Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

https://www.garyjohnson2016.com/

http://govgaryjohnson.tumblr.com/

"Handyman" ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGq4D5irpKw

reason interview from the summer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toaFfZ1S7UQ

Commence anti-libertarian trope posting.

Or better yet, commence No True libertarianing:

The Other Show 5 days ago
Gary has probably never even read Rothbard


Easton Sanders 5 days ago
The Libertarian Nomination won't be as easy as you think, Gary. Austin Petersen is very much prepared. #AP4LP2016

Does Gary Johnson understand Libertarianism?

Brian Doherty at Reason wasn’t sure how to peg him either:

But he [Gary Johnson] seems to lack either the systematic thinking or moral fervor that makes me trust him to reliably come to truly libertarian conclusions on many issues. While his conclusions are frequently, even mostly, libertarian, I’m not quite sure his natural instincts are.

After Johnson’s 2016 campaign kickoff, I can’t help but feel the same way.

I still voted for Johnson in 2012 and I’ll probably vote for him again if he wins the LP nomination. Johnson’s a sharp, top-tier contender with professional governing experience that exceeds many of the candidates seeking the Republican and Democratic nominations. Even if his ideological instincts give me pause, his policy positions are usually sound and in line with values of the American people. We need a strong Libertarian Party candidate this year and Johnson may be our best bet.

But Gary Johnson has to compete for the hearts and minds of the LP faithful at the national nominating convention in May first. Johnson came into 2016 with some leftover 2012 baggage and this year’s slate of Libertarian hopefuls has some solid contenders. Statements calling for an intrusive big government policy aren’t doing him any favors in a party that’s serious about beating 2012’s 1% showing and dedicated to ideological purity.

There’s nothing libertarian about burqa bans

Gary Johnson is a failed moderate Republican politician who only joined the Libertarian Party after he was rejected by Republican presidential primary voters. Instead of taking his humble medicine and running for the open U.S. Senate seat in New Mexico in 2012, he decided to go on an ego trip and continue his presidential campaign as a Libertarian.

For those who want limited government, it would be better to make the Libertarian Party a credible messenger of liberty instead of a perennial joke. A strong Libertarian showing could force the Republican Party to move in a more libertarian-conservative direction.

Gary Johnson’s candidacy simply feeds into the Libertarian Party’s irrelevance.

Second Time Loser? Gary Johnson Declares

Johnson accepted presidential matching funds, which is frowned upon by libertarians, but still ended the campaign with nearly a quarter million in debt.

Unlike Republicans and Democrats, Libertarians pride themselves in fiscal responsibility so running a 10% deficit is not a strong indicator of competence for a Libertarian candidate.

For comparison, in 2012, Mitt Romney ended with $3 million in debt, .8% of his total funds raised. Barak Obama also ended his campaign with a .8% campaign deficit.

Johnson was over ten times more irresponsible with his funds than the major party candidates.

SIV|1.6.16 @ 7:22AM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

Is GayJay gonna promise monthly government payments to every household in America, payed for by a new federal, tax, like he did in his last campaign?

Also acceptable, YOU'RE GOING TO THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY AND LET THE DEMOCRATS WIN:

Chip Chipperson|1.6.16 @ 3:13PM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

'Shut up and vote GOP' is probably the best advice anyone could give a libertarian at this particular moment.

Unless of course you want to see the Supreme Court handed over to the social justice mob. Because really, that's the ONLY issue anyone here should be concerned with this election. Presidents come and go and their long-term legislative influence is, frankly, limited.

Supreme court justices, however, shape the political and social landscape of the country for decades. And with the first, second, and fourth amendments basically one vote away from effective repeal, the next nominees to the supreme court will be the ones who decide whether we remain a nominally free country (or at least one with a shot at it), or if we're going to complete our march into authoritarianism. And the next president will have to choose up to THREE new nominees.

If we elect a republican -- ANY republican -- we at least have a better than 50/50 shot at another Scalia, Thomas, or Alito. If a democrat is elected, we're GUARANTEED another Kagan, Sotomayor, or worse. Game over.

With three new progressives on the court you can say goodbye to gun rights, say goodbye to property rights, say goodbye to speech protections. Over.

Of course, a lot of libertarians are also nihilists who'd prefer to ride their ideological purity to hell just so they can say 'I told you so'. But if you actually care about the direction of the country you really have to vote GOP this election.

