# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns > Liberty Campaign Evaluation >  Campaign Evaluation: Johnson / Weld Ticket (POTUS)

## Bryan

This thread is intended to be a collection point of the strong pros and cons of any potential liberty candidate / campaign that is being discussed / promoted on the forum. You are welcome to post both positive and not-so-positive attributes about the candidate as they related to the evaluation.


*Information*

*Candidate Information*
Candidate Name: Gary Johnson / Bill Weld
Office Sought: President of the United States
Party: Libertarian Party
Website: https://garyjohnson2016.com/
Social Media:
https://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohnson/
https://www.instagram.com/govgaryjohnson/
https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson
https://plus.google.com/+GovGaryJohnson/posts
https://www.linkedin.com/in/governorgaryjohnson
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwd...HQ203lTjpDc_fw
https://www.pinterest.com/govgaryjohnson


*Race Information: Competition & Demographics*
Incumbent: Barack Obama
Other Primary Candidates: won primary
Non-Incumbent Candidates from Other Parties: Hilary Clinton, Donald Trump




*Evaluation*

*Candidate Profile: Issues*
Civil Liberties: [Rating TBD]
Constitutional Issues: [Rating TBD]
Economic Issues: [Rating TBD]
Foreign Policy: [Rating TBD]
Social Issues: [Rating TBD]
*Overall Issues Rating:* [Rating TBD]


*Candidate Profile: Personal*
Honesty: [Rating TBD]
Issue consistency: [Rating TBD]
Personality: [Rating TBD]
Associations: [Rating TBD]
Relevant experience: [Rating TBD]
Personal history: [Rating TBD]
*Overall Personal Rating:* [Rating TBD]

*Candidate Rating:* [Rating TBD]



*Race Profile Rating*
Race Impact Rating: [Rating TBD]
Victory Impact Rating: [Rating TBD]

*Race Profile Rating:* [Rating TBD]



*Overall Rating:*



*Evaluation Commentary*

Key strong points: 

Possible weak points:

Possible deal breakers:

Unknown points for further research:

Rating commentary:

----------


## acptulsa

> Johnson would cut at least some amount of funding to the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation, with abolition being an option.
> http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...77579231686656
> 
> Johnson believes we should allow more off-shore drilling, and drilling in ANWR.
> http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...77831506489344
> 
> Johnson believes gay marriage should be a state issue rather than a federal issue, and he supports gay civil unions.
> http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...78561105661952
> 
> ...


Key strong points:  Executive experience as a successful governor.  Veep choice who can say the same.  Already known in certain circles as a credible antiwar candidate.

----------


## phill4paul

> Key strong points:  Executive experience as a successful governor.  Veep choice who can say the same.  Already known in certain circles as a credible antiwar candidate.


Key Strong points: NOT Donald Trump. NOT Hillary Clinton.

----------


## acptulsa

> Key Strong points: NOT Donald Trump. NOT Hillary Clinton.


Not just a selling point to libertarians any more!

----------


## undergroundrr

But don't you understand?! THE CAKE! THE CAKE!

----------


## acptulsa

Possible deal breakers:  Thinks businesses that serve the public should do so without prejudice and once told Fox that, provided the Congress called for an intervention against a genuine, ongoing genocide, he just might grant Congress' wish.

Which, of course, just makes any antiwar coalition with him at the center a _stronger_ deal.

----------


## phill4paul

> Possible deal breakers:  Thinks businesses that serve the public should do so without prejudice and once told Fox that, provided the Congress called for an intervention against a genuine, ongoing genocide, he just might grant Congress' wish.


  My understanding is that he believe  businesses must offer anti-discriminatory accommodation. Part of the social agreement for opening your business to the public. He doesn't believe a Jewish baker would be forced to bake a cake with a swastika on it but that the Jewish baker could not refuse service to a Nazi in general.

  I personally don't agree with this, but..not a deal-breaker at this point in time.

----------


## younglibertarian

> My understanding is that he believe  businesses must offer anti-discriminatory accommodation. Part of the social agreement for opening your business to the public. He doesn't believe a Jewish baker would be forced to bake a cake with a swastika on it but that the Jewish baker could not refuse service to a Nazi in general.
> 
>   I personally don't agree with this, but..not a deal-breaker at this point in time.


He dodged the question, "Would you force priests to bake cakes for gay couples?" in the  Blaze debate.

Its more then just Nazi Cakes.

----------


## dannno

> My understanding is that he believe  businesses must offer anti-discriminatory accommodation. Part of the social agreement for opening your business to the public. He doesn't believe a Jewish baker would be forced to bake a cake with a swastika on it but that the Jewish baker could not refuse service to a Nazi in general.
> 
>   I personally don't agree with this, but..not a deal-breaker at this point in time.



The thing is, we don't even know if that's what he actually believes.. He just says that it logistically a 'black-hole' issue. The vast majority of people aren't going to agree and not just that, they will just assume you are a racist or something and dismiss all of your other ideas.

----------


## undergroundrr

It would be nice if there was a transcript of the Joe Rogan interview. It was VERY wide ranging.

----------


## phill4paul

> He dodged the question, "Would you force priests to bake cakes for gay couples?" in the  Blaze debate.
> 
> Its more then just Nazi Cakes.


  From his FB:




> In a nationally-televised debate among three of the Libertarian candidates for President (A debate that should, by the way, have been more inclusive of all the candidates.), a highly unlikely hypothetical question was raised about whether a Jewish baker has the right to refuse to serve a Nazi sympathizer asking for a “Nazi cake”. I responded to that question in the legal context of whether a public business has the right to refuse to serve a member of the public, as distasteful as it might be. 
> 
> The simple answer to that question is, whether all like it or not, U.S. law has recognized the principle of public accommodation for more than 100 years: The principle that, when a business opens its doors to the public, that business enters into an implied contract to serve ALL of the public. Further, when that business voluntarily opens its doors, the owners voluntarily agree to adhere to applicable laws and regulations -- whether they like those laws or not.
> 
> To be clear, anti-discrimination laws do not, and cannot, abridge fundamental First Amendment rights. I know of no one who reasonably disagrees. In the highly unlikely event that a Nazi would demand that a Jewish baker decorate a cake with a Nazi symbol, the courts, common sense, and common decency -- not to mention the First Amendment -- all combine to protect that baker from having to do so. It’s not an issue, except when distorted for purposes of gotcha politics.
> 
> Does a public bakery have to sell a cake to a Nazi? Probably so. Does that bakery have to draw a swastika on it? Absolutely not. And that’s the way it should be.
> 
> Of course, we all know that this conversation is really “code” for the current, and far more real, conversation about society’s treatment of LGBT individuals. I have even heard some talk of a “right to discriminate”. And of course, we have states and municipalities today trying to create a real right to discriminate against the LGBT community on religious grounds -- the same kinds of “religious” grounds that were used to defend racial segregation, forbid interracial marriages and, yes, defend discrimination against Jews by businesses. That is not a slope Libertarians want to go down.
> ...


   Again I don't necessarily agree with him. I believe that government cannot be discriminatory but that businesses should be allowed to serve who or what they choose to. I believe in the old business adage "We reserve the right to refuse service." But it is not a deal breaker for me.

----------


## younglibertarian

> From his FB:
> 
> 
> 
>    Again I don't necessarily agree with him. I believe that government cannot be discriminatory but that businesses should be allowed to serve who or what they choose to. I believe in the old business adage "We reserve the right to refuse service." But it is not a deal breaker for me.


I see where you are coming from but honestly the right to discriminate is a basic subject in the LP.

I bet even Donald Trump supports the right to discriminate. 

Another negative I would ad is personality and speaking ability.

----------


## dannno

> I see where you are coming from but honestly the right to discriminate is a basic subject in the LP.


Unfortunately that's part of the reason why they get very little support. They are right, but America had some bad experiences with discrimination within a lot of people's lifetimes and while much of it was institutional people aren't ready for those ideas just yet. 

It's better to start with the popular ideas like reigning in our foreign empire, shrinking the federal govt, ending the war on drugs, privacy and civil liberties, abolish the IRS, etc.. Gary Johnson will be the most palatable for Bernie Sanders supporters because of this.

----------


## undergroundrr

The intellectual case for free private, non-violent discrimination is strong (IMO irrefutable).  The emotional case for it in Electionland is devastatingly weak and a surefire fast track to the political sidelines for not just a candidate, but also for anything called "libertarian" as a political force now and in the future.  Virtually anybody with oppression in their ethnic or social heritage and anybody who sympathizes with them will immediately turn away from a pro-discrimination argument in disgust. And for good reason - collectivism is disgusting.

I deplore collectivism. Action toward an individual because of a group they belong to is repulsive. But I acknowledge the right of people to do what they like with their own property. I'm convinced that GJ does too. Cakegate is the textbook definition of a pointless distraction.  Anybody still worried about the cake needs to read post #2 top to bottom and honestly ask themselves if they think GJ is going to make anybody bake anything at gunpoint.

I understand why people don't like his communication style.  He sounds a little like Jon Lovitz to me.  But he's a funny, smart and personable guy.  I would rather listen to him talk for 1,000,000,000 days straight than suffer through 2 minutes of Hillary or trump's screeching.

I like McAfee and Petersen too. They're good candidates. 

Here's another link to the Rogan podcast.  Check it out instead of 3 episodes of some stupid MSM TV show you were going to waste you're time on. http://wearelibertarians.com/garyonrogan/

----------


## LibertyEagle

Johnson says illegal aliens should be allowed to come in and get a work visa. Only requirement should be a Social Security card and a background check.  Social Security card for illegal aliens??  Non-citizens should get social security?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=YsrDLFxHh7k




> Johnson would set up a grace period for the 11,000,000 illegal immigrants in America to get a background check and apply for a work visa, but not a green card or citizenship, so that they can begin paying taxes and being productive.


There's one hell of a lot more than 11K illegal aliens (they've been using that number for 20 years) and unless he wants to reward them for their actions, they need to leave and apply like those who did not break our immigration laws.

Essentially, he is for open borders.
https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-...and-rand-paul/

Johnson, like most lefties, agrees with war, that has 0 to do with our national defense, as long as it is for "humanitarian" reasons. In the video, starts at 2:26.
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ary-game-plan/




> Last year, The Weekly Standard reported that Johnson told the publication that he supported the concept of waging wars for humanitarian reasons despite wanting to cut the military budget by nearly half. Asked whether he stood by that, Johnson said he did.


This is also in the video in his own words, in the last link given above.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/th...oreign-policy/
http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/11/ga...cy-libertarian


Johnson wants to maintain bases in the Middle East, even though he says there are no military threats against the U.S.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/th...oreign-policy/





> Pro-choice
> A qualified yes. Johnson believes that a woman has the right to decide on the matter until a point of the viability of the fetus has been reached. As Governor of New Mexico, Johnson signed a law that banned late term abortion.


Does this mean that in his eyes, abortion is fine and dandy until the point that the baby could live on its own outside of the mother's body?
http://2012.presidential-candidates....n/Abortion.php

Won't take drone strikes off the table.



> Johnson said that while he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, that doesn’t mean he would necessarily stop drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, even though he believes they create more enemies than they kill.
> 
> “I would want leave all options on the table,” Johnson said....


http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/11/ga...cy-libertarian
https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-...and-rand-paul/

Johnson also apparently very much believes in school vouchers.  While this may sound good on the surface, as long as the federal government is involved in education, when a school accepts a voucher, they are under the thumb of the federal government.  This means private schools too; they no longer could make their own decisions what they teach.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm




> Johnson would never have established the TSA, and would return airline security functions to the private airline companies.


Actually, the Senator who wrote the bill said years ago that he regretted writing it and let everyone know that they can toss out the TSA and the airlines can have their own security.  So, this is a state issue.  Texas voted on it before Cruz ran for the U.S. Senate and missed it only because the Lt. Governor stood in its way.

I looked for his position on the Trans Pacific Partnership and couldn't find it.  This should be a very important issue to anyone claiming to want liberty.
https://www.lp.org/news/press-releas...overnments-and

Johnson backs same-sex marriage, enforced at the federal level, apparently.



> “Government exists to protect civil liberties and constitutional rights – not to pick and choose among those Americans who should have those rights. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry under the law is government-sanctioned discrimination.”


https://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/liber...n-gay-marriage




> Johnson supports rescinding the passport requirement for US-Canada travel.


I would like to know more about this, because that is aligned with the whole North American Union idea.  And that ain't good, if you care about national sovereignty and not wanting a governing body above our own sorry Congress, at the NA Union level.  

These are my initial concerns...


And then there are these...



> Gary Johnson Disputes Rand Paul’s Libertarian Cred


http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/27/ga...-pauls-liberta

----------


## presence

In a March 2011 interview, Gary Johnson  said that although he supported free trade, most free trade agreements  at the time were products of "corporatism." He said that "the criticism  of NAFTA should be rooted in the fact that big business became even  bigger business."[2][3]https://ballotpedia.org/Gary_Johnson_presidential_campaign,_2016/International_trade
*Johnson supports free trade and opposes tariffs,  "period." He believes free market trade corrects inequities between  trading partners, such as foreign countries' subsidies for certain  industries.[7]*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...f_Gary_Johnson


So much of the legislation we passed isn't really free market at all.  It's touted as free market. When the reality is it ends up to be  corporatism where one business gets and advantage over another. This is  something I witnessed this as governor of NM, I'd like to think I'd veto  that kind of legislation. I was always looking at business legislation  from the standpoint of having it affect everyone equally as opposed to  big business getting bigger than they already are.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-veto-d-NAFTA

----------


## LibertyEagle

That doesn't answer the question of the TPA/TPP.  I think we should have a defacto answer.

----------


## presence

Opposition to "managed trade deals" is part and parcel of the LP platform. 


https://www.lp.org/news/press-releas...overnments-and



> *Press Release*
> 
> *For Immediate Release*           Friday, June 19, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The Libertarian Party opposes TPP and other secretive pacts being  negotiated between the U.S. and countries worldwide, including the  Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the Trade In  Services Agreement (TISA),” said Sarwark. “The Libertarian Party  supports free trade with all people and countries around the world.   Real free trade is the reduction of barriers and the de-escalation of  trade wars -- not secret negotiations over winners and losers.”
> ...

----------


## Suzanimal

Not crazy about some of his stances, especially on "humanitarian" wars but...





Edited to add: I met him a few years ago and he's a very nice man. He hugged me. Maybe he's related to HB34.

----------


## undergroundrr

> That doesn't answer the question of the TPA/TPP.  I think we should have a defacto answer.


Yeah it does. He's anti-corporatist, the very opposite of both Hillary and trump. Any other conclusion from his past statements is obtuse.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yeah it does. He's anti-corporatist, the very opposite of both Hillary and trump. Any other conclusion from his past statements is obtuse.


He also claims to be anti-war, doesn't he?  Yet, he won't take drone strikes off the table, believes in "humanitarian" wars and doesn't want to close bases around the world.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## presence

> Johnson, like most lefties, agrees with war, that has 0 to do with our national defense, as long as it is for "humanitarian" reasons. In the video, starts at 2:26.
> http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ary-game-plan/





> Daniel Larison at _American Conservative_ also sees  a lot to be supportive of in Johnson's statements, even if they lack Paulian coherence:
>  He endorses the decision to send soldiers to aid in combating the remnants of the LRA in central Africa, *but that appears to be the extent of his support for recent decisions justified on humanitarian grounds.* For those concerned about his endorsement of humanitarian intervention, I would remind them hat Johnson opposed the war in Libya from the beginning. I have not been able to find any evidence that he has taken a position for or against intervention in Syria. Presumably, his objections to the Libyan war would apply in that case as well, but we simply don’t know his position. It’s possible that Johnson endorses such interventions in principle, but rarely sees a situation where U.S. intervention would be desirable. The very minimal deployment in central Africa qualifies, but larger and riskier military actions do not.


..

----------


## undergroundrr

> He also claims to be anti-war, doesn't he?  Yet, he won't take drone strikes off the table, believes in "humanitarian" wars and doesn't want to close bases around the world.


That's true. Give him a B+.  Although I think when you add in all the non-interventionist positives he deserves a strong A-.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary...ar_+_Peace.htm

----------


## dannno

> Priests bake cakes?


They do now

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That's true. Give him a B+.  Although I think when you add in all the non-interventionist positives he deserves a strong A-.
> 
> http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary...ar_+_Peace.htm


Drones, not shutting down bases, "humanitarian" excuses for wars...  Doesn't sound like an A to me.  Did you watch this video?  http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ary-game-plan/

His supposed principle seemed to fly out the window, when questioned.

----------


## acptulsa

> Johnson says illegal aliens should be allowed to come in and get a work visa. Only requirement should be a Social Security card and a background check.  Social Security card for illegal aliens??  Non-citizens should get social security?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=YsrDLFxHh7k
> 
> 
> There's one hell of a lot more than 11K illegal aliens (they've been using that number for 20 years) and unless he wants to reward them for their actions, they need to leave and apply like those who did not break our immigration laws.
> 
> Essentially, he is for open borders.
> https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-...and-rand-paul/


It isn't open borders unless he's giving away citizenship, which he is not.  And work visas certainly won't be a dime a dozen, unless and until he gives us the freedom to resurrect the economy.




> Johnson, like most lefties, agrees with war, that has 0 to do with our national defense, as long as it is for "humanitarian" reasons. In the video, starts at 2:26.
> http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ary-game-plan/
> 
> 
> This is also in the video in his own words, in the last link given above.
> http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/th...oreign-policy/
> http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/11/ga...cy-libertarian
> 
> 
> ...


