Quantcast
Stop deciding on voting for Obama or Romney and look at Gary Johnson

Forums - Politics Discussion - Stop deciding on voting for Obama or Romney and look at Gary Johnson

the_dengle said:
we already had a President Johnson. wasn't one enough?


Yes, Andrew Johnson was a fantastic President...

Wait, what, there was another one?

 

(He was not, actually, a fantastic President...)



Around the Network
ECM said:
His plan will work? Really? How? I'd love to hear an explanation.

Also: Obama's economics are *not* trickle-down--they are 'stuff select constituencies with government cash'-down, which has *nothing* to do with trickle-down as classically understood (HINT: private versus public spending).

Let me be blunt: you vote for Johnson, you're voting for Obama (there is far, far more crossover between Republican and Libertarian voters than Libertarians and Democrats). If you're OK with that, that's great, but you could just vote for Obama and cut out the middleman.

Finally: that anyone still tosses around the 'not a dime's-worth of difference' canard proves nothing other than the person hurling it is completely out-of-touch with reality. After all, do you really think Romney is going to direct tens-of-billions of dollars into green energy boondoggles? Do you really think Romney is going to actively seek to give more money to Planned Parenthood and the like? Do you really think Romney is going to try to *shutdown* coal producers thus causing energy prices to grossly skyrocket? No, you don't, but since libertarians have nothing else to run on, they run on this silly meme that there's no difference between them.

(And I don't even LIKE Romney: he's a cardboard cut-out, but even a cardboard cut-out is better than Obama* and he's certainly better than the no hope on earth of doing anything other than helping Obama win Johnson.)

*That anyone would actually vote for this guy again after 'just' the titanic debt increase (never mind the rest of it) boggles the mind.

Well said....

 

Look I personally like Gary Johnson and I'm with Libertarians for the most part but unfortunately Gary Johnson has absolutely no way to win and that is a fact that sound minded libertarians must acknowledge and in fact Heck even Wayne Allen Root (big libertarian) had to back Romney at this stage.

Look as a conservative I know the Republican party hasn't had the best track record on smaller government but that doesn't mean we have to allow the guy in the white house (and folks in congress) to keep us heading for the abyss. You know as well as I do (I hope) that once a government program is started it is pretty much permanent. So when someone comes along and is willing to do away with Obama care right away we have to stand up and take notice. If we don't repeal it right away we will forever be stuck with it and the only way to get rid of it is to get rid of its architect (okay so he didn't really write it himself, his teleprompter did).

Its time to grow up boys and stop with the wishing and waiting. What needs to happen is we need to vote in Romney and Ryan and then hold their feet to the fire! Keep the heat up while they are in office. I also think the Libertarians need to continue to stay with the Republican party to help drive the debates within the party so as to affect change there.  Ron Paul may not be getting elected President but he has helped to bring light to many issues especially regarding economics and tax reforms etc. Heck even Mitt Romney is backing an audit of the Fed. Reserve. Mostly thanks to the work of Ron Paul and Libertarians.

Bottom line: a vote for Gary Johnson IS a vote for Obama.



I'd love the libertarian party to do better just because it'd be great to break up this two party system we have now, and I don't really feel think either of the current party candidates are what I'd truly want in a perfect world, but unfortunately from watching those videos the libertarian party is very obviously not for me either so I'll have to stick with Obama even if he was a disappointment.



...

SamuelRSmith said:
the_dengle said:
we already had a President Johnson. wasn't one enough?


Yes, Andrew Johnson was a fantastic President...

Wait, what, there was another one?

 

(He was not, actually, a fantastic President...)

Oh yeah that other guy.



-CraZed- said:
ECM said:
His plan will work? Really? How? I'd love to hear an explanation.

Also: Obama's economics are *not* trickle-down--they are 'stuff select constituencies with government cash'-down, which has *nothing* to do with trickle-down as classically understood (HINT: private versus public spending).

Let me be blunt: you vote for Johnson, you're voting for Obama (there is far, far more crossover between Republican and Libertarian voters than Libertarians and Democrats). If you're OK with that, that's great, but you could just vote for Obama and cut out the middleman.

