Libertarian Thread (Was: Gary Johnson Thread) (1 Viewer)

[Sarnoff]

He'll be appearing on The Daily Show tonight.

Hey Maurile, how about updating the subhead on this thread title? Thanks

 

[SacramentoBob]

"Gary have you read this really boring book?" "No, sorry, I was too busy climbing ####### mountings and living an enjoyable life...But like I said, I want to end the Fed, end the foreign interventionism, and the Patriot Act, promote civil liberties, end the drug war and lower taxes." Man, that Wenzel sure showed Gary what's what.

Nice.

 

[ren hoek]

oof.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTch7InkZjo&feature=colike

Why does the host keep implying that "all the hardcore libertarians" are disciples of Murray Rothbard? An awful lot of hardcore libertarians think that Rothbard was an intellectually dishonest blowhard. In addition, an awful lot of hardcore libertarians side with Milton Friedman over Ludwig von Mises on monetary policy, and more generally with the Chicago school of economics over the Austrian school. To pretend that anyone who isn't a fan of Rotbbard or von Mises isn't sufficiently hardcore is kind of silly.Johnson did sound a bit Palin-esque at the end there, though, getting needlessly defensive about the stuff he hasn't read.

Friedman was a huge blowhard, although probably not intellectually dishonest. It wasn't so much that Johnson doesn't subscribe to Austrian economics. It's that he didn't seem to know anything about the subject at all. He'd still be lightyears better than either of Obama or Romney. I'd just like to see him be knowledgeable on this stuff.

 

[Sarnoff]

Oh god.

Oh my ####### god.

That's it. I quit. I'm done. F###### forget about it.

 

[Sarnoff]

I don't even know where to start. I don't. Good god. Seriously, you guys, seriously.

####### lock it up, throw away the key. Good ####### night.

We need a smilie that mixes with with like seven more s.

 

[Shrugs]

I was disappointed with his performance on The Daily Show.

 

[Sarnoff]

I get an email about once a week from the campaign, with Gary's appearances in the media. Here's this week's. I can't link the video and pictures since the links are from my email. But you know where to find this stuff. God. Good ####### god.

Gov. Johnson In the News: "Politics be Damned"The Daily Show with Jon StewartJune 5,2012The Daily ShowBy: Jon StewartGary JohnsonLibertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson would come at Barack Obama from the left, and at Mitt Romney from the right.Watch video online here‏Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld June 6, 2012Fox News Red eyeBy: Greg GutfeldWatch video online here2012 Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson Talks to CY Interview May 31,212CY InteviewBy: Chris YandekFor those concerned about America’s debt and deficit, former Republican, two term, New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson has a plan to bring fiscal responsibility to the United States, in addition to standing up for civil liberties. Mr. Johnson, who ran for the Republican nomination for president, yet did not get much exposure, is currently running for president as the Libertarian Party nominee. On Election Day, he will be on the ballot in all 50 states.Polls have shown Americans are open to voting for a third party candidate for president. The former Governor is currently polling highest among third party candidates.As New Mexico’s governor from 1995 to 2003, Mr. Johnson vetoed hundreds of spending bills leaving New Mexico with a one billion dollar surplus upon leaving office. In addition to being fiscally responsible, Mr. Johnson is a social liberal who believes the government should stay out of our personal lives. Additionally, he wants to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home. Read MoreObama slams Romney's record leaving Governor Johnson unscathedJune 1, 2012Examiner.comBy: Karl DickeyThe Obama campaign issued a statement yesterday on Mitt Romney's campaign as Governor of Massachusetts and his poor job record. In the three man race for the White House, Obama's campaign chose not to attack Gary Johnson's record as the two term Governor of New Mexico, and for good reason; Johnson's record created jobs and he left the Governor's mansion with a surplus.Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, said this of Romney's record:Read MorePenn Jillette & Gary Johnson Lament NY’s Marijuana Decriminalization Doesn’t Go Far EnoughJune 6, 2012MediaiteBy: James Crugnale On Fox News’ Red Eye Wednesday morning, magician Penn Jillette and Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson weighed in on New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo‘s proposal to cut the penalty for public possession of small amounts of marijuana, with both arguing the move didn’t go far enough.“I’ve always advocated legalizing marijuana because decriminalizing turns its back on half of the problem, which is the market place,” Johnson explained. “Look, if they decriminalize pot, it just makes it in my opinion a lot easier for law enforcement to focus on those who are selling it. If you look at the profile of individuals in federal prison, the majority are those who have sold small amount of drugs on numerous occasions and have been caught, mandatory sentencing. So, you know, positive step, but legalize it. Let’s tax it and let’s regulate it.”Read MoreCuomo's pot plan gets raves from Bloomberg, JohnsonJune 5, 2012USA Today On PoliticsBy: Catalina CamiaThey say politics makes for strange bedfellows, so here's another example.New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat and possible 2016 presidential candidate, is getting kudos from Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson for his call to decriminalize open possession of small amounts of marijuana.Cuomo's proposal is a "welcome bit of sanity," says Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico. Still, Johnson believes it would be better to legalize marijuana outright in order to lift the burdens on police officers and the courts.Read moreGary Johnson qualifies for matching funds, will get $100,000 to start May 31, 2012New Mexico Watchdog.orgBy: Rob Nikolewski The Federal Election Commission on Thursday (May 31) announced that Libertarian Party presidential candidate and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson has qualified for federal matching funds and that Johnson’s third-party bid for the nation’s highest office will receive an initial payment of $100,000 in public funds.“The fact that our campaign has attracted the broad-based support required to qualify for matching funds is yet another clear indication that we are having a very real impact on this election,” Johnson said in a statement. “Poll after poll confirms that a great many Americans are not finding what they want in the limited choices presented by the two ‘major’ parties, and these matching funds will help us give those voters a real voice in November.”Matching funds come from American taxpayers who choose to check a box on Internal Revenue forms to pay $3 to that goes into a fund for presidential elections. In order to receive matching funds, a candidate must be a member of a political party and raise in excess of $5,000 in at least 20 states, with no more than $250 coming from a single person.merican taxpayers who choose to check a box on Internal Revenue forms to pay $3 to that goes into a fund for presidential elections. In order to receive matching funds, a candidate must be a member of a political party and raise in excess of $5,000 in at least 20 states, with no more than $250 coming from a single person.Read more:Gary Johnson: 'Politics be damned,' running to win as third-party candidateJune 6, 2012The HillBy: Alicia M. CohnLibertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson said Tuesday night that he is running as a third-party candidate because he has a message to convey: "Politics be damned.""The 'pie in the sky' notion" is to win the race, Johnson told "The Daily Show."He also noted that he'll appear on ballots alongside President Obama and Mitt Romney in all 50 states in November."Lots of opportunity to change the world a little bit," he said, describing his campaign. "I have seen nothing but increased crowds, increased appetite for what I have to say."Read moreJoin us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Make A Contribution

