Former Gov. Gary Johnson and Former Gov. Bill Weld nominated for the presidency by Libertarian Party - Polidicks

[quote]Libertarians on Sunday selected a presidential ticket headed by former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who lit into presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump on immigration and a range of other issues. At the party convention in Orlando, Florida, Johnson got his preferred running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, in a weekend gathering that drew sharp contrasts with the major party candidates -- Trump and Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee. [B]Johnson described the real estate mogul's immigration policies as "just racist,"[/B] particularly the Republican's call to deport 11 million undocumented people currently in the country. --- In the first round of voting, Johnson reached 49.5 percent of the vote, according to the official party total, just shy of the majority needed for victory. His nearest opponents, Petersen and John McAfee, reached 21 and 14 percent respectively. On the second round of voting, Johnson clinched the nomination with 55.8 percent of the vote. But his preferred choice for the vice-presidential nomination, Weld, also came up just short of 50 percent on the first round of balloting, leading to a second vote, which he won with just over 50 percent of the vote.[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/29/politics/libertarian-party-nominee-vote/[/url] Surprised it went through a second ballot, but it's refreshing to see the LP have such record breaking participants. For reference, Johnson currently is polling at 10-11% nationally, while 44% of Americans would consider a 3rd party candidate if the major parties boil down to Trump vs Clinton (source within this article).

10 - 11% ain't bad for a third party. I wonder if he'll be included in the debates.

[QUOTE=Dr._Medic;50418071]10 - 11% ain't bad for a third party. I wonder if he'll be included in the debates.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately you need to poll at 15%+ to get into a national debate. Fortunately, there's still time to close that small margin.

#feelthejohnson

Please, anyone even remotely thinking of voting for Trump, go read up on Gary Johnson. He's not a perfect candidate by any means, no one is, but if you generally favor small government, a balanced budget, a reasonable immigration platform, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, Johnson is a far, far better person to vote for than Trump. And I'm not just saying this because Trump scares the piss out of me. I voted for Johnson in 2012, and do not regret it. Assuming Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, Johnson will be the biggest candidate with actual good qualities. (Jill Stein of the Green Party also seems to be a good candidate, who I am considering voting for, but she's not a good fit for conservative voters so I can't honestly recommend her to Republican-leaning voters)

It's the 'small government' bit that bothers me about this guy. As a person, he may be a good choice, but small government (And botched attempts at large government) are part of the reason, in my opinion, that the USA is in the state it is today.

What would happen if both the Dems and GOP nominations get blamed. Clinton for email and Trump for his fraud?

[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50418211]What would happen if both the Dems and GOP nominations get blamed. Clinton for email and Trump for his fraud?[/QUOTE] They'd have to pick new nominees, probably the closest runners-up.

[QUOTE=archangel125;50418223]They'd have to pick new nominees, probably the closest runners-up.[/QUOTE] Bernie vs Cruz would be intriguing but I can't imagine Cruz actually doing better than Bernie.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50418258]Bernie vs Cruz would be intriguing but I can't imagine Cruz actually doing better than Bernie.[/QUOTE] I want the two nominees get taken out for legal reasons. It would be most entertaining.

[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50418336]I want the two nominees get taken out for legal reasons. It would be most entertaining.[/QUOTE] However very damaging to the US overall, though.

[QUOTE=archangel125;50418209]It's the 'small government' bit that bothers me about this guy. As a person, he may be a good choice, but small government (And botched attempts at large government) are part of the reason, in my opinion, that the USA is in the state it is today.[/QUOTE] And that is a legitimate reason to not vote for him. But it's not an inherently wrong belief system, and he's a hell of a lot more consistent about it than Republicans have been. He was against anti-gay laws from pretty much the start, simply because he didn't think it was the government's job to regulate marriage. Same for defense - Republicans say they want to shrink the government but consistently grow the DoD and other defense-related branches, while Johnson actually wants to downsize the military and intelligence arms. And he's not an absolutist on his small-government ideals - he considers the EPA to be a necessary and effective part of the government, for example. He's willing to do what works in the real world, rather than what his philosophy says is what should work. There may be candidates who I would prefer over Johnson. I need to do more research but I'm finding that the Green Party seems to be "Democrats, but not corrupt or retarded", and may end up voting for Stein. But Johnson is a candidate who I would be happy to see elected.

