The WORST argument I've heard for not voting for Gary Johnson

jmdrake

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
52,928
Disclaimer 1: I didn't vote for Gary Johnson. I voted for Virgil Goode.

Disclaimer 2: I actually like "TokenLibertarianGirl" (Julie whatshername).

Those two disclaimer's out of the way, she gave probably the worst reason ever for Ron Paul supporters not to vote for Gary Johnson. She starts off talking about why, despite the fact that she doesn't agree with Gary Johnson 100%, she still thinks GH is "10 times better than Obama or Romney". (I disagree. GJ's view that the federal reserve is not "private" makes me question if he understands the fed at all. And his "humanitarian war" doctrine is no different from the Obama doctrine and is potentially worse than the Bush doctrine. But I digress.) Still, after declaring GH to be sooooo much better than ObamaRomney, she goes on to say "But libertarians can't win.....the best way for liberty minded candidates is to run as republicans.....we're winning in the republican party......blah blah blah." Ummm....what the hell does that have to do with who you ultimately cast your vote for today? If you vote for Gary Johnson, or write in Ron Paul, or vote for Mikey Mouse it does absolutely NOTHING to hurt the "take over the GOP" strategy! In fact voting for Gary Johnson can help that strategy because if Romney wins today Rand (the "heir apparent") doesn't get a real chance until 2020. Folks think this through. Jack Hunter and others can talk all day about how Rand can "primary" Mitt Romney. Sure. And that's about as likely as Ron Paul announcing today that he is running third party for president in 2012! Really, do you think Mr. "Plasticman" himself isn't going to throw enough bones to "mainstream conservatives" that they will be willing to fall in line behind a Rand Paul insurgency? And with Rand's strategy of "Let them think I'm one of them so they'll vote for me", do you think he would even consider leading an insurgency against Romney in 2016 unless Romney really screwed up? (And Romney won't. At least not politically).

Really people, this isn't the "either/or" proposition that some folks want to make you think it is. When you have good republican candidates, by all means vote for them. When you have good democratic candidates vote for them as well. (I proudly voted for Ron Paul democratic senate nominee Mark Clayton. He got far more media attention by winning the democratic senate nomination than he would have gotten by running for and losing the republican senate nomination.) Just because you aren't going to fall in line and get a Mitt Romney 2012 bumper sticker doesn't mean you can't later be involved in the takeover of the GOP.

Oh...and the video.

 
I think I may be able to one up this one. What a coworker said to me the other day: "It is your responsibility to vote for the lesser of two evils." Or something to that extent. Needless to say I looked him dead in the eye and told him "Fuck off." Unbelievable.
 
I think I may be able to one up this one. What a coworker said to me the other day: "It is your responsibility to vote for the lesser of two evils." Or something to that extent. Needless to say I looked him dead in the eye and told him "Fuck off." Unbelievable.

LOL. At this point all my co-workers know better.
 
I agree with the OP. Voting libertarian HELPS the GOP to become more libertarian, because we arent supporting the stupid candidates they gave us. My ballot was about 2/3 libertarian, but I voted for a few republicans too. (specifically Lingerfelt against John Wiley Price for Dallas County Commissioner)
 
I have a bad feeling that a lot of religious people don't like Johnson because he is an atheist, and is personally pro-choice.... even though he has the EXACT same position as Ron on abortion: leave it to the states.

If this is true, then I think that is shitty. Some reasons I would understand more would be his stupid statements on the FED, and "humanitarian" wars. Too many libertarians are stuck up purists that think they are smarter/better/more principled than everyone else.
 
I stole this from some dude somewhere, he's named Doug (don't know his last name):

Private companies are not created by acts of legislation.

Private companies do not have their chairmen appointed by government officials.

Private companies are not granted legal monopolies by government.

Private companies are not shielded from bankruptcy by taxpayer bailouts.

Private companies cannot operate under legalized fraud.
 
He must be desperate. Desperate times call for desperate measures. ;)

True I suppose, but I live in California and he is an Obama supporter so it is pointless. He obviously isn't a smart voter, otherwise he would have realized that.
 
True I suppose, but I live in California and he is an Obama supporter so it is pointless. He obviously isn't a smart voter, otherwise he would have realized that.

He still supports Obama and you were under the illusion that he might be a smart voter? ;)
 
I have a bad feeling that a lot of religious people don't like Johnson because he is an atheist, and is personally pro-choice.... even though he has the EXACT same position as Ron on abortion: leave it to the states.

If this is true, then I think that is $#@!ty. Some reasons I would understand more would be his stupid statements on the FED, and "humanitarian" wars. Too many libertarians are stuck up purists that think they are smarter/better/more principled than everyone else.

This is one of the worst posts, ever even if it is old.

Christians are not going to vote for someone who has stated he would take away religious liberty. And Johnson says he supports the right to kill unborn children. That is a lot different than saying states should handle whether it is legal in the state or not.
 
Back
Top