Gary Johnson Announces Libertarian Party Run For President

[Valli6]

Great - as long as he drops out once Rand wins the nomination. :)

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/06/gary-johnson-announces-libertarian-party-run-for-president/

Gary Johnson Announces Libertarian Party Run For President
Alex Pappas
01/06/2016

Gary Johnson is running again for the White House.

The fiscally conservative, socially liberal former Republican governor said Wednesday that he will seek the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president. He made the comments while appearing on Fox Business with host Neil Cavuto.

“I want to take this opportunity to announce my candidacy for president,” Johnson said. “I am hoping to get the Libertarian nomination for president in 2016.”

“I think the biggest problem facing this country is the $20 trillion debt that we will have when Obama leaves office,” he said. “Government is too big, it’s unwieldy, it’s out of control, we need to get control.”

Johnson, 63, served two terms as governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003. He briefly ran for president as a Republican during the 2012 cycle but dropped out after low poll numbers and an inability to be included in the debates.

He went on to leave the GOP and win the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president. As the third-party’s nominee, Johnson won about one percent of the popular vote against Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

After the 2012 election, Johnson became CEO of Cannabis Sativa Inc., a company formed to sell legal cannabis products. Prior to his announcement on Wednesday, Johnson announced his resignation from Cannabis Sativa.

Johnson’s views include legalizing marijuana, reducing domestic and military spending, keeping abortion legal and allowing gay marriage.

Appearing on Fox Business after Johnson’s announcement, Chris Bedford, a senior editor at The Daily Caller, said of third-party candidates: “They certainly can affect the outcome, especially in a race like this.”

But Bedford expressed doubt that enough libertarians would be motivated to help Johnson: “I went to high school with hundreds of guys that were pro-pot and pro-abortion, and I don’t think they’re going to be showing up at the polls to help anybody.”

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/06/gary-johnson-announces-libertarian-party-run-for-president/#ixzz3wUzdnCzH

[evilfunnystuff]

Meh, I liked Gary until he showed his true colors.

Just another self-absorbed, power-hungry, liar.

Next

http://uploads.neatorama.com/images/posts/50/72/72050/1400127270-0.jpg

[yinzer38]

Strangely enough, he also wants to ban burqas in the USA:
https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/06/exclusive-gary-johnson-running-for-presi

Et tu, Gary?

[thoughtomator]

Were there no libertarians available?

[William Tell]

I hope Gary loses the nomination to anybody.

[evilfunnystuff]

Were there no libertarians available?

John McAfee is going to run. The only thing I heard of that I don't like is he is an open borders guy.(so am I once entitlements and free bennies are no longer an issue)

Depending how things go, I could vote for him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKgf5PaBzyg

[Peace&Freedom]

May the best candidate win the LP nomination. Depending on Trump dominating the the GOP primaries, it may still fall out that Rand runs for the LP nod as well.

[cajuncocoa]

Were there no libertarians available?
where does he fail to meet your libertarian litmus test?

http://s8.postimg.org/zf4unv4ad/image.jpg

[LatinsforPaul]

Hopefully all of this becomes irrelevant if and when Rand gets the GOP nomination. ;)

[Peace&Freedom]

Hopefully all of this becomes irrelevant if and when Rand gets the GOP nomination. ;)

We should retire the "relevancy" put down of alternatives. After all, it can cut both ways. If and when Rand doesn't even do as well as his father in the GOP primaries, thus the "let's run a liberty guy within a major party for President" totally fails for the third time, by the 'hopefully' argument won't that have proven it's a failed strategy, and has become irrelevant?

[Feeding the Abscess]

where does he fail to meet your libertarian litmus test?

http://s8.postimg.org/zf4unv4ad/image.jpg

Libertarian litmus tests aside, I don't see how the LP is well-served by fielding squishy candidates like Gary.

[Rad]

The libertarian party lets anyone in. Trump could get the libertarian nomination.

[cajuncocoa]

Libertarian litmus tests aside, I don't see how the LP is well-served by fielding squishy candidates like Gary.He's not my ideal candidate either, which is why I said I'd abstain from voting in the presidential election if Rand doesn't get the nomination.

@Rad...I think that's a bit of a stretch to say Trump could get the LP nomination. I know it's been bad lately (Bob Barr, yuck!) but I don't think they'd cross that line.

[Dianne]

Meh, I liked Gary until he showed his true colors.

Just another self-absorbed, power-hungry, liar.

Next

http://uploads.neatorama.com/images/posts/50/72/72050/1400127270-0.jpg

I agree with you. He's a real bas "tard" who turned his back on Ron Paul. I'll never give him an ounce of consideration again.

[Tywysog Cymru]

McAfee is better from what I understand.

[jkob]

Gary is 10x billion times better than Bob Barr at least

[William Tell]

He's not my ideal candidate either, which is why I said I'd abstain from voting in the presidential election if Rand doesn't get the nomination.

