Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[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.

He's a typical Libertarian. They are the most intolerant and untolerable people out there. They have all the answers. You just don't understand.

When he tries to speak for us? No, he doesn't. And it's intolerable, genius.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

He's a typical Libertarian. They are the most intolerant and untolerable people out there. They have all the answers. You just don't understand.

Yes, we intolerantly go around letting you make your own choices. What a dumb ass

No. You intolerantly go around lecturing anyone and everyone on why libertarianism is the only true conservative philosophy when in fact it is simply a first cousin to Bolshevism.

Dam, a dope smoking Republican ....

And then when you have no answer you revert to insults.
I've always said scratch a libertarian and you get a liberal.

Right. You haven't insulted anybody here. Cry me a river.

 

[kaz]

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.

And what was his name recognition in those polls? He was polling that high because his was the only other name included, not because anybody actually supported him. He was fourth after "I don't know" in that poll as well. Third party candidates always poll higher at this stage of the game, and then when people come to the conclusion that it's either the Republican or the Democrat, they end up voting for one of them.

I have a hard time thinking he'll get beyond 2-3 percent. That would still be high for the Libertarian Party. We'll see

 

[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'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.

And what was his name recognition in those polls? He was polling that high because his was the only other name included, not because anybody actually supported him. He was fourth after "I don't know" in that poll as well. Third party candidates always poll higher at this stage of the game, and then when people come to the conclusion that it's either the Republican or the Democrat, they end up voting for one of them.

I have a hard time thinking he'll get beyond 2-3 percent. That would still be high for the Libertarian Party. We'll see

Right. I said earlier let's be generous and say he gets 3%, but that'd be a miracle, especially since he'll never make it in the debates.

 

[The Rabbi]

And then when you have no answer you revert to insults.
I've always said scratch a libertarian and you get a liberal.

Actually go back and re-read this, you started the insults

Mom, he started it is a fail.

What a chick. You said I was insulting you, I just said I started insulting you when you insulted me, then you whined about what you just did

I didnt say you were insulting me. I said you couldn't answer my points and deflected to insults.
Are you sure you aren't channelling NYCarbineer?

You not liking my answers is not my not answering your points, Holmes. I think it's irrelevant to pick between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, you think it's critically important. I am voting for my objective, more than two choices. You don't like the answer. Tough noogies

Your objective is the be irrelevant. So you can achieve it more efficiently by staying home.
If your answer is "yo mama" then that isn't an answer, 'Slice.

 

[Toro]

I might vote for Johnson.

 

[The Rabbi]

I might vote for Johnson.

I'm excited for him to blow a load a liberty all over this country.

 

[flacaltenn]

Agreed. If Gary Woody, I mean Johnson, believed what he says now before he was nominated the Libertarian instead of after, he'd have credibility with me

You guys will get over Ron Paul eventually. Or are you jonesing for the whackier days when our BEST candidates sounded like career conspiracy nuts?? I joined 20 years ago with the expectation is was about governing in the US of A -- not an excercise in philosophy and an attempt to bore the public.

Gotta admit -- school choice, legalized weed, privatization, no wars in Iraq, Bosnia, ---- that drove them off by the busload.

So your advice on getting libertarians elected is to stop being libertarians. Well, that seems rather pointless to me.

What we are is not just an academic exercise. There are governing skills required if you are actually gonna quit debating and run candidates for office. Voters don't want to be prostelytzed. They want to know how you are gonna fix things without tearing it all down and being primmadonna about REBUILDING IT in your image.

We've had mental midgets nominated who believe that marijuana is a PLATFORM. Or that auditing the Fed is some kind of Holy Grail. It's on the freakin' list. The things I listed that we were mocked for are now commonly accepted. But that's not sufficient to dissect and defuse the mighty minions of bureaucrats who are out of control and under no particular supervision right now.

It's a big job. You cannot put a dogmatic zealot with no skills up for election...

Yes, it would help with the stupid oh, Libertarians, you're the ones who want legal weed if the Libertarians would stop focusing on wanting legal weed

I'm smoking legal weed right now. So what?

You should send Kaz and K.Kennedy and me Thank You cards.. At the very least. Or --- if you're really feeling grateful -- a sampler box of embargoed goods. These freedoms don't just fall into your pipe bud...

 

[flacaltenn]

I might vote for Johnson.

I'm excited for him to blow a load a liberty all over this country.

Write the check already. Quit making us feel dirty..

 

[The Rabbi]

I might vote for Johnson.

I'm excited for him to blow a load a liberty all over this country.

Write the check already. Quit making us feel dirty..

Probably won't matter in this state. They'll go for Trump anyway.
In any case I need it for my own campaign.

 

[Toro]

I'm in Florida, so my vote counts!

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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.

Yes, that's why they nominated in the last three elections non libertarians for President. Barr, Johnson & Johnson. They want attention, not to advocate libertarianism

If you haven't noticed -- the awful "attention" is because these guys had a demonstrated knowledge of government. To actually FIX anything, that's a handy tool. No one wants an Austin Peterson for President except the High Priests of the Lib Party.

