Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Gary Johnson wins Libertarian nomination


questionmark

Recommended Posts

Quote

ORLANDO — Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson won the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination on Sunday, fending off five rivals from different factions on two closely fought ballots and securing more than 55.8 percent of the total vote.

“I will work as hard as I can to represent everyone in this room,” Johnson said after his victory. “After this convention, people will be looking to us to describe what it means to be a Libertarian. And I realize it will be up to me to tell them.”

But Johnson’s near-miss on the first ballot kicked off an afternoon of protests and delegate glad-handing, with the vice presidential race to be decided later. Johnson had run a careful campaign with an eye on the general election, picking former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld — like him, a Republican who switched parties — as his running mate. In Saturday night’s debate, Johnson, alone among the top-five contenders, said that he would have signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that he thought people should be licensed to drive cars. He was loudly booed for both positions.

 

Read more on The Washington Post

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the Gary Johnson fans out there: How has he responded to the lunacy with the Albuquerque PD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Johnson but common sense says that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hilary.  That is not acceptable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

" In Saturday night’s debate, Johnson, alone among the top-five contenders, said that he would have signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that he thought people should be licensed to drive cars. He was loudly booed for both positions."

Re: the bolded parts.

Seriously? Can someone explain that to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Likely Guy said:

" In Saturday night’s debate, Johnson, alone among the top-five contenders, said that he would have signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that he thought people should be licensed to drive cars. He was loudly booed for both positions."

Re: the bolded parts.

Seriously? Can someone explain that to me.

Not really, no. But never forget that many don't know the difference between liberty and libertinage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

" In Saturday night’s debate, Johnson, alone among the top-five contenders, said that he would have signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that he thought people should be licensed to drive cars. He was loudly booed for both positions."

Re: the bolded parts.

Seriously? Can someone explain that to me.

The drivers license is easy to explain.  Libertarians feel that it isn't the governments place to tell them if they can drive their own property or not.  The civil rights act of 1964 is more complicated.  This could probably explain it a little better than me: https://mises.ca/the-libertarian-case-against-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

as of today you car drive your car on your property with no license, and it doe snot have to be registered, public roads, otoh, is not private property. 

if libs make a case that we shoudl not need license and registration, since the car is my property, i disagree with them

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

For the Gary Johnson fans out there: How has he responded to the lunacy with the Albuquerque PD?

Why is it for Gary Johnson fans to answer how he's responded to that?   You question him as ex-Governor of New Mexico for not posing as Mayor/Sheriff of Albuquerque?   Do police in Albuquerque need torturing or some White House price fixing or what?   Problems in Albuquerque should be solved in Albuquerque.  

If you're mad at the state, Gary Johnson is a good choice.   Don't stop fighting injustice; start and then don't stop.   Don't violate the 9th and 10th Amendment by treading on others with the lines and rules,  guns and cages, moneys and treatments of a centrally planned government and a strong leader on top.   It can't afford itself Farmer.   Let's govern ourselves responsibly.

5dd4340c83caabce253049c3a5d5076e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

The drivers license is easy to explain.  Libertarians feel that it isn't the governments place to tell them if they can drive their own property or not.  The civil rights act of 1964 is more complicated.  This could probably explain it a little better than me: https://mises.ca/the-libertarian-case-against-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964

So, if a libertarian's opposition to the Civil Rights Act is based on the issue of property rights then I would assume that a libertarian wouldn't also have voted for the 13th Amendment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Likely Guy said:

So, if a libertarian's opposition to the Civil Rights Act is based on the issue of property rights then I would assume that a libertarian wouldn't also have voted for the 13th Amendment?

One could assume only if a libertarian thinks that a person is property. 

Plenty of people did back in those days, people from the same two parties we're still voting for today.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Yamato said:

One could assume only if a libertarian thinks that a person is property. 

Plenty of people did back in those days, people from the same two parties we're still voting for today.   

I understand your point, that's why I like to clarify my question.

While the 13th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act are separated by almost 100 years of history, just more than 50 years after the CRA, Johnson was booed for saying that he would have voted for it, based on (what I gather) the issue of property rights. I can't see how the two are that far different.

If I'm not mistaken Yamato (correct me if I'm wrong) you've described yourself in the past as a libertarian. Are you in favour of a private bus company having the ability to determine which group of people have to sit at the back, or a restaurant being able to say, "We don't serve your kind here."? Or, to the further extreme, that the abolition of slavery was unconstitutional?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

" In Saturday night’s debate, Johnson, alone among the top-five contenders, said that he would have signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that he thought people should be licensed to drive cars. He was loudly booed for both positions."

Re: the bolded parts.

Seriously? Can someone explain that to me.

You should look up Ron Paul's stance on the civil rights act. I guarantee that's why they were booing him. I agree with Paul's stance on it though I doubt I'd have booed. Paulbots are stubborn and grumpy.