@Rad...I think that's a bit of a stretch to say Trump could get the LP nomination. I know it's been bad lately (Bob Barr, yuck!) but I don't think they'd cross that line.

They wouldn't have a choice. They nominate by convention. A total of 595 delegates voted at the LNC in 2012, 419 of them voted for Johnson. Anyone who walks in with with somewhere between 300-600 delegates would win. Trump could do that, but he won't.

[opal]

*read thread title.. yawned*

[pcgame]

....

[Liberty74]

Gary is 10x billion times better than Bob Barr at least

If Rand does not end up on the ticket either as President or the VP slot, I'm voting Gary again.

[jbauer]

Were there no libertarians available?

I was looking yesterday and there is a chick that is a spiritual healer and some dude wearing union blues...must be a civil war reenacter

So no there isn't. GJ is a breath of fresh air

[Nathan Hale]

He's not my ideal candidate either, which is why I said I'd abstain from voting in the presidential election if Rand doesn't get the nomination.

@Rad...I think that's a bit of a stretch to say Trump could get the LP nomination. I know it's been bad lately (Bob Barr, yuck!) but I don't think they'd cross that line.

Gary isn't my "ideal" candidate either, but then again neither is Rand Paul. I consider both, however, far above the line of what is acceptable in a liberty candidate.

[Nathan Hale]

double post

[Nathan Hale]

I agree with you. He's a real bas "tard" who turned his back on Ron Paul. I'll never give him an ounce of consideration again.

He didn't turn his back on Ron Paul. People just hated Gary because he ran simultaneously to Paul, totally ignoring the longstanding relationship between the two men and the fact that he admitted during the whole process that he would demure to Paul if he got the nomination.

[Nathan Hale]

They wouldn't have a choice. They nominate by convention. A total of 595 delegates voted at the LNC in 2012, 419 of them voted for Johnson. Anyone who walks in with with somewhere between 300-600 delegates would win. Trump could do that, but he won't.

Yeah, with Gary in the race it's pretty much assured that he'll win the nod with McAfee as a running mate. If the major party selections are Hillary and Trump, and if Gary plays his cards right, this might get interesting.

[nikcers]

I just feel like it's a cash grab. I was very suspicious about Rand originally but Rand was polling and putting organization out there and setting himself up and even said he wouldn't run if he didn't think he had a chance at actually winning. I wouldn't support any non mainstream candidate unless they seemed like they were going to put everything into it. This just seems like an afterthought, he wants to win my vote and he just now decides to run? He should of been building up his social media or something at least, this is a joke.

[Brett85]

Gary Johnson represents the Reason Magazine/low tax liberal version of libertarianism.

[nikcers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IACfHiO8xGc

[kahless]

Yeah, with Gary in the race it's pretty much assured that he'll win the nod with McAfee as a running mate. If the major party selections are Hillary and Trump, and if Gary plays his cards right, this might get interesting.

With those two clowns it pretty much rules out any chance of me voting LP if Rand does not make it or if I am not happy with the Constitution party candidate.

[thatpeculiarcat]

Gary was better than Goode. Baldwin was better than Barr.

Let's see what happens in the Constitution Party, let's see what McAfee and that little prick Peterson have to say. But for now, our focus should be on Rand.

[69360]

Meh, I liked Gary until he showed his true colors.

Just another self-absorbed, power-hungry, liar.

Next


Yes, because the Liberterian party wields so much power in this country. :rolleyes: Maybe this time they will get all the way to 2%.

That said if it's it Trump and Clinton, I will vote LP.

[Peace&Freedom]

Yes, because the Liberterian party wields so much power in this country. :rolleyes: Maybe this time they will get all the way to 2%.

That said if it's it Trump and Clinton, I will vote LP.

Rand has been at 4% in the GOP polls for months, which some would take to mean he would be at 2% in a general poll, or that liberty candidates are nationally at 2% be they inside or outside the major party system. Either way, we have work to do.

[TheTexan]

They wouldn't have a choice. They nominate by convention. A total of 595 delegates voted at the LNC in 2012, 419 of them voted for Johnson. Anyone who walks in with with somewhere between 300-600 delegates would win. Trump could do that, but he won't.

Trump wouldnt ever run in Libertarian party, it's a loser party that doesnt win any election ever

[CaptUSA]

The LP is a disaster party. I was a sad witness to this for over 20 years. The problem is that no one can quite agree on what a big "L" Libertarian should be. So much so that, ironically, that is their only unifying element. Each faction of the party quibbles about the .01% in which they find disagreement with the other factions that they can never agree. Hell, there are even major disagreements within those factions. It's a quadrennial circular firing squad.

[65fastback2+2]

Cant support Gary ever. He's for baby murdering. That is a hard line in the dirt for my vote.

