# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Motion to Suspend the nomination of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld proposed

## Jesse James

On September 13th, a motion was made and passed.  Per that motion, the following email was sent to Regional Representative Patrick McKnight and all At Large Representatives of the LNC:
Patrick,
On September 13th at the regular business meeting of the LP Seacoast, a motion was made and passed to contact you regarding the presidential ballot of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.  The motion asked that you make a motion to the LNC to suspend the nomination of both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as they do not uphold the principles of the Libertarian Party as both have openly made statements in support of the use of force.  Both candidates actively avoid using the word libertarian and have demonstrated time and time again an inability to even grasp what it means to be libertarian.  Per Article 14, Section 5 of the LP bylaws, a candidates nomination may be suspended by a 3/4 vote of the entire membership of the National Committee at a meeting.  We understand that this motion has a low probability of success, but were asking you to show that there are some in the Libertarian Party who still hold principle above party.  Do you have the principle to stand with those who voice opposition to those without principles?   Will you put forth an effort on behalf of principled libertarians or will you willingly step back, swallow your principle and pump the party line?  Is this still the "Party of Principle?" Members of your region are speaking out and the ball is in your court.  We will patiently await your response.
Brian McQuade
Chair, Libertarian Party of the Seacoast New Hampshire


https://lpseacoast.org/index.php/10-...ion-to-suspend

----------


## eleganz

LOL the first time this party's been this close to a girl and people are freaking out trying to cock block any sign of success.

----------


## Mikezelot

I don't understand these people in the LP. No Gary Johnson is not perfect, but he's a great candidate and I will be voting for him. I have heard that at the LP convention their was a faction that did not want to be a major party.

----------


## Danke

> I don't understand these people in the LP. No Gary Johnson is not perfect, but he's a great candidate and I will be voting for him. I have heard that at the LP convention their was a faction that did not want to be a major party.


"He is a great candidate"

Pass the pipe, dude.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

Interesting, the individual who authored this looks to be close with Darryl Perry who is indeed a principled libertarian and just announced a limited write-in campaign.  It really provides an opportunity for those who say advocating principled libertarianism is the winning argument to show that it is the case by showing up Gary Johnson in the states Perry will be eligible, as it sounds like this motion won't succeed.

----------


## Mikezelot

> "He is a great candidate"
> Pass the pipe, dude.


Any candidate that is a net positive is a great candidate. That Gary Johnson is.

----------


## euphemia

Johnson is nothing close to a great candidate.  This is not a sign of success for the LP.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> LOL the first time this party's been this close to a girl and people are freaking out trying to cock block any sign of success.


They aren't libertarian. Therefore they should'nt be on the ticket. I'd support their removal even if it was clear they were gonna to beat Hillary and Trump by a landslide.

----------


## presence

> LOL the first time this party's been this close to a girl and people are freaking out trying to cock block any sign of success.


girl?  hooker? what difference does it make?

----------


## eleganz

> They aren't libertarian. Therefore they should'nt be on the ticket. I'd support their removal even if it was clear they were gonna to beat Hillary and Trump by a landslide.


^
You literally just proved what I've been saying that there are people in the libertarian movement simply because its an exclusive club, and don't actually want it to grow in a way that people can have an open mind to it.  You want it all or nothing and that does not separate you from any of the other close minded extremists of either major party.

You literally just said there is no compromise, you don't get to win unless you're 100% pure, which is understandable if you're running for the United States of purist libertarian America.

Your mentality is why there will never be electoral success on this stage.  Your mentality isn't wrong, for purists... but its completely flawed for the types of coalitions that need to be built and every obstacle that is in our way for electoral success of the higher office.

----------


## Jesse James

> Any candidate that is a net positive is a great candidate. That Gary Johnson is.


Net positive compared to whom? Would Trump be a net positive?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> ^
> You literally just proved what I've been saying that there are people in the libertarian movement simply because its an exclusive club, and don't actually want it to grow in a way that people can have an open mind to it.  You want it all or nothing and that does not separate you from any of the other close minded extremists of either major party.
> 
> You literally just said there is no compromise, you don't get to win unless you're 100% pure, which is understandable if you're running for the United States of purist libertarian America.
> 
> Your mentality is why there will never be electoral success on this stage.  Your mentality isn't wrong, for purists... but its completely flawed for the types of coalitions that need to be built and every obstacle that is in our way for electoral success of the higher office.


Your priorities are fudged up. Some of us still promote the cause of liberty as opposed to just trying to hurry up and see our names counted. Pride is a very reckless thing. I bite my tongue for now, though. 

Fundamentals, however, are not purist. Fundamentals are merely fundamentals.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> ^
> *You literally just proved what I've been saying that there are people in the libertarian movement simply because its an exclusive club, and don't actually want it to grow* in a way that people can have an open mind to it.  You want it all or nothing and that does not separate you from any of the other close minded extremists of either major party.
> 
> You literally just said there is no compromise, you don't get to win unless you're 100% pure, which is understandable if you're running for the United States of purist libertarian America.
> 
> Your mentality is why there will never be electoral success on this stage.  Your mentality isn't wrong, for purists... but its completely flawed for the types of coalitions that need to be built and every obstacle that is in our way for electoral success of the higher office.


I did no such thing. 

I stopped reading after bolded part. Try having a conversation without putting words in people's mouths.

----------


## CaptUSA

More of the LP circular firing squad.  It's the only consistent characteristic of the LP.

----------


## 69360

They want to fail. They enjoy their obscure little circle jerk and don't want to lose it. That's my take on this.

I don't see anyone arguing Johnson/Weld are perfect candidates. But they look spectacular in the face of their opposition.

----------


## Jesse James

> They want to fail. They enjoy their obscure little circle jerk and don't want to lose it..


anybody who thinks Gary has a chance to win is even more delusional than anybody that thinks he's a true libertarian.

----------


## 69360

> anybody who thinks Gary has a chance to win is even more delusional than anybody that thinks he's a true libertarian.


Nobody thinks he will win the election.

He is polling 10xs better than the LP has ever done. Even if he finishes with 5% of the vote, that is 5 times better than the LP has ever done and they will get automatic ballot access and federal matching funds. If that isn't a win for the LP, I don't know what is. Perhaps they prefer to be the party of stripping fat dudes?

----------


## Ender

> I don't understand these people in the LP. No Gary Johnson is not perfect, but he's a great candidate and I will be voting for him. I have heard that at the LP convention their was a faction that did not want to be a major party.


I'm not voting for anyone but other than that I agree with this post. No, Johnson's not perfect, but he's certainly better than either republocrat running. 

Will he win? No.

BUT- he is definitely opening the door to a larger surge in the Libertarian Party and a chance to end the 2 party system. After the next 4 years of hell, everyone will be grateful.

----------


## Cleaner44

> Any candidate that is a net positive is a great candidate. That Gary Johnson is.


For what... statism?

----------


## 69360

> For what... statism?


Oh please. 

Johnson doesn't pass your silly purity test. We get it. 

He's still the best candidate that has a reasonably level of support and is worth voting for.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Oh please. 
> 
> Johnson doesn't pass your silly purity test. We get it. 
> 
> He's still the best candidate that has a reasonably level of support and is worth voting for.


It isn't silly. He has way too many authoritarian positions to be considered libertarian. 

Also I'm hearing he doesn't even say the word libertarian.

----------


## 69360

> It isn't silly. He has way too many authoritarian positions to be considered libertarian. 
> 
> Also I'm hearing he doesn't even say the word libertarian.


Yeah it is indeed silly. Nobody even remotely libertarian has done this well before. And Johnson is mostly libertarian. Who cares if he doesn't pass your purity test, he is mostly good.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Yeah it is indeed silly. Nobody even remotely libertarian has done this well before. And Johnson is mostly libertarian. Who cares if he doesn't pass your purity test, he is mostly good.


He isn't libertarian. There is every reason to care. 

I like how the non libertarians on here use the word "purity" as a pejorative.

----------


## farreri

> LOL the first time this party's been this close to a girl and people are freaking out trying to cock block any sign of success.


lol, exactly!

I blame the anarco-capitalist faction, since they seem to make up most of the extreme elements of the libertarian party, such as being the least pragmatic and most paranoid.

----------


## farreri

> Yeah it is indeed silly. Nobody even remotely libertarian has done this well before. And Johnson is mostly libertarian. Who cares if he doesn't pass your purity test, he is mostly good.


You can't be rational to the irrational wing of the party.

----------


## 69360

> He isn't libertarian. There is every reason to care. 
> 
> I like how the non libertarians on here use the word "purity" as a pejorative.


