Gary Johnson

Libertarian Gary Johnson Thinks Millennials Need Him

Johnson hopes for an electorate eager to be left alone and to turn around a debt-riddled government.

|

"Millennials….may be especially ready to become engaged in politics with a candidate who wants to give them a government that will leave them alone and get its finances in order so that they don't inherit an economic collapse," suggested Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson in an op-ed published on CNN's website today.

Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Johnson went on to hit foreign policy: "All Americans who are rightfully and deeply concerned that a feckless foreign policy is allowing the likes of ISIS to not only threaten our safety, but humiliate us, may be ready for a candidate who will pursue reality-based foreign and military policies that actually fulfill government's most basic responsibility to keep us—and our freedoms—safe."

That's the kind of statement that might rub strong libertarian non-interventionists the wrong way, though it's ambiguous: is he implying that our past reckless interventions created the conditions for ISIS to exist? Or that a President Johnson would somehow, like Trump, destroy ISIS?

With enough context from other foreign policy statements from the candidate and his campaign, my interpretation leans toward the latter, but non-interventionist foreign policy is by no means internalized by most Americans and requires more context than an op-ed's space provides for clarity.

The rest of the op-ed does an engaging job doing what I guess most people think a presidential candidate has to do—to sell his personal story as an estimable and admirable person, stressing his business acumen, his athleticism and his record as governor of New Mexico, of which he concludes:

I did what I said I would do. I told people the truth, and I tried to run the state the same way I ran my business, and my life: Don't promise what you can't deliver. Deliver what you can on time and under budget. And most of all, don't waste anyone's time or money. I vetoed bills we didn't need nor couldn't afford—750 of them.

Johnson continues to otherwise get more earned media than any other Libertarian Party presidential candidate has in the first 11 days since cinching the Party's nomination at its convention in Orlando. Some examples:

• The Atlantic notes the numerical milestone of 2 to 3 million people likely reached via Johnson and his running mate former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld being on The Colbert Show last night, blogged earlier today by Nick Gillespie.

Clare Malone at FiveThirtyEight delivers a long "color" piece reported from the Orlando convention, correctly noting that Johnson's national general election campaign can't be just about appealing to self-conscious libertarians: 

belonging to the Libertarian Party, identifying as a libertarian and being open to libertarian ideas are different things. Johnson is hoping to make inroads with the latter two groups. The shorthand pitch is social liberalism, fiscal conservatism — supporting the legalization of marijuana, the elimination of the IRS, abortion rights, and a balanced budget through cuts to entitlements and military spending.

• MTV News—that's big with the kids, right?—profiles Johnson, notes his relative normality compared to his competitors for the L.P. crown, and suggests he won't have much luck appealing to social conservatives turned off by Donald Trump.

• National Journal's profile stresses his attempt to reach out to disillusioned Bernie Sanders supporters, a part of Johnson's appeal I reported on last month.

•  David Weigel at Washington Post sums up an intra-Libertarian tempest-in-teapot over Gary Johnson having tossed a replica pistol gifted him as a show of sincere support by runner-up Austin Petersen. Johnson says he felt Petersen's profession of support was hypocritical, given that Petersen went on to do his best to make sure that Johnson's preferred vice presidential pick William Weld did not get the nod. Petersen for his part believes that support of Johnson as a candidate did not dictate handing over the Party's power and right to pick its own vice president, one with what Petersen considers real libertarian bona fides, unlike Weld.

Blast from 2011 Reason TV video about Johnson and the Left: Gary Meets Occupy Wall Street:

NEXT: Bill to Require Warrants to Read Old Emails May Be Dead

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Gun grabber, fuck him, any questions?

    1. Gary Johnson believes government should be truly limited ? limited in the way the Founders envisioned. Responsible adults should be free to marry whom they want, arm themselves if they want, make their own decisions about their bodies, and lead their personal lives as they see fit ? as long as no harm is done to others.

      Seems cut and dried to me.

  2. “David Weigel at Washington Post sums up an intra-Libertarian tempest-in-teapot over Gary Johnson having tossed a replica pistol gifted him as a show of sincere support by runner-up Austin Petersen.”

    Well isn’t that precious?

    Thank You, David Weigel, for noticing.

    . . . those of us who didn’t light ourselves on fire.

  3. —–“Millennials….may be especially ready to become engaged in politics with a candidate who wants to give them a government that will leave them alone and get its finances in order so that they don’t inherit an economic collapse,”—–

    Mr. Johnson SAYS millennials want these things, but what they actually vote for is free shit and banning anything that disagrees with their insular worldviews.

    1. They can support being left alone. They can’t accept leaving other people alone.

    2. They were raised by a generation familiar their whole lives with the free lunch of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid and all the government programs that paid for themselves by the simple expedient of kicking the can down the road. You think they’re worried about running out of road?

      1. I wouldn’t call social security a free lunch considering how much better off we would be had we invested that money they stole from us. I get what you’re saying though. Of course they’ve been brainwashed their entire lives.

    3. Seems to me that if all millenials had felt the Bern he would have won the nomination. Johnson seems to think that there might be a few more out there that didn’t vote for him. I hope he’s right.

  4. Millennials cravin’ that Johnson!

  5. Gary’s brain is not working. If he would have said ‘elect me and I promise to not save you’, that would have made sense. Who voted for this nominating this guy?

  6. “correctly noting that Johnson’s national general election campaign can’t be just about appealing to self-conscious libertarians”

    Certainly.

    You know what else won’t work? Appealing to libertarian-minded atheists and agnostics who, in the interests of pragmatism, are willing to sacrifice the religious freedom of Christians, Jews, and just about any other bleever fundy, for the sake of having a broader appeal.

    1. If your outreach to SoCons consists of “we support liberty for everyone but you, and that’s OK because you suck,” then maybe you need to ask Dale Carnegie for your money back.

      1. But you do suck, Eddie.

      2. Atheist and Agnostics don’t have Freedom of Association either.

        1. Also, who said anything about reaching out to socons?

          1. Doesn’t look like Gary intends to reach out to SoCons, instead he’s reaching out to the Occutards, ugh…

            1. They’re not going to vote for a Koch minion.

              1. “Waiter, I’ll have the Koch Mignon.”

                “Yes, sir, it comes highly recommended.”

                1. The Koch Mignon is tender, like veil, because it’s made from only the choicest of babies.

        2. They’d have more if they stuck up for the First Amendment.

          The First Amendment protects *all* religious beliefs, which includes atheist and agnostic beliefs.

    2. You seem to have trouble understanding that the socons who care about social issues – which is apparently every socon – would never vote for Gary Johnson.

      1. On the contrary, that’s the very point I was making.

        1. Why would he bother reaching out to them when he has zero chance of attracting their vote?

          1. We’re talking in circles.

            The reason they aren’t going to vote for Gary Johnson is because he supports expanding the power of the EEOC so it can hassle religious businesses more, and because he wants abortion to be legal.

