I've always thought of A.net as a community of 'mostly' reasonable people. I don't understand why Gary Johnson is not being discussed here. Why constantly defend corrupt Hillary or wanna-be dictator Trump? He's closing in on the 15% polling requirement to be featured in the debates. I believe that if he makes it to the main stage he has a chance. For those that don't know his positions, he's fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Because any reasonable people know that independents have precisely 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000135% chance of winning the election in America in 2016. So my job is to get Conservatives to vote for Mr. Johnson and to get Liberals to vote for Mrs. Clinton.

DocLightning wrote:

Because any reasonable people know that independents have precisely 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000135% chance of winning the election in America in 2016. So my job is to get Conservatives to vote for Mr. Johnson and to get Liberals to vote for Mrs. Clinton.

In a normal election cycle, sure. Normally, parties don't put forth the most unlikable candidates they can find. The anti establishment vote is very strong this year. Who would have though Bernie or Trump would have gotten so far? I just hope they don't change the rules to keep him out of the debates.

drew777 wrote:

he's fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Because this is a non-sense. If you go on with the conservative way of using fiscality, you will have not money left yo be socially liberal.

Olddog wrote:

drew777 wrote:

he's fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Because this is a non-sense. If you go on with the conservative way of using fiscality, you will have not money left yo be socially liberal.

What money does it cost to keep the government out of my personal life? If anything it saves money not trying to govern my morality. He isn't for free college and limitless handouts.. hence he's fiscally conservative. He proposes cutting the military budget up to 43%.

drew777 wrote:

I've always thought of A.net as a community of 'mostly' reasonable people. I don't understand why Gary Johnson is not being discussed here.

By that I have to infer that you think that anyone who doesn't take Gary Johnson seriously is unreasonable; this is a narrow and narcissistic point of view.

My issue with "Libertarians" is that they are never, truly, honestly, "libertarians". They are about 80% "libertarians" and 20% authoritarians. I've had so many interactions with them it's too long to list. I had one die hard Ron Paul supporter that lost his mind when I told him his Seattle ferry ride would triple, with no federal reimbursement. I laughed at another one who defended his Medicaid and SS Disability payments as "excluded from his libertarian ideal". Another, was aghast that abortion and gay marriage should then be completely unleashed. Not to mention that about 80% of "libertarians" are pot heads and want pot legalized. Other than that, they don't give a crap about the Libertarian party ideals.

Simply put, I've found "libertarians" to be nothing more than hypocrites using politics (Libertarian Party) as their religion. *shrug*

To the OP:

I would be for 3rd parties but three things ensure they are not competitive at the presidential level:

1. No local office holders. For example, the only known person in the Green Party is Jill Stein who ran back in 2012, is running again this year, and aside from a few attempts at governor of MA, has no other electoral history. Let's say that she, or Gary Johnson, DO make it on to the White House. Where are their legislators? Who will their allies be? Why would Democrats and Republicans work with someone who's bashed them throughout the election? Why would any state go along with what they're proposing?

2. If the election were determined solely by popular vote, then I could see logic to your argument. However, as long as the Electoral College exists, they won't get through. All they'd be capable of doing is playing spoiler effect, either by deadlocking the Electoral College and throwing it to the House where a Republican is sure to be selected, or by taking votes from a Republican/Democrat and allowing a safe state to be carried by the other party.

3. Ballot access. Jill Stein, for example, can only carry 23 states (337 EC votes). Gary Johnson is on track to be in all 50 states though, but currently is on 36 states (370 EC votes). How many of these states can they flip from safe red/blue to their color?

I'm not saying we shouldn't try for 3rd parties, but until they field local candidates, they're unknown. The Titanic wasn't built from the funnels down; you need a strong base of support in as many states as possible and need a slate of politicians to select from.

einsteinboricua wrote:

To the OP:


2. If the election were determined solely by popular vote, then I could see logic to your argument. However, as long as the Electoral College exists, they won't get through.

I acknowledge that it's unlikely he'll win. Even if he gets the 15% of polling required to participate in the debates they'll probably find a way to exclude him. But how can he not be worth discussing? I'm in the #NeverTrump camp but I'm so tired of constantly defending Hillary. I know that the majority of the attacks on her are bogus. But any claim of her being honest and sincere about anything is also bogus. Most of Gary's plans will never get anywhere. Neither would Bernie's, but that didn't keep him from getting close to the nomination.

