Tis being a very unusual election cycle where many people don't seem excited about either candidate, the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. For those that have an opinion on him, what do you think? I see some of the merits of electing a Libertarian, and I think Johnson is a more inspiring candidate than eithe Hillary or Trump.

I've actually been thinking very seriously at Gary Johnson with a lean towards voting for him. What hinders me is that I really want my vote to count for something, and therefore don't want my vote to be taking away from any other candidate. Not necessarily just this election, either. It would be nice to see some real competition to the republicans and democrats.

"Excited" in a candidate. lol

To most Libertarians, Gary Johnson is the hand-job of Libertarian candidates. You could do worse (and we most likely will, because we the people are a bunch of fuck-ups), but he has enough issues that, while they might make him more palatable for majority party voters, put him at odds with several in the LP.

Also, I swear he looks nervous and high every time he's got a camera on him.

I'll probably still vote for him, but he's a "meh" candidate.

O-Trap;1803766 wrote:To most Libertarians, Gary Johnson is the hand-job of Libertarian candidates. .

Many liberals of this day and age will probably always look at every libertarian candidate this way, because they aren't progressive anymore.

O-Trap;1803766 wrote:To most Libertarians, Gary Johnson is the hand-job of Libertarian candidates. You could do worse (and we most likely will, because we the people are a bunch of fuck-ups), but he has enough issues that, while they might make him more palatable for majority party voters, put him at odds with several in the LP.

Also, I swear he looks nervous and high every time he's got a camera on him.

I'll probably still vote for him, but he's a "meh" candidate.

Agreed.

If the LP could find a candidate who could actually come off halfway decent on camera, they could make some serious noise.

fish82;1803773 wrote:Agreed.

If the LP could find a candidate who could actually come off halfway decent on camera, they could make some serious noise.

Well, they kinda did, and he even attempted to run on a GOP ticket. But the GOP opted for Mitt instead.

I certainly will give Johnson a look because a hand job sounds better than being sodomized against your will.
It will depend on whether he has enough support to make a difference in this election, or whether I think it's more important to vote against one of the other candidates.

I just want to see Johnson get on the debate stage. Is that too much to ask?

like_that;1803951 wrote:I just want to see Johnson get on the debate stage. Is that too much to ask?

agreed. But does he take more from the Dems or Pubs?

Spock;1803952 wrote:agreed. But does he take more from the Dems or Pubs?

With THIS crop? Flip a coin.

like_that;1803768 wrote:Many liberals of this day and age will probably always look at every libertarian candidate this way, because they aren't progressive anymore.

I'm actually not quite sure what you mean by this. Granted, I agree that today's Democrat is anything but "progressive," but I didn't follow the correlation between that and seeing Libertarians as "hand-jobs."

like_that;1803951 wrote:I just want to see Johnson get on the debate stage. Is that too much to ask?

I want to see him on the stage as well. Its within the realm of possibility but unlikely. Neither the republicans or the democrats want a 3rd party to get on the stage. Remember the states elect the POTUS. The electoral map would be thrown into utter chaos with a strong 3rd party run. You could end up with the leaders of the executive branch being selected by the House. Not saying that is bad just saying the party establishments do not want that kind of shake up.

There are rumours that some high profile members of the republican party are orchestrating a coup and will publicly endorse johnson.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288527-libertarian-nominee-suggests-jeb-bush-may-back-him

majorspark;1804002 wrote:I want to see him on the stage as well. Its within the realm of possibility but unlikely. Neither the republicans or the democrats want a 3rd party to get on the stage. Remember the states elect the POTUS. The electoral map would be thrown into utter chaos with a strong 3rd party run. You could end up with the leaders of the executive branch being selected by the House. Not saying that is bad just saying the party establishments do not want that kind of shake up.

There are rumours that some high profile members of the republican party are orchestrating a coup and will publicly endorse johnson.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288527-libertarian-nominee-suggests-jeb-bush-may-back-him

I can see this happening, with many of them not appearing at the RNC (or in the case of Cruz, appearing to, more or less, start sowing the seeds for 2020 by publicly refusing to endorse Trump).

O-Trap;1804001 wrote:I'm actually not quite sure what you mean by this. Granted, I agree that today's Democrat is anything but "progressive," but I didn't follow the correlation between that and seeing Libertarians as "hand-jobs."

I misread your post, and thought you said most liberals view GJ that way lol.

Anyway, I think if you look at the political spectrum , libertarians will fall mostly in the middle (maybe slightly left or slightly right depending on how you view it). Both the GOP and Dems have gone further right/left and they keep going that way. There are still a large portion of people like me (not willing to go any further to the right with the GOP, because I still share some liberal views, however not willing to go as far left as they do) that are willing to make that small leap to libertarianism if needed. For liberals, I think the mass majority of them have traveled left and want to keep traveling further left, that there is no way they will take that large leap to meet with libertarianism. I don't agree with the entire libertarian platform (i.e. their stance on defense), but I think their platform is the most progressive platform we have in this country. Live free, keep government out of your business, and stop GAF about how others live their lives is as progressive as you get imo. Liberals that keep going further left do not 100% believe in that. This is why I never see them hopping onto the libertarian bandwagon, and thus why I call them regressive the further left they go.

like_that;1804012 wrote:I misread your post, and thought you said most liberals view GJ that way lol.

Anyway, I think if you look at the political spectrum , libertarians will fall mostly in the middle (maybe slightly left or slightly right depending on how you view it). Both the GOP and Dems have gone further right/left and they keep going that way. There are still a large portion of people like me (not willing to go any further to the right with the GOP, because I still share some liberal views, however not willing to go as far left as they do) that are willing to make that small leap to libertarianism if needed. For liberals, I think the mass majority of them have traveled left and want to keep traveling further left, that there is no way they will take that large leap to meet with libertarianism. I don't agree with the entire libertarian platform (i.e. their stance on defense), but I think their platform is the most progressive platform we have in this country. Live free, keep government out of your business, and stop GAF about how others live their lives is as progressive as you get imo. Liberals that keep going further left do not 100% believe in that. This is why I never see them hopping onto the libertarian bandwagon, and thus why I call them regressive the further left they go.

Ah, I get what you were saying.

Yeah, when people ask what my view is as one, I usually say something to the effect of: "I view your wallet, your body, and your bedroom in the same way. It's all your property, and it's none of my business."

majorspark;1804002 wrote: There are rumours that some high profile members of the republican party are orchestrating a coup and will publicly endorse johnson.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288527-libertarian-nominee-suggests-jeb-bush-may-back-him

I think Romney already publicly stated he may vote for Gary Johnson. Also rumors of the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson writing checks. Some publicity and money and things get very interested, given the number of undecideds still out there and many who are polling for Hillary or Trump would love another option.

majorspark;1804002 wrote: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288527-libertarian-nominee-suggests-jeb-bush-may-back-him

Wow - 13% in the latest CNN poll?!? When I started that other thread, I think he was at 10%....then 11, and a few weeks ago I saw 12%. So he's still gaining, ever so slightly, despite being talked about very little. Spend some money and get some press and I think he can definitely get to the magical 15%.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/288546-poll-libertarian-johnson-beating-trump-clinton-among-active-duty-troops
Wow - beating both Trump and Clinton with 38.7% among active duty troops...that poll may be garbage, but if it's at least honest then Gary Johnson could really do some damage if he gets on the stage.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1803423 wrote:Tis being a very unusual election cycle where many people don't seem excited about either candidate, the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. For those that have an opinion on him, what do you think? I see some of the merits of electing a Libertarian, and I think Johnson is a more inspiring candidate than eithe Hillary or Trump.

I could understand you getting excited about a Johnson

O-Trap;1804022 wrote:
Yeah, when people ask what my view is as one, I usually say something to the effect of: "I view your wallet, your body, and your bedroom in the same way. It's all your property, and it's none of my business."

