Gary Johnson is the Libertarian party's presidential nominee. If he had a chance to beat Hillary Clinton, would you consider him over Donald Trump?
If Conservative's compared Johnson's history and issue positions to Trump's history and issue positions, would they still pick Trump?
Is Trump a choice only because there are no other conservative choices?
Can we make a third-party a necessary part of our elections? Can we break the stranglehold of our two-party system?
My answer is yes, no, yes, yes, and yes we must. What is yours?
I've read his stance on various issues, and with the except of emasculating our military like what I see.
The kicker is your own question: can he beat Clinton? And, sadly, the answer is no. He can't come close. Still, I might throw a vote his way as my own state is heavily Republican and will undoubtedly go to Trump in any case.
Where is there an example of any Government or society that works from the tenets of Libertarianism?It was advocated by Senator Paul along with many controversial positions, so what is there to redeem it?
Anybody is a better candidate than Donald Trump.
I don't think that conservatives can really shake off their busy-body nature, moral and religious arrogance, otherwise such a candidate as Johnson would have risen to the forefront much earlier.
Honesty. Freedom. Responsibility. These are the types of things to recommend it.
You're right - these are all an anathema to government, for all government is about lying, control and taking responsibility from people. Sad, isn't it?
Sorry, wilderness, I meant this in reply to GA. But now that you are here......
I wasn't intending to promote Gary Johnson, or the Libertarian party as a viable choice for this election.
My question was whether the anybody-but-Hillary Trump supporters would consider him if he had a chance to win.
Even with your views of the Libertarian position, wouldn't you consider him a more rational choice for Conservatives if he had a chance?
I firmly believe that the power of our current two-party is robbing us of real choices. I think Trump's support is proof of this. I think an influential third party, one that was at least powerful enough to be needed for a victory by the major parties, would force them, (the majors), to be more responsive to all Americans, not just their party constituents.
My thoughts of a coalition government appearing to be more responsive to the desires and needs of their citizens may need more work, but my thoughts on the constrictions of our two-party system seem to be proven correct by our choices this election.
We have Jack rabbits and we have antelopes, but jackalopes? Montanans explain to me that there is no such thing to look for when hunting. I think that libertarianism in practice is in the same place. It has qualities attractive to liberals and qualities attractive to conservatives. But we are each attracted to opposite tenets of libertarianism. That is why the major political ideologies cannot come to term with it.
This reminds me of the Passenger Pigeon, when I look for an example of 'real life' libertarianism it is closest to an AMERICA as it was toward the end of the 19th Century. It is going to take a bit of "weird science" to apply a little Jurassic Park to resurrect an extinct species or set of ideas.
I prefer libertarianism as classically defined over what passes for conservative as currently represented by the GOP and leaders.
Well damn! I can't decide if I am more confused as to whether you misconstrued my comment, or fallen victim to one of my frequent mistakes - breaking the martini breast rule.
First... I would reconsider your Montanan authorities
Second, I think your "Passenger Pigeon" analogy falls short. I don't think Moderate Conservatives are anywhere near extinct - they are the former Republicans that are swelling the ranks of identified Independent voters.
They are not Libertarians, but they would probably vote Libertarian before Republican or Democrat in this election.
You only think we are a fiction because we don't scream the extremes that make news. Because we believe that we can hold onto our traditional values and, accept the progress we need to move forward as a nation - it is not an either or decision for us. We can believe in the tradition and sanctity of marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and, accept that that same sanctity is also a right of other combinations of sexes.
In many of the most decisive Democrat vs. Republican, Us vs. Them issues, us Moderate Conservatives can find and accept a middle ground. Without feeling we have compromised our core values, or lost anything unique to our nation.
And unlike you Progressive folks, we don't think our values belong only to the 19th century. Right and wrong don't change, it is only folk's changing rationalizations that make it seem so.
OK, you say that the moderates are hiding among the independent voters. If that is the case then the libertarian candidate should be more competitive with the other two in polling data? I don't seethe massive surge in the polling numbers for Johnson.
"You only think we are a fiction because we don't scream the extremes that make news. Because we believe that we can hold onto our traditional values and, accept the progress we need to move forward as a nation - it is not an either or decision for us. We can believe in the tradition and sanctity of marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and, accept that that same sanctity is also a right of other combinations of sexes"
That sounds a great deal like the position held by Progressives, the only demonstrable difference being in semantics.
How have liberals/progressives compromised our core values? We don't believe we are morally bankrupt.
Right or wrong is going to have a different meaning to a man living in 1892 than one living in America today, many social mores have changed, yes? Wouldn't such a man have a problem with same sex marriage? Progressives support true equality of the sexes, some of you "moderate conservatives" still balk at the idea. There are absolutes, and yet there are concepts that are relative. It is just where those points lie that are at the crux of our differences.
"We don't believe we are morally bankrupt."
That's because you believe you have a moral right to take, at gunpoint if necessary, from one person and give it to another. Because, just like the far Christian right, your morals are "right" and must be recognized as such by all others. Because the ends justify the means...as long as you think the ends are moral and honorable. Because you think control of others is right and proper - that a nation of sheeple without personal responsibility or duty results in a superior society.
That others disagree only means they, not you, are morally bankrupt.
