Gary Johnson for President

[KorbenDallas]

Dopey Gary Johnson goes on Fox talking about his presidential bid:

And who wants to vote for this guy?--

--former CEO of a cannabis company, admits to using regularly.

Here is some of what Ayn Rand had to say about the subject:
(ref: http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ayn_Rand_Drugs.htm )

Quote

I do not approve of any government controls over consumption, so all restrictions on drugs should be removed (except, of course, on the sale to minors). The government has no right to tell an adult what to do with his own health and life. That places a much greater moral responsibility on the individual; but adults should be free to kill themselves in any way they want.

I would fight for your legal right to use marijuana; I would fight you to the death that you morally should not do it, because it destroys the mind. What the government should do is protect citizens from the criminal consequences of those who take drugs. But drugs would be much cheaper if it weren’t for government.

So Gary Johnson, King of Escapism, decides to run for president and wants you to vote for him?  There goes Reason.

And where would the Rationality be in that vote?..,.
 

For a man who's anti-mind?

[Brant Gaede]

Rand took drugs in various forms that affected her mind. One might say not always for the best.

--Brant

please don't quote her as an authority on any drug

[KorbenDallas]

9 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Rand took drugs in various forms that affected her mind. One might say not always for the best.

--Brant

please don't quote her as an authority on any drug

Philosophically held convictions and her personal moral conflicts are not the same.

Rand wasn't Galt, nor did she ever admit to be.

[Brant Gaede]

So her view on MJ that it "destroys the mind" is philosophical?

Is "Gault" a typo?

--Brant

I hope so

[KorbenDallas]

7 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

So her view on MJ that it "destroys the mind" is philosophical?

So it's not?

7 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Is "Gault" a typo?

--Brant

I hope so

Yup, and fixed.. typos are part of that fallibility thing.

(I hope you're not trying to overgeneralize committing a typo in your rebut)

 

[KorbenDallas]

Here's Maddow with a (positive) analysis of GJ:

 

[jts]

Gary Johnson has the same problem Ron Paul had: self-fulfilling prophecy. It goes something like this.

1. Ron Paul has no chance of getting elected.

2. Therefore voting for him would be a wasted vote.

3. Therefore people don't vote for him.

4. Therefore he doesn't get elected.

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[KorbenDallas]

JTS, I'm with you here.

In this video GJ talks about it some.. says a condition for his 2012 failure was because he wasn't in the polls, around the 1:20 mark uses the words self-fulfilling prophecy but in a positive sense, then a wasted vote:

 

[KorbenDallas]

GJ just won the Libertarian nomination for president, and it will be interesting to see how many votes he can steal.  In early March GJ called Trump a p*ssy, and in this video he appears to be a bit h*gh:

 

[william.scherk]

5 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

it will be interesting to see how many votes he can steal

Do you mean 'steal' votes, or be the recipient of votes which you believe should rightly go elsewhere?

-- from today's NYT on the Libertarian convention:

More than disrupting the election, though, they see it as a golden opportunity for true national exposure and expansion. The party won more than a million votes in 2012, its most ever, and recent polling suggests a growing appetite for third-party candidates.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll this month found that 47 percent of registered voters would consider a third-party candidate if Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton were the major party nominees. Political analysts were taken by surprise this spring when two separate polls showed Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor and the 2012 Libertarian Party nominee, pulling 10 percent and 11 percent of the national vote.

Edited May 30, 2016 by william.scherk
Grrrammar, excerpt from report on Libertarian convention

[Guyau]

.

Couple of hours ago, Jim Peron noted:

 

Quote

 

During the typical election the major media ignores the LP about 99.9% of the time. They certainly don't report on the convention and barely mention the nomination of any candidate.

So, on Google news there are literally hundreds of thousands of mentions of Gary. On the nomination I'm seeing reports by ABC, Wall Street Journal, Huffington, CBS, Chicago Tribune, UK's The Guardian, Deutsche Welle, Fox, New York Magazine, Fox, UK's The Independent, CNN, NPR, and lots of others. CNN has interviews they run on their site with him. The ONLY LP campaign to get a fraction of this reportage was that of Ed Clark in 1980, and this is well beyond what Ed got then.

