Gary Johnson makes the GOP nervous..

[PredFan]

"Left wing loon"?

Pardon my redundancy.

 

[Dick Tuck]

How hard is this? Libertarians are constantly bitching that their candidates aren't being given a shot. Well, if your candidates can only pull in less than 2% of the vote, they'll never be given a shot. If the Libertarians want to be a force, they ought to stand behind their candidates, and open their wallets for them, else you'll be forever in the wilderness of being a fringe force.

Great! Advice from a left wing loon. I'm sure Governor Johnson will be eager to hear it.

I don't really give a shit. But if Libertarians want to stop being seen as a fringe group, they better put their votes and money where there mouth is. A party that can only draw 2% is a joke.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

He will. Obama is the enemy of business. With him out of the way, businesses will begin to tkae risks, invest, and grow. Simply because they know that obama is out of there. it really is that simple. Romney won't even have to lift a finger. If you believe that Romney will send jobs overseas then you've been listening to left wing talking points instead of thinking and I can't help you with that.

And yes by cutting taxes on everyone, including the middle class, Romney will stimulate the economy better than anything obama has done or could do.

These things will provide good paying jobs for the middle class, and result in a strong US dollar. If you think obama is going to prefer the US over other countries financially then you have not been paying attention the last 4 years.

I don't care to listen to the left, they're just as blind as the right. Perhaps I've just been jaded by politics, but there is nothing on god's green earth that will make me believe Romney will bring good paying middle class jobs back to the US, especially not while lovingly supporting free trade. And of course Obama has been horrible for jobs. Please don't take my opposition to Romney as support for Obama.

Businesses won't expand at the mere sight of Obama leaving office. They'll wait and see what Romney has in store first. And if Romney does anything like what he did in MA then businesses will sit back and wait for him to leave office too.

But even if you assume the best scenario for Romney, it still won't look good. Some taxes may get cut, but I would guess that's about it. And tax cuts are not a panacea for an ailing economy. Most presidents don't accomplish anywhere near what they promise, Romney is no different. Taxes, that's about it.

I disagree about Romney and businesses but I agree that there is a lot to dislike about Mitt. The only way to provide jobs for the middle class is to get government out of the way of the people who hire middle class workers. obama won't do that and Romney will.

I'd rather have Johnson or Ron Paul any day, but obama MUST go, and if I can help that in any way, I will.

Based off of what evidence? His record shows the opposite. He passed Romneycare and raised taxes and fees on businesses.

 

[Shelzin]

How hard is this? Libertarians are constantly bitching that their candidates aren't being given a shot. Well, if your candidates can only pull in less than 2% of the vote, they'll never be given a shot. If the Libertarians want to be a force, they ought to stand behind their candidates, and open their wallets for them, else you'll be forever in the wilderness of being a fringe force.

I don't think that's a very valid point. I mean... Most of the canidates money is from companies and organizations that are buying favors. You make it into a circle jerk problem doing that route. The problems with the government, are what makes it to where you get elected? Brilliant. Your own worst enemy.

 

[PredFan]

I don't care to listen to the left, they're just as blind as the right. Perhaps I've just been jaded by politics, but there is nothing on god's green earth that will make me believe Romney will bring good paying middle class jobs back to the US, especially not while lovingly supporting free trade. And of course Obama has been horrible for jobs. Please don't take my opposition to Romney as support for Obama.

Businesses won't expand at the mere sight of Obama leaving office. They'll wait and see what Romney has in store first. And if Romney does anything like what he did in MA then businesses will sit back and wait for him to leave office too.

But even if you assume the best scenario for Romney, it still won't look good. Some taxes may get cut, but I would guess that's about it. And tax cuts are not a panacea for an ailing economy. Most presidents don't accomplish anywhere near what they promise, Romney is no different. Taxes, that's about it.

I disagree about Romney and businesses but I agree that there is a lot to dislike about Mitt. The only way to provide jobs for the middle class is to get government out of the way of the people who hire middle class workers. obama won't do that and Romney will.

