The GOP's Gary Johnson quandry

[Zxereus]

Gary Johnson, Republican governor, decides to run as a third party and uses his name recognition to gain a single digit of the vote in some neighboring states.

Not very bright, but then again, look at his supporters.

Yep, if you TRULY want to get rid of Obama, the stupidest thing you could do would be to vote for this dick.

 

[candycorn]

Tie the budget to a percentage of GDP.

I can understand something like that, but my preference would be a balanced budget amendment. Make both fucked up parties justify all expenses, all taxes, all cuts to services. Right now it's all just pandering to the base, no accountability.

.

A balanced budget doesn't do it for me. All that means is that intake=outlays, right? So if you have a particularly liberal Congress, your taxes would go up to pay for more entitlements.

 

[Zxereus]

Gary Johnson, Republican governor, decides to run as a third party and uses his name recognition to gain a single digit of the vote in some neighboring states.

Not very bright, but then again, look at his supporters.

This "not very bright" candidate built a construction company from himself to over 1,000 employees when he sold it 23 years later. NM 2 of 3 vote Democratic He ran as Rep and beat the Dem. They loved Governor Veto so much for all the money he saved taxpayers, that he won again by a wider margin. He managed to climb the tallest peaks on four continents. This frugal millionaire built his own house. He swims 2.4 mi, runs 26.2 mi & bicycles 112 miles, loves skiing which he'll retire to if he doesn't win the presidency.

He bicycled several hundred miles in NH campaigning. He's at 7% there last I heard.

He was paragliding when a wing got stuck in a tree & he fell 50 feet. Broken bones: back, rib, knee. Rather than get hooked on opiates or getting an operation, he managed his pain the next 3 years using cannabis. He has publicly advocated re-legalization since 1999, & he now proposes taxing it 100% (est $19/oz), (90% cheaper) which would bring in double digit billions., It has been shown to sometimes be better than pills or operations for 126 medical conditions, cheap health care. End drug war, save $40B/yr + reduced crime.

Mitt Romney & Barack Obama want many harmless sick people locked up. Both refuse to discuss the #1 request to whitehouse.gov re-legalize cannabis. Romney called it unimportant. 25% of Americans are in chronic pain, think O or R care? Cannabis oil is reported to be curing cancer and other painful & often fatal illnesses. Think O & R care? It was in pharmacies until 1937, when cancer was rare. Now 30% of Americans die from cancer despite us spending the most on health care. Worldwide, 13% die from cancer.

Gary Johnson is one of the most honest, kindest, & smartest ever to run for the presidency.
He cares about the 100% equally & can't be bribed. He believes we should get back all of our Constitutional rights & stop spending money we don't have. Is that bad? Best wishes.

Okay so now we know why you want to throw your vote away, you want to smoke pot so you're going to vote for Johnson to make a statement about pot.
Thanks so much for helping to re-elect Obama.

 

[Mac1958]

Tie the budget to a percentage of GDP.

I can understand something like that, but my preference would be a balanced budget amendment. Make both fucked up parties justify all expenses, all taxes, all cuts to services. Right now it's all just pandering to the base, no accountability.

.

A balanced budget doesn't do it for me. All that means is that intake=outlays, right? So if you have a particularly liberal Congress, your taxes would go up to pay for more entitlements.

Yes, but that's my point. Right now, spending increases are simply hidden (temporarily) in deficit spending.

If the Democrats want to spend more, they'll have to tax more, and it would be out in the open. And conversely, if the Republicans want to lower taxes they'll need to justify any cuts to programs that would result. So both parties would have to be able to say "this is what you're getting for what you're spending," and the voters would react accordingly.

.

 

[candycorn]

Gary Johnson, Republican governor, decides to run as a third party and uses his name recognition to gain a single digit of the vote in some neighboring states.

Not very bright, but then again, look at his supporters.

