Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Libertarian Thread (Was: Gary Johnson Thread) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Maurile Tremblay
- Start date
NCCommish
Footballguy
According to multiple sources the GOP is desperate to find someone to run against Cruz. They intend to primary him out of the Senate.
NCCommish
Footballguy
So we have the never Trump camp running a nobody. Why? Why not hop on Johnson? Former governor who is still more Republican than Libertarian. Already polling decently. Wants to block grant social programs, horrible idea but its one the GOP pushes. Wants to cut spending and balance the budget with no deficit spending, another bad idea but again red meat for GOPers. Wants to abolish the IRS with the Fair Tax, this I like and the GOP preaches this. So all in all it seems kind of stupid like they just want to win Utah with their BYU grad so Trump doesn't.
joffer
Footballguy
NCCommish
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yeah, I think the liberal social positions are part of it. I also don't think the Republicans want to encourage the Libertarian Party to grow at their expense. Gary Johnson's numbers with young voters are pretty good -- Republicans want those young voters to be Republicans for years to come.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I've never seen #s on it, but my impression is that a big chunk of Libertarian politics is basically old-school moderate Republicans -- not so much traditional Libertarians ideologically. So Weld might make a lot of sense.
Also Johnson still only polling at 7% nationally -- which is almost exactly where he's been for a few weeks at least -- so it doesn't seem likely that he's suddenly pulling more support from Trump as part of Clinton's surge.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I do wonder if Johnson will benefit from Hillary's growing lead against Trump. I can imagine some Republican-leaning voters that are willing to vote Trump to keep Hillary out of the White House, but if Trump looks like he's going down in flames anyway, might be more inclined to support Johnson. I'm not sure how many voters there are like this and how big Hillary's lead would need to be before they bailed on Trump.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
The early numbers already suggest that Johnson is hurting Trump more than Clinton. I think if Johnson is going to hit 15%, Trump needs to approach 30%. Don't think Hillary will go below 45% or so.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove!
Footballguy
They don't want Johnson on the stage. The establishment is running this nobody as a stalking horse to shave a half a point or so away from Johnson.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Initially it was pretty even with Johnson drawing down both about equally. The couple of weeks or so of Trumplosion seems to have changed that dynamic a bit.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Eh. I think they really hate Trump. They've tried to go after him in other, non-Johnson, ways too.
The Commish
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
I don't think new guy is about Johnson per se. I think he is a fan of the military industrial complex and that's the thing. When you look at who is supporting him it reads like a who's who of neo-cons including **** Cheney who is still mad Trump said invading Iraq was stupid.
The Commish
Footballguy
I should be clearer.....There is absolutely an opportunity here for the GOP, but this is the group that has Trump as their option. I am not confident at all they have the brain power to take advantage of the opportunity. I suspect they themselves know that.....one of those "I can't quite put my finger on it" type things. So, they're ok with punting and hoping the Dems fumble the kick.
Rove!
Footballguy
Their willing to have Trump lose, but they don't want to have to contend with an empowered Libertarian party in 2020....
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
No offense Rove, but I'm pretty sure they have more pressing problems right now. The Libertarians are a zit next to a gaping sword wound.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Well if you think long term giving the Libertarians some of your voters isn't a good idea. Yes you have the immediate wound but why add in developing tumors?
Tom Hagen
Footballguy
I think a big Hillary lead helps in a different way. I'm a moderate Republican in a swing state. If Hillary is comfortably ahead I'm voting Johnson but if it's close I'm going to feel like I have to vote Hillary just to keep Trump out.
skol asylum
Footballguy
NCCommish
Footballguy
Well the group he runs is pouring money into the anti-Trump candidate. So say one thing do another. Sounds like Darth Cheney to me.
skol asylum
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
I disagree. There is some real fear that the Republican party, as we've known it, could no longer exist in a meaningful fashion within the foreseeable future. That said, there is no viable alternative for the large base, en masse. If the Libertarian party were given enough publicity and acknowledgement as to become a viable alternative, you now not only have R's running out of their burning house, running about with no shelter (as "Independents"), but also finding a new place to call home.
They can't risk not only having a dumpster fire of an option to offer but ALSO a viable place to land for those jumping ship. Just suck it up and come back in 4 years (and really, even in 2)
dgreen
Footballguy
I will never understand this line of thinking. Do you really think your vote will change the outcome? Why not just vote for whoever you think is most likely to move the country in the direction you like?
Koya
Footballguy
I think Hagan's approach is not only legit, but nuanced as well. Yes, each of our votes can "change" the outcome, and at the least, be one little part of a movement or momentum or whatnot.
