Why not? The % of American who favor legalization is like double either Trump's or Hillary's favorability ratings.

If you confuse Lorenzo with logic, reason, and facts, you will lose him forever. He is the Donkeybot 2000, preprogrammed to only regurgitate lefty nonsense.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I checked the box for Gary today, It is funny how I always seem to be at odds with you but we chose the same candidate (assuming you voted for him).

Gary Johnson does have the biggest name recognition for his party but he is pretty boring. But boring sounds nice compared to team donkey and team elephant's front runners.

there's a difference between favoring legalization and voting for a POTUS who sells and uses pot.

there's a difference between favoring legalization and voting for a POTUS who sells and uses pot.

Why? The last three presidents admitted to using pot. Probably all three of them sold it too :-)

~Matt

it doesn't bother me - I'm just thinking that not many dems and repubs are going to be motivated to vote for a pot-smokin' rock climber

it doesn't bother me - I'm just thinking that not many dems and repubs are going to be motivated to vote for a pot-smokin' rock climber

Most dems and Reps can't pull their heads far enough out of their own arses to realize that every time they pull the R or D lever they are shooting themselves in their own foot...in short I agree, but largely not because they don't agree with Johnson but because they are too stuck in their ways.

I don't think Johnson has the "Presidential Personality", but then again neither does Trump.

~Matt

I wrote in my cat for the primary. Will probably go Gary for the general.

I totally agree. I like Gary's interviews. I can't stand that Hillary, Bernie, and Trump are all 'yellers.' Gary is down-to-earth. And about 75% aligned with Bernie, only differing on economic policy.

And about 75% aligned with Bernie, only differing on economic policy.

I'd say 75% is a bit high but Libertarian policy has considerable amount in common with both sides. Libertarian is essentially fiscally conservative and socially liberal. (Using those terms in common parlance)

~Matt

I don't think the younger generation of voters will recognize his policies as socially liberal, aside from drug policy. Socially Liberal has come to mean statist intervention (i.e. Progressivism) to mandate certain privileges for certain people. Leaving things for states to decide (abortion, SSM, etc.) is largely a conservative approach; today's "liberals" want everything carved out at the federal level.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

This is true, and we've talked about this many times before on here, but that extra 25% is a BIGGIE, I'd put it at closer to 50%. And the ideological difference--socialism vs less-regulated, smaller gov't capitalism--is about as divergent as you get. And it's that 50% that largely drives people to Bernie or to Johnson, there's no seeing eye to eye just because both platforms are socially liberal.

Also, if you haven't noticed lately, there is no "social" anything that isn't predicated on Economic Justice, first and foremost. Johnson knows this is a problem, or at least a point that needs clarification, I think, because he uses the phrase fiscally conservative and socially tolerant almost as much as he says socially liberal. His economic policy could well be characterized by the people he's trying to reach as socially unjust and repressive.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

And it's that 50% that largely drives people to Bernie or to Johnson, there's no seeing eye to eye just because both platforms are socially liberal.

I agree but my point is that when Bernie is no longer an option some may see they have more in common with Johnson then Hillary.

~Matt

His economic policy could well be characterized by the people he's trying to reach as socially unjust and repressive.

If by "People he's trying to reach" you mean Bernie supporters, completely agree. My point is that once Bernie is gone the choice is "Bernie lite" in the form of Hillary or Johnson which is Bernie socially 100% and Bernie fiscally only in a few areas, particular support for big business, subsidies, tax breaks etc.

What is "Anti Bernie" is the "Fiscal social justice" as you point out.

I kind of look at it this way, Hillary is a glass of luke warm water to them and Johnson is a nice crisp cold glass of water with a very sour lime on the rim. Take the good with the bad or Mehhhh....

~Matt

just read about how johnson was booed at his own convention for suggesting that maybe there is a place for government to issue driver's licenses. . . yikes. when you hear things like that, it makes me think that libertarians don't actually want to govern.

i think in the USA, the environment is so tough for 3rd parties, that the smart play is to be pragmatic. is driver's licenses really the mountain you want to die on? why not pick your handful of signature issues, and then run as an otherwise pragmatic centrist party.

if you favour ideological purity above all else, you're never going to get to be part of the debate.

-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

And that's been a major criticism of the Libertarian party for the majority of its existence: too ideological to take seriously. It's why I like Gov. Weld joining Johnson on the ticket, a former Republican governor who was well-liked in a blue-dominated state. Both guys are willing to compromise some of their ideology in favor of pragmatism, and that's what you need from a leader, a President/VP. Do they have a chance? Not a shot in hell. But it's a step in the right direction, in a year when most people are unhappy with the major party candidates you might see more focus on third parties and people saying 'hey, why not think outside the box when our options otherwise are so shitty'?

I already told you about the struggles I had as an LPF leader in Florida. Too many purist willing to sink with the ship than get even the smallest victory.

Believe it or not, I was one of the more rational people in the party by a landslide. My buddy who brought me into the party, Alex Snitker even just recently gave up and figured like me, we can advance a libertarian cause more effectively with the Republican Liberty Caucus that was founded by Ron Paul and similar people.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

i really think a worthwhile model would be some of the smaller european political parties. i know america's not parliamentary, but: when you're the 'liberal greens' or the 'christian socialists' or whatever, you basically pick your handful of key issues, and then build a sensible, cooperative centrist platform for the rest.

the main goal is just to earn a seat at the damn table so you can start informing the debate. then when the majority parties are proposing big laws or budgets or something, maybe they need your votes to get things passed. now you've got a chance to make some demands and shape things a bit.

i dunno - i see the beauty in fighting for principles. and i can imagine that many people see "working within the system" as a slippery slope toward selling out. but that hardline approach has not yielded much over 1% the last several election cycles, so maybe there's no harm in trying a new approach.

-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Anyone watch the town hall with Gary Johnson last night?

If Johnson did get into the debates, he would be slaughtered, you can tell he isn't an impromptu speaker and can't be more specific when answering questions. Bill Weld on the other hand was a much more fluent speaker. I think Romney is right, if it was switched around, it would be a better ticket. With that said, I'm still leaning towards the LP unless something changes in the other two.