Gary Johnson makes the GOP nervous..

[Shelzin]

How hard is this? Libertarians are constantly bitching that their candidates aren't being given a shot. Well, if your candidates can only pull in less than 2% of the vote, they'll never be given a shot. If the Libertarians want to be a force, they ought to stand behind their candidates, and open their wallets for them, else you'll be forever in the wilderness of being a fringe force.

I don't think that's a very valid point. I mean... Most of the canidates money is from companies and organizations that are buying favors. You make it into a circle jerk problem doing that route. The problems with the government, are what makes it to where you get elected? Brilliant. Your own worst enemy.

Disagree. If Ross Perot didn't go batshit loony in 1992, he had a clear shot at winning. As for corporate money, lets not forget that the Koch Brothers were the biggest contributors to Cato, prior to finding out that they can just buy and own Romney.

I absolutely agree that the Koch Brothers were trying to buy the libertarian party. I suppose you can be a pessimist and say that the Libertarians were too expensive, so they bought Willard instead... But I don't see how that makes anything better.

 

[PredFan]

You don't think he would get ANYTHING done? I mean a lot of time it takes a president to support something for people to say yeah pass it....his FP would be different because he doesn't have to get anything through congress to change that...he won't have to drone kill anyone,he can end the wars and occupations...he may not be able to do everything he wants but he can do quite a bit...I really hope he can fix the budget.

No no, he would get things done, probably better than obama and Romney. I'd take him over the other two any day.

The things that would stop him from initiating the FP ideas he campaigns on are the complexity of global politics. There are treaties and economic factors....it's just more complicated than what Johnson proposes.

Fixing the budget is waaaaaaay more complicated because he would need the support of congress. Do you think they will allow him to slash the military? Or entitlements? Or medicare/medicaid? Or screw aroud with the IRS?

He can not fund those things...he can veto it as many times as he can MAYBE they will get the message...doubtful but its possible.

They have ways around a veto.

the only way a LP candidate would be able to get anything done that the LP wants is if there was a lot of Libertarians in Congress.

 

[PredFan]

If this elections choice was Obama or Gary Johnson I wouldn't vote.

I would - and it would be Obama. That's right, I'd pick the worst politician in US history over an anarchist idiot.

<facepalm>

 

[dblack]

No no, he would get things done, probably better than obama and Romney. I'd take him over the other two any day.

The things that would stop him from initiating the FP ideas he campaigns on are the complexity of global politics. There are treaties and economic factors....it's just more complicated than what Johnson proposes.

Fixing the budget is waaaaaaay more complicated because he would need the support of congress. Do you think they will allow him to slash the military? Or entitlements? Or medicare/medicaid? Or screw aroud with the IRS?

He can not fund those things...he can veto it as many times as he can MAYBE they will get the message...doubtful but its possible.

They have ways around a veto.

the only way a LP candidate would be able to get anything done that the LP wants is if there was a lot of Libertarians in Congress.

The veto is a pretty strong tool actually. I'd certainly rather have a president willing to use it. Johnson set records in that regard in his governorship.

 

[Dissent]

Well I don't think that will ever happen...suppose next best thing IMO is the collapse of the country and the entire corrupt system...which is why I prefer Obama over Willard...

 

[Desperado]

The Republican party ignored both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
The Republican party ignored both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters.
So why is the Republican Party whining that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters are now ignoring the Republican Party.
If the Republican Party doesn't have a candidate or even a plank in their platform the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters can support, why the hell should they?

 

[dblack]

the republican party ignored both ron paul and gary johnson.
The republican party ignored both ron paul and gary johnson supporters.
So why is the republican party whining that ron paul and gary johnson supporters are now ignoring the republican party.
If the republican party doesn't have a candidate or even a plank in their platform the ron paul and gary johnson supporters can support, why the hell should they?

qft

 

[PredFan]

He can not fund those things...he can veto it as many times as he can MAYBE they will get the message...doubtful but its possible.

They have ways around a veto.

the only way a LP candidate would be able to get anything done that the LP wants is if there was a lot of Libertarians in Congress.

The veto is a pretty strong tool actually. I'd certainly rather have a president willing to use it. Johnson set records in that regard in his governorship.

Fine and dandy but it can be over-ridden and would be if Johnson tried any one of the more radical of the LP agenda. Congress would override his veto on military spending, legalized drugs, and ending the Fed, just to name a few.

 

[Shelzin]

The fact that Romney did it in the State of Massachusetts with overwhelming support from the people of Massachusetts and overwhelming support from a bipartisan legislature--only two votes opposed--says that he was a representative of the people and not a would be dictator.

A state that was/is primarily democrat. You think he got his job by being conservative? Is what happened there Republican in foundation with Romneycare?

Also seems a little odd that the delegates were primarily Ron Paul supporters instead of Willard at the RNC.

