Question for libertarians

[P@triot]

Now that Gary Johnson has firmly established himself as a half-baked bonafide nitwit (he can't name leaders of foreign nations, he sticks his tongue out at members of the media interviewing him, he doesn't brush his hair before going on national television, etc.), would any of you Gary Johnson supporters consider voting for Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party?

(See Poll above)

 

[norwegen]

In a three-way race, I would.

In a race in which either a Democrat or a Republican would win, I wouldn't.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Johnson appeal has died except with bake heads like me... No, I will be voting for Johnson even if he is a nitwit... I mean Johnson or Trump?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Now if only an actual Constitutional Conservative were in the race.

 

[norwegen]

Johnson appeal has died except with bake heads like me... No, I will be voting for Johnson even if he is a nitwit... I mean Johnson or Trump?

Even if you were to vote as often as a Democrat, Johnson won't win.

You're not doing us any favors.

 

[Norman]

I vote for Donald Trump, as do all sane libertarians.

Johnson is a sell out - even regressive. I used to respect him, not anymore.

 

[P@triot]

Johnson appeal has died except with bake heads like me... No, I will be voting for Johnson even if he is a nitwit... I mean Johnson or Trump?

That wasn't the question. I would vote for Johnson too over Trump. The question is would you vote for Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party now that Gary Johnson has fallen flat on his face these past couple of weeks.

 

[P@triot]

I vote for Donald Trump, as do all sane libertarians.

Johnson is a sell out - even regressive.

Again...that wasn't the question. The question is: would you vote for Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party instead of Gary Johnson.

 

[Montrovant]

I wish Johnson got more media coverage and had been allowed into the debate. Sure, it looks bad when you have gaffes like those, but it's a lot worse when those are just about the only thing most people see of him. Remember Trump and his (maybe) mocking of a disabled man? Even if that isn't what he was doing, he certainly looked foolish. What about Clinton with her wide-eyed jerking back of her head when that group of reporters was asking her questions outside a coffee shop (I think that's where it was)? Either of those are at least as silly as Johnson's saying he could win a debate with his tongue between his teeth.

Johnson doesn't have the many, many scandals that surround both Trump and Clinton. He doesn't have a history of screwing things up while in government nor, that I know of, as a businessman.

I still think Weld might have made a better face for the candidacy, and I agree that Johnson hurt himself with these mistakes, but I don't understand how they are worse, or even on par, with all we've seen and read about Trump and Clinton.

 

[Norman]

I vote for Donald Trump, as do all sane libertarians.

Johnson is a sell out - even regressive.

Again...that wasn't the question. The question is: would you vote for Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party instead of Gary Johnson.

I have no clue about him, so can't answer that...

 

[P@triot]

Johnson appeal has died except with bake heads like me... No, I will be voting for Johnson even if he is a nitwit... I mean Johnson or Trump?

Even if you were to vote as often as a Democrat, Johnson won't win.

You're not doing us any favors.

Yeah...but that's a horrific way to approach voting and why we keep ending up with maniacs like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. You shoul vote your conscious and not worry about who said who could win what.

 

[P@triot]

I wish Johnson got more media coverage and had been allowed into the debate. Sure, it looks bad when you have gaffes like those, but it's a lot worse when those are just about the only thing most people see of him. Remember Trump and his (maybe) mocking of a disabled man? Even if that isn't what he was doing, he certainly looked foolish. What about Clinton with her wide-eyed jerking back of her head when that group of reporters was asking her questions outside a coffee shop (I think that's where it was)? Either of those are at least as silly as Johnson's saying he could win a debate with his tongue between his teeth.

Johnson doesn't have the many, many scandals that surround both Trump and Clinton. He doesn't have a history of screwing things up while in government nor, that I know of, as a businessman.

I still think Weld might have made a better face for the candidacy, and I agree that Johnson hurt himself with these mistakes, but I don't understand how they are worse, or even on par, with all we've seen and read about Trump and Clinton.