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I don't even know where to start. I don't.

You could start by giving us a slight hint on what you're talking about.

 

[Brady Marino]

CY InteviewBy: Chris Yandek

YES! "First of all, how ARE you?"

 

[Brady Marino]

Oh god. Oh my ####### god. That's it. I quit. I'm done. F###### forget about it.

I take it you didn't like his Daily Show appearance?

 

[Sarnoff]

Oh god. Oh my ####### god. That's it. I quit. I'm done. F###### forget about it.

I take it you didn't like his Daily Show appearance?

I can't take anyone seriously who interviews with Yandek. I just can't.

 

[Brady Marino]

Oh god. Oh my ####### god. That's it. I quit. I'm done. F###### forget about it.

I take it you didn't like his Daily Show appearance?

I can't take anyone seriously who interviews with Yandek. I just can't.

 

[Sarnoff]

Tagged: 2012 Inflation Similar to Jimmy Carter Presidency, 2012 Presidential Candidate Interview, 2012 Presidential Elections, 2012 Presidential Elections Candidate Interviews, 2012 Presidential Elections Coverage, 2012 Presidential Elections Discussion, About Gary Johnson, American Government Leadership, American Politics 2012, Barack Obama May 2012, Chris Yandek, Chris Yandek Interview, Chris Yandek Interviews, Chris Yandek Interviews Gary Johnson, Congress Leading By Example, Congress Members Cutting Their Salaries 2012, Congress News 2012, Congress Salary Cuts, Congressional Members Reducing Their Salaries, Congressional Pay Cuts, Congressional Salary Cuts, Economy 2012, Federal Government Slashing Spending, Gary Johnson, Gary Johnson 2012, Gary Johnson Audio, Gary Johnson Balancing The Budget, Gary Johnson Debating with President Obama and Mitt Romney, Gary Johnson Fiscal Conservative, Gary Johnson Fiscal Conservative and Social Liberal, Gary Johnson in the 2012 Presidential Debates, Gary Johnson Information, Gary Johnson Interview, Gary Johnson Interviews, Gary Johnson Interviews on Running for President, Gary Johnson is Running for President 2012, Gary Johnson is the Alternative to Ron Paul, Gary Johnson June 2012, Gary Johnson May 2012, Gary Johnson News 2012, Gary Johnson on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Gary Johnson on Economy 2012, Gary Johnson on Marriage Equality, Gary Johnson on Obama’s Same Sex Marriage Statement, Gary Johnson on Ron Paul 2012, Gary Johnson Podcast, Gary Johnson Profile, Gary Johnson Proposes 43 Percent Reduction in Federal Spending, Gary Johnson Quotes, Gary Johnson Quotes 2012, Gary Johnson Spoiler in 2012 Presidential Elections, Gary Johnson Will Balance The Budget As President, Gary Johnson’s chances at the Presidency, Gary Johnson’s Economic Plan, Gary Johnson’s Presidential Chances, Gary Johnson’s Presidential Possibilities, Gary Johnson’s Role in 2012 Presidential Elections, Governor Gary Johnson Interview, Governor Gary Johnson Profile, Governor Interviews 2012, Governor Johnson 2012, Governor Johnson Interview, House of Representatives News 2012, Interviews, Interviews with Governor Gary Johnson, Interviews with New Mexico Politicians 2012, Interviews with Presidential Candidates 2012, Jay Bildstein, Jay Bildstein 2012, Libertarian Candidate for President Gary Johnson, Libertarian Interviews 2012, Libertarian Party 2012, Libertarian Party Interviews 2012, Lifetime Ban on Lobbying for Members of Congress, Members of Congress Reducing Their Salaries, Monetary Collapse 2012, Monetary Collapse in America 2012, Monetary Collapse in the United States, New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson 2012, New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson Running For President 2012, New Mexico Political Interviews 2012, New Mexico Politics 2012, News 2012, News Interviews 2012, Pay Cuts for Members of Congress, Podcast Interview, Politician Interviews 2012, Politicians Taking A Pay Cut 2012, Politics 2012, Politics Interviews 2012, Politics Podcast, Ron Paul May 2012, Slashing Spending in America’s Government, Term Limits for Members of Congress, Voting for Gary Johnson 2012

