Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[Kondor3]

Libertarians? Ooooooohhh, look, Maw... another way for da White Folk to be dividin'-up dare votes...

 

[MrShangles]

Gary Johnson is the only serious candidate running now. He is the only one with actual executive experience in office dealing with legislatures A lot of conservative Republicans will be asking themselves why they remain with the GOP this time.

Y'all still don't get it, we don't want no more stinking politicians, they don't do crap for us real Americans ( the ones that still respect our flag, we still think the pledge of allegiance should be said every morning in school. ).
Trump looks like our only possible hope.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[IsaacNewton]

I think the whole 'bakery' thing seems more than it is. If a Jewish or Armenian person walked into a bakery that doesn't make baklava, and they demanded the bakery make the baklava, I don't think they'd have to do it. Nothing to do with religion.

 

[Dot Com]

I'd vote for him before I vote for the crony Establ Dem (hiLIARy)

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk

 

[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.

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Gary Johnson is a loser. Only those with an IQ of a fishbowl would want to vote for him.

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's Gary taking votes from the Donald. This is just a power move from the libertarian wing. Similar to what Bernie's doing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[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

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Gary Johnson is a loser. Only those with an IQ of a fishbowl would want to vote for him.

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's Gary taking votes from the Donald. This is just a power move from the libertarian wing. Similar to what Bernie's doing.

Couldn't care less.

 

[Pogo]

Let's face it -- Tinyhands Rump has no shot against a real Johnson.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[kaz]

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

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Gary Johnson is a loser. Only those with an IQ of a fishbowl would want to vote for him.

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's Gary taking votes from the Donald. This is just a power move from the libertarian wing. Similar to what Bernie's doing.

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

 

[kaz]

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

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Gary Johnson is a loser. Only those with an IQ of a fishbowl would want to vote for him.

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's Gary taking votes from the Donald. This is just a power move from the libertarian wing. Similar to what Bernie's doing.

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

 

[Divine Wind]

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

I'm voting for him even though I know he is highly unlikely to win.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Gary Johnson is a loser. Only those with an IQ of a fishbowl would want to vote for him.

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's Gary taking votes from the Donald. This is just a power move from the libertarian wing. Similar to what Bernie's doing.

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

Right, I'm not asking for purism. Ron Paul was certainly no purist, but somebody who understands the non-aggression principle and property rights and uses them as their guide, even if we may not come to the same conclusion isn't asking for much I don't think. Someone who wants to keep Gitmo open, ban burqas, engage in "humanitarian" wars, wants government to enforce "equality," etc.. etc... is somebody I can never get behind.

 

[BluesLegend]

Gary who??

 

[BluesLegend]

This thread has my vote for most awkward thread title of the month.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Ted Cruz?

That should have been the GOP choice. But the Party fucked up badly and ended up with Donald. The only good thing about Donald is that he has more integrity than Hillary.

Does he? They both think everyone is stupid and they both lie like shit. He kept lying to Hannity about what he says in his speeches while Hannity was showing clips of what he said

And despite that (which is all true btw) he STILL has more integrity than Hillary!

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Gary Johnson is a loser. Only those with an IQ of a fishbowl would want to vote for him.

It;s true. But those with the IQ of a fishbowl beat those with the IQ of a soap dish. Which is what Hilary/Donald supporters have.
Im glad you care enough about my opinion to research things I wrote probably months if not years ago.

 

[The Rabbi]

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Gary Johnson is a loser. Only those with an IQ of a fishbowl would want to vote for him.

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's Gary taking votes from the Donald. This is just a power move from the libertarian wing. Similar to what Bernie's doing.

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

You vote for losers.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Gary Johnson is a loser. Only those with an IQ of a fishbowl would want to vote for him.

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's Gary taking votes from the Donald. This is just a power move from the libertarian wing. Similar to what Bernie's doing.

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

Right, I'm not asking for purism. Ron Paul was certainly no purist, but somebody who understands the non-aggression principle and property rights and uses them as their guide, even if we may not come to the same conclusion isn't asking for much I don't think. Someone who wants to keep Gitmo open, ban burqas, engage in "humanitarian" wars, wants government to enforce "equality," etc.. etc... is somebody I can never get behind.

Yes if the nominee won't pledge to dismantle the FBI and CIA immediately then they are clearly not Libertarians and must be opposed.
Libertarians are more interested in jerking off than in governing.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm still not sure what a Libertarian is.

Fiscal conservative/social liberal.