# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Gary Johnson's record

## hrdman2luv

I just found this. And am wondering if any or all of it's true?  Anyone got any explanations?




> Gary Johnson's ACTUAL Fiscal Record
> 
> The piece sent "over the transom" taking a shot at Governor Johnson's possible motives for running as a Libertarian contains some interesting theories.
> 
> However, it also contains some disturbing claimed facts, and one thing I did do before publishing that piece was check them.
> 
> Unfortunately the facts cited are correct and Gary is being less-than-honest.
> 
> This is what his campaign web site claims on his record:
> ...


Here's the link.

----------


## hrdman2luv

23 views and no replies?

----------


## Ariondys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson#Legacy

...left the state with a large budget surplus.."[36]

 "arguably the most popular governor of the decade . . . leaving the state with a $1 billion budget surplus."[37]

when Johnson left office, "the size of state government had been substantially reduced and New Mexico was enjoying a large budget surplus."[25]

He credits his heavy veto pen for eliminating New Mexico's budget deficit and cutting the growth rate of New Mexico's government in half."[38]


debt vs deficit.
size vs growth rate (of government)

perhaps [25] meant growth rate rather than size.

it seems unanimous however that Gov Johnson didn't have a deficit.  He had a surplus.  That leads to lower taxes and no debt.

----------


## Smart3

Gary Johnson is still way better than Obamney.

----------


## hrdman2luv

> Gary Johnson is still way better than Obamney.


I agree. 200%

----------


## Nathan Hale

The reason you're probably not seeing much debate on this is because it's just like any other background analysis - there are two stories.  As the old saying goes, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics".  We see it in every campaign - the candidates bicker over how awesome/horrible each other's tenure in prior office was - and both parties have such amazing statistics to back up their points.

It all comes down to what you believe and what you interpret from the data.

----------


## hrdman2luv

I must say, I've bought into the good things about Johnson, mainly because I know I'm not going to vote for Romney or Obama.  I've seen their records and can't support them for their records. I don't have to worry about Johnson's record.  Even though I'm voting for him, there aren't enough people to vote for him to worry about him actually becoming president.

----------


## fr33

This will be the first time in my life that I vote for a pro choice candidate and I do not like it.

----------


## Nathan Hale

I wouldn't write him off entirely.  If we can get him up to 15% in the polls we can get him into the debates, and that changes the game entirely.  Big "if".

----------


## Meatwasp

It just goes to show. You can't trust any of them. Ron Paul is the only diamond in the coal bin.

----------


## Nathan Hale

I trust Gary.  He's a good guy.

----------


## Carehn

> It just goes to show. You can't trust any of them. Ron Paul is the only diamond in the coal bin.


No he's not. He was just the biggest. Many oh diamonds in this here coal bin.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

This is a great post:




> He does indeed put forth that image.  He is blatantly lying when he puts it forth.
> 
> Politicians lie. Politicians stink. Every governor running for President this year had during their tenure as governor:
> 
> Taxes go up.
> Spending go up.
> Debt go up.
> 
> They just lie about it and count on people not researching the facts for themselves. It's generally a smart bet. Americans are extremely comfortable being lied to. So they lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. 
> ...

----------


## Nathan Hale

> This is a great post:


But these boards (and others) have been over that post and posts like it.  There is a rebuttal and a surrebuttal to all the data we can glean from Gary's time in office.  It's all about who you trust.

----------


## fr33

Gary's good for a protest vote. I worry that he and Jesse Ventura will run in the future and split us up. 

I support Rand. His record is far superior to either of these clowns if you are a libertarian/free market type of person.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Gary's good for a protest vote. I worry that he and Jesse Ventura will run in the future and split us up.


If Ventura and Johnson are on the ballot in 2016 it will likely be on the same ticket - Ventura is campaigning for Johnson this time around.




> I support Rand. His record is far superior to either of these clowns if you are a libertarian/free market type of person.


By "clowns" are you referring to Obama/Romney or Johnson/Ventura?

----------


## torchbearer

> This will be the first time in my life that I vote for a pro choice candidate and I do not like it.


rest assure gary has a better chance of winning to lottery than winning the presidency.
even if he won enough states- by some weird fluke, the position would  be denied him and the true face of our government would be revealed. in the same way the GOP was forced to reveal itself this year when we threatened their power positions.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> rest assure gary has a better chance of winning to lottery than winning the presidency.
> even if he won enough states- by some weird fluke, the position would  be denied him and the true face of our government would be revealed. in the same way the GOP was forced to reveal itself this year when we threatened their power positions.


Then let's work to make that the result, if that is the way things are.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

No way I'd vote for this asshat. I'm voting Virgil Goode.

