Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[Redfish]

The Libertarian Party retains its status as a backup plan for failed Republican politicians by nominating Johnson again, and likely nominating Bill Weld for his running mate. At this point, it's time for the Libertarian Party to rebrand since they seem to be more interested in nominating Republican cast-offs than anybody interested in libertarianism.

This attitude is exactly why the LP loses. Too many of you demand purity. Gary Johnson is a fine candidate for the LP and the most libertarian candidate running of anybody in this election including those who have already dropped out. Our country didn't go down this path of destruction overnight. It's been a slow process and if it's even possible to get it back on track, which I doubt, frankly, it will be a slow process back. Rome wasn't built in a day. Johnson has a lot more name recognition now. Both he and his running mate have been former governors. There is a better chance he could get included in the debates this year and have an impact. I just saw a poll over the weekend showing him polling at 18% among Millennials and another poll showing him trailing Clinton by only 6% among independent voters.

But hey, he doesn't 100% meet your definition of what a libertarian should be so fuck him and let the party stay irrelevant for another 50 years and really stick it to them cuz that's progress baby!

This has been addressed in the thread. I'm not looking for purity, but I am looking for a libertarian. Libertarians don't want to keep Gitmo open, don't want to engage in "humanitarian" wars, don't want to ban burqas, don't want to use the government to enforce "equality," and so on and so forth. No, he doesn't meet 100% of my definition of what a libertarian should be, but if he can barely even hit 10% why would I bother considering him just because he claims to be a libertarian?

If you want to waste your vote, go right ahead, no one really cares.

The only way I could waste my vote this year is if I actually bothered to do so, which I won't.

a vote for Johnson is a wasted vote. If you stay home, fine, no one cares about that either.

 

[kaz]

Even Trump is warning Bill Kristol not to run a Republican as an independent because then they can kiss the Supreme Court goodbye.

Trump slams 'spoiler' bid after Kristol says independent candidate to run | Fox News

Donald Trump took to Twitter Sunday night to slam fresh predictions from Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol that an independent candidate would soon be entering the race for president, warning that a 2016 “spoiler” could swing the race to the Democrats.

Trump:The Republican Party has to be smart & strong if it wants to win in November. Can't allow lightweights to set up a spoiler Indie candidate!
Bill: Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance.

Trump: If dummy Bill Kristol actually does get a spoiler to run as an Independent, say good bye to the Supreme Court!

This is why I won't vote for Trump. The Supreme Court hangs in the balance.

But I also find it funny Trump isn't even worried about the Losertarian Johnson. Libertarians are nothing more than a blip in the radar. Unable to even convince 5% of us that their ideas are good. Even the tea party did better with nuts like Bachman & Palin.

Ralph Nader, with 2.7% of the vote, cost Gore the election.

Bush won Florida by 500. Nader got 100,000 votes in this state.

So it matters.

Yep. It was cool. Just like in 1992 when I voted for Perot who cost HW the election

Proud of yourself then?

That's what I'm saying, yes. HW was a horrible President who deserved to lose, I'm glad I helped him do it

He was hardly "horrible" and certainly better than the man you helped elect.

Spoiler alert, Perot didn't win

 

[Redfish]

Ralph Nader, with 2.7% of the vote, cost Gore the election.

Bush won Florida by 500. Nader got 100,000 votes in this state.

So it matters.

Yep. It was cool. Just like in 1992 when I voted for Perot who cost HW the election

Proud of yourself then?

That's what I'm saying, yes. HW was a horrible President who deserved to lose, I'm glad I helped him do it

He was hardly "horrible" and certainly better than the man you helped elect.

Spoiler alert, Perot didn't win

Perot elected bubba Clinton, that's the point here.

 

[kaz]

The Libertarian Party retains its status as a backup plan for failed Republican politicians by nominating Johnson again, and likely nominating Bill Weld for his running mate. At this point, it's time for the Libertarian Party to rebrand since they seem to be more interested in nominating Republican cast-offs than anybody interested in libertarianism.