 

[SacramentoBob]

Oh god. Oh my ####### god. That's it. I quit. I'm done. F###### forget about it.

I take it you didn't like his Daily Show appearance?

I can't take anyone seriously who interviews with Yandek. I just can't.

That pretty much dooms his campaign IMO.

 

[Fennis]

Oh god. Oh my ####### god. That's it. I quit. I'm done. F###### forget about it.

I take it you didn't like his Daily Show appearance?

I can't take anyone seriously who interviews with Yandek. I just can't.

That pretty much dooms his campaign IMO.

turns it around IMO

 

[SacramentoBob]

Oh god. Oh my ####### god. That's it. I quit. I'm done. F###### forget about it.

I take it you didn't like his Daily Show appearance?

I can't take anyone seriously who interviews with Yandek. I just can't.

That pretty much dooms his campaign IMO.

turns it around IMO

His campaign has done a complete 360.

 

[NCCommish]

I like the guy. I like a lot of what he says. What I don't like is that Libertarians are constantly trying for the brass ring but not doing the hard work. It doesn't matter if you vote for this guy or not. Where are the votes in Congress going to come from? Or the Senate? He would be president not emperor. Until the votes exist in the House and Senate electing him would be absolutely useless. Get some Congressman elected. Get some Senators. A few Governors. More than a handful of state legislators. Then elect a president. I will be completely on board when I see a possibility for it to be more than an exercise in uselessness.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I like the guy. I like a lot of what he says. What I don't like is that Libertarians are constantly trying for the brass ring but not doing the hard work. It doesn't matter if you vote for this guy or not. Where are the votes in Congress going to come from? Or the Senate? He would be president not emperor. Until the votes exist in the House and Senate electing him would be absolutely useless. Get some Congressman elected. Get some Senators. A few Governors. More than a handful of state legislators. Then elect a president. I will be completely on board when I see a possibility for it to be more than an exercise in uselessness.

If Johnson were actually to become President, I could see him working with Democrats on "Democratic" issues he supports and working with Republicans on "Republican" issues he supports. And whether you like it or not, the executive branch can do a lot of stuff without Congress.

 

[NCCommish]

I like the guy. I like a lot of what he says. What I don't like is that Libertarians are constantly trying for the brass ring but not doing the hard work. It doesn't matter if you vote for this guy or not. Where are the votes in Congress going to come from? Or the Senate? He would be president not emperor. Until the votes exist in the House and Senate electing him would be absolutely useless. Get some Congressman elected. Get some Senators. A few Governors. More than a handful of state legislators. Then elect a president. I will be completely on board when I see a possibility for it to be more than an exercise in uselessness.

If Johnson were actually to become President, I could see him working with Democrats on "Democratic" issues he supports and working with Republicans on "Republican" issues he supports. And whether you like it or not, the executive branch can do a lot of stuff without Congress.

It can't do as much as people seem to think. And if you think the two major parties are going to cooperate with a third party with no pressure from within the House and Senate, I think you are kidding yourself.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

If Johnson were actually to become President, I could see him working with Democrats on "Democratic" issues he supports and working with Republicans on "Republican" issues he supports. And whether you like it or not, the executive branch can do a lot of stuff without Congress.

