US Presidential Contenders

[Rusty Edge]

 

“Well really, Libertarians kind of represent the best of both parties, at least what the parties are supposed to be about,” Johnson said. “Are Republicans supposed to be about small government? Aren’t Democrats supposed to be about civil liberties? People being able to make choices in their own lives as long as those choices don’t affect others.”

----------------------------
Actually more names were floated for the Independent candidate, including Paul Ryan ( which is ridiculous) Condoleezza  Rice,  New Mexico Governor Susanna Martinez, Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse.

[Buster's Uncle]

Respect!

[Rusty Edge]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/jesse-ventura-im-not-running-for-president-because-im-afraid-i-might-win/

Not that he would necessarily expect to win. He would love to campaign against Clinton/[Sleezebag], and he knows what a burden it would be to become president. He doesn't want that kind of responsibility/loss of freedom.He really hopes that they both lose. He thinks the country is FUBAR.

[Rusty Edge]

It would seem I'm reading articles faster than they are being generated. If anyone is interested, this is an in depth article about Gary Johnson from GQ magazine when he was running for president in 2011 and getting snubbed by both CNN and the GOP. 

It's revealing about his honesty and character and why he figured he needed Bill Weld on board this time to actually win, to get included in the fundraising, the polls, and the debates.  But, as I said now pot is legal for medicinal or recreational use in 24 states plus DC. Legalization makes more fiscal sense than "war".

One quote-


And the vicious cycle continued. In August, he was not invited to the Republican debate in Iowa. Which might have had something to do with his response to the "Family Leader's "Marriage Vow" pledge," a social-conservatism manifesto that Michele Bachmann and several other of his rivals jumped to sign. "In one concise document," Gary said in a YouTube video, "they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn't fit into a Norman Rockwell painting."


Um, maybe not the best way to appeal to the base.

Then, in early September, he got hosed again by CNN, deemed not even worthy to participate in the reality-show carnival that was the Tea Party debate. Two weeks before the debate, he was polling higher than Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum. They were onstage. He was not.

http://www.gq.com/story/gary-johnson-republican-candidate-debate-interview

[Rusty Edge]

My post vanished. Maybe it's the thunderstorm.

[Rusty Edge]

The Leader dismissed Johnson as a fringe candidate, and the Johnson campaign responded-
"I suppose it is a fringe ticket, if a combined 14 years of successful governing in two of the nation’s bluest states, cutting taxes, balancing budgets and reducing the size of government constitute a fringe,”

[Buster's Uncle]

Good comeback.

[Rusty Edge]

Yes. That John Zogby, the famous pollster.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2016/05/30/do-not-dismiss-gary-johnson-and-the-libertarians/#7304e7fe27ad

May 30, 2016 @ 10:22 PM
Do Not Dismiss Gary Johnson And The Libertarians
By John Zogby, Contributor

I know that third parties have never done particularly well in our presidential elections. Former President Theodore Roosevelt won 27% of the vote in 1912 and received 88 electoral votes. In 1968, George Wallace received 13% of the vote and won 45 southern state electoral votes. And Ross Perot, after leading in early 1992 then dropping out July, came back to score 19% of the popular vote. But Perot won no electoral votes.

But this year history and tradition do not seem to matter very much. Age certainly does not appear to be a factor as two 68-year-old frontrunners possibly face off against each other–and one is threatened by a 74-year-old Democratic challenger. Meanwhile, a 93-year-old GOP icon suggests a 73-year-old former Speaker as Donald [Sleezebag]’s running mate, and a 72-year-old vice president perhaps waits in the wings to be the substitute if needed.

The two parties appear ready to nominate two of the most unpopular candidates in the country and confidence in both the Democratic and Republican parties is at an all time low. Not quite half (45%) say they are willing to support an independent candidate–and this is late in the game. [Sleezebag] has broken all the rules of engagement and Hillary Clinton faces either a possible indictment or at least some sort of serious reprimand.



