Libertarian Party

Poll of Libertarian Party Members Shows Gary Johnson with Majority Support for Presidential Nod

But with only 10 percent of polled actual delegates, the future of the Party remains uncertain.


The website Hammer of Truth, in collaboration with the Libertarian National Committee, conducted a survey last week of 1,563 "known registered voters" who are "current dues paying members or lapsed for less than one year" of the Libertarian Party.

LP Logo/Hammer of Truth

The respondents were invited by the Libertarian National Committee via email. The survey claims a 3.5 percent margin of error, and found, among other things, that Gary Johnson, the 2012 candidate, has a huge current lead in presidential support, with 60.9 percent support. The only other candidate to break 10 percent was Austin Petersen at 16.7.

Before Gary Johnson gets too excited by those results, only 10 percent of the surveyed say they will be delegates at the convention in Orlando this weekend that will actually nominate the president. One can presume that delegates both are more primed to pay attention to the various candidates, and have in many cases been on the receiving end of direct persuasion attempts by various candidates. Almost none of the online or convention straw polls I was shown while working on my July Reason feature on the candidates matched this level of support for Johnson over his competitors.

More than half polled, 59 percent, think "taxes" are an extremely important issue, while 57.8 say that about the economy in general. The next highest concern, with 38.5 considering it "extremely important," was foreign policy. Next in line was criminal justice, which 32.1 mark as extremely important.

The poll also asked for favorability rankings of a bunch of people and things of presumed interest to Libertarians. Highest mean approval rating on a scale of 1 to 100 went to Ron Paul, with 81.3, barely edging out Johnson with 80.9. Rand Paul's was 69.2. (As my colleague Jesse Walker pointed out, 2008 L.P. presidential candidate Bob Barr, who let the party down by most estimations, did manage to edge out NAFTA in popularity, 47 to 38.5.) Donald Trump? 24.8. Hillary Clinton? 8.2, slightly below Obamacare at 11.6. (Pro-life or anti-abortion groups came in with 39.1 mean approval.)

Of the respondents, 28.5 percent had been Libertarians for less than a year, and 19.9 percent for over 20 years. Male, 88.4; female 11.6, white 87.1 percent. The south was the most represented region, at 31.7 percent.

Full results.

NEXT: Bernie Sanders Encourages Californians to Legalize Marijuana This Fall

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t give a fuck if he’s dead, I’m writing in George Carlin.

    1. Carlin wasn’t a libertarian.

      1. His views on climate change were spot on.

  2. Oh Christ so they are choosing literally the worst option? Seems the Dems are the only ones who know how to choose a half-half-decent candidate and even that wasn’t as clean-cut as it should have been.

    Johnson sucks in every way. Bad on 1A/freedom of association (these compromises will get him NOTHING in the general), terrible at campaigning, bad speaker, no charisma, etc basically an anti-spokesmen for liberty. He’s like the Gillespie of the LP.

    1. I thought that Gillespie was the Gillespie of the LP.

    2. Johnson polling at 11 percent already, and is a two-term governor, more qualified and less disliked by the electorate than Trump-Clinton. I’m thinking the LP will go with the crazy guy instead.

      1. I’m thinking the LP will go with the crazy guy instead.

        If they want my vote they better

        1. SIV, no one wants your vote.

      2. But I just heard M. Romney is polling at 27%! Same Q, i.e. with just Trump, Clinton, & this other choice.

    3. Don’t worry, Cyto, when the Train pulls into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in November, we’ll make sure there’s still a seat saved.

    4. I don’t know if I’d go as far to say he “sucks in every way”, but he isn’t very good on freedom of association, which, last time I checked, was a major component of libertarianism.

      1. Is he bad on all freedom of association or does he just have the wrong position on public accommodation law?

        1. i think where purists hate him is not understanding the distinction between wrong, and different.

      2. When his argument is that Jews should have to bake Nazi cakes, he is just bad on freedom of association. Current laws in this country protect certain immutable characteristics or the religious. So, Gay Jay’s argument goes a step further than current laws, and in doing so reveals either his own ignorance of the distinction made by proponents of such laws or he’d just go further on his own initiative. The basis for his claim was that people shouldn’t be discriminated against as consumers.

        I think your comments on this have been a massive case of projection where you refuse to acknowledge that Johnson and some Reason writers have taken incoherent positions on this subject that are blatantly not in line with libertarianism.

