# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Gary Johnson 2016 over the hillaries(hillary/trump)!!Spread the websites far and wide

## speciallyblend

These 2 sites are cross linked if any media wants to interview site creator please im me. thank you kenny, GARY JOHNSON over the hillaries(hillary and trump(hillary with a phallus))  www.hitlary.com    and www.trumphoon.com  feel free to main page this and sites mods? if you like, We need to defeat trump and hillary or we will all need lots of lube as they F US!! GARY JOHNSON 2016 the only option unless you love big government loving authoritarians!!

----------


## William Tell



----------


## speciallyblend

> 


 non issue when compared to forced extortion healthcare, spying on americans and failed foreign policy so bake the f in cake or don't open. if that is your issue then yeah i can deal with that. bigger issues then baking a cake Gary johnson over authoritarians like trump/hillary . if you want perfection then you run or ask jesus to. I'll bake the nazi cake if you won't  i guess i will vote for trump or hillary now since  you have to bake a cake/s  so baking a cake is a deal breaker eh? i can find a long list of better deal breakers with liars like trump or hillary both liberals.  Gary Johnson over the hillaries(trump/hillary)

----------


## LibertyEagle



----------


## dannno

I agree the cake baking thing is kind of a minor issue - in principle is a pretty important issue but he doesn't want to make things worse, he is just going with the status quo of businesses serving people without discriminating based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc..  I agree with GJ it is currently a "black hole" issue that would likely lose the election for a candidate. 

The two big issues are his stances on the TPP and also that Hillary is innocent or whatever.. oh, and I don't think he is very good on immigration considering that it is currently a highly subsidized government program. 

But he is very libertarian on about 90% of the issues. I will still probably vote for him. I would rather have a libertarian who is a little bit of a globalist than an authoritarian leaning nationalist.. although I think we may be better off with Trump than Hillary, I'm not 100% certain on that, but there is good reason to think he would be.

Nationalism may be preferable to socialism, nationalism is a reaction to all of the forced and subsidized multi-culturalism that is having a lot of negative impacts on western society. But nationalism is not optimal, it's not a solution, more like self defense.

----------


## Working Poor

I wish Ron's people would get solidly behind Johnson. We might be able to make a difference if we did. There is no way Trump or Hillary is going to be good.

----------


## Thor

I like these 2 sites...  nice how they show the flaws of each candidate and lead into a better choice....  Johnson might not be a perfect Libertarian, and might not be better than Dr Paul, but he is the best shot we got at changes we want.  Finally.

And if enough people out there hate both Hitlary and Trumphoon (and there are a BUNCH who hate BOTH) we might actually stand a chance of winning. (Yes, got to poll a little higher and got to get into the debates. No debates, no chance.)  But we can't be internally divided over cake baking and stupid stuff like that.

Need to share these sites....

----------


## Natural Citizen

> ...in principle is a pretty important issue...


Yep. To ignore that particular issue is akin to acting contradictory of the _primary_ fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> non issue when compared to forced extortion healthcare, spying on americans and failed foreign policy so bake the f in cake or don't open.


You're patently wrong about that. And it's a reckless assessment in scope.

While I agree with you that the issues you've provided for comparison are critical, they are not beyond the critical scope of the former. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day.

----------


## Suzanimal

> I wish Ron's people would get solidly behind Johnson. We might be able to make a difference if we did. There is no way Trump or Hillary is going to be good.


I wish the LP would nominate a candidate I could feel good about voting for....

----------


## Thor

> Yep. To ignore that particular issue is akin to acting contradictory of the _primary_ fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself.





> You're patently wrong about that.


So it is much better to say "He is not good enough. So we will continue to bitch and moan and let Hitlary or Trumphoon get elected because Gary is just not *pure enough*."  SMFH

Here in lies the idiocy of most libertarians.  It has got to be 100% pure, or we will pout.

Here is a better idea, let's get a quasi-libertarian elected this time, so next time, a more pure libertarian has a $#@!ing chance after America has warmed up to the idea a little....

----------


## Thor

> I wish the LP would nominate a candidate I could feel good about voting for....


I agree...  however, we need to expose Americans slowly, and 2, 2 terms REPUBLICAN Governors are a good stepping stone.




> let's get a quasi-libertarian elected this time,  so next time, a more pure libertarian has a $#@!ing chance after America  has warmed up to the idea a little....

----------


## Natural Citizen

> So it is much better to say "He is not good enough. So we will continue to bitch and moan and let Hitlary or Trumphoon get elected because Gary is just not *pure enough*."  SMFH
> 
> Here in lies the idiocy of most libertarians.  It has got to be 100% pure, or we will pout.
> 
> Here is a better idea, let's get a quasi-libertarian elected this time, so next time, a more pure libertarian has a $#@!ing chance after America has warmed up to the idea a little....


I'm not talking about elections. I'm talking about the fundamental principle of American philosophy. Specifically, the foundation of its moral code. To minimize the terms of controversy to "bake my cake" and proceed to push that issue aside is to ignore the relevance of the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself.

The issues that the op placed into comparison with it in order to minimize it are essentially nothing more than products of ignorance _to_ it.

----------


## Thor

> I'm not talking about elections. I'm talking about the fundamental principle of American philosophy. Specifically, the foundation of its moral code.
> 
> The issues that the op placed into comparison with it in order to minimize it are essentially nothing more than products of ignorance _to_ it.


It is unfortunately a process to convert most Americans to what we recognize.  And while Johnson is not perfect, he is a good stepping stone.  It is either that, or still continuing to complain.  I liked McAfee better, but Johnson is a good bridge and has a better chance to make a change in our direction.  So I agree with the OP.  who cares about baking a cake.  It is one issue that some of us see as a flaw, but if he can win the hearts of millions to advance the overall goal, I am willing to run with it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It is unfortunately a process to convert most Americans to what we recognize.  And while Johnson is not perfect, he is a good stepping stone.  It is either that, or still continuing to complain.  I liked McAfee better, but Johnson is a good bridge and has a better chance to make a change in our direction.  So I agree with the OP.  who cares about baking a cake.  It is one issue that some of us see as a flaw, but if he can win the hearts of millions to advance the overall goal, I am willing to run with it.


Yeah, like I said, I'm not reserving focus on the election cycle. And my interest in the thread was specific to what was minimized. I think the best course, in scope, is to go back to nuts and bolts and get on the same page there. The election can't and won't drive practical terms of controversy now. The only fruit it's providing is divide and conquer. Look around. 

So, then, principle and philosophy. That's where I'm at. And likely where I'll focus most of my energy if I salvage the patience to remain around here. 

But to minimize the particular issue that was brought into question is a big deal. That's the big one. Again, it's the primary fundamental principle. That's a no no of the highest law.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> I'm not talking about elections. I'm talking about the fundamental principle of American philosophy. Specifically, the foundation of its moral code. To minimize the terms of controversy to "bake my cake" and proceed to push that issue aside is to ignore the relevance of the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself.
> 
> The issues that the op placed into comparison with it in order to minimize it are essentially nothing more than products of ignorance _to_ it.


