• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

President Gary Johnson: Nationwide constitutional carry?

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...the President is not a dictator. He cannot, by fiat, change the law or impose his will. Most power to change government resides with Congress, not the Presidency,....

Uh, do you realize that Gary Johnson is the only candidate who agrees with you?
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Nobody is looking for or expecting perfection. All things are relative. Focus on the actual point, please. At least this time your post actually attempted to contribute to the discussion.

If I want to play word games, I'll point out that you are implying George Washington was perfect.

Aside: Anybody know who was the last President we had that wasn't a lawyer?
Um, no, again... George Washington was elected president, and was the least of a whole long list of men that held views that in some fashion or another were disagreeable to every voter. That is exactly what I said, we have been voting for the lesser of two evils since George Washington.

If you don't understand that, I can't help you.

TFred
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
I misunderstood your use of the word "since." No worries. But perfection is NOT what we can hope to achieve, so to spin that ignores the real point.
 
Last edited:

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
His rhetoric on gun rights seems to indicate he is a supporter.

Where he falls flat is on something even more important--economic matters. Bob Wenzel, a liberatarian radio host and founder of the blog Economic Policy Journal (just add dot com) interviewed him a few months ago. Johnson couldn't remember the principles in a seminal libertarian book. His economics are pretty fuzzy.

I said "something even more important" because we've already got guns and gun rights. We need to shut the door on government and the banking sector controlling the economy. Auditing the Federal Reserve and allowing competing currencies would be an excellent start.

He totally supports alternate currencies (which scares me) et al.


[video=youtube_share;uF367w4nI1E]http://youtu.be/uF367w4nI1E[/video]
 
Last edited:

Riverdance

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Messages
89
Location
Virginia
stands a chance?

I decided to look into who else may even stand a chance and came across Gary Johnson.

While I share your affinity for libertarian political thought, please don't fall to the supposition that voting for any third party candidate has anything to do with him having a chance to win. No, the value of 3rd parties is not that they win, but rather when enough people support them the major parties will begin to adopt their platforms.

Because the 3rd party candidate can't win, voters will say things like "its a wasted vote" while they line up like lemmings to vote for either the liberal RINO or the incumbent communist even while decrying the system that gives us these major party choices and wishing there were alternatives.

To hope to ever change the system, SOMEBODY has to vote right, even if there is no immediate chance to win.
 

Ric in Richmond

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
192
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Repeat after me: Three supreme court justices replaced!!!!

But I feel the Republicans deserve to lose. We've not had a Conservative President since Ronald Reagan. We've been voting for "the lesser of two evils" for 24 years. It's time to pull the bandage off the wound. It's gonna hurt.


THREE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES will likely be appointed by the next president.

The damage that three relatively young, likely progressive and radical SCJ can do will not be undone in DECADES.

While I am not a fan of Romney and we disagree on many things no other candidate can win outside of Romney or O.

A vote for anyone other than Romney likely puts control of the SC in the hands of O and his minions for 30 years.

Please think twice before you forgo voting or make a protest vote. Especially in Virginia which will be hotly contested.

Hold your nose if you have to but vote.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
No. We've been voting for the lesser of two evils since George Washington. Presidential candidates are human beings. Last I checked, none of us were perfect, and we all have an inherently sinful nature. Show me a perfect candidate, and I'll have to break it to you that you've crossed that river to the golden shore...

TFred

O.K. Mr. "I'd rather curse the darkness than light a candle", the Libertarians are the third largest political party in the United States. They are mainstram, not fringe like Virgil Goode and the Constitution Party.

You are right ,The choice is between the lesser of two evils,Robama or Johnson. Johnson isn't perfect, but he certainly is less evil than Obamney!
 

ryan7068

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
185
Location
Chesapeake, VA
While I share your affinity for libertarian political thought, please don't fall to the supposition that voting for any third party candidate has anything to do with him having a chance to win. No, the value of 3rd parties is not that they win, but rather when enough people support them the major parties will begin to adopt their platforms.

Because the 3rd party candidate can't win, voters will say things like "its a wasted vote" while they line up like lemmings to vote for either the liberal RINO or the incumbent communist even while decrying the system that gives us these major party choices and wishing there were alternatives.

To hope to ever change the system, SOMEBODY has to vote right, even if there is no immediate chance to win.

I am aware and i certainly agree
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
O.K. Mr. "I'd rather curse the darkness than light a candle", the Libertarians are the third largest political party in the United States. They are mainstram, not fringe like Virgil Goode and the Constitution Party.

You are right ,The choice is between the lesser of two evils,Robama or Johnson. Johnson isn't perfect, but he certainly is less evil than Obamney!
No matter what you say or what "patriotic" dressing you put on it, NOTHING changes the FACT that if you don't vote for Romney, you ARE helping Obama win, and the Senate WILL confirm what ever whacky liberal Supreme Court nominees he sees fit to toss out there.

You can convince yourself of whatever you want, NOTHING CHANGES THESE FACTS!

I get so sick and tired of Americans who think we have the luxury of arguing over things like Big Bird and third party candidates.

We are in the fight of our LIVES for the very survival of this nation. If you are not helping, you ARE hurting.

Obama is laughing all the way to Greece.