[Peace&Freedom]

The liberty movement is structurally marginalized in the US, be it inside the major parties, or in third parties. The elite special interests have engineered that outcome to cover their bases in either direction. Result: liberty people fail electorally at winning in the minor parties, and liberty people fail legislatively at reversing a single aspect of the welfare-warfare state in the major parties. The failure is externally manufactured, not created by internal problems.

They've done the same thing to marginalize the other alternatives as well. Or do you think every other third party also being stuck at 1-2% is just an accident, and that everybody in all those groups (across the nation, and across decades) are all equally incompetent? Our chances would improve if we stopped sniping at each other, and built a stronger grassroots movement, that was independent of major or minor parties.

[Nathan Hale]

Gary Johnson represents the Reason Magazine/low tax liberal version of libertarianism.

Gary Johnson is way more moderate than the Ayn-Randroid tip-of-the-diamond ZAP extremists who for most of the lifespan of libertarian have been the ones to plant their flag on the term, but that doesn't make the term any more theirs. The simple math of the matter is that most people who would fall into the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart are moderates, but the dialogue coming from the LP and "traditional" libertarians is that you must be a single-axiom extremist in order to be worthy of the term. I reject that.

[Nathan Hale]

With those two clowns it pretty much rules out any chance of me voting LP if Rand does not make it or if I am not happy with the Constitution party candidate.

It's unfortunate that you feel that way.

[Nathan Hale]

The LP is a disaster party. I was a sad witness to this for over 20 years. The problem is that no one can quite agree on what a big "L" Libertarian should be. So much so that, ironically, that is their only unifying element. Each faction of the party quibbles about the .01% in which they find disagreement with the other factions that they can never agree. Hell, there are even major disagreements within those factions. It's a quadrennial circular firing squad.

This has been true for 30 years, but at least now they're coming around to realizing the type of candidate they need in order to be credible. They are still screwed by the electoral system, but I think the LP has made huge strides away from "ideological debate society" toward "genuine political party that plays the game of thrones".

[Nathan Hale]

Cant support Gary ever. He's for baby murdering. That is a hard line in the dirt for my vote.

Gary's policy prescription for abortion is exactly the same as Ron Pauls - devolve to the states. He just wraps it up in the verbiage of pro-choice (and who can blame him, the country is 70/30 on the issue).

[CaptUSA]

The liberty movement is structurally marginalized in the US, be it inside the major parties, or in third parties. The elite special interests have engineered that result to cover their bases in either direction. They've done the same thing to marginalize the other alternatives as well. Result: liberty people fail electorally at winning in the minor parties, and liberty people fail legislatively at reversing a single aspect of the welfare-warfare state in the major parties. The failure is externally manufactured, not created by internal problems.

Or do you think every other third party also being stuck at 1-2% is just an accident, and that everybody in all those groups (across the nation, and across decades) are all equally incompetent? Our chances would improve if we stopped sniping at each other, and built a stronger grassroots movement, that was independent of major or minor parties.

No, you are absolutely right. The two major parties each have an appearance of liberty that they try to sell. The republicans profess to defend economic liberty, while the democrats profess to defend social liberty. Both of those, of course, are lies. But it helps to keep the populace in line. Those who are more concerned about social liberty cannot afford in their minds to split the dem vote, and vice versa.

That being said, there is always an opportunity shine a light on the ruse. However, you can't do that while your fighting yourselves.

[Occam's Banana]

I'ma just run around naked and smoke some pot on election day ...

[jbauer]

Cant support Gary ever. He's for baby murdering. That is a hard line in the dirt for my vote.
You could elect 90% team red to the house and senate and give them the president and they still wouldn't change roe v. Wade.

[Brett85]

Gary's policy prescription for abortion is exactly the same as Ron Pauls - devolve to the states. He just wraps it up in the verbiage of pro-choice (and who can blame him, the country is 70/30 on the issue).

I'm not sure if that's the case or not. He supported the Supreme Court decision which took power away from the states to decide the marriage issue. I don't see why his position would be any different on abortion.

[cajuncocoa]

You could elect 90% team red to the house and senate and give them the president and they still wouldn't change roe v. Wade.See George W. Bush, 2003-05...he was too preoccupied with war to worry about the fate of unborn babies though.

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not sure if that's the case or not. He supported the Supreme Court decision which took power away from the states to decide the marriage issue. I don't see why his position would be any different on abortion. Why not? He's a politician, after all ...

[Ronin Truth]

How many votes did Gary get the last time?

[jbauer]

How many votes did Gary get the last time?

57 + me in my county. The way I see it, the spiritual healer would get less so its an improvement.

[specsaregood]

//

[Brian4Liberty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IACfHiO8xGc

So, the purpose of the Gary Johnson campaign is to attack Rand? No doubt faux libertarian Kennedy enjoyed that.

