Gary Johnson Announces Libertarian Party Run For President

[69360]

Gary will probably win too. And then the Libertarian Party will continue their streak of non-libertarian candidates for president.

Does it really even matter? Nobody votes LP expecting their candidate to win. The ideology is really irrelevant, it's just a name. I voted for GJ last time as a protest vote and may be doing the same again.

 

[LatinsforPaul]

May the best candidate win the LP nomination. Depending on Trump dominating the the GOP primaries, it may still fall out that Rand runs for the LP nod as well.

No way in hell. In fact it's the other way around. If some how Rand manages to get the GOP nomination, I can see the Libertarian Party nominating Rand too. Putting his name on the ballot twice in the general in many states.

 

[ssunlimited]

No way in hell. In fact it's the other way around. If some how Rand manages to get the GOP nomination, I can see the Libertarian Party nominating Rand too. Putting his name on the ballot twice in the general in many states.

That's what I kept on thinking. Rand is a Libertarian in his political ideology so the LP should nominate Rand. Rand could then get an extra 1%/1,000,000 million votes for the general election from the people voting LP. I am quite expecting them to nominate Rand if he wins the GOP nomination.

 

[evilfunnystuff]

This is from the "Foreign Policy" section of the "issues" page at McAfee's official website (https://mcafee16.com/issues/):

We are not a police agency for the world. Our foreign involvements must be reigned in, and attention should be placed on looking at our own issues. While domestic policy will be the major focus of a McAfee administration, we will employ a foreign policy that augments our domestic policy.

First and foremost, we are to pursue our interests. This is the number one goal of a McAfee foreign policy. We reject the interventionist pursuit of idealistic and moral goals. Rather, we will focus on exerting out influence when and where it serves our national interests. Nothing more, nothing less. Nixon, in addressing congress in his first annual report on Foreign Policy states our goals quite clearly:

Our objective, in the first instance, is to support our interests over the long run with a sound foreign policy. The more that policy is based on a realistic view of our and others’ interests, the more effective our role in the world can be. We are not involved in the world because we have commitments; we have commitments because we are involved. Our interests must shape our commitments, rather than the other way around.​

Here's an excerpt from an article by Brian Doherty at Reason about McAfee (https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/28/anti-virus-pioneer-john-mcafee-enters-li):

His major issues stress more of what you might call the "nice" sides of libertarianism. You know, the aspects calling for government to stop doing things that most decent people consider crummy, from drug laws to non-defensive foreign interventions to TSA busybodyism to immigration laws to FDA regs that keep life-saving medicines from people's hands to privacy-violating surveillance. These are the parts that at least theoretically have some hope of creating possible coalitions with parts of the American left.

[...]

McAfee on his website issues page discusses policies that imply expanding government spending, such as, under "education," that "in the case of higher-education, we will work to make education attainable for everyone, regardless of income level or family income level. What’s more, the rampant student loan debt must be checked."

His "economy" plank also seems unlibertarian when it hypes:

a large-scale public works program. This will focus on a few key areas. Initially, these public works will focus on physical infrastructure: the construction and repair of roads, bridges, highways, airports, etc. These initiatives will be pursued through two different avenues. One, we will fund and staff these initiatives through various federal programs. Second, we will offer states, counties, and cities funds to manage the programs on their own. This initial infrastructure push will provide a, relatively, quick way to stem unemployment.

Further down the road, we plan to introduce an IT infrastructure development program. In short, we will make a large amount of funds available to cities and townships to prompt wholesale implementation of smart grid energy programs.

As we have stated many times over, we see access to broadband as a fundamental human right.​

McAfee is also a vocal supporter of "net neutrality" which most libertarian see as unwarranted government interference in the market's functioning.

[...]​

Here's a recent podcast interview with McAfee (I haven't listened to it, but the source I got it from said "he doesn't sound libertarian at all, at least not to me"):

LIBERTY HANGOUT PODCAST: Episode #10 w/John McAfee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNk-qvjJUIE
Liberty Hangout (29 December 2015)

Yesterday, Liberty Hangout and Charles Peralo from BeingLibertarian.com had the privilege of being one of the first outlets to chat with tech mogul, security expert, and founder of a centi million dollar web security company, John McAfee, about his 2016 presidential campaign. We asked John about a number of his policy stances, ranging from intellectual property, to social security, free trade, Bitcoin, and more. John also unveiled his unique way of rolling back and eventually abolishing wasteful government agencies such as the TSA. This is an interview you will want to listen to from start to finish!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNk-qvjJUIE
​

Weak, thanks for pulling off the bandaid lol

 

[Nathan Hale]

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.

