Gary Johnson's record

[fr33]

Yeah on my TX ballot, I'll be voting for every Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot.

 

[AFPVet]

Most people, at least intuitively, understand basic prisoner's dilemma. Voting third party is definitely not game theory optimal. It pretty much helps someone who is extremely horrible like Obama vs someone less good like Romney. I'm voting for Johnson because I hope that long term it will help libertarian ideas get into the Republican party. I think the short term pain of electing more socialists will be made up for long term gain by having someone like Rand Paul get taken seriously by the party.

Yes, but the fact remains... we cannot change the two party system. It is too corrupt. In a perfect world, yes, the game changer would be to take over the party; however, that is not going to happen. The two party system needs to go.

 

[Nathan Hale]

One can go to the state's website and see the actual facts.

The state's web site actually has zero facts on the issue. I've seen those two tables (one of which I believe refers to the debt percentage based on federal debt levels) at the center of many debates on these boards, but nothing from the actual state government on this issue. Supposedly the wiki page is fake - as I said, talk to different people and you'll get different numbers.

But I support Ron Paul because he can be trusted. And I can't enthusiastically support Johnson because he can't be. Credibility is important to me. Integrity is important to me. Others will have other priorities, and I am not necessarily saying they shouldn't.

As you stated in your other post (which I will reply to here), Paul is a legislator. When your vote is your record, it's not so much your actions that make you credible, but your voice. Sure, a vote is an action, but it's more a show of opinion (a voice, if you will) than an actual act of office. If you're an executive, you can't just say no because it's your job to make it work. You can veto bad legislation, and Johnson had moreso than any other executive of his era, but if your veto is overridden it's your job to make it work. Ron Paul is a great man, with an impeccable voting record, but comparing the two is apples and oranges because you have no idea what would happen under a Paul executive term - especially when faced with a hostile legislature.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Most people, at least intuitively, understand basic prisoner's dilemma. Voting third party is definitely not game theory optimal. It pretty much helps someone who is extremely horrible like Obama vs someone less good like Romney. I'm voting for Johnson because I hope that long term it will help libertarian ideas get into the Republican party. I think the short term pain of electing more socialists will be made up for long term gain by having someone like Rand Paul get taken seriously by the party.

How is that supposed to happen?

 

[ZakB]

If a large number of people consistently vote libertarian the republican party will adopt some of their ideas in future elections in order to try to win over those votes

 

[jmdrake]

This will be the first time in my life that I vote for a pro choice candidate and I do not like it.

Well there's always Virgil Goode.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...de-constitution-party-candidate-for-president

 

[AFPVet]

While it is a good thought that the Republicans would eventually adopt some aspects of the Libertarian platform, it still doesn't change the party at a cellular level. You can paint a tiger to look like a cow, but it's still going to be a tiger. Eventually, people will see them for what they are....

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Well, he says things like wanting to dismantle the IRS. That by itself has a lot of appeal to me.

He wants to replace one tax with another tax....yay...

 

[torchbearer]

He wants to replace one tax with another tax....yay...

remove the IRS, replace with a sales tax is light years better than any other option available on ballot.
even Ron has stated he would vote for such a tax as long as it removed the IRS, but it wouldn't be his end game.

 

[surf]

guys, Gary Johnson is a guy that i would see employing RP as his entire cabinet, and we all know what a great secretary of the Treasury, Defense, State, DHS, etc. that RP would be (and he could do it all at once from the Texas coastline).

 

[fr33]

Well there's always Virgil Goode.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...de-constitution-party-candidate-for-president

The problem for me with Virgil Goode and the CP is that they claim to be a christian party and don't seem to respect the separation of church and state. I also do not agree with their strict views on immigration. I didn't fully agree with Dr. Paul on immigration either but the CP's platform goes even further away from me and calls for a moratorium on immigration.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I consider the IRS a massive invasion of privacy in addition to being a pain in the ass income tax.