Nativist, Racist & Xenophobe|1.6.16 @ 8:27AM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

Prediction on how this will play out: the libertarians will suck up to the left, who will egg them on, only to vote for the real leftist for the freebies anyway. This tactic will alienate what support libertarians have on right, causing disgruntled Republicans to stay home, rather than bother to vote third party. Net result: Johnson will get even less votes than he got last time.

Both leftists and rightists are smart enough to have figured out that in politics, factions that are everyone's friend, are nobody's friend. Libertarians haven't quite figured that out yet.

Charles B.|1.6.16 @ 2:43PM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

"Le Trump's a racist meme".

Disappointing. The whole reason Trump has managed to accrue as many supporters as he has is frankly that America is sick and tired of this "if you're not politically correct, you must be racist" false dichotomy.

If Johnson intends to just be another extension of the DNC and the liberal media's race-baiting divide and conquer tactics, he's lost my vote.

I had such high hopes for the Libertarian party...

Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper|1.6.16 @ 3:12PM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

You know what? He doesn't have a chance in hell, and there's no way he can capture a single voter who'd otherwise vote Democrat, but damned if I don't admire the man for his chutzpah.

I live in Maryland, so I may as well vote for a ham sandwich for all the good it will do, but were I to vote I'd be sorely tempted to vote my conscience (which is actually to not vote at all, but you know what I mean) and vote for Gary Johnson. However, the thought of a President Clinton or President Sanders is so terrifying it would drive me to hit the polling booth first thing in the morning and cast a big ol' vote for Trump or Cruz. Or pretty much anyone but either of those fuckers.

I'm sorry, but if my effective choices are between authoritarian statists who hate me based on my identity and either a reborn Mussolini or a kind of pseudo-libertarian, I'm voting strategically, not ideologically.

krutovdl 5 days ago
Is Gary Johnson really for the country or himself? What are the odds this is coordinated with the Dems?

wildman771 5 days ago
Vote other than Republican and you'll assure a victory to liberals, the welfare state, gun control, increased national debt etc. The Republican party isn't perfect, but shares a lot more common ground with Libertarians than the Democrats. Remember what happened when Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate? It got Slick Willie elected. Deja Vu all over again.

kocommies 5 days ago
Paid for by Soros, Gates and other rich democratic communists who really support Bills woman.

amanda01 5 days ago
Great, just what the country needs; a pot head in the white house. Should go great with the remains of the marxist current resident. Dumb and dumber.

ArmyVetUSA 5 days ago
The Clinton Foundation must be funding Gary Johnson, and Trump.

Also, acceptable, true excitement:

Bluwater|1.7.16 @ 12:31PM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

Woo-hoo! Or something. Now let's run in circles.

Other candidates running for the Libertarian nomination:
John McAfee (yes, that one): https://mcafee16.com/
Marc Allan Feldman: http://www.votesnotforsale.com/
Austin Petersen: http://austinpetersen2016.com/

 

[East Lake]

Mcafee website is amazing.

From John McAfee:
I am called “not serious”, yet I know of no-one who has lived a more serious life. I have run a multi-billion dollar company, having to make decisions based on cash availability and the existence of real competitors while my government lived in a fantasy world and printed money when they had none to spend. I lived in a Third World Banana Republic, was tortured and had to watch my dog shot in front of my eyes by a soldier trained by the FBI at Quantico using an Ar-15 supplied by the US Government. I hid in the jungles of Central America for weeks while being chased by an army representing a government that I had refused to be extorted by. Please…. tell me what is not serious about this.

Goddamn. Last time I saw him was on Dateline.

 

[benjipwns]

This guy was a condescending asshole when I met him once long ago, so I could never wash that ick away. It's not like he has a chance though, so I'm not worried.

He's awkward as all hell, it's why he's a bad candidate. And that's why I like him versus the other bad candidates.

Other than McAfee maybe, that's almost an ideal type of crazy. Not Mary Ruwart style.

 

[benjipwns]

Oooh, that's a subject he still doesn't like to talk about or have figured out easy answers for. So you got a two-fer.

 

[benjipwns]

Hell, it was held at Los Alamos National Lab.

Did you at least steal any nuclear secrets to sell to a foreign nation while you were there?

 

[East Lake]

mcafee on the economy.

First and foremost, we will aggressively attack unemployment. This will be done in a number of ways. Firstly, we will introduce 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. That said, it is in the interest of the United States to promote and implement a technology infrastructure that makes access to broadband cheaper, while at the same time making this broadband more efficient and more powerful.

