PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul Endorses Gary Johnson for Senate.




CaptUSA
08-28-2018, 01:20 PM
Interesting. Bucking his own party!

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-mexico/articles/2018-08-28/sen-rand-paul-backs-libertarian-senate-candidate


SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is endorsing the Gary Johnson's Libertarian campaign for U.S. Senate in the state of New Mexico.

In a news release Tuesday, Paul shunned the Republican nominee and announced his support for Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico who ran for president as a Libertarian in 2012 and 2016.

Schifference
08-28-2018, 01:29 PM
I am officially endorsing Gary Johnson myself!

CaptUSA
08-28-2018, 01:35 PM
And... Cue the brain dead party lickspittles to trash him on social media.

RonZeplin
08-28-2018, 01:50 PM
Excellent! :cool:

Keith and stuff
08-28-2018, 02:26 PM
Stand With Rand by asking your friends and family in New Mexico to please vote for Gary Johnson.

CaptUSA
08-28-2018, 02:32 PM
Stand With Rand by asking your friends and family in New Mexico to please vote for Gary Johnson.

Even better would be to tell them to get the Republican to drop out of the race!

Swordsmyth
08-28-2018, 03:39 PM
Good, the Republican is worse and doesn't have a chance, Rand should get Trump to endorse Johnson.

Keith and stuff
08-28-2018, 03:55 PM
Even better would be to tell them to get the Republican to drop out of the race!

Is the Republican allowed to drop out? In NH, he wouldn't be allowed to drop out. The last day to file is the last day to drop out here.

milgram
08-28-2018, 04:07 PM
Gary doesn't talk enough about the stupidity of the wars. He got embarrassed over Syria but he should do it anyway.

Schifference
08-28-2018, 04:10 PM
Is the Republican allowed to drop out? In NH, he wouldn't be allowed to drop out. The last day to file is the last day to drop out here.

That seems like a crazy rule. If somebody decides they don't want the job, they should be allowed to drop out.

Superfluous Man
08-28-2018, 04:47 PM
I wonder if Ron will also endorse him. I could see him doing it or not doing it. But I'd like to see him do it just to see the reactions of some here whose level of hatred for GJ is irrational.

Anti Federalist
08-28-2018, 05:02 PM
I wonder if Ron will also endorse him. I could see him doing it or not doing it. But I'd like to see him do it just to see the reactions of some here whose level of hatred for GJ is irrational.

There is a lot of that running around in all directions.

I had issues with GJ running for president with Weld.

But for Senate from NM, I think he would be fine choice and a strong ally of Rand.

Hope he wins...in fact, I'd offer an alternative to settle my wager with dannno

$50 to GJ's campaign

dannno
08-28-2018, 05:18 PM
There is a lot of that running around in all directions.

I had issues with GJ running for president with Weld.

But for Senate from NM, I think he would be fine choice and a strong ally of Rand.

Hope he wins...in fact, I'd offer an alternative to settle my wager with @dannno (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=10908)

$50 to GJ's campaign


https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/aigis/images/5/58/Thumbs_Up.gif/revision/latest?cb=20161113011057

Swordsmyth
08-28-2018, 09:31 PM
Is the Republican allowed to drop out? In NH, he wouldn't be allowed to drop out. The last day to file is the last day to drop out here.

He could announce it anyway and tell all his supporters to vote for Johnson, they might not take him off the ballot but it would do some good.

Aratus
08-28-2018, 09:42 PM
LETs ALL STAND WITH RAND
AS HE STANDs WITH GARY!!!


:toady::toady::toady::toady::toady::toady::toady:: toady::toady:

Origanalist
08-28-2018, 09:50 PM
Just bake the @#@&ing cake already.

Aratus
08-28-2018, 09:52 PM
Just bake the @#@&ing cake already.

And have something stronger than KY hemp in it? :)

Origanalist
08-28-2018, 09:54 PM
And have something stronger than KY hemp in it? :)

Maybe some opium in the chocolate frosting.

Aratus
08-28-2018, 09:58 PM
Maybe some opium in the chocolate frosting.

Belay that idea. The "weed" Jeff Sessions wants to federal level eradicate suffices!

Origanalist
08-28-2018, 10:00 PM
Belay that idea. The "weed" Jeff Sessions wants to federal level eradicate suffices!

Opium is more fun. (so I've been told)

Aratus
08-28-2018, 10:03 PM
Opium is more fun. (so I've been told)

Rush Limbaugh did end up on OxyContin, which is an opiate...

Aratus
08-28-2018, 10:10 PM
Origanalist, are you now trying to get something baked
that will "nod off" the hippie activists G.J has brought
into the LIBERTARIAN fold due to his innate charisma?

Origanalist
08-28-2018, 10:13 PM
Origanalist, are you now trying to get something baked
that will "nod off" the hippie activists G.J has brought
into the LIBERTARIAN fold due to his innate charisma?

Ha ha ha ha, if his charisma is what brought them opium would be a wake up call.

dannno
08-28-2018, 10:16 PM
Opium is more fun. (so I've been told)

No, it isn't more fun. It's more relaxing tho.

Matt Collins
08-28-2018, 10:42 PM
This is silly... if the Republican, or Gary, had a chance, then Rand wouldn't have done this.

francisco
08-28-2018, 10:57 PM
This is silly... if the Republican, or Gary, had a chance, then Rand wouldn't have done this.

You're harshing my mellow.

Keith and stuff
08-29-2018, 07:12 AM
He could announce it anyway and tell all his supporters to vote for Johnson, they might not take him off the ballot but it would do some good.

Excellent idea. Let's do it.

euphemia
08-29-2018, 07:37 AM
Bad show on Rand's part.

euphemia
08-29-2018, 07:43 AM
I wonder if Ron will also endorse him. I could see him doing it or not doing it. But I'd like to see him do it just to see the reactions of some here whose level of hatred for GJ is irrational.

I do not hate GJ. I think he is not what he claims to be, and I think there is a lot of conflict-of-interest in his connection to the pot lobby. That was never fully explained when he ran for president, and I remain very suspicious.

I have never used pot and never plan to. The call for legalization is the wrong way to go. The government should remain neutral and silent on the issue, and immediately repeal all law where it is mentioned. People should be able to grow and use whatever they want in their own yard without any interference from anyone. It's nobody's business.

Current law covers the industrialization of pot. Sale, regulation, taxation, and the forfeiture of anonymity. It does not cover a few plants in a yard grown for personal use. There is a huge difference here. I wish you all could see it.

