Hypothetically, If Paul was elected, a similar process would evolve for those who are Libertarians.

You're probably right about that. Still, the one thing that I think is different is that Paul has a 30 year record in Congress of voting exactly as he says.

The cynic in me says "Only suckers actually believe politicians" But Ron Paul has a long history of sticking by his guns. He isn't called Dr. No for nothing.

That said, I know that even Ron Paul as president isn't going to save this government.

Here's an article from today about the most important Libertarian that you've probably never heard about. He is arguably the 3rd most important Libertarian in American (after the Pauls)

http://www.kurzweilai.net/peter-thiel-a ... dium=email

Here's a more complete description.

http://www.thielfoundation.org/index.ph ... &Itemid=19

Guapo wrote:When has a

Deputy Secretary of Commerce for Trade, Ambassador to Singapore, U.S. Trade Delegate, a 2 term Governor, Ambassador to China, as well as a senior executive for a non-profit cancer foundation.

OR someone who

In addition to this, he is fluent in Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese Hokkien.

ever won the presidency? How do these make him more qualified?

Pretty much since the beginning of the Republic. The previous positions show experience in governing which is what a President needs to get anything done.

As for the fluency aspect, China is going to be the number 2 foreign relations issue in the coming years. Wouldn't it be good to have a President who understands the mindset? Don't you think fluency in the language might reflect that understanding?

Guapo wrote:I know, because as a statist, you think these positions mean something. C'mon, Russ, admit it. What's wrong with being a statist? It's in your very thought process. Positions like these mean nothing to the anti-statist--and there is no middle. You're either a statist or an anti-statist. An anti-statist is not an anarchist, although modern anarchists (ancaps, as they are called here) are anti-statists.

See you are calling things in black and white. If you aren't an anti-statist, you are a statist. Isn't there something in between the two of them?

To me, a statist is someone who believes that government is always the best choice. A statist is someone who believes the government should control the economy. Neither of that is me.

Isn't possible that a person can recognize government is a necessarily evil. That it should be as small and as unintrusive as possible. That it should be staffed, as small as can be, with people who have the experience to get things done?

See the difference between me and you Jeff is that you hate the system and think it should be torn down or at the very least ignored. How very quixotic of you.

I, on the other hand, recognize as much as the system may be flawed, it is what it is and it is here to stay. And quite honestly, it is better then the alternatives. Based on that understanding, I try to work within the system to make the little changes that can actually be made and limit the continued expansion of the government. It doesn't make me a statist, it makes me a realist

Guapo wrote:To a statist, inheriting daddy's business is admirable. To an anti-statist, starting a business door to door and growing it to over 1,000 employees is admirable.

You are absolutely correct that creating your own business is more admirable then inheriting one started by your parents. However, the difference is in terms of scale. Directing a 1,000 people that operate in 1 geographic area is completely different then directing 11,000 people spread all over the globe. A person that run a small business may not be able to run a large multi-national business. Real world experience tells us this.

The Federal Government is more like a large multi-national. So who has the better qualification, the person with real world experience running a large multi-national business or a person who has only run a small business.

Guapo wrote:Gary Johnson vetoed 750 bills (more than all other contemporary governors combined) to accomplish his mission.

So good, he had the courage to stand on his convictions by vetoing bills he disagreed with. Of course, the fact that he had to veto 750 bills shows that is was unable to get people to work with him in the first place.

Guapo wrote:He {Johnson} left the state with a $1 Billion dollar surplus. Huntsman, on the other hand, became a staffer after college. He inherited a business, then bounced back and forth between positions, while actually doing nothing.

Says who? Provide proof. Isn't more likely that he started in an executive position with one company and after proving himself he received promotions and/or higher level jobs in another company? Seriously, all those companies are publically traded. Do you think he would have been left in them and/or promoted if he kept screwing up?

Further, as Governor of Utah he moved his state into the number 3 best state to do business in. He cut taxes, reduced the sales taxe and simplified the state tax code. He was listed as the best out of the 50 Governors on tax policy by the Cato Institute. He did all of this without excessive use of the veto and he did it in 4 years and 4.5 months (as opposed to the 8 years it took Gary Johnson.)

Jeff,

Honestly, I have looked at Johnson's campaign website. I like most of his positions (not all but most). If he makes it to the Pennsylvania primary, I would consider voting for him. Unfortunately, he isn't going to make it.

Realistically, he isn't going to make it out of Iowa. The reason for that is money. He hasn't been in politics in 8 years. That means he will most likely have little to no fund raising network. His previous fund raising network, from when he was Governor, would have fallen apart from lack of use. Further, any fund raising network he had was limited to New Mexico. He has no national presence. How many people know who Gary Johnson is out side of New Mexico and are willing to give him money.

Now you an argue the samething about Jon Huntsman. However, there are two big differences. Huntsman has the national profile to the people with money. He has those previous offices you like to dismiss. Further he was a speaker at the 2008 RNC (he gave the nominating speech for the Vice Presidential candidate).

