The Trump Card: How Donald Can -Really- Win

[Chase]

Well, I'll (and many of my other fellow Americans) be damned.

This is actually a race.

---

First things first - as the person bringing up the case of possibility for a Trump presidency, It's important to establish where my vote is going.

It's not going to Clinton...-or- Trump. I'll be voting for Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson and Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld on the Libertarian ticket this November. This actually is relevant to idea of Trump winning - and I'll get to that later.

---

1. On the current debate stage - BOTH candidates are horrible debaters. And Trump is much better at making the opponent look worse than people give him credit for.

- Hillary does better in debates against singular opponents, but she is not someone to really "fear" on the podium. Trump's main opponent will be his own mouth (and perhaps the anti-Trump internet dwellers who would say Hillary won the debate even if she didn't show up) as opposed to the Former First Lady herself.

As for the second clause of this assertion, just take a look at how monumental Trump's primary victory was. He went up against SIXTEEN other Republican hopefuls who were somehow -all- more qualified for the POTUS position than he was in my opinion - but he was able to make all of them look worse through a devoted effort to pointing out the dirt on his opponents and outright taking BOTH himself and the opponent of his choice down the gutter if he had to.

If Trump is the "anti-political-correctness" candidate, Hillary's not going to be able to play the "damsel" card to escape Trump's bulldog behavior either. He's going to stick to his guns, his base will love it, and Hillary will have to actually answer effectively as opposed to appealing to the better nature of everyone else.

---

2. The Ghost of Bernie Sanders Past

- Third party runs are a common thing in presidential elections and they usually amount to a percentage of "protest votes" when the dust settles.

Where Trump (who we all know is the most unfavorable candidate in the history of -actually- ever) is dinged by this is the Libertarian ticket I mentioned in my establishment of personal position. Gary Johnson may not be a social conservative, but he's more "conservative" than Trump even on trade and in most other fiscal matters - meaning unhappy Republicans have more than one tangible reason to jump on the largest looming third party bandwagon.

Clinton however is not only fighting Trump and Johnson - she has a three front war in front of her. The Green Party (the same Green Party that cost Al Gore and the Democrats the 2000 election against George W. Bush.) is running an effective "Plan B" candidate for Bernie Sanders supporters in physician Jill Stein...whose liberalism would make even Bernie blush. Gary Johnson on the other hand has the most realistic shot of toppling both Hillary -and- Trump, and offers liberals the social liberalism platform they expect from their ideal candidate without being as much of an establishment shill as the Democratic nominee - meaning that Johnson is siphoning votes from Hillary as well as Trump. It also doesn't help that Hillary is the second most unfavorable candidate in the history of ever as well.

You'd think the liberal wing of the Democratic Party would be a lock for the party's candidate. Bernie Sanders however raised a new breed of voters - and many of them aren't following his endorsement and instead are following the former months of mobilization against her.

---

3. A Brand New Ballgame

- One of Hillary's strengths is that the Electoral College -this- year is not nearly as predictable as last year. The goal for any candidate to clench the race and the leadership of the free world - is 270 electoral votes. The Clinton campaign feels so confident that they are flirting with traditionally red states (or states that are usually voting Republican) this fall.

However, this doesn't mean she's the only candidate in the race that can take advantage of the electoral map. Trump -does- seem unprepared (which is why his campaign is lagging behind Hillary in this area - along with ever positive changing demographics for the Dems in general) but what is interesting is that Gary Johnson seems to be employing a little Electoral Map action of his own despite being a candidate that may not even make the debate stage.

Johnson obviously would like to debate - because it changes the perception IMMEDIATELY that this is a two person race if there's three visible choices. However, his back-up road to the White House involves undermining democracy a little bit by winning JUST enough Electoral Votes to PREVENT Hillary from reaching 270. This is proven by Johnson's heavily focused campaign in the western part of the country (where Hillary is much less appreciated and where Trump is therefore more viable.) For those of you that don't know - Bernie overwhelmingly won the West in the Democratic primary - meaning it's western Democrats that are more likely to defect to Johnson than it is eastern Democrats.

Johnson's trying to win states - or at the very least, win enough votes to throw the election to the Republican controlled House of Representatives (who would then have the option to elect Donald Trump -or- offer Johnson to Democratic Senators as a peaceful middle-ground compromise vote.)