You are arguing this stuff, yet all the evidence proves that Trump will be orders of magnitude worse.  Did you notice that he was talking about IF Congress votes to intervene?  At least he's actually being Constitutional about it, which is a refreshing change--and nothing either Trump or Clinton has promised to do.




> Does this mean that in his eyes, abortion is fine and dandy until the point that the baby could live on its own outside of the mother's body?
> http://2012.presidential-candidates....n/Abortion.php


Well, we knew about this one.  And I don't think anyone believes Trump's flip flop on the issue, any more than smart people believed either Bush when they promised to do something about the subject.

But, in fact, with Johnson and the LP we do stand some chance of getting this can kicked to the states.  And we do stand a chance of being relieved of the 'honor' of paying for abortions with our federal taxes.  Which puts him head and shoulders above the competition.




> Won't take drone strikes off the table.
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/11/ga...cy-libertarian
> https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-...and-rand-paul/


Who will?  Even Ron Paul wouldn't take letters of marque and reprisal off the table.  Come on, you know perfectly well that if he did flatly promise not to ever go after any rogue terrorist ever under any circumstances, you'd be howling like a fire truck.




> Johnson also apparently very much believes in school vouchers.  While this may sound good on the surface, as long as the federal government is involved in education, when a school accepts a voucher, they are under the thumb of the federal government.  This means private schools too; they no longer could make their own decisions what they teach.
> http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm


And how does he feel about Common Core?  Has he spoken out against ED (otherwise known as the Department of Education?  Why, yes.  Yes he has.  And have Clinton or Trump?  Why, no.  No, they haven't.




> Actually, the Senator who wrote the bill said years ago that he regretted writing it and let everyone know that they can toss out the TSA and the airlines can have their own security.  So, this is a state issue.  Texas voted on it before Cruz ran for the U.S. Senate and missed it only because the Lt. Governor stood in its way.


It isn't a state issue until we get someone libertarian enough in Washington to pry Washington's nose out of it.




> I looked for his position on the Trans Pacific Partnership and couldn't find it.  This should be a very important issue to anyone claiming to want liberty.
> https://www.lp.org/news/press-releas...overnments-and


I don't think any of us are going to confuse trade agreements with the loss of sovereignty, and would hope none stoop to trying to confuse the two.




> Johnson backs same-sex marriage, enforced at the federal level, apparently.
> 
> https://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/liber...n-gay-marriage


Well, Ron Paul wanted no government involvement in marriage at all, which would have been the same thing on a practical level.  Fact is, if the government and e corporations didn't have the issues of family benefits and survivor benefits all tied up in a trillion pages of stupid regulations, it wouldn't even be an issue.  And neither of the other candidates will be doing anything about _that_ any time soon.




> I would like to know more about this, because that is aligned with the whole North American Union idea.  And that ain't good, if you care about national sovereignty and not wanting a governing body above our own sorry Congress, at the NA Union level.


Yeah, we know.  We know you're so paranoid about it you're concerned about the elimination of passport requirements to cross the U.S.-Canadian border.  Even though you seem to think things were fine prior to 1989, and prior to 1989 no passport was required to cross the U.S.-Canadian border.  I don't think those two things are as closely intertwined as you like to let on.




> These are my initial concerns...
> 
> 
> And then there are these...
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/27/ga...-pauls-liberta


Oh, well.  Let's automatically dismiss everyone who ever said anything nasty about Rand or Ron Paul.  Please.

Considering how often Trump has done just that, I think we'd all breathe a big sigh of relief.




> Drones, not shutting down bases, "humanitarian" excuses for wars...  Doesn't sound like an A to me.  Did you watch this video?  http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ary-game-plan/
> 
> His supposed principle seemed to fly out the window, when questioned.


He will give consideration to military action when the Congress votes for some of it.  Sounds like a respect for the Constitution to me.  Or did you tune out the part where he stipulated, if Congress says so?  Or the part of the Constitution where it says giving Congress' call for military action due consideration?

Sounds principled to me.  Why are you holding him to principles when Trump has no principles at all?  Is this supposed to be a comparative selling point?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You are arguing this stuff, yet all the evidence proves that Trump will be orders of magnitude worse.  Did you notice that he was talking about IF Congress votes to intervene?  At least he's actually being Constitutional about it, which is a refreshing change--and nothing either Trump or Clinton has promised to do.


Wait a minute.  So now, you're arguing that Johnson is the lesser of three evils?

----------


## acptulsa

> Wait a minute.  So now, you're arguing that Johnson is the lesser of three evils?


I said he was Constitutionalist enough to take seriously a demand for military action from the duly elected Congress of the United States.  Like with drone strikes, taking anything off the table is a way to tie your hands and let your enemies know how to jack with you.  He's not stupid enough to do that.  Even if he has no intention of doing it, it would be stupid to take it off the table.

You will read into that whatever you wish.  But be careful how you go about the forum libeling me.

----------


## 69360

Johnson is not under criminal investigation. He has that over Trump and Clinton. 

Johnson isn't perfect. But he's a decent guy and honest. I have no interest in nitpicking his policy, it's close enough for me.

Johnson and Weld is a formidable ticket. The LP would be foolish not to nominate them. 2 former governors switching parties and running can't be ignored by the media. Nobody expects them to win, but they could get the 5%.

I look forward to voting for them.

----------


## erowe1

> That doesn't answer the question of the TPA/TPP.  I think we should have a defacto answer.


Why? You obviously don't need an answer on that from Trump.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It isn't open borders unless he's giving away citizenship, which he is not.  And work visas certainly won't be a dime a dozen, unless and until he gives us the freedom to resurrect the economy.


Interesting, but that's not what he said.




> You are arguing this stuff, yet all the evidence proves that Trump will be orders of magnitude worse.  Did you notice that he was talking about IF Congress votes to intervene?  At least he's actually being Constitutional about it, which is a refreshing change--and nothing either Trump or Clinton has promised to do.


You appear to be arguing that Johnson is the lesser of 3 evils.  Besides the fact that many here have argued against voting for evil, the question here is whether Johnson merits being categorized a a liberty candidate.  The decision has already been made about Trump.




> Well, we knew about this one.  And I don't think anyone believes Trump's flip flop on the issue, any more than smart people believed either Bush when they promised to do something about the subject.
> 
> But, in fact, with Johnson and the LP we do stand some chance of getting this can kicked to the states.  And we do stand a chance of being relieved of the 'honor' of paying for abortions with our federal taxes.  Which puts him head and shoulders above the competition.


You keep bringing up Trump.  We are evaluating Johnson here; not Trump.  Please stay focused.




> Who will?  Even Ron Paul wouldn't take letters of marque and reprisal off the table.  Come on, you know perfectly well that if he did flatly promise not to ever go after any rogue terrorist ever under any circumstances, you'd be howling like a fire truck.


Ron Paul was for marque and reprisal to get the people who bombed us on 9-11.  Johnson, on the other hand, is for going to war for "humanitarian" reasons.  These are two totally different things.





> And how does he feel about Common Core?  Has he spoken out against ED (otherwise known as the Department of Education?  Why, yes.  Yes he has.  And have Clinton or Trump?  Why, no.  No, they haven't.


Glad to know that Johnson has.  Thanks.  But, since you can't seem to stop yourself from mentioning Trump during an evaluation of Johnson, for some reason, please get your facts straight.  Trump is against both Common Core and federal involvement in education.  In fact, he wants to return education to the states and communities.  He probably got this from Schlafly, as these are two core issues with her.




> It isn't a state issue until we get someone libertarian enough in Washington to pry Washington's nose out of it.


Apparently, you are wrong.  Florida Airport Gives TSA The Boot, Will Outsource Screening To Private Company





> I don't think any of us are going to confuse trade agreements with the loss of sovereignty, and would hope none stoop to trying to confuse the two.


Those who do not are misinformed.  What do you think the WTO is; what do you think the TPA is?









> Well, Ron Paul wanted no government involvement in marriage at all, which would have been the same thing on a practical level.  Fact is, if the government and e corporations didn't have the issues of family benefits and survivor benefits all tied up in a trillion pages of stupid regulations, it wouldn't even be an issue.  And neither of the other candidates will be doing anything about _that_ any time soon.


Yes, but Johnson has come out in support of gay marriage, in the meantime.




> Yeah, we know.  We know you're so paranoid about it


No, I am knowledgeable about it.  If one isn't, I suppose it sounds like that.




> "Congressman Ron Paul Admits Conspiracy to Create World Government
> 
> Eric Rainbolt - audience member asking question of Congressman Paul at event near Austin, Texas on August 30th, 2003: "Congressman Paul, I have a question..." 
> 
> Moderator: "Over here." (pointing to Eric Rainbolt.) 
> 
> Eric Rainbolt: "Great! If we can take a look at the big picture, could you tell us, the people in this room, any information that you may have of an international and deceptive conspiracy to overthrow the American Republic and its Constitution & Bill Of Rights in order to set up and usher in a totalitarian World Government likely espoused under the UN also.."? 
> 
> Congressman Paul: " He asked if there was an international conspiracy to overthrow our government. The answer is "Yes". I think there are 25,000 individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are in our Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One World Government. And if you believe in One World Goverment, then you are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and you are talking about setting up something that you could well call a Dictatorship - and those plans are there!..."


http://www.propagandamatrix.com/260903ronpaul.html





> you're concerned about the elimination of passport requirements to cross the U.S.-Canadian border.  Even though you seem to think things were fine prior to 1989, and prior to 1989 no passport was required to cross the U.S.-Canadian border.  I don't think those two things are as closely intertwined as you like to let on.


I hope they are not, but seeing their plan roll out in front of our eyes, I am going to be cognizant of what is happening.  It wasn't very long ago that a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force, put out a plan to create a North American Union.  Which included an all but borderless North American land mass.
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-n...ommunity/p8102




> Oh, well.  Let's automatically dismiss everyone who ever said anything nasty about Rand or Ron Paul.  Please.


No, but looking at this forum over the past few weeks, it seemed to be quite the issue when discussing another one of the candidates.  If it is germane for that candidate, why is it not the same for Johnson.  Especially, since he is being offered as a "liberty candidate"?




> Considering how often Trump has done just that, I think we'd all breathe a big sigh of relief.


There you go, arguing the lesser of 3 evils angle.




> He will give consideration to military action when the Congress votes for some of it.  Sounds like a respect for the Constitution to me.  Or did you tune out the part where he stipulated, if Congress says so?  Or the part of the Constitution where it says giving Congress' call for military action due consideration?


No, I didn't tune that out.  I also didn't tune out when he advocated for using our military in what he believed were humanitarian causes.  That is the typical excuse that liberals use for warmongering, when it has 0 to do with our own national defense.  




> Sounds principled to me.  Why are you holding him to principles when Trump has no principles at all?  Is this supposed to be a comparative selling point?


And again with the lesser of 3 evils angle.   

This is a discussion as to whether Johnson merits being tagged as a liberty candidate.  I think he flunks.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Johnson would cut at least some amount of funding to the National  Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation, with abolition  being an option.
> http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...77579231686656
> 
> Johnson believes we should allow more off-shore drilling, and drilling in ANWR.
> http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...77831506489344
> 
> Johnson believes gay marriage should be a state issue rather than a federal issue, and he supports gay civil unions.
> http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...78561105661952
> 
> ...


Tulsa, thanks very much for re-posting this list of 45 libertarian positions supported by Gary Johnson, with sources and links backing up each of them.

Leave it to LE to dispute (poorly) four of them, and then claim that Johnson thus "fails" as a liberty candidate. 

It is clear, now, that LibertyEagle, Trump supporter, cannot (mod edit). He's decided to campaign for a candidate who is completely anti-liberty, his mind is made up, and he'll do whatever he can to dissuade RPF-goers from (mod edit).

----------


## LibertyEagle

Gary Johnson gives a thumbs up to open borders, pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, completely willing to go to war for "humanitarian" reasons, doesn't want to close bases, nor will he take drone strikes off the table. And we still don't know his stance on TPP.  Not to mention the fact that he refers to non-interventionism as isolationism.  Remember how hard we worked to change that thinking?

Whether to vote for Johnson is a personal choice.  The issue here however, is whether he should be tagged and promoted as a liberty candidate.  I think he fails and badly.

----------


## acptulsa

Just thought I'd bump this thread, so someone can say she thinks he flunks nearly as badly as her candidate for the seventeenth time.  Because God for bid she not get the last word.





> Open borders: Not exactly. Though it is not "building a wall." Which will never happen anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...f_Gary_Johnson
> 
> Pro-abortion: Not entirely. He doesn't believe in Roe vs. Wade and believes it is a state issue, like Ron Paul, though he personally is pro-choice in most cases.
> 
> 
> ...


If we decide Johnson's a liberty candidate, are we (as we have been accused of) grading on a curve?  Is he a non-liberty candidate who just looks like one because the rest of the field is such a pair of tyrants?  I don't think so, myself.  But if desperate times really do call for desperate measures, does it matter?

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Leave it to LE to dispute (poorly) four of them, and then claim that Johnson thus "fails" as a liberty candidate. 
> 
> It is clear, now, that LibertyEagle, Trump supporter, cannot (mod edit). He's decided to campaign for a candidate who is completely anti-liberty, his mind is made up, and he'll do whatever he can to (mod edit).





> While remaining stone silent on the many anti-liberty points posted in the Trump evaluation thread (many more than 4) a few months ago...that border thing being all-important to those who don't like people who are different than they are.


This thread is for the purpose of evaluating whether Gary Johnson should be identified on this site as a liberty candidate and be afforded the associated benefits.  It isn't about me and it isn't about Trump.  If you think Johnson should be tagged as a liberty candidate, make your argument.  Insulting me is a poor substitute for said argument.

----------


## presence

> Gary Johnson gives a thumbs up to open borders, pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, completely willing to go to war for "humanitarian" reasons, doesn't want to close bases, nor will he take drone strikes off the table. And we still don't know his stance on TPP.


gay marriage and early term abortions are both fence issues from a liberty perspective... we have people on both sides, not a game changer for a "liberty candidate"; the liberty movement is first and FOREMOST about economic issues; "the property basis of rights"; gay marriage and early term abortion stances just muddle our platform and divide us really.

you're personal anti "illegals" notion doesn't match at all with ron's notion of a green card with an asterisk for any non criminal non citizen in the interior... so frankly you'll never be happy till you see a wall and jackboots.... you're not supporting free market liberty with your notion of "closed borders" so johnson is not anti liberty on this... he's just anti LE and fellow isolationist trumpettes

he's not "completely" willing to go to war for humanitarian reasons.  The only humanitarian plight he's backed in the past 2 decades has been Kony, which was very small scale intervention; a few hundred boots in non combative supporting roles.   He has not shown support for any other specific humanitarian crises.    

he is generally unwillling to close bases, but he does want our boys back IN the bases rather than roaming the interiors of foreign countries.  Its a step in the right direction.   I do think we should march out just as we marched in and abandon the bases we created.

no he won't take drone strikes off the table... but yes unlike conventional wisdom he recognizes the potential for blowback which would obviously mitigate his usage

we do know his stance on TPP; he's running under the LP banner.  Anti TPP is part of the platform.   Johnson is very clear on trade:   

No trade deals.   No protections.   No corporate privileges.  Free markets across borders in both labor and goods.  End of story. 

He doesn't need to be specific about TPP.   The LP is pro free markets and anti trade deals.   De Facto.





> Not to mention the fact that he refers to non-interventionism as isolationism.  Remember how hard we worked to change that thinking?



apparently you didn't really read that article, the quote was
not from johnson:




> this paragraph that does not appear to be a quote but rather the writers own analysis






> Whether to vote for Johnson is a personal choice.  The issue here  however, is whether he should be tagged and promoted as a liberty  candidate.  I think he fails and badly.


The liberty movement is an economic free market movement above all else.   Ron's primary influence was austrian economic textbooks.   Johnson is a clearly "libertarian" on economic issues.   Gay marriage... early term abortions... whether we close bases or just drastically reduce troop levels... Whether we never get involved in humanitarian crises or just rarely and only when very small scale intervention... these are really petty issues in comparison to the national debt and regulation of our economic activity.

----------


## erowe1

My preference would be to let the LP nominate whomever they nominate, and then support them alongside Castle with the CP.

The important thing is that we remain thoroughly anti-Trump and anti-Hillary.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## acptulsa

> This thread is for the purpose of evaluating whether Gary Johnson should be identified on this site as a liberty candidate and be afforded the associated benefits.  It isn't about me and it isn't about Trump.  If you think Johnson should be tagged as a liberty candidate, make your argument.  Insulting me is a poor substitute for said argument.


Impeaching a witness is always relevant.  The case is made.  The only thing left to do is to decide if the continuing objections have merit.  And since you appear to be the sole source of continuing objections...




> I didn't "insult" you. Your skin is too thin for someone who dishes out the things you do. Carry on.


Oh, come now.  Why should liberals have a monopoly on professional victimhood?  That wouldn't be fair at all.

----------


## younglibertarian

I'd say a B is a fair grade. His selection of a gun control VP, wishywashy on the rights of business owners, and his stance on staying in the U.N bring him down a few points.


And @LibertyEagle 
The fact that you are convincing us too not support Gary Johnson because he is not a pure libertarian while you yourself support a candidate the literally received "F" on the site evaluation is kind of ridiculous.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## younglibertarian

> Agreed. I would argue it's pro-liberty to keep government *out* of those issues --  always for marriage, and at least for now on abortion.



I disagree with abortion, but at this point the issue really cannot be fixed. Too many people support it. We have to work gradually.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Ridiculous also because LE is not a libertarian herself, so lecturing libertarians on how we should feel about a candidate -- how could she know unless she walks in our shoes? #Fail


The FAIL is believing that liberty and this forum are limited to "libertarians".

