Did Gary Johnson Throw out AP's pistol?

[GunnyFreedom]

There are differences between Gary and Austin, but I don't see a big difference. I get it why Austin endorsed Gary, because Austin probably wants to run again in 2020, but then with a war chest and automatic ballot access, assuming Gary won't run again (which I think he won't). Could be a landslide victory for Austin. He is only 35, so he could be the prime Libertarian candidate for years, if not decades, to come.

You aren't helping you case. I don't like Austin any more than I like Johnson.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You don't like cutting federal spending? Ending the wars? Repealing the PATRIOT Act?

I like obeying the Constitution. Johnson won't do it.

...to name a few of his many solidly libertarian positions.

Like holding a gun to state's heads and making them obey his own private but now federalized version of morality?

No thanks amigo. I get enough of that crap from the status quo left and right.

That's the craziest thing I've heard all day.

I vote the Constitution. Johnson has struck a course even more off-track from a Constitutional government than either Hillary or Trump. If Gary Johnson wanted my vote, then he would not piss on the Constitution. Why is this so hard for you Johnsonites and Trumpaloompas to understand?

...and I've spent a good part of the day dealing with Trumpkins.

Maybe that explains why you are acting like them?

 

[Sujan]

You aren't helping you case. I don't like Austin any more than I like Johnson.

Haha ok. But then who do you like?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Lol...this is funny.

Pushing the chance of getting better than 1 percent using the same arguments that Trump and Hillary people use.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

No shit. I wasn't about to vote for Trump for "strategic" purposes, I'll be damned if I vote for Johnson/Weld for the same.

There's a slight difference.

Johnson is a libertarian on virtually every issue; Trump is not a libertarian on any issues.

The "vote Johnson to get more press for libertarianism, ballot access, and matching funds" makes good sense.

The "vote for Trump because...chaos? " argument makes no sense at all.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Haha ok. But then who do you like?

I liked McAfee because even with no understanding of the Constitution, his policies most closely aligned with the Constitution anyway.

Now, I will probably write in "Giant Meteor" for the Presidential Race.

 

[phill4paul]

Haha ok. But then who do you like?

I can't speak for Gunny but I would have loved for Grayson to run as Pres, as opposed to V.P. Even if Grayson had won the V.P. pick I might have considered voting on the ticket. Johnson/Weld? Fuck them. Seriously. There is NOTHING about that ticket I care for. NOTHING.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

There's a slight difference.

Johnson is a libertarian on virtually every issue; Trump is not a libertarian on any issues.

The "vote Johnson to get more press for libertarianism, ballot access, and matching funds" makes good sense.

The "vote for Trump because...chaos? " argument makes no sense at all.

TO YOU. Why would I want to give this steaming pile of shit ballot access?

 

[phill4paul]

There's a slight difference.

Johnson is a libertarian on virtually every issue; Trump is not a libertarian on any issues.

The "vote Johnson to get more press for libertarianism, ballot access, and matching funds" makes good sense.

The "vote for Trump because...chaos? " argument makes no sense at all.

We'll just have to disagree.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I like obeying the Constitution. Johnson won't do it.

Like holding a gun to state's heads and making them obey his own private but now federalized version of morality?

No thanks amigo. I get enough of that crap from the status quo left and right.

I vote the Constitution. Johnson has struck a course even more off-track from a Constitutional government than either Hillary or Trump. If Gary Johnson wanted my vote, then he would not piss on the Constitution. Why is this so hard for you Johnsonites and Trumpaloompas to understand?

Maybe that explains why you are acting like them?

I don't know why I engaged you in this conversation.

You'd made it perfectly clear on previous occasions that you have no interest in the practical consequences of your decisions.

Your sole object of concern is whether your vote will be for a person who shares 100% of your principles.

Whether that vote will be of any value in actually realizing those principles is no importance whatsoever.

So, there's really nothing more to discuss.

I hope what you perceive as your integrity keeps you warm as the tyranny which you refused to oppose closes in around you.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't know why I engaged you in this conversation.

Same reason the Trumpaloompas kept coming at me I suppose.

You'd made it perfectly clear on previous occasions that you have no interest in the practical consequences of your decisions.

This is a belief which you hold that is yours, and yours alone. It has been argued as fact merely by making the statement, therefore I will not vouch for it's integrity.

Your sole object of concern is whether your vote will be for a person who shares 100% of your principles.

I have supported many candidates ... a voluminous quantity over the last 12 years and you know what? Not a single one of them did I agree with 100%. Imagine that. This charge is also all in your head.