'American philosophy'.... gtfo.  A philosophy is either true or it is not.  And for the fundamental moral principle of your philosophy being God, every single one of your 'quotes that support the principle' was a quote from a fallible individual.  Quit puffin your chest, boy.

----------


## Thor

> Yeah, like I said, I'm not reserving focus on the election cycle. And my interest in the thread was specific to what was minimized. I think the best course, in scope, is to go back to nuts and bolts and get on the same page there. The election can't and won't drive practical terms of controversy now. The only fruit it's providing is divide and conquer. Look around. 
> 
> So, then, principle and philosophy. That's where I'm at. And likely where I'll focus most of my energy if I salvage the patience to remain around here. 
> 
> But to minimize the particular issue that was brought into question is a big deal. That's the big one. Again, it's the primary fundamental principle. That's a no no of the highest law.


I agree, and disagree.  I think the election cycle can give a lot of exposure and bring in a lot of new eyeballs.  So both are important. And I am willing to bypass some principle to win eyeballs to bring more people over, and then sharpen principle.  Because the principle first approach has been tried since 1971, and here we sit...

----------


## Natural Citizen

> 'American philosophy'.... gtfo.  A philosophy is either true or it is not.  And for the fundamental moral principle of your philosophy being God, every single one of your 'quotes that support the principle' was a quote from a fallible individual.  Quit puffin your chest, boy.


One time I'll let you do that. _Once_.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I agree, and disagree.  I think the election cycle can give a lot of exposure and bring in a lot of new eyeballs.  So both are important. And I am willing to bypass some principle to win eyeballs to bring more people over, and then sharpen principle.  Because the principle first approach has been tried since 1971, and here we sit...


Yeah, I know. Just need to go about it the right way, though. We're too fragmented.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> One time I'll let you do that. _Once_.


Is that because the founders told you to give me one chance, or Him? hahahaha

----------


## acptulsa

> Is that because the founders told you to give me one chance, or Him? hahahaha


And just as soon as Thor starts making damned good points, a Trump spammer shows up and picks a fight in the thread over nothing, hoping to derail it.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> And just as soon as Thor starts making damned good points, a Trump spammer shows up and picks a fight in the thread over nothing, hoping to derail it.
> 
> Surprise, surprise, surprise.


Think what you want.  I take offence to people $#@!ing up someone's grassroots thread about the efforts an individual has put forth.  There are plenty of threads to complain about Johnson in.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Think what you want.  I take offence to people $#@!ing up someone's grassroots thread about the efforts an individual has put forth.  There are plenty of threads to complain about Johnson in.


Except it doesn't matter what you think if you can't support your claim with anything other than your ego. And our egos tend to get us into trouble. That's the problem. We have entirely too many cowboys around here. People who dont think things through all the way before popping their mouths off. It's very wise to think things through. It's practical to consider the position one places themselves in prior to placing themselves there. Reason being is that the red face that one saves may be their own.

----------


## acptulsa

> Think what you want.  I take offence to people $#@!ing up someone's grassroots thread about the efforts an individual has put forth.  There are plenty of threads to complain about Johnson in.


Well, maybe I am confusing you with someone else.  Sorry.




> Except it doesn't matter what you think if you can't support your claim with anything other than your ego. That's the problem. We have entirely too many cowboys around here. People who dont think things through all the way before popping their mouths off. It's very wise to think things through. Reason being is that the red face that one saves may be their own.


What is this thread about?  Seems to me it's about an election where the two evils we're expected to choose between are just about the two most evil bastards who have ever run for the office, and about a couple of sites and videos which point that out.

Can we allow this thread to be about that?  Or are we really going to compare things like Benghazi, and things like attacking the First Amendment by not only threatening to sue journalists for slander but threatening to target people on the basis of their religion, to whether a professional baker can refuse this or that or whether Johnson is willing to rule out any possibility of stopping a genocide somewhere?

And if so, why do we have to do it in this thread?

So, we have too many cowboys who are unwilling to think things through before popping off?  Like as in, unwilling to think about where the proper thread for the thing they want to pop off about might be?  Like that kind of cowboy, pardner?

Are the people who might actually choose the lesser evil if the choice is Satan, Be'ezelbub, or some guy who drank a juice box in the grocery store then hid the empty behind a cantaloupe allowed to have an activist thread around here any more?  That's not a rhetorical question.  You certainly may answer.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Well, maybe I am confusing you with someone else.
> 
> What is this thread about?  Seems to me it's about an election where the two evils we're expected to choose between are just about the two most evil bastards who have ever run for the office, and about a couple of sites and videos which point that out.
> 
> Can we allow this thread to be about that?  Or are we really going to compare things like Benghazi, and things like attacking the First Amendment by not only threatening to sue journalists for slander but threatening to target people on the basis of their religion, to whether a professional baker can refuse this or that or whether Johnson is willing to rule out any possibility of stopping a genocide somewhere?
> 
> And if so, why do we have to do it in this thread?


The issue was raised in the thread with regard to the bake my cake debate. The op responded to the insertion by claiming it to be a non-issue. It is patently false to profess it to be a non-issue. The issue is one that contradicts the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itelf. And that is what I took issue with. So, I responded appropriately, correctly, and respectfully.

Unfortunately, P3ter_Griffin decided to pick a battle that I promise he is absolutely not prepared to finish. That was a choice on his part.

Does that answer your question?

To the latter point, I agree with you. So, then, if P3ter_Griffin would enjoy making his claim in the specific thread with which he took issue, I'll certainly accommodate him.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Except it doesn't matter what you think if you can't support your claim with anything other than your ego.


Individuals will be less likely to do grassroots efforts when the grassroots efforts they do do and talk about get trashed, whether we agree or not with the efficacy of the specific grassroots efforts they have undertaken, ones they may undertake in the future we may agree with.  It is subjective, but imo in the grassroots if you disagree so much with the efficacy of a project someone has undertaken, and are not offering constructive criticism to their project, then don't say anything.  Plenty of room for debates in other sections of RPF.

eta: I am leaving this thread.  My apologies to the OP.  I already sent him a +rep before all this, because his websites are nice... much better than I can do.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Individuals will be less likely to do grassroots efforts when the grassroots efforts they do do and talk about get trashed, whether we agree or not with the efficacy of the specific grassroots efforts they have undertaken, ones they may undertake in the future we may agree with.  It is subjective, but imo in the grassroots if you disagree so much with the efficacy of a project someone has undertaken, and are not offering constructive criticism to their project, then don't say anything.  Plenty of room for debates in other sections of RPF.
> 
> eta: I am leaving this thread.  My apologies to the OP.  I already sent him a +rep before all this, because his websites are nice... much better than I can do.


Well. Respectfully, I didn't forward any disagreement with his project. In fact, I didn't even mention it. As I said, it was just that one thing that popped out there that caught my interest. 

Beyond that, I'm fairly confident that speciallyblend won't be putting the brakes on any projects over little squabbles like this. It happens. Is what it is. 