Finally: that anyone still tosses around the 'not a dime's-worth of difference' canard proves nothing other than the person hurling it is completely out-of-touch with reality. After all, do you really think Romney is going to direct tens-of-billions of dollars into green energy boondoggles? Do you really think Romney is going to actively seek to give more money to Planned Parenthood and the like? Do you really think Romney is going to try to *shutdown* coal producers thus causing energy prices to grossly skyrocket? No, you don't, but since libertarians have nothing else to run on, they run on this silly meme that there's no difference between them.

(And I don't even LIKE Romney: he's a cardboard cut-out, but even a cardboard cut-out is better than Obama* and he's certainly better than the no hope on earth of doing anything other than helping Obama win Johnson.)

*That anyone would actually vote for this guy again after 'just' the titanic debt increase (never mind the rest of it) boggles the mind.

Well said....

 

Look I personally like Gary Johnson and I'm with Libertarians for the most part but unfortunately Gary Johnson has absolutely no way to win and that is a fact that sound minded libertarians must acknowledge and in fact Heck even Wayne Allen Root (big libertarian) had to back Romney at this stage.

Look as a conservative I know the Republican party hasn't had the best track record on smaller government but that doesn't mean we have to allow the guy in the white house (and folks in congress) to keep us heading for the abyss. You know as well as I do (I hope) that once a government program is started it is pretty much permanent. So when someone comes along and is willing to do away with Obama care right away we have to stand up and take notice. If we don't repeal it right away we will forever be stuck with it and the only way to get rid of it is to get rid of its architect (okay so he didn't really write it himself, his teleprompter did).

Its time to grow up boys and stop with the wishing and waiting. What needs to happen is we need to vote in Romney and Ryan and then hold their feet to the fire! Keep the heat up while they are in office. I also think the Libertarians need to continue to stay with the Republican party to help drive the debates within the party so as to affect change there.  Ron Paul may not be getting elected President but he has helped to bring light to many issues especially regarding economics and tax reforms etc. Heck even Mitt Romney is backing an audit of the Fed. Reserve. Mostly thanks to the work of Ron Paul and Libertarians.

Bottom line: a vote for Gary Johnson IS a vote for Obama.


Couldn't have said it better myself. 



Around the Network

It's funny, I keep seeing the same song being sung that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama. That's the biggest load of bs, I keep hearing. It's funny, we supposedly live in a free country, yet we only get really two options, thanks in part to the mentality that we can only have democrats and republicans, who are by in large, do the same crap that keeps, so yes there really is "a dime's difference" that the first response claimed there was. We have both parties, that want to expand the wars, vote for NDAA and the Patriot Act, vote for offshore oil drilling, vote for No-Child Left Behind, and the list does go on. Which is why it really doesn't make a difference to people who actually know the real issues who gets elected between the two.

So yes, those who want to vote Gary Johnson or any other third party candidate should. The undemocratic statist Commission on Presidential Debates openly discriminates against other candidates, which both parties support that policy, so I don't see how how anyone can say either supports open debate lol. Funny how we're supposed to be the "freest" country in the world, yet we don't actually show it a lot of the time.  Also note that Mr. Johnson won in a 2:1 democratic state of New Mexico, and managed to leave office with a $1 billion surplus.

If republicans lose, it's their own fault. Funny how they worked so hard to disclude, and alienate the libertarian part of the base with they lack of respect they treated Ron Paul, and are now begging for those votes. If you really wanted someone who could defeat Obama, they should have voted for Dr. Paul, who actually does attract more votes from disenfranchised Democrats and Independents than any of the other candidates.



                           

Omega_Phazon_Pirate. said:

It's funny, I keep seeing the same song being sung that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama. That's the biggest load of bs, I keep hearing. It's funny, we supposedly live in a free country, yet we only get really two options, thanks in part to the mentality that we can only have democrats and republicans, who are by in large, do the same crap that keeps, so yes there really isn't "a dime's difference" that the first response claimed there was. We have both parties, that want to expand the wars, vote for NDAA and the Patriot Act, vote for offshore oil drilling, vote for No-Child Left Behind, and the list does go on. Which is why it really doesn't make a difference to people who actually know the real issues who gets elected between the two.

