Richmond, VA Newspaper endorses Gary Johnson

[ChrisL]

Endorsing a guy who can't win is essentially no different than endorsing a guy who isn't a candidate.

Half of you idiot party animals will be losers the day after and you will have wasted your vote. Crap -- you're wasting it anyway if you think electing either arrogant meglomaniac is gonna stop the reckless decline of integrity in govt.

You could easily say voting for Bernie in the primary was silly and useless.

Folks need to understand that their vote is precious. It's the only power you got. And if you use it to reward dishonesty, deception, corruption and quest for power --- you should be ashamed.

Bless the Richmond Times for this move...

Next you'll tell me you voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

We actually agree more with Progressives than EITHER of the other choices. WE would end corporate/govt collusion in the 1st year. Stop bombing 4 countries a year. Work for meaningful justice reform and delivery on the state/local levels. Reform and redact the Patriot act and that new HUGE Spy Palace in Utah for the NSA.

I can pretty much say --- we're more committed to those "progressive" ideals than either the Dems or Reps would ever even allow one of THEIR candidates to be.

Ask Bernie.

How would you end corporate/government collusion by weakening government? That's ridiculous.

Government is the reason why we have corporotacracies in this country. For example . . .

Government and Corporations Collude Against the People: Ohio Is a Corporate State

 

[flacaltenn]

Endorsing a guy who can't win is essentially no different than endorsing a guy who isn't a candidate.

Half of you idiot party animals will be losers the day after and you will have wasted your vote. Crap -- you're wasting it anyway if you think electing either arrogant meglomaniac is gonna stop the reckless decline of integrity in govt.

You could easily say voting for Bernie in the primary was silly and useless.

Folks need to understand that their vote is precious. It's the only power you got. And if you use it to reward dishonesty, deception, corruption and quest for power --- you should be ashamed.

Bless the Richmond Times for this move...

Next you'll tell me you voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

We actually agree more with Progressives than EITHER of the other choices. WE would end corporate/govt collusion in the 1st year. Stop bombing 4 countries a year. Work for meaningful justice reform and delivery on the state/local levels. Reform and redact the Patriot act and that new HUGE Spy Palace in Utah for the NSA.

I can pretty much say --- we're more committed to those "progressive" ideals than either the Dems or Reps would ever even allow one of THEIR candidates to be.

Ask Bernie.

How would you end corporate/government collusion by weakening government? That's ridiculous.

Actually --- since the ONLY reason is exist -- is that BOTH the Dems/Reps DEPEND on it for collusion and money laundering --- it LOOKS hard to fix -- but it isn't.

You just stop handing out tax credits and subsidies for any product that ALREADY exist on the market. NOTHING that already exists gets tax dollars. No tax dollars go to "winners" in a market unless EVERYONE in the market gets the same breaks and benefits. Send a fraction of that savings into TRUE R&D.

Got nothing to do with "weakening" govt. Lobbyists would go home. K street would be a public park.
Most companies LOBBY because they HAVE TO. Because right now -- power has been usurped to show favoritism to their COMPETITORS. It's a purely DEFENSIVE move for most corporations.

Cut off that favoritism and you disable the money under the table to show "favoritism".. .

 

[NYcarbineer]

Half of you idiot party animals will be losers the day after and you will have wasted your vote. Crap -- you're wasting it anyway if you think electing either arrogant meglomaniac is gonna stop the reckless decline of integrity in govt.

You could easily say voting for Bernie in the primary was silly and useless.

Folks need to understand that their vote is precious. It's the only power you got. And if you use it to reward dishonesty, deception, corruption and quest for power --- you should be ashamed.

Bless the Richmond Times for this move...

Next you'll tell me you voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

We actually agree more with Progressives than EITHER of the other choices. WE would end corporate/govt collusion in the 1st year. Stop bombing 4 countries a year. Work for meaningful justice reform and delivery on the state/local levels. Reform and redact the Patriot act and that new HUGE Spy Palace in Utah for the NSA.

I can pretty much say --- we're more committed to those "progressive" ideals than either the Dems or Reps would ever even allow one of THEIR candidates to be.

Ask Bernie.

You are arguing with hardcore partisans who will vote for their respective parties until the death. Lol.

You are advocating for candidates who can't win.

