The GOP's Gary Johnson quandry

[GJJG2012]

Lets try to forget about party affiliation. Lets elect people that have read and understood the constitution. Also it would be help that they agree with it.

I want to remember that both Republicans and Democrats have been two sides of the same coin, and both parties have been very bad for the USA over the past generation. My advice to everyone is to vote against the Repubocrats by voting for their favorite third party. Even if the third party has no hope to win, the additional support it gets from our votes could help it to be more successful in the future.

If Gary Johnson gets 5% this time, ha can win 2016 with $90 million from Feds. So real freedom & smarter solutions can go into effect 2017. Best wishes.

 

[GJJG2012]

Gary Johnson, Republican governor, decides to run as a third party and uses his name recognition to gain a single digit of the vote in some neighboring states.

Not very bright, but then again, look at his supporters.

We can't predict the future 100%, so your post is based on what you knew in June. Now Gary is polling over 10% in some states nowhere near where he was guv, like Ohio. If Gary gets 5%, Libertarians get Major Party status & Feds give Gary $90 million for 2016 campaign, unless some crooks change the rules.

His supporters are people who think things could be better with a candidate that cares for the 100% equally, over candidates that are bought by special interest groups.

 

[dblack]

My question is: Why does a libertarian want taxpayer money to fund his campaign?

Because they don't want to compound their deficit by making some silly sacrificial 'statement'? It is possible, and rational, to oppose a policy yet refuse to be victimized by it. It's essentially the same position Ron Paul takes on earmarks. As long as Libertarians candidates consistently oppose these kinds of policies, and act against them, they owe it to their supporters to take advantage of every opportunity afforded them under the current rules.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My question is: Why does a libertarian want taxpayer money to fund his campaign?

Because they don't want to compound their deficit by making some silly sacrificial 'statement'? It is possible, and rational, to oppose a policy yet refuse to be victimized by it. It's essentially the same position Ron Paul takes on earmarks. As long as Libertarians candidates consistently oppose these kinds of policies, and act against them, they owe it to their supporters to take advantage of every opportunity afforded them under the current rules.

I don't think it's the same as Ron Paul putting in earmarks. Ron Paul is opposed to the spending, of course, but it is the duty of the legislature to direct the spending. It is not the government's job to fund Presidential campaigns.

 

[GJJG2012]

.

People like Johnson and Paul actually believe in what they are promoting - an alien concept in modern politics. The point is to further the libertarian cause and give people who actually care about freedom a way to express it on the national stage. A good showing by Johnson will have a far greater impact on the future of our nation than any minor differences between Romney and Obama.

Oh, okay. So this is about making a statement, furthering a cause.

"My cause is so important it's worth anything that happens."

.

It's about improving America & the world. Why does anyone assume Johnson would be a bad president when he wants what the majority wants & cares about the 100% equally?
It's not about Gary vs America, he's our friend. Just take the ISideWith dot com survey or visit his website & see how many of the issues positions you agree with. Best wishes.

 

[GJJG2012]

Lets try to forget about party affiliation. Lets elect people that have read and understood the constitution. Also it would be help that they agree with it. We also need people who obey they laws they pass. ; That eliminte most of the congress and administration current and past.

Not going to happen unless we change how elections are financed. Special interests fund both sides, so that other voices can't be heard.

Special interests give big money to Obama & Romney, for sure. But Gary Johnson will likely get over 5% of the vote, so Feds will have to give him $90 million for 2016, unless some crooks change the rules. Equal money is less important now, as internet advertising is cheap & can change minds. Dems & Reps IMO underestimate power of the internet.

Also, we must look at the candidates for Congress & our legislatures, & vote out those who hate the Constitution & take big bribes to harm the majority. For Congress, a good site is votesmart dot org/ Your state info is at your Secretary of State website. Really, there are many voters guides brought up by search engines.

Party websites also list their candidates. About 500 Libertarians are running for Congress, state legislatures, city councils, etc. lp dot org/ Green Party Dr. Jill Stein Prez & I'm pretty sure they have many running for other offices.

 

[Avorysuds]

.

On one hand, one has to wonder what Johnson is thinking. He can't possibly be so naive as to think that he can actually win this, and he must know he's damaging Romney, possibly fatally.

On the other hand, the ego of professional politicians is limitless, and ego often trumps reason..

Oh good grief. Ego? He's sure to lose - how can that be for ego?

People like Johnson and Paul actually believe in what they are promoting - an alien concept in modern politics. The point is to further the libertarian cause and give people who actually care about freedom a way to express it on the national stage. A good showing by Johnson will have a far greater impact on the future of our nation than any minor differences between Romney and Obama.

Oh, okay. So this is about making a statement, furthering a cause.

"My cause is so important it's worth anything that happens."

Sounds to me like, uh, never mind...