Oh he is. You are just an extremist. Which is fine too.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> On September 13th, a motion was made and passed.  Per that motion, the following email was sent to Regional Representative Patrick McKnight and all At Large Representatives of the LNC:
> Patrick,
> On September 13th at the regular business meeting of the LP Seacoast, a motion was made and passed to contact you regarding the presidential ballot of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.  The motion asked that you make a motion to the LNC to suspend the nomination of both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as they do not uphold the principles of the Libertarian Party as both have openly made statements in support of the use of force.  Both candidates actively avoid using the word libertarian and have demonstrated time and time again an inability to even grasp what it means to be libertarian.  Per Article 14, Section 5 of the LP bylaws, a candidate’s nomination may be suspended by a 3/4 vote of the entire membership of the National Committee at a meeting.  We understand that this motion has a low probability of success, but we’re asking you to show that there are some in the Libertarian Party who still hold principle above party.  Do you have the principle to stand with those who voice opposition to those without principles?   Will you put forth an effort on behalf of principled libertarians or will you willingly step back, swallow your principle and pump the party line?  Is this still the "Party of Principle?" Members of your region are speaking out and the ball is in your court.  We will patiently await your response.
> Brian McQuade
> Chair, Libertarian Party of the Seacoast New Hampshire
> 
> 
> https://lpseacoast.org/index.php/10-...ion-to-suspend


A little late. Would the Libertarian Party even be on the ballot if they removed Johnson/Weld? Not to mention the money and time already spent to advertise Johnson.

Kind of lame. Maybe Bill Kristol convinced him this would be a good idea.

----------


## Jesse James

> reasonably level of support


by who's standards?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Oh he is. You are just an extremist. Which is fine too.


Gary Johnson isn't a libertarian and neither are you. I am not an extremist, I am a libertarian(one of far too few around here these days). I do wish you could deal with it without warping reality to fit your bull$#@!.

----------


## 69360

> by who's standards?


I think any reasonable person would see polling from I think it was 6-13% in national polls as a candidate at least worthy of mention.




> Gary Johnson isn't a libertarian and neither are you. I am not an extremist, I am a libertarian(one of far too few around here these days). I do wish you could deal with it without warping reality to fit your bull$#@!.


Yeah you are the extreme. Anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is no good. There is nothing wrong with that though. You hold onto that dream. 

Some people will give a little to get somewhere. That's fine too.

I can accept a decent candidate that I agree with more than disagree. You don't seem capable of that. Which is fine, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

----------


## William Tell

> I think any reasonable person would see polling from I think it was 6-13% in national polls as a candidate at least worthy of mention.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah you are the extreme. Anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is no good. There is nothing wrong with that though. You hold onto that dream. 
> 
> Some people will give a little to get somewhere. That's fine too.
> 
> I can accept a decent candidate that I agree with more than disagree. You don't seem capable of that. Which is fine, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.


I can't speak for him. But I don't require 100%. For me a ticket comprised of candidates that between them currently or in the past have supported gun bans, abortion, forced vaccinations, carbon taxes and the TPP is too much for me.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> Nobody thinks he will win the election.
> 
> He is polling 10xs better than the LP has ever done. Even if he finishes with 5% of the vote, that is 5 times better than the LP has ever done and they will get automatic ballot access and federal matching funds. If that isn't a win for the LP, I don't know what is. Perhaps they prefer to be the party of stripping fat dudes?


Getting a federal welfare check / "matching funds" goes against libertarian principles.

----------


## 69360

> Getting a federal welfare check / "matching funds" goes against libertarian principles.


No it doesn't. It's taking back money the government stole from us. 

It's no different than congressman Ron Paul opposing earmarks yet using them to get stolen money back to his district.

----------


## 69360

> I can't speak for him. But I don't require 100%. For me a ticket comprised of candidates that between them currently or in the past have supported gun bans, abortion, forced vaccinations, carbon taxes and the TPP is too much for me.


I think it was full auto bans, I could be wrong, that's one you will never win with boobus. Even if it was semi auto bans that is a tough sell boobus is stupid and afraid of scary black rifles. I don't really care about carbon taxes or TPP. Abortion was a tough one, I am very pro life, but I sucked it up last time and voted Johnson. I thought the good outweighed the bad. I think Johnson is personally pro life.

----------


## William Tell

> I think it was full auto bans, I could be wrong, that's one you will never win with boobus.


Weld personally signed gun bans, and I'm not talking full auto. Weld's record is probably worse than Pence's. Weld is definitely worse on guns.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I think any reasonable person would see polling from I think it was 6-13% in national polls as a candidate at least worthy of mention.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah you are the extreme. Anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is no good. There is nothing wrong with that though. You hold onto that dream. 
> 
> Some people will give a little to get somewhere. That's fine too.
> 
> I can accept a decent candidate that I agree with more than disagree. You don't seem capable of that. Which is fine, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.


You consider being a libertarian extreme. That's fine with me.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I think it was full auto bans, I could be wrong, that's one you will never win with boobus. Even if it was semi auto bans that is a tough sell boobus is stupid and afraid of scary black rifles. I don't really care about carbon taxes or TPP. Abortion was a tough one, I am very pro life, but I sucked it up last time and voted Johnson. I thought the good outweighed the bad. I think Johnson is personally pro life.


You're fine with carbon taxes and TPP. I hope you don't vote.

----------


## angelatc

> Yeah it is indeed silly. Nobody even remotely libertarian has done this well before. And Johnson is mostly libertarian. Who cares if he doesn't pass your purity test, he is mostly good.


It's not like the LP has a history of nominating Libertarian candidates lately.  At least Johnson leans the right way on SOME issues, unlike Bob Barr.

----------


## fisharmor

> I can't speak for him. But I don't require 100%. For me a ticket comprised of candidates that between them currently or in the past have supported gun bans, abortion, forced vaccinations, carbon taxes and the TPP is too much for me.


Don't forget forcing bakers to bake cakes and forcing priests to perform marriages.

----------


## fisharmor

> No it doesn't. It's taking back money the government stole from us. 
> 
> It's no different than congressman Ron Paul opposing earmarks yet using them to get stolen money back to his district.


Ron Paul made the earmarks and then voted against the bills.

I don't expect you to understand why that makes a difderence.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

I've never realized that libertarians were such mealymouthed cowards until Gary Johnson and Bill Weld showed up. So I guess they served a purpose after all - proving conservative critics correct about us.

----------


## chudrockz

> It's not like the LP has a history of nominating Libertarian candidates lately.  At least Johnson leans the right way on SOME issues, unlike Bob Barr.


I want Harry Browne back!!

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Interesting, the individual who authored this looks to be close with Darryl Perry who is indeed a principled libertarian


Darryl Perry wants to lower the age of consent to puberty.

----------


## angelatc

> I want Harry Browne back!!


 Or Badnarik.  Or Paul.  

The point we are missing is that the left didn't get lefty things done by going balls to the wall communist.  While it's not my preferred solution I am indeed wiling to settle for incrementalism.

----------


## fr33

Bill Weld has done nothing but piss me off during this election. He is horrible and needs to stop speaking. Hopefully this will be the last time Gary rides the libertarian train. He's terrible at representing libertarianism. The party seems to be split on gaining relevance or promoting the ideology.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Darryl Perry wants to lower the age of consent to puberty.


Yeah I don't even know if I know what a libertarian is so I shouldn't be trying to define who is a principled one.  But from a quick view of his website before I typed that I saw that he advocates for an end to taxation and abolishment of the state.

----------


## cindy25

useless unless Ron would take it.  and age not a problem, Churchill and Adenauer were older.  just watched Goodbye Mr Chips and kept thinking Ron has one more campaign.

----------


## Cleaner44

> Oh please. 
> 
> Johnson doesn't pass your silly purity test. We get it. 
> 
> He's still the best candidate that has a reasonably level of support and is worth voting for.


This coming from the guy that liked Jeb! 

You want to go ahead and vote for Johnson then do it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else not to.

I do wonder what you are talking about with "reasonably level of support".

----------


## 69360

> You're fine with carbon taxes and TPP. I hope you don't vote.


Never said fine with. I said I don't care about. I don't consider them important enough to worry about.




> Ron Paul made the earmarks and then voted against the bills.
> 
> I don't expect you to understand why that makes a difderence.


It doesn't. Same basic concept and end result.




> This coming from the guy that liked Jeb! 
> 
> You want to go ahead and vote for Johnson then do it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else not to.
> 
> I do wonder what you are talking about with "reasonably level of support".


I said I would have accepted Jeb! if he had won the primary. I wouldn't have liked it, but at least he isn't as bad as Trump and Clinton.

I think somebody who can poll double digits is worth reporting on and should have been in the debates. Not just Johnson, anyone in the future with that level of support shouldn't get ignored.

----------


## Jesse James

I would prefer Jeb over Trump too, just like I prefer Trump over Clinton. Wouldn't vote for any of those characters

----------


## fisharmor

> It doesn't. Same basic concept and end result.


I expected nothing and am therefore not disappointed.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Darryl Perry wants to lower the age of consent to puberty.


That's certainly the type of stand that would get a candidate in trouble, and the open minded desire to debate any and all topics at any time is a fatal flaw of many "libertarians". Now if Perry is an anarchist, what exactly is an "age of consent" anyway? Who is setting this rule? Who is enforcing this rule? (See, there's that bad habit of examining and debating any subject at any time). 

Luckily for us, the UN is working deligently to make global rules on this and related subjects (marriage, age of consent, etc).