Anyway. Thank You, P3ter_Griffin. Have a good evening. 

I'm going to bail on the thread, too. I only had that one thought that I wanted to share anyway since it caught my attention.

----------


## acptulsa

> The issue was raised in the thread with regard to the bake my cake debate. The op responded to the insertion by claiming it to be a non-issue.


He didn't say it was a non-issue.  He said it doesn't hold a candle to a great many other issues facing this nation and the world today.  And I agree with him.

You said your piece.  You consider a baker open to the public being forced to served anyone who comes in his business with money to be as big an issue as Benghazi, state secrets on home servers, the elimination of the First Amendment through people targeted for their religion and reporters getting sued by the politicians they're supposed to cover, influence buying and selling, endless inflation and endless wars.  Fine.  You registered that opinion.

Now.  If you want to belabor it, go for it--just please do it somewhere else besides this thread.  Thank you for the bumps, and have a nice evening.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> He didn't say it was a non-issue.  He said it doesn't hold a candle to a great many other issues facing this nation and the world today.  And I agree with him.


And he's patently wrong in making that claim. And so are you if you're in agreement with the claim. You're talking about the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty here. Even if you don't think that you are, you_ are_. And that isn't minimal in comparison to _anything_. Nothing. 




> You said your piece.  You consider a baker open to the public being forced to served anyone who comes in his business with money to be as big an issue as Benghazi, state secrets on home servers, the elimination of the First Amendment through people targeted for their religion and reporters getting sued by the politicians they're supposed to cover, influence buying and selling, endless inflation and endless wars.  Fine.  You registered that opinion.


Well, no, I'm afraid it's a bit broader than that. But, yes. I did register my opinion. Albeit minimally.




> Now.  If you want to belabor it, go for it--just please do it somewhere else besides this thread.  Thank you for the bumps, and have a nice evening.


Yeah, I'm not posting anything here aside from responding to you people at this point. 

Thank You, acptulsa.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I wish Ron's people would get solidly behind Johnson. We might be able to make a difference if we did. There is no way Trump or Hillary is going to be good.


He is FOR THE Trans pacific Partnership!!!  No fing way.

----------


## acptulsa

> And he's patently wrong in making that claim. And so are you if you're in agreement with the claim. You're talking about the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty here. Even if you don't think that you are, you_ are_. And that isn't minimal in comparison to _anything_. Nothing.


Well, you know, in a Republic you have to balance a businessman's right to refuse service to anyone against a minority's right to be reprehensible, so long as they don't harm anyone in the process.  So, it's more of a gray area than you and William Tell make it seem.  Not that I disagree with either of you on the subject.  I don't.  I just see a gray area in it you don't.

It isn't the particle of Johnson's personality that convinces me he's as evil as Clinton and Trump.  I haven't found that yet.  I think Johnson's good enough that they'd shoot him if he won, and make do with Weld.

Any way you slice it, this two party duopoly is a far greater threat to our liberty than Johnson's desire to make bakers bake, IMO.  And if Johnson can kiss enough progressive and sane GOP ass to break it...

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Well, you know, in a Republic you have to balance a businessman's right to refuse service to anyone against a minority's right to be reprehensible, so long as they don't harm anyone in the process.  So, it's more of a gray area than you and William Tell make it seem.  Not that I disagree with either of you on the subject.  I don't.  I just see a gray area in it you don't.
> 
> It isn't the particle of Johnson's personality that convinces me he's as evil as Clinton and Trump.  I haven't found that yet.  I think Johnson's good enough that they'd shoot him if he won, and make do with Weld.
> 
> Any way you slice it, this two party duopoly is a far greater threat to our liberty than Johnson's desire to make bakers bake, IMO.  And if Johnson can kiss enough progressive and sane GOP ass to break it...


Okay. Start a thread on this. Seriously. Move it out of here and I'll discuss my thoughts on it with you.

I don't really want to derail the op too much either. But this is an important topic in terms of being on the same page with the principles that define, as you mention, our Republic. Specifically this gray area you mention.

To be clear, though, I don't really care about Johnson. I'm talking about the other stuff.

----------


## speciallyblend

> You're patently wrong about that. And it's a reckless assessment in scope.
> 
> While I agree with you that the issues you've provided for comparison are critical, they are not beyond the critical scope of the former. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day.


 the cake issue isnt an issue that will make me vote for authoritarian crazys like trump/hillary that was the point.

----------


## speciallyblend

> Yep. To ignore that particular issue is akin to acting contradictory of the _primary_ fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself.


 i agree but in principle there is nothing hitlary or trumphoon  offer to any principle but ignoring rule of law and continuing failed policy of authoritarianism.  there is not one selling point that hillary or trump  say that can beat the principles of gary johnson and his record.

----------


## speciallyblend

i need someone to help do some research so i can outreach these sites to anti trump and anti hillary voters, something around 100-200 to start off with, any help would be helpful especially someone well versed in online marketing, thank you please im me or message me on rpf,  we have to win for gary johnson and get him on the debate stage as trump or hillary are not an option and we are screwed either way with those fools(trump/hillary)!!!!!

also anyone  who wants to market the sites themselves can do so , sinceraly kenny run with it however you need to, but i still could use some help thank you again.

----------


## puppetmaster

> non issue when compared to forced extortion healthcare, spying on americans and failed foreign policy so bake the f in cake or don't open. if that is your issue then yeah i can deal with that. bigger issues then baking a cake Gary johnson over authoritarians like trump/hillary . if you want perfection then you run or ask jesus to. I'll bake the nazi cake if you won't  i guess i will vote for trump or hillary now since  you have to bake a cake/s  so baking a cake is a deal breaker eh? i can find a long list of better deal breakers with liars like trump or hillary both liberals.  Gary Johnson over the hillaries(trump/hillary)


Telling a private business to bake a cake is authoritarian

----------


## speciallyblend

> Telling a private business to bake a cake is authoritarian


if you are trying to tell me trump or hillary are less authoritarian then gary on issues , that is my point i understand what your saying but if you are gonna vote trump or hillary  over baked cakes? considering the fools trump and hillary are, then i cant help you or the system. go ahead let trump and hilalry rule over your big issue of baked cakes haha  trump and hillary are far worse then gary and $#@! the cakes

----------


## speciallyblend

you win i will support hillary or trump because of baked cakes you got me :P  you guys crack me up, it is a deal breaker screw gary im supporting trump/hillary over baked cakes not!!!

----------


## speciallyblend

> i need someone to help do some research so i can outreach these sites to anti trump and anti hillary voters, something around 100-200 to start off with, any help would be helpful especially someone well versed in online marketing, thank you please im me or message me on rpf,  we have to win for gary johnson and get him on the debate stage as trump or hillary are not an option and we are screwed either way with those fools(trump/hillary)!!!!!
> 
> also anyone  who wants to market the sites themselves can do so , sinceraly kenny run with it however you need to, but i still could use some help thank you again.


 once again anyone want to help, please take the deal breaker of baked cakes and tell trump and hillary to run with it to beat gary, rpf members can be laughable sometimes

----------


## Natural Citizen

> i agree but in principle there is nothing hitlary or trumphoon  offer to any principle but ignoring rule of law and continuing failed policy of authoritarianism.  there is not one selling point that hillary or trump  say that can beat the principles of gary johnson and his record.