This means both have to stay in the campaign long enough, and do well enough in the polls to garner attention to pull in the big money. That means a large campaigin in Iowa and New Hampshire. That means air time, mailers and personal appearances in order to get name recognition. This is were the biggest differences between Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman comes into play. Jon Huntsman can afford to self-fund his campaign at the start to make up for the lack of fund raising. Gary Johnson can't.

.

Why do so many of you want to elect a librarian ?

They're tired of people using force to dictate how others should live their lives?

maybe they just want more 'shushing' and enforcement of the Dewey decimal system

Archduke Russell John wrote:Now you an argue the samething about Jon Huntsman. However, there are two big differences. Huntsman has the national profile to the people with money. He has those previous offices you like to dismiss. Further he was a speaker at the 2008 RNC (he gave the nominating speech for the Vice Presidential candidate).

This means both have to stay in the campaign long enough, and do well enough in the polls to garner attention to pull in the big money. That means a large campaigin in Iowa and New Hampshire. That means air time, mailers and personal appearances in order to get name recognition. This is were the biggest differences between Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman comes into play. Jon Huntsman can afford to self-fund his campaign at the start to make up for the lack of fund raising. Gary Johnson can't.

.

The great Jon Huntsman!

He is a younger, better-looking, mavericky John McCain! Having someone who was "nice" worked so well last time, let's try it again! Watch the video and tell me why he's a better candidate than McCain.

Out of interest Steve, of the likely candidates which do you favour ? I assume that you couldn't abide any of the 'RINOs' and your disdain for the libertarians like Ron paul etc is a matter of record here. That wouldn't seem to leave too much to choose from atm.

Russ, it seems like you keep trying to make it sound like I think Johnson has a snowballs chance in hell of making it to Super Tuesday. I don't think he does. All I'm saying is that neither does Huntsman, and I'm challenging you on your own statements and claims of libertarian leanings. I think your choice of Huntsman is evidence of statism.

In terms of the candidates in question, the two are barely comparable. Hunstman is a statist, and there's nothing that separates him from the other candidates that makes him good, unless you are a statist yourself. I see nothing in his resume or "positions" that separates him clearly from any of the other frontrunners. Johnson is the most libertarianish of the Candidates not named Ron Paul. But he doesn't want to close Guantanamo and doesn't care about the Fed. If you're going to go for someone that doesn't have a chance, why pick such an obviously vile statist?

In reality, I like when people pick longshots. But when the longshot is so boringly the same as everything else we've had for the last 10 years or so, what's the point? The only thing that separates himself from the others is that not only is he a politician, but he's also a bureaucrat. Who the hell likes bureaucrats??

Doctor Fate wrote:
The great Jon Huntsman!

We need a 'like' button

Ray Jay wrote:Here's an article from today about the most important Libertarian that you've probably never heard about. He is arguably the 3rd most important Libertarian in American (after the Pauls)

http://www.kurzweilai.net/peter-thiel-a ... dium=email

Here's a more complete description.

http://www.thielfoundation.org/index.ph ... &Itemid=19

Pete Thiel is awesome.

Doctor Fate wrote:He is a younger, better-looking, mavericky John McCain! Having someone who was "nice" worked so well last time, let's try it again! Watch the video and tell me why he's a better candidate than McCain.

Because he is younger. This country picks Presidents based on their generation. Once we move from an older Generation to a younger generation, the older generation are no longer viable candidates.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Pretty much since the beginning of the Republic. The previous positions show experience in governing which is what a President needs to get anything done.

As for the fluency aspect, China is going to be the number 2 foreign relations issue in the coming years. Wouldn't it be good to have a President who understands the mindset? Don't you think fluency in the language might reflect that understanding?

None of those positions have ever led to the White House. I left governor in there for accuracy's sake, but obviously I'm not including that. His 1.3 terms is acceptable, but not as much as Johnson's. And doesn't in bother you that he bailed on his state to take an appointment by Obama? That shows that he is more ambitious than serious about his work. That is NOT admirable. Utah wasn't in any huge mess. He didn't screw it up. Great. New Mexico was in a huge mess, and GJ did his part to fix it.

Archduke Russell John wrote:See you are calling things in black and white. If you aren't an anti-statist, you are a statist. Isn't there something in between the two of them?

To me, a statist is someone who believes that government is always the best choice. A statist is someone who believes the government should control the economy. Neither of that is me.

This is where I think your perception is wrong. Statism isn't simply an extreme position, like you're trying to make it out. If that was the case, there are very few statists, yet the state grows and grows and grows. People can reside on the extremes, as I do, but that's not to say that others aren't anti-statists. Yes, there are more extreme statists than you, but that doesn't mean you're not one. Statism is better understood on a sliding scale. And because issues vary in importance either toward statism or towards anti-statism, there can be no 50-50.

And I think it can be demonstrated that you believe the government should control the economy--almost as much as Lenin did.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Isn't possible that a person can recognize government is a necessarily evil. That it should be as small and as unintrusive as possible. That it should be staffed, as small as can be, with people who have the experience to get things done?

