Gary Johnson makes the GOP nervous..

[Bigfoot]

Gary Johnson scares the GOP about as much as Jill Stein scares the Democrats.


Who?


Exactly.


.

Yeah, I just read an article yesterday that said Johnson will hurt Obama's chances in the state. It looks like it depends on you talk to. Realistically it's likely none of the above.

 

[PredFan]

Gary Johnson scares the GOP about as much as Jill Stein scares the Democrats.


Who?


Exactly.


.

Yeah, I just read an article yesterday that said Johnson will hurt Obama's chances in the state. It looks like it depends on you talk to. Realistically it's likely none of the above.

Ron Paul and Libertarian ideas were pretty big with the Occupy movement early on, you might just be on to something.

 

[dblack]

I have only one problem with the argument from my fellow Libertarians. You all are acting as if Gary Johnson, when elected, would actually do things differently.

Yes, that's exactly it. If Romney had governed his state as Johnson governed his, Romney might be getting vote.

Except that state governorship is much different than the POTUS. Neither New Mexico nor Massachusetts have foreign policies for example.

So there we have to go with what they say, or more reliably, on what we can infer as their core political philosophies. As governor, Johnson consistently, and often successfully, stood up for libertarian principles. Romney is a thoroughgoing corporatist. The difference is quite stark.

Once again, if I was under the delusion that Romney would be significantly better for the country than Obama, even if I disagreed with him on many issues, I could be persuaded by your logic. But I'm not. If I had to pick between Obama and Romney it would be a coin toss. It's simply not worth weighing in on a distinction between them when I can, instead, show real support for the libertarian movement.

 

[dblack]

Gary Johnson scares the GOP about as much as Jill Stein scares the Democrats.


Who?


Exactly.


.

Yeah, I just read an article yesterday that said Johnson will hurt Obama's chances in the state. It looks like it depends on you talk to. Realistically it's likely none of the above.

Ron Paul and Libertarian ideas were pretty big with the Occupy movement early on, you might just be on to something.

I think libertarians are missing the boat by not looking for inroads into the Democratic party in much the same way RP worked on Republicans. At its heart, the libertarian movement is 'liberal' in spirit. Conservatives agree with us to a point, as long as we're pushing for lower taxes and less business regulation. But at the core conservatives are, well, conservative and suspicious of radical change, even if it's for the better.

 

[PredFan]

Yes, that's exactly it. If Romney had governed his state as Johnson governed his, Romney might be getting vote.

Except that state governorship is much different than the POTUS. Neither New Mexico nor Massachusetts have foreign policies for example.

So there we have to go with what they say, or more reliably, on what we can infer as their core political philosophies. As governor, Johnson consistently, and often successfully, stood up for libertarian principles. Romney is a thoroughgoing corporatist. The difference is quite stark.

Once again, if I was under the delusion that Romney would be significantly better for the country than Obama, even if I disagreed with him on many issues, I could be persuaded by your logic. But I'm not. If I had to pick between Obama and Romney it would be a coin toss. It's simply not worth weighing on a distinction between them when I can, instead, show real support for the libertarian movement.

I support the movement on Facebook and among friends and co-workers. I also vote LP on local and state ballots, so I too support the LP.

I'm not really trying to convince you, I doubt I could anyway. I'm just saying that I believe that for the same reasons obama didn't close Gitmo, or have a little sit-down chat with tyrants, Johnson wouldn't be able to do 90% of the Libertarian platform. He would not be able to legalize pot, nor would he close the bases, or bring all of the troops home, or even audit the Fed. The POTUS is not Caesar. That said, he would be a better POTUS than Romney and obama.

I believe that Romney is better than obama in that he will actually revive this country economically. Will he stop the wars? No. Will he reduce the deficit? Probably not. He will however, turn the economy around and right now, the way things are, I'll take it. Obama MUST go.

 

[PredFan]

Yeah, I just read an article yesterday that said Johnson will hurt Obama's chances in the state. It looks like it depends on you talk to. Realistically it's likely none of the above.

Ron Paul and Libertarian ideas were pretty big with the Occupy movement early on, you might just be on to something.