That is exactly what I want in a President. That is not what we have now. Obamacare was passed against the will of the majority of the people, without total Democratic support, with no Republican support. And therein is your difference.

A democrat did it instead of a republican. Gotcha.

Just to throw this out there:

Paul Ryan in 2010: Romneycare Is an 'Unsustainable' 'Fatal Conceit' - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)

Ryan responded:

Not well, no. Actually, I’m not a fan of the system. … I’ve got some relatives up there in Massachusetts. My uncle’s a cardiologist in Boston and I’ve talked to a lot of healthcare folks up there. What’s happening now is because costs are getting out of control, premiums are increasing in Massachusetts and now you have a bureaucracy that is having to put all these cost controls and now rationing on the system. So people in Massachusetts are saying ‘yes we have virtually universal healthcare’—I think it’s 96 or 98 percent insured. But they see the system bursting by the seams. They see premium increases, rationing and benefit cuts, and so they’re frustrated with this system. … They see how this idea of having the government be the sole, you know, single regulator of health insurance, defining what kind of health insurance you can have, and then an individual mandate—it is fatal conceit. These kinds of systems, as we’re now seeing in Massachusetts are unsustainable.

The Founders kept the federal government constitutionally limited according to their understanding of what the constitution allowed. They also did nothing to obstruct the states from having their own little theocracies or societies in their hellfire days or whatever society the people wanted to have. They trusted a free people to weed out the worst and keep the best, and that is exactly what happened almost everywhere.

 

[PredFan]

The Republican party ignored both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
The Republican party ignored both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters.
So why is the Republican Party whining that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters are now ignoring the Republican Party.
If the Republican Party doesn't have a candidate or even a plank in their platform the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters can support, why the hell should they?

Actually, they aren't. Johnson and his supporters are being ignored completely.

 

[Shelzin]

The Republican party ignored both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
The Republican party ignored both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters.
So why is the Republican Party whining that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters are now ignoring the Republican Party.
If the Republican Party doesn't have a candidate or even a plank in their platform the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters can support, why the hell should they?

...

 

[Foxfyre]

So he gave up his principles to appease the masses? That's not what I want in a President.

So what does that have to do with being better libertarians than any libertarian today, even assuming that that's true?

What if the principle is to represent the people and govern as the people want? Which do you prefer? A President who offers leadership and guidance but bows to the will of the people? Or one who bulls through his own agenda and to hell with what anybody thinks about it?

That is NOT the principle I want honored. I want leaders who fight to protect our freedom - even if, especially if, the angry mob demands otherwise.

Would that include the freedom of the people to choose a universal healthcare program for their own state?

 

[Shelzin]

What if the principle is to represent the people and govern as the people want? Which do you prefer? A President who offers leadership and guidance but bows to the will of the people? Or one who bulls through his own agenda and to hell with what anybody thinks about it?

That is NOT the principle I want honored. I want leaders who fight to protect our freedom - even if, especially if, the angry mob demands otherwise.

Would that include the freedom of the people to choose a universal healthcare program for their own state?

It should... Yes.

I wish I could find something that actually shows how happy the people are with it.

 

[dblack]

What if the principle is to represent the people and govern as the people want? Which do you prefer? A President who offers leadership and guidance but bows to the will of the people? Or one who bulls through his own agenda and to hell with what anybody thinks about it?

That is NOT the principle I want honored. I want leaders who fight to protect our freedom - even if, especially if, the angry mob demands otherwise.

Would that include the freedom of the people to choose a universal healthcare program for their own state?

Absolutely not. The "freedom" to enslave others isn't a coherent concept.

 

[Shelzin]

They have ways around a veto.

the only way a LP candidate would be able to get anything done that the LP wants is if there was a lot of Libertarians in Congress.

The veto is a pretty strong tool actually. I'd certainly rather have a president willing to use it. Johnson set records in that regard in his governorship.

Fine and dandy but it can be over-ridden and would be if Johnson tried any one of the more radical of the LP agenda. Congress would override his veto on military spending,

They can't over rule where he decides to have them. Unless of course they declare war. Bring them home??? He could do it. If congress wants to still pay for the base in the other country they are welcome to do so... But I'm pretty sure that would be enough to piss off any voter. I don't care if it's (D), (R), or (I)

legalized drugs,

True.

and ending the Fed

Well....

As stipulated by the Banking Act of 1935, the President appoints the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; they must then be confirmed by the Senate and serve for 14 years.

Ok... Couple things.

1) President appoints, Senate ok's. That could go on the whole 4 years effectively making the Fed stay the **** out of everything during the term. That works for me.

2) Why the **** do they serve 14 years? I mean that's over three times as long as what the president serves normally. Why in the **** is it set up so a president has to keep what a former president did in terms of the Fed???

 

[Shelzin]

That is NOT the principle I want honored. I want leaders who fight to protect our freedom - even if, especially if, the angry mob demands otherwise.

