Neither Gary Johnson nor Bill Weld are actually libertarians. Libertarianism is derived from the philosophy that ALL human interaction and transactions should be voluntary for all involved parties. Which, in a time when government bureaucracy and over reach are beyond comprehension, is somewhat refreshing. But again, I have no idea why those two are the faces of the party that they largely don't agree with. I'll probably end up voting for Trump.
Not Hillary, Not Trump--How about anti-gun Libertarian VP candidate William F. Weld?
- Thread starter RugersGR8
- Start Date
For what it's worth, Johnson is a consequentialist libertarian. The ticket is a pragmatic ticket to attract the votes required to maintain ballot access.
I'm not even sure what that means. If it means they're dumbing down their platform to attract useful idiots, then I'd agree.
I have to agree. WTH does that even mean.I'm not even sure what that means. If it means they're dumbing down their platform to attract useful idiots, then I'd agree.
I'm not even sure what that means. If it means they're dumbing down their platform to attract useful idiots, then I'd agree.
I don't know which part you're addressing, so I'll answer both.
A consequentialist libertarian is someone who ideologically subscribes to libertarian ideals, but acts in a pragmatic manner using a cost-benefit analysis. For example, I oppose the idea of publicly funded education, especially at the federal level. But because I accept that the only place that would happen is a utopia, I would support measures that increase the efficiency of delivering that education while also reducing the interference from non-local levels of government.
As for the ticket being a pragmatic ticket to help with ballot access, millions of dollars that could be used on local campaigns are spent every couple of years to get the party officially recognized in all 50 states so that candidates may run under that banner. If we get the votes required in each state to not have to run petition drives the next cycle, that is money that can be used to run local- and state-level campaigns. There were basically three choices: a former fugitive, a career Internet troll, and a former Governor with a track record of actions matching words. Weld was brought on primarily for connections and fundraising abilities.
No one in Oklahoma has to worry about Trump losing Oklahoma. The straight ticket vote has a Republican victory in Oklahoma practically ensured. No one expects Johnson to get 270 electoral votes, either. The only way that Johnson would get in would be if Trump and Clinton failed to reach 270 and Johnson received at least one electoral vote. At that point, the House of Representatives would be required to choose between the top 3 electoral vote-getters for President, and the #NeverTrump and #NeverClinton movements on both sides of the aisle could push a compromise of choosing neither of those two. The Senate would be required to choose between Pence and Kaine because they are limited to the top 2 electoral vote-getters for Vice President.
So basically, Weld is nothing to worry about. The only people worrying about Weld don't understand how the electoral process works.
But in your world, and support of his presidential candidate he could become VP if it goes before congress. We do understand the electoral process. Weld and his issues are the issue with his possible election to office which isn't going to happen BTW. They can't even get enough votes to get into the debates.
"A consequentialist libertarian is someone who ideologically subscribes to libertarian ideals, but acts in a pragmatic manner using a cost-benefit analysis". Nothing about that sentence makes any sense. If you want to be come relevant into the discussion, drop the hyperbole into laymen's language.
Anyone who passed high school civics should know that he can't. Congress chooses the President and Vice President separately. The 12th Amendment requires the House to choose from the top 3 electoral vote-getters for President and requires the Senate to choose from the top 2 electoral vote-getters for Vice President.
I gave an example in layman's terms if you would take the time to actually read the post.
What's interesting is the Democrats say a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump.
IF, open immigration voters saw his meltdown over the use of "illegal immigrant", he might siphon off some Hillary votes. Likewise, no one who supports Trump for his immigration stance is going to vote for Johnson. IMO, he's no more palatable than the other two choices.
The Left doesn't even need that.
Between my profession and my hobbies, I have a lot of contact with both the Left and the Right on a regular basis. Not a day goes by where I don't receive a message in some form from others in my profession that my refusal to vote for the Democratic candidate and to my decision to vote third party is a vote for Trump and the further destruction of America. I receive the same messages from those on the right who share the same hobbies or religious background, except the names are transposed.
Similar threads