---

That's how Donald possibly comes up with the presidency. Johnson's campaign stiffens up, Hillary's own demons continue to haunt her, and the GOP House of Representatives sticks to their own horse as opposed to playing nice with the other party.

Hillary's voter base is growing (and Trump's is actually shrinking) - but she's not capitalizing on it as much as she'd like.

...because polls essentially make this race out to be a tie.

[AuthorReborn]

I could certainly see Johnson claiming a couple of state, which, in this election, might be enough to tip the scales one way or another. As I have previously stated, I was a Bernie supporter, but Johnson shifting the ballgame is still a welcome change. The biggest problem with the current political set up is the two party established system where it is near impossible to get in another candidate without screwing over those with similar political views. It is a pretty major flaw of the "first-past-the-post" system and I hope that we, as citizens, can work to reform it in years to come.

[Combat]

My opinion (and deep seeded hope) is that as the election draws closer and closer, people will start to realize the Drumpf is more of a threat than they consider him now. Basically, the people who say they want to vote third party, and even some people who claim to be voting for Drumpf will quietly switch sides. There's certainlly a deep seated hatred towards Clinton, but the simple prospect of giving the nuclear codes to a man who (Insert any Donald Drumpf joke here) would be enough to push them towards the less of two evils.

Because face it, Gary Johnson is no Bull Moose.

[Chase]

I'm a solid 70-to-85% Republican - I wouldn't be voting for Johnson if the GOP had someone else as their nominee. I guess that's what makes me okay with issuing a protest vote.

I understand Johnson isn't Teddy Roosevelt, but his campaign is significant in modern political races as it's indicative that third party candidates are not just "smoke and mirrors" but that they are really held back by near-impossible two-party standards (such as averaging at around 15% in at least five national polls JUST to get on the debate stage.)

It's a catch-22 that needs to be identified regardless of what your political identity is. If this is supposedly the country that stresses "Freedom" - then why does it seem so restrictive for other parties to be represented fairly? Most other similar nations don't operate on two-party systems.

That catch-22 is as follows: You need to average at around 15% to make the debate stage - but you're campaign won't get any name recognition or traction unless you are ON the debate stage.

---

Donald Trump is the candidate that allowed me to get past "NeverHillary" partisan activism and attempt to help Johnson make a statement. He's so flip-floppish that his conservatism doesn't seem genuine at all to the point where the goal almost is "let" Hillary win. He's also so nationalistic and compartmentalizes groups to the point where it's not what being a Republican (who is usually better than the Democrats at being "America first")is about.

---

CM, I disagree with you on Hillary. I doubt she's that much of an attractive pick that people are going to switch sides "quietly". Trump voters throughout the entire process have been pretty "excited" about their candidate throughout the duration of the race. They are the hardest voter to flip. Third-partiers and Indies are fairly easy to flip, but it will be more because they hadn't decided than it is "because my candidate has no shot."

Libertarianism in the 2012 election in which R-Money and Obummer were both fairly stomachable candidates proves that.

The reality of the situation is - both the major party candidates look awful, and the minor party candidates look like wasted votes. Realistically. Most Americans won't even bother to go to the ballot-box.

[Combat]

CM, I disagree with you on Hillary. I doubt she's that much of an attractive pick that people are going to switch sides "quietly". Trump voters throughout the entire process have been pretty "excited" about their candidate throughout the duration of the race. They are the hardest voter to flip. Third-partiers and Indies are fairly easy to flip, but it will be more because they hadn't decided than it is "because my candidate has no shot."

The reality of the situation is - both the major party candidates look awful, and the minor party candidates look like wasted votes. Realistically. Most Americans won't even bother to go to the ballot-box.

I probably should have been more clear with my point. My general opinion/hope is that those who feel like they were wronged during this entire process (aka Bernie Sanders supporters) may flip to Hillary. On the other hand though, their feeling of betrayal may be enough to make them vote third party, thus throwing this entire process into a downwards nosedive of politics and crying. If I had my way, I wouldn't be voting for Clinton either, but at this point, I've had to take on a "If she doesn't win, we all might die, or at the very least, things are going to go from bad to worse" mentality. I know many, many other people have said it before me, but the US needs a third major party. I doubt any hardcore Drumpf fans will be flipping, but perhaps some moderates will.

I truly hope you're wrong about you're last statement, because I want to hope people will at least try to chose one of the candidates, but I'm probably giving us too much credit.

