Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[kaz]

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

You vote for losers.

You vote for Democrats in sheep's clothing

At least you admit you vote for losers. You are more interested in feeling good about yourself than in actually helping this country.

And you're "helping this country" by voting for Democrats with an R by their name? Explain how that works

They arent democrats with an R. They are Republicans. While I differ with many policies they can make incremental differences. With your approach there are no differences.

That's because too many people vote for the two sucky identical parties. If people won't vote third party because they can't win, it's a self fulfilling prophesy. What good have Republican supreme court nominees done? W went on a spending orgy the left could only dream of. Yeah, they are Democrats with an R after their name. Picking between Tweedledee and Tweedledum isn't a choice, you get the same candidate either way

 

[The Rabbi]

You vote for losers.

You vote for Democrats in sheep's clothing

At least you admit you vote for losers. You are more interested in feeling good about yourself than in actually helping this country.

And you're "helping this country" by voting for Democrats with an R by their name? Explain how that works

They arent democrats with an R. They are Republicans. While I differ with many policies they can make incremental differences. With your approach there are no differences.

That's because too many people vote for the two sucky identical parties. If people won't vote third party because they can't win, it's a self fulfilling prophesy. What good have Republican supreme court nominees done? W went on a spending orgy the left could only dream of. Yeah, they are Democrats with an R after their name. Picking between Tweedledee and Tweedledum isn't a choice, you get the same candidate either way

Actually parties have to build coalitions to win elections. The GOP built a coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks.
The Libertarians want to build a coaliton of the crazy and the purists.
This is why Libertarians lose elections.

 

[kaz]

You vote for Democrats in sheep's clothing

At least you admit you vote for losers. You are more interested in feeling good about yourself than in actually helping this country.

And you're "helping this country" by voting for Democrats with an R by their name? Explain how that works

They arent democrats with an R. They are Republicans. While I differ with many policies they can make incremental differences. With your approach there are no differences.

That's because too many people vote for the two sucky identical parties. If people won't vote third party because they can't win, it's a self fulfilling prophesy. What good have Republican supreme court nominees done? W went on a spending orgy the left could only dream of. Yeah, they are Democrats with an R after their name. Picking between Tweedledee and Tweedledum isn't a choice, you get the same candidate either way

Actually parties have to build coalitions to win elections. The GOP built a coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks.
The Libertarians want to build a coaliton of the crazy and the purists.
This is why Libertarians lose elections.

I agree, the party sucks. I won't vote for Johnson just like I won't vote for Trump. I'm still considering Hillary, at least she's not anti-free trade like Trump. And she'd be so bogged down in scandal that she'd get nothing done. I'm going to comb over the other third parties though, Gawd I home one of them didn't pick a moon bat like you, Democrats and Libertarians did. What is wrong with voters in this country?

 

[The Rabbi]

At least you admit you vote for losers. You are more interested in feeling good about yourself than in actually helping this country.

And you're "helping this country" by voting for Democrats with an R by their name? Explain how that works

They arent democrats with an R. They are Republicans. While I differ with many policies they can make incremental differences. With your approach there are no differences.

That's because too many people vote for the two sucky identical parties. If people won't vote third party because they can't win, it's a self fulfilling prophesy. What good have Republican supreme court nominees done? W went on a spending orgy the left could only dream of. Yeah, they are Democrats with an R after their name. Picking between Tweedledee and Tweedledum isn't a choice, you get the same candidate either way

Actually parties have to build coalitions to win elections. The GOP built a coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks.
The Libertarians want to build a coaliton of the crazy and the purists.
This is why Libertarians lose elections.

I agree, the party sucks. I won't vote for Johnson just like I won't vote for Trump. I'm still considering Hillary, at least she's not anti-free trade like Trump. And she'd be so bogged down in scandal that she'd get nothing done. I'm going to comb over the other third parties though, Gawd I home one of them didn't pick a moon bat like you, Democrats and Libertarians did. What is wrong with voters in this country?

Why wouldnt you vote for Johnson? Why not vote for Vermin Supreme? Why vote at all?

 

[kaz]

And you're "helping this country" by voting for Democrats with an R by their name? Explain how that works

They arent democrats with an R. They are Republicans. While I differ with many policies they can make incremental differences. With your approach there are no differences.

