NEW POLL: Johnson Rises To 1st Place With Young Voters, Trump Last

[yiostheoy]

Young Voters Favoring Gary Johnson - The Libertarian Republic

I encourage young liberals in red states to vote green party. Pull our country to the left. Give a more liberal party more money power and influence!!!

green party is a bunch of fringe loonies

The last time I voted Green it was for Nader.

I have never voted for any other fringe 3rd party besides once for Green.

Usually when I vote I can just flip a coin -- heads = DEM and tails = GOP.

That's because the GOP is usually out to screw you unless you make over $250K/yr.

Sadly I have never made over $250K/yr.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Christopher Cantewll tells it like it is.

 

[sealybobo]

Young Voters Favoring Gary Johnson - The Libertarian Republic

I encourage young liberals in red states to vote green party. Pull our country to the left. Give a more liberal party more money power and influence!!!

green party is a bunch of fringe loonies

The last time I voted Green it was for Nader.

I have never voted for any other fringe 3rd party besides once for Green.

Usually when I vote I can just flip a coin -- heads = DEM and tails = GOP.

That's because the GOP is usually out to screw you unless you make over $250K/yr.

Sadly I have never made over $250K/yr.

Knowing that you still voted GOP because the coin landed tails?

Which election did it land tails?

500 Nader assholes in Florida gave bush the election.

 

[yiostheoy]

Young Voters Favoring Gary Johnson - The Libertarian Republic

You should start saying something in your post besides just citing a link.

To form a sentence, all you need is a subject, a verb, and a predicate to go with it.

This was taught in elementary school.

To create a short essay, you need at least a one-sentence intro, two or three sentences for your body, and one final sentence for your conclusion.

This was taught in high school.

You probably did not go to college, however if you had you would have taken two more classes in writing, one called English composition in your Freshman year and another during your Junior year called Technical Writing.

 

[yiostheoy]

Young Voters Favoring Gary Johnson - The Libertarian Republic

I encourage young liberals in red states to vote green party. Pull our country to the left. Give a more liberal party more money power and influence!!!

green party is a bunch of fringe loonies

The last time I voted Green it was for Nader.

I have never voted for any other fringe 3rd party besides once for Green.

Usually when I vote I can just flip a coin -- heads = DEM and tails = GOP.

That's because the GOP is usually out to screw you unless you make over $250K/yr.

Sadly I have never made over $250K/yr.

Knowing that you still voted GOP because the coin landed tails?

Which election did it land tails?

500 Nader assholes in Florida gave bush the election.

Sometimes they are too close to call.

Nixon / McGov was too close to call.

Carter / Ford was a no brainer

Reagan / Carter was a no brainer

Reagan / Mondale was too close to call

Bush / Dukakis was too close to call

Bush / Clinton was a no brainer

Clinton / Dole was too close to call. Even though Bob Dole was known for doing the nasty and taking Viagra.

Bush / Gore was too close to call but they were both so bad I preferred Nader that year indeed.

That's the only time I voted Green.

In hindsight everybody should have voted for Gore instead.

But hindsight is 20-20.

 

[dblack]

In hindsight everybody should have voted for Gore instead.

But hindsight is 20-20.

Not exactly. It's still a guess. As bad as Bush was, Gore might have been worse. That's the thing with history. There's no way to really know how things would have gone if we'd made different decisions.

 

[thanatos144]

Him is where I get that... Why don't you actually investigate your candidate before you whole hardheartedly support him because you are pro pot? Gary Johnson has a actual record you can look up and see how ultra progressive he is. I don't expect you to because like the dems and trumpetes you are to addicted to the koolaid.

Pro pot? What are you smoking? OH.. wait, you're just making shit up and throwing it against the wall. I wonder why? What's you're angle here? Are you a Trumpster? Clintonista? Green party? What?

Not a partisan like you.

I see. Just a solid representative for Truth?

Johnson is 'ultra-progressive'??? I think maybe Orwell is your man.

So being a stoner trumps actual issues with you.... W\hat a sad little man you must be.

You mean like beating your wife trumps pretty much everything for you?

So because I don't support your Progressive I beat my wife? Well that tells us all everything we need to know about you and your intelligence.

 

[thanatos144]

Darrell Castle. On a cursory glance he might be better than Johnson.

But the Constitution Party favors a particular religion with their platform. Government wasn't established to make us better or religious people, it was established to ensure we could be whatever we wanted as long as we don't harm anyone else's rights.

Saying you are a Christian is not pushing a certain religion... You seem a bit touchy....

 

[Natural Citizen]

If the libertarian says that gay marriage is fine so long as nobody's property is violated then the logical conclusion ought to be that the libertarian believes gay marriage should be legal.

Legal doesn't mean Lawful when discussed in context with fundamental matters of Individual Liberty. Legal and Lawful are two entirely different phenomena when the issue is judged morally in accordance with Natural Law. Natural Law is the primary foundation for moral code which establishes legitimacy in the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty as they relate to our traditional system of governance and proper human/government relations. No other worldly "legality" is legitimate in terms of defining or judging the true and fundamental libertarianism of any immoral act which defies Natural Law.

