Gary Johnson is the second candidate officially representing a party (the other being Barak Obama).

He won the Libertarian Party's nomination 72% to 26% for the closest runner in the 1st round of voting.

His nomination speech was great. I hope to God he gets to debate Obama and Romney to show how absurd their views are.

A few gems from his speech:

• "I will be the only presidential candidate to use the words 'Gun rights' and 'gay rights' in the same sentence'
• "I will be the only presidential candidate to discuss reducing both welfare and warfare spending"
• "I will balance the budget within my 1st year of office by cutting spending to match taxation"

I wish I could find the transcript. it was great stuff. I think my wife even liked his speech, and she hated every GOP nominee she saw, even though I made her watch a dozen debates.

If you're interested in Johnson's socially liberal, fiscally libertarian policies, check out his site at http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

I'm sad to have missed it. I'd have liked to hear the full thing. I really would have liked for him to be the GOP nominee, but that was probably never going to happen.

Would it really be in the president's power to cut budget that much? Even if the Libertarians swing into the White House, they'd need substantive support from outside.

Though if he's willing to abuse executive privilege

Mr Khan said: Would it really be in the president's power to cut budget that much? Even if the Libertarians swing into the White House, they'd need substantive support from outside. Though if he's willing to abuse executive privilege

He did pretty well at vetoing everything the legislature tried to pass until they started slashing things in New Mexico. It'd be hard, but I think he could do it, because there is a lot of pork in almost every government agency.

End the war in Afghanistan, the War on Drugs, slash the DoD's budget by 20%, then cut off all stimulus funding and you've probably covered more than half the deficit.

I lost all hope of any third party candidate winning after reading about the 1992 election.That's why I'll always vote for Megatron (Why vote for a lesser evil?)

mrstickball said: Mr Khan said: Would it really be in the president's power to cut budget that much? Even if the Libertarians swing into the White House, they'd need substantive support from outside. Though if he's willing to abuse executive privilege He did pretty well at vetoing everything the legislature tried to pass until they started slashing things in New Mexico. It'd be hard, but I think he could do it, because there is a lot of pork in almost every government agency. End the war in Afghanistan, the War on Drugs, slash the DoD's budget by 20%, then cut off all stimulus funding and you've probably covered more than half the deficit.

Right, but there's enough bipartisan support for nuts-and-bolts stuff in congress that they could easily override vetos, especially if they figure out that they all need to support each other's  pork projects in order to get any one of them passed.

I agree with three of your four proposals, anyway.

I wish the Republicans were more Libertarian. That way, I'd feel like I have an actual decision to make.

Mr Khan said: mrstickball said: Mr Khan said: Would it really be in the president's power to cut budget that much? Even if the Libertarians swing into the White House, they'd need substantive support from outside. Though if he's willing to abuse executive privilege He did pretty well at vetoing everything the legislature tried to pass until they started slashing things in New Mexico. It'd be hard, but I think he could do it, because there is a lot of pork in almost every government agency. End the war in Afghanistan, the War on Drugs, slash the DoD's budget by 20%, then cut off all stimulus funding and you've probably covered more than half the deficit. Right, but there's enough bipartisan support for nuts-and-bolts stuff in congress that they could easily override vetos, especially if they figure out that they all need to support each other's  pork projects in order to get any one of them passed. I agree with three of your four proposals, anyway.

I would have thought the same thing would happen in Gary Johnson's New Mexico where 2/3rds of the legislature was Democrat, so they already had a built-in majority against him.

Yes, there would be a few over-rides. But he could use the veto to at least achieve a modicum of things to be done. More importantly, he could force both sides to come to the table and actually write a budget, which would then (hopefully) get both sides to agree on some cuts.

mrstickball said: Mr Khan said: mrstickball said: Mr Khan said: Would it really be in the president's power to cut budget that much? Even if the Libertarians swing into the White House, they'd need substantive support from outside. Though if he's willing to abuse executive privilege He did pretty well at vetoing everything the legislature tried to pass until they started slashing things in New Mexico. It'd be hard, but I think he could do it, because there is a lot of pork in almost every government agency. End the war in Afghanistan, the War on Drugs, slash the DoD's budget by 20%, then cut off all stimulus funding and you've probably covered more than half the deficit. Right, but there's enough bipartisan support for nuts-and-bolts stuff in congress that they could easily override vetos, especially if they figure out that they all need to support each other's  pork projects in order to get any one of them passed. I agree with three of your four proposals, anyway.   I would have thought the same thing would happen in Gary Johnson's New Mexico where 2/3rds of the legislature was Democrat, so they already had a built-in majority against him. Yes, there would be a few over-rides. But he could use the veto to at least achieve a modicum of things to be done. More importantly, he could force both sides to come to the table and actually write a budget, which would then (hopefully) get both sides to agree on some cuts.

I still don't understand why the democrats haven't beat the republicans at their own game there.

I mean there is shit democrats talk about wanting to cut ALL THE TIME.

Why not create a budget that cuts billions of programs republicans don't want cut. 

Off it in public and force the republicans to vote down a spending cuts bill so you could call them hypocrits.

Seems like a simple electoral trick in a year where there have been some pretty elaborate ones.  (Still trying to figure out if Bin Laden papers being released were political.  On one side it seems to conveiently released.  On the other side, Osama Bin laden said he liked MSNBC.)

mrstickball said: Right, but there's enough bipartisan support for nuts-and-bolts stuff in congress that they could easily override vetos, especially if they figure out that they all need to support each other's  pork projects in order to get any one of them passed. I agree with three of your four proposals, anyway. Mr Khan said: mrstickball said: Mr Khan said: Would it really be in the president's power to cut budget that much? Even if the Libertarians swing into the White House, they'd need substantive support from outside. Though if he's willing to abuse executive privilege He did pretty well at vetoing everything the legislature tried to pass until they started slashing things in New Mexico. It'd be hard, but I think he could do it, because there is a lot of pork in almost every government agency. End the war in Afghanistan, the War on Drugs, slash the DoD's budget by 20%, then cut off all stimulus funding and you've probably covered more than half the deficit.  I would have thought the same thing would happen in Gary Johnson's New Mexico where 2/3rds of the legislature was Democrat, so they already had a built-in majority against him. Yes, there would be a few over-rides. But he could use the veto to at least achieve a modicum of things to be done. More importantly, he could force both sides to come to the table and actually write a budget, which would then (hopefully) get both sides to agree on some cuts.

There's a big difference between a state government and the federal government.  Most state governments cannot legally operate with a budget deficit, so the legislators themselves have a legal obligation to work together to create a balanced budget, or raise taxes.  The federal government however, can run up a deficite as we all know.  Both parties are guilty of doing it.  Budgets rarely get vetoed at the federal level, this is mostly due to the fact that getting a budget passed is actually a lot of work.  Where vetos usually happen are on appropriations and other spending bills.

Also, in order to participate in the debates, a candidate has to have garnered I believe 10% of the vote.