            Some think he’s soft on national security, others don’t want dope to be legal, but these wouldn’t be automatic deal-breakers if Johnson took a prolife, pro-religious-liberty stance. Not with Trump as the competition.

            So, sure, since he believes in legal abortion and mandatory cakes, he’s made it pointless to reach out to SoCons.

            Which is precisely my point.

            1. Or he is pro-abortion and pro the legalization of marijuana. He is not going to change those two positions.

              1. Once again, I think we’re talking past each other.

                I really don’t think there’s much chance he is going to turn around and admit he was wrong about the cakes (even though *did* walk back an equivalent remark about burkas).

                Certainly he isn’t going to go prolife absent a major conversion.

                To say “he isn’t getting their vote anyway” *defines* the problem.

                1. And with dope, there’s a division between the conservative intellectuals and what you might call the grassroots conservatives. William Buckley was, IIRC, a legalizer. He was also a SoCon big-time.

                  1. And I think some of the grassroots conservative (huh huh *grass*) could accept legalizing it or at least leaving it to the states – if the idea came from a Buckley-style candidate who wanted to leave the bakers and babies alone.

                  2. But that is a socon problem.

                    Regarding marijuana, the days of Bill Buckley are over. People like Joel Osteen matter now.

                    1. “Regarding marijuana, the days of Bill Buckley are over. People like Joel Osteen matter now.”

                      IIRC, and based on a check of Wikipedia, he’s a prosperity gospel preacher and tries to avoid being drawn into political discussions.

                      Also according to Wikipedia, he’s criticized by some other evangelicals…are they part of the “people like Joel Osteen” you refer to? Because there seems to be some diversity in that population.

                2. Gay wedding cakes are not the most important issue in the history of libertarianism dispute what socons keep telling us. So much statism going on that needs to be fought but their so very concerned about us sticking to our guns on just that one issue. I love being lectured by statist on what truely means to be a libertarian. It’s pathetic. I support freedom of association for everybody, not just Christians. So while I disagree with Johnson about this, it’s not a deal breaker for me. It’s a deal breaker for socons because it’s the only libertarian issue they give a shit about.

                  1. If Johnson were the only alternative to Trumpery you’d better believe I’d, as it were, swallow him.

                    But if it’s between Castle and Johnson, that’s a different matter.

                    1. “Gay wedding cakes are not the most important issue in the history of libertarianism dispute what socons keep telling us.”

                      To be clear, Johnson is the aggressor because he’s the one who wants to expand the “civil rights” laws.

                      To get an idea how that feels, imagine that he gave a speech saying that “of course we can’t have drugs legal, and indeed there are drugs which are currently legal *which I would ban.*”

                      Would you think this was just some bogus culture-war issue, or would you think it seriously damaged Johnson’s viability as an opponent of arbitrary government? As a “party of principle” candidate who bills himself as the freedom-loving alternative to the compromised major parties?

                    2. Or would you snarkily comment that “who cares, I’m not one of those druggies, prohibition is the only thing they care about.”

                    3. Are we pretending that Johnson is different on that issue than the gop and dnc? There’s a reason socons are all of the sudden interested in libertarianism. It’s because the GOP has thrown them under the bus. And no we’re not just talking about Christians. No business owner currently has the right to discriminate (although they should as I stated). What socons want is “special” rights for only themselves. Sort of like gays do. Oh the irony.

                    4. Don’t you want “special rights” for stoners? I mean, you’re supporting laws which legalize their drug of choice while keeping opiates banned!

                      Doesn’t that mean that you want only special rights for stoners?

                      Not fair, you reply, because you just don’t have the votes to legalize heroin and cocaine.

                      Or maybe you actually think some of the really hard drugs *should* be banned, and that doesn’t oblige you, as a matter of CONSISTENCY! to ban every other plant on the face of the earth.

                    5. Though I suspect you would want to legalize all drugs.

                      So you will at least reject any alliance with people who want to legalize marijuana unless they sign a loyalty oath to push for legalizing meth, too?

                    6. “There’s a reason socons are all of the sudden interested in libertarianism. It’s because the GOP has thrown them under the bus.”

                      Hmmm…sounds like a political window of opportunity opening…I guess you better nail it shut then!

                    7. I hate Johnson’s position on public accommodation. If I could get a moment to talk with hi, I would explain all the problems with it and its implications for further government control. I think anyone should be able to discriminate for any reason as it is their property and should be able to dispense with it as they see fit. However, he is still the best option we have this election and I’m not going to turn my back on him over this one issue.

                      That being said it is both bad business and un-Christian to refuse service to someone because of an inborn trait like race and sexuality.

                  2. So while I disagree with Johnson about this, it’s not a deal breaker for me. It’s a deal breaker for socons because it’s the only libertarian issue they give a shit about.

                    Fuckin’ A well told, Bubba!

    3. Appealing to libertarian-minded atheists and agnostics who, in the interests of pragmatism, are willing to sacrifice the religious freedom of Christians, Jews,

      Nope, it’s not about attacking religious freedom. It’s about not letting businesses discriminate against gays just like with (minority) races, women, the disabled, etc. Businesses can’t discriminate against gays for non-religious reasons either, after all. For the record I don’t agree with public accommodation laws. People should be able to pursue racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. policies in their businesses if they really want to. But it’s really low on my priorities list regardless if the person is a racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobe. I care much more about fiscal policy.

      I probably shouldn’t have responded to trolling, but I got sucked in. I probably won’t make any more responses.

      1. “I probably shouldn’t have responded to trolling, but I got sucked in.”

        “See what you made me do, Tina?”

        In any other context you wouldn’t be making this argument.

        If Johnson wanted to *add to* the list of drugs to be banned, you’d oppose that.

        If Johnson wanted to increase the income tax rate, you’d be against *that.*

        But when he supports current initiatives to give the EEOC *more* power over private businesses, it doesn’t bother you because…the EEOC shouldn’t have any power at all.

        1. You’re like a vacuum cleaner, or a hooker who gives a great blowjob with all that sucking–I can’t get away. I think you misunderstood my position or you’re purposely misrepresenting it (which would go in line with your trollish behavior). I am against public accommodation laws, but here’s the key which you ignore: they are simply so low on my priorities list that they’re not a big issue for me. If Johnson came out with a terrible fiscal policy plan, I would stop supporting him because fiscal policy is too high on my priorities list. If Johnson came out against legalizing recreational cocaine (which he already might have), I would still vote for him because fiscal policy is and recreational cocaine is low enough on my priorities list.

          Again, even though I think he is wrong on public accommodation laws, it’s such a small fish compared to the big fish that I still support him.

          I will repeat my previous argument from last week, Ed, that I wonder why you suddenly care so much about public accommodation laws since they’ve been on the books for decades. I suspect it’s at least partly because you are not a racist, sexist, or ableist, but that you are a homophobe. I’ve been consistent in not caring much about public. acc. laws for all groups, but you’ve made it your hill to die on only since people who are gay made the list. I’m sorry if what I’ve written is inflammatory.

          Hopefully I’ll wise up and not post again. We’ll see.