[Shamitako]

Warning: this post is me being pissy AF and doesn't count in two hours when I calm down

Have I mentioned that I hate the party system? Yes? Well good, because I hate the party system. Fuck the party system a thousand times over. And then murder it a few times for good measure

If a third party candidate were to somehow actually matter for once I would be ecstatic and would probably vote for them purely on the principle of them not being in either of the major parties. I think I best fit a libertarian political status anyways? IDFC I just want this moronic, polarized system to be obliterated by something

And bar a semi-relevant third party, I'll probably vote for Trump because fuck the status quo (funnily enough, I had literally the exact opposite opinion a couple weeks ago). Something needs to change and if things have to get a whole lot worse before they get even a tiny bit better then so be it. At this point any change is better than nothing. Plus if we're lucky there might actually be a max exodus of the idiots who have been chanting that they're moving to Canada if he's elected which would just completely turn the entire country on its head

[AuthorReborn]

I'm kinda in agreement in the idea of darkness before the dawn. It's the basic idea of rebirth, renewal, and the death of stagnation. Anything, given enough time and security, will eventually reach a state of either equilibrium, where no side loses and no ground is truly gained or a state of stagnation, where not even the slight push-pull dynamic of the state of equilibrium exists. Currently, the political climate of the American system is reaching something of an equilibrium between the two major parties and is quickly spiraling towards stagnation. I'm not advocating for anyone to go out and destroy the world, but realistically the best way to force reformation is through tragedy or realization of tragedy.

It's the entire reason why many conflicts, such as the American Civil Rights Movement of the '60's, had any success: they incorporated both tragedy through deaths of prominent individuals or individuals who represented different injustices (such as MLK and Emmett Till) and forced the realization of, as well as reaction to, the plight of the African-Americans onto, as MLK would say, the "white moderates," who either did not previously understand the magnitude of the offenses against them, or were, once again referring to MLK, "more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice. (Letter from Birmingham Jail)"

In many ways, we are in a similar situation. We, the majority of the American people, are being forced into an undesirable position and many have either only just realized the situation or, such as those who believe that even working towards the potential reform of the system in the future is foolhardy, are "more devoted to 'order' than to justice." A just political system does not anoint two candidates that have the highest unfavorablity ratings in history and expect the people to happily follow one or the other. A just system allows for the inclusion of many different parties and organization to prevent over-centralization and allow for a more diverse political climate. The best way to change the current system is to work towards it and continually highlight the problem to everyone we may encounter. We must show serious support to those outside of the main two candidates to show evidence of the dissatisfaction of the governed, even if it means that a candidate that we disapprove of becomes the new leader of the free world.

The phoenix must always die before it can rise form the ashes.

[Dragon116]

I'm both excited and frightened by a third party candidate. On one hand, a third party candidate breaks this two-party chokehold we've had for a century. On the other hand, it weakens both parties bases enough that a Trump presidency is feasible. In the current situation, I do not support Republican (as I find their fiscal policies far too crippling and risky for the bottom 99%) and I do not support Libertarian (as they support both the fiscal conservatism and social liberties that I find excessive).

While I loved what Bernie said, his plan was going to turn him into a lame duck president that was constantly blocked by the Republican senate and house (much like what has happened to Obama in his second term). Hilary is a liar, but she's willing to make some deals to push necessary legislation through. I just hope this won't turn into another NAFTA fiasco.

I think it's a given we're going to end up with either Republican or Democrat as our next president. I would prefer seeing a Democrat as our progress with Obama has been significant (reducing unemployment and producing a positive jobs report for most of his presidency), and he has made attempts to remove us from the unjustified wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Chase]

The phoenix must always die before it can rise form the ashes.

...this is EXACTLY what voting for Johnson (especially if you live in a state like Colorado or Utah where Gary seems to be making serious impact on the states' electorate) entails.

If you normally vote Democrat, and you vote Libertarian instead - you're essentially allowing Trump to come one vote closer to Hillary for the sake of voicing dissatisfaction with Hillary.

If you're normally a Republican voter, and vote for the Libertarian ticket - the reverse is true and you're allowing Clinton to essentially take a step away from Trump.

This shouldn't be a problem if you are indeed VOICING DISSATISFACTION. It's astounding to me how many people are afraid - on BOTH sides - of the opposing major party nominee to the point where they are physically "scared" into voting for their party. That's not democracy.

that's coercion. I think rumors about BOTH candidates are greatly exaggerated for one - but I also think that fear is the only thing that we should be afraid of when making political actions.