But most importantly is the question of who Millennials will support. They will decide the outcome in 2016. Donald [Sleezebag]’s support is miniscule among this group and Clinton does not generate any enthusiasm among younger voters because she appears to many to be a combination of too establishment and too disingenuous. Even though Bernie Sanders most likely will endorse and campaign for Clinton, as will President Barack Obama, who received a large percentage of support among young voters in 2008 and 2012, they still may not vote in significant enough numbers. To be sure, many will hold their nose and vote for Clinton because of their fear of a [Sleezebag] victory. But the real question is will there be enough excitement to get Millennials out to vote. While early reports on the Libertarian ticket of former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld suggest that they may draw votes away from [Sleezebag], I think  they may actually hurt Clinton even more.

As of this moment, Johnson is receiving 10%-11% in national polls–about 10 to 11 times the support he received in 2012. While he spent only $2.5 million dollars for his run in 2012, he and the party have chosen Weld who has raised about a quarter of a billion dollars during his career.

Johnson and Weld just may have the most compelling message for Millennials. They are running as fiscal conservative purists and can draw from a group that is deeply concerned about both college debt and unparalleled public debt. And they are social libertarians: pro-choice, anti-government meddling in matters of personal privacy, decriminalization of most drugs, and they oppose United States meddling in foreign adventures and war. These young people are America’s First Global generation and they are diverse and less inclined to see other peoples and cultures as the “other.”

Probably of greatest significance: Millennials are very impatient and jaded at the slowness of government decision making and gridlock. Clinton and the Democrats need every Millennial vote they can get and enough may just want to make a statement more consistent with their values. I wonder if younger men in particular might be more likely to give the Libertarians a longer and more lasting look.

This is not only a year when anything can happen, it has been a year when anything already has happened. And I don’t believe we are done with surprises. I am not saying that Gary Johnson and Bill Weld will (or can) win the presidency and vice presidency, but I am suggesting that with two unpopular candidates (most likely) heading the two major parties, the Libertarians could have a breakthrough year. They could have a very special appeal to Millennials.
---------------------------

[Buster's Uncle]

There's a thing in there that the right does that always loses me -you do it some, too, Rusty- which is being even harder on Mrs. Clinton than she deserves.  She's a problem candidate, yes, and unpopular in not-just-right-circles - but that's a fantasy about the (mostly manufactured and everyone knows it) email "scandal" and she's nowhere in the Pig's league for unpopular and problematic.

She's Nine Billion Times the candidate and potential president that celebrity publicity-[prostitute] is.  Period.

I'm not dreaming of stealing her away from her dirtbag husband (who, again, is going to make the BEST First Lady EVAH) but I'm voting the heck outta for her if Bernie don't pull off a miracle, and I think flailing around for a third choice this cycle is short-term short-sighted and futile.  -Also dumb to hate her THAT much.-  It's no choice at all between those two, and there's going to be no one else this time


But, the Libertarians seem to be playing it as smartly as could be hoped for, saying the things that need to be said now, and not whipping out the crank tendencies in public for once.  Good on 'em for that, and high hopes for their future.

[Rusty Edge]

I make no pretenses. I hate Hillary.  Mostly because I read her as so insincere most of the time to the point that I find it insulting. She's a walking lawyer and politician joke.

For reasons of sincerity I rank Bernie above Her (she is at least qualified for the job ) and Her above The Leader ( who clearly is not qualified) in terms of presidential preference. I think I've been pretty clear and consistent about that, too.

The Leader has no regard for the Constitution or International law, starting with the 1st Amendment.

As far as unpopular, I think Clinton and The Leader are pretty competitive in the negativity rankings in the national polling. I could be wrong. I'll look into it. ( both Clinton and [Sleezebag] seem to be over 50% negative according to Gallup. George Wallace territory ) For better or worse, issue-wise she is associated with healthcare reform and NAFTA (which Bill signed over the strenuous objections of the unions ) if one of those had a negative impact on somebody's life, they might carry a grudge.

Now maybe I'd have some newfound respect for Hillary if she said the reason she wasn't accommodating Bernie and the people he brought into the party was that she was a capitalist and would never compromise with socialists as a matter of principal, but she's not taking that stance. She's just ignoring/disrespecting Bernie, and she's disrespecting his voters.

But I'm not going to vote for somebody that 1) criticizes Sanders for representing his constituents and respecting the 2nd Amendment as part of The Bill of Rights, ( that's duty and oath of office )and  2) champions the legal theory that we should circumvent the 2nd Ammendment by suing gun manufactures for what people do with their products. If she prevails with that one, not only will we no longer manufacture guns here, but we won't make cars, or tires, or airplanes, or ladders, or sporting goods, or much of anything anymore. Or fuels for that matter. It won't get rid of guns, but it will make gun-running a lucrative new industry. Hardly a pro-jobs stance.