Smaulgld
08-29-2018, 08:36 AM
I do not hate GJ. I think he is not what he claims to be, and I think there is a lot of conflict-of-interest in his connection to the pot lobby. That was never fully explained when he ran for president, and I remain very suspicious.

I have never used pot and never plan to. The call for legalization is the wrong way to go. The government should remain neutral and silent on the issue, and immediately repeal all law where it is mentioned. People should be able to grow and use whatever they want in their own yard without any interference from anyone. It's nobody's business.

Current law covers the industrialization of pot. Sale, regulation, taxation, and the forfeiture of anonymity. It does not cover a few plants in a yard grown for personal use. There is a huge difference here. I wish you all could see it.

There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Rand Paul and an even bigger difference between Rand Paul and Gary Johnson
Johnson is an odd blend of ideas, not fully libertarian , not fully sensible. He is more harm than good

Anti Federalist
08-29-2018, 09:50 AM
There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Rand Paul and an even bigger difference between Rand Paul and Gary Johnson
Johnson is an odd blend of ideas, not fully libertarian , not fully sensible. He is more harm than good

More harm than a Bolshevik democrat?

Nah...

Anti Federalist
08-29-2018, 09:53 AM
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/aigis/images/5/58/Thumbs_Up.gif/revision/latest?cb=20161113011057

dannno

Done.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?519601-Help-me-keep-track-of-a-wager-with-dannno-(UPDATE-DANNNO-WON)/page6

Swordsmyth
08-29-2018, 12:15 PM
Bad show on Rand's part.
:confused:

I have little love for Johnson but he is better than the Republican in this case and he could beat the Demoncrat while the Republican can't.
Rand is exactly right here.

Swordsmyth
08-29-2018, 12:18 PM
There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Rand Paul and an even bigger difference between Rand Paul and Gary Johnson
Johnson is an odd blend of ideas, not fully libertarian , not fully sensible. He is more harm than good

But he is less harm than either of the other options, he would also be the first LP Senator, that would move the political landscape our direction in a massive way.

dannno
08-29-2018, 02:07 PM
I do not hate GJ. I think he is not what he claims to be, and I think there is a lot of conflict-of-interest in his connection to the pot lobby. That was never fully explained when he ran for president, and I remain very suspicious.

I have never used pot and never plan to. The call for legalization is the wrong way to go. The government should remain neutral and silent on the issue, and immediately repeal all law where it is mentioned. People should be able to grow and use whatever they want in their own yard without any interference from anyone. It's nobody's business.

Current law covers the industrialization of pot. Sale, regulation, taxation, and the forfeiture of anonymity. It does not cover a few plants in a yard grown for personal use. There is a huge difference here. I wish you all could see it.

1.
If weed is illegal as it was for most of the last 50 years, then you can illegally grow cannabis on your property, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, possess it illegally, smoke it illegally out of illegal paraphernalia/pipes, etc..

The smell of cannabis, which is quite potent, in and of itself is proof of illegal activity. This causes widespread police harassment.

2.
If weed is legal but heavily regulated, you can still illegally grow cannabis on your property, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, possess it legally, smoke it legally out of legal paraphenalia/pipes, etc..

The smell of cannabis, which is quite potent, is not proof of illegal activity. This prevents widespread police harassment.




If you actually used cannabis, why wouldn't you prefer the second one to the first?

Jan2017
08-29-2018, 02:28 PM
This is silly... if the Republican, or Gary, had a chance, then Rand wouldn't have done this.


There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Rand Paul and an even bigger difference between Rand Paul and Gary Johnson
Johnson is an odd blend of ideas, not fully libertarian , not fully sensible. He is more harm than good

Good, the Republican is worse and doesn't have a chance, Rand should get Trump to endorse Johnson.

I figured that someday the first "L" in Congress would be in the House of Representatives -
but fine if he is really running as a Libertarian and is in all the local NM debates.

Johnson should avoid displays of affection to other debaters . . .

https://s26.postimg.cc/uo12w6zg9/johnson02.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

euphemia
08-29-2018, 02:32 PM
1.
If weed is illegal as it was for most of the last 50 years, then you can illegally grow cannabis on your property, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, possess it illegally, smoke it illegally out of illegal paraphernalia/pipes, etc..

The smell of cannabis, which is quite potent, in and of itself is proof of illegal activity. This causes widespread police harassment.

2.
If weed is legal but heavily regulated, you can still illegally grow cannabis on your property, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, possess it legally, smoke it legally out of legal paraphenalia/pipes, etc..

The smell of cannabis, which is quite potent, is not proof of illegal activity. This prevents widespread police harassment.




If you actually used cannabis, why wouldn't you prefer the second one to the first?

Why would you prefer government regulation to true liberty?

Swordsmyth
08-29-2018, 02:34 PM
I figured that someday the first "L" in Congress would be in the House of Representatives -
but fine if he is really running as a Libertarian and is in all the local NM debates.

Johnson should avoid displays of affection to other debaters . . .

https://s26.postimg.cc/uo12w6zg9/johnson02.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

He is far from ideal and the only reasons I agree with Rand are that he is the best option in the race and because of the effect it will have on American politics if the LP gets a Senate seat.

dannno
08-29-2018, 02:35 PM
Why would you prefer government regulation to true liberty?

I don't, that wasn't an option I listed, nor is it a realistic option now.

I guess if I were a dictator it would be an option, and that would be the direction I would go but otherwise that is a dream.

YOU YOURSELF insist that cannabis being completely illegal is preferable to it being legal and regulated.

You could use tax cuts as an example..

If taxes were 80%, and I advocated we elect Gary Johnson who could realistically win and implement a 70% tax reduction, or a 10% tax, if you used the same logic you would be against electing Gary Johnson because he doesn't advocate for a 0% tax (at least in the short term) - even though a 10% tax would be far superior to an 80% tax.

Swordsmyth
08-29-2018, 02:36 PM
Why would you prefer government regulation to true liberty?
Maybe those aren't the options, maybe we can move things in the right direction yard by yard while we can't score a touchdown in one play.

euphemia
08-29-2018, 02:57 PM
YOU YOURSELF insist that cannabis being completely illegal is preferable to it being legal and regulated.

I never said that. This is at least the second time you have twisted my words around with no proof at all.

What I am saying is that Gary Johnson is not a libertarian. He is a big government libertine who wants to use government to promote the things he likes and stick it to the rest of us.

dannno
08-29-2018, 02:59 PM
I never said that. This is at least the second time you have twisted my words around with no proof at all.