This attitude is exactly why the LP loses. Too many of you demand purity. Gary Johnson is a fine candidate for the LP and the most libertarian candidate running of anybody in this election including those who have already dropped out. Our country didn't go down this path of destruction overnight. It's been a slow process and if it's even possible to get it back on track, which I doubt, frankly, it will be a slow process back. Rome wasn't built in a day. Johnson has a lot more name recognition now. Both he and his running mate have been former governors. There is a better chance he could get included in the debates this year and have an impact. I just saw a poll over the weekend showing him polling at 18% among Millennials and another poll showing him trailing Clinton by only 6% among independent voters.

But hey, he doesn't 100% meet your definition of what a libertarian should be so fuck him and let the party stay irrelevant for another 50 years and really stick it to them cuz that's progress baby!

This has been addressed in the thread. I'm not looking for purity, but I am looking for a libertarian. Libertarians don't want to keep Gitmo open, don't want to engage in "humanitarian" wars, don't want to ban burqas, don't want to use the government to enforce "equality," and so on and so forth. No, he doesn't meet 100% of my definition of what a libertarian should be, but if he can barely even hit 10% why would I bother considering him just because he claims to be a libertarian?

If you want to waste your vote, go right ahead, no one really cares.

The only way I could waste my vote this year is if I actually bothered to do so, which I won't.

a vote for Johnson is a wasted vote. If you stay home, fine, no one cares about that either.

Totally different. Staying home says you don't give a shit. Voting third party says you care, you just want a better choice. It's critical people vote third party rather than staying home or people believing third party can't win is a self fulfilling prophesy. Enough people have to finally give up on the parties and keep voting to make other parties viable

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Libertarian Party retains its status as a backup plan for failed Republican politicians by nominating Johnson again, and likely nominating Bill Weld for his running mate. At this point, it's time for the Libertarian Party to rebrand since they seem to be more interested in nominating Republican cast-offs than anybody interested in libertarianism.

This attitude is exactly why the LP loses. Too many of you demand purity. Gary Johnson is a fine candidate for the LP and the most libertarian candidate running of anybody in this election including those who have already dropped out. Our country didn't go down this path of destruction overnight. It's been a slow process and if it's even possible to get it back on track, which I doubt, frankly, it will be a slow process back. Rome wasn't built in a day. Johnson has a lot more name recognition now. Both he and his running mate have been former governors. There is a better chance he could get included in the debates this year and have an impact. I just saw a poll over the weekend showing him polling at 18% among Millennials and another poll showing him trailing Clinton by only 6% among independent voters.

But hey, he doesn't 100% meet your definition of what a libertarian should be so fuck him and let the party stay irrelevant for another 50 years and really stick it to them cuz that's progress baby!

This has been addressed in the thread. I'm not looking for purity, but I am looking for a libertarian. Libertarians don't want to keep Gitmo open, don't want to engage in "humanitarian" wars, don't want to ban burqas, don't want to use the government to enforce "equality," and so on and so forth. No, he doesn't meet 100% of my definition of what a libertarian should be, but if he can barely even hit 10% why would I bother considering him just because he claims to be a libertarian?

If you want to waste your vote, go right ahead, no one really cares.

The only way I could waste my vote this year is if I actually bothered to do so, which I won't.

a vote for Johnson is a wasted vote. If you stay home, fine, no one cares about that either.

For someone who doesn't care you sure seem to want to talk about it a lot.

 

[kaz]

Yep. It was cool. Just like in 1992 when I voted for Perot who cost HW the election

Proud of yourself then?

That's what I'm saying, yes. HW was a horrible President who deserved to lose, I'm glad I helped him do it

He was hardly "horrible" and certainly better than the man you helped elect.

Spoiler alert, Perot didn't win

Perot elected bubba Clinton, that's the point here.

HW elected Slick by sucking as President. I don't see how Clinton was any worse than HW

 

[kaz]

Even Trump is warning Bill Kristol not to run a Republican as an independent because then they can kiss the Supreme Court goodbye.

Trump slams 'spoiler' bid after Kristol says independent candidate to run | Fox News

Donald Trump took to Twitter Sunday night to slam fresh predictions from Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol that an independent candidate would soon be entering the race for president, warning that a 2016 “spoiler” could swing the race to the Democrats.

Trump:The Republican Party has to be smart & strong if it wants to win in November. Can't allow lightweights to set up a spoiler Indie candidate!
Bill: Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance.

