FREE Gary Johnson Bumper Stickers & Signs

[LibertarianLegend]

Majority? Are you sure that statistic is correct? Last time I checked, the MAJORITY is what stopped SOPA and PIPA from being passed, yes? Hey, what about pushing our HRs to vote yes on Audit the Fed? I didn't call you delusional directly, but my mistake if its offended you We have been fed a load of crap, you are correct about that. Best for your country? Ok, go ahead. If he gets elected and if we default economically and have a double digit inflation, are you still going to think that? I'm wondering. Obama has been terrible you're right, I'm not for him at all, but here's one quote from one president named John Quincy Adams. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

 

[Madea]

here's one quote from one president named John Quincy Adams. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

I did that in July in our local Senate race. yeah, that didn't work out so well, in my opinion.

 

[Madea]

here's one quote from one president named John Quincy Adams. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

I did that in July in our local Senate race. yeah, that didn't work out so well, in my opinion.

And, I still believe I can vote Romney and hold my values.

 

[LibertarianLegend]

here's one quote from one president named John Quincy Adams. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

I did that in July in our local Senate race. yeah, that didn't work out so well, in my opinion.

It didn't work well? Are you sure? You should be proud of yourself that you voted for your true values. I mean if nothing else, I mean if you like neither candidate for Senate, I mean you could ummm I dunno, Vote for Santa Claus with the 62 other people that voted for him back in 2008?

 

[naturegirl]

here's one quote from one president named John Quincy Adams. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

I did that in July in our local Senate race. yeah, that didn't work out so well, in my opinion.

It didn't work well? Are you sure? You should be proud of yourself that you voted for your true values. I mean if nothing else, I mean if you like neither candidate for Senate, I mean you could ummm I dunno, Vote for Santa Claus with the 62 other people that voted for him back in 2008?

I always vote for the guy that shares most of my principles. Local elections and primaries are a great opportunity to exercise advancing those candidates you are more closely aligned with. Gary Johnson has no chance of winning this election. If you split the vote of those not voting for Obama, Obama wins. Libertarians are not ever going to vote for Obama, our only chance of defeating him is for the libertarians to vote for Romney. I'm sorry you don't see this. I honestly wish you would. It's the only way to get Obama out of the White House.

 

[Grey Colson]

I've heard him speak at the debates. He's probably a cool dude with a few good ideas, but I swear...to hear him talk, you'd think he was just suddenly woken up in the middle of the night and doesn't have a clue what planet he's on.

His voice doesn't matter, it's the ideas that count. We need a man that will repeal NDAA and Patriot Act. Obama AND Romney, they just don't cut it for me, sorry.

It wasn't his voice and I have nothing against the man. It was his demeanor and seemingly unconfident delivery. The last libertarian candidate, Bob Bar, is a friend of mine and I would have been happy to seen him elected. But you know as well as I do that Johnson doesn't have a snowballs chance of being elected. As some have already mentioned, thrid party votes will only guarantee Obama's re-election.

But you and everyone are certainly free to cast a third party vote.....boy....that'll show 'em won't it? :

Of course I understand what "taking a stand" is and I don't fault anyone for it. But at the same time, I know how futile it is at this time. The Libertarian party should know you can't shoot straight to the top from the get-go. If the Libertarian party will concentrate FIRST on acquiring local and state level offices, then they may build a large following in time. Fill as many offices as possible....state reps, mayors, building the party as you go. Then elect a few governors and US Senators and Congressmen. THEN, they may have that snowball's chance.

But unless they let go of that "anything and everything" should be legal junk, they'll have to do it without me. Sorry Charlie :'(

 

[Winchester]

Honestly, why would a third party vote help Obama? I don't get it, madames and sirs??? People vote for Gary Johnson because they want to vote for Gary Johnson which includes values and principles that neither Obama or Romney have. Think about it as a "Who do you most believe in?" game and not a numbers game...I mean Johnson wants to abolish the IRS and implement the Fair Tax...We've been saying "This isn't the year" for over a century now, now is finally the time. The question is, "Do you want to help your country?", "Do you want to help future generations thrive better than we will?", "Do you want freedom for your kids in the future?"...We've been riding the slide called "We have this person to beat" without looking into true values for a long time now. If Romney gets elected, think about it, we'll be thinking the same thing in 2016. It's time to get over what the media is trying to persuade you to, and besides Johnson will be on the direct ballot in all 50 states.