----------


## Cleaner44

> I said I would have accepted Jeb! if he had won the primary. I wouldn't have liked it, but at least he isn't as bad as Trump and Clinton.
> 
> I think somebody who can poll double digits is worth reporting on and should have been in the debates. Not just Johnson, anyone in the future with that level of support shouldn't get ignored.


I would also like to see the presidential debates opened up to other candidates. I would even go so far as to say they should include the top 4 candidates regardless of percentage.

As to Gary Johnson, I am not impressed and neither is Ron Paul...

*Ron Paul: Jill Stein is more libertarian than Gary Johnson*
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ro...rticle/2603476

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Idiots...

Thankfully, this isn't going to happen, since said idiots are in the minority. 

But, if it did somehow happen, and the LP snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, preferring their 'purity' to the realization of their 40+ year dream of obtaining equal ballot access, they should immediately dissolve the party: sell the furniture, get the security deposit back, close the doors - done. There is absolutely no point in having a political party if you're determined against doing what needs to be done to have even the slightest chance of influencing the outcome. If you just want to signal to everyone how pure you are, start a youtube channel.

----------


## CCTelander

> I want Harry Browne back!!



Michael Badnarik.

----------


## euphemia

> ^
> You literally just proved what I've been saying that there are people in the libertarian movement simply because its an exclusive club, and don't actually want it to grow in a way that people can have an open mind to it.


Um, no.  Gary and Bill have pretty much proven they are not principled Libertarians.  Gary is in this for his own personal gain, as some of us have proven over and over on these boards.  He is not the least bit interested in limited government or protecting liberty except as it concerns him.  He has phony and shady investments in cannabis and has said what he thinks of religious liberty.

----------


## farreri

> He has phony and shady investments in cannabis and has said what he thinks of religious liberty.

----------


## fisharmor

> if you're determined against doing what needs to be done to have even the slightest chance of influencing the outcome


Newsflash... Gary Johnson doesn't have the slightest chance of influencing the outcome.

Gary Johnson is only getting recognition because he is not Hillary and not Trump.  That's it.  He's not standing on his own.  He's not pushing his own message.
All he's doing is being "none of the above".

This is just another case of pseudo-liberty people talking and not listening.  It happens all the time and I'm used to it, but it's still pretty infuriating.

The party insiders are trying to initiate the recall because Johnson is blowing the one opportunity they've ever had to be something.
The LP has a chance here to show a third way, and what are the Johnson talking points?
They're all here in this thread.  

You guys don't show up and say "nyuh-uh, he's totally in favor of X!"
You show up and say "I don't care if he's going to force priests to marry homosexuals nor that irrespective of your position on religion this has no place in a society that cherishes liberty, STOP BEING A $#@!ING PURIST AND GET BEHIND HIM!!!"

You guys have nothing to praise here.  The only thing you have is that he has ballot access.

Whoopedie $#@!ing do.

He's posting on FB saying retarded stuff like "we can upset the electoral college if you vote your conscience!"
Guess what, Gary, the only way you get anywhere is if NOBODY VOTES HIS CONSCIENCE.

Ron Paul supporters said things like that and at the time they were equally retarded.  But if Ron Paul was on the LP ticket, it would actually be possible, because we would all be in the streets shilling for him instead of talking about milquetoast Johnson.

Just another way that Rand killed the movement.  If the grassroots weren't actively told to sit down and shut up, maybe we would have all drifted over to the LP and supported a real candidate with real ideas, and then THAT guy would be talking, and probably not talking out of his ass.

----------


## 69360

> Um, no.  Gary and Bill have pretty much proven they are not principled Libertarians.  Gary is in this for his own personal gain, as some of us have proven over and over on these boards.  He is not the least bit interested in limited government or protecting liberty except as it concerns him.  He has phony and shady investments in cannabis and has said what he thinks of religious liberty.


What exactly is he gaining? He isn't going to win. He knows he isn't going to win. He's getting negative gotcha press constantly. The mom's basement dweller wing of the LP constantly bashes him. He is getting no monetary gain, in fact I bet he is losing money on the campaign. 

He's gotten farther in the process than anyone even remotely libertarian even if he is just mostly libertarian. Seems like a good thing to me.

----------


## CCTelander

> I expected nothing and am therefore not disappointed.



Principles? We don't need no steenking principles! Not when we can get VOTES.

----------


## farreri

> The mom's basement dweller wing of the LP constantly bashes him.


They bash me too!

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Newsflash... Gary Johnson doesn't have the slightest chance of influencing the outcome.


The LP having equal ballot access for the first time in its history would dramatically change politics going forward.

And Gary is polling several points higher than he needs to win that ballot access. 

Regarding your other comments:




What the libertarian movement needs to succeed is, first and foremost, to ignore everything people like you say.

There is no reasoning with you.

There is no way to incorporate you into a winning coalition.

----------


## CCTelander

> Newsflash... Gary Johnson doesn't have the slightest chance of influencing the outcome.
> 
> Gary Johnson is only getting recognition because he is not Hillary and not Trump.  That's it.  He's not standing on his own.  He's not pushing his own message.
> All he's doing is being "none of the above".
> 
> This is just another case of pseudo-liberty people talking and not listening.  It happens all the time and I'm used to it, but it's still pretty infuriating.
> 
> The party insiders are trying to initiate the recall because Johnson is blowing the one opportunity they've ever had to be something.
> The LP has a chance here to show a third way, and what are the Johnson talking points?
> ...





"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fisharmor again."

----------


## farreri

The overly-principled Libertarians are ruining the party.

----------


## 69360

> The overly-principled Libertarians are ruining the party.



No, they aren't ruining it. They are keeping it the way they like it. Obscure. What they are doing is attempting to prevent it from moving forward and growing.

----------


## farreri

> No, they aren't ruining it. They are keeping it the way they like it. Obscure. What they are doing is attempting to prevent it from moving forward and growing.


Ruining it. Preventing it from moving forward and growing. Potayto. Potahto.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> No, they aren't ruining it. They are keeping it the way they like it. Obscure. What they are doing is attempting to prevent it from moving forward and growing.


Johnson is authoritarian. $#@! Johnson.

----------


## opal

seconded...

----------


## 69360

> Johnson is authoritarian. $#@! Johnson.


Yes of course. Anyone who doesn't agree with your worldview 100% is an authoritarian. We got that several posts ago.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Yes of course. Anyone who doesn't agree with your worldview 100% is an authoritarian. We got that several posts ago.


There you go trying to distort reality again.

----------


## euphemia

> The overly-principled Libertarians are ruining the party.


In what way?  The unprincipled ones gave you Bob Barr and Gary Johnson.  Between the two of them they couldn't scrape up enough integrity to by even a tiny principle.

----------


## CCTelander

> The overly-principled Libertarians are ruining the party.



"[O]verly-principled"?!? SMFH

----------


## Krugminator2

> The overly-principled Libertarians are ruining the party.


Not really. There are no libertarians. It is a small niche ideology. I saw a Pew Poll where 11% of the population identifies as libertarian. But when they surveyed people on specific issues, 65% of the self-identified libertarians didn't support marijuana legalization.

The sole purpose of the LP is to educate voters, not win elections. If you want to make the tent bigger, then there is no purpose for the Libertarian Party. The Republican Party is infinitely more effective at that.  I don't see it as a win for the Libertarian Party getting bigger. If a candidate can support as a Libertarian then that candidate should be running and getting elected as a Republican.

There is a reason the major parties have the coalitions that they have. Parties and politicians are the in the business of winning elections. If there were demand for socially liberal, fiscally conservative candidates, then those candidates would already be elected.   Rockefeller Republicans went extinct for a reason.  Expanding the coalition with Marxists will never work. It is nails on a chalkboard every time Ron Paul mentions Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> There you go trying to distort reality again.


The reality is that Johnson is overwhelmingly pro-liberty - on economic issues, on foreign policy, on civil liberties.

Ron--Rand------Johnson------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trump/Clinton

But, as 69360 says, those trashing Johnson are totally unable to see these gradations.

 According to you and your ilk, everyone is either a pure libertarian or pure authoritarian.

That's bad reasoning and - if it's the guiding principle of your political action - self-defeating.

----------


## euphemia

> The reality is that Johnson is overwhelmingly pro-liberty... on civil liberties.


Not even a little bit.  He's as bad on religious liberty as Obama, who is the worst.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Not even a little bit.  He's as bad on religious liberty as Obama, who is the worst.


Johnson's pro-liberty positions on the Fed, spending, price controls, subsidies, unions, trade, drugs, PATRIOT Act, NSA, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc have been laid out for you many _many_ times. You consistently refuse to acknowledge these facts, and repeat your anti-Johnson bleating about religious liberty (i.e. the Civil Rights Act being extended to gays, a trivial issue in comparison), and whatever other minor deviations you can find. And this coming from a person who's been promoting Trump - who is terrible on everything - for months. On top of it all, it's abundantly clear from your posting that you yourself aren't a libertarian and don't understand what libertarianism is. I have nothing else to say to you. In fact, I'm going to just ignore you from now on. Don't expect responses in the future.

