Gary Johnson

[Ryno]

I think that I’m barking up the wrong tree posting this stuff here. I’ll let this thread slowly sink in the abyss of ideas that aren’t considered valuable to the IAC.

I like reading your stuff. fwiw.

I will second that.

I agree with most libertarian viewpoints actually. However, I'm not sure Gary Johnson is the guy. Also, I find it very difficult to participate in political discussions on the internet.

[Bleyseng]

I think that I’m barking up the wrong tree posting this stuff here. I’ll let this thread slowly sink in the abyss of ideas that aren’t considered valuable to the IAC.

I like reading your stuff. fwiw.

I will second that.

I agree with most libertarian viewpoints actually. However, I'm not sure Gary Johnson is the guy. Also, I find it very difficult to participate in political discussions on the internet.

Why? just state your views and then we will yell at you.....

[Amskeptic]

I think that I’m barking up the wrong tree posting this stuff here. I’ll let this thread slowly sink in the abyss of ideas that aren’t considered valuable to the IAC.

There is no such thing as "ideas that aren't considered valuable to the IAC". I mean, really. Who is "the IAC"? Who is the arbitrar of what is "valuable" to the IAC? Haven't we all had enough of the emotionally triggered divas falling off the ramparts in a dead faint?

If you want to have a discussion about freedom vs government, about how we balance the ideals of liberty versus the compromises of cooperating in a crowded complex world, let's do it.
But for God's sakes, man, let us be free to our opinions!! If I or anyone else wants to rake Gary Johnson over the coals, let us be free to do so without having to be worried about offending you. That is almost manipulative.

To skewer Dick Cheney, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, like I do and will do, it is not a reflection on you or your ideals.

If you want to see your time wasted here, if you want to experience the abyss, post something and watch the read count stay at 0. That is your clue that nobody gives a rat's ass what you have to say . . . BUT if the read count is above 0 you can't submerge yourself in the swamp of sunken ideas, and if, omg, someone actually does waste their valuable time to RESPOND to you, then celebrate! step up and enjoy yourself regardless of whether they agree with you or your champions.
Colin

[Bleyseng]

Again Colin, right on point. Topics that have no posts are that way because they they aren't interesting! Post away like a madman and tell us your opinions.

[Ryno]

I think that I’m barking up the wrong tree posting this stuff here. I’ll let this thread slowly sink in the abyss of ideas that aren’t considered valuable to the IAC.

I like reading your stuff. fwiw.

I will second that.

I agree with most libertarian viewpoints actually. However, I'm not sure Gary Johnson is the guy. Also, I find it very difficult to participate in political discussions on the internet.

Why? just state your views and then we will yell at you.....

I think it comes from the part of me that knows I will change my mind. I'm never really THAT sure about anything, those who are kind of freak me out.

[Amskeptic]

I think it comes from the part of me that knows I will change my mind. I'm never really THAT sure about anything, those who are kind of freak me out.

I am dead certain of one thing . . . I know less than half of what I knew when I was 21.
Colin

[glasseye]

I am dead certain of one thing . . . I know less than half of what I knew when I was 21.
Colin

On the other hand, "The older I get, the better I was"

[Bleyseng]

Ok, because of this thread I am checking out and reading at:http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

Some of it sounds good, some a pipe dream (private health insur again being cheaper and better) but gun rights is something that must be controlled.

[Velokid1]

I would consider supporting Gary Johnson and other "third party" candidates if they had a chance of winning. Until they do, I won't. Because I am not as keen as I was in my 20s to throw away my vote to vote "on principle" alone.

Call me lazy or hypocritical or anything you want for taking that tack, but the fact is that THAT is probably the single biggest challenge that sits in front of Libertarians and other supporters of third party candidates... there are hundreds of thousands of people like me who will not cast a vote for someone who is entirely out of the running. Their supporters can moan all they want about the fact that I should "vote my heart" and "buck the two party system" but the fact is that they desperately NEED to figure out a way to get their politicians into the fight that doesn't require me to waste my vote.

[BellePlaine]

But we’re the regulators. If anyone in our political system ought to be principled, shouldn’t it be the regulators? I guess I don’t try to view my vote as a vote against the other candidates, although I suppose it is a form of communication. My vote is a reflection of the majority of my principles, it’s only coincidental (to me) if my choice wins.

On NPR news this morning was a story about England’s news press and that there isn’t any government regulation currently in place. Papers like News of the World were bugging phones and doing all kinds of bad stuff. Actor Hugh Grant is saying that the press have the ability to damage lives and the debate is whether Parliament should regulate the press to stop this behavior. The opposition is saying that the press is the regulators of the government and should be kept free to watch themselves. I haven’t formed an opinion about this particular issue, but I do think that there is truth to the press/media acting as government regulators. During this last election cycle, I’m not happy with the performance of our media to regulate. There was a clear bias against viable candidates, some of which like The Green Party and The Libertarian Party, had mathematical probabilities to win The White House. On the rare occasions that a third party was included in the polls, the Libertarian candidate did well considering that the media paid no attention.

So, Velo and Bleyseng, if you won’t “waste your vote” on your principled choice then at least consider that your choice between the two candidates most likely to win is allowing our government to run under weaker regulation.

[Bleyseng]

I don't consider it wasting my vote but the Dems do represent a lot of what I think is good for the country plus some bad stuff I wince at. No way did I ever consider voting GOP.

[Velokid1]

So, Velo and Bleyseng, if you won’t “waste your vote” on your principled choice then at least consider that your choice between the two candidates most likely to win is allowing our government to run under weaker regulation.

I have and do consider that. I freely admitted it in my last post. What I don't do is apologize for it. And my contention is that if third party supporters truly want to get at the solution to making their candidates viable, the must figure out a way to change how people like me feel about wasting their vote. To just complain that I should vote differently isn't going to change how I feel about it. It would be like me complaining that more people should commute by bicycle. The fact is, they should. But the more important fact is that they WON'T until the option is made attractive and reasonable to them personally.

For the record... I enjoy your posts too. :)

[Amskeptic]

So, Velo and Bleyseng, if you won’t “waste your vote” on your principled choice then at least consider that your choice between the two candidates most likely to win is allowing our government to run under weaker regulation.

I have and do consider that. I freely admitted it in my last post. What I don't do is apologize for it. And my contention is that if third party supporters truly want to get at the solution to making their candidates viable, the must figure out a way to change how people like me feel about wasting their vote. To just complain that I should vote differently isn't going to change how I feel about it. It would be like me complaining that more people should commute by bicycle. The fact is, they should. But the more important fact is that they WON'T until the option is made attractive and reasonable to them personally.

For the record... I enjoy your posts too. :)

This is the ages-old conundrum, when/how do principles/ideals meet practical reality? It is a fair and difficult question with no easy answers.
Colin

[Velokid1]

I just re-read my post and want to say that I didn't mean for the word "complain" to be inflammatory. I hear some reasonable pleas to go along with the "you're all sheeple" complaining from the liberty crowd.

I'm not willing to see a total nightmare like Romney in the White House. Obama is a good guy trying to work within the confines of a rigged system, but at least we have a good guy in a bad system instead of a bad guy in a bad system.

I also have yet to see a third party candidate that I agree with, but that's another discussion. I do not believe in "small government". I believe in a government that is the size required. "Big" and "small" are relative.

[Amskeptic]

I do not believe in "small government". I believe in a government that is the size required. "Big" and "small" are relative.

Currently 22% or something, quite within the norm of the past oh say 60 years.
ColinTheSkyIsNotFalling