Good on him. Assuming he gets on the ballot in Kansas, I will probably vote for him (or Buddy Roemer if he's the AE nominee).

So the Libertarian Party is going to run a Republican retread again? Don't they have any candidates of their own?

I am pretty liberal and always make fun of libertarians on fark but I've actually voted libertarian for president more than once because I see the libertarian party as the foot in the door for an America with more than 2 parties(not that I am even convinced that would help the situation), I would probably vote for this guy also. That said, if I lived in a swing state I would have to rethink my votes.

Awesome! I already liked this guy and mentioned him in a few threads over the past few months.

Philip Francis Queeg: So the Libertarian Party is going to run a Republican retread again? Don't they have any candidates of their own?

Check the platform of this guy. He's not like the other Republicans claiming to be Libertarian but are far from it. And he's not the nutcase Christo-Anarchist like Ron Paul.

Philip Francis Queeg: So the Libertarian Party is going to run a Republican retread again? Don't they have any candidates of their own?

None they want representing them.

Hrmmmm...

Someone I might get excited to vote for?

Really?

Is this like the breaking of the seventh seal or something???

///NM under Johnson flourished
///he is reasonable... like HONESTLY reasonable... also, not a jesus freak or a sociopath.
///Obama might actually have to actually to campaign to win now :P

This is bad news for Obama!^*

_{*Not really}

Aarontology: Well, he's for small government, individual liberty, and against the security state, and for getting the government out of the lives of the citizenry. Of course he has no place in the GOP

And no place in the Democratic Party, either.

So, I know nothing about this guy, except he's a former Republican from New Mexico and is now running as the LIbertarian presidential candidate. Is he going to have a past like Bob Barr (?) where he suddenly decided not to be an authoritarian chickenhawk douchebag once he stopped winning elections, or is this guy actually fairly normal?

I mean, I hear him getting mentioned with Huntsman as one of the reasonable non-batshiat-insane candidates, but I'm unfamiliar with him.

Philip Francis Queeg: So the Libertarian Party is going to run a Republican retread again? Don't they have any candidates of their own?

Actually Johnson is pretty much the antitheses of the republican party at this point... He is socially liberal (The dude stated during his first term as Governor that he wished they would legalize marijuana, also he is not anti-gay like so many of the R's) He actually made the whole streamlined, smart government thing WORK, without laying off or screwing gov workers, and he is NOT a fan of the security state...

Johnson is NOT another republican nut... I think he just finally realised that the party didn't want people like him (smart, competent, and not hate-filled) in the party anymore.

Gulper Eel: That's my vote unless Huntsman gets the Republican nomination

How are Huntsman's policy proposals any different from the rest of the field?

canyoneer: Aarontology: Well, he's for small government, individual liberty, and against the security state, and for getting the government out of the lives of the citizenry. Of course he has no place in the GOP

And no place in the Democratic Party, either.

Or really, politics.

phyrkrakr: So, I know nothing about this guy, except he's a former Republican from New Mexico and is now running as the LIbertarian presidential candidate. Is he going to have a past like Bob Barr (?) where he suddenly decided not to be an authoritarian chickenhawk douchebag once he stopped winning elections, or is this guy actually fairly normal?

I mean, I hear him getting mentioned with Huntsman as one of the reasonable non-batshiat-insane candidates, but I'm unfamiliar with him.

He is actually quite normal... And no, he is not someone with an authoritarian past.

phyrkrakr: So, I know nothing about this guy, except he's a former Republican from New Mexico and is now running as the LIbertarian presidential candidate. Is he going to have a past like Bob Barr (?) where he suddenly decided not to be an authoritarian chickenhawk douchebag once he stopped winning elections, or is this guy actually fairly normal?

I mean, I hear him getting mentioned with Huntsman as one of the reasonable non-batshiat-insane candidates, but I'm unfamiliar with him.

Basically, he's fiscally conservative and socially tolerant.

It might very well be a wasted vote, but I plan of voting for this guy. I like just about everything I've heard from him or about him so far.

