Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

Third party candidates always poll higher this early on, and then consistently underperform when actual votes are counted.

Only in cycles where they are nominated and never heard from again. There are new infusions of help and money and muscle flowing into this campaign. Both CNN and MSNBC were on the convention and debates HEAVILY this weekend. With exposure you get 15%.. With 15% -- you are SUPPOSED to be allowed into the debates.

Imagine the pissing match between the 2 re-tred power whores being INTERRUPTED by a 3rd candidate that wants NONE of that circus. Could be fun to watch..

 

[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.

Interesting.

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

Hey, you want to vote for Johnson, Gary or Lyndon, go right ahead. But if you don't vote for Romney you're voting for Obama de facto.
The narco-libertarians are a noxious weed on the GOP. They have no party loyalty and many of their policies are abhorrent to real conservatives. Good bye and good riddance.

He's in favor of turning the country into drug-crazed zombies. That marks the true narco-libertarian.

Note to OP: No one gives a shit about Gary Johnson. No one gives a shit about liberals' opinion of Gary Johnson.

By that measure Romney is far the better candidate. Did New Mexico ever elect a bunch of bumblers like Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, John Kerry, or Mike Dukakis? No. Mass did though. Which tells you what Romney had to work with.
Is ROmney a conservative? No. NEver claimed he was.
But Romney has something Gary Johnson doesn't have: The nomination of the GOP (coming) and the possibility of winning. And if the GOP is so awful why did Johnson run in their primaries?

Las ttime I was at the Bluebird was 30 years ago.
I dont vote to prove a point. I vote to elect people. And I want Romney elected over Obama. I want anyone elected over Obama. And Romney is the only candidate with an actual chance of winning.

Rabbi votes to elect people, but Trump and Hillary are the only two candidates with a chance of winning, so why is he supporting Johnson when Trump has something that Johnson doesn't have: The nomination of the GOP? And isn't Johnson a "loser" and a "drug crazed zombie" that "nobody gives a shit about?"

Hilarious.

Desperate times call for novel actions. Rabbi is just tacking into the wind. Like a LOT of the #nevertrump #neverhilliary folks will. And fun fact --- Every election cycle -- close to 1/2 of America castes a "wasted vote".

Because ----- They were desperate to win.. INSTEAD of being desperate for real change.

When you see an oasis on the horizon -- do you WASTE your time changing course? If it's a mirage.

We're offering a 2 term governor with impeccable record of following thru on fiscal conservancy and social tolerance.. It's not a mirage.

Impeccable? You know that spending in New Mexico went up under Johnson, right?

 

[S.J.]

The problem I see with libertarians is that they tend to think everyone is motivated by freedom and prosperity. Those views can be dangerous when dealing with immigration and terrorism.

Because Republicans think freedom is only for elites.

That makes absolutely no sense. Try again.

Actually your post makes no sense.
Freedo and prosperity are for everyone. Free movement of labor and capital is a basic conservative tenet.

Um, yeah it does make sense. You and doc just don't want to acknowledge that there are people in the world who are not interested in freedom and prosperity, and are motivated more by hate and violence. 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.

Again, nobody believes that.

How the hell would you know what everybody else thinks?

 

[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

 

[kaz]

Thanks for the news. But your title is disgusting.

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

You always say that ...

 

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

Third party candidates always poll higher this early on, and then consistently underperform when actual votes are counted.

Only in cycles where they are nominated and never heard from again. There are new infusions of help and money and muscle flowing into this campaign. Both CNN and MSNBC were on the convention and debates HEAVILY this weekend. With exposure you get 15%.. With 15% -- you are SUPPOSED to be allowed into the debates.

Imagine the pissing match between the 2 re-tred power whores being INTERRUPTED by a 3rd candidate that wants NONE of that circus. Could be fun to watch..

I agree that the Libertarian Party is likely in for a banner year, perhaps their best ever, but let's not get lost in the delusion that Johnson will make it into the debates. Even if he did, he is literally one of the worst speakers I've ever heard. He's a poor speaker overall, and he has no idea what he's talking about. Trump and Hillary would chew him up and spit him out. Ron Paul was a terrible speaker, but he knew what he was talking about and had a cohesive philosophy. Gary Johnson, unless he's talking about weed, seems to just take a stab in the dark.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because Republicans think freedom is only for elites.

That makes absolutely no sense. Try again.

Actually your post makes no sense.
Freedo and prosperity are for everyone. Free movement of labor and capital is a basic conservative tenet.

Um, yeah it does make sense. You and doc just don't want to acknowledge that there are people in the world who are not interested in freedom and prosperity, and are motivated more by hate and violence. 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.