          1. but that you are a homophobe.

            Nailed it!

          2. Like I said, if there were only 3 candidates on the ballot, Hilary, Trump and Johnson, I’d vote for Johnson.

            Fortunately there are other choices.

            Darrel Castle wouldn’t arrest anyone for smoking the ganja (defying his party, which wants the states – though not the feds – to wage a war on drugs). Nor would he fine a business for exercising its First Amendment freedoms.

            Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it? He doesn’t want to punish a dope-smoker *or* a baker for his private choices.

            But you will support Johnson anyway, even though he would punish the baker.

            So if we’re asking about motives, I can only ask why?

            If you want a third-party candidate who respects social freedoms across the board, not just for people you like, why do you reject the one candidate who supposedly shares your views and endorse the one who wants to violate the First Amendment?

            To put it in your terms, it is because you are an anti-Christian bigot.

            1. I wonder if there have ever been any Christian hotel owners who have had to let the gays fornicate under their roofs? But selling them cakes? That’s a bridge too far.

              1. “I wonder if there have ever been any Christian hotel owners who have had to let the gays fornicate under their roofs? But selling them cakes? That’s a bridge too far.”

                I get to (as it were) have my cake and eat it too – vote for someone who doesn’t want to punish the baker, doesn’t want to have the cops break up the same-sex marriage ceremony, doesn’t want to lock up the stoner.

                And on top of that he wants to get government spending under control.

                If the *only* candidate concerned about the fiscal issues was also a compulsory-cake guy, I’d probably vote for him anyway, because the right to bake cakes is hard to sustain in an economy falling to pieces. *But I don’t have to make that choice.*

                You don’t either.

            2. I really cannot put it any more plainly – I want a candidate who will stop the dangerous fiscal policies of the government, and do so without punishing *either* the dope-smoker *or* the baker.

              You, on the other hand, support the candidate who is no better on fiscal policy than my candidate, but *would* punish the baker.

              (And no, my candidate wouldn’t punish anyone for having a same-sex wedding ceremony, either, he would simply not require others to support that ceremony)

              I can only conclude that you actually *want* the people against whom you are bigoted – that is, conservative, Christians – to be punished, and you assume that people on the other side are as bigoted as you are.

              1. (The above addressed to Bana)

                1. Eddie – at the risk of you losing your mind again in a religious discussion, let me offer a serious point for your consideration. Whatever Gary Johnson thinks about abortion is largely irrelevant. The President doesn’t write abortion legislation last time I checked. At best, his ability to affect the issue is through Supreme Court nominees and even that is bullshit voodoo. No lawyer is going to say he’s for overturning Roe v. Wade and get through confirmation. So, it’s a crap shoot at best. Moreover, Roe v. Wade did not support the concept of abortion on demand, as both sides portray it. That’s a lie. Read the opinion. It specifically allowed for restrictions on late-term abortions and has upheld just such cases.(See Webster v. Reproductive Health Svcs, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, etc.) There’s a whole fucking body of law allowing states to put some limits on abortions. That’s probably where the issue belongs, given how divided the Nation is on the issue. This is why some of us can’t take the religious right too seriously in these discussions. IOW, you’re the unreasonable one. You assume incorrect legal facts and attribute all kinds of weight to the issue that is out of touch with reality. Same for socons on the drug war. Romney supported Johnson, but had to make a statement about how “weed makes you dumb.” He just can’t shut his fucking mouth about weed/Prohibition.

                  1. “You assume incorrect legal facts”

                    Could you give a link for where I did this?

                    Thank you.

                    1. “There’s a whole fucking body of law allowing states to put some limits on abortions.”

                      OMG, does the prolife movement know about this? Get in touch with them right away and give them the good news! Maybe they’ll start drafting legislation the courts will be willing to accept!

                      (that’s actually sarcastic, because the prolife movement is *very* familiar with the precedents and works constantly to draft laws which will be upheld based on those precedents)

                    2. Anyway, don’t let me rush you…take your time finding that link to me assuming incorrect legal facts.

                    3. I gave you the names of the cases, my good sir, and I suck at posting links (they seem to always get SF’d). But here you go:

                      Planned Parenthood v. Casey

                      Webster

                      Maher v. Roe

                      You can find links from there to a host of other cases at the Supreme Court discussing the issue. In sum, many states have given the “Pro-Life” team lots of reasons to cheer, but they refuse to accept that. And that’s why I discount anything they say on GJ’s Libertarian Purity test. They’re not even being honest from the start.

                    4. Sorry, but this is why lawyers get paid by the hour. I suck at writing using HTML code. Would be nice if a comment section had a better toolbar for doing such things, but pshah.

                    5. Next, you still haven’t addressed the point that GJ’s “position” on abortion only matters indirectly, as regards picking a SCOTUS nominee for confirmation.

                      And finally, SoCons’ position on a host of other issues, including drugs and gays, doesn’t entitle them to say shit (to my mind) as a collective bloc about someone else’s Liberty-preferring bona fides. Sorry, but they’re fucking statists and Prohibitionists and that’s right out of the Progressive movement’s playbook. All kinds of moral hoopdy-ha about the “evil and sinful demon weed!” or how it’s “Sodom and Gomorrah” and all that bullshit. They can shut the fuck up and sit down and mind their own goddamn business, as far as I’m concerned.

                      They don’t even follow their own book, in which the chief savior made arguably the most important statement of all time as regards the concerns of Faith and the concerns of Government: Render unto Caesar… and all that. Would that Islam had a similar, libertarian-ish statement from its principle leader.

                      Christ never once advocated using force to compel anyone to do anything. I think he was the “turn the cheek” guy. I have a hard time squaring that with SoCons urgent need to have men with guns “arrest the homos” and “throw the druggies” in the hoosegow and throw away the key.

                    6. That’s all very nice, and I’m sure all those other people you describe must be really horrible, but returning to the topic at hand, can you find those links where I assumed incorrect legal facts?

                    7. I suck at writing using HTML code. Would be nice if a comment section had a better toolbar for doing such things, but pshah.

                      Google “Reasonable” if you’re using Chrome or Firefox

                      “Greasonable” with tampermonkey does the same. Both provide tools for links, quotes, bold and italic.

                    8. No, that’s not what I asked.

                      You said, “You assume incorrect legal facts.”

                      Can you provide a link to where I did this?

                      Thanking you in advance, etc….

                    9. Don’t be in such a hurry, I’m sure you’ll find some juicy links where I assumed incorrect legal facts!

                    10. Just slow down and take a breath, I’m sure there’s lots of links out there…

                    11. Yes. I’ve stated it now several times, you’re just not listening. You assume that the issue is one over which GJ’s position is relevant by even arguing that he is DQ’d because of his position on the gay cake bakers. That’s also a ship that has already sailed, legally speaking. Same as abortion.

