Your Thoughts on POTUS Libertarian Nominee Gary Johnson

As the title indicates, I'm curious what your thoughts are about Libertarian Gary Johnson. With both his and Paul's words, their views are very similar. Since it seems that Ron Paul is no longer an option, , do you think Johnson would be the next best thing? I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

Another progressive loser.

Libertarianism is a progressive political philosophy requiring that man be essentially good, can be improved and that does not need laws to live in harmony. The Founding Fathers, authors of the Constitution of the United States, rejected progressivism, and democracy, with much more understanding than exists in the demos today.

Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth.

Gary Johnson is the best of the three parties that will be on all fifty state ballots.

He's a little too focused on legalizing marijuana - a noble goal but not among the nation's highest priorities, IMHO.

He has shown a willingness to try to do the right thing, but hasn't given any indication he can do so. Vetoing spending bills is all well and good; submitting balanced budgets is all well and good. However, the "how" of his plans isn't clear.

Probably too idealistic and, if elected, ineffective, but better by far than the two major-party choices, and, in my mind, much better than Paul.

Gary who?

OC for ME said:

Gary who?

Click to expand...

ex-Republican Governor of New Mexico (1995 - 2003)

What compromise of principle enables the change from repugnican to liebraltarian?

Well, ex-republican....hmmm, didn't quite meet the expectations of his former constituency it seems. May be working his way to a 'D'.

OC for ME said:

Well, ex-republican....hmmm, didn't quite meet the expectations of his former constituency it seems. May be working his way to a 'D'.

Click to expand...

Just like Obummer, prostituting principle for popularity. We get the government we deserve.

Vote Constitution Party

OC for ME said:

Well, ex-republican....hmmm, didn't quite meet the expectations of his former constituency it seems. May be working his way to a 'D'.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the Republican establishment froze him out because of his stance on gay marriage (none of his business), right to choose (none of government's business), legalization of marijuana, and other individual liberty issues -- those in which the R stands for repressive.

.....possible.....

HighFlyingA380 said:

As the title indicates, I'm curious what your thoughts are about Libertarian Gary Johnson. With both his and Paul's words, their views are very similar. Since it seems that Ron Paul is no longer an option, , do you think Johnson would be the next best thing? I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

Click to expand...

Next best thing for what? A write-in?

At what point does one withdraw an Obama-defeating vote for Romney and use that vote instead for an independent? When that independent has less than a 50% chance of winning? Less than 40%? Less than 30%? Less than 10%? 5%? 2%? When it's statistically impossible?

Unfortunately, many people confuse percentage support with statistical probability. They think that because a candidate garners 30% of a blanket, "who would you like to see as President?" poll, they believe that candidate has a 30% probability of winning. But that's not the way statistics work. Even if there are only two candidates, one who's at 70% in the pre-election polls and the other who's at 30% in the pre-election polls, the probability that the lesser candidate will will the election is less than 1%. It's calculated by several factors, including historical voting swings, results of previous polls, and poll margins of error.

While I'm just fine with people voting as they see fit, the idea that anyone would throw their vote away in such a foolhardy manner is utterly abhorrent to me, particularly when doing so pulls yet another vote that could have, and should have been cast to defeat Obama.

since9 said:

Next best thing for what? A write-in?

At what point does one withdraw an Obama-defeating vote for Romney and use that vote instead for an independent? When that independent has less than a 50% chance of winning? Less than 40%? Less than 30%? Less than 10%? 5%? 2%? When it's statistically impossible?

Unfortunately, many people confuse percentage support with statistical probability. They think that because a candidate garners 30% of a blanket, "who would you like to see as President?" poll, they believe that candidate has a 30% probability of winning. But that's not the way statistics work. Even if there are only two candidates, one who's at 70% in the pre-election polls and the other who's at 30% in the pre-election polls, the probability that the lesser candidate will will the election is less than 1%. It's calculated by several factors, including historical voting swings, results of previous polls, and poll margins of error.