[William Tell]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IACfHiO8xGc

Rand took the high road. I don't know what Gary is thinking, I will never vote for him because of this kind of stupidity that comes from him, when he himself is far from a "pure" libertarian. I imagine I'm not the only one.

[Spikender]

I criticize Rand all the time when I believe he missteps or is wrong on an issue, but as Ron said, Rand is his own man and he's a man who's our best chance at restoring liberty, at least to the Executive Branch. Gary Johnson just doesn't sit well with me and he hasn't for a while now. I find it funny though that he has the gall to start talking about libertarian chops. Too much nitpicking, as Rand said, just like on this forum.

[VIDEODROME]

I hope Gary loses the nomination to anybody.

McAfee?

[Slave Mentality]

I'ma just run around naked and smoke some pot on election day ...

A much more effective use of time. I will join you, but with clothes on because I need somewhere to put my weed.

[jonhowe]

May the best candidate win the LP nomination. Depending on Trump dominating the the GOP primaries, it may still fall out that Rand runs for the LP nod as well.

And sacrifice the senate seat for a no-shot run?

[jonhowe]

The LP is a disaster party. I was a sad witness to this for over 20 years. The problem is that no one can quite agree on what a big "L" Libertarian should be. So much so that, ironically, that is their only unifying element. Each faction of the party quibbles about the .01% in which they find disagreement with the other factions that they can never agree. Hell, there are even major disagreements within those factions. It's a quadrennial circular firing squad.

Sadly, I think ANY party that is based around actual ideas instead of broad change-with-the-wind platitudes is doomed to such squabbling.

[Rad]

I am interested in hearing more from McAfee. He might be a far more entertaining president than Trump. Is McAfee against the Empire?

[Occam's Banana]

I am interested in hearing more from McAfee. He might be a far more entertaining president than Trump. Is McAfee against the Empire?

This is from the "Foreign Policy" section of the "issues" page at McAfee's official website (https://mcafee16.com/issues/):


We are not a police agency for the world. Our foreign involvements must be reigned in, and attention should be placed on looking at our own issues. While domestic policy will be the major focus of a McAfee administration, we will employ a foreign policy that augments our domestic policy.

First and foremost, we are to pursue our interests. This is the number one goal of a McAfee foreign policy. We reject the interventionist pursuit of idealistic and moral goals. Rather, we will focus on exerting out influence when and where it serves our national interests. Nothing more, nothing less. Nixon, in addressing congress in his first annual report on Foreign Policy states our goals quite clearly:


Our objective, in the first instance, is to support our interests over the long run with a sound foreign policy. The more that policy is based on a realistic view of our and others’ interests, the more effective our role in the world can be. We are not involved in the world because we have commitments; we have commitments because we are involved. Our interests must shape our commitments, rather than the other way around.

Here's an excerpt from an article by Brian Doherty at Reason about McAfee (https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/28/anti-virus-pioneer-john-mcafee-enters-li):


His major issues stress more of what you might call the "nice" sides of libertarianism. You know, the aspects calling for government to stop doing things that most decent people consider crummy, from drug laws to non-defensive foreign interventions to TSA busybodyism to immigration laws to FDA regs that keep life-saving medicines from people's hands to privacy-violating surveillance. These are the parts that at least theoretically have some hope of creating possible coalitions with parts of the American left.

[...]

McAfee on his website issues page discusses policies that imply expanding government spending, such as, under "education," that "in the case of higher-education, we will work to make education attainable for everyone, regardless of income level or family income level. What’s more, the rampant student loan debt must be checked."

His "economy" plank also seems unlibertarian when it hypes:


a large-scale public works program. This will focus on a few key areas. Initially, these public works will focus on physical infrastructure: the construction and repair of roads, bridges, highways, airports, etc. These initiatives will be pursued through two different avenues. One, we will fund and staff these initiatives through various federal programs. Second, we will offer states, counties, and cities funds to manage the programs on their own. This initial infrastructure push will provide a, relatively, quick way to stem unemployment.

Further down the road, we plan to introduce an IT infrastructure development program. In short, we will make a large amount of funds available to cities and townships to prompt wholesale implementation of smart grid energy programs.

As we have stated many times over, we see access to broadband as a fundamental human right.

McAfee is also a vocal supporter of "net neutrality" (http://venturebeat.com/2014/09/15/john-mcafee-comes-out-swinging-for-net-neutrality-while-blasting-att-and-verizon/) which most libertarian see as unwarranted government interference in the market's functioning.

[...]