Is WINNING important? Then send ONE swimmer to the Olympics. Or two. And NASCAR could save a lot of fuel and noise by cutting the field down to 10 or 12.

Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We actually agree more with Progressives than EITHER of the other choices. WE would end corporate/govt collusion in the 1st year. Stop bombing 4 countries a year. Work for meaningful justice reform and delivery on the state/local levels. Reform and redact the Patriot act and that new HUGE Spy Palace in Utah for the NSA.

I can pretty much say --- we're more committed to those "progressive" ideals than either the Dems or Reps would ever even allow one of THEIR candidates to be.

Ask Bernie.

You are arguing with hardcore partisans who will vote for their respective parties until the death. Lol.

You are advocating for candidates who can't win.

They "can't win" exactly because of people like yourself, protecting your party's monopoly on our government by parroting their fearmongering.

No, they can't win because not enough people will vote for them.

Do you know how long the Libertarian Party has been around? No?

Go look it up.

We were right then -- now America has come over to our solutions and creative problem solving ways.
On DOZENS of issues.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What isn't sane is the Libertarian platform. Read it. Its unworkable

Immigration? Foreign Policy? Civil Liberties? Govt accountability and reform?

Where's this "unworkable" that your selling here??

The team is 2 former governors that served 2 terms in politically hostile states and got re-elected. What IS IT that you think -- guys like that would "screw up"???

I mean WORSE than the Dem/Reps have screwed it up !!!!

We have gone over this before, pal. This is a huge nation with a huge economy and a huge infrastructure. We NEED a responsive and diligent government apparatus to regulate all of that. Your guys want to let the multinationals make the rules. Fuck that.

Where'd you get this "multinationals" running the place from? Number one priority is CUTTING OFF corporate welfare. Right behind that "defunding" the incentives to go overseas. What comic book are you getting this crap from? Or are you inventing it?

The platform, bro. It states quite explicitly that the government shall stay the fuck out of contracts and agreements between individuals and businesses. Free reign for corporations.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ummm........are we supposed to care about this?

Hey.......I vote Kim K because big boobs always win!!

 

[LoneLaugher]

By the way....that endorsement gave props to Johnson and Weld for being able to articulate their vision. That's crap. Their entire pitch is that they are "fiscally conservative and socially liberal". They say that phrase ad nauseum.

They never articulate that they want to:

Kill Social Security.
Kill PA laws ( legalize commercial bigotry )
Kill any regulations on big banks and investment houses.
Tell people who get ripped off by businesses that they are SOL.

Finally...what kind of pandering libertarian loser quits getting high just so he can run for president? Stand your ground.

There is a reason why they are pulling votes from Clinton and not Trump. They are lightweight Republcans. True RINO's.

 

[ChrisL]

Endorsing a guy who can't win is essentially no different than endorsing a guy who isn't a candidate.

Half of you idiot party animals will be losers the day after and you will have wasted your vote. Crap -- you're wasting it anyway if you think electing either arrogant meglomaniac is gonna stop the reckless decline of integrity in govt.

You could easily say voting for Bernie in the primary was silly and useless.

Folks need to understand that their vote is precious. It's the only power you got. And if you use it to reward dishonesty, deception, corruption and quest for power --- you should be ashamed.

Bless the Richmond Times for this move...

Next you'll tell me you voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

We actually agree more with Progressives than EITHER of the other choices. WE would end corporate/govt collusion in the 1st year. Stop bombing 4 countries a year. Work for meaningful justice reform and delivery on the state/local levels. Reform and redact the Patriot act and that new HUGE Spy Palace in Utah for the NSA.

I can pretty much say --- we're more committed to those "progressive" ideals than either the Dems or Reps would ever even allow one of THEIR candidates to be.

Ask Bernie.

How would you end corporate/government collusion by weakening government? That's ridiculous.

Actually --- since the ONLY reason is exist -- is that BOTH the Dems/Reps DEPEND on it for collusion and money laundering --- it LOOKS hard to fix -- but it isn't.

You just stop handing out tax credits and subsidies for any product that ALREADY exist on the market. NOTHING that already exists gets tax dollars. No tax dollars go to "winners" in a market unless EVERYONE in the market gets the same breaks and benefits. Send a fraction of that savings into TRUE R&D.

