http://www.pokerupdate.com/news/law-...Speed=noscript

We have a legitimate candidate that specifically supports online poker and garners double digit support in polls. I don't see any discussion about Gary Johnson in this forum at all.

Did everyone give up?

If you're a single-issue voter and online pokers is that issue, it's time to re-evaluate who you are as a person.

As someone who kinda sorta fits into the big-tent libertarian ideology, preventing Donald Trump from being president is far more important than getting the pro-online poker guy up to 15%.

I heard him on The Joe Rogan Experience.

He's not a whole lot smarter than Trump is.

Yeah I listened to the first half hour of that and it was painful. Hard to imagine someone running for president for a second time, being somewhat serious and having a weaker set of talking points.

What happens if you believe that preventing Hillary Clinton from being POTUS is only marginally less important than preventing Trump from being POTUS?

What about the meta issue of breaking the lock that the Democrat-Republican-Media Cartel has on our election process? I think this last point is far more crucial that which of two train wrecks gets into office.

I'm 65, and I've experienced 16 years of the two worst Presidents in my lifetime.

Both major parties have the electorate brainwashed with their "the other guy is the devil" message.

If you want to only support your own issue and not support the freedoms of others, isn't that just being selfish?

For you, it's poker. For someone else it might be using marijuana. For another person it might be prostitution.

Are you saying that your "vice" is the only one that's legitimate and only your reasoning is valid? Shouldn't the freedom of choice extend in all areas of life, to all people, instead of just what you personally support?

Or you may be voting based on things that have nothing to do with vices.

Well, for one thing I don't think Hillary Clinton is only marginally better than Donald Trump. The differences between them are quite significant. As in "the future of America as we know it" significant.

Second, not being a conspiratard I don't believe there is any sort of cartel in the media between the two parties that needs to be broken. America has a two-party system and that's just how it is and for all its faults its worked out ok. Gary Johnson is a lightweight and Jill Stein is a grade-A moron who wouldn't get elected dog catcher. There is plenty of room within the two parties to better America and there is a reason the best and brightest politicians choose to go that route.

There are serious issues facing the country and showing off how enlightened you are compared to the brainwashed masses only succeeds in demonstrating narcissistic immaturity.

Reading comprehension fail. (Hint: Trolly wasn't saying poker is his single issue. Quite the opposite.)

Stopped reading here.

No. Just no. Spend 5 minutes watching this guy. He's a moron, and the least presidential human I've ever seen.

About the only thing I know about Johnson is from a magazine article I read about him twenty years ago, when he was Governor of New Mexico. Really the only thing I remember from it is he made the reporter go running with him and he had everybody in his office memorize his resting heart rate. Pretty sure I'm not making any of that up.

People probably think you're pretty ignorant.

Holy ****, is Rob Lowe's character from Parks and Rec supposed to be based on Gary Johnson?

We're talking about Boris in the UK thread

I'm a single-issue libertarian voter, but my one issue is being anti-government seat belt regulations, so I could never support Johnson with all his seat belt tyranny.

Two issues compromise something like 90% of my political ****s to give. One is ending the drug war and the other is reducing foreign intervention. Libertarians might have an exceedingly large amount of stupidity elsewhere but my weighted political ****s to give average will still be high.

I have this conversation with supposedly libertarian friends a lot. So ok... You agree with libertarians on drug policy and foreign policy, but think they're stupid in a lot of other areas. Why do you not just consider yourself a liberal? Liberals (not mainstream Democrats/Hillary, but actual liberals) are also against the war on drugs and foreign intervention, but they have the advantage of not being wingnuts regarding fiscal policy and the role of government.

Correct, its the mainstream Democrats/Hilary that I am very opposed to. It's hard to listen to them for more than a few sentences. I'm not sure to what degree the non-mainstream Democrats are opposed to the drug war and foreign intervention. What is the consensus here compared to the average libertarian?

These two issues, I believe are the root to the largest societal failures and I only hear Libertarians agreeing with me to that degree. Everything else can be experimented with, which is the heart of libertarianism - this idea that lots of individuals experimenting will coalesce to a solution. Wisdom of the crowds without government intervention.

And since Gary Johnson clearly aligns with my two biggest issues nearly perfectly I am voting for him. Hilary/Trump are basically equivalent here. Not a fan of labels and would never call myself a libertarian.

Why would you vote for Hilary(if indeed you are) if she doesn't support your biggest issues? it's pretty clear who I side with on the issues (isidewith.com 90%+ GJ)

because she doesn't keep books of hitler speeches at her bedside, and you don't want a white nationalist with ties to neo-nazis in the white house?

well no the heart of libertarianism is fiscally very conservative and small government thats not to be experimented with

its essentially liberals with the advantage of not being idiots regarding fiscal policy and the role of government.

They would enact extreme measure to allow private business contracts to be ultimate and final. In other words, no minimum wage--all contracts are by agreement. Private property is ultimate, which takes stand your ground to a whole new level and also means many civil rights laws would be repealed (Rand Paul has talked about this.) Could bring back indentured servanthood. No taxes, because that is theft--so they want to abolish the Department of Education and about 20 other major departments of the federal government. No forms of public service--everything is handled by corporations because the market is the most efficient mechanism (oh dear goodness they're getting hard already) and yadda yadda yadda.

These are some of the reasons he's not winning as well.

This is a bizarre interpretation of what is happening. His polling right now is nothing short of phenomenal for a third-party candidate. Gary is polling at 8% and has had several polls in the double digits. No one expected this considering his 1% performance in 2012. How could this possibly be interpreted as 'not winning as well'.

Your stream of characterizations of the libertarian party have absolutely nothing to do with him 'not winning as well'. Of the likely less than half of the populace that even know who Gary is, I'm sure less than 5% would even connect one of your characterizations to libertarianism.

GJ is doing well (and yes he's doing relatively phenomenal) because his main ideas connect with people on both sides. No one takes the time to read the fine details of the more theoretically pure libertarians (whom will never be that big of a part of the movement and are more likely to form a different party if and when small 'l' libertarianism becomes mainstream). Look at how far away from a theoretically pure libertarian Bill Weld is. I think this is the future of the party. More practical, less theoretically pure. And on that note, its too bad Bill Weld didn't get the nomination.

you have a felon and a guy with no experiance running

seems pretty expected

Oh yeah he's definitely doing great, because a lot of people have had it with "the establishment" and want huge political change. And I totally admit libertarians have some very good points, like ending the war on drugs. That should be something that should appeal to all parties. But truly, for a lot of the reasons I listed above, I don't think libertarianism is practical and I don't think it will appeal to a huge mainstream audience enough to ever win a Presidential election.