Can anyone really argue Gary Johnson is not the best candidate on the ballot?

[Manonthestreet]

Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for president, said that he agrees with 73 percent of what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) says, citing that libertarians agree with socialism as long as it’s voluntary. Moonbattery » Gary Johnson Says He Mostly Agrees With Bernie Sanders

 

[PredFan]

One of several reasons this Libertarian cannot vote for him.

So, how perfectly does a candidate's positions have to match your own before you'll vote for them? Have you ever voted for a candidate polling more than 1% nationally?

Not perfectly. Johnson has lost me on several issues and I'm not happy that he abandoned his LP principles for votes. BUT, I am voting anti-Hillary and if it gets closer to November and Johnson does well enough to be within reach of her, I will happily change my vote. As I said in one of my earlier posts, he is the best candidate but that isn't saying a whole lot.

You actually can't vote against anyone. Who are you voting for?

I absolutely can. I'm voting against Hillary.

'Against Hillary' will not appear on the ballot. You'll have to choose someone to vote for, or not vote at all.

What's the matter with you? I know you aren't stupid. Stop with the stupid games.

 

[PredFan]

Lots. Smaller government, more Liberty, more power to local governments and less to the federal government, balanced budget, cuts in spending, adherence to the Constitution, and more. I know that Johnson himself has waffled on some of this but he's more conservative than either of the two mainstream candidates.

Neither Johnson nor Mr Weld believe in those things. Look at their records. DEEDS speak far louder than words, Sir.

As I said, they waffled on some of this to get votes, which is why they lost my vote, but you are wrong, Johnson's record shows that he used to believe in those things.

 

[PredFan]

Objectively he's probably better by some percentage if these things were quantifiable. However, he's not so much better that it would make that much of a difference if he were elected. He came out in favor of a carbon tax and a guaranteed basic income, and claimed that Mitt Romney of all people would definitely have a place in his administration. I could get that nonsense from Clinton or Trump, so why get excited?

Mitt Romney is qualified to serve in any number of positions. And would add to the ability to mediate in consensus problems that SHOULD and NEED to be fixed. He's wrong on jumping into a carbon tax --- and as I told you before -- there is already a "guaranteed minimum income" with the EITC. It sets no real precedent.

At this point -- it's disappointing that he confuses progressive solutions with libertarian solutions. But as a mediation team to put America into a partisan "time-out" -- there has NEVER been a better opportunity to do that.

If Johnson/Weld truly are oblivious to Libertarian principles and turn out to be just "middle of road" peacemakers --- the LParty will primary them out and replace them with folks that have a set of actual principles. In the meantime -- the outcome for America is better with them --- than with ClinTrump. Either of them wins -- the flaming and scandals get worse. And nothing gets done.

Excellent point, and my anti-Hillary vote could go from Trump to him if his numbers climb. I disagree about the LP voting him out. No matter what he does, they will be so happy he won they will keep him there. I've never been so disappointed in the LP as when they made him their candidate. there were so many other greater candidates.

I only saw ONE other possible candidate. Austin Peterson. And he was gonna be seen as preaching Libertarian principles, not campaigning on issues that folks care about. I think you CAN do both. But people are not in the mood to be lectured right now about visions or principles or a 3rd way...

And there is no argument that Johnson/Weld are qualified to serve. Whereas, it's OK for a businessman to want to serve -- but maybe not one who wants voters to convert to a purist view of any particular political philosophy.

My feeling is -- you make the priorities from what you're handed. And you SOLVE THEM in the manner that you believe is right. You don't require a different playing field from what you're handed before you suit up to play..
.

Austin Peterson was the one I wanted. He's head and shoulders better than Johnson.

 

[PredFan]

Don't be so sure about that, the reason I'm sour on him is that he has sold out a couple of his principles in order to gain more votes. He is very soft on immigration (a brand new position for him), and he's pro-gun control. He has an anti-gun VP. Not very libertarian on both counts.

MOST people grow and change, and when they learn new things, they are capable of changing their opinions. Unlike partisans who NEVER admit they are wrong.

That's crap, he did it to gain votes.

How do you know? And who are you voting for? The Dumpster?

I know because I'm capable of adding 2 + 2.
What does a dumpster have to do with anything?

Dumpster, Trumpster. Same difference.

Why is it impossible that he just changed his mind on some issues? I've done it. Have you never changed your mind in 20 years?

It isn't impossible, it's just unlikely. Plus, he changed his mind to un-Libertarian points of view. Why would he do that? For votes.

I have changed my mind, but I changed it in the direction of values that are now more in line with Liberty, freedom, and limited government.

 

[PredFan]

And you make the common error of thinking Libertarians are anarchists.

It would be better for everybody if the abusive statists in the libertarian party were not associated with the political anarchist community.

there are no statists in the LP, if you think so then you don't know the meaning of the term or the LP, possibly both.

The international anarchist community refers to anyone who supports the existence of the state as being a statist.

The US libertarian community refers to anyone who supports an expanded state as being a statist.

I think by definition, if you support the state, then you are a statist.

So you must be an anarchist then? Otherwise why would you say that there are statists in the LP?

 

[buckeye45_73]

I mean, it isn't even close.