Here's a recent podcast interview with McAfee (I haven't listened to it, but the source I got it from said "he doesn't sound libertarian at all, at least not to me"):


LIBERTY HANGOUT PODCAST: Episode #10 w/John McAfee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNk-qvjJUIE
Liberty Hangout (29 December 2015)

Yesterday, Liberty Hangout and Charles Peralo from BeingLibertarian.com had the privilege of being one of the first outlets to chat with tech mogul, security expert, and founder of a centi million dollar web security company, John McAfee, about his 2016 presidential campaign. We asked John about a number of his policy stances, ranging from intellectual property, to social security, free trade, Bitcoin, and more. John also unveiled his unique way of rolling back and eventually abolishing wasteful government agencies such as the TSA. This is an interview you will want to listen to from start to finish!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNk-qvjJUIE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNk-qvjJUIE

[Sola_Fide]

Gary will probably win too. And then the Libertarian Party will continue their streak of non-libertarian candidates for president.

[69360]

Gary's policy prescription for abortion is exactly the same as Ron Pauls - devolve to the states. He just wraps it up in the verbiage of pro-choice (and who can blame him, the country is 70/30 on the issue).


Actually polls from the last few years are closer to 50/50.

[69360]

Gary will probably win too. And then the Libertarian Party will continue their streak of non-libertarian candidates for president.

Does it really even matter? Nobody votes LP expecting their candidate to win. The ideology is really irrelevant, it's just a name. I voted for GJ last time as a protest vote and may be doing the same again.

[LatinsforPaul]

May the best candidate win the LP nomination. Depending on Trump dominating the the GOP primaries, it may still fall out that Rand runs for the LP nod as well.

No way in hell. In fact it's the other way around. If some how Rand manages to get the GOP nomination, I can see the Libertarian Party nominating Rand too. Putting his name on the ballot twice in the general in many states.

[ssunlimited]

No way in hell. In fact it's the other way around. If some how Rand manages to get the GOP nomination, I can see the Libertarian Party nominating Rand too. Putting his name on the ballot twice in the general in many states.

That's what I kept on thinking. Rand is a Libertarian in his political ideology so the LP should nominate Rand. Rand could then get an extra 1%/1,000,000 million votes for the general election from the people voting LP. I am quite expecting them to nominate Rand if he wins the GOP nomination.

[evilfunnystuff]

This is from the "Foreign Policy" section of the "issues" page at McAfee's official website (https://mcafee16.com/issues/):


We are not a police agency for the world. Our foreign involvements must be reigned in, and attention should be placed on looking at our own issues. While domestic policy will be the major focus of a McAfee administration, we will employ a foreign policy that augments our domestic policy.

First and foremost, we are to pursue our interests. This is the number one goal of a McAfee foreign policy. We reject the interventionist pursuit of idealistic and moral goals. Rather, we will focus on exerting out influence when and where it serves our national interests. Nothing more, nothing less. Nixon, in addressing congress in his first annual report on Foreign Policy states our goals quite clearly:


Our objective, in the first instance, is to support our interests over the long run with a sound foreign policy. The more that policy is based on a realistic view of our and others’ interests, the more effective our role in the world can be. We are not involved in the world because we have commitments; we have commitments because we are involved. Our interests must shape our commitments, rather than the other way around.

Here's an excerpt from an article by Brian Doherty at Reason about McAfee (https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/28/anti-virus-pioneer-john-mcafee-enters-li):


His major issues stress more of what you might call the "nice" sides of libertarianism. You know, the aspects calling for government to stop doing things that most decent people consider crummy, from drug laws to non-defensive foreign interventions to TSA busybodyism to immigration laws to FDA regs that keep life-saving medicines from people's hands to privacy-violating surveillance. These are the parts that at least theoretically have some hope of creating possible coalitions with parts of the American left.

[...]

McAfee on his website issues page discusses policies that imply expanding government spending, such as, under "education," that "in the case of higher-education, we will work to make education attainable for everyone, regardless of income level or family income level. What’s more, the rampant student loan debt must be checked."

His "economy" plank also seems unlibertarian when it hypes:


a large-scale public works program. This will focus on a few key areas. Initially, these public works will focus on physical infrastructure: the construction and repair of roads, bridges, highways, airports, etc. These initiatives will be pursued through two different avenues. One, we will fund and staff these initiatives through various federal programs. Second, we will offer states, counties, and cities funds to manage the programs on their own. This initial infrastructure push will provide a, relatively, quick way to stem unemployment.

Further down the road, we plan to introduce an IT infrastructure development program. In short, we will make a large amount of funds available to cities and townships to prompt wholesale implementation of smart grid energy programs.

As we have stated many times over, we see access to broadband as a fundamental human right.

McAfee is also a vocal supporter of "net neutrality" (http://venturebeat.com/2014/09/15/john-mcafee-comes-out-swinging-for-net-neutrality-while-blasting-att-and-verizon/) which most libertarian see as unwarranted government interference in the market's functioning.

[...]

