Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[The Rabbi]

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

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

I see that as a good thing. In other countries different interests form their own parties and pursue a very narrow agenda. IN the US those same diverse interests merge into one of the two major parties and jockey with everyone else there for influence. But in the process they have to broaden their views.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Perot literally spoiled the election. He had no chance of winning so his only purpose was taking votes from Bush and allowing Clinton to win
And idiots like you fell for it. Still enjoying that sucking sound?

 

[kaz]

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

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

I see that as a good thing. In other countries different interests form their own parties and pursue a very narrow agenda. IN the US those same diverse interests merge into one of the two major parties and jockey with everyone else there for influence. But in the process they have to broaden their views.

It's bad for two big reasons:

1) When it's just you and another party then you gain equally by building yourself up or tearing them down. And it's a lot easier to tear the other party down

2) It ensures the parties stay identical. Imagine dividing a football field. Your opponent is standing on the 50 yard line. Where are you going to stand to lay claim to the most territory? Right next to him on the 50 yard line. If you stand on the 40, the land between you is contested between you and he has 50 yards to your 40. You're going to stand on the 50 so you have the same amount of territory

 

[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

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

Perot literally spoiled the election. He had no chance of winning so his only purpose was taking votes from Bush and allowing Clinton to win
And idiots like you fell for it. Still enjoying that sucking sound?

You literally don't know what the word literally means. And that was the point. He wasn't going to win. But he gave third parties a lot more credibility.

You still think I share your view that the Republican needs to win, I don't

 

[Divine Wind]

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

Disagreed. OTOH, are you saying you'd vote for a candidate who is clearly unfit just because you hate the opposition?

I liked GHW Bush, but I didn't like where the Republican party was going (it's worse now). Perot offered some common sense alternatives.

This election features two of the most unliked candidates in modern history. Sorry, but while I will do my civic duty of voting (there are many other items on the ballot), I won't be voting for either of those two assholes.

Poll: Trump, Clinton score historic unfavorable ratings - CNNPolitics.com
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton register net negative ratings in double digits, indicating the front-runners for each party's presidential nominations are viewed negatively at historic levels, according to a new CBS/New York Times poll.

That makes Trump and Clinton viewed more unfavorably than any front-runner for either party since 1984, when CBS began polling voters on the question.

On the Republican side, Trump scores a net negative of -33, with a favorable rating of 24% compared to 57% of voters who view him unfavorably. On the Democratic side, Clinton fares only slightly better with a net negative of -21, registering a 31% favorable rating and a 52% unfavorable rating, according to the poll.

Both candidates' negatives far outweigh front-runners of the past. In 2012,President Barack Obama was viewed favorably and unfavorably by an equal share of voters, while Republican nominee Mitt Romney scored a net negative of -7. In 2008, both Obama and Sen. John McCain had net positive ratings of 16 and 7 points, respectively.

 

[g5000]

If the reason you tell me to vote for your candidate is, "The other candidate is Satan", then that tells me more about your candidate than the other candidate. It tells me your candidate sucks so much, you can't think of any reason to vote for him. All you have is, "He isn't the other guy" and that I must vote against the other candidate!

And that is the sad fucking state of affairs this "voting for the lesser of two evils" has brought us to.

 

[Mac1958]

Hey, isn't there some kind of poll level that allows a candidate to participate in national debates?

If Johnson stays above 10%, I wonder if he could be in the debates.
.

 

[dblack]

Hey, isn't there some kind of poll level that allows a candidate to participate in national debates?

If Johnson stays above 10%, I wonder if he could be in the debates.
.

It depends on whether they represent any real threat to the status quo.

 

[g5000]

Hey, isn't there some kind of poll level that allows a candidate to participate in national debates?

If Johnson stays above 10%, I wonder if he could be in the debates.
.

The networks make up an arbitrary number which they can change any time they wish.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

A back up plan? Lol that's quite funny. They have ZERO chance of winning anything, just like always.

 

[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.

A back up plan? Lol that's quite funny. They have ZERO chance of winning anything, just like always.

Our chances of winning the election aren't good, granted. But there are other things to win. If the Libertarians can get into double digits, they will have established liberty as something that the major parties can't afford to ignore.

In addition, if Trump really does represent the end-of-the-Republican-party-as-we-know-it, it positions Libertarians as a legitimate contender for its replacement.

 

[Contumacious]

If the reason you tell me to vote for your candidate is, "The other candidate is Satan", then that tells me more about your candidate than the other candidate. It tells me your candidate sucks so much, you can't think of any reason to vote for him. All you have is, "He isn't the other guy" and that I must vote against the other candidate!

And that is the sad fucking state of affairs this "voting for the lesser of two evils" has brought us to.

You can get all the information that you need from need form the Libertarian website.

But based upon your previous posts you won't like Gary. He is Jeffersonian. The ONLY rights you will enjoy are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

FDR bill of rights will be abolished. . And as a parasite you need to suck on the government titties.

So find a pretext, we'll understand.

.

 

[g5000]

If the reason you tell me to vote for your candidate is, "The other candidate is Satan", then that tells me more about your candidate than the other candidate. It tells me your candidate sucks so much, you can't think of any reason to vote for him. All you have is, "He isn't the other guy" and that I must vote against the other candidate!