                      The President isn’t going to overturn 60 years of Commerce Clause litigation and SCOTUS precedent. That was done in the 60’s and once the Supremes decided to use the 14th Amendment as the legal basis for ending business discrimination, Free Ass’n was fucked. That’s not on GJ. Bork got excoriated in his nomination for pointing out that terrible Pierce decision (I believe that’s the title about racial restrictive covenants on land transfers in a development. i.e. “No can sell to black people.”) The Supreme Court found state action where there was none in order to get rid of discriminatory clauses in private land transfers. It’s not a very logical position or decision. Everyone knows that. They teach it in Con Law. But Bork got crushed publicly for pointing this out.

                      So, again, you assume importance to a person who has no authority to enact or significantly impact on the issue that you’re screaming about. It’s like hating GJ because he’s a Yankees’ fan. ( And I could actually get behind that reason, though it’s irrelevant.)

                    12. Can you read or is comprehension a problem for you?

                    13. Here’s what I read you saying:

                      “You assume incorrect legal facts”

                      I asked for links to me saying such things.

                      I suppose that you’re observing the aphorism, “when the law is against you, pound on the facts, when the facts are against you, pound on the table.”

                      🙂

                    14. And it’s a bit daunting to encounter Ray Bolger and his entire family of straw men when you’re arguing against what you claim I think.

                    15. You are freaking out over the Gay Wedding Cake issue because of GJ’s position on it. You’re fairly frothy over it. And he can do little to nothing directly about it. That’s why I’m telling you you’re operating on incorrect legally operative facts. Ditto for abortion.

                      You could argue he could step-up enforcement of those laws, etc., but in most cases they’re state and federal anti-discrimination acts running up against state RFRAs (Religious Freedom Restoration Acts). It’s a legal shitshow.

                      My guess is that GJ will likely spend less money on enforcing and prosecuting these kinds of bullshit issues, but I may be giving him extra credit.

                    16. OK, let me ask again: You said the following:

                      “You assume incorrect legal facts”

                      Can you provide a link to me doing this?

                    17. Again – you have yet to address what I am saying. I have linked to the large body of law that shows that GJ can do little to nothing about it. Is this a 7th Grade civics issue? Do you not understand how the Constitution works? Can you please point me to all of the precious Presidential enactments on abortion that “Pro-Choice” presidents have enacted? Can you please point me to all of the Anti-Christian legislation that has come out of the Oval Office under prior Presidencies? If you can do that, maybe you would have something to be upset about. But as I see it, you’re just whistling away reality because of your personal, made-up conflict over GJ’s statements about what he personally thinks of those issues. Again, you’re losing your mind over a non-issue. That’s why no one takes you seriously.

                    18. That should be “previous” not “precious” although that works, too, but comes across sarcastic. I have to run to the Apple store now, so you can find me some links now. I’ve already provided many more than my html deficient hands can handle.

                    19. I’ll be waiting for your links showing me how GJ is going to enact all of these terrible pieces of legislation that are going to make life just horrible for members of the Faith. As opposed to the economic prattlings of the head of the Church (poke, poke).

                    20. You linked to stuff other people said. You didn’t link to anything *I* said. You didn’t link to me assuming any incorrect legal facts.

                      Game, set, match.

                    21. One issue at a time, please. I may or may not deal with your various straw men later.

                      For now, I repeat my question, do you have any links to me assuming incorrect legal facts.

                      Of course you don’t.

                      Just admit this, and we can move on.

                    22. Yes. I’ve now stated them over. And over. Ad nauseum. You are either too stupid to appreciate the import of your own words or are just mendacious as a matter of course.

                      GJ’s position on your Christian Bakers is idiotic. It is a non sequitur. It does not make any difference to GJ as a viable Presidential candidate. How is that confusing you? I don’t know how to link to your own comments upthread. Please just scroll up and read what you wrote.

                      Here, here’s a sample, from you: “I want a candidate who will stop the dangerous fiscal policies of the government, and do so without punishing *either* the dope-smoker *or* the baker.”

                      See – you have implicitly assumed that GJ is the one “punishing” the dope smoker and the baker. He has nothing to fucking say about it, except as through a SC nominee, or maybe an AG choice, but he’s not directly responsible for those laws. He didn’t enact any of those. Have you read any of the RFRAs, by the way? Do you have any idea that the fedgov and the States have passed these things? Again – you operate on incorrect legal *facts* about the very structure of the government and the role of its President.

                      Yet you want to act smug and like the smartest guy in the room, but you need some basic civics.

                    23. I don’t think it’s possible to cut through your fog of smugness. You’re steeped in it. It makes you an asshole on the issue of abortion, but that’s your problem. I’m Catholic but I actually took Christ at his word: stay the fuck out of government. Use no violence against others. Roe does not provide an unfettered right to abortion because the author of the opinion had previously worked for the AMA, hence the “trimester” framework from that time.

                      Please, once again, Note Bene – President not involved in any of this stuff. Didn’t make the laws. Only charged with carrying them out, hence the name “Executive” branch of government. Opinions on abortion marginally relevant for SCOTUS picks. Even then limited by nature of profession and stare decisis.

                      Same exact principle operative legal facts with Christian bakers and wedding cakes. You seem absolutely set on pretending that is not the case. If you just hate Johnson, perfectly valid political opinion. But your (smugly) asserted justifications are filled with fallacious assumptions. That’s all I’m pointing out.

                      Incorrect legally operative facts assumed throughout your rants against Johnson on Baker issue. Same for many supposed “libertarian purists.” Just wrong about importance of the issue in a Presidential candidate. But drive on, hard charger. You’ve still not addressed any single thing I’ve pointed out.

                    24. Oh, you found a quote from me!

                      “I want a candidate who will stop the dangerous fiscal policies of the government, and do so without punishing *either* the dope-smoker *or* the baker.”

                      Yes, that is true, I want such a candidate. Don’t you?

                      “you have implicitly assumed”

                      Oh, pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.

                      You couldn’t find a quote from me supporting your straw-man position, so now you expect me to believe you’ve found some “implicit” statement of mine?

                      It’s amusing being lectured on intelligence by someone who refers to Shelley v. Kraemer as “that terrible Pierce decision.”

                    25. “If you just hate Johnson”

                      Oh, I see, you equate political disagreement with hatred.

                      What in your own consciousness causes you to make this link?

                    26. AF, Eddie is simply a troll. Attempting to argue with him in good faith is futile. He’s a homophobic Jesus freak who is on record as wanting the state to discriminate against homosexuals. His faux concern with GJ not being libertarian enough is utter cock, as a true libertarian position on the issue of homosexuality is ALSO unacceptable to him.

                      I suggest not engaging it other than to pass on the ridicule it deserves.

                      My $.02

                    27. I always seem to learn these things the hard way, but thank you. He doesn’t seem to understand that claiming the Executive shouldn’t “punish” someone is contains a logical fallacy implicit in the statement. It’s like saying you “hope the Mayor won’t write terrible legislation or render any bad legal judgments.” It’s incorrect on its face. Punishment in a legal sense results principally from the acts of two branches of government, neither of which is the Executive. And if it’s by States (vice fedgov), the President has absolutely zero say over these poor, vast, persecuted Christian bakers – because they’re generally under State law, not federal. (e.g. The Colorado couple sued the baker under CO state law, not in federal district court. Ability of GJ to have any say over any of that = 0.000%, to three significant digits.)