I doubt anyone here will argue your point. We understand you think your candidate "could" win. We all thought OUR candidate would win also. I still support Newt but I will vote for Romney. Why? because there are only 2 possible candidates that have a chance of winning this election, plain and simple. Any vote NOT for Romney is the same as a vote FOR Obama.

In this election you really only have 2 choices, beat Obama or re-elect Obama (man I hate typing that word). Too few people have even heard of Johnson, much less know anything about him. To beat obummer, the next candidate will have to have every vote possible. That's why we say that a vote for anyone other then Romney is a vote for Obummer. Like it or not, that is our choice!

Gary Johnson does have a chance of winning, it's not a matter of what I think, it's a matter of true statistic. He does have a chance of winning, because he will be on the ballot in 50 states come this November. The only thing cutting him short of being a true challenger is the media is masking the other two candidate that hold enough states to win (whom would be yes, Gary Johnson, and also Green Party's Jill Stein) and the debate commission is too busy having fun with their little game of monopoly with the Repubs and Demos, which is why Johnson and Gray is suing, (They are suing because of anti-trust, that they should be in the debates as well). Ever since then, the YWCA has dropped their sponsorship of the Debates What the media tells you about the two candidates that they are the only choices, is what they want you to believe. They want to change your opinion with corruption and lies, people need to start thinking for themselves and doing REAL research. I don't even watch the news as much anymore because most of it starts with "Critics say" or "Some people say" or "Experts say", and a big portion of it comes out with no proof to back them up. We ALL? We ALL? ALL means EVERY PERSON. You don't see me supporting corrupt Obamney? You don't see me supporting a candidate that supports Patriot Act or NDAA or even ONE SLIVER of Obamacare.

It'll be that attitude that makes us live as socialists next year? Look, if enough people "waste their vote", Johnson will become president... I don't know why I'm arguing about Obama because Gary Johnson has nothing to do with Obama, he has nothing to do with Romney, other than the fact that he is running ON DIRECT BALLOT against both of them. Johnson WILL get at least a portion of those votes because believe it or not, Obama's supporters in 2008 voted for Obama because they wanted TRUE CHANGE. Did it happen? Oh hell no, it didn't. People today just want freedom, they just want equal rights, let the poor be equal to the rich in rights, it's how our founding fathers wanted it to be. I am paying attention, Obama is a terrible president, but I'm not supporting Romney because other than the fact that he is not a gun grabber, he agrees on just about everything with Obama. If you think Romney is much different from Obama economically, you are delusional. People vote for Gary Johnson, because they want to vote for Gary Johnson. I don't like Romney, I don't like Obama.

I say this with respect and do not intent to insult or demeanor your comments. I do agree with your stance and that Johnson could have a chance to win.....in it was a different election. But you need to wake the freak up and see what the heck is going on at a national level!

If Obummer is not beaten this election.....there may not be another election in our life times!

You do don't win a war by loosing all the battles. Think what you may, it's still a free Country (for now) and you are entitled to it. But coming in here, which we are all very conservative to begin with, and telling us we are crazy to telling you the truth......you are no better then the obummer zombies! And your attitude alone stopped any chance of getting any support here.

Johnson may have a great plan and ideas, but that boat has already sailed. It's too late to build any real support for him, 90% of the people have already made up their mind on who they will vote for.

 

[LisaC]

Just checked out his website - he supports abortion. :girlsaysno :girlsaysno :girlsaysno :girlsaysno :girlsaysno

 

[lotstodo]

I've had this discussion on several boards, including those run by Arnaco Capitalists. I refuse to allow anyone to tell me who is and is not a "true" libertarian, because that is exactly what the two major parties are trying to do. The whole idea of the movement should be inclusion, because tolerance is ostensibly a cornerstone of the party. The last thing the Libertarians need to do is to alienate people who share their belief in smaller, less intrusive government and true fiscal conservatism, but passion will lead some people down that path in the belief that their way is the only way.

