Libertarian Party (1971)++(Their decree) >>> Free Markets, Civil liberties, More freedom less government,No bail outs, No Patriot act, No war on drugs, Follow the Constitution, Bring our troops home, Get government out of our wallets and bedrooms.
I saw this on CNN this morning. They said the polls say 32% of Hiliar's supporters actually want to vote for her, the rest want to vote against Trump. For Trump, the numbers are 25% want to vote for him. People should realize they CAN and SHOULD vote FOR someone they want to win instead of against the worser of two evils.
I'm not voting against anyone. Says the guy who's voting FOR Gary Johnson. I question the fools who vote for Hiliar or Trump.
Johnson winning is possible, sort of like the Blazers winning 74 games, but it is possible....Go underdog!
I have to thank you for that...steered me to check him out and actually feel positive about his platform. I was so sure I would vote again against the worst candidate...that's not even an issue now.
I've never understood the love for government, no matter the cost. I don't know many Libertarians who are anarchists. Libertarianism is, in fact, a legal philosophy. There most certainly is a role for government, ideally, but it should not cause harm to some for the benefit of others. There are laws against crimes, and civil courts to resolve disputes. The two parties have become so polarized that neither one truly represents the will of the people. The polls say the country is going in the wrong direction. The polls say the people want what the Libertarians offer, but they don't get to hear from the Libertarians proper. That is, fiscal responsibility and social freedoms. Johnson is at 8.9% today. He has been in the ~7% range until the past few weeks. He's polling over 10% in several of the higher profile polls, and 9% in several others. It's remarkable that we might elect a president with 42.3% of the popular vote. Not all that popular, really.
If your first statement is true, then the fault for the second lies with Libertarians. No one is keeping you from running serious, attractive candidates. The trouble is, you don't bother. Your party caters almost entirely to flakes and extremists. You either don't bother to run candidates in local elections, or your candidates are, at best, goofballs. You've developed no bench, so you don't have serious candidates at the top, just warmed over republicans. To me, this says that libertarians are lazy. They don't want to do the hard work of politics. They just want to be elected by acclamation because their "philosophy" is supposedly attractive. Doesn't work that way in the real world. Candidates do matter. As a result, in an election where both major parties arguably put guns to their own heads, you can't capitalize. Your party isn't shovel-ready. This was your big chance, and you blew it. Oh well. barfo
Johnson has repeatedly said he doesn't tow the Libertarian line across the board...one of the things I like about him..he has governed without turning his state into some weird cult...
my point....as a Republican he dropped out before the guys with the lampshade hats showed up...he's an interesting guy.
What a load of blather. The Libertarians are on the ballot in all 50 states, and have been for all the elections I can remember. That alone takes hard work. The sorry thing is Donald Trump is telling the truth about YOUR candidate. It's that bad. "Crooked Hillary"
Oh, poor thing, you must be exhausted. Why don't you take the next 4 years off? And then we can have this exact same discussion next time. Edit: oh, and apparently not: currently on the ballot in 43 states, and only in 48 in 2012. Edit again: barfo
Your link. As of now, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 43 states + DC, with efforts underway to get access in the remaining seven states. You and mags are two of a kind. Sycophants for the worst kind of people. Your link is out of date. https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map The Libertarian Party currently has ballot access for the 2016 Presidential candidate in 46 states, plus D.C., and remains on track to be on the ballot in all 50.
http://www.cleveland.com/obrien/ind...ides_trump_slides_the.html#incart_river_index Clinton hides, Trump slides, the republic subsides: Kevin O'Brien This may go down in history as the presidential election that made everyone angry. That, at least, would offer some hope that Americans' taste in presidential candidates might be redeemable. For now, though, all is bleak. The crook keeps proving more unabashedly crooked and the flake just keeps getting flakier. Hillary's horror show There's no new lesson to learn from plumbing the depths of Hillary Clinton's corruption or marveling at the heights of her mendacity. She's as dirty as the day is long, and has been since the day she wriggled out of the Arkansas mud to become a public figure. This we knew. All we're getting now are more accurate readings of how low she has gone. We probably will never know all of the wrong she has done, or all of the details of her criminality — the way the private email server was used during her time at the State Department certainly was illegal, no matter how circumstances forced FBI Director James Comey to spin it. Now, the news is about the many matches between the names in her formerly secret appointment book at State and the names of big donors to the Clinton Foundation. Don't get your hopes up. As it always does, with a Democrat-friendly news media and a national attention span well short of a gnat's, the Clinton strategy will work. Deny. Dissemble. Delay. Dismiss. It's not true. It's technically not true, and besides, you can't prove it. Sure, you can have our records — someday. OK, you got us, but it's such an old story that no one cares anymore. (What difference, at this point, does it make?) We're a few months away from electing to the highest executive office in the land someone manifestly unfit to hold any position of trust. We are on the verge of putting the entire executive branch of the United States government — the most powerful office the voters can confer — in the hands of someone whose only desire is the acquisition of personal wealth, but who wouldn't mind having an exalted title to make the grifting easier. To head a massive regulatory state that holds in its hands the power to make or break not only businesses but entire industries, we are about to elect a woman whose entire approach to government can be accurately summed up in two words: Pay me. Hillary Clinton has been gone from the State Department since Feb. 1, 2013. Long before that day, numerous organizations were interested in finding out what she did there and just how tied-in the Clinton Foundation was to her official duties. The answer to that one turns out to be "inextricably." What if John Kerry's State Department hadn't slow-walked every inquiry? What if it hadn't finally thrown up its hands and said, in effect, "Alas, 20,000-plus Freedom of Information Act requests! It's just too hard!"? What if it hadn't so vigorously resisted the lawsuits, which now number more than 100? What if all of the details we're learning now about this "old story" had come to light two years ago, or even one year ago? Would we still be facing the prospect of putting the office that Barack Obama has re-created in his own image — a playground equipped with a pen and a phone to indulge his every unchecked, unbalanced whim — in the hands of a person who is unmistakably corrupt? We can only hope that when Clinton scoops her profits out of the Oval Office safe four years from January, her other most prominent attribute — horrendous judgment in national and international affairs — hasn't cost the country too dearly.
That word does not mean what you think it does. Whether it is currently 43 or 46, neither number is the 50 you claimed. You can only remember elections in 1980, 1992, and 1996? barfo