.

Soooo what you're saying is no one but Republicans and Democrats should be allowed to run for President or it's all about ego or stupidity?

Maybe Gary Johnsons party is growing while Rep and Dems are shrinking... Maybe GJ does not win in 2012 but he wins in 2012 when Reps have to ask themselves what they are going to do when they realize they can no longer win elections.

So, all people that believe in a Government that whose powers are limited by the US constitution, people that believe we should have regulation that is appropriate rather than divisive, unfair and made to fuck the little guy. People that believe in actually balancing the budget, getting the deficit under control and that the wars we enter or are in should be constitutional… People that believe in freedom of the people as long as it’s not hurting others. These people I invite to the fastest growing party in the nation, the libertarian party.

If you’re tired of making excuses for why your party sucks and voting for some progressive liberal shit bag based solely on “he’s the lesser of 2 evils compared to some other progressive liberal shitbag,” then feel free to vote libertarian this election!

 

[Avorysuds]

Tie the budget to a percentage of GDP.

I can understand something like that, but my preference would be a balanced budget amendment. Make both fucked up parties justify all expenses, all taxes, all cuts to services. Right now it's all just pandering to the base, no accountability.

.

I liked a quote I saw on something that said something like "To fix the budget make it a law that if we have an unbalanced budget then anyone serving in congress can't run for re-election until it's balanced."

 

[Avorysuds]

Buffett:

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”

 

[GJJG2012]

Tie the budget to a percentage of GDP.

I can understand something like that, but my preference would be a balanced budget amendment. Make both fucked up parties justify all expenses, all taxes, all cuts to services. Right now it's all just pandering to the base, no accountability.

.

Gary Johnson says we shouldn't spend what we don't have. He proposes a 43% cut for all Depts/prgms, except abolish IRS & Dept of Educ. A 43% cut in spending night mot be a 43% cut in services, as he would look for corruption, waste & inefficiency. To those who think that's too extreme, he says the alternative is a currency devaluation.

He would present his proposed balanced budget to Congress 1st year. We need more 3rd parties in DC, but Gary would cave in or compromise when (only when) not doing so would cause a more serious problem.

His (Federal) revenue raising plans would be 23% Federal sales tax on purchases, likely excluding business to business sales, used items, most food & prebate to poor.

Other Fed. tax would be 100% on cannabis, making it 90% cheaper under legalization. It would bring in double digit billions, save $40-$70 billion a year by ending drug war. Crime would be reduced & less (high-priced) medical care would be needed, as cannabis can treat over 120 conditions. #1 request to whitehouse.gov legalize cannabis, O & R say if patients not helped by Drs & Big Pharma, die or go to prison.

Obama & Romney will owe returned favors to special interests costing trillions. Johnson is not for sale so when he wins there won't be that expense.

Gary Johnson's TV ads should make his results in this election exceed what most expect: Soon many little children will die. I'm the only candidate that won't bomb Iran. & Be one of the 5%. Do something revolutionary, cast a protest vote that counts. LIVE FREE.

 

[GJJG2012]

Tie the budget to a percentage of GDP.

I can understand something like that, but my preference would be a balanced budget amendment. Make both fucked up parties justify all expenses, all taxes, all cuts to services. Right now it's all just pandering to the base, no accountability.

.

A balanced budget doesn't do it for me. All that means is that intake=outlays, right? So if you have a particularly liberal Congress, your taxes would go up to pay for more entitlements.

Gary Johnson would not raise taxes or spending. As 2 term gun of NM, inherited a deficit, vetoed 750 bills & line item vetoed most of others. Cut taxes 14 times & left state a billion dollar surplus. And they still had Medicaid! He got rid of inefficiencies, making it cheaper.

 

[GJJG2012]

My question is: Why does a libertarian want taxpayer money to fund his campaign?

Because they don't want to compound their deficit by making some silly sacrificial 'statement'? It is possible, and rational, to oppose a policy yet refuse to be victimized by it. It's essentially the same position Ron Paul takes on earmarks. As long as Libertarians candidates consistently oppose these kinds of policies, and act against them, they owe it to their supporters to take advantage of every opportunity afforded them under the current rules.

Libertarians believe in fairness & equality. I think the Dems & Reps will still get more money? It costs millions to get through the "roadblocks" the Republicans put up. Gary got thrown off the ballot to where he had only 34 states. Now, after much time & money spent, he is on the ballot in 48 states + DC (not OK & MI).

It's easier to take the money, than to get a law passed saying the govt can't give money to any party. Also, Gary is for the 100% equally, so he feels an obligation to get something for the people who vote for him, beyond what Dems & Reps offer.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My question is: Why does a libertarian want taxpayer money to fund his campaign?

