Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[The Rabbi]

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

You vote for losers.

You vote for Democrats in sheep's clothing

At least you admit you vote for losers. You are more interested in feeling good about yourself than in actually helping this country.

Except voting for any of these loons won't help the country.

Hey Delta is ready when you are. I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm still not sure what a Libertarian is.

Fiscal conservative/social liberal.

Wrong.

For starters, "fiscal conservative" is a meaningless phrase. Paul Ryan is a fiscal conservative, and remember his budget didn't even balance for decades and it increased government spending. That is in no way libertarian whatsoever. As far as social liberal goes, libertarians, despite what Gary Johnson says, are not interested in using the government to create a fictitious "even playing ground." Libertarians want the government to leave people and their property alone.

"The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism." - Murray Rothbard

The phrase may be meaningless to you but nobody can understand anything for you. Most libertarians align with fiscal conservatives who want smaller, more efficient government, lower taxes, etc. Don't believe in careless spending or the government's role in supplying jobs. That sort of thing.

Then socially they tend to want drug legalization, gay marriage, less government in our lives. That sort of thing.

To bad you had to scour the internet for an opinion you couldn't articulate though.

He's a typical Libertarian. They are the most intolerant and untolerable people out there. They have all the answers. You just don't understand.

 

[kaz]

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

You vote for losers.

You vote for Democrats in sheep's clothing

At least you admit you vote for losers. You are more interested in feeling good about yourself than in actually helping this country.

Except voting for any of these loons won't help the country.

Depends on how you define help.

Making a difference. Two parties, same result. Republicans spend like Democrats and Democrats get us in wars like Republicans. Republicans nominating supreme court justices hasn't made a difference in their rulings. I don't care what they say, I care what they do. And they do the same

 

[Borillar]

The Libertarians did the only sensible thing and nominated Gary Johnson for their candidate for president. Johnson is the only reasonable choice in the race. He is a two term governor with a solid record. Does he have plenty of downsides? Of course. But not nearly as many as McCain. And lots of people, including me, voted for McCain.

I'm still not sure what a Libertarian is.

A republican who smokes dope.

 

[kaz]

That's because too many people vote for the two sucky identical parties. If people won't vote third party because they can't win, it's a self fulfilling prophesy. What good have Republican supreme court nominees done? W went on a spending orgy the left could only dream of. Yeah, they are Democrats with an R after their name. Picking between Tweedledee and Tweedledum isn't a choice, you get the same candidate either way

Actually parties have to build coalitions to win elections. The GOP built a coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks.
The Libertarians want to build a coaliton of the crazy and the purists.
This is why Libertarians lose elections.

I agree, the party sucks. I won't vote for Johnson just like I won't vote for Trump. I'm still considering Hillary, at least she's not anti-free trade like Trump. And she'd be so bogged down in scandal that she'd get nothing done. I'm going to comb over the other third parties though, Gawd I home one of them didn't pick a moon bat like you, Democrats and Libertarians did. What is wrong with voters in this country?

Why wouldnt you vote for Johnson? Why not vote for Vermin Supreme? Why vote at all?

Johnson isn't a libertarian. He's nuts, and not the good kind. Why do you vote at all?

He happens to be the only candidate with actual executive experience in elected office. Who would you prefer? John McAfee? He's not nuts?

I said Vermin Supreme is nuts, I answered your questions in order. You didn't notice that?

 

[Borillar]

The Libertarians did the only sensible thing and nominated Gary Johnson for their candidate for president. Johnson is the only reasonable choice in the race. He is a two term governor with a solid record. Does he have plenty of downsides? Of course. But not nearly as many as McCain. And lots of people, including me, voted for McCain.

I thought this thread was about penises, how disappointing then when I read it's about politics

In American politics, it's pretty much the same thing.

 

[kaz]

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's Gary taking votes from the Donald. This is just a power move from the libertarian wing. Similar to what Bernie's doing.

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

You vote for losers.

You're the one supporting Gary Johnson, who will get maybe, let's be generous, 3% in the general. So, speaking of losers.

