We're not talking "an ounce of silly". Honestly, I think Obama has a great sense of humor that he often directs at himself. And one of GWB's qualities was likability derived from his sense of humor and being a "regular Joe." That said... Johnson's silliness is over the top. Can you honestly see him leading the country?
A lot of people, me included, think votes for Nader gave the 2000 election to Bush over Gore. It mattered. From Marianne Means in wikipedia: Oh don't forget Iraq War 2-->ISIS.
This is the lesser of evils? This guy is a f***ing idiot. No one makes minimum wage as long as they show up on time and wear clean clothes? Seriously? No one is voting for him because Libertarianism is stupid. What worked in the early 1800's does not work in 2016 and beyond.
Gary Johnson seems quite likable and folksy which resonates in an election that has been so negative. With that said, he has plenty of cooky policy positions. The reality is that most people who are annoucing their support for him have no idea what most of his policy positions are. For example, he advocates abolishing all income taxes and replacing the revenue with a national sales tax. Interestingly enough, in order to offset the regressive nature of such a proposal he advocates a prebate to cover basic expenses which is functionally a form of universal basic income. Aside from the sheer stupidity of the proposal, he found a way to create a tax proposal that simultaneously would be unacceptable to liberals (abolition of a progressive income tax in favor of a regressive sales tax) and conservatives (implementation of a universal basic income which is the epitome of government wealth redistribution). He's also previously advocated privatizing all health care distribution which means no medicare and medicaid. He also has supported privatizing social security entirely. The minimum wage item and TARP have also been brought up. And the seemingly out of touch answer that he put forward on those items is quite common on other positions. He never had a very strong grasp of the nuances of policy so he lives in some vague alternate reality at times that is dangerous when we're talking about the presidency.
I'm likely voting for Johnson as well, though I am not a fan of Libertarian foreign policy. Well, to clarify, I am a fan of isolationism in theory, but in today's economy and worldwide security threats, I believe it's in America's best interest to be actively engaged around the world. That isn't to say I don't believe we can't trim our defense budget and be more efficient, like perhaps consolidating bases or eliminating some entirely. I believe the Pentagon has said they can reduce 20% of their current bases (not sure if that was only domestic bases). I appreciate Johnson's humility though. He never assumes he's right. He always acknowledges that he could be wrong. That might drive some people crazy, but personally, I think it's exactly what we need in an executive leader. Presidents can't pass laws. But good ones can WORK with Congress, regardless of the political makeup, to ensure quality legislation is passed. Personality wise, the guy is a bit strange. But then again so is Captain Combover and Evil Laugh Hillary.
There is a long list of policy issues I'm very much against, to give just a couple of examples: TPP, For Profit Private Prisons
too many people think Libertarian party is the answer, when in fact they would run the country into the grounds if left in power for any significant time.
He has some very brash policies that he wants to pass, no doubt. The national sales tax is weird and crazy, but I don't think it would ever pass. If it did, it could (key word being could) work, in my opinion, as much as people don't want to be bothered with change. It would be a HUGE change, and thus, it wouldn't go over well, but it would account for more income off illegals (it would essentially make non-citizens strive for citizenship, in my opinion) and tourists-alike. I realize that may not offset anything, but I haven't seen any numbers on it. I'll admit, though, I don't think it would ever make it anywhere. I am staunchly against a significant minimum wage hike, so I'm with him there. I don't see Johnson as a president that comes in and passes policy after policy, changing the course of America. What I see is a guy who could come in, stabilize things, unite congress, and get some work done. That's exactly what this country needs. Can Hillary do that? Maybe, but I think conservstives hate her so much it would be a struggle. Shed have to have a majority in both the House and the Senate. Even still, that's not a total unification that I'm talking about. Can Trump do that? Hell no. He'll, at best, walk us on a path into decline, be it through war, policy, or economics, or all three. What I think Johnson, as an outsider, can do is bring both parties more towards a midline to where they can cut the bullsh!t extremism and actually get down to working together. This is where this country needs that third party member. No candidate is going to be perfect. Johnson has some cooky proposals that I don't necessarily like, and some that just make me think they'd be interesting. In my opinion, though, as I said, these things don't necessarily get passed, and I think many that will vote for him realize that. Part of the reason I'm voting for him is because I see him as a unifier. An actual figurehead that can represent what this country should strive for. Now, I know many that don't like him will bash that, and tell me I need to vote based on policy alone, but in my opinion, that's not necessarily the end all be all of a presidential candidate, as most are never able to get what they want done in 8 years, much less 4. This country needs someone that can unite it's people, politic the politicians, and just steady it onto a forward path. That probably came out sounding a bit uneducated, and I realize I'm not the most up on politics around here, so please realizs it sounded a lot better in my head.:grin:
Google the libertarian stance on anti-discrimination laws or Ron Paul's stance on the Civil Rights Act. Then ask yourself who do you trust more to protect your well-being: Government Corporations I understand distrust of government, but we can control that by ballot, as long as we can regulate corporate malfeasance. Uh oh...