There are many idealists within the movement, mostly young males who are becoming engaged in politics for the first time. I certainly enjoy their candor in political discussions even if their naïveté shows through. I've been there. I've waved every freak flag there is to fly, and I don't apologize for one moment of it. That is the youthful passion and idealism that is built into our DNA. We all want the universal good and we and our causes are indestructible and unstoppable. That brings a freshness to the table that is needed, as long as it isn't partnered with a smug dismissal of other paths.

As a point of discussion, I would look at the two true shining examples of a minority movement taking control of political thought. Those are the Conservative Christian movement and the Democratic Socialists. Both worked within the framework of the existing 2 party system to seize control. Neither exceeds 30% of their respective party, yet they have at one point of another nominated their candidates to the top positions in government. The Green party and the Socialist party have tried for many decades to do what it took the DSA just 3 election cycles to achieve. There is a Democratic Socialist in the Whitehouse, does it really matter if he has a (D) behind his name instead of an (S)? I find this is a valuable history lesson for long struggling Libertarians who can't find a home. Carve one out of the existing structure until you can get your message across and maybe then, if you don't fracture, you can branch out.

I had hopes that the Tea Party could become the new home of the Libertarians within the Republican party, but alas, it is now being overrun with social conservatives pushing Christian Coalition style values within the movement. Perhaps it can return to it's small government roots, but I'm losing hope once again as it loses direction. It will be a missed opportunity to pry the big government RINOS from power.

In the meantime, i will make my next best move here in this reality, and vote for Romney. It is not a vote based as much in principled idealism as it is in raw practicality, but it is a left brain decision I'm willing to make. Even if I can't get a Libertarian Government in one fell swoop, I can help move this country away from destitute collectivism and the government slavery it means. I can hope that with Romney in power, the Supreme Court does not become more a vessel for the destruction of the Constitution, which would be a given if Obama stays. I can also hope that Bernanke will be replaced by a non-activist Monetarist like Fisher. Those three achievable goals alone are reason enough in my mind to vote for Romney. Your opinion may vary.

 

[Foxmeister]

Honestly, why would a third party vote help Obama? I don't get it, madames and sirs??? People vote for Gary Johnson because they want to vote for Gary Johnson which includes values and principles that neither Obama or Romney have. Think about it as a "Who do you most believe in?" game and not a numbers game...I mean Johnson wants to abolish the IRS and implement the Fair Tax...We've been saying "This isn't the year" for over a century now, now is finally the time. The question is, "Do you want to help your country?", "Do you want to help future generations thrive better than we will?", "Do you want freedom for your kids in the future?"...We've been riding the slide called "We have this person to beat" without looking into true values for a long time now. If Romney gets elected, think about it, we'll be thinking the same thing in 2016. It's time to get over what the media is trying to persuade you to, and besides Johnson will be on the direct ballot in all 50 states.

I’ll give you a good example of how voting for Johnson will help Obama get a second term; the 1992 presidential election. The results were as follows:

Bill Clinton:
Electoral Votes – 370
States Carried – 32 + DC
Popular Vote - 44,909,806
Percentage – 43%

George H. Bush:
Electoral Votes – 168
States Carried – 18
Popular Vote - 39,104,550
Percentage – 37.5%

Ross Perot:
Electoral Votes – 0
States Carried – 0
Popular Vote – 19,743,821
Percentage – 18.9%

Here’s the 1992 Presidential Election Map showing the results of who carried what state and the number of electoral votes from each state.

http://[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/ElectoralCollege1992.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1992.svg.png[/url]

Now take a look at the 1988 Presidential Election Map which shows the results of the states Bush won and the electoral votes from each.

[url=http://[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/ElectoralCollege1988.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1988.svg.png]http://[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/ElectoralCollege1988.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1988.svg.png[/url]

In 1992, Bush lost 22 states he had carried in the 1988 election. You may think so what it doesn’t mean anything, but it does. Even though Perot didn’t carry a single state, he received 19.7 million conservative votes. Those were votes that caused Bush to lose states in ’92 that he carried in ’88. Those votes for Perot put Clinton in office.
Johnson doesn’t have the money available Perot had to run an effective enough campaign to win. With all the money Perot had and all the air time he purchased, he not only lost; he didn’t even come close. All Perot did was take conservative votes away from Bush to result in a Clinton win. If Johnson takes just 6% of the vote, it will result in a win for Obama. I seriously doubt Johnson will take more than that.