Johnson is polling well over 10% and that was before all this coverage.

If he maintains that, then I could vote for him just because that's the sort of thing that makes people think the third party makes a difference. Again I'm voting for "other" and the best way to do that. that's why I voted for Nader in 2008

 

[kaz]

I'm still not sure what a Libertarian is.

Fiscal conservative/social liberal.

Wrong.

For starters, "fiscal conservative" is a meaningless phrase. Paul Ryan is a fiscal conservative, and remember his budget didn't even balance for decades and it increased government spending. That is in no way libertarian whatsoever. As far as social liberal goes, libertarians, despite what Gary Johnson says, are not interested in using the government to create a fictitious "even playing ground." Libertarians want the government to leave people and their property alone.

"The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism." - Murray Rothbard

The phrase may be meaningless to you but nobody can understand anything for you. Most libertarians align with fiscal conservatives who want smaller, more efficient government, lower taxes, etc. Don't believe in careless spending or the government's role in supplying jobs. That sort of thing.

Then socially they tend to want drug legalization, gay marriage, less government in our lives. That sort of thing.

To bad you had to scour the internet for an opinion you couldn't articulate though.

He's a typical Libertarian. They are the most intolerant and untolerable people out there. They have all the answers. You just don't understand.

Yes, we intolerantly go around letting you make your own choices. What a dumb ass

 

[The Rabbi]

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

You vote for losers.

You're the one supporting Gary Johnson, who will get maybe, let's be generous, 3% in the general. So, speaking of losers.

Johnson is polling well over 10% and that was before all this coverage.

If he maintains that, then I could vote for him just because that's the sort of thing that makes people think the third party makes a difference. Again I'm voting for "other" and the best way to do that. that's why I voted for Nader in 2008

Why not just save the time and trouble and drink beer instead?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm still not sure what a Libertarian is.

Fiscal conservative/social liberal.

Wrong.

For starters, "fiscal conservative" is a meaningless phrase. Paul Ryan is a fiscal conservative, and remember his budget didn't even balance for decades and it increased government spending. That is in no way libertarian whatsoever. As far as social liberal goes, libertarians, despite what Gary Johnson says, are not interested in using the government to create a fictitious "even playing ground." Libertarians want the government to leave people and their property alone.

"The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism." - Murray Rothbard

The phrase may be meaningless to you but nobody can understand anything for you. Most libertarians align with fiscal conservatives who want smaller, more efficient government, lower taxes, etc. Don't believe in careless spending or the government's role in supplying jobs. That sort of thing.

Then socially they tend to want drug legalization, gay marriage, less government in our lives. That sort of thing.

To bad you had to scour the internet for an opinion you couldn't articulate though.

He's a typical Libertarian. They are the most intolerant and untolerable people out there. They have all the answers. You just don't understand.

Yes, we intolerantly go around letting you make your own choices. What a dumb ass

No. You intolerantly go around lecturing anyone and everyone on why libertarianism is the only true conservative philosophy when in fact it is simply a first cousin to Bolshevism.

 

[kaz]

The Libertarians did the only sensible thing and nominated Gary Johnson for their candidate for president. Johnson is the only reasonable choice in the race. He is a two term governor with a solid record. Does he have plenty of downsides? Of course. But not nearly as many as McCain. And lots of people, including me, voted for McCain.

I'm still not sure what a Libertarian is.

A republican who smokes dope.

So since you think that thinking something should be legal means that we want to do it, you want to get abortions since you think they should be legal?

 

[kaz]

Fiscal conservative/social liberal.

Wrong.

For starters, "fiscal conservative" is a meaningless phrase. Paul Ryan is a fiscal conservative, and remember his budget didn't even balance for decades and it increased government spending. That is in no way libertarian whatsoever. As far as social liberal goes, libertarians, despite what Gary Johnson says, are not interested in using the government to create a fictitious "even playing ground." Libertarians want the government to leave people and their property alone.