That's because too many people vote for the two sucky identical parties. If people won't vote third party because they can't win, it's a self fulfilling prophesy. What good have Republican supreme court nominees done? W went on a spending orgy the left could only dream of. Yeah, they are Democrats with an R after their name. Picking between Tweedledee and Tweedledum isn't a choice, you get the same candidate either way

Actually parties have to build coalitions to win elections. The GOP built a coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks.
The Libertarians want to build a coaliton of the crazy and the purists.
This is why Libertarians lose elections.

I agree, the party sucks. I won't vote for Johnson just like I won't vote for Trump. I'm still considering Hillary, at least she's not anti-free trade like Trump. And she'd be so bogged down in scandal that she'd get nothing done. I'm going to comb over the other third parties though, Gawd I home one of them didn't pick a moon bat like you, Democrats and Libertarians did. What is wrong with voters in this country?

Why wouldnt you vote for Johnson? Why not vote for Vermin Supreme? Why vote at all?

Johnson isn't a libertarian. He's nuts, and not the good kind. Why do you vote at all?

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm still not sure what a Libertarian is.

Fiscal conservative/social liberal.

Sounds like trump

Largely so.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Libertarians did the only sensible thing and nominated Gary Johnson for their candidate for president. Johnson is the only reasonable choice in the race. He is a two term governor with a solid record. Does he have plenty of downsides? Of course. But not nearly as many as McCain. And lots of people, including me, voted for McCain.

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Gary Johnson is a loser. Only those with an IQ of a fishbowl would want to vote for him.

It;s true. But those with the IQ of a fishbowl beat those with the IQ of a soap dish. Which is what Hilary/Donald supporters have.
Im glad you care enough about my opinion to research things I wrote probably months if not years ago.

It was years ago, and I do care about pointing out irony and hypocrisy. It amuses me no end.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Gary Johnson is a loser. Only those with an IQ of a fishbowl would want to vote for him.

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's Gary taking votes from the Donald. This is just a power move from the libertarian wing. Similar to what Bernie's doing.

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

You vote for losers.

You're the one supporting Gary Johnson, who will get maybe, let's be generous, 3% in the general. So, speaking of losers.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's Gary taking votes from the Donald. This is just a power move from the libertarian wing. Similar to what Bernie's doing.

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

Right, I'm not asking for purism. Ron Paul was certainly no purist, but somebody who understands the non-aggression principle and property rights and uses them as their guide, even if we may not come to the same conclusion isn't asking for much I don't think. Someone who wants to keep Gitmo open, ban burqas, engage in "humanitarian" wars, wants government to enforce "equality," etc.. etc... is somebody I can never get behind.

Yes if the nominee won't pledge to dismantle the FBI and CIA immediately then they are clearly not Libertarians and must be opposed.
Libertarians are more interested in jerking off than in governing.

Nope. While those agencies are clearly unconstitutional, they're not at the top of my list. If those were among Johnson's transgressions against libertarianism I'd still consider him.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Libertarians did the only sensible thing and nominated Gary Johnson for their candidate for president. Johnson is the only reasonable choice in the race. He is a two term governor with a solid record. Does he have plenty of downsides? Of course. But not nearly as many as McCain. And lots of people, including me, voted for McCain.

He's looks like just a Hillary plant to pull votes from Trump ala Ross Perot.....about the same height.....but with a little more hair.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm still not sure what a Libertarian is.

Fiscal conservative/social liberal.

Wrong.

For starters, "fiscal conservative" is a meaningless phrase. Paul Ryan is a fiscal conservative, and remember his budget didn't even balance for decades and it increased government spending. That is in no way libertarian whatsoever. As far as social liberal goes, libertarians, despite what Gary Johnson says, are not interested in using the government to create a fictitious "even playing ground." Libertarians want the government to leave people and their property alone.

"The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism." - Murray Rothbard

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's Gary taking votes from the Donald. This is just a power move from the libertarian wing. Similar to what Bernie's doing.

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

You vote for losers.

You vote for Democrats in sheep's clothing

To be fair, he supported Romney in 2012 and McCain in 2008, so this is nothing new for him.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's Gary taking votes from the Donald. This is just a power move from the libertarian wing. Similar to what Bernie's doing.

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

You vote for losers.

You vote for Democrats in sheep's clothing

At least you admit you vote for losers. You are more interested in feeling good about yourself than in actually helping this country.

Except voting for any of these loons won't help the country.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm still not sure what a Libertarian is.

Fiscal conservative/social liberal.

Sounds like trump

Out of curiosity, is that just snark, or do you really think Trump is libertarian-like?

sealybobo has no idea what he's saying. Never has never will.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm still not sure what a Libertarian is.

Fiscal conservative/social liberal.