On cameras in cactuses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cit1-laiwoU

 

[Oblivion]

benji-kun can make threads again? :O

mcafee on the economy.

That...doesn't sound like a horrible economic plan. This guy's a libertarian?

 

[saunderez]

That...doesn't sound like a horrible economic plan. This guy's a libertarian?

I was gonna say.....that sounds like a great way to stimulate the economy, reduce unemployment and and pour some money into badly needed infrastructure repairs. If I lived in the US that's the kind of stuff that would sway me.

I'm well aware of Macafees exploits but that's some good stuff there.

 

[benjipwns]

There's been a number of libertarians who have proposed that if we're going to have government monopolies over infrastructure it's better for them to own and lay/lease the lines for the internet and let companies sell access vs. the current system of monopolies granted to one entity in cable/fiber/etc. i.e. treat it like roads, etc.

Similar on the energy thing, since they're already public utilities, they should be better governed and access opened.

It's sorta like Hayek, Freidman and others saying, look, we're going to have welfare, it's better to have a guaranteed income than all these endless and easy to game programs.

I actually personally support this type of incrementalism politically, but not ideologically.

Gary Johnson is sorta this way. Though he fires at the hip when musing about subjects and it gets him into trouble with the base. Like the sharia law thing, or last time in 2012 when he agreed with putting calorie counts on menus and everyone lost their shit. Though he never showed any indication of governing this way and pushing for whatever whims he has.

Except marijuana probably. I mean, he started a company about it. And has claimed it's the only thing that helped him get through his broken back.

 

[AngryNapkin]

The only person you listed that qualifies as libertarian is Austin Peterson. Even then he is extremely grey in the non-aggression principle which to be honest I agree with his overall statement on it in general.

McAfee is a pseudo blue dog democrat with some FDR thrown in. McAfee running as a Libertarian makes as much sense as Ron Paul running as a Republican. The Republican Party hasn't been fiscally conservative or Liberty minded since the Goldwater era before the evangelical takeover a couple decades ago.

The Libertarian Party has an incredibly bad messaging problem, if they took things much more seriously they'd pull the sane Republicans, a lot of minorities, a lot of women, and most of the independent vote. Unfortunately they haven't ever improved their average in national elections in the entire time it's been around.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Given a) that the libertarian party presidential candidate will not be elected; b) that they will not in any way influence the discourse or policy arena of the big-two parties; c) that the Libertarian candidate is highly unlikely to meet voting thresholds for public financing or debate inclusion or whatever sort of metric going forward... how should a pragmatic (i.e. concerned with public policy outcomes, not the expressive/consumption value of voting) libertarian vote in the US presidential election?

I'm not trying to discount an expressive/consumptive value of voting, that's totally fine by me. But if your primary goal in voting is to enact public policy change, and you're a libertarian, how should you vote?

I see basically three arguments:
- Republican, because they are likely to make markets freer
- Democratic, because all the gross immigration and anti-gay and anti-woman bullshit are all incompatible with the liberty agenda
- Some sort of strategic vote for gridlock (D for pres, R below pres being the most sensible bet at this point) because gridlock is likely to starve the beast and reduce public support for larger government more generally while simultaneously cause more policy innovation at the state level and thus the capacity to enhance freedom in some states, etc.

 

[benjipwns]

It would depend on your priorities.

If you're a "cosmo" (like Johnson) and your priorities are things like abortion, gay, immigrant, etc. rights along with traditionally pro-speech, pro-civil liberties, anti-Bush Doctrine, etc. positions you would vote Democratic.

If you're a "paleo" (like Ron Paul) and your priorities are things like devolving power to the states, lower taxes, pro-gun rights, rhetoric you like more, "anti-PC", you would vote Republican.

I think in general many libertarians tend to square the circle by arguing that culture determines social issues and that eventually the GOP will be forced to come around and so it's more important to vote so as to stop Democratic expansion of the state.

The post 9/11 foreign policy/civil liberties shuffle did a lot of harm to the GOP friendly stances, as anti-interventionalism left the GOP and never firmly settled in the Democratic Party (it was more anti-Bush than anything, as shown by the Obama administration and Senate Democrats) and did a lot of harm to both the "least bad" GOP pursuit that Rothbard and Friedman in their later lives adopted and the "liberaltarian" movement that GOP opposition to gay, immigrant, etc. rights and then civil liberties and war on terror, etc. spawned.

In general, I found that libertarians who didn't necessarily support the party swung from W. to Kerry to Obama to Romney over the last four cycles.