I did a quick search and found this - first answer:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Abortion.htm

 

[Nathan Hale]

Gary will probably win too. And then the Libertarian Party will continue their streak of non-libertarian candidates for president.

Bah - once again libertarianism is a large portion of the political spectrum. Gary is far more moderate than the traditional radicals put forth by the LP, but that doesn't make Gary "non-libertarian".

 

[Peace&Freedom]

No way in hell. In fact it's the other way around. If some how Rand manages to get the GOP nomination, I can see the Libertarian Party nominating Rand too. Putting his name on the ballot twice in the general in many states.

The Republican nomination will be decided in the summer at their convention, the LP nomination will be decided in May. Rand has expressed no interest in seeking or campaigning for the LP nomination, or showing up in Miami to accept it if nominated. Doing so is the only way he will get the LP nod---there is no phoning it in, and it's insulting to the party to suggest otherwise. The body present at the LP convention, as with the conventions of any other party, will not nominate somebody who does not show up to ask for it or accept it, period.

The more likely scenario, as things now stand, is that Trump dominates the GOP primary season and becomes the prospective nominee. This may create a unique situation where the party leadership will NOT frown on a non-Trump Republican making an independent run, and creates a void Rand could fill by declaring the third party (LP/CP) run. The establishment wing may even openly encourage such a candidacy, and might cut a deal to offer Rand something for thereby frustrating Trump's chances.

The best case scenario for this situation, is that Rand running LP/CP will cause Trump to pull out of the race, but not run as an independent himself (due to not wanting to undergo the hassle), and to release his delegates. Then at the GOP con, to avoid losing the election to Hillary due to Rand being on the other lines, the released delegates vote to nominate Rand. Plan B, if Trump doesn't quit the GOP race and Hillary wins, Rand is in the "it's his turn" inside track position to run as a unifying Republican candidate in 2020.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Actually polls from the last few years are closer to 50/50.

I think it's less about the numbers and more about political inertia. There is zero traction toward anything happening on the issue, so why make it a campaign touchstone? Why alienate 50% of the voters on an issue that is simply not a part of the overton window these days?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Bah - once again libertarianism is a large portion of the political spectrum. Gary is far more moderate than the traditional radicals put forth by the LP, but that doesn't make Gary "non-libertarian".

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian.

 

[Dianne]

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian.

I agree. Just because he brags he rides his bicycle to work every day does not make him a libertarian. He's just a worn out has been, looking for a little press coverage to sell something in the future.

 

[derek4ever]

That's what I kept on thinking. Rand is a Libertarian in his political ideology so the LP should nominate Rand. Rand could then get an extra 1%/1,000,000 million votes for the general election from the people voting LP. I am quite expecting them to nominate Rand if he wins the GOP nomination.

I think this can happen! Rand gets cross-endorsed but the question would be what about his running mate? Would it be a Republican or a Libertarian? There are a few states that allow for fusion voting, where a candidate can get endorsed by more than 1 party. In a state like NY, Rand could appear once with a Republican running mate and once with a Libertarian running mate, thus appearing twice. In states like VT, Rand would be on the ballot once with the "Republican,Libertarian" next to his name.

 

[thatpeculiarcat]

The Libertarian Party wouldn't have endorsed RON if he won the GOP nomination. They are fucking insane in how they conduct business: "Help us make a memorial building and move our HQ while we disregard winning elections!"

Don't get your hopes up. The LP is inept and disgusting.

 

[cajuncocoa]

The Libertarian Party wouldn't have endorsed RON if he won the GOP nomination. They are fucking insane in how they conduct business: "Help us make a memorial building and move our HQ while we disregard winning elections!"

Don't get your hopes up. The LP is inept and disgusting.

Of course not. Why would they endorse a Republican? I understand Ron is more "libertarian" than the candidate they ran (Bob Barr) but that's not how party politics works.