Here's a recent podcast interview with McAfee (I haven't listened to it, but the source I got it from said "he doesn't sound libertarian at all, at least not to me"):


LIBERTY HANGOUT PODCAST: Episode #10 w/John McAfee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNk-qvjJUIE
Liberty Hangout (29 December 2015)

Yesterday, Liberty Hangout and Charles Peralo from BeingLibertarian.com had the privilege of being one of the first outlets to chat with tech mogul, security expert, and founder of a centi million dollar web security company, John McAfee, about his 2016 presidential campaign. We asked John about a number of his policy stances, ranging from intellectual property, to social security, free trade, Bitcoin, and more. John also unveiled his unique way of rolling back and eventually abolishing wasteful government agencies such as the TSA. This is an interview you will want to listen to from start to finish!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNk-qvjJUIE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNk-qvjJUIE

Weak, thanks for pulling off the bandaid lol

[Nathan Hale]

I'm not sure if that's the case or not. He supported the Supreme Court decision which took power away from the states to decide the marriage issue. I don't see why his position would be any different on abortion.

I did a quick search and found this - first answer:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Abortion.htm

[Nathan Hale]

Gary will probably win too. And then the Libertarian Party will continue their streak of non-libertarian candidates for president.

Bah - once again libertarianism is a large portion of the political spectrum. Gary is far more moderate than the traditional radicals put forth by the LP, but that doesn't make Gary "non-libertarian".

[Peace&Freedom]

No way in hell. In fact it's the other way around. If some how Rand manages to get the GOP nomination, I can see the Libertarian Party nominating Rand too. Putting his name on the ballot twice in the general in many states.

The Republican nomination will be decided in the summer at their convention, the LP nomination will be decided in May. Rand has expressed no interest in seeking or campaigning for the LP nomination, or showing up in Miami to accept it if nominated. Doing so is the only way he will get the LP nod---there is no phoning it in, and it's insulting to the party to suggest otherwise. The body present at the LP convention, as with the conventions of any other party, will not nominate somebody who does not show up to ask for it or accept it, period.

The more likely scenario, as things now stand, is that Trump dominates the GOP primary season and becomes the prospective nominee. This may create a unique situation where the party leadership will NOT frown on a non-Trump Republican making an independent run, and creates a void Rand could fill by declaring the third party (LP/CP) run. The establishment wing may even openly encourage such a candidacy, and might cut a deal to offer Rand something for thereby frustrating Trump's chances.

The best case scenario for this situation, is that Rand running LP/CP will cause Trump to pull out of the race, but not run as an independent himself (due to not wanting to undergo the hassle), and to release his delegates. Then at the GOP con, to avoid losing the election to Hillary due to Rand being on the other lines, the released delegates vote to nominate Rand. Plan B, if Trump doesn't quit the GOP race and Hillary wins, Rand is in the "it's his turn" inside track position to run as a unifying Republican candidate in 2020.

[Nathan Hale]

Actually polls from the last few years are closer to 50/50.

I think it's less about the numbers and more about political inertia. There is zero traction toward anything happening on the issue, so why make it a campaign touchstone? Why alienate 50% of the voters on an issue that is simply not a part of the overton window these days?

[Sola_Fide]

Bah - once again libertarianism is a large portion of the political spectrum. Gary is far more moderate than the traditional radicals put forth by the LP, but that doesn't make Gary "non-libertarian".

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian.

[Dianne]

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian.

I agree. Just because he brags he rides his bicycle to work every day does not make him a libertarian. He's just a worn out has been, looking for a little press coverage to sell something in the future.

[derek4ever]

That's what I kept on thinking. Rand is a Libertarian in his political ideology so the LP should nominate Rand. Rand could then get an extra 1%/1,000,000 million votes for the general election from the people voting LP. I am quite expecting them to nominate Rand if he wins the GOP nomination.

I think this can happen! Rand gets cross-endorsed but the question would be what about his running mate? Would it be a Republican or a Libertarian? There are a few states that allow for fusion voting, where a candidate can get endorsed by more than 1 party. In a state like NY, Rand could appear once with a Republican running mate and once with a Libertarian running mate, thus appearing twice. In states like VT, Rand would be on the ballot once with the "Republican,Libertarian" next to his name. :)

[thatpeculiarcat]

The Libertarian Party wouldn't have endorsed RON if he won the GOP nomination. They are fucking insane in how they conduct business: "Help us make a memorial building and move our HQ while we disregard winning elections!"

Don't get your hopes up. The LP is inept and disgusting.

[cajuncocoa]

The Libertarian Party wouldn't have endorsed RON if he won the GOP nomination. They are fucking insane in how they conduct business: "Help us make a memorial building and move our HQ while we disregard winning elections!"

Don't get your hopes up. The LP is inept and disgusting.Of course not. Why would they endorse a Republican? I understand Ron is more "libertarian" than the candidate they ran (Bob Barr) but that's not how party politics works.

[LatinsforPaul]

The Republican nomination will be decided in the summer at their convention, the LP nomination will be decided in May. Rand has expressed no interest in seeking or campaigning for the LP nomination, or showing up in Miami to accept it if nominated. Doing so is the only way he will get the LP nod---there is no phoning it in, and it's insulting to the party suggest otherwise. The body present at the LP convention, as with the conventions of any other party, will not nominate somebody who does not show up to ask for it or accept it, period.

The more likely scenario, as things now stand, is that Trump dominates the GOP primary season and becomes the prospective nominee. This may create a unique situation where the party leadership will NOT frown on a non-Trump Republican making an independent run, and creates a void Rand could fill by declaring the third party (LP/CP) run. The establishment wing may even openly encourage such a candidacy, and might cut a deal to offer Rand something for thereby frustrating Trump's chances.

The best case scenario for this situation, is that Rand running LP/CP will cause Trump to pull out of the race, but not run as an independent himself (due to not wanting to undergo the hassle), and to release his delegates. Then at the GOP con, to avoid losing the election to Hillary due to Rand being on the other lines, the released delegates vote to nominate Rand. Plan B, if Trump doesn't quit the GOP race and Hillary wins, Rand is in the "it's his turn" inside track position to run as a unifying Republican candidate in 2020.


Libertarians May Co-Nominate Rand Paul in 2016 (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/27/rand-paul-could-win-libertarian-nomination-too)

Members of the large third party brace for a fight.


Members of the Libertarian Party are bracing for an internal struggle over whether to back the libertarian-leaning senator if he appears poised to win the Republican nomination in 2016.

Paul is unlikely to directly seek the third party’s support, but could win it anyhow through the work of eager activists like those who worked the campaigns of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a GOP presidential contender in 2008 and 2012 and the Libertarian nominee in 1988.

A co-nomination from one of the nation’s most significant minor parties could help Paul - if he’s the Republican nominee - avoid losing hundreds of thousands of votes to an ideological ally. In some states, his name would appear twice on ballots.

If Paul is nominated by both the Republican and Libertarian parties, it could also unleash electoral scenarios unseen in decades, such as the negotiation of a fusion slate of electors. Libertarians could, theoretically, nominate their own vice presidential candidate.

Though the Libertarian Party’s Orlando, Florida, nominating convention isn’t until May 2016, Libertarian National Committee Executive Director Wes Benedict foresees a fight.

“If Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination, I'd expect a big fight within the [party] over whether or not we should run our own candidate,” Benedict says. “It wouldn't just be a discussion.”

Libertarian Party chairman Nicholas Sarwark, officially neutral on the matter, says “there is a possibility that the delegates in Orlando would nominate Sen. Paul and if they were to do so, I'd work hard to support their choice.”

The Republican primary season will be well underway when the 1,000 or so Libertarian convention delegates gather. If Paul appears poised for victory in the GOP race, they would have several options.

Delegates could nominate Paul and his presumptive GOP running mate (if that person has been selected), or nominate Paul and a Libertarian running mate (as happened in 1896 when the Democratic and Populist parties nominated William Jennings Bryan for president, but chose different vice presidential candidates).

They could also choose to endorse no candidate, a scenario in which many would-be Libertarian voters would presumably vote for Paul without the party’s official blessing; or they could snub Paul and pick their own presidential candidate.

[Nathan Hale]

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian.

Please elaborate on how the sum of Gary Johnson's platform puts him outside the libertarian quadrant of the political spectrum.

[Nathan Hale]

The Libertarian Party wouldn't have endorsed RON if he won the GOP nomination. They are fucking insane in how they conduct business: "Help us make a memorial building and move our HQ while we disregard winning elections!"

Don't get your hopes up. The LP is inept and disgusting.

On the bright side, in 2012 Gary said that he would demure and drop out if Ron Paul won the GOP nod.

[erowe1]

Of course not. Why would they endorse a Republican? I understand Ron is more "libertarian" than the candidate they ran (Bob Barr) but that's not how party politics works.

What you say is true. It is also proof of the uselessness of the LP.

[erowe1]

Please elaborate on how the sum of Gary Johnson's platform puts him outside the libertarian quadrant of the political spectrum.

Libertarianism isn't a quadrant of the political spectrum. It is a coherent political philosophy that totally rejects some things that GJ supports. The LP (like Reason Magazine and the Cato Institute) loves to use your quadrant of political philosophy model as a way of broadening its appeal to include statists. Very often the people who redefine libertarianism this way are the same ones who define it as a combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, the latter being a cypher for support of the gay agenda and anti-Christian bigotry.

Being in the quadrant of political philosophy he is in does make GJ more libertarian than most other politicians. But it doesn't make him a libertarian.

[cajuncocoa]

What you say is true. It is also proof of the uselessness of the LP.It's not useless at the local level. Just needs more support.