LTD is correct when he says the Libertarians need to concentrate their campaign efforts in gaining seats at the lower levels. To make themselves a viable third party, they need to run for and win state legislative seats; then run for Congressional seats before concentrating their efforts on the White House.

 

[Far West]

<snip>

I had hopes that the Tea Party could become the new home of the Libertarians within the Republican party, but alas, it is now being overrun with social conservatives pushing Christian Coalition style values within the movement. Perhaps it can return to it's small government roots, but I'm losing hope once again as it loses direction. It will be a missed opportunity to pry the big government RINOS from power.

In the meantime, i will make my next best move here in this reality, and vote for Romney. It is not a vote based as much in principled idealism as it is in raw practicality, but it is a left brain decision I'm willing to make. Even if I can't get a Libertarian Government in one fell swoop, I can help move this country away from destitute collectivism and the government slavery it means. I can hope that with Romney in power, the Supreme Court does not become more a vessel for the destruction of the Constitution, which would be a given if Obama stays. I can also hope that Bernanke will be replaced by a non-activist Monetarist like Fisher. Those three achievable goals alone are reason enough in my mind to vote for Romney. Your opinion may vary.

:agreed

I was hopeful too. However, after the 2010 elections, and the push back to those candidates elected by T-Party ideals…they were vilified …and called obstructionists, I agree with what Grey Colson said has to happen.

He said: Work FIRST to have candidates elected at local and state level offices, then build a large following in time. Fill as many offices as possible....state reps, mayors, building the party as you go. Then elect a few governors and US Senators and Congressmen. THEN, we might have that snowball's chance to have over 40% of the vote for an independent candidate.

But you are so right...our constitution will not even be a factor in our government after 4 more years of 0bama/Biden.

We will no longer be a Constitutional Republic... we will be a Socialists Democracy.

 

[LibertarianLegend]

Honestly, why would a third party vote help Obama? I don't get it, madames and sirs??? People vote for Gary Johnson because they want to vote for Gary Johnson which includes values and principles that neither Obama or Romney have. Think about it as a "Who do you most believe in?" game and not a numbers game...I mean Johnson wants to abolish the IRS and implement the Fair Tax...We've been saying "This isn't the year" for over a century now, now is finally the time. The question is, "Do you want to help your country?", "Do you want to help future generations thrive better than we will?", "Do you want freedom for your kids in the future?"...We've been riding the slide called "We have this person to beat" without looking into true values for a long time now. If Romney gets elected, think about it, we'll be thinking the same thing in 2016. It's time to get over what the media is trying to persuade you to, and besides Johnson will be on the direct ballot in all 50 states.

I’ll give you a good example of how voting for Johnson will help Obama get a second term; the 1992 presidential election. The results were as follows:

Bill Clinton:
Electoral Votes – 370
States Carried – 32 + DC
Popular Vote - 44,909,806
Percentage – 43%

George H. Bush:
Electoral Votes – 168
States Carried – 18
Popular Vote - 39,104,550
Percentage – 37.5%

Ross Perot:
Electoral Votes – 0
States Carried – 0
Popular Vote – 19,743,821
Percentage – 18.9%

Here’s the 1992 Presidential Election Map showing the results of who carried what state and the number of electoral votes from each state.

http://[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/ElectoralCollege1992.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1992.svg.png[/url]

Now take a look at the 1988 Presidential Election Map which shows the results of the states Bush won and the electoral votes from each.

[url=http://[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/ElectoralCollege1988.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1988.svg.png]http://[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/ElectoralCollege1988.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1988.svg.png[/url]

In 1992, Bush lost 22 states he had carried in the 1988 election. You may think so what it doesn’t mean anything, but it does. Even though Perot didn’t carry a single state, he received 19.7 million conservative votes. Those were votes that caused Bush to lose states in ’92 that he carried in ’88. Those votes for Perot put Clinton in office.
Johnson doesn’t have the money available Perot had to run an effective enough campaign to win. With all the money Perot had and all the air time he purchased, he not only lost; he didn’t even come close. All Perot did was take conservative votes away from Bush to result in a Clinton win. If Johnson takes just 6% of the vote, it will result in a win for Obama. I seriously doubt Johnson will take more than that.