I'd rather have Johnson or Ron Paul any day, but obama MUST go, and if I can help that in any way, I will.

Based off of what evidence? His record shows the opposite. He passed Romneycare and raised taxes and fees on businesses.

Based on what he says he's going to do. You realize that the president of the United states is a different job than Governor of a state right? At any rate, we know what obama will do; harm the business climate.

 

[PredFan]

How hard is this? Libertarians are constantly bitching that their candidates aren't being given a shot. Well, if your candidates can only pull in less than 2% of the vote, they'll never be given a shot. If the Libertarians want to be a force, they ought to stand behind their candidates, and open their wallets for them, else you'll be forever in the wilderness of being a fringe force.

I don't think that's a very valid point. I mean... Most of the canidates money is from companies and organizations that are buying favors. You make it into a circle jerk problem doing that route. The problems with the government, are what makes it to where you get elected? Brilliant. Your own worst enemy.

Also, the LP does quite well with campaign contributions, comparitively speaking.

 

[Dick Tuck]

How hard is this? Libertarians are constantly bitching that their candidates aren't being given a shot. Well, if your candidates can only pull in less than 2% of the vote, they'll never be given a shot. If the Libertarians want to be a force, they ought to stand behind their candidates, and open their wallets for them, else you'll be forever in the wilderness of being a fringe force.

I don't think that's a very valid point. I mean... Most of the canidates money is from companies and organizations that are buying favors. You make it into a circle jerk problem doing that route. The problems with the government, are what makes it to where you get elected? Brilliant. Your own worst enemy.

Disagree. If Ross Perot didn't go batshit loony in 1992, he had a clear shot at winning. As for corporate money, lets not forget that the Koch Brothers were the biggest contributors to Cato, prior to finding out that they can just buy and own Romney.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is really short sighted and counter productive to long range goals to focus on any single piece of legislation as the sum total of what a candidate believes or doesn't believe. A strong states right candidate can fully support a state's decision to have a particular policy whether that is their tax code or healthcare system or environmental rules, etc. without believing such policies are appropriate at the federal level. In fact that is exactly the stance taken by our Founding Fathers who would out libertarian the best libertarian today. Certainly Gary Johnson promoted and supported and lobbied for certain things in New Mexico that would be completely wrong to do at the federal level.

In four years of experience with him, Obama has made it crystal clear that he sees the future of the country as one that is drawn more and more into central government rule and authority and that government is the ultimate solution for everything.

Romney has made it crystal clear that the federal government has power to initiate policy and regulations that encourage or hinder private enterprise, but that the ultimate solutions for economic prosperity and growth lies with the private sector and he is committed to promoting that.

Very clear choices that should not be negated because of whatever approach he took as governor of a very small eastern state.

 

[Liberal]

I have to be honest, I just don't understand why there is not a truthfully viable third party..

A lot of people blame the media, but if people are as "fed up" as they seem to be with current politics you figure out a way to get more educated about their options.

Honestly I think that a third viable third party would be a refreshing thing in politics. Not that it would change the tone, but just throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing. Although Citizens United V. FEC may have sealed the fate of any third party rise.

Either way, seriously, fuck anyone who criticizes you for voting for a different candidate than A or B.

/rant.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is really short sighted and counter productive to long range goals to focus on any single piece of legislation as the sum total of what a candidate believes or doesn't believe. A strong states right candidate can fully support a state's decision to have a particular policy whether that is their tax code or healthcare system or environmental rules, etc. without believing such policies are appropriate at the federal level. In fact that is exactly the stance taken by our Founding Fathers who would out libertarian the best libertarian today. Certainly Gary Johnson promoted and supported and lobbied for certain things in New Mexico that would be completely wrong to do at the federal level.

In four years of experience with him, Obama has made it crystal clear that he sees the future of the country as one that is drawn more and more into central government rule and authority and that government is the ultimate solution for everything.