I believe one of the greatest Democratic presidents to ever live (and he did so too brief) said something along those lines.

[Deleted User]

I've had to take on a "If she doesn't win, we all might die, or at the very least, things are going to go from bad to worse" mentality.

If you really think that then you're buying way too much into what the left media is spoonfeeding you. Trump is an asshole. Trump is a nationalist, but he's not going to cause mass murder. Use your head. Trump talks a big game (not killing scores of people though) just to rally his voter base. By that logic, you could say that. Hillary Clinton will sell all of our classified files to the Chinese for a personal fortune. But, by all means let your mind run wild. Trump's biggest flaw is he doesn't actually know what he stands for. He says something but is unsure as to why he's saying it. The majority of the time, it's to try and drum up interest from those who are unhappy with the way things are.

Funny thing about Clinton. Her Husband took many similar stances on immigration in the state of the union address in 1996.

But because it was a democrat saying these things the media stood behind it at the time and doesn't really bother to bring it up now. Looking back on it, I actually like Bill. Why? Because he proposed actually cutting wasteful spending, whereas the modern day Dem just spends til we have no more left to spend. And then spends some more... and more and more. He acknowledged the key issue that all politicians today like to hide. Small businesses are burdened so much more than big businesses. Small businesses account for a large portion of the jobs market and the owners are still in the top 1%. What constitutes as the top 1%, less than you'd think actually. Income (before taxes) of $400,000 will land you a spot there.

34:32 "Employer based private insurance for every american was proposed by Nixon 20 years ago to the united states congress, it was a good idea then and it's a better idea today."

>Private insurance

All of this was from a democrat, can we see how quickly the entire spectrum has raced far to the left? If I'm being honest, looking back at it all, I consider Bill to be one of the best Presidents this country has had. Thing is, Hillary is nothing like Bill. She's just a mad echoing chamber of the modern DC madhouse who wants to control as many aspects of every american's life as possible.

I could break this whole thing down for you, but I'd rather not bore you all to death. tl;dr Bill was good for this country, whole spectrum has shifted far to the left. Hillary is corruption incarnate, Trump isn't the big bad wolf you all make him out to be, just ignorant.

[Combat]

If you really think that then you're buying way too much into what the left media is spoonfeeding you. Trump is an asshole. Trump is a nationalist, but he's not going to cause mass murder. Use your head.

To elaborate, I don't actually believe that Drumpf would destroy the world, that was meant to be more of a joke than anything. What my vote has really come down to is how will either president affect the lives of the people here, and the world. Frankly, Drumpf's ban on Muslim's entering the country scares me. Actually no, it doesn't scare me, it just makes me sad. The fact that our political process has hit the point that outright saying something like that is what's needed to fuel the flames for a "revolution" is a tad bit depressing. Right now, humanity as a whole needs unity, and we won't get that with "an asshole" leading the country. There's no real way to tell what's going to happen if either candidate get's into office, and I'm certain there will always be dissatisfied members on both sides, but in my opinon, I'd rather have a crook with experience run the country than an asshole blowhard.

We also need to note that this is the internet, so there's almost no way to change someones opinion on a subject.

[Deleted User]

I'd rather have a crook with experience run the country than an asshole blowhard.

And this is where I'd have to disagree. Hillary Clinton is a clinical liar and has a laundry list of things she should have been incarcerated for. Many things on the list are overlooked or 'unproven'.

I'd rather have someone give me their opinion on something straightforward like Trump than someone who is going to cheat, lie, extort, and act like a mafia crime leader behind my back using myself and all of the others of this country as pawns in her game.

I'm not voting, I never legitimately wanted to vote for Trump so don't take me as being a supporter. If Hillary was anyone other than the Democratic nominee to continue the big businesses corruption, she'd be in jail right now.

Oh and also lets just toss this in, Hillary's health is a HUGE question mark right now, heck at times she looks like she belongs on a death bed having coughing fits for minutes at a time even during speaking at her rallies.

[Chase]

As someone who also really doesn't want Hillary in office - I don't think she's a windtunnel for "popular liberalism" so much as she is a liar.