Well, sure, I certainly agree that a government in a country like this has no place getting involved in the lives of private citizens, and to that end I agree with democrat and libertarian ideals. But on the subject of economic regulation, employee protections, union rights, etc I'm more left-leaning. That is, in favour of government oversight to an extent. I believe that stripping existing protections in these areas would only lead to more corporate employers exploiting the workforce. Is that something libertarians are likely to be in favour of?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50418358]However very damaging to the US overall, though.[/QUOTE] How so? It would generate change. Which is needed. It would restore faith in the rule of law. Which would have other nations have faith in America again.

Theres problems of a third party in the debates. Both the DNC and RNC have frequently colluded to prevent that from happening and this year may see that collusion increased, to the point were people [B]will[/B] forgot the libertarians.

[QUOTE=archangel125;50418391]Well, sure, I certainly agree that a government in a country like this has no place getting involved in the lives of private citizens, and to that end I agree with democrat and libertarian ideals. But on the subject of economic regulation, employee protections, union rights, etc I'm more left-leaning. That is, in favour of government oversight to an extent. I believe that stripping existing protections in these areas would only lead to more corporate employers exploiting the workforce. Is that something libertarians are likely to be in favour of?[/QUOTE] Johnson is generally pro-union. I think he sees it as a sort of free-market business that provides employees in exchange for intangible costs, but I could be wrong about his philosophy behind it. His economic ideas are a bit hard for me to figure out because sometimes he talks about what he would like to do and other times he talks about what he'd feasibly be able to do, and it's not always clear which from summaries. He does generally want to decrease the amount of control the government has over the economy but I couldn't find any drastic deregulations he's proposed. I couldn't find anything substantial about his thoughts on employee protections.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;50418455]Johnson is generally pro-union. I think he sees it as a sort of free-market business that provides employees in exchange for intangible costs, but I could be wrong about his philosophy behind it. His economic ideas are a bit hard for me to figure out because sometimes he talks about what he would like to do and other times he talks about what he'd feasibly be able to do, and it's not always clear which from summaries. He does generally want to decrease the amount of control the government has over the economy but I couldn't find any drastic deregulations he's proposed. I couldn't find anything substantial about his thoughts on employee protections.[/QUOTE] He also hates Net Neutrality and rather have no government on the internet.

I'm real fucking torn about Johnson because if this [url=http://libertyhangout.org/2016/05/gary-johnson-shoots-himself-in-the-foot-throws-out-austin-petersens-gun/]shit[/url] is true then it's probably going to severely fuck things up for him and any chance of a serious third party shot. I don't like Weld that much either, I was hoping for McAffee to win because he will be the shaman we need: sprawled out naked on the White House lawn with mescaline in his veins screaming at the sun so he may guide us back to greatness. All the while his vice president stares longingly off into the distance knowing this was the fate he chose running with a crazy motherfucker.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50428566]I'm real fucking torn about Johnson because if this [url=http://libertyhangout.org/2016/05/gary-johnson-shoots-himself-in-the-foot-throws-out-austin-petersens-gun/]shit[/url] is true then it's probably going to severely fuck things up for him and any chance of a serious third party shot. I don't like Weld that much either, I was hoping for McAffee to win because he will be the shaman we need: sprawled out naked on the White House lawn with mescaline in his veins screaming at the sun so he may guide us back to greatness. All the while his vice president stares longingly off into the distance knowing this was the fate he chose running with a crazy motherfucker.[/QUOTE] Wow, I really have no words for this. Jill you may get my vote this year.

[QUOTE=Megadave;50428600]Wow, I really have no words for this. Jill you may get my vote this year.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I feel the same way. It's like everything this election is completely fucked up from top to bottom, it's all cursed. Also does anyone else type stuff up and then go to delete it because it might be irrelevant but forget about it for reasons and then accidentally includes it in their post? I think I need another MRI.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50428566]I'm real fucking torn about Johnson because if this [url=http://libertyhangout.org/2016/05/gary-johnson-shoots-himself-in-the-foot-throws-out-austin-petersens-gun/]shit[/url] is true then it's probably going to severely fuck things up for him and any chance of a serious third party shot. I don't like Weld that much either, I was hoping for McAffee to win because he will be the shaman we need: sprawled out naked on the White House lawn with mescaline in his veins screaming at the sun so he may guide us back to greatness. All the while his vice president stares longingly off into the distance knowing this was the fate he chose running with a crazy motherfucker.[/QUOTE] I'm going to withhold judgment until we hear the whole story. McAfee was always a joke and Petersen came off as the meme child of the trio. Johnson was the only one in there with any executive experience so I'd still have to go with him.

