Here is your pro gun candidate

[Andy54Hawken]

I going to run on a new party I'm starting.
The American laxative Party .... 'Cause unlike the other two main parties , I really give a poop! LOL
Andy

 

[Jamie6.5]

Both parties have candidates that a lot of their own party line voters pretty much hate. The biggest thing driving the voting this election cycle is fear mongering and hate (IE; that jerk JUST CAN'T WIN because the world will come to an end so I have to vote for the other party.) IMHO, third parties have the best chance this year that they have had since Perot because of the rifts within the parties. If either party had a really strong candidate, it would be a totally different ball game.

Hell, if Bernie would break off and run as an independent, I think he would beat both of them.

Personally, I really wish there was a Jesse Ventura/Ron Paul ticket, but I don't think Jesse is electable, he comes off as a bit of a nut job.

Just my opinion...

And Bernie, the guy that wants free college for all, more open border policy and has advocated for nationalization of the energy sector ISN'T a bit of a "nut job?"
Holy cats, how far around the bend does one need to be before they're considered a nut job?

 

[The Heretic]

Sanders is an out of the closet socialist. As with all socialists, a lot of wishful thinking goes into his policy statements, and he appeals to the kumbaya klub who thinks all the worlds problems would be solved by socialism if we just try harder. In short, if Congress followed his lead, the economy would be ruined. Fortunately, even if he got elected, it is Congress who makes the laws, not the President.

He isn't a "nut job", he has just bought into the wrong philosophy.

 

[Brutus57]

"not Hillary" works for me

Yes, I agree, KISS Keep It Simple Surely Anyone but the Billary!

Brutus Out

 

[Brutus57]

I going to run on a new party I'm starting.
The American laxative Party .... 'Cause unlike the other two main parties , I really give a poop! LOL
Andy

You have my vote Andy!

Brutus Out

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Thanks Brutus ...
Andy

 

[Slobray]

I have this strange philosophy about voting; I vote for the person I want to win, not for the person I think is going to win.

The only time I've ever not voted for the lesser of evils and voted for someone that I fully backed is when I write my own name on the ballot.


Ray

 

[RicInOR]

Why I am voting for Gary Johnson.

I live in Oregon. Oregon is going for Hillary. You know this.

Therefore a vote for Trump, Or Ronny is a wasted vote.

A vote for a 3rd party guy, who has a chance of getting a measurable number of votes - I don't know the exact percent needed - means that for the next election cycle, there can be a primary and a 3rd party candidate will be on the ballot.


Will Washington go for Hillary? I'd bet yes.

How about Idaho? MT? AK? UT?




Why I think Gary would make a good president:
1. Experience - he was a Governor.
2. He balanced the States Budget - something I think we need to do.
3. He is not of the party which dominates his state. NM is Democrat. (went Demo: 92, 96, 2000, 08 and 12 - not 04)
4. He got re-elected. "Republican Governor of New Mexico from 1994-2003."
5. He believes in limited government. He veto'd new legislation while Governor. Often. "more than 750 bills during his time in office — more than all other governors combined"
6. He paid his way thru college. Just Sayin'


<broken link removed>
Gov. Gary Johnson (@GovGaryJohnson) | Twitter (https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor)

 

[RicInOR]

Libertarian Questions Every Voter Should Be Asking (http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/16/libertarian-questions-every-voter-should-be-asking/)

 

[dude23]

I have this strange philosophy about voting; I vote for the person I want to win, not for the person I think is going to win.

Herein lies the scam of our current "two party" system. For most of the last 100+ years it's been a choice of either side of the same status quo coin. It was close one election in the middle of last century & then after Perot got a sizable chunk of votes they (D's/R's & the media) made a pact to screw any third party candidate out of a chance by not allowing a third party into the debates (must have 15% support in a recognized national poll, which are all owned by the power structure).

This year it looks like Gary Johnson may actually have a chance to get in the debates (best real chance to win for a third party for 20 years), but he's not a great debater. If he's in the debates he could win if he just said something simple like "I'm more reasonable than these two sellout lunatics", but the hit piece ads will be brutal with stuff like "DONT ELECT A REFER ADDICT WHO WANTS TO LET ISIS DESTORY AMERICA" or "Gary Johnson is soft on crime, he wants to let drug dealers but AK47's!"