----------


## 69360

I'm so tired of people nitpicking GJ and comparing him to RP. The RP campaign is over and GJ is the closest person to RP on the ballot.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> I'm so tired of people nitpicking GJ and comparing him to RP. The RP campaign is over and GJ is the closest person to RP on the ballot.


No, Virgil Goode is.

Gary Johnson is pro-abortion, Virgil Goode is pro-life
Gary Johnson wants marriage defined at a federal level, Virgil Goode wants government completely out. 
Gary Johnson wants marijuana legalization at a federal level, Virgil Goode wants to return drug policy completely to the states. 
Gary Johnson is pro-intervention, Virgil Goode is non-interventionist. 
Gary Johnson sucks, Virgil Goode is good.

----------


## dannno

They are using government inflation figures for one, which are entirely inaccurate. 

Secondly, the governor is not the dictator of a state.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> They are using government inflation figures for one, which are entirely inaccurate.


I don't think you read this then:




> Well, no. Yes, the budget rose 5% per year during his time in office. Unfortunately that's a roughly 50% increase in the size of the State Government during those eight years.
> 
> That might be ok if the rate of increase was less than the rate of inflation. So let's check the rate of inflation and see if Governor Johnson was telling the truth or if he's being less-than-honest with the public.
> 
> In 1995 the CPI index stood at 150.3. In 2003 when Johnson left office it stood at 181.7. That's a 20.9% increase over the same eight years.
> 
> In other words Gary Johnson increased spending in New Mexico at approximately 240% the rate of inflation -- or about double and a half as fast as prices rose.






> Secondly, the governor is not the dictator of a state.


No, but he did have the power to veto, and New Mexico does have line-item veto as well. He vetoed only $27 million in spending, out of billions. Also, he boasted about increasing education spending many times.

----------


## dannno

> I don't think you read this then:


The CPI is a government inflation figure.

----------


## dannno

> In 1995 the CPI index


That's also redundant (The Consumer Price Index index)

----------


## Nathan Hale

> No, Virgil Goode is.


Not so much.




> Gary Johnson is pro-abortion, Virgil Goode is pro-life


Gary Johnson's policy prescription for abortion is identical to Ron Paul's.




> Gary Johnson wants marijuana legalization at a federal level, Virgil Goode wants to return drug policy completely to the states.


Gary wouldn't force states to legalize marijuana, he would legalize it at the federal level and leave the states alone.




> Gary Johnson is pro-intervention, Virgil Goode is non-interventionist.


You can't paint Gary like he's George Bush just because he talked about using the military to stop Kony.  Virgil Goode, on the other hand, has a voting record that laughs in the face of your claim that he's non-interventionist.




> Gary Johnson sucks, Virgil Goode is good.


Virgil Goode is a douchebag, my friend.

You're suffering from BobBarritis.  Check Virgil Goode's voting record, since you're so interested in picking apart people's backgrounds.

----------


## hrdman2luv

> This is a great post:


I didn't notice an employment stat in there.  More jobs would mean more revenue. And not so much as an increase in taxes all together.

----------


## hrdman2luv

> I don't think you read this then:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but he did have the power to veto, and New Mexico does have line-item veto as well. He vetoed only $27 million in spending, out of billions. Also, he boasted about increasing education spending many times.


He also fought the dems long and hard about education vouchers.  

I'm just wondering, do some of you think that only god would be as good as Ron Paul?  Surely not.  I'm being sarcastic only to make a point. And not to be a jerk. Ron Paul has had 30 years to get the voting record he has.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> I'm just wondering, do some of you think that only god would be as good as Ron Paul?  Surely not.  I'm being sarcastic only to make a point. And not to be a jerk. Ron Paul has had 30 years to get the voting record he has.


And let's not forget that Ron Paul's record is a *voting* record.  Legislators always look better on paper than executives because legislators only have to vote, and that counts as their "record" on an issue.  An executive actually has to manage the government and make things work.  It's a different standard entirely.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Gary Johnson's policy prescription for abortion is identical to Ron Paul's.


There may be similarities policy-wise, but let's be honest...Gary is pro-abortion, which means he is not a true libertarian, because if he was a real libertarian, he would have read and understood Ron Paul's book Abortion and Liberty.  Ron has the consistent libertarian position on this, and he argues it very soundly in that book.




> You're suffering from BobBarritis.  Check Virgil Goode's voting record, since you're so interested in picking apart people's backgrounds.


Yeah, but I can just as easily make that case against Gary supporters.  The Libertarian party at the national level gets stars in their eyes and they nominate unprincipled people to run for president, Gary included.  If the LP was principled at the national level, it would have nominated RJ Harris for president.