At least when you buy goods and pay a sales tax, that is your own choice.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Regardless of who's running, if we don't start voting straight ticket 3rd party, nothing is going to change.

+1

I don't understand why people don't get that simple concept?

I certainly don't get it.

What is supposed to change and how?

Do you want to end the 2-party system? Constitutional amendment, multi-member congressional districts with proportional representation plus popular vote for President.

That's why you have a 2-party system, not because of a corrupt press or evil corporations.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I certainly don't get it.

What is supposed to change and how?

Do you want to end the 2-party system? Constitutional amendment, multi-member congressional districts with proportional representation plus popular vote for President.

That's why you have a 2-party system, not because of a corrupt press or evil corporations.

Agreed. As I often tell people who criticize me for voting Gary Johnson: "don't hate the player, hate the game". The problem is not the existence of more than two parties, the problem is the way we vote. But I disagree that we need constitutional amendments and whatnot - just change from plurality voting, where each vote is a microcosm of the election, to approval voting, where voters are invited to give an up-or-down vote to each candidate. It's easy to implement using existing voting infrastructure and little explanation, and it eliminates any vestige of the lesser of two evils dilemma.

 

[surf]

i won't put up with criticism of my Johnson vote anymore. any "wasted vote" bullshit argument that comes my way is quickly countered with a "status quo" comment that is followed by "name a difference" between these two idiots....

it helps not being in a "swing state." imo, this is the greatest opportunity to make a "statement" with a vote for Johnson than i think i've ever had.

 

[Dick Chaney]

Good record in New Mexico, I'm still not going to vote for him, but he's certainly better then Obamney.

 

[MelissaWV]

The problem with posting arguments as to why *I* am not voting for Gary Johnson is that his supporters will start another thread shortly, and those arguments will be lost. The dissection of each part of his website, which clearly states his views, and why they are at odds with just about everything I could ever consider being in the interests of liberty... it's pointless. Tomorrow there'll be a great "woohoo Gary Johnson, legalize pot, better than the main two, be a rebel!" thread to wipe it out.

If you want to keep ballot access, and you are just voting to keep other party candidates relevant, do so. That's not where I have a gripe. It does make me sad, though, that some of you are praising this guy like he's as good as OR EVEN BETTER THAN Ron Paul. It makes me wonder if you've really bothered to take a look.

 

[tuggy24g]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjFZdCKtOfc

 

[ftsmallwood]

No worries, I and many others, voted for Dr. Paul, even though we prefer someone firmly pro-choice. Don't let one issue divide us, we didn't.

 

[Nathan Hale]

The problem with posting arguments as to why *I* am not voting for Gary Johnson is that his supporters will start another thread shortly, and those arguments will be lost. The dissection of each part of his website, which clearly states his views, and why they are at odds with just about everything I could ever consider being in the interests of liberty... it's pointless. Tomorrow there'll be a great "woohoo Gary Johnson, legalize pot, better than the main two, be a rebel!" thread to wipe it out.

If you want to keep ballot access, and you are just voting to keep other party candidates relevant, do so. That's not where I have a gripe. It does make me sad, though, that some of you are praising this guy like he's as good as OR EVEN BETTER THAN Ron Paul. It makes me wonder if you've really bothered to take a look.

This is a cheap shot. Gary Johnson detractors have no greater claim to the moral high ground than Gary Johnson supporters - threads are started in both directions. If you have a problem with Gary's platform, then let's have that conversation, but don't throw this on Gary Johnson supporters as though they are doing something wrong - new threads pop up all the time for a lot of issues, and Gary Johnson is a popular candidate in this movement. Remember that we don't all think in lockstep, there is a huge diversity of thought in this movement, as there is huge diversity of thought in any movement that has any semblance of a chance at having an impact. I compromise in my support for Gary as he has negatives in addition to his positives, but I compromised in my support for Ron Paul as well. I got behind both men because they are above the bar for approval in my eyes, and were miles ahead of their competition.