        1. I think your comments on this have been a massive case of projection where you refuse to acknowledge that Johnson and some Reason writers have taken incoherent positions on this subject that are blatantly not in line with libertarianism.

          I’m not refusing to acknowledge his position. I outright disagree with it. Not thrilled with his VP pick either.

          But it’s ONE position. And it’s not about freedom of association on the whole, it’s about public accommodation. I think he’s misguided and hasn’t argued it through from first principles. But it’s ONE issue.

          When was the last time you met anyone you agreed with 99% of the time? Fuck, I disagreed with Rand on 5-10X as many issues and I was certainly going to vote for him.

          You are going to make the perfect the enemy of the good, as likely will the LP, and in doing so will cement the mainstream notion that the LP is the party of nuttery. McAfee will appeal to the “already libertarian” crowd and will do nothing to draw anyone to the fold. I personally like the guy, but he’s not what libertarians need right now.

          1. That ONE position happens to be a deal breaker. It’s like meeting a girl who is pretty, smart, fit and likes sports, but she has a penis. Well, sorry, but no deal; Johnson has a penis.

            1. That ONE position happens to be a deal breaker.

              So do you expect that if a libertarian were to be elected president, he’d get the CRA repealed in 8 years, even if it was his #1 priority?

              I’m thinkin that’s not the place to start expending capital.

              But I respect that fact that you’ve drawn your line where you feel is important.

              1. You think the CRA forces Jewish bakers to bake Nazi cakes? No wonder you’re for ex-Republican loser Gary Johnson.

                1. SIV, do you even have a philosophy? I mean other than contrarian assclown?

                  Have you ever put forth a legitimate argument, where you explain your positions rather than simply disparage everyone else’s remarks? Ever had a civil discussion rather than just throwing grenades. Do you have any principles, other than taking the opposite side of everything put forth by Reason writers. Because if you do, you surely have never expressed them here.

                  And you know what that makes you, right?

              2. It’s not about that. It’s about, WTF does this guy think about individual liberty? Is he just rattling off positions he’s memorized as politically (to libertarians) correct? So let’s see…he’s heard we’re “pro-gay”…or maybe “anti-religious”…so he’d better be for the Nazi cake to show he’s consistent!

                1. I mean, I could except all sorts of pragmatic compromises as long as you’re taking the right general stance. OK, legalize just a few drugs, because too much ill will vs. the others. Reduce taxes because it’s impracticable to eliminate them. Reduce foreign intervention, ditto. Reduce the minimum wage, or maybe just keep it from increasing too fast. All of those positions demonstrate the right stuff. But the road Johnson went down with this baker issue makes it less likely he actually has the right stuff.

                  1. I mean, I could except all sorts of pragmatic compromises as long as you’re taking the right general stance.

                    Read this and decide for yourself. I think he’s certainly more libertarian than Rand.

                  2. When Nancy Lord ran for mayor of DC, she pointed out that although she proposed an overall budget much less than the existing one, she called for an increase in education spending. But that increase was small compared to the cuts elsewhere. OK, a pragmatic compromise that still would improve things for taxpayers rather than hurt any of them, and yet might sell with an interest group and prove she was not unthinkingly anti-gov’t per se. It didn’t work, she got far fewer votes than projected although she was considered respectable by the powers that be, but I don’t blame her for trying.

                    But Gary Johnson, having plenty of time to consider this issue, was doing what? Pandering to the anti-Semitic, antireligious, or Nazi vote? Advocating increasing breadth of the antidiscrimination statutes as applied to private biz? It doesn’t add up. This is not a matter of pragmatism vs. purity, but one of stupidity. From his previous campaigning, I think he just concluded libertarians are “for the gays” or “against established religions” or something, without looking at the reasons.

                    1. OR…

                      He simply believes (mistakenly, I might add) that minorities wouldn’t be able to buy gas or get a hotel room at midnight in Podunk Arkansas without PA law.

                      I watched him field the question, and that was his position. I cringed, because he obviously hadn’t thought it through and now he’s stuck with it.

                      It does add up. He’d never applied libertarian principle to the issue, answered with his gut and got burned. I honestly don’t think there is anything more to it than that.