----------


## 69360

> Not really. There are no libertarians. It is a small niche ideology. I saw a Pew Poll where 11% of the population identifies as libertarian. But when they surveyed people on specific issues, 65% of the self-identified libertarians didn't support marijuana legalization.
> 
> The sole purpose of the LP is to educate voters, not win elections. If you want to make the tent bigger, then there is no purpose for the Libertarian Party. The Republican Party is infinitely more effective at that.  I don't see it as a win for the Libertarian Party getting bigger. If a candidate can support as a Libertarian then that candidate should be running and getting elected as a Republican.
> 
> There is a reason the major parties have the coalitions that they have. Parties and politicians are the in the business of winning elections. If there were demand for socially liberal, fiscally conservative candidates, then those candidates would already be elected.   Rockefeller Republicans went extinct for a reason.  Expanding the coalition with Marxists will never work. It is nails on a chalkboard every time Ron Paul mentions Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich.


Thing is Trump may have ruined the Republican brand and a new one may be needed. Time will tell I suppose.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Johnson's pro-liberty positions on the Fed, spending, price controls, subsidies, unions, trade, drugs, PATRIOT Act, NSA, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc have been laid out for you many _many_ times. You consistently refuse to acknowledge these facts, and repeat your anti-Johnson bleating about religious liberty (i.e. the Civil Rights Act being extended to gays, a trivial issue in comparison), and whatever other minor deviations you can find. And this coming from a person who's been promoting Trump - who is terrible on everything - for months. On top of it all, it's abundantly clear from your posting that you yourself aren't a libertarian and don't understand what libertarianism is. I have nothing else to say to you. In fact, I'm going to just ignore you from now on. Don't expect responses in the future.


There are more than minor deviations. Which have been laid out many many times. Such as he is for gun control and forced vaccination. If Johnson is what passes for libertarian, we're $#@!ed.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Johnson's pro-liberty positions on the Fed, spending, price controls, subsidies, unions, trade, drugs, PATRIOT Act, NSA, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc have been laid out for you many _many_ times. You consistently refuse to acknowledge these facts, and repeat your anti-Johnson bleating about religious liberty (i.e. the Civil Rights Act being extended to gays, a trivial issue in comparison), and whatever other minor deviations you can find. And this coming from a person who's been promoting Trump - who is terrible on everything - for months. On top of it all, it's abundantly clear from your posting that you yourself aren't a libertarian and don't understand what libertarianism is. I have nothing else to say to you. In fact, I'm going to just ignore you from now on. Don't expect responses in the future.


There are more than minor deviations. Which have been laid out many many times. Such as he is for gun control and forced vaccination. If Johnson is what passes for libertarian, we're $#@!ed.

----------


## donnay

> There are more than minor deviations. Which have been laid out many many times. Such as he is for gun control and forced vaccination. If Johnson is what passes for libertarian, we're $#@!ed.


Indeed.  Clearly the libertarian party has been hijacked.

----------


## farreri

> Ron--Rand------Johnson------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trump/Clinton


Thanks for being a voice of reason!

----------


## farreri

> Not even a little bit.  He's as bad on religious liberty as Obama, who is the worst.


Besides his compromise on the cake issue, how is Gary bad on religious liberty?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> he is for gun control


Nope, not true at all. Johnson's record is very much pro-gun. 

The  only "gun control" he's proposed relates to mentally ill persons (which  wouldn't be unlibertarian), and even then he's not sure whether it  would be feasible in practice and doesn't support any existing  proposals. He also made an offhand remark about restricting sales to  terrorists, but - again - doesn't think that's feasible in practice  because it would invariably violate the rights of innocent people, and  doesn't support any existing proposals - he's totally against the  "no-fly-no-buy" plan. 




> and forced vaccination


Trivial, and arguably not even unlibertarian.

 One can make a libertarian case for forced vaccinations in the same way one can make a libertarian case for forced quarantines.




> If Johnson is what passes for libertarian, we're $#@!ed.


If a 95 like Johnson gets eviscerated by libertarians for not being a 100, we're $#@!ed.

----------


## farreri

The Atlantic doesn't like Gary either, but that's because he's _too_ libertarian:

*No, Not Gary Johnson*
The Libertarian candidate puts a likable face on a deeply troubling economic policy.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ohnson/502718/

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Don't expect responses in the future.


Good. Shut up for while.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The Atlantic doesn't like Gary either, but that's because he's _too_ libertarian:
> 
> *No, Not Gary Johnson*
> The Libertarian candidate puts a likable face on a deeply troubling economic policy.
> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ohnson/502718/


Excerpt:




> the Libertarian candidate’s economic ideas are so radical they make  Trump seem downright moderate. He would abolish federal income taxes,  replace the current tax code with a more regressive national consumption  tax, cut Medicare and Medicaid by 40 percent, push for a constitutional  amendment to forbid the U.S. to run deficits even during downturns, ban  federal bailouts of states, and seek to eliminate the Federal Reserve.


Yea, boy, what a turrible turrible authoritarian, amiright Trumpkins Johnson bashers?

----------


## osan

> On September 13th, a motion was made and passed.  Per that motion, the following email was sent to Regional Representative Patrick McKnight and all At Large Representatives of the LNC:
> Patrick,
> On September 13th at the regular business meeting of the LP Seacoast, a motion was made and passed to contact you regarding the presidential ballot of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.  The motion asked that you make a motion to the LNC to suspend the nomination of both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as they do not uphold the principles of the Libertarian Party as both have openly made statements in support of the use of force.  Both candidates actively avoid using the word libertarian and have demonstrated time and time again an inability to even grasp what it means to be libertarian.  Per Article 14, Section 5 of the LP bylaws, a candidates nomination may be suspended by a 3/4 vote of the entire membership of the National Committee at a meeting.  We understand that this motion has a low probability of success, but were asking you to show that there are some in the Libertarian Party who still hold principle above party.  Do you have the principle to stand with those who voice opposition to those without principles?   Will you put forth an effort on behalf of principled libertarians or will you willingly step back, swallow your principle and pump the party line?  Is this still the "Party of Principle?" Members of your region are speaking out and the ball is in your court.  We will patiently await your response.
> Brian McQuade
> Chair, Libertarian Party of the Seacoast New Hampshire
> 
> 
> https://lpseacoast.org/index.php/10-...ion-to-suspend


To my unsophisticated eyes this seems well reasoned.  Johnson strikes me as no libertarian, nor that weirdo he chose as his running mate.

----------


## euphemia

> Johnson's pro-liberty positions on the Fed, spending, price controls, subsidies, unions, trade, drugs, PATRIOT Act, NSA, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc have been laid out for you many _many_ times.


I do not give one tiny grain of poop what else Gary claims to be pro-liberty on.  If he is ignoring a fundamental Constitutional principle that applies to every single American, then it doesn't matter what else he claims to believe.  He ignores the fact that liberty is not his (or yours) to define or apply.  Liberty just is.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Johnson strikes me as no libertarian, nor that weirdo he chose as his running mate.


Agreed.

----------


## nikcers

> Agreed.


Yes and Clinton is not a democrat, and Trump is not a republican. Johnson by far is the most conservative guy running who is on all 50 ballots and doesn't want to go to war in Iran.

----------


## osan

> The  only "gun control" he's proposed relates to mentally ill persons (which  wouldn't be unlibertarian)


Oh please, this is SO amateurish.

Define "mentally ill".  Whose definition is it?  How do we know it is a valid definition?  That all aside, who says the "mentally ill" possess no right to self-defense?  

By the implication of your own words above, you are no libertarian, but rather just another deep-root statist.




> and even then he's not sure whether it  would be feasible in practice and doesn't support any existing  proposals.


Then it would appear he is all over the map on the issue, which disqualifies him utterly.  If you understand your own positions, you state them clearly and without equivocation.  Johnson fails miserably.




> He also made an offhand remark about restricting sales to  terrorists


And such a statement is stupid on its face.  Firstly, how many terrorists are going to go into a gun shop with his "I'm a terrorist" t-shirt and ID on display?  So now that we know they are going to conceal their intentions, what then?  Ask all customers whether they are terrorists?  To what end?  Will the terrorists admit their status?  No - so we are back to "then what?"  Shall we spy on Americans at home, gathering information so we might know who the Tangos are?  Not very libertarian, eh?  Back at "then what?", we find ourselves in a bind if it is a path of positive action we seek.  But if we are real libertarians, we accept the fact that in a free land that is under some form of threat, we are faced with the choice of going tyrant or accepting the risks and reacting accordingly when an enemy acts against us.

Therefore, Gary assassinates himself with such stupidities as this.  He most decidedly does NOT make his case with anyone who is honest and has his brains intact and in proper use.




> doesn't think that's feasible in practice  because it would invariably violate the rights of innocent people


Then why in HELL would he even flirt with such notions?  In so doing, he makes a buffoon of himself.






> Trivial, and arguably not even unlibertarian.


You say this about forcing vaccines on people?

Have you been drinking, or are you just gone mad?

So sorry, but you have less than zero credibility.




> One can make a libertarian case for forced vaccinations in the same way one can make a libertarian case for forced quarantines.


