Yamato Posted January 27, 2016 #1 Share Posted January 27, 2016 http://finance.yahoo.com/video/presidential-candidate-hopes-cash-pot-195419641.html Finally, a US Presidential candidate that still partakes! Finally a Presidential candidate worth voting for! Gary didn't get my vote when he ran last time, because he wasn't on the ballot, and if I was going to write in anyone's name it was Ron Paul's. Don't expect anything more in this broken democracy this time, I'll probably have to write Gary Johnson's name in because he'll be off the ballot once again. But finally after so much time has passed feeling duly disgusted with these other embarrassing candidates, we have someone who would represent some actual change in the establishment on ideological and common sense grounds. Of course the unthinking establishment wind up dolls will quickly announce "he can't win" just like they're trained to do. One other poster here other than myself, Jeremiah, will be pleased with this news too. As for the rest of the alleged libertarians around here humping on an authoritarian like Trump...what's up? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashotep Posted January 27, 2016 #2 Share Posted January 27, 2016 That man doesn't have a chance. No one that enters this late does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted January 27, 2016 #3 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Not a libertarian party member but looove the idea of having a smoker in office. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 27, 2016 #4 Share Posted January 27, 2016 That man doesn't have a chance. No one that enters this late does. not even that no one knows who he is, and one mention of pot next to his name, regardless of the context is ..well, not good, i believe Bloomberg could have a chance, not that i'd like it, but he is like Hillary minus Benghazi\email scandal, and with better health. he is also a billionere, but he was a mayor in nyc, i doubt many new Yonkers will vote for this soda nazi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunn Posted January 27, 2016 #5 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Not a libertarian party member but looove the idea of having a smoker in office. Yeah I'm not either, I really don't politically label myself as anything these days. But regardless, I really like Gary Johnson above all the other candidates. Maybe while this Cruz\Trump supporter's political feud is going on between the conservatives, Gary might move up among Cruz and Trump and maybe even pass them in the polls. But then again, maybe not. Still, I'm gonna root for him all the way. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted January 28, 2016 Author #6 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Gary would probably get more votes running in the Weed Party than the Libertarian Party, I'm gambling that weed probably brings more people together these days than greater freedom under the law. Bloomberg is 73 years old. If he wants to run, now is the time. Last chance to pull that trigger unless he's going to run when he's 77. So in his case entering now would be the opposite of too late. And he's almost 10x richer than Donald Trump. And American followers do very well with strong billionaire leaders in this country as we all should know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted January 28, 2016 Author #7 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Why would a Texan want to cut California out of the southern border? Because California is about to vote on the legalization of recreational marijuana? Because cattle herding cowboys and real men can't stand the smell of hippie flowers? Why is the legalization of the best vegetable on the planet what scares most republicans and "conservatives" to death? We've got the perfect climates in this great land to grow the best marijuana on the planet. Let's make something again, let's do it better than anyone, let's repair the damage and destruction we've done to small farmers. Every farmer who lost their farm should have a golden meal ticket to start growing this plant the day after it's legalized. Government can impose formidable taxes on the stuff, and I'm okay with that too. What better thing to generate a cash cow of tax revenues on? Tax it and regulate it like alcohol! Legalize freedom! (Actually) Give people the freedom to put into their own bodies what they want, don't single out the feminist arguments all about pregnancy and abortion and fudge the rest. But Lo! Some guy had the wrong leaves in his pocket! Hey I know, the govt can put him in a cage! Good job, conservatives! I have 100 questions for you over time and they're all the same question: Are we safe yet? And we need to feed the prison industrial complex a morsel of flesh from time to time? Is that what the Bill O'Reilly conservatives think deep down in their blackened hearts? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted January 28, 2016 #8 Share Posted January 28, 2016 It doesn't matter who's the Libertarian party's leader the individual who considers themself a Libertarian idealog should only consider voting for party principles. The leader is secondary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted January 28, 2016 #9 Share Posted January 28, 2016 We don't have anywhere near the amount of intelligent people in this country that we would need to get Gary elected. Someone like that would need such overwhelming support, that it would be hard to cheat him out of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HandsomeGorilla Posted January 28, 2016 #10 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Finally, a guy I actually WANT to vote for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dredimus Posted January 28, 2016 #11 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Why would a Texan want to cut California out of the southern border? Because California is about to vote on the legalization of recreational marijuana? Because cattle herding cowboys and real men can't stand the smell of hippie flowers? Why is the legalization of the best vegetable on the planet what scares most republicans and "conservatives" to death? We've got the perfect climates in this great land to grow the best marijuana on the planet. Let's make something again, let's do it better than anyone, let's repair the damage and destruction we've done to small farmers. Every farmer who lost their farm should have a golden meal ticket to start growing this plant the day after it's legalized. Government can impose formidable taxes on the stuff, and I'm okay with that too. What better thing to generate a cash cow of tax revenues on? Tax it and regulate it like alcohol! Legalize freedom! (Actually) Give people the freedom to put into their own bodies what they want, don't single out the feminist arguments all about pregnancy and abortion and fudge the rest. But Lo! Some guy had the wrong leaves in his pocket! Hey I know, the govt can put him in a cage! Good job, conservatives! I have 100 questions for you over time and they're all the same question: Are we safe yet? And we need to feed the prison industrial complex a morsel of flesh from time to time? Is that what the Bill O'Reilly conservatives think deep down in their blackened hearts? You will find that most conservative citizenry is not opposed to the legalization of marijuana. The problem is working through the Dogma on the subject that we have all been fed for the last 50 years through the media and policing organizations. Before you start picking on Texas to much... (my home state btw)... Read a few things first..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted January 28, 2016 #12 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) Ohio would of legalized weed if it wasn't for the fact they tried to sneak a monopoly in with it. People hated it so much that we also passed a state amendment to make sure that kind of legal monopoly can't be preposed ever again Edited January 28, 2016 by spartan max2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted January 28, 2016 #13 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Ohio would of legalized weed if it wasn't for the fact they tried to sneak a monopoly in with it. People hated it so much that we also passed a state amendment to make sure that kind of legal monopoly can't be preposed ever again Texas (yes backwards jesus and prison industrial complex loving texas ) , Arizona and Nevada are states in line for full legalization this election cycle. Very exciting stuff. Vegas is even planning on becoming "the disneyland of pot" . Its very encouraging to see conservative strongholds like these states starting to show common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted January 28, 2016 #14 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Texas (yes backwards jesus and prison industrial complex loving texas ) , Arizona and Nevada are states in line for full legalization this election cycle. Very exciting stuff. Vegas is even planning on becoming "the disneyland of pot" . Its very encouraging to see conservative strongholds like these states starting to show common sense. I don't see it as a conservative or liberal thing. If it was a liberal thing California and new York would of been the first to legalize it instead of a purple state like Colorado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted January 28, 2016 #15 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I don't see it as a conservative or liberal thing. If it was a liberal thing California and new York would of been the first to legalize it instead of a purple state like Colorado I think for a long time prohibition was a conservative thing, largely a religious conservative thing. Education has done wonders though....oh and a little greed after seeing CO get richer LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted January 28, 2016 #16 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) As for the topic on hand I do belive it is mostly a waste of a vote. It works as a protest vote but not as a vote if you expect it to win. I use to think diffrently but it's just not how reality works. In representative republics you have to deal with candidates who you don't completely agree with. Each candidate had 300 million people's views and opinions they have to try and balance to get elected If he had enough support then he could go through one of the parties primaries. Edited January 28, 2016 by spartan max2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted January 28, 2016 #17 Share Posted January 28, 2016 As for the topic on hand I do belive it is mostly a waste of a vote. It works as a protest vote but not as a vote if you expect it to win. I use to think diffrently but it's just not how reality works. In representative republics you have to deal with candidates who you don't completely agree with. Each candidate had 300 million people's views and opinions they have to try and balance to get elected If he had enough support then he could go through one of the parties primaries. Which party though? Pro drug legalization, pro abortion makes a libertarian unelectable within the RNC while being pro gun and small gov makes them the same in the DNC. Thats about the party platform not individual voters. Not that