Trump: If dummy Bill Kristol actually does get a spoiler to run as an Independent, say good bye to the Supreme Court!

This is why I won't vote for Trump. The Supreme Court hangs in the balance.

But I also find it funny Trump isn't even worried about the Losertarian Johnson. Libertarians are nothing more than a blip in the radar. Unable to even convince 5% of us that their ideas are good. Even the tea party did better with nuts like Bachman & Palin.

Ralph Nader, with 2.7% of the vote, cost Gore the election.

Bush won Florida by 500. Nader got 100,000 votes in this state.

So it matters.

Yep. It was cool. Just like in 1992 when I voted for Perot who cost HW the election

Proud of yourself then?

That's what I'm saying, yes. HW was a horrible President who deserved to lose, I'm glad I helped him do it

Bubba Clinton was better??????????? explain

I didn't vote for Slick, I voted for Perot. Try to keep up

 

[dblack]

Ralph Nader, with 2.7% of the vote, cost Gore the election.

Bush won Florida by 500. Nader got 100,000 votes in this state.

So it matters.

Yep. It was cool. Just like in 1992 when I voted for Perot who cost HW the election

Proud of yourself then?

That's what I'm saying, yes. HW was a horrible President who deserved to lose, I'm glad I helped him do it

Bubba Clinton was better??????????? explain

I didn't vote for Slick, I voted for Perot. Try to keep up

I guess you'd call Perot a small-l (vanishingly small) libertarian, eh?

 

[kaz]

Yep. It was cool. Just like in 1992 when I voted for Perot who cost HW the election

Proud of yourself then?

That's what I'm saying, yes. HW was a horrible President who deserved to lose, I'm glad I helped him do it

Bubba Clinton was better??????????? explain

I didn't vote for Slick, I voted for Perot. Try to keep up

I guess you'd call Perot a small-l (vanishingly small) libertarian, eh?

Not really. Again, my goal is making third party viable. I will vote for any third party candidate who would affect the election no matter what their ideology is. Impacting elections is the way to build 3rd party credibility. I voted for Nader in 2008. The only thing I agreed with him on is that the two parties are the same and it doesn't matter which one you vote for

 

[Contumacious]

Johnson has the stoner vote locked up.

That is the only issue he can discuss with any confidence. Every other issue is him essentially guessing what his position should be.

Yo Vern

What is the difference between Trump and Hillary?

 

[dblack]

Proud of yourself then?

That's what I'm saying, yes. HW was a horrible President who deserved to lose, I'm glad I helped him do it

Bubba Clinton was better??????????? explain

I didn't vote for Slick, I voted for Perot. Try to keep up

I guess you'd call Perot a small-l (vanishingly small) libertarian, eh?

Not really. Again, my goal is making third party viable. I will vote for any third party candidate who would affect the election no matter what their ideology is. Impacting elections is the way to build 3rd party credibility. I voted for Nader in 2008. The only thing I agreed with him on is that the two parties are the same and it doesn't matter which one you vote for

I see. And I'd agree, except for what I see as a structural issue. Plurality voting is always going to promote two dominant parties. In pushing for a third party, what we're actually doing is pushing for replacing one of the existing mainstream parties with something else. Which is why I'd never support a third party just for the sake of it.

 

[kaz]

libertarianism: definition of libertarianism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

Definition of “libertarian” | Collins English Dictionary

"a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc"

Definition of LIBERTARIANISM

"a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government"

Three quite different definitions from three dictionaries.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"

I think I prefer Wikipedia's version.

What is The Libertarian Party?

"Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility."

It's not that much different to what the Libertarians say themselves.

So, it's about liberty which is about not being controlled by the government or others.

However, I'd say, like any right, there are limitations. Many freedoms conflict with other freedoms, many desires of free will conflict with other desires of free will. Who is there to mediate between the two? Should it be a free for all? No, that's Anarchy.

Libertarianism would be maximum freedom for all, which requires government regulation in order to achieve this.

So, I'd say liberty is the ability to walk down the street, go into any public business and conduct business there. If I am denied conducting business the same as everyone else, then I don't have liberty.
If I am denied service in a shop because I am black, or because I am a woman, or because I am gay, or because I have a deformed part of my body, or if I am denied because of something I was born with, then I am not free, I don't have liberty.

anarchy: definition of anarchy in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Anarchy

"A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:"

This is what some people believe is Libertarianism. It's not.