What I am saying is that Gary Johnson is not a libertarian. He is a big government libertine who wants to use government to promote the things he likes and stick it to the rest of us.

Ok, so you would say that legalization and regulation is better than it being completely illegal?

How is legalizing cannabis sticking it to the rest of us when it is a better alternative that what we have now?

euphemia
08-29-2018, 03:05 PM
Ok, so you would say that legalization and regulation is better than it being completely illegal?

How is legalizing cannabis sticking it to the rest of us when it is a better alternative that what we have now?

That’s not a liberty position. That’s a big(ger) government position. Both positions require a lot of government to regulate and control the substance and the users. This is typical GJ spin. Big government is great as long as it gives you permission to do what you want.

I will never support a candidate who operates this way. Government will never be limited as long as people like you demand more law to give you what you want. A liberty thinker would demand a repeal on all cannibis law.

dannno
08-29-2018, 03:39 PM
That’s not a liberty position. That’s a big(ger) government position. Both positions require a lot of government to regulate and control the substance and the users. This is typical GJ spin. Big government is great as long as it gives you permission to do what you want.

I will never support a candidate who operates this way. Government will never be limited as long as people like you demand more law to give you what you want. A liberty thinker would demand a repeal on all cannibis law.

I demonstrated above that there is more liberty in the position of legalization than there is in the position of criminalization, recall:


1.
If weed is illegal as it was for most of the last 50 years, then you can illegally grow cannabis on your property, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, possess it illegally, smoke it illegally out of illegal paraphernalia/pipes, etc..

The smell of cannabis, which is quite potent, in and of itself is proof of illegal activity. This causes widespread police harassment.

2.
If weed is legal but heavily regulated, you can still illegally grow cannabis on your property, sell it illegally, buy it illegally, possess it legally, smoke it legally out of legal paraphenalia/pipes, etc..

The smell of cannabis, which is quite potent, is not proof of illegal activity. This prevents widespread police harassment.




If you actually used cannabis, why wouldn't you prefer the second one to the first?


It is better to have more liberty than less liberty. It is better to have a 10% tax rate than an 80% tax rate. When the tax rate is 80%, lowering it to 10% is not an anti-liberty position. You get more liberty with a 10% tax than an 80% tax, so advocating a 10% tax when the tax rate is 80% is a pro-liberty position. Advocating a 10% tax when the tax rate is 5% is an anti-liberty position.

dannno
08-29-2018, 03:46 PM
YOU YOURSELF insist that cannabis being completely illegal is preferable to it being legal and regulated.


I never said that. This is at least the second time you have twisted my words around with no proof at all.

Proof:


Ok, so you would say that legalization and regulation is better than it being completely illegal?

How is legalizing cannabis sticking it to the rest of us when it is a better alternative that what we have now?



That’s not a liberty position. That’s a big(ger) government position. Both positions require a lot of government to regulate and control the substance and the users. This is typical GJ spin. Big government is great as long as it gives you permission to do what you want.

I will never support a candidate who operates this way. Government will never be limited as long as people like you demand more law to give you what you want. A liberty thinker would demand a repeal on all cannibis law.


I do demand a repeal on all cannabis law - but I prefer a repeal on some cannabis laws to increase liberty over a repeal on no cannabis laws.

You actually hold the anti-liberty position because you prefer less liberty to more liberty. I prefer more liberty to less liberty, even if it isn't perfect.

euphemia
08-29-2018, 03:47 PM
If I may, let me tell you what happens when government controls a substance because of the War On Drugs:

I live in the allergy capitol of the world because anything grows here, we have a long growing season, and we get a lot of rain. I have serious allergies and I follow a very strict regimen.

Pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) has been OTC for longer than my adult life. The serious nature of my allergies mean I need this decongestant every day. It has not been a problem until the War On Drugs people decided too many people were abusing sedated to make methamphetimine. Sudafed became a controlled substance. The law states we cannot purchase more than a certain amount per household in a certain amount of time.

I have a prescription. I pay a copay to visit my allergist. He sends the prescription to the pharmacy. I then go to the pharmacy and my driver's license is scanned, and I am allowed to buy the meds I need. At the pharmacy counter. I can only purchase it there, because it is a prescription, and if my husband happens to need a decongestant a few days a year, he cannot use my prescription and our household has its allotment. We cannot buy more. There is no privacy or choice about it.

Is that really what you want to see happen to cannabis, a plant you can grow in your own yard for your own use?

Here's another relevant example: I use an asthma inhaler. This inhaler used to be $5 a month cash, no copay. Then the EPA decided the propellant in the inhaler was toxic to the environment. So now the copay for this rescue inhaler is now $50. I cannot afford to pay for a daily maintenance inhaler at all because the government controls the active ingredient.

So I am now at risk for complications because of my inability to breathe. I run the risk for infection, heart disease, and diabetes because of the War On Drugs.

No, to any more government regulation for anything.

Gary Johnson does not consider the implications of his purpose and language. If he is a true libertarian he will insist that government remove regulation on cannabis. Government should have no position at all.

Swordsmyth
08-29-2018, 04:30 PM
If I may, let me tell you what happens when government controls a substance because of the War On Drugs:

I live in the allergy capitol of the world because anything grows here, we have a long growing season, and we get a lot of rain. I have serious allergies and I follow a very strict regimen.

Pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) has been OTC for longer than my adult life. The serious nature of my allergies mean I need this decongestant every day. It has not been a problem until the War On Drugs people decided too many people were abusing sedated to make methamphetimine. Sudafed became a controlled substance. The law states we cannot purchase more than a certain amount per household in a certain amount of time.

I have a prescription. I pay a copay to visit my allergist. He sends the prescription to the pharmacy. I then go to the pharmacy and my driver's license is scanned, and I am allowed to buy the meds I need. At the pharmacy counter. I can only purchase it there, because it is a prescription, and if my husband happens to need a decongestant a few days a year, he cannot use my prescription and our household has its allotment. We cannot buy more. There is no privacy or choice about it.

Is that really what you want to see happen to cannabis, a plant you can grow in your own yard for your own use?

Here's another relevant example: I use an asthma inhaler. This inhaler used to be $5 a month cash, no copay. Then the EPA decided the propellant in the inhaler was toxic to the environment. So now the copay for this rescue inhaler is now $50. I cannot afford to pay for a daily maintenance inhaler at all because the government controls the active ingredient.

So I am now at risk for complications because of my inability to breathe. I run the risk for infection, heart disease, and diabetes because of the War On Drugs.

No, to any more government regulation for anything.