6 hours ago, Gromdor said:

The drivers license is easy to explain.  Libertarians feel that it isn't the governments place to tell them if they can drive their own property or not.  The civil rights act of 1964 is more complicated.  This could probably explain it a little better than me: https://mises.ca/the-libertarian-case-against-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964

I disagree with the license thing. Roads are public and a standard ought to be in place as it is. You can drive on private property without a license in an unregistered and uninsured vehicle all day long though.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, F3SS said:

You should look up Ron Paul's stance on the civil rights act. I guarantee that's why they were booing him. I agree with Paul's stance on it though I doubt I'd have booed. Paulbots are stubborn and grumpy.

So I did and read his speech to congress here: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

While, I too, agree with much of what he said I will still stand by what I said later in this thread. Which, is that basic human rights (i.e.: where "certain people" shouldn't be told where to sit on a bus) are, and should be paramount to the private property rights of the individual (i.e.: the owner of the bus company).

I guess that I'm not a Paulbot. *shrugs*

Anyways, back on topic. It's a good thing Johnson did distance himself from Paul's stance because I'm thinking that there were next to zero Black support for the Libertarian party maybe, until now.

I'll give them another 30- 40 years before they can evolve to become a viable alternative (IMHO).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy wont even get 2 percent of the vote he is a un issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we share the same last name, we're not related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

I understand your point, that's why I like to clarify my question.

While the 13th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act are separated by almost 100 years of history, just more than 50 years after the CRA, Johnson was booed for saying that he would have voted for it, based on (what I gather) the issue of property rights. I can't see how the two are that far different.

If I'm not mistaken Yamato (correct me if I'm wrong) you've described yourself in the past as a libertarian. Are you in favour of a private bus company having the ability to determine which group of people have to sit at the back, or a restaurant being able to say, "We don't serve your kind here."? Or, to the further extreme, that the abolition of slavery was unconstitutional?

You mean booed because he would not have voted for the CRA, right?   Similar to the Pauls.

I was just having a conversation about this with one of my turbocharged liberal friends from San Francisco.   From what he says, his whole family is certifiably Fox News Channel disciplinarians.  They believe everything they hear on Fox News.  And so he loves to talk to me about politics (this started like a month ago) because even though he perceives me as a Republican, he doesn't think I'm brainwashed and we can reach a lot of agreement. 

I admitted without even trying to fight it, that to his points, the way this system works is the way the recent Supreme Court decision settled gay marriage for everyone.  If I was a Justice I would have ruled to legalize gay marriage.   But my remarks that went along with my vote would be to acknowledge that it's the wrong approach.  An Amendment to the Constitution that made it explicitly clear that we get our rights as individuals, not because of any characteristics like who we find sexually attractive or what color of skin we're born with.  

But these entitlement holders in Congress, from the freshest Tea party leaders to the oldest of the old guard, they can't even balance the budget.   If we threw one field leveling Amendment at them, they'd drop it and start crying.

And that's what gets me most.  The way we address the problem is nibbling at it.  New rights for one group doing one activity at a time, every ten or twenty years or so.   One teaspoon of rights at a time while the govt is digging away at the rest of them with a shovel.   Because we still can't see the individual as the holder and keeper of our rights.

And her/his property by extension.  Unless we mean to imply there's some moralistic abolition of property rights and private ownership in the air?  

So I wouldn't vote to tell anyone who they must serve.  That's playing kingmaker, for the customer, and that's out of line because in America the individual is the Sovereign,  not the customer.  "The customer is always right" and the customer already gets more service than anyone else.  

If there is a racist restaurant, let's not run to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump!   Put it on the news.  Facebook and Youtube.  Let's just get a camera and be our own action news journalist.   You and I are both white?   We can go in there and press Record, and tell the waiter and manager we're waiting for a couple of black friends to arrive.  And let the civil fun begin.   Make them famous. 

Customers won't feel served anymore when there's protesters right outside across the street.  The owners will run their business into the ground if they don't change their policies.   There's nothing for a superhero like Obama or Trump or Clinton, or the Ringwraiths to do.

Would I have voted for the CRA?  Yes.  The section abridging property rights could have been left out.  That would make the bill better.  Would I have voted a year later to scratch that part out?  Yes.  On balance it's not a critical issue that's killing people who gets thrown out of a restaurant.  I got thrown out of a restaurant for having food fights with my g/f.   We came back and the manager gave us dirty looks but let us dine.   I think (and thought so then) it was the owners prerogative whether I was allowed to stay.   They made the right decision.   The food was delicious.

If government can't think of anything better to do but violate some peoples property rights to protect other peoples right to eat at a restaurant?   Then to deal with the racists will require civil action, not Washington interference.   Washington DC is like the last resort for even an important issue, not the first and only solution for 99% of the grumpkins and snarks flying around the media we call "issues".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Yamato said:

If government can't think of anything better to do but violate some peoples property rights to protect other peoples right to eat at a restaurant?   Then to deal with the racists will require civil action, not Washington interference.   Washington DC is like the last resort for even an important issue, not the first and only solution for 99% of the grumpkins and snarks flying around the media we call "issues".

