NEW POLL: Johnson Rises To 1st Place With Young Voters, Trump Last

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
Reality is that Johnson is no real libertarian. True libertarianism would be opposed to legal homo marriage and abortion being left exclusively to the woman, two positions Johnson supports. He's no libertarian.

It's funny how people opposed to libertarianism are always telling us what a "real" libertarian would support, and it always lines up with what they support somehow. The libertarian position on gay marriage is that the state has no role in any marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise. If, however, two gay men want to get married the libertarian says that as long as they're not violating anybody else's property they can call their agreement whatever they want. If a church doesn't want to marry them then they have no right to force the church to do so, but nobody has the right to stop the church from marrying them either. This is where Johnson fails the libertarian test, because he says yes the church should be forced to marry them. You, however, seem to have no more idea of what libertarianism is than Johnson does. Congrats.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Lets face it the Libertarian Party fails because they dont choose good candidates ether. Who is running constitutional party?

Darrell Castle. On a cursory glance he might be better than Johnson.

Castle 2016 - Darrell Castle for President

 

[LibertyThunder]

Darrell Castle. On a cursory glance he might be better than Johnson.

But the Constitution Party favors a particular religion with their platform. Government wasn't established to make us better or religious people, it was established to ensure we could be whatever we wanted as long as we don't harm anyone else's rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Darrell Castle. On a cursory glance he might be better than Johnson.

But the Constitution Party favors a particular religion with their platform. Government wasn't established to make us better or religious people, it was established to ensure we could be whatever we wanted as long as we don't harm anyone else's rights.

And there's a funny joke. Government was established so that a few could plunder the many. Yes, the Constitution Party could easily be renamed the Christian Party, but so what? I don't care if the candidate or the party itself espouses a particular religion so long as they're solid on the issues. As I said, on the surface Castle could be better than Johnson. I haven't done the relevant research to say for sure, however. As he may not even make it on the ballot in my state it's probably irrelevant either way.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
Reality is that Johnson is no real libertarian. True libertarianism would be opposed to legal homo marriage and abortion being left exclusively to the woman, two positions Johnson supports. He's no libertarian.

It's funny how people opposed to libertarianism are always telling us what a "real" libertarian would support, and it always lines up with what they support somehow. The libertarian position on gay marriage is that the state has no role in any marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise. If, however, two gay men want to get married the libertarian says that as long as they're not violating anybody else's property they can call their agreement whatever they want. If a church doesn't want to marry them then they have no right to force the church to do so, but nobody has the right to stop the church from marrying them either. This is where Johnson fails the libertarian test, because he says yes the church should be forced to marry them. You, however, seem to have no more idea of what libertarianism is than Johnson does. Congrats.

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
Reality is that Johnson is no real libertarian. True libertarianism would be opposed to legal homo marriage and abortion being left exclusively to the woman, two positions Johnson supports. He's no libertarian.

It's funny how people opposed to libertarianism are always telling us what a "real" libertarian would support, and it always lines up with what they support somehow. The libertarian position on gay marriage is that the state has no role in any marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise. If, however, two gay men want to get married the libertarian says that as long as they're not violating anybody else's property they can call their agreement whatever they want. If a church doesn't want to marry them then they have no right to force the church to do so, but nobody has the right to stop the church from marrying them either. This is where Johnson fails the libertarian test, because he says yes the church should be forced to marry them. You, however, seem to have no more idea of what libertarianism is than Johnson does. Congrats.

YAAAAY! Another Rothbard guy!

 

[LibertyThunder]

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage

The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!

Did you go to the state to get a license?

 

[dblack]

The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!

Did you go to the state to get a license?

That's just as ridiculous. And the root of the problem, really.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!

Did you go to the state to get a license?

That's just as ridiculous. And the root of the problem, really.

Yes, it is the root of the problem.

Where is the legal jurisdiction of the state to force people to get a license, in order to enter into a private agreement?

 

[dblack]

The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!

Did you go to the state to get a license?

That's just as ridiculous. And the root of the problem, really.

Yes, it is the root of the problem.

Where is the legal jurisdiction of the state to force people to get a license, in order to enter into a private agreement?

Beats me. It oughta be a simple matter of contract law.

 

[LibertyThunder]

Did you go to the state to get a license?

unfortunately, the public is still ignorant & uses threats of force against me if I don't.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage

The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!

Procreation is as coercive as murder. Homo couples can't procreate, heteros can.
Put that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it.

 

[dblack]

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage

The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!

Procreation is as coercive as murder. Homo couples can't procreate, heteros can.
Put that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it.

???

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
Reality is that Johnson is no real libertarian. True libertarianism would be opposed to legal homo marriage and abortion being left exclusively to the woman, two positions Johnson supports. He's no libertarian.

It's funny how people opposed to libertarianism are always telling us what a "real" libertarian would support, and it always lines up with what they support somehow. The libertarian position on gay marriage is that the state has no role in any marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise. If, however, two gay men want to get married the libertarian says that as long as they're not violating anybody else's property they can call their agreement whatever they want. If a church doesn't want to marry them then they have no right to force the church to do so, but nobody has the right to stop the church from marrying them either. This is where Johnson fails the libertarian test, because he says yes the church should be forced to marry them. You, however, seem to have no more idea of what libertarianism is than Johnson does. Congrats.

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage.

And you totally miss basic logic. If the libertarian says that gay marriage is fine so long as nobody's property is violated then the logical conclusion ought to be that the libertarian believes gay marriage should be legal.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage

The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!

Procreation is as coercive as murder. Homo couples can't procreate, heteros can.
Put that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it.

Irrelevant. Try again.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
Reality is that Johnson is no real libertarian. True libertarianism would be opposed to legal homo marriage and abortion being left exclusively to the woman, two positions Johnson supports. He's no libertarian.

It's funny how people opposed to libertarianism are always telling us what a "real" libertarian would support, and it always lines up with what they support somehow. The libertarian position on gay marriage is that the state has no role in any marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise. If, however, two gay men want to get married the libertarian says that as long as they're not violating anybody else's property they can call their agreement whatever they want. If a church doesn't want to marry them then they have no right to force the church to do so, but nobody has the right to stop the church from marrying them either. This is where Johnson fails the libertarian test, because he says yes the church should be forced to marry them. You, however, seem to have no more idea of what libertarianism is than Johnson does. Congrats.

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage.

And you totally miss basic logic. If the libertarian says that gay marriage is fine so long as nobody's property is violated then the logical conclusion ought to be that the libertarian believes gay marriage should be legal.

You're doing a Charlie the Tuna 'good taste' thing. It's not about homo marriage being illegal. It's about the law granting coercion and privilege in the name of a legally decreed marriage rooted in an irrelevant personal behavior choice. Hence, legal homo marriage vs homo marriage as a perception.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage

The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!

Procreation is as coercive as murder. Homo couples can't procreate, heteros can.
Put that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it.

Irrelevant. Try again.

Irrelevant?? It's the essence!

 

[dblack]

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage

The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!

Procreation is as coercive as murder. Homo couples can't procreate, heteros can.
Put that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it.

Irrelevant. Try again.

You misspelled incoherent.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

unfortunately, the public is still ignorant & uses threats of force against me if I don't.

So you just complied. How embarrassing.