Whether that vote will be of any value in actually realizing those principles is no importance whatsoever.

Why do you claim to speak for my principles, when if you understood my principles at all you wouldn't bother lobbying me to support Johnson in the first place?

So, there's really nothing more to discuss.

I hope what you perceive as your integrity keeps you warm as the tyranny which you refused to oppose closes in around you.

So refusing to support a statist authoritarian hack means that I refuse to oppose tyranny?

LOL you zombie kids and your 'logic.'

 

[phill4paul]

I don't know why I engaged you in this conversation.

You'd made it perfectly clear on previous occasions that you have no interest in the practical consequences of your decisions.

Your sole object of concern is whether your vote will be for a person who shares 100% of your principles.

Whether that vote will be of any value in actually realizing those principles is no importance whatsoever.

So, there's really nothing more to discuss.

I hope what you perceive as your integrity keeps you warm as the tyranny which you refused to oppose closes in around you.

I think Gunny is quite clear, as I am, that integrity keeps us from choosing the lesser of evils. I don't do that. Fuck that stupid ass shit about choosing the lesser of evils to bring about liberty. It just doesn't happen that way.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I think Gunny is quite clear, as I am, that integrity keeps us from choosing the lesser of evils. I don't do that. Fuck that stupid ass shit about choosing the lesser of evils to bring about liberty. It just doesn't happen that way.

...and it never will. Good will NEVER be brought forth by choosing evil. Even the lesser evil. This is axiomatic.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

...and it never will. Good will NEVER be brought forth by choosing evil. Even the lesser evil. This is axiomatic.

And you consider an evil any politician who doesn't share 100% of your principles, correct?

If not, which principles then are you willing to compromise?

 

[libertyjam]

There was a confrontation between them today, maybe had something to do with it.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...son-wins-libertarian-presidential-nomination/


I'm really not that concerned about it though.

Sounds like Peterson is a hothead and would not get my vote. PS, he is too young and if he cant understand then he has no business at that level of politics.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

And you consider an evil any politician who doesn't share 100% of your political principles, correct?

Absolutely not. That entire idea is a figment of your imagination. I have never in all my life said nor implied any such thing, nor do I now nor have I ever believed such nonsense. I have not even done anything in my entire 42 years that could even be construed as holding that position, therefore I posit that you have an "assumed image" of what you think someone who hates Johnson looks like, and are applying your figment to me and declaring it reality.

If not, which principles then are you willing to compromise?

I don't compromise, I collate.

 

[libertyjam]

Yeah, writing in RP is getting even easier.

I'll sleep well on election night.

Gunny is right, it was a douche move.

Yes, it was a douche move.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Absolutely not. That entire idea is a figment of your imagination. I have never in all my life said nor implied any such thing, nor do I now nor have I ever believed such nonsense. I have not even done anything in my entire 42 years that could even be construed as holding that position, therefore I posit that you have an "assumed image" of what you think someone who hates Johnson looks like, and are applying your figment to me and declaring it reality.

I don't compromise, I collate.

Equivocation..

Either you are willing to compromise some principles (as by supporting a candidate who does not share 100% of them) or not.

It can't be both.

Which is it?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Equivocation..

Absolutely not. There is an enormous difference between compromising principles, and building coalitions around common goals. The very fact that you would call that an equivocation is frankly absurd.

Either you are willing to compromise some principles (as by supporting a candidate who does not share 100% of them) or not.

You live in such a 2D black and white world. Your vision is so desperately narrow "It can only be this or that" and I'm just here laughing at the tesseract you are calling a diamond down there in flatland.

It can't be both.

Which is it?

I vote for people whom I believe will bring us closer to Constitutional government, and I oppose people whom I believe will take us further away from Constitutional government than we already are.

I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I vote for people whom I believe will bring us closer to Constitutional government, and I oppose people whom I believe will take us further away from Constitutional government than we already are.

And you do not believe that, on balance, Gary Johnson's policy positions represent a shift toward constitutional government?

A few of his many positions which represent a dramatic shift toward constitutional government:

• Abolishing the Fed
• Cutting federal spending (which is almost exclusively on unconstitutional programs) by 43%
• Repealing the PATRIOT Act

Which of his unconstitutional proposals (gay cakes?) are so egregious that they outweigh the above, for a net move away from the constitution?

I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp?

It's hard to grasp because you constantly equivocate.

....acting as if all compromise is bad, and then backing down when challenged on the absurdity of that position.