----------


## younglibertarian

> The FAIL is believing that liberty is limited to "libertarians".


 Believing that  authoritarians like Trump and 95% of the Republican party support "liberty" is like believing smoking will cure your lung cancer.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Believing that  authoritarians like Trump and 95% of the Republican party support "liberty" is like believing smoking will cure your lung cancer.


Did you lose track of the subject of this thread?

----------


## undergroundrr

> Ridiculous also because LE is not a libertarian herself, so lecturing libertarians on how we should feel about a candidate -- how could she know unless she walks in our shoes? #Fail


She seems to gauge a candidate on how close they are to Tom Tancredo c. 2008.  Last I heard this was Ron Paul Forums.

----------


## erowe1

> The FAIL is believing that liberty and this forum are limited to "libertarians".


Regardless of labels, what you've been pushing here for the past year or so has at no point resembled liberty.

----------


## erowe1

> She seems to gauge a candidate on how close they are to Tom Tancredo c. 2008.  Last I heard this was Ron Paul Forums.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to undergroundrr again."

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Regardless of labels, what you've been pushing here for the past year or so has at no point resembled liberty.





> She seems to gauge a candidate on how close they are to Tom Tancredo c. 2008.  Last I heard this was Ron Paul Forums.


Indeed it is.  It is also not Commie Central.

----------


## erowe1

> Indeed it is.  It is also not Commie Central.


The closest thing we have to communism here is people supporting Trump.

Closed borders is a communist position, by the way.

----------


## undergroundrr

> The closest thing we have to communism here is people supporting Trump.
> 
> Closed borders is a communist position, by the way.


Dang. Beat me to it.

----------


## younglibertarian

> Did you lose track of the subject of this thread?



No I haven't

You come here and start slamming the LP when you yourself support a Republican. 

Most of us agree Gary Johnson is not an ideal libertarian candidate. If you noticed the last poll most of us prefer McAfee.

However he is still closer too Ron Paul then Donald Trump or any mainstream candidate in this race.

What is annoying is the fact that you will literally defend an authoritarian tooth and nail every thread, but when we evaluate a decent candidate you come in  blabbing about "compromise", when you seem too be a walking Donald Trump meme. 

Your opinion doesn't influence me or most of the members on this site because we stand firm in our beliefs. You are being so hypocritical it is literally sad.

Sometimes I wonder who you like more in that gif profile pick of yours.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The closest thing we have to communism here is people supporting Trump.


Opinions vary.  But once again, this thread is to discuss Gary Johnson and his suitability for being tagged as a liberty candidate.




> Closed borders is a communist position, by the way.


Actually, open borders is a tactic in the globalist arsenal.  The goal is world government/world communism. If you'd like to discuss this further, start a new thread.

I can understand why some might want to steer the conversation away from Johnson, but come on guys, it's really transparent.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Sometimes I wonder who you like more in that gif profile pick of yours.


That should be obvious.  She's supporting a major contributor to John McCain.  trump supporters' avatars on RPF are headshakingly ironic in almost every case.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No I haven't
> 
> You come here and start slamming the LP when you yourself support a Republican. 
> 
> Most of us agree Gary Johnson is not an ideal libertarian candidate. If you noticed the last poll most of us prefer McAfee.
> 
> However he is still closer too Ron Paul then Donald Trump or any mainstream candidate in this race.
> 
> What is annoying is the fact that you will literally defend an authoritarian tooth and nail every thread, but when we evaluate a decent candidate you come in  blabbing about "compromise", when you seem too be a walking Donald Trump meme. 
> ...


Making it personal again, I see.

Since when did we ever elect a political party to office?  It's about the candidate and Johnson is the focus of this thread.  Please try to stay on topic.

----------


## CPUd

So these points are generally accepted?




> Johnson would cut at least some amount of funding to the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation, with abolition being an option.
> http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...77579231686656
> 
> Johnson believes we should allow more off-shore drilling, and drilling in ANWR.
> http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...77831506489344
> 
> Johnson believes gay marriage should be a state issue rather than a federal issue, and he supports gay civil unions.
> http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson...78561105661952
> 
> ...

----------


## younglibertarian

> Making it personal again, I see.
> 
> Since when did we ever elect a political party to office?  It's about the candidate and Johnson is the focus of this thread.  Please try to stay on topic.


We are talking about Johnson. Did you not view the first few pages of this thread? The general consensus so far is a decent libertarian candidate. Not perfect and has a few flaws, but in general complies with the site mission.

You keep attacking and then when anybody exposes the hypocrisy and mud foundation of your arguments you clam up and try to take the high road with responses like  "lol" and "stay on topic"

----------


## undergroundrr

> Actually, open borders is a tactic in the globalist arsenal.  The goal is world government/world communism. 
> 
> I can understand why some might want to steer the conversation away from Johnson, but come on guys, it's really transparent.


Border security measures are great, but a closed border with the people nicely locked inside is the ultimate device of communism. The goal is total control over the populace so the state can milk it dry. Closed borders is a wildly non-liberty position.

What would Ron Paul say? 

“The people that want big fences and guns, sure, we could secure the border,” the congressman noted. “A barbed wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick. I don’t believe that is what America is all about.”

“Every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and REAL IDs, think it’s a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there’s capital controls and there’s people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.”

http://nation.foxnews.com/ron-paul/2...e-used-keep-us

----------


## LibertyEagle

> We are talking about Johnson. Did you not view the first few pages of this thread? The general consensus so far is a decent libertarian candidate. Not perfect and has a few flaws, but in general complies with the site mission.


He has more than a few flaws.

Gary Johnson gives a thumbs up to open borders, pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, completely willing to go to war for "humanitarian" reasons, doesn't want to close bases, nor will he take drone strikes off the table. And we still don't know his stance on TPP.  Not to mention the fact that he refers to non-interventionism as isolationism.  Remember how hard we worked to change that thinking?

Whether to vote for Johnson is a personal choice.  The issue here however, is whether he should be tagged and promoted as a liberty candidate.  I think he fails and badly.




> You keep attacking and then when anybody exposes the hypocrisy and mud foundation of your arguments you clam up and try to take the high road with responses like  "lol" and "stay on topic"


I have talked about Johnson and the only mud that has been thrown has had very little to do with the issues raised about Johnson and everything to do with personal insults.  So yeah, when you have strayed off-topic, I have pointed it out.

----------


## phill4paul

> He has more than a few flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have talked about Johnson and the only mud that has been thrown has had very little to do with the issues raised about Johnson and everything to do with personal insults.  So yeah, when you have strayed off-topic, I have pointed it out.


  You don't "talk" about Johnson. You "tell" about Johnson. I answered your short list in the other thread. And, of course, my replies were ignored. 





> Open borders: Not exactly. Though it is not "building a wall." Which will never happen anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...f_Gary_Johnson
> 
> Pro-abortion: Not entirely. He doesn't believe in Roe vs. Wade and believes it is a state issue, like Ron Paul, though he personally is pro-choice in most cases.
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## acptulsa

> You don't "talk" about Johnson. You "tell" about Johnson. I answered your short list in the other thread. And, of course, my replies were ignored.


It isn't so much the way replies are ignored, it's the way seven post later the denial comes that any replies or refutations were made at all.

But she's right.  If she wants to use this thread to type the exact same thing over a hundred times, why should we flame her for it?

----------


## undergroundrr

> So these points are generally accepted?


yes

----------


## acptulsa

> So these points are generally accepted?


As being his consistent positions?  Yes.  As things we all agree with 100%?  No.

As not disqualifying him from the term 'Liberty Candidate?  Apparently so.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You don't "talk" about Johnson. You "tell" about Johnson.


I backed up, or at least I tried to, everything I said with sources.  




> I answered your short list in the other thread. And, of course, my replies were ignored.


Sorry, I must have not seen it.  Since this is the Johnson eval thread, why don't you repeat it here.  If there is something you want me to answer, I'd be happy to.

EDIT:

From Phil...



> [/QUOTEOriginally Posted by phill4paul  View Post
> Open borders: Not exactly. Though it is not "building a wall." Which will never happen anyway.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...f_Gary_Johnson


Well, in this interview, he talked about giving them Social Security cards.  Does that mean they would then be eligible for Social Security and the elders in the chained migration that he also appears to support?

In your link, it says he doesn't believe in any quotas.  So, we just let the borders be overrun by anyone and everyone, put them on the dole, pay to educate their children, pay for their healthcare, and pray for a miracle?  Not having any limits whatsoever on immigration is nothing but suicide.   




> Pro-abortion: Not entirely. He doesn't believe in Roe vs. Wade and believes it is a state issue, like Ron Paul, though he personally is pro-choice in most cases.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...f_Gary_Johnson


He seemed to believe in abortion up to the point that the baby could live outside of the womb.  Is that your understanding also?




> Pro-gay marriage: Definitely. But why is allowing same sex couples the government benefits that hetero-couples enjoy a non liberty position?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...f_Gary_Johnson


I thought the idea was to get government out of the marriage business?  Not to involve them further.




> Willing to go to war for humanitarian purposes. Mixed bag. But it seems his approach would at least be a voluntary one.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...Johnson#Uganda


I don't know.  That sure isn't what he said in this interview; nor what he gave the idea that he believed.  http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ary-game-plan/

----------


## LibertyEagle

//

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## younglibertarian

> _What_??



If you don't like Trump you are a commie is a popular saying among his supporters....

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It isn't so much the way replies are ignored, it's the way seven post later the denial comes that any replies or refutations were made at all.


I didn't ignore your "refutation"; I just destroyed them easily.  
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6223204

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If you don't like Trump you are a commie is a popular saying among his supporters....


That's not what I said at all.  But, promoting globalist causes and calling them liberty-loving is not going to get a pass.  Sorry.

----------


## phill4paul

> Sorry, I must have not seen it.  Since this is the Johnson eval thread, why don't you repeat it here.  If there is something you want me to answer, I'd be happy to.


Sounds good. Since the entire post is lost in translation I will furnish my quotes from the other thread.




> EDIT:
> 
> From Phil...
> 
> Well, in this interview, he talked about giving them Social Security cards.  Does that mean they would then be eligible for Social Security and the elders in the chained migration that he also appears to support?
> 
> In your link, it says he doesn't believe in any quotas.  So, we just let the borders be overrun by anyone and everyone, put them on the dole, pay to educate their children, pay for their healthcare, and pray for a miracle?  Not having any limits whatsoever on immigration is nothing but suicide.





> Johnson believes two approaches to immigration should be implemented: (1) "simplify legal immigration" and (2) "tackle illegal immigration."[49] He says, "Immigration into the United States by ambitious, willing workers and their families is a good thing. Not only is it a historical and energizing part of American culture and experience, it is vital to our economy. These positive benefits should not be sacrificed or reduced in any solution to stop illegal immigration."[50]
> 
> Johnson favors issuing work visas, rather than granting amnesty citizenship or permanent residency, to people who want to work in the United States so that they pay payroll and income taxes,[7] and favors a two-year grace period to current illegal immigrants to obtain these visas.[49] He would require background checks of visa applicants,[49] because federal "authorities do need to know who is crossing our borders and be able to prevent criminals from entering the country."[50] He believes that, once a worker obtains a visa, the worker "should have access to the normal procedures for gaining permanent status and citizenship, and should be able to bring their families to the U.S. after demonstrating ability to support them financially."[49] Johnson does not support immigration quotas.[7]
> 
> Under the present system, Johnson does not support "cracking down" on illegal immigration or creating penalties for businesses that hire undocumented immigrants.[7] Instead, he believes the work visa program will reduce illegal immigration.[49] But once the program is implemented, he believes in enforcing "a 'one strike, you're out' rule for immigrants who circumvent the" work visa process,[49] as well as imposing and enforcing "sanctions on employers for noncompliance with immigration laws.[49]
> 
> Johnson opposes building a fence or wall along the Mexican border or placing National Guard units there,[7] because "security measures along the borders are just not enough" and "do not completely solve the immigration problem."[50] He believes that much of the Mexican-American border problems are due to drug prohibition, and that ending the prohibition of marijuana and the War on Drugs would end 75% of the violence along the border.[7][43][49]


So, no. He is not in favor of letting the borders be overrun by anyone and everyone. Work visas with criminal background checks for those coming across and those within. By doing so he believes ICE would be able to concentrate on the criminal elements. I do not see where he advocates putting them on the dole, pay to educate their children (He wants to end the Dept. of Education), pay their healthcare ( He is against the Affordable Care Act).






> He seemed to believe in abortion up to the point that the baby could live outside of the womb.  Is that your understanding also?





> Gary Johnson supports "a woman's right to choose up until the point of viability"[39] and wants to keep abortion legal.[40] He has been very vocal in his beliefs.[41] He supports legislation banning late-term abortions and mandating parental notification for minors seeking an abortion.[42] Johnson believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned because it "expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution." He believes that laws regarding abortion should "be decided by the individual states."[38]


 So, as you can see that as governor he supported a ban on late term abortions.





> I thought the idea was to get government out of the marriage business?  Not to involve them further.





> Johnson says that "government doesn't belong in the bedroom."[35][35] He believes that the government should not regulate marriage at all.[51] He believes the government "should not impose its values upon marriage" but instead "should protect the rights of couples to engage in civil unions if they wish, as well as the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs."[36]
> 
> He applauded the repeal of Don't ask, don't tell, and opined that the repeal was "long overdue."[52]
> 
> Formerly a supporter of civil unions for same-sex couples, on December 1, 2011, Johnson voiced his support for same-sex marriage. He believes that "denying those rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple."[53] He has also stated that marriage laws should treat every individual equally.[54]
> 
> In 2013, Johnson was a signatory to an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage during the Hollingsworth v. Perry case.[55]
> 
> Gary Johnson favors a federal law to legalize gay marriage across the United States, rather than leaving the issue up to the individual states.[56]


  The goal of the liberty movement is to get fed.gov out of the marriage business. However, if that is not going to happen then the law needs to be applied equally. As the liberty movement is split on this Gary is free to choose either way.





> I don't know.  That sure isn't what he said in this interview; nor what he gave the idea that he believed.  http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ary-game-plan/


  Perhaps he was unable to get his point across in the interview. I dunno. It happens. He did explicitly state that he would have asked for volunteers in  this article...




> “Well Congress passed the legislation to authorize us intervening, Obama signed the legislation and then eight months later we have an advisory force that goes in,” he said. “I think if I would have signed the legislation that I would have had plans to immediately ask for a volunteer force and gone in and wipe ‘em out.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/th...#ixzz49b9TLmwS

----------


## RJ Liberty

> So these points are generally accepted?


I'm still waiting for something substantive refuting the 45 libertarian positions supported by Gary Johnson posted above. I suspect there are more liberty positions that weren't in that list, since that list was originally compiled in 2012 during Johnson's first presidential run, and he's been interviewed at great length since then, but those 45 items were a pretty good starting point in determining Johnson's overall liberty credentials, and I haven't really seen anything convincing that would refute most of those items.

----------


## afwjam

Hey Gary Johnson is pretty great OK. He is a mountain climber, that does not mean I have to like him. Most his positions are pretty decent, but he lacks the conviction of a true believer, thats what attracted me to such positions in the first place.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Abortion

Phil, I guess it depends upon what he considers is the definition of "late term" abortions.  He's against partial birth abortions, for sure.  But, my understanding is that those murdered could have in fact lived if allowed to be completely born.  So is Johnson's position that everything up to that point is fair game and can be aborted?  I don't really know; that is what I am asking.  But it seems so to me.  Take a look at this site, which includes a lot of his comments about the matter:  http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary...n_Abortion.htm




> Life is precious and must be protected. A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus.





> I support women's rights to choose up until viability of the fetus.





> But I don't want for a second to pretend that I have a better idea of how a woman should choose when it comes to this situation. Fundamentally this is a choice that a woman should have.





> : Q: Where do you stand on abortion rights?
> A: It should be left up to the woman. If my daughter were pregnant and she came to me and asked me what she ought to do, I would advise her to have the child. But I would not for a minute pretend that I should make that decision for her or any other woman.





> Q: But you have supported legislation that requires parental consent and signed a ban on partial birth abortions.
> A: I think the decision can be made at an earlier stage. That's why I don't support partial birth abortions. I realize it's a fine line, but I generally come down on a woman's right to decide.


Gay Marriage




> The goal of the liberty movement is to get fed.gov out of the marriage business. However, if that is not going to happen then the law needs to be applied equally. As the liberty movement is split on this Gary is free to choose either way


I disagree, but I understand your position.  Fair enough.

Immigration




> So, no. He is not in favor of letting the borders be overrun by anyone and everyone. Work visas with criminal background checks for those coming across and those within. By doing so he believes ICE would be able to concentrate on the criminal elements. I do not see where he advocates putting them on the dole, pay to educate their children (He wants to end the Dept. of Education), pay their healthcare ( He is against the Affordable Care Act).


Yet, no limits on the sheer numbers of people, their qualifications (ie. do they have a skill that is needed, can they support themselves, or have a sponsor...).  

How does he plan to *keep them off of the dole* once they are here?  Because right now they do get free health care, free education, etc.  And I am not talking about ObamaCare.

Foreign policy




> Perhaps he was unable to get his point across in the interview. I dunno. It happens. He did explicitly state that he would have asked for volunteers in this article...


Did you listen to it?  If not, please do.  He came across to me as about ready to faint dead away when his hypocrisy was highlighted.  And he didn't say one thing about "volunteers" in that, that I heard.  In fact, he kept defending his position that military force might need to be used for humanitarian causes.