Gary Johnson does not consider the implications of his purpose and language. If he is a true libertarian he will insist that government remove regulation on cannabis. Government should have no position at all.
Cannabis is not available over the counter and the alternative options to GJ want to keep things the way they are.

dannno
08-29-2018, 05:34 PM
If I may, let me tell you what happens when government controls a substance because of the War On Drugs:

I live in the allergy capitol of the world because anything grows here, we have a long growing season, and we get a lot of rain. I have serious allergies and I follow a very strict regimen.

Pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) has been OTC for longer than my adult life. The serious nature of my allergies mean I need this decongestant every day. It has not been a problem until the War On Drugs people decided too many people were abusing sedated to make methamphetimine. Sudafed became a controlled substance. The law states we cannot purchase more than a certain amount per household in a certain amount of time.

I have a prescription. I pay a copay to visit my allergist. He sends the prescription to the pharmacy. I then go to the pharmacy and my driver's license is scanned, and I am allowed to buy the meds I need. At the pharmacy counter. I can only purchase it there, because it is a prescription, and if my husband happens to need a decongestant a few days a year, he cannot use my prescription and our household has its allotment. We cannot buy more. There is no privacy or choice about it.

Is that really what you want to see happen to cannabis, a plant you can grow in your own yard for your own use?

Here's another relevant example: I use an asthma inhaler. This inhaler used to be $5 a month cash, no copay. Then the EPA decided the propellant in the inhaler was toxic to the environment. So now the copay for this rescue inhaler is now $50. I cannot afford to pay for a daily maintenance inhaler at all because the government controls the active ingredient.

So I am now at risk for complications because of my inability to breathe. I run the risk for infection, heart disease, and diabetes because of the War On Drugs.

No, to any more government regulation for anything.

Gary Johnson does not consider the implications of his purpose and language. If he is a true libertarian he will insist that government remove regulation on cannabis. Government should have no position at all.

Would you prefer that Sudafed be completely criminalized and that you have to buy it from a street dealer and don't know the potency or what else may be in it? And have it be more expensive than it is now? If you get caught with a pill you go to prison?

Because that is how it was for weed for most of the last 50 years.

Now that it is regulated, you can grow your own, buy some on the illegal market and have it tested legally, you have all kinds of options.

It's not optimal, but it is better than when it was completely criminalized.

Superfluous Man
08-29-2018, 08:54 PM
The call for legalization is the wrong way to go. The government should remain neutral and silent on the issue, and immediately repeal all law where it is mentioned. People should be able to grow and use whatever they want in their own yard without any interference from anyone. It's nobody's business.


The call for legalization is the wrong way to go? But then your next sentence is a call for legalization.

r3volution 3.0
08-29-2018, 09:24 PM
I am officially endorsing Gary Johnson myself!

Ditto


I wonder if Ron will also endorse him. I could see him doing it or not doing it. But I'd like to see him do it just to see the reactions of some here whose level of hatred for GJ is irrational.

I don't think Ron's endorsing anyone these days, but I expect he would if he were.

On the other hand,


Just bake the @#@&ing cake already.

...I can't think of an issue more crucial for the future of Western civilization than **** cakes.


I figured that someday the first "L" in Congress would be in the House of Representatives -
but fine if he is really running as a Libertarian and is in all the local NM debates.

Johnson should avoid displays of affection to other debaters . . .

https://s26.postimg.cc/uo12w6zg9/johnson02.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

That doesn't seem to be a bar to election.

https://i.embed.ly/1/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthumbs.gfycat.com%2FPinkSm allGecko-size_restricted.gif&key=522baf40bd3911e08d854040d3dc5c07

euphemia
08-29-2018, 09:34 PM
The call for legalization is the wrong way to go? But then your next sentence is a call for legalization.

No. My call is for all cannabis law to be repealed. It is not the same at all. Liberty thinkers need to frame the discussion in a way that restricts government.

euphemia
08-29-2018, 09:43 PM
It is better to have more liberty than less liberty.

Liberty is not quantitative. Either you have it, or you don’t.

dannno
08-29-2018, 09:53 PM
Liberty is not quantitative. Either you have it, or you don’t.

So are you saying that a 1% income tax is equal to a 90% income tax?

I already broke it down for you.

I have the liberty to carry around weed, and if a cop finds me with weed, it is legal. I have the liberty to grow weed because it is legal. That is some liberty.

I don't have the liberty to open a weed store down the street without going through a bunch of regulatory hoops and bribing the city council. That is a lack of liberty, in a specific area, but overall there is still more liberty than if it was criminalized.

You have the liberty to go buy sudafed in the store, go home, and if a cop pulls you over he won't take you to jail for having it. Imagine if it was completely illegal to purchase sudafed, and you got thrown in jail for having it on your person. That would be less liberty than you have now.

Origanalist
08-29-2018, 10:00 PM
No. My call is for all cannabis law to be repealed. It is not the same at all. Liberty thinkers need to frame the discussion in a way that restricts government.

So you've changed your stance on the drug war? Better late than never.

euphemia
08-29-2018, 10:08 PM
That’s not liberty. Liberty is when we are free to enjoy our inalienable rights without thought toward government.

Pot is not my issue. Liberty is my issue. Government must be restricted. This is what we should be talking about. Pot and decongestants are things that can change pronto. We need to reframe the argument. The argument should not be how much regulation, but on what date certain government will lose the power to regulate and restrict this kind of stuff.

Swordsmyth
08-29-2018, 10:35 PM
That’s not liberty. Liberty is when we are free to enjoy our inalienable rights without thought toward government.

Pot is not my issue. Liberty is my issue. Government must be restricted. This is what we should be talking about. Pot and decongestants are things that can change pronto. We need to reframe the argument. The argument should not be how much regulation, but on what date certain government will lose the power to regulate and restrict this kind of stuff.
You continue to describe the ideal without explaining how either of the other candidates is better than GJ, we don't have the ideal available but GJ will get us closer to it.

specsaregood
08-29-2018, 11:24 PM
You have the liberty to go buy sudafed in the store, go home, and if a cop pulls you over he won't take you to jail for having it. Imagine if it was completely illegal to purchase sudafed, and you got thrown in jail for having it on your person. That would be less liberty than you have now.

When is the last time you bought Sudafed? You don't have complete liberty to buy it, there are very strict limits to how much you can purchase, and requires your ID get entered into a database. Get caught with too much and you might very well be looking at jail.

Swordsmyth
08-29-2018, 11:54 PM
When is the last time you bought Sudafed? You don't have complete liberty to buy it, there are very strict limits to how much you can purchase, and requires your ID get entered into a database. Get caught with too much and you might very well be looking at jail.