Watching Gary Johnson debate... He's going to get torn to shreds by Trump, Austin Peterson was a really good debater, and Gary Johnson is really weak. Also even though Gary Johnson was the nominee, a person who was in the running for party chair stripped down naked on C-SPAN live, Giving superammo to Trump and Hillary.

Johnson isn't awful in comparison to most borderline-ancap Libertarians, but some of his positions are tough to support. He's excellent on a number of issues: abortion rights, LGBT rights, opposing the death penalty, opposing the war on drugs, free trade, privacy rights, etc. But I fundamentally can't support some of his stances: As governor, he opened two new [I]private prisons[/I] in New Mexico. He has consistently supported private prisons as a replacement for state-funded or federally-funded prisons. He relies heavily on New Mexico's line-item veto, which is unconstitutional at the federal level. He's called government-managed healthcare "insanity." He vetoed a raise in New Mexico's minimum wage. He fundamentally [i]opposes[/i] net neutrality. He opposes carbon emission taxes. He wants to outright shutter the Federal Reserve, [i]eliminate[/i] the IRS, cut all federal funding by 43%, chop Medicaid and Medicare funding, start privatizing Social Security, close the Department of Education, and replace the public schooling system with a voucher system, plus eliminating all corporate taxes. He's very strong on several issues, but I really can't see how he'll attract either disappointed Bernie supporters or the anti-Trump GOP base. He wants open borders with Mexico - there goes the GOP. He favors free trade and huge cuts to social programs - there go the left-leaning independents. I hope he can act a spoiler for Trump in the general, but it doesn't seem likely that he'll get anywhere near enough steam to be even remotely competitive.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50429389]Johnson isn't awful in comparison to most borderline-ancap Libertarians, but some of his positions are tough to support. He's excellent on a number of issues: abortion rights, LGBT rights, opposing the death penalty, opposing the war on drugs, free trade, privacy rights, etc. But I fundamentally can't support some of his stances: As governor, he opened two new [I]private prisons[/I] in New Mexico. He has consistently supported private prisons as a replacement for state-funded or federally-funded prisons. He relies heavily on New Mexico's line-item veto, which is unconstitutional at the federal level. He's called government-managed healthcare "insanity." He vetoed a raise in New Mexico's minimum wage. He fundamentally [i]opposes[/i] net neutrality. He opposes carbon emission taxes. He wants to outright shutter the Federal Reserve, [i]eliminate[/i] the IRS, cut all federal funding by 43%, chop Medicaid and Medicare funding, start privatizing Social Security, close the Department of Education, and replace the public schooling system with a voucher system, plus eliminating all corporate taxes. He's very strong on several issues, but I really can't see how he'll attract either disappointed Bernie supporters or the anti-Trump GOP base. He wants open borders with Mexico - there goes the GOP. He favors free trade and huge cuts to social programs - there go the left-leaning independents. I hope he can act a spoiler for Trump in the general, but it doesn't seem likely that he'll get anywhere near enough steam to be even remotely competitive.[/QUOTE] The Polls showing Bernie supporters going to him is only because it's "Third Party", I really don't think they would actually vote for him, once they see his issues. also he will not stay competitive, he has a $350,000 campaign debt.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50429403]The Polls showing Bernie supporters going to him is only because it's "Third Party", I really don't think they would actually vote for him, once they see his issues.[/QUOTE] Well, considering that there's at least a sizable portion of Bernie supporters going Trump, I don't think policy will be a huge deciding factor in who they end up supporting. Depends on how charismatic Johnson can be and how well he can get a competing message onto the national stage. I'd be happy to see the Libertarian party get ~3-4%, but that's the most I can imagine them getting. Splitting independents among the Greens and Libertarians won't net much for either, unfortunately.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50429412]Well, considering that there's at least a sizable portion of Bernie supporters going Trump, I don't think policy will be a huge deciding factor in who they end up supporting. Depends on how [B]charismatic[/B] Johnson can be and how well he can get a competing message onto the national stage. I'd be happy to see the Libertarian party get ~3-4%, but that's the most I can imagine them getting. Splitting independents among the Greens and Libertarians won't net much for either, unfortunately.[/QUOTE] Nope. Also some of the Bernie or bust crowd spouts out Fox News garbage, take that as you will. [editline]31st May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;50429412]Well, considering that there's at least a sizable portion of Bernie supporters going Trump, I don't think policy will be a huge deciding factor in who they end up supporting. Depends on how charismatic Johnson can be and how well he can get a competing message onto the national stage. I'd be happy to see the Libertarian party get ~3-4%, but that's the most I can imagine them getting. Splitting independents among the Greens and Libertarians won't net much for either, unfortunately.[/QUOTE] Greens screwed up they only are in the ballot in 20 states.