I think libertarians are missing the boat by not looking for inroads into the Democratic party in much the same way RP worked on Republicans. At its heart, the libertarian movement is 'liberal' in spirit. Conservatives agree with us to a point, as long as we're pushing for lower taxes less business regulation. But at the core conservatives are, well, conservative and suspicious of radical change, even if it's for the better.

I firmly believe that if more people knew what the LP was about, we would blow out the other two parties. Right now there are so many people who have no clue.

Some people think we're anarchists.
Some people think we're Isolationists.
Even some Libertarians know nothing more about their party than legalized marijuana.

 

[Dissent]

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

LMAO...I find this highly amusing.You don't want 2 very distinctly different choices? You would rather have 2 very close in policies choices..

I have only one problem with the argument from my fellow Libertarians. You all are acting as if Gary Johnson, when elected, would actually do things differently.

Why do you think he wouldn't? He changed New Mexico for the better.I know running a state is different than running a country but I think he would do things differently...especially foreign policy which he doesn't have to get passed through congress...he could either let things like patriot act and NDAA expire or have his AF fight to bring them down.

 

[PredFan]

I have only one problem with the argument from my fellow Libertarians. You all are acting as if Gary Johnson, when elected, would actually do things differently.

Why do you think he wouldn't? He changed New Mexico for the better.I know running a state is different than running a country but I think he would do things differently...especially foreign policy which he doesn't have to get passed through congress...he could either let things like patriot act and NDAA expire or have his AF fight to bring them down.

Because the POTUS isn't Caesar. He cannot just do whatever he wants to. Plus, johnson has the handicap of not knowing all of the details and intel that obama does. Oh, the candidates have big dreams and big promises, but on January 21st, when it's time to go to work, the realities of the job prevent them from acting much differently than their predecessors did.

 

[Bigfoot]

Except that state governorship is much different than the POTUS. Neither New Mexico nor Massachusetts have foreign policies for example.

So there we have to go with what they say, or more reliably, on what we can infer as their core political philosophies. As governor, Johnson consistently, and often successfully, stood up for libertarian principles. Romney is a thoroughgoing corporatist. The difference is quite stark.

Once again, if I was under the delusion that Romney would be significantly better for the country than Obama, even if I disagreed with him on many issues, I could be persuaded by your logic. But I'm not. If I had to pick between Obama and Romney it would be a coin toss. It's simply not worth weighing on a distinction between them when I can, instead, show real support for the libertarian movement.

I support the movement on Facebook and among friends and co-workers. I also vote LP on local and state ballots, so I too support the LP.

I'm not really trying to convince you, I doubt I could anyway. I'm just saying that I believe that for the same reasons obama didn't close Gitmo, or have a little sit-down chat with tyrants, Johnson wouldn't be able to do 90% of the Libertarian platform. He would not be able to legalize pot, nor would he close the bases, or bring all of the troops home, or even audit the Fed. The POTUS is not Caesar. That said, he would be a better POTUS than Romney and obama.

I believe that Romney is better than obama in that he will actually revive this country economically. Will he stop the wars? No. Will he reduce the deficit? Probably not. He will however, turn the economy around and right now, the way things are, I'll take it. Obama MUST go.

I would also like to see us act like Israel's ally again as well. Obama's Muslim leanings have turned things a bad direction. Hell the Muslims hate him more then most Americans do. He let his ego get in the way of good foreign policy and now somebody has to clean up his mess.

 

[Shelzin]

Except that state governorship is much different than the POTUS. Neither New Mexico nor Massachusetts have foreign policies for example.

So there we have to go with what they say, or more reliably, on what we can infer as their core political philosophies. As governor, Johnson consistently, and often successfully, stood up for libertarian principles. Romney is a thoroughgoing corporatist. The difference is quite stark.

Once again, if I was under the delusion that Romney would be significantly better for the country than Obama, even if I disagreed with him on many issues, I could be persuaded by your logic. But I'm not. If I had to pick between Obama and Romney it would be a coin toss. It's simply not worth weighing on a distinction between them when I can, instead, show real support for the libertarian movement.

I support the movement on Facebook and among friends and co-workers. I also vote LP on local and state ballots, so I too support the LP.