Yeah, I know. I was generally speaking to the legitimacy of the fundamental principle. You just happpened to be the one who made the comparison. Which I understand was provided in context with the election itself and your specific project as opposed to overall philosophy. Anyway. Doesn't matter. We already went through it.

----------


## puppetmaster

> if you are trying to tell me trump or hillary are less authoritarian then gary on issues , that is my point i understand what your saying but if you are gonna vote trump or hillary  over baked cakes? considering the fools trump and hillary are, then i cant help you or the system. go ahead let trump and hilalry rule over your big issue of baked cakes haha  trump and hillary are far worse then gary and $#@! the cakes


  no they all sucks.

----------


## speciallyblend

> no they all sucks.


 i understand what you are saying i do, but we really have a chance to make a huge impact with 4% more, I still like gary johnson hands over those other 2!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I wish the LP would nominate a candidate I could feel good about voting for....


There's still time to help Vermin Supreme win the LP nomination...I think...

----------


## bunklocoempire

> These 2 sites are cross linked if any media wants to interview site creator please im me. thank you kenny, GARY JOHNSON over the hillaries(hillary and trump(hillary with a phallus))  www.hitlary.com    and www.trumphoon.com  feel free to main page this and sites mods? if you like, We need to defeat trump and hillary or we will all need lots of lube as they F US!! GARY JOHNSON 2016 the only option unless you love big government loving authoritarians!!


A proven RPFer (as I recall) offering to help others resist. 
Its not _my_ method of resisting, but the action of actively resisting, presented in Grassroots, sure looks to be there.  

 Good on you speciallyblend,  I could take a lesson.

Post #35 a request for some help, was buried, here it is:




> i need someone to help do some research so i can outreach these sites to anti trump and anti hillary voters, something around 100-200 to start off with, any help would be helpful especially someone well versed in online marketing, thank you please im me or message me on rpf,  we have to win for gary johnson and get him on the debate stage as trump or hillary are not an option and we are screwed either way with those fools(trump/hillary)!!!!!
> 
> also anyone  who wants to market the sites themselves can do so , sinceraly kenny run with it however you need to, but i still could use some help thank you again.

----------


## Thor

*Include Gary Johnson in national Presidential polls*

https://www.change.org/p/cnn-include...idential-polls

The Commission on Presidential Debates determines whether or not a candidate can be included in the debates based on their performance in five selected national polls. In order to be included in the debates, a candidate must be polling at 15% nationwide. We, the undersigned, believe that Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for President has a chance to reach that threshold. A recent Fox News poll found Gov. Johnson to have 12% support nationwide and his mainstream media exposure in recent weeks has been unprecedented for a Libertarian Presidential candidate, which means that his support has likely grown. Paired with the fact that polls have consistently shown Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to be among the most polarizing candidates in history, we believe that there is a real opportunity this year for a third-party candidate to make a difference. With the Libertarian Party being the only third party likely to appear on the ballot in all fifty states and the political experience of both Gov. Johnson and his running mate, Governor William Weld, we believe that they are the most likely to capitalize on this opportunity. We urge you to include Governor Johnson in your national polling and help give the American voter another option this November.

*This petition will be delivered to:*
CNNRasmussen ReportsABCCBSWashington PostNBCWall Street JournalDouglas Schwartz, PhD - Quinnipiac University PollBridget Jameson - Pew Research CenterUSA Today

----------


## euphemia

> I agree the cake baking thing is kind of a minor issue - in principle is a pretty important issue but he doesn't want to make things worse, he is just going with the status quo of businesses serving people without discriminating based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc..  I agree with GJ it is currently a "black hole" issue that would likely lose the election for a candidate. 
> 
> The two big issues are his stances on the TPP and also that Hillary is innocent or whatever.. oh, and I don't think he is very good on immigration considering that it is currently a highly subsidized government program. 
> 
> But he is very libertarian on about 90% of the issues. I will still probably vote for him. I would rather have a libertarian who is a little bit of a globalist than an authoritarian leaning nationalist.. although I think we may be better off with Trump than Hillary, I'm not 100% certain on that, but there is good reason to think he would be.
> 
> Nationalism may be preferable to socialism, nationalism is a reaction to all of the forced and subsidized multi-culturalism that is having a lot of negative impacts on western society. But nationalism is not optimal, it's not a solution, more like self defense.


In other words, you think the full force of government should be brought to bear on business owners who have closely held religious principles.  You think government should have some war, control some guns, and make the TPP.  Those don't sound to me like 90% libertarian.  It sounds 100% social liberal and 100% big government.

This is a point I have tried to make here for years.  A libertarian is committed to limited government and personal responsibility.  He cannot bring the full force of government on anything that is not in its specific enumerated powers.

----------


## dannno

> In other words, you think the full force of government should be brought to bear on business owners who have closely held religious principles.  You think government should have some war, control some guns, and make the TPP.  Those don't sound to me like 90% libertarian.  It sounds 100% social liberal and 100% big government.
> 
> This is a point I have tried to make here for years.  A libertarian is committed to limited government and personal responsibility.  He cannot bring the full force of government on anything that is not in its specific enumerated powers.


No, I don't think any of those things.. in principle you are right.. but there are a lot of other issues that he is libertarian on like taxes and spending, free market economics, drug policy and foreign policy. 

Like I said, he doesn't want to make the cake baker situation worse, he is for the status quo, but he could improve things greatly in these other areas. We will at least live to fight another day, and then we can go free the cake bakers. 

The TPP he is ok with if it frees up trade, but he is skeptical of these trade deals. I would be ok with it too if it freed up trade, but I am a lot more skeptical about these trade deals than he is, I know they would throw in bad stuff at the end that nobody had time to read before trying to pass it - but it is less likely they would throw those things in if Gary Johnson had to sign it.

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

John McAfee should have won, what with the whole cyber security background which is very critical at this point in time.  Plus he looks like Tony Stark.  Imagine the coverage on that one.

 Johnson already tried in 2012.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> John McAfee should have won, what with the whole cyber security background which is very critical at this point in time.  Plus he looks like Tony Stark.  Imagine the coverage on that one.


We don't have to imagine it. The press was brutal, with the NY Post stating, "Computer-security pioneer John McAfee notoriously went on the lam in  2012 to escape police questioning after the murder of a neighbor in  Belize. The heavily armed sometime alleged drug dealer [...]"; Slate saying "McAfee—who fled his own Central American residential compound while  under suspicion by the Belizean government for the murder of his  neighbor; who openly admits that said compound featured a harem of teenage Belizean sex workers"; and the National Review stating, "McAfee is introduced by “Starchild,” an “erotic service provider”  from California who is currently wearing a leopard-print leotard and  carrying a matching umbrella.  The Libertarian party is a reminder that no one truly grows out of  Dungeons and Dragons." Few in the media took McAfee seriously. Johnson, on the other hand, is scoring major media interviews and appearances.