So go ahead and make the case.  Let us see whether you can convince us.

----------


## nikcers

> Then why in HELL would he even flirt with such notions?  In so doing, he makes a buffoon of himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say this about forcing vaccines on people?
> 
> Have you been drinking, or are you just gone mad?
> ...



He has the same platform as he had in 2012. Go ahead show me where he makes this case in his platform and he is advocating for these things?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yes and Clinton is not a democrat, and Trump is not a republican. Johnson by far is the most conservative guy running who is on all 50 ballots and doesn't want to go to war in Iran.


He openly contended that he'd send men with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their right to property. That makes your boy an openly professed communist. As you may know, the right to property is the principal support for the right to Life and Liberty themselves. 

And nobody's going to war with the Persians. Umkay?  They're 80 million strong and heir to one of the world's oldest civilizations. They've been around for a long time, brother. They've been to war many, many, many times. Nobody's messing with the Persians. Nobody. And the people on the boob tube or the you tube or whatever "news" tube you're streaming who are filling your head full of that fear porn know it, too.

----------


## osan

> He has the same platform as he had in 2012. Go ahead show me where he makes this case in his platform and he is advocating for these things?


Don't be obtuse.  I was responding to the direct assertions of another poster and not Johnson's "platform".  My response was based on the assumed veracity of the claim.  That much is crystal clear, so either you did not read carefully enough or you are selling something.

If you want to fence with me, you will need better game than this.

----------


## 69360

If all of these people who spend their time pouring over every single word Johnson has said looking for some little tidbit to discredit him spent as much time working to help their own candidate, maybe Trump would be winning.

----------


## nikcers

> If you want to fence with me, you will need better game than this.


if you want to support Hillary Clinton, then you are on the wrong message board.

----------


## farreri

> If all of these people who spend their time pouring over every single word Johnson has said looking for some little tidbit to discredit him spent as much time working to help their own candidate, maybe Trump would be winning.

----------


## nikcers

> He openly contended that he'd send men with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their right to property. That makes your boy an openly professed communist. As you may know, the right to property is the principal support for the right to Life and Liberty themselves. 
> 
> And nobody's going to war with the Persians. Umkay?  They're 80 million strong and heir to one of the world's oldest civilizations. They've been around for a long time, brother. They've been to war many, many, many times. Nobody's messing with the Persians. Nobody. And the people on the boob tube or the you tube or whatever "news" tube you're streaming who are filling your head full of that fear porn know it, too.


Between Clinton wanting to shoot down Russian planes and Trump wanting to take the oil, it's not over Iran, its over Oil. Russia and Iran aren't going to kick back and let us take over the 2nd/3rd largest oil fields in the world. They aren't going to let us shoot down their planes. This is why they are rebooting the KGB. Trump is campaigning in the westbank promising to stop the Iranians hard liners who keep attacking Israel, he has a campaign office in Israel, and has been promising to stop Iran since he cancelled the last Republican debate to give APIAC a speech. Do you really think that they would let a non establishment person just cancel a debate? This is when he made a deal with the establishment and got Pence as a VP.

----------


## Ender

> He openly contended that he'd send men with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their right to property. That makes your boy an openly professed communist. As you may know, the right to property is the principal support for the right to Life and Liberty themselves. 
> 
> *And nobody's going to war with the Persians. Umkay?  They're 80 million strong and heir to one of the world's oldest civilizations. They've been around for a long time, brother. They've been to war many, many, many times. Nobody's messing with the Persians. Nobody. And the people on the boob tube or the you tube or whatever "news" tube you're streaming who are filling your head full of that fear porn know it, too.*


THE US HAS BEEN WARRING WITH THE PERSIANS FOR QUITE A WHILE. 

We over threw their democratically elected PM in 1953; we have them surrounded with US bases and we blame them for everything, because we want their oil.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> THE US HAS BEEN WARRING WITH THE PERSIANS FOR QUITE A WHILE. 
> 
> We over threw their democratically elected PM in 1953; we have them surrounded with US bases and we blame them for everything, because we want their oil.


Mmm Hm.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> who says the "mentally ill" possess no right to self-defense?


Mentally ill persons, like children, do not have full rights because they are not competent to exercise them. 

If a schizophrenic can be involuntarily committed, certainly he can be denied the right to buy a gun.




> So go ahead and make the case.  Let us see whether you can convince us.


It's  justifiable to use force to defend life/property against an imminent  threat. If failing to get vaccinated increases the risk of contracting a  disease and subsequently passing that disease to others, and that risk  is sufficiently large, failure of one person to get vaccinated might  constitute an imminent threat to the lives of others, such that it would  be justifiable for them to force that person to be vaccinated. Whether this is  actually the case depends on the particular circumstances, of course - forced vaccination isn't_ always_ justifiable. Likewise with any other use of preemptive violence; whether it's justifiable depends on the imminence of the threat in the particular circumstances in question.

----------


## osan

> if you want to support Hillary Clinton, then you are on the wrong message board.


Your sense of humor evades me.

How, for pity's sake, do you infer my support for Hillary Clinton from that which I have written in this thread... or any other one, for that matter?

No really, I've GOT to hear this one.

----------


## osan

> Mentally ill persons, like children, do not have full rights because they are not competent to exercise them.


I see.  

Firstly, I reject your premises both that competency is requisite to exercise and that such assessments rest within the prerogative of any man over another.  You have made an assertion only, but no case for it.  You will have to do better than this, I am afraid.




> If a schizophrenic can be involuntarily committed, certainly he can be denied the right to buy a gun.


Once again, an unsupported assertion that boils down to an attempt at proof by assertion.  Yet another failure in your attempted use of reason.

If such a person has committed no crime, he cannot be treated in this way because the valid basis for doing so remains undemonstrated.  The actual bases used to justify such treatment of some people in wholly invalid.  For example, the "it's for his own good" argument is pure nonsense.  I have no right to determine what is best for YOU.  And who is qualified to make these determinations?  By what standard does one occupy so lofty a position of authority over others?  Who determined the standard?  Why were they authorized to make THAT determination and how do we know that it is correct?  And how do we know, assuming correctness, that the standard has been competently and HONESTLY applied?  The Holy Inquisition used to burn people at the stake with the ostensibly good intentions of saving the accused's soul from eternal torment.  We all know (or should) how that worked out.




> It's  justifiable to use force to defend life/property against an imminent  threat.



At least you got _something_ right, thus far.




> If failing to get vaccinated increases the risk of contracting a  disease and subsequently passing that disease to others, and that risk  is sufficiently large, failure of one person to get vaccinated might  constitute an imminent threat


Ignoring the obvious FAIL that this claim represents, I direct everyone's attention to your employ of weasel-words... "IF", "SUFFICIENTLY", "MIGHT".

So sorry, but liberty entails risk.  You appear to be just another hollow libertarian who wants all the perceived blessings of liberty without having to pay any of the costs of being free.  This is about as sorry a state as I can imagine for a human being.




> Whether this is  actually the case depends on the particular circumstances,


To be determined by _whom_, exactly?




> of course - forced vaccination isn't_ always_ justifiable.


It is NEVER justifiable.

Your line of reasoning would analogously justify forcing a woman to get an abortion because of some nonsense about the threat of "over-population"  This "logic" relies heavily on what-if reasoning, marinated in a pool of hand-wringing.  This brand of justification is what leads humanity down the maelstrom into hell.

Forcing one to be vaccinated prior to any knowledge of whether he is infected is NOT the same as requiring him to seek TREATMENT after it is determined that he is in fact a carrier.  This is a-priori v. a-posteriori reasoning, the former being the invalid application, the latter be valid.




> Likewise with any other use of preemptive violence; whether it's justifiable depends on the imminence of the threat in the particular circumstances in question.


You are equating by implication the use of preemptive force by an individual in defense of a perceived threat and the employ of same as a matter of state policy.  I do not believe they can be validly equated in this manner.


Caveat: I'm very tired and took a happy pill, so any holes in my reasoning here would be appreciated... by someone whose analytics I trust.  I apologize in advance.  I ought just to go bed, but I don't want to.

----------


## nikcers

> Your sense of humor evades me.
> 
> How, for pity's sake,do you infer my support for Hillary Clinton from that which I have written in this thread... or any other one, for that matter?
> 
> No really, I've GOT to hear this one.


Sorry I just mistaken you for one of the Clinton Schills because her campaign is spending millions attacking Johnson's campaign, you just happened to be doing it for free. That doesn't necessarily mean you are doing it because Clinton's campaign is paying you, you are just a good samaritan. You just happen to be on the same "side" as them, against the third party. I got it.

----------


## osan

> Between Clinton wanting to shoot down Russian planes and Trump wanting to take the oil, it's not over Iran, its over Oil. Russia and Iran aren't going to kick back and let us take over the 2nd/3rd largest oil fields in the world. They aren't going to let us shoot down their planes. This is why they are rebooting the KGB. Trump is campaigning in the westbank promising to stop the Iranians hard liners who keep attacking Israel, he has a campaign office in Israel, and has been promising to stop Iran since he cancelled the last Republican debate to give APIAC a speech. Do you really think that they would let a non establishment person just cancel a debate? This is when he made a deal with the establishment and got Pence as a VP.