          2. By saying it’s about public accommodation, you are arguing that people who go into business are giving up their right to freedom of association. That’s it. It’s not a rational position. It’s a false distinction. And once you’ve taken that position it becomes difficult to make coherent arguments for economic rights. You have been reduced to utilitarianism. We ought not to regulate the shit out of businesses, but only because of the consequences of it.

            I object to the notion that a watered down version of libertarianism is needed to appeal to the NeverTrump crowd. On this issue in particular, conservatives fleeing the Republican party are just as likely to be turned off by that position adopted by Johnson. Especially since Johnson goes even further than most Dems on it.

            I’d take Peters before I’d take Johnson.

            1. Broch, dude, can you read?

              I’m not refusing to acknowledge his position. I outright disagree with it.

              You don’t need to explain it to me. I agree with you. It’s the wrong position.

              I object to the notion that a watered down version of libertarianism is needed to appeal to the NeverTrump crowd.

              Object away.

              But like it or not, we democratically elect our representation and you will NEVER obtain any form of government resembling libertarian ideals without convincing a plurality of the population that liberty is in their best interests. And you aren’t going to do that by “shocking” them into believing. They are going to hear “wanted in connection to a murder in Belize” and they’ll tune out altogether. You can scream liberty from the rooftops, but it doesn’t do fuck-all if nobody is listening, and that’s the unique opportunity we have right now. The “straights” are looking for an alternative to crazy and just might be willing to listen if we don’t jump off the deep end with legalizing heroin as our primary issue..

              Read through this. GayJo is about as libertarian as any mainstream politician since Jefferson.

              Can I ask a personal question Broch? How old are you?

            2. The issue isn’t what you personally believe or would do. The issue is this distinction you keep trying to make when it comes to Johnson:
              And it’s not about freedom of association on the whole, it’s about public accommodation.
              …he’d get the CRA repealed in 8 years, even if it was his #1 priority?

              This isn’t about the CRA. It’s about expanding said laws, and in that department Johnson has strangely decided to go even farther than the left. The left cares about immutable characteristics, but Johnson is going further. This isn’t about the CRA at all. You accuse me of misconstruing your argument, but you continue to indicate that I have accurately described your position. You are minimizing the stupidity of Johnon’s argument.

              I see no distinction between public accommodation and freedom of association.

              Read through this. GayJo is about as libertarian as any mainstream politician since Jefferson.

              He’s not mainstream period. I personally want a firebrand. I would settle for someone who is consistent. Gary Johnson fails on both fronts. He’ll be lucky to crack 2% of the vote.

              That is our real disagreement.

              1. He’ll be lucky to crack 2% of the vote.

                GayJay didn’t crack 1% in the last election. What makes you think he can this time?

              2. I personally want a firebrand.

                Not to worry. You’ll likely get it. Condemning the LP to its stagnant position of quackery.

                Can you explain how a firebrand Libertarian is going to convince my mom? Firebrands excite the base. Libertarians have no base.

                (Come on. Broch, how old are ya?)

                1. Right. The libertarian party has been doing what people like you want for a very long time, and it hasn’t amounted to anything. You mistakenly believe that people in the #NeverTrump brigade are looking for a principled alternative when most happily voted for Bush twice.

                  As for my age, I’ve been old enough to legally drink for some time, and I’m young enough to know that the best way to grow the libertarian party isn’t to appeal to the old yenta brigade. No offense to your mother in particular meant there.

                  People mostly vote based on personality – which Johnson lacks. A charismatic personality can draw them in. There’s no guarantee they’ll stay, but even assuming Johnson could attract GOPers opposed to Trump, they are just as likely to leave next election cycle.

                  McAfee can appeal to young voters. You know, those of us not so old that we are basically just waiting to die at this point.

                  1. You mistakenly believe that people in the #NeverTrump brigade are looking for a principled alternative when most happily voted for Bush twice.

                    No, I don’t believe any such thing. They aren’t looking for principles. They are looking for an alternative to crazy.

                    It’s principles we offer.

                    McAfee can appeal to young voters.

                    There are no young voters. Let alone young libertarian voters.

                    You don’t really think the LP can win, do you? The objective should be to get the message out. McAfee can’t do that, because no one is going to give him the time of day.

                    I figured. I was an idealist just like you. All thrust, no vector. 😉

            3. You have been reduced to utilitarianism. We ought not to regulate the shit out of businesses, but only because of the consequences of it.