[William Tell]

Gary wouldn't know liberty or the Constitution if they both bit him on the ass at the same time.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/07/libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-actually-i-wouldn-t-ban-the-burqa.html

[thatpeculiarcat]

It's not useless at the local level. Just needs more support.

If the LP focused on a handful of local elections, sure. But they don't. They focus on NO elections at all. They do not care about winning, and it's a shame because a L/libertarian could totally win some elections here and there.

[William Tell]

If the LP focused on a handful of local elections, sure. But they don't. They focus on NO elections at all. They do not care about winning, and it's a shame because a L/libertarian could totally win some elections here and there.

Yeah. LP members have actually won some local elections, but almost exclusively non partisan elections. Which is kind of pointless from a party perspective. They don't have the discipline to try to seriously win some state house seats or anything.

[Occam's Banana]

If the LP focused on a handful of local elections, sure. But they don't. They focus on NO elections at all. They do not care about winning, and it's a shame because a L/libertarian could totally win some elections here and there.
Yeah. LP members have actually won some local elections, but almost exclusively non partisan elections. Which is kind of pointless from a party perspective. They don't have the discipline to try to seriously win some state house seats or anything. Unfortunately, too many libertarians (of both the "big L" and "small l" varieties) seem to be just as obsessed with bright, shiny objects like POTUS as a typical specimen of Boobus is. Even more so, in fact, when it comes to "big L" Libertarians (even Republican and Democrat party drones get all fired up and slobbery over local and non-national races).

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not sure if that's the case or not. He supported the Supreme Court decision which took power away from the states to decide the marriage issue. I don't see why his position would be any different on abortion.

Why not? He's a politician, after all ...

quod erat demonstrandum ...

FTA: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487915-Libertarian-Candidate-Gary-Johnson-Actually-I-Wouldn-t-Ban-the-Burka

Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson: Actually, I Wouldn't Ban the Burka

One day after saying he’d sign a law banning the burka, the candidate did a complete reversal.

For 24 hours, the leading Libertarian Party presidential candidate seemed like he was to the right of Donald Trump when it comes to Muslims.

In a Wednesday interview with Reason, the former governor of New Mexico said that sharia law is one of his greatest concerns, and that he would ban the Muslim head garb.

“Under sharia law, women are not afforded the same rights as men,” Johnson argued, adding that a burka hides whether a woman has been beaten. “Honor killings are allowed for under sharia law and so is deceiving non-Muslims,” he added.

On Thursday afternoon, Johnson recanted.

continued...http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/07/libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-actually-i-wouldn-t-ban-the-burqa.html

[CPUd]

Gary probably could have run for Senate last cycle and won.

[Nathan Hale]

Libertarianism isn't a quadrant of the political spectrum. It is a coherent political philosophy that totally rejects some things that GJ supports. The LP (like Reason Magazine and the Cato Institute) loves to use your quadrant of political philosophy model as a way of broadening its appeal to include statists. Very often the people who redefine libertarianism this way are the same ones who define it as a combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, the latter being a cypher for support of the gay agenda and anti-Christian bigotry.

Being in the quadrant of political philosophy he is in does make GJ more libertarian than most other politicians. But it doesn't make him a libertarian.

I agree with you. By your use of the term, Gary Johnson is not a libertarian. Neither am I. Neither is Ron Paul. Or Rand Paul. You could eliminate 99% of people popularly referred to as libertarian by limiting access to the term in politics based on use of the term in philosophy (and the anemic remainder would no doubt argue among themselves about who is a purer libertarian).

That's why we use the idea of the libertarian quadrant in politics, and Gary fits easily into that quadrant.

That being said, I'll be the first to admit that unfortunately we have a two party system. It's rigged by the way we vote. So this is largely an exercise in futility. However, I believe that the LP stands a chance, especially in a world where information is as democratized as it is today, to manipulate its way into making the GOP and the Dems have to awkwardly address its existence, and perhaps that will lead to a reformation of the way we vote. That's my goal here. I would have considered it more productive for Gary to run for Senate on the GOP ticket in 2012.

[Jan2017]

where does he fail to meet your libertarian litmus test?

http://s8.postimg.org/zf4unv4ad/image.jpg

I passed out a similar diamond shaped grid on a cardstock flyer at a SE Iowa public library in Fall of 2011 before the Jan2012 caucus.

I like this as Libertarian is on top . . . opposite, and on top, before for me was "Statist"

[cajuncocoa]

I passed out a similar diamond shaped grid on a cardstock flyer at a SE Iowa public library in Fall of 2011 before the Jan2012 caucus.

I like this as Libertarian is on top . . . opposite, and on top, before for me was "Statist"I do prefer "Statist" or "Authoritarian" opposite "Libertarian" rather than "Populist"