                      Am I making that much clear? As I re-read what I wrote, it seems clear to me, but I’m not quite versed in this level of cognitive dissonance, notwithstanding years of dealing with attorneys.

                    28. You made a triumphant refutation of everything the straw man in your head was saying.

                      The straw man claimed the President can *personally* adjudicate cases, and you certainly refuted this. This straw man did not speak in political shorthand to describe the ability of the President to appoint judges and regulators, or to recommend, sign or veto legislation. He certainly wasn’t talking about a Presidential candidate (Johnson) who seems to be a fan of executive orders.

                      No, this straw man was being literal – he literally thought that the President *in person* could adjudicate cases.

                      Meanwhile, I kept asking you to provide links to me agreeing with this straw-man, but you failed miserably in doing so.

                      You only found this: “I want a candidate who will stop the dangerous fiscal policies of the government, and do so without punishing *either* the dope-smoker *or* the baker.”

                      Which you proceeded to interpret in eye-rollingly dishonest terms as carrying a literalism it absolutely, indisputably *didn’t* have.

                    29. And if I’m not here when you get back, you can continue debating this guy.

                    30. So you don’t have any way of addressing what I’ve made plainly obvious. President has little to no authority in those areas. Very marginal chance to affect change there. Those ships have sailed. Or “Elect different Congresscritters, Eddie. They’ve created the shitshow that is the morass of federal and state laws in this area, not the Executive.”

  7. Millennials also want free college and college debt forgiveness though. And first they have to think he has a chance to win.

  8. This make H&R in the last two days?

    1. Something is not right with that math. If Trump and Johnson took that much of the independent vote, it would be impossible for Hillary to even come close to leading in polls. If I’m not mistaken, Independents are now about 42% of registered voters?

    2. Not sure which is worse; an older Trump supporter or a younger Hillary supporter.

    3. I’d rather not top a Clinton.

  9. I do appreciate that Gary is pandering to retards and liars. That’s the way, libertarians!

    1. Hey, retards and liars are about 40% of the electorate.

      1. Feeling generous aren’t we? Try 80% + at least when it comes to politics.

        1. You guys have a point, but the occutards? They’re on the far fringe of that group. Every gathering of them have at least 1 one percenter who is just begging to pay more taxes. Really? Just write the IRS a check, bitch, they won’t mind. Either that or STFU.

          1. You do know that video is from 2011, right?

            And why not reach out to anyone who is disillusioned with the system? They know something’s wrong and the only people who’ve reached out to them to offer a solution are the socialists. Sure he’s not going to turn the whole movement, and some of them are liars and power hungry slavers, but maybe he can get a couple people thinking and they can find their way out. Nothing gets accomplished if you don’t try. Hell, even I once thought maybe socialism was the answer (I was a rebellious 16 year old). Of course I was able to think through to its logical conclusions and think better of it before too long, but others may need a helping hand.

            1. As long as we’re attracting them with libertarian stances and not anti-capitalism stances. Also, what is it with all the socialist who call themselves anarchist? Do they just think it sounds cool cause they obviously don’t know what that means

              1. Yes! I’ve had this argument so many times. True anarchy would naturally result in capitalism. Socialism cannot exist without some manner of authority enforcing it.

  10. “There’ve been alot of political groups that have come down to try to garner attention for themselves but it’s really not what this movement is about.”

    Said by a woman while holding up a large sign the entire time.

  11. and suggests he won’t have much luck appealing to social conservatives turned off by Donald Trump.

    I hear there’s something called a Constitution party that they can pretend to consider before they vote for Trump.

    1. Heheh.

  12. Comment from Weigel’s piece in response to voting for Johnson being a wasted vote:
    Greg Kells
    4:40 AM GMT+0900
    Why is that? Do you contend that any vote for a candidate who might lose is “wasted”? Should we always vote for whoever currently has the best chance of winning, regardless of how corrupt, unethical, or simply ridiculous we think they are? The only time your vote is wasted is when you ignore your conscience. The onld myth about 3rd party voters “wasting” their votes is already debunked. The fact that we are even having this discussion proves otherwise. Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party wouldn’t be factors at all in this race if it weren’t for Libertarians voting their conscience since 1972, and gradually building the party up to the force it is today. Even if Johnson doesn’t win, a vote for him is no more wasted than a vote for any other candidate. If he’s the candidate you believe in, it’s far from wasted, it builds monetum for the next election. In 1972 the LP got fewer than 500 votes, in 2012 they got over a million. That isn’t a waste, it’s momentum.

    I’ve got major problems with Johnson, but this argument against the wasted vote fallacy is fantastic.

    1. Should we always vote for whoever currently has the best chance of winning, regardless of how corrupt, unethical, or simply ridiculous we think they are?

      Could have stopped right there.

      1. That was the money shot right there.

    2. There’s no way in Hell I’d vote for a big government Rockefeller Republican ticket like Johnson/Weld but voting for a major party candidate in my state is a wasted vote. If Trump can’t win Georgia easily w/o my vote he isn’t going to be elected president. If Hillary wins Georgia the country is, or soon will be, in a full-fledged civil shootin’ war.

      If I vote at all I’ll consider the Constitution Party candidate before I vote for Trump.

      1. If I vote at all I’ll consider the Constitution Party candidate before I vote for Trump.

        Weren’t you the fucking asshole troll who proclaimed, just the other day, that Trump was the pro-liberty candidate?

        SIV, you are a mendacious cunt!

        1. And you’re a Hit&Runpublican;!

            1. I rest my case.

              I wish that were true, Fd’Atoxic.

  13. Student loan forgiveness seems to fly with these folks so why not give that a shot? Short of that good luck.

    Getting millennials would be great but they, like most others, just don’t agree with us.

    1. Yeah, why not? I mean I don’t mind giving up another huge chunk of my pay check to support losers who made bad decisions by getting a 200k degrees in Martian Transgender History.

      1. Perhaps combine it with an end to loan guarantees?

        Of course, it might alienate some dumb millennials of the “the food is awful and the portions are too small” variety.

    2. Well, it would hasten the implosion – of likely multiple areas of the economy – so there is that.

      1. I support this. The implosion thing. I’ll come out on top, so bring it.

  14. Millennials wasn’t, no they need, Johnson.
    Alternately: Millennials deserve a good johnsoning.

    1. * want, not wasn’t

    2. Well, they certainly deserve having their snowflake melted.

    3. Wait, I just got it…”johnson” is slang for “penis.”

      That’s a good one.

      1. Yes, that’s the joke. It’s been made before, so I can hardly claim credit
        ;P

  15. …Gary Johnson having tossed a replica pistol gifted him as a show of sincere support by runner-up Austin Petersen. Johnson says he felt Petersen’s profession of support was hypocritical, given that Petersen went on to do his best to make sure that Johnson’s preferred vice presidential pick William Weld did not get the nod.