As a one-sentence summary, this is actually quite good. Nice job.

What the massive government types forget or ignore is that when they pass a government program, they are funding it through the use of coercion. IOW, they are saying that this program is so important that you risk imprisonment by not kicking in "your share" (whatever that means). I'm all for, for example, supporting the arts, but to throw someone in the slammer because they don't? Absurd.

queencitybuckeye;1804103 wrote:As a one-sentence summary, this is actually quite good. Nice job.

What the massive government types forget or ignore is that when they pass a government program, they are funding it through the use of coercion. IOW, they are saying that this program is so important that you risk imprisonment by not kicking in "your share" (whatever that means). I'm all for, for example, supporting the arts, but to throw someone in the slammer because they don't? Absurd.

Exactly. I have several friends who are dyed-in-the-wool, self-professed socialists, and one of the objections that I've gotten from them is the notion that I cannot both care about people in low-income circumstances and refuse to support initiatives that would, at least in theory, help them.

They're dear people, but it doesn't seem to register with them that I can support the voluntary initiative of communities ex imperio -- outside government. Since each community is unique, with both unique needs and unique resources, applying a one-size-fits-all initiative with regulation and oversight (that we're paying for) from someone who likely doesn't know those nuances specific to my community seems remarkably inefficient at best. Counterproductive, at worst.

The decision of how much a person can help, who needs the help, and how to best administer the help is best suited to those who are willing and able to do so.

The larger problem is a lot of these issues can and should simply be addressed by state & local governments rather than federal. And one of the reasons things are the way they are is liberals may not win the state & local elections, but can then force their agenda on you winning federal elections with the help of liberal CA, IL, NY, etc. Also, money (easier to raise everyone's taxes a little rather than state/local taxes a lot to fix state/local problems).

The other fascinating thing to me, came up the other day about gay conservatives/Republicans. I want to say about 70% vote Democrat - well, what's interesting is at least 30% don't believe in the Republican "war on gays" and, I don't know maybe it's just the single ones, clearly aren't single issue voters on gay marriage

gut;1804122 wrote:The other fascinating thing to me, came up the other day about gay conservatives/Republicans. I want to say about 70% vote Democrat - well, what's interesting is at least 30% don't believe in the Republican "war on gays" and, I don't know maybe it's just the single ones, clearly aren't single issue voters on gay marriage

I have a friend who is a bit of an enigma. She is a Christian immigrant from Brazil who is gay and a registered Republican (and she gets REALLY into it, jumping up and down and shouting at the TV while watching the RNC). She attended the Pride Parade in Columbus (she and her girlfriend live there), and she was telling me about someone who came up to her to get her to sign a petition in support of Bernie Sanders. She told the lady, "I'm a Republican," and I guess the woman looked like she'd seen a ghost.

The one nice thing about the political spectrum in America is that it really emphasizes our diversity. You have rich people who are Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Libertarians, independents, and others. They come in a variety of colors, sizes, backgrounds, and religious worldviews.

All things considered, while I wouldn't be heartbroken at the thought of leaving the US, that's the kind of thing I'd miss.

O-Trap;1804124 wrote: The one nice thing about the political spectrum in America is that it really emphasizes our diversity. You have rich people who are Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Libertarians, independents, and others. They come in a variety of colors, sizes, backgrounds, and religious worldviews.

It's really an interesting dynamic. The Repubs have the conservative/religious bloc wrapped up without really even needing to cater to them (only enough to get them out to vote) because the "War on Minorities/Gays/Poor/etc" almost by default villifies that bloc and drives it to the Repubs. Which means if Dems were ever to lose just SOME of their overwhelming majorities in some demographics....they don't lose just a few elections they lose everything.

To me the "Two Party" system is less a problem than the way people are manipulated to self-herd....abortion and guns continue to be huge issues, but people who's vote is strongly dependent on those should really ask themselves "has anything really changed, is anything really going to change, and does it make sense to continue basing my vote on something that maybe isn't real?"