Because they don't want to compound their deficit by making some silly sacrificial 'statement'? It is possible, and rational, to oppose a policy yet refuse to be victimized by it. It's essentially the same position Ron Paul takes on earmarks. As long as Libertarians candidates consistently oppose these kinds of policies, and act against them, they owe it to their supporters to take advantage of every opportunity afforded them under the current rules.

Libertarians believe in fairness & equality. I think the Dems & Reps will still get more money? It costs millions to get through the "roadblocks" the Republicans put up. Gary got thrown off the ballot to where he had only 34 states. Now, after much time & money spent, he is on the ballot in 48 states + DC (not OK & MI).

It's easier to take the money, than to get a law passed saying the govt can't give money to any party. Also, Gary is for the 100% equally, so he feels an obligation to get something for the people who vote for him, beyond what Dems & Reps offer.

The Republicans and Democrats can raise more money by not taking government money, so they don't, though you're not wrong that they do use their superior resources to block third party candidates. And this whole "Gary is for the 100%" is just a talking point with no substance. It doesn't mean anything, and nobody on this board is buying it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Oh, okay. So this is about making a statement, furthering a cause.

"My cause is so important it's worth anything that happens."

.

It's about improving America & the world. Why does anyone assume Johnson would be a bad president when he wants what the majority wants & cares about the 100% equally?
It's not about Gary vs America, he's our friend. Just take the ISideWith dot com survey or visit his website & see how many of the issues positions you agree with. Best wishes.

Obviously the majority doesn't want what Gary Johnson wants, or he would have done much better in the primaries and the polls. Johnson, like Ron Paul before him, represents a very small constituency. That's why he cannot do better. It's not that the republicans won't let him. It's that once someone listens to him, they reject what his policies are.

 

[dblack]

Obviously the majority doesn't want what Gary Johnson wants, or he would have done much better in the primaries and the polls. Johnson, like Ron Paul before him, represents a very small constituency. That's why he cannot do better. It's not that the republicans won't let him. It's that once someone listens to him, they reject what his policies are.

The majority probably doesn't want libertarianism currently. Arguably, the majority doesn't even know what is, so it's sort of a moot point. The problem is that our true preferences are obscured by the two-party system - which "persuades" most voters into falling for the 'lesser-of-two-evils' crap. In non-election surveys, libertarian views enjoy much more support than we see reflected in the elections.

 

[JWBooth]

The majority probably doesn't want libertarianism currently. Arguably, the majority doesn't even know what is, so it's sort of a moot point. The problem is that our true preferences are obscured by the two-party system - which "persuades" most voters into falling for the 'lesser-of-two-evils' crap. In non-election surveys, libertarian views enjoy much more support than we see reflected in the elections.

The majority doesn't want their place at the teat taken by somebody else.

 

[Katzndogz]

Obviously the majority doesn't want what Gary Johnson wants, or he would have done much better in the primaries and the polls. Johnson, like Ron Paul before him, represents a very small constituency. That's why he cannot do better. It's not that the republicans won't let him. It's that once someone listens to him, they reject what his policies are.

The majority probably doesn't want libertarianism currently. Arguably, the majority doesn't even know what is, so it's sort of a moot point. The problem is that our true preferences are obscured by the two-party system - which "persuades" most voters into falling for the 'lesser-of-two-evils' crap. In non-election surveys, libertarian views enjoy much more support than we see reflected in the elections.

Libertarian views do not enjoy more support, some libertarian views enjoy more support than others, and the views that are supported do not have broad appeal. Some are supported by some people, and rejected by others. It varies. I have listened to Gary Johnson, I listened to Ron Paul when he was running in 2008. I found little to nothing at all in either of them to justify my vote.

 

[dblack]

Obviously the majority doesn't want what Gary Johnson wants, or he would have done much better in the primaries and the polls. Johnson, like Ron Paul before him, represents a very small constituency. That's why he cannot do better. It's not that the republicans won't let him. It's that once someone listens to him, they reject what his policies are.

The majority probably doesn't want libertarianism currently. Arguably, the majority doesn't even know what is, so it's sort of a moot point. The problem is that our true preferences are obscured by the two-party system - which "persuades" most voters into falling for the 'lesser-of-two-evils' crap. In non-election surveys, libertarian views enjoy much more support than we see reflected in the elections.

Libertarian views do not enjoy more support, some libertarian views enjoy more support than others, and the views that are supported do not have broad appeal. Some are supported by some people, and rejected by others. It varies. I have listened to Gary Johnson, I listened to Ron Paul when he was running in 2008. I found little to nothing at all in either of them to justify my vote.

Of course not, but others do. Many more than the vote totals reflect. We hear countless excuses from people who claim they would prefer the libertarian candidate, but don't want to 'waste their vote' on a candidate who can't win. That distorts the results and fails to give an accurate representation of voter preferences. I'd suspect even you could understand that.