It can't do as much as people seem to think. And if you think the two major parties are going to cooperate with a third party with no pressure from within the House and Senate, I think you are kidding yourself.

You think the major parties would abandon their own policies just to screw him over? If Johnson wants to lower some taxes, the Republicans would say "no" just because he's not a Republican? If he wants to recognize gay marriages, the Dems would say no?

 

[NCCommish]

If Johnson were actually to become President, I could see him working with Democrats on "Democratic" issues he supports and working with Republicans on "Republican" issues he supports. And whether you like it or not, the executive branch can do a lot of stuff without Congress.

It can't do as much as people seem to think. And if you think the two major parties are going to cooperate with a third party with no pressure from within the House and Senate, I think you are kidding yourself.

You think the major parties would abandon their own policies just to screw him over? If Johnson wants to lower some taxes, the Republicans would say "no" just because he's not a Republican? If he wants to recognize gay marriages, the Dems would say no?

Have you paid even one minutes attention to the last 3 years? Of course they will. The domestic policies Obama has tried used to be GOP policies. And they have fought him tooth and nail. So yeah I think they will twist themselves into whatever intellectual knots they have to. Now not all but the majority. It's all about power and keeping it. Time to get real.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

The domestic policies Obama has tried used to be GOP policies. And they have fought him tooth and nail.

Yes, some of them used to be GOP policices, but they aren't anymore. I think the GOP has changed overall. It isn't just that they want to screw Obama.

 

[Brady Marino]

I don't think there's a problem with voting for a Libertarian Presidential candidate at all if your hope is for Libertarians to rise up on congressional and other smaller races.

Let's face it: People pay the most attention to the Presidential race. If Gary Johnson starts polling at 15%, if he starts getting included in debates, if he has a good showing in November (by Libertarian standards), people will notice. And those same people will start noticing all the "Libertarian" options on their local ballots in the future.

A successful run by Johnson is the best thing that can happen for the Libertarian Party at this point. They need to be established in the hearts and minds of voters that they are a viable party to support, and a strong performance could do that.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The domestic policies Obama has tried used to be GOP policies. And they have fought him tooth and nail.

Yes, some of them used to be GOP policices, but they aren't anymore. I think the GOP has changed overall. It isn't just that they want to screw Obama.

Thats bull--many of them were GOP policies that Republicans were voting for literally months before Obama introduced them and then the very same Republican legislators voted against what they had advocated and voted for for years. You clearly live in a bubble of misinformation and ignorance. Obamacare was the primary Republican healthcare reform for almost 20 years until a GOP governor pushed it through in Mass. and advocated that it be the national policy in 2009 (yeah, it was Romney)!!! And now it is socialism. The list goes on and on from cap and trade to lots of other policies--first the GOP propose the policies and they get shot down by Democrats, then Obama compromises and adopts them, and then they are magically socialism. You keep telling yourself that the GOP has some sort of values or principles if it makes you feel better about yourself.

 

[NCCommish]

The domestic policies Obama has tried used to be GOP policies. And they have fought him tooth and nail.

Yes, some of them used to be GOP policices, but they aren't anymore. I think the GOP has changed overall. It isn't just that they want to screw Obama.

Thats bull--many of them were GOP policies that Republicans were voting for literally months before Obama introduced them and then the very same Republican legislators voted against what they had advocated and voted for for years. You clearly live in a bubble of misinformation and ignorance. Obamacare was the primary Republican healthcare reform for almost 20 years until a GOP governor pushed it through in Mass. and advocated that it be the national policy in 2009 (yeah, it was Romney)!!! And now it is socialism. The list goes on and on from cap and trade to lots of other policies--first the GOP propose the policies and they get shot down by Democrats, then Obama compromises and adopts them, and then they are magically socialism. You keep telling yourself that the GOP has some sort of values or principles if it makes you feel better about yourself.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Yes, some of them used to be GOP policices, but they aren't anymore. I think the GOP has changed overall. It isn't just that they want to screw Obama.

Thats bull--many of them were GOP policies that Republicans were voting for literally months before Obama introduced them and then the very same Republican legislators voted against what they had advocated and voted for for years.

Which ones? Your post mentions the health care mandate and cap-and-trade, but I don't remember either of these bills being voted on during the Bush administration.

 

[ren hoek]

I like the guy. I like a lot of what he says. What I don't like is that Libertarians are constantly trying for the brass ring but not doing the hard work. It doesn't matter if you vote for this guy or not. Where are the votes in Congress going to come from? Or the Senate? He would be president not emperor. Until the votes exist in the House and Senate electing him would be absolutely useless. Get some Congressman elected. Get some Senators. A few Governors. More than a handful of state legislators. Then elect a president. I will be completely on board when I see a possibility for it to be more than an exercise in uselessness.

