Johnson just lost my vote with his Anti 2A VP choice

[Cameramonkey]

Apparently his VP is anti gun. He misread the constitution's 2A being about hunting. (As governor, he wanted bans that "only" limit guns that have no sporting purpose)

Bad News for Gun Owning Libertarians: Johnson's VP Choice is Pro-Gun Control - The Truth About Guns

I think Weld can eat a bag of d***s and I hope he chokes on one. Make that TWO bags.

So much for a Libertarian who understands Liberty. I cant even.

 

[churchmouse]

Apparently his VP is anti gun. He misread the constitution's 2A being about hunting. (As governor, he wanted bans that "only" limit guns that have no sporting purpose)

Bad News for Gun Owning Libertarians: Johnson's VP Choice is Pro-Gun Control - The Truth About Guns

I think Weld can eat a bag of d***s and I hope he chokes on one. Make that TWO bags.

So much for a Libertarian who understands Liberty. I cant even.

This actually surprises you my friend.....

They all suck.Each and every one of them.

 

[mrjarrell]

Weld isn't a libertarian and whether he gets to be the VP candidate is not up to him or Johnson. The delegates select the presidential and VP candidates and vote on them separately. I wish I knew what was going through Johnson's mind when he suggested Weld as a candidate. The guy really isn't a libertarian. Fortunately, his fate is in the hands of the delegates to the convention. I can only hope they'll show him the door.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

This actually surprises you my friend..... They all suck.Each and every one of them.

what he said

 

[Cynical]

I get it and I have a big Libertarian streak running through me but honestly I don't think he had a snowballs chance in in hell anyway given our apparent party system that our founders warned about. Not looking for a fight just trying to be intellectually honest here. Kinda makes you wonder what he was thinking doesn't it? I

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I listened to an interview with that joker today. He tried to describe his position on 2a as being "moderate" and then started the crap about hunting and sporting uses. Johnson needs to have his head examined if he chose this guy. Gun rights is a pretty big deal in the libertarian community. Surely they will not run him as VP.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Weld isn't a libertarian and whether he gets to be the VP candidate is not up to him or Johnson. The delegates select the presidential and VP candidates and vote on them separately. I wish I knew what was going through Johnson's mind when he suggested Weld as a candidate. The guy really isn't a libertarian. Fortunately, his fate is in the hands of the delegates to the convention. I can only hope they'll show him the door.

I missed that detail. I was thinking all 3 parties left the second fiddle choice up to the nominated candidate. But he does deserve a solid "what the hell?" from everyone.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I get it and I have a big Libertarian streak running through me but honestly I don't think he had a snowballs chance in in hell anyway given our apparent party system that our founders warned about. Not looking for a fight just trying to be intellectually honest here. Kinda makes you wonder what he was thinking doesn't it? I

 

[Cynical]

Not what I was getting at. It's seems to be a statistical reality. I'm not sure I HAVE a party given my beliefs and values. Voting the same way every time(sucks or sucks less) is getting old. I'm for the most part in agreement with you just trying to figure out how not to be in a lose/lose scenario.

 

[Tombs]

Wishing really really hard doesn't alter reality.

Even if every informed voter went 3rd party, you'd barely muster enough to get them in the general debates. As long as the republicans and democrats exist, there's no realistic path to victory just because of the culture.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Weld isn't a libertarian and whether he gets to be the VP candidate is not up to him or Johnson. The delegates select the presidential and VP candidates and vote on them separately. I wish I knew what was going through Johnson's mind when he suggested Weld as a candidate. The guy really isn't a libertarian. Fortunately, his fate is in the hands of the delegates to the convention. I can only hope they'll show him the door.

How about slamming his head in the door repetitively?

 

[Jludo]

Weld isn't a good picture of what a libertarian is but I do like the attempt to move towards the mainstream. As has been so graciously pointed out over and over the libertarians aren't going to win this election so we're in no danger of Weld making those decisions. However if Weld draws a lot of media and attention to the libertarians I think that can only be a good thing going forward.

As has been pointed out, the internal debate within the party has been whether to moderate the platform to bring in more members or keep it ideologically pure. I used to be for the latter but Im liking Johnsons approach more and more.