As for being a libertarian, I'd say he's more like libertarian light. Half the spending of democrats with the full flavor of republicans (feigned support) of gun rights.

 

[boogerhook]

Herein lies the scam of our current "two party" system. For most of the last 100+ years it's been a choice of either side of the same status quo coin. It was close one election in the middle of last century & then after Perot got a sizable chunk of votes they (D's/R's & the media) made a pact to screw any third party candidate out of a chance by not allowing a third party into the debates (must have 15% support in a recognized national poll, which are all owned by the power structure).

This year it looks like Gary Johnson may actually have a chance to get in the debates (best real chance to win for a third party for 20 years), but he's not a great debater. If he's in the debates he could win if he just said something simple like "I'm more reasonable than these two sellout lunatics", but the hit piece ads will be brutal with stuff like "DONT ELECT A REFER ADDICT WHO WANTS TO LET ISIS DESTORY AMERICA" or "Gary Johnson is soft on crime, he wants to let drug dealers but AK47's!"

As for being a libertarian, I'd say he's more like libertarian light. Half the spending of democrats with the full flavor of republicans (feigned support) of gun rights.

I think you have identified Gary's weaknesses, however, I am happy to elect a candidate with those weaknesses many times over than candidates that manipulate the electorate and play power games in an Oligarchy.

 

[Osarion]

Why I am voting for Gary Johnson.

I live in Oregon. Oregon is going for Hillary. You know this.

Therefore a vote for Trump, Or Ronny is a wasted vote.

A vote for a 3rd party guy, who has a chance of getting a measurable number of votes - I don't know the exact percent needed - means that for the next election cycle, there can be a primary and a 3rd party candidate will be on the ballot.


Will Washington go for Hillary? I'd bet yes.

How about Idaho? MT? AK? UT?




Why I think Gary would make a good president:
1. Experience - he was a Governor.
2. He balanced the States Budget - something I think we need to do.
3. He is not of the party which dominates his state. NM is Democrat. (went Demo: 92, 96, 2000, 08 and 12 - not 04)
4. He got re-elected. "Republican Governor of New Mexico from 1994-2003."
5. He believes in limited government. He veto'd new legislation while Governor. Often. "more than 750 bills during his time in office — more than all other governors combined"
6. He paid his way thru college. Just Sayin'


<broken link removed>
Gov. Gary Johnson (@GovGaryJohnson) | Twitter (https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor)

Johnson might be good for gun rights (it's more that he doesn't believe Gov't should have any role whatsoever in that field so who knows how he actually feels about guns), but the libertarian's position on the complete hands-off way of handling wall street and banks is a deal breaker. A double deal breaker. We've learned what happens when we de-regulate banks and wall street. Anyone remember Ye Olde Timee 2008? Imagine that but a lot worse. But hey, at least we'd have nationalized free pot?

 

[The Heretic]

Johnson might be good for gun rights (it's more that he doesn't believe Gov't should have any role whatsoever in that field so who knows how he actually feels about guns), but the libertarian's position on the complete hands-off way of handling wall street and banks is a deal breaker. A double deal breaker. We've learned what happens when we de-regulate banks and wall street. Anyone remember Ye Olde Timee 2008? Imagine that but a lot worse. But hey, at least we'd have nationalized free pot?

THis is why I am a Heretic; I disagree with everybody, even the Libertarian position on capitalism, open market, etc.; I don't believe in "rational actors".

That said, it was the populace who at least partially brought about the housing bubble, it was wall street and banks who exploited it (what do you expect them to do?); we (the populace) wanted less regulation on mortgage loans. We (the populace) lied on the loan applications, we bought more than we could afford, we took out double loans (a main mortgage and another loan to pay the down payment), and so on. Some of those things are still going on and we may be in for yet another housing bubble - the root cause, market speculation by buyers, is again happening and the market is heating up.

That said, I would point out, that the White House doesn't make laws, it is the executive branch, not the legislative branch. It cannot de-regulate the market, only Congress can do that.

 

[Dungannon]

I'm voting for Johnson simply because 'None of the Above' isn't on the ballot. It's as close to a protest vote as anything I can do.

 

[dude23]

I think you have identified Gary's weaknesses, however, I am happy to elect a candidate with those weaknesses many times over than candidates that manipulate the electorate and play power games in an Oligarchy.

Yeah, I'm fine with them also (considering the alternatives & that no one ever agrees 100%)... As long as he's not the guy who is this years guest at the Bilderberg meeting.

 

[dude23]

Johnson might be good for gun rights (it's more that he doesn't believe Gov't should have any role whatsoever in that field so who knows how he actually feels about guns), but the libertarian's position on the complete hands-off way of handling wall street and banks is a deal breaker. A double deal breaker. We've learned what happens when we de-regulate banks and wall street. Anyone remember Ye Olde Timee 2008? Imagine that but a lot worse. But hey, at least we'd have nationalized free pot?

I use to feel the same way about that and a lot of other things that many on the left support regarding the economy & social programs. After serious contemplation most of those issues come down to the fact they are voluntary, no one has to put their money in a corporate bank or buy stocks.

The only real issue I see as a legitimate government regulation is protection of vital natural resources in the public domain. Specifically water & other pollution issues, although many libertarians would say a business could do the same or better (and I would have to agree when compared to the current corruption of bureaus claiming to keep people safe & healthy - FDA, EPA, etc.).

After that (along with no crimes between consenting adults, basically you own your body) a couple other things would If social security was voluntary & treated as a individual's pool of assets rather than a generational Ponzi scheme that would solve the one non-voluntary aspect of retirement (and keep IRA's an issue between employer's & workers). And to close the Fed, end the central planning of the economy & debt money system we'd be in pretty good shape.

The problem with leaving issues like Wall St alone is most people are too stupid (or too brainwashed by the media & gov, which ever you prefer) to see its a scam & they shouldn't be involved. This isn't the only issue that people's lack of knowledge about a topic gets them into trouble, after which they cry to government to save them from their own devices. 20 years ago (at the latest) you could make a case for some kind of scam being perpetrated upon the people, but after 2008 and everything that came out regarding securities & housing markets you're a willing participant in a casino... And everyone knows the house always wins.

 

[dude23]

THis is why I am a Heretic; I disagree with everybody, even the Libertarian position on capitalism, open market, etc.; I don't believe in "rational actors".

That said, it was the populace who at least partially brought about the housing bubble, it was wall street and banks who exploited it (what do you expect them to do?); we (the populace) wanted less regulation on mortgage loans. We (the populace) lied on the loan applications, we bought more than we could afford, we took out double loans (a main mortgage and another loan to pay the down payment), and so on. Some of those things are still going on and we may be in for yet another housing bubble - the root cause, market speculation by buyers, is again happening and the market is heating up.

That said, I would point out, that the White House doesn't make laws, it is the executive branch, not the legislative branch. It cannot de-regulate the market, only Congress can do that.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) this is what a liberated nation looks like. The founders (with all their warts) warned the public that our republic was the best form of governance that also came with the most responsibility. Most that bow at the alter of the founders & constitution usually refer to a duty to arm one's self against tyranny & random violence, but the real threat is a person's own complacency in taking the easy way out, begging the government to save us from ourselves.

History has proven when most if not all people born or immigrated to a free nation are lax in their duties to learn (history, economics, politics, self defense) & take responsibility for their actions. In such a short time America went from a relatively free nation (although a horrible place for native Americans or those outside of Europe, though hardly unique to America or even Europe, just in reverse) to a nation that would hide under the bed & plead for safety from various boogeymen (both real & imaginary). It seems on a large scale a truly free nation just may not be possible.

 

[PaulB47]

Here's an interesting story. It actually starts to look plausible...

How Gary Johnson Could Win the Presidency (https://slavens.liberty.me/how-gary-johnson-could-win/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Liberty.me&utm_campaign=6-20-16)

Not that I'm changing my position on voting. I'm no longer a believer in the Church of Government.