GOP convention delegate resigns over Trump, endorses Gary Johnson - Polidicks

[quote]"I resigned as a matter of conscience," Hodgson told The Providence Journal in an interview Tuesday. "I believe that Donald Trump's candidacy is antithetical to the values of my country and the Republican Party, and I don't desire to assist him in any way." --- So, will he vote Democrat in the November presidential election? Hodgson said he will vote for the Libertarian ticket of former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson for president and backed former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld for vice president.[/quote] [url]http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20160712/ri-republican-hodgson-resigns-as-delegate-over-trump[/url] :smug:

If we're lucky, Trump wont even get elected president, as it seems likely. Not that Gary "no roads" Johnson is any better as a choice to get behind, but whatever shows up the cracks in the GOP is OK in my book.

Where is this "no roads" bullshit meme coming from?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50708815]Where is this "no roads" bullshit meme coming from?[/QUOTE] In the "Libertarian Party Convention Cringe Compilation" video thread, someone brought up that libertarians always dodge the question of who will pay for and maintain roads. It didn't help either that one of the people in the video said "Roads? Who needs roads? We don't need roads" and everyone was cheering for the guy

[QUOTE=Dr.C;50708839]In the "Libertarian Party Convention Cringe Compilation" video thread, someone brought up that libertarians always dodge the question of who will pay for and maintain roads. It didn't help either that one of the people in the video said "Roads? Who needs roads? We don't need roads" and everyone was cheering for the guy[/QUOTE] he said something like "who needs roads when we'll have jetpacks" later on, too :v:

90% of the workforce could telecommute, anyways.

If the US government is the one paying for all the roads then how come when I drove nearly 3000 miles round-trip in the last month I spent ~$60 in tolls both ways and all the open highways were usually sponsored by private companies. It seems to me the 'libertarian dystopia' of roads has already happened. #BringBackIke But my hovercar just shipped so I won't need roads anyway :smile:

I can't wait when all the liberal/moderate Republicans all make their exodus to the Libertarian party so we can drown out the numbskull ancaps. A GOP strategist changes her affiliation to Libertarian and now we have delegates endorsing Johnson/Weld. Donald Trump is ironically the best thing to ever happen to the party.

Criticize Johnson based on his statements and actions. Don't criticize him for what other people in his party have said.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50708806]If we're lucky, Trump wont even get elected president, as it seems likely. Not that Gary "no roads" Johnson is any better as a choice to get behind, but whatever shows up the cracks in the GOP is OK in my book.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Dr.C;50708839]In the "Libertarian Party Convention Cringe Compilation" video thread, someone brought up that libertarians always dodge the question of who will pay for and maintain roads. It didn't help either that one of the people in the video said "Roads? Who needs roads? We don't need roads" and everyone was cheering for the guy[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Mining Bill;50711794]he said something like "who needs roads when we'll have jetpacks" later on, too :v:[/QUOTE]So any one of you can prove that Gary Johnson himself said this, right?

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50713046]So any one of you can prove that Gary Johnson himself said this, right?[/QUOTE] I double checked and it was actually another dude. still, the roads are a good example of why libertarian ideals are fundamentally flawed

[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50713560]I double checked and it was actually another dude. still, the roads are a good example of why libertarian ideals are fundamentally flawed[/QUOTE] Nobody has proven that roads need the government to build them. In fact, the government never does: it hires private contractors. These same contractors would build roads regardless of who paid them.

[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50713560]I double checked and it was actually another dude. still, the roads are a good example of why libertarian ideals are fundamentally flawed[/QUOTE] "Turns out he didn't say that after all. But I'll credit it to him anyway"

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;50713604]Nobody has proven that roads need the government to build them. In fact, the government never does: it hires private contractors. These same contractors would build roads regardless of who paid them.[/QUOTE] right, so we should just hope somebody with a lot of money that cares about the common good will just keep donating money to maintain roads out of the goodness of their heart lmfao

No where in the Johnson-Weld political platform does it state the policy of removing the government's ability to help build roads. I mean, I hate trump but at least I stick to what Trump actually says instead of others in his crowd. [editline]15th July 2016[/editline] "No roads" has to be the dumbest strawman you guys could have come up with

Hey, on the bright side that's a job opening that just came up. That's the libertarian way!

