Tell me about Gary Johnson

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Sorry, but I think it is more important to educate yourself about the reality of voting third party. You want to know about the Libertarian party? Fine. They have some stuff right:

Less foreign war
Minimal 2A restriction
Legalize drugs
Legalize prostitution
Legalize assisted suicide
Minimal government intrusion into most aspects of social life

They have other stuff wrong:

Less government regulation
Deny overwhelming evidence that Keynesian economic theory works in practice
An unhealthy obsession with returning to the gold standard
Take foreign policy too far towards isolationism

Except Gary isn't exactly inline with the Libertarian standard. Both Gary and Bill Weld are essentially republicans with social liberal views (gary moreso). You have to look at Gary's stances on issues, not just the Libertarian party.

Also, Gary's resume and successes are hard to look past. It's remarkably better than both Hillary's and Trumps, and not only is he the only one with true experience with being a governor, he's also one of the if not the most successful governor in history.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Yup, and all that adds up to a giant nothing burger where third parties essentially capture 0 electoral votes.


If you want to absolutely 100% ensure OP will not vote for Hillary then keep up this tact of bullying him with your bullshit that he's wasting his vote. You've made that argument, he's asked you to stop, and yet you persist.
 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,582
162
106
Here is how I look at it. Three of the last four elections had a less than 5% difference in votes so if a third party pulled more votes than the margin of victory I would bet we see one or both parties trying to move that direction. No, I don't believe this would happen after one or two elections but if it became a trend then it could drive some actual change. The only way to throw your vote away is to not vote.

I don't believe in voting for the lesser evil. Vote for the person that best represents your views. Their ability to actually win is irrelevant. Barring some earthshaking revelation I'm voting for Johnson again and I will be perfectly happy with my vote no matter who wins.



Any insight on what views of his you particularly like or even better...dislike?
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,198
4,881
136
It is going to be really hard for me to vote for Trump or Clinton. I really don't align myself with either party and these have got to be some of the worst candidates either have ever offered in my years voting. My leanings are probably more libertarian with a liberal lean.

Just starting to research Gary Johnson. While he seems a little eccentric, I also seem to agree with him on a lot of positions. So this being AT, where we'll call your grandma a wh$@&!, I figure it is as good a place to ask as any. So what is wrong with Gary Johnson?

I voted for him last time just so I wouldn't provide an establishment vote especially after Ron Paul was railroaded by the RNC but I won't do it again. I honestly see myself voting for Hillary this time.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
You can keep saying that all you want but if you don't actually show your work you might as well be a toddler improperly using a new word he just learned.

Why should I bother when you're not going to listen to it? You're already set.

It's a fallacy. I know it's a fallacy, and it's obvious. I have nothing to lose or gain by explaining it to you, but you're the one that's going to lose respect by continuing to assert it's not.
 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,582
162
106
I voted for him last time just so I wouldn't provide an establishment vote especially after Ron Paul was railroaded by the RNC but I won't do it again. I honestly see myself voting for Hillary this time.



So if I understand right, you are essentially voting against the RNC and not because you no longer like Johnson...correct?
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
I like a lot of people who won't and shouldn't be president, so I will not be telling you who you should or shouldn't like. It's not a like/dislike thing.

If there's something to dislike about Nader, Johnson, Stein, etc., it is that their candidacies are nothing but political stunts.

Johnson cannot win in November, and neither can Stein. So why are they running? For attention? Publicity?

Contrast that with Bernie Sanders who chose the political party that most closely resembled the platform he wanted to run on, and ran for that party's nomination. It might have been a long shot, but it was a serious and sincere effort, and when it failed, he endorsed Clinton as the clearly preferred candidate over Trump.

I know their supporters will say. "To bring attention to our platform". Okay, but it's a dishonest way to do it, and it serves to confuse people like the OP that seem to think this election is anything but a simple choice between Clinton and Trump. If you believe in libertarian principals, fight for them within political structure. If you don't like the political structure, fight to change that.

Voting for an alternate party candidate does nothing to change the two party system. Two party systems are the inevitable result of winner-take-all elections. Parliamentary systems allow for representation of alternate parties, so if that's what you want, you should be fighting for a parliamentary system.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
If there's something to dislike about Nader, Johnson, Stein, etc., it is that their candidacies are nothing but political stunts.

Johnson cannot win in November, and neither can Stein. So why are they running? For attention? Publicity?