"The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism." - Murray Rothbard

The phrase may be meaningless to you but nobody can understand anything for you. Most libertarians align with fiscal conservatives who want smaller, more efficient government, lower taxes, etc. Don't believe in careless spending or the government's role in supplying jobs. That sort of thing.

Then socially they tend to want drug legalization, gay marriage, less government in our lives. That sort of thing.

To bad you had to scour the internet for an opinion you couldn't articulate though.

He's a typical Libertarian. They are the most intolerant and untolerable people out there. They have all the answers. You just don't understand.

Yes, we intolerantly go around letting you make your own choices. What a dumb ass

No. You intolerantly go around lecturing anyone and everyone on why libertarianism is the only true conservative philosophy when in fact it is simply a first cousin to Bolshevism.

Dam, a dope smoking Republican ....

 

[kaz]

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

You vote for losers.

You're the one supporting Gary Johnson, who will get maybe, let's be generous, 3% in the general. So, speaking of losers.

Johnson is polling well over 10% and that was before all this coverage.

If he maintains that, then I could vote for him just because that's the sort of thing that makes people think the third party makes a difference. Again I'm voting for "other" and the best way to do that. that's why I voted for Nader in 2008

Why not just save the time and trouble and drink beer instead?

Yes, you've mentioned I should only vote for your objectives, not mine. Who are you calling arrogant again, Holmes?

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually parties have to build coalitions to win elections. The GOP built a coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks.
The Libertarians want to build a coaliton of the crazy and the purists.
This is why Libertarians lose elections.

I agree, the party sucks. I won't vote for Johnson just like I won't vote for Trump. I'm still considering Hillary, at least she's not anti-free trade like Trump. And she'd be so bogged down in scandal that she'd get nothing done. I'm going to comb over the other third parties though, Gawd I home one of them didn't pick a moon bat like you, Democrats and Libertarians did. What is wrong with voters in this country?

Why wouldnt you vote for Johnson? Why not vote for Vermin Supreme? Why vote at all?

Johnson isn't a libertarian. He's nuts, and not the good kind. Why do you vote at all?

He happens to be the only candidate with actual executive experience in elected office. Who would you prefer? John McAfee? He's not nuts?

I said Vermin Supreme is nuts, I answered your questions in order. You didn't notice that?

Actually you didnt. You just assert stuff. Like Vermin Supreme and Gary Johnson are nuts and Hillary isnt anti free trade, despite her repudiation of every Dem free trade agreement.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong.

For starters, "fiscal conservative" is a meaningless phrase. Paul Ryan is a fiscal conservative, and remember his budget didn't even balance for decades and it increased government spending. That is in no way libertarian whatsoever. As far as social liberal goes, libertarians, despite what Gary Johnson says, are not interested in using the government to create a fictitious "even playing ground." Libertarians want the government to leave people and their property alone.

"The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism." - Murray Rothbard

The phrase may be meaningless to you but nobody can understand anything for you. Most libertarians align with fiscal conservatives who want smaller, more efficient government, lower taxes, etc. Don't believe in careless spending or the government's role in supplying jobs. That sort of thing.

Then socially they tend to want drug legalization, gay marriage, less government in our lives. That sort of thing.

To bad you had to scour the internet for an opinion you couldn't articulate though.

He's a typical Libertarian. They are the most intolerant and untolerable people out there. They have all the answers. You just don't understand.

Yes, we intolerantly go around letting you make your own choices. What a dumb ass

No. You intolerantly go around lecturing anyone and everyone on why libertarianism is the only true conservative philosophy when in fact it is simply a first cousin to Bolshevism.

Dam, a dope smoking Republican ....

And then when you have no answer you revert to insults.
I've always said scratch a libertarian and you get a liberal.

 

[kaz]

I agree, the party sucks. I won't vote for Johnson just like I won't vote for Trump. I'm still considering Hillary, at least she's not anti-free trade like Trump. And she'd be so bogged down in scandal that she'd get nothing done. I'm going to comb over the other third parties though, Gawd I home one of them didn't pick a moon bat like you, Democrats and Libertarians did. What is wrong with voters in this country?