Doesn't matter. He could end the wars, pardon all non-violent drug offenders, refuse to sign any disgusting legislation that violates our civil liberties, and force the Feds to ease up on medical mj, all pretty much the day he took office. All of which would make him a damn sight better than Obama. The only people still considering voting for one or the other Goldman Sachs candidate expecting some sort of change to come through is a sheep with battered wife syndrome.Edit: Oh yeah, he could also NOT indefinitely detain people, or assassinate American citizens, or torture people. It's so hard to keep track of all of Obama's horrendous human rights violations.

 

[pacman_fl]

I don't think there's a problem with voting for a Libertarian Presidential candidate at all if your hope is for Libertarians to rise up on congressional and other smaller races.Let's face it: People pay the most attention to the Presidential race. If Gary Johnson starts polling at 15%, if he starts getting included in debates, if he has a good showing in November (by Libertarian standards), people will notice. And those same people will start noticing all the "Libertarian" options on their local ballots in the future.A successful run by Johnson is the best thing that can happen for the Libertarian Party at this point. They need to be established in the hearts and minds of voters that they are a viable party to support, and a strong performance could do that.

I would imagine this is EXACTLY the Libertarian goal at this point.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't think there's a problem with voting for a Libertarian Presidential candidate at all if your hope is for Libertarians to rise up on congressional and other smaller races.Let's face it: People pay the most attention to the Presidential race. If Gary Johnson starts polling at 15%, if he starts getting included in debates, if he has a good showing in November (by Libertarian standards), people will notice. And those same people will start noticing all the "Libertarian" options on their local ballots in the future.A successful run by Johnson is the best thing that can happen for the Libertarian Party at this point. They need to be established in the hearts and minds of voters that they are a viable party to support, and a strong performance could do that.

I would imagine this is EXACTLY the Libertarian goal at this point.

And it seems to have been their goal for a while. How is it working out?

 

[pacman_fl]

I don't think there's a problem with voting for a Libertarian Presidential candidate at all if your hope is for Libertarians to rise up on congressional and other smaller races.Let's face it: People pay the most attention to the Presidential race. If Gary Johnson starts polling at 15%, if he starts getting included in debates, if he has a good showing in November (by Libertarian standards), people will notice. And those same people will start noticing all the "Libertarian" options on their local ballots in the future.A successful run by Johnson is the best thing that can happen for the Libertarian Party at this point. They need to be established in the hearts and minds of voters that they are a viable party to support, and a strong performance could do that.

I would imagine this is EXACTLY the Libertarian goal at this point.

And it seems to have been their goal for a while. How is it working out?

Truthfully, not well

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I don't think there's a problem with voting for a Libertarian Presidential candidate at all if your hope is for Libertarians to rise up on congressional and other smaller races.Let's face it: People pay the most attention to the Presidential race. If Gary Johnson starts polling at 15%, if he starts getting included in debates, if he has a good showing in November (by Libertarian standards), people will notice. And those same people will start noticing all the "Libertarian" options on their local ballots in the future.A successful run by Johnson is the best thing that can happen for the Libertarian Party at this point. They need to be established in the hearts and minds of voters that they are a viable party to support, and a strong performance could do that.

I would imagine this is EXACTLY the Libertarian goal at this point.

And it seems to have been their goal for a while. How is it working out?

They haven't obtained any real power but my sense is that libertarian ideals are more popular than they used to be.

 

[pacman_fl]

I don't think there's a problem with voting for a Libertarian Presidential candidate at all if your hope is for Libertarians to rise up on congressional and other smaller races.Let's face it: People pay the most attention to the Presidential race. If Gary Johnson starts polling at 15%, if he starts getting included in debates, if he has a good showing in November (by Libertarian standards), people will notice. And those same people will start noticing all the "Libertarian" options on their local ballots in the future.A successful run by Johnson is the best thing that can happen for the Libertarian Party at this point. They need to be established in the hearts and minds of voters that they are a viable party to support, and a strong performance could do that.

I would imagine this is EXACTLY the Libertarian goal at this point.

And it seems to have been their goal for a while. How is it working out?

They haven't obtained any real power but my sense is that libertarian ideals are more popular than they used to be.

I thought of that reply but it is anecdotal only. I don't see how the party can get to the point NCC mentions unless people view voting Libertarian as "not wasting my vote" (or, worse, "I want to vote for a winner"). He is correct that smaller victories on the local level will bring the party into the conscience of voters. At the same time, I see no reason to not roll out Presidential candidates. Especially when the candidate is someone like Johnson who is the first national candidate I considered and then backed (not that I or anyone on this board who supports him is close to the "majority thinking" of the nation).

 

[hutchins929]

They haven't obtained any real power but my sense is that libertarian ideals are more popular than they used to be.