[QUOTE=Problem;50713625]right, so we should just hope somebody with a lot of money that cares about the common good will just keep donating money to maintain roads out of the goodness of their heart lmfao[/QUOTE] Who said anything about common good or generosity? I assume that you think we need roads. And that's good! I agree, roads are very important. [I]So do most people.[/I] Corporations need roads too, to ship their goods and facilitate the transfer of resources. Likewise, both of these parties want the roads to be maintained. So there is a demand for roads, an open market ready to be filled, as those who want roads are probably willing to pay something for them. Come the construction corporations. Maybe they find it through tolls, maybe they operate as a subscription service, or perhaps it is even a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_road_association]non-profit organization, created by people to fund the construction and maintenance of roads[/url]. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highway]Private highways already exist in huge scales.[/url]

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;50713604]Nobody has proven that roads need the government to build them. In fact, the government never does: it hires private contractors. These same contractors would build roads regardless of who paid them.[/QUOTE] Yeah right, who would pay them to build those roads? Companies? You realize that would mean they would only ever pay to build the roads between their own company buildings right, which means our extensive road network which we have maintained for so long might as well be gone the minute someone were to implement this idiotic policy. No matter what else you argue about what the government should and should not have control over, roads should always be under government control.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50713678]Yeah right, who would pay them to build those roads? Companies? You realize that would mean they would only ever pay to build the roads between their own company buildings right, which means our extensive road network which we have maintained for so long might as well be gone the minute someone were to implement this idiotic policy. No matter what else you argue about what the government has control over, roads should always be under government control.[/QUOTE] Again, see the massive, existing networks of private roads and highways that exist all over the world. 2/3rds of Sweden's roads are privately owned and operated, thousands of kilometers of highway in France are privately owned, and many of the US's largest highways are owned and operated by private corporations. Roads are no different than any other service that the market can provide, with far less waste than the government and [I]without making those who don't use it pay for it[/I].

At least he isn't Hillary or Trump - that's what it has come to at this point. If only Trump stopped digging deeper holes for himself and just attacked Hillary for being corrupt - he would essentially have the presidency in the bag. It's good to see the Republican party making a name for itself. Throwing away all conservative principles to have a liberal as the presumptive nominee - great.

[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50713560]I double checked and it was actually another dude. still, the roads are a good example of why libertarian ideals are fundamentally flawed[/QUOTE]No, it's a good example of people talk about shit they don't understand and then handwave any personal accountability aside. There's nothing "fundamentally flawed" about private roads because they're all over in our country, you [I]might[/I] have known that if you didn't just make shit up. [QUOTE=Problem;50713625]right, so we should just hope somebody with a lot of money that cares about the common good will just keep donating money to maintain roads out of the goodness of their heart lmfao[/QUOTE]lmfao what even is a toll road????????????? This is all stupid anyway, I've already said that Johnson's "libertarian lite" so there's no reason to assume he's going to abolish the Department of Transportation. Oh. There's also a little thing about not being able to just do away with an entire federal agency just because other people with similar political beliefs think it would be a good idea. [editline]15th July 2016[/editline] I'm fucking amazed that I have to explain this shit. [editline]15th July 2016[/editline] No, really, I'm actually dumbfounded that [I]even after being proven wrong[/I] Mining Bill still responds with sanctimonious horseshit and Problem's response is little better. Oh and "libertarian philosophy" barely applies here because Gary Johnson is not a staunch, uncompromising ancap, (apparently this is the only "flavor" of libertarian) yet we're discussing a strawman originally shat out by the mentally retarded on reddit and still vomited here whenever libertarianism is even peripherally mentioned.

