And another thing about Gary Johnson, in the 2min clip above he talks about immigration being awesome and we should make it easier and everyone applauds.
So on things like immigration, I'm much more skeptical and conservative than the typical libertarian. You'd need to "fundamentally change america" before you could allow the libertarian ideals, that I, myself, believe in, to run wild in the US.
I would argue that you do not need to "fundamentally change America." You just need additional welfare reform.
Montana State District Judge Kathy Seeley heard oral arguments on Monday concerning a $500,000 contribution from the Montana Republican Party to Rick Hill's campaign for Governor. She refused to issue an immediate ruling, causing the case to drag on for days and limiting Hill’s ability to communicate with voters in the campaign’s critical final days.
Lost in the legal tussle is the fact that Judge Seeley is a long-time donor to the Democrat party, and that she worked with Hill's opponent, Attorney General Scott Bullock. Previously, Seeley had recused herself from cases involving Bullock. Of course, at a critical point in Bullock's campaign for Governor, she declined to recuse herself and ruled against his GOP opponent.
At issue: Hill had received the contribution on Oct. 4 after a federal judge ruled the state’s $22,600 limit on aggregated contributions from a political party was unconstitutional. Six days later, an appeals court reinstated the limits. Seeley issued a restraining order on Oct. 24 in response to a lawsuit filed by Democratic gubernatorial candidate (and state Attorney General and former co-worker of Seeley) Steve Bullock to block Hill from spending any of the $500,000 and directing the campaign to cancel advertising as she reviews the legality of the contribution.
Seeley’s ruling directed the Hill campaign to “stop any agents, such as media buyers to whom these funds in whole or in part have been transferred, from proceeding to purchase any media time with these funds or otherwise benefit the Hill campaign through the use of the funds.”
She also ruled the GOP campaign was “temporarily restrained from spending, using or realizing any benefit from the campaign contributions in excess of the aggregate amounts permitted by (state law). Insofar as advertisements have been purchased with these funds and are set to air immediately, they must be canceled.”
A Partisan Trap: Case Judges Support Democrats
Seeley, who ruled against the GOP candidate and issued the temporary restraining order blocking the campaign from spending money, is a long-time donor to Democrat campaigns. See here, here, here and here. Moreover, her husband was a donor to Bullock's campaign for Attorney General four years ago.
Seeley, elected as a district Judge in 2008, is also a former co-worker of Steve Bullock and worked 23 years as an assistant Montana attorney general. He worked, during her tenure, as the executive assistant attorney general, and later acting chief deputy, from 1997-2001.
That’s not all. Federal District Court judge Dana Christiansen, an Obama appointee with thousands of dollars of donations to Montana Democrats, is the judge who sent the case to Seeley's court. Despite her 100-percent partisan contribution record that stretches back to 1992 and includes gubernatorial candidates, Seeley failed to recuse herself from the Hill case. Of course, Christiansen also failed to recuse himself despite two direct contributions to Steve Bullock and his overwhelmingly partisan donation record.
State Leader calls Judge Seeley’s action “politically motivated”
“Billings state senator Jeff Essman, the Senate majority leader, claims the district judge who ordered Hill's campaign not to spend the money and to pull the TV ads purchased with those dollars, is politically motivated” – KTVQ, Billings, 9/25/12
The Real Culprit? Bullock Was Disciplined for Campaign Violations
Ironically, Steve Bullock, who professes to be a campaign finance reformer, is the only candidate in the governor’s race with a history of campaign ethics complaints and record of violations.
Bullock, who already had five complaints filed against him, has three cases pending before the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices. The commissioner concluded Oct. 25 that Bullock’s campaign had violated state campaign rules by allowing unauthorized individuals to sign more than $15,400 in campaign checks.
Whatever the merits of the Democrats' lawsuit, and there are very few, Seeley should have recused herself from the case. She is not a neutral arbiter of the law here. Why didn't she recuse herself from this case, as she has done in the past? How could she rule in a case involving a candidate whom her husband supported financially?
I get that Montana Democrats think the rules apply differently to them. But, even this seems a bit of a stretch.
I may be misunderstanding "voter fraud", but nobody's ability to vote has been infringed upon, and nobody has made any attempt to vote multiple times or without the legal right to vote.
Its still digusting and offensive, and somebody should run over that bitch with a steam roller half an inch at a time so her *** fat gets squeezed out her eye sockets like a toothpaste tube. But I dont think its voter fraud.