So, he doesn't want to shut down any military bases, anywhere.  Drone strikes are A-ok.  And humanitarian wars are fine and dandy.

Would Johnson be leaps and bounds better than what we have right now?  Absolutely!  But, is he really something that you believe represents the liberty movement?

----------


## LibertyEagle

I haven't had a chance to research the claims in this yet, but I noticed that an article was posted about Johnson yesterday.  The claims were not exactly positive.  It should probably be researched before the decision is made about Johnson.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-James-Spiller

----------


## acptulsa

> I haven't had a chance to research the claims in this yet, but I noticed that an article was posted about Johnson yesterday.  The claims were not exactly positive.  It should probably be researched before the decision is made about Johnson.
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-James-Spiller


Gee, have you had a chance to research those claims yet?  Because you found time to post sardonic memes in a thread which contains this information already, yet I don't see you rushing to provide a balanced viewpoint in this thread...

http://www.riograndefoundation.org/d...rotections.pdf




> While the recent spending binge is not unique; in fact, rapid growth in government has been the rule and not the exception in New Mexico. With the exception of the eight years of the Johnson Administration (FY 1995-FY 2003), New Mexico’s political leaders have failed to create the conditions necessary to allow entrepreneurs to generate economic growth.





> While it would be easy to make spending restraint (or the lack thereof) a partisan issue, that is not really the case. Personal dedication to spending restraint and economic/political considerations often factor into the equation. As figure 2 illustrates, Gary Johnson, a Republican and New Mexico’s Governor from 1995-2003, was the most fiscally-responsible of the state’s last four governors, but Democrat Bruce King (1991-1995) was far more frugal than either Republican Garrey Carruthers (1987-1991)or current Democratic Governor Bill Richardson (2003-present)





> Spending under Governor Johnson was effectively restrained to allow the government to grow just a bit faster than inflation and population rates combined each year. By way of comparison with Governor Richardson, spending has increased during the last four years by more than it did for Gary Johnson’s entire two terms ($516.62 million versus $448.00 million).
> Unfortunately, while Johnson kept spending growth at reasonable levels, needed reforms in education, health care, and in state budget processes were stymied by the Legislature.8 Johnson’s tax cuts were also denied repeatedly by the Legislature. So, while spending growth was restrained, New Mexico’s government remained systemically-flawed and its tax and budgeting systems escaped reform. Clearly, strong leadership from the Executive Branch is not enough to generate long-term spending restraint since time is on the side of special interests and those who would delay needed reforms.


This is from a local, non-profit think tank, and was published before Johnson stepped out onto the national stage and began challenging the two party system.  It was done by someone who is actually on the ground in New Mexico, and paid attention to what Johnson was actually doing and what he was up against.

Gee, I'm sorry that you're having so much trouble fact-checking _The National Review_ that you couldn't find this material, even though it was posted at 9:19 this morning in a thread that you had just bumped, and that you posted a meme to later.  So, the person who is quick to slam people for posting stuff from propaganda sites is posting stuff from _The National Review_, and suggesting she will 'do research' into the efficacy of it, and ignoring stuff addressing the efficacy of it.  Nice lack of bias, there.  I'm impressed.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## younglibertarian



----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## undergroundrr

> But, but, but, but, but.....open borders!!


And cake

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I said he was Constitutionalist enough to take seriously a demand for military action from the duly elected Congress of the United States.  Like with drone strikes, taking anything off the table is a way to tie your hands and let your enemies know how to jack with you.  He's not stupid enough to do that.  Even if he has no intention of doing it, it would be stupid to take it off the table.
> 
> You will read into that whatever you wish.  But be careful how you go about the forum libeling me.


Not even close.  Johnson just 'invents' whatever "constitutional rights" he wants on the fly, and then lies about it later.  Y'all do what you want, but I'll choose 'getting impaled' over voting for Johnson.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The goal of the liberty movement is to get fed.gov out of the marriage business. However, if that is not going to happen then the law needs to be applied equally. As the liberty movement is split on this Gary is free to choose either way.


Absolutely not.  In 2012 he called gay marriage a "Constitutional right."  Regardless of what you feel about gay marriage for good or for ill, it is NOT 1) a Constitutional right, and 2) the Constitution does not empower fedgov to force the states at gunpoint to recognize it.

From the perspective of a strict Constitutionalist, Johnson who seems to invent new shyt to come out of the Constitution daily, is no better than the two $#@!s in the majors.  No thanks.

McAfee may not be a Constitutionalist, but at least he does not appear to be deliberately demolishing it.  If the LP wants my vote in Nov, they will nominate McAfee.  If the LP does not nominate McAfee, then they do not want my vote.  Simple as that.

----------


## presence

We're 20 trillion in the hole you're going to make a decision about potus over someone's views on butt $#@!ing?

----------


## acptulsa

> Absolutely not.  In 2012 he called gay marriage a "Constitutional right."


The Constitution does not in any way empower the federal government to regulate, endorse, restrict, reward, tax, guarantee benefits for, or in any way recognize marriage.

Now.  _If you are forced by the fellow inmates of a democracy_ to allow the federal government to do all that crap, then does the Constitution guarantee some kind of equal access to all of that crap?

I'm not saying I agree with Johnson in this, or that I think he did an adequate job of explaining this.  But are there really not real-world extenuating circumstances involved here?  Just because a person is a realist does not mean he can't be a libertarian.  It's hard, and maybe he can't be a very good one.  But it doesn't mean he can't be one at all.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The Constitution does not in any way empower the federal government to regulate, endorse, restrict, reward, tax, guarantee benefits for, or in any way recognize marriage.


Correct.




> Now.  _If you are forced by the fellow inmates of a democracy_ to allow the federal government to do all that crap, then does the Constitution guarantee some kind of equal access to all of that crap?


Absolutely not.  Violating the Constitution illicitly is not a golden ticket to violate the Constitution freely.




> I'm not saying I agree with Johnson in this, or that I think he did an adequate job of explaining this.  But are there really not real-world extenuating circumstances involved here?  Just because a person is a realist does not mean he can't be a libertarian.  It's hard, and maybe he can't be a very good one.  But it doesn't mean he can't be one at all.


If his version of "realism" means pissing on the Constitution, then he doesn't really want my vote.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> We're 20 trillion in the hole you're going to make a decision about potus over someone's views on butt $#@!ing?


I couldn't possibly care less about "butt $#@!ing."  I care about the Constitution, full stop.  The Constitution doesn't 'go away' just because a given issue is stupid.

----------


## phill4paul

> Absolutely not.  In 2012 he called gay marriage a "Constitutional right."  Regardless of what you feel about gay marriage for good or for ill, it is NOT 1) a Constitutional right, and 2) the Constitution does not empower fedgov to force the states at gunpoint to recognize it.
> 
> From the perspective of a strict Constitutionalist, Johnson who seems to invent new shyt to come out of the Constitution daily, is no better than the two $#@!s in the majors.  No thanks.
> 
> McAfee may not be a Constitutionalist, but at least he does not appear to be deliberately demolishing it.  If the LP wants my vote in Nov, they will nominate McAfee.  If the LP does not nominate McAfee, then they do not want my vote.  Simple as that.


  What about Austin Peterson? I'd say of the LP three front runners he seems to me to be the most Constitutional.

----------


## younglibertarian

> We're 20 trillion in the hole you're going to make a decision about potus over someone's views on butt $#@!ing?


Exactly

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What about Austin Peterson? I'd say of the LP three front runners he seems to me to be the most Constitutional.


I'm not convinced.  Ron Paul was all but the walking talking embodiment of the Constitution in 2008 and 2012, and Petersen _HATED_ him.  In my experience people who do that are usually all talk and no walk.  They like to _talk_ about Constitutional government but hated Ron Paul because they knew he would actually _DO_ it.

----------


## presence

> I'm not convinced.


have you read petersen's platform?

http://austinpetersen2016.com/


The petty differences between petersen, johnson, mcafee, ron, rand, amash, and massie are not worth fighting over.  I'd buy every one of them a beer and the juiciest steak on the menu. 

omg he disagreed with ron on minutia of libertarian philosophy!  who really cares?

If one of "us" here at RPF was running for potus... (and I don't care if its @LibertyEagle)    I'd support their campaign.  

Johnson, like Petersen is searching for the truth; they're looking for free market solutions; they're looking to walk the razor's edge of principle to disengage the government.   Hillary, Trump, Bernie... they're looking for big government solutions; programs and power... whatever it may cost.

Does the candidate have an inherent desire to get the government the $#@! out of our lives?

Johnson passes
Petersen passes

----------


## younglibertarian

> have you read petersen's platform?
> 
> http://austinpetersen2016.com/
> 
> 
> The petty differences between petersen, johnson, mcafee, ron, rand, amash, and massie are not worth fighting over.  I'd buy every one of them a beer and the juiciest steak on the menu. 
> 
> omg he disagreed with ron on minutia of libertarian philosophy!  who really cares?
> 
> ...


Hear Hear!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm not convinced.  Ron Paul was all but the walking talking embodiment of the Constitution in 2008 and 2012, and Petersen _HATED_ him.  In my experience people who do that are usually all talk and no walk.  They like to _talk_ about Constitutional government but hated Ron Paul because they knew he would actually _DO_ it.


Was he, Gunny?  Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I thought Petersen ran a huge RP group like in NY or something in '08.  Was that someone else?

----------


## afwjam

> Was he, Gunny?  Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I thought Petersen ran a huge RP group like in NY or something in '08.  Was that someone else?


He did, his conflict came later I believe something to do with his foreign policy.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Or was it the newsletters?  We lost more than a few over that issue.

Since I seem to have the right guy, he traveled to NH to help out before that primary vote.  He was all in.

----------


## nikcers

> I'm not convinced.  Ron Paul was all but the walking talking embodiment of the Constitution in 2008 and 2012, and Petersen _HATED_ him.  In my experience people who do that are usually all talk and no walk.  They like to _talk_ about Constitutional government but hated Ron Paul because they knew he would actually _DO_ it.


I thought he was one of us, granted I haven't looked into his platform as much as I should.

thelibertarianrepublic.com

----------


## acptulsa

> Please try to stay on topic.


Yes ma'am, Mrs. DuBose, ma'am.

----------


## afwjam

Petersen is one of ours, he should ruled in support of the forum mission and a supported candidate. You can debate about Gary, but I think he is ok and can be supported, I won't.

LE I like you a lot better in this section of the forums.

----------


## younglibertarian

> Petersen is one of ours, he should ruled in support of the forum mission and a supported candidate. You can debate about Gary, but I think he is ok and can be supported, I won't.
> 
> LE I like you a lot better in this section of the forums.


We need to revive that evaluation.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LE I like you a lot better in this section of the forums.


I'm sure you do; Petersen is your man, rather than Johnson.  Point is, there is no need to lie about a candidate's position, or mislead, as has been done with other candidates elsewhere on the forums.  We need to desire to be as honest as we can.

----------


## afwjam

> I'm sure you do; Petersen is your man, rather than Johnson.  Point is, there is no need to lie about a candidate's position, or mislead, as has been done with other candidates elsewhere on the forums.  We need to desire to be as honest as we can.


McAfee is my man, I believe in the NAP.

----------


## younglibertarian

> McAfee is my man, I believe in the NAP.


It is very interesting. Most Petersen supporters basically believe in the NAP but refuse to admit it.

I don't see what is so unclear about such a basic principle.

----------


## iNoob

Johnson thinks his anti-Liberty vice presidential pick is the "Original Libertarian" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNqS890yXh0

More on Bill Weld: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...liberty-record

----------


## iNoob

Johnson's spending practices (from http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ames-Spiller):




> "In fact, Johnson inherited a debt of $1.8 billion and left a debt of $4.6 billion, a rate of increase unmatched by the 22 governors in either party who have filed for presidential primaries in the past two decades, with the exception of Governor Tom Vilsack (D., Iowa) in 2007. During every year that Johnson, as he says, balanced the budget, he added to the debt."
> 
> Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-conservatives
> 
> I know the article in question is from a questionable source. I also haven't really researched the man so don't shoot the messenger just yet.  I just thought you all may want to take a gander at something not Trump.





> Gary Johnsons Massive Campaign Debt Should be a Concern to Every Libertarian
> 
> http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ga...y-libertarian/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> ...

----------


## phill4paul

> Abortion
> 
> Phil, I guess it depends upon what he considers is the definition of "late term" abortions.  He's against partial birth abortions, for sure.  But, my understanding is that those murdered could have in fact lived if allowed to be completely born.  So is Johnson's position that everything up to that point is fair game and can be aborted?  I don't really know; that is what I am asking.  But it seems so to me.  Take a look at this site, which includes a lot of his comments about the matter:  http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary...n_Abortion.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Sorry it took  me so long to respond, LE. We've had a family reunion this week centered around my place and aside from occasional quips I haven't had much time to read thoroughly or respond properly.

  If I had to grade on these issues I suppose it would be as follows.

  Abortion: Many in the liberty movement are divided on the issue. I've become pro-life due to Dr. Paul's beliefs regarding it. Still, other's see it as a personal choice. There are many which seek a middle ground. Therefore, it is hard to grade as either a A or an F as either side would call for the opposite. So, I suppose his stance would be graded as a "C".

  Gay marriage: It seems that this is an equally divided issue. So, "C."

  Immigration: Same as above: "C"

  Foreign policy: Given his "humanitarian" remarks, the fact that he doesn't care to shut down bases or discountinue drone strikes, but that he has opposed the foriegn policy of the Bush and Obama admin. again I'd place him as a "C."

----------


## younglibertarian

I really hope we do not nominate him......

----------


## dannno

> Sorry it took  me so long to respond, LE. We've had a family reunion this week centered around my place and aside from occasional quips I haven't had much time to read thoroughly or respond properly.
> 
>   If I had to grade on these issues I suppose it would be as follows.
> 
>   Abortion: Many in the liberty movement are divided on the issue. I've become pro-life due to Dr. Paul's beliefs regarding it. Still, other's see it as a personal choice. There are many which seek a middle ground. Therefore, it is hard to grade as either a A or an F as either side would call for the opposite. So, I suppose his stance would be graded as a "C".
> 
>   Gay marriage: It seems that this is an equally divided issue. So, "C."
> 
>   Immigration: Same as above: "C"
> ...


I agree except on foreign policy I would give him at least a B. Humanitarian wars have been the least of our concern, Gary Johnson wants to end the war on terror and when he was on Joe Rogan's podcast he talked about foreign policy for probably about a half hour and I didn't hear him say anything that Ron Paul wouldn't say. He's not perfect, but I'd probably give him a B+ on foreign policy. 

Overall I would give him a B-

----------


## dannno

> I really hope we do not nominate him......


Ya, it would suck for the libertarian party to actually make some headway for once

----------


## younglibertarian

> Ya, it would suck for the libertarian party to actually make some headway for once


Yes, like all the headway he got last time around?

----------


## phill4paul

> I agree except on foreign policy I would give him at least a B. Humanitarian wars have been the least of our concern, Gary Johnson wants to end the war on terror and when he was on Joe Rogan's podcast he talked about foreign policy for probably about a half hour and I didn't hear him say anything that Ron Paul wouldn't say. He's not perfect, but I'd probably give him a B+ on foreign policy. 
> 
> Overall I would give him a B-


   I had debated giving GJ an "B" or a "C" on this. If, as Ron had done, he called for shuttering many of the foreign bases and scaling back foreign presence I would have went for a "B."

----------


## dannno

> Yes, like all the headway he got last time around?


You are comparing him to when Ron Paul was running?? Really? Even though Ron Paul dropped out, the enthusiasm was still there and GJ was an after thought.. people wanted to write in Ron Paul.

----------


## younglibertarian

> You are comparing him to when Ron Paul was running?? Really?


Yes. He had the opportunity to get all of our votes and failed.

----------


## dannno

> Yes. He had the opportunity to get all of our votes and failed.


First, if I recall, he was also running while Ron Paul was running. I was a little pissed at him at the time for that, I would never compete against Ron Paul for office. I think others were a bit upset about that as well.

I probably would have been willing to consider him, but he wasn't perceived as being able to win or do very well at all, but now he is at 10% in the polls and he has a great shot at picking up Sanders supporters, disaffected Republicans and libertarians. 

He's right on the economy, and he is pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, wants to end our foreign empire and the war on drugs and so he has a lot in common with the left. But he also is good on economics, so he can attract anti-authoritarian people on the right who won't be able to hold their nose for Trump. 

It's really could be the perfect storm for Gary Johnson right now - not McAfee, I actually like McAfee more than Gary Johnson especially on policy but he just won't be taken seriously.. and he won't be able to attract many people on the left, and there are many who can't stand Hillary.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Johnson picking a top-level CFR member as his VP is the cherry on the top.  Weld not only participated in the CFR Task Force to create a North American Union, he CHAIRED it.

Johnson should not be considered a liberty candidate and threads about him should not be in the forum bearing that name.

----------


## Bryan

Bump to complete evaluation.

I also expanded this to include the entire ticket.

----------


## dannno

> Johnson is pro-abortion, up to the point that the baby can live outside of the womb.


Gary Johnson holds the same position as Ron Paul on abortion from an executive perspective - he believes it should be up to the states. 





> He is for "humanitarian" wars.
> 
> Won't take drone strikes off the table.


He has by far the best foreign policy of any of the other candidates, even much better than Donald Trump who you support. He is for scaling back the military immensely, I've heard he wants to cut it by 43%.

Why would he take drone strikes off the table? Rand only took drone strikes off the table for American citizens not actively engaged in combat, he certainly didn't take drone strikes off the table - Ron Paul would probably use drone strikes in the right situation, if congress declared war and it was the most effective means of neutralizing the enemy.