This "not very bright" candidate built a construction company from himself to over 1,000 employees when he sold it 23 years later. NM 2 of 3 vote Democratic He ran as Rep and beat the Dem. They loved Governor Veto so much for all the money he saved taxpayers, that he won again by a wider margin. He managed to climb the tallest peaks on four continents. This frugal millionaire built his own house. He swims 2.4 mi, runs 26.2 mi & bicycles 112 miles, loves skiing which he'll retire to if he doesn't win the presidency.

He bicycled several hundred miles in NH campaigning. He's at 7% there last I heard.

He was paragliding when a wing got stuck in a tree & he fell 50 feet. Broken bones: back, rib, knee. Rather than get hooked on opiates or getting an operation, he managed his pain the next 3 years using cannabis. He has publicly advocated re-legalization since 1999, & he now proposes taxing it 100% (est $19/oz), (90% cheaper) which would bring in double digit billions., It has been shown to sometimes be better than pills or operations for 126 medical conditions, cheap health care. End drug war, save $40B/yr + reduced crime.

Mitt Romney & Barack Obama want many harmless sick people locked up. Both refuse to discuss the #1 request to whitehouse.gov re-legalize cannabis. Romney called it unimportant. 25% of Americans are in chronic pain, think O or R care? Cannabis oil is reported to be curing cancer and other painful & often fatal illnesses. Think O & R care? It was in pharmacies until 1937, when cancer was rare. Now 30% of Americans die from cancer despite us spending the most on health care. Worldwide, 13% die from cancer.

Gary Johnson is one of the most honest, kindest, & smartest ever to run for the presidency.
He cares about the 100% equally & can't be bribed. He believes we should get back all of our Constitutional rights & stop spending money we don't have. Is that bad? Best wishes.

Okay so now we know why you want to throw your vote away, you want to smoke pot so you're going to vote for Johnson to make a statement about pot.
Thanks so much for helping to re-elect Obama.

Voting your conscience isn't throwing away one's vote. But the result will be that Obama will win by a larger margin than he would have otherwise. If you don't like it, spend another $100M and buy a better candidate next go round.

Romney isn't the best candidate money can buy. That much should be evident already.

 

[dblack]

I think it would be better if we, as a nation, realized that living under what amounts to a 200+ y/o business plan is frankly stupid. It desperately needs to be updated to deal with 21st century realities.

I couldn't agree more. Any confidence we could agree on what updates to make?

Absolutely!

Just for starters.

We have one house of Congress that can, in effect, totally ignore the work of another house and has the ability to kill legislation by not letting it come to a vote. Now I have no problem whatsoever with party line votes that kill legislation. If you have 51 of one party and 49 of another party, the 51 should be able to pass whatever it wants to pass in the Senate. If you have 218 of one party in the House and 217 of the other party; the 218 should be able to pass whatever it wants to pass. The problem is that some party hack is preventing legislation from having these up or down votes. More importantly in the macro is that it also silences the debate about these bills.

Not sure what you're proposing here, or which particular rules you're referring to. In general, I don't have a problem with structure which requires more than a simple majority to pass laws. I'd like to see something closer to a two-thirds majority required to pass any major legislation, with only simply majority required for repealing laws.

Forcing broad consensus doesn't guarantee better legislation, but it does guarantee broader consensus and would help avoid the deep political divisions we're now seeing in our nation. (e.g. would health care reform still be an issue if it had been passed with a 2/3 majority in both houses?).

We have a Chief Executive that is able to overturn your work on a jury, convictions of persons who have been through the appeals process, change the sentencing decision of judges. Why have the system if one person can overturn the work? We should get rid of the pardon system. Or we should make the President pardon persons before they go through the judicial process...before conviction. These midnight pardons are a sick, twisted, and disgusting allowance we make.

Maybe. The power does seem to allow abuse.

Every 10 years, the Congress should, by law, have to create a budget voting for EVERY EXPENDITURE over a certain amount. Lets say $1,000,000 just for the sake of argument. So if you want to look up what congresswoman Jane Doe voted for and find that she voted NAY on body armor for our troops; we could see that. Not some vote on a billion dollar defense bill that has competing interests that could obscure such a vote.

Sounds good.

Tie the budget to a percentage of GDP.

Not sure what you mean? As an upper limit? Lower limit?

Either include the War Powers Act in the Constitution or get rid of it all together. Either/or. Either the Congress can declare war or it can't.

Agree in principle. We need more clarity on what it means to be at war - when and how it is justified, etc...

So many more...

Here's a couple of mine.

We need to clarify the vague portions of the constitution that have allowed for so much overreaching government: namely, the general welfare clause and the commerce clause. Over the years, the intent of these bits of text has become less clear and ambitious leaders have seized on the ambiguity to radically expand the reach and scope of government.

We need to ban the practice of using the tax code as a means of dictating behavior. Every tax must be justified as a means of generating revenue equitably and not used as a tool for manipulating society.

We need to abolish the income tax. Repeal the amendment that made it possible.

We need to codify the separation of church and state more explicitly.

We need a similar amendment to separate the economy and the state. For most of the same reasons we don't want religion mixing with the coercive power of the state, we need to keep political and economic power as separate as possible. This means preventing government from monkeying with the economy as well as keeping private business out of government affairs. We need a "wall of separation" between the economy and the government.

We need to re-address the corporate charter. The current state of corporate structure - especially limited liability - allows corporations to operate outside the ethical constraints that individuals must deal with.

I have more as well...

 

[candycorn]

I can understand something like that, but my preference would be a balanced budget amendment. Make both fucked up parties justify all expenses, all taxes, all cuts to services. Right now it's all just pandering to the base, no accountability.

.

A balanced budget doesn't do it for me. All that means is that intake=outlays, right? So if you have a particularly liberal Congress, your taxes would go up to pay for more entitlements.

Yes, but that's my point. Right now, spending increases are simply hidden (temporarily) in deficit spending.

If the Democrats want to spend more, they'll have to tax more, and it would be out in the open. And conversely, if the Republicans want to lower taxes they'll need to justify any cuts to programs that would result. So both parties would have to be able to say "this is what you're getting for what you're spending," and the voters would react accordingly.

.

Okay, I like that idea but I don't see how the BBA gets you there. The idea I had for voting for each expenditure $1M or more ($1M is a figure I pulled out of thin air, make it $100K or $10M if you want) does that on an individual congressman/woman basis.

There would be thousands of votes but it would put the name next to the vote; not any fudging about "Well, that was part of a larger bill I favored so I vote for some things I didn't like " or "That was part of a larger bill I didn't like so I voted against it because there was much more to dislike than like".

 

[dblack]

Yep, if you TRULY want to get rid of Obama, the stupidest thing you could do would be to vote for this dick.

Agreed. Voting for Romney wouldn't really "get rid" of Obama. In effect it would just give him a chance at third term.

 

[dblack]

Romney isn't the best candidate money can buy. That much should be evident already.

That depends on who bought him and what they were hoping to accomplish.

 

[Zxereus]

This "not very bright" candidate built a construction company from himself to over 1,000 employees when he sold it 23 years later. NM 2 of 3 vote Democratic He ran as Rep and beat the Dem. They loved Governor Veto so much for all the money he saved taxpayers, that he won again by a wider margin. He managed to climb the tallest peaks on four continents. This frugal millionaire built his own house. He swims 2.4 mi, runs 26.2 mi & bicycles 112 miles, loves skiing which he'll retire to if he doesn't win the presidency.

He bicycled several hundred miles in NH campaigning. He's at 7% there last I heard.

He was paragliding when a wing got stuck in a tree & he fell 50 feet. Broken bones: back, rib, knee. Rather than get hooked on opiates or getting an operation, he managed his pain the next 3 years using cannabis. He has publicly advocated re-legalization since 1999, & he now proposes taxing it 100% (est $19/oz), (90% cheaper) which would bring in double digit billions., It has been shown to sometimes be better than pills or operations for 126 medical conditions, cheap health care. End drug war, save $40B/yr + reduced crime.

Mitt Romney & Barack Obama want many harmless sick people locked up. Both refuse to discuss the #1 request to whitehouse.gov re-legalize cannabis. Romney called it unimportant. 25% of Americans are in chronic pain, think O or R care? Cannabis oil is reported to be curing cancer and other painful & often fatal illnesses. Think O & R care? It was in pharmacies until 1937, when cancer was rare. Now 30% of Americans die from cancer despite us spending the most on health care. Worldwide, 13% die from cancer.

Gary Johnson is one of the most honest, kindest, & smartest ever to run for the presidency.
He cares about the 100% equally & can't be bribed. He believes we should get back all of our Constitutional rights & stop spending money we don't have. Is that bad? Best wishes.

Okay so now we know why you want to throw your vote away, you want to smoke pot so you're going to vote for Johnson to make a statement about pot.
Thanks so much for helping to re-elect Obama.

Voting your conscience isn't throwing away one's vote. But the result will be that Obama will win by a larger margin than he would have otherwise. If you don't like it, spend another $100M and buy a better candidate next go round.

Romney isn't the best candidate money can buy. That much should be evident already.

Voting your concience when it's for a loser IS throwing your vote away, unless your goal is simply to make a "statement".

 

[dblack]

Voting your concience when it's for a loser IS throwing your vote away, unless your goal is simply to make a "statement".

Every vote is cast to make a statement. That's the whole point.

 

[JoeB131]

There hasn’t been a single poll out of Colorado this year that’s shown Mitt Romney ahead of Barack Obama. Tuesday’s Public Policy Polling poll is no exception: Obama leads Romney in a head-to-head matchup by 49 percent to 42 percent.

But add libertarian Gary Johnson to the mix and the numbers are slightly different: Obama leads 47-39, with 7 percent going to Johnson, according to the PPP poll.

At that level of support, if Johnson qualifies for the ballot, he could end up having a significant impact in a three-way matchup — not only in Colorado but across the Mountain West, where he figures to run strongest.

The GOP's Gary Johnson quandary - POLITICO.com

If the numbers remain consistent it looks like Johnson could have an effect in Colorado and Arizona. New Mexico was going to Obama regardless.

Yeah... you know, it never works that way.

People have an affection for a third party, but our system doesn't work that way.

I considered voting for Johnson as a protest vote. But it's really a meaningless effort.

Johnson's a great pick for people who can't stand Romney or Obama, an understandable notion.

He's probably more qualified than either of them.

But our system is rigged against him.

He'll pull in maybe 1% of the vote nationally.

 

[Mac1958]

Voting your concience when it's for a loser IS throwing your vote away, unless your goal is simply to make a "statement".

So the point of voting is to figure out who you think is going to win and vote for them?

I missed that day in civics class.

.

 

[JWBooth]

Voting your concience when it's for a loser IS throwing your vote away, unless your goal is simply to make a "statement".

All those folks who voted for McLouse in 08 shoulda stayed home, as well as those who supported Goldwater in 64, or Nixon in 60. Is that it? Should those who supported Bush in 92 gone fishing?

It doesn't matter the motives, if you chose to participate in the electoral circus, vote for who you chose, not for whats been chosen for you.

If voting made a difference, it would be illegal.

 

[candycorn]

I couldn't agree more. Any confidence we could agree on what updates to make?

Absolutely!

Just for starters.

We have one house of Congress that can, in effect, totally ignore the work of another house and has the ability to kill legislation by not letting it come to a vote. Now I have no problem whatsoever with party line votes that kill legislation. If you have 51 of one party and 49 of another party, the 51 should be able to pass whatever it wants to pass in the Senate. If you have 218 of one party in the House and 217 of the other party; the 218 should be able to pass whatever it wants to pass. The problem is that some party hack is preventing legislation from having these up or down votes. More importantly in the macro is that it also silences the debate about these bills.

Not sure what you're proposing here, or which particular rules you're referring to.

The Majority leader won't schedule votes on bills he doesn't want to see debated. At other times, the committee chairs won't schedule hearings on bills they don't want to let out of their committees. This is BS.

In general, I don't have a problem with structure which requires more than a simple majority to pass laws. I'd like to see something closer to a two-thirds majority required to pass any major legislation, with only simply majority required for repealing laws.

Forcing broad consensus doesn't guarantee better legislation, but it does guarantee broader consensus and would help avoid the deep political divisions we're now seeing in our nation. (e.g. would health care reform still be an issue if it had been passed with a 2/3 majority in both houses?).

Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying put something in the Constitution that guarantees and up or down vote by the ENTIRE BODY of the other chamber of Congress within 90 days.

If the House passes a bill outlawing duct tape for example, the Senate Committee on Duct Tape get the bill, changes it to outlaw only that shitty duct tape that is plastic and not the classic variety that has the matrix of fibers in it. The point is it takes the House work and considers it, changes it, and then....

The entire body votes up or down on the Senate bill.

Now the new bill goes to the house/senate conference committee.

There is no chance for the pro-shitty-duct-tape lobby to pay Harry Reid to keep the vote off the docket.

Basically a rule in the Constitution that requires one house to consider the work of the other in due time.

Maybe. The power does seem to allow abuse.

Pardons are a thing of the past or at least should be.

Sounds good.

Zero based budgeting is common sense. I think some members of Congress even call for it. from time to time.

Not sure what you mean? As an upper limit? Lower limit?

Well, Ideally we would have a federal budget that is no where near the total GDP so it would and should be only a few percentage points of what the GDP is. IF we have a 100 Trillion dollar GDP for example, and the percentage is set at 2.8% of the GDP, the most our budget could be...is 2.8 Trillion Dollars. This is just an example.

Either include the War Powers Act in the Constitution or get rid of it all together. Either/or. Either the Congress can declare war or it can't.

Agree in principle. We need more clarity on what it means to be at war - when and how it is justified, etc...

Every f**king day here, we hear how Obama is violating the Constitution. BS. This is the most frequently violation that takes place and only when "the other guy" does it does one partisan hack or the other have a problem with it. Ironically, this is when it is most serious; when lives are at stake.

So many more...

Here's a couple of mine.

We need to clarify the vague portions of the constitution that have allowed for so much overreaching government: namely, the general welfare clause and the commerce clause. Over the years, the intent of these bits of text has become less clear and ambitious leaders have seized on the ambiguity to radically expand the reach and scope of government.

Agree in principle.

We need to ban the practice of using the tax code as a means of dictating behavior. Every tax must be justified as a means of generating revenue equitably and not used as a tool for manipulating society.

Some manipulation is needed in my view. But I agree in general.

We need to abolish the income tax. Repeal the amendment that made it possible.

Disagree.

We need to codify the separation of church and state more explicitly.

What do you have in mind?

We need a similar amendment to separate the economy and the state. For most of the same reasons we don't want religion mixing with the coercive power of the state, we need to keep political and economic power as separate as possible. This means preventing government from monkeying with the economy as well as keeping private business out of government affairs. We need a "wall of separation" between the economy and the government.

And vice versa...

We need to re-address the corporate charter. The current state of corporate structure - especially limited liability - allows corporations to operate outside the ethical constraints that individuals must deal with.

Don't know much about this one.


********

I think what you want are amendments. I want to have a new convention and basically add to the perfection of the document.

 

[Zxereus]

Voting your concience when it's for a loser IS throwing your vote away, unless your goal is simply to make a "statement".