If this is the best the Republicans and Democrats have to offer, it's time to at least consider a 3rd party.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

My issue with "Libertarians" is that they are never, truly, honestly, "libertarians". They are about 80% "libertarians" and 20% authoritarians. I've had so many interactions with them it's too long to list. I had one die hard Ron Paul supporter that lost his mind when I told him his Seattle ferry ride would triple, with no federal reimbursement. I laughed at another one who defended his Medicaid and SS Disability payments as "excluded from his libertarian ideal". Another, was aghast that abortion and gay marriage should then be completely unleashed. Not to mention that about 80% of "libertarians" are pot heads and want pot legalized. Other than that, they don't give a crap about the Libertarian party ideals.

I think most "libertarians" are economic libertarians just because it sounds nice and they don't have to identify with those icky republicans and democrats. When you remind them libertarians want to junk things like the Civil Rights Act (which Gary Johnson supports, to the chagrin of his party) or ADA, or any number of other ugly realities of the philosophy, and it quickly devolves into either "lol jk byeeee" or ye olde' "no true Scotsman" argument where no one is really a true libertarian ever...because it only works in theory, never in reality.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

My issue with "Libertarians" is that they are never, truly, honestly, "libertarians".

I've noticed the exact same thing. In my experience it's been rare to find a true Libertarian. Most I've encountered have applied the ideology rather selectively.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

Simply put, I've found "libertarians" to be nothing more than hypocrites using politics (Libertarian Party) as their religion. *shrug*

Funny, I've found the same thing. It's particularly funny because they fancy themselves the only rational thinkers in a sea of Dem-bots or Rep-bots, yet I've seen just as much intellectual dishonesty from Libertarians as I've seen from either of the two major parties supporters.

MaverickM11 wrote:

I think most "libertarians" are economic libertarians just because it sounds nice and they don't have to identify with those icky republicans and democrats. When you remind them libertarians want to junk things like the Civil Rights Act (which Gary Johnson supports, to the chagrin of his party) or ADA, or any number of other ugly realities of the philosophy, and it quickly devolves into either "lol jk byeeee" or ye olde' "no true Scotsman" argument where no one is really a true libertarian ever...because it only works in theory, never in reality.

I think this is pretty accurate. I can only think of one Libertarian I've come across who actually agreed all those should be repealed. The rest mostly claim no true Libertarian believes those things. Taken to its logical extreme, that's exactly what Libertarianism would do. It's also why the vast, overwhelming majority of Libertarians are privileged white men who've never faced a day of hardship. It's easy to believe in the ideology when you've never actually had to face the ugly realities of life outside your little white privilege bubble. Those of us who've faced discrimination, poverty, etc. no that "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" is nice in theory, but total BS in reality.

drew777 wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

Because any reasonable people know that independents have precisely 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000135% chance of winning the election in America in 2016. So my job is to get Conservatives to vote for Mr. Johnson and to get Liberals to vote for Mrs. Clinton.

In a normal election cycle, sure. Normally, parties don't put forth the most unlikable candidates they can find. The anti establishment vote is very strong this year. Who would have though Bernie or Trump would have gotten so far? I just hope they don't change the rules to keep him out of the debates.

Even in this election cycle, he is not getting 270 electoral votes.

Ah, libertarianism. Simple in theory, bonkers in practice.

Honestly, I totally love libertarianism. Maximum freedom for all human beings, with no respect to race, creed, age, sex and whatever. How these libertarians understand their ideology as "unfettered capitalism" and "no government", though, is totally beyond me.


David

Interesting fact about Johnsons running mate Bill Weld. As you may be aware he was the former Governor of MA and was reelected with 70 percent of the vote, unheard of for a republican in Massachusetts. While he served as governor, he appointed a judge to the State Supreme court named Margaret Marshall. While on the bench, she wrote the first ever ruling legalizing same sex marriage anywhere in the US. Just thought I would point that out.

drew777 wrote:

I've always thought of A.net as a community of 'mostly' reasonable people. I don't understand why Gary Johnson is not being discussed here. Why constantly defend corrupt Hillary or wanna-be dictator Trump? He's closing in on the 15% polling requirement to be featured in the debates. I believe that if he makes it to the main stage he has a chance. For those that don't know his positions, he's fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

I agree with Johnson on 95% of his platform. I just have 2 problems with him:

1) His immigration policy. Basically he wants to throw open the borders completely. Great way to keep the poor in the country poor.

2) He is a habitual pot smoker. I watched an interview with him a few weeks ago where he was obviously stoned. He says that he will promise that if elected he will never smoke pot while in office. Yeah right buddy, the damage seems to have been done already.

Voting for Johnson is a waste of a vote.

Look at Perot and the damage he caused this country when his third party run got the moron Bill Clinton in office. One of the most embarrassing administrations this country has ever had. And now if you vote for Johnson we repeat the mistake of putting a Clinton in office.

This one arguably more corrupt and dirty than the guy she is married. too.

stratosphere wrote:

It's no wonder I didn't vote for 25 years can't say I am proud of this country when it comes to how our crooked political system is structured.