 

 

[KorbenDallas]

6 hours ago, william.scherk said:

11 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

it will be interesting to see how many votes he can steal

Do you mean 'steal' votes, or be the recipient of votes which you believe should rightly go elsewhere?

WSS, GJ has aligned himself anti-Trump and would take more votes away from Trump than Hillary, and because GJ can't win I'm using 'steal' in the sense of taking votes away from a candidate that can actually win.  But no candidate has the right to votes, only people have the right to vote.  (equivocation here on purpose )

 

[Guyau]

.

 

Add PBS Newshour to the Peron list.

 

[william.scherk]

20 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

On 5/29/2016 at 5:04 PM, william.scherk said:

On 5/29/2016 at 11:43 AM, KorbenDallas said:

it will be interesting to see how many votes he can steal

Do you mean 'steal' votes, or be the recipient of votes which you believe should rightly go elsewhere?

WSS, GJ has aligned himself anti-Trump and would take more votes away from Trump than Hillary, and because GJ can't win I'm using 'steal' in the sense of taking votes away from a candidate that can actually win.  But no candidate has the right to votes, only people have the right to vote.  (equivocation here on purpose )

-- I'll bite on this other wormy hook:  why wouldn't the Johnson/Weld ticket attract votes from a Bernified Democratic 'NeverHillary bloc, from those unaffiliated or declared independent -- who cannot bring themselves to vote for either major-party ticket.

Should Clinton beat the odds, and win in November, the Libertarians can be blamed, of course. 

What I will find interesting is if Donald Trump speaks much or at all of the Libertarian ticket --  I mean beyond saying that he won't be talking about Weld's alcoholism.

[KorbenDallas]

17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

-- I'll bite on this other wormy hook:  why wouldn't the Johnson/Weld ticket attract votes from a Bernified Democratic 'NeverHillary bloc, from those unaffiliated or declared independent -- who cannot bring themselves to vote for either major-party ticket.

Should Clinton beat the odds, and win in November, the Libertarians can be blamed, of course. 

What I will find interesting is if Donald Trump speaks much or at all of the Libertarian ticket --  I mean beyond saying that he won't be talking about Weld's alcoholism.

WSS, I'd say GJ probably would take some of the unaffiliated or independent votes and he has mentioned this segment in some of his interviews.  I'm not sure a Bernified #NeverHillary group would necessarily flow to GJ, I'd think those people would make a decision between Trump/GJ and it be unpredictable from there.

Trump spoke about GJ in a press conference today, which surprised me (but he was asked):

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To be honest, I'm not sure the Libertarian Party is libertarian anymore.

The following analysis comes from reporters on the Alex Jones site: David Knight and Lee Ann McAdoo. (I know, I know... But they present some issues that anyone thinking of supporting Johnson and Weld should look at--at the very worst to defend against.)

Knight and McAdoo both self-identify as libertarians, but after showing some video-clips of Johnson and Weld and commenting on the context and comparisons, not to mention the bearded bouncing-belly beauty strip-tease artist, they are thinking of burning their party credentials.

They make a good case that Johnson and Weld have very strong RINO leanings, not libertarian so much anymore. At least on some fundamental issues.

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

On 5/27/2016 at 2:58 PM, KorbenDallas said:

Dopey Gary Johnson goes on Fox talking about his presidential bid:

And who wants to vote for this guy?--

--former CEO of a cannabis company, admits to using regularly.

Here is some of what Ayn Rand had to say about the subject:
(ref: http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ayn_Rand_Drugs.htm )

So Gary Johnson, King of Escapism, decides to run for president and wants you to vote for him?  There goes Reason.

And where would the Rationality be in that vote?..,.
 

For a man who's anti-mind?

Thats harsh. Is this a character defect or disappointment in a candidate?

I suppose we could eliminate known alcoholics from contention too.

Interestingly enough if that were done wed be left with Trump. 