Bottom line: we are $#@!ed.

As always, I say vote your conscience.  But also realize that it WILL be Hillary or Trump.  You don't have to play the lesser of two evils strategy, but just know what is likely to be the outcome if you don't.

At this point I see it all as meaningless because the juggernaut is at full-throttle and I would bet money I don't have that Theye don't give the least damn what you or I think.  Theye are NOT going to so much as slow down, much less stop.  The coming together of sufficient Americans to stop this death march using the instruments available to us for peaceful change is a practical impossibility.  It WILL not happen.  We are not going to kill Themme off, either, pretty well clinching it for Team Tyranny.  It's a damned shame, but there you have it.

Massive civil disobedience is still a possibility, but I suspect that Theye would no longer hesitate to start killing us off in huge numbers until we were no longer a significant messenger to the rest of the world.

Play it as you feel you must, but I warn every man against letting his fantasies of normative propriety get in the way of positive reality.  At this point the only steps possible toward the light will be those of the baby variety.

----------


## osan

> Sorry I just mistaken you for one of the Clinton Schills because her campaign is spending millions attacking Johnson's campaign, you just happened to be doing it for free. That doesn't necessarily mean you are doing it because Clinton's campaign is paying you, you are just a good samaritan. You just happen to be on the same "side" as them, against the third party. *I got it*.


Actually no, you don't.  I am against Johnson because he says $#@! that leads me to that position.

At this point I am almost wholly incapable of divining any path NOT leading to hell on earth that does not involve bullets. I wish it were otherwise, and perhaps I am just gone blind, so if you have a viably peaceful method of pulling America's ass out of the fire, now would be a good time to start talking because I have an ill feeling that we don't have a lot of time before doors shut and lock behind us.

----------


## nikcers

> *But also realize that it WILL be Hillary or Trump.*


This is the same line as Trump isn't going to be the nominee. You won't know until it happens. I refuse to accept that the president will be Clinton or Trump. The establishment will spend millions getting people like you to come into message boards and go on reddit and say it over and over again.

----------


## nikcers

> Actually no, you don't.  I am against Johnson because he says $#@! that leads me to that position.
> 
> At this point I am almost wholly incapable of divining any path NOT leading to hell on earth that does not involve bullets. I wish it were otherwise, and perhaps I am just gone blind, so if you have a viably peaceful method of pulling America's ass out of the fire, now would be a good time to start talking because I have an ill feeling that we don't have a lot of time before doors shut and lock behind us.


I still haven't met one real Clinton or Trump supporter. This election is a farce, and its anti support like yours that is feeding it.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I see.  
> 
> Firstly, I reject your premises both that competency is requisite to exercise and that such assessments rest within the prerogative of any man over another.  You have made an assertion only, but no case for it.  You will have to do better than this, I am afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, an unsupported assertion that boils down to an attempt at proof by assertion.  Yet another failure in your attempted use of reason.
> 
> If such a person has committed no crime, he cannot be treated in this way because the valid basis for doing so remains undemonstrated.  The actual bases used to justify such treatment of some people in wholly invalid.  For example, the "it's for his own good" argument is pure nonsense.  I have no right to determine what is best for YOU.  And who is qualified to make these determinations?  By what standard does one occupy so lofty a position of authority over others?  Who determined the standard?  Why were they authorized to make THAT determination and how do we know that it is correct?  And how do we know, assuming correctness, that the standard has been competently and HONESTLY applied?  The Holy Inquisition used to burn people at the stake with the ostensibly good intentions of saving the accused's soul from eternal torment.  We all know (or should) how that worked out.
> ...


^ Spoken like a true libertarian. Ya'll Johnson supporters can learn a thing or 50 from Osan.

----------


## nikcers

> ^ Spoken like a true libertarian. Ya'll Johnson supporters can learn a thing or 50 from Osan.


Great job, you are saving the Clinton campaign money.

----------


## nikcers

Every time you perpetuate the narrative that there are only two parties that your vote actually counts for, or that Gary Johnson isn't libertarian enough, or that Gary Johnson is too libertarian and is going to close all of the government you save the Clinton's campaign money.

----------


## osan

> This is the same line as Trump isn't going to be the nominee. You won't know until it happens.


One can nonetheless make a statistical prediction based upon the prevailing circumstances.  Barring some momentous happening, I predict that either Clinton or Trump will be elected.  My confidence is high.  That could change in a heartbeat.




> I refuse to accept that the president will be Clinton or Trump.


Then I must conclude the likelihood that you suffer from DOGS: Denial Of Gravity Syndrome




> The establishment will spend millions getting people like you to come into message boards and go on reddit and say it over and over again.


Unfortunately, nobody is paying me to do anything these days, but do feel free to make whatever baseless accusations you please.  If you go far enough I may have basis for a good pay day.  It would be my first in years. 1/2 

The "establishment" doesn't have to pay anyone in the manner you claim, though I'm sure they probably have at least a few on their dole for just these purposes.  The mean American is a knot-headed nincompoop with a hopelessly simplistic world view.  A few ads and editorials with the right sprinkling of "triggers" pretty well clinches things.

----------


## nikcers

> One can nonetheless make a statistical prediction based upon the prevailing circumstances.  Barring some momentous happening, I predict that either Clinton or Trump will be elected.  My confidence is high.  That could change in a heartbeat.


This is bull$#@! the Trump campaign is perputuating this myth the the Clinton campaign will collapse tomorrow, and the Clinton campaign is perpetuating this myth that Trumps campaign is in a death spiral. Now you are saying that without any doubt Clinton Or Trump is going to be president. I think at this point you could be wrong because Clinton and Trumps campiagn both can't be right.

----------


## euphemia

> Every time you perpetuate the narrative that there are only two parties that your vote actually counts for, or that Gary Johnson isn't libertarian enough, or that Gary Johnson is too libertarian and is going to close all of the government you save the Clinton's campaign money.


Cut it out.  Just stop it.  Gary Johnson is not Libertarian at all.  He does not believe in the right to life, the right to live according to faith tradition. 

Gary Johnson was a horrible governor and would be a terrible president. There are several on this board who do. not. like. him. and. will. not. vote. for. him.  I am one of them.  I despise Clinton and am disappointed in Trump.  Stop throwing around accusations.

----------


## JohnM

> The sole purpose of the LP is to educate voters, not win elections.


Exactly.  It would be nice if the LP won elections, but it is not going to happen any time soon - and it will only happen if voters change their whole way of thinking, and that will only happen if they get educated.

And while I cannot prove it, I strongly suspect that in terms of the future of libertarianism in the US, it makes no difference at all whether Gary Johnson gets 5% or 15% in November.  None.

We have had plenty of 3rd party candidates in living memory who had more impressive runs.  In 1980, John Anderson hit 26% in a Gallup poll.  By early October, he was still polling over 10%.  In the end he got 7%.  Impressive, but it changed nothing.  And one of the reasons for that is that Anderson basically got votes from Democrats who didn't like Carter, and Republicans who didn't like Reagan.  Gary Johnson's campaign has exactly the same appeal, but - despite the fact that Hillary is more hated than Carter and Trump is more hated than Reagan - Johnson has not managed to hit the levels of support that Anderson had.

Same story with Ross Perot.  19% in 1992 (very impressive numbers compared to GJ) - but by 1996, down to 8%.  His candidature made no impact, because he didn't change anybody's way of thinking.

Sure GJ is much better than Trump or HRC.  I think there is a good case for voting for him.  But your vote will make no difference.  And, to be honest, I don't think GJ's candidature or campaign will make much difference either.

----------


## Jesse James

DARRELL CASTLE!!!

----------


## osan

> This is bull$#@!


We will see soon enough whether you are correct on this matter.




> the Trump campaign is perputuating this myth the the Clinton campaign will collapse tomorrow, and the Clinton campaign is perpetuating this myth that Trumps campaign is in a death spiral.


So?  This is what people like this do when campaigning for president.  It's boilerplate.




> Now you are saying that without any doubt Clinton Or Trump is going to be president.


You need to learn how to read better.  I said that my confidence is HIGH.  To wit:




> ...I predict that either Clinton or Trump will be elected. My confidence is high.


I further qualified my statement thusly:




> That could change in a heartbeat.


I believe I covered my bases well enough for government work.

[qupte]I think at this point you could be wrong because Clinton and Trumps campiagn both can't be right.[/QUOTE]

Your somewhat convoluted semantics aside, I do believe that I made clear that I could be wrong.  I nevertheless stand by my prediction that one of them will become president, again barring any extraordinary event.

This is big-league American politics, which bleeds heavily into big-league global politics.  Do you for even the briefest of moments think that the puppet masters are going to allow this question to fall into the hands of the riffraff?  That would be painfully naive.  I suspect Clinton will waltz her fat, pant-suited ass into the Office, come January and that nobody is going to lay a finger on her.  Not only COULD I be wrong on that point, I pray that I will be so proven.  OTOH, there is a part of me that hopes she wins because when she does, I believe all stops will be pulled out and America will then move forward with the beating it so desperately needs pursuant to the hope that even the lesser among us will gain pause and decide that enough is enough.  My confidence in that eventuality is vanishingly small.

