11

Is Gary Johnson the Answer?

Posted by khalling 7 years, 5 months ago to Politics
97 comments | Share | Flag

from author Vinay Kolhatkar: "Is the former Republican two-term Governor who is pro-choice, anti-eminent domain, and pro-marijuana legalization, able to articulate the truth? The way he sees it, yes. Imperfectly. He is grasping. Without the foundation of a proper philosophical framework, he errs. A lot."
SOURCE URL: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/is-gary-johnson-the-answer/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 7 years, 5 months ago
    Hello khalling,
    What is the question? :) If he could be elected he could be the answer to some things. If he can inspire more people to reject the two party stranglehold in future elections, then perhaps he is the answer desperately needed for that purpose.
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mikejoyous1 7 years, 5 months ago
    As Objectivists, it is not our business to concern ourselves with which candidates Johnson helps to win or lose. That is the way of the pragmatist, not that of the principled American. Rather, it is our business to look at the depths of our own souls and to vote as conscience dictates
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
      You might consider that a change in our culture from socialism to capitalism is going to take many decades, and we need the time to accomplish a lot of education in the basis of capitalism. Trying to force feed people with capitalist ideas in a political arena will only bring out more propaganda and hatred from the left that will need to be fought against. Better, I think, to concentrate on education and NOT politics for quite a while.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
        For any libertarian with reasonable debating skills, bringing out propaganda and hatred from the left is an opportunity to point out our opponents' flaws and hypocrisy. Both a political approach and an educational approach are needed. We don't need to "force feed" people with capitalist ideas - many voters already have libertarian views on a lot of issues. The Libertarian Party offers them moral support for these views and a place to express them at the ballot box.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DeanStriker 7 years, 5 months ago
          Expressing in the ballot box has accomplished nil in over 40 years. That serves only to negate our philosophy, We are largely the unheard herd.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
            Even though not a perfect vehicle for doing so, the Libertarian Party has exposed millions of people to a pro-liberty political viewpoint, and many of them have joined our cause as a consequence. Down-ballot Libertarian candidates regularly receive 5 percent or more of the vote, along with occasional winners in local elections and even in a few state legislative races. I hardly call that "accomplishing nil".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by hattrup 7 years, 5 months ago
            supposedly over 50% of 18-35 year old demographic is registering Independent. Perhaps that shows some progress. This largest segment (perhaps around 37%) of this demographic is
            also pro-Johnson.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
          I think that its too early to advance libertarian ideas in a political arena. Look at the crap they throw up at Trump, when he advances even a lot fewer libertarian ideas than Johnson. We have to shed off the PC mentality thats given the leftists so much power for one. Trump is like the energizer bunny, for which I have to applaud him. How many people would stand up to the establishment today ? Sanders did it by trying to advance socialism by a LOT, but not with his own money, and got squashed. The establishment has to be weakened first, and we do that by education.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
            So when will it not be "too early" to advance libertarian ideas in the political arena? Are we to leave politics to the statists until we have "educated" 50.1 percent of the voting population in the value of individual liberty? And who cares what crap they are throwing up against Trump? He can handle it and so can we.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
              Education should be ongoing. Straight political action is pretty much worthless when the establishment is so strong and crooked. Look at the efforts Trump is making and the resistance he is getting.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
                Overcoming resistance often means wearing it down over time. The Libertarian Party has been doing this for 44 years and is now poised to pick up 5% or more of the Presidential vote. We may do even better in future elections, depending upon how things sort out after this one. It takes time, but we're building a party and a movement.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
                  It takes a lot of time, and the tide has to come in also in terms of a bit economic crash or war that will wake people up to needing a change. I have friends who think that accellerating the crash will just get it over with sooner. I cant really argue with them in the long term, although I really dont want to live through a crash or another big war
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
                    There was an economic crash 87 years ago that "woke people up to needing a change," so they elected FDR. We know how well that worked out. At least if it happens again, people will not be so trusting of government to fix their problems.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
                      More likely to look to government to fix things again. Solution to medical care equals Obamacare. Solution to housing cris equals TARP and bailouts. Solution to refugee crisis equals citizenship here
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago
                    You can't argue with them? Getting a disaster "over with sooner" is suicide. A big crash will not help the country, only make those who live more desperate.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
                      I think it's a flawed position to take for several reasons. 1) a crash would be a 40+ year thing during which time it would be hell and 2) a crash without widespread philosophical change would just result in a regeneration of socialism. I think their error is that they think a crash would be instant and that a John halt type would magically save us and our economy would just as instantly spring back into action
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ jdg 7 years, 5 months ago
                        The 1929 and 2008 crashes lasted decades because of government "stimulus". The 1919 crash was hardly noticed because President Harding did the right thing -- he cut federal spending. Johnson would do the same.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
                          A Libertarian fix to the government spending problem would be painful in the short run, but totally cool in the long run. I would be willing to undergo the pain if it was the right thing to do, BUT most people would not think that way and that makes it hard for the Libertarians to win this time
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago
                  "we're building a party and a movement."
                  I have this hope of less-gov't Republicans and Democrats going to the LP b/c of the problems people have with people like Trump and Clinton. If that happened, would we be in the majority?

                  We'd also need someone to keep us applying less-gov't across the board. The vast majority wants to cut gov't except for things we personally agree with. Some people say their for less gov't, but not military spending. I'm for less gov't but I'm open to spending to help the poor. (The selfish reasons for that are a story for another time.) A successful LP would have to allow just enough spending on military, assistance for the poor, education, etc to avoid being too radical but not so much that they lose libertarian-ness. This would be a tightrope. Even it walked that tightrope well, we'd still have to sell people on giving up their research grant, drug-enforcement job, health insurance subsidy, military base that provides jobs, and so on. It's so easy to rationalize. "I'm for cutting gov't across the board, except for things like my cancer research that could affect millions of people."
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ jdg 7 years, 5 months ago
                    Some groups simply can't accept justice and will have to be defied rather than reasoned with. Most bureaucrats are among them. Drug enforcers certainly are -- and they've forced enough innocent lives to be wasted behind bars that they're comparable to the Holocaust and need a Nuremberg style ending.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago
                      Yes. I wonder the mental gymnastics they must go through to convince themselves they're somehow the good guys.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ jdg 7 years, 4 months ago
                        Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" illustrates the mind set. Short version: everyone who has ever touched drugs (1) has lost his reason and (2) is a victim whether he knows it or not. And his assessment of his own situation doesn't matter. In short, the drug warriors don't consider you to have agency once you decide to partake even a little.

                        I am open to the proposition that there is a slight degree of truth to this assessment in the case of some of the "hardest" drugs when used to the point of addiction. But even then I trust the addict to govern his own life more than I trust the State to make decisions for him.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 4 months ago
                          It seems like they could say the same thing about eating unhealthful foods, things like drinking Mtn Dew. You could also say it about buying luxury goods when you have no money or wealth to cover a bump in the road. If we say you've lost all reason because you do something stupid, then the whole human race has lost its reason.

                          The drugs that are proscribed are arbitrary, not at all related to level of addictivenss, how much they affect judgment, or how bad they are for health. It's an accident of history that caffeine is not banned but khat is.

                          Even if we accepted the illegal drugs really do cause you to lose all reasons, the way we carry out the drug war is not a humane way to deal with people who have lost their mind.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 5 months ago
    Johnson is not the answer because he will lose.
    Voting for him only helps Shillary become the best crooked president money can bribe to the detriment of the American people.
    Besides that, Shillary's Supreme Court picks are guaranteed to shred the Constitution perhaps for a generation.
    And this country could very well go to a very bad place it may never come back from.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
      Voting for Johnson does not automatically help Hillary. Many Republican and Independent supporters of Johnson would not vote for Trump under any circumstances, and many Democrat supporters of Johnson would vote for Hillary if Johnson were not in the race. On balance, Johnson's presence in the race is helping Trump. That's why Hillary's campaign has stepped up its attacks on Johnson in recent weeks.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
        Hillary's camp is afraid of the truth and will attack anyone who doesnt support her. Its disgusting how she wants only power for herself and millions dont see that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
          I notice that Hillary's camp is not attacking Jill Stein, beyond generic "don't vote third party" ads. Probably because she does not want to give Stein any added visibility as a left-wing alternative to the Democrats.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
            And Jill Stein isnt going anywhere, so why waste money attacking her.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
              Jill Stein currently has 2% of the vote, mostly at the expense of Hillary. It would be very worthwhile to Hillary if she could recapture a portion of that 2%.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
                But she is confident that she will get rid of Trump at this point and be the first woman president of the USA. She would never get the Green Party people any more than she is going to get the Bernie people.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 5 months ago
        A vote for Johnson instead of for Shillary would help Trump. I can see that, since Johnson cannot win
        I can see that working the other way around also.
        Those who would not vote for Trump under any circumstances are beyond my hope of persuasion.
        That group would include capital hill fiefdom protecting RINOs of the worst elite most selfish sort.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago
    It's true he's a little goofy for a presidential candidate.
    The comical behavior - I wonder how many interviews he gives each day to get the few when did something really goofy like sticking out his tongue or getting on the floor.

    The question about Aleppo - In normal conversation, we give people cues when they're not making an association. When Johnson asked what's Aleppo, the interviewer could have said, "I mean the city," instead of implying Johnson had no idea what he was talking about.

    Denying climate change - He wasn't denying climate change. He says we need a market-based approach, and he's rightly skeptical of any gov't intervention. He's not giving a scientific or philosophical answer. He's talking to a country where some people want to use the problem to promote their own agendas and where others ignorantly deny the problem.

    The wedding cake - He said he didn't want to use his position to change laws to allow more discrimination. If he were starting with a blank slate, he'd leave everyone free to bake cakes for whomever they want and to use whatever special ingredients they want.

    The left/right thing - I believe he's truly not into it. This is something politicians use to raise money and get elected. He hasn't needed to use it, and it's not on his radar as much as it is for politicians from other geographical areas.

    Monetary/fiscal policy - He's the only candidate on the ballot in all states who has made this an issue. Trump and Clinton mostly ignore the problem.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
      Frankly, I could care less about Aleppo. Its located in a country thats been crazy for a LONG time, and the people who are still there deserve what they get. We should get OUT of the civil war there, period and let them all sit in their cold, dark tents until they wise up.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 5 months ago
    Pretty much sums up the frustration most have with Johnson.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
      I have to say that if invited to have a private meeting with Johnson, I would take him up on it. If invited by Obama or Hillary, I would laugh and NEVER taken them up on it. I would like to meet with Trump's kids, and perhaps even Trump. Maybe John Stossel too. Not a lot of people really. This election has gotten me to dump all the 'friends' I had who have come out for Hillary. They arent my friends really. I would appreciate it if all Hillary supporters had to wear armbands or a big "H" on their backs so I would know who my real enemies are.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ pixelate 7 years, 5 months ago
        Thanks term2... We spoke recently on another thread regarding unfriending those "friends" that strongly reside in the Hillary camp. I have another take on this ... instead of my keeping quiet on political topics... when it comes time to defend capitalism, freedom, liberty, Ayn Rand ... I will do so, and with passion. In fact, I used to do this back in the day (in my 30's when my mental faculties worked more quickly). I just need to step on the gas again and not let the statist-liberal-anti-reason babble be put forth without being challenged. Those that find my speech and ideas offensive will likely self-extricate from my circle of friends (as they did in the past).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
          Absolutely, in spite of heavy duty PC against capitalism and freedom, I dont shut up any more. They know where I stand, but I dont trust anyone now that supported Hillary. They dont respect me, and I dont waste time "convincing them"
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
      I do have to hand it to Johnson for at least trying to stem the tide of socialism. He never had a chance in such a socialist society to get anywhere, however. If he had the charisma of a great leader, PLUS a consistent libertarian ideology, he might get somewhere. Look at the reception Trump gets from the establishment today with only a weak presentation of some libertarian ideas. Johnson would be decimated for presenting even more libertarian ideas.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 7 years, 5 months ago
    While I like Gary Johnson on a lot of things, he misses just enough that it is hard to support him. He governs better than he philosophizes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
      He needs to get more philosophically consistent and then make a stand in about 20 years at least. In the meantime, do speaking engagements and deal in education instead of politics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 7 years, 5 months ago
      He isn't going to govern. His campaigning for the "common good" while denouncing "self interest", and promoting a "balance" between "power and control", are helping the statist-collectivists by endorsing their premises.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
        anyone who has spent time in the state knows he was propped up by Albuquerque and Los Cruces to fund the Emerald City, rubbing shoulders with hollywood elite and the artists and designers who are patronized by them. In the meantime, travelling off the interstates, you find shells of communtities-ghost towns, really, all the young people have left NM and the only thing in those towns with boarded up shops and old gas stations are bright and shiny small "senior centers." that's Gary Johnson's state.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 7 years, 5 months ago
    Gary Johnson may be a self-proclaimed Libertarian, but he certainly is no Objectivist! I don't think he has a belief system as he flip flops on global warming and such. He is not someone I would vote for.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Vinay 7 years, 5 months ago
    1) If you live in a strong blue or red state, such that one of Trump or Clinton will definitely win, would you then vote for Johnson?
    2) Would you, like some Objectivists, not vote for Johnson because he represents the LP, which is better extinguished so that liberty can have a true platform? As in, anything that is "libertarian" is anti-liberty?
    3) Is Johnson worth giving more air time to, so he can put certain matters before the electorate (fiat money, eminent domain, bankruptcy of the Republic) that are not getting any air time?
    Those are the three questions. Q2 and Q3 are addressed in teh linked essay.
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jswarbri 7 years, 5 months ago
    I understand that there are a lot of folks who don't want Hillary and they don't want trump but should it really need to be said? Not voting or voting for a third party or a fourth party candidate is a vote for Hillary! How could this be good?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 7 years, 5 months ago
    No. IMO, for exactly the same reasons AR presented against The LP and Hospers in '72. If anything, those reasons are more applicable today. Glad to expand on request, if not already presented in other comments.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 5 months ago
    We know by now that Johnson is a mixed bag. But the most important thing is that he cannot win. Maybe in 8 years if he works very hard and raises lots of money. If he diverts enough votes, he will help us to get, a liberal supreme court, open borders, influx of radical Muslems, a continuation of Obamacare until we get a one payer system, a weaker military, fewer middle class jobs, more taxes, more regulations, just for starters. Oh, Goody!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
      I saw some YouTube videos of the muslim hordes taking over Europe. Streams of animals just marauding over the landscape, fed by "refugee camps" and an entitlement philosophy based in islam. IT was very scary to watch, and I sure dont want that here.

      I think immigration is OK if limited and restricted to people who want to melt INTO our society, not CHANGE it to something else. There is a "path to citizenship" already, and we should keep that. Expanding it to let in 50,000 muslims who dont want to be AMERICAN, or millions of hispanics who just want to take our goodies into some sort of socialist paradise ISNT a good idea. Britain sure found out early enough, and clamped down on open borders. Germany, under that idiot Merkel, has learned too late to save the German culture I think. Hillary, with her idea of open borders is going to do the same thing here if elected.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 5 months ago
        Many, if not most of the Muslims who enter a western country, including ours, do not integrate. Instead the become enclaves that even if they are citizens, they believe in Sharia and many of them either become or are radical and dangerous.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
      Gary Johnson is diverting more votes from Hillary than from Trump. Would you rather he didn't?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 5 months ago
        If that's the case, I'm all for it. I was aiming primarily at members of the Gulch in order to impress them of the negative consequences of a Clinton win. I don't think any Gulchers would vote for Hillary, but voting for Johnson is in effect voting for her.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
          I voted for Gary Johnson. I did not vote for Hillary Clinton. A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson. A is A.

          Furthermore, a vote for Gary Johnson does not have the same effect on the outcome as a vote for Hillary Clinton. Example: There are 100 votes for Trump and 91 votes for Hillary. If 5 of these voters switch from Trump to Hillary, she wins by 1 vote. If instead, 5 of those voters switch from Trump to Gary Johnson, Trump wins by 4 votes. Big difference.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 5 months ago
            That's a flawed example. Make Trump leading by 93 to 91 and then deduct the 5 from Trump and Trump loses.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
              No, it's an absolutely on point example. You said that "voting for Johnson is in effect voting for her." I showed that it isn't. At worst, a vote for Johnson translates to half a vote for Hillary, and that's only if that vote for Johnson otherwise would have gone to Trump. In actual fact, if he weren't on the ballot most Gary Johnson voters would either stay home, vote for Hillary or vote for someone else.

              In your example, Hillary wins by 8 if those five votes go to her, and only by 3 if those five votes go to Gary Johnson. Again, big difference. It's simply not accurate to say that a vote for Johnson is the same as a vote for Hillary. It clearly isn't, and the math proves it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 5 months ago
                Why are we debating this? It's just picking away at a trifle. The fact of the matter is that Hillary must not win.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
                  We’re debating this because many Trump supporters in the Gulch are criticizing and denouncing those of us voting for Gary Johnson, on the basis of arguments that do not stand up to scrutiny.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 5 months ago
                    Actually, it's not my business who you vote for or even why. I am passionate about anyone but Hillary. I'd vote for a chimpanzee rather than her if that was the only choice I had.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -1
          Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago
          "I don't think any Gulchers would vote for Hillary"
          I was strongly for Clinton from the beginning all during the primaries up until I thought Johnson had a remote shot. Now that's it's getting closer and there's a chance of Trump winning, A vote for Johnson is not the same as a vote for Clinton. I'm starting to chicken out.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 5 months ago
            For Clinton?
            I don't understand how you could even contemplate that.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago
              If we have to have a president who accept the bi-partisan consensus of big gov't, which means no Rand Paul or Gary Johnson, she's my first choice. I don't know how to get rid of the bi-partisan consensus. We could elect people to lower office. If they refuse federal monies on principle, as WI Gov Scott Walker did, they just give the federal money to someone else. They don't give it back. I had hoped one of the candidates would have a major scandal, like clear evidence of taking bribes into their personal account or some kind of sex scandal involving an underage person volunteering in politics or something, and then Johnson would actually win. It's not shaping up that way.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 5 months ago
                You are one mixed-up person.
                Your reasons aren't even reasons.
                You are aware of what a Clinton presidency will be are you not? Nothing you mentioned dealt with the consequences of, a liberal Supreme Court, open borders, higher taxes, more regulations which will keep businesses from operating efficiently, new businesses from opening which will lead to greater unemployment. More corporations leaving the country, creating still more unemployment , and more negative things than I have the patience to write about.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago
                  I think taxes will rise in either case b/c we're funding the gov't on debt and we can't seem to cut spending. Mainstream politicians all say the era of big gov't is over, but they can't/don't pull it off.
                  I actually want a liberal (depending on what that means) Supreme Court and open borders. I think people do great things for one another with gov't leaves them alone.
                  Regarding regulation, I want less regulation provided it doesn't lead to more litigiousness. Clinton knows her way around gov't (for better and worse), so she's better equipped to handle this balance.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 5 months ago
                    That may be true in a reasonably honest Washington, but by your standards we might as well turn over congress to the Mafia. Almost everything Clinton has "accomplished" has been through coercion, and coercion is not always physical.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 7 years, 5 months ago
    NO, he is certainly not nearly the answer.
    And since Hillary needs to be thwarted by a Rep. Congress, it would not help to be voting for other Libertarians.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ScaryBlackRifle 7 years, 5 months ago
    Gary Johnson isn't even the question, much less the answer. The time to start supporting Johnson, if you are hell-bent on doing so, is November 9. That gives you 4 years to get some support under him. He can't win now ... and he knows it. But he CAN throw the race toward Hillary ... something Sanders couldn't deliver.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
      Absolutely. Hillary will make it harder to reverse the trend in 4 years. At least Trump says it like it is and fights the establishment, You can tell how afraid they are of him by the vitriol they throw at him consistently and relentlessly. I voted for him yesterday, as a member of the basket of deplorables.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gpecaut 7 years, 5 months ago
    I look at it this way. A vote for Johnson over Trump is a vote against the Constitution. Ayn did not favor the Libertarian party anymore than the Republicans or Democrats, but if Hillary wins, the boarders and immigration will make sure that for decades only Democrats will win. Her Supreme Court appointments will destroy the first and second Amendments. The Heller case she so disagrees with is not about "toddlers" it is about that the "right of the people to keep and bare arms" is referring to the individual, not the State. She has pronounced several times over the last 8 years that the freedom of speech should and Constitutionally can be limited by Government. The left always uses the you can't tell fire in a theater argument. But she believes Government should be able to , ban books, restrict speech that is anti Muslim, and ban opposing views on Climate Change.
    No as much as I don't like Trump, yes I cast my ballot him.
    We have been forced yet again into an election where we must choose the lesser of two evils.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
      We’re “forced” into an election where we “must” choose the lesser of two evils? Too bad I didn’t realize that when I voted for Gary Johnson last Sunday. And I had no idea I was voting against the Constitution when I voted for Gary Johnson over Trump. Let’s see, Gary Johnson = uphold Constitution, Donald Trump = ignore Constitution. However, a vote for Gary Johnson = oppose Constitution, while a vote for Donald Trump = uphold Constitution. Makes perfect sense to me now.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 1musictime 7 years, 5 months ago
    Anti-eminent domain is good, of no additional things and with no less than additional good things with equal strengths coordinating with freedom.Anti-liberty libertarians are not the answers and not welcome.One of the things to question of Donald Trump is he advocating eminent domain. It's like the means makes the end result right and okay.There are additional ways toward professional activity toward people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 5 months ago
    He just doesn't seem that he wants to compete...just wants to sit back and put a good buzz on...just my observation.

    You can't convince me that marijuana doesn't adversely effect brain cells...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ pixelate 7 years, 5 months ago
      Speaking on "the good buzz" -- last year, I summitted McKinley with Dave Hahn (lead guide). Dave also guided Johnson up Vinson (Antarctica) when Johnson was doing the Seven Summits. Dave told the story of being somewhere in South America when Johnson offered him a sample of his new "consumables" product line. Dave tried it and said "the first five minutes were great ... then I fell into the deepest mindset of paranoia..." I expect that marijuana-laced "consumables" have a long lasting impact and Johnson likely uses his own product. I am all for drug-legalization and other Libertarian platform elements. I just wish that Johnson could more clearly articulate his message and stay on point.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
    My comment months ago was that Johnson was intellectually inconsistent and a buffoon. In any case, he would be better than any of the candidates IF he had a snowball's chance of election in this culture. But he doesnt. This has degenerated into a very socialist and statist culture, and it will take decades of education to show enough people the basis of freedom to win in a mob rule election. The libertarian party should concentrate on education, and not expect to win some political election for a long while.

    Look at the beating Trump has taken for having only a few ideas against the leftist establishment !!! Imagine what Johnson would face IF he actually got some traction. He would be carved up and thrown to the wolves.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
      Gary Johnson is getting sufficient traction that he is being attacked by Kaine and other Democrats.

      The Libertarian Party is concentrating on both education and winning votes, and has been doing so since its founding. Many Libertarians are officeholders at the local level, and the LP has won a few state legislative races over the years. We have one state assemblyman in Nevada now, a converted Republican.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
        I will support Libertarian ideas, and actually have been registered as a Libertarian for a long time. But, when it comes to voting for president this time, I had to go with Trump in order to give us a little more time to change peoples ideas while we still can. Hillary will make it just that much harder to elect a Libertarian in the future.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 5 months ago
          On the contrary, Hillary will make it so clear that her form of government is an abject failure, it will send the sheep scurrying to libertaria.to escape ;^)
          (Just so you aren't confused. I'd rather see Hillary dead than elected by dead people to be president.)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
            My comment was directed to the way Hillary has solidified the establishment to enable it to protect itself better. Now that private servers wont be used again, the establishment will protect itself further from letting people know whats going on, and it will become stronger as a result.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tohar1 7 years, 5 months ago
    Not sure Gary Johnson is "The Answer"...but I am going to vote for several Libertarian candidates (Proud supporter of JackForND.com).

    As I've said in other comments, I really wish the "Good Ol' Boys" would allow others to debate, even if it was just in the first scheduled Presidential debate. Let the American people know that there IS indeed an alternative. After that, they can use their 10-15% polling to determine whether the candidate has the political moxy to survive for the long haul. I've often said, that if you believe you have the best platform/ideas, you should not be afraid of debating ANY competitor, Right D's & R's?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo