President Gary Johnson: Nationwide constitutional carry?

[MAC702]

The people should have more liberty = Yeah, classic liberal thinking.

Ignoring my point = Classic, um, yeah...

 

[TFred]

The people should have more liberty = Yeah, classic liberal thinking.

Ignoring my point = Classic, um, yeah...

I've addressed your point close to a dozen times on this thread. Your plan will not work. Your plan can not work. I'm starting to see why you refuse to admit it.

How many more times and ways can I tell you that you are not only wasting your time with a vote for a third party candidate, but you are hurting the only chance we have to keep our nation from following the path of Western Europe?

:banghead:

TFred

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I've addressed your point close to a dozen times on this thread. Your plan will not work. Your plan can not work. I'm starting to see why you refuse to admit it.

How many more times and ways can I tell you that you are not only wasting your time with a vote for a third party candidate, but you are hurting the only chance we have to keep our nation from following the path of Western Europe?

:banghead:

TFred

Maybe all that head banging against the brick wall is the reason you've been duped into thinking your precious republican brand is anything more than the #2 of a two part team trying to implement totalitarianism in America.

 

[Citizen]

Maybe all that head banging against the brick wall is the reason you've been duped into thinking your precious republican brand is anything more than the #2 of a two part team trying to implement totalitarianism in America.

You know, you might be onto something.

I recall dropping my NRA membership three or four years ago. It was because almost everything I received from them was a bunch of fear-mongering. This disaster and that disaster for 2A loomed just around the corner. It was almost all fear-mongering. I quit reading my free magazine even before my membership expired.

I think certain people around here have bought into the fear-and-disaster message about Obama. And, missed the disaster that is the other head of the government party monster.

I kinda think they need to take a deep breath, step back, and look to see if the other side hasn't been up to the same unconstitutional garbage for the last, oh, 140 years or so.

 

[TFred]

The man campaigned on "fundamental change" to the United States. And that was back before he had to start lying about what he wanted to do, back when he duped enough people to vote for what they thought was going to be a good thing.

He promised to destroy America as we know it, and he's trying his hardest to keep that promise in every way possible.

Continued comparisons between Obama and Romney and what they stand for and where they will take the country in the future as anything other than nearly completely opposite, much less anywhere near "equal" are so far over the top ridiculous that you certainly bring to question whether you have lost all capability of cognizant thought whatsoever.

TFred

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Continued comparisons between Obama and Romney and what they stand for and where they will take the country in the future as anything other than nearly completely opposite, much less anywhere near "equal" are so far over the top ridiculous that you certainly bring to question whether you have lost all capability of cognizant thought whatsoever.

TFred

HAHAHA!!!!! Romney and Obama are complete opposites and if you disagree your insane or stupid. This is what you just said. Jesus you really are too deep. Enjoy the kool aide.

 

[TFred]

HAHAHA!!!!! Romney and Obama are complete opposites and if you disagree your insane or stupid. This is what you just said. ***** you really are too deep. Enjoy the kool aide.

Watch your language please, this is a family friendly board.

TFred

 

[OC for ME]

There's no gullibility involved. Stop insulting us. There is no pretense that a third party candidate is anywhere near perfect, or even great.

There is the MESSAGE that there are enough of us out here that are sick of being forced to choose between two unconstitutional liberals. When (and ONLY when) that message actually affects their two-party system will the message be taken note of.

It is the only chance of telling the Republican party to stop running liberals. They deserve to lose.

BTW, here's one example on your point #2: "Executive Privilege" was invented by a Republican (Nixon), resurrected by a Democrat (Clinton), but stupendously exploited by a Republican (Bush II). Obama was then lambasted by Republicans for his usage, of course.

It's not the message the establishment is worried about.....it's the vote count. Your message is not accompanied with a sufficiently large enough vote count to make your message relevant to the establishment.

 

[grylnsmn]

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

Go back and reread what I wrote, and then answer me one question: How does Gary Johnson intend to get any of his policies implemented?

Yes, he could exercise the veto power, but that only works to stop implementing new laws. It does nothing for laws that are already on the books, like the NFA or GCA. If he wants to repeal those, he needs Congress to pass a law for him to sign, and I see no evidence that he would be able to do that.

The same goes for other areas of law. For example, the President cannot decriminalize drugs, because that is codified in law and requires a repeal of that law. He might be able to direct federal law enforcement to not enforce those laws, but that is both politically and legally dangerous, and could (and would) be undone in a second by a successor. But, that is very much the wrong way to go about it. If you disagree with a law that has been ruled constitutional, the answer is to repeal it, not ignore it.

I see no evidence that Romney thinks of the Presidency like a dictatorship, with the ability to impose your will by fiat. In fact, he has repeatedly criticized the Obama administration for such behavior. Obama, on the other hand, has acted like he can impose his will by order, rather than by law. When he couldn't get the immigration policy he wanted, he issued an executive order to do it. When he couldn't get his cybersecurity bill passed, he started looking at an executive order to do the same thing. His administration has attempted to reinterpret existing law to increase regulatory power. (One such example is the attempt by the IRS to give federal healthcare exchanges a tax credit that the law specifically only allows for state exchanges).

Gary Johnson is a republican...

Romney is a gay Muppet Baby!

Making things up is fun.

How was WalkingWolf making anything up?

Gary Johnson originally ran for office as a Republican, was elected Governor twice as a Republican (1994 and 1998), and announced his candidacy for the Presidency as a Republican on April 21, 2011. He only changed parties on December 28, 2011 when it became clear that he could not win the Republican nomination, but might have a chance to get the Libertarian nomination.

In other words, he's a political opportunist and a carpetbagger. None of that information is made up.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Watch your language please, this is a family friendly board.
TFred

You'll have to explain this. "Jesus" is not a bad word. I'm sure it would have been auto-bleeped if it were.