 

[Stumpokapow]

The former answer is unsatisfying to me because it suggests that the label "libertarian" is just a flim-flam identity label and its political operationalization is just the same boring-ass party ID divide everyone else has--i.e. some libertarians are essentially democrats who simply answer libertarian when asked, some are essentially republicans who simply answer libertarian when asked. Like how we simply don't need to care that someone identifies as "Conservative" because that label is literally synonymous with voting for the GOP. The same would be true with respect to someone who identifies as an "environmentalist" -- this is not a label that gives any more information than "Democrat" even if it reflects some personal commitment to a particular set of public policy preferences.

The final paragraph is kind of enticing because it suggests this is a group of people who can apply pressure on some political dimension besides the typical left-right continuum, and that this label persists on its own outside the existing party structure, but I'm not sure in practice that threat to the party spectrum is ever manifest. I'm less interested in how these people identified themselves in discussions or think pieces and more interested in how those people actually effected change in the world. Did they?

I ask in part because it seems to me like libertarian gains in public policy (i.e. the erosion of unions; deregulation and neoliberalism post-Reagan; liberty/rights-oriented framing of social issues) seem totally disconnected from the efforts of movement libertarianism. I'm not trying to be an asshole, the same is often true of progressives. I'm just interested in people trying to escape the party system binary.

 

[benjipwns]

I'm not sure in practice that threat to the party spectrum is ever manifest. I'm less interested in how these people identified themselves in discussions or think pieces and more interested in how those people actually effected change in the world. Did they?

Not really. Libertarians as a whole are too small of the electorate, maybe 5% tops, with at least two-fifths not voting at all like everyone else.

Their main relevance seems to be fear of being a spoiler, with the GOP more fearful as they are most active in trying to get them off the ballot. Neither party seems to expend meaningful outreach to the segment.

The Tea Party's libertarian leanings seemed to go by the wayside as it got sidetracked by other issues, especially immigration, now manifest in the Trump and Cruz candidacies. Cruz has some libertarian strokes or at least "constitutional conservative" strokes but he mainly uses libertarian rhetoric while emphasizing non-libertarian stances on popular issues. Cruz, Paul, Mike Lee, Kasich, Walker, etc. rode Tea Party support into office on cutting spending/taxes/etc. rhetoric more than the other issues and shifted afterwards as the Tea Party and GOP electorate did into a more standard conservative position.

And for a libertarianism that is less socially libertarian but doesn't want to vote Republican, there's the Constitution Party.

 

[Sotha_Sil]

I saw him in person and on a lot of national issues, he seemed either unsure or unwilling to answer questions.

Needless to say, it was quite disappointing for someone with such a good record at the state level. Louisiana sure could use him.

 

[Malfunky]

I ask in part because it seems to me like libertarian gains in public policy (i.e. the erosion of unions; deregulation and neoliberalism post-Reagan; liberty/rights-oriented framing of social issues) seem totally disconnected from the efforts of movement libertarianism. I'm not trying to be an asshole, the same is often true of progressives. I'm just interested in people trying to escape the party system binary.

I don't think the the same is often true of progressives rather than nearly always true. The questions you are asking about the libertarian identity can be asked about its counterpoints on the progressive end. Try to escape the party system binary through the party system and you'll inevitably fall into either binary party. The problem with progressives and libertarians or any so-called fringe groups is that they are and can only ever be legitimized through appropriation or assimilation by either party. Hence the Tea Party's inevitable fold into the GOP and any number of progressive movements folding into the Democratic Party. Most appropriately: Bernie Sander's need to declare party affiliation with the Democrats in order to win votes and be legitimized for presidency.

"Flim-flam identity labels" are symptomatic of the system. And each party capitalizes on this by claiming these stragglers.

 

[benjipwns]

There's also legal issues, you often have to be one of the major two parties for ballot status, public funding, etc.

The Libertarians, Greens, etc. hold conventions because they generally don't qualify to have a state-funded primary (something that has been shown to increase party/candidate participation and voter interest...primaries > caucuses > conventions) as the law is often written to exclude them.

When the Reform Party started in 1996, Ross Perot had no intention of running again, but in order for it to receive all the perks of being a political party he had to be the candidate. His performance then carried the party over into receiving $15 million or so in public funding in 2000 which is why Trump and Pat Buchanan ran for the party nomination and Jesse Ventura considered it. When Buchanan bombed, so did the Party's favorable status. (It technically still exists.)