This is the first time I'm truly considering voting for a Libertarian. I just don't think he can get the votes to win though and I'm having a hard time convincing myself to vote for someone who doesn't have a chance.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I thought of that reply but it is anecdotal only. I don't see how the party can get to the point NCC mentions unless people view voting Libertarian as "not wasting my vote" (or, worse, "I want to vote for a winner"). He is correct that smaller victories on the local level will bring the party into the conscience of voters. At the same time, I see no reason to not roll out Presidential candidates. Especially when the candidate is someone like Johnson who is the first national candidate I considered and then backed (not that I or anyone on this board who supports him is close to the "majority thinking" of the nation).

Well, there are two ways people with libertarian views can "win." One is by running Libertarian candidates and electing them into office. But our election systems aren't really set up in a way that 3rd parties can succeed very easily. Personally I think that libertarians are better off trying to influence the existing parties to agree with some of their ideas. I think a little of that has already happened.

 

[hutchins929]

The first thing that needs to happen is the media need to go give him time on a stage with both Obama and Romney, in all the debates. I think if enough people heard what he is saying they might just agree that he is the best option. However, if they continue to ignore him, for the most part, he wont get the support he needs to win.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

The first thing that needs to happen is the media need to go give him time on a stage with both Obama and Romney, in all the debates. I think if enough people heard what he is saying they might just agree that he is the best option. However, if they continue to ignore him, for the most part, he wont get the support he needs to win.

I hope he gets in the debates too, but it's a longshot. Usually a candidate needs to poll pretty well to get in.

 

[NCCommish]

The first thing that needs to happen is the media need to go give him time on a stage with both Obama and Romney, in all the debates. I think if enough people heard what he is saying they might just agree that he is the best option. However, if they continue to ignore him, for the most part, he wont get the support he needs to win.

I hope he gets in the debates too, but it's a longshot. Usually a candidate needs to poll pretty well to get in.

At least 15%, the Perot rule. I don't think he is going to get there. Personally I think if you can qualify for all 50 ballots that should be the rule. And my understanding is Johnson has.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't think there's a problem with voting for a Libertarian Presidential candidate at all if your hope is for Libertarians to rise up on congressional and other smaller races.

Let's face it: People pay the most attention to the Presidential race. If Gary Johnson starts polling at 15%, if he starts getting included in debates, if he has a good showing in November (by Libertarian standards), people will notice. And those same people will start noticing all the "Libertarian" options on their local ballots in the future.

A successful run by Johnson is the best thing that can happen for the Libertarian Party at this point. They need to be established in the hearts and minds of voters that they are a viable party to support, and a strong performance could do that.

I would imagine this is EXACTLY the Libertarian goal at this point.

And it seems to have been their goal for a while. How is it working out?

They haven't obtained any real power but my sense is that libertarian ideals are more popular than they used to be.

I thought of that reply but it is anecdotal only. I don't see how the party can get to the point NCC mentions unless people view voting Libertarian as "not wasting my vote" (or, worse, "I want to vote for a winner"). He is correct that smaller victories on the local level will bring the party into the conscience of voters. At the same time, I see no reason to not roll out Presidential candidates. Especially when the candidate is someone like Johnson who is the first national candidate I considered and then backed (not that I or anyone on this board who supports him is close to the "majority thinking" of the nation).

Yeah this is what I am saying. There is also the fact that people have no idea how Libertarians would govern. They've never seen it. It makes them so easy to marginalize. Please Libertarians put up someone else besides just the Presidential race. Even if you only do it in Presidential years. IMO you can't win the top of the ticket with nothing down ticket.

 

[Dvorak]

I like the guy. I like a lot of what he says. What I don't like is that Libertarians are constantly trying for the brass ring but not doing the hard work. It doesn't matter if you vote for this guy or not. Where are the votes in Congress going to come from? Or the Senate? He would be president not emperor. Until the votes exist in the House and Senate electing him would be absolutely useless. Get some Congressman elected. Get some Senators. A few Governors. More than a handful of state legislators. Then elect a president. I will be completely on board when I see a possibility for it to be more than an exercise in uselessness.

Doesn't matter. He could end the wars, pardon all non-violent drug offenders, refuse to sign any disgusting legislation that violates our civil liberties, and force the Feds to ease up on medical mj, all pretty much the day he took office. All of which would make him a damn sight better than Obama. The only people still considering voting for one or the other Goldman Sachs candidate expecting some sort of change to come through is a sheep with battered wife syndrome.Edit: Oh yeah, he could also NOT indefinitely detain people, or assassinate American citizens, or torture people. It's so hard to keep track of all of Obama's horrendous human rights violations.

He would probably also stop arming Mexico's drug cartels via BATF "operations", and then blaming it on America's lax gun control laws...