Wrong.

For starters, "fiscal conservative" is a meaningless phrase. Paul Ryan is a fiscal conservative, and remember his budget didn't even balance for decades and it increased government spending. That is in no way libertarian whatsoever. As far as social liberal goes, libertarians, despite what Gary Johnson says, are not interested in using the government to create a fictitious "even playing ground." Libertarians want the government to leave people and their property alone.

"The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism." - Murray Rothbard

The phrase may be meaningless to you but nobody can understand anything for you. Most libertarians align with fiscal conservatives who want smaller, more efficient government, lower taxes, etc. Don't believe in careless spending or the government's role in supplying jobs. That sort of thing.

Then socially they tend to want drug legalization, gay marriage, less government in our lives. That sort of thing.

To bad you had to scour the internet for an opinion you couldn't articulate though.

 

[Iceweasel]

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

You vote for losers.

You vote for Democrats in sheep's clothing

At least you admit you vote for losers. You are more interested in feeling good about yourself than in actually helping this country.

Except voting for any of these loons won't help the country.

Depends on how you define help.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm still not sure what a Libertarian is.

Fiscal conservative/social liberal.

Wrong.

For starters, "fiscal conservative" is a meaningless phrase. Paul Ryan is a fiscal conservative, and remember his budget didn't even balance for decades and it increased government spending. That is in no way libertarian whatsoever. As far as social liberal goes, libertarians, despite what Gary Johnson says, are not interested in using the government to create a fictitious "even playing ground." Libertarians want the government to leave people and their property alone.

"The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism." - Murray Rothbard

The phrase may be meaningless to you but nobody can understand anything for you. Most libertarians align with fiscal conservatives who want smaller, more efficient government, lower taxes, etc. Don't believe in careless spending or the government's role in supplying jobs. That sort of thing.

Then socially they tend to want drug legalization, gay marriage, less government in our lives. That sort of thing.

To bad you had to scour the internet for an opinion you couldn't articulate though.

Didn't have to "scour" the internet. Being steeped in the literature means you know exactly where to find relevant information. Again, fiscal conservatism does not mean smaller, more efficient government, or a disbelief in careless spending. We've had several "fiscal conservatives" in office and which one of them has done any of those things? You won't be able to name one. Not Reagan, not Newt, not either Bush, and not Paul Ryan. So many "fiscal conservatives," and yet government and spending grew under them all.

Again, social liberal doesn't mean "less government in our lives." It means using the government to enforce equality. Libertarianism means less government in our lives. I'm fiscally and socially libertarian, which means I actually want to cut spending and stop the government from messing with people's lives.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

You vote for losers.

You vote for Democrats in sheep's clothing

At least you admit you vote for losers. You are more interested in feeling good about yourself than in actually helping this country.

Except voting for any of these loons won't help the country.

Depends on how you define help.

Leaving people alone, both at home and abroad, is how I define help.

 

[The Rabbi]

They arent democrats with an R. They are Republicans. While I differ with many policies they can make incremental differences. With your approach there are no differences.

That's because too many people vote for the two sucky identical parties. If people won't vote third party because they can't win, it's a self fulfilling prophesy. What good have Republican supreme court nominees done? W went on a spending orgy the left could only dream of. Yeah, they are Democrats with an R after their name. Picking between Tweedledee and Tweedledum isn't a choice, you get the same candidate either way

Actually parties have to build coalitions to win elections. The GOP built a coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks.
The Libertarians want to build a coaliton of the crazy and the purists.
This is why Libertarians lose elections.

I agree, the party sucks. I won't vote for Johnson just like I won't vote for Trump. I'm still considering Hillary, at least she's not anti-free trade like Trump. And she'd be so bogged down in scandal that she'd get nothing done. I'm going to comb over the other third parties though, Gawd I home one of them didn't pick a moon bat like you, Democrats and Libertarians did. What is wrong with voters in this country?

Why wouldnt you vote for Johnson? Why not vote for Vermin Supreme? Why vote at all?

Johnson isn't a libertarian. He's nuts, and not the good kind. Why do you vote at all?

He happens to be the only candidate with actual executive experience in elected office. Who would you prefer? John McAfee? He's not nuts?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's Gary taking votes from the Donald. This is just a power move from the libertarian wing. Similar to what Bernie's doing.

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

You vote for losers.

You're the one supporting Gary Johnson, who will get maybe, let's be generous, 3% in the general. So, speaking of losers.

Johnson is polling well over 10% and that was before all this coverage.