 

[LatinsforPaul]

The Republican nomination will be decided in the summer at their convention, the LP nomination will be decided in May. Rand has expressed no interest in seeking or campaigning for the LP nomination, or showing up in Miami to accept it if nominated. Doing so is the only way he will get the LP nod---there is no phoning it in, and it's insulting to the party suggest otherwise. The body present at the LP convention, as with the conventions of any other party, will not nominate somebody who does not show up to ask for it or accept it, period.

The more likely scenario, as things now stand, is that Trump dominates the GOP primary season and becomes the prospective nominee. This may create a unique situation where the party leadership will NOT frown on a non-Trump Republican making an independent run, and creates a void Rand could fill by declaring the third party (LP/CP) run. The establishment wing may even openly encourage such a candidacy, and might cut a deal to offer Rand something for thereby frustrating Trump's chances.

The best case scenario for this situation, is that Rand running LP/CP will cause Trump to pull out of the race, but not run as an independent himself (due to not wanting to undergo the hassle), and to release his delegates. Then at the GOP con, to avoid losing the election to Hillary due to Rand being on the other lines, the released delegates vote to nominate Rand. Plan B, if Trump doesn't quit the GOP race and Hillary wins, Rand is in the "it's his turn" inside track position to run as a unifying Republican candidate in 2020.

Libertarians May Co-Nominate Rand Paul in 2016

Members of the large third party brace for a fight.

Members of the Libertarian Party are bracing for an internal struggle over whether to back the libertarian-leaning senator if he appears poised to win the Republican nomination in 2016.

Paul is unlikely to directly seek the third party’s support, but could win it anyhow through the work of eager activists like those who worked the campaigns of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a GOP presidential contender in 2008 and 2012 and the Libertarian nominee in 1988.

A co-nomination from one of the nation’s most significant minor parties could help Paul - if he’s the Republican nominee - avoid losing hundreds of thousands of votes to an ideological ally. In some states, his name would appear twice on ballots.

If Paul is nominated by both the Republican and Libertarian parties, it could also unleash electoral scenarios unseen in decades, such as the negotiation of a fusion slate of electors. Libertarians could, theoretically, nominate their own vice presidential candidate.

Though the Libertarian Party’s Orlando, Florida, nominating convention isn’t until May 2016, Libertarian National Committee Executive Director Wes Benedict foresees a fight.

“If Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination, I'd expect a big fight within the [party] over whether or not we should run our own candidate,” Benedict says. “It wouldn't just be a discussion.”

Libertarian Party chairman Nicholas Sarwark, officially neutral on the matter, says “there is a possibility that the delegates in Orlando would nominate Sen. Paul and if they were to do so, I'd work hard to support their choice.”

The Republican primary season will be well underway when the 1,000 or so Libertarian convention delegates gather. If Paul appears poised for victory in the GOP race, they would have several options.

Delegates could nominate Paul and his presumptive GOP running mate (if that person has been selected), or nominate Paul and a Libertarian running mate (as happened in 1896 when the Democratic and Populist parties nominated William Jennings Bryan for president, but chose different vice presidential candidates).

They could also choose to endorse no candidate, a scenario in which many would-be Libertarian voters would presumably vote for Paul without the party’s official blessing; or they could snub Paul and pick their own presidential candidate.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian.

Please elaborate on how the sum of Gary Johnson's platform puts him outside the libertarian quadrant of the political spectrum.

 

[Nathan Hale]

The Libertarian Party wouldn't have endorsed RON if he won the GOP nomination. They are fucking insane in how they conduct business: "Help us make a memorial building and move our HQ while we disregard winning elections!"

Don't get your hopes up. The LP is inept and disgusting.

On the bright side, in 2012 Gary said that he would demure and drop out if Ron Paul won the GOP nod.

 

[erowe1]

Of course not. Why would they endorse a Republican? I understand Ron is more "libertarian" than the candidate they ran (Bob Barr) but that's not how party politics works.

What you say is true. It is also proof of the uselessness of the LP.

 

[erowe1]

Please elaborate on how the sum of Gary Johnson's platform puts him outside the libertarian quadrant of the political spectrum.

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.

 

[cajuncocoa]

What you say is true. It is also proof of the uselessness of the LP.

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

 

[William Tell]

Gary wouldn't know liberty or the Constitution if they both bit him on the ass at the same time.

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