 

[NCCommish]

I like the guy. I like a lot of what he says. What I don't like is that Libertarians are constantly trying for the brass ring but not doing the hard work. It doesn't matter if you vote for this guy or not. Where are the votes in Congress going to come from? Or the Senate? He would be president not emperor. Until the votes exist in the House and Senate electing him would be absolutely useless. Get some Congressman elected. Get some Senators. A few Governors. More than a handful of state legislators. Then elect a president. I will be completely on board when I see a possibility for it to be more than an exercise in uselessness.

Doesn't matter. He could end the wars, pardon all non-violent drug offenders, refuse to sign any disgusting legislation that violates our civil liberties, and force the Feds to ease up on medical mj, all pretty much the day he took office. All of which would make him a damn sight better than Obama. The only people still considering voting for one or the other Goldman Sachs candidate expecting some sort of change to come through is a sheep with battered wife syndrome.Edit: Oh yeah, he could also NOT indefinitely detain people, or assassinate American citizens, or torture people. It's so hard to keep track of all of Obama's horrendous human rights violations.

He could not end the wars. It takes time to build up, it takes time to draw down. He could try to do the pardon thing but even that is likely a stretch. He could order the DOJ to let the states decide on MJ and probably make that stick. He could definitely change some of those other things and I'd be rooting for him. But would he? Would he roll back the imperial presidency or would he succumb to the lure of the power? Thinking "well I can use this power properly and it won't use me"? It's happened to some pretty good folks more than once.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It's not like the Libertarian Party isn't trying to get candidates elected in local elections. But it's very difficult for third-party candidates to even get on ballots, much less get elected. My sense is that the Libertarian Party has been more successful than the Constitution Party or the Green Party or any number of other third parties in that regard, but it's an uphill battle.

I agree with Wrighteous Ray that the Libertarian Party's success should not be measured by how many candidates it gets elected, but by how many of its positions are eventually adopted by at least one of the major parties.

Decriminalization of marijuana is a good example. The Libertarian Party was way out in front on that one — has been for decades — and I wouldn't discount its role in helping make that position become more mainstream. At some point, politicians from the major parties may even jump on the bandwagon. I would consider that a major success.

It's also been out in front on LGBT issues.

The model that's often mentioned as what the Libertarian Party should strive for is the Socialist Party from the early part of the 20th Century. The Socialist Party never came close to getting anyone elected in a major election (and had no more success than the Libertarians have had in local elections, either). But of the 14 items in its 1928 platform, nearly all were enacted into law within the next few decades.

 

[NCCommish]

And just so we're clear I am not opposed to Libertarians per se. I don't agree with all of their positions but I have a feeling the stuff I don't like would get tempered by political realities. I just don't think they are going about it the right way and I think it's hurting them. Crawl, walk, run.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The first thing that needs to happen is the media need to go give him time on a stage with both Obama and Romney, in all the debates. I think if enough people heard what he is saying they might just agree that he is the best option. However, if they continue to ignore him, for the most part, he wont get the support he needs to win.

I hope he gets in the debates too, but it's a longshot. Usually a candidate needs to poll pretty well to get in.

At least 15%, the Perot rule. I don't think he is going to get there.

Even if he gets to 18%, the new standard will be 20% (the Johnson rule).

Personally I think if you can qualify for all 50 ballots that should be the rule. And my understanding is Johnson has.

Yes, he has.

 

[ren hoek]

He could not end the wars. It takes time to build up, it takes time to draw down.

My understanding is that the CIC can indeed do that. Whether or not Johnson would do that is up in the air.

He could try to do the pardon thing but even that is likely a stretch.

I don't see why that'd be such a stretch. In any case, it's something he said he would do.

He could order the DOJ to let the states decide on MJ and probably make that stick. He could definitely change some of those other things and I'd be rooting for him. But would he?

I feel like Johnson presents a nice middle ground for people that think Ron Paul is "loony" or whatever. Most of the small-government stuff either of them talk about would never in a million years pass our 8%-approved Congress. I guess my question is, if you're not pulling for Johnson at all do you still support Obama? Can't we look at Obama's body of work and come to the conclusion that he serves the special interests in much the same way Bush did?

Would he roll back the imperial presidency or would he succumb to the lure of the power? Thinking "well I can use this power properly and it won't use me"? It's happened to some pretty good folks more than once.

It's hard to say. I don't think Johnson is above being corrupted that way. I still like our chances a lot better with Johnson than the guy who immortalized indefinite detention into US law though. At least he did it with "great reservations".

 

[NCCommish]

He could not end the wars. It takes time to build up, it takes time to draw down.

My understanding is that the CIC can indeed do that. Whether or not Johnson would do that is up in the air.

He could try to do the pardon thing but even that is likely a stretch.

I don't see why that'd be such a stretch. In any case, it's something he said he would do.

He could order the DOJ to let the states decide on MJ and probably make that stick. He could definitely change some of those other things and I'd be rooting for him. But would he?