• She supports her husband Bill's "Tough-on-Crime" stances - but then appeals to African Americans that suffer under them.
• She supports (or at least originally did support) the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
• She supports tuition costs - yet wants college students to believe she is in their pocket.
• She's a neoliberal capitalist at heart - yet wants to appeal to socialist thinkers.

So, young people, African Americans, and blue-collar Democrats are being spoon-fed the liberal lip-service they expect from their nominee while the reality of the situation is - she's more conservative in those areas -or- she doesn't really want anything but that particular demographics' vote.

There's an obvious disconnect between Clinton and the supposedly "friendlier" wing of the party - as seen by how meteoric Bernie Sanders' campaign was despite the fact that the whole rest of the country KNEW Clinton was just going to be coronated as the Democratic nominee.

Trump on the other hand suffers mainly from employing a strategy of focused excitement. Yes, his voter base is MUCH smaller than Clinton's and that's a problem if you expect to win - but the average Trump voter is more excited about this election than the average Clinton voter - and it shows. Trump isn't changing who he is either in order to execute his game plan. He attacked the living crap out of his Republican challengers, and he is attacking the living crap out of Hillary in the same way.

Hillary didn't want to attack Bernie and quite frankly - she may have needed to. Even if they were friendly opponents and had no reason - because now she isn't able to survive off of being a meek policy wonk and her whole general election strategy is causing her to be who she isn't - an aggressive candidate.

I read this somewhere today:

Hillary's campaign is very good at pushing Trump off the popularity ledge (or at least helping him as he jumps willingly) - but she's not good at selling herself instead.

---

CM - we've tried having polite politicians play "nice" and "not be an asshole" for 240 years. Here's some of the most successful presidents out there.

• Bill Clinton - who put the lumber on African Americans with much needed crime bills - despite being a Democrat.
• Abraham Lincoln - who engineered the only war in which America's opponent was itself.
• Andrew Jackson - who basically destroyed a large part of Native American staying power and was the precursor to the Mexican and Texas wars - but also is the only president to pay off the national debt.
• Theodore Roosevelt - a conservative-turned-liberal president who's most infamous quote ends with "carry a big stick."

You're right - opinions don't change on the internet that often - but if society really would rather be lied to than be told the truth (even bluntly) - we're truly lost.

[mde2001]

I'm not so sure debating would go well for Johnson. Pretty much the only reason why people are considering voting for him is that he's not Trump or Clinton as far as I could see.

But in the end he is politically incompetent and would arguably be a worse president than Trump. The fact that a presidential candidate asks "What is Aleppo?," demonstrates his ignorance and how much of a disaster having him as a leader would be. This ignorance would be highlighted in a debate context, because next to Clinton's world knowledge (and even arguably Trump's) he would look like a bumbling idiot.

I would agree Clinton isn't great at selling herself, and probably wouldn't become President if all of her opponents weren't sabotaging themselves (not because I don't think she would be good, but because she's not the best public speaker or most charismatic person).

I don't think Trump would kill the world, but I do think he's dangerous, and I think most people see that so he isn't going to win. Even people who currently are saying they won't vote for Clinton will switch over to her the more they think about it. At least I hope people do that.

[Shamitako]

I'm not so sure debating would go well for Johnson. Pretty much the only reason why people are considering voting for him is that he's not Trump or Clinton as far as I could see.

But in the end he is politically incompetent and would arguably be a worse president than Trump. The fact that a presidential candidate asks "What is Aleppo?," demonstrates his ignorance and how much of a disaster having him as a leader would be. This ignorance would be highlighted in a debate context, because next to Clinton's world knowledge (and even arguably Trump's) he would look like a bumbling idiot.

I would agree Clinton isn't great at selling herself, and probably wouldn't become President if all of her opponents weren't sabotaging themselves (not because I don't think she would be good, but because she's not the best public speaker or most charismatic person).

I don't think Trump would kill the world, but I do think he's dangerous, and I think most people see that so he isn't going to win. Even people who currently are saying they won't vote for Clinton will switch over to her the more they think about it. At least I hope people do that.

*Raises hand* What's an Aleppo? It sounds like a crappy acronym but I'm assuming it's important... >_<

[mde2001]

Aleppo is a city in Syria, which has been a major location of the civil war between ISIS militants. The conflict there is a major reason for the Syrian refugee crisis.

[Chase]

I'm glad someone brought this up.

That interview about Syria is literally the first real "gaffe" Johnson had - and it ironically is the first thing that even DREW a moderately explosive amount of recognition.