The current Republican crop scares me, and I can't bring myself to vote for Obama.

Also, I'd much prefer he run for Senate as an R and actually be able to have a voice than go on an ego-trip Presidential run as a Libertarian.

Johnson Naders the 2012 presidential election

Like that's such a bad thing...

It's ashame he is absolutley awful on camera. This is a Republican who has walked the walk like no other and has enormous executive experience in the public and private sector.

I Said: Prob won't. If Paul wins the GOP nom, I bet Johnson endorses him. If Paul loses, I'm willing to bet he runs Libertarian and Johnson steps aside, based on Paul's openness to running on the L ticket (last election he was staunchly opposed).

Johnson is a good guy, but I think he knows Paul has a better chance in either situation of moving a similar agenda forward, and Johnson has a better future with a Paul win than he does if he simply gets 3 - 7% of the votes.

I was really hoping for a Paul win (I like GJ way better but he just isn't getting the votes) and a Johnson VP slot, because with Paul being as old as he is Johnson would probably end up President or run at the top in 2016.

I Said: Prob won't. If Paul wins the GOP nom, I bet Johnson endorses him. If Paul loses, I'm willing to bet he runs Libertarian and Johnson steps aside, based on Paul's openness to running on the L ticket (last election he was staunchly opposed).

Johnson is a good guy, but I think he knows Paul has a better chance in either situation of moving a similar agenda forward, and Johnson has a better future with a Paul win than he does if he simply gets 3 - 7% of the votes.

Johnson is NOT Ron Paul-lite.... They have EXTREEM policy differences. The main one being that Johnson is not a Jesus freak, nor a back-door racist.

I thought it was spelled "nadir".

He's the first candidate for President from any party that I'm aware of to take an interview by the Pagan press. (new window) He wasn't sneaky about it either, he happily advertised the upcoming interview on all his social media spots.

This is a guy that actually believes in American plurality, and I really appreciate that. Legalization of weed and same-sex marriage aren't bad either, and it doesn't come with Ron Paul's Christo-Anarchist bullshiat. A quick glance at his positions: I see travel to Cuba, some bullshiat about the DoE, more state autonomy for environmental policies, open-border policies but retaining NAFTA (do those cancel each other out?), fully pro-choice.. basically I like all his social policies and hate all his fiscal policies, which is why I quit being a Libertarian when I turned 15 (yay figuring that out before voting age!)

I don't see any support for the NDAA or SOPA though, so it's him or whoever runs for Socialist Party next year.

I Said: Prob won't. If Paul wins the GOP nom, I bet Johnson endorses him. If Paul loses, I'm willing to bet he runs Libertarian and Johnson steps aside, based on Paul's openness to running on the L ticket (last election he was staunchly opposed).

Johnson is a good guy, but I think he knows Paul has a better chance in either situation of moving a similar agenda forward, and Johnson has a better future with a Paul win than he does if he simply gets 3 - 7% of the votes.

Honestly, if Ron Paul won the GOP nomination or dropped out and went for the Libertarian nomination, I wouldn't be able to vote for him. His adamant opposition towards abortion and federal recognition of same-sex marriages licensed by states where it is legal are toxic for me.

Serious Black: I Said: Prob won't. If Paul wins the GOP nom, I bet Johnson endorses him. If Paul loses, I'm willing to bet he runs Libertarian and Johnson steps aside, based on Paul's openness to running on the L ticket (last election he was staunchly opposed).

Johnson is a good guy, but I think he knows Paul has a better chance in either situation of moving a similar agenda forward, and Johnson has a better future with a Paul win than he does if he simply gets 3 - 7% of the votes.

Honestly, if Ron Paul won the GOP nomination or dropped out and went for the Libertarian nomination, I wouldn't be able to vote for him. His adamant opposition towards abortion and federal recognition of same-sex marriages licensed by states where it is legal are toxic for me.

Are those two things that he can't do anything about worse than the endless war and fiscal ruin which any other major candidate promises? I don't think so.