Not at all ideal but is that better or worse than not being able to legally buy or posses any?
In the case of Sudafed things used to be better and this is worse than before but weed is worse and if it becomes like Sudafed or better that is an improvement.
Remember that there isn't a candidate in the race that wants total decriminalization.

dannno
08-30-2018, 12:36 AM
When is the last time you bought Sudafed? You don't have complete liberty to buy it, there are very strict limits to how much you can purchase, and requires your ID get entered into a database. Get caught with too much and you might very well be looking at jail.

Ya she already brought that up. But that is still preferable than having it be completely illegal to buy in any amount, anywhere, and when you do (from a drug dealer..) how do you know what's in it? Pretty sure the sudafed you buy in the store is fairly high quality.

Aratus
08-30-2018, 12:39 AM
That doesn't seem to be a bar to election.

https://i.embed.ly/1/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthumbs.gfycat.com%2FPinkSm allGecko-size_restricted.gif&key=522baf40bd3911e08d854040d3dc5c07

:)

Jan2017
08-30-2018, 12:56 PM
When is the last time you bought Sudafed? You don't have complete liberty to buy it, there are very strict limits to how much you can purchase, and requires your ID get entered into a database. Get caught with too much and you might very well be looking at jail.

OK I have to interject . . .
a local old timer (former ex- Chi town boxer -actually originally LaGrange - old school boxer - Howard Cosel-esque")
bought a shitload of Sudafed a few years back -
overall good guy that broke up a fight in 2008 (RP) v. McCain's hero the county attorney'ds dad- he faced a major fdelony facing major felony except he's like 70 . . .

it's about money . . . got probation . . . the tavern is off limits for him . . no football games in the bar off limits . . .
yet, bought me a beer in the local 'pub' last year downtown. lol`

Back to Johnson . . .

A Libertarian that really could become that much of a laughing stock - suits the goonerment fine. Ends liberty ideals by "crazy."

Madison320
08-31-2018, 10:04 AM
But I'd like to see him do it just to see the reactions of some here whose level of hatred for GJ is irrational.

I agree. It makes no sense to support someone like Trump over Johnson as quite a few here have done.

Madison320
08-31-2018, 10:13 AM
I never said that. This is at least the second time you have twisted my words around with no proof at all.

What I am saying is that Gary Johnson is not a libertarian. He is a big government libertine who wants to use government to promote the things he likes and stick it to the rest of us.

Wait a second. Haven't you repeatedly claimed that Trump has done many good things and that we shouldn't be so negative about him?

Aratus
08-31-2018, 04:21 PM
I know Governor GaryJohnson has toked more 'weed' than I ever had, but I want him to WIN!

anaconda
08-31-2018, 11:30 PM
Will Gary's Senate chambers be uncommonly welcoming to Council On Foreign Relations lobbyists?

Aratus
09-02-2018, 04:57 AM
Will Gary's Senate chambers be uncommonly welcoming to Council On Foreign Relations lobbyists?

Only if they all get stoned and inhale the same wackytabbacky smoke, I assume.
He's an improvement over President Donald Trump, he likes to mellow out people.

RJ Liberty
09-02-2018, 10:02 PM
I'm pretty stoked about this run. Gary has a real chance to become the first Libertarian Party senator.

National Review has an article (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/gary-johnson-libertarian-senate-campaign-worth-watching/) stating Gary is polling at 21%, with 30% still undecided. If the Republican drops out, Johnson would stand a better chance, but he's already gained (https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/31/eric-brakey-republican-senate-candidate) quite a few Republican endorsements.

Superfluous Man
09-03-2018, 07:42 PM
No. My call is for all cannabis law to be repealed. It is not the same at all.

Repealing a law that makes cannabis illegal is, by definition, legalizing it.

Superfluous Man
09-03-2018, 07:45 PM
I'm pretty stoked about this run. Gary has a real chance to become the first Libertarian Party senator.

National Review has an article (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/gary-johnson-libertarian-senate-campaign-worth-watching/) stating Gary is polling at 21%, with 30% still undecided. If the Republican drops out, Johnson would stand a better chance, but he's already gained (https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/31/eric-brakey-republican-senate-candidate) quite a few Republican endorsements.

How does polling at 21% constitute a real chance? Unless you mean like 1 in 1,000,000?

RJ Liberty
09-03-2018, 09:59 PM
How does polling at 21% constitute a real chance? Unless you mean like 1 in 1,000,000?

The first poll, made as soon as he entered the race, and before he'd had time to even campaign much, shows he'd get 21% with 30% still undecided. That is a real chance. There's plenty of time for that number to go up, especially as Gary already has $100,000 to spend on the campaign, in a state with only one media market.

RonZeplin
09-03-2018, 11:06 PM
https://libertarianhippie.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/randgary.jpg?w=636

timosman
09-03-2018, 11:09 PM
How does polling at 21% constitute a real chance? Unless you mean like 1 in 1,000,000?

No, that means 1 in 5.

RJ Liberty
09-03-2018, 11:11 PM
https://libertarianhippie.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/randgary.jpg?w=636
Nice!

Aratus
09-03-2018, 11:21 PM
.





LETs ALL STAND WITH RAND
AS HE STANDs WITH GARY!!!


:toady::toady::toady::toady::toady::toady::toady:: toady::toady:

.


.

Superfluous Man
09-05-2018, 05:49 PM
The first poll, made as soon as he entered the race, and before he'd had time to even campaign much, shows he'd get 21% with 30% still undecided. That is a real chance. There's plenty of time for that number to go up, especially as Gary already has $100,000 to spend on the campaign, in a state with only one media market.

I still can't fathom how you consider that a real chance. Are you thinking that, even though only 30% of those who already have decided support him, 100% of the undecideds are going to?

RJ Liberty
09-05-2018, 06:16 PM
I still can't fathom how you consider that a real chance. Are you thinking that, even though only 30% of those who already have decided support him, 100% of the undecideds are going to?

Why on earth would 100% of the undecideds need to support him?

Swordsmyth
09-05-2018, 07:22 PM
I still can't fathom how you consider that a real chance. Are you thinking that, even though only 30% of those who already have decided support him, 100% of the undecideds are going to?
It isn't a 2 way race, if the R drops out then most of his support will go to Johnson.

Aratus
09-06-2018, 01:55 AM
https://libertarianhippie.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/randgary.jpg?w=636

Again... Oh happy day!