The League of Women Voters stopped sponsoring the general election debates because of the two parties increasing demands of control over what had been a non-partisan arrangement.

The barriers to non-billionaire candidates launching independent bids is so high that running for a nomination like the Libertarian or Green Party is favorable for lesser "name" candidates. Hence, Gary Johnson's bids, and why Ralph Nader hooked onto the Greens. Arguably one of the most "legitimate" candidates to run Third Party since 1980 or 1988. Especially Johnson being a two-term former Governor. And the other being the most famous non-politician to run Third Party outside of Perot in 1992 since...well...um...let me see... Those parties already have activists keeping ballot status and rounding up supporters and having a place in the Third Party Infrastructure that sponsors alternative debates, works together on these common issues, etc.

 

[iamblades]

Not really. Libertarians as a whole are too small of the electorate, maybe 5% tops, with at least two-fifths not voting at all like everyone else.

Their main relevance seems to be fear of being a spoiler, with the GOP more fearful as they are most active in trying to get them off the ballot. Neither party seems to expend meaningful outreach to the segment.

The Tea Party's libertarian leanings seemed to go by the wayside as it got sidetracked by other issues, especially immigration, now manifest in the Trump and Cruz candidacies. Cruz has some libertarian strokes or at least "constitutional conservative" strokes but he mainly uses libertarian rhetoric while emphasizing non-libertarian stances on popular issues. Cruz, Paul, Mike Lee, Kasich, Walker, etc. rode Tea Party support into office on cutting spending/taxes/etc. rhetoric more than the other issues and shifted afterwards as the Tea Party and GOP electorate did into a more standard conservative position.

And for a libertarianism that is less socially libertarian but doesn't want to vote Republican, there's the Constitution Party.

The tea party was and is not at all libertarian IMO, it is a completely populist conservative movement. That they had certain libertarian positions shouldn't be shocking, you could pick most any politician at random and find they support a good third of libertarian policies.

Also it shouldn't really be shocking that a politician runs on certain things, but once elected behaves like any other member of his party. That's how party politics works(or doesn't work I should say), if someone wants to get anything done they have to play ball with party leadership.

 

[SD-Ness]

This thread needs a bump.

www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/politics/gary-johnson-libertarian.html

Mr. Johnson, who garnered more than a million votes as the Libertarian Party’s nominee in 2012, attracted attention last month after a national Monmouth University poll included him in a hypothetical general election matchup with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. He drew the support of 11 percent of voters, raising the possibility that if his numbers continue to pick up, he could be eligible to participate in the presidential debates this fall.

Anyone interested in Gary Johnson as an alternative to the current candidates?

He's far better than Cruz/Trump/Kasich. Might be too much of a departure from Sanders for me. On the other hand, he's interesting when contrasted with Clinton.

Would Sanders supporters shift to Clinton Jill Stein or Johnson?

NYT op-ed: www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/opinion/campaign-stops/live-free-or-trump.html

Reason mag blog: http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/07/will-the-lp-please-nominate-gary-johnson

 

[benjipwns]

raising the possibility that if his numbers continue to pick up, he could be eligible to participate in the presidential debates this fall

Except for that whole thing where they'd change the rules to keep him out.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I voted for Jill Stein in the last election. If/When Clinton becomes the nominee, I will probably do it again, or write-in the original Scuba Hood, "Doug Fischer."

 

[benjipwns]

Might as well link this in here, Gary's the likely nominee, but here's the Stossel debate between him, McAfee and Petersen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQPWiCgAjDo

 

[Stumpokapow]

Might as well link this in here, Gary's the likely nominee, but here's the Stossel debate between him, McAfee and Petersen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQPWiCgAjDo

benji is that you in the front row with the red bowtie? very handsome.

 

[benjipwns]

god don't i wish

rocking the pocket square too

 

[Laevateinn]

I realize Gary Johnson is somewhat of a big name and has reasonable crossover appeal to Republicans who rightly think their party is a joke now but I'm going to be slightly disappointed if they run him again. Same goes for the Green Party. I don't really want to vote for Jill Stein. Unless they have massive appeal and ability to fundraise like Ralph Nader, they should at least put up new faces each time so it doesn't run the risk of appearing like it's a party of one person.

 

[benjipwns]

Unfortunately, ballot status is important for the Party. So having someone with existing name recognition is important to boost the numbers.

Jill Stein seems to have just won the Green Party by default for some reason. No prominent Greens even bother for the nomination.