So are the Ron Paul fans from the previous threads, telling everyone else who votes R or D are "sheeple" actually going to vote for this guy when Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nom? Or are they just going to pull the normal " both dudes are bad vote Republican" that we unusually see with Fark Indpedents^tm?

Need Help Soonish: I Said: Prob won't. If Paul wins the GOP nom, I bet Johnson endorses him. If Paul loses, I'm willing to bet he runs Libertarian and Johnson steps aside, based on Paul's openness to running on the L ticket (last election he was staunchly opposed).

Johnson is a good guy, but I think he knows Paul has a better chance in either situation of moving a similar agenda forward, and Johnson has a better future with a Paul win than he does if he simply gets 3 - 7% of the votes.

Johnson is NOT Ron Paul-lite.... They have EXTREEM policy differences. The main one being that Johnson is not a Jesus freak, nor a back-door racist.

Also, while Johnson believes the Federal Reserve is corrupt and in need of reform as well as auditing, he doesn't believe in going back to a gold standard.

Paul said it in one of the early debates, he was asked if any of the candidates on stage with him might get the VP slot if Paul got the nomination. Paul's reply, "I don't really know. I'd have to ask them about their views on monetary policy." Johnson won't be Paul's VP in the unlikely event of a Paul win. Instead it will be Rand Paul. (Isn't that obvious?)

Summer Glau's Love Slave: This is bad news for Obama!*

*Not really

The number of former Obama voters switching to Johnson because of stuff like the NDAA will be more than 0, and could even be enough to matter. If I was from the US, I think I'd go with Johnson over Obama despite being quite far from his libertarian views on economic matters.

FlashHarry: *seinfeld voice* "what's the deal with traffic laws? i mean, some of them are just sooo stupid!

Sounds more like a valley girl than a Seinfeld bit.

Gulper Eel: He blew 1200 government workers.

Well, that's one way to ensure votes.

YixilTesiphon: Serious Black: I Said: Prob won't. If Paul wins the GOP nom, I bet Johnson endorses him. If Paul loses, I'm willing to bet he runs Libertarian and Johnson steps aside, based on Paul's openness to running on the L ticket (last election he was staunchly opposed).

Johnson is a good guy, but I think he knows Paul has a better chance in either situation of moving a similar agenda forward, and Johnson has a better future with a Paul win than he does if he simply gets 3 - 7% of the votes.

Honestly, if Ron Paul won the GOP nomination or dropped out and went for the Libertarian nomination, I wouldn't be able to vote for him. His adamant opposition towards abortion and federal recognition of same-sex marriages licensed by states where it is legal are toxic for me.

Are those two things that he can't do anything about worse than the endless war and fiscal ruin which any other major candidate promises? I don't think so.

No, they aren't. But I'm also working off the premise that I live in a state that elected Governor Brownback and would probably vote for an inanimate carbon rod if it were the Republican nominee for President, so my vote is pretty damn irrelevant. I'd like to cast the most principled vote I can given my situation.

Falcc: He's the first candidate for President from any party that I'm aware of to take an interview by the Pagan press. (new window) He wasn't sneaky about it either, he happily advertised the upcoming interview on all his social media spots.

This is a guy that actually believes in American plurality, and I really appreciate that. Legalization of weed and same-sex marriage aren't bad either, and it doesn't come with Ron Paul's Christo-Anarchist bullshiat. A quick glance at his positions: I see travel to Cuba, some bullshiat about the DoE, more state autonomy for environmental policies, open-border policies but retaining NAFTA (do those cancel each other out?), fully pro-choice.. basically I like all his social policies and hate all his fiscal policies, which is why I quit being a Libertarian when I turned 15 (yay figuring that out before voting age!)

I don't see any support for the NDAA or SOPA though, so it's him or whoever runs for Socialist Party next year.

Look up how NM did under his fiscal policies.

This is a guy who New Mexico Republicans and Democrats alike LOVED. He always looked into the long term effect of laws, AND honestly tried to improve education in the state.