Contrast that with Bernie Sanders who chose the political party that most closely resembled the platform he wanted to run on, and ran for that party's nomination. It might have been a long shot, but it was a serious and sincere effort, and when it failed, he endorsed Clinton as the clearly preferred candidate over Trump.

I know their supporters will say. "To bring attention to our platform". Okay, but it's a dishonest way to do it, and it serves to confuse people like the OP that seem to think this election is anything but a simple choice between Clinton and Trump. If you believe in libertarian principals, fight for them within political structure. If you don't like the political structure, fight to change that.

Voting for an alternate party candidate does nothing to change the two party system. Two party systems are the inevitable result of winner-take-all elections. Parliamentary systems allow for representation of alternate parties, so if that's what you want, you should be fighting for a parliamentary system.

Has it ever occur to you voting for a 3rd party is a way to change the political structure?
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Why should I bother when you're not going to listen to it? You're already set.

It's a fallacy. I know it's a fallacy, and it's obvious. I have nothing to lose or gain by explaining it to you, but you're the one that's going to lose respect by continuing to assert it's not.

It's fallacious in two entirely different ways that have been pointed out to him in this thread and yet he persists. Gamblers Fallacy didn't work and Appeal to Consequences didn't work but he'll continue trotting them out.
 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,582
162
106
If there's something to dislike about Nader, Johnson, Stein, etc., it is that their candidacies are nothing but political stunts.



Johnson cannot win in November, and neither can Stein. So why are they running? For attention? Publicity?



Contrast that with Bernie Sanders who chose the political party that most closely resembled the platform he wanted to run on, and ran for that party's nomination. It might have been a long shot, but it was a serious and sincere effort, and when it failed, he endorsed Clinton as the clearly preferred candidate over Trump.



I know their supporters will say. "To bring attention to our platform". Okay, but it's a dishonest way to do it, and it serves to confuse people like the OP that seem to think this election is anything but a simple choice between Clinton and Trump. If you believe in libertarian principals, fight for them within political structure. If you don't like the political structure, fight to change that.



Voting for an alternate party candidate does nothing to change the two party system. Two party systems are the inevitable result of winner-take-all elections. Parliamentary systems allow for representation of alternate parties, so if that's what you want, you should be fighting for a parliamentary system.



Props for packaging your voter theory in a way that attempts to answer the OP.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,344
32,959
136
I didn't ask about the libertarian party...I asked about Gary Johnson. I know some of the above apply to him...but I believe others do not. Not interested in your critique of a "party". I'm interested in your critique of a man.

Jesus, man, just Google him:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

Some highlights
Anti science/education:
No federal funding for stem cell research. (Jan 2012)
No cap-and-trade; no taxing carbon emissions. (Jul 2011)
End the Department of Education. (May 2011)

Anti-Keynesian:
End the Fed; they've devalued the dollar by printing money. (May 2011)
On verge of financial collapse unless we balance budget. (May 2011) - Any day now, just you wait and see...
Lay out a process for state bankruptcies. (Aug 2012)
No bank bailout; no farm subsidies; no stimulus. (May 2012)

Anti-reality:
Government-managed healthcare is insanity. (Aug 2012)
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,029
12,270
136

Yes...?

Unless you believe the only reason people were voting for Bernie in the first place was just because they could not stand Hillary. Otherwise, Gary Johnson's policies would be in absolute conflict with what I understood to be Bernie's political philosophy.

Get it now?
 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,582
162
106
Jesus, man, just Google him:



http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm



Some highlights

Anti science/education:

No federal funding for stem cell research. (Jan 2012)

No cap-and-trade; no taxing carbon emissions. (Jul 2011)

End the Department of Education. (May 2011)



Anti-Keynesian:

End the Fed; they've devalued the dollar by printing money. (May 2011)

On verge of financial collapse unless we balance budget. (May 2011) - Any day now, just you wait and see...

Lay out a process for state bankruptcies. (Aug 2012)

No bank bailout; no farm subsidies; no stimulus. (May 2012)



Anti-reality:

Government-managed healthcare is insanity. (Aug 2012)



Cool... I agree with you on some of those but not others. This is what I was looking for.

I had already read that page (posted earlier). My hope from this thread is to hear something I wouldn't easily find via various googling.

Complete reliance on search tools is a good way to miss things.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,344
32,959
136
It's fallacious in two entirely different ways that have been pointed out to him in this thread and yet he persists. Gamblers Fallacy didn't work and Appeal to Consequences didn't work but he'll continue trotting them out.