Romney has made it crystal clear that the federal government has power to initiate policy and regulations that encourage or hinder private enterprise, but that the ultimate solutions for economic prosperity and growth lies with the private sector and he is committed to promoting that.

Very clear choices that should not be negated because of whatever approach he took as governor of a very small eastern state.

Well it's ridiculous to say that the founders would "out-libertarian any libertarian today," because that's pretty far fetched. Regardless, I think you have a mixed up idea of federalism. Just because you understand that a state may have the right to do something the federal government may not, such as enact an individual mandate for example, doesn't mean you support it. I don't support government health care, so I wouldn't sign it at the federal or state level. The fact that Romney did so in Massachusetts shows that he does believe that it's alright for the government to interfere in the health care industry, which is the problem. We want somebody who believes in the free market.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is really short sighted and counter productive to long range goals to focus on any single piece of legislation as the sum total of what a candidate believes or doesn't believe. A strong states right candidate can fully support a state's decision to have a particular policy whether that is their tax code or healthcare system or environmental rules, etc. without believing such policies are appropriate at the federal level. In fact that is exactly the stance taken by our Founding Fathers who would out libertarian the best libertarian today. Certainly Gary Johnson promoted and supported and lobbied for certain things in New Mexico that would be completely wrong to do at the federal level.

In four years of experience with him, Obama has made it crystal clear that he sees the future of the country as one that is drawn more and more into central government rule and authority and that government is the ultimate solution for everything.

Romney has made it crystal clear that the federal government has power to initiate policy and regulations that encourage or hinder private enterprise, but that the ultimate solutions for economic prosperity and growth lies with the private sector and he is committed to promoting that.

Very clear choices that should not be negated because of whatever approach he took as governor of a very small eastern state.

Well it's ridiculous to say that the founders would "out-libertarian any libertarian today," because that's pretty far fetched. Regardless, I think you have a mixed up idea of federalism. Just because you understand that a state may have the right to do something the federal government may not, such as enact an individual mandate for example, doesn't mean you support it. I don't support government health care, so I wouldn't sign it at the federal or state level. The fact that Romney did so in Massachusetts shows that he does believe that it's alright for the government to interfere in the health care industry, which is the problem. We want somebody who believes in the free market.

The fact that Romney did it in the State of Massachusetts with overwhelming support from the people of Massachusetts and overwhelming support from a bipartisan legislature--only two votes opposed--says that he was a representative of the people and not a would be dictator. That is exactly what I want in a President. That is not what we have now. Obamacare was passed against the will of the majority of the people, without total Democratic support, with no Republican support. And therein is your difference.

The Founders kept the federal government constitutionally limited according to their understanding of what the constitution allowed. They also did nothing to obstruct the states from having their own little theocracies or societies in their hellfire days or whatever society the people wanted to have. They trusted a free people to weed out the worst and keep the best, and that is exactly what happened almost everywhere.

 

[Dissent]

Because the POTUS isn't Caesar. He cannot just do whatever he wants to. Plus, johnson has the handicap of not knowing all of the details and intel that obama does. Oh, the candidates have big dreams and big promises, but on January 21st, when it's time to go to work, the realities of the job prevent them from acting much differently than their predecessors did.

You don't think he would get ANYTHING done? I mean a lot of time it takes a president to support something for people to say yeah pass it....his FP would be different because he doesn't have to get anything through congress to change that...he won't have to drone kill anyone,he can end the wars and occupations...he may not be able to do everything he wants but he can do quite a bit...I really hope he can fix the budget.

No no, he would get things done, probably better than obama and Romney. I'd take him over the other two any day.

The things that would stop him from initiating the FP ideas he campaigns on are the complexity of global politics. There are treaties and economic factors....it's just more complicated than what Johnson proposes.