When presented with facts, Johnson weighs them, then tries to make the best decision for the people.

Falcc: more state autonomy for environmental policies

This is where I disagree with him. States should have some control, sure, but the fact is that the environment that matters to us doesn't pay attention to those political boundaries. It's not like if Colorado mucks up its river, the pollution/dead zones stop when it reaches the New Mexico border. That gets even messier when you talk about invasive species and migratory species which are protected under international treaties.

Other than that? I'm with him on everything.

YixilTesiphon: Are those two things that he can't do anything about worse than the endless war and fiscal ruin which any other major candidate promises? I don't think so.

You have to ban gay marriage to stop war and fiscal ruin? Seems like a false dichotomy there.

Obama is ending the wars and the deficits are going down (they already have) which are mostly high now because of the financial collapse. Once the economy improves which it already is, and the Bush tax cuts expire the deficits will be lower then pre-Bush years.

I know you like your talking points but they are just not true.

gulogulo: Falcc: more state autonomy for environmental policies

This is where I disagree with him. States should have some control, sure, but the fact is that the environment that matters to us doesn't pay attention to those political boundaries. It's not like if Colorado mucks up its river, the pollution/dead zones stop when it reaches the New Mexico border. That gets even messier when you talk about invasive species and migratory species which are protected under international treaties.

Other than that? I'm with him on everything.

I got a question for you think deregulation led in anyway to the collapse of our housing sector? Do you think it's ok to repackage loans and sell the loans to others without taking any responsibility for those loans?

Do you think taxes are too high on the rich too? How about things like social security and medicare? And who will pick that up if they were to be gone?

Serious Black: Good on him. Assuming he gets on the ballot in Kansas, I will probably vote for him (or Buddy Roemer if he's the AE nominee).

Honestly this is a poor decision for him. I think he is probably the best candidate in the GOP field, but if he was smart, he'd throw what little weight and support he has behind the Ron Paul campaign. Paul has got a pretty solid 10% of the GOP, and in 2016 these people are going to need somebody to pick up the torch and be their new standard bearer. Johnson could easily do so, and grow on what Ron Paul has created, but this move will alienate him from the Ron Paul people who will see it as splitting the already small libertarian voting block.

Corvus: Obama is ending the wars and the deficits are going down

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

wait, wait, hold on....

Corvus: Once the economy improves which it already is

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

gulogulo: Falcc: more state autonomy for environmental policies

This is where I disagree with him. States should have some control, sure, but the fact is that the environment that matters to us doesn't pay attention to those political boundaries. It's not like if Colorado mucks up its river, the pollution/dead zones stop when it reaches the New Mexico border. That gets even messier when you talk about invasive species and migratory species which are protected under international treaties.

Other than that? I'm with him on everything.

Nevermind. I read his policy's on the environment. He supports the ESA with a focus on species recovery? Water quality still has to meet federal standards (renewing the Clean Water Act), but will likely create state jobs for local collaboration.

Ok. I'm on board.

But this could actually be bad news for Obama.

YixilTesiphon: Corvus: Obama is ending the wars and the deficits are going down

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

wait, wait, hold on....

Corvus: Once the economy improves which it already is

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

the deficits are not improving, and the economy also is not improving. 0 for 2.

/two party systems are a detriment to the general population

Corvus: So are the Ron Paul fans from the previous threads, telling everyone else who votes R or D are "sheeple" actually going to vote for this guy when Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nom? Or are they just going to pull the normal " both dudes are bad vote Republican" that we unusually see with Fark Indpedentstm?

Im a registered Dem, and would quite happily vote for him... I may not agree with every single thing on his platform, but I know from experience that his actions stem from an honest desire to have a thriving, healthy nation for the people... That's a LOT more than I can say for... well... anyone else running?

///I know Obama tries.
///I also know the republicans are not gonna have ANY of it :/

Need Help Soonish: ///I know Obama tries.
///I also know the republicans are not gonna have ANY of it :/


I wish people would realize that the Republicans and the far right are the real problem in this country. But will this happen?