Asking me to vote for Gary, in VA, is like like handing Obama another four years in the White House in order to "send a message." To whom? And what message? That we're morons? Message received!
And Vehicular has a great grasp on the system contrary to your belief, thasac. He understands that the only vote against Obama is a vote for Romney. No other vote can get him out of office, which is what HE would prefer.
It's a short sighted view and precisely what has lead to a two party system and a polarization of ideas.
Do you really think Romney in office will make a significant change? That he's going to bolster the economy? Doubtful given the state of the international state of things.
If Republican's and independents didn't vote 3rd party in 2004 , they never will.
No, it's a short sightest view as a result of the two party system.
I hate obama, I want him out, I'll vote against him. What net benefit do I get from voting Johnson? ...I mean there's really no point for me even to vote at all, my 1 vote is entirely insignificant. But I want to vote against Obama, that's the only reason im voting at all. It's a silly pointless waste of time, but I do love getting a sticker. I'm much more concerned with voting yes on Ballot Question #1.
You have to remember Ihave a different goal than you.
And yes, given Romney's record as governor and current promises for presidency, I absolutely think he'd do an overall postive for the country/economy. subjectively of course.
Contrary to what I may come across as, I'm way too apathedic to try to get behind a candidate and destroy the two party system. remember:
Here is an article that any libertarians might be interested in. It explains why the creation of the libertarian party was a mistake and it is written by a libertarian. Unless you have the WSJ you won't be able to access the link so I will quote it.
In 1972, the Libertarian Party nominated University of Southern California philosophy Prof. John Hospers as its first presidential candidate and ran Tonie Nathan for vice president. When Roger MacBride, a Virginia Republican elector pledged to Richard Nixon, voted instead for Hospers-Nathan, he cast the first electoral vote in American history for a woman. The Libertarian Party was off and running. In 1976, it nominated the renegade elector as its presidential candidate.
As a young libertarian, I was very enthusiastic about the formation of the Libertarian Party. I proudly cast my vote for Roger MacBride for president. I attended the 1975 national convention in New York that nominated him. But, while I am as libertarian today as I was then, I have come to believe that the Libertarian Party was a mistake.
The reason is simple. Unlike a parliamentary system in which governments are formed by coalitions of large and small parties, our electoral system is a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all one in which a winning presidential candidate just needs to get more than 50% of the vote. This means each contending "major" party is itself a coalition that needs to assemble enough diverse voting groups within it to get to 51%. Hence the need to appeal to the so-called moderates and independents rather than the more "extreme" elements within.
To the extent that a third party is successful, it will drain votes from the coalition party to which it is closest and help elect the coalition party that is further removed from its interests. The Libertarian Party's effort will, if effective, attract more libertarian voters away from the candidate who is marginally less hostile to liberty, and help hand the election to the candidate who is more hostile to liberty.
Fortunately, because this drawback is so obvious, the Libertarian Party's presidential vote has remained minuscule. (It was about 0.4% in 2008, though it could cost Mitt Romney the electoral votes of New Hampshire this time around). Most libertarian voters resist the party's call, even when, as this year, it has nominated a good man like Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico.
Some have defended the LP by saying it is an expressive outlet for political libertarians, as distinct from more intellectual or policy types. Here too the LP has been counterproductive. By drawing libertarian politicos from both major parties, the LP makes these parties less libertarian at the margin than they would otherwise be. In each major-party coalition, the libertarian element is weaker precisely to the extent that libertarian politicos are expending their energies on behalf of the LP.
Libertarian activists should choose whichever party they feel more comfortable working within. That's what Ron Paul did. Likewise, Rand Paul has brought his libertarianism inside the GOP tent. The small-"l" libertarians in the tea party movement identified the Republican Party as the coalition closest to their concerns about fiscal responsibility and the growth of government power, and they have gone about making the GOP more libertarian from the grass-roots up. They have moved the party in a libertarian direction, as has the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Despite all this, some libertarians continue to insist that, because the Republican and Democrats are equally bad for liberty, it makes no difference who gets elected. However true this once was, in recent years Republicans have been better for liberty and Democrats have been worse.
It was a Democratic Congress and president who gave us the federal takeover of the health-care industry that will bring us closer to a Western European-style social democracy. All four Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices voted to uphold ObamaCare as constitutional, with four Republican-appointed dissenters.