...however, if Johnson were allowed to be represented as equally as Trump or Clinton - this gaffe would be forgiven and forgotten.

• Trump is known to point out specific members of his crowds SPECIFICALLY due to their skin color. - "Look at my African American friend!"
• Clinton makes horrendous jokes about taken money from Wall Street for giving speeches - "I don't know - that's how much they offered!"
• Trump bumbled on a question about abortion in a town hall - "Women who get abortions should be punished!"
• Clinton changes her story about her e-mail scandal every day of the week depending on her audience.
• Trump has incited violence at his rallies.
• Clinton alienated everyone in the coal industry with a campaign promise - then had to answer for it. - "We're going to put a lot of coal miners out of business and a lot of coal companies out of business!"

Here's what Johnson did. He was asked a question about foreign policy in a manner that lacked context and assumed Johnson was 100% in the know of the situation in Aleppo, Syria.

Audibily - the word "Aleppo" could be interpreted as "A Leppo" - and Johnson took it as an acronym - as Lexi did (perhaps purposely).

Johnson then tried to get the interviewer to clarify - three times. The first time was met with the word "Aleppo" being repeated again with no context. The second time was met with a semi-hostile response ("You're kidding.."), and the third time was finally met with the interviewer's clarification ("Aleppo is in Syria...it's the epicenter of the refugee crisis-")

From there Johnson was able to answer the question in what is perhaps an unpopular manner to conservatives - we help Syria by not giving arms to people who are our enemies through nation-building and re-claiming efforts and not intervening in affairs that are not ours. Non-intervention is a staple of Libertarian politics. It also explains why Johnson wasn't as in-the-know about what the hell "Aleppo" was. His policies are geared toward a more insular America - to the point where a city in a different country that nobody hears all that much about in scholarly settings (unless you're taking a course TODAY that deals heavily in current events.) went over his head.

What's noteworthy? Trump and Clinton are allowed to throw a dart at questions THEY don't understand, and backtrack if it horribly misses the board - with permission. The reason Johnson's arguably smaller gaffe here is catastrophic isn't because he's a moron. It's that he's a minor party candidate that has no room for error.

---

Mde.

You're making mountains out of molehills with this gaffe for one - and two, you can't see the forest for the trees -or- you are weighing this morsel of Johnson the whole world FINALLY got to witness against everything you know about Trump and Clinton.

To say Johnson is politically incompetent is outright wrong. As governor of New Mexico he was able to win re-election as a Republican - in a Democratic state.

He was able to dramatically lower the deficit in his state while STILL providing positive gains for public schooling. He was an excellent steward for his state.

Finally, in comparison to Trump or Clinton - he served in the most similar position to the Presidency as a governor - even when put up against the State department.

Sure, it's possible Clinton beats him on world issues (Trump will get in a few cute sound bites here) because Libertarians are not interested in engaging in heavy foreign policy. That SHOULDN'T torpedo a candidate or a campaign.

[Ironbound]

I do enjoy reading these topics of yours, Hunter, though it is unfortunate that I do not follow American politics very closely. Despite that, it is easy to see the analysis and reasoning behind your discussions, and that only adds to my understanding.

It's a pity I cannot make an educated contribution to anything outside the tangled web of Indian and South Asian politics, but I can take this opportunity to express my appreciation for these discussions you raise.

[Deleted User]

I'm not so sure debating would go well for Johnson. Pretty much the only reason why people are considering voting for him is that he's not Trump or Clinton as far as I could see.

That is pretty false. The real reason I and many others want to see Johnson on the debate stage is because most people are left in the dark about Libertarians and their platforms due to the manipulative 2 party system, both of which are corrupt. Given the chance to show up there wouldn't necessarily impact this election so much as springboard Libertarians into relevancy in future elections. Johnson is more rational, more sane, more down to earth than either Trump or Clinton and has less baggage. He could certainly debate them and well if he were given the chance.

But in the end he is politically incompetent and would arguably be a worse president than Trump. The fact that a presidential candidate asks "What is Aleppo?," demonstrates his ignorance and how much of a disaster having him as a leader would be. This ignorance would be highlighted in a debate context, because next to Clinton's world knowledge (and even arguably Trump's) he would look like a bumbling idiot.