Since you didn't bother voting for 25 years, and aren't proud of this country, I'd suggest you'd sit this election out and let the politically informed adults take care of this. Then you can rail against the wind again Capt. Ahab.

Dreadnought wrote:

He is a habitual pot smoker. I watched an interview with him a few weeks ago where he was obviously stoned. He says that he will promise that if elected he will never smoke pot while in office. Yeah right buddy, the damage seems to have been done already.

Hate to say it, but for once, you're right:

Bumbling oaf who couldn't think on his feet, to save his life. Anyone who believes that Gary Johnson is REMOTELY qualified to run for President, needs to watch his interaction with Ari Melber from a few weeks ago:

https://youtu.be/OauVgFSUp5c?t=4m03s
Fastforward and watch from 4:03 - 4:38 in the clip below.

It's embarrassing. Like Rick Perry "Oops" moment, level of embarrassing.
What an imbecile!

MaverickM11 wrote:

PacificBeach88 wrote:

My issue with "Libertarians" is that they are never, truly, honestly, "libertarians". They are about 80% "libertarians" and 20% authoritarians. I've had so many interactions with them it's too long to list. I had one die hard Ron Paul supporter that lost his mind when I told him his Seattle ferry ride would triple, with no federal reimbursement. I laughed at another one who defended his Medicaid and SS Disability payments as "excluded from his libertarian ideal". Another, was aghast that abortion and gay marriage should then be completely unleashed. Not to mention that about 80% of "libertarians" are pot heads and want pot legalized. Other than that, they don't give a crap about the Libertarian party ideals.

I think most "libertarians" are economic libertarians just because it sounds nice and they don't have to identify with those icky republicans and democrats. When you remind them libertarians want to junk things like the Civil Rights Act (which Gary Johnson supports, to the chagrin of his party) or ADA, or any number of other ugly realities of the philosophy, and it quickly devolves into either "lol jk byeeee" or ye olde' "no true Scotsman" argument where no one is really a true libertarian ever...because it only works in theory, never in reality.

There is no ugly reality and no, libertarians don't want to junk things like the Civil Rights Act. It's only one part of the entire Act that isn't libertarian. And it's a very minor issue.

Gary probably believes in eliminating that part of the Act too, but isn't going to admit simply because it isn't good electoral politics to defend the right's of despicable people. People like yourself would ensure to paint him as someone who is racist and a closet KKK member, along with other libelous accusation I'm sure.

We all know the general level of discourse of electoral politics. If Gary wants to call himself a small L libertarian for practical electoral reasons, and maybe he actually is, it's his business.

PPVRA wrote:

It's only one part of the entire Act that isn't libertarian. And it's a very minor issue.

It's a minor issue only to the vast majority of Libertarians (i.e. straight, white, privileged men) who've never been discriminated against in their lives. To the rest of us, it's a bit more than a minor issue. There's a reason not even the craziest Republican has actively supported revoking that aspect of the Act. It's repugnant. Forget the cake bakers, let's not pretend some yahoo cracker down in Alabama isn't going to stop serving Black people because he no longer has to under the law. The dark forces that have come forward to support Trump have reinforced the Act's importance. At the end of the day, if you don't want to serve Gays or Blacks or whomever, you should do something else with your life.

PPVRA wrote:

People like yourself would ensure to paint him as someone who is racist and a closet KKK member, along with other libelous accusation I'm sure.

First, people need to stop throwing around words like libel and slander. The bar is quite high, and actually proving those things is quite difficult, more so if the accused is a public figure. Calling someone a KKK member or a racist is not slander, nor is it libel. That said, I don't think supporting removing that portion of the Act necessarily makes one a racist or a closet KKK member. However, supporting the rights of bigots to discriminate against people on the basis of race, sexuality, gender, etc. doesn't make you noble. As I said, there's a reason even most of the looniest GOP members haven't supported revoking that portion of the Act.

OA412 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

It's only one part of the entire Act that isn't libertarian. And it's a very minor issue.

It's a minor issue only to the vast majority of Libertarians (i.e. straight, white, privileged men) who've never been discriminated against in their lives. To the rest of us, it's a bit more than a minor issue. There's a reason not even the craziest Republican has actively supported revoking that aspect of the Act. It's repugnant. Forget the cake bakers, let's not pretend some yahoo cracker down in Alabama isn't going to stop serving Black people because he no longer has to under the law. The dark forces that have come forward to support Trump have reinforced the Act's importance. At the end of the day, if you don't want to serve Gays or Blacks or whomever, you should do something else with your life.

"Very minor issue" So then it should be no problem making the case to anyone non straight/white/male and diversify the party a bit, which today makes the GOP look like a Jay Z concert.