----------


## AFPVet

Regardless of who's running, if we don't start voting straight ticket 3rd party, nothing is going to change.

----------


## farreri

> Regardless of who's running, if we don't start voting straight ticket 3rd party, nothing is going to change.


+1

I don't understand why people don't get that simple concept?

----------


## misean

> +1
> 
> I don't understand why people don't get that simple concept?



Most people, at least intuitively, understand basic prisoner's dilemma.  Voting third party is definitely not game theory optimal. It pretty much helps someone who is extremely horrible like Obama vs someone less good like Romney. I'm voting for Johnson because I hope that long term it will help libertarian ideas get into the Republican party. I think the short term pain of electing more socialists will be made up for long term gain by having someone like Rand Paul get taken seriously by the party.

----------


## torchbearer

> Most people, at least intuitively, understand basic prisoner's dilemma.  Voting third party is definitely not game theory optimal. It pretty much helps someone who is extremely horrible like Obama vs someone less good like Romney. I'm voting for Johnson because I hope that long term it will help libertarian ideas get into the Republican party. I think the short term pain of electing more socialists will be made up for long term gain by having someone like Rand Paul get taken seriously by the party.


it is a rare day when i see/hear/read someone who understands game theory.

----------


## JohnM

> This will be the first time in my life that I vote for a pro choice candidate and I do not like it.


This is the first time that I have considered voting for a pro-abortion candidate for President, and I'm not sure that I can do it.  

If Gary Johnson were otherwise good, I guess I would vote for him.

But there is another big problem for me.  

I've googled to find out where he stands on extrajudicial killing.  All I can find is basically this:




> 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."


It seems from that he has no objection to extrajudicial killing.  In other words, he does not believe in due process.  I think that's pretty serious.


*EDIT: If someone can show me that Gary Johnson actually does regard drone attacks as immoral and illegal (and not just unwise), please do!*

----------


## hrdman2luv

> This is the first time that I have considered voting for a pro-abortion candidate for President, and I'm not sure that I can do it.  
> 
> If Gary Johnson were otherwise good, I guess I would vote for him.
> 
> But there is another big problem for me.  
> 
> I've googled to find out where he stands on extrajudicial killing.  All I can find is basically this:
> 
> 
> ...


I guarantee you, Gary Johnson won't win.  And even if he does win, an Abortion bill will not hit his desk. Even if the republicans win or the democrats win every available seat in the Congress and Senate. 

The abortion issue will be around for the republicrats to squabble about for many many moons.

----------


## JohnM

> I guarantee you, Gary Johnson won't win.


I knew that already.




> And even if he does win, an Abortion bill will not hit his desk.


But drones will.   

(Metaphorically speaking, of course.  Unless Obama is very angry at him for winning.)

This guy seems to have no regard for due process and to regard assassination as a legitimate tool of the state.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It all comes down to what you believe and what you interpret from the data.


 One can go to the state's website and see the actual facts.  They're pretty clear.  Tax revenue went up, government spending went up (and spending is the real tax), and the debt went up.  Wikipedia's statements regarding there being a budget surplus are false.  That's all there is to it.  The facts contradict these statements.  New Mexico's debt increased substantially every year Mr. Johnson was in office.  It also increased every year before he was in office, and every year afterward.  Is there some kind of accounting gymnastics he's doing to claim that there was a surplus?  If so, perhaps the same gymnastics could be applied to the New Mexico governors before and after him, because the debt appears to be increasing at approximately the same rate for all of them.

Can you spot Gary Johnson's term in office in this graph?  It's the period when the growth rate was drastically reduced.  



Can't find it?  Neither can I.  The years 2002 and 2003 are higher than the curve, but other than that it appears to be a fairly standard exponential curve.  The spending goes up.  And then it continues going up.  And then it continues going up.  _Forever_.  Before Gary Johnson was governor this happened.  While Gary Johnson was governor this happened.  After Gary Johnson was governor this happened.  Gary Johnson did not detectably change this trend.  He just didn't.

Now here's the debt chart.  Can you spot the anomalous period of fiscal responsibility?  The time when New Mexico stops its reckless borrowing and lived within its means?



If you can, your eyes are better than mine.  Or your brain is more willing to ignore the obvious in an effort to avoid changing its opinions.

I like Gary Johnson.  I don't think he's all bad.  His commercials are good.  He is saying libertarian things, spreading a pretty good message, albeit with qualifiers and compromises and that's unfortunate, but all-in-all he's a fairly good candidate for the LP.  But I don't think he can be trusted to actually cut a budget.  Now does that matter, since he's not going to be elected anyway?  One could argue that it doesn't.  But I support Ron Paul because he _can_ be trusted.  And I can't enthusiastically support Johnson because he can't be.  Credibility is important to