Is [Gary Johnson] the Sanest Man Running for President?

According to the article, he's only worth $6 million (and that probably includes his house). In other words, considering that the US political system is set up to filter the moneyed elites into the top positions, Gary Johnson's net worth probably disqualifies him.

Extremely unlikely. And I don't agree that he's more "sane" just because he's socially liberal, fiscally conservative and a straight shooter.

Well, having read a fair bit about him, he would get my vote in the primaries, even over Ron Paul. Perhaps the reason the media is ignoring him is because he's one of these rare politicians who has a record of serving the people?

Of course you will.

No, not "many" more. And if there are, all you'll do is re-elect Obama. Here we go again.

Yup, if SDW would vote with his "principles" and go with Gary Johnson instead of plugging his nose and picking Romney, the vote wouldn't be split.

John Huntsman, though, would actually be considered the sanest candidate in the Republican primary. He doesn't reject science and thinks you shouldn't either. Of course, that means he'll never get the nomination. Being an intellectual in tune with reality doesn't curry favor with the GOP sheep.

Isn't he the dude that wants to legalize pot? A real great representation of a president he would make.Forget it!

If I voted for Johnson, yes.


Based on your previous postings on this topic, I think you actually understand my meaning. Gary Johnson may be a great candidate. In fact, I agree with him on most issues. But he's got no shot (as in less than Ron Paul) at beating Obama. Jazz runs around acting like this is a free-for-all, as if we line up a ton of people on the stage (with Obama) and just pick the one that represents us best. But that is not the case, and I'm sure you know it. Someone has to not only be a good candidate, but be someone that can beat Obama.

Do I think Romney is perfect? Of course not. Would I like someone more conservative on fiscal issues and more liberal on social issues? Yes. But do I think he'd do a far superior job compared to Obama and do I think he can actually win? Absolutely. That's really all it's about for me...I truly do believe Obama has been an absolute nightmare as a President. Almost anyone who is not insane or utterly radical would be better. I put on that list many people with whom I disagree and even can't stand. For example, you all know my feelings on the Clintons. I'd take either one of them over Obama every day of the week and twice on Sunday. This President has got to go for the sake of saving this nation.

Johnson's about as sane as they come. He is more in touch with the ordinary people from which élitists Obama and Romney have become far removed.

The prime beneficiaries from illegal pot are organized crime gangs, big pharma, the largely privatized prison industrial complex, and corrupt elements within law enforcement. Do you have a vested interest in maintaining its illegality?

Yes, Gary Johnson is the sanest conservative running for president.  Please, Republicans, don't vote for that fake say-anything-to-anyone entitled pathological liar Mitt Romney.  Come election day, Republicans, vote Gary Johnson.

Why? Because he is an advocate to favor pot. Is this one of your reasons.
 

 

This is a point that jazz won't acknowledge.  A person who has zero chance of voting for Obama (and votes for Johnson) is essentially casting a vote for Obama.  

 

 

Cute image.  Also, completely inaccurate. 

 

Fixed that for you, Jazzy.  But, by all means, convince all your Romney-supporting friends to vote for Obama by voting for Gary Johnson.  Please.  

 

It's somewhat telling that you feel the need to make this plea.

 

I think it is very, very likely that Obama gets reelected.  However, with all the voter suppression shenanigans and potential voting machine election fraud, I'd prefer some added insurance against those two selfish, jingoistic twats gaining power.

 

Nice try, though.  Still a huge inference failure.

 

You're probably right. Though if you're wrong I wouldn't expect much change. There wasn't much change after Obama became president.

 

 

 

As opposed to the two arrogant, moronic, smug twats who currently are in power?

 

 

 

Of course.

Right, I forgot that in the mind of a conservative evolution-denier, smug means going to college and accepting reality.

 

First, I'm not really a political conservative. I'm a classical liberal, anarchy-capitalist or, if you prefer, a libertarian.

 

Second, that's not what smug means to me. But then I know what words mean and don't redefine them to suit my needs or to disparage those I don't agree with.

Well, I don't see Obama having excessive pride in his achievements.  In fact, I wish he would actually tout his record more.

 

Of course you don't.

 

 

 

Of course you do.

What record being a phony and not really advocating what he meant to do in his last almost 4 years as president.
 

 

Oh come the **** on.  "Selfish, jingoistic twats?"  I find it hard to believe you honestly think that.  I also find it hard to believe you actually think Obama deserves reelection.   

Absolutely.  Ryan is a Randian sociopath.  Romney is doesn't give two shits about 47% of America.  He thinks his 9% tax rate (you know, the one he'll get when he amends this year's taxes after the election) is too high.  

 

President Obama has accomplished A LOT with Republicans attempting to undermine him the entire time, even when he wanted implement policies that Republicans were once in favor of (until the black guy with the funny name wanted those same things).