I never said that third parties will fail because they always have in the past. (Reverse gambler's fallacy) I said they will fail because the system is designed in such a way that they can't win.

As for your claim that I used an Appeal to Consequences, that doesn't make sense. The fallacy states:

If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.

It's true I said if P (vote third party) then Q (Trump's chances increase) will occur
It's true I said Q is undesirable
I never said that it makes P false. It is still just undesirable.

Would you like to try again?
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Has it ever occur to you voting for a 3rd party is a way to change the political structure?

How does it do that? How does more votes being cast for 3rd parties change the system of representation that we have in our constitution?

Props for packaging your voter theory in a way that attempts to answer the OP.

It's not a theory, it's a well understood principal of plurality-rule elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

I'm not trying to convince you that you need to vote for Trump or Clinton, or that you should just accept our current system. What I'm saying is that if you're frustrated with the two party system, you should advocate for a change to a parliamentary system, and voting for a 3rd party accomplishes nothing to that end.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,344
32,959
136
Why should I bother when you're not going to listen to it? You're already set.
This actually applies to you more than it does to me. You're already set. I, however, will happily listen to and destroy any attempt you make to make your case with logic, because I actually understand why our system is designed to limit the number of viable parties.

It's a fallacy. I know it's a fallacy, and it's obvious. I have nothing to lose or gain by explaining it to you, but you're the one that's going to lose respect by continuing to assert it's not.

Fuck you for even writing the bolded. You sound like a genuine retard, every bit as confined to a bubble as your average Republican.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,026
4,651
126
It's not a theory, it's a well understood principal of plurality-rule elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

I'm not trying to convince you that you need to vote for Trump or Clinton, or that you should just accept our current system. What I'm saying is that if you're frustrated with the two party system, you should advocate for a change to a parliamentary system, and voting for a 3rd party accomplishes nothing to that end.
It isn't just the first past the post system, since Duverger pointed to exceptions (in fact the exceptions tend to be the norm). It is the combination of first past the post system with an electoral college that magnifies first past the post results. Also, a parliamentary system isn't the only way to get around it.

However, your point is rooted in reality. Voting 3rd party now will at best just lead us eventually to a system with two different parties, but still two parties.
 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,582
162
106
How does it do that? How does more votes being cast for 3rd parties change the system of representation that we have in our constitution?







It's not a theory, it's a well understood principal of plurality-rule elections.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law



I'm not trying to convince you that you need to vote for Trump or Clinton, or that you should just accept our current system. What I'm saying is that if you're frustrated with the two party system, you should advocate for a change to a parliamentary system, and voting for a 3rd party accomplishes nothing to that end.



Thanks, I understand the principal/law.

It is not what I asked in the thread.
 

local

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2011
1,852
517
136
Any insight on what views of his you particularly like or even better...dislike?

I dislike:
-His common libertarian positions on eliminating whole swaths of the gov without realistic expectations on how to replace them.
-Massively cutting the budget immediately to manage debt.
-Allowing a school voucher system to be usable for church schooling.
-His support for NAFTA and other free trade agreements.
-His early 2000's stance on having open borders with Mexico. (have not seen an update recently on open borders)
-Privatizing part or all of social security.
-Completely opposes gov stimulus.

I like:
-Reduction of scale and scope of military.
-Supporting abortion rights.
-Supporting gay unions/getting gov out of marriage.
-Raising retirement age for SS.
-Move to a consumption tax.
-Legalization of marijuana and ending the "War on Drugs!"
-2 year grace period for illegals to get a work visa or they are out.
-Impose and enforce sanctions on employers that violate immigration law.
-Streamlined immigration program so people who want to come here legally can.
-Elimination of the Patriot Act and gov surveillance.
-Barring the gov from backdoor access to encrypted private info.
-Abolishing the TSA.
-Opposes a border fence as a waste of money.
-Balanced budget.
-Supports 2nd amendment.
-Supports term limits for congress.
-Reduction of foreign aid.
-Opposes cap and trade.

Like everyone he has some positions that I disagree with but the ones I like outweigh the ones I don't. I do find him better then the usual Libertarian candidate because as a former Republican he doesn't have some of their more out there ideas.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
This actually applies to you more than it does to me. You're already set. I, however, will happily listen to and destroy any attempt you make to make your case with logic, because I actually understand why our system is designed to limit the number of viable parties.



