When Paul drops out, Johnson will get his supporters. That will put him above the 15% needed to be involved with the national debates.

/I've got goose bumps
//He wont win the Presidency, but we are making a statement telling the GOP and the Dems that they are not the only game in town

cman: When Paul drops out, Johnson will get his supporters. That will put him above the 15% needed to be involved with the national debates.

/I've got goose bumps
//He wont win the Presidency, but we are making a statement telling the GOP and the Dems that they are not the only game in town

Some variation of this was said by Nader supporters, and before that Ross Perot supporters. If third parties could get candidates that are not batsh*t insane, maybe they'd have more than 15% support.

cameroncrazy1984: cman: When Paul drops out, Johnson will get his supporters. That will put him above the 15% needed to be involved with the national debates.

/I've got goose bumps
//He wont win the Presidency, but we are making a statement telling the GOP and the Dems that they are not the only game in town

Some variation of this was said by Nader supporters, and before that Ross Perot supporters. If third parties could get candidates that are not batsh*t insane, maybe they'd have more than 15% support.

When Nader and Perot ran, there were not as many pissed off Americans at both parties as there are today.

Gary Johnson is, in some ways, Ron Paul Lite. He has some libertarian leanings, but not to the extremes of Paul.

/Not that he's perfect by any stretch, but it's a refreshing change of pace to see a Republican who isn't a moral authoritarian.

id vote for him.

What about Oh Long Johnson?

Beats the hell out of Bob Barr.

vegasman2000: Attacking Romney from the right and Obama from the left is a great strategy, and if that makes him seem crazy then so be it.

Simultaneously being more conservative than Romney, yet more liberal than Obama is a great strategy? If you're batsh*t, sure.

/also, that's not possible.

SharkTrager: I know Gary. He's not crazy.

Then why is he a "fair" taxer?

BeesNuts: Libertarianism lost its way in the 90's. Sorry kid. That ship sailed. It was a sweet 20 year run though.

With the way both parties are now? Don't think so. The LP is still around to be a thorn in the side to both parties.

cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: I know Gary. He's not crazy.

Then why is he a "fair" taxer?

We can all agree on something: the current tax system needs an overhaul. I dont agree with Johnson on this issue (I am a flat taxer man myself), but that wont keep me from voting for him.

At least he has the balls to want to try something so revolutionary, unlike Obama, who has confused the word "compromise" with "capitulation", and Mittens, who will say something on Monday and contradict himself on Tuesday.

sprawl15: I have problems with the sanity of any person who would support switching to a gold standard.

Hm. Looks like Johnson does too, along with abolishing the Fed. Same crazy, different name.

cman: At least he has the balls to want to try something so revolutionary

Oh, that's good. "His ideas suck, but at least he's crazy enough to implement them!"

You're really good at selling your candidates.

cameroncrazy1984: cman: At least he has the balls to want to try something so revolutionary

Oh, that's good. "His ideas suck, but at least he's crazy enough to implement them!"

You're really good at selling your candidates.

And you, sir, are pretty damn mean

cman: cameroncrazy1984: cman: At least he has the balls to want to try something so revolutionary

Oh, that's good. "His ideas suck, but at least he's crazy enough to implement them!"

You're really good at selling your candidates.

And you, sir, are pretty damn mean

I'm sorry. I used to be better at the whole "protect the innocence of youth" thing. You just had to learn sooner or later that the reason these guys don't get much support isn't because they are "different," it's because they espouse ideas that are - in the best case - stupid, and in the worst case dangerously insane.

cameroncrazy1984: cman: cameroncrazy1984: cman: At least he has the balls to want to try something so revolutionary

Oh, that's good. "His ideas suck, but at least he's crazy enough to implement them!"

You're really good at selling your candidates.

And you, sir, are pretty damn mean

I'm sorry. I used to be better at the whole "protect the innocence of youth" thing. You just had to learn sooner or later that the reason these guys don't get much support isn't because they are "different," it's because they espouse ideas that are - in the best case - stupid, and in the worst case dangerously insane.