Got nothing to do with "weakening" govt. Lobbyists would go home. K street would be a public park.
Most companies LOBBY because they HAVE TO. Because right now -- power has been usurped to show favoritism to their COMPETITORS. It's a purely DEFENSIVE move for most corporations.

Cut off that favoritism and you disable the money under the table to show "favoritism".. .

Lol. They don't understand. THAT is why they vote for democrats.

 

[jillian]

"Richmond Times-Dispatch endorses Gary Johnson for president"

Disagree.

Johnson is inconsistent and fundamentally wrong on most of the issues.

He claims to acknowledge a woman’s right to privacy and to be an advocate of environmental protection, yet would appoint to the Supreme Court reactionary conservative ideologues hostile to that very right and hostile to environmental protection jurisprudence.

He supports the wrongheaded notion of ‘term limits’ and says he’d veto any spending measure that fails to ‘balance’ the budget – which is extreme, reckless, and irresponsible, particular during an economic downturn.

Like most libertarians Johnson is a naïve, sophomoric utopian who has no business being president.

Really? You know who his Sup Ct would be? Or who his Atty Gen will be?

More spending is USUALLY ALWAYS the wrong answer when there are 4 or 6 REDUNDANT agencies who have NEVER had their budgets cut.

Well we know his philosophy of government is fundamentally different from mine.

He's a nice enough guy no doubt but government has a job to do and anyone who is president should understand that and not pretend that "small government" is desirable.

 

[jillian]

Half of you idiot party animals will be losers the day after and you will have wasted your vote. Crap -- you're wasting it anyway if you think electing either arrogant meglomaniac is gonna stop the reckless decline of integrity in govt.

You could easily say voting for Bernie in the primary was silly and useless.

Folks need to understand that their vote is precious. It's the only power you got. And if you use it to reward dishonesty, deception, corruption and quest for power --- you should be ashamed.

Bless the Richmond Times for this move...

Next you'll tell me you voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

We actually agree more with Progressives than EITHER of the other choices. WE would end corporate/govt collusion in the 1st year. Stop bombing 4 countries a year. Work for meaningful justice reform and delivery on the state/local levels. Reform and redact the Patriot act and that new HUGE Spy Palace in Utah for the NSA.

I can pretty much say --- we're more committed to those "progressive" ideals than either the Dems or Reps would ever even allow one of THEIR candidates to be.

Ask Bernie.

How would you end corporate/government collusion by weakening government? That's ridiculous.

Actually --- since the ONLY reason is exist -- is that BOTH the Dems/Reps DEPEND on it for collusion and money laundering --- it LOOKS hard to fix -- but it isn't.

You just stop handing out tax credits and subsidies for any product that ALREADY exist on the market. NOTHING that already exists gets tax dollars. No tax dollars go to "winners" in a market unless EVERYONE in the market gets the same breaks and benefits. Send a fraction of that savings into TRUE R&D.

Got nothing to do with "weakening" govt. Lobbyists would go home. K street would be a public park.
Most companies LOBBY because they HAVE TO. Because right now -- power has been usurped to show favoritism to their COMPETITORS. It's a purely DEFENSIVE move for most corporations.

Cut off that favoritism and you disable the money under the table to show "favoritism".. .

Lol. They don't understand. THAT is why they vote for democrats.

As opposed to the Koch brothers and NRA buying republicans?

 

[ChrisL]

Next you'll tell me you voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

We actually agree more with Progressives than EITHER of the other choices. WE would end corporate/govt collusion in the 1st year. Stop bombing 4 countries a year. Work for meaningful justice reform and delivery on the state/local levels. Reform and redact the Patriot act and that new HUGE Spy Palace in Utah for the NSA.

I can pretty much say --- we're more committed to those "progressive" ideals than either the Dems or Reps would ever even allow one of THEIR candidates to be.

Ask Bernie.

How would you end corporate/government collusion by weakening government? That's ridiculous.

Actually --- since the ONLY reason is exist -- is that BOTH the Dems/Reps DEPEND on it for collusion and money laundering --- it LOOKS hard to fix -- but it isn't.

You just stop handing out tax credits and subsidies for any product that ALREADY exist on the market. NOTHING that already exists gets tax dollars. No tax dollars go to "winners" in a market unless EVERYONE in the market gets the same breaks and benefits. Send a fraction of that savings into TRUE R&D.