Oh, thank goodness. Finally, someone to explain libertarianism to libertarians. We've been lost without you. Your liberty is derived from property rights, that's where the limitations exist. For example, you have the freedom of the press, but it's not an abridgement of your press freedom if the New York Times refuses to publish your op-ed because it's their property. Likewise, if I decide not to serve you in my business it's not an affront to your liberty because it's my property. To force the New York Times to publish your op-ed or to force me to serve you against my will is the affront to liberty, because you're violating property rights. That has nothing to do with anarchy, and everything to do with respecting property rights.

Not really. You can't do whatever you want on your property, can you? Murder is still illegal on your property.

You don't have to set up a business on your property, do you? But if you decided to set up a business, you decide to follow the rules the country sets for businesses.

Now some Libertarians might say that a person should be able to serve whoever they like on their business and not serve others they don't like. However others might say that this takes away the liberty of individuals so isn't libertarianism.

And yet as libertarians I think we're the ones who get to define libertarianism. And no, that doesn't mean you get to murder people on your property, because people have a property right in themselves and murder is an example of a violation of property rights. Me not wanting to serve you a hamburger does not violate your property rights at all, but you forcing me to would violate my property rights. Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property. That's the definition.

Then define Libertarianism so that it isn't Anarchy.

Murder is a violation of property rights? What?

I think you need to define "property rights" first.

I repeat, "Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property." That doesn't have to mean anarchy, just ask any of the minarchist libertarians on this board, but it may mean anarchy to the anarcho-capitalists.

Yes, murder is a violation of property rights, of course it's not in the same realm as, say, stealing someone's television, but a violation of a higher degree. We all know what property is, but, from a libertarian perspective, my property in my material objects is derived from self-ownership. In other words, a property right in myself and my own body. Therefore, we have to logically conclude that any harm that befalls my body, assault, murder, rape, etc, is a violation of my property right in myself.

I like the way the Constitution states it, life, liberty and property. The argument your life or liberty are "property" is kind of contorted. You have a right to those things. Granted they aren't mutually exclusive, but they cover it

 

[The Rabbi]

Ralph Nader, with 2.7% of the vote, cost Gore the election.

Bush won Florida by 500. Nader got 100,000 votes in this state.

So it matters.

Yep. It was cool. Just like in 1992 when I voted for Perot who cost HW the election

Proud of yourself then?

That's what I'm saying, yes. HW was a horrible President who deserved to lose, I'm glad I helped him do it

He was hardly "horrible" and certainly better than the man you helped elect.

Spoiler alert, Perot didn't win

Spoiler alert: Perot was the spoiler. A vote for him literally was a vote for Clinton.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Libertarians on Sunday selected former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson as their party's presidential nominee, at their party convention in Orlando, Florida.

Johnson was the party's nominee in 2012 and once again won the position despite backlash from the party's more radical Libertarian wing.

In the first round of voting, Johnson reached 49.5 percent of the vote, according to the official party total, just shy of the majority needed for victory. His nearest opponents, Austin Petersen and John McAfee, reached 21 and 14 percent respectively. On the second round of voting, Johnson clinched the nomination with 55.8 percent of the vote.

Gary Johnson wins Libertarian presidential nomination at party convention - CNNPolitics.com

The Libertarian Party retains its status as a backup plan for failed Republican politicians by nominating Johnson again, and likely nominating Bill Weld for his running mate. At this point, it's time for the Libertarian Party to rebrand since they seem to be more interested in nominating Republican cast-offs than anybody interested in libertarianism.

YAWN....... Libertarian nominee is like the fat ugly girl at the dance, she gets to go, but nobody pays any attention to her.

 

[kaz]

Johnson has the stoner vote locked up.

That is the only issue he can discuss with any confidence. Every other issue is him essentially guessing what his position should be.

Perfectly stated. That's why every time I hear his positions I have a hard time feeling it's a genuine position

 

[kaz]

That's what I'm saying, yes. HW was a horrible President who deserved to lose, I'm glad I helped him do it

Bubba Clinton was better??????????? explain

I didn't vote for Slick, I voted for Perot. Try to keep up

I guess you'd call Perot a small-l (vanishingly small) libertarian, eh?