> Does not want to close ANY military bases


I think this is highly unlikely, do you have any sources? He said he might want to keep some US bases in Afghanistan, even if we end the conflict. That does not equal "does not want to close ANY military bases". And that's not a deal breaker when he wants to cut military by 43% and massively curtailing our overseas empire. 





> Does not believe in setting any limits on the sheer numbers of "immigrants".


Except that effectively he would reduce the number of immigrants by taking away their benefits... that would be much more effective, and more clean and moral than Trump's solution.




> Chose a VP that is not only a high-ranking CFR member, but co-chaired the CFR's Task Force to build a North American Union.



I would ding Johnson on the Weld pick from a liberty perspective, but from a strategic perspective he may be a good pick. I don't expect Johnson to win, but I would like him to take away as many votes from Hillary as possible, I want more people to look into libertarianism and be able to get libertarians into political power in the future.





> If this is the current definition of a liberty candidate, this site is in big trouble.


Gary Johnson believes in liberty at least 90% of the time, which is better than Trump who is probably at around 60% and Hillary who is probably at around 20-30% of the time.

----------


## afwjam

Johnson is a solid B-, weld is an F, this puts the ticket in D territory. I'm a bit of a pessimist about these things but I think if we were able to shine some light on the ticket and its motivations it would be an F. I just do not trust people that compromise to win popularity contests.

----------


## farreri

> weld is an F


An economic conservative and socially tolerant/inclusive politician gets an F?

----------


## younglibertarian

I motion a B grade

----------


## younglibertarian

D for weld, however

----------


## afwjam

> An economic conservative and socially tolerant/inclusive politician gets an F?


Niether Weld or Johnson cut spending as governer, it increased along with debt. Welds record on guns is clearly questionable as are his positions on government using eminent domain and affording special privileges. Add to that his chairman status on CFR and you have a very questionable conservative let alone libertarian.

----------


## farreri

*Bill Weld: A personal message for Delegates to the Libertarian National Convention.*

https://www.facebook.com/BillWeld201...43221959255516

----------


## afwjam

> *Bill Weld: A personal message for Delegates to the Libertarian National Convention.*
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/BillWeld201...43221959255516


Weld on CNN May 22nd: "I distinguish between hunting guns and guns that don't seem to have any hunting purpose or potential purpose." In addition to his bragging for making Bushes administration the most pro Israel, weld is not our ally.

----------


## farreri

> In addition to his bragging for making Bushes administration the most pro Israel


Ron & Rand are pretty pro-Israel.

----------


## afwjam

> Ron & Rand are pretty pro-Israel.


Thats their problem, but at least they don't make up artificial distinctions between guns.

----------


## farreri

> Thats their problem, but at least they don't make up artificial distinctions between guns.


Keep in mind Weld was a republican governor of one of the most liberal states over 10 yrs ago.  Positions can change a lot in 10 yrs.

----------


## afwjam

> Keep in mind Weld was a republican governor of one of the most liberal states over 10 yrs ago.  Positions can change a lot in 10 yrs.


Has his position changed since he said it last week?

----------


## dannno

> Ron & Rand are pretty pro-Israel.


Ron is pro-Palestine too 

Rand very well might be also, not sure though based on past public statements

----------


## dannno

> Johnson is a solid B-, weld is an F, this puts the ticket in D territory. I'm a bit of a pessimist about these things but I think if we were able to shine some light on the ticket and its motivations it would be an F. I just do not trust people that compromise to win popularity contests.


If they are compromising for liberty, it's all good imo. Have you ever seen G. Edward Griffin's talk called, "An Idea Whose Time Has Come" ?

I think the grade of the candidate should have more effect on the final grade than the grade of the VP. 

I would give Weld a D+, GJ a B and overall maybe a C+ or B-

----------


## LibertyEagle

> An economic conservative and socially tolerant/inclusive politician gets an F?


He's not a conservative.  Are you kidding???  He's a high-ranking CFR member and the co-chair of the CFR's Task Force to build a North American Union.
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-n...ommunity/p8102

So yes, he deserves an F.

Johnson merits a C- at the very best.

----------


## Bryan

Our grading scale has the following:



> Moves Mission forward: A to BMaintain status quo: CMove Mission backwards: D to F 
> Note: If the liberty position is the status quo it can be advanced in various ways such as raising public awareness of its importance.


It's clear that Gary is not a pure A / B type candidate as he does not fight against the status quo in some desired areas, but in what way would he make things worse? That would be needed to grade him below a C. If he moves our agenda forward in some ways but is status quo in others he'll be more in the B range; so long as he doesn't have any D-F positions.

----------


## erowe1

> An economic conservative and socially tolerant/inclusive politician gets an F?


You say "socially tolerant/inclusive" like it's a good thing.

----------


## erowe1

> He's not a conservative.  Are you kidding???  He's a high-ranking CFR member and the co-chair of the CFR's Task Force to build a North American Union.
> http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-n...ommunity/p8102
> 
> So yes, he deserves an F.


What exactly is his rank in the CFR?

Why do you refer to a "Task Force to build a North American Union," even using capital letters? Is that the official name of the task force? Do their recommendations include the formation of an NAU? Or is that just your way of smearing them?

Can you quote specific actual words from that task force's recommendations that you think warrant giving any politician who supports them an F?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What exactly is his rank in the CFR?
> 
> Why do you refer to a "Task Force to build a North American Union," even using capital letters? Is that the official name of the task force? Do their recommendations include the formation of an NAU? Or is that just your way of smearing them?
> 
> Can you quote specific actual words from that task force's recommendations that you think warrant giving any politician who supports them an F?


I provided a link.  Try clicking on it.

----------


## erowe1

> I provided a link.  Try clicking on it.


Does anything in that link show a reason to give Weld an F? I couldn't see anything that did. In fact, the link contradicted your entire post. If you have any reasons that you are capable of explaining yourself, that are based on actual facts and not mischaracterizations, please share.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Gary Johnson holds the same position as Ron Paul on abortion from an executive perspective - he believes it should be up to the states.


Yes and no.  Ron Paul was about ending abortion any way he had to do it.  Many people missed him talking about his legislation which would have ended Roe v. Wade and that would have made abortion classified as murder.  What would have been left up to the states is how they wanted to prosecute it.

So, Ron was actively trying to get abortion ended and he was doing it at the federal level.  Have you heard Johnson lay out any of his own plans?  Because the President to my knowledge cannot overturn Roe v. Wade.  So, his personal belief DOES matter here.  He has said he believes in the woman's "right to choose" and his position appears to be that the woman can abort her baby up until the point that it can live outside of the womb.  THIS IS MURDER.  There is no other definition.  So, unless you can show me where he has said what the plans to do what Ron was, Johnson earns an F on this.




> He has by far the best foreign policy of any of the other candidates, even much better than Donald Trump who you support.


I don't agree.  But, we are talking about Johnson here, aren't we?  Trump already received his F.



> He is for scaling back the military immensely, I've heard he wants to cut it by 43%.


How?  He has said he doesn't want to close any bases in the Middle East, so how does he plan to do it?




> Why would he take drone strikes off the table? Rand only took drone strikes off the table for American citizens not actively engaged in combat, he certainly didn't take drone strikes off the table - Ron Paul would probably use drone strikes in the right situation, if congress declared war and it was the most effective means of neutralizing the enemy.


Yes, but did you hear Johnson qualifying their use like the Paul's?  I certainly did not.




> I think this is highly unlikely, do you have any sources? He said he might want to keep some US bases in Afghanistan, even if we end the conflict. That does not equal "does not want to close ANY military bases". And that's not a deal breaker when he wants to cut military by 43% and massively curtailing our overseas empire.


Did he give any specifics?  I could be wrong about the ALL, Danno, but I sure thought I read it somewhere.  When I went to find a link however, all I could find are those of him saying he wouldn't close those in the Middle East.  http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/th...oreign-policy/




> Except that effectively he would reduce the number of immigrants by taking away their benefits... that would be much more effective, and more clean and moral than Trump's solution.


I agree.  How does he plan to make that happen?  He can't do it with Executive Order, so how is this going to happen?  Does he have a plan?




> I would ding Johnson on the Weld pick from a liberty perspective, but from a strategic perspective he may be a good pick. I don't expect Johnson to win, but I would like him to take away as many votes from Hillary as possible, I want more people to look into libertarianism and be able to get libertarians into political power in the future.


Danno, it's more than a "ding".  It is a flat tire.  By choosing Weld, he has offered up the entire ticket, if not the LP, to the same people who have corrupted everything else.  If the LP is going to welcome in the CFR, it does NO GOOD WHATSOEVER to get "libertarians" in power, because they have SOLD THE HELL OUT.




> Gary Johnson believes in liberty at least 90% of the time, which is better than Trump who is probably at around 60% and Hillary who is probably at around 20-30% of the time.


So, back to the lesser of the evils?  Is that how we determine a liberty candidate now?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Does anything in that link show a reason to give Weld an F? I couldn't see anything that did. In fact, the link contradicted your entire post. If you have any reasons that you are capable of explaining yourself, that are based on actual facts and not mischaracterizations, please share.


I didn't mischaracterize a thing.  

If you are wanting the cliff notes, there are videos with Ron Paul talking about the CFR and the North American Union.




> I don't see why not.
> 
> Is that not what you're doing in supporting Trump?
> 
> Ironically, I notice every time you use this line (which is a lot), you never dispute that Johnson is the lesser evil.


This thread is to evaluate Johnson.  Please stay on topic.

----------


## erowe1

> I didn't mischaracterize a thing.  
> 
> If you are wanting the cliff notes, there are videos with Ron Paul talking about the CFR and the North American Union.
> 
> 
> This thread is to evaluate Johnson.  Please stay on topic.


Every single thing in your post was a mischaracterization. You lied about Weld's ranking in the CFR. You lied about the name of the task force. And you lied about its significance in giving Weld an F.

That is unless you can back up anything you said. 

And no, irrelevant cliff notes from Ron Paul about the CFR aren't good enough.

You are the one who made those claims as a reason to give Weld an F. So I'm completely on topic.

----------


## SilentBull

<blankpost>

----------


## undergroundrr

So isn't the appropriate approach to come up with separate ratings for GJ & WW and somehow average them?  Weighted maybe 80% for the pres candidate and 20% for the VP?

----------


## erowe1

> So isn't the appropriate approach to come up with separate ratings for GJ & WW and somehow average them?  Weighted maybe 80% for the pres candidate and 20% for the VP?


I agree. By this method, if we give Johnson a score of 85/100 and Weld 65/100, then the weighted average would be 81, which seems reasonable to me.

----------


## William Tell

> I agree. By this method, if we give Johnson a score of 85/100 and Weld 65/100, then the weighted average would be 81, which seems reasonable to me.


What makes Weld rank so high? Or Johnson for that matter.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Every single thing in your post was a mischaracterization. You lied about Weld's ranking in the CFR. You lied about the name of the task force. And you lied about its significance in giving Weld an F.


No, I most certainly did NOT lie.




> That is unless you can back up anything you said.


I have.  But, you seem to want me to spoon feed you and I have done that too.  But, at minimum, you do have to use your finger to click Play.




> And no, irrelevant cliff notes from Ron Paul about the CFR aren't good enough.


So, you won't read about the "Building a North American Community" Task Force and what they proposed, nor will you listen to Ron Paul's views about it.  Got it.  

This is the best book I've ever read on the topic.  Plenty of footnotes, etc.




> You are the one who made those claims as a reason to give Weld an F. So I'm completely on topic.


Yes, and I have backed it up.  The fact that you hate the result is your problem.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What makes Weld rank so high? Or Johnson for that matter.


He co-chaired this important task force.  Junior members don't do such things.  Heidi Cruz was a participant, but Weld was a co-chair.

----------


## William Tell

> He co-chaired this important task force.  Junior members don't do such things.  Heidi Cruz was a participant, but Weld was a co-chair.


Yeah that's pretty bad.

----------


## erowe1

> No, I most certainly did NOT lie.
> 
> 
> I have.  But, you seem to want me to spoon feed you and I have done that too.  But, at minimum, you do have to use your finger to click Play.
> 
> 
> So, you won't read about the "Building a North American Community" Task Force and what they proposed, nor will you listen to Ron Paul's views about it.  Got it.  
> 
> This is the best book I've ever read on the topic.  Plenty of footnotes, etc.
> ...


Your post is there for all to see. I pointed out several lies. Anyone who checks your words against your own link can see that you lied.

That is, unless you can back up your claims. I notice you still refuse even to attempt that.

I did read about the North American Community Task Force and what they proposed. I doubt that you actually have. I found that they did not propose the North American Union that you said they did. They proposed a bunch of generally innocuous things as well as a bunch of quite reasonable ones. If you are going to say they proposed some supra-national government, then show the quote from their own document that says that.

ETA: You're still doing it. The book you linked to was written in 1988. The task force Weld was on didn't exist yet.

----------


## erowe1

> Yeah that's pretty bad.


What specifically is so bad about it? I've tried asking LE multiple times, but she has never been able to find anything.

----------


## undergroundrr

Here's the pdf of the report, which Weld signs onto without dissension.

http://i.cfr.org/content/publication...a_TF_final.pdf

I've never been able to work up quite the depth of concern about CFR, Bilderberg, the SPP and that kind of thing that others have. I don't automatically disqualify somebody who's a CFR member (If I were in federal gov and were asked to join the CFR, I think I would as an opportunity to influence policy direction at its source.) 

But this particular initiative looks to be kind of the epicenter of what many perceive to be the attack on America's sovereignty posed by the NAU. Weld is steering it. It's a nightmare for paleocons and sovereignty hawks.

LE has been wrong about just about everything for sometime now, but I have to concede her point on this until some other information comes up.

----------


## erowe1

> Here's the pdf of the report, which Weld signs onto without dissension.
> 
> http://i.cfr.org/content/publication...a_TF_final.pdf
> 
> I've never been able to work up quite the depth of concern about CFR, Bilderberg, the SPP and that kind of thing that others have. I don't automatically disqualify somebody who's a CFR member (If I were in federal gov and were asked to join the CFR, I think I would as an opportunity to influence policy direction at its source.) 
> 
> But this particular initiative looks to be kind of the epicenter of what many perceive to be the attack on America's sovereignty posed by the NAU. Weld is steering it. It's a nightmare for paleocons and sovereignty hawks.
> 
> LE has been wrong about just about everything for sometime now, but I have to concede her point on this until some other information comes up.


Rather than vague generalities, what specific things does that report actually say that you find so egregious?

----------


## undergroundrr

> Rather than vague generalities, what specific things does that report actually say that you find so egregious?


The report is all vague generalities.  Nothing in it bugs me personally.  In fact, there are some nice things:

p. 6 "A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or union, such as those in Europe. We must maintain respect for each other’s national sovereignty."

Although this belies NAU concerns, it's pretty fluffy language.

Not so good, but not really damning: 

p. 26 "Each jurisdiction would retain the sovereign right to shape rules within its borders, but in principle, country-specific regulations should only be adopted when no  international or North American approach already exists, where there are unique national circumstances or priorities, or where there is a well-founded lack of trust in the regulatory practices of the other partners."  

But is this any different from how international law is generally conducted?

Maybe the worst concrete thing in this report is the use of World Bank and other similar institutions to develop joint investment funds and generally tamper with economic and physical infrastructure.

For those who don't want open borders - 

p. 6 "Progress on security, for example, will allow a more open border for the movement of goods and people; progress on regulatory matters will reduce the need for active customs administration and release resources to boost security."

Heidi Cruz's dissension is interesting to read.  She puts in a plug for free market solutions.

There's nothing about a North American currency in it.

----------


## erowe1

> The report is all vague generalities.  Nothing in it bugs me personally.  In fact, there are some nice things:
> 
> p. 6 "A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or union, such as those in Europe. We must maintain respect for each other’s national sovereignty."
> 
> Although this belies NAU concerns, it's pretty fluffy language.
> 
> Not so good, but not really damning: 
> 
> p. 26 "Each jurisdiction would retain the sovereign right to shape rules within its borders, but in principle, country-specific regulations should only be adopted when no  international or North American approach already exists, where there are unique national circumstances or priorities, or where there is a well-founded lack of trust in the regulatory practices of the other partners."  
> ...


That's pretty much what I thought too. I've pressed  @LibertyEagle multiple times for her to quote whatever in that report is supposedly so damning, and she could never come up with anything major.

You hit the nail on the head mentioning "those who don't want open borders." When the Trump trolls actually say why they support him over Johnson, it's because they positively like his more statist control over people and goods crossing the border as opposed to the more free market approach of Gary Johnson and Ron Paul.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Guys, Robert Pastor admitted to the Canadian Parliament that the goal with this was in fact to create a North American Union, akin to the European Union.  The SPP was and is part of it; the operational arm.  It has a new name now.  Judicial Watch obtained a lot of FOIA documents at the time.  Ron Paul has talked about it.  Do you not believe him either?  

Yet, if you want to think it's all cool, go right on ahead.  Enjoy.

----------


## erowe1

> Guys, Robert Pastor admitted to the Canadian Parliament that the goal with this was in fact to create a North American Union, akin to the European Union.  The SPP was and is part of it; the operational arm.  It has a new name now.  Judicial Watch obtained a lot of FOIA documents at the time.  Ron Paul has talked about it.  Do you not believe him either?


Believe him about what?

This seems like your way of admitting that you can't find anything in the recommendations of the task force Weld was on that warrants giving him an F. Did you actually read the document?