And that is the sad fucking state of affairs this "voting for the lesser of two evils" has brought us to.

You can get all the information that you need from need form the Libertarian website.

But based upon your previous posts you won't like Gary. He is Jeffersonian. The ONLY rights you will enjoy are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

FDR bill of rights will be abolished. . And as a parasite you need to suck on the government titties.

So find a pretext, we'll understand.

.

Jefferson was damn near a communist. A lot of you dumb shits who pretend to worship Jefferson have no clue about Jefferson's beliefs. He advocated a progressive tax structure and said legislators could not invent too many devices to prevent the concentration of wealth in a few hands. He was also a long and close friend of Thomas Paine who advocated a welfare and social security system.

See here: Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

And here: The Writings of Thomas Paine, Volume III by Thomas Paine

I posted Johnson's positions on a number of issues earlier in the topic. He happens to agree with me on tax expenditures and raising the retirement age. Probably because I have a pretty wide libertarian streak.

Johnson is pro-choice, whereas I am pro-life. And so there we differ.

So nice try, dumbass. Stop listening to the imaginary voices in your head which consistently lie to you. They are making an ass of you.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

A back up plan? Lol that's quite funny. They have ZERO chance of winning anything, just like always.

Our chances of winning the election aren't good, granted. But there are other things to win. If the Libertarians can get into double digits, they will have established liberty as something that the major parties can't afford to ignore.

In addition, if Trump really does represent the end-of-the-Republican-party-as-we-know-it, it positions Libertarians as a legitimate contender for its replacement.

Replacing a corrupt system/party with something near identical serves what purpose?
This country needs MAJOR change in the way we elect then allow politicians to rule over us rather than represent us.

 

[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

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

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

So did I and we helped elect Clinton. That's the truth no matter how you spin it.

 

[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.

Yet you seem fixated on her. Secret crush?

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.

I appreciate your sentiment...but politics is all about compromise. You never get all of what you want in politics. You may feel better about yourself for not compromising your principles by voting for a 3rd party, but you expose yourself to something that maybe worse. Reality is a bitch.

 

[g5000]

I appreciate your sentiment...but politics is all about compromise.

I am along enough in years to know you have to compromise once in a while. However, there is nothing which Trump or Clinton stand for which I agree with enough to compromise on all their bullshit I disagree with.

I am a lifetime Republican, and there is another reason I won't vote for Trump, and why I didn't vote for Romney. I am sick of the hypocrites, liars, psychopaths, bigots, and retards who have hijacked the GOP and taken it far, far off the conservative reservation. So my refusal to vote is not just a stand against Romney, it is a stand against these assholes who have ruined the Republican and Conservative brands.

They deserve Clinton as their President, just as they deserved Obama. Their wailing and gnashing of teeth these past seven years has been pleasing to my ears.

 

[Redfish]

I appreciate your sentiment...but politics is all about compromise.

There is nothing which Trump or Clinton stand for which I agree with enough to compromise on all the bullshit I disagree with.

Great, so waste your vote. Enjoy ! No one really cares how you vote

 

[g5000]

I appreciate your sentiment...but politics is all about compromise.

There is nothing which Trump or Clinton stand for which I agree with enough to compromise on all the bullshit I disagree with.

Great, so waste your vote. Enjoy ! No one really cares how you vote

Elections are being decided by which party disgusts their own members more. So go ahead and celebrate the success you have been having the past two elections turning off so many voters who would have voted Republican. Good job!

How have you enjoyed Obama? And why are you working so hard to get Hillary elected? Do you retards learn NOTHING from experience?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

I see we've all learned about promoting from the DOnald. Got to have those catchy controversial sideshow slogans. I would proud to have a "Feel the Johnson" bumper sticker (on my tractor).

Didn't hear if Will Weld (past governor of Mass) was approved as VP. I do know there is a fight over whether Weld is "Libertarian enough". A problem my party has ALWAYS had. And in the race to being MORE Libertarian --- we are the world's richest mine of anarchists.

TWO successful state governors on one ticket would be really rad.. Considering the choices. The only polls INCLUDING Johnson recently ALREADY showed him at 10 or 12%. BEFORE the convention. So we're half-way there to throwing America's first election into the House in over 100 years.

And I want to see the tears and hissy fits stream from the Dem/Rep camps when we reach 15% and by the rules are SUPPOSED to be included in the debates. Except that the FEC "debate committee" is a bunch of hot-head party loyalists who signed a memo saying that their candidates WOULD ONLY debate Democrats or Republicans.

Now that's the kinda of "rigged system" this election is all about. Isn't it?

You really don't know how that works, do you? Which states will Johnson win? I can tell you! Neverland!

In a 3way, asssuming neither of your candidates go to trial for anything, LOL---- its pretty easy to draw 34%.
and thats the bar. Assuming clinstone and turumph are tying. I can see those purple states doing just that. And johnson will be strong in places like indiana, ohio, new mexico, colorado, maybe washington.state.. Places where the Drug war ended on maijuana, and arguments for school choice, smalleer govt, and less corporate welfare are desired..

Do you have any of your fantasy novels published?