The president's oath of office is to The Constitution, not the Country. I think Sanders and Johnson are the two that really care about that. That's what I care about. I want somebody on the debate stage calling the others out on Constitutional issues, or even better, in the White House calling out the Congress and nominating justices.

[Buster's Uncle]

I laid it on a little too thick, I guess.

[Rusty Edge]

-veterans-affairs-donation.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-[Sleezebag]-veterans-affairs-donation.html?_r=0

Donald [Sleezebag] Lashes Out at Media While Detailing Gifts to Veterans
By MAGGIE HABERMAN and ASHLEY PARKERMAY 31, 2016

A defensive Donald J. [Sleezebag] angrily listed more than two dozen veterans’ groups that he said had received $5.6 million thanks to his fund-raising and personal largess during a contentious news conference Tuesday in which he repeatedly railed against reporters who questioned him.

Criticizing the news media at length, Mr. [Sleezebag] demanded that journalists credit him for his act of charity and took umbrage at their scrutiny of his boasts and promises.

In a heated, 40-minute appearance in the lobby of [Sleezebag] Tower in Manhattan, Mr. [Sleezebag] dismissed a CNN reporter as “a real beauty” and an ABC reporter as “a sleaze,” and said that if he was elected president, the American public could expect a similar dynamic in the White House briefing room.

“Yes, it is,” he said. “It is going to be like this.”

Mr. [Sleezebag] attributed the holdup in gifts — which he announced in January — to a need to scrutinize the charities beforehand — though the recipient of his largest donation is well-known to him. And he expressed a newfound bashfulness about his donations, saying that he “didn’t want to have credit” for them — though he had promised the donations in a speech carried live on national television.

The problem stemmed from an event Mr. [Sleezebag] staged in late January as an alternative to the final Republican debate before the Iowa caucuses, which he skipped. In a televised fund-raiser that he said would benefit military veterans, he announced he had raised more than $6 million and that he himself was giving $1 million.

But the full amount did not materialize quickly, and The Washington Post reported a week ago that Mr. [Sleezebag] still had yet to make his own donation.

On Tuesday, Mr. [Sleezebag] arrived prepared with a list of groups — complete with exact dollar amounts — to which he said he had donated. Campaign aides and security guards applauded Mr. [Sleezebag].

The largest gift, he said, was $1 million to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, and he held up a copy of a check to back up his assertion. (The group’s vice chairman, Gary Schweikert, is the managing director of the [Sleezebag] SoHo hotel.)

Demanding that the news media praise him for his generosity, Mr. [Sleezebag] complained that military veterans were calling him in outrage rather than in gratitude.

“The press should be ashamed of themselves,” Mr. [Sleezebag] said. “You make me look very bad.”

Outside [Sleezebag] Tower, Perry O’Brien, a veteran from Brooklyn who said he had served in Afghanistan until 2003, protested Mr. [Sleezebag] as part of a group calling itself Vets vs. Hate.

“Veterans are not for sale, and we’re not interested in making a deal when it comes to him demeaning veterans, demeaning P.O.W.s,” said Mr. O’Brien, who said he was a supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders.


=============================

Well, he set himself up for that one. He took credit for raising the money when he  ditched that debate. Then he held it and didn't distribute all of it. So The Washington Post investigated, following the money. So I guess $5.6 million has been disbursed now. Maybe he exaggerated about the amount raised, I don't know.

But I do have hope that Journalism survives at the Washington Post, and in the person of Chris Matthews, and a couple of reporters at the press conference.
of course, they will never be called upon again, so they might as well get re-assigned.

[Rusty Edge]

I laid it on a little too thick, I guess.

I'm not mad, so no problem.

But I'm pretty insistent that I won't vote for X, because they're the lesser of two evils. I believe that every time we do that, we get more of the same bad options.

[Buster's Uncle]

I've never seen a third way worth my vote, and I say that as a genuine career protest voter.

[Rusty Edge]

Usually when I hear statements about lack of choice  I accept them, and ask the person what they did about it.   :GeoModder:

And before you take that personally, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to express my multitude of rants.