If someone who identifies as a libertarian claims that gay marriage is fine, then, he isn't a libertarian and likely understands very little of what Liberty actually is or anything directly relative to its fundamental foundation. He's a libertine at best. Libertine, btw, is not libertarian. The foundation for moral code (again, Natural Law: God's Law) that provides legitimacy to the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty and ultimately proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations must be accepted as an Indivisible whole together with its fundamental principles in order to make a legitimate claim to Individual Liberty's benefits fully. They cannot be accepted and rejected piece-meal. To accept and reject them piece-meal is an open declaration that you want no Liberty at all.

Aside from that, our traditional system of governance is religious in nature given that its founding documents and governing philosophy is premised upon Natural Law itself.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
Reality is that Johnson is no real libertarian. True libertarianism would be opposed to legal homo marriage and abortion being left exclusively to the woman, two positions Johnson supports. He's no libertarian.

It's funny how people opposed to libertarianism are always telling us what a "real" libertarian would support, and it always lines up with what they support somehow. The libertarian position on gay marriage is that the state has no role in any marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise. If, however, two gay men want to get married the libertarian says that as long as they're not violating anybody else's property they can call their agreement whatever they want. If a church doesn't want to marry them then they have no right to force the church to do so, but nobody has the right to stop the church from marrying them either. This is where Johnson fails the libertarian test, because he says yes the church should be forced to marry them. You, however, seem to have no more idea of what libertarianism is than Johnson does. Congrats.

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage.

And you totally miss basic logic. If the libertarian says that gay marriage is fine so long as nobody's property is violated then the logical conclusion ought to be that the libertarian believes gay marriage should be legal.

You're doing a Charlie the Tuna 'good taste' thing. It's not about homo marriage being illegal. It's about the law granting coercion and privilege in the name of a legally decreed marriage rooted in an irrelevant personal behavior choice. Hence, legal homo marriage vs homo marriage as a perception.

Well if that's your argument, then marriage itself, gay or not, is simply a perception. There's no such natural phenomenon as marriage, it's simply an arrangement between people that has historically had religious sanction. Then the state steps in and creates a list of who can or cannot call themselves this completely made up thing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage

The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!

Procreation is as coercive as murder. Homo couples can't procreate, heteros can.
Put that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it.

Irrelevant. Try again.

Irrelevant?? It's the essence!

Maybe in your marriage. The rest of us can define the essences of our relationships for ourselves. We don't need the government to pat us on the back and tell us our way is the best way.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the libertarian says that gay marriage is fine so long as nobody's property is violated then the logical conclusion ought to be that the libertarian believes gay marriage should be legal.

Legal doesn't mean Lawful when discussed in context with fundamental matters of Individual Liberty. Legal and Lawful are two entirely different phenomena when the issue is judged morally in accordance with Natural Law. Natural Law is the primary foundation for moral code which establishes legitimacy in the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty as they relate to our traditional system of governance and proper human/government relations. No other worldly "legality" is legitimate in terms of defining or judging the true and fundamental libertarianism of any immoral act which defies Natural Law.

If someone who identifies as a libertarian claims that gay marriage is fine, then, he isn't a libertarian and likely understands very little of what Liberty actually is or anything directly relative to its fundamental foundation. He's a libertine at best. Libertine, btw, is not libertarian. The foundation for moral code (again, Natural Law: God's Law) that provides legitimacy to the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty and ultimately proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations must be accepted as an Indivisible whole together with its fundamental principles in order to make a legitimate claim to Individual Liberty's benefits fully. They cannot be accepted and rejected piece-meal. To accept and reject them piece-meal is an open declaration that you want no Liberty at all.

Aside from that, our traditional system of governance is religious in nature given that its founding documents and governing philosophy is premised upon Natural Law itself.

No, I can be a libertarian and think that gay marriage is fine, and say so. I'm not speaking in my capacity as a libertarian by saying so, because libertarianism in and of itself takes no position on gay marriage per se. I can, however, be a libertarian and think gay marriage is not only fine but great, or I can be a libertarian and think that gay marriage is wrong. I would be acting against libertarian principles only if I said that violence, be it government or otherwise, should be used to enforce my personal beliefs one way or another. So saying that gay marriage ought to be legal is perfectly logical in the sense that I'm saying that the government should not use violence to stop people from entering into any arrangement they want so long as everybody voluntarily chooses to enter it.

 

[flacaltenn]

You misread. The poll reported that young people are favoring Johnson, not Trump.

Johnson & Weld are closet democrats. They're the saddest sacks the LP has ever run.

That's not true at all. I've been in the LParty for almost 30 years. And there was a LONG STRING of losers who had no clue what running for office was all about.

I consider Johnson/Weld to be a Mediation Team right now. I'm over being concerned how "libertarian" they actual are. The most important goal is to separate the partisans before they kill each other and us along with them.

We need 4 years of "cooling off" the rhetoric and delivering "consensus" solutions that aren't just 50/50 Conservative/Progressive compromise. A LOT can get done in 4 years if you cut off the partisan BullShit..

 

[SAYIT]

Usually when I vote I can just flip a coin -- heads = DEM and tails = GOP. That's because the GOP is usually out to screw you unless you make over $250K/yr. Sadly I have never made over $250K/yr.

