Gary Johnson Announces Libertarian Party Run For President

[thatpeculiarcat]

It's not useless at the local level. Just needs more support.

If the LP focused on a handful of local elections, sure. But they don't. They focus on NO elections at all. They do not care about winning, and it's a shame because a L/libertarian could totally win some elections here and there.

 

[William Tell]

If the LP focused on a handful of local elections, sure. But they don't. They focus on NO elections at all. They do not care about winning, and it's a shame because a L/libertarian could totally win some elections here and there.

Yeah. LP members have actually won some local elections, but almost exclusively non partisan elections. Which is kind of pointless from a party perspective. They don't have the discipline to try to seriously win some state house seats or anything.

 

[Occam's Banana]

If the LP focused on a handful of local elections, sure. But they don't. They focus on NO elections at all. They do not care about winning, and it's a shame because a L/libertarian could totally win some elections here and there.

Yeah. LP members have actually won some local elections, but almost exclusively non partisan elections. Which is kind of pointless from a party perspective. They don't have the discipline to try to seriously win some state house seats or anything.

Unfortunately, too many libertarians (of both the "big L" and "small l" varieties) seem to be just as obsessed with bright, shiny objects like POTUS as a typical specimen of Boobus is. Even more so, in fact, when it comes to "big L" Libertarians (even Republican and Democrat party drones get all fired up and slobbery over local and non-national races).

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not sure if that's the case or not. He supported the Supreme Court decision which took power away from the states to decide the marriage issue. I don't see why his position would be any different on abortion.

Why not? He's a politician, after all ...

quod erat demonstrandum ...

FTA: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ary-Johnson-Actually-I-Wouldn-t-Ban-the-Burka

Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson: Actually, I Wouldn't Ban the Burka

One day after saying he’d sign a law banning the burka, the candidate did a complete reversal.

For 24 hours, the leading Libertarian Party presidential candidate seemed like he was to the right of Donald Trump when it comes to Muslims.

In a Wednesday interview with Reason, the former governor of New Mexico said that sharia law is one of his greatest concerns, and that he would ban the Muslim head garb.

“Under sharia law, women are not afforded the same rights as men,” Johnson argued, adding that a burka hides whether a woman has been beaten. “Honor killings are allowed for under sharia law and so is deceiving non-Muslims,” he added.

On Thursday afternoon, Johnson recanted.

continued...http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ohnson-actually-i-wouldn-t-ban-the-burqa.html

 

[CPUd]

Gary probably could have run for Senate last cycle and won.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Libertarianism isn't a quadrant of the political spectrum. It is a coherent political philosophy that totally rejects some things that GJ supports. The LP (like Reason Magazine and the Cato Institute) loves to use your quadrant of political philosophy model as a way of broadening its appeal to include statists. Very often the people who redefine libertarianism this way are the same ones who define it as a combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, the latter being a cypher for support of the gay agenda and anti-Christian bigotry.

Being in the quadrant of political philosophy he is in does make GJ more libertarian than most other politicians. But it doesn't make him a libertarian.

I agree with you. By your use of the term, Gary Johnson is not a libertarian. Neither am I. Neither is Ron Paul. Or Rand Paul. You could eliminate 99% of people popularly referred to as libertarian by limiting access to the term in politics based on use of the term in philosophy (and the anemic remainder would no doubt argue among themselves about who is a purer libertarian).

That's why we use the idea of the libertarian quadrant in politics, and Gary fits easily into that quadrant.

That being said, I'll be the first to admit that unfortunately we have a two party system. It's rigged by the way we vote. So this is largely an exercise in futility. However, I believe that the LP stands a chance, especially in a world where information is as democratized as it is today, to manipulate its way into making the GOP and the Dems have to awkwardly address its existence, and perhaps that will lead to a reformation of the way we vote. That's my goal here. I would have considered it more productive for Gary to run for Senate on the GOP ticket in 2012.

 

[Jan2017]

where does he fail to meet your libertarian litmus test?

I passed out a similar diamond shaped grid on a cardstock flyer at a SE Iowa public library in Fall of 2011 before the Jan2012 caucus.

I like this as Libertarian is on top . . . opposite, and on top, before for me was "Statist"

 

[cajuncocoa]

I passed out a similar diamond shaped grid on a cardstock flyer at a SE Iowa public library in Fall of 2011 before the Jan2012 caucus.

I like this as Libertarian is on top . . . opposite, and on top, before for me was "Statist"

I do prefer "Statist" or "Authoritarian" opposite "Libertarian" rather than "Populist"