Seriously, when concentrating on selective negatives as defining a person whose otherwise strong conviction insists govt stay out of our lives, we're left with personal grudges.

I self identify with GJ's assessment of Trump as hes ensconced in the lap of luxury with men servants tending to his every need. Just as Trump delighted in the put down, GJ has artfully used a pejorative that draws the right comparative difference. Hopefully a debate will further draw out the stark political and philosophical differences in governance between the three where only one has a track record of merit.

If sentiment decided whether ones pot usage or a personal alcohol prohibitionist policy won the day, Gov Veto would be the winner.

[KorbenDallas]

14 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

Seriously, when concentrating on selective negatives as defining a person whose otherwise strong conviction insists govt stay out of our lives, we're left with personal grudges

I don't think it's harsh or a selective negative to point out that a pot connoisseur, a former CEO of a cannabis company, and a regular user is running for president--someone with a "let's get high" philosophy.  He likes his stuff with high quality, potent THC and called his CEO position at http://cannabissativainc.com/company.php "a dream job":

 

Back in May, he admitted to using within three weeks of this article:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9cd899bf2bda4ae6b316c2872f9ff8dc/libertarian-gary-johnson-never-trumpers-im-it

Quote

Many know him best for his repeated calls to legalize drugs.

Johnson largely focuses his energy on marijuana, but also suggests that concern over narcotics such as heroin are exaggerated compared to the impact of alcohol or even smoking cigarettes. He is a regular marijuana user, noting that he most recently took an edible form of the drug three weeks ago.

"I'm one of the 100 million Americans that do this. If that disqualifies me from being president, so be it," he told The Associated Press, adding that he recently purchased the drug legally in Colorado but illegally transported it back to his home in New Mexico.

"Sure, I'm in the tens of thousands of those that are guilty of that phenomenon," he says.

He promises not consume marijuana if elected president, however.

"I think the American people deserve to know that there will be a steady hand," he said. "And I would hope that my history regarding this stuff would bear out the fact that I'm a pretty disciplined cat."

 

[Brant Gaede]

The ideological competence of the Libertarian Party--maybe not libertarians--peaked in 1972 when John Hospers was the presidential candidate. Hospers actually wrote a pretty good and big book out about that time called Libertarianism. Since then it's been a snowball downhill of ideological incompetence.

When it comes to politics the worst people seem to naturally rise to the top and poison all and sundry. The bad displaces the good. This takes time, sometimes a lot of time. There are two sources and types of power, frequently overlapping. The first is political and the second is business. What constrains the second is the need to provide goods and service; make a profit. What constrains the first is the citizenry and customs and ideas--and money. Taxes are a big way--the biggest way aside from central banking to get money. (There is also criminal fraud such as the Clinton Foundation but that's peanuts comparatively.)

This essentially leaves us with two snowballs. Business pushes its snowball up the mountain and politics lets its snowball roll down the mountain with generous pile-ons and pushes.

--Brant

guess which snowball the libertarians got involved with and then what happened to them

[9thdoctor]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

The ideological competence of the Libertarian Party--maybe not libertarians--peaked in 1972 when John Hospers was the presidential candidate.

I liked Harry Browne.

[Guyau]

.

Poll including third-party options indicates they throw the election from Clinton to Trump.

 

Gov. Johnson interviewed on PBS NewsHour

 

 

[Roger Bissell]

Realistic - yes, no?

https://libertarianvindicator.com/2016/06/07/a-realistic-electoral-college-map-for-the-libertarian-party-gary-johnson/

REB

[Guyau]

.

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp,

. Or what’s a heaven for?” –R. Browning

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Looks like best states in which to concentrate.

To win any electoral votes or to win any seat in the Congress would be a toehold. 

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

Realistic - yes, no?

https://libertarianvindicator.com/2016/06/07/a-realistic-electoral-college-map-for-the-libertarian-party-gary-johnson/

REB

Completely unrealistic.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

Realistic - yes, no?

https://libertarianvindicator.com/2016/06/07/a-realistic-electoral-college-map-for-the-libertarian-party-gary-johnson/

REB

This is fiction.