One good thing about libertarians not being elected to office is that those who run under the banner tend to be honest and straight forward. For the most part they aren't in it for personal political gain so their honest beliefs tend to be known.
Unlike certain self serving candidates of the mainstream parties of whom you're only ever trying to guess which issues they're lying to you on.

 

[rhino]

I'm not a big fan of the "litmus" tests that some Libertarians and libertarians apply to others in order to judge their worthiness, but how can someone who considers self-identifies as a Libertarian or libertarian actually be in favor of gun control? Are they unclear on the concept, or are they just capitalizing on an opportunity to be a candidate in a pool with less competition?

 

[Jludo]

I'm not a big fan of the "litmus" tests that some Libertarians and libertarians apply to others in order to judge their worthiness, but how can someone who considers self-identifies as a Libertarian or libertarian actually be in favor of gun control? Are they unclear on the concept, or are they just capitalizing on an opportunity to be a candidate in a pool with less competition?

Considering they aren't going to win I'm not sure what this accomplishes. I think he recognizes the two main parties are too far off and he thinks libertarian is the closest to his political ideology. Obviously he's completely missed the boat on firearms.
The crux of the Issue seems to be that with Johnson and Weld they are making a case for fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, sort of an off shoot of libertarian that finds itself much more similar to the two mainstream parties.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm not a big fan of the "litmus" tests that some Libertarians and libertarians apply to others in order to judge their worthiness, but how can someone who considers self-identifies as a Libertarian or libertarian actually be in favor of gun control? Are they unclear on the concept, or are they just capitalizing on an opportunity to be a candidate in a pool with less competition?

To me, the "litmus test" is simple: Who do you favor having control over issues that affect the individual and not the rights (actual rights, not just beliefs) of others?

If that answer is anything other than the individual person affected, you're not a libertarian.

Hell, I have problems with the new law being described that reportedly goes into effect 10/1, outlawing smoking in a car while children are in the car. I'm very anti-smoking and pro-child. This should be a no-brainer, that people don't smoke in the car with children there, BUT... The car is mine and I speak for my children. How does gov't have any say what happens there? Is this a slippery slope to gov't telling people they cannot smoke in their cars if children will ever be in the car? Or to people not being allowed, for example, to eat red meat in front of their children, for fear of teaching them bad habits?

It's not about purity tests or "I'm more libertarian than you are". It comes down to basic rights and basic, Constitutional limits on government.

Someone who embraces "gun control", which is defined as gov't choosing with what weapons one may be armed, is not libertarian by that metric.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rhino]

To me, the "litmus test" is simple: Who do you favor having control over issues that affect the individual and not the rights (actual rights, not just beliefs) of others?

If that answer is anything other than the individual person affected, you're not a libertarian.

Hell, I have problems with the new law being described that reportedly goes into effect 10/1, outlawing smoking in a car while children are in the car. I'm very anti-smoking and pro-child. This should be a no-brainer, that people don't smoke in the car with children there, BUT... The car is mine and I speak for my children. How does gov't have any say what happens there? Is this a slippery slope to gov't telling people they cannot smoke in their cars if children will ever be in the car? Or to people not being allowed, for example, to eat red meat in front of their children, for fear of teaching them bad habits?

It's not about purity tests or "I'm more libertarian than you are". It comes down to basic rights and basic, Constitutional limits on government.

Someone who embraces "gun control", which is defined as gov't choosing with what weapons one may be armed, is not libertarian by that metric.

Blessings,
Bill

Agreed 100%.

Either the guy is unclear on the concept, or there is more to the story.

 

[chipbennett]

Weld isn't a libertarian and whether he gets to be the VP candidate is not up to him or Johnson. The delegates select the presidential and VP candidates and vote on them separately. I wish I knew what was going through Johnson's mind when he suggested Weld as a candidate. The guy really isn't a libertarian. Fortunately, his fate is in the hands of the delegates to the convention. I can only hope they'll show him the door.

That said: what does it say about Johnson, that he would suggest a gun grabber as his VP?

 

[rhino]

Maybe the Libertarian Party is copying the GOP, who have successfully nominated a democrat to run on the GOP presidential ticket three times in a row now. Or is it 5? Or 7? 8?

 

[Twangbanger]

This is rich.

So, INGO: are we going to write in Ron Paul? "Bacon?" Leonard Peltier?

So confused.

 

[rhino]

How about Barry Goldwater or maybe Thomas Jefferson?