Why wouldnt you vote for Johnson? Why not vote for Vermin Supreme? Why vote at all?

Johnson isn't a libertarian. He's nuts, and not the good kind. Why do you vote at all?

He happens to be the only candidate with actual executive experience in elected office. Who would you prefer? John McAfee? He's not nuts?

I said Vermin Supreme is nuts, I answered your questions in order. You didn't notice that?

Actually you didnt. You just assert stuff. Like Vermin Supreme and Gary Johnson are nuts and Hillary isnt anti free trade, despite her repudiation of every Dem free trade agreement.

I didn't say Gary Johnson was nuts, you just weren't smart enough to realize I answered YOUR questions in order and you still didn't get it when I explained it to you.

You asked three questions, I gave you three answers. Go back and try again

 

[The Rabbi]

You vote for losers.

You're the one supporting Gary Johnson, who will get maybe, let's be generous, 3% in the general. So, speaking of losers.

Johnson is polling well over 10% and that was before all this coverage.

If he maintains that, then I could vote for him just because that's the sort of thing that makes people think the third party makes a difference. Again I'm voting for "other" and the best way to do that. that's why I voted for Nader in 2008

Why not just save the time and trouble and drink beer instead?

Yes, you've mentioned I should only vote for your objectives, not mine. Who are you calling arrogant again, Holmes?

Your objective seems to be to become irrelevant to the political process. You're doing a good job. I'm just trying to help you here.

 

[kaz]

The phrase may be meaningless to you but nobody can understand anything for you. Most libertarians align with fiscal conservatives who want smaller, more efficient government, lower taxes, etc. Don't believe in careless spending or the government's role in supplying jobs. That sort of thing.

Then socially they tend to want drug legalization, gay marriage, less government in our lives. That sort of thing.

To bad you had to scour the internet for an opinion you couldn't articulate though.

He's a typical Libertarian. They are the most intolerant and untolerable people out there. They have all the answers. You just don't understand.

Yes, we intolerantly go around letting you make your own choices. What a dumb ass

No. You intolerantly go around lecturing anyone and everyone on why libertarianism is the only true conservative philosophy when in fact it is simply a first cousin to Bolshevism.

Dam, a dope smoking Republican ....

And then when you have no answer you revert to insults.
I've always said scratch a libertarian and you get a liberal.

Actually go back and re-read this, you started the insults

 

[kaz]

You're the one supporting Gary Johnson, who will get maybe, let's be generous, 3% in the general. So, speaking of losers.

Johnson is polling well over 10% and that was before all this coverage.

If he maintains that, then I could vote for him just because that's the sort of thing that makes people think the third party makes a difference. Again I'm voting for "other" and the best way to do that. that's why I voted for Nader in 2008

Why not just save the time and trouble and drink beer instead?

Yes, you've mentioned I should only vote for your objectives, not mine. Who are you calling arrogant again, Holmes?

Your objective seems to be to become irrelevant to the political process. You're doing a good job. I'm just trying to help you here.

Wow, it's irrelevant to want more than two choices. That's profound. You should write a doctoral thesis about that.

What's irrelevant is that you want to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Who cares? They are the same. Now that's a waste of time voting for

 

[The Rabbi]

Why wouldnt you vote for Johnson? Why not vote for Vermin Supreme? Why vote at all?

Johnson isn't a libertarian. He's nuts, and not the good kind. Why do you vote at all?

He happens to be the only candidate with actual executive experience in elected office. Who would you prefer? John McAfee? He's not nuts?

I said Vermin Supreme is nuts, I answered your questions in order. You didn't notice that?

Actually you didnt. You just assert stuff. Like Vermin Supreme and Gary Johnson are nuts and Hillary isnt anti free trade, despite her repudiation of every Dem free trade agreement.

I didn't say Gary Johnson was nuts, you just weren't smart enough to realize I answered YOUR questions in order and you still didn't get it when I explained it to you.

You asked three questions, I gave you three answers. Go back and try again

I see.
You just asserted Johnson wasn't a libertarian. Typically people makea statement to back up or explain their initial view. In your case you're going with word salad.