As Both Parties Are Losing Voters, Gary Johnson Is Winning Them

[Resp3]

Not for me. At this point I am for burning down the system. I'm voting for Johnson because it may just be enough to send this election into the House. Then a whole new hell opens up. Love the idea.

Chaos and Anarchy. The true hallmarks of Libertarians!

Woo Hoo!

 

[Jazzhead]

If God's message resonates, then it should be able to do so without the help of the state.

The government's job is to maintain the conditions for the exercise of religious liberty - nothing more, nothing less.   

[Resp3]

If God's message resonates, then it should be able to do so without the help of the state.

The government's job is to maintain the conditions for the exercise of religious liberty - nothing more, nothing less.   

Sure, but when libertarians allowed (and even encouraged) the removal of God and morality from our laws - then they are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the lack of religious liberties we have today.

Or were these libs too stupid to think that there would be any consequences to removing the State from marriages?

[NavyCanDo]

As Ted Cruz suggested  I'm listening to my conscience and its NOT whispering to me to vote Johnson. Way too socially liberal for my taste. I'm not a Libertarian, but I have read that many of them also look at him as being a poor represenative of their party.

[Jazzhead]

As Ted Cruz suggested  I'm listening to my conscience and its NOT whispering to me to vote Johnson. Way too socially liberal for my taste. I'm not a Libertarian, but I have read that many of them also look at him as being a poor represenative of their party.

I've never prioritized social issues when voting for President.   Presidents impact economic policy and foreign policy, and are obliged to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.  Presidents don't impact the culture, or shouldn't. 

[Jazzhead]

Sure, but when libertarians allowed (and even encouraged) the removal of God and morality from our laws - then they are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the lack of religious liberties we have today.

Or were these libs too stupid to think that there would be any consequences to removing the State from marriages?

Gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on my marriage or yours.   If God disapproves, then that's His business.  The issue I care about is the equal protection of the law.  If the state affords valuable rights, benefits and obligations to couples who marry, then civil marriage must be available on the same basis to both me and my neighbors.  If you disagree, then the solution is as Gary Johnson suggests - get the government out of the marriage business.     

[Resp3]

Gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on my marriage or yours.   If God disapproves, then that's His business.  The issue I care about is the equal protection of the law.  If the state affords valuable rights, benefits and obligations to couples who marry, then civil marriage must be available on the same basis to both me and my neighbors.  If you disagree, then the solution is as Gary Johnson suggests - get the government out of the marriage business.   

Upthread you said... "Presidents don't impact the culture, or shouldn't."

Naïve, much? Look at what Obama has done to our culture and our Country. And if you cared about "the equal protection of the law" then you would care that marriage has been devalued and the unlawful and unconstitutional results ( Obergefell v. Hodges )

Leaving religion out of the equation for a moment - consider that traditional marriages benefit the state. And when the state gets out of the marriage business - the Welfare State and all the sickening liberal aftershocks (gay civil marriages) takes over. Which financially and socially HARMS us, our culture and our Nation.

I get that Libs are often Godless. I do. But using their tactics to thwart the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers only serves to support the liberal agenda.

[SirLinksALot]

Gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on my marriage or yours.   If God disapproves, then that's His business. 

Here's the problem -- this is NOT TRUE.

The government is making it THEIR BUSINESS to FORCE people of faith to CELEBRATE what they consider is a PERVERSION of marriage.

Just ask Kim Davis, Christian Photographers, Bakers, Lodge Owners, etc.

In fact, I worry for my nephew, who spent several years in the Navy, left, studied to be a Pastor in Seminary and was recently made Navy Chaplain.

He is a devout Christian who adheres and teaches Scripture.... the obvious next question is this --- what will happen to him if he refuses to officiate in a gay Navy wedding?

[Jazzhead]

Leaving religion out of the equation for a moment - consider that traditional marriages benefit the state.

I agree - and more to the point, they benefit the community, by providing a platform for two people to share their lives and fortunes,  to care for each other in sickness and in health, and to raise children. 

I don't want the government out of the marriage business - I want the institution to continue to be supported by the state just as it is now.   It is a positive good.  And that's why I support marriage equality - I'd rather allow my neighbors to marry and get the same government-provided benefits as I do, then to deny those benefits to all. 

Don't forget that millions of us have married without the involvement of any church - it is a CIVIC institution, and as such is subject to the equal protection of the law.   

[Jazzhead]

Here's the problem -- this is NOT TRUE.

The government is making it THEIR BUSINESS to FORCE people of faith to CELEBRATE what they consider is a PERVERSION of marriage.

Just ask Kim Davis, Christian Photographers, Bakers, Lodge Owners, etc.

In fact, I worry for my nephew, who spent several years in the Navy, left, studied to be a Pastor in Seminary and was recently made Navy Chaplain.

He is a devout Christian who adheres and teaches Scripture.... the obvious next question is this --- what will happen to him if he refuses to officiate in a gay Navy wedding?

This is a complicated issue,  because one person's right to marry may conflict with another's exercise of religious liberty.   I suggest that the vast majority of reasonable people can work things out without making a federal case out of it.   