Mr. French: Well make more fuckin' money. This is America. You don't make money, then you're a fuckin' douchebag.
Now what you gonna do?
[kicks him]

Bookie Harassed by French: I'll make more money!

Mr. French: That's the spirit!

The message (because I know you won't get it): make more money!

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

A rising Johnson, imagine that!

Without Viagra!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

This is just hedonistic youth expecting no-rules policy.
Reality is that Johnson is no real libertarian. True libertarianism would be opposed to legal homo marriage and abortion being left exclusively to the woman, two positions Johnson supports. He's no libertarian.

It's funny how people opposed to libertarianism are always telling us what a "real" libertarian would support, and it always lines up with what they support somehow. The libertarian position on gay marriage is that the state has no role in any marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise. If, however, two gay men want to get married the libertarian says that as long as they're not violating anybody else's property they can call their agreement whatever they want. If a church doesn't want to marry them then they have no right to force the church to do so, but nobody has the right to stop the church from marrying them either. This is where Johnson fails the libertarian test, because he says yes the church should be forced to marry them. You, however, seem to have no more idea of what libertarianism is than Johnson does. Congrats.

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage.

And you totally miss basic logic. If the libertarian says that gay marriage is fine so long as nobody's property is violated then the logical conclusion ought to be that the libertarian believes gay marriage should be legal.

You're doing a Charlie the Tuna 'good taste' thing. It's not about homo marriage being illegal. It's about the law granting coercion and privilege in the name of a legally decreed marriage rooted in an irrelevant personal behavior choice. Hence, legal homo marriage vs homo marriage as a perception.

Well if that's your argument, then marriage itself, gay or not, is simply a perception. There's no such natural phenomenon as marriage, it's simply an arrangement between people that has historically had religious sanction. Then the state steps in and creates a list of who can or cannot call themselves this completely made up thing.

No, the state steps in to provide support in order to make child rearing easier. Homos can't make babies with each other. Those state-imposed benefits are therefore moot for homo couples.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage

The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!

Procreation is as coercive as murder. Homo couples can't procreate, heteros can.
Put that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it.

Irrelevant. Try again.

Irrelevant?? It's the essence!

Maybe in your marriage. The rest of us can define the essences of our relationships for ourselves. We don't need the government to pat us on the back and tell us our way is the best way.

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's funny how people opposed to libertarianism are always telling us what a "real" libertarian would support, and it always lines up with what they support somehow. The libertarian position on gay marriage is that the state has no role in any marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise. If, however, two gay men want to get married the libertarian says that as long as they're not violating anybody else's property they can call their agreement whatever they want. If a church doesn't want to marry them then they have no right to force the church to do so, but nobody has the right to stop the church from marrying them either. This is where Johnson fails the libertarian test, because he says yes the church should be forced to marry them. You, however, seem to have no more idea of what libertarianism is than Johnson does. Congrats.

You totally missed one word I very intentionally used which defines the issue; legal marriage.

And you totally miss basic logic. If the libertarian says that gay marriage is fine so long as nobody's property is violated then the logical conclusion ought to be that the libertarian believes gay marriage should be legal.

You're doing a Charlie the Tuna 'good taste' thing. It's not about homo marriage being illegal. It's about the law granting coercion and privilege in the name of a legally decreed marriage rooted in an irrelevant personal behavior choice. Hence, legal homo marriage vs homo marriage as a perception.

Well if that's your argument, then marriage itself, gay or not, is simply a perception. There's no such natural phenomenon as marriage, it's simply an arrangement between people that has historically had religious sanction. Then the state steps in and creates a list of who can or cannot call themselves this completely made up thing.

No, the state steps in to provide support in order to make child rearing easier. Homos can't make babies with each other. Those state-imposed benefits are therefore moot for homo couples.

Yes, getting the state's permission to get married somehow makes child rearing easier.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The whole idea that people vote on who gets married to who is just ridiculous! Guess what! When I got married, the Nation didn't vote on who or what was my life companion was, neither did the State, nor my city, niether my own family! Who are others to decide if it's legal between consenting adults? LAWD!

Procreation is as coercive as murder. Homo couples can't procreate, heteros can.
Put that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it.

Irrelevant. Try again.

Irrelevant?? It's the essence!

Maybe in your marriage. The rest of us can define the essences of our relationships for ourselves. We don't need the government to pat us on the back and tell us our way is the best way.

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

 

[thanatos144]

Procreation is as coercive as murder. Homo couples can't procreate, heteros can.
Put that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it.

Irrelevant. Try again.

Irrelevant?? It's the essence!

Maybe in your marriage. The rest of us can define the essences of our relationships for ourselves. We don't need the government to pat us on the back and tell us our way is the best way.

I totally agree. But that isn't the issue. Legal marriage affords/coerces financial benefits and other privileges. Homo marriages have no need of those benefits because they can't procreate together.

What benefits? Lower taxes? Why do you need a reason for lower taxes, aren't you a conservative? How about just cutting everybody's taxes married or not?

How about letting states take care of themselves with out facists like you telling them how?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk