Anyone on here support Gary Johnson? I know he was a match for a lot of us on isidewith.com's poll. Just found out he will be at UC and OSU on October 5th (not sure on times). Just wanted to pass that info along in case anyone wanted to see him speak. I will be attending his talk at UC.

in b4 "you're wasting your vote."

I'll vote for Johnson, but I'm not going to go see him. I know his positions pretty well, and I don't care for some of them.

Way too socially liberal for my liking.

Con_Alma;1275055 wrote:Way too socially liberal for my liking.

I agree. That damned personal liberty. I don't like it either.

Cleveland Buck;1275053 wrote:I'll vote for Johnson, but I'm not going to go see him. I know his positions pretty well, and I don't care for some of them.

Well, I'm sure it's hard to find a candidate you agree with on EVERYTHING. Just curious, what positions do you not care for? You don't have to answer if you don't want to, obviously.

justincredible;1275066 wrote:Well, I'm sure it's hard to find a candidate you agree with on EVERYTHING.....

Agreed.

justincredible;1275066 wrote:... Just curious, what positions do you not care for? You don't have to answer if you don't want to, obviously.

...for starters his drug reform policies and position on gay marriages, abortion, prostitution and immigration.

justincredible;1275066 wrote:Well, I'm sure it's hard to find a candidate you agree with on EVERYTHING. Just curious, what positions do you not care for? You don't have to answer if you don't want to, obviously.

He is much better on foreign policy than Obamney, but he still approves the use of our troops in humanitarian wars that are none of our business and only incite blowback.

While he is much better as far as spending goes than Obamney, government still grew every year during his term as governor of New Mexico.

While not as much as Obamney, he is still too much of a federalist, wanting federal meddling where it doesn't belong like abortion and marriage.

He is not a libertarian, but he is better than the others.

Cleveland Buck;1275097 wrote:He is not a libertarian, but he is better than the others.

Sounds like "the lesser of three evils"?

jhay78;1275270 wrote:Sounds like "the lesser of three evils"?

Pretty much. You never find a candidate you agree with 100% of the time. He is as far as I will compromise.

Same here. I have concerns about him, but far fewer than the Punch-N-Judy currently in the spotlight.

I actually find it odd that the Libertarian Party nominated him.

He still takes a position that government should be somewhat involved in abortion issues (his 'fetal viability' concept). As I recall, he has said that federal monies committed to the individual states a la earmarks should continue, and even take somewhat precedence.

He still supported federal monies going into father-involvement social programs. While I like the idea of bringing a higher degree of paternal involvement into the lives of kids in New Mexico, federal monies are not the way to do it.

He still supports foreign aid if it protects what the Federal Government deems a "strategic interest," thereby giving it an out to continue on as it currently does, essentially.

He believes in federal monies being used to pay for legal immigrants' citizenship.

Allows for illegal immigrants to live in the US for two years before they have to have to be legal.


He's hardly perfect. I am close to just not voting, as he still seems to support federal involvement in too much, though his position still would shrink the federal government from what it is today, as opposed to the other crops.

Cleveland Buck;1275295 wrote:Pretty much. You never find a candidate you agree with 100% of the time. He is as far as I will compromise.

And here I thought the Paulbots were against compromise. Learn something new every day.

believer;1275311 wrote:And here I thought the Paulbots were against compromise. Learn something new every day.

Not at all. Just not to the degree that it defeats the purpose of saying your position is different.

I wouldn't mind going to hear him speak, but I'm not going to take off work for it.

FatHobbit;1275754 wrote:I wouldn't mind going to hear him speak, but I'm not going to take off work for it.

Luckily I don't have a job!

justincredible;1275757 wrote:Luckily I don't have a job!

You're such a 47 percenter.

At least it's shrinking. It went from 99% down to 47%!

Con_Alma;1275818 wrote:At least it's shrinking. It went from 99% down to 47%!

Does that mean Justin is doing something about the disparity between the rich and the poor?

FatHobbit;1275754 wrote:I wouldn't mind going to hear him speak, but I'm not going to take off work for it.

Same here. I'll probably vote for the guy, but I know what he's going to say, and he's not a riveting beacon of liberty, peace, and prosperity ... so being inspired is pretty much out the window.

Con_Alma;1275818 wrote:At least it's shrinking. It went from 99% down to 47%!

Careful. The Democrats may try to give Obama credit for this.

O-Trap;1275845 wrote:Careful. The Democrats may try to give Obama credit for this.

No way. The dems want it to be 1% with the money against everyone else. The Repubs want it to be 53% against 47%. They both want to frame it so they are trying to keep the minority from taking advantage of the majority. And they both want to portray the majority as hard working. The 1% have all the money and have never done anything to earn it. They 47% are sucking on the teat of the 53% that do all the work.

FatHobbit;1275896 wrote:No way. The dems want it to be 1% with the money against everyone else. The Repubs want it to be 53% against 47%. They both want to frame it so they are trying to keep the minority from taking advantage of the majority. And they both want to portray the majority as hard working. The 1% have all the money and have never done anything to earn it. They 47% are sucking on the teat of the 53% that do all the work.

Adsense.

justincredible;1275903 wrote:Adsense.

lul'd