Again, nobody believes that.

How the hell would you know what everybody else thinks?

Despite the irony of the person trying to speak for all libertarians chastising me for the very same thing, I have to say I'm sorry, you're right. I don't know what everybody else thinks. But please find us a prominent libertarian whose view is that all we have to do to make terrorists like us is "give them financial opportunities and let them come and go as they please."

 

[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.

I'm still not sure what a Libertarian is.

There is endless variation amongst people who call themselves "libertarians". But the basis is what you'd call classical liberalism. Locke, the Austrians, Friedman, etc.

I agree. So you should consistently believe what you just accurately said and stop being a useless dick the rest of the time

 

[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.

 

[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

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

 

[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.

That sucks. Now I can't support the Libertarians again. They have no integrity. Again ...

"The Party of Principle."

 

[S.J.]

That makes absolutely no sense. Try again.

Actually your post makes no sense.
Freedo and prosperity are for everyone. Free movement of labor and capital is a basic conservative tenet.

Um, yeah it does make sense. You and doc just don't want to acknowledge that there are people in the world who are not interested in freedom and prosperity, and are motivated more by hate and violence. 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.

Again, nobody believes that.

How the hell would you know what everybody else thinks?

Despite the irony of the person trying to speak for all libertarians chastising me for the very same thing, I have to say I'm sorry, you're right. I don't know what everybody else thinks. But please find us a prominent libertarian whose view is that all we have to do to make terrorists like us is "give them financial opportunities and let them come and go as they please."

Please show me where I said "All Libertarians". You, on the other hand, said "Nobody believes that". I'm talking about libertarian philosophy in general. More liberty and more prosperity seems to always be the go to solution for every problem with them. I'm sure there are a few exceptions but as a party they still have a long way to go before they can be considered a serious party worthy of the presidency.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Trump 2016 ~ because a vote for this smuck is a vote for Hitlery

A vote for Trump or Hillary is a vote for the status quo, which is stopping there being any change in the way the American people vote, which is a vote for the Republicans and Democrats for them next 100 years.

But then the Republicans and Democrats are the first to use the opposition in order to get people to vote for one of the main parties. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours......

 

[Rexx Taylor]

against who? Ernie and Bert?

 

[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.

Interesting.

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

Hey, you want to vote for Johnson, Gary or Lyndon, go right ahead. But if you don't vote for Romney you're voting for Obama de facto.
The narco-libertarians are a noxious weed on the GOP. They have no party loyalty and many of their policies are abhorrent to real conservatives. Good bye and good riddance.

He's in favor of turning the country into drug-crazed zombies. That marks the true narco-libertarian.

Note to OP: No one gives a shit about Gary Johnson. No one gives a shit about liberals' opinion of Gary Johnson.

By that measure Romney is far the better candidate. Did New Mexico ever elect a bunch of bumblers like Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, John Kerry, or Mike Dukakis? No. Mass did though. Which tells you what Romney had to work with.
Is ROmney a conservative? No. NEver claimed he was.
But Romney has something Gary Johnson doesn't have: The nomination of the GOP (coming) and the possibility of winning. And if the GOP is so awful why did Johnson run in their primaries?

Las ttime I was at the Bluebird was 30 years ago.
I dont vote to prove a point. I vote to elect people. And I want Romney elected over Obama. I want anyone elected over Obama. And Romney is the only candidate with an actual chance of winning.

Rabbi votes to elect people, but Trump and Hillary are the only two candidates with a chance of winning, so why is he supporting Johnson when Trump has something that Johnson doesn't have: The nomination of the GOP? And isn't Johnson a "loser" and a "drug crazed zombie" that "nobody gives a shit about?"

Hilarious.

Desperate times call for novel actions. Rabbi is just tacking into the wind. Like a LOT of the #nevertrump #neverhilliary folks will. And fun fact --- Every election cycle -- close to 1/2 of America castes a "wasted vote".

Because ----- They were desperate to win.. INSTEAD of being desperate for real change.

When you see an oasis on the horizon -- do you WASTE your time changing course? If it's a mirage.

We're offering a 2 term governor with impeccable record of following thru on fiscal conservancy and social tolerance.. It's not a mirage.

Impeccable? You know that spending in New Mexico went up under Johnson, right?

The POPULATION increased as well. Relevant question is -- what happened to per capita spending and taxation? And what efficiencies were gained or lost?

Real story is -- Johnson had to play DEFENSE for those years. The legislature was 60% demo. And the VETO pile got rather high.. Actually things within his control improved..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually your post makes no sense.
Freedo and prosperity are for everyone. Free movement of labor and capital is a basic conservative tenet.

Um, yeah it does make sense. You and doc just don't want to acknowledge that there are people in the world who are not interested in freedom and prosperity, and are motivated more by hate and violence. 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.

Again, nobody believes that.

How the hell would you know what everybody else thinks?

Despite the irony of the person trying to speak for all libertarians chastising me for the very same thing, I have to say I'm sorry, you're right. I don't know what everybody else thinks. But please find us a prominent libertarian whose view is that all we have to do to make terrorists like us is "give them financial opportunities and let them come and go as they please."

Please show me where I said "All Libertarians". You, on the other hand, said "Nobody believes that". I'm talking about libertarian philosophy in general. More liberty and more prosperity seems to always be the go to solution for every problem with them. I'm sure there are a few exceptions but as a party they still have a long way to go before they can be considered a serious party worthy of the presidency.

And I quote, "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."

You don't get to walk it back, and you don't get to make blanket statements without evidence. You said "Libertarians think" this, so prove it. Find us a prominent libertarian who takes this contextless, watered-down position without nuance and it can stand. Otherwise, you're talking nonsense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is probably the best summary of the current state of the Libertarian Party.

What none of the [Libertarian Party] candidates did, however was offer up a real alternative to government as we know it. This year presents a golden opportunity to make the case for a society that is not organized around politics or Washington DC, but around property, markets, and civil society. When LP candidates talk about equality and gay rights, conservatives simply dismiss them as liberals. When candidates talk about cutting taxes, liberals dismiss them as right wingers. But a truly anti-DC, anti-war, and anti-Fed party, one that promotes decentralization and local control as the antidotes to culture wars, could make great strides in a shifting political world. First the Party of Principle needs to decide if it wants to be SJW-lite and GOP-lite, or a serious choice for the millions of Americans who want to shrug off DC.

Notes on the Libertarian Party convention

 

[S.J.]

Um, yeah it does make sense. You and doc just don't want to acknowledge that there are people in the world who are not interested in freedom and prosperity, and are motivated more by hate and violence. 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.

Again, nobody believes that.

How the hell would you know what everybody else thinks?

Despite the irony of the person trying to speak for all libertarians chastising me for the very same thing, I have to say I'm sorry, you're right. I don't know what everybody else thinks. But please find us a prominent libertarian whose view is that all we have to do to make terrorists like us is "give them financial opportunities and let them come and go as they please."

Please show me where I said "All Libertarians". You, on the other hand, said "Nobody believes that". I'm talking about libertarian philosophy in general. More liberty and more prosperity seems to always be the go to solution for every problem with them. I'm sure there are a few exceptions but as a party they still have a long way to go before they can be considered a serious party worthy of the presidency.

And I quote, "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."

You don't get to walk it back, and you don't get to make blanket statements without evidence. You said "Libertarians think" this, so prove it. Find us a prominent libertarian who takes this contextless, watered-down position without nuance and it can stand. Otherwise, you're talking nonsense.

I don't have to "prove" anything. Read the libertarian philosophy because you apparently haven't done that yet.

 

[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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Again, nobody believes that.

How the hell would you know what everybody else thinks?

Despite the irony of the person trying to speak for all libertarians chastising me for the very same thing, I have to say I'm sorry, you're right. I don't know what everybody else thinks. But please find us a prominent libertarian whose view is that all we have to do to make terrorists like us is "give them financial opportunities and let them come and go as they please."

Please show me where I said "All Libertarians". You, on the other hand, said "Nobody believes that". I'm talking about libertarian philosophy in general. More liberty and more prosperity seems to always be the go to solution for every problem with them. I'm sure there are a few exceptions but as a party they still have a long way to go before they can be considered a serious party worthy of the presidency.

And I quote, "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."

You don't get to walk it back, and you don't get to make blanket statements without evidence. You said "Libertarians think" this, so prove it. Find us a prominent libertarian who takes this contextless, watered-down position without nuance and it can stand. Otherwise, you're talking nonsense.

I don't have to "prove" anything. Read the libertarian philosophy because you apparently haven't done that yet.

Please. Anybody who knows me on this board can, if nothing else, vouch for my libertarian bona fides. However, you made a claim about libertarians. Seems like the kind of thing you might want to back up with evidence. So which libertarian are you going to cite? Mises? Hayek? Bastiat? Say? Spooner? Rothbard? Turgot? Garrett? Woods? Tucker? Rockwell? Paul? Murphy? Block? Boetie? Mencken? We're all holding our breath, given how much of the "libertarian philosophy" you're apparently acquainted with.