Gary Johnson originally ran for office as a Republican,

So at one point he "was" a republican. So it is a lie to say he "is" a republican. Just like I used to be a republican before I figured out what they were doing.
Just like Romney used to be a democrat!

 

[grylnsmn]

So at one point he "was" a republican. So it is a lie to say he "is" a republican. Just like I used to be a republican before I figured out what they were doing.
Just like Romney used to be a democrat!

Up until 10 months ago, Johnson had been a registered Republican. His switch doesn't indicate that he was converted to Libertarianism, but rather that he was losing the race for the Republican nomination. Do you deny any of that? What positions has he changed since he announced his switch? Don't you find it at all suspicious that he went from running for President in one party to immediately running for President in another party? It wasn't just the same day, but in the same press conference that he switched!

He has a 18-year electoral history as a Republican, and you are basically claiming that because he switched parties to get nominated for President, he's suddenly different? That makes no logical sense.

Also, what evidence do you have that Romney was ever a Democrat? He used to be registered in Massachusetts as an Independent, but I've not seen any evidence he was ever registered as a Democrat.

 

[TFred]

From VCDL's FB page. Reading this, if it's even 20% accurate, I wouldn't vote for this guy anyway.

TFred

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Up until 10 months ago, Johnson had been a registered Republican. His switch doesn't indicate that he was converted to Libertarianism, but rather that he was losing the race for the Republican nomination. Do you deny any of that? What positions has he changed since he announced his switch? Don't you find it at all suspicious that he went from running for President in one party to immediately running for President in another party? It wasn't just the same day, but in the same press conference that he switched!

He has a 18-year electoral history as a Republican, and you are basically claiming that because he switched parties to get nominated for President, he's suddenly different? That makes no logical sense.

Also, what evidence do you have that Romney was ever a Democrat? He used to be registered in Massachusetts as an Independent, but I've not seen any evidence he was ever registered as a Democrat.

Yes he was an independent. But he voted democrat. Until political opportunity lead him to the republicans.

 

[grylnsmn]

Yes he was an independent. But he voted democrat. Until political opportunity lead him to the republicans.

The only elections in which he has claimed to vote for a Democrat was when there wasn't a Republican on the ballot (i.e. when there was a Democratic primary and not a Republican one). Considering that we still value secret elections in the US, how do you know if he voted for a Democrat under any other circumstances? If you don't have any evidence to support your claim, then you should retract it.

 

[OC for ME]

The only elections in which he has claimed to vote for a Democrat was when there wasn't a Republican on the ballot (i.e. when there was a Democratic primary and not a Republican one). Considering that we still value secret elections in the US, how do you know if he voted for a Democrat under any other circumstances? If you don't have any evidence to support your claim, then you should retract it.

Then don't cast a ballot for a democrat if you disagree with democrat policies. There is no requirement to vote. he said he voted democrat it does not matter that there was no republican to vote for. Or, he could of stated that he wrote in (if permitted) a republican or other party candidate.....he did not.

 

[grylnsmn]

Then don't cast a ballot for a democrat if you disagree with democrat policies. There is no requirement to vote. he said he voted democrat it does not matter that there was no republican to vote for. Or, he could of stated that he wrote in (if permitted) a republican or other party candidate.....he did not.

If there was no Republican primary, then what is wrong with voting in the Democratic primary, to pick the candidate there you want the Republican to face? There are two different logical paths you can follow, depending on who the candidates are. First, you can vote for the one that would be easiest to beat in the general election. Second, you can vote for the "least worst" alternative who is still closest to your views, so if they win the nomination and the general election, it's not as bad for you as otherwise.

I remember back in the 90s, such things would happen in Virginia because the Democrats and Republicans would have their primaries on different days. As a result, you could vote in both. Once both parties woke up to how some people were gaming the system, they changed things so that both primaries would be held on the same day, forcing a voter to choose between the two.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

The only elections in which he has claimed to vote for a Democrat was when there wasn't a Republican on the ballot (i.e. when there was a Democratic primary and not a Republican one). Considering that we still value secret elections in the US, how do you know if he voted for a Democrat under any other circumstances? If you don't have any evidence to support your claim, then you should retract it.

what a twist of the truth.
yes their were no republicans on the ballot. Romney had a choice as an independent to vote in either the D or R primary. These are two separate ballots. He chose to vote democrat.

 

[Thundar]

The Ron Paul canary is still alive in the coal mine

How did that grassroots activism work for the Ron Paul supporters who followed all the rules throughout the entire primary campaign, including the convention?

The last chapter on that has not yet been written.

The treatment of Ron Paul and his nominees in Tampa was shameful and for many unforgiveable.

The funny part is that somewhere between 20 and 25% of the Republican Electors are Ron Paul supporters.

There are a few that have already stated that they will not cast an Electoral College vote for ROmney.

Win enough states to get to 270, but then be DENIED at the Electoral College. That would be karma.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The last chapter on that has not yet been written.

The treatment of Ron Paul and his nominees in Tampa was shameful and for many unforgiveable.

The funny part is that somewhere between 20 and 25% of the Republican Electors are Ron Paul supporters.

There are a few that have already stated that they will not cast an Electoral College vote for ROmney.

Win enough states to get to 270, but then be DENIED at the Electoral College. That would be karma.

How about some verifiable facts to back that up?

 

[davidmcbeth]

Romney can get change to come about because he is so willing to sell-out individual liberties like the 2A as he did so well in MA.

If Johnson got in and the only thing he accomplished was vetoing every piece of garbage legislation puked out then I would be thrilled.

I'd rather someone stomp on the breaks of this locomotive heading over the cliff than help it along.

Be sweet if a president would veto ALL nonessential bills. We have too many laws now.