Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[Kat]

Thanks for the news. But your title is disgusting.

And just for the record I was never here. K?

Yes you were. I see you!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Johnson was the worst choice

The three leading contenders were all pretty terrible, frankly.

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.

 

[sealybobo]

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 wish Rand Paul had the testicular fortitude to run. He must have known Gary would run if he wasn't the nominee. That's why he didn't endorse anyone when he dropped out.

Got to love the libertarians.

You just know the GOP would rather deal with hillary than trump

 

[flacaltenn]

Libertarians think we can make peaceful people out of terrorists if we give them financial opportunities and let them come and go as they please, thinking they will like us if we show them love and introduce them to freedom. They don't live in the real world.

No offense really -- but I think you're confusing the Obama Terrorism doctrine with Ron Paul.

Obama has said EXACTLY that economic opportunity is the answer to Muslim extremism. And REMEMBER -- Global Warming caused the war in Syria !!!!

Ron Paul explained it OVER and OVER and over. Everything BOTH parties have done with a few exceptions like killing bin Laden and pushing back the Taliban in Afghanistan have made the terrorism problem worse.

We let the current leadership of ISIS out of our control in Iraqi prison. We ARMED ISIS with heavy equipment they stole from the Iraqi army. We've bombed big VOIDS into the map of Middle East and created sucking power vacuums where terrorism thrive. Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Yemen. Many years we were bombing 4 or 6 countries at a time.

We OUGHT to be kissing Assad's ring and apologizing. Before yet another big void is opened up.. We need to boot the neocons and their "bringing democracy to the Mid East" fairy tales. That part of the world REQUIRES despotic theocratic leadership to be stable. We don't have to LOVE it. Let them kill each other for a bit. The Iraqis were tired of us and wanted us out.. And NOW we're going back in? We're putting "advisors" in the Sinai? How close to WW3 do you want to get?

Ain't nothing like what you said. We defend THIS country and it's citizens around the world. We TRADE freely and fairly. And we get the geo coordinates of folks who attack us here and around the globe and we PUMMEL them. If we are ASKED for help -- we go with RECOGNIZED leaders and factions --- not attempt to create our own like we did in Syria. About $10M for every "syrian freedom fighter" we nurtured and schooled for a year. And we produced about TEN of them.

Abject failure is obvious. We need to be smarter than all that.

 

[sealybobo]

President Gary Johnson. How does that sound? Is it believable?

No one knows who he is.

 

[sealybobo]

Libertarians think we can make peaceful people out of terrorists if we give them financial opportunities and let them come and go as they please, thinking they will like us if we show them love and introduce them to freedom. They don't live in the real world.

No offense really -- but I think you're confusing the Obama Terrorism doctrine with Ron Paul.

Obama has said EXACTLY that economic opportunity is the answer to Muslim extremism. And REMEMBER -- Global Warming caused the war in Syria !!!!

Ron Paul explained it OVER and OVER and over. Everything BOTH parties have done with a few exceptions like killing bin Laden and pushing back the Taliban in Afghanistan have made the terrorism problem worse.

We let the current leadership of ISIS out of our control in Iraqi prison. We ARMED ISIS with heavy equipment they stole from the Iraqi army. We've bombed big VOIDS into the map of Middle East and created sucking power vacuums where terrorism thrive. Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Yemen. Many years we were bombing 4 or 6 countries at a time.

We OUGHT to be kissing Assad's ring and apologizing. Before yet another big void is opened up.. We need to boot the neocons and their "bringing democracy to the Mid East" fairy tales. That part of the world REQUIRES despotic theocratic leadership to be stable. We don't have to LOVE it. Let them kill each other for a bit. The Iraqis were tired of us and wanted us out.. And NOW we're going back in? We're putting "advisors" in the Sinai? How close to WW3 do you want to get?

Ain't nothing like what you said. We defend THIS country and it's citizens around the world. We TRADE freely and fairly. And we get the geo coordinates of folks who attack us here and around the globe and we PUMMEL them. If we are ASKED for help -- we go with RECOGNIZED leaders and factions --- not attempt to create our own like we did in Syria. About $10M for every "syrian freedom fighter" we nurtured and schooled for a year. And we produced about TEN of them.

Abject failure is obvious. We need to be smarter than all that.

Can we clone/bring back Saddam? If we can we should.

 

[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

The three leading contenders were all pretty terrible, frankly.

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...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Johnson was the worst choice

The three leading contenders were all pretty terrible, frankly.

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...

You're criticizing candidates who think marijuana is a platform, but defending the nomination of Gary Johnson? He embodies that perfectly. The only issue he can talk about without sounding like he's guessing what his position should be is marijuana. You have to find a balance between libertarian purism and political pragmatism. In this Ron Paul has to be the model as the most successful libertarian politician ever. Gary Johnson is not a libertarian, but rather a low-tax liberal.