Aratus
09-06-2018, 01:57 AM
DOCTOR RAND PAUL for POTUS in 2024!
GARY JOHNSON for SEC' of COMMERCE!

RJ Liberty
09-07-2018, 01:17 AM
Independents, Libertarians, and Republicans are challenging a last-minute change (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-mexico-unilateral-ballot-change-goes-to-court/) in the New Mexico ballot; the case will be held before the New Mexico Supreme Court. Even some Democrats are calling foul, as New Mexico's Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver (D) made the surprise announcement that straight ticket voting would return to New Mexico, in this year's election. This is likely illegal, as NM has banned straight-ticket ballots since 2001.

Superfluous Man
09-08-2018, 10:59 AM
It isn't a 2 way race, if the R drops out then most of his support will go to Johnson.

Most of the R's support comes to 6%.

Superfluous Man
09-08-2018, 11:00 AM
..

Superfluous Man
09-08-2018, 11:01 AM
Why on earth would 100% of the undecideds need to support him?

Pretty close to that many would for him to win the general election. And that's assuming that the 21% who say they support him stick with him, which is overly optimistic in the first place. You're the one who mentioned 30% being undecided as somehow strengthening the case that he could possibly win. All I'm doing is pointing out how nonsensical that is.

To say he has as good as a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of winning is to paint a pretty rosy picture of this situation for him.

Swordsmyth
09-08-2018, 07:25 PM
Most of the R's support comes to 6%.


Pretty close to that many would for him to win the general election. And that's assuming that the 21% who say they support him stick with him, which is overly optimistic in the first place. You're the one who mentioned 30% being undecided as somehow strengthening the case that he could possibly win. All I'm doing is pointing out how nonsensical that is.

To say he has as good as a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of winning is to paint a pretty rosy picture of this situation for him.

There is plenty of time for him to change minds, the odds may be against him but not by as much as you think.

Aratus
09-09-2018, 04:13 AM
LETs ALL STAND WITH RAND
AS HE STANDs WITH GARY!!!


:toady::toady::toady::toady::toady::toady::toady:: toady::toady:

Aratus
09-09-2018, 04:14 AM
DOCTOR RAND PAUL for POTUS in 2024!
GARY JOHNSON for SEC' of COMMERCE!

^^^^^^^^^^legalize pot!^^^^^^^^^^

Aratus
09-09-2018, 04:15 AM
If FDR could make booze street-legal in 1933, why should Democrats have ALL the fun!!!!

RJ Liberty
09-09-2018, 07:43 AM
There is plenty of time for him to change minds, the odds may be against him but not by as much as you think.

Exactly. The idea that Gary would need to get "100% of the undecideds" is ridiculous. This is a single poll, made shortly after Gary announced his candidacy, in a fluid election which won't be held for months. Gary already has a $100,000 war chest, and as former governor of the state, he has name recognition.

Superfluous Man
09-10-2018, 07:20 AM
Exactly. The idea that Gary would need to get "100% of the undecideds" is ridiculous. This is a single poll, made shortly after Gary announced his candidacy, in a fluid election which won't be held for months. Gary already has a $100,000 war chest, and as former governor of the state, he has name recognition.

Hold on a second. Earlier, this poll, which looks surprisingly and even unreasonably positive for GJ, that you're now discounting as a single poll, was the whole basis for your saying he had a real chance of winning the whole election.

If this poll isn't a good enough reason to say that (and I agree that it isn't by any stretch of the imagination), then what is?

At this point, we have really no good reason to think he'll even do as well as this poll shows. He probably won't get 20%, and he probably won't beat the Republican, to say nothing of the Democrat. People are always more comfortable saying they'll support 3rd party candidates in polls than they are in the actual voting booth. But even if this poll does prove accurate, it doesn't give us any reason to say that his odds of winning are better than 1 in 1,000,000.

RJ Liberty
09-10-2018, 09:24 PM
Hold on a second. Earlier, this poll, which looks surprisingly and even unreasonably positive for GJ, that you're now discounting as a single poll

I'm not discounting the poll. I'm saying it's a single poll. Which it is. The fact that it's a single poll should be pretty obvious. Stating that it's a single poll shouldn't be controversial. Why do you have a problem with me stating that it's a single poll? It is. Poll numbers will go up or down. If a LP candidate has $100,000 available for campaign spending, it's possible that those poll numbers will continue to climb. Are you saying it's not possible?


But even if this poll does prove accurate, it doesn't give us any reason to say that his odds of winning are better than 1 in 1,000,000.

Well, clearly you have calculated the odds, and understand math better than others here, so I'll leave you to your calculations. I will continue to believe that a well-known and well-funded candidate polling at 21% in a three-party run months before the election has a chance, and you can continue to believe that he does not.

RJ Liberty
09-11-2018, 09:44 PM
The NM Supreme Court case regarding the straight-ticket ballots will be opened tomorrow (https://townhall.com/columnists/lindsaymarie/2018/09/11/democrats-not-russians-attempt-to-rig-election-in-new-mexico-n2517848).

Origanalist
09-12-2018, 09:02 PM
The NM Supreme Court case regarding the straight-ticket ballots will be opened tomorrow (https://townhall.com/columnists/lindsaymarie/2018/09/11/democrats-not-russians-attempt-to-rig-election-in-new-mexico-n2517848).

NM Supreme Court halts bid to bring back straight party voting
https://www.abqjournal.com/1219902/nm-supreme-court-bars-sos-from-reinstating-straight-party-voting.html

RJ Liberty
09-13-2018, 12:20 AM
NM Supreme Court halts bid to bring back straight party voting
https://www.abqjournal.com/1219902/nm-supreme-court-bars-sos-from-reinstating-straight-party-voting.html

It is the right decision.

William Tell
09-13-2018, 08:25 AM
NM Supreme Court halts bid to bring back straight party voting
https://www.abqjournal.com/1219902/nm-supreme-court-bars-sos-from-reinstating-straight-party-voting.html

I mean the Lege has banned it right??? Edit article says they didn't actually, I've seen conflicting reports. Either way they set the rules.

RJ Liberty
09-13-2018, 11:13 PM
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/09/15/gary-johnson-for-liberty

RJ Liberty
09-13-2018, 11:50 PM
Lux Research's poll also shows big numbers for Gary: in a two-way race, 42% of those polled say they'd vote for Johnson, vs. Heinrich (D) at 40%. (http://thejacknews.com/politics/elections/2018/gary-johnson-puts-new-mexico-senate-race-in-play/)

Swordsmyth
09-14-2018, 12:16 AM
Lux Research's poll also shows big numbers for Gary: in a two-way race, 42% of those polled say they'd vote for Johnson, vs. Heinrich (D) at 40%. (http://thejacknews.com/politics/elections/2018/gary-johnson-puts-new-mexico-senate-race-in-play/)

Rand needs to get Trump to call for the R to drop out.

timosman
09-14-2018, 12:27 AM
Rand needs to get Trump to call for the R to drop out.