Not really. Again, my goal is making third party viable. I will vote for any third party candidate who would affect the election no matter what their ideology is. Impacting elections is the way to build 3rd party credibility. I voted for Nader in 2008. The only thing I agreed with him on is that the two parties are the same and it doesn't matter which one you vote for

I see. And I'd agree, except for what I see as a structural issue. Plurality voting is always going to promote two dominant parties. In pushing for a third party, what we're actually doing is pushing for replacing one of the existing mainstream parties with something else. Which is why I'd never support a third party just for the sake of it.

That for whatever reason basically only happens in this country. Which is strange since we are the most diverse country and yet everyone divides into one of two parties

 

[dblack]

Libertarians on Sunday selected former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson as their party's presidential nominee, at their party convention in Orlando, Florida.

Johnson was the party's nominee in 2012 and once again won the position despite backlash from the party's more radical Libertarian wing.

In the first round of voting, Johnson reached 49.5 percent of the vote, according to the official party total, just shy of the majority needed for victory. His nearest opponents, Austin Petersen and John McAfee, reached 21 and 14 percent respectively. On the second round of voting, Johnson clinched the nomination with 55.8 percent of the vote.

Gary Johnson wins Libertarian presidential nomination at party convention - CNNPolitics.com

The Libertarian Party retains its status as a backup plan for failed Republican politicians by nominating Johnson again, and likely nominating Bill Weld for his running mate. At this point, it's time for the Libertarian Party to rebrand since they seem to be more interested in nominating Republican cast-offs than anybody interested in libertarianism.

YAWN....... Libertarian nominee is like the fat ugly girl at the dance, she gets to go, but nobody pays any attention to her.

Yet you seem fixated on her. Secret crush?

 

[dblack]

Bubba Clinton was better??????????? explain

I didn't vote for Slick, I voted for Perot. Try to keep up

I guess you'd call Perot a small-l (vanishingly small) libertarian, eh?

Not really. Again, my goal is making third party viable. I will vote for any third party candidate who would affect the election no matter what their ideology is. Impacting elections is the way to build 3rd party credibility. I voted for Nader in 2008. The only thing I agreed with him on is that the two parties are the same and it doesn't matter which one you vote for

I see. And I'd agree, except for what I see as a structural issue. Plurality voting is always going to promote two dominant parties. In pushing for a third party, what we're actually doing is pushing for replacing one of the existing mainstream parties with something else. Which is why I'd never support a third party just for the sake of it.

That for whatever reason basically only happens in this country. Which is strange since we are the most diverse country and yet everyone divides into one of two parties

It's because we are one of the few modern democracies that relies on plurality voting.

 

[kaz]

Yep. It was cool. Just like in 1992 when I voted for Perot who cost HW the election

Proud of yourself then?

That's what I'm saying, yes. HW was a horrible President who deserved to lose, I'm glad I helped him do it

He was hardly "horrible" and certainly better than the man you helped elect.

Spoiler alert, Perot didn't win

Spoiler alert: Perot was the spoiler. A vote for him literally was a vote for Clinton.

First, you don't know what the word "literally" means. And second, how does that make sense? I was never going to vote for HW in 1992 after he lied his way to my vote in 1998. So how is my not voting for Clinton either a vote for Clinton?

You still think I'm a Republican and you own my vote. You're wrong

 

[g5000]

a vote for Johnson is a wasted vote. If you stay home, fine, no one cares about that either.

A vote communicates something about you. If you vote for the "lesser of two evils", it communicates you are a whore who still votes for evil, even if it is a lesser one. It means you have no principles and therefore you are a part of the problem.

My vote has to be EARNED. My vote communicates to the person I am voting for that they are doing something right. I steadfastly REFUSE to tell even a "lesser evil" they are doing something right. I am not going to give my vote to a piece of shit who has not earned it. I have principles.

So voting for a third party candidate, if I believe they are doing something right, is not wasted. It is an affirmation of what makes freedom so great.

You are the one who is a waste if you sacrifice your principles and vote for evil. It is better to not vote at all than to vote for an evil. Because by not voting, you are also communicating something. You are telling the candidates they both suck too much to throw away your principles on either of them.