 

[flacaltenn]

The three leading contenders were all pretty terrible, frankly.

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...

You're criticizing candidates who think marijuana is a platform, but defending the nomination of Gary Johnson? He embodies that perfectly. The only issue he can talk about without sounding like he's guessing what his position should be is marijuana. You have to find a balance between libertarian purism and political pragmatism. In this Ron Paul has to be the model as the most successful libertarian politician ever. Gary Johnson is not a libertarian, but rather a low-tax liberal.

There's only ONE solution. Kidnap Chris Christy. (lots of raw material to work with).. Start the liposuction immediately while you find a talented neurosurgeon (know any?) to remove his tendencies to overuse authority, screw with our personal liberty and bomb too many countries. Have Bill Clinton train him in charming folks. And make him listen to Cato Lectures and Stossel reports til his eyes bug out.

Then let some of our party Anarchists worked him over for good measure before we introduce him to the world.

Where are you gonna get CREDIBLE administrative experience? Wanna go find a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who didn't wake up in Honduras and wonder how he got there? It's happened to ALL of us.

When Gary Johnson is HELPED by an actual campaign with actual money and talented new volunteers who know how to promote and advertise -- he'll be able to focus on message. Which is a new experience for ANY of our nominees who traditionally got their OWN ass from place to place and HAD to be distracted raising funds and fluffing flags on a podium..

 

[Pogo]

Thanks for the news. But your title is disgusting.

And just for the record I was never here. K?

Yes you were. I see you!

Counterfeit post. I know nothing. But while I'm here you owe me money.

 

[S.J.]

Obama has said EXACTLY that economic opportunity is the answer to Muslim extremism. And REMEMBER -- Global Warming caused the war in Syria !!!!

Obama is a lying communist, he'll say anything.

Ron Paul explained it OVER and OVER and over. Everything BOTH parties have done with a few exceptions like killing bin Laden and pushing back the Taliban in Afghanistan have made the terrorism problem worse.

I think Ron Paul has some good ideas but let's face it, he's an anti-Semite. He makes excuses for Iran and their determination to acquire nuclear weapons, blaming U.S. aggression when that country has stated repeatedly that their intention is to "wipe Israel off the map". They're the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world and God only knows how many American lives they are responsible for ending. He thinks terrorists would leave us alone if we didn't support Israel. Is that what we want in a leader, someone who will appease terrorists by turning our back on our friends? Fuck him.
I don't think we differ all that much, I just think you are assuming the wrong things about my point. All I'm saying is Libertarians are never going to get elected to high offices as long as they support stupid shit like open borders and making excuses for terrorist countries like Iran. Yeah, legalize marijuana and audit the Fed, but close the fucking borders and realize that there are bad people in the world who don't give a shit about freedom and prosperity and would kill every one of us if they could.

 

[Kat]

Thanks for the news. But your title is disgusting.

And just for the record I was never here. K?

Yes you were. I see you!

Counterfeit post. I know nothing. But while I'm here you owe me money.

You'll get yer monies. Be patient, man!

 

[Alan Stallion]

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.

 

[candycorn]

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..

Frankly, I don’t know why Clinton and Trump don’t want 3 or 4 people on the Stage with them. The debate will be as long as it’s going to be…90 minutes or whatever. You add one body, you face 1/3 fewer questions or whatever. Add 2 bodies, you face even fewer.

Most of the time, the elections are so pre-decided that it wouldn’t matter. I think HRC should invite Gary and some of his kookier friends.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Maybe he just sees the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy.

 

[Alan Stallion]

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.

Maybe he just sees the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy.

Or he prefers compulsion over the free market and slavery over liberty. If he is truly libertarian, he'll leave the businessman alone, choose to personally not do business if that's what his conscience dictates, and leave the government out of the equation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Maybe he just sees the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy.

Or he prefers compulsion over the free market and slavery over liberty. If he is truly libertarian, he'll leave the businessman alone, choose to personally not do business if that's what his conscience dictates, and leave the government out of the equation.

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.

 

[IsaacNewton]

When is the libertarian party going to actually fund and put out campaign ads? You never here from them on the national stage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Libertarianism is naïve, sophomoric, and reactionary – it seeks to return to an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.

 

[Mac1958]

Seems to me that Libertarian thought -- this "all government is bad, all taxes are theft" absolutism -- seeping into the GOP played a role in its splitting into pieces as it has. That element remains, but even it was overcome by this non-ideological establishment vs. non-establishment spinoff. The GOP is all over the place right now.

So the GOP will lose some votes to the Libertarians as they gain some votes from the "burn it all down" nihilists.

I like having the Libertarians around to remind us that we need to carefully examine increases in central government's scope and power, but this country is clearly headed in the other direction.
.