Got nothing to do with "weakening" govt. Lobbyists would go home. K street would be a public park.
Most companies LOBBY because they HAVE TO. Because right now -- power has been usurped to show favoritism to their COMPETITORS. It's a purely DEFENSIVE move for most corporations.

Cut off that favoritism and you disable the money under the table to show "favoritism".. .

Lol. They don't understand. THAT is why they vote for democrats.

As opposed to the Koch brothers and NRA buying republicans?

THAT is the point. That is why we are voting for Gary Johnson. If the government and businesses are in collusion, then the only way to stop that collusion is to hit the government. The government allows these things to happen. The government sucks, and people have to take a stand and put an end to it. The republicans and democrats have been in power for far too long and they are both god awful. Time to try something new.

 

[SYTFE]

The fact that he supported the death penalty -- even for children as young as 13 and 14 up until he was 43 years old is enough for me to have serious reservations about his mental stability.

The fact that he wants to raise retirement to age 75 is totally fucking nuts. What an ASSHOLE.

Apparently he's advocating zero corporate tax? This guy is out of his mind.

He says "No" on mandatory vaccines....he wants the parents to decide. Put this loon in office and he'd put the entire country at risk for diseases that have long been wiped out.

No thanks. This guy is one giant question mark, and one goofy looking clown to boot.

 

[ChrisL]

Gary Johnson Polls: Libertarian Candidate Gains Ground Nationally In New Poll As One In Three Young Voters Choose Him Over Clinton And Trump

Gary Johnson is gaining ground nationally in his bid to reach the 15 percent that would guarantee him a place alongside Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the presidential debates, according to the results of a new IBD/TIPP poll. The Libertarian candidate’s surge in poll numbers appears to be coming on the backs of the support he has been able to muster among the young voters in America, with the poll suggesting that one in three millennials would prefer voting for Johnson over both major-party candidates.


This poll result comes at an especially crucial time for Johnson with the date for the first presidential debate to be held in New York — September 26 — looming ever closer. According to a report in the Huffington Post, the presidential debate gives the only opportunity available to third-party candidates to increase their reach by almost 50-fold by helping them reach upwards of 50 million Americans at once. Johnson has previously conceded that the future of his campaign depends on whether or not he can make the presidential debate stage, having said that it would be “game over” against Clinton and Trump if he fails to make it.

According to the IBD poll, however, there are reasons for Gary Johnson to feel more confident. He now has 12 percent of national vote, gaining from the roughly 10 percent most polls showed him at the beginning of the last month. In the same poll, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are tied with 39 percent vote, with Green Party candidate Jill Stein trailing all other candidates with just 3 percent of the vote.

 

[ChrisL]

If you want to learn more about Gary Johnson, maybe you should do your own research instead of just listening to your hyperbolic, government tool news sources?

Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016 - Ballotpedia

 

[LoneLaugher]

If you want to learn more about Gary Johnson, maybe you should do your own research instead of just listening to your hyperbolic, government tool news sources?

Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016 - Ballotpedia

Arrogance is never a good way to bring people to your team.

 

[ChrisL]

If you want to learn more about Gary Johnson, maybe you should do your own research instead of just listening to your hyperbolic, government tool news sources?

Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016 - Ballotpedia

Arrogance is never a good way to bring people to your team.

You talking about arrogance is pretty funny . . . and ironic.

 

[my2¢]

I might vote for him. After all, what the he'll do I have to lose!

 

[flacaltenn]

"Richmond Times-Dispatch endorses Gary Johnson for president"

Disagree.

Johnson is inconsistent and fundamentally wrong on most of the issues.

He claims to acknowledge a woman’s right to privacy and to be an advocate of environmental protection, yet would appoint to the Supreme Court reactionary conservative ideologues hostile to that very right and hostile to environmental protection jurisprudence.

He supports the wrongheaded notion of ‘term limits’ and says he’d veto any spending measure that fails to ‘balance’ the budget – which is extreme, reckless, and irresponsible, particular during an economic downturn.

Like most libertarians Johnson is a naïve, sophomoric utopian who has no business being president.

Really? You know who his Sup Ct would be? Or who his Atty Gen will be?

More spending is USUALLY ALWAYS the wrong answer when there are 4 or 6 REDUNDANT agencies who have NEVER had their budgets cut.

Well we know his philosophy of government is fundamentally different from mine.

He's a nice enough guy no doubt but government has a job to do and anyone who is president should understand that and not pretend that "small government" is desirable.