LTD is correct when he says the Libertarians need to concentrate their campaign efforts in gaining seats at the lower levels. To make themselves a viable third party, they need to run for and win state legislative seats; then run for Congressional seats before concentrating their efforts on the White House.

Perot was actually close to winning it...If it wasn't for him dropping out when the GOP tried to spoil his daughter's wedding and re-entering afterwards, he probably would've won. Yeah you're right, they need to build up and elect more office holders locally, I mean we may have the billionaire to vote in for President, but there's lots of alternatives in other offices. We have James Camp for District 30, David Staples for Public Service Commission, Gary Johnson for President...Even though he didn't have any opponents to my knowledge, Brett Bittner got elected in Cobb County for School board this year. Ross Perot didn't take it away from Bush, he took it away from himself, he was a TERRIBLE president.

 

[Guard Dad]

I gotta agree with the others. The primary is one thing, but to support a candidate that has no statistical chance of winning at this juncture is not logical.

LL - I think you'll find that many of us here have some Libertarian leanings, so we understand where you're coming from. But the reality is, the next president will be either Obama or Romney. If you want Obama out, as most of us here do; the logical thing to do is to vote for the ONLY candidate that has a chance of beating him.

 

[lotstodo]

Honestly, why would a third party vote help Obama? I don't get it, madames and sirs??? People vote for Gary Johnson because they want to vote for Gary Johnson which includes values and principles that neither Obama or Romney have. Think about it as a "Who do you most believe in?" game and not a numbers game...I mean Johnson wants to abolish the IRS and implement the Fair Tax...We've been saying "This isn't the year" for over a century now, now is finally the time. The question is, "Do you want to help your country?", "Do you want to help future generations thrive better than we will?", "Do you want freedom for your kids in the future?"...We've been riding the slide called "We have this person to beat" without looking into true values for a long time now. If Romney gets elected, think about it, we'll be thinking the same thing in 2016. It's time to get over what the media is trying to persuade you to, and besides Johnson will be on the direct ballot in all 50 states.

I’ll give you a good example of how voting for Johnson will help Obama get a second term; the 1992 presidential election. The results were as follows:

Bill Clinton:
Electoral Votes – 370
States Carried – 32 + DC
Popular Vote - 44,909,806
Percentage – 43%

George H. Bush:
Electoral Votes – 168
States Carried – 18
Popular Vote - 39,104,550
Percentage – 37.5%

Ross Perot:
Electoral Votes – 0
States Carried – 0
Popular Vote – 19,743,821
Percentage – 18.9%

Here’s the 1992 Presidential Election Map showing the results of who carried what state and the number of electoral votes from each state.

http://[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/ElectoralCollege1992.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1992.svg.png[/url]

Now take a look at the 1988 Presidential Election Map which shows the results of the states Bush won and the electoral votes from each.

[url=http://[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/ElectoralCollege1988.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1988.svg.png]http://[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/ElectoralCollege1988.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1988.svg.png[/url]

In 1992, Bush lost 22 states he had carried in the 1988 election. You may think so what it doesn’t mean anything, but it does. Even though Perot didn’t carry a single state, he received 19.7 million conservative votes. Those were votes that caused Bush to lose states in ’92 that he carried in ’88. Those votes for Perot put Clinton in office.
Johnson doesn’t have the money available Perot had to run an effective enough campaign to win. With all the money Perot had and all the air time he purchased, he not only lost; he didn’t even come close. All Perot did was take conservative votes away from Bush to result in a Clinton win. If Johnson takes just 6% of the vote, it will result in a win for Obama. I seriously doubt Johnson will take more than that.

LTD is correct when he says the Libertarians need to concentrate their campaign efforts in gaining seats at the lower levels. To make themselves a viable third party, they need to run for and win state legislative seats; then run for Congressional seats before concentrating their efforts on the White House.