Would that include the freedom of the people to choose a universal healthcare program for their own state?

Absolutely not. The "freedom" to enslave others isn't a coherent concept.

I'll be damned... I think that's the first thing we have disagreed on Dblack.

I think Romneycare is a huge mistake... But I do believe that the state has the right to do it. If they tried it here in Iowa I'd be fighting it.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is NOT the principle I want honored. I want leaders who fight to protect our freedom - even if, especially if, the angry mob demands otherwise.

Would that include the freedom of the people to choose a universal healthcare program for their own state?

It should... Yes.

I wish I could find something that actually shows how happy the people are with it.

It doesn't matter though. If the majority don't like it, then they should repeal it and either replace it with something else or nothing at all. The principle is whether self governance includes the right to form the social contract that produces the best quality of life as the people mutually perceive it.

I have lived in an area in which everybody had their own well, their own septic system, their own propane tank, and, though it was before my time there, at one time provided their own power via generator or wind charger. As recently as the 1990's, there were quite affluent ranches in some sparsely populated New Mexico counties who had no telephone service and no shared electric power grid. Many used propane lighting.

But at some point, increased density of population and too many septic systems puts everybody's ground water at risk. At such time it is wise to form a social conntract for a shared sewer system. For fire protection and other reasons, many rural communities form a social contract to share a water system. Ditto schools, fire protection, law enforcement, and zoning restrictions to protect everybody's property values.

The Founders maybe didn't foresee modern conveniences, but they certainly understood the principle of social contract and how it was necessary that the federal government not interfere with that and allow the people to form whatever sort of societies and local government they wished to have.

A shared healthcare system is no different than any of the other aspects of social contract. If it works, great. If it doesn't, scrap it and do something else. If there is respect of liberty, there must be freedom to make mistakes and do things wrong as well as succeed and get things right.

But the local social contract is none of the business of the federal government which is based on constitutional principles intended to apply to all people equally without respect for political party, religion, socioeconomic status or any other criteria. The federal government is intended to secure the rights of the states to do what they please, not to dictate how the states must organize themselves.

I believe Mitt Romney understands that. I'm not at all confident that it has ever occurred to Barack Obama.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Republican party ignored both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
The Republican party ignored both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters.
So why is the Republican Party whining that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters are now ignoring the Republican Party.
If the Republican Party doesn't have a candidate or even a plank in their platform the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters can support, why the hell should they?

They are not ignoring. They are throwing a temper tantrum like a bunch of two years olds that didn't get their cookies and milk. Now they are going to soil their diapers by voting for Obama.
I must know....Who the **** do you Paul/Johnson supporters think you are saying you have a right to be included in anything?
Your level of self importance is remarkable.
look, go ahead and vote for Obama. You were going to do that anyway.
All 679 of you.
Like I said, Johnson is a flyspeck.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

I disagree about Romney and businesses but I agree that there is a lot to dislike about Mitt. The only way to provide jobs for the middle class is to get government out of the way of the people who hire middle class workers. obama won't do that and Romney will.

I'd rather have Johnson or Ron Paul any day, but obama MUST go, and if I can help that in any way, I will.

Based off of what evidence? His record shows the opposite. He passed Romneycare and raised taxes and fees on businesses.

Based on what he says he's going to do. You realize that the president of the United states is a different job than Governor of a state right? At any rate, we know what obama will do; harm the business climate.

I will never, EVER, believe a single word a politician says during an election. And how people can delude themselves into thinking a politician means anything they say during elections is beyond me.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but I think you're being incredibly naive to vote for someone based off of what they say. Especially when what they say flies in the face what they've done.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The fact that Romney did it in the State of Massachusetts with overwhelming support from the people of Massachusetts and overwhelming support from a bipartisan legislature--only two votes opposed--says that he was a representative of the people and not a would be dictator. That is exactly what I want in a President. That is not what we have now. Obamacare was passed against the will of the majority of the people, without total Democratic support, with no Republican support. And therein is your difference.

The Founders kept the federal government constitutionally limited according to their understanding of what the constitution allowed. They also did nothing to obstruct the states from having their own little theocracies or societies in their hellfire days or whatever society the people wanted to have. They trusted a free people to weed out the worst and keep the best, and that is exactly what happened almost everywhere.

So he gave up his principles to appease the masses? That's not what I want in a President.

So what does that have to do with being better libertarians than any libertarian today, even assuming that that's true?

What if the principle is to represent the people and govern as the people want? Which do you prefer? A President who offers leadership and guidance but bows to the will of the people? Or one who bulls through his own agenda and to hell with what anybody thinks about it?

I'd want a President who's not afraid to tell "the people" when they're wrong. If Romney believed in free market capitalism he would've told the people of Massachusetts that what we now know as Romneycare was wrong, and vetoed it accordingly.