Fixing the budget is waaaaaaay more complicated because he would need the support of congress. Do you think they will allow him to slash the military? Or entitlements? Or medicare/medicaid? Or screw aroud with the IRS?

He can not fund those things...he can veto it as many times as he can MAYBE they will get the message...doubtful but its possible.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is really short sighted and counter productive to long range goals to focus on any single piece of legislation as the sum total of what a candidate believes or doesn't believe. A strong states right candidate can fully support a state's decision to have a particular policy whether that is their tax code or healthcare system or environmental rules, etc. without believing such policies are appropriate at the federal level. In fact that is exactly the stance taken by our Founding Fathers who would out libertarian the best libertarian today. Certainly Gary Johnson promoted and supported and lobbied for certain things in New Mexico that would be completely wrong to do at the federal level.

In four years of experience with him, Obama has made it crystal clear that he sees the future of the country as one that is drawn more and more into central government rule and authority and that government is the ultimate solution for everything.

Romney has made it crystal clear that the federal government has power to initiate policy and regulations that encourage or hinder private enterprise, but that the ultimate solutions for economic prosperity and growth lies with the private sector and he is committed to promoting that.

Very clear choices that should not be negated because of whatever approach he took as governor of a very small eastern state.

Well it's ridiculous to say that the founders would "out-libertarian any libertarian today," because that's pretty far fetched. Regardless, I think you have a mixed up idea of federalism. Just because you understand that a state may have the right to do something the federal government may not, such as enact an individual mandate for example, doesn't mean you support it. I don't support government health care, so I wouldn't sign it at the federal or state level. The fact that Romney did so in Massachusetts shows that he does believe that it's alright for the government to interfere in the health care industry, which is the problem. We want somebody who believes in the free market.

The fact that Romney did it in the State of Massachusetts with overwhelming support from the people of Massachusetts and overwhelming support from a bipartisan legislature--only two votes opposed--says that he was a representative of the people and not a would be dictator. That is exactly what I want in a President. That is not what we have now. Obamacare was passed against the will of the majority of the people, without total Democratic support, with no Republican support. And therein is your difference.

The Founders kept the federal government constitutionally limited according to their understanding of what the constitution allowed. They also did nothing to obstruct the states from having their own little theocracies or societies in their hellfire days or whatever society the people wanted to have. They trusted a free people to weed out the worst and keep the best, and that is exactly what happened almost everywhere.

So he gave up his principles to appease the masses? That's not what I want in a President.

So what does that have to do with being better libertarians than any libertarian today, even assuming that that's true?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well it's ridiculous to say that the founders would "out-libertarian any libertarian today," because that's pretty far fetched. Regardless, I think you have a mixed up idea of federalism. Just because you understand that a state may have the right to do something the federal government may not, such as enact an individual mandate for example, doesn't mean you support it. I don't support government health care, so I wouldn't sign it at the federal or state level. The fact that Romney did so in Massachusetts shows that he does believe that it's alright for the government to interfere in the health care industry, which is the problem. We want somebody who believes in the free market.

The fact that Romney did it in the State of Massachusetts with overwhelming support from the people of Massachusetts and overwhelming support from a bipartisan legislature--only two votes opposed--says that he was a representative of the people and not a would be dictator. That is exactly what I want in a President. That is not what we have now. Obamacare was passed against the will of the majority of the people, without total Democratic support, with no Republican support. And therein is your difference.

The Founders kept the federal government constitutionally limited according to their understanding of what the constitution allowed. They also did nothing to obstruct the states from having their own little theocracies or societies in their hellfire days or whatever society the people wanted to have. They trusted a free people to weed out the worst and keep the best, and that is exactly what happened almost everywhere.

So he gave up his principles to appease the masses? That's not what I want in a President.

So what does that have to do with being better libertarians than any libertarian today, even assuming that that's true?

What if the principle is to represent the people and govern as the people want? Which do you prefer? A President who offers leadership and guidance but bows to the will of the people? Or one who bulls through his own agenda and to hell with what anybody thinks about it?