----------


## dannno

> Yes and no.  Ron Paul was about ending abortion any way he had to do it.  Many people missed him talking about his legislation which would have ended Roe v. Wade and that would have made abortion classified as murder.  What would have been left up to the states is how they wanted to prosecute it.
> 
> So, Ron was actively trying to get abortion ended and he was doing it at the federal level.  Have you heard Johnson lay out any of his own plans?  Because the President to my knowledge cannot overturn Roe v. Wade.  So, his personal belief DOES matter here.  He has said he believes in the woman's "right to choose" and his position appears to be that the woman can abort her baby up until the point that it can live outside of the womb.  THIS IS MURDER.  There is no other definition.  So, unless you can show me where he has said what the plans to do what Ron was, Johnson earns an F on this.


So effectively they would have the same or very similar policies... and beyond that, even from your perspective, GJ would improve the ability for states to classify abortion as murder, which is better than the status quo. Status quo is a C, so he has to get better than a C on abortion. 





> How?  He has said he doesn't want to close any bases in the Middle East, so how does he plan to do it?


I see a lot of "perhaps" in there and I also see a date of 2012. Based on his current statements on foreign policy, like the 30+ minutes he spent talking about it on the Joe Rogan podcast I would give him very high marks.




> Yes, but did you hear Johnson qualifying their use like the Paul's?  I certainly did not.


So you are making your judgement based on the assumption that he would use them badly, even though all he said was that he wouldn't take them off the table - which again is the same position. I would give the Pauls extra credit for clarifying, but essentially they still have the same position unless there is evidence for how GJ intends to use the drone strikes that goes against that.





> I agree.  How does he plan to make that happen?  He can't do it with Executive Order, so how is this going to happen?  Does he have a plan?


Certainly his welfare plan is better than the status quo and moves the mission forward. 





> Danno, it's more than a "ding".  It is a flat tire.  By choosing Weld, he has offered up the entire ticket, if not the LP, to the same people who have corrupted everything else.  If the LP is going to welcome in the CFR, it does NO GOOD WHATSOEVER to get "libertarians" in power, because they have SOLD THE HELL OUT.


As far as I can tell he chose him for strategic reasons - he was the governor of a blue state, which he won by a very large margin, and Gary Johnson is trying to make the libertarian choice friendly to Sanders supporters and those on the left to lure them away from voting for Hillary. You should love that.





> So, back to the lesser of the evils?  Is that how we determine a liberty candidate now?


If they improve the mission as a whole and don't have any huge flaws, they can be considered a liberty candidate. 

The globalism stuff is a ding for GJ, but I don't think he is any worse than the status quo as far as globalism goes, he is probably better than the status quo in how he would want to implement his globalist policies.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So effectively they would have the same or very similar policies...


No.  Ron Paul was actually doing something to classify it as murder at the federal level.  Have you heard that Johnson would?  




> and beyond that, even from your perspective, GJ would improve the ability for states to classify abortion as murder, which is better than the status quo. Status quo is a C, so he has to get better than a C on abortion.


I have heard no such plans for how he would do that.  Have you?  What I have heard is his belief in abortion up to the point that the baby can live outside of the womb.  That ain't liberty.




> I see a lot of "perhaps" in there and I also see a date of 2012. Based on his current statements on foreign policy, like the 30+ minutes he spent talking about it on the Joe Rogan podcast I would give him very high marks.


Ok.  It's probably better than we have now.  




> So you are making your judgement based on the assumption that he would use them badly, even though all he said was that he wouldn't take them off the table - which again is the same position. I would give the Pauls extra credit for clarifying, but essentially they still have the same position unless there is evidence for how GJ intends to use the drone strikes that goes against that.


Well, you are giving him the benefit of assuming he would do the same thing as the Paul's.  I think that is a huge leap, Danno.  But, it's not worth arguing about.




> Certainly his welfare plan is better than the status quo and moves the mission forward.


Your assertion was that he would take away the illegal aliens' benefits and my question to you was HOW?  So without a HOW, no, it's not moving anything, anywhere.




> As far as I can tell he chose him for strategic reasons - he was the governor of a blue state, which he won by a very large margin, and Gary Johnson is trying to make the libertarian choice friendly to Sanders supporters and those on the left to lure them away from voting for Hillary. You should love that.


I can understand hiring a less than great person philosophically in your campaign, if he's really good at a certain thing and you keep him compartmentalized.  But, no, I think choosing a CFR member as your VP, who by the way co-chaired the "Building a North American Community" Task Force, is naive, stupid, and selling your soul. 




> If they improve the mission as a whole and don't have any huge flaws, they can be considered a liberty candidate.


See, I think he has huge flaws.  A huge red flag for me, amongst others, is his belief in no limits on immigration, coupled with a VP who wants a North American Union.  Can't you see how these work hand-in-hand?  Just think about it for a minute.  I guess I've been studying this whole union/balkanization/world government thing for so many years that certain things pop out at me and this did.  




> The globalism stuff is a ding for GJ, but I don't think he is any worse than the status quo as far as globalism goes, he is probably better than the status quo in how he would want to implement his globalist policies.


Maybe, but see, I don't think a liberty candidate should be furthering them AT ALL.  Ron Paul certainly would not have; he would have done what he could to thwart their plan.  If you know the goal is to take us into world government, why would we want to embrace someone as a liberty candidate, who is taking us further down that path?  I can understand you choosing to vote for him, but is he a "liberty candidate"?  I don't think so.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Believe him about what?
> 
> This seems like your way of admitting that you can't find anything in the recommendations of the task force Weld was on that warrants giving him an F. Did you actually read the document?


You can start with these:
An article:
"CONGRESSMAN: SUPERHIGHWAY ABOUT NORTH AMERICAN UNION"
http://www.wnd.com/2006/10/38614/

And a video:



Google is your friend.

----------


## erowe1

> You can start with these:
> An article:
> "CONGRESSMAN: SUPERHIGHWAY ABOUT NORTH AMERICAN UNION"
> http://www.wnd.com/2006/10/38614/
> 
> And a video:
> 
> 
> 
> Google is your friend.


OK?

And what does any of this have to do with Weld?

Is this your way of admitting that you couldn't find anything in the recommendations of the task force he was on that warrant giving him an F?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> If he moves our agenda forward in some ways but is status quo in others he'll be more in the B range; so long as he doesn't have any D-F positions.


 Is (our) agenda, in your view, one that strives to forward the concept of Individual Liberty fully or one that strives to forward the concept of Individual Liberty piece-meal? I'm of the view that it is both dishonest and counterintuitive to create the illusion that Individuals or groups of Individuals may claim benefit to Individual Liberty without acknowledging, accepting and defending  the foundation that provides for the principles of Individual Liberty itself together with Individual Liberty's fundamental principles in whole. That is to say that if we reject and accept them piece-meal, then, by default, we will not benefit from them as an Indivisible whole at all. 

Anyway. I suppose I'm trying to better understand/measure the integrity of this "Liberty Campaign Evaluation" grading system. So, then, I have some questions if you'd consider reserving effort to acknowledge and address them precisely. Well. Really only two questions, I think. But they're honest questions that are offered in the sincere interest of stimulating functional dialogue as it relates to honest summation of one's so called Liberty grade as a prospective leader. More precisely, a president. Coincidentally, it should be  noted, understood and agreed that government's only role is to protect Individual Liberty. 

Does the site (we) agree that the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself is that Individuals or groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves do not prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equally doing the same? If so, then, does the site (we) also accept that an open rejection of this primary fundamental principle is, by default, aggressive toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully? Surely, the site (we) must agree that Individuals should be free to own property and to exchange in trade without restriction provided they exchange in trade honestly.

Gary Johnson, for the record, has openly acknowledged his position that he'd force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun.  Gary Johnson, to be clear, professes this position under the banner of Liberty itself. That's a fundamental naw naw with the most critical of consequence if the position is not logically observed and rejected fully and immediately. Well...if (our) agenda is to forward the concept of Individual Liberty fully. 

The right to property, as you may know, Bryan, is an indispensable and principal material support for Man's God-given unalienable rights. Most notably, the right to Liberty itself. I will repeat that and I will underline it for sake of clarity and purpose to scope. Again... The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, _but of Man's right to Liberty itself._

If one correctly and morally accepts this fundamental principle as true and necessary for Individual Liberty to be had fully  as an Indivisible whole, then, the primary principle must not be rejected in Liberty. Gary Johnson openly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. And under the banner of Liberty, no less. As such; he rejects the foundation for its moral code. If it is the primary mission (agenda) of this site to truly and honestly promote and defend the cause of Liberty fully, then, its position should, in my view, reflect adherence to, support for, and defense of Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. Because to reject Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle is to patently reject the concept of Individual Liberty fully. 

The only morally honest conclusion, if the task at hand is a true Liberty evaluation of this particular candidate, is, in my view, to correctly and accurately provide for him an F as a consequence of his openly admitted rejection of Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle alone. To repeat, the right to property is an indispensable and principal material support of Man's right to Liberty _itself_. Historically, it is a difinitive Communist position to reject this fundamental principle given that it is patently true that this fundamental principal is the material support for Man's right to Liberty itself. Is it not?

The fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself must be accepted in whole with its fundamental moral foundation. Not piece-meal. If one accepts and rejects the principles of Individual Liberty and its foundation for moral code piece-meal, then, one possesses no legitimate claim to its benefits whatsoever. Of course, it is, in my view, both  logical and practical as well as honest to correctly surmise and conclude that anyone whose admitted position; spoken under the banner of Liberty itself, mind you, and as a candidate for  President to a nation whose government's only legitimate role is to protect Individual Liberty, is to force Individuals or groups of Individuals to relinquish their property to other Individuals or to other groups of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun demonstrates a fundamental rejection of Individual Liberty itself as well as a rejection of the fundation for its moral code. Would you not agree with that assessment?

----------


## specsaregood

> Governor Johnson brings a distinctly business-like mentality to governing, believing that decisions should be made based on cost-benefit analysis rather than strict ideology.


That is a prescription for fascism.  In fact, making decisions based on cost-benefit is already the system we have in place.  It is exactly why NOTHING gets cut!   It certainly has nothing to do with liberty.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by *Gary Johnson;* 
> Governor Johnson brings a distinctly business-like mentality to governing, believing that decisions should be made based on cost-benefit analysis rather than strict ideology.
> 
> 
> That is a prescription for fascism.  In fact, making decisions based on cost-benefit is already the system we have in place.  It is exactly why NOTHING gets cut!   It certainly has nothing to do with liberty.


Mm. Yeah. This brings to mind the fundamental principle of equality in Legal Justice. Particularly given Gary Johnson's position in support of a private prison industry. Equality in Legal Justice, of course, means equal treatment under equal laws. More precisely, laws that are expressive of _"just powers"_ for the primary purpose of securing one's right to equal treatment under equal laws.

To his credit, though, he accepts that the U.S. incarceration rate is a consequence of over-criminalization and the failed War on Drugs. The flipside of that, though, is that the current generation of casual pot smokers who support him for that reason alone aren't considerate of or particularly astute to the consequences referenced here in the former. It's unfortunate that friends aren't always led to think things through all the way. 

The reality, though, is that there are more states than the single state of New Mexico. And Johnson was, again, to his credit, realistic to acknowledge that while he, himself, didn't experience  pressure to fill prison beds from special interests, that pressure to fill prison beds, indeed, might happen elsewhere in other states where the private prison model is applicable.

----------


## Bryan

> Is (our) agenda, in your view, one that strives to forward the concept of Individual Liberty fully or one that strives to forward the concept of Individual Liberty piece-meal? I'm of the view that it is both dishonest and counterintuitive to create the illusion that Individuals or groups of Individuals may claim benefit to Individual Liberty without acknowledging, accepting and defending  the foundation that provides for the principles of Individual Liberty itself together with Individual Liberty's fundamental principles in whole. That is to say that if we reject and accept them piece-meal, then, by default, we will not benefit from them as an Indivisible whole at all.


The agenda is put forth in the site's Mission:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957

Please let me know if you have any questions off of that.




> The fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself must be accepted in whole with its fundamental moral foundation. Not piece-meal. If one accepts and rejects the principles of Individual Liberty and its foundation for moral code piece-meal, then, one possesses no legitimate claim to its benefits whatsoever. Of course, it is, in my view, both  logical and practical as well as honest to correctly surmise and conclude that anyone whose admitted position; spoken under the banner of Liberty itself, mind you, and as a candidate for  President to a nation whose government's only legitimate role is to protect Individual Liberty, is to force Individuals or groups of Individuals to relinquish their property to other Individuals or to other groups of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun demonstrates a fundamental rejection of Individual Liberty itself as well as a rejection of the fundation for its moral code. Would you not agree with that assessment?


The campaign evaluation system is a bit more complex than our Mission principles, since it recognizes the political challenges our movement has. A key issue that you seem to be hitting on is with the Civil Rights Act, to be certain, this legislation is in violation of the fundamental concepts you outline but conversely, attacking it is near political suicide. From a practical standpoint if we had a choice between a candidate that would further the welfare / warfare state vs one who would drive us to 100% liberty minus keeping the CRA, what do we do? Our lives would be 99.99% better with candidate #2, so some will choose to support them with an asterisk that the disagree with the CRA issue.

When evaluation candidate on the issue they get graded as follows: 
    Moves Mission forward: A to B
    Maintain status quo: C
    Move Mission backwards: D to F 

A candidate that is straight C's does nothing for us, but they would be better than someone with all D's and F's. To get site support a candidate should have no D's or F's, and pushing into 50% A's and B's. That could push them into the Defensive / Strategic Purpose Candidate range.

Our Campaign Evaluation System recognizes three overall classification of candidates: 

Mission Supporting Candidate = A - C
Defensive / Strategic Purpose Candidate = D
Non-Supporting Candidate = F

An A+ rating will require them to be 100% aligned on the issues.

All the details on the evaluation are here, complete with an overall workflow with lots of table  :
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...luation-System

Good questions, let me know if you have any more.

Thanks.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> The agenda is put forth in the site's Mission:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions off of that.
> 
> 
> 
> The campaign evaluation system is a bit more complex than our Mission principles, since it recognizes the political challenges our movement has. A key issue that you seem to be hitting on is with the Civil Rights Act, to be certain, this legislation is in violation of the fundamental concepts you outline but conversely, attacking it is near political suicide. From a practical standpoint if we had a choice between a candidate that would further the welfare / warfare state vs one who would drive us to 100% liberty minus keeping the CRA, what do we do? Our lives would be 99.99% better with candidate #2, so some will choose to support them with an asterisk that the disagree with the CRA issue.
> 
> ...


Thanks for explaining the site's Campaign Evaluation System for recognizing overall classification of candidates. In terms of evaluating a _Liberty_ candidate, however, I'm of the view that the task should premise its terms upon the idea that Liberty itself is based upon fundamental principles and not philosophies or policies. The CRA is a policy. It is not relative to my previous thoughts here. Nor have I once mentioned the CRA in any way at all aside from providing the courtesy of a response whenever it has been projected into the terms of controversy by another.

Anyway. Thank You. 

eta: You didn't address the underlined there in my previous communication. Do you accept the underlined to be true? Yes or No will suffice. I've no interest in debating you about it. I just want to know if you accept it to be true.

----------


## specsaregood

> Mm. Yeah. This brings to mind the fundamental principle of equality in Legal Justice. Particularly given Gary Johnson's position in support of a private prison industry. Equality in Legal Justice, of course, means equal treatment under equal laws. More precisely, laws that are expressive of _"just powers"_ for the primary purpose of securing one's right to equal treatment under equal laws.


What are the benefits of keeping alive all the people on welfare, unemployment, medicare, or in prison?  Compared to the cost of supporting them all?  Seems like an easy analysis, if GJ becomes president I might have to invest in ovens, bullets, and train cars.

----------


## LibertyEagle

For God's sake, Bryan, Johnson said he would sign the TPP legislation.  He has no business being classified as a liberty candidate.

----------


## Bryan

> Thanks for explaining the site's Campaign Evaluation System for recognizing overall classification of candidates. In terms of evaluating a Liberty candidate, however, I'm of the view that the task should premise its terms upon the idea that Liberty itself is based upon fundamental principles and not philosophies or policies. The CRA is a policy. It is not relative to my previous thoughts here. Nor have I once mentioned the CRA in any way at all aside from providing the courtesy of a response whenever it has been projected into the terms of controversy by another.
> 
> Anyway. Thank You.


I brought up the CRA since Johnson supports at least parts of it, I thought that was what you getting after. I see philosophies and principles pretty much the same (strategic viewpoint), but policies are different, as they are tactical.





> eta: You didn't address the underlined there in my previous communication. Do you accept the underlined to be true? Yes or No will suffice. I've no interest in debating you about it. I just want to know if you accept it to be true.


See below.





> The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, _but of Man's right to Liberty itself._


I agree with this 100%. Well stated. It is also principal in support of Man's life itself.

----------


## Bryan

> For God's sake, Bryan, Johnson said he would sign the TPP legislation.  He has no business being classified as a liberty candidate.


You're welcome to suggest some grades for the different categorizes.

----------


## dannno

> For God's sake, Bryan, Johnson said he would sign the TPP legislation.  He has no business being classified as a liberty candidate.


He said he would sign it if it furthered free trade. Pretty sure Rand Paul said the same thing way back when.

If it does in fact make trade more free than it was before, it should be signed. It would supersede a lot of older regulations, thereby reducing the regulations on trade which is our goal. 

Now, here's the thing. You and I know about the conspiracy of the globalists, and neither of us trust that they will ultimately put forward a bill that frees up trade. Instead we know it will create a crony trade system that will benefit the globalists. 

So really what it comes down to is trust. Do we trust that when it comes down to it, would Rand wait for the final legislation to be introduced, read through it and make a sound determination regarding whether it is a benefit to liberty or not? I think most of us here would trust Rand. Rand is pretty skeptical when it comes to the globalists as well, maybe not quite as skeptical as his father but he knows what is up. 

