And Gary Johnson Just Lost My Vote...Crap. Now What?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gary-johnson-religious-freedom-as-a-category-is-a-black-hole/article/2598088



Seriously, one of my main turn offs on Trump and Hillary is my sincere doubt that either would support the religious freedom of Mormons. Now this.



Constitutional party, anyone?

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Johnson because many of his positions lean extremely far left and he's very bigoted against religion.

Yep, I've been seeing lots of hypocrisy from people who say "Don't vote for the two most popular candidates, because they're bad, but vote for the third most popular candidate, even though he's not very good, because he's the next most popular."



I'm going to write in Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz. I've looked into candidates from the Constitution Party, the Veteran's Party, etc. and haven't found a single one that I would feel confident and happy casting my vote for.

Schmoe wrote:
Yep, I've been seeing lots of hypocrisy from people who say "Don't vote for the two most popular candidates, because they're bad, but vote for the third most popular candidate, even though he's not very good, because he's the next most popular."



I'm going to write in Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz. I've looked into candidates from the Constitution Party, the Veteran's Party, etc. and haven't found a single one that I would feel confident and happy casting my vote for.

I plan on voting for the person who I feel would make the best President of the United States.

So he uses Mormons as a hypothetical example of how religious freedom is not an absolute trump card, and he loses the Mormon vote?

Why shouldn't somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody dead

Especially when the context of the quote indicates he misspoke and was talking about Muslims, not Mormons. He prefaces that line with "Back to Mormonism" ... and he's never mentioned Mormons once, but has mentioned Muslims twice prior.



That's some pretty thin skin if that line makes you change your mind.

Johnson is trying to escape an issue that Ron Paul got burned on by the media. Paul was asked if he'd vote for the 1964 civil rights act. He said no because it prevents a private individual from excluding people from their property (if they own a business).



Allowing someone to discriminate based on their religious (or whatever other) beliefs isn't very popular. It is the right thing to do but Johnson is just being a politician trying to get as many votes as possible. He's wrong on this and abortion, similar to the way Romney was wrong on multiple issues.



Johnson seems like an honest guy and will be the best candidate on my ballot (Darrel Castle probably won't be an option).



Just an FYI, a write in vote is not a vote, it's an abstention. You're voting for electors (who's names you probably won't see on the ballot), not the president. If the person's name isn't on the ballot that means they haven't selected a list of electors to the state so you aren't voting for anyone.

jvquarterback wrote:
Johnson is trying to escape an issue that Ron Paul got burned on by the media. Paul was asked if he'd vote for the 1964 civil rights act. He said no because it prevents a private individual from excluding people from their property (if they own a business).



Allowing someone to discriminate based on their religious (or whatever other) beliefs isn't very popular. It is the right thing to do but Johnson is just being a politician trying to get as many votes as possible. He's wrong on this and abortion, similar to the way Romney was wrong on multiple issues.



Johnson seems like an honest guy and will be the best candidate on my ballot (Darrel Castle probably won't be an option).



Just an FYI, a write in vote is not a vote, it's an abstention. You're voting for electors (who's names you probably won't see on the ballot), not the president. If the person's name isn't on the ballot that means they haven't selected a list of electors to the state so you aren't voting for anyone.

If my vote is going to be a throwaway on a third-party candidate anyway, I'm going to vote for whom I think will make the best president and not be limited to the list that other people have chosen.



Johnson supports killing children and other things that I don't agree with. I don't care that he's sincere about his support of killing children and other things I disagree with.

From the interviews I've read Johnson seems like a strangely strong supporter of Hillary Clinton.

hawkwing wrote:
From the interviews I've read Johnson seems like a strangely strong supporter of Hillary Clinton.

What?

Thursday afternoon, Gary Johnson and running mate Bill Weld confirmed that they’d spoken with Mitt Romney and that “he’s considering an endorsement.”