Libertarians took 2012 off for GJ mostly after the disaster that was 2008* but this year they turned out, and Jesse The Body was considering it too. So I don't mind the Party taking another run with Johnson. Much like Harry Browne's two bids.

*For both of the "two major third parties"...Greens went with Cynthia McKinney...

 

[KRod-57]

I really wish the Republican party were more like the Libertarians, I also wish left leaning Libertarians had better representation in the US.

 

[benjipwns]

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson has chosen former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld as his running mate,

Billionaire businessman and philanthropist David Koch has pledged “tens of millions of dollars” to help bankroll the campaign of Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, according to a source within Johnson’s campaign.
...
But after publication, the spokesman told TheDC: “Reports that David Koch has pledged his support to Gary Johnson – or any candidate running for president for that matter – are untrue.”

Despite that denial, a source with a leadership position in the Libertarian Party told The Daily Caller Thursday afternoon that Johnson’s on track to receive the billionaire’s support.

“In the event that a Johnson/[Bill] Weld ticket emerges from the convention, a pathway is in place for significant funding from Koch, [Steve] Wynn and other large donors,” the source said.

Greatest VP pick in history, The Party's sugar daddy is back home, 1% here we come!!!

 

[Arkeband]

Gary Johnson has a pretty interesting interview on Joe Rogan's latest podcast (#801), they sit down and talk about a bunch of contemporary issues. I don't agree with libertarianism as a concept because I understand that we don't all live in a vacuum and leaving social welfare up to private institutions is just laughable, but he seems like a genuinely decent guy.

I guess it's also worth mentioning that McAfee also has an epic call-in to the same podcast (a few years ago), but it's bizarre and he's clearly coked out of his mind, so basically, what you'd expect.

 

[benjipwns]

Plausible, but you wouldn't be able to tell easily. That's basically just John McAfee all the time.

 

[Xe4]

As a resident of NM, I've never been a fan of Johnson. He was a middling goveroner, and honestly would probably be an even more middling President if elected.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I...uh, I guess a bunch of posts were deleted early in this thread? Either that or Benji was talking to himself again.

 

[Laevateinn]

Greatest VP pick in history, The Party's sugar daddy is back home, 1% here we come!!!

1 % in more ways than one.

As a resident of NM, I've never been a fan of Johnson. He was a middling goveroner, and honestly would probably be an even more middling President if elected.

It's too bad Gary Johnson has such a great shot at winning the presidency. I'd hate to have a middling POTUS.

 

[benjipwns]

Gary Johnson		518	56.0%
Austin Petersen		203	21.9%
John McAfee		131	14.2%
Darryl Perry		52	5.6%
Marc Allen Feldman	18	1.9%
Others			3	0.3%

Another victory for the totalitarian wing of the Libertarian Party.

 

[Alcibiades]

I voted for him in 2012 and like the guy (though I'd say politically I'm moderate), but he does come off as a loser. Guy couldn't hack it in the Republican primary so he goes third party. Just quit already.

If I end up voting third party it'll be Green this time around.

 

[benjipwns]

In fairness to Gary, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, anti-war wasn't an ideal platform to run on in a national Republican Primary. At least Ron was smart enough to fudge the first two up with a "Constitutional explanation."

 

[Laevateinn]

You guys missed the most important part of the convention.

 

[OuterLimits]

That was on CSPAN? Was this dude running for something?

 

[Laevateinn]

Apparently he was running for Chairman before they voted to kick him out.

 

[SecretMoblin]

the libertarians were more fun when they were less desperate :/

bring back QUEEN nancy lord, an icon

 

[Coriolanus]

McAffe's section on Trump vs Hillary is a thing of beauty.

 

[Justin]

 

[benjipwns]

This is the party where Starchild and a blue guy were heavy hitters, important people. Nearly naked nazi is nothing.

 

[benjipwns]

Really, the guy is blue:

. He is also a man who accidentally turned his skin blue by drinking a homemade antibiotic laced with silver.

He first took the medicine in 1999, he said, fearing that the year 2000 would wreck computers, spread terrorism and disease, and make prescribed antibiotics unavailable. He concedes now that he miscalculated.

 

[benjipwns]

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

Really, the guy is blue:

lol wut

 

[Justin]

They also booed the passing of the civil rights act... Not in 1964 but yesterday.

 

[Jawbreaker]

Are you ready?

 

[Coriolanus]

lol wut

Living proof that the FDA is bad and we'd be better off without it.

 

[benjipwns]

He survived Y2K didn't he?