Just like conservatives believe that those epwith money and power should have rights over the rest of us solely based on that fact. No regulation, no oversight, no accountability. That is what progressives and, a large portion of the electorate are opposed to, we have moved beyond 19th century reasoning and ideas. Nobody is pointing guns at you, people are free to vote for the direction they want things to move in. If your 'principles' are so true and noble, you would think that your advocates would be winning more elections. Will you stand for the will of the people and Democracy above all else? Sounds like you would be at home in that other century.
Only upon the ashes of the current GOP is there an opening for a rebirth (replace the current GOP with a revised agenda that could attract the true and faithful) a recalculation of what conservatism is and what it is not.
I think conservatives would shy away from Johnson because he is pro choice. That appears to be a litmus test any candidate must pass to garner their support. I think if they took an honest look at Trump they'd admit his stand on abortion appears to simply be standing where he thinks he'll garner the most support.
I like Johnson. I'll vote for him if he has a snowball's chance by that time. I will not, however, risk watering down the opposition to Hillary.
I think you are right about an abortion stance being a litmus test for acceptance, but I also think it is becoming more and more the Far Right's litmus test, and less so for Conservatives in general.
Contrary to all the claims of its extinction, I think a body of Moderate Conservatives still exists, and Republican candidates like Trump are adding to our numbers.
My answers to your questions are yes, no, no, yes, and yes. I also strongly concur that we must break the stranglehold of our two-party system.
The Republican Party had its origins as a third party prior to the United States not-so-civil Civil War. Their first elected President was our sixteenth president Abraham Lincoln. The Republican political party has persisted to this day.
Prior to that, there existed a Democratic-Republican Party that dissolved thirty years prior to the civil war and originated the Democratic Party. About a decade prior to the Civil War, we had seen a total of four political parties that successfully put forward presidential candidates. Since then, there have been only two who have had their candidate elected to the Presidency, the Republicans and the Democrats, who had their origins in that one single party prior to that.
The buzzword that I think we’re going to be hearing a lot more of in the coming months is ‘balanced rebellion’, the notion that democrats will part ways with the Democratic Party in roughly equal numbers to republicans parting ways with the Republican Party.
You ask in one of your questions ‘if he had a chance, would you …’? I would respectfully offer that your premise is flawed, in much the same way that so many arguments continue because people try to tell others what we are thinking. The point here is that anybody who is on all 50 ballots has a chance, if we choose to vote that way. Perhaps what we need to recognize is that are really choosing between true change and the usual churn (a Democrat or a Republican posturing change).
Abraham Lincoln did it. The result was freedom for long suppressed citizens of our Nation.
We can do it too.
Interesting insights, FitnezzJim.
Unless we hear/see Gary, he has no chance. How could he?
That's an easy one. America knows the powers that be are seeking to squelch third party voices.
How else could the major parties stay in power if we are given other sensible choices?
And here in Virginia, the Richmond Times-Dispatch has endorsed the Libertarian candidate. They normally endorse Republican candidates. They have done this despite the Democratic vice-presidential being the former governor of Virginia.
This is the same state ousted Eric Cantor.
Some recognize that true change involves more than playing see-saw teeter-totter between Democrats and Republicans.
"How else could the major parties stay in power if we are given other sensible choices?"
GIVEN???? Not really if no media play.
Even if "given" who would take? in todays world of over-the-top or doesn't exist!
What constitutes media play nowadays?
I'll concede that FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and all the other cable networks are not giving a lot of media play.
But here, right now, on the internet, we are dabbling in the new media. The message in this media is that there are more than two choices.
It's mostly the older folks who rely on cable and broadcast news as their source. A few of us older folks dabble here, but not a lot.
Our youth use newer media, and, they have a vote too. And both the mainstream news media and the political machines have not yet figured out how to cool-aid the choices people make using this media as their information source.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=gar … ORM=VDFSRV
This is troubling. Not just the stance that we need to ignore illegal "immigration", but that Johnson is reverting to the same old politician. It is "incendiary" to call illegal immigration what it is, and should never be done. Decades ago immigration was easy and so it should be now. His state has a great many Hispanics, so it must be called "undocumented workers" to placate them. And on and on.
This is not the change in American politics we need. It is nothing more than the same old style of rhetoric, designed solely to gain votes at the cost of actually informing the public.
by Rod Martin Jr5 years ago
What would it take to elect Gary Johnson as president?We may never agree on the small things, but who wants war, tyranny and economic strife? The Demopublicans and Republicrats both want more war, tyranny and government...
by Rod Martin Jr5 years ago
Both Romney and Obama want more war. Looks like we're staying in Afghanistan for many more years to come. And Iraq? Heck, "combat" troops have been renamed "trainers." All for a good Corporate buck....
by David Stillwell5 years ago
As voters, Why are we excepting either Romney or Obama as presidential candidates for 2012.The argument over leadership and leadership abilities, lost job, jobs sent overseas, economic policy, foreign policy, national...
by Greensleeves Hubs15 months ago
The Conservative Party has always been the major right of centre party in the UK - the party of Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron and current Prime Minister Theresa May. A party which believes in strong fiscal policy and...
by GA Anderson17 months ago
Is it time to consider a coalition government?It is my opinion that neither party, Democrat or Republican, can win a national election with just their base. Both parties need some part of the Independent or undecided...
by H C Palting16 months ago
What do you think is good and/or bad about Donald Trump running for President?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.