----------


## Krugminator2

> John McAfee should have won, what with the whole cyber security background which is very critical at this point in time.  Plus he looks like Tony Stark.  Imagine the coverage on that one.
> 
>  Johnson already tried in 2012.



John McAfee should be in prison.  His company MGT is one of the more blatant stock frauds I have ever seen.  He is basically a small scale Madoff trying to feverish turn this "company" into something legit. It is all smoke and mirrors. There is more than enough evidence right now for the SEC to take him down.   Government incompetence is best thing going for McAfee right now. I could write 10 pages on all of the lies, misrepresentations, and shady people surrounding him and this company.

----------


## Working Poor

> I wish the LP would nominate a candidate I could feel good about voting for....


Would you feel better about voting trump or clinton? I know he is far from perfect but trump and clinton is just a lot closer to horrible. at least Johnson says something about freedom and if he gets in the debate people will her someone talking about freedom.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Would you feel better about voting trump or clinton?


No. I'm not voting for anyone running. I thought about writing in Ron Paul but I'll probably write in None of the Above. I would love NotA to win the popular vote and listen to the talking heads try to spin it. 




> *I know he is far from perfect but* trump and clinton is just a lot closer to horrible.


Isn't that the kind of thinking that keeps giving us $#@!ty presidents? 




> at least Johnson says something about freedom and if he gets in the debate people will her someone talking about freedom.


They won't let him in the debate. His chance to get people talking and thinking is right now, in these interviews, but he's blowing it.

----------


## Thor

> Would you feel better about voting trump or clinton?





> No. I'm not voting for anyone running. I  thought about writing in Ron Paul but I'll probably write in None of the  Above. I would love NotA to win the popular vote and listen to the  talking heads try to spin it.


That will show.... nobody.






> I know he is far from perfect but trump and clinton is just a lot closer to horrible.





> Isn't that the kind of thinking that keeps giving us $#@!ty presidents?


Sure, when the choice is $#@! A or Liar B only.  But voting for a pretty good, but not perfect C actually will help take a step closer to an ideal candidate in the future as if C gets elected or gets enough exposure to wake up more people to our ideas.  It is a step in the right direction, instead of demanding a higher level of purity and still going no where.






> at least Johnson says something about freedom and if he gets in the  debate people will her someone talking about freedom.





> They won't let him in the debate. His chance to get people talking and thinking is right now, in these interviews, but he's blowing it.


If he gets 15% or more in the polls, he will get in the debates.  He is not blowing it interviews currently.  He is not "slick" and "polished" but is quirky and real...  and might come across a little funky, and might not saying the right things all the time... but he is not "blowing it."   Have you seen Hitlary and Trumphoon?  And seen what comes out of their pie holes?  He can be unpolished against that and still have a good shot. 

 Have you signed the petition to get him into the polls, to therefore get him into the debates, or is saying NotA is your vote more comforting as he isn't "pure enough"?  https://www.change.org/p/cnn-include...idential-polls  The petition signers have doubled in the last 20 hours.  It is picking up steam.

We have an unprecedented opportunity with the disdain for Hitlary and Trumphoon to expose the world to LP ideas, even if just quasi libertarian.  Even if it is LINO (Libertarian In Name Only) it will get people more comfortable with the ideas and name...   But it is better to just complain that he isn't good enough, right?    Pour a glass of wine and complain about how bad things are...  And then 2016 will be just like 1971 and we can remain hidden in our corner, bitching and moaning to the wall.  SMFH

$#@!ing herding cats....

www.hitlary.com
www.trumphoon.com

----------


## speciallyblend

> *Include Gary Johnson in national Presidential polls*
> 
> https://www.change.org/p/cnn-include...idential-polls
> 
> The Commission on Presidential Debates determines whether or not a candidate can be included in the debates based on their performance in five selected national polls. In order to be included in the debates, a candidate must be polling at 15% nationwide. We, the undersigned, believe that Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for President has a chance to reach that threshold. A recent Fox News poll found Gov. Johnson to have 12% support nationwide and his mainstream media exposure in recent weeks has been unprecedented for a Libertarian Presidential candidate, which means that his support has likely grown. Paired with the fact that polls have consistently shown Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to be among the most polarizing candidates in history, we believe that there is a real opportunity this year for a third-party candidate to make a difference. With the Libertarian Party being the only third party likely to appear on the ballot in all fifty states and the political experience of both Gov. Johnson and his running mate, Governor William Weld, we believe that they are the most likely to capitalize on this opportunity. We urge you to include Governor Johnson in your national polling and help give the American voter another option this November.
> 
> *This petition will be delivered to:*
> CNNRasmussen ReportsABCCBSWashington PostNBCWall Street JournalDouglas Schwartz, PhD - Quinnipiac University PollBridget Jameson - Pew Research CenterUSA Today



just signed what do i have to do to get rpf to get this front page?? $$$$$

----------


## Thor

> *Include Gary Johnson in national Presidential polls*
> 
> https://www.change.org/p/cnn-include...idential-polls
> 
> The Commission on Presidential Debates determines whether or not a candidate can be included in the debates based on their performance in five selected national polls. In order to be included in the debates, a candidate must be polling at 15% nationwide. We, the undersigned, believe that Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for President has a chance to reach that threshold. A recent Fox News poll found Gov. Johnson to have 12% support nationwide and his mainstream media exposure in recent weeks has been unprecedented for a Libertarian Presidential candidate, which means that his support has likely grown. Paired with the fact that polls have consistently shown Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to be among the most polarizing candidates in history, we believe that there is a real opportunity this year for a third-party candidate to make a difference. With the Libertarian Party being the only third party likely to appear on the ballot in all fifty states and the political experience of both Gov. Johnson and his running mate, Governor William Weld, we believe that they are the most likely to capitalize on this opportunity. We urge you to include Governor Johnson in your national polling and help give the American voter another option this November.
> 
> *This petition will be delivered to:*
> CNNRasmussen ReportsABCCBSWashington PostNBCWall Street JournalDouglas Schwartz, PhD - Quinnipiac University PollBridget Jameson - Pew Research CenterUSA Today


*Over 20,000 signed
*

----------


## speciallyblend

ok i am going to run radio ads against trump and hillary in the denver,boulder and mtn markets. anyone who would like to give some ideas or input please contact me . also any mods or rpf that would like to help , i could use your help, override that none of above banner , i will pay. we need gary on that debate stage anyone that cannot see that please stay off this thread and away from the idea wagon ,as we make radio ads and actually do something to win. if you are not voting or supporting gary please go away support trump or something we need real activists. once the radio ads are produced i will give everyone open source to run with the ads. i have 0 time for naysayers!!!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> if you are not voting or supporting gary please go away support trump or something we need real activists....i have 0 time for naysayers!!!