Politically incompetent because of one instance? Right. It's not like that's never happened to just about every other candidate at one point or another. Also considering that 9/10 Americans would share Mr. Johnson's confusion on the matter, it's something that is literally never covered in this country. Clinton is corrupt and pathological liar. Trump is far more ignorant than either Clinton or Trump, if you don't know that then you are rather ignorant yourself.

I would agree Clinton isn't great at selling herself, and probably wouldn't become President if all of her opponents weren't sabotaging themselves (not because I don't think she would be good, but because she's not the best public speaker or most charismatic person).

Opponent* no one else but Trump is given a fair shot in this election, and yes he is tripping over himself at times.

I don't think Trump would kill the world, but I do think he's dangerous, and I think most people see that so he isn't going to win. Even people who currently are saying they won't vote for Clinton will switch over to her the more they think about it. At least I hope people do that.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0

You're vastly underestimating people's willingness to vote. Trump and Hillary won't change that.

Look I get it, you hate everything Johnson and Libertarians stand for. But there's no need to cherry pick off of one lapse and build an entire platform against him based off that, Obama said there were 57 states and that's ok, but when Johnson says "What's Aleppo?" something almost all Americans have never heard of, it's "incompetent". Trump or Hillary both wouldn't know what to do with Aleppo either.

[AuthorReborn]

By the way, here's the aforementioned "Allepo" clip that is the reason Johnson is being repeatedly called incompetent:

The MSNBC host certainly did seem to be talking about an acronym, just based on my understanding of English pronunciation and if you truly want someone to know that you are talking about a location and you are referring to a city, then you need to put the county after the city name. Otherwise, it doesn't really sound like a city, it sounds more like a group or corporation. And @0:22, once Johnson got the clarification he needed, he then clarified that he had a plan for Syria, not specifically the city of Allepo, but actually the entire country of Syria.

[Shamitako]

Audibily - the word "Aleppo" could be interpreted as "A Leppo" - and Johnson took it as an acronym - as Lexi did (perhaps purposely).

No I really had no idea. Although seeing it written as a word made that less likely since it wasn't all caps, but considering we're the Land of Acronyms it wouldn't have surprised me. We have other acronyms that are written as regular words. Also I'm still not entirely certain what we're talking about... >_< Mde (come to think of it, is that an acronym of some kind?) helped but I don't know like anything about world affairs

[mde2001]

Look, I was probably a bit harsh on the guy in my last post, but I don't think it would be in his best interests to be in the debate. Iirc he's currently polling at around 10% which is incredibly good for a 3rd party candidate. While there may be some who know of and support his policies, I think a majority of his voters are disenfranchised conservatives, who find the concept of Trump awful, but can't bring themselves to vote for Clinton. Even if the Aleppo mistake just legitimately not understanding the question, this highlights part of the reason why it wouldn't be good for him to be on a stage with Clinton and Trump. He isn't anywhere near as well prepared as either of them, and while he may be just as competent (probably more than Trump), he will look unprepared and uninformed.

Johnson may have been a good governor, but there's a huge difference between that and being President. The President can't just say "oh, foreign policy isn't really in my parties platform, I'm going to ignore it." America's decisions make a huge impact on the rest of the world, and while obviously focusing on America is an acceptable thing for the American President to do, he can't be as focused on it as he seems to be. Your status as a global superpower comes with a responsibility. Coming from an Australian, given that we pretty much follow you into every conflict you're involved in, I find the concept of both Trump and Johnson disturbing, as they just aren't very well informed. While there are checks and measures, and the President can't make these decisions on his own, the kind of people both of them would appoint Secretary of State, wouldn't be good for foreign relations at all.

While I'm very clearly not a libertarian, I don't actually mind Johnson as a person. He's significantly more modest than either of the main two candidates, and he seems relatively charismatic, but while these are both admirable qualities, they aren't really that relevant to becoming President. People like him have a place within your political system, but if he chooses to be so focused on internal affairs, he shouldn't be trying to be President, as they have to care about both America and the rest of the world.