I'm not really trying to convince you, I doubt I could anyway. I'm just saying that I believe that for the same reasons obama didn't close Gitmo, or have a little sit-down chat with tyrants, Johnson wouldn't be able to do 90% of the Libertarian platform.

Uhh...

He would not be able to legalize pot,

He would need the houses for that.

nor would he close the bases, or bring all of the troops home,

Why not? There is nothing stopping him from doing that. Neither HoR or the Senate has anything to do with that outside of paying for it.

or even audit the Fed.

Incorrect. Who chooses who is on the board of the Fed? This was an argument as to why it's a government branch and not a separate entity.

The POTUS is not Caesar.

I agree.

That said, he would be a better POTUS than Romney and obama.

I agree.

I believe that Romney is better than obama in that he will actually revive this country economically.

I disagree. Or more to the point what he brings that is better than Obama is offset by what he'll bring that is worse.

Will he stop the wars? No. Will he reduce the deficit? Probably not. He will however, turn the economy around and right now, the way things are, I'll take it. Obama MUST go.

I agree. Problem is I can't support Willard to replace him.

 

[Foxfyre]

Romney is nowhere near the libertarian or small government guy as most of us would prefer, but anybody who can't see how superior Romney would be to Obama is so ideologically blinded that he or she is probably beyond all reason.

As for Gary Johnson, I know him personally and he is mostly a good guy with the right idea about most things, though he is not as tuned into the Founders' principles as I want a good libertarian to be. And I have been really angry at him for going after Romney instead of Obama and thereby being willing to throw the country under the bus for his own self interests.

 

[kaz]

Anybody who might (theoretically) siphon enough votes to give the incumbent a shot in a close State frightens me.

You realize, Gary has NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of winning ANYTHING.

But if he has even the slightest chance of playing "spoiler" it goes in the wrong ******* direction.

You assholes who keep pulling for the predetermined fail known as Gary Johnson might as well suck off the President. You are disgusting. At least liberal Democrats actually like the guy.

So your solution to getting libertarians to vote for your guy is to tell us **** us, we're ass wipes? Wow, you make it really hard not to support Romney...

 

[Dissent]

I have only one problem with the argument from my fellow Libertarians. You all are acting as if Gary Johnson, when elected, would actually do things differently.

Why do you think he wouldn't? He changed New Mexico for the better.I know running a state is different than running a country but I think he would do things differently...especially foreign policy which he doesn't have to get passed through congress...he could either let things like patriot act and NDAA expire or have his AF fight to bring them down.

Because the POTUS isn't Caesar. He cannot just do whatever he wants to. Plus, johnson has the handicap of not knowing all of the details and intel that obama does. Oh, the candidates have big dreams and big promises, but on January 21st, when it's time to go to work, the realities of the job prevent them from acting much differently than their predecessors did.

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.

 

[dblack]

Why do you think he wouldn't? He changed New Mexico for the better.I know running a state is different than running a country but I think he would do things differently...especially foreign policy which he doesn't have to get passed through congress...he could either let things like patriot act and NDAA expire or have his AF fight to bring them down.

Because the POTUS isn't Caesar. He cannot just do whatever he wants to. Plus, johnson has the handicap of not knowing all of the details and intel that obama does. Oh, the candidates have big dreams and big promises, but on January 21st, when it's time to go to work, the realities of the job prevent them from acting much differently than their predecessors did.

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.

Obviously there is much he could do. But there are dilemmas set up in the momentum of our current policies that would make much of a libertarian reform difficult, and/or prohibitively painful in the short term. I think that's what Predfan is gettiing at. It's certainly not as simple as "just bring 'em home", though the intent has to be there before we can even move in that direction.

 

[PredFan]

So there we have to go with what they say, or more reliably, on what we can infer as their core political philosophies. As governor, Johnson consistently, and often successfully, stood up for libertarian principles. Romney is a thoroughgoing corporatist. The difference is quite stark.

Once again, if I was under the delusion that Romney would be significantly better for the country than Obama, even if I disagreed with him on many issues, I could be persuaded by your logic. But I'm not. If I had to pick between Obama and Romney it would be a coin toss. It's simply not worth weighing on a distinction between them when I can, instead, show real support for the libertarian movement.

