The debates: wasn’t Obama the lesser of two evils last time?

In the debates tonight, Gary Johnson will not be allowed to debate, but yet all of his supporters are being told that if we do not support Romney, Obama will get back in. If we are a large enough crowd to swing the vote, then why are we not allowed to be represented in the debates? Does this not tell you something? That a large majority is completely ignored and shutdown, and yet is told they must vote for another candidate, or they’ll split the vote?

So which is it? If we are large enough to swing the vote, why can we not have our presidential contender in the debates?

If you are republican; does Romney actually support your views and principles? And if not; will you stand with us, or against us? Since the libertarians represent most republican views and more, why do you not separate yourself from this broken two party system which does not represent you?

Wasn’t Obama the lesser of two evils the first time around?

Obama was supposed to bring the troops home and close Guantanamo Bay. This resonated with many voters.

McCain wanted to continue Bush’s policies, which many people didn’t want. Many people were tired of all the wars and endless bailouts and big government spending.

Judging by his record as governor of Massachusetts; Mitt Romney appears to be no different than Obama or Bush, and would continue all the same evil constitution crushing policies and massive government spending of his predecessors.

Why are we not supporting men of conviction instead? Why are we not supporting men with proven records of keeping their word and keeping the government in check?

Why are we pleading to candidates who act like feudal lords? Why are we choosing ‘the lesser of two evils’ in a vain effort to slow down evil, rather than end it?

When we look to presidents as being all powerful, we look to the main challenger and we ask them to save us. It’s like saying “Oh lord Romney, will you save us from the wrath of King Obama? Will you be good to your loyal subjects? Will you be a better ruler of the masses?” This is a tragic way to go about voting for ‘change’ in any country.

Why don’t we stand on our own two feet and vote on principle instead?

Why are we allowing ourselves to be guided by fears instead of convictions? Why are we not acting as the founding fathers did?

As far as electing president; Gary Johnson is our only real hope to make a difference in this election, and he should be allowed to debate the other two contenders.

Presidential Debate 2012: Gary Johnson Support Grows, Sponsors Pull Out to Protest Exclusion of Libertarians

Both President Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee are gearing up for their first presidential debate showdown in Denver on Wednesday, but there is one man who will not be participating in the prime-time television debate: libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. That decision has angered some Gary Johnson supporters so much that at least two of the original sponsors of the 2012 presidential debates have decided to pull their support.

Philips Electronics and the women’s organization YWCA have dropped their sponsorship, after they got flooded with letters from Gary Johnson supporters and the watchdog groups Open Debates and Help the Comission. According to US News, the non-profit which runs the presidential debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates, relies heavily on sponsors, so the decision by Philips Electronics and YWCA is likely to make a real impact.

In it announcement of its withdrawal of support, Philips wrote that it is concerned the commission’s work “may appear to support bi-partisan” instead of “non-partisan” politics. That comes as a major victory to Johnson supporters and Open Debate, who have been protesting the debates for months.

The commission had originally stated that Johnson could be included in the debates, but he ultimately failed to garner the 15 percent support of the national electorate in order to be featured. Although Johnson filed a lawsuit over being excluded, he still does not have enough support to meet the commission’s criteria. Since the commission was created in 1987, only at the 1992 debate, when Ross Perot appeared alongside George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, has a third-party candidate appeared on stage at a debate.

The Gary Johnson campaign is not expected to make in-roads in its legal challenge to being excluded, so libertarian supporters may seek to pressure more sponsors to boycott and pull their support as a way to express their disapproval with the debate commission.

3 out of 10 sponsors of the debates have already pulled out their funding. The paradigm shift is happening. People are waking up. They realize this election is a fraud. There is a real chance that Gary Johnson and the libertarians could win big in this election, and the media is terrified that the general populace will find out. Voting for one candidate to prevent another from winning is a terrible strategy and will only end in tragedy.

Will you be a part of the movement which forever changes the political landscape for the better? Or will you be part of the tired old broken tradition of voting for the lesser of two evils? Will you vote for more of the same under a different banner, or will you be brave enough to make a difference? The future is up to you, one by one, we will make a difference.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s