If I may ask, what does he propose that you consider would be dangerously insane? I would appreciate it if you could map out your thought process so I can have an understanding about how you came to such conclusion.

EWreckedSean: Yeah that was my impression. He has great ideas, but doesn't articulate them well.

Oh, please do tell me about these great ideas of his. I can't seem to find any.

cman: If I may ask, what does he propose that you consider would be dangerously insane? I would appreciate it if you could map out your thought process so I can have an understanding about how you came to such conclusion.

I've already told you: He wants to return to the gold standard, abolish the Fed and institute a flat tax (sorry, I got my insane tax theories messed up, the fair tax is the national sales tax, I think).

Those three things alone are enough toss him into the "dangerously insane" category. I don't think I should have to explain why, but since you are a supporter, you probably don't understand the consequences of each of these things.

1. Gold standard - the US economy is around $14-15T a year. Do you know how much was ever mind in the ENTIRE WORLD?

around $10T.

So, either the United States would have to own all of the gold in the world, or the dollar would have to fall markedly to devalue all of the assets in the US so as to pin it to the price of gold. Or the price of gold would have to shoot up 20 or 30x what the price is now, in order to cover every dollar in the economy.

This would lead to massive price shocks, and oh, by the way, the price of gold will affect the amount that your dollar is worth, not solving the issue that it is supposed to, namely, the fluctuating value of the dollar.

-Abolishing the Fed is similarly dangerous because then you're left without a central bank and your currency might as well be useless without a way to distribute it.

-The flat tax is also insane because it doesn't affect wealthy people at all, but it will cause poor people's taxes to go up, giving them less to spend on trivial things such as housing, food, clothing, etc. You know. The basics. That will cause more people to go on welfare and food stamps, while also requiring the tax to be at around 30% just to keep up with the revenue that we have now with our progressive tax system. Seems like a bad idea, doesn't it?

Did I answer your questions?

cameroncrazy1984: cman: If I may ask, what does he propose that you consider would be dangerously insane? I would appreciate it if you could map out your thought process so I can have an understanding about how you came to such conclusion.

I've already told you: He wants to return to the gold standard, abolish the Fed and institute a flat tax (sorry, I got my insane tax theories messed up, the fair tax is the national sales tax, I think).

Those three things alone are enough toss him into the "dangerously insane" category. I don't think I should have to explain why, but since you are a supporter, you probably don't understand the consequences of each of these things.

1. Gold standard - the US economy is around $14-15T a year. Do you know how much was ever mind in the ENTIRE WORLD?

around $10T.

So, either the United States would have to own all of the gold in the world, or the dollar would have to fall markedly to devalue all of the assets in the US so as to pin it to the price of gold. Or the price of gold would have to shoot up 20 or 30x what the price is now, in order to cover every dollar in the economy.

This would lead to massive price shocks, and oh, by the way, the price of gold will affect the amount that your dollar is worth, not solving the issue that it is supposed to, namely, the fluctuating value of the dollar.

-Abolishing the Fed is similarly dangerous because then you're left without a central bank and your currency might as well be useless without a way to distribute it.

-The flat tax is also insane because it doesn't affect wealthy people at all, but it will cause poor people's taxes to go up, giving them less to spend on trivial things such as housing, food, clothing, etc. You know. The basics. That will cause more people to go on welfare and food stamps, while also requiring the tax to be at around 30% just to keep up with the revenue that we have now with our progressive tax system. Seems like a bad idea, doesn't it?

Did I answer your questions?

Thank you

sprawl15: Not only that, but even if we could magically wave a wand and convert smoothly over to a gold standard, it simply doesn't address the problems claimed against fiat currency. The government still would control the amount of gold within coinage and could manipulate the amount of money by decreasing the amount of gold within a $20 coin (for example).

It would solve absolutely nothing, on top of being ludicrously stupid to implement

Yessir. I touched on that a little bit later on in my giant wall o'text, but thank you for elaborating on that point.