OA412 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

It's only one part of the entire Act that isn't libertarian. And it's a very minor issue.

It's a minor issue only to the vast majority of Libertarians (i.e. straight, white, privileged men) who've never been discriminated against in their lives. To the rest of us, it's a bit more than a minor issue. There's a reason not even the craziest Republican has actively supported revoking that aspect of the Act. It's repugnant. Forget the cake bakers, let's not pretend some yahoo cracker down in Alabama isn't going to stop serving Black people because he no longer has to under the law. The dark forces that have come forward to support Trump have reinforced the Act's importance. At the end of the day, if you don't want to serve Gays or Blacks or whomever, you should do something else with your life.

PPVRA wrote:

People like yourself would ensure to paint him as someone who is racist and a closet KKK member, along with other libelous accusation I'm sure.

First, people need to stop throwing around words like libel and slander. The bar is quite high, and actually proving those things is quite difficult, more so if the accused is a public figure. Calling someone a KKK member or a racist is not slander, nor is it libel. That said, I don't think supporting removing that portion of the Act necessarily makes one a racist or a closet KKK member. However, supporting the rights of bigots to discriminate against people on the basis of race, sexuality, gender, etc. doesn't make you noble. As I said, there's a reason even most of the looniest GOP members haven't supported revoking that portion of the Act.

Get off your high horse. There are black libertarians, latinos, and others. And no, there would be extremely few restaurants who would actually stop serving blacks in Alabama. And it's better these despicable people make themselves known. There is nothing repugnant about allowing this to happen.

The mischaracterization of libertarian positions with the goal of character assassination is libel and slander. Lucky you, a lot of libertarians don't really believe in anti-libel laws. Still doesn't make it right.

FYI, not supporting the rights of others because you don't like their opinions isn't going to make you noble.

MaverickM11 wrote:

OA412 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

It's only one part of the entire Act that isn't libertarian. And it's a very minor issue.

It's a minor issue only to the vast majority of Libertarians (i.e. straight, white, privileged men) who've never been discriminated against in their lives. To the rest of us, it's a bit more than a minor issue. There's a reason not even the craziest Republican has actively supported revoking that aspect of the Act. It's repugnant. Forget the cake bakers, let's not pretend some yahoo cracker down in Alabama isn't going to stop serving Black people because he no longer has to under the law. The dark forces that have come forward to support Trump have reinforced the Act's importance. At the end of the day, if you don't want to serve Gays or Blacks or whomever, you should do something else with your life.

"Very minor issue" So then it should be no problem making the case to anyone non straight/white/male and diversify the party a bit, which today makes the GOP look like a Jay Z concert.

Very minor as in it wouldn't be a priority to eliminate the one part of the CRA. It's effects are minimal anyways.

Plenty of gay libertarians FYI. Plenty of women. Not many blacks, but it's slowly growing just like the party itself.

L-188 wrote:

Look at Perot and the damage he caused this country when his third party run got the moron Bill Clinton in office.

WRONG!

Why do right-wingers repeat that lie so often?

Do you believe that if you do it enough, that it'll somehow make it true? Or make more people believe it?
It's gotta be something-- since you and your ilk continue to do it, 24yrs after it's been thoroughly mathematically debunked.

So what is it?

********************************************
But since one good turn apparently deserves another, let's break this down, once again:
Even looking at the exit polls from '92, you can clearly see that voters were split straight down the middle:

38% selected Clinton as their 2nd choice, 38% selected Bush.
24% said "someone else," "no one else," or remained undecided.

**************
But that's just anecdotal-- what really matters is the all-important electoral vote:

As per CNN, Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush MN, NH, CO, and GA.
Perot cost Clinton FL and AZ.

Thus, he cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 35 electoral votes.
Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, with Clinton leading by 202. It wasn't remotely close enough for Perot to have had any effect at all, even if Bush could have that 70 vote swing somehow solely "returned" to him.

....so any way you slice it, Perot did not change the outcome of the 1992 (nor 1996 elections).

Please stop spreading misinformation.

I have nothing constructive to say, so I will just leave this here and, left, right, or Johnson, we can all have a little chuckle:


EDIT: actually, I will add a quote by one of my favorite authors:

"Even if you want no state, or a minimal state, then you have to argue point by point. Especially since the minimalists want to keep the economic and police system that keeps them privileged. That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. No! If you want to make the minimum-state case, you have to argue it from the ground up." -Coyote, Green Mars, Kim Stanley Robinson

I think I might want to reread those books now that I'm older (and can read them in their original language).

A libertarian is what we call a liberal here in Europe.

Difference with Democrats : they want to lower taxes.
Difference with Republicans : they have a plan to lower spending accordingly.

All the rest is semantics.

Now, do you mainly vote according to your tax bill and what you think it should be ?