For Mitt Romney, it’s likely a matter of considering whether he’ll ultimately lose long-term clout within the Republican Party by supporting a libertarian candidate, or whether it’s worth completely ending his relationship with the party now helmed by Donald Trump.



https://heatst.com/politics/is-romney-going-to-endorse-gary-johnson-and-screw-trump-in-utah/

Why a Romney endorsement would be huge in Utah:



The last poll taken there has Clinton at 35%, Trump at 35% and Johnson at 13%.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/13/this-new-poll-utah-poll-is-amazingly-bad-for-donald-trump/

snoscythe wrote:
So he uses Mormons as a hypothetical example of how religious freedom is not an absolute trump card, and he loses the Mormon vote?

Why shouldn't somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody dead

Especially when the context of the quote indicates he misspoke and was talking about Muslims, not Mormons. He prefaces that line with "Back to Mormonism" ... and he's never mentioned Mormons once, but has mentioned Muslims twice prior.



That's some pretty thin skin if that line makes you change your mind.

It wasn't the slip from Muslims to Mormons that bothered me. It was his stance on not really seeing a place for protecting religious liberty at all, and seeing it as a slippery slope. Based on his stance, if/when the issue of temple sealings or attending BYU comes up for openly gay people, do you think he or the Supreme Court Justices he nominates would pay deference to our deeply held religious beliefs? From what I read, I don't think so. I already had issues with his abortion and admitted pot smoking. This is just the straw that breaks the camel's back for me. Its too bad he wasn't more along Libertarian party lines for this issue, because I was hopeful. I really like that he and his VP choice balanced the budget in their states and was hoping for more of the same. In the long run, it doesn't really matter. I'm in Alabama. The electoral votes are going to Trump. So I can feel free to write my own name in if I want...and I may.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

So he uses Mormons as a hypothetical example of how religious freedom is not an absolute trump card, and he loses the Mormon vote?

Why shouldn't somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody dead

Especially when the context of the quote indicates he misspoke and was talking about Muslims, not Mormons. He prefaces that line with "Back to Mormonism" ... and he's never mentioned Mormons once, but has mentioned Muslims twice prior.



That's some pretty thin skin if that line makes you change your mind.

It wasn't the slip from Muslims to Mormons that bothered me. It was his stance on not really seeing a place for protecting religious liberty at all, and seeing it as a slippery slope. Based on his stance, if/when the issue of temple sealings or attending BYU comes up for openly gay people, do you think he or the Supreme Court Justices he nominates would pay deference to our deeply held religious beliefs? From what I read, I don't think so. I already had issues with his abortion and admitted pot smoking. This is just the straw that breaks the camel's back for me. Its too bad he wasn't more along Libertarian party lines for this issue, because I was hopeful. I really like that he and his VP choice balanced the budget in their states and was hoping for more of the same. In the long run, it doesn't really matter. I'm in Alabama. The electoral votes are going to Trump. So I can feel free to write my own name in if I want...and I may.

I admire your convictions, and that you want to hold to your conscience. And as you say, one vote isn't going to change the election. For me, I would just say it's a pretty big stretch to me to make this the reason not to vote for him based on who he might theoretically pick for the supreme court. It's unlikely he gets to that point, and even if he did, would he really make that choice based on one distinct view he holds on religious freedom which he even knows he's not in total agreement with his own party on? Unlikely. I would rather have a libertarian making appointments to the court because in general they care a lot more about a strict interpretation of the Constitution than the democrats or republicans.



I just think if he were to win and then has to nominate someone to the court, like all presidents, he's not going to find someone who he knows for a fact is going to agree with him on every single hypothetical case that may come forward in the future. He's going to select someone who shares his general philosophy. And since the religion issue you bring up isn't how most Libertarians feel, I don't think this is something to be that worried about. And that's if he wins, which of course is a great longshot. What he is accomplishing through this hopefully is to make the country aware they don't have to continue to put up with the garbage they're getting from the two major parties right now.. That's why I think you should still vote for him, but I respect your points.