If you feel this could be a situation where a couple hundred votes in your state could decide it, then you realize the stakes are binary regarding a huge risk to the nation's well being and security ala Trump. If you are in a state where it will be hundreds of thousands or millions more likely to decide it, then having 1-2% of the electorate adjust their vote could propel a third party or other candidate that much more to the forefront, benefitting future election options.
It sounds like Hagan will vote in a way to move the country where he'd like. Which, sounds to me, is not Hillary, but something more Johnson like. All things being equal, he'd not vote Hillary. But things are NOT equal - the REALITY is Johnson has no chance to win (other than some crazy scenario without anyone getting to 270 blah blah - won't happen) so if your ability to boost a third voice in the future risks having Trump in office now, you reluctantly vote Hillary.
I've said it before, that if I were in a close swing state, I'd have to think long and hard before voting against Trump even if that means voting Hillary.
dgreen
Footballguy
It won't.
I understand that people DO think this way. I'm just saying I don't understand WHY. Even if your state's margin of victory is as low as a couple hundred votes, your vote does nothing to change that. I know everyone knows this and it doesn't change behavior. I find that interesting.
Koya
Footballguy
By your logic, why bother to vote?
We each may play a small role, but it's a role. And when we, as individuals become groups, elections are swayed. By those individuals. One. At. A. Time.
joffer
Footballguy
dgreen
Footballguy
I don't. I think some people do vote because they think their vote "matters" in the sense that their vote might have an impact on the result. Some wonder why so few people vote. I wonder why so many do vote. The more people vote, the less impactful your vote becomes. So there are obviously other reasons people vote. Many I think vote because they think it's their duty. And then there are probably others who vote because they enjoy the actual act of voting.
It's not just a small role. It's a microscopic role. Yes, elections are swayed by the summation of individual actions, but that doesn't change the value of each individual action and each person only has control over their individual action. I posted earlier that I think the Dems and Repubs love the "Your vote counts!" stuff. I think it keeps people voting for one of them and away from third party candidates. It leads to people saying a third party vote is a "wasted" vote. It's nonsense. All votes are equally valuable and equally wasted.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to argue that anyone shouldn't vote. Do whatever you want. Support whoever you want. I just get annoyed hearing people talk as if their vote has any chance at all of swaying anything. I just can't see it that way and others, like yourself, can. It's interesting.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
When you vote they give you a little sticker.
Why bother to cheer out loud while watching football on TV?
Sometimes people just do stuff without thinking about it too hard because it's fun or makes them feel good. Both voting and cheering tap into our tribalistic impulses, I think, which many people seem to find inherently rewarding.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Hagen
Footballguy
Because there is a ridiculously small chance that Trump could win by one vote and I am not willing to take that chance. Plus what Koya said.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
GJ was on NPR this morning! I will try to find the pod and post it later.
Overall from what I heard I thought he was terrific, I can only expect he found a very receptive and willing audience on NPR.
One thing I was surprised to learn is that apparently the state of Ohio is fighting him being on the ballot and he claims he LP met every legal requirement to the last letter.
Overall from what I heard I thought he was terrific, I can only expect he found a very receptive and willing audience on NPR.
One thing I was surprised to learn is that apparently the state of Ohio is fighting him being on the ballot and he claims he LP met every legal requirement to the last letter.
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
Do you really equate voting (where we DO each have a say, small as it may be at the voting booth, larger in terms of our sphere of influence to perhaps an individual can drive 3, 5, 10 additional votes) with rooting in front of a TV, where you quite literally have NO impact on the outcome?
Put another way... if EVERYONE (or even a large portion of people) stopped cheering in front of their TV, would the game be affected in any way? No.
If EVERYONE stopped voting - or again, a large portion of people - would the outcome be affected in that case? Absolutely.
I don't see the logic in your statement. I don't vote to feel a part of something greater (perhaps some do). I vote because I have some actual say (miniscule as it may be, again, larger in terms of my sphere of influence) in the outcome. It's not just some emotional outlet as is cheering.
LA Rams. For the analogy to hold, the whole NFL would have to go belly up.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I do it for the sticker.
Brady Marino
Footballguy
Gary Johnson was on Glenn Beck towards the end of his show and he started off ok, but when Beck grilled him on religious freedom, Johnson didn't handle it well. Lots of awkward pausing and laughing once Beck drilled through the thin layer of Johnson's thoughts on the issue.
At one point, Johnson said "I think that's libertarian..." like he truly wasn't sure.
I hate Beck, but Johnson is doing himself no favors with his contradictions on this issue.
At one point, Johnson said "I think that's libertarian..." like he truly wasn't sure.