I support the movement on Facebook and among friends and co-workers. I also vote LP on local and state ballots, so I too support the LP.

I'm not really trying to convince you, I doubt I could anyway. I'm just saying that I believe that for the same reasons obama didn't close Gitmo, or have a little sit-down chat with tyrants, Johnson wouldn't be able to do 90% of the Libertarian platform.

Uhh...


He would need the houses for that.


Why not? There is nothing stopping him from doing that. Neither HoR or the Senate has anything to do with that outside of paying for it.


Incorrect. Who chooses who is on the board of the Fed? This was an argument as to why it's a government branch and not a separate entity.


I agree.


I agree.

I believe that Romney is better than obama in that he will actually revive this country economically.

I disagree. Or more to the point what he brings that is better than Obama is offset by what he'll bring that is worse.

Will he stop the wars? No. Will he reduce the deficit? Probably not. He will however, turn the economy around and right now, the way things are, I'll take it. Obama MUST go.

I agree. Problem is I can't support Willard to replace him.

He won't close the bases or bring the troops home because he will have the intel as POTUS that he doesn't have now. The world and the global political climate isn't as simple as that. He would see that the repercussions of doing that would be bad for the country.

 

[PredFan]

Why do you think he wouldn't? He changed New Mexico for the better.I know running a state is different than running a country but I think he would do things differently...especially foreign policy which he doesn't have to get passed through congress...he could either let things like patriot act and NDAA expire or have his AF fight to bring them down.

Because the POTUS isn't Caesar. He cannot just do whatever he wants to. Plus, johnson has the handicap of not knowing all of the details and intel that obama does. Oh, the candidates have big dreams and big promises, but on January 21st, when it's time to go to work, the realities of the job prevent them from acting much differently than their predecessors did.

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?

 

[PredFan]

Because the POTUS isn't Caesar. He cannot just do whatever he wants to. Plus, johnson has the handicap of not knowing all of the details and intel that obama does. Oh, the candidates have big dreams and big promises, but on January 21st, when it's time to go to work, the realities of the job prevent them from acting much differently than their predecessors did.

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.

Obviously there is much he could do. But there are dilemmas set up in the momentum of our current policies that would make much of a libertarian reform difficult, and/or prohibitively painful in the short term. I think that's what Predfan is gettiing at. It's certainly not as simple as "just bring 'em home", though the intent has to be there before we can even move in that direction.

The only way a Gary Johnson presidency would be able to look much different than an obama or Romney presidency is if we also elected a lot of Libertarians to Congress.

 

[Shelzin]

He won't close the bases or bring the troops home because he will have the intel as POTUS that he doesn't have now. The world and the global political climate isn't as simple as that. He would see that the repercussions of doing that would be bad for the country.

How the hell can you say that without any intel yourself? You don't know if it would be good or bad.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah, I just read an article yesterday that said Johnson will hurt Obama's chances in the state. It looks like it depends on you talk to. Realistically it's likely none of the above.

Ron Paul and Libertarian ideas were pretty big with the Occupy movement early on, you might just be on to something.

I think libertarians are missing the boat by not looking for inroads into the Democratic party in much the same way RP worked on Republicans. At its heart, the libertarian movement is 'liberal' in spirit. Conservatives agree with us to a point, as long as we're pushing for lower taxes and less business regulation. But at the core conservatives are, well, conservative and suspicious of radical change, even if it's for the better.

Except the democrat party is the party of "the little self made despot". Everyone in that party wants to dictate to others how to live their lives. At least conservatives aren't pushing EVERYONE to conform to their rules. Only those they want to harness in the vote bloc.

 

[Shelzin]

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.

Obviously there is much he could do. But there are dilemmas set up in the momentum of our current policies that would make much of a libertarian reform difficult, and/or prohibitively painful in the short term. I think that's what Predfan is gettiing at. It's certainly not as simple as "just bring 'em home", though the intent has to be there before we can even move in that direction.

The only way a Gary Johnson presidency would be able to look much different than an obama or Romney presidency is if we also elected a lot of Libertarians to Congress.

Working on that too.