Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[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

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?

Voting for a guy who has no chance of winning wont fix any of that. You are delusional if you think it will. At least Trump is talking about the mess and vowing to fix it.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Gary Johnson takes the un-libertarian position that governments can punish those who exercise their free-will to not participate in something that is against their beliefs. We’re not talking about a physical harm between two parties; we are talking about an exercise of conscience. Here, it is baking a cake specific for a homosexual wedding. It could be any kind of situation where a customer asks a business to engage in something against one’s beliefs. In this light, Austin Petersen rightly makes a comparison about forcing a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi customer. You can see Johnson squirm as his libertarian credentials take a serious hit. Johnson favors punishing who he has a disagreement of conscience over a misguided “progressive” interpretations of discrimination and equality. He ultimately favors empowering the state over the individual. He favors compulsion.

Ignorant nonsense.

Comparing public accommodations laws with a provision for sexual orientation to ‘forcing’ a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi customer fails as a false comparison fallacy; being gay is not the ‘same’ as being a Nazi.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause – libertarian hostility toward Commerce Clause jurisprudence, Takings Clause jurisprudence, and other appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policies illustrates the fact that libertarian dogma is indeed naïve and sophomoric.

How is baking a cake interstate commerce? You may run and hide again like you do every time I ask you that question

So running a whites only diner should be constitutional? good one

Having a black only safe room is constitutional? good one.
In that case, welcome to the Good Eats White Safe Room................

 

[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.

.

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.

Jefferson INITIALLY supported a progressive tax structure which he later repudiated.

.

 

[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?

Voting for a guy who has no chance of winning wont fix any of that. You are delusional if you think it will. At least Trump is talking about the mess and vowing to fix it.

So you DON'T learn from experience! But I already knew that.

You really don't get it, do you. You really don't.

Let me fill you in. When guys like me don't vote in large numbers, YOU LOSE. Get it?

If you keep losing, then gee, maybe you ought to sit down and do a thorough self-examination instead of blaming it on "because gifts" or "because Mexicans". You lose because YOU SUCK and really should do something about it!

Got it now?

 

[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.

Jefferson INITIALLY supported a progressive tax structure which he later repudiated.

.

That does not show he repudiated the progressive tax. In fact, it quotes from the very letter I linked in my post!

The part after the highlighted portion is detailing one of the methods which Jefferson suggested for watering down wealth, which is the elimination of primogeniture, which is also in the letter I linked. And, in fact, primogeniture has been eliminated. That does not exclude a progressive tax in addition to the elimination of the concentration of wealth.

And he did not repudiate his belief that wealth concentration needed to be avoided. And even your link confirms that. Your footnote says he felt the elimination of primogeniture was the preferred method to break up concentrated wealth, not the sole means.

Jefferson was very much opposed to the concentration of wealth due to what he witnessed in France.

 

[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

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?

Voting for a guy who has no chance of winning wont fix any of that. You are delusional if you think it will. At least Trump is talking about the mess and vowing to fix it.

So you DON'T learn from experience! But I already knew that.

You really don't get it, do you. You really don't.

Let me fill you in. When guys like me don't vote in large numbers, YOU LOSE. Get it?

If you keep losing, then gee, maybe you ought to sit down and do a thorough self-examination instead of blaming it on "because gifts" or "because Mexicans". You lose because YOU SUCK and really should do something about it!

Got it now?

We both care and want to fix the mess. Your way (voting for a 3rd party candidate who can never win) won't work.

Voting the rinos and demoshits out of power is the only thing that will work.

 

[g5000]

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?

Voting for a guy who has no chance of winning wont fix any of that. You are delusional if you think it will. At least Trump is talking about the mess and vowing to fix it.

So you DON'T learn from experience! But I already knew that.

You really don't get it, do you. You really don't.

Let me fill you in. When guys like me don't vote in large numbers, YOU LOSE. Get it?

If you keep losing, then gee, maybe you ought to sit down and do a thorough self-examination instead of blaming it on "because gifts" or "because Mexicans". You lose because YOU SUCK and really should do something about it!

Got it now?

We both care and want to fix the mess. Your way (voting for a 3rd party candidate who can never win) won't work.

Voting the rinos and demoshits out of power is the only thing that will work.

I don't vote third party. The third party candidates are propellerheads as far as I'm concerned.

I used to leave the top of the ballot blank, and vote down ballot and on the various measures and propositions on the ballot. But after a few poll workers have been caught filling in blank ballots, I do a write-in at the top of the ballot. And this year, I am writing in John Kasich.

 

[g5000]

Voting the rinos and demoshits out of power is the only thing that will work.

That has to be done at the primaries. The general election is too late.

The problem is that retards and psychopaths and bigots have a lot of energy and therefore turn out in disproportionate numbers for primaries. Most voters don't bother to vote in primaries, and then are all shocked and disgusted with the candidates the retards hand up to them. It's their own fault for not voting in the primaries. They let the retards decide who the party nominee is.

I always vote in the primary with the knowledge that is the most important vote I will cast all year. But I am always outnumbered by maniacs.

By the time the sane people show up to vote in the general election, they have already lost no matter which of the two assholes win.

 

[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.

.

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.

Jefferson INITIALLY supported a progressive tax structure which he later repudiated.

.

That does not show he repudiated the progressive tax. In fact, it quotes from the very letter I linked in my post!

The part after the highlighted portion is detailing one of the methods which Jefferson suggested for watering down wealth, which is the elimination of primogeniture, which is also in the letter I linked. And, in fact, primogeniture has been eliminated. That does not exclude a progressive tax in addition to the elimination of the concentration of wealth.

And he did not repudiate his belief that wealth concentration needed to be avoided. And even your link confirms that. Your footnote says he felt the elimination of primogeniture was the preferred method to break up concentrated wealth, not the sole means.

Jefferson was very much opposed to the concentration of wealth due to what he witnessed in France.

We hold these truths to be self-evident

, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-


Did you notice that he DID NOT state that it is a right to be supported by your neighbor through progressive taxation. That was your other idols FDR & LBJ

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

Who's Vern?

 

[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

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

You still don't get it. I don't care that Clinton won over HW. Clinton was no worse. I wanted HW to lose even if Clinton won. So how did I "help" Clinton when HW was never going to get my vote and it was because of HW? The next two elections (96, 00) I voted for Harry Browne

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

I don't see how it's contorted. Private property and ownership of things follows logically from self-ownership. Obviously nobody goes around calling murder a violation of property rights, but if we follow it logically that's exactly what it is. And of course there is no liberty or rights that isn't rooted in private property rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

So why are you talking about her?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

And now by supporting Johnson you may throw the election to Hillary. Hypocrite much?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.
.

15% in 5 polls I believe. You can bet there'd be lawsuits to keep him out and waste his money if it happened, however, and that's assuming they follow their own rules in the first place.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Then why does it keep happening if it's not a backup plan for these losers?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

.

That is extremely inaccurate. There's plenty for a progressive to like about Gary Johnson. Johnson is essentially just a progressive who likes the Fair Tax.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I think you're missing the point that Kaz doesn't care who won between those two. Otherwise he would have voted for one of them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

You seem to want everyone to know how much you don't care. Starting to think you might actually care.

 

[Desperado]

He is a good guy but he is no Ron Paul!