 

That, is sad. Rule by the courts?

Or did you mean, "civic" action?

 

Edited by Likely Guy
Because I'm a screwup?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Likely Guy said:

That, is sad. Rule by the courts?

Or did you mean, "civic" action?

 

Action through civil society.   It's idealistic more than sad. 

Let's fast forward to a brighter future where human rights are universally recognized so we can get on to the business of animal rights.   If we gave chimpanzees a certain right to do a certain activity or be a certain way in some subsequent nibblet Animal Rights Act, and the first crisis we have about the Orangutans at the zoo, well they're not protected because the bill only covered chimpanzees.    You see where this is going?   How many more generations lifetimes or centuries will we need as a species to keep piddling away on the rights of ourselves before we get that far?   The Orangutan will be extinct before we get that far.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, let's not "fast forward" and stick to the topic at hand.

Do you respect human rights over property rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Likely Guy said:

No, let's not "fast forward" and stick to the topic at hand.

Do you respect human rights over property rights?

I very well could, yes.   Though human rights and property rights overlap.   If I'm to draw a hierarchy out of our rights by which ones I respect most, life is on the very top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

" In Saturday night’s debate, Johnson, alone among the top-five contenders, said that he would have signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that he thought people should be licensed to drive cars. He was loudly booed for both positions."

Re: the bolded parts.

Seriously? Can someone explain that to me.

You shouldn't have to have a license to drive a car! You shouldn't even have to take lessons! 

 

That does seem to be the position of some of the ultra-"the State has no business restricting what anyone does" elements of the libertarian community. If that isn't a contradiction in terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

You shouldn't have to have a license to drive a car! You shouldn't even have to take lessons! 

 

That does seem to be the position of some of the ultra-"the State has no business restricting what anyone does" elements of the libertarian community. If that isn't a contradiction in terms.

Strawman from outer space.   Drivers licenses are handled by the States.   Not President Gary Johnson or President Donald Trump.

Yes Anarchists might favor Gary Johnson that doesn't make Gary Johnson an Anarchist.* 

*See Gary Johnson's record.  

Evangelicals love Donald Trump, and we can find their rationale for their support that aren't just conjured up out of nowhere.  White supremacists like Trump too.  Should I just serve up their worst arguments with the point being that Donald Trump isn't valid or qualified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yamato said:

Strawman from outer space.   

image.jpeg

image.jpeg.6482b1db3a0bbb546f10df79090dc

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Yamato said:

Why is it for Gary Johnson fans to answer how he's responded to that?   You question him as ex-Governor of New Mexico for not posing as Mayor/Sheriff of Albuquerque?   Do police in Albuquerque need torturing or some White House price fixing or what?   Problems in Albuquerque should be solved in Albuquerque.  

If you're mad at the state, Gary Johnson is a good choice.   Don't stop fighting injustice; start and then don't stop.   Don't violate the 9th and 10th Amendment by treading on others with the lines and rules,  guns and cages, moneys and treatments of a centrally planned government and a strong leader on top.   It can't afford itself Farmer.   Let's govern ourselves responsibly.

5dd4340c83caabce253049c3a5d5076e.jpg

Woah man that wasn't a combative question. The police killings in ABQ seem like the kind of thing a libertarian would be opinionated about. I do not live in NM nor do I follow Johnson so i was genuinely interested in how he has responded and thought someone with more intimate knowledge of Johnson could fill me in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Woah man that wasn't a combative question. The police killings in ABQ seem like the kind of thing a libertarian would be opinionated about. I do not live in NM nor do I follow Johnson so i was genuinely interested in how he has responded and thought someone with more intimate knowledge of Johnson could fill me in. 

I'm not shooting at you Farmer I'm just wondering when you addressed his fans it infers that you're not one yourself.   This guy is super easy to understand.  Johnson is the No candidate who offers a real difference between the Yes women and the Yes men.  He'd say No to whatever the new Cop Bill says, whether it's families can sue police depts for 1 million dollars if their family member is killed, or that cops can open fire on anyone they think is a threat and ask questions later. 

The national politics played out for a Dr. No caliber candidate?   "Gary Johnson wants your child to get killed by cops!"  ("Ron Paul wants your little girl to get kidnapped!").   So we support the Bill exactly as written and chide everyone who doesn't agree with it, and win all the brownie points playing partisan politics, and consequently it's also how to ensure that the state keeps getting bigger, busier and more relevant than ever. 

Democrats and Republicans say shiite like:  "I'm so happy that Hillary/Trump took a stand on x, y, z issue and promised to change it once she's/he's President!"   "Gary Johnson won't even [open the national checkbook (credit card) to] help Albuquerque?  If he can't even do that, he won't help anybody!"  Because the collective brainwash is that more is better and less is worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.