It doesn't violate principles to NOT call in the demolition team on day one of your term to bust it all apart. It's a process. You don't get to "wave your hands" and utter brilliant political philosophy to be President if your object is ACTUAL POSITIVE change.

 

[flacaltenn]

I might vote for Johnson.

I'm excited for him to blow a load a liberty all over this country.

Write the check already. Quit making us feel dirty..

Probably won't matter in this state. They'll go for Trump anyway.
In any case I need it for my own campaign.

Try it. See what happens. As I told you -- getting 15% in a lot of states would help us KEEP this option available to you if things get worse. And THEY WILL -- if Johnson doesn't end being President.

 

[flacaltenn]

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 ...

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.

How about getting rid of that gigantic NSA complex in Utah? Would you overlook Gitmo if that domestic spy palace and Patriot Act both got fixed? It's four years bud. It's not all gonna happen in 4 years.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

A lot of them are. It's been an Orthodoxy of ideas unable to be translated to ACTUALLY CHANGING anything.

Look at the Cato Institute. One of America's top public policy brain trusts. THEY solve problems Libertarian style. THey are faithful to principles in most everything they tackle. But like all Academics, they largely choose the targets they want to address and pick the easier fruit.

In governing in general -- that does not happen,. Because the problems are thrown AT you. EXCEPT as PRESIDENT---- YOU DO get to set an agenda. And I'm certain that the items Johnson would prioriritized wouldn't offend Lib principl,es.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

If he maintains that, then I could vote for him just because that's the sort of thing that makes people think the third party makes a difference. Again I'm voting for "other" and the best way to do that. that's why I voted for Nader in 2008

Why not just save the time and trouble and drink beer instead?

Yes, you've mentioned I should only vote for your objectives, not mine. Who are you calling arrogant again, Holmes?

Your objective seems to be to become irrelevant to the political process. You're doing a good job. I'm just trying to help you here.

Wow, it's irrelevant to want more than two choices. That's profound. You should write a doctoral thesis about that.

What's irrelevant is that you want to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Who cares? They are the same. Now that's a waste of time voting for

I missed a couple pages catching up. So don't bellow at me... Have you provided a short list of the purest of the pure that YOU would like to see as candidates for Prez from the Lib Party?

Does it include Vermin Supreme????

 

[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.

How about getting rid of that gigantic NSA complex in Utah? Would you overlook Gitmo if that domestic spy palace and Patriot Act both got fixed? It's four years bud. It's not all gonna happen in 4 years.

How about getting rid of the NSA? No, I wouldn't overlook Gitmo. Horrible crimes against humanity are currently happening there, and the so-called Libertarian Gary Johnson says it's alright.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

How about getting rid of that gigantic NSA complex in Utah? Would you overlook Gitmo if that domestic spy palace and Patriot Act both got fixed? It's four years bud. It's not all gonna happen in 4 years.

How about getting rid of the NSA? No, I wouldn't overlook Gitmo. Horrible crimes against humanity are currently happening there, and the so-called Libertarian Gary Johnson says it's alright.

Please detail the "horrible crimes" taking place.

 

[sealybobo]

You guys will get over Ron Paul eventually. Or are you jonesing for the whackier days when our BEST candidates sounded like career conspiracy nuts?? I joined 20 years ago with the expectation is was about governing in the US of A -- not an excercise in philosophy and an attempt to bore the public.

Gotta admit -- school choice, legalized weed, privatization, no wars in Iraq, Bosnia, ---- that drove them off by the busload.

So your advice on getting libertarians elected is to stop being libertarians. Well, that seems rather pointless to me.

What we are is not just an academic exercise. There are governing skills required if you are actually gonna quit debating and run candidates for office. Voters don't want to be prostelytzed. They want to know how you are gonna fix things without tearing it all down and being primmadonna about REBUILDING IT in your image.

We've had mental midgets nominated who believe that marijuana is a PLATFORM. Or that auditing the Fed is some kind of Holy Grail. It's on the freakin' list. The things I listed that we were mocked for are now commonly accepted. But that's not sufficient to dissect and defuse the mighty minions of bureaucrats who are out of control and under no particular supervision right now.

It's a big job. You cannot put a dogmatic zealot with no skills up for election...

Yes, it would help with the stupid oh, Libertarians, you're the ones who want legal weed if the Libertarians would stop focusing on wanting legal weed

I'm smoking legal weed right now. So what?

You should send Kaz and K.Kennedy and me Thank You cards.. At the very least. Or --- if you're really feeling grateful -- a sampler box of embargoed goods. These freedoms don't just fall into your pipe bud...

Either the American people are really dumb and don't get libertarianism or libertarians are horrible at explaining.

Makes not enough sense to me. It's doubling down on GOP retardedness

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Who was it that carried a big stick?