Gary Johnson is in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax entirely, openly supports and defends [I]private prisons[/I] and instituted many as governor, wants to abolish federal student loans entirely, does not want the federal government getting involved in forcing backwards places to teach [I]evolution[/I] over creationism, wants to eliminate the Department of Education, wants to replace the public schooling system with competitive voucher programs, opposes carbon taxes, opposes net neutrality, [B]supports [I]unlimited campaign donations from corporations[/I][/B], fundamentally opposes government control of healthcare (including single payer), favors privatizing "portions" of social security, wants to eliminate the IRS, [I]eliminate the income tax and capital gains tax[/I] and replace it with a national 23% sales tax... I can go on and fucking on about this dude. I can understand why people in the GOP might support him, but any self-professed progressive who can support replacing all taxes with a [I]flat national sales tax[/I] and wants to get the government out of healthcare and eliminate the IRS and the Department of Education is pretty fucking clearly not a progressive. Libertarianism is fundamentally flawed and would bring us right on back into the laissez-faire economic policy that threw us into the Gilded Age and the Great Depression. He's a nice guy, but his policy ideas are total fucking lunacy.

[QUOTE=Problem;50713625]right, so we should just hope somebody with a lot of money that cares about the common good will just keep donating money to maintain roads out of the goodness of their heart lmfao[/QUOTE] no roads is bad for business. companies like wal mart could (and would) very easily build roads.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50713991]Gary Johnson is in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax entirely, openly supports and defends [I]private prisons[/I] and instituted many as governor, wants to abolish federal student loans entirely, does not want the federal government getting involved in forcing backwards places to teach [I]evolution[/I] over creationism, wants to eliminate the Department of Education, wants to replace the public schooling system with competitive voucher programs, opposes carbon taxes, opposes net neutrality, [B]supports [I]unlimited campaign donations from corporations[/I][/B], fundamentally opposes government control of healthcare (including single payer), favors privatizing "portions" of social security, wants to eliminate the IRS, [I]eliminate the income tax and capital gains tax[/I] and replace it with a national 23% sales tax... I can go on and fucking on about this dude. I can understand why people in the GOP might support him, but any self-professed progressive who can support replacing all taxes with a [I]flat national sales tax[/I] and wants to get the government out of healthcare and eliminate the IRS and the Department of Education is pretty fucking clearly not a progressive. Libertarianism is fundamentally flawed and would bring us right on back into the laissez-faire economic policy that threw us into the Gilded Age and the Great Depression. He's a nice guy, but his policy ideas are total fucking lunacy.[/QUOTE] You don't think we're already living in a new Gilded Age with the way politics are?

Johnson himself seems like a respectable guy, but can someone explain to me what the fuck was going on in that libertarian convention video where that fat dude was allowed to dance and strip down to his undies? Kinda makes the whole party look bad when shit like that is allowed to fly at it's own convention. [media]https://youtu.be/Tb8cErokGFs?t=3m26s[/media] Go to 3 mins 26 secs. The party seems like a protest vote coming off that video, hopefully GOP delegates jumping ship will do the party some good.

[QUOTE=butre;50714011]no roads is bad for business. companies like wal mart could (and would) very easily build roads.[/QUOTE] You don't see the issue with corporate owned roads? Have you ever heard of shadowrun?

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;50721509]You don't see the issue with corporate owned roads? Have you ever heard of shadowrun?[/QUOTE] I don't think relating something to a fiction, a damn video game nonetheless, is a good analogy. Like I'm not even defending that libertarian perspective. Building roads should always be the job of governments. But that analogy is just stupid.

Guys, the whole "no roads" thing was just a quick reference to back to the future anyway.

Donald Trump had the chance to maybe reunite the GOP in its current state if he fixed up his act going into the primaries and had try to reach out more toward more of the party instead of further splintering The party js probably gonna go through many years of reform if Trump doesn't win, probably won't win the next election either

[QUOTE=KillRay;50721946]Donald Trump had the chance to maybe reunite the GOP in its current state if he fixed up his act going into the primaries and had try to reach out more toward the moderate republicans The party js probably gonna go through many years of reform if Trump doesn't win, probably won't win the next election either[/QUOTE] Watch GOP go even further to the right after this, becoming even more unelectable than it already is.