Is Gary Johnson the Answer?
from author Vinay Kolhatkar: "Is the former Republican two-term Governor who is pro-choice, anti-eminent domain, and pro-marijuana legalization, able to articulate the truth? The way he sees it, yes. Imperfectly. He is grasping. Without the foundation of a proper philosophical framework, he errs. A lot."
What is the question? :) If he could be elected he could be the answer to some things. If he can inspire more people to reject the two party stranglehold in future elections, then perhaps he is the answer desperately needed for that purpose.
Regards,
O.A.
also pro-Johnson.
Sometimes people learn but sometimes history repeats itself or at least rhymes.
I have this hope of less-gov't Republicans and Democrats going to the LP b/c of the problems people have with people like Trump and Clinton. If that happened, would we be in the majority?
We'd also need someone to keep us applying less-gov't across the board. The vast majority wants to cut gov't except for things we personally agree with. Some people say their for less gov't, but not military spending. I'm for less gov't but I'm open to spending to help the poor. (The selfish reasons for that are a story for another time.) A successful LP would have to allow just enough spending on military, assistance for the poor, education, etc to avoid being too radical but not so much that they lose libertarian-ness. This would be a tightrope. Even it walked that tightrope well, we'd still have to sell people on giving up their research grant, drug-enforcement job, health insurance subsidy, military base that provides jobs, and so on. It's so easy to rationalize. "I'm for cutting gov't across the board, except for things like my cancer research that could affect millions of people."
I am open to the proposition that there is a slight degree of truth to this assessment in the case of some of the "hardest" drugs when used to the point of addiction. But even then I trust the addict to govern his own life more than I trust the State to make decisions for him.
The drugs that are proscribed are arbitrary, not at all related to level of addictivenss, how much they affect judgment, or how bad they are for health. It's an accident of history that caffeine is not banned but khat is.
Even if we accepted the illegal drugs really do cause you to lose all reasons, the way we carry out the drug war is not a humane way to deal with people who have lost their mind.
And is THE answer to the question, "Of all the candidates for U.S. president in 2016, who is most pro-freedom?"
Voting for him only helps Shillary become the best crooked president money can bribe to the detriment of the American people.
Besides that, Shillary's Supreme Court picks are guaranteed to shred the Constitution perhaps for a generation.
And this country could very well go to a very bad place it may never come back from.
I can see that working the other way around also.
Those who would not vote for Trump under any circumstances are beyond my hope of persuasion.
That group would include capital hill fiefdom protecting RINOs of the worst elite most selfish sort.
The comical behavior - I wonder how many interviews he gives each day to get the few when did something really goofy like sticking out his tongue or getting on the floor.
The question about Aleppo - In normal conversation, we give people cues when they're not making an association. When Johnson asked what's Aleppo, the interviewer could have said, "I mean the city," instead of implying Johnson had no idea what he was talking about.
Denying climate change - He wasn't denying climate change. He says we need a market-based approach, and he's rightly skeptical of any gov't intervention. He's not giving a scientific or philosophical answer. He's talking to a country where some people want to use the problem to promote their own agendas and where others ignorantly deny the problem.
The wedding cake - He said he didn't want to use his position to change laws to allow more discrimination. If he were starting with a blank slate, he'd leave everyone free to bake cakes for whomever they want and to use whatever special ingredients they want.
The left/right thing - I believe he's truly not into it. This is something politicians use to raise money and get elected. He hasn't needed to use it, and it's not on his radar as much as it is for politicians from other geographical areas.
Monetary/fiscal policy - He's the only candidate on the ballot in all states who has made this an issue. Trump and Clinton mostly ignore the problem.
2) Would you, like some Objectivists, not vote for Johnson because he represents the LP, which is better extinguished so that liberty can have a true platform? As in, anything that is "libertarian" is anti-liberty?
3) Is Johnson worth giving more air time to, so he can put certain matters before the electorate (fiat money, eminent domain, bankruptcy of the Republic) that are not getting any air time?
Those are the three questions. Q2 and Q3 are addressed in teh linked essay.
.
I think immigration is OK if limited and restricted to people who want to melt INTO our society, not CHANGE it to something else. There is a "path to citizenship" already, and we should keep that. Expanding it to let in 50,000 muslims who dont want to be AMERICAN, or millions of hispanics who just want to take our goodies into some sort of socialist paradise ISNT a good idea. Britain sure found out early enough, and clamped down on open borders. Germany, under that idiot Merkel, has learned too late to save the German culture I think. Hillary, with her idea of open borders is going to do the same thing here if elected.
Japan wisely does not allow Mosques in Japan which in effect limits Muslim infiltration. Islam is either a religion of war or an army with religion.
Furthermore, a vote for Gary Johnson does not have the same effect on the outcome as a vote for Hillary Clinton. Example: There are 100 votes for Trump and 91 votes for Hillary. If 5 of these voters switch from Trump to Hillary, she wins by 1 vote. If instead, 5 of those voters switch from Trump to Gary Johnson, Trump wins by 4 votes. Big difference.
In your example, Hillary wins by 8 if those five votes go to her, and only by 3 if those five votes go to Gary Johnson. Again, big difference. It's simply not accurate to say that a vote for Johnson is the same as a vote for Hillary. It clearly isn't, and the math proves it.
I was strongly for Clinton from the beginning all during the primaries up until I thought Johnson had a remote shot. Now that's it's getting closer and there's a chance of Trump winning, A vote for Johnson is not the same as a vote for Clinton. I'm starting to chicken out.
I don't understand how you could even contemplate that.
Your reasons aren't even reasons.
You are aware of what a Clinton presidency will be are you not? Nothing you mentioned dealt with the consequences of, a liberal Supreme Court, open borders, higher taxes, more regulations which will keep businesses from operating efficiently, new businesses from opening which will lead to greater unemployment. More corporations leaving the country, creating still more unemployment , and more negative things than I have the patience to write about.
I actually want a liberal (depending on what that means) Supreme Court and open borders. I think people do great things for one another with gov't leaves them alone.
Regarding regulation, I want less regulation provided it doesn't lead to more litigiousness. Clinton knows her way around gov't (for better and worse), so she's better equipped to handle this balance.
And since Hillary needs to be thwarted by a Rep. Congress, it would not help to be voting for other Libertarians.
No as much as I don't like Trump, yes I cast my ballot him.
We have been forced yet again into an election where we must choose the lesser of two evils.
If the question is about Legalization - Yes
Not a real good combination there.
You can't convince me that marijuana doesn't adversely effect brain cells...
Look at the beating Trump has taken for having only a few ideas against the leftist establishment !!! Imagine what Johnson would face IF he actually got some traction. He would be carved up and thrown to the wolves.
The Libertarian Party is concentrating on both education and winning votes, and has been doing so since its founding. Many Libertarians are officeholders at the local level, and the LP has won a few state legislative races over the years. We have one state assemblyman in Nevada now, a converted Republican.
(Just so you aren't confused. I'd rather see Hillary dead than elected by dead people to be president.)
As I've said in other comments, I really wish the "Good Ol' Boys" would allow others to debate, even if it was just in the first scheduled Presidential debate. Let the American people know that there IS indeed an alternative. After that, they can use their 10-15% polling to determine whether the candidate has the political moxy to survive for the long haul. I've often said, that if you believe you have the best platform/ideas, you should not be afraid of debating ANY competitor, Right D's & R's?