I agree completley. Weld looks like a very serious candidate. I also believe that Darrell Castle looks like a very serious candidate. I'm curious to see how many libertarians would be willing (at least in theory) to vote for Castle instead of Johnson.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Johnson appeal has died except with bake heads like me... No, I will be voting for Johnson even if he is a nitwit... I mean Johnson or Trump?

Even if you were to vote as often as a Democrat, Johnson won't win.

You're not doing us any favors.

In the United States of America each citizen has the right to vote for the candidate they want and proclaiming that not voting for either the Democratic Nominee or the GOP Nominee is not helping ( meaning wasted vote in your opinion ) is very anti-American...

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Johnson appeal has died except with bake heads like me... No, I will be voting for Johnson even if he is a nitwit... I mean Johnson or Trump?

That wasn't the question. I would vote for Johnson too over Trump. The question is would you vote for Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party now that Gary Johnson has fallen flat on his face these past couple of weeks.

No... I am going to stick with the Libertarian candidate at this point. I know Johnson will not appeal to many people after the man mistakes but I know him and Weld are decent choices to vote for...

 

[Montrovant]

I would not vote for the Constitution party. I don't like the perspective they seem to be looking at governance from. For example, from the party website, "We affirm the importance of Biblical scripture in the founders’ intent as eloquently stated by Noah Webster:

“The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitution and laws… All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts in the Bible.”"

I'm not interested in a party that believes all of our laws should be based on Biblical scripture.

 

[Moonglow]

What does it pay to vote for this guy?

 

[Montrovant]

I wish Johnson got more media coverage and had been allowed into the debate. Sure, it looks bad when you have gaffes like those, but it's a lot worse when those are just about the only thing most people see of him. Remember Trump and his (maybe) mocking of a disabled man? Even if that isn't what he was doing, he certainly looked foolish. What about Clinton with her wide-eyed jerking back of her head when that group of reporters was asking her questions outside a coffee shop (I think that's where it was)? Either of those are at least as silly as Johnson's saying he could win a debate with his tongue between his teeth.

Johnson doesn't have the many, many scandals that surround both Trump and Clinton. He doesn't have a history of screwing things up while in government nor, that I know of, as a businessman.

I still think Weld might have made a better face for the candidacy, and I agree that Johnson hurt himself with these mistakes, but I don't understand how they are worse, or even on par, with all we've seen and read about Trump and Clinton.

I agree completley. Weld looks like a very serious candidate. I also believe that Darrell Castle looks like a very serious candidate. I'm curious to see how many libertarians would be willing (at least in theory) to vote for Castle instead of Johnson.

As I said, the overly religious basis of the Constitution party is something I can't get behind. Personhood from the moment of conception, our laws should be based on Scripture, I want nothing to do with that. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state and a brief perusal makes me fear the party has too much of a religious basis.

I'm not opposed to politicians with strong religious convictions, don't get me wrong, I just don't want to try to mold our laws around any particular religion.

 

[aaronleland]

I vote for Donald Trump, as do all sane libertarians.

Because his policies so mirror those of Libertarians.

 

[Norman]

I vote for Donald Trump, as do all sane libertarians.

Because his policies so mirror those of Libertarians.

Hillary will end the freedoms we have for a good while. She is a real danger...



At this point almost all libertarians agree, she must be defeated. The idealism can be preserved for a other day.

 

[norwegen]

Johnson appeal has died except with bake heads like me... No, I will be voting for Johnson even if he is a nitwit... I mean Johnson or Trump?

Even if you were to vote as often as a Democrat, Johnson won't win.

You're not doing us any favors.

Yeah...but that's a horrific way to approach voting and why we keep ending up with maniacs like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. You shoul vote your conscious and not worry about who said who could win what.

We also fill vacancies with Democrats when additional right-leaning candidates enter the race.

More power to you for voting your conscience. I vote my conscience, too.