While I'm just fine with people voting as they see fit, the idea that anyone would throw their vote away in such a foolhardy manner is utterly abhorrent to me, particularly when doing so pulls yet another vote that could have, and should have been cast to defeat Obama.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know how it works. The statistics was never an issue of debate here. And I do not at all feel like I'd be "throwing my vote away." Voting for who I feel represents my views best is what this country was founded on. It's not "foolhardy."

since9 said:

Next best thing for what? A write-in?

At what point does one withdraw an Obama-defeating vote for Romney and use that vote instead for an independent? When that independent has less than a 50% chance of winning? Less than 40%? Less than 30%? Less than 10%? 5%? 2%? When it's statistically impossible?

Unfortunately, many people confuse percentage support with statistical probability. They think that because a candidate garners 30% of a blanket, "who would you like to see as President?" poll, they believe that candidate has a 30% probability of winning. But that's not the way statistics work. Even if there are only two candidates, one who's at 70% in the pre-election polls and the other who's at 30% in the pre-election polls, the probability that the lesser candidate will will the election is less than 1%. It's calculated by several factors, including historical voting swings, results of previous polls, and poll margins of error.

While I'm just fine with people voting as they see fit, the idea that anyone would throw their vote away in such a foolhardy manner is utterly abhorrent to me, particularly when doing so pulls yet another vote that could have, and should have been cast to defeat Obama.

Click to expand...

It's easy to vote third party when there is no risk. In other words, Romney/Obama.. same ole same ole.

What's abhorrent to me is obviously intelligent people like yourself failing to understand the importance of voting third party(or for RP if the option is still there). The more votes against the 2 party machine this time, then the more momentum we'll have trying to defeat the machine next time. Your option keeps us in the "lesser of two evils" cycle forever.

Gary Johnson didn't impress me when I saw him in the Repub debates early on. However, I've since done some checking on him and would consider him as an alternative to Dr. Paul.

what if?

what if they gave an election and; a write in won( ron paul) ?

Herr Heckler Koch said:

Another progressive loser.

Libertarianism is a progressive political philosophy requiring that man be essentially good, can be improved and that does not need laws to live in harmony. The Founding Fathers, authors of the Constitution of the United States, rejected progressivism, and democracy, with much more understanding than exists in the demos today.

Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth.

Click to expand...

I am a registered Libertarian, last time I checked we are anything but 'progressive' or 'liberal' (maybe a tad socially liberal, in the personal freedom sense) .. Less Government, less nanny state, less entitlement programs.. MORE individual freedoms (as defined by our Constitution) , self reliance.. etc.. sounds a bit Jeffersonian to me. Maximum freedom, minimum Government..

Tell Penn Jillette he's a liberal, and i'm sure he'd follow up with a 45 minute tirade..

--Rob

georg jetson said:

It's easy to vote third party when there is no risk. In other words, Romney/Obama.. same ole same ole.

What's abhorrent to me is obviously intelligent people like yourself failing to understand the importance of voting third party(or for RP if the option is still there). The more votes against the 2 party machine this time, then the more momentum we'll have trying to defeat the machine next time. Your option keeps us in the "lesser of two evils" cycle forever.

Gary Johnson didn't impress me when I saw him in the Repub debates early on. However, I've since done some checking on him and would consider him as an alternative to Dr. Paul.

Click to expand...

Well said sir/ma'am. It seems that many people share that same deficiency of understanding the political system.

bellyfat said:

what if they gave an election and; a write in won( ron paul) ?

Click to expand...

It doesn't happen much, but it has happened. Recently, the 18-year old Jermyy Minnier became Mayor of Aredale, Iowa via write-in, and he wasn't even campaigning or wanting to. Granted, that's on a much smaller scale than POTUS, but still, the same concept.

since9 said:

While I'm just fine with people voting as they see fit, the idea that anyone would throw their vote away in such a foolhardy manner is utterly abhorrent to me,

Click to expand...