              All of the positions I take on policy issues are because of what I think would be their consequences. Nothing wrong with that. I’m for liberty because it makes for a better world. If I thought it’d make for a worse world, I’d be against it. What’s wrong with that?

          3. It’s about public accommodations if you consider a BAKER to be a public accommod’n! And non-discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, or just political sympathy.

            1. Right, but the baker isn’t a public accommodation unless his business is owned and operated by the state.

              (Yes I know that’s not what the law or the lawmakers say, but their particular brand of asshattery shouldn’t change the actual meaning of things.)

        2. Nazi cakes? ginger bread men thrown in an oven?

  3. RE: Poll of Libertarian Party Members Shows Gary Johnson with Majority Support for Presidential Nod

    Hopefully, someday the sane will rise against the socialist slaving machine, and we’ll have Mr. Johnson with a majority support for president.
    Sadly, I find there is more hope for this belief than reality.
    How sad is that?

  4. “current dues paying members or lapsed for less than one year”

    What about people who register LP under state law without paying dues?

    1. We didn’t have all of their email addresses.

  5. I wonder if this poll was done before McAfee referenced Firefly.

    1. The polling period was May 17-20.

      I don’t remember which date the Weiss video with the Firefly reference came out.

      1. It was published to YouTube on the 20th

    1. Well, they were libertarians yesterday, and they may be again tomorrow, or not. Depends on whether the shoe store had the right size and color, or something like that.

      1. Same thing applies to their Gender.

  6. Johnson was just on CNN an hour ago. He compared Trumpkins to Nazis and did great! The only problem is that he doesn’t know how to end an interview. A simple ‘thank you’ will often do the trick.

  7. If Johnson gets too excited by the poll numbers, things could get messy.

    1. If Johnson hits 15 percent, he’s in the debates. He’s already at 10 and 11 percent in 2 national polls. I hate to see what Trump will do to him in a debate though.

      1. I hate to see what Trump will do to him in a debate though.

        GayJay will wish he was one of Joni Ernst’s hogs.

        1. I’d make her squeal.

      2. Maybe he will kiss Trump and throw Trump totally off his game, for once.

    2. At least *I* saw what you did there.


  8. During Gary Johnson’s tenure as governor of New Mexico, he appointed free-speech hating leftists to the state judiciary. Almost as bad as his democratic successor.

    He thinks people should have to bake wedding cakes for Nazis, based on the false claim that this is required by hundred-year-old public-accommodation laws, which he says trumps the First Amendment. He is just wrong, about the historical meaning of “public accommodation”: historically, “public accommodations” rules imposing a duty to serve the public only covered things verging on natural monopolies, like common carriers, inns, and the like, not wedding-cake bakers or wedding photographers (like the wedding photographer forced by the New Mexico state courts to photograph a wedding for a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony — which violated the First Amendment freedom against compelled speech, under federal appeals court precedent). Only in recent years, would anybody be crazy enough to claim a wedding photographer was a “public accommodation,” as even liberal state supreme court justices like Stanley Mosk have explained (see his concurrence in the Boy Scouts case).

    Johnson’s running mate Bill Weld appointed supporters of campus-speech codes to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and state judiciary. Weld is an avid supporter of race-based affirmative action and racial set asides in government contracts.

    1. Yeah, I’m not a fan of either. Worst candidate since Bill Barr.

      1. Worse than Barr, who was at least a civil libertarian.

        1. You mean that a statist who smokes weed is no longer good enough for you puritarians?! Just take your toy and go home then!

          1. GayJay doesn’t smoke, he buttchugs.

            1. Buttchugging as in one of those gin joints Drinky Crow talked of in “Drinky Crow in New York”? The one where they rammed a can of Sterno up your butt with a mallet?

    2. When you appoint a judge, you have to take the whole package. Are you sure he didn’t have good reasons for those appointments? Even good political reasons that involved mutual back scratching so he & allies could have the position & influence he did? Like maybe I’ll take one of your judges if you take one of mine? Or maybe a judge who could’ve been expected to be good about something? Or at least couldn’t’ve been reliably predicted to be bad?

    3. i completely agree about the photographer. clearly not under public accommodation rules, and clearly a 1st amendment violation through forced speech.

      for the bakers, i do consider them a public accommodation. they open public storefronts, and operate with standard price offerings. they can’t be forced to put things on the cake they disagree with (forced speech), but the cake itself isn’t protected by the 1st amendment. they are also not the kind of business that sets up on every corner, so there is a bit of a natural monopoly… because there is a natural scarcity of available vendors.

      for Weld… totally agree.. fuck that guy.