Perot was actually close to winning it...If it wasn't for him dropping out when the GOP tried to spoil his daughter's wedding and re-entering afterwards, he probably would've won. Yeah you're right, they need to build up and elect more office holders locally, I mean we may have the billionaire to vote in for President, but there's lots of alternatives in other offices. We have James Camp for District 30, David Staples for Public Service Commission, Gary Johnson for President...Even though he didn't have any opponents to my knowledge, Brett Bittner got elected in Cobb County for School board this year. Ross Perot didn't take it away from Bush, he took it away from himself, he was a TERRIBLE president.

Actually LL, that was a statement made by Perot himself to try and explain his inexplicable temporary exit (some called it a meltdown). There was never any photograph of his daughter in a Lesbian relationship or other corroborating evidence. I don't even believe that the mysterious Barnes guy even corroborated the story. The FBI looked into it and found the charges completely baseless including the bizarre wire tap allegations. This was the beginning of Perot unraveling. He also said that he lost the debate with Gore because Gore had an earpiece and was being fed answers. To anyone who actually saw those debates (I did) it was obvious that Perot was simply not well prepared. His choice of VP was the final nail in the campaign coffin, but he still siphoned off enough conservative votes to help Clinton win an otherwise close race. The numbers prove it.

Personally I will be surprised if Gary does too much harm this year as his main popularity is not in the swing states beyond Colorado. But it is true that the majority of those who say they will vote for him would most likely vote for a Republican if there was not an attractive third party candidate or if there was a better Republican. There is little support for Obama among Johnson voters mostly due to the fact that Barry is viewed by many as perhaps a worse abuser of civil rights and a stronger neocon than even the infamous George Bush. With civil liberties being a wash that throws the decision over to the economy, and again there isn't a lot of difference on spending beyond who would get the money, there is a lot of difference on taxation.

 

[newsjunky]

No thanks. I believe anyone who votes for a third party candidate this election is helping Obama. It's much more important to vote him out of office.

:agreed :thumbsup I heard an add for him this morning and it was all about protecting Liberty. I thought to myself that if he was really interested in that he would withdraw from the race.

 

[LibertarianLegend]

No thanks. I believe anyone who votes for a third party candidate this election is helping Obama. It's much more important to vote him out of office.

:agreed :thumbsup I heard an add for him this morning and it was all about protecting Liberty. I thought to myself that if he was really interested in that he would withdraw from the race.

Who? Obama? If so, yeah true...

 

[newsjunky]

No thanks. I believe anyone who votes for a third party candidate this election is helping Obama. It's much more important to vote him out of office.

:agreed :thumbsup I heard an add for him this morning and it was all about protecting Liberty. I thought to myself that if he was really interested in that he would withdraw from the race.

Who? Obama? If so, yeah true...

No, Gary Johnson. A vote for him is a vote for Obama and the destruction of Liberty in America.

 

[Cheezy]

I swear when I read the title of this thread I thought Gary Johnson was locked up somewhere and needed to be freed. :faint

No thanks, Romney has my vote.

Me, too!!

and Me, too!!

 

[LibertarianLegend]

No thanks. I believe anyone who votes for a third party candidate this election is helping Obama. It's much more important to vote him out of office.

:agreed :thumbsup I heard an add for him this morning and it was all about protecting Liberty. I thought to myself that if he was really interested in that he would withdraw from the race.

Who? Obama? If so, yeah true...

No, Gary Johnson. A vote for him is a vote for Obama and the destrution of Liberty in America.

No, I don't think so at all. I'm going to say this once, and I'll say it again. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” -President John Quincy Adams

For those who don't know much about Gov. Johnson, here's a comparison between him and the other two candidates on the attachment included in the post.


[attachment deleted by admin]

 

[lotstodo]

Johnson's stand on personal liberty is far different from either of the other two candidates. His record on small government across the board is way better than either Barry or Mittens. It isn't even a contest, but that isn't the contest that will decide the future of our government. He simply isn't going to win, influence the platform of any party or institution that holds any power in Washington, or influence popular thought in the nation about civil liberties. The contest that will count will be between Romney and Obama. I would do just as well voting for myself, a man with whom I fully agree, as voting for Johnson. The result on November 6 would be exactly the same. I've tilted at a few windmills in my day, but this is one that I'll ride by in favor of attacking the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, the entity I view as the most immediate enemy of the welfare and liberty of the people.