I don't think that's the case at all. Perhaps a Libertarian party with a candidate other than Gary Johnson. He's been very open about not wanting to shove his policy proposals down the throats of Congress. He's for free trade, ie he's for TPP. So was Clinton, until Trump came out against it and free trade in general...which is like one of the most Republican ideals. People are just skeptical because those deals are done in secret and so there's no one to counter the boogie man narrative Trump spits out. He's for criminal justice reform, he's for civil liberties (against stop and frisk policies), he believes Congress SHOULD hold hearings on Obama's SCOTUS nominee, we should end the war on drugs (which contributes significantly to those "for-profit" prisons). His views on private prisons are detailed more in this article http://govgaryjohnson.tumblr.com/post/139039414105/private-prisons. He opposes big oil subsidies. He isn't necessarily for entirely privatizing social security, he calls for a combination -- "A combination of benefit reduction and/or privatization are necessary. At least part of Social Security should include private accounts that are counted in your estate." And he's right, SS is a Ponzi scheme. Life expectancy is much higher than it was when SS was adopted and the program, as is, won't last long into the future without significant changes. He doesn't want to eliminate SS though. I don't necessarily support all his beliefs, but, what's important to me is that I agree in principle with much of his beliefs, and, most importantly, I trust the guy a significant amount more than Trump or Hillary. Anyways, those are just a few of his policy positions. I think the answer is more hybrid parties and candidates. There good ideas on the left and right, a more centrist view is better for our country, IMO.
Exactly how I feel. He's kind of that middle ground that is needed so much right now. Financially conservative, socially, more liberal. I don't agree with everything he's proposed, but most of it I know he won't push. The FairTax is a wildcard. I'm still not sure how I feel about it.
he's not middle ground anything. He's a 'none of the above' vote, which is fair enough, but anyone specifically voting for anything he says he want to do is pretty far removed from the mainstream, and IMO reality itself.
And I wasn't saying his policies are middle ground, but his leadership philosophy is premised on compromising, ie finding middle ground.
He may be likable but he's not middle ground. Abolishing the minimum wage, the income tax, medicare and privatizing social security in its entirety isn't mainstream or middle ground. Neither are his foreign policy priorities. I understand people wanting to vote for him but don't call him a middle ground because he's not. He's been given zero criticism or analysis of his policy priorities so its easy to fall under the illusion that he represents some centrist compromise. That is absolutely not the case with the Libertarian party.
Again, I don't think anyone believes his policy ideas are middle ground. It's HE who is middle ground, ie willing to compromise.
It is a shame that the Libertarians will not reach out to their Benedict Arnold. This election has two well established personalities. Nobody knows who Johnson is, and nobody cares. But we do know who is Ron Paul. Same goes for the Green Party. Jill Stein? Never heard of her. Ralph Naeder? Certainly many voters have heard of him. These two parties have blown their chance at any significant percent of the vote due to their bypassing pragmatism for idealism.
If he's willing to compromise then he has to literally be willing to give up his entire platform. Democrats and Republicans don't agree with him on those issues. Compromise doesn't work when your starting point is on the far end of the spectrum. I understand everyone hates the gridlock in Washington but the answer isn't to elect an outsider to the presidency and magically expect the government to start passing legislation all of a sudden. We tried that stupidity in Minnesota with Jesse Ventura (who shares many of the same policy positions as Gary Johnson) Trust me it doesn't work very well. Ventura ended up fighting with both parties all the time and like Johnson he came in as an outsider who was supposedly willing to compromise and work with both parties since he wasn't part of either party.