My suspicion is that we are witnessing the final moments of the American experiment and that history shall deem it a sad failure.  May I also be proven the village idiot on that point as well.  Let there be just enough Americans left who will do that which is needed in order to put our homegrown tyrants to flight, or dust.  I don't much care what the rest of the world does.  They can flourish or burn for all I care.

So sit back and watch the show.

Speaking of death spirals, didn't wikileaks promise a campaign-ending release today for Clinton?  I was told they said that she will be arrested and end up in prison.  I believe this as much as I believe all the bull$#@! that "Anonymous" spews in their slick video productions.  I'd really love to see her burnt at the stake, but hold no illusions about the likelihood.  Anyone else hear of this?

----------


## osan

> The reality is that Johnson is overwhelmingly pro-liberty - on economic issues, on foreign policy, on civil liberties.


Believe as you wish, of course.  I'm not buying.




> But, as 69360 says, those trashing Johnson are totally unable to see these gradations.


Nonsense.  Johnson cuts no muster with me as a self-professed "Libertarian".  He either lies or has other problems because he opens his yap and allows bad things to escape.  People such as yourself give Trump a hard time for the things that issue from his pie-hole.  Well, I hold Johnson to the same standard. 




> According to you and your ilk, everyone is either a pure libertarian or pure authoritarian.


I doubt that, but will not speak for JFKIII.

What I will say, however, is that there are no gradations of freedom, but only of servitude.  

One is either free or he is something else.  Proper freedom means the right to do as one pleases with the one prohibition being against the violation of the equal rights of others.  This definition encompasses both positive and negative rights as its direct consequences.  You have the right to positively decide to go bungee jumping, eat at McDonald's (EEEWWWW...), get laid, or shoot yourself in the head, so long as you bring no direct material harm to others in the process.

Likewise, the free man holds the negative right to be free from unwanted interferences by others.  You hold the unalienable right, for example, not to be taxed or otherwise obliged by others to perform without your consent.  You are free to decline proscription, taxation, being monitored for drug use, and so forth without consent.

I have described this aspect of freedom here.  Read it if you will and see if you can punch holes in my argument; it is a short essay.  Freedom is an all-or-nothing affair.  There are no gradations thereof, but only those of serfdom.


It is possible you have a problem with your understanding of "freedom".  Pursuant to correction, try this.

----------


## CCTelander

> Believe as you wish, of course.  I'm not buying.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Johnson cuts no muster with me as a self-professed "Libertarian".  He either lies or has other problems because he opens his yap and allows bad things to escape.  People such as yourself give Trump a hard time for the things that issue from his pie-hole.  Well, I hold Johnson to the same standard. 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that, but will not speak for JFKIII.
> ...



"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to osan again."

----------


## Ender

> Mmm Hm.


Are you really showing a picture of US military caught in Iranian waters? Of course, it was all unintentional.

----------


## loveshiscountry

> Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
> Ron Paul made the earmarks and then voted against the bills.
> I don't expect you to understand why that makes a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. Same basic concept and end result.


No it's not the same basic concept. Reasons matter.
How do you not get Ron Paul wanted those earmarks for his constituents and the way to do it was attach it too a bill that would pass?

It's no different than getting ones amendment attached to a bill "to soften the blow" of that bill and then voting against the bill because the bill still stinks.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Let's take one issue at a time, Osan. 

First, competence and how it affects rights.




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> 
> Mentally ill persons, like children, do not have full rights because they are not competent to exercise them.
> 
> 
> I reject your premises both that competency is requisite to  exercise and that such assessments rest within the prerogative of any  man over another.


*Scenario A.* You climb out your upstairs window onto the roof and attempt to jump, in an effort to commit suicide. 

I, a random busybody passing by, happen to see this and intervene, grabbing you and wrestling you to the ground to prevent you from jumping.

I've aggressed against you.

*Scenario B:* My 2 year old son climbs out his upstairs window onto the roof and attempts to jump off, unaware that he will be injured as a result. 

Fortunately, I see this and intervene, grabbing him and wrestling him to the ground to prevent him from jumping.

Have I aggressed against him? 

If not, why? How does this differ from Scenario A? 

What if, instead of being 2 years old, my son were 20, but also severely mentally retarded, such that he reasoned at the level of a 2 year old?

What if he's schizophrenic, such that he didn't even know he was jumping off a roof, but thought he was stepping into a UFO?

...I'll await your response.

----------


## jonhowe

> Your priorities are fudged up. Some of us still promote the cause of liberty as opposed to just trying to hurry up and see our names counted. Pride is a very reckless thing. I bite my tongue for now, though. 
> 
> Fundamentals, however, are not purist. Fundamentals are merely fundamentals.


I'm voting for gary BECAUSE of fundamentals. As president the few things he can do unilaterally are things I support 100%. The places where he's not "pure" enough for me are massive changes that would require congress and ARE NOT going to happen in the near future. Maybe after 4-8 successful years of a very moderated libertarian presidency under Johnson, though, a better/more pure candidate will run and have a chance.

----------


## euphemia

That's nonsense. He has the wrong ideals and he will get nothing through Congress. After almost eight years of thinking it couldn't get worse under Obama, it continues to get worse. I don't trust Johnson and do not think he will get anything done. He sure didn't in New Mexico.

----------


## Ender

> That's nonsense. He has the wrong ideals and he will get nothing through Congress. After almost eight years of thinking it couldn't get worse under Obama, it continues to get worse. I don't trust Johnson and do not think he will get anything done. He sure didn't in New Mexico.


That's EXACTLY what Ron Paul said his own strength would be as president:

*GET NOTHING DONE.*

AND, AS FAR AS WRONG IDEALS, NEITHER TRUMP OR HITLERY HAVE ANY GOOD IDEALS.

----------


## euphemia

And I get that. But I cannot vote for Gary Johnson.  I will not support him or the party that nominated him. 

Ron is a principled man. He can explain why he takes a position, right down to the last detail. Gary is as unprincipled as Clinton.

----------


## osan

> Let's take one issue at a time, Osan. 
> 
> First, competence and how it affects rights.
> 
> 
> 
> *Scenario A.* You climb out your upstairs window onto the roof and attempt to jump, in an effort to commit suicide. 
> 
> I, a random busybody passing by, happen to see this and intervene, grabbing you and wrestling you to the ground to prevent you from jumping.
> ...


Are you attempting to equate the situation of a child and an adult?

Your scenario is invalid.  If a schizophrenic is able to assert his rights, then his claim to them are valid and no man may trespass against him.  That he may hear a devil tell him to shoot someone and act on it is a risk that free men take for the sake of not trespassing upon their fellows.  Freedom is risk-laden and at times scary as hell.  This truth is part and parcel of the price we pay to be free.  If you are not willing to pay those costs, justifying your evasions with nonsense such as this, then it is not freedom that you want but pretty slavery.  Those who think that they can have actual and proper freedom without these sorts of risks suffers from DOGS (Denial Of Gravity Syndrome).

Believe what you will, but denying the existence and effect of gravity does not make it go away.  Phillip K Dick put it beautifully when he wrote:
*
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
*
What you propose contains the seed of perdition for a descent into tyranny.  The least concession one makes to he who demands that which accords not with freedom dooms all men to eventual servitude.

Once again, in case you missed it before: freedom is an all-or-nothing deal.  There are no degrees of freedom, but only of servitude.

----------


## asurfaholic

Aleppo? Who's that?

----------


## Ender

> And I get that. But I cannot vote for Gary Johnson.  I will not support him or the party that nominated him. 
> 
> Ron is a principled man. He can explain why he takes a position, right down to the last detail. Gary is as unprincipled as Clinton.


Last time I heard he hadn't killed anyone.

----------


## erowe1

> How do you not get Ron Paul wanted those earmarks for his constituents and the way to do it was attach it too a bill that would pass?


It's more like this:

If the bill was going to pass, then he at least wanted it to include earmarks for his constituents (which increased the total cost of the bill by $0). But he would prefer that it not pass at all, as proven by his voting against it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> 
> *Scenario A.* You climb out your upstairs window onto the roof and attempt to jump, in an effort to commit suicide. 
> 
> I, a random busybody passing by, happen to see this and intervene,  grabbing you and wrestling you to the ground to prevent you from  jumping.
> 
> I've aggressed against you.
> 
> ...


I'm equating a child and a _mentally incompetent_ adult (...because both are mentally incompetent). 

Now, please answer the underlined questions above.

.............................

*P.S.* While we're at it, here are some related hypotheticals for you to consider:

A. 

--If you grab a stranger off the street, take their pants off, and put a diaper on them, you've committed a serious crime.

--Is it a crime when you change your baby's diaper? Or your retarded adult child's? Or your senile parent's?

If not, why? 

...Isn't it because the latter are mentally incompetent and don't have full rights?

B. 

--An ordinary adult can give consent, such as consent for sex.