    I hadn’t read/heard about this story. So it’s “Support everything I say 100% or go to hell” then? What a douchebag. I want to vote for a libertarian, but Johnson keeps saying and doing things to push me away.

    1. Johnson is a moderate-centrist Republican running on the Libertarian Party line. He’s no “libertarian”.

      1. Trump’s a blue-collar populist Democrat running on the GOP ticket and the Dem ticket features a fight between a cranky old Stalinist and Stalin – hell, if we libertarians can get an actual Republican elected we could take over the GOP couldn’t we? Wasn’t that the end-game for the LP, becoming a major party? We’ll just start calling ourselves Republicans if those guys are done with the name. With any luck, it’ll take a while for anybody to notice the new GOP is actually taking the old GOP promise of smaller government seriously.

        1. Pretty much this. The “true Scotsman” thing doesn’t understand incrementalizm.
          And fusion. Hasn’t that always been the realist plan? Take over one party or the other? The elephants are way closer to libertarian positions than the donkeys, IMHO.

  16. I imagine he resents Petersen’s attacks during the debates and his opposition to Weld, but still… have some grace instead of making an ass of yourself and pushing away fellow libertarians, you know? I don’t want a president who acts like a child.

    1. Oops, that was supposed to be an addendum to my previous post. Oh well.

    2. To be fair to Johnson, I doubt he’s as sensitive to slights as Obama.

      1. He’s a hard one!

          1. …from climbing Everest.

            Which isn’t a euphemism.

            1. Few people ever get that high.

              1. You’ve peaked my interest.

                1. At least his name isn’t Roger.

    3. I actually would have more respect for him if he told Peterson to shove it up his ass rather than accepting it and then throwing it in the trash like as you say a petulant child.

  17. Mitt Romney is Feelin’ the Johnson!

    Romney, who actively sought to recruit an independent, third-party challenger to Trump, also conceded that a credible candidate will not emerge. But he did show a new openness to one non-Trump candidate, libertarian Gary Johnson, whom he did not rule out voting for.

    Johnson’s running mate is another former Massachusetts governor, Bill Weld, who once fundraised for Romney. If the ticket was flipped and Weld was the standard-bearer, Romney said he would have no qualms about voting for the libertarian ticket this fall.

    “If Bill Weld were at the top of the ticket, it would be very easy for me to vote for Bill Weld for president,” Romney said. “So I’ll get to know Gary Johnson better and see if he’s someone who I could end up voting for. That’s something which I’ll evaluate over the coming weeks and months.”

    Romney’s comments on “The Situation Room” are some of the highest-profile support bestowed upon the libertarian ticket, which is almost certain to be less funded compared to the GOP and Democratic lines. He did however express an uneasiness with Johnson, given his position on marijuana legalization.

    “Marijuana makes people stupid,” Romney quipped.

    I think Mittens backing Johnson would be uuugee from a polling standpoint. It’s a test of how sincere the #NeverTrump crowd is if they’re willing to overlook the demon weed and gayness.

    1. Oh boy, oh joy! Whoohooo, libertarian moment! A Mitt Romney endorsement! Isn’t that swell! Golly geez, Walley, if only Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum give their endorsement, then I’m sure going for Gay Jay, that will be proof he’s a real deal libertarian!

      1. It’s an indisputable fact that Johnson would be a better president than either Trump or Clinton. And if Romney wants to help out in light of this it would be retarded of the Libertarian Party not to accept it out of some misguided sense of purity.

        1. Disagree 100%. No libertarian should ever accept an endorsement from a Romney or other establishment republicans or democrats.

          1. This is just like the people claiming Paul was a racist because some racists donated money to him and he cashed the check.

  18. Sorry, but every time I see Johnson, he makes me a little more sure that he has no idea what the fuck he’s doing, either in running for potus or in educating and selling people on libertarian ideals. The less exposure he gets, the better for libertarians. Please, LP, after this guy get 1% or less of the vote again, consider someone else next time? I’m embarrassed for libertarians right now.

    1. What?? are you saying you haven’t seen his *nolan chart* yet?

      1. Did someone from Vox draw it?

        1. Although, I guess I do have to admit that in an anti-establishment year, the smartest thing to do is run towards the establishment as fast as you can. /derp

          1. Yeah, because all those Republicans Trump smoked in the primaries weren’t also railing against DC insiders and with more credibility to boot.

            No one can outdo Trump in being anti-establishment. The only effective strategy is to be serious and trustworthy. Clinton is serious but she’s also an inherently unlikable liar with 25 years of baggage. Johnson actually has a shot at seizing that role.

            1. As a matter of fact, none of them were railing against establishment republicans, except for Rand, and he toned it down too much, which is why he never topped 5%. Oh, you mean, Cruz? Cruz, who turned out to be the phony?

    1. Check out this series:

      Femininst Cringe Compilation

      Gavin McInnes cracks me up.

    2. Why are only hideous ugly chicks so worried about rape?

      1. They were once beautiful chicks who turned themselves ugly as protection against rapists

    3. The blonde chick is a badass, wow, she kicks ass.

  19. I predict there will be a last ditch effort at the GOP convention to nominate Romney or possibly Jeb. Thoughts?

    1. Please clap!

    2. Nope.

      The GOP this year has seen the writing on the wall. they may not want to run w/ trump, but they realize that they need the people who voted for him, and they know those people aren’t coming out for some re-run of past GOP formulas.

      They’re going to twist his arm a bit on who he takes as VP pick, but otherwise i think the GOP is already thinking about 2020. not to say that i think trump is guaranteed to lose, but that the ‘party’ isn’t behind him so much as ‘past him’.

      I think there are certainly some who want him to lose to Hil, to try to scuttle his entire insurgency, and re-establish themselves as the ‘alternative to democrats’. Which i think is hopeless. If they do that, the same thing will just happen again. People are done with the GOP of the Bush-era.

      1. I’ve got a friend who is a die hard Republican\Never Trumper. Interesting to watch him defend Paul Ryan and crew from what he calls first principles. If people like him would just push their logic a few steps further, you’d see a real populist uprising which demanded liberty. I can’t push him to it and I have no clue how to convert a progressive. Might just have to wait for them to die out.

        1. i’m not sure what the Never Trumpers really find so unacceptable ; i assume if its policy, its national-security and (maybe) trade.

          he’s too libertarianish for the never-trumpers on nat. sec –
          (despite what people say, he’s generally consistent about his disinterest in foreign-fighting muckymuck – with the exception of blowing hard about ISIS, which isn’t anything anyone says anything different about – they debate the size of the grains they will pulverize them into, but then propose nothing that obama hasn’t already done)

          …and then he’s too populist on trade – expressing willingness to be more-protectionist which undermines their own bullshit claim to be about ‘free markets’, etc.

          but i don’t think its policy; i think their problem is that he’s not even pretending to be ideological – he’s just saying whatever he thinks will work, and that’s what bothers them.

