. So because of the polarized "us vs. them" mentality the two parties have created, millions and millions of people will be voting for a candidate that they don't want this November because they hate the other candidate more. That, to me, is completely idiotic. 

You asked what I expect to accomplish, well nothing. But I'll tell you why I do it.

1) The lesser of two evils is still evil. I refuse to vote for someone that I feel will be bad for America, even if I think they're less bad than their opponent. I believe President Hillary would be really bad for America, I think President Trump would be much, much worse. Don't care, still won't vote for Hillary. But I think Johnson would do a good job, I like his platform and his record. I can vote for him and sleep at night.  

2) Your vote, my vote, they have no effect on who is the next president. Our individual votes are irrelevant. Trump will comfortably carry Alabama regardless of what you do; vote for him, vote for Johnson, write your own name in, or stay home. It doesn't matter, Trump still wins Bama. But when everyone in Alabama who hates Hillary goes in and votes for Trump, the GOP doesn't sit back and say 'wow, Alabama really hates Hillary.' Instead they feel bolstered by the overwhelming victory and take it as a confirmation of their platform. Then they double down pushing their agenda farther to the right. Which is great if you like the GOP platform, not so much if you were just voting against Hillary. Same thing will happen with the Dems in Illinois when Hillary crushes Donald there and they take it as a sign that all of Illinois wants to go even further to the left (is that possible?). But what would happen if, hypothetically, Johnson were to take 10% of the votes in Alabama? Trump still wins the state, electoral college votes don't change, it has no impact on the overall election. But now the Bama GOP has to look at why their numbers are dropping, why are they losing support. Maybe they need to lighten up on the social issues or risk losing more votes in the future. Or if Johnson could get 10% in Illinois, maybe the liberals there would realize people are fed up with their bullchit spending. Look at what Bernie did to Hillary. She was the front runner from beginning to end, never really had a chance to lose. But Bernie had this swelling momentum that just wouldn't go away and now Hillary is promising free college for everyone and $15/hour minimum wage. Poeple voting for a loser pushed the direction of the Democrat platform. That's why I vote Libertarian. I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal. My vote is a tiny, little, insignificant message to the Democrats that I disapprove of their fiscal irresponsibility and to the Republicans that they need to quit pushing their far right social agenda. If enough people feel the way I do, and decide to show it in the voting booths, it doesn't even matter if Libertarians ever win. One, or both, parties will start to swing that way in the hopes of winning our votes. 

So that's the best answer I can give you. Sorry for the rambling. Now let me ask you something. Let's say you were still in the military and happened to get stationed in California or Illinois. Would you still bother to vote this November? If yes, why? There is absolutely zero chance Trump will win either state. What do you believe you accomplish voting for a candidate that has no possible way of winning?

I live in IL, the southern part of the state. I feel like my vote is totally meaningless 100%. 

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/illinois/

Libertarian candidate on the ballet in all 50 states.    

should he have a podium at the debates?

https://youtu.be/LGD8gJt7weU

Yes, and he is getting close.  13% or so.  He currently has my vote. although I do disagree with him on gun regulations. 

There hasn't been a candidate I've supported that I agreed with 100%.  He is the only candidate even close to being both a fiscal conservative and social moderate/liberal. 

The only reason it's true, is because the public has allowed it be true. Ya know, that whole government of the people, by the people, for the people thing. Hillary and Donald have the two highest unfavorability ratings of any candidate in modern US politics. But the two parties have bamboozled the populace in to thinking a vote for a third party candidate is the same thing as a vote for the other team. And in doing so, they've eliminated competition from third parties. It's quite brilliant actually. So because of the polarized "us vs. them" mentality the two parties have created, millions and millions of people will be voting for a candidate that they don't want this November because they hate the other candidate more. That, to me, is completely idiotic. 

You asked what I expect to accomplish, well nothing. But I'll tell you why I do it.

1) The lesser of two evils is still evil. I refuse to vote for someone that I feel will be bad for America, even if I think they're less bad than their opponent. I believe President Hillary would be really bad for America, I think President Trump would be much, much worse. Don't care, still won't vote for Hillary. But I think Johnson would do a good job, I like his platform and his record. I can vote for him and sleep at night.  

2) Your vote, my vote, they have no effect on who is the next president. Our individual votes are irrelevant. Trump will comfortably carry Alabama regardless of what you do; vote for him, vote for Johnson, write your own name in, or stay home. It doesn't matter, Trump still wins Bama. But when everyone in Alabama who hates Hillary goes in and votes for Trump, the GOP doesn't sit back and say 'wow, Alabama really hates Hillary.' Instead they feel bolstered by the overwhelming victory and take it as a confirmation of their platform. Then they double down pushing their agenda farther to the right. Which is great if you like the GOP platform, not so much if you were just voting against Hillary. Same thing will happen with the Dems in Illinois when Hillary crushes Donald there and they take it as a sign that all of Illinois wants to go even further to the left (is that possible?). But what would happen if, hypothetically, Johnson were to take 10% of the votes in Alabama? Trump still wins the state, electoral college votes don't change, it has no impact on the overall election. But now the Bama GOP has to look at why their numbers are dropping, why are they losing support. Maybe they need to lighten up on the social issues or risk losing more votes in the future. Or if Johnson could get 10% in Illinois, maybe the liberals there would realize people are fed up with their bullchit spending. Look at what Bernie did to Hillary. She was the front runner from beginning to end, never really had a chance to lose. But Bernie had this swelling momentum that just wouldn't go away and now Hillary is promising free college for everyone and $15/hour minimum wage. Poeple voting for a loser pushed the direction of the Democrat platform. That's why I vote Libertarian. I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal. My vote is a tiny, little, insignificant message to the Democrats that I disapprove of their fiscal irresponsibility and to the Republicans that they need to quit pushing their far right social agenda. If enough people feel the way I do, and decide to show it in the voting booths, it doesn't even matter if Libertarians ever win. One, or both, parties will start to swing that way in the hopes of winning our votes. 

So that's the best answer I can give you. Sorry for the rambling. Now let me ask you something. Let's say you were still in the military and happened to get stationed in California or Illinois. Would you still bother to vote this November? If yes, why? There is absolutely zero chance Trump will win either state. What do you believe you accomplish voting for a candidate that has no possible way of winning?

Don Quixote?  Tilting at windmills?  

I'd rather fight imaginary giants than vote for either of those two a$$hats. 

I answered your question, but you didn't answer mine. If you were stationed in Illinois, would you vote for Trump? What do you believe you accomplish voting for a candidate that has no possible way of winning?