TFred
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP No matter what you say or what "patriotic" dressing you put on it, NOTHING changes the FACT that if you don't vote for Romney, you ARE helping Obama win, and the Senate WILL confirm what ever whacky liberal Supreme Court nominees he sees fit to toss out there.

You can convince yourself of whatever you want, NOTHING CHANGES THESE FACTS.

You know, fellas, it occurs to me there a giant hole in the logic of those who say that if you don't vote for Romney you are helping Obama win.

It presupposes that Romney will win if I vote for him.

But, what if Obama wins even with my vote for Romney? What I really mean is that the folks who use the argument, "you're helping Obama", cannot possibly know for sure that I helped Obama win by not voting for Romney. So, if they cannot know the future--that I helped Obama win--what are some other angles I can use to help decide how to vote?

Responsibility. Now, these fellas view responsibility as blame. Take a moment and re-read TFred's post. You see the implied blame? If Obama wins, he says that the folks who didn't vote for Romney helped cause the SCOTUS nominee disaster. "It will be your fault!"--blame, blame, blame.

But, responsibility has more angles. Responsibility simply means causation. For example, if upon seeing a situation at work, and you take the initiative to solve it, you are simply taking responsibility to solve it, which is just another way of saying you are being the cause of the solution. Willing to be cause. Another example, some folks avoid responsibility. Its just another way of saying they are unwilling to cause. You understand? Responsibility and willingness to cause are just different words for the same thing.

Next point. When talking about people, causation needs one more step before causation occurs. An intention. An intention to turn on the light switch. An intention to drive to the supermarket. An intention to solve a situation at work. An intention to vote a certain way.

So, since the blamers cannot know for sure whether my non-vote will install Obama, I am left with having to figure out my own intention/course of action. But, lets examine briefly the intention the blamers want me to take. In one or two sentences. The blamers actually want me to hurt myself and my countrymen by actually approving a candidate who would cut my economic throat and reduce my liberties. And, as MAC points out, do it every four years to eternity. This is tantamount to helping the king's blacksmith forge my own shackles.

I won't be intending that. This leaves me with the options to vote third-party, not vote as a protest, or not vote in order to withhold my consent.
 
Last edited:

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
THREE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES............. Especially in Virginia which will be hotly contested.

Hold your nose if you have to but vote.

Snipped.

You've almost got me convinced. Maybe if you increase that font a few more levels...

If Christ himself ran on any other party except the "R"s you'd still say "I vote for Christ is a vote for Obama!"
You are so blinded, so deeply stuck in the political trap, you don't even see you empower your captors.
 

acfreddie

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
46
Location
richmond, va
My feeling on the issue is limited to you cannot complain unless you voted. Feel free to complain if your candidate did not win and/or gloat if they did.

I would elaborate more on my views but unless I am going to run for the office (which I have no problem doing, I just don't have the 2 billion dollars to run a first rate campaign), so instead I just make sure I go and vote and then either complain or gloat depending on the election results. Somehow and someway this method works for me :)
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
My feeling on the issue is limited to you cannot complain unless you voted. Feel free to complain if your candidate did not win and/or gloat if they did.

I would elaborate more on my views but unless I am going to run for the office (which I have no problem doing, I just don't have the 2 billion dollars to run a first rate campaign), so instead I just make sure I go and vote and then either complain or gloat depending on the election results. Somehow and someway this method works for me :)

The Bill of Rights says otherwise. The last clause of the First Amendment protects the right to petition for redress of grievances aka complain. Notice that the Bill of Rights is not limited to protecting only the rights of voters.

My right to complain arises from my existence. All it takes is for government to mistreat me or others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The Bill of Rights says otherwise. The last clause of the First Amendment protects the right to petition for redress of grievances aka complain. Notice that the Bill of Rights is not limited to protecting only the rights of voters.

My right to complain arises from my existence. All it takes is for government to mistreat me or others.

--snip--

There exists an important difference between 'redress" and "complain."

To "complain" about a state of affairs or event is but to express dissatisfaction or annoyance with it. There is no action shown to correct that condition.

"Redress" OTOH defines an action, a response, to correct an undesirable or unfair situation i.e. the power to redress the grievances of the people. It is the remedy or compensation for a wrong or grievance.

Some will only complain while others seek redress. One is but a verbal slap while the other seeks satisfaction.
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
No TFred we are in a political struggle right now.

Fortunately the 2A gives us the means to fight if it comes to the survival of the Republic.
And you (the collective you, not just you personally) call ME blind?

Obama has IGNORED the Constitution at every turn, using a number of different methods.

Whether it's his "health care" plan or executive order or illegal ATF policies, the Second Amendment will NOT get in his way.

Obama is the first Dictator of the United States. I'm not even sure he will move out of the White House if he loses the election.

We do NOT have the luxury to play these stupid games.

And in response to another post, if Jesus were here today, first, he would not be running, and second, no I would not vote for him if he were a third party candidate. How many times do we have to make the point that it's NOT the quality of the candidate that matters AT ALL. It's the better of the two candidates that have a CHANCE to WIN.

It is this very reason that no third party will ever take hold. You don't know how to get anything DONE!

And yes, that means your vote is a waste. You will have NOTHING to show for it on November 7th. You will have to go digging through some web page, or watch the scrolling text at the bottom of the TV screen to even find out how many votes your candidate received, nobody will even be talking about it.

TFred
 
Top