          Because it shows their whole “anti abortion/strong nat security/pro jesus/pretend to be about small business” marketing scheme to be useless.

          and they have a lot invested in their own identity as “real conservatives” which requires these things to be immutable. if he wins, its means the party will have to change; and that means their whole “real conservatives” act is dead.

          I think most of the National Review/Weekly Standard people knew all along that ‘regular people’ don’t really give a shit about their ideology. but they never thought those people would choose an alternative over them.

    3. It’s not going to happen. If they slip someone else in, then they alienate a huge chunk of their base, all in exchange to bring in somebody like Romney who couldn’t seal the deal before.

      OTOH. If they nominate Trump, there are two possible scenarios. If Trump wins, then he still needs to hire a bunch of advisers, and those will mostly be made up of GOP establishment types. And if he loses, then the GOP establishment types can tell Trump supporters, “Hey, we gave it a shot with Trump, but it didn’t work out. Next time, listen to the adults.”

  20. Today in miscellaneous derp: Stop Saying I’m Not A Mom Just Because My Child Is A Dog

    http://thoughtcatalog.com/nico…..-is-a-dog/

    1. I also have a human son, and to be honest with you, I prefer the dog.

      When I come home from work, my son doesn’t run up and greet me, give me kisses and show me affection. In fact he’s rude and quiet, and he expects me to just unlock him from the basement and give him dinner. Somehow, Rosco, living in the same conditions and circumstances as my son, still understands what it means to be grateful and to show affection towards your master. My son, despite my punishments and lectures, refuses to ignore all of that.

      Ho. Lee. Shit.

      1. It’s got to be parody. I’ve been fooled I hope.

        1. I figured it was parody at this line…
          “Lady, that’s not your son and even if it were, you can’t breastfeed in here.”
          I chuckled

        2. The author “Nicole Mullin” links to Nick Mullin’s twitter

          1. Your Google-fu is strong.

            1. Here’s him doing stand-up in 2010. its not bad.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeASSA-wjXU

      2. In fact he’s rude and quiet, and he expects me to just unlock him from the basement and give him dinner.

        Uh yeah, obvious parody.

        1. You see enough things like this and you lose your ability to detect parody:

          http://everydayfeminism.com/20…..ist-issue/

      3. “Rosco is a big dog. He’s got maybe four years left. I’ll be stuck with Mason for at least twice as long. It breaks my heart every day. “

      4. Im pretty sure the author is a 20something male who doesn’t have a Girlfriend.

        “”Calling Anti-Gay Stuff “Homophobic” Is Disrespectful To People With Phobias””
        “”Wape Jokes Awen’t Funny, And Neither Is My Speech Impediment””
        “”Can We Stop Pretending Like Abortions Don’t Feel Good? “”
        “”Is Anyone Else Mad That Poop Is Brown? “”
        “”Scientists Say Eating My Pussy And Letting Me Borrow Your Car May Prevent Cancer “”

  21. I just can’t understand why atheists are so unpopular: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adn44cfYSdc

    1. Probably because most people are really only aware of the screaming obnoxious weirdos?

      We’re insidious that way, because most of us just go around acting like normal people. We’re like psychopaths, able to blend in, celebrate Christmas and Easter with our families without saying anything stronger about religion than, “Please pass the gravy. Thank you.”

    2. Probably because most people are really only aware of the screaming obnoxious weirdos?

      We’re insidious that way, because most of us just go around acting like normal people. We’re like psychopaths, able to blend in, celebrate Christmas and Easter with our families without saying anything stronger about religion than, “Please pass the gravy. Thank you.”

      1. The God of Squirrels, on the other hand, is a cruel god indeed.

    1. Who’s the blonde lady in the series you posted above? She’s really good.

      1. Laura Southern of Rebel Media, I believe. Some asshole SJW dumped piss on her head.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSsk_k7MBpw

        1. She’s awesome.

          1. Laura Southern vs. Feminists

            Hilarious debunking of affirmative consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHaPZP-vcZs

        2. Some asshole SJW

          Inspected and marked grade “A” by your friends at the Department of Redundancy.

          Actually, in one of those links, one of the feminists LS was interviewing kept her composure quite well.

          1. Sez the leftist troll.

            1. Please read below.

  22. I’m disturbed by so many libertarians thinking it’s ok for us to abandon our principles and embrace neocon and leftist bullshit just to get votes. I don’t want any part of that shit. Winning elections is meaningless once you’ve sold out.

    1. There’s a difference between selling your views as acceptable and picking a hill to die on. Cutting spending, legalizing weed, and not dropping bombs on foreigners for vaguely defined reasons are all within the Overton window of allowed polite political speech. ( I will admit that I wish GayJay gave different answer about gaycakes, but what can you do?)

      I’m all for legalizing other drugs, and reforming public accommodation laws, but I also understand that’s a very small minority opinion. I can’t exactly blame a politician for accentuating the popular parts of his policy, and downplaying the unpopular parts.

    2. Whatever bro. I’m just in this to prevent Hillary from running bartertown

      1. Well, then just vote for Trump. That is all.

    3. I’m disturbed by so many libertarians thinking it’s ok for us to abandon our principles and embrace neocon and leftist bullshit just to get votes.

      Check out the Trump voter over here.

      1. Pizz the fuck off, troll.

        1. Dude…your sarcasometer. I hope it’s still in warranty.

          Straight talk here: you know what I liked most about your comment? You didn’t accuse Johnson supporters of being un-libertarian. Whereas another cohort here is ever so quick to jump on one little thing that might be construed as un-libertarian, then it’s No True Scotsman time.

          Funny enough, they’ll vote for GJ without the slightest shred of self-awareness.

          1. Sorry, since I don’t know you, I assumed. My bad. It’s sometimes very difficult around here no matter how good your sarcasm detector is.

            I’m pretty pissed about the way Johnson has decided to run this campaign and his VP pick, embarrassing shit, I have to hear about this from people I’ve been trying to sell libertarianism to and it’s not pleasant.

            1. And you’re about this close…

              *Fd’A puts thumb and forefinger very close together*

              …to becoming a troll.

            2. Nah, it’s cool. For one thing, I hardly ever post. For another, I frequently change my screen name (though it always ends in Jr.)

              I was mocking the Gatekeepers here who probably read a pro-Trump sentiment into your post.

  23. You are right that libertarians should not abandon principles, but I do think the LP should be open to moving incremental change. The socialists have been very successful by slowly moving the needle. I also am not super excited about Johnson, but will end up voting for him because I will already be spending (wasting) ten minutes of my time to vote against all the lame bond measures and stupid local extensions of state power. I would love to see the LP more focused on winning local, state and seats in Congress than the PoTUS.

    1. There’s too may problems with GJ. I voted for him in 2012. He’s went way too far off the path this time. I’ve already spoken about most of my problems with him here, so I won’t bother being redundant.