I'll stay out of your thread but I want to respond to this. Gary Jonhnson holds a position that is contrary to the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty. To promote Johnson in the name of Liberty is essentially bastardizing its fundamental principles.

Some people around here may endorse that kind of activism. I don't. And I'll actively oppose it whether it be here or any place else. And I couldn't care less what you or or anyone else thinks about it. You don't get the luxury of promoting someone in the name of Individual Liberty whose positions are contrary to it's primary fundamental principle just because you say you do. You don't. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day. The only way you'll continue to do so here without opposition is if people like me get banned for speaking in the name of the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty. So, I'm telling you this respectfully. My intention is not to further stimulate the antagonistic position that you've taken. I'm simply telling you that you won't get a free pass to pass off a candidate in the name of Individual Liberty whose position is contrary to its most fundamental principles.

----------


## Thor

> I'll stay out of your thread but I want to respond to this. Gary Jonhnson holds a position that is contrary to the primary fundamental priciple of Individual Liberty. To promote Johnson in the name of Liberty is essentially bastardizing its fundamental principles.
> 
> Some people around here may endorse that kind of activism. I don't. And I'll actively oppose it. And I couldn't care less what you or or anyone else thinks about it. You don't get the luxury of promoting someone in the name of Individual Liberty whose positions are contrary to it's primary fundamental principle just because you say you do. You don't. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day. The only way you'll continue to do so here without opposition is if people like me get banned for speaking in the name of the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty.


It's like 1971 all over again.  LOL  Sitting in our corner, yelling at the wall.  FFS.

----------


## Unknownuser

> I wish Ron's people would get solidly behind Johnson. We might be able to make a difference if we did. There is no way Trump or Hillary is going to be good.


I wish Ron Pauls people would have gotten behind Rand Paul.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It's like 1971 all over again.  LOL  Sitting in our corner, yelling at the wall.  FFS.


No. I've been rather passive on the screwery. I thought the op was rather arrogant in his previous communication when he told those of us who support the primary fundamental principles of Individual Liberty to go away and just let him have a free pass to promote someone whose position is fundamentally contrary to it.

When preferable "activism" is accepted and understood to be actions that promote presidential candidates who hold positions that are patently contrary to the primary fundamental principles of Individual Liberty, yet in the name of Individual Liberty, then I think it's time for a reassessment of why we're here.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> One time I'll let you do that. _Once_.


wtf? lol

----------


## Thor

> No. I've been rather passive on the screwery. I thought the op was rather arrogant in his previous communication when he told those of us who support the primary fundamental principles of Individual Liberty to go away and just let him have a free pass to promote someone whose position is fundamentally contrary to it.
> 
> When preferable "activism" is accepted and understood to be actions that promote presidential candidates who hold positions that are patently contrary to the primary fundamental principles of Individual Liberty, yet in the name of Individual Liberty, then I think it's time for a reassessment of why we're here.


So we can sit and bitch and moan for another decade or 2...  Johnson is not perfect.  Far from it.  But it is the best step we have in the right direction to reach the masses.  If we can wake the masses to voting for a Libertarian, we can move more towards our principles.  But "not pure enough NOW, so I will pout and tell anyone who is promoting him that he is bad" is a grand plan...  It will really help advance Liberty.  LOL  I would like Johnson to be better on some issues too.  But I want Johnson to actually win and help make libertarianism a household name and then slowly get more pure libertarians in offices locally and nationally off the coattails.

Hey, what is that light at the end of the tunnel?  Quick, block it out...

Purists are defeatist who want to remain obscure. They like being in the corner bitching at the wall.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> So we can sit and bitch and moan for another decade or 2...  Johnson is not perfect.  Far from it.  But it is the best step we have in the right direction to reach the masses.  If we can wake the masses to voting for a Libertarian, we can move more towards our principles.  But "not pure enough NOW, so I will pout and tell anyone who is promoting him that he is bad" is a grand plan...  It will really help advance Liberty.  LOL  I would like Johnson to be better on some issues too.  But I want Johnson to actually win and help make libertarianism a household name and then slowly get more pure libertarians in offices locally and nationally off the coattails.
> 
> Hey, what is that light at the end of the tunnel?  Quick, block it out...
> 
> Purists are defeatist who want to remain obscure. They like being in the corner bitching at the wall.


So, then, we should remain content to promote "Libertarianism" as a household name, except _absent_ the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself - and we should promote the philosophy as a means of _activism_? And if we don't promote the philosophy, then, we're, as the op mentioned, not real activists? Because that's Johnsons' position. Have you thought his positions through all the way? Because some of them are patently contrary to the fundamental foundation of Individual Liberty. That's a big deal. Mainly, because as you mention, some friends want to encourage Libertarianism as a household name through him. Which means his philosophy. I'm sorry but he just ain't the one. He is patently _not_ the one.

Now. Two things, though. 1 - I'm not a defeatist. I'm a realist. I try to take the time to consider exactly what the other guy is actually stimulating and 2 - sitting in the corner pouting is likely the very last thing I'll ever do. It's dangerous to your cause to assume that I would. I'm likely not the only one either. I was very clear to say that I oppose this specific brand of coercion. That means that I _actively_ oppose it.

----------


## Working Poor

> I wish Ron Pauls people would have gotten behind Rand Paul.


I do too but they didn't.

----------


## speciallyblend

> No. I've been rather passive on the screwery. I thought the op was rather arrogant in his previous communication when he told those of us who support the primary fundamental principles of Individual Liberty to go away and just let him have a free pass to promote someone whose position is fundamentally contrary to it.
> 
> When preferable "activism" is accepted and understood to be actions that promote presidential candidates who hold positions that are patently contrary to the primary fundamental principles of Individual Liberty, yet in the name of Individual Liberty, then I think it's time for a reassessment of why we're here.


i never said go away unless you used baking cakes as a deal breaker but ok , it is obvious you are not here to help, so you made your point.

----------


## speciallyblend

> I'll stay out of your thread but I want to respond to this. Gary Jonhnson holds a position that is contrary to the primary fundamental priciple of Individual Liberty. To promote Johnson in the name of Liberty is essentially bastardizing its fundamental principles.
> 
> Some people around here may endorse that kind of activism. I don't. And I'll actively oppose it whether it be here or any place else. And I couldn't care less what you or or anyone else thinks about it. You don't get the luxury of promoting someone in the name of Individual Liberty whose positions are contrary to it's primary fundamental principle just because you say you do. You don't. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day. The only way you'll continue to do so here without opposition is if people like me get banned for speaking in the name of the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty. So, I'm telling you this respectfully. My intention is not to further timulate the antagonistic position that you've taken. I'm simply telling you that you won't get a free pass to pass off a candidate in the name of Individual Liberty whose position is contrary to its most fundamental principles.


we get it, you wont support gary so , if you are not here to help gary beat trump or hillary. you can support whoever start your own thread and spend your money so far you have added nothing but cat meows to this thread. Gary johnson over the hillaries(trump/hillary)

----------


## speciallyblend

> I do too but they didn't.


i was a ron paul person and i supported rand even though i opposed things he said,luckily baking cakes wasnt a deal breaker, i donated to rand did what i could.

