Gary Johnson for President

I've seen both the libertarian cnn town halls (and mildly follow politics, including back at the 2012 third party debate) but I just don't align with libertarians or libertarian leaning economics -- they were both governors, they had to have fit decently within the framework of their states. Weld whips out good sounding pragmatism when he references his governorship.

But I fundamentally don't think they -- or any libertarian leaning policy -- would tackle job creation, energy & infrastructure, getting rid of super PACs and money in politics, or improving or ensuring the full services of a safety net. I don't think their policies really create the "equal opportunity" for many of the lower or middle class Americans that they say it would.

I know Johnson is floating around some minimum income type of thing, but I just haven't heard his numbers add up with the fair-tax type of stuff.

I just flatly don't buy that the various proposals put forth by the right that argue they support the lower middle class and compensate for the proposed slash in services, whenever they play around with flat taxes/fair tax/negative income tax/just general tax cuts across the board (and cut the top rates the most).

When Johnson talks about cutting federal education requirements and letting there be 50 states with 50 experiments, I just don't think that fills the role of government. Does department of education probably have a lot that can be cut? I wouldn't doubt it.
 
the thought of voting for Hillary disgusts me, she supported invading Iraq so she could run for Prez

all those people who were killed or maimed as a result deserve better from us
 
From what I have read of him, Gary Johnson would make an excellent POTUS.

The only question is whether the individual states could up their game to properly
deliver those things he thinks that the federal government should keep out of.
 
With all the criticism of Gary Johnson, you'd think New Mexico would be a smoking hole in the ground by now.
 
the thought of voting for Hillary disgusts me, she supported invading Iraq so she could run for Prez

She didn't support invading Iraq, that is factually incorrect.
 
The only question is whether the individual states could up their game to properly
deliver those things he thinks that the federal government should keep out of.
Well time and again, states, in particular states with a certain political leaning, have proven to act against the interest of large segments of their population as soon as the federal government has been taken out of the equation.

I don't care about states rights as a philosophical question because the real life consequences of given states more leeway are already so evident.
 
good OP

sadly the 2 parties want us to vote for the lying scum they've nominated

Happily, we don't have to. :goodjob:


Couple of thoughts.

Firstly, I don't pretend I have to agree with a candidate on 100% of the issues or his stance on a singular one.

Secondly, I think the federal government is only good at a few things and horrible at a vast majority of things it really shouldn't have any part of. So, a platform limiting the role of our federal government, and shifting many of those issues to the states is preferable to me.

Third, this guy isn't Clinton or Trump, both of which are horrible, horrible people in comparison to Johnson. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if I voted for either of them.

Fourth, it's high time we had more viable political choice in this nation. Long overdue.

She didn't support invading Iraq, that is factually incorrect.

In 2002 she voted 'aye' to invade Iraq didn't she? Isn't voting for something factually supporting it?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/
 
The main reason I don't want a libertarian in office anywhere is that from my experience libertarians have 0 connection to reality and base all of their decisions on ideology.

That's kind of the problem... I can describe myself as a libertarian because it fairly accurately describes my policy positions, but making policy decisions based on the label is bound for disaster.
 
MobBoss said:
In 2002 she voted 'aye' to invade Iraq didn't she? Isn't voting for something factually supporting it?

She voted to authorize the Bush administration to use force to enforce the UN resolutions.

However the earliest record I can find of her explicitly speaking out against the administration's actions was, IIRC, 2006, and I'm not sure how strong her criticisms of the war really were.
 
I think the federal government is only good at a few things and horrible at a vast majority of things it really shouldn't have any part of.

In 2002 she voted 'aye' to invade Iraq didn't she?

Was her vote in support of something the federal government shouldn't have any part of or did she get that vote right?

Plus, if I recall correctly, you once were very anti 3rd party candidate, claiming it was a waste of a vote. Have you Kerry-Rmoneyed on this?
 
In 2002 she voted 'aye' to invade Iraq didn't she? Isn't voting for something factually supporting?

No, she voted aye to a resolution to authorize the Bush administration to go to war. The war itself was not yet on the table. Her stated purpose at the time of the vote was to provide the Bush administration leverage with which to force sanctions.

That is quite a bit different than voting to invade Iraq. The Bush administration functionally renegged on their promise underpinning the resolution, which was that they would only invade with UN authorization and a broad coalition. Hillary Clinton did not vote for the unilateral invasion.
 
She voted to trust W. I think that might be the lapse of judgment that Mobby is getting at.

Yes, I agree that's a lapse of judgment. But it is a rather less damning indictment than "she supported the war."

At the very least you can accuse Hillary and the Democrats of political cowardice in their reticence to denounce the war until it became clear to everyone what a disaster it was.
 
Well time and again, states, in particular states with a certain political leaning, have proven to act against the interest of large segments of their population as soon as the federal government has been taken out of the equation.


I understand your concern.

Interestingly one of the main argument the pro Remain contributors made for the
UK remaining in the EU was very similar in that rightwing UK governments could
not be trusted to act against the interests of large segments of the UK population.

And similar arguments were made for not granting independence to Asian and
African peoples' in the days of the British Empire.

I always thought that one must trust democracy even if it often follows an uneven path.

And the individual US states would still remain in the USA, so if a US state screwed up,
the disgruntled could vote with their feet (car), and move to a better run state.
 
Johnson has climbed Everest and the other six tallest mountains on each continent. That impresses me. He was a good governor for my state. I do wonder who he would nominate for the SCOTUS though. For me that is the top consideration for any candidate. I could vote for Gary.
 
Was her vote in support of something the federal government shouldn't have any part of or did she get that vote right?

Plus, if I recall correctly, you once were very anti 3rd party candidate, claiming it was a waste of a vote. Have you Kerry-Rmoneyed on this?

If this were any normal election year, it probably would still be a waste of a vote. But I view Johnson as best offer the Libertarian party has ever had, and he has an unprecedented opportunity given the unfavorable-ness of both Trump and Clinton. My previous beliefs were based on the premise that the two party hold could never be broken, but if there ever were a year where it could be (or at least a foundation built to where it could be in the near future) this would be it.

No, she voted aye to a resolution to authorize the Bush administration to go to war. The war itself was not yet on the table. Her stated purpose at the time of the vote was to provide the Bush administration leverage with which to force sanctions.

That is quite a bit different than voting to invade Iraq. The Bush administration functionally renegged on their promise underpinning the resolution, which was that they would only invade with UN authorization and a broad coalition. Hillary Clinton did not vote for the unilateral invasion.

Semantics. Someone that votes for the use of force without the actual expectation said force may be used is a fool. If she truly were against a unilateral invasion of Iraq to enforce the security counsel resolutions and supported another type of method to coerce Iraq to comply with inspections she should have voted 'nay' in 2002. It actually is just that simple.
 
Top Bottom