Why I voted for Gary Johnson

[hogjack]

Two parties maintain a stable balance and dilute the influence of extremists.

Two Parties ENTRENCHED in Washington D.C. have buried the country in debt, conducted the longest wars in US history, grown the Federal government at an unprecedented rate, and developed a cadre of career-politicians sold to the highest bidders.

Stable? Yes. The Republicans and Democrats have been dominating Washington, DC for so long they've utilized the services of several generations of prostitutes from the same families.

Fuck the two Parties (one Party, two divisions).

 

[bobinks2]

Might be available online somewhere. He was the best of the group and really the only one who seemed like he would fit in a debate with Romney and Obama.

FWIW, they superimposed Gary Johnson into one of the debates. The sound quality is not very good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VADp3-J4KCM&feature=youtu.be

 

[Busybody]

He would like to cut Federal spending by 43% in the first year as president which would, in effect, balance the budget. He has articulated a plan to do it.

Also, he doesn't give a shit what goes on in your sexual life.

Of course, he is not going to get elected.

Of course, Congress would never let him cut spending by 43% even if he were elected.

But you know, I give him credit for throwing it ALL out there. I think everyone should fend for themselves, period.

If my absentee vote in NH hurts either Romney or Obama so be it.

you know why you shouldnt have voted for him?

anyone that says this

He would like to cut Federal spending by 43% in the first year as president which would, in effect, balance the budget. He has articulated a plan to do it.


cannot be a serious person

I would like to fuck C Brinkley K Moss S Stone.....etc

BUT THAT ISNT REALISTIC either and if I say it, I would be seen as a bigger nutjob then I already am

 

[Peregrinator]

The idea that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is "wasted" or "thrown away" is utter horseshit. It's exactly that line of thinking that gives us choices like Obama/Romney, Obama/McCain, Bush/Kerry, etc. A vote for either of the two major party candidates is a vote for the status quo. It's raw tribalism and nothing else.

Vote your ideals. That was the idea, when the Republic was founded.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Look, if ya wanna vote third-party, make it Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. Makes a lot more sense than going Libertarian.

 

[Peregrinator]

Look, if ya wanna vote third-party, make it Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. Makes a lot more sense than going Libertarian.

That would be 4th party...

 

[KingOrfeo]

That would be 4th party...

They're all third parties, save the Republicrats.

 

[Peregrinator]

They're all third parties, save the Republicrats.

Sheesh, Orf, that was a joke.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Sheesh, Orf, that was a joke.

You need to link the wiki article "Joke" for him.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

The idea that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is "wasted" or "thrown away" is utter horseshit. It's exactly that line of thinking that gives us choices like Obama/Romney, Obama/McCain, Bush/Kerry, etc. A vote for either of the two major party candidates is a vote for the status quo. It's raw tribalism and nothing else.

Vote your ideals. That was the idea, when the Republic was founded.

The Founders' (or the Framers or the Fathers or the Farmers or the Fuckers or whatever soundbites best) vision of the Republic is only cock-blown when it's convenient.

 

[Peregrinator]

You need to link the wiki article "Joke" for him.

I literally lol-ed.

The Founders' (or the Framers or the Fathers or the Farmers or the Fuckers or whatever soundbites best) vision of the Republic is only cock-blown when it's convenient.

Maybe so. I tend to think that when they invented the country, they had some good ideas. A LOT of good ideas. And they fucked up a few things--like, uh, slavery and women's suffrage, for example--but most of those things have been fixed over the years. Still, the point is that it's the document that gives the foundational philosophy to the Republic. Can't really ignore it, can we?

 

[Wok]

Look, if ya wanna vote third-party, make it Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. Makes a lot more sense than going Libertarian.

The guy is not on my sample ballot. The guy does give a lot of good reasons not to vote Obama.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The idea that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is "wasted" or "thrown away" is utter horseshit. It's exactly that line of thinking that gives us choices like Obama/Romney, Obama/McCain, Bush/Kerry, etc. A vote for either of the two major party candidates is a vote for the status quo. It's raw tribalism and nothing else.

Vote your ideals. That was the idea, when the Republic was founded.

A third party vote is a complete waste of time and energy, and that's not what keeps up with limited choices. What keeps up with limited choices is the way our system works. Winner takes all simply doesn't make a third party vote viable. Outlawing the Fusion Ticket fucks over third party. It's actually a rather brilliant plot by the Republicans, one of those times you have to salute them.

Maybe so. I tend to think that when they invented the country, they had some good ideas. A LOT of good ideas. And they fucked up a few things--like, uh, slavery and women's suffrage, for example--but most of those things have been fixed over the years. Still, the point is that it's the document that gives the foundational philosophy to the Republic. Can't really ignore it, can we?

They invented a country, and they had great ideas. I wouldn't ask the Wright Brothers for help with a plane, Ford with an assembly line nor Darwin with evolution at this point. It's not so much that they fucked up it's that their world was so different from our own that referencing them is usually silly.

Yes, we can ignore and most of us do so every single day and would be comfortable with a bit more ignoring of it.

 

[Peregrinator]

A third party vote is a complete waste of time and energy, and that's not what keeps up with limited choices. What keeps up with limited choices is the way our system works. Winner takes all simply doesn't make a third party vote viable. Outlawing the Fusion Ticket fucks over third party. It's actually a rather brilliant plot by the Republicans, one of those times you have to salute them.



They invented a country, and they had great ideas. I wouldn't ask the Wright Brothers for help with a plane, Ford with an assembly line nor Darwin with evolution at this point. It's not so much that they fucked up it's that their world was so different from our own that referencing them is usually silly.

Yes, we can ignore and most of us do so every single day and would be comfortable with a bit more ignoring of it.

A vote for the status quo may not be a waste of time, but it's sure as hell a vote for mediocrity and continuation of the decline. Sure, one of the two ascendant tribes will win. So what?

I'd ask any of those people the questions you cited, and I think one would be a fool not to, given the chance. Ford might not understand robotics, but he sure as hell understood reducing costs. The Wright Brothers might not understand jet propulsion, but they sure as hell understood reducing drag and maximizing lift. And, really? You wouldn't ask Darwin about evolution? His observations are still the best example of natural selection research in history. He might not be a geneticist, but, fuck, dude, he's one of if not the most astute natural scientists who ever lived.

More to the point, the founders of the country based their political theory on existing philosophy. Not much new has come down the pike since. Locke, Plato, and the Iroquois Confederacy haven't yet been refuted. They still have the same validity.

 

[Sean Renaud]

A vote for the status quo may not be a waste of time, but it's sure as hell a vote for mediocrity and continuation of the decline. Sure, one of the two ascendant tribes will win. So what?

Because the motion is purely symbolic. There are things that can be done to fix our political system. I doubt any of them will be done any time soon but I think not only is there a better chance of bringing back some of the older voting practices than of a third party doing anything other than fucking over the guy they would rather have won but I feel like the people who every four years trot out the third party guy, (who half the time isn't a third party guy. I'll admit I'm not an expert on Gary Johnson but everything I've read on him including his website paints him as a Republican who refuses to associate with Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum. I'd rather you clean your house than try to build a new one, knowing full well the savages aren't going to let you be relevant and worse the voices of sanity threw up their hands and walked away) still it's symbolic. If you guys (collectively, not you specifically) were pushing something, anything all the time I'd think you were doing something other than getting up on your high horse so when someone accuses you of agreeing with "x" you can say "I don't support either of these guys.

I'd ask any of those people the questions you cited, and I think one would be a fool not to, given the chance. Ford might not understand robotics, but he sure as hell understood reducing costs. The Wright Brothers might not understand jet propulsion, but they sure as hell understood reducing drag and maximizing lift. And, really? You wouldn't ask Darwin about evolution? His observations are still the best example of natural selection research in history. He might not be a geneticist, but, fuck, dude, he's one of if not the most astute natural scientists who ever lived.

More to the point, the founders of the country based their political theory on existing philosophy. Not much new has come down the pike since. Locke, Plato, and the Iroquois Confederacy haven't yet been refuted. They still have the same validity. [/QUOTE]

No, I wouldn't ask those men. This is not to say that these men were not brilliant brilliant men. They were, they were brilliant men and pioneers and deserve their place in history. That said no, I wouldn't ask Ford how to build a better factory. I trust the hundred years of advances since then. No, I wouldn't ask the Wright brothers. Reducing drag and maximizing lift are mathematics. What they did was amazing and I couldn't replicate it if I tried but if I'm building a jet excuse me for wanting a rocket scientist. I'm not going to debate if Darwin's observations are the best example, mostly because that's a debate that can't be won. You'll break out the finches, and I'll break out the entire fossil record, you'll counter one man did it all, I'll start with so what and then find something specific that one person did. It's a waste of energy. I still wouldn't ask someone who isn't familiar with both the fossil record and genetics much about evolution.

To your final point perhaps the fact that there are no notable thinkers since then reflects on our humility. The world has changed quite a bit in the last two centuries and it shows. I'm not in the mood right now (but maybe in a bit) but we could go through the Constitution and find lots of things that don't make sense to today's world (as written, such as the 2nd Amendment.), things that were valid fears at the time but aren't today (like the born in America to be president, there are lots of reasons Arnold Schwarzenegger shouldn't be President, his Austrian birth is not one of them however).

Again it's not that didn't have great ideas and some of them are truly timeless, some are not. Most of the time when you (generic) mention the Founding Father's it's code for I don't have an argument. If your only argument is that this is how it was done 225 years ago I don't see why I should even address it.

 

[naughtycakes]

The idea that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is "wasted" or "thrown away" is utter horseshit. It's exactly that line of thinking that gives us choices like Obama/Romney, Obama/McCain, Bush/Kerry, etc. A vote for either of the two major party candidates is a vote for the status quo. It's raw tribalism and nothing else.

Vote your ideals. That was the idea, when the Republic was founded.

That's all fine and dandy, but if you're serious about seeing more plurality in U.S. politics, it needs to start locally, from the bottom up.

Voting for a third-party candidate in the presidential election is a waste of time. There's no foundation, no infrastructure to support a third-party vote on a national level. It needs to start in the municipalities, third-party candidates for mayor, commissioner, state representative, etc.

Until we see that, there's no chance for a third-party candidate for president.

 

[JohnnySavage]

That's all fine and dandy, but if you're serious about seeing more plurality in U.S. politics, it needs to start locally, from the bottom up.

Voting for a third-party candidate in the presidential election is a waste of time. There's no foundation, no infrastructure to support a third-party vote on a national level. It needs to start in the municipalities, third-party candidates for mayor, commissioner, state representative, etc.

Until we see that, there's no chance for a third-party candidate for president.

Johnson was a governor.

 

[naughtycakes]

Johnson was a governor.

Well, I have to admit I have no idea who he is.

But I do hope a lot of Romney voters vote for him

 

[Sean Renaud]

Johnson was a governor.

He was Republican at the time.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Well, I have to admit I have no idea who he is.

But I do hope a lot of Romney voters vote for him

I'm voting for him. But I'm in Maryland where it doesn't really matter. We have some good ballot questions though so that's why I'm going to put on pants and go vote.

I'm voting for gambling, gay marriage, and Maryland's Dream Act.

Oddly enough, these ballot questions are very close even though we are about as liberal as a State can get.

 

[naughtycakes]

I'm voting for him. But I'm in Maryland where it doesn't really matter. We have some good ballot questions though so that's why I'm going to put on pants and go vote.

I'm voting for gambling, gay marriage, and Maryland's Dream Act.

Oddly enough, these ballot questions are very close even though we are about as liberal as a State can get.

Yeah, I voted against almost all the ballot initiatives in my state, including one restricting reproductive rights, one eroding the separation of church & state and a whole bunch offering tax breaks for the elderly and veterans that were obviously tricky... elderly couples making up to $250,000 a year don't need tax breaks.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Yeah, I voted against almost all the ballot initiatives in my state, including one restricting reproductive rights, one eroding the separation of church & state and a whole bunch offering tax breaks for the elderly and veterans that were obviously tricky... elderly couples making up to $250,000 a year don't need tax breaks.

Rival casinos have spent $40 million here on ads about the gambling question. One pro (who would get the contract) and one con (who has a casino in WVa.)

I think people should do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. If some schmuck want's to give his last $20 to a casino, that's his business.

 

[naughtycakes]

Rival casinos have spent $40 million here on ads about the gambling question. One pro (who would get the contract) and one con (who has a casino in WVa.)

I think people should do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. If some schmuck want's to give his last $20 to a casino, that's his business.

Agreed.

I'm all for legalizing gambling, prostitution, drugs and euthanasia.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Agreed.

I'm all for legalizing gambling, prostitution, drugs and euthanasia.

Me too.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Agreed.

I'm all for legalizing gambling, prostitution, drugs and euthanasia.

Especially pre-birth euthanasia...