----------


## speciallyblend

> So we can sit and bitch and moan for another decade or 2...  Johnson is not perfect.  Far from it.  But it is the best step we have in the right direction to reach the masses.  If we can wake the masses to voting for a Libertarian, we can move more towards our principles.  But "not pure enough NOW, so I will pout and tell anyone who is promoting him that he is bad" is a grand plan...  It will really help advance Liberty.  LOL  I would like Johnson to be better on some issues too.  But I want Johnson to actually win and help make libertarianism a household name and then slowly get more pure libertarians in offices locally and nationally off the coattails.
> 
> Hey, what is that light at the end of the tunnel?  Quick, block it out...
> 
> Purists are defeatist who want to remain obscure. They like being in the corner bitching at the wall.



exactly, maybe if i throw some tuna over there these cats will go away

----------


## Natural Citizen

> i never said go away unless you used baking cakes as a deal breaker but ok



The "baking cakes" issue, as you call it, is directly germane to the primary foundation that provides for the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself. It's THE one. The issue is far more critical and relevant than minimizing it to "baking cakes." And with consequences should it not be recognized as such.

----------


## Thor

> So, then, we should remain content to promote "Libertarianism" as a household name, except _absent_ the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself


Yes.

----------


## speciallyblend

once again if you are not here to help gary johnson 2016 win over trump/hillary. then stay way or go away, it is pretty simple. a few have 0 motives to help just whine about gary here. If you are not here to help gary, i can only assume you are here to help trump/hillary! or just not help at all.

----------


## speciallyblend

but it is not a reason to support  trump and hillary and oppose gary. just stop go away say your  piece somewhere else , you are not here to help gary beat trump or hillary. we get it you oppose gary and will not help over baked cakes, it is a deal breaker , you said your piece move on.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by *Natural Citizen* 
> 
>      So, then, we should remain content to promote "Libertarianism" as a household name, except _absent_ the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself
> 
> 
> Yes.


If that's what the site supports by way of providing a platform for its function, then, there is no reason I can see to stay here with you people. In fact, it demonstrates every reason why one would provide a service to Individual Liberty by separating from it and actively work against it.

To your credit, though, it does seem that way if omission is of any indication...



It's unfortunate.

----------


## speciallyblend

> Wow. You guys are unbelievable. The framers would have hung yuns.


 you are troll obviously you just cannot stfu, you have to say something but  by your level $#@! rand paul to he is not perfect. you have some dream candidate go for it support them on another thread.

----------


## speciallyblend

> If that's what the site supports, then, there is no reason see to stay here with you people. In fact, it demonstrates every reason why one would do well to separate and actively work against it.


you are not here to help gary, you are here to whine and help trump/hillary. please leave asking nicely you are  not helping you know this. you said your piece  repeatly over and over and over like a stray cat ,move along

----------


## Natural Citizen

> you are troll obviously you just cannot stfu, you have to say something but  by your level $#@! rand paul to he is not perfect. you have some dream candidate go for it support them on another thread.


No, I don't care about candidates. I care about the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty. I care about the primary foundation in which those fundamental principles are established. In fact, the only interest that I have with regard to Johnson is that he is being promoted as a candidate for Liberty. This is coercion of the highest magnitude. Again, his position is patently contrary to the primary foundation for the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself. 

And there is no such thing as a troll. Consider taking your opposition more seriously. Because your opposition takes you seriously.

----------


## Thor

> No, I don't care about candidates.


So get out of the Gary Johnson thread.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> So get out of the Gary Johnson thread.


And provide a free pass for you people to bastardize the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself by promoting a cultural Marxist like Johnson as its difinitive entity in the household? His position is patently contrary to them. Nope. Not today. It wouldn't be very patriotic of me to just let you guys do that. The only way you guys won't have the inconvenience of having the truth mentioned about what you're stimulating here is if a mod steps in to run interference for what you're promoting..

----------


## Thor

> And provide a free pass for you people to bastardize the very foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself by promoting a cultural Marxist like Johnson as its difinitive entity in the household? His position os patently contrary to them. Nope. Not today. It wouldn't be very patriotic of me to just let you guys do that. The only way you guys won't have the inconvenience of having the truth mentioned about what you're stimulating here is if a mod steps in to run interference for what you're promoting.


LOL.  I do not want to help Liberty advance unless it is PURE liberty.  STFU

----------


## Natural Citizen

> LOL.  I do not want to help Liberty advance unless it is PURE liberty.  STFU


Pure? To be clear, what/who is being promoted here in the name of activism is a candidate whose position is patently contrary to the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself.  We're not talking about pure here. We're talking about the primary fundamentals. We're talking about the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty here. The nuts and bolts. Promoting a philosophy that is patently contrary to them is nothing to LOL about. It really isn't. I think it's rather disturbing that you disregard the principles to the extent that you LOL about them. I mean, that's a major naw naw.

----------


## Thor

> Pure? To be clear, what/who is being promoting in the name of activism is a candidate whose position is patently contrary to the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself.  We're not talking about pure here. We're talking about the primary fundamentals. We're talking about the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty here. The nuts and bolts. Promoting a philosophy that is patently contrary to them is nothing to LOL about. It really isn't. I think it's rather disturbing that you disregard the principles to the extent that you LOL about them. I mean, that's a major naw naw.


Versus pouting in the corner and waiting another 4 years to wake Americans up...  Thanks, but I will go with the small step in the right direction instead of shooting myself in the foot to wait for the right time to stand up.  Ok, bye bye...

----------


## Natural Citizen

Ah well. I'm going to go weed my flower beds. 

Just don't forget relevant priorities is all I'm saying. I get that people are upset because we've lost elections in the past. I do. I understand that people want to contribute. They want to feel like they're part of something. They want to feel significant. But I see no logical reason or benefit in trading the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty for a label in an election that you're going to lose anyway. To say it's based on principle is bunk. If it is, then, it's premised upon the wrong principles given that the candidate's philosophy that you're endorsing in the name of Liberty (as a houshold name, no less) is patently contrary to the very foundation that establishes Individual Liberty.

Just know, though, that if you don't think things through, then, you may well end up selling yourself the very rope that you'll surely hang by. Be careful. Don't be  misled by people who are content only to count their names. It is best to leave your mark. But it has to be the right mark. And a mark left for the right reasons. And one left on the more relevant and worthy field of battle.

You folks have a good day.