Lemme translate that..."I'm fine with you doing what you feel is best, just don't do something I think is foolish."

Uh huh.

particularly when doing so pulls yet another vote that could have, and should have been cast to defeat Obama.

Click to expand...

-1. Is the goal to defeat Obama or elect a good leader? You can accomplish both with one vote for a certain candidate.

HighFlyingA380 said:

Yes, I know how it works. The statistics was never an issue of debate here. And I do not at all feel like I'd be "throwing my vote away." Voting for who I feel represents my views best is what this country was founded on. It's not "foolhardy."

Click to expand...

+1. That's the mindset needed to enter a voting booth.

I like Garry Johnson, I have met him, very nice guy, I even have a picture of me OC'ing with him.

I think he is Republican light, Libertarian light? Not sure which but definitely a better pick than Romney or Obama.

If I was not going to vote RP I'd consider voting Gary, I will not vote Rombama or Omney.

HighFlyingA380 said:

Yes, I know how it works. The statistics was never an issue of debate here. And I do not at all feel like I'd be "throwing my vote away." Voting for who I feel represents my views best is what this country was founded on. It's not "foolhardy."

Click to expand...

Do you really? I don't think you do.

Let's say an independent candidate would garner 10% of the vote if those who supported him actually voted for him. If they didn't, more of the votes of the independents would go to Romney than Obama. On election day, the other 90% of the vote is split almost evenly between Obama and Romney, with Obama edging out Romney.

Scenario 1: Those who would rather vote for the independent realize he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. If any portion of them vote for the main two candidates, Romney wins. Thanks for the help! They voted for what's best for our nation. Kudos to them! They win because Obama didn't get elected. Romney supporters win because Romney won. Obama supporters win (although they don't know it) because they get a better candidate who won't continue to run our nation into the ground.

Everyone wins.

Scenario 2: Those who would rather vote for the independent prefer to "stick to their guns." Obama wins. Thanks for nothing. They held blindingly to their ignorant and incorrect believe that always voting for their top choice of candidate produces the best results overall. Bad choice. The independent supporters lose because Obama wins. Those who support Romney lose because Obama wins. Those who supported Obama lose (although they don't know it) because under Obama the country continues to nose-dive.

Everyone loses.

Folks, when you have only 1 vote and x number of candidates, the ONLY time voting for your top choice always produces the best outcome for the country is when x=2. When x=3 or more, voting for your top choice often results in the third best candidate running away with the vote. This isn't rocket science, but it is Game Theory 101, which is a branch within statistical science. It's a well-known shortcoming of the one-vote system. It's a non-issue with two candidates, but a third candidate changes the mix.

Voting systems which work for three or more candidates have been around for centuries, and including +1/-1 voting, and rank ordering. Provided people don't try to game either system, they work fine, but all too often people try to game the system, and the advantages of these voting systems will backfire, resulting in a President that's least likely to do the country well.

It doesn't matter what you "feel," HighFlyingA380, nor how strongly you feel it.

What matters is that by voting for an independent who:
1. Has no chance of winning even if everyone who would like to see them in office actually votes for them...
2. Pulls more votes away from Romney than Obama...

...then a vote for the independent is a failure to vote Obama out of office, and that's something our country can NOT afford.

Participating in the system does not fix it, it enables it.

If you stopped trying to convince people to give up voting on principles, more people would vote for who they believed in, rather then who they 'had' to, and we'd see some REAL change.

since9 said:

SNIP


What matters is that by voting for an independent who:
1. Has no chance of winning even if everyone who would like to see them in office actually votes for them...
2. Pulls more votes away from Romney than Obama...

...then a vote for the independent is a failure to vote Obama out of office, and that's something our country can NOT afford.

Click to expand...

You miss the point in its entirety... There is no real difference between Obama and Romney. We all lose if either of the two get into/remain in office.

I most certainly will not help you get your pathetic excuse for a candidate into office... especially when we BOTH know there are better choices.