[Shamitako]

Yeah, uh, you seem to have missed something about the political climate in America RN: We want to be isolationists (again). There's a whole lot of people here who want us to retreat back into our shell. Stop spending money on military campaigns elsewhere, stop trying to dictate what the rules the world should abide by, and focus on repairing our multitude of issues at home. Let the world be as it may until it's at our doorstep again. I'm not saying it's right, in fact I heavily disagree with it considering it's failed in the past. But no matter which candidate we end up with, they're all going to end up with similar foreign policy (even if they say otherwise in their campaign rhetoric)

Trump might be an exception since his political platform is such a mess and the Republican party still wants to maintain a world presence, but he's really impossible to read so I can't say for certain

I'm actually surprised you want America to be involved in world affairs, most foreign people tend to tell me they think America meddling with the world is a pain and that we should mind our own business

EDIT: Oh, also, Governor>President is actually a pretty solid transition imo. You're right that Governors don't have to deal with the world on the same scale, but in terms of the skills needed to perform the jobs they're very similar, both being executive positions and all

[mde2001]

Oh, I'm certainly not denying that a lot of Americans want to start an isolationist policy again, and I agree that that is actually good for him, I just don't think it would be good for the world in general, because as you've said, it just doesn't really work.

I don't exactly want America meddling in world affairs as such, but it is relatively inevitable given how important you are on a world scale. I also don't think that any involvement is meddling. America has often overstepped its boundaries, but I think some degree of involvement is important. Therefore I want someone who will meddle in a less dangerous manner. While Clinton is by no means ideal for that, I think she is going to be the best out of the three from that standpoint.

I also don't think Governor into President is a bad transition for the right kind of person. I think it could be incredibly valuable experience that would help out with the job, but I don't think that being governor qualifies you for it as such or necessarily means you have the right skill set.

[Chase]

Clinton may HAVE a track record, but there's absolutely no measure of "success" behind it. It's just that in comparison to the other candidates, she's been there before.

Benghazi - for example - is the most memorable conflict Hillary was responsible for as Secretary of State - and the result of that was four dead Americans (that she often claims didn't even die at all!) and a massive circle-jerk of blame. (It's not terrorists - it's demonstrators in an "internet video".)

Clinton also was responsible for being overly aggressive in the Middle East, decentralizing power in the region and playing a small part in ensuring the chaotic nature that exists over there by doing exactly the opposite of the "Dove" mentality Democrats claim to have. She didn't leave damage on purpose, but when you take out a stable government in the Middle East chaos tends to follow in the region for YEARS (see Afghanistan after the Soviet Union, the United States, the Taliban) to follow.

That's the playing field over there. Globalized military and collapsing governments for the sake of removing oppressive leaders and pouring money into nation-building provides rebels and peoples with ill-intent with our weaponry and technology inadvertently.

---

If you're going to run a campaign - be it Johnson or President Barack Obama - that promises pulling troops OUT of this situation - it means a whole lot if you actually commit to it. Conservatives -and- Liberals alike have family members overseas.

While the Libertarian style of isolationism looks more like an ostrich with it's head in the sand and less like a dove, it's more immediately effective. Nations are forced to fend for themselves -or- commit to America in larger (and in most cases much more equal) amounts in order to cause America to serve as Earth's policemen, and honestly, there shouldn't be such an expectation or over-reliance on some nations to be accountable for other ones.

---

Mde - picture this.

A young, tired, female in a 'Bernie Sanders' t-shirt is sitting at a bar. In walks in an equally tired 'John Kasich' supportor. A college student who is perhaps a little more conservative than Kasich but is aware that the likes of Kasich's opponents - Trump and Ted Cruz - are in many ways not the best decision for America as he feels Clinton and even Sanders is.

The conservative buys the liberal a drink - takes a seat next to her and rubs elbows with her - and both walk out of the bar determined to vote for neither candidate but 'Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson' instead.

That's the Libertarian Party in a nutshell - younger, college educated voters who hold varying opinions on what the ideal political climate is, lending the party to fall smack in the middle of the spectrum. Often compromising on fiscal conservatism, social liberalism, and avoiding talking about "necessary war" at all costs.

It's essentially the students at Kent State all over again. College students don't see too much value in fighting others or being policemen for the world.

...all that to say, you're yet again wrong on who Johnson's campaign poses a bigger danger to. Trump isn't seeing any real threat at all from Constitution Party candidate Bill Castle....(his name isn't even bill...I don't really care, his last name is Castle) because the super cons are all in on Trump if only for the sake of holding on to the Supreme Court. He -is- dealing with Johnson as we've both claimed.

Clinton however, is going to lose voters to Johnson too. He provides all the social liberalism she could muster in a manner that makes voters much more excited about backing him. He also is charismatic and much less blemished than Hillary.

Thank you for being patient with me though. I've been enjoying the spar.