Fuck you for even writing the bolded. You sound like a genuine retard, every bit as confined to a bubble as your average Republican.

nah.
 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,582
162
106
I dislike:

-His common libertarian positions on eliminating whole swaths of the gov without realistic expectations on how to replace them.

-Massively cutting the budget immediately to manage debt.

-Allowing a school voucher system to be usable for church schooling.

-His support for NAFTA and other free trade agreements.

-His early 2000's stance on having open borders with Mexico. (have not seen an update recently on open borders)

-Privatizing part or all of social security.

-Completely opposes gov stimulus.



I like:

-Reduction of scale and scope of military.

-Supporting abortion rights.

-Supporting gay unions/getting gov out of marriage.

-Raising retirement age for SS.

-Move to a consumption tax.

-Legalization of marijuana and ending the "War on Drugs!"

-2 year grace period for illegals to get a work visa or they are out.

-Impose and enforce sanctions on employers that violate immigration law.

-Streamlined immigration program so people who want to come here legally can.

-Elimination of the Patriot Act and gov surveillance.

-Barring the gov from backdoor access to encrypted private info.

-Abolishing the TSA.

-Opposes a border fence as a waste of money.

-Balanced budget.

-Supports 2nd amendment.

-Supports term limits for congress.

-Reduction of foreign aid.

-Opposes cap and trade.



Like everyone he has some positions that I disagree with but the ones I like outweigh the ones I don't. I do find him better then the usual Libertarian candidate because as a former Republican he doesn't have some of their more out there ideas.



Thanks a lot, really appreciated.

I'm with you on some of your dislikes and will need to do some more research.

I agree that part of me likes him because he doesn't adhere to some of the more over-the-top libertarian views.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,344
32,959
136
I dislike:
-His common libertarian positions on eliminating whole swaths of the gov without realistic expectations on how to replace them.
-Massively cutting the budget immediately to manage debt.
-Allowing a school voucher system to be usable for church schooling.
-His support for NAFTA and other free trade agreements.
-His early 2000's stance on having open borders with Mexico. (have not seen an update recently on open borders)
-Privatizing part or all of social security.
-Completely opposes gov stimulus.

I like:
-Reduction of scale and scope of military.
-Supporting abortion rights.
-Supporting gay unions/getting gov out of marriage.
-Raising retirement age for SS.
-Move to a consumption tax.
-Legalization of marijuana and ending the "War on Drugs!"
-2 year grace period for illegals to get a work visa or they are out.
-Impose and enforce sanctions on employers that violate immigration law.
-Streamlined immigration program so people who want to come here legally can.
-Elimination of the Patriot Act and gov surveillance.
-Barring the gov from backdoor access to encrypted private info.
-Abolishing the TSA.
-Opposes a border fence as a waste of money.
-Balanced budget.
-Supports 2nd amendment.
-Supports term limits for congress.
-Reduction of foreign aid.
-Opposes cap and trade.


Like everyone he has some positions that I disagree with but the ones I like outweigh the ones I don't. I do find him better then the usual Libertarian candidate because as a former Republican he doesn't have some of their more out there ideas.
With you except for the bolded.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Yes, just give in to your two-party overlords! :rolleyes:

Not surprising to see from two of the bigger Hillary cheerleaders here.

To the OP, all you really need to know about Gary Johnson is this:

He's not Trump or Clinton.

He's almost certainly got no shot so where he stands on the issues isn't all that important, but he's worth a vote just as a form of protest. Jill Stein is also an option. Since the GOP seems intent on committing political suicide, we're going to be left with one dominant major party for a while, and THAT'S always worked out well.
Historically, our country has been a 2 party country. Our system of government favors that there be 2 parties. Three parties is relatively rare in our history; and really only worked out when one of the parties was falling apart.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Thanks, I understand the principal/law.

It is not what I asked in the thread.

Oh, okay. Well when you said "I disagree, that mindset is going to stick us with 2 parties for ever." I thought you were opening the discussion to the two party system itself, and thought I'd offer a counter argument that it's actually our constitution and not our mindset.

Dank gave you a pretty good list of shitty positions/ideas he has. Far worse than Clinton IMO. But it's pretty clear to me that you're not voting for Clinton in any case. I also disagree that Clinton is one of the worst major party candidates ever offered by the D's or R's. But that's probably just another thing you said that we're not allowed to discuss.

So I'll leave the thread to you and the people that are responding the way you want them to.