Every vote is cast to make a statement. That's the whole point.

And all this time I thought it was to help my candidate win.
Johnson has zero chance of winning, and you know that going in.

 

[Zxereus]

Voting your concience when it's for a loser IS throwing your vote away, unless your goal is simply to make a "statement".

So the point of voting is to figure out who you think is going to win and vote for them?

I missed that day in civics class.

.

You do whatever you like. For me, I'm going to vote for the person that is closest to my ideals and who has an actuall chance to win.
Johnson has absolutely no chance of winning, and anyone with any intelligence at all knows that when they enter the polling booth. So what good does it do voting for him ? To feel better about yourself ?

 

[candycorn]

Voting your concience when it's for a loser IS throwing your vote away, unless your goal is simply to make a "statement".

Every vote is cast to make a statement. That's the whole point.

I think you may have just blown his mind....

Given the target...you probably could have done so with fewer syllables.

 

[GJJG2012]

.

On one hand, one has to wonder what Johnson is thinking. He can't possibly be so naive as to think that he can actually win this, and he must know he's damaging Romney, possibly fatally.

On the other hand, the ego of professional politicians is limitless, and ego often trumps reason.

The Republican Party rejected Gary Johnson before he rejected them. He was unfairly kept out of most debates & polls. Gary Johnson isn't a big ego guy. Wealthy but frugal, & he will talk to every segment of society to find out what they want. Gary is for freedom & cares for the 100% equally. Candidates purchased by special interests favor the 1%.

Too many automatically vote by party, no thinking needed. Gary is polling over 10% in some states. He has 2 TV ads now: Cast A Vote for Peace: Soon, many little children will die. I am the only candidate that doesn't want to bomb Iran.

His new ad: Be The 5%: 2 party system has ruined our nation. They've kept us in a state of perpetual war, driven our jobs overseas, bankrupted us, overtaxed & overspent us. But here's the good news: 5% of the votes on 2012 is all it takes to end the 2 party system in America for good. This year, do something revolutionary: cast a protest vote that counts. My name is Gary Johnson & I approve this message. LIVE FREE.

If Gary gets 5% of the vote, Libertarians get Major Party status & Gary gets $90 million for his 2016 campaign. You can take a quiz to find your % of agreement with 6 presidential candidates at ISideWith dot com/ Gary's website: garyjohnson2012 dot com

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

.

On one hand, one has to wonder what Johnson is thinking. He can't possibly be so naive as to think that he can actually win this, and he must know he's damaging Romney, possibly fatally.

On the other hand, the ego of professional politicians is limitless, and ego often trumps reason.

The Republican Party rejected Gary Johnson before he rejected them. He was unfairly kept out of most debates & polls. Gary Johnson isn't a big ego guy. Wealthy but frugal, & he will talk to every segment of society to find out what they want. Gary is for freedom & cares for the 100% equally. Candidates purchased by special interests favor the 1%.

Too many automatically vote by party, no thinking needed. Gary is polling over 10% in some states. He has 2 TV ads now: Cast A Vote for Peace: Soon, many little children will die. I am the only candidate that doesn't want to bomb Iran.

His new ad: Be The 5%: 2 party system has ruined our nation. They've kept us in a state of perpetual war, driven our jobs overseas, bankrupted us, overtaxed & overspent us. But here's the good news: 5% of the votes on 2012 is all it takes to end the 2 party system in America for good. This year, do something revolutionary: cast a protest vote that counts. My name is Gary Johnson & I approve this message. LIVE FREE.

If Gary gets 5% of the vote, Libertarians get Major Party status & Gary gets $90 million for his 2016 campaign. You can take a quiz to find your % of agreement with 6 presidential candidates at ISideWith dot com/ Gary's website: garyjohnson2012 dot com

My question is: Why does a libertarian want taxpayer money to fund his campaign?