      If he was a Republican, I would vote for him. I’m not sure if you understand what I’m saying here, but to put it simply, I don’t want people thinking that this guy is a libertarian, because he’s not, and his running mate is basically Mitt Romney. Gross.

      1. So who ya voting for? Trump? Clinton?

        Of your options, who’s best for liberty?

        1. I’m staying home unless someone announces an independent run that I don’t know about yet. The only other option I’ve considered is writing in Rand Paul.

          1. And ‘none of the above’ is who’s best for liberty among my current options.

            1. None of the above is almost always the best option. 🙂

          2. I think you’re butthurt and prideful.

            1. I’m prideful and pissed the fuck off and embarrassed. If you want to call it butthurt, ok. Johnson ain’t getting my butthurt vote.

              1. Good. Throw it away and act like SIV. I like you, but you’ve been making an ass of yourself for a week now.

                1. I’m making an ass out of myself to ‘you’, because I don’t agree with you? Is that how libertarians think about their own? When did this happen? We’re supposed to fucking disagree, that’s what makes us not the fucking borg like the teams. SIV’s a Trump supporter, and that’s his business. I just don’t support any of the shitheads now, fuck them all.

          3. I think you’re butthurt and prideful.

            Your guy didn’t make the cut, and you’re pissed off. GJ is more libertarian than RP.

            1. No, he’s not. How’s Johnson’s voting record in public office as compared to Rand? Rand is the best congressman of my lifetime, period. How would Johnson have done in the US Senate compared to Rand? My guess is, not even close to being as libertarian as Rand. Not even in the same league at all.

                1. Lol, really? I was thinking about voting records and important stuff like that.

            2. How do you figure it’s because ‘my guy’ didn’t get the nomination? It has nothing to do with that. Gary had my vote even before the convention. The fact that I later changed my mind had nothing to do with why I’m unwilling to support Johnson now. It has to do with Johnson picking a completely non-libertarian statist as his VP nominee and then making a big deal of it. It’s Johnson’s fault that I can’t back him now, not mine.

              1. A VP that will never see office. ( I agree with you on this)

                Big picture. It ain’t about winning the presidency. It’s about attracting new recruits.

                We aren’t going to win. But we can attract people to the cause.

                1. See, that’s my point. I know Johnson won’t win, and he should know this too. But I don’t think he does. I think he wants to win and not win people over to libertarianism. His running mate is a fucking statist! That’s the wrong message, Ah fuck, this isn’t going anywhere. We agree to disagree, and so it goes, same as always. That’s all good. Keep in mind, I’m not upset with you or anyone else for voting for Johnson, I’m upset at the way Johnson has handled this.

                  1. I’d have fully supported McAfee. He’s a true libertarian. Principled.

                    But GJ will do more for the cause. Promoting libertarianism. Getting heads in the tent. And hopefully the opportunity to make more principled libertarians.

                    I get that he’s not your optimum…but he’s better than every alternative and it should be about expanding the base.

                    1. McAfee would be a huge amount of fun to hang out with late nite on a Latin American beach. He has made some great principled libertarian arguments, but isn’t the best choice to represent the LP ticket. Not that Johnson is either, because he is clearly lacking in many respects. Since Mickey Mouse is the property of Disney, and will not be running LP, Gay Jo is the game in town for the P job. Sucks, but not as bad as T rump and Hilldog. FdA is right, it is all about getting people into the evil clutches of Liberty.

                    2. Except he’s not promoting libertarianism. He’s promoting the LIbertarian Party.

                      And he’s basically using a bait & switch. “Hey Sanders kids, I’m almost just like him…”

                      Except you know, libertarianism doesn’t offer any of the free stuff they want. Or $15 minimum wage. But hey, don’t sweat that, you get all the pot you want. And I’ll throw in all the gay cakes you can possibly want, forced to be baked by those nasty Christians. Because even though government is force, baking cakes is one of those things people should be forced to do at gun point.

                      For all the sanctimonious talk about Team Red and Team Blue, most the people here (and all the writers) are no different when it comes to Team Green (or whatever color the Libertarian Party has). And unlike Team Red or Blue, they don’t have the excuse of compromising their principles to win an election (since it’s not gonna happen).

                      But hey, at 5-10%, you get that sweet government money. And government forcing the media to let you in debates.

  24. I think some people have not learned enough from what happened to the Tea Party. They were rolling along, a juggernaut, and then… their face became Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and *boom*! WTF? And we want the face of libertarianism to be William Weld? WTF is wrong with people? WAKE.THE.FUCK.UP.

    1. The LP has decided it is the “Slightly Moderate Republican” Party this time around. They might as well bring in Mitt Romney.

  25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCe6NOBUut0

    Election nights,
    Natural rights,
    You and candidate Johnson

  26. I saw Johnson on Meet the Press last weekend. He came off as a weak-hearted Republican, talking about keeping social safety nets but making Medicare and Medicaid sustainable long term, and vague gestures about shrinking the government. No one is voting on that.

    No talk of liberty, or individual rights, or anything like that. Just the tepid, mealy-mouthed moderate republicanism that voters of all stripes have been rejecting for the lay ten years.

    No thanks

    1. keeping social safety nets but making Medicare and Medicaid sustainable long term, and vague gestures about shrinking the government

      I’m of two minds about this.

      Here you have someone who is guaranteed “not to win” who doesn’t have the balls to say, “Social security is bankrupt” and “Medicare/medicaid is a waste of money with shitty outcomes”.

      On the other hand… people have said that before and then done nothing re: entitlements when elected. It means very little to people.

      So part of me thinks he’s retarded for conceding fights he has nothing to lose on, and another part of me thinks, maybe he’s just trying to advance *other* ideas.

      I’d find the latter argument more appealing if he weren’t also conceding in other policy areas as well. I have no doubt before Nov he’ll find some wiggle room for new gun control.

  27. I’m embracing my apolitical side this election season. Fuck politicians.

  28. I would then suggest Johnson rethink his “we aren’t real sure about climate change, nor what we can do about it” stance then. It doesn’t quite fit millenial thinking.

    ABC News/Washington Post, November 2015: “76 percent of 18?29 year olds say climate change is a serious problem facing America, with 63 percent calling it a very serious problem. That concern is matched by a desire for action: 64 percent say the federal government should do more to address climate change.”

    Get with it, Gary.

      1. Oh, well, if it’s on Vox, then it must be true. After all, i see that not a single reader has posted a comment on that article disagreeing with it.

  29. 2″My friend just told me about this easiest method of freelancing. I’ve just tried it and now II am getting paid 15000usd monthly without spending too much time.You can also do this.

    >>>>>>> https://www.Cashpay60.tk

  30. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.selfcash10.com

  31. The “Libertarian” party is clueless. This election cycle should be its best chance yet it can’t strategize to get a consistent message out because vested interests use the platform as a play thing.

  32. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  33. 4″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better!Learn More From This Site…

    ======> http://www.Today70.com

  34. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  35. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  36. my roomate’s step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at ..
    Read more on this web site..

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.maxincome20.com

  37. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.selfcash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.