[SirLinksALot]

   I suggest that the vast majority of reasonable people can work things out without making a federal case out of it.   

Very easy to say... what if the gay "couple" ( note the quotes) files a lawsuit as they have already done?

They could have gone to another baker or photographer but they INSIST on making it an issue.

Christians did not start this war... the gay activists did.

[Mesaclone]

Chaos and Anarchy. The true hallmarks of Libertarians!

Woo Hoo!

 

There's no hell that breaks loose if the election were to go to the House...which has zero chance of happening. But if it were, the process is pretty straightforward...the top 3 vote getters are on the ballot and both parties vote along party lines for their parties nominee. No chaos. No anarchy. Just a party line vote. Not sure why anyone finds that to be some critical chaotic event...it would be unprecedented and newsworthy, but the voting itself would be simple and unsurprising in all cases. Whichever party holds the majority of states, wins the vote.

[musiclady]

That's cool. I'm a strong believer in vote your conscience, vote your values. If that doesn't fit your values, there is absolutely no reason you should vote for it. No guilt tripping here. Your vote is your vote.

What a refreshing idea!

You actually believe in freedom.  What a concept in this day and age!   

[MajorClay]

But the real question is:  Can Gary Johnson win a State?

[musiclady]

Vote down ballot.

Absolutely.

[Suppressed]

Libertarians are largely self-serving pot-head sex addicts who want what they want when they want it and are destined to develop harmful addictions because the bent of mankind is toward corruption.  Without restraints within there must be restraints from government.  They see any restraint as slavery, missing entirely that "their passions forge their fetters."

I'm sorry that you know so few libertarians, and that you are such a slave to your passions that you feel you need the government to keep them in check. 

Just know that's not the experience of many of your compatriots, and there's no need for the State to take on that role.

[Resp3]

Libertarians are largely self-serving pot-head sex addicts who want what they want when they want it and are destined to develop harmful addictions because the bent of mankind is toward corruption.  Without restraints within there must be restraints from government.  They see any restraint as slavery, missing entirely that "their passions forge their fetters."




I'm sorry that you know so few libertarians, and that you are such a slave to your passions that you feel you need the government to keep them in check. 

Just know that's not the experience of many of your compatriots, and there's no need for the State to take on that role.


With great freedom comes great responsibility.  Because libertarians reject personal and social responsibilities on a moral, economic and cultural level, they are useless.

[SirLinksALot]

But the real question is:  Can Gary Johnson win a State?

Here's the sad reality -- YOU STILL NEEDED MONEY TO BUY ADS to win.

We might all wish this were not so but it is.

Where's the Libertarian Convention like the RNC and the DNC COnventions?

You need those on primetime TV so that people will know Gary Johnson, what he stands for and what the party stands for.

If not, Johnson ought to be part of the presidential debate.

Otherwise, the reality is this --- it still all boils down to either Trump or Hillary.

[Bigun]

But the real question is:  Can Gary Johnson win a State?

If enough people will quit playing the uniparty game and vote for him you bet!

[JustPassinThru]

If enough people will quit playing the uniparty game and vote for him you bet!

He has to stand for something, first.

Something reasonable. 

[Jazzhead]

Libertarians are largely self-serving pot-head sex addicts who want what they want when they want it and are destined to develop harmful addictions because the bent of mankind is toward corruption.  Without restraints within there must be restraints from government.  They see any restraint as slavery, missing entirely that "their passions forge their fetters."




I'm sorry that you know so few libertarians, and that you are such a slave to your passions that you feel you need the government to keep them in check. 

Just know that's not the experience of many of your compatriots, and there's no need for the State to take on that role.


With great freedom comes great responsibility.  Because libertarians reject personal and social responsibilities on a moral, economic and cultural level, they are useless.

I'll echo Suppressed - you obviously don't know many of us who support getting the government out of both the bedroom and the boardroom.       

[Jazzhead]

If enough people will quit playing the uniparty game and vote for him you bet!

Preach it, brother!

We've been given a choice been a corrupt socialist and a deranged fascist. 

I'll take door number three -  two successful Republican governors who balanced budgets and cut taxes and gained re-election in states with diverse populations.   And who don't treat the Constitution as something to wipe one's arse with.

[biff]

First of all, there is zero chance of Johnson even winning a state much less the election. The idea should be to support him enough in all polls so that he exceeds the 15% threshold to get into the presidential debates. Once he does that the "Burney Babies" will see the dope smoking nut case as somebody they can vote for denying Hillary 5%, 10% or more of the popular vote per state providing donnie the victory. Face it, the winner will be donnie or piano legs, period. Perot did it to pappy Bush in 92 giving us the first nightmare installment of the Klintons.

A vote for Johnson is a vote for donnie.

[Jazzhead]

A vote for Johnson is a vote for donnie.

So you're recommending I vote for Hillary,  I presume?

[JustPassinThru]

A vote for Johnson is a vote for donnie.

Or a vote for Billary.

In this case, again, it's either-or.  The little support the johnson gets, will come from BOTH sides.

And the typical argument - that the third-party spoiler helps the major-party candidate least like him - doesn't apply, since they're grotesquely similar.