Hmm. Were you trying to say "government is a necessary evil," or "government isn't necessarily evil"?

"small and unintrusive as possible" DING DING DING. You said what everyone in the US political system says. Everyone thinks it should be as "small and unintrusive as possible," but nobody has a solid definition of what should and shouldn't be possible. In other words, it's not the "small and unintrusive" that impresses me. It's how you define what's "possible" or what SHOULD be possible. American statists are statists, they just like to trick themselves into believing that they aren't, replete with vacuous platitudes.

Archduke Russell John wrote:See the difference between me and you Jeff is that you hate the system and think it should be torn down or at the very least ignored. How very quixotic of you.

Ignored. But that has nothing to do with this conversation. There are plenty of antistatists out there. You just never seem to "agree" with them.

Archduke Russell John wrote:I, on the other hand, recognize as much as the system may be flawed, it is what it is and it is here to stay. And quite honestly, it is better then the alternatives. Based on that understanding, I try to work within the system to make the little changes that can actually be made and limit the continued expansion of the government. It doesn't make me a statist, it makes me a realist

I don't think that it makes you a statist. I think that makes you a puppet. ;)

And what do you mean "here to stay"? Do you really think that "America" is some magical concept that is immune to the laws of economics? Do you think that it can barrel down the same road as Rome and survive? Surely, you're not so irrational to think that this system is going to be permanent. Moreover, the system never stays the same to begin with. The "system" keeps changing every time their last scheme @#$! up. Eventually, it will dry out and collapse.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not you are a statist--or whether or not a "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" with "libertarian leanings" would prefer a no-name statist over a no-name anti-statist.

Archduke Russell John wrote:You are absolutely correct that creating your own business is more admirable then inheriting one started by your parents. However, the difference is in terms of scale. Directing a 1,000 people that operate in 1 geographic area is completely different then directing 11,000 people spread all over the globe. A person that run a small business may not be able to run a large multi-national business. Real world experience tells us this.

Proportionally speaking, the scale is bigger on Johnson's side. Multinational corporations have layers and layers of departments, managers and bureaucrats that do most of the work. Not to mention, I can't find any information about how long he was "an executive" for Huntsman Corp. It doesn't say he was CEO. Moreover, it's such a small part of his own bio (one tiny paragraph with no dates), that there's obviously nothing of value to glean from it.

This guy has done NOTHING. How can you compare that to building a business from 1 to 1,000? You can't.

Archduke Russell John wrote:The Federal Government is more like a large multi-national. So who has the better qualification, the person with real world experience running a large multi-national business or a person who has only run a small business.

It's really not like either. Name the last president we had that was a successful corporate CEO. The value in comparing private enterprise experience is knowledge of what the majority of americans live like, and it serves as an example of what we can do. Small business make the US go round, not multinational corporations.

Archduke Russell John wrote:So good, he had the courage to stand on his convictions by vetoing bills he disagreed with. Of course, the fact that he had to veto 750 bills shows that is was unable to get people to work with him in the first place.

Wait, what? The governor is not a legislator. And isn't one of the very commonly debated characteristics of a presidential contender his ability to "stand up" to congress? An executives veto power is one of the primary ones proscribed in the constitution.

And getting people to "work with you" almost 100% of the time means more government increases. Vetos are what stop them. The opposition party ramps up its statism. This is just how things work. So the diligent executive needs his veto pen.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Says who? Provide proof. Isn't more likely that he started in an executive position with one company and after proving himself he received promotions and/or higher level jobs in another company? Seriously, all those companies are publically traded. Do you think he would have been left in them and/or promoted if he kept screwing up?

Who, Huntsman? It's on his own bio. He became a staffer, then a bureaucrat, then "an executive" in his dad's company. Here's his entire paragraph on his private sector experience:

In the private sector, Jon is a successful businessman with hands-on job creation experience. He served as an executive in his family's business, which built hundreds of products and employed thousands of people. Using his international experience and language skills, Jon has helped the company compete and expand globally.

because the start of the next paragraph reads:

Jon's most gratifying accomplishments are rooted in public service.

LOL. I have a better private sector resume than that. Russ, I really had no clue who this guy was when you touted him. But the more I find out about him, the more vile he becomes. He's worse than Santorum, imho.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Further, as Governor of Utah he moved his state into the number 3 best state to do business in. He cut taxes, reduced the sales taxe and simplified the state tax code. He was listed as the best out of the 50 Governors on tax policy by the Cato Institute. He did all of this without excessive use of the veto and he did it in 4 years and 4.5 months (as opposed to the 8 years it took Gary Johnson.)

Into number 3 from what? I couldn't find a reference. And I know that Utah has always (in the last 10 years) ranked high. Just like the resume, there's a whole lot of nothing going on with Huntsman.

Guapo wrote: All I'm saying is that neither does Huntsman, {snip}In reality, I like when people pick longshots.

And you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying I am going to vote for Huntsman. I haven't decided yet. What I am saying that Huntsman is not a long shot and I have been trying to explain why.