It's not the physical size of govt that's in question. . It's the SCOPE of govt and the perverse incentives that they have to perform. There is virtually NOTHING that they cannot meddle in now. Which creates the lobby and influence problems. They need to be out of the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. And spend more time ensuring health, safety and justice. Things like fair election processes and borders. Congress has lost control of oversight and ethics and managing the beast. Agencies that screw up --- get more money.

There is PLENTY of room for reform and better management. NOBODY is really doing that job anymore.

 

[jillian]

"Richmond Times-Dispatch endorses Gary Johnson for president"

Disagree.

Johnson is inconsistent and fundamentally wrong on most of the issues.

He claims to acknowledge a woman’s right to privacy and to be an advocate of environmental protection, yet would appoint to the Supreme Court reactionary conservative ideologues hostile to that very right and hostile to environmental protection jurisprudence.

He supports the wrongheaded notion of ‘term limits’ and says he’d veto any spending measure that fails to ‘balance’ the budget – which is extreme, reckless, and irresponsible, particular during an economic downturn.

Like most libertarians Johnson is a naïve, sophomoric utopian who has no business being president.

Really? You know who his Sup Ct would be? Or who his Atty Gen will be?

More spending is USUALLY ALWAYS the wrong answer when there are 4 or 6 REDUNDANT agencies who have NEVER had their budgets cut.

Well we know his philosophy of government is fundamentally different from mine.

He's a nice enough guy no doubt but government has a job to do and anyone who is president should understand that and not pretend that "small government" is desirable.

It's not the physical size of govt that's in question. . It's the SCOPE of govt and the perverse incentives that they have to perform. There is virtually NOTHING that they cannot meddle in now. Which creates the lobby and influence problems. They need to be out of the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. And spend more time ensuring health, safety and justice. Things like fair election processes and borders. Congress has lost control of oversight and ethics and managing the beast. Agencies that screw up --- get more money.

There is PLENTY of room for reform and better management. NOBODY is really doing that job anymore.

most so-called libertarians don't believe in any government except for putting the brakes on reproductive choice and marriage equality. johnson is different in that regard but the pretend libertarians don't like him for that.

and the radical right wants to starve the federal government until you can drown it in a bathtub (see, grover norquist)

i don't have a problem with the scope of government. we live in a complex society the idea that privatization of government services is good isn't something i agree with.

so i stand by what i said.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are arguing with hardcore partisans who will vote for their respective parties until the death. Lol.

You are advocating for candidates who can't win.

They "can't win" exactly because of people like yourself, protecting your party's monopoly on our government by parroting their fearmongering.

No, they can't win because not enough people will vote for them.

Do you know how long the Libertarian Party has been around? No?

Go look it up.

We were right then -- now America has come over to our solutions and creative problem solving ways.
On DOZENS of issues.

I have no idea what that means.

Of course you don't. Because you think everything just happens by magic and that Congress is composed of geniuses who are chosen for their problem solving. We were right on school choice, charters and vouchers. Most of the original work on that came out of Cato Institute -- the Libertarian think tank. Same with MedSavingsAccts which as a PART of healthcare choices -- made a LOT of sense in ACTUALLY LOWERING health care costs by cutting out a lot of middle men. .

We were right on Iraq when both the Rep/Dems voted to continue bombing and containing the Iraqis for 12 years and then invade. OUR LEADERS were the ONLY ones (outside a couple Progressives) that were yelling to let Saddam OUT of containment and to walk away.

We were right when we nominated an openly gay man as our 1st Prez candidate way back in the 70s. Not because we wanted to make a statement -- but because he was the BEST CHOICE..

Now tell me -- What political party could "WIN" with an openly gay man in the 70s? Here's the lecture on "winning".. We DO what is right BECAUSE it's right. NOT because we NEED to win. And at the time -- we got called nasty names and marginalized. But --- AGAIN ---- we were right. And the nation has come to that time where sexual choice is OK.. Same with decriminalizing weed, Asset Forfeiture, the Patriotic Act, etc ---- ALL OF THOSE WERE LOSING PROPOSITIONS ---- but WE didn't change. Now the nation will understand what we DID for those 30 years that you believe we were doin 'nuthin..

We stand for stuff -- just waiting for the nation to act on principles and not on Brand Name loyalty.