Gary Johnson, just a few months ago said he was AGAINST TPP.. He changed his mind when some advisers told him that it would free up trade, and he made the claim that he would vote for it if it did in fact free up trade. So the question again is, do we trust Gary Johnson to read through the bill and make a sound determination regarding whether it is a benefit to liberty or not? I trust that he would put forth an effort to do so, but I think he is less wary of the globalists and might not have his defenses up quite as strongly as Rand would. But the fact that he was against it a few months ago is a good sign that he does hold some amount of skepticism against the globalists. 

So I can't tell you if Gary Johnson will absolutely make the correct decision about TPP when it comes up for vote - but the fact is he is looking at the issue from the correct perspective: Does it free up trade or not? Is he willing to be against TPP? Yes, he has been against TPP before. So I trust Gary Johnson to make a more sound decision than any of the other candidates. Trump says he is against it, but he could just as easily come around and say, "oh, well this version my advisers say is ok to vote for." So again it comes down to trust. I don't trust Johnson like I do Ron Paul, or even Rand, but I think he is more trustworthy than 99% of the politicians out there, and a bit more trustworthy than Trump.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> He said he would sign it if it furthered free trade.


Forced trade is not free trade. Free trade...proper globalism that is a product of a healthy economy is, agreeably, a truly libertarian position. Forced globalism, however, is patently not. Forced globalism is the product of forced/managed trade.

And again. Just Powers. Do you understand the concept? The TPP is patently a transfer of power. More precisely, it is a repatriation of our Republic and a rejection of its most fundamental foundation and principles.

----------


## dannno

> Forced trade is not free trade. Free trade...proper globalism is, agreeably, a truly libertarian position. Forced globalism, however, is patently not.


Dude, you are totally missing the point. 

Here is what you don't seem to incorporate into your whole thought process - WE ALREADY HAVE MANAGED TRADE. If the new managed trade deal frees up trade, it would be better than the current system of managed trade. 

If all drugs are illegal and two people were running for office and one of them wanted to decriminalize cannabis but would keep the other drugs illegal and the other candidate wanted to keep all drugs illegal, I'm sorry, all else equal I'm going to vote for the guy who wants to decriminalize cannabis. Because I will have more freedom than if I vote for the other guy and there is no viable third option. You only want a 100% pure candidate, so you will never have anybody to vote for and the more evil person will always win if liberty voters adopt your strategy. It's a losing strategy at this point in time. It might be a good strategy for another time and place, maybe if we had a lot more freedom.. but we don't.. so I'm sorry, but I don't accept that as a viable strategy and neither does Bryan. 

Like I said in my last post, the people trying to pass this stuff want to make trade less free. I get that, LE certainly gets that. That is why if anybody asks, I say I am against TPP because I know even if they put out a version that appears to free up trade, on the last day they will slip in a bunch of stuff and try and pass a bill that is thousands of pages long in less than a day. But if Gary Johnson keeps his word, as President he would not sign the bill until he read it so they would have to make the bill available to read for much longer before he would ever sign it. So effectively he would be against the bill that they want to pass.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Dude, you are totally missing the point.


There sure are a whole lot of ifs floating around your tongue, aren't there. You're the one missing the point. I'll repeat it so that perhaps it may sink into your noggin. The TPP is patently a transfer of power. This is not an if. It is not an and. It is not a but. It is a given.

And don't call me Dude, please.

----------


## dannno

> There sure are a whole lot of ifs floating around your tongue, aren't there. You're the one missing the point. I'll repeat it so that perhaps it may sink into your noggin. The TPP is patently a transfer of power. This is not an if. It is not an and. It is not a but. It is a given.
> 
> And don't call me Dude, please.


No, there is only ONE important "if". You claim that TPP is a transfer of power. That's BULL$#@!. The globalists already control trade, so who is the power being transferred to? We already lost our freedom. 

So the one important "if" is whether the trade document makes trade more free or not. If it doesn't, then Gary Johnson won't vote for it, as he shouldn't. If it does, then he will vote for it, as he SHOULD. Even though we both know they won't put forward a TPP that will free up trade - but if our assumption is true, then we can effectively count on Gary Johnson not to vote for it. So there is no problem. The TPP issue shouldn't hurt Gary Johnson because he has said he would only vote for it if it frees up trade, and that is the libertarian answer. LE's conspiracy theorist answer is to say never vote for it because it will never free up trade (admittedly I take the same position). Your purist answer is to not vote for more liberties because it isn't 100% liberty.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> No, there is only ONE important "if". You claim that TPP is a transfer of power. That's BULL$#@!. The globalists already control trade, so who is the power being transferred to? We already lost our freedom. 
> 
> So the one important "if" is whether the trade document makes trade more free or not. If it doesn't, then Gary Johnson won't vote for it, as he shouldn't. If it does, then he will vote for it, as he SHOULD. Even though we both know they won't put forward a TPP that will free up trade - but if our assumption is true, then we can effectively count on Gary Johnson not to vote for it. So there is no problem. The TPP issue shouldn't hurt Gary Johnson because he has said he would only vote for it if it frees up trade, and that is the libertarian answer. The conspiracy theorist answer is to say never vote for it because it will never free up trade. The purist answer is to not vote for more liberties because it isn't 100% liberty.


dannno, respectfully, you're full of sht, man. Just Powers, Limited, Limited for Liberty, Consent. Look em up.

TPP is a transfer of power.

----------


## dannno

> dannno, respectfully, you're full of sht, man. Just Powers, Limited, Limited for Liberty. Look em up, man.


I'm full of $#@!? Really? Are you even reading my posts?

Are saying that the globalists don't currently control trade? You have to be completely insane to think that the globalists don't currently control trade. So please explain what this 'transfer of power' is that you are speaking of?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Are saying that the globalists don't currently control trade?


Again. Just Powers, Limited, Limited for Liberty, Consent. Look them up, please. Learn the value in their meaning. TPP is a patent transfer of power. A rejection of all of these things as a matter of_ policy._ Policy, btw, that is scribbled up behind closed doors, in secret. Consent, of course, was/is not considered.

----------


## dannno

> Again. Just Powers, Limited, Limited for Liberty, Consent. Look them up. Learn the value in their meaning. TPP is a transfer of power. A rejection of all of these things as a matter of_ policy._


Why is it so difficult for you to answer a question?

Who is the power being transferred to? Do the globalists not already control trade?

Do you realize you are trying to convince somebody who is against managed trade deals to be against managed trade deals?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Why is it so difficult for you to answer a question?


Your question is nonsensical.




> Who is the power being transferred to? Do the globalists not already control trade?


Not as a matter of policy, they don't. What you're offering here is consent to allow them to control it _as a matter of policy_. Policy by their pen alone. In secret. Behind closed doors. Without consent of the people. This is a transfer of power absent consent of the people.




> Do you realize you are trying to convince somebody who is against managed trade deals to be against managed trade deals?


I'm making a case for the fundamental principles that define our Republic. You're making a case against them. You just don't realize that you are. Man, for the record, organizes government to be _his_ tools. Not the other way around.

----------


## dannno

> Your question is nonsensical.


Asking if there is currently managed trade and who controls it is not a nonsensical question. 





> Not as a matter of policy, they don't. What you're offering here is consent to allow them to control it as a matter of policy. Policy by their pen alone. In secret. Brehind closed doors. Without consent of the people. This is a transfer of power absent consent of the people.


Ok, see, you're completely wrong. Are you from the 19th century or something? I hate to break it to you but trade is already tightly regulated by the globalists. Go ahead, try and get into the importing and exporting business and don't deal with any governments and see what happens. 





> I'm making a case for the fundamental principles of our Republic. Put the bone down and pay attention, please.


I'm all for your vision for society. If you were running for President and voting for you would help in any way, I would vote for you, unless you were running against somebody like Ron Paul and they were doing significantly better in the polls.

The problem is we don't have any people like that running. So we have to consider who will give us the most freedom possible. Who will help make way for more freedom in the future. You are like, "$#@! that, it's 100% liberty or none!" but I would much rather have 95% liberty than 5% liberty.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'm all for your vision for society. If you were running for President and voting for you would help in any way, I would vote for you, unless you were running against somebody like Ron Paul and they were doing significantly better in the polls.


Thank You, dannno. Ron Paul, for the record, agrees with me that the TPP is an illegal transfer of power. The statesman also agrees that one shouldn't sacrifice the constitution. The constitution provides congress the power to regulate commerce but it doesn't provide them the power to give the President a free pass to do whatever he wants. This is compounded by the fact that the policy itself says that anything in it can be keep it classified. That means no consent. Which is effectively a repatriation of our form of governance, therefore, it is an aggressive attack toward a destruction of our sovereignty. He also agrees that it isn't free trade at all; rather protectionist policy. Not only that, but, equality in Legal Justice (a fundamental principle) is also out the door given that we're also dealing with private courts that are set up and overseen by the very entities who are writing the thing.









> I would much rather have 95% liberty than 5% liberty.


Then you openly consent that you're content to have none at all. The foundation for Individual Liberty as well as Individual Liberty's fundamental principles must be accepted in whole, together, in order to make a legitimate claim to its benefit fully. This is not a purist position. It is a fundamental truth. Again, Liberty, itself, is defined by its fundamental principles. Liberty is _not_ defined by policies.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by *Natural Citizen* 
>                  Thanks for explaining the site's Campaign Evaluation System for recognizing overall classification of candidates. In terms of evaluating a Liberty candidate, however, I'm of the view that the task should premise its terms upon the idea that Liberty itself is based upon fundamental principles and not philosophies or policies. The CRA is a policy. It is not relative to my previous thoughts here. Nor have I once mentioned the CRA in any way at all aside from providing the courtesy of a response whenever it has been projected into the terms of controversy by another.
> 
>  Anyway. Thank You.
> 			
> 		
> 
> I brought up the CRA since Johnson supports at least parts of it, I thought that was what you getting after. I see philosophies and principles pretty much the same (strategic viewpoint), but policies are different, as they are tactical.


No, I dont really care about the CRA. It's a policy. I was coming from a fundamental perspective in Liberty itself. Policies, I maintain, do not and should not determine Liberty. And I reject any notion that they can, do or should. Granted, however, some policies may certainly be premised _in_ Liberty's principles and foundation. Although, such policy has observably been few and far between. In terms of philosophies and principles being pretty much the same, yeah, I agree that they are. I likely shouldn't have worded it that way so thanks for pointing the shortcoming out to me. Philosophies and principles indeed are much the same. Of course, the traditional American philosophy of governance is a fundamental philosophy itself which is established and supported by its founding documents. The founding documents, themselves, being the product of specific moral foundation and principles thereof.




> Originally Posted by *Natural Citizen* 
> 
>  Do you accept the underlined to be true? Yes or No will suffice. I've no interest in debating you about it. I just want to know if you accept it to be true. 
> 
> The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, _but of Man's right to Liberty itself.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> I agree with this 100%. It is also principal in support of Man's life itself.


Good. Agreed. Thanks for addressing that point. I'll change my status back to "Supporting Member" from "Member" since you agree that property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Liberty itself as well as the primary principal in support of Man's life. I got nice and pissed off when Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principle was openly and jokingly reduced to "cake" around here as a matter of activisim under the banner of Liberty. This, in my view, seemed like a rather shallow, obtuse, means of projecting the matter. It didn't/doesn't seem like a particularly responsible means to project one's position _in_ Liberty either. You may have noticed me popping my mouth off several times with regard to my distaste for such a reckless reduction of Individual Liberty's most critical, fundamental, supporting principle. Adherence to this primary supporting principle, while it has been labeled as a purist position of late, is, of course, _not_ purist at all. It is merely a fundamental position given that the principle serves as Individual Liberty's primary mechanism of support/legitimacy.

----------


## Bryan

Based on this:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...luation-System


Can anyone make an argument for a C-F on an "Individual Issue Rating"

Can anyone make an argument for an overall "F" rating?

----------


## specsaregood

> *
> Can anyone make an argument for an overall "F" rating?*


Since Johnson openly says he does not want to govern based on an ideology, than he must be an F as a "Liberty" candidate.  He might have some liberty positions but it is not a "Liberty" campaign.

----------


## dannno

> Since Johnson openly says he does not want to govern based on an ideology, than he must be an F as a "Liberty" candidate.  He might have some liberty positions but it is not a "Liberty" campaign.


3:00



> I think that people need to be able to make their own choices in their own lives as long as those decisions don't adversely affect others.







I might give him a "B-" on promotes liberty - he promotes liberty all the time even though other times he says he uses a pragmatic approach to get there.

As far as issues go, I don't know if any issues that he deserves below a C on. There are many issues he deserves an 'A'. Overall I still think B or B- is pretty fair.

----------


## undergroundrr

> 3:00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I might give him a "B-" on promotes liberty - he promotes liberty all the time even though other times he says he uses a pragmatic approach to get there.
> 
> As far as issues go, I don't know if any issues that he deserves below a C on. There are many issues he deserves an 'A'. Overall I still think B or B- is pretty fair.


That's a good assessment.

----------


## LibertyEagle

He wants to force a private property owner to do something with their property that they do not want to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COItiKtHWyg

He said he would sign the TPP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFJFx-f_flk

Those two alone are enough reason for him not to be classified as a "liberty candidate".

----------


## CaptUSA

> He wants to force a private property owner to do something with their property that they do not want to do.


You mean like giving it to a real estate mogul?

----------


## phill4paul

> You mean like giving it to a real estate mogul?


  To be fair this thread is not about Trump. It's about Johnson/Weld. And though it may be hypocritical of a Trump supporter to point this out while ignoring Trumps belief in the forced taking of others property it does make a point. But, Gary's position isn't that a baker has to bake a gay wedding cake. Just that they have to bake wedding cakes for gays.

----------


## dannno

> He wants to force a private property owner to do something with their property that they do not want to do.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COItiKtHWyg


C - status quo, businesses have not been allowed to discriminate for 50 years.





> He said he would sign the TPP.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFJFx-f_flk


He said he would sign the TPP if, AND ONLY IF it freed up trade. That's actually a libertarian response and could be graded as an 'A'. I wouldn't grade it as an 'A' because a good libertarian should be aware of the globalist plot and know that the trade deals they develop will never free up trade. But you can't grade him _that_ poorly on it considering it is actually a libertarian response.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> C - status quo, businesses have not been allowed to discriminate for 50 years.


What about discriminating against the business owner?  Even if you want to give him a pass for forcing them to do something with their private property that they do not want to do, what about forcing them to do something with that property that is against their religious beliefs?   How is that a liberty position?




> He said he would sign the TPP if, AND ONLY IF it freed up trade. That's actually a libertarian response and could be graded as an 'A'. I wouldn't grade it as an 'A' because a good libertarian should be aware of the globalist plot and know that the trade deals they develop will never free up trade. But you can't grade him _that_ poorly on it considering it is actually a libertarian response.


That's not exactly what he said, Danno.

----------


## CaptUSA

> C - status quo, businesses have not been allowed to discriminate for 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said he would sign the TPP if, AND ONLY IF it freed up trade. That's actually a libertarian response and could be graded as an 'A'. I wouldn't grade it as an 'A' because a good libertarian should be aware of the globalist plot and know that the trade deals they develop will never free up trade. But you can't grade him _that_ poorly on it considering it is actually a libertarian response.


Agreed on both points.  Except, I think there are some pretty serious sovereignty issues with TPP.  Most people opposed to TPP oppose it from a protectionist viewpoint and that is most definitely NOT libertarian.  Ron Paul opposes it like many of us do - because they should be unnecessary.

But Cato and Reason have both been receptive - based purely on the trade aspect.  (They seems to glide right over the sovereignty implications.)

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Agreed on both points.  Except, I think there are some pretty serious sovereignty issues with TPP.  Most people opposed to TPP oppose it from a protectionist viewpoint and that is most definitely NOT libertarian.  Ron Paul opposes it like many of us do - because they should be unnecessary.
> 
> But Cato and Reason have both been receptive - based purely on the trade aspect.  (They seems to glide right over the sovereignty implications.)


That's not the only reasons Ron Paul doesn't support it.  He has detailed the reasons many times.

----------


## CaptUSA

> That's not the only reasons Ron Paul doesn't support it.  He has detailed the reasons many times.


Ron Paul has said that these deals violate our sovereignty and are unnecessary.  He has said that the US should unilaterally drop ALL trade restrictions, period.  Regardless of what other countries may do.  Because individuals trade; not governments.

But Ron Paul is by no means a protectionist.  In any shape or form.

----------


## dannno

> What about discriminating against the business owner?  Even if you want to give him a pass for forcing them to do something with their private property that they do not want to do, what about forcing them to do something with that property that is against their religious beliefs?   How is that a liberty position?


The government has been discriminating against business owners for 50 years. Gary Johnson takes the status quo position on the issue, which is a C.





> That's not exactly what he said, Danno.


He didn't say that he would vote for TPP if it freed up trade? I thought that was exactly what he said.. his support for TPP was conditional on that, and previously he was against TPP, that was only 4 or 5 months ago.

----------


## erowe1

> That's not the only reasons Ron Paul doesn't support it.  He has detailed the reasons many times.


But none of his reasons are protectionistic. He doesn't want higher tariffs like Trump does.

Trump isn't even against trade agreements in principle. He just wants to renegotiate them so he can charge us all higher tariffs. He's on the opposite end of the spectrum from Ron Paul.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> But none of his reasons are protectionistic. He doesn't want higher tariffs like Trump does.
> 
> Trump isn't even against trade agreements in principle. He just wants to renegotiate them so he can charge us all higher tariffs. He's on the opposite end of the spectrum from Ron Paul.


