Gary Johnson 2016

[Digital Doctor]

It will end up like other Western countries where in order to get a majority, you will need a coalition. 3-4 voters should be enough to represent the poeple and still have a chance of representing a majority.

That doesn't happen in Canada.
What would be wrong with coalitions anyway ?

 

[Brandon Sheley]

Please no more political post, you have 4 hears to work on the next group of options

 

[DRE]

Just avoid these threads in the off topic section then? People are always going to make them no matter how many times they get locked or complained about.

 

[Brandon Sheley]

Just avoid these threads in the off topic section then? People are always going to make them no matter how many times they get locked or complained about.

Seems like the thread is a few weeks late then..lol
was this guy on the ballet last week?
All I'm saying if you guys have 4 years, we always see this after an election of "who the next leader will be" then a few months later everyone forgets about person X

 

[DRE]

Seems like the thread is a few weeks late then..lol
was this guy on the ballet last week?
All I'm saying if you guys have 4 years, we always see this after an election of "who the next leader will be" then a few months later everyone forgets about person X

Yeah its late because I wasn't going to vote at all at first. Gary was the 4th candidate on the ballot. Talking about him now than later does more good than harm.

 

[Brandon Sheley]

Talking about him now than later does more good than harm.

ya I guess you're right

 

[Robert F Schmitz]

He got my vote and those of at least another eight that I know for sure. Then of course I did get a few people yell out of their cars that they too voted for him as they drove by me with my GJ scribble on the windows!

 

[DRE]

Gary Johnson Pulls One Million Votes, One Percent - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Gary Johnson Pulls One Million Votes, One Percent J.D. Tuccille | Nov. 7, 2012 1:38 am

Sad to say, the best-qualified presidential candidate in the race, this year — Gary Johnson — pulled just a bit more than one million votes and around one percent of the vote. "Best qualified" I say, since a succesful and popular two-term governor strikes me as having a better resumé than a single-term governor or a half-term senator who put in a piss-poor performance in the White House. That said, Gary Johnson has pulled the most votes in raw numbers of any Libertarian presidential candidate and, as I drain a bottle of truly mediocre shiraz, just shy of the high-water 1.1 percentage of the vote won by Ed Clark in 1980.

As I check Google's election results (far more comprehensive than any offered by the traditional media, by the way), Johnson has 1,012,617 votes, and exactly one percent of the vote. That's in contrast to Barack Obama's 52,796,274 and 49.6 percent of the vote, and Mitt Romney's 52,197,635 and 49.0 percent of the vote.

You'll note that the victor, Mr. Obama, has so far won a plurality rather than a majority. If that holds, and we can attribute it even in part to Johnson's vote total, I'd say that's a victory of its own.

Update: Unfortunately, the plurality turned into a very slight majority overnight. Team Blue members rallied sufficient numbers around their chieftain to push him over 50%.

 

[JacquiiDesigns]

We're just a bunch of tards now on food stamps. I predict Johnson will be just as irrelevant in 2016 as he was in 2012. It doesn't really mater though, as our country has gone too far to ever go back now. You're never going to convince the uneducated and unproductive majority to give up their free stuff.

You mean - go back as in slavery?! I dont' get why all these conservatives have the unmitigated gall to insinuate "ruination in 8 years" if you elect Obama for a second term. It's presumptuous and more than a little (in the words of Anne Coulter) RETARDED. How about instead, let's aim to stop the partisan gridlock in Washington and attempt to work better together. How about instead, stop the obstructionism and attempt to fix what has apparently taken both parties to break. How about instead of insulting people who are on foodstamp rolls...ah - I have nothing for these slackers who apparently want nothing more than FREE STUFF! Ridiculous!

And so was O'Reilly's talking point memos the day of election and the couple days after.

Ever think that not all people on foodstamps are trying to take advantage of the programs availability? Perhaps these are thoughts that any smart 'of-the-right' politician would begin with as for ideas regarding policy change! After (of course) taking the institutionalized bigotry against gay folks out of the party platform!

J.

fyi - the first line above about slavery is just to say - not everything from waaaaay back in the day is shiny and golden. We should think about this when making idiotic statements like "Let's take our nation back"

 

[a legacy reborn]

You mean - go back as in slavery?! I dont' get why all these conservatives have the unmitigated gall to insinuate "ruination in 8 years" if you elect Obama for a second term. It's presumptuous and more than a little (in the words of Anne Coulter) RETARDED. How about instead, let's aim to stop the partisan gridlock in Washington and attempt to work better together. How about instead, stop the obstructionism and attempt to fix what has apparently taken both parties to break. How about instead of insulting people who are on foodstamp rolls...ah - I have nothing for these slackers who apparently want nothing more than FREE STUFF! Ridiculous!

And so was O'Reilly's talking point memos the day of election and the couple days after.

Ever think that not all people on foodstamps are trying to take advantage of the programs availability? Perhaps these are thoughts that any smart 'of-the-right' politician would begin with as for ideas regarding policy change! After (of course) taking the institutionalized bigotry against gay folks out of the party platform!