Only after Gary explains what is a leppo. :cool:

Swordsmyth
09-14-2018, 12:30 AM
Only after Gary explains what is a leppo. :cool:

Even if he thinks it is something to smoke he will be better than the Demoncrat.

The Economist plugging him isn't a good sign though.

RJ Liberty
09-14-2018, 01:58 PM
Even if he thinks it is something to smoke he will be better than the Demoncrat.

The Economist plugging him isn't a good sign though.

I wouldn't call that a plug.

Superfluous Man
09-17-2018, 06:27 PM
I'm not discounting the poll. I'm saying it's a single poll. Which it is. The fact that it's a single poll should be pretty obvious. Stating that it's a single poll shouldn't be controversial. Why do you have a problem with me stating that it's a single poll? It is. Poll numbers will go up or down. If a LP candidate has $100,000 available for campaign spending, it's possible that those poll numbers will continue to climb. Are you saying it's not possible?



Well, clearly you have calculated the odds, and understand math better than others here, so I'll leave you to your calculations. I will continue to believe that a well-known and well-funded candidate polling at 21% in a three-party run months before the election has a chance, and you can continue to believe that he does not.

I totally agree that it's a single poll. And that's why its significance shouldn't be blown up into leading anyone to think it means GJ has a serious chance of winning.

Knowing this doesn't require that I know more about math than very many people. The great majority here know that GJ doesn't have a serious chance, and know that this poll, even with with GJ's dubiously good showing in it, doesn't suggest that he does.

Incidentally, here's a more recent poll where he's now in a distant third with 16%.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/17/gary-johnson-running-a-distant-third-in

We who have seen versions of this story played out time and again with third party candidates know what to expect. On election day, he may well have a very good showing for a third party candidate. But it will be in the ballpark of half of what earlier polls predicted. When people are taking pre-election polls that they know don't really matter, they're a lot more willing to take a stand they see as radical in support of a third party than they are in the actual election.

RJ Liberty
09-17-2018, 08:17 PM
I totally agree that it's a single poll. And that's why its significance shouldn't be blown up into leading anyone to think it means GJ has a serious chance of winning.

PLEASE stop.

I thought I made it very clear with my message, "I'll leave you to your calculations. I will continue to believe that a well-known and well-funded candidate polling at 21% in a three-party run months before the election has a chance, and you can continue to believe that he does not." that I was hoping to end this conversation with you. I was hoping you would understand that I was not interested in further bizarre conversations with you, where you made up numbers out of your head, such as "1 in 1,000,000 chance".

Please do not respond to this message. Please do not continue to reply to me tell me how wrong I am. I already know it was very, very wrong of me to state that Gary Johnson had "a chance" with a big poll number. Clearly, he has no chance, and you will continue to make sure I am aware of that.

Although I registered years late, I recall a time when there was room for positive discussion of liberty-minded candidates at RPF. Clearly, that time has passed. I very much regret that I said he had a chance. It's very clear that he has no chance.

Swordsmyth
09-17-2018, 10:15 PM
PLEASE stop.

I thought I made it very clear with my message, "I'll leave you to your calculations. I will continue to believe that a well-known and well-funded candidate polling at 21% in a three-party run months before the election has a chance, and you can continue to believe that he does not." that I was hoping to end this conversation with you. I was hoping you would understand that I was not interested in further bizarre conversations with you, where you made up numbers out of your head, such as "1 in 1,000,000 chance".

Please do not respond to this message. Please do not continue to reply to me tell me how wrong I am. I already know it was very, very wrong of me to state that Gary Johnson had "a chance" with a big poll number. Clearly, he has no chance, and you will continue to make sure I am aware of that.

Although I registered years late, I recall a time when there was room for positive discussion of liberty-minded candidates at RPF. Clearly, that time has passed. I very much regret that I said he had a chance. It's very clear that he has no chance.
Don't let the trolls get you down, he has a chance.

RJ Liberty
09-21-2018, 08:39 PM
Gary has apparently gained ground (https://electliberty.com/polls/) on the Democratic and Republican challengers, in the latest Lux poll (taken September 16th and 17th):
Heinrich (D): 38%
Johnson (L): 28%
Rich (R): 10%
Undecided: 24%

RonZeplin
09-21-2018, 08:45 PM
Gary has apparently gained ground (https://electliberty.com/polls/) on the Democratic and Republican challengers, in the latest Lux poll (taken September 16th and 17th):
Heinrich (D): 38%
Johnson (L): 28%
Rich (R): 10%
Undecided: 24%

I wonder how much George Soros & The Clinton Foundation are paying this Rich spoiler?

RJ Liberty
09-21-2018, 08:56 PM
I wonder how much George Soros & The Clinton Foundation are paying this Rich spoiler?

Dunno, but it's mostly the Republicans who are calling for Gary to drop out (http://www.santafenewmexican.com/elections/spoiler-alert-gop-wants-johnson-out-of-race/article_345aa10f-ac33-5827-bf82-be2877a340fd.html).

RJ Liberty
09-28-2018, 11:49 PM
The latest poll in New Mexico (taken earlier this week) has Gary trailing Heinrich (D) by just 7 points: 35% to 28% (http://thejacknews.com/politics/september-poll-gary-johnson/) Rich (R) trails in a distant third, with 10%. Gary is in the New Mexico newspapers every day, now, doing interviews with all the major newspapers.

r3volution 3.0
09-29-2018, 12:31 AM
In all the polls, by L groups, R groups, D groups, or outside pollsters, L+R is close to D (and usually beats D).

And I'd expect most of the undecided votes to go to either L or R, since that split is probably the main source of voter indecision.

So, if the GOPer can be persuaded to drop out, former governor Gary has a very real chance.

P.S. Getting the GOPer to drop is the real problem. The GOP establishment would surely prefer a D to an L in that seat. On the other hand, if it becomes clear that the D will definitely win a three way race, and Gary has a large lead in the polling over the R (so that no one could reasonably expect Gary to drop), the lower ranks of the party might be able to put enough pressure on the R to drop simply out of their hatred for the D (and misguided belief that Ls and Rs have more in common than Ds and Rs).