So yes, those who want to vote Gary Johnson or any other third party candidate should. The undemocratic statist Commission on Presidential Debates openly discriminates against other candidates, which both parties support that policy, so I don't see how how anyone can say either supports open debate lol. Funny how we're supposed to be the "freest" country in the world, yet we don't actually show it a lot of the time.  Also note that Mr. Johnson won in a 2:1 democratic state of New Mexico, and managed to leave office with a $1 billion surplus.

If republicans lose, it's their own fault. Funny how they worked so hard to disclude, and alienate the libertarian part of the base with they lack of respect they treated Ron Paul, and are now begging for those votes. If you really wanted someone who could defeat Obama, they should have voted for Dr. Paul, who actually does attract more votes from disenfranchised Democrats and Independents than any of the other candidates.

 


It certainly is NOT BS. It is true that on most issues Libertarians are more in line with the Republican party outside the social issues. The Democrats are not counting on or need libertarians to win they need only their base as Democrats do usually outnumber other party's in voter registration and most Libertarians such as Ron Paul voters will not vote for Obama. Ron Paul HIMSELF decided his best shot at becoming POTUS is/was running as a Republican. For good reason too. They have more in common.

The issue isn't whether Ron Paul got the nomination or not its the blind devotion to the man himself by his supporters is what galls me the most. He was allowed into the primary process went to all the debates and was presented before the voters in the primaries and he lost. Being bitter about it and folding your arms and saying "I'm taking my tricycle and going home" is not the way to gain respect for the Libertarian 'movement'.

Like I said I like Gary Johnson and think he did a great job in NM but he doesn't have the appeal nationwide (yet) and unfortunately he isn't inline with the mainstream. Sorry Libertarians but not everyone wants strip clubs near schools, legalized drugs etc. Nihilism, isn't a mainstream idea.  

As I posted... Romney is no Libertarian but wasting your vote on a sure loser just to prove a point is suicide. Who do you think will appoint Supreme Court Justices more in line with Libertarians and the constitution? Romney or Obama?

Here read this....http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/18/Time-for-Ron-Paul-Fans-to-Support-the-Constitution

very poignant article on why Libertarians need to: 1. Vote republican and 2. be more active within the party to help bring it more inline with your own views. Just understand that Libertarianism could also use some reshaping as well. There are many questions Libertarians have trouble with just as the other parties do (its just the Democrats are so far away from our Constitution there really isn't any hope for them)



-CraZed- said:

I'll go paragraph by paragraph.  What you said is in quotes, my response is after, not in quotes, apologies if it's hard to read.

"It certainly is NOT BS. It is true that on most issues Libertarians are more in line with the Republican party outside the social issues. The Democrats are not counting on or need libertarians to win they need only their base as Democrats do usually outnumber other party's in voter registration and most Libertarians such as Ron Paul voters will not vote for Obama. Ron Paul HIMSELF decided his best shot at becoming POTUS is/was running as a Republican. For good reason too. They have more in common."

Yes, it most certainly is bs.  Given how third parties are treated and have been treated in the past decades is outrageous.  The whole Libertarian being more in line with the Republican party is very debatable, and if so, only by a tiny margin.  On economics, republicans have by in large voted to increase debt level spending, more funding for social programs, and moer overseas bases (which btw, is the bulk of the budget).  Certainly republicans like to campaign as conservatives, but when it comes to voting, they're just as bad as democrats... at least the democrats are for the most part honest about it.  And the reason why Dr. Paul ran as a republican was because he ran as a libertarian in '88 (I believe), and saw how corrupt the process was, so he tried to work from the inside, which I will give you, he did have more of a chance running as a republican, than a democrat.