I hate Beck, but Johnson is doing himself no favors with his contradictions on this issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think they're all running around looking for votes. GJ didn't go off on Hillary's emails and he likely didn't pipe off on this because he is trying to draw in disaffected Democrats. Libertarians believe government should stay out of people's religious decisions. Frankly I don't see a GJ administration prosecuting cake and pizza shops.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I really want Gary to come out and call out Trump for his utter bs more but he's not doing it.
massraider
Footballguy
Bump. This thread being on page 6 is not good for our country.
massraider
Footballguy
What is Johnson's position on health care? I know he doesn't believe in Obamacare, or the government running it. What's HIS plan? Status quo?
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
There's research that shows voting has the effect of making everyone happier about the outcome -- even if your side loses. Government gains credibility when people are engaged in the process.
I suspect, for many people, the same is true of cheering.
I'm not arguing against cheering or voting. I want voter turnout to be as high as possible. Not because it makes people happier about the outcome, but because I think a high voter turnout makes it less likely for extremists to win elections. I just don't think that any specific person's cheer, or any specific person's vote (in a national election), has an appreciable chance of affecting the outcome.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove!
Footballguy
He's trying to stay positive...at some point he's got to come out and say he's the only viable option ( unless Hillary and/or trump drop out)
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I think of it this way...since I want to legitimize democratic government, keep extremists on the sideline and do my duty, I vote. I don't really need other reasons.
But if I did... with 60m+ votes cast in a Presidential election, no one is unique. If you're thinking of not voting for reason X, there are at a minimum, say, one in 1,000/10,000/100,000 (use whatever # you think is right) other people in the exact same place as you are, for the exact same reasons.
So if I decide not to vote it actually represents a substantially larger group of people all deciding the same thing. These things happen in the aggregate. And while I don't need that extra motivation, when I consider my decision in the context of something that's happening in conjunction with another 600/6000/60000 people it becomes more meaningful. YMMV
Last edited by a moderator:
Polish Hammer
made of glass
I feel like Johnson's beliefs (most of them, anyway) line up with where I am at because they seem to be basic, logical processes that try to respect all parties and find a middle ground that makes sense. This, of course, rooted in the belief that the government is there to support and protect, but not run the whole damn show. My concern is that in some instances where he is asked to speak off the cuff he doesn't do as well. Not sure why that is - maybe he wants to spit out the "perfect" answer that's in line with his beliefs rather than just speaking from the heart.
I also think that sometimes he talks about a topic assuming that people know the background of info he does (and most people don't). An example of this was on the CNN Town Hall where he responded to the question about assault rifles by talking about them as semi-automatics. I get that line of thinking b/c I'm somewhat educated on it, but I think that most people don't realize that in many ways an AR-15 and a 9mm handgun are classified the same way. So where the answer may be a 5-part education/argument he jumps right to part 4 and can lose people that don't know 1-3. Hopefully that made sense.
All that being said, I think he is a politician who is very thoughtful about his decisions. It seems he doesn't want to rush into things and will take time to find the best solution rather than sticking with rote dogma. At least that's what I hope. For the first time in my life I'm considering making a political contribution tomorrow for his $15 for 15% drive. Not because I am 100% sold on him, but because if it can help him get to the debates I think that can help raise the general education level of the masses and let them know there can be another choice.
Also, I think Weld seems very solid and a good counterpoint to Johnson. I don't know everything about him, but he came off very well on the CNN Town Hall. He should do very well if he was in a VP debate, I would think. My only concern is that it seems he supports the TPP and has gotten Johnson over to that side. Anybody with some info/flavor on that?
I also think that sometimes he talks about a topic assuming that people know the background of info he does (and most people don't). An example of this was on the CNN Town Hall where he responded to the question about assault rifles by talking about them as semi-automatics. I get that line of thinking b/c I'm somewhat educated on it, but I think that most people don't realize that in many ways an AR-15 and a 9mm handgun are classified the same way. So where the answer may be a 5-part education/argument he jumps right to part 4 and can lose people that don't know 1-3. Hopefully that made sense.
All that being said, I think he is a politician who is very thoughtful about his decisions. It seems he doesn't want to rush into things and will take time to find the best solution rather than sticking with rote dogma. At least that's what I hope. For the first time in my life I'm considering making a political contribution tomorrow for his $15 for 15% drive. Not because I am 100% sold on him, but because if it can help him get to the debates I think that can help raise the general education level of the masses and let them know there can be another choice.
Also, I think Weld seems very solid and a good counterpoint to Johnson. I don't know everything about him, but he came off very well on the CNN Town Hall. He should do very well if he was in a VP debate, I would think. My only concern is that it seems he supports the TPP and has gotten Johnson over to that side. Anybody with some info/flavor on that?
The Commish
Footballguy
Who's contributed their $15 towards the $1.5 million? 
Similar threads