--Can children? Can a mentally retarded/insane adult?

If not, why? 

...Isn't it because the latter are mentally incompetent, and don't have full rights?

----------


## osan

> I'm equating a child and a _mentally incompetent_ adult (...because both are mentally incompetent). 
> 
> Now, please answer the underlined questions above.
> 
> .............................
> 
> *P.S.* While we're at it, here are some related hypotheticals for you to consider:
> 
> A. 
> ...


Sorry, I am not taking your bait.  Your questions are posited improperly.  There are no definitions of the wishy-washy adjectives you employ such as "incompetent".  That is the crux of the problem with not only your argument, but the general ways in which this subject is approached.  Who gets to decide competence and by what standard is it assessed?  Your questions leave too much unanswered, and are therefore are unanswerable as posited.  For example, your one question presupposes the uniformity of "retarded" people.  This fails utterly.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Sorry, I am not taking your bait.  Your questions are posited improperly.  There are no definitions of the wishy-washy adjectives you employ such as "incompetent".  That is the crux of the problem with not only your argument, but the general ways in which this subject is approached.  Who gets to decide competence and by what standard is it assessed?  Your questions leave too much unanswered, and are therefore are unanswerable as posited.  For example, your one question presupposes the uniformity of "retarded" people.  This fails utterly.


LOL, that's a nice dodge...

The truth is that you don't want to answer the questions because you know that doing so will reveal the absurdity of your position.

If you change your mind and decide you want to have an honest debate, let me know. I'll be here.

----------


## euphemia

> Last time I heard he hadn't killed anyone.


No, but his state has the second highest rate of poverty in the entire nation, right behind Mississippi, and has the highest rate of poverty among children and teens.  He might not kill people, but he sure didn't develop a culture where people can prosper.  They only have 2 million people.  How hard would it be to bring some business there and get people working?

----------


## erowe1

> No, but his state has the second highest rate of poverty in the entire nation, right behind Mississippi, and has the highest rate of poverty among children and teens.  He might not kill people, but he sure didn't develop a culture where people can prosper.  They only have 2 million people.  How hard would it be to bring some business there and get people working?


Johnson hasn't been governor for the past 12 years.

----------


## euphemia

New Mexico didn't get in this hole in the last 12 years, either.  It is a poor state and got poorer because of Gary Johnson's inability to get something done.  He wants to run on that record, but he really can't.  He accomplished nothing in a state that has fewer people than Los Angeles.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Johnson hasn't been governor for the past 12 years.


Yep. In fact, Johnson greatly reduced poverty in New Mexico during his years in office there. In 1989, the poverty rate in New Mexico was at 20.6%. New Mexico was the third-poorest state, after only Louisiana and Mississippi (Source: Census.gov).

By 2000, the poverty rate in New Mexico had dropped to 12.2%. It stayed in that range until the recession of 2008, five years after Johnson had left office (Source: Census.gov). High levels of poverty in New Mexico have returned, but not due to Johnson's years in office, during which the poverty rate had greatly declined.

----------


## misterx

> Yep. In fact, Johnson greatly reduced poverty in New Mexico during his years in office there. In 1989, the poverty rate in New Mexico was at 20.6%. New Mexico was the third-poorest state, after only Louisiana and Mississippi (Source: Census.gov).
> 
> By 2000, the poverty rate in New Mexico had dropped to 12.2%. It stayed in that range until the recession of 2008, five years after Johnson had left office (Source: Census.gov). High levels of poverty in New Mexico have returned, but not due to Johnson's years in office, during which the poverty rate had greatly declined.


Didn't the poverty rate decline everywhere over that time period? I just love how local politicians always take credit for things in their state that were nationwide trends during their time in office. Tim Kaine did that tonight when he talked about reducing the murder rate as mayor of Richmond. The murder rate fell in every city during the nineties.

----------


## eleganz

> Your priorities are fudged up. Some of us still promote the cause of liberty as opposed to just trying to hurry up and see our names counted. Pride is a very reckless thing. I bite my tongue for now, though. 
> 
> Fundamentals, however, are not purist. Fundamentals are merely fundamentals.


My priority is that some of our ideas get shared to the rest of the country/world in a way that is acceptable for the consumer.  You can't force 100% libertarianism on people, its a gradual learning process.  Your priorities are different and thats OK, which is exactly what I said in my post that you quoted. 

If your message gets shared with the same 1% of people every 4 years for life and that message isn't even perfect, where is your cause, exactly? Please do tell.

----------


## euphemia

But Gary is wrong on the fundamental issues of freedom.  Supposedly he won't go to war with other country, but he has said Jews should be forced to bake Nazi cakes.  This is fundamentally opposite of both basic constitutional freedom and the NAP. If Gary won't hesitate to use aggression to force me to act against deeply held religious conviction, and if he agrees aggression against the preborn is okay, then what would stop him from using aggression to go against another nation based on whatever cannabis-fueled nonsense floats through his mind at a given moment?

----------


## osan

> LOL, that's a nice dodge...


Baloney.  You show me a single post I've ever made here where I have dodged a valid question.

Your premises are false.  I'm no fool.  Come up with proper questions and you may get answers.




> The truth is that you don't want to answer the questions because you know that doing so will reveal the absurdity of your position.


Because you say so.

FAIL.




> If you change your mind and decide you want to have an honest debate, let me know. I'll be here.


I don't waste my time with nonsense.  Come up with something proper and we may see.  Until then, you can make whatever accusations you please.  The only thing you succeed in doing is making yourself look ridiculous.

Have a good one.

----------


## euphemia

I have to agree, r3v.  There is very little honesty about discussion with you.  We have proven to you that Johnson is dishonest, ignorant (and having studied PoliSci, how is it possible?), and unprincipled.  Unfortunately, it appears to me that you have become that which you despise:  one of the sheeple.

I can respect people who disagree on principle, but I can't respect people who ignore the facts and hang on to their boy, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that he is unprepared for the job.

----------


## nikcers

> But Gary is wrong on the fundamental issues of freedom.  Supposedly .. he has said Jews should be forced to bake Nazi cakes.


Well you are a liar because he never said that. He even clarified the after the 20 second debate soundbite - you have to sell the cake if its for sale.

----------


## euphemia

> Well you are a liar because he never said that. He even clarified the after the 20 second debate soundbite - you have to sell the cake if its for sale.


That's not what he said.  He said he would use force.  That is not the NAP.

----------


## nikcers

> That's not what he said.  He said he would use force.  That is not the NAP.


I posted a video you can't even post a source? in the debate he was talking about legislation, specifically because they could be used like Jim Crow laws. You are taking it out of context and being dishonest.

----------


## 69360

> No it's not the same basic concept. Reasons matter.
> How do you not get Ron Paul wanted those earmarks for his constituents and the way to do it was attach it too a bill that would pass?
> 
> It's no different than getting ones amendment attached to a bill "to soften the blow" of that bill and then voting against the bill because the bill still stinks.


Sure it is, same end result. People get the money back that the government took from them. If are a policy nerd and need the semantics, then hey whatever.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

Thread started bad, but is now full retard.

----------


## erowe1

> New Mexico didn't get in this hole in the last 12 years, either.  It is a poor state and got poorer because of Gary Johnson's inability to get something done.


Source?

It's a fact that he did blow away all other governors in number of vetoes. That is a record worth running on. I would much rather a governor or president to get nothing done than to get a lot done when that means signing new laws.

----------


## euphemia

> Well you are a liar because he never said that. He even clarified the after the 20 second debate soundbite - you have to sell the cake if its for sale.


No, what he said was that Jews would be forced to make Nazi cakes.  And even in your little "clarification" he uses the term "have to," meaning you are forced to sell the cake.  I have been in a lot of bake shops, and I have never seen a Nazi cake.  Never.  For the record I have never seen a same-sex marriage cake in person, either. 

For all the talk about businesses being private property and all that, it just cracks me up to see someone shilling for Gary who doesn't think businesses should be able to do what they want about their product, or that fundamental constitutional freedoms should not remain intact.  

Libertarians believe in the personal liberty of the individual to pursue life, liberty, and property, and to have fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, gun ownership, etc.

----------


## fr33

> The overly-principled Libertarians are ruining the party.


How are they ruining it? By losing at every convention? The overly principled are to the LP what the Ron Paul supporters  were to the GOP. Gary Johnson was the most moderate pick every time he was the nominee.

----------


## Origanalist

> Baloney.  You show me a single post I've ever made here where I have dodged a valid question.
> 
> Your premises are false.  I'm no fool.  Come up with proper questions and you may get answers.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you say so.
> 
> FAIL.
> ...


That's his standard shtick. He like to try and frame the debate in terms that only favor whatever he is advocating (usually statism) and then accuse you of not wanting a serious debate when you reject them.

----------


## nikcers

> No, what he said was that Jews would be forced to make Nazi cakes.  And even in your little "clarification" he uses the term "have to," meaning you are forced to sell the cake.


Wrong- in the clarification he says that he would not support legislation changes and explained that the current law is that if you have a cake for sale you cannot deny selling it to someone based on "____"

----------