BlueK wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
So he uses Mormons as a hypothetical example of how religious freedom is not an absolute trump card, and he loses the Mormon vote?

Why shouldn't somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody dead

Especially when the context of the quote indicates he misspoke and was talking about Muslims, not Mormons. He prefaces that line with "Back to Mormonism" ... and he's never mentioned Mormons once, but has mentioned Muslims twice prior.



That's some pretty thin skin if that line makes you change your mind.

It wasn't the slip from Muslims to Mormons that bothered me. It was his stance on not really seeing a place for protecting religious liberty at all, and seeing it as a slippery slope. Based on his stance, if/when the issue of temple sealings or attending BYU comes up for openly gay people, do you think he or the Supreme Court Justices he nominates would pay deference to our deeply held religious beliefs? From what I read, I don't think so. I already had issues with his abortion and admitted pot smoking. This is just the straw that breaks the camel's back for me. Its too bad he wasn't more along Libertarian party lines for this issue, because I was hopeful. I really like that he and his VP choice balanced the budget in their states and was hoping for more of the same. In the long run, it doesn't really matter. I'm in Alabama. The electoral votes are going to Trump. So I can feel free to write my own name in if I want...and I may.

I admire your convictions, and that you want to hold to your conscience. And as you say, one vote isn't going to change the election. For me, I would just say it's a pretty big stretch to me to make this the reason not to vote for him based on who he might theoretically pick for the supreme court. It's unlikely he gets to that point, and even if he did, would he really make that choice based on one distinct view he holds on religious freedom which he even knows he's not in total agreement with his own party on? Unlikely. I would rather have a libertarian making appointments to the court because in general they care a lot more about a strict interpretation of the Constitution than the democrats or republicans.



I just think if he were to win and then has to nominate someone to the court, like all presidents, he's not going to find someone who he knows for a fact is going to agree with him on every single hypothetical case that may come forward in the future. He's going to select someone who shares his general philosophy. And since the religion issue you bring up isn't how most Libertarians feel, I don't think this is something to be that worried about. And that's if he wins, which of course is a great longshot. What he is accomplishing through this hopefully is to make the country aware they don't have to continue to put up with the garbage they're getting from the two major parties right now.. That's why I think you should still vote for him, but I respect your points.

This is a good, well written post.

Schmoe wrote:
Johnson supports killing children and other things that I don't agree with. I don't care that he's sincere about his support of killing children and other things I disagree with.

Oh come on. You wouldn't have been able to vote for Romney in Massachusetts if you believed that. I don't know what Johnson actually believes, but I doubt he supports killing children (Hillary on the other hand is all for killing as many Muslim kids as she can and Donald isn't far behind).



Like I said, I prefer Darrel Castle, but Johnson will be the best option on the ballot for me.

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865659254/EXCLUSIVE-Gary-Johnson-Religious-freedom-and-non-discrimination-laws.html



gary's explanation

BroncoBot wrote:
http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865659254/EXCLUSIVE-Gary-Johnson-Religious-freedom-and-non-discrimination-laws.html



gary's explanation

Actually, I was just going to post about this. It has helped resolve one of my biggest concerns, as it relates to Gary Johnson. Will the candidate protect what is most important to me, my religious freedom? I didn't have a huge issue with business not being allowed to discriminate, with some thoughtful exceptions, like the Utah law. I reacted hastily to the overbroad statements, but I will reconsider. Again, probably doesn't matter in Alabama, as it is going Trump's way here, but I am going to vote my conscience.

It's just amazing to me that these 2 candidates are what we came up with in this cycle. there HAS to be 100s of thousands of better candidates. But thanks to media sensationalism and pure politics we end up with a pile of crap or a bucket of crap. Johnson is certainly the best vote but doesn't have a shot right now.

To heck with this guy. He's pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and doesn't to support Israel. He doesn't get my vote just because he's not Hillary or Trump.