The idea of 'small government' has always been ridiculous to me. The educated people who champion it, in my mind, are doing so with vested interests - namely, empowering corporations by giving them the majority of the power over a country. Some of you who know me by my posts probably know that I grew up in the Middle East. The conclusion I've come to by watching the global political landscape change over the years is simple: There is no such thing as 'small government'. When any vacuum of power exists, an organization will shortly appear to take advantage and put itself on the throne. Small government means no employee protections, no minimum wage, no employment standards, no zoning by-laws, no social security, no employment benefits, no right to unionise, and no affordable healthcare. It means that the majority of the population, and especially the poor, become essentially enslaved by corporations who take full advantage of these regulatory gaps to cut their costs, and please their shareholders. It means that the gap between rich and poor in America increases beyond the most ridiculous projections, and it means that the middle class disappears. It means, also, that without protections, investment bubbles of the sort that caused the Great Recession of our generation become commonplace. It means greater criminal gang activity to take advantage of the vacuum left by a less effective police force. Corporations and media already pretty much run the USA because its federal government is one of the least effective in the western world. Libertarianism would be handing them America on a silver platter, then bending over to get fucked up the ass afterwards. For those of you who mistrust government, consider this: Government has an obligation and a stated duty to represent the people, protect their interests and protect their livelihoods. Whether or not it is effective at doing all of these things, it has an obligation to do so. Corporations have no obligation but to their shareholders, no goal save a greater profit per quarter, to make each year more profitable than the last. And they'd bleed America dry to do so. Libertarianism isn't freedom. It's giving up your right to choose who's in charge.

[QUOTE=archangel125;50431955]The idea of 'small government' has always been ridiculous to me. The educated people who champion it, in my mind, are doing so with vested interests - namely, empowering corporations by giving them the majority of the power over a country. Some of you who know me by my posts probably know that I grew up in the Middle East. The conclusion I've come to by watching the global political landscape change over the years is simple: There is no such thing as 'small government'. When any vacuum of power exists, an organization will shortly appear to take advantage and put itself on the throne. [B]Small government means no employee protections, no minimum wage, no employment standards, no zoning by-laws, no social security, no employment benefits, no right to unionise, and no affordable healthcare[/B]. It means that the majority of the population, and especially the poor, become essentially enslaved by corporations who take full advantage of these regulatory gaps to cut their costs, and please their shareholders. It means that the gap between rich and poor in America increases beyond the most ridiculous projections, and it means that the middle class disappears. It means, also, that without protections, investment bubbles of the sort that caused the Great Recession of our generation become commonplace. It means greater criminal gang activity to take advantage of the vacuum left by a less effective police force. Corporations and media already pretty much run the USA because its federal government is one of the least effective in the western world. Libertarianism would be handing them America on a silver platter, then bending over to get fucked up the ass afterwards. For those of you who mistrust government, consider this: Government has an obligation and a stated duty to represent the people, protect their interests and protect their livelihoods. Whether or not it is effective at doing all of these things, it has an obligation to do so. Corporations have no obligation but to their shareholders, no goal save a greater profit per quarter, to make each year more profitable than the last. And they'd bleed America dry to do so. Libertarianism isn't freedom. It's giving up your right to choose who's in charge.[/QUOTE] A lot of that can be handled by state governments, of which when the federal government taxes less the state government can tax more and increase their own revenue to use for their state needs. I disagree with Gary on the DoE and other policies and do think some things should stay federal , but I'd rather see him in office then any Republican running for office right now. To me Libertarianism would be giving some power back to state governments. For example, possibly the most 'libertarian' president Calvin Coolidge is an example of small federal government but supporting workers rights, wage increases, and better working conditions when he was governor of Massachusetts. I honestly get where you're coming from, if I had to classify myself on the identity politics game, I'd be closer to a Rockefeller Republican or RINO as they're called today. I just can't vote for the republicans as they are now and I think Democrats are either just dirty people or complete bleeding heart panderers. If it wasn't for Gary Johnson getting the ticket I'd probably stay home and not vote.