I feel like Johnson presents a nice middle ground for people that think Ron Paul is "loony" or whatever. Most of the small-government stuff either of them talk about would never in a million years pass our 8%-approved Congress. I guess my question is, if you're not pulling for Johnson at all do you still support Obama? Can't we look at Obama's body of work and come to the conclusion that he serves the special interests in much the same way Bush did?

Would he roll back the imperial presidency or would he succumb to the lure of the power? Thinking "well I can use this power properly and it won't use me"? It's happened to some pretty good folks more than once.

It's hard to say. I don't think Johnson is above being corrupted that way. I still like our chances a lot better with Johnson than the guy who immortalized indefinite detention into US law though. At least he did it with "great reservations".

Well for more clarity the only reason I will vote for Obama is because of the lunacy that is the GOP. I am not a fan of an awful lot of what he has done. If you recall I have agreed with several of your points against Obama. But again I don't think Johnson can be effective with essentially no party of his own in Congress or even a caucus really to get some traction with.

 

[pacman_fl]

Well for more clarity the only reason I will vote for Obama is because of the lunacy that is the GOP. I am not a fan of an awful lot of what he has done. If you recall I have agreed with several of your points against Obama. But again I don't think Johnson can be effective with essentially no party of his own in Congress or even a caucus really to get some traction with.

I think even the most ardent supporters would admit that Johnson won't win this November. A couple of "reality check" hypothetical questions though. First, if Johnson were able to get his message out via true equal air time (debate, commercials, etc) and gained the vote of those who believed in him and the platform, what percent of vote would he draw? Would this percentage be enough for either or both of the established parties to take notice and consider the platform items with more urgency? Also, I can understand your point of effectiveness but, in theory, would not a 3rd party candidate pulling the upset be enough of a referendum that it would be in the best interest of all parties to work with that candidate?

 

[ren hoek]

Well for more clarity the only reason I will vote for Obama is because of the lunacy that is the GOP. I am not a fan of an awful lot of what he has done. If you recall I have agreed with several of your points against Obama. But again I don't think Johnson can be effective with essentially no party of his own in Congress or even a caucus really to get some traction with.

Believe me, I share your concern with the GOP. What has me distraught though is how the Dem party has basically been a continuation of the Bush GOP. In every way that I can imagine. In what ways do you think another 4 years of Obama would be better than 4 years of Romney?

 

[NCCommish]

Well for more clarity the only reason I will vote for Obama is because of the lunacy that is the GOP. I am not a fan of an awful lot of what he has done. If you recall I have agreed with several of your points against Obama. But again I don't think Johnson can be effective with essentially no party of his own in Congress or even a caucus really to get some traction with.

I think even the most ardent supporters would admit that Johnson won't win this November. A couple of "reality check" hypothetical questions though. First, if Johnson were able to get his message out via true equal air time (debate, commercials, etc) and gained the vote of those who believed in him and the platform, what percent of vote would he draw? Would this percentage be enough for either or both of the established parties to take notice and consider the platform items with more urgency? Also, I can understand your point of effectiveness but, in theory, would not a 3rd party candidate pulling the upset be enough of a referendum that it would be in the best interest of all parties to work with that candidate?

First, if Johnson were able to get his message out via true equal air time (debate, commercials, etc) and gained the vote of those who believed in him and the platform, what percent of vote would he draw?

I think he could beat Perot's numbers given the current mood of the country if he could get the message out large scale.

Would this percentage be enough for either or both of the established parties to take notice and consider the platform items with more urgency?

Some of Perot's stuff got in so sure if he did that well

Also, I can understand your point of effectiveness but, in theory, would not a 3rd party candidate pulling the upset be enough of a referendum that it would be in the best interest of all parties to work with that candidate?

No I don't think it would be. I mean look at the GOP. Obamacare? That's all their ideas. The grand bargain? They walked away despite getting nearly everything they wanted. I think the Democrats have more wiggle room and would cooperate a little more but at some point it becomes about maintaining your grip on power.

 

[joetrow]

I doubt he does very well at all. It's shaping up to be a close race and the R's first priority is to get Obama out and the D's are just trying to prevent a red country, neither of them wants to "waste" their vote voting any other way. No matter how nice and fair it would be, he won't be receiving equal airtime. IMO, his best chance to finish with >5% of the vote is Paul backers realizing there is a free $80 million at stake to use for a libertarian candidate of their choosing in 2016. From the Paul forums I frequent there seems to be a lot of reluctance to vote for Johnson over writing in Paul though. Very short-sighted IMO.

 

[Jobber]

From the Paul forums I frequent there seems to be a lot of reluctance to vote for Johnson over writing in Paul though. Very short-sighted IMO.

Ugh. I hope that's not true come election day.