Why when every time Johnson is evaluated, a couple of you bring up Trump?  Do you think that in some way negates a poor position that your boy, Johnson, holds?  This evaluation of Johnson is not surprisingly, ABOUT JOHNSON.  Try to stay on topic.

----------


## erowe1

> Why when every time Johnson is evaluated, a couple of you bring up Trump?  Do you think that in some way negates a poor position that your boy, Johnson, holds?  This evaluation of Johnson is not surprisingly, ABOUT JOHNSON.  Try to stay on topic.


Trump is one of the people Johnson is running against. And there are still people here like you who actually support Trump over Johnson. So it's relevant.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> But Ron Paul is by no means a protectionist.  In any shape or form.


Well. That's not precisely true. Ron, admittedly, takes a protectionist position when it comes to matters of national security. So, then, it is patently false to contend that he is by no means a protectionist in any shape or form

Which he, himself, confirms here...

----------


## Natural Citizen

Again, though, the TPP is an illegal transfer of power. Period. And to accept an illegal transfer of power is to a sacrifice the Constitution itself.

For the life of me, I don't know why this should have to be explained to people here. These are fundamentals. Gosh.

Although I do get that many here reject the validity of the Constitution, too. Perhaps that's where the disregard for the sacrifice of the Constitution comes from. I hadn't considered that. Hm.

----------


## phill4paul

I don't really believe Johnson is a "liberty" candidate. Over-all I'd give him a "C." He is certainly the "Libertarian Party Candidate." But, not necessarily a "liberty" candidate. If one were to vote for him I suppose one could justify it by believing it might throw a curve-ball into the two-party system with the hopes that a good showing would garner the L.P. a standing in the next election cycle. Otherwise, I don't much see myself voting for him. Looks like it is going to be another "write-in" election season. In the one election year in which the L.P. could have presented a memorable figure they chose Johnson. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it was "managed." Especially with Weld on the ticket. Why, oh why, wasn't Derrick Grayson chosen? Though McAfee was my choice, simply because he would have "rocked out with his cock out" in ayear that it seems fitting, Grayson would have been a great contender on a national stage.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> In the one election year in which the L.P. could have presented a memorable figure they chose Johnson. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it was "managed." Especially with Weld on the ticket.


Mm. I'm with you here. This came up in the other thread. As was mentioned, the 2014 Mid-Term turnout for Third Party/Independents/Green Party candidates produced the largest numbers that we've seen in modern history.

No way that the esablishment didn't notice it and no way they weren't going to do something about it. I maintain, though it is speculation (albeit educated speculation), that where we traditionally have had two parties functioning as one, that we likely now have one party functioning as three. Take it for what it's worth. 

That aside, Constitution Party, in my view, has offered the only principled candidate.

----------


## phill4paul

> Mm. I'm with you here. This came up in the other thread. As was mentioned, the 2014 Mid-Term turnout for Third Party/Independents/Green Party candidates produced the largest numbers that we've seen in modern history.
> 
> No way that the esablishment didn't notice it and no way they weren't going to do something about it. I maintain, though it is speculation (albeit educated speculation), that where we traditionally have had two parties functioning as one, that we likely now have one party functioning as three. Take it for what it's worth. 
> 
> That aside, Constitution Party, in my view, has offered the only principled candidate.


  Not a fan of the party but Castle himself seems to break with the party lines on most of the issues I have trouble with. I don't know if he will be on the ticket in N.C.
  And, yeah, infiltration of liberty movements is what the Fed. does best. Not at all happy with the L.P. and honestly, at this point, don't plan to vote for their candidates.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Well. That's not precisely true. Ron, admittedly, takes a protectionist position when it comes to matters of national security. So, then, it is patently false to contend that he is by no means a protectionist in any shape or form
> 
> Which he, himself, confirms here...


Wow.  I can't believe that's the message you got from that video.  

Ok, Ron Paul believes that if we are under attack by someone and have declared war, we should suspend trading with them.  Otherwise, no protectionism.

(which, by the way, is NOT protectionism as it is understood economically.)

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Wow.  I can't believe that's the message you got from that video.


I didn't get any message from that video. Nor was I looking to find one. Please stop projecting. Not only is it dishonest to make projections, projection is not consistent with functional debate principles. So roll your eyes at someone else, please. Your point here is moot.



Now. This...




> Originally Posted by *CaptUSA* 
> 
> Ok, Ron Paul believes that if we are under attack by someone and have declared war, we should suspend trading with them.  Otherwise, no protectionism.
> 
> (which, by the way, is NOT protectionism as it is understood economically.)


Again, it is a patently false contention, as you _did_ openly contend, that he is by no means a protectionist in any shape or form. So, please refrain from false contention. It's dishonest. 

To be clear, Ron was precisely asked  "Are you a protectionist?"

To be abundantly clear, Ron responded by saying "only when it becomes national security reasons"

You made a false claim with no support for your claim. I corrected your claim. And I provided legitimate support for the correction. Right from the man's mouth in response to its direct question, no less. Is what it is. It's nothing personal, Capt. If one makes a claim, however, one is generally expected to support the claim. This is a fundamental principle of functional debate. 

If you'd like to debate it further, then let me know, please. I'll be in the neighborhood. I like to think that I'm rather well versed on the consequences of the TPP.  Of course, I'm also open to any corrections provided that they are supported. We've discussed The TPP previously around the board, you and I. And I'm certain that you likely recall.

Thank you, CaptUSA

----------


## LibertyEagle

Johnson makes clear his pro-TPP position here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...and-NAFTA-quot

----------


## r3volution 3.0

*A-*

Pro-Liberty Positions:
end the fed, return to gold standardbalance the budget through spending cutsreplace all existing taxes with single FairTaxabolish Dept. of Educationopposes governmental efforts to mitigate climate changeopposes all business subsidiesopposed TARPopposed auto company bailoutsopposes Keynesian stimulus spendingopposed Obamacareopposed the Medicare Part D expansion under Bushfavors cutting social security, medicare, and medicaidopposes labor unionswants to eliminate the minimum wageopposes immigration restrictions/deportationfavors tree trade, opposes tariffsopposes governmental regulation of internetopposes PATRIOT Act and NSA spyingopposed Iraq and Libya Warsopposes involvement in Syria Civil Waropposes involvement in Ukraine Civil Warfavors immediate withdrawal from Afghanistanfavors cuts in defense spendingsupports 2nd Amendmentopposes War on Drugsfavors legalization of assisted suicide 

Anti-Liberty Positions
favors extension of the Civil Rights Act to gays

----------


## Suzanimal

> Libertarians for Drug Prohibition?
> 
> During a CNN town hall last week, a member of the audience asked Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, about heroin legalization. Although the former New Mexico governor correctly pointed out that prohibition makes heroin use more dangerous, he disclaimed any interest in repealing it, saying his legalization agenda is limited to marijuana. He thereby undercut the utilitarian case against drug prohibition and missed an opportunity to make a moral case for individual freedom.
> 
> 
> The Libertarian Party's platform states that "we favor the repeal of all laws creating 'crimes' without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes." Johnson therefore was deviating from the party line when he declared that *"we are not espousing the legalization of any drugs outside of marijuana."* That was the easy way out, since most Americans recognize that marijuana is less hazardous than alcohol and think it should be legal. But what is the point of a Libertarian presidential campaign if it does not encourage voters to think about public policy issues in a more consistent and principled way?
> 
> With regard to alcohol and marijuana, Johnson said, "When it comes to choices in your own life, you should be able to make those choices as long as you're not doing harm to others." But he declined to extend that tolerance to other drugs, which makes no sense from a libertarian perspective. Either using force to protect people from their own risky decisions is legitimate, or it is not. If it is not, the specific nature of the decisions—whether they concern drugs, say, rather than food, sex or gambling, or heroin rather than alcohol or marijuana—should not matter. A government that respects individual freedom only insofar as it pertains to familiar or safe activities does not really respect individual freedom. Johnson should have said that any kind of drug prohibition violates the principle that each individual is sovereign over his own body and mind.
> 
> ...


http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/2...ug-prohibition

----------


## Lucille

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...398-Good-grief




> Libertarian VP nominee calls rifles 'weapons of mass destruction' 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				William Weld:
> 
> ...


Terrific.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> A-
> 
>  Pro-Liberty Positions:
> end the fed, return to gold standard
> balance the budget through spending cuts
> replace all existing taxes with single FairTax
> abolish Dept. of Education
> opposes governmental efforts to mitigate climate change
> opposes all business subsidies
> ...


Re-stated from another thread: Stacking the deck with a lot of positions that lack context or show the direction of those issue points, does not convey an accurate picture of Johnson/Weld's "libertarian" views. I'm speaking as one who supports Gary and the LP, but really, a lot of items on the list amount to neocon hijackings or mutations of the liberty agenda upon scrutiny, not principled positions. 

The "fair tax" is not pro-liberty, it's a replacement of one version of legalized theft with another. TPP, which Johnson supports, is not "free trade," it's managed trade via international big government. Free immigration does not equal no lawful naturalization procedures to process migrants in a manner that protects both their and current citizens' safety or property from force and fraud. Etc., etc.

----------


## William Tell

> With the US libertarian presidential candidate pushing double-digits  in the polls for the first time in history, many are starting to take  former New Mexico governor Gary Johnsons policy ideas seriously. *While  signing books at the libertarian Freedom Fest conference, Johnson said  he was open to the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI).*
> 
> 
>  Like many libertarians, Johnson said he liked the idea of the UBI  because of its potential to save money in bureaucratic costs, freeing up  more money to give people directly. During the exchange, we discussed  how directly giving a basic income would increase the value of each  dollar spent for the recipient, as opposed to in-kind services, such  as food stamps, which restrict purchases.
> 
> 
> *At the same time, I asked Johnson about his position on the carbon  tax and using these funds to fund the basic income. He once again said  he was open to the idea.*
> 
> 
>  There are a lot of smart libertarians that support the carbon tax, so I dont discount the idea, Johnson said.


 http://basicincome.org/news/2016/07/...-basic-income/

----------


## CaptUSA

> http://basicincome.org/news/2016/07/...-basic-income/


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...60#post6289160

----------


## William Tell

> *
> Gary Johnson Guarantees Mitt Romney a Place in His Administration*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, former Gov. Gary Johnson offered a guarantee.
> 
> *“If Mitt Romney wants to be a part of the administration, that would be a guarantee.”*
> ...


 http://beta.deseretnews.com/article/...istration.html

----------


## William Tell

Gary Johnson now supports mandatory vaccines.




> Libertarian presidential candidate and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is newly in favor of mandatory vaccination, he says, after learning more about the science of immunization.
> 
> In 2011, Johnson tweeted “No to mandatory vaccines,”  but asked in an interview with VPR Wednesday about his position, Johnson said he now believes that vaccinations should be mandatory.
> 
> “You know, since I’ve said that … I’ve come to find out that without mandatory vaccines, the vaccines that would in fact be issued would not be effective,” he said. “So … it’s dependent that you have mandatory vaccines so that every child is immune. Otherwise, not all children will be immune even though they receive a vaccine.”
> 
> Johnson said he believes vaccination policy should be handled at the local level.
> 
> “In my opinion, this is a local issue*. If it ends up to be a federal issue, I would come down on the side of science and I would probably require that vaccine,” he said.*
> ...


http://digital.vpr.net/post/reversal...ation#stream/0

----------


## undergroundrr

> Gary Johnson now supports mandatory vaccines.
> 
> 
> 
> http://digital.vpr.net/post/reversal...ation#stream/0



I'll counter that Johnson believes vaccination policy should be handled at the local level (stated in the above quote but not bolded).  Anybody who is for state's rights and localizing contentious issues like this I consider a friend of liberty.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'll counter that Johnson believes vaccination policy should be handled at the local level (stated in the above quote but not bolded).  Anybody who is for state's rights and localizing contentious issues like this I consider a friend of liberty.


He said explicitly that IF it ends up being federal THEN he would require them.

#1 - the Constitution does not allow the issue to be federalized.  There is no "if" about it.  "If" it ends up federal, then he needs to reject the idea that fedgov has the authority, not enforce vaccines at gunpoint.

#2 - the fedgov is already claiming the authority via handouts to require school districts to require vaccinations, so despite it's desperate unconstitutionality, the issue has ALREADY been federalized.

#3 - even IF the issue were federalized, the Constitution still does not delegate authority to Washington to even have an opinion on the matter, much less the power to make them mandatory, as Johnson suggests, "science" or otherwise.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> “In my opinion, this is a local issue. *If it ends up to be a federal issue, I would come down on the side of science and I would probably require that vaccine,” [Johnson] said.*




Because ...






> I'll counter that Johnson believes vaccination policy should be handled at the local level (stated in the above quote but not bolded).


No, he doesn't. Otherwise, he'd not have completely abnegated that "opinion" with what he said immediately following it. "I support localism with respect to X. But if federalization of X ends up being an issue, then I would come down on the side of federalizing X."



Johnson is talking out of both sides of his ass - and in the same breath (fart?), no less.




> Anybody who is for state's rights and localizing contentious issues like this I consider a friend of liberty.


I can understand liking and supporting Johnson despite his various flaws, but this apologia is simply obtuse. He is not "for" states' rights and localism. At best, he merely does not object to them unless and until some particular thing or other (such as vaccines, in this case) "ends up to be a federal issue" - at which point, _and according to his own words_, he will quite happily discard his self-alleged "opinion" about "localizing contentious issues" ...

Johnson explicitly told us that he would quite likely support federal vaccination mandates.

He obviously does not take seriously his own "opinion" (read "empty sop") that "this is a local issue."

In other words: he is trying to have his cake (ha-ha) and eat it, too.

In other other words: Gary Johnson is a mealy-mouthed, double-talking weasel.

----------


## Natural Citizen

That sums it up concisely.

----------


## undergroundrr

> THEN he would require them.


PROBABLY require them

I wouldn't nitpick about such a thing, but with people trying so hard to pin him down as Chairman Mao, I think it's an important distinction.  It's in line with the pragmatic, open-to-ideas approach he's taking to absolutely everything, even if it skirts a libertarian chestnut here and there.  Everything is on the table.*  Nukes and drones are on the table.  Understandably, this is very troublesome for libertarians who are accustomed to saying "No way on God's green earth will I ever consider X and Y."  It makes him unsuitable for the support of this kind of thinker.  It also makes him a feasible candidate for moderate democrats and republicans.  At least it did until Bill Kristol made his move with McMullin.

*Well, actually eminent domain isn't on the table. 



> Should the government be allowed to seize private property, with reasonable compensation, for public or civic use? 
> Gary Johnson’s answer: No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property

----------


## Natural Citizen

> PROBABLY require them


POTENTIAL danger, not simply present danger, is the primary reason for constitutional safeguards that provide protection of Individuals in the worst imaginable situations of government over-reach.




> I wouldn't nitpick about such a thing...


If you're not determined to preserve freedom of Individuals over government, then you're not worthy of Individual Liberty. Determined men, on the other hand, are worthy men.

----------


## adissa

Gary Johnson is a fraud. When is a final decision going to be made on this poser?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Gary Johnson is a fraud. When is a final decision going to be made on this poser?


The decision has already been made by the majority of the board. He fails. Standing around with our thumbs in our rear ends waiting on other people  to make decisions for us about how we're supposed to think about things and make decisions is the reason we're in the mess we're in now. 

Get busy thinking for yourself and taking education into your own hands. That's how you win. If it isn't valued, or your message of Liberty is effectively contained, then seek other platforms. Carpe Diem!

----------


## adissa

> The decision has already been made by the majority of the board. He fails. Standing around with our thumbs in our rear ends waiting on other people  to make decisions for us about how we're supoposed to think about things and make decisions is the reason we're in the mess we're in now. 
> 
> Get busy thinking for yourself and taking education into your own hands. That's how you win. Carpe Diem!


I already have. It's frustrating though that the decision was made so quickly about Trump, and here we are all this time later with no decision on Gj. It's not about my own decision, it's about RPF bias against Trump.

----------


## specsaregood

> Well, actually eminent domain isn't on the table. 
>  Should the government be allowed to seize private property, with reasonable compensation, for public or civic use? 
> Gary Johnson’s answer: No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property


So while governor of NM, he used his executive powers to stop all such seizures and returned all previously seized property?

When he actually had the power to do something about it, can you point to a single instance where he stopped seizure of property or returned property without a court ordering him to do so?

----------


## undergroundrr

> it's about RPF bias against Trump.


You can take the F out of RPF and it would still be accurate.  Not that what Ron Paul thinks seems to matter around here much anymore.

----------


## undergroundrr

Here's Gary Johnson's position:

"If any of you heard me say I support a carbon tax...Look, I haven't raised a penny of taxes in my politicial career and neither has Bill [Weld]. We were looking at—I was looking at—what I heard was a carbon fee which from a free-market standpoint would actually address the issue and cost less. I have determined that, you know what, it's a great theory but I don't think it can work, and I've worked my way through that.

"And I support a person's right to choose, so when it comes to vaccinations we should be able to make the decision whether we want to vaccinate our kids or not. I choose to vaccinate my kid and you never say never. Look, in the case of a zombie apocalypse taking over the United States, and there is a vaccine for that, as president of the United States, you might find me mandating that vaccine." - Gary Johnson, Aug. 25, 2016.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/li...omes-out-again

Gary Johnson thinks out loud and everybody gets to share his thought process.  It's kind of like trump except honest and non-manipulative.  He doesn't play his cards close to his chest.  It's pretty refreshing to me.  Y'all should quit spazzing out.

----------