RJ Liberty
09-29-2018, 01:17 AM
In all the polls, by L groups, R groups, D groups, or outside pollsters, L+R is close to D (and usually beats D).

And I'd expect most of the undecided votes to go to either L or R, since that split is probably the main source of voter indecision.

So, if the GOPer can be persuaded to drop out, former governor Gary has a very real chance.

P.S. Getting the GOPer to drop is the real problem. The GOP establishment would surely prefer a D to an L in that seat. On the other hand, if it becomes clear that the D will definitely win a three way race, and Gary has a large lead in the polling over the R (so that no one could reasonably expect Gary to drop), the lower ranks of the party might be able to put enough pressure on the R to drop simply out of their hatred for the D (and misguided belief that Ls and Rs have more in common than Ds and Rs).

I do wish Rich (R) would drop out, as he has no chance (he's now polled at 10-14% in four of the last five polls). The number of Independents in the state is huge: nearly a third of voters.

RJ Liberty
10-03-2018, 01:26 AM
The latest poll has Gary within the margin of error of beating Heinrich. Rich should definitely drop out at this point, as his polling seems to be trending towards single digits.

RJ Liberty
10-14-2018, 07:26 PM
Friday's debate (https://www.koat.com/article/candidates-for-us-senate-face-off-in-debate/23748912) on KOAT-TV went well for Gary. KOAT is the biggest TV station in New Mexico, and the debate was widely viewed across the state. The debate also aired on C-SPAN.

Superfluous Man
11-07-2018, 11:57 AM
Congratulations to Gary Johnson for his strong showing with 15% of the vote. He did as well as anyone could have reasonably hoped.

Anti-Neocon
11-25-2018, 12:44 AM
The R + L didn't even come close to the D.

specsaregood
11-25-2018, 01:03 AM
Congratulations to Gary Johnson for his strong showing with 15% of the vote. He did as well as anyone could have reasonably hoped.

Yes, congratulations for doing >10% less than the polls cited above. Guess those polls were fake news.

Anti-Neocon
11-25-2018, 03:07 PM
Yes, congratulations for doing >10% less than the polls cited above. Guess those polls were fake news.
Even if all the Republican votes went to him he'd have lost by 7%. There was just no chance.

Superfluous Man
11-27-2018, 09:45 AM
Even if all the Republican votes went to him he'd have lost by 7%. There was just no chance.

Well said.

Superfluous Man
11-27-2018, 09:50 AM
Yes, congratulations for doing >10% less than the polls cited above. Guess those polls were fake news.

They exaggerated his support, as early polls often do with third-party candidates. Attentive readers of them mentally applied a corrective factor to them to better gauge what they really indicated about how well GJ would likely do in the actual election. Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised he came as close to those polls as he did. Those who thought he could potentially do even better than those polls were either deluding themselves or just haven't been around long enough to know this would happen.

acptulsa
11-27-2018, 10:57 AM
Cue the Kane and Kodos segment of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror VII.. Oh, wait. You can't, all videos of just that segment were long since scrubbed from YouTube. Must have been offensive to... to... some old, rich white guys.

Well then, cue the whole episode, so people can skip to the last third!


https://youtube.com/watch?v=XjrEGSrEiDM

Good luck getting it to load. But of course, luck isn't needed. What is required is an electronic funds transfer. It's no longer possible to view this classic piece of dissent without Big Brother knowing about it.

For those who aren't familiar, this is the 1996 episode where candidates Bill Clinton and Bob Dole are revealed to be evil aliens Kane and Kodos, wearing disguises and intent on enslaving the earth. When the plot is revealed, someone in the crowd (Lennie, iirc) says no problem, just vote for Perot. Kane and Kodos then say, 'Go ahead, throw your vote away,' and laugh maniacally while waving their tendrils and spewing spit.

Well, there were lots of people in New Mexico who threw their votes away. And it wasn't the Johnson voters who did it.

The really weird thing is, socialists like Bernie Sanders can go off the reservation and get elected. Republicans are so scared to buck the herd they will vote for people who converted from Democrat only yesterday over a principled conservative not wearing that R ten times out of ten. No wonder we're up to our necks in RINOs. The overwhelming majority of Republicans are literally incapable of holding their party accountable. They're so scared of their votes getting split off from the herd, they couldn't do it even if they wanted to.

specsaregood
11-27-2018, 11:11 AM
They exaggerated his support, as early polls often do with third-party candidates. Attentive readers of them mentally applied a corrective factor to them to better gauge what they really indicated about how well GJ would likely do in the actual election. Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised he came as close to those polls as he did. Those who thought he could potentially do even better than those polls were either deluding themselves or just haven't been around long enough to know this would happen.

True enough, but people that promote obviously fake polling numbers for longshot candidates only do their own favorite candidate a disservice in the long run as people end up being disappointed. I could reason with tweaking a poll so that the numbers come out a handful of pts 2-4% better in your favor to make it look like a real race, but not this horseshit.

euphemia
11-27-2018, 11:16 AM
The R + L didn't even come close to the D.

That’s the wrong equation. Liberals voted for Johnson. He’s not a libertarian.

acptulsa
11-27-2018, 11:19 AM
True enough, but people that promote obviously fake polling numbers for longshot candidates only do their own favorite candidate a disservice in the long run as people end up being disappointed. I could reason with tweaking a poll so that the numbers come out a handful of pts 2-4% better in your favor to make it look like a real race, but not this horse$#@!.

Well, I don't consider it a disservice.

What is needed is more coverage given after the fact that the superior candidate could have been elected if even half of Republicans had balls. Because a voter with balls votes for the right candidate. Period.

That's why I hate pre-election polling in all forms. Who the hell cares that your vote was part of the majority if it got you a RINO? Yeah, you were on the winning side. And the "winning side" lost, too. Proud of yourself, loser?

Anti-Neocon
11-27-2018, 11:21 AM
That’s the wrong equation. Liberals voted for Johnson. He’s not a libertarian.
It's the right equation to show just how hopeless it is, and from what I remember Johnson is more known in the state for massive cuts. New Mexico is basically just Mexico at this point and they aren't going to vote for a Republican or a Libertarian.

euphemia
11-27-2018, 02:42 PM
We had this discussion back in 2016. I think I made a very good case why Gary Johnson should never be elected to office again. He is not a libertarian. Any politician can cut spending. It’s a matter of whether they will cut all spending or just the things they don’t like. The Mew Mexico budget was not smaller when Johnson left office, and the state is a mess. There was no sustainable change at all.