Are Democrats better than Republicans on personal liberty? Neither has been great on that score, but Democrats have been the bigger disappointment. When I took the medical-marijuana case to the Supreme Court in 2004, I got zero votes from the left side of the court while garnering the votes of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor. And President Obama's Justice Department has reneged on his campaign promise to refrain from going after medical-marijuana dispensaries.
Neither party wants to question the futile and destructive "war on drugs." But Republicans have been much better on free speech in recent years. With respect to economic liberty, the Environmental Protection Agency has restricted land use throughout the nation and would do more if not stopped. Dodd-Frank has amped up restrictions on financial services.
Libertarians need to adjust their tactics to the current context. This year, their highest priority should be saving the country from fiscal ruin, arresting and reversing the enormous growth in federal power—beginning with repealing ObamaCare—and pursuing a judiciary who will actually enforce the Constitution. Which party is most likely to do these things in 2013?
Citing the Republican Congress under George W. Bush, some libertarians contend that divided government is best for liberty. Yes, divided government is good for stopping things (until some grand deal is made). But divided government won't repeal ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank or give us better judges.
Libertarian activists need to set aside their decades-old knee-jerk reactions to the two major parties, roll up their sleeves, and make the Republican and Democratic parties more libertarian. When it comes to voting, libertarians need to get serious about liberty and give up on the Libertarian Party. Nov. 6 would be a good day to start.
By drawing libertarian politicos from both major parties, the LP makes these parties less libertarian at the margin than they would otherwise be. In each major-party coalition, the libertarian element is weaker precisely to the extent that libertarian politicos are expending their energies on behalf of the LP.
Say I am the leadership of the GOP. And I have this more or less conservative element among both the general pubic and my party thats basically LP.
Now I am in a nasty battle basically for all three branches of government and its damned close.
Scenario #1: The LP people will go GOP because they hate it less than the Democrats and are more closely aligned with it. They will make noises on forums like this one and then go vote for Mitt.
Scenario #2: The LP people are willing to defect because they are just that angry. It could cost a state or two.
Which scenario do you think affects the GOP more? Which do you think forces them to adjust the wishes of the LP?
The idea that pain does not modfy behavior is bunk. The theory that voting LP means you have less influence with the GOP is bunk.
Theres always a effing criss. Theres always a short term goal that has to get done first. Theres always a reason to 'get real'. Learn from Obama. Do the big things as soon as you can. I hate his policy, but give the guy credit. He is touching every third rail in politics and pissing off everyone he can and here we are in a close election. If you dont have the ***** to be insane once in awhile nobody gives a flying F what you think.
And frankly at this point a gridlocked legislative branch and a harried Democrat president is one of the best ways to not get anything done. Which may well be the least destructive option we have. I dont want DC to get a lot done right now beyond avoiding the fiscal cliff, no matter who gets elected.
Maybe you are right that more change would be likely if the LP vote cost the GOP the election. I have no idea. I just thought that the article was interesting and was directly related to the conversation. I personally do think that with time more and more of the GOP base can and will be converted to libertarian ideals, atleast to a certain extent. However, I am not so sure that I am willing to give Obama 4 more years just to make it happen a little faster.
The idea that pain does not modfy behavior is bunk. The theory that voting LP means you have less influence with the GOP is bunk.
This is an unrealistically self-aggrandizing point of view on the part of the LP leadership.
There are two fundamental problems here.
First and foremost is the idea that "If we hurt the GOP this year, they'll change their ways to accommodate us four years from now."
The underlying concept is not invalid, but it ignores the fact that all politicians must try to please most of the people most of the time. In other words, the LP isn't the only group that the GOP must appease. They must also pander to groups of voters who are not strongly aligned with any specific party platform, the so-called "undecided." And there's a very strong risk that by making strongly libertarian concessions to one party, they run the risk of alienating another, much larger group.
Second, four years is a long time, and politics has a short memory. You are greatly over-estimating the influence that a narrow defeat in 2012 will have on the thinking of a party strategist in 2016.
It's all great in theory, but politics is a messy thing. Essentially, your argument reduces the LP to having to choose between two options:
1: Align ourselves with the party least likely to hurt us and thus increase their chances of victory over the party most likely to hurt us, or
2: Deliberately cause harm to the party which is least likely to hurt us, hoping that this will make them change their ways to become more like us four years from now.
They've been trying option #2 again and again for several decades now, and it's not working.