  9. Looking at that logo, it seems you could rotate the eagle and it would look like the Trump’s hair. Kinda like how you can rotate the Obama campaign logo and change the color for an excellent Trump logo.

    1. Also it’s a pretty small birdbath for such a large bird.

    2. I think Trump’s logo should be an image of the Statue of Liberty, only replace the crown thingy with Trump’s hair.

    3. Is it supposed to read “TE” or “ET”?

  10. Gary Johnson should change his name to WAC Bennett.

  11. Most people don’t aspire to radically depart from the norm (which is why it’s the norm) . Or at least what they perceive to be the norm.

    Want more people interested in liberty? Couch your argument in terms that appear rational to the target audience.

    If your goal is to increase the number of libertarians, GayJo is the best choice for this particular set of political circumstances. Any Republicans you might gain are considering you because they are already running from crazy. Offering them more crazy won’t interest them.

    1. Clinton is a corrupt pathological liar and Trump is a know-nothing fueled by befuddled blue collar workers and white nationalists.

      Johnson is correct in surmising that appearing serious is more important to electoral success than being ideologically different when the two mainstream choices are so awful.

      I’d rather live in Gary Johnson’s America than Clinton or Trump’s even if it isn’t Libertopia.

      1. I gotta agree with this. He’s just a little too mild mannered a lot of the time. When debate and talking head answers demand pithy punch, he often offers up wonky detail or weak platitude. This is where Trump excels. He offers up full-throated, muscle-bound platitudes. People respond to that level of confidence. If he just had a little more professional wrestler in him, he might have a chance.

        And he should also appeal to fans of gridlock. He hits his record of vetoing bills as governor over and over and over. He offers up a version of gridlock on steroids. It is a complex sell, but I’d bet that 1/3 of Republicans and 1/2 of independents are fans of gridlock. Democrats love them some nanny state, so they probably don’t harbor many fans of gridlock. Still, if you could make the gridlock case in a way that helps them understand it, you might just peel off 30 percent of the vote right there. If that were to happen, ….


        well, …..

        I was going to say that we might have a chance. But that doesn’t really make sense.

        … so I’l just say, if that were to happen, donkeys might fly out of my butt.

      2. So, we need to vote for a libertarian who is not really a libertarian so others who aren’t real libertarians can somewhat act like they are libertarian so in the future libertarians will vote for anyone who has a resemblance of libertarianism. Not voting gives just a good signal as voting does, or should, but you can just be thought of as one who is apathetic. I believe if every one who professes to be libertarian holds back their vote and voices why it would have a greater impact. Sadly, many “hold their noses” and vote for the “lesser of two evils” thus signaling that these cockroaches can say whatever and many will just fall in line.

  12. He’s got my vote. This time, I’m not only voting against the other guy, I’m voting against the other girl too.
    And, in the process of it all, I’m voting for them both.

    1. There’s a girl running?

  13. The reason McAfee has my vote, if he gets the nomination, is that him and Judd Weiss apparently understand something that no other political party except for Democrats understand. And this has frustrated me for years. They are going to attempt to use media to reach younger voters. Democrats have been doing this for decades. So libertarians don’t have access to much media, but the videos are at least a start. At least they understand this, while no one else seems to.

    1. Well, Trump may be a Democrat, but he;s running as a Repub.

  14. Not a lot of comments. People have had their fill of Johnson?

    1. Some wish.

  15. After listening to (not watching) the Las Vegas debate earlier today, I am impressed with Petersen. He has used his blogging experience to hone a message for a wider audience. He goes back to hitting the freedom bell over and over. His shtick about the common ground was pretty good. He mostly sticks to pure libertarian first principles. He would probably be a very effective advocate if he were to make it onto the stage with Trump and Hillary.

    But does he have a snowball’s chance in hell of being able to actually run a government? I dunno.

    Johnson passes the “could run the executive branch” test pretty easily. And he actually gives some pragmatic answers to “how would you accomplish X” type questions. There’s a nice thread of thought running through his answers that acknowledges the role of the legislature: “If I’m presented with a bill that …X… ”

    But he’s not all that exciting and is probably too easily baited into boring conversations about nonsensical non-issues… like Nazi wedding cakes.