 

[dblack]

I have to be honest, I just don't understand why there is not a truthfully viable third party..

A lot of people blame the media, but if people are as "fed up" as they seem to be with current politics you figure out a way to get more educated about their options.

Honestly I think that a third viable third party would be a refreshing thing in politics. Not that it would change the tone, but just throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing. Although Citizens United V. FEC may have sealed the fate of any third party rise.

Either way, seriously, fuck anyone who criticizes you for voting for a different candidate than A or B.

/rant.

There's not a viable third party because the Democrats and Republicans have colluded to prevent it. In addition, the major financial interests of the nation are content with their ability to control our government via the existing parties. Maybe it's overly pessimistic, but I have to assume that no alternative party will rise to prominence if it goes against this arrangement.

 

[P@triot]

If this elections choice was Obama or Gary Johnson I wouldn't vote.

I would - and it would be Obama. That's right, I'd pick the worst politician in US history over an anarchist idiot.

 

[dblack]

The fact that Romney did it in the State of Massachusetts with overwhelming support from the people of Massachusetts and overwhelming support from a bipartisan legislature--only two votes opposed--says that he was a representative of the people and not a would be dictator. That is exactly what I want in a President. That is not what we have now. Obamacare was passed against the will of the majority of the people, without total Democratic support, with no Republican support. And therein is your difference.

The Founders kept the federal government constitutionally limited according to their understanding of what the constitution allowed. They also did nothing to obstruct the states from having their own little theocracies or societies in their hellfire days or whatever society the people wanted to have. They trusted a free people to weed out the worst and keep the best, and that is exactly what happened almost everywhere.

So he gave up his principles to appease the masses? That's not what I want in a President.

So what does that have to do with being better libertarians than any libertarian today, even assuming that that's true?

What if the principle is to represent the people and govern as the people want? Which do you prefer? A President who offers leadership and guidance but bows to the will of the people? Or one who bulls through his own agenda and to hell with what anybody thinks about it?

That is NOT the principle I want honored. I want leaders who fight to protect our freedom - even if, especially if, the angry mob demands otherwise.

 

[dblack]

If this elections choice was Obama or Gary Johnson I wouldn't vote.

I would - and it would be Obama. That's right, I'd pick the worst politician in US history over an anarchist idiot.

Of course you would. This is the point I've been trying to make. They're both corporatist authoritarians. Folks like you would naturally prefer Obama to a real libertarian.

 

[PredFan]

I have to be honest, I just don't understand why there is not a truthfully viable third party..

A lot of people blame the media, but if people are as "fed up" as they seem to be with current politics you figure out a way to get more educated about their options.

If only that were the case. Most people, when they get fed up, tune out entirely.

Honestly I think that a third viable third party would be a refreshing thing in politics. Not that it would change the tone, but just throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing. Although Citizens United V. FEC may have sealed the fate of any third party rise.

Either way, seriously, fuck anyone who criticizes you for voting for a different candidate than A or B.

/rant.

Yup.

 

[thereisnospoon]

These people are 1 step away from making it law that only the Republican and Democrat party can ever be elected. It's very sad to see. Reality is, if Mitt loses then everyone who voted for Mitt over Gary wasted their vote and in fact voted for Obama.

Prove me wrong Romney-bots.

So we are wasting our vote by not supporting the person who has no name recognition, isn't on anyone's radar, and couldn't even gin up excitement in a primary?

I think ill take my chances with Mitt.

Mitt is not on my radar seeing as he is a Progressive who plans on spending more than Obama on more progressive policies... Do you want me to pull the video?

Again, if Mitt loses you voted for Obama and wasted your vote on someone that couldn't win.

Prove me wrong.


Until then, I'll take my chances on Gary.

Do that... You state you do not want to vote for either candidate. So you vote for Johnson.
Brilliant. Every vote for Gary Johnson IS a vote fro Obama.
Stay HOME!