"The issue isn't whether Ron Paul got the nomination or not its the blind devotion to the man himself by his supporters is what galls me the most. He was allowed into the primary process went to all the debates and was presented before the voters in the primaries and he lost. Being bitter about it and folding your arms and saying "I'm taking my tricycle and going home" is not the way to gain respect for the Libertarian 'movement'."

 

Except it's not "blind devotion," it's the fact that he's been saying things that everyone has been plugging their ears and screaming loudly about, only to find out that he was correct about pretty much everything...that's why he is respected.  People who are really the blind supporters are both the people who voted for Obama thinking he would close Gitmo, stop the wars, and axe the Patriot Act...note of which he did.  And of course the peopel that vote for Romney...just because he's not Obama, who has been on every side of almost every issue since he entered politics (aka a flip flopper).  

People are bitter because of the way Dr. Paul was treated overall, not only by the media, but by the rnc, who openly discriminated against Ron Paul supporters.  So no one shoudl be surprised, that after being alienated, that RP supporters do not want to vote with an organization that openly  ridiculed him, so it's common sense, that they would not want to give them their support, because clearly, they were not vying for it, until now lol.

"Like I said I like Gary Johnson and think he did a great job in NM but he doesn't have the appeal nationwide (yet) and unfortunately he isn't inline with the mainstream. Sorry Libertarians but not everyone wants strip clubs near schools, legalized drugs etc. Nihilism, isn't a mainstream idea.  "

Unfortunately, and especially not with republicans, and also because the media loves to shoot down these ideas.

"As I posted... Romney is no Libertarian but wasting your vote on a sure loser just to prove a point is suicide. Who do you think will appoint Supreme Court Justices more in line with Libertarians and the constitution? Romney or Obama?"

lol neither

"Here read this....http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/18/Time-for-Ron-Paul-Fans-to-Support-the-Constitution"

very poignant article on why Libertarians need to: 1. Vote republican and 2. be more active within the party to help bring it more inline with your own views. Just understand that Libertarianism could also use some reshaping as well. There are many questions Libertarians have trouble with just as the other parties do (its just the Democrats are so far away from our Constitution there really isn't any hope for them)"

Haha I actually read that article before, and thought although probably well intentioned, still misses the entire point.  Most of my response has already been stated above.  

Saying Libertarians need to be more active is ludicrous, they were PLENTY active within the party, while the party itself openly treated RP supporters unfairly (and Johnson supporters to a lesser degree, when he was running as a republican), and cheated them to have a less-better hand.  And you are correct to say Democrats are so far away from the constitution, but what you left out is republicans as well.  Don't forget, who introduced the unconstitutional Patriot Act, who helped enact the NDAA (which Romney supports btw), the way Republicans have been voting, they're just as guilty as democrats for a lot of the crap we are in.  And don't get me started on Paul Ryan, and the fraud that he is, lol.



                           

thranx said:
dsgrue3 said:
Soleron said:
dsgrue3 said:
Surely you can choose between two very different plans for our future. Big Federal Government Spending on stimuli, and social programs VS Smaller Federal government and more emphasis on State government. 

This is the weird part to an outsider. Both of those look like giving government more power and less personal liberty. State government isn't somehow better, it's just more excuse for the left-leaning states to impose economic controls and the right-leaning ones to impose social controls.

There is no option that will involve actual cuts to government programs other than welfare.

Found fathers believed in state government. The big difference is less oversight and power to the Federal government. But yes, obviously, they are both government.

Plenty of options to cut government programs.

 

thetonestarr said:
dsgrue3 said:

 

You are an idealist. Mark my words. "A third party candidate will never win the Presidency." Just because some people are registered Independent does not mean they don't lean one way or another. It just means they choose not to be labled.  

Why not? It has happened before, why not now. We haven't always had the two parties we have now. Change has happened when a big party started to split, or loose the views of the people. I plan on voting third party just not sure who yet.


We haven't had a third party win since Washington - 215 years. I think it's pretty obvious we won't have another.



Funny fact: The pronunciation of "Romney" means a kind of animal in portuguese. I can't stop laughing when I hear his name. haha.



We need moar Zelda, now!

We need moar Unchartedzz!

We need less DLCs.