I guess it depends on who you want to win. I think a third party vote is a vote for Romney,etc. If a third party gets my vote it is one less for Obama which hurts Obama and helps Romney, etc.

Great point.

This is my confliction with third parties. I want my vote to make a difference not be a message.

...and how does voting for a candidate that in your case will lose handedly make a difference? If the Libertarian party (or any 3rd party) was able to gain enough votes for automatic ballot access it would go a LOOOOONNNNNNGGGG way to helping their future candidates.

I could definitely support Huntsman. What I would say edges him past Johnson is his foreign policy experience (ambassador to China...appointed by Obama).

His appointment as ambassador to China is quite interesting. I really need to find out more about him, but then we get back to my uneasiness with electing a Mormon. I guess, what I really want to see is a hard-hitting interview about his religious beliefs.

 

Starting with, "does he wear magic underwear"? :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer: Making a South Park joke. Though, I'd pay big money to see someone actually ask that.

His appointment as ambassador to China is quite interesting. I really need to find out more about him, but then we get back to my uneasiness with electing a Mormon. I guess, what I really want to see is a hard-hitting interview about his religious beliefs.

 

Starting with, "does he wear magic underwear"? :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer: Making a South Park joke. Though, I'd pay big money to see someone actually ask that.

 

A very interesting question indeed :lol:

Agree with a large majority of his positions. Unfortunately he would never get the nomination of either major party and as a third party candidate it's a wasted vote other than sending a message. If the big two were smart enough to get the message it would be worth it.

He was a two-term Republican governor of a largely Democratic state. Unfortunately the national GOP leaders didn't deem him worthy enough...

 

If I'm a registered Republican I question how come he wasn't given the proverbial "seat at the table" early on in the process.

To answer PP92, fiscally there is a lot I'm with him on. Also a big state's rights guy. Big-time on less government. Those things appeal to me.

 

But as you pointed out, socially is where he just doesn't fit the prototypical Republican mode & where he falls short of my expectations.

 

Why should social engineering be a platform of either party? Legislating morality shouldn't be the government's job. Creating at atmosphere where people can live their own morality however they wish(provided no one is harmed against their will in the process) without interference from the government is what I want. Don't tell me who can and cannot call themselves married or in what multiples. Provided that all are consenting adults that is between the individuals, God and whatever church they belong to.

Possibly, I don't know enough about him. But I'd say he wasn't as ardent during his gubernatorial term(s) as Johnson.

 

A friend did tweet me a link today regarding Huntsman and I will say that it was refreshing to see a GOP candidate with his environmental/energy stances. (which is an issue where I'm a certified Rockmomesque, tree-huggin', Birkenstock wearin', hippie)

 

If nuclear isn't in his policy then he isn't truly green.

Why should social engineering be a platform of either party? Legislating morality shouldn't be the government's job. Creating at atmosphere where people can live their own morality however they wish(provided no one is harmed against their will in the process) without interference from the government is what I want. Don't tell me who can and cannot call themselves married or in what multiples. Provided that all are consenting adults that is between the individuals, God and whatever church they belong to.

 

Because there are "social" issues such as abortion, where I believe an innocent human being is losing his or her life. And I firmly believe there should be legislation outlawing it.

If Johnson wins the Libertarian nomination he's probably the frontrunner in the "Habib's Vote" primary. :lol:

So far I like Johnson quite a bit. The only things that I differ with him on are regarding foreign policy, he doesn't outright say it, but he essentially is insinuating closing our bases overseas. For the most part I don't mind that idea, however I do fear that it would turn into a situation where they scrap the whole thing and all our bases overseas are closed. This is something I am wholly against. While we don't need to be policing the world, we need to be in a position to strike at potential targets worldwide in the event that our interests are threatened, especially in regards to getting troops on the ground. The USN can operate just about anywhere but considering the strike capability of the Navy is dwindling in my opinion with their adoption of a 1 plane does everything mentality and the USAF needs forward bases to operate most effectively. With inflight refueling the range of just about all modern aircraft is as far as the hardware will take them, but you want pilots to be ready, not exhausted from a 4-6 hour flight to reach the targets.

 

I am also still okay with psychological torture being used on captured terrorists.

If Johnson wins the Libertarian nomination he's probably the frontrunner in the "Habib's Vote" primary. :lol:

 

:lol:

If Johnson wins the Libertarian nomination he's probably the frontrunner in the "Habib's Vote" primary. :lol:

Vegas refuses to put odds on him winning the "FKYW Vote" primary.

Because there are "social" issues such as abortion, where I believe an innocent human being is losing his or her life. And I firmly believe there should be legislation outlawing it.

 

Wouldn't the more effective use of the time and money of the pro-life groups be to shape the message of it as opposed to coming off like a bunch of shock jocks/judgemental jerks regarding the loss of a prenatal life?

 

A couple of years ago Tim Tebow(whom I admittedly loathe) was in a commercial with his mother saying "Thanks mom for choosing life" since her doctor recommended she terminate the pregnancy due to the risk. I think framing it that way is waaaay more effective AND plays a more positive note than the constant negativity about abortion coming from the right. If they spent as much time on that as they do their current methods then it would make a much bigger impact.

Because there are "social" issues such as abortion, where I believe an innocent human being is losing his or her life. And I firmly believe there should be legislation outlawing it.

So let's say he leaves it up to the states to decide. Good enough?

Vegas refuses to put odds on him winning the "FKYW Vote" primary.

 

You're not voting for yourself?