Gary had a great record in NM, is a decent, honest, and patriotic American.

He is head and shoulders above any candidate on the ballot. Literally, none of the others even reach his knees....

I'm not a fan....because he believes in multiculturalism which is big govt.....not a real liberatarian.

 

[Onyx]

So you must be an anarchist then? Otherwise why would you say that there are statists in the LP?

People say I am not a real anarchist when my arguments start making sense.

I will let you decide.

 

[LaDexter]

If Gary Johnson and Jill Stein had a "third party" debate and webcasted it, how many of you would watch?

 

[PredFan]

If Gary Johnson and Jill Stein had a "third party" debate and webcasted it, how many of you would watch?

I would not. Two reasons:

1. I don't care what Stein has to say.
2. I already know all I need to know about Johnson.

Come to think of it, those are the same reasons I won't watch a debate between Hillary and Trump, just different names.

 

[PredFan]

The goofy thing about this thread is that people are ripping Johnson when anyone with a functioning brain knows that he is the best candidate. One has only to look at the trust and favorability ratings of the two others to know that.

 

[ChrisL]

Lots. Smaller government, more Liberty, more power to local governments and less to the federal government, balanced budget, cuts in spending, adherence to the Constitution, and more. I know that Johnson himself has waffled on some of this but he's more conservative than either of the two mainstream candidates.

Neither Johnson nor Mr Weld believe in those things. Look at their records. DEEDS speak far louder than words, Sir.

As I said, they waffled on some of this to get votes, which is why they lost my vote, but you are wrong, Johnson's record shows that he used to believe in those things.

He still does.

 

[ChrisL]

MOST people grow and change, and when they learn new things, they are capable of changing their opinions. Unlike partisans who NEVER admit they are wrong.

That's crap, he did it to gain votes.

How do you know? And who are you voting for? The Dumpster?

I know because I'm capable of adding 2 + 2.
What does a dumpster have to do with anything?

Dumpster, Trumpster. Same difference.

Why is it impossible that he just changed his mind on some issues? I've done it. Have you never changed your mind in 20 years?

It isn't impossible, it's just unlikely. Plus, he changed his mind to un-Libertarian points of view. Why would he do that? For votes.

I have changed my mind, but I changed it in the direction of values that are now more in line with Liberty, freedom, and limited government.

Those are Gary's platforms too. Why do you think he is against liberty, freedom and limited government? That is the stance of the entire libertarian party.

 

[ChrisL]

If Gary Johnson and Jill Stein had a "third party" debate and webcasted it, how many of you would watch?

I would watch it . . . if I heard about it in time.

 

[ChrisL]

So you must be an anarchist then? Otherwise why would you say that there are statists in the LP?

People say I am not a real anarchist when my arguments start making sense.

I will let you decide.

Anarchy does not make much sense and is really not very realistic if you delve below the surface into the consequences.

 

[ChrisL]

If everyone was an intelligent and perfect human being, then maybe anarchy would be not so bad. We all know this is not the case. People are inherently greedy. This is leftover survival instinct from the stone age when you had to get all you could to survival. We are also inherently territorial. There are a LOT of problems with the "anarchy" ideology. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

I mean, it isn't even close.

Gary had a great record in NM, is a decent, honest, and patriotic American.

He is head and shoulders above any candidate on the ballot. Literally, none of the others even reach his knees....

I'm not a fan....because he believes in multiculturalism which is big govt.....not a real liberatarian.

I'm not crazy about his immigration policy either, but he is still mountains above Clinton and Trump, IMO. I don't see how anyone could put their trust in either of those two. They are like . . . charlatans. Lol.

 

[PredFan]

Lots. Smaller government, more Liberty, more power to local governments and less to the federal government, balanced budget, cuts in spending, adherence to the Constitution, and more. I know that Johnson himself has waffled on some of this but he's more conservative than either of the two mainstream candidates.

Neither Johnson nor Mr Weld believe in those things. Look at their records. DEEDS speak far louder than words, Sir.

As I said, they waffled on some of this to get votes, which is why they lost my vote, but you are wrong, Johnson's record shows that he used to believe in those things.

He still does.

Not entirely, according to what he is now saying and supports.

 

[PredFan]

That's crap, he did it to gain votes.

How do you know? And who are you voting for? The Dumpster?

I know because I'm capable of adding 2 + 2.
What does a dumpster have to do with anything?

Dumpster, Trumpster. Same difference.

Why is it impossible that he just changed his mind on some issues? I've done it. Have you never changed your mind in 20 years?

It isn't impossible, it's just unlikely. Plus, he changed his mind to un-Libertarian points of view. Why would he do that? For votes.

I have changed my mind, but I changed it in the direction of values that are now more in line with Liberty, freedom, and limited government.

Those are Gary's platforms too. Why do you think he is against liberty, freedom and limited government? That is the stance of the entire libertarian party.

I didn't say he changed those things, I said I changed those things.

 

[Onyx]

Anarchy does not make much sense and is really not very realistic if you delve below the surface into the consequences.

The consequences are in your head. Most likely put there through popularized and prevalent misconceptions.

The consequences of the state are verifiable and evident. Destructive wars, human degradation, environmental damage, and civil chaos.