    Finally there’s McAfee. He’s refreshingly blunt in his answers. Almost Trump-esque in the non-traditional politician angle. But almost the anti-Trump on salesmanship. He’s a libertarian’s libertarian. Everything in black and white absolutes. Unless he has lots more charisma than I think he does, he won’t be winning many converts. But the choir! Oh boy, will the choir love the sermon!

    1. So I dunno. If I were a delegate, this would be a tough choice. Johnson may have enough juice to get to 15% in the polls in time – if he were able to leverage some of the goodwill he’s earned by doing everyone’s talking head shows for the last few years – but is there really any chance that they’ll let a third candidate on that stage?

      Johnson is kinda the safe choice, but Petersen is pretty compelling. He just pounds the personal autonomy and self ownership angle. I think that people might be ready to start hearing that message. He might not get elected, but he might actually win a few converts to the principles of libertarianism.

      And McAfee. What to do with him. He actually sounds like he’d be the same president I would be. He said he’d pardon all non violent drug offenders. That’s exactly what I would do – none of Obama’s BS caveats. But he has some super-unrealistic answers to real questions. He would quickly and easily be painted as a nutball, marginalizing the party further, rather than bringing liberty to the table as a serious concept. The machine is pretty good at the setup question, and he’d fall for all of them. If Rachel Maddow can trip up Rand Paul, the A-list national media would chew this guy up and spit him out. He operates from first principles all the time, which makes him easy to predict and easy to set up.

      I think Petersen might be the way to go.

      1. Good synopsis.

        I personally liked all three and will end up voting for whichever the nominate. I just think, that right now, the libertarian cause will get much more milage out of Johnson.

        1. Agreed! Johnson/Weld may not be libertarians at all, or as much libertarian as Trump is GOP and Hillary is a Democrat. But the fact that this ticket seems to be getting positive attention isn’t a bad thing. If McAffee or Petersen is the nominee, they MIGHT get 1% again. I think Johnson/Weld could get 8-10% at least, if not more if the established candidates seriously fuck up, which they very well may.

      2. If the polls include the Libertarian nominee along with a bunch of other named candidates, they might each get 2-3% each, tops.

        1. And a total of 2-3% in the actual election.

      3. Agreed, I’m down with Petersen.
        I have been reading about Petersen’s NAP criticisms and have more to go before making my judgment, he is making arguments to support monarchy in lieu of ancap, and attacking NAP. I like that he is making arguments and debating in a scholarly way, seem she is opening himself to criticism, which is very mature.
        I’ll vote L party but, AND I CAN’T STRESS ENOUGH, Petersen is flirting with Glenn Beck and has a chance to achieve cooperation with a slice of conservatives. This means higher polling and more relevance. Of course it also means less purity and more compromise.

        1. minarchy – spellcheck is in support of a king

  16. Lol. If Johnson is who LP members want, this just affirms that the LP has very little to do with Libertarianism.

    1. Do the established parties mean anything either? I will vote for the least offensive candidate at this point.

      1. For the most part, being GOP or Dem means being against whatever the other side claims to be about.


    This guy starts out sucking Bernie’s dick then pivots to light weight sucking Obama’s dick. The LP would be better off not having their candidate on stage next to Trump. It’s gonna be a slaughter. Stay away.

  18. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone who needs an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $14000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…
    I work through this link..
    This is what i do..———————

  19. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do??????

  20. the ironic part is that the Nazi baker thing is likely to be the reason Johnson gets the nod. the purists are in such a fervor over it, that if we nominated someone who took the purist approach, it would be the only thing that would define us, outside the party. we would look like we were just crazy republicans, pissed off about losing the culture war. (and it wouldn’t even get us any votes, because the crazy pissed off republicans are already behind Trump)

    i really prefer McAfee, after seeing Johnson’s VP pick…. but i almost feel like the delegates have their hands tied, if they want to take this opportunity to be taken seriously. (of course, there is history… so they could still go another way.) my hope at this point, is that we end up with GJ, but they ditch his VP pick.

  21. The only thing to enjoy this application is to download showbox apk and select the movies and programs you like to have fun watching all day long. You can watch unlimited movies, TV Programs, Serials, Cartoons and programs from online, live streaming of Cricket matches etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.