J.

fyi - the first line above about slavery is just to say - not everything from waaaaay back in the day is shiny and golden. We should think about this when making idiotic statements like "Let's take our nation back"

Conservatism is broken. Conservatives that are fiscally sane are simply playing into what is now considered the meaning of conservative. In reality, however, both parties are conservative, seeing as how conservatism is the desire to roll back to Mercantilism. Liberalism is the desire to have free markets, with many people(myself included) desiring for our eventual goal to be no government at all(I am willing to put up with limited government until that time, however.) Even if you take the idea of Conservatism as how it is meant today, most people claim to be fiscally conservative(actually liberal but never mind) but socially liberal(this one is correct!) Meaning that slavery would not be accepted. With regard to slavery and other social issues, I am probably the most open mind when it comes to rights for all. I believe that all races, sexual orientations, sexes, etc. are acceptable and that we should do nothing to hinder any particular group's civil rights. However, I oppose the Civil War. I understand that a lot of people find it controversial to oppose it because it did grant slaves their freedom, but I see it as an unnecessary and unjust war. First of all, the war was not fought over slavery. It was fought because Lincoln had the biggest ego in the world and could not stand that the South had a legal right to secede. Secondly, if Lincoln truly wanted to free the slaves then he could have taken any number of actions. When we look to how other countries like England got rid of slavery, we see that they just bought the slaves' freedom, and they have had less racism for it. I am just trying to point out that we need to be careful when we reference history as much of it is skewed towards one side, usually the wrong side; examples: WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Cold War, all the wars of the 19th, 20th, and 21st century, establishment of the Fed, and most other historical events.

 

[Brad L]

I think if libertarians want a real voice their only hope is to transform the republican party. I just don't see America breaking out of the two party system.

 

[Brad L]

Conservatism is broken. Conservatives that are fiscally sane are simply playing into what is now considered the meaning of conservative. In reality, however, both parties are conservative, seeing as how conservatism is the desire to roll back to Mercantilism. Liberalism is the desire to have free markets, with many people(myself included) desiring for our eventual goal to be no government at all(I am willing to put up with limited government until that time, however.) Even if you take the idea of Conservatism as how it is meant today, most people claim to be fiscally conservative(actually liberal but never mind) but socially liberal(this one is correct!) Meaning that slavery would not be accepted. With regard to slavery and other social issues, I am probably the most open mind when it comes to rights for all. I believe that all races, sexual orientations, sexes, etc. are acceptable and that we should do nothing to hinder any particular group's civil rights. However, I oppose the Civil War. I understand that a lot of people find it controversial to oppose it because it did grant slaves their freedom, but I see it as an unnecessary and unjust war. First of all, the war was not fought over slavery. It was fought because Lincoln had the biggest ego in the world and could not stand that the South had a legal right to secede. Secondly, if Lincoln truly wanted to free the slaves then he could have taken any number of actions. When we look to how other countries like England got rid of slavery, we see that they just bought the slaves' freedom, and they have had less racism for it. I am just trying to point out that we need to be careful when we reference history as much of it is skewed towards one side, usually the wrong side; examples: WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Cold War, all the wars of the 19th, 20th, and 21st century, establishment of the Fed, and most other historical events.

The only problem with conservatism is that it takes wisdom to understand it. If one does not understand the philosophy then they're going to go with the people offering the free candy and condoms.

 

[Digital Doctor]

The only problem with conservatism is that it takes wisdom to understand it.

I wonder if you can even see me on the ground, from that high horse you are perched on.

 

[dutchbb]

Maybe when the system breaks down some more, people will become sane after all and realize it's time to stop voting for the donkey or the elephant.

 

[a legacy reborn]

The only problem with conservatism is that it takes wisdom to understand it. If one does not understand the philosophy then they're going to go with the people offering the free candy and condoms.

Hmmm...but true Conservatism would offer those things. Liberalism is what you think Conservatism is. I recommend you read up on some things: The French Revolution, Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, and Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction to Revisionism. I am not arguing with your ideals, just the misconception of what Conservatism and Liberalism are. I really hope that we can dispel the myths about both and go back to their original meaning. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people who call themselves conservatives and they are great, but they are merely playing into the popular notion of what Conservatism is, when, in fact, they are liberals. Just another note: Both major parties are conservative because they want Mercantilism/Fascism, not freedom. Another thing to note is that the left does have its factions, namely Communism(in its pure form of no government) and Anarcho-Capitalism, but that is why you have to be precise when you call yourself a liberal. I believe in Anarcho-Capitalism and Libertarianism, but I have nothing positive to say about Communism.

 

[Brad L]

Hmmm...but true Conservatism would offer those things. Liberalism is what you think Conservatism is. I recommend you read up on some things: The French Revolution, Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, and Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction to Revisionism. I am not arguing with your ideals, just the misconception of what Conservatism and Liberalism are. I really hope that we can dispel the myths about both and go back to their original meaning. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people who call themselves conservatives and they are great, but they are merely playing into the popular notion of what Conservatism is, when, in fact, they are liberals. Just another note: Both major parties are conservative because they want Mercantilism/Fascism, not freedom. Another thing to note is that the left does have its factions, namely Communism(in its pure form of no government) and Anarcho-Capitalism, but that is why you have to be precise when you call yourself a liberal. I believe in Anarcho-Capitalism and Libertarianism, but I have nothing positive to say about Communism.

True conservatism would offer those things? Ok. That's where I stopped reading your post.

 

[Brad L]

I wonder if you can even see me on the ground, from that high horse you are perched on.
View attachment 36710

We mock what we don't understand