----------


## Thor

> Ah well. I'm going to go weed my flower beds. 
> 
> Just don't forget relevant priorities is all I'm saying. I get that people are upset because we've lost elections in the past. I do. I understand that eople want to contribute. They want to feel like they're part of something. They want to feel significant. But I see no logical reason or benefit in trading the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty for a label in an election that you're going to lose anyway. To say it's based on principle is bunk. If it is, then, it's premised upon the wrong principles given that the candidate's philosophy that you're endorsing in the name of Liberty (as a houshold name, no less) is patently contrary to the very foundation that establishes Individual Liberty.
> 
> Just know, though, that if you don't think things through, then, you may well end up selling yourself the very rope that you'll surely hang by. Be careful. Don't be  misled by people who are content only to count their names. It is best to leave your mark. But it has to be the right mark. And a mark left for the right reasons.
> 
> You folks have a good day.


It is a stepping stone in the right direction.  Is it the shore of Liberty?  Nope.  But a stepping stone we should use to get to the shore of Liberty.  Using your attitude, we will be pushing up daisies in your flower bed before we see any more Liberty in our Lifetime.  And he does have a chance with all the Bern victims, Hillary haters and Trump adverse.  I want to seize this first time ever opportunity to make some headway, instead of pacing on the short of despair waiting for the right ship or right stepping stone to appear.  Good day as well.

----------


## donnay

> Ah well. I'm going to go weed my flower beds. 
> 
> Just don't forget relevant priorities is all I'm saying. I get that people are upset because we've lost elections in the past. I do. I understand that people want to contribute. They want to feel like they're part of something. They want to feel significant. But I see no logical reason or benefit in trading the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty for a label in an election that you're going to lose anyway. To say it's based on principle is bunk. If it is, then, it's premised upon the wrong principles given that the candidate's philosophy that you're endorsing in the name of Liberty (as a houshold name, no less) is patently contrary to the very foundation that establishes Individual Liberty.
> 
> Just know, though, that if you don't think things through, then, you may well end up selling yourself the very rope that you'll surely hang by. Be careful. Don't be  misled by people who are content only to count their names. It is best to leave your mark. But it has to be the right mark. And a mark left for the right reasons. And one left on the more relevant and worthy field of battle.
> 
> You folks have a good day.


Well said. 

Johnson reminds me of Glenn Beck.

Besides Liberty doesn't come from a man.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Ah well. I'm going to go weed my flower beds. 
> 
> Just don't forget relevant priorities is all I'm saying. I get that people are upset because we've lost elections in the past. I do. I understand that people want to contribute. They want to feel like they're part of something. They want to feel significant. But I see no logical reason or benefit in trading the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty for a label in an election that you're going to lose anyway. To say it's based on principle is bunk. If it is, then, it's premised upon the wrong principles given that the candidate's philosophy that you're endorsing in the name of Liberty (as a houshold name, no less) is patently contrary to the very foundation that establishes Individual Liberty.
> 
> Just know, though, that if you don't think things through, then, you may well end up selling yourself the very rope that you'll surely hang by. Be careful. Don't be  misled by people who are content only to count their names. It is best to leave your mark. But it has to be the right mark. And a mark left for the right reasons. And one left on the more relevant and worthy field of battle.
> 
> You folks have a good day.





> Well said. 
> 
> Johnson reminds me of Glenn Beck.
> 
> Besides Liberty doesn't come from a man.


Indeed. Out of rep for NC.

----------


## Working Poor

No matter what I can't vote for Hillary or The Donald. I would rather stay home.

----------


## speciallyblend

we are now 2% from getting gary on the debate stage. spread these websites, www.trumphoon.com and www.hitlary.com, working on radio ads to run in denver and the co mtns, keep up the good work for anyone doing what they can to make change!! Gary can Win. Gary has to Win, WE ALL LOSE WITH hillary or trump(hillary with a phallus)!!!

----------


## Thor

> *Include Gary Johnson in national Presidential polls*
> 
> https://www.change.org/p/cnn-include...idential-polls
> 
> The Commission on Presidential Debates determines whether or not a candidate can be included in the debates based on their performance in five selected national polls. In order to be included in the debates, a candidate must be polling at 15% nationwide. We, the undersigned, believe that Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for President has a chance to reach that threshold. A recent Fox News poll found Gov. Johnson to have 12% support nationwide and his mainstream media exposure in recent weeks has been unprecedented for a Libertarian Presidential candidate, which means that his support has likely grown. Paired with the fact that polls have consistently shown Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to be among the most polarizing candidates in history, we believe that there is a real opportunity this year for a third-party candidate to make a difference. With the Libertarian Party being the only third party likely to appear on the ballot in all fifty states and the political experience of both Gov. Johnson and his running mate, Governor William Weld, we believe that they are the most likely to capitalize on this opportunity. We urge you to include Governor Johnson in your national polling and help give the American voter another option this November.
> 
> *This petition will be delivered to:*
> CNNRasmussen ReportsABCCBSWashington PostNBCWall Street JournalDouglas Schwartz, PhD - Quinnipiac University PollBridget Jameson - Pew Research CenterUSA Today


*Over 40,000 signed.*

----------


## r3volution 3.0

If Gary wins just_ one_ state, the world turns upside down.

Every stripe of libertarian should see advantage in breaking the two party duopoly, in destroying forever the "don't waste your vote" narrative.

We can go back to tearing each other to pieces after November 8, okay, but for now let's try winning, for once, shall we?

----------


## Thor

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...nap-story.html




> *Libertarian Gary Johnson looks to boost credibility, with a little help from Drew Carey*
> 
> 
> 
> The email invitation for a Gary Johnson fundraiser hosted by comic  Drew Carey called for a Libertarian comfortable dress code, which  could have been cause for concern. After all, just two months ago, at  the Libertarian Party convention, a portly man stripped down to his  skivvies and danced onstage for two minutes, with C-SPAN cameras  capturing every move.
> 
> But on Saturday night, in Careys  Mediterranean-style villa, Libertarian comfortable meant mostly  blazers, jeans and cocktail dresses. There were chi-chi appetizers and  American flag-themed name badges and a sprinkling of famous faces.
> 
>       It was an utterly normal political fundraiser, which may be exactly  what Johnson needs to help power his utterly abnormal bid to win the  White House as a third-party candidate. 
> ...

----------


## speciallyblend

just donated another 50, We ALL LOSE with hillary or trump!! https://comet-johnsonweld2016.nationbuilder.com/

----------


## Thor

This new tune is appropriate for this thread:

----------


## CAllen

thanks for posting that. Interesting to hear more Gary Johnson stuff, even if I don't particularly like it.

----------


## Thor

debate petition:

https://www.johnsonweld.com/debate

290K signatures so far

----------


## Jamesiv1

> 


I put Johnson right up there with Ted Cruz when it comes to mealy-mouthed politicians who have zero personal convictions at all.

----------


## euphemia

I will never vote for Gary Johnson.  Never.  

If people are going to write in votes, they should write them in for someone who is actually running, and who will be on some ballots.  That would be Darrell Castle.  Ron Paul endorsed the ticket he was on as VP in 2008.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I will never vote for Gary Johnson.  Never.  
> 
> If people are going to write in votes, they should write them in for someone who is actually running, and who will be on some ballots.  That would be Darrell Castle.  Ron Paul endorsed the ticket he was on as VP in 2008.


^^Says Trump voter

----------