any of this is really about individual voters, its all a grand show. We hate each other because they tell us to while they simply follow the company line regime after regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted January 28, 2016 #18 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Which party though? Pro drug legalization, pro abortion makes a libertarian unelectable within the RNC while being pro gun and small gov makes them the same in the DNC. Thats about the party platform not individual voters. Not that any of this is really about individual voters, its all a grand show. We hate each other because they tell us to while they simply follow the company line regime after regime. The thing is if the stances do not work in either of the parties then they are for sure not going to work as their own party. If the two mainstream parties do not feel that way then the public support is just not their. So public opinion needs to be changed, once it is changed you will see the two main parties have candidates that reflect that. The most effective groups at change are the ones who take victory a step at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 29, 2016 #19 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Gary Johnson again???? How come he doesn't go out for the Republican Presidential Candidate? He was elected twice for Governor of New Mexico as a Republican. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted February 1, 2016 Author #20 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Gary Johnson, again. Now more than ever. As for the topic on hand I do belive it is mostly a waste of a vote. It works as a protest vote but not as a vote if you expect it to win. I use to think diffrently but it's just not how reality works. In representative republics you have to deal with candidates who you don't completely agree with. Each candidate had 300 million people's views and opinions they have to try and balance to get elected If he had enough support then he could go through one of the parties primaries. So, you've abandoned your libertarian principles, if you had any, for how politics works and for political expedience. Essentially, if you can't beat them join them. And you don't see the cause and effect in that. That is, you have to join them in order for them not to be beat. I'm disappointed, but not the least bit surprised. If you had a printing press in your basement and you were printing away your problems, then sure. Our representative republic would represent you just fine. And as opposed to what? Trump and Clinton? Their voters aren't wasting their votes? Dude. Either one you vote for, whichever one wins, that's the biggest waste of them all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted February 1, 2016 #21 Share Posted February 1, 2016 The most effective groups at change are the ones who take victory a step at a time. Ahh yes those astroturf movements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted February 1, 2016 #22 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) Gary Johnson, again. Now more than ever. So, you've abandoned your libertarian principles, if you had any, for how politics works and for political expedience. Essentially, if you can't beat them join them. And you don't see the cause and effect in that. That is, you have to join them in order for them not to be beat. I'm disappointed, but not the least bit surprised. If you had a printing press in your basement and you were printing away your problems, then sure. Our representative republic would represent you just fine. And as opposed to what? Trump and Clinton? Their voters aren't wasting their votes? Dude. Either one you vote for, whichever one wins, that's the biggest waste of them all. Ahh yes those astroturf movements. Historically third party candidates in the U.S always loose and if they have a big following then they also cause the party most similar to them to loose. There is a reason bernie is running on the Democrat ticket instead of running third party. He wouldn't want to split the vote guarentting republican victory. Supporters of his and even the socialist part will vote hillary if she wins even though they don't like her that much but they know it will advance there agenda more then not voting for her. As much as it is diffrent the Republican party is more similar to the Libertarian then the Democrat is Edit: to add die checker also had a really good point. If Gary ran on the Republican ticket in new Mexico then why is that acceptable but it's wrong for him to do it for the presidency? Edited February 1, 2016 by spartan max2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted February 1, 2016 #23 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Historically third party candidates in the U.S always loose and if they have a big following then they also cause the party most similar to them to loose. There is a reason bernie is running on the Democrat ticket instead of running third party. He wouldn't want to split the vote guarentting republican victory. Supporters of his and even the socialist part will vote hillary if she wins even though they don't like her that much but they know it will advance there agenda more then not voting for her. As much as it is diffrent the Republican party is more similar to the Libertarian then the Democrat is Edit: to add die checker also had a really good point. If Gary ran on the Republican ticket in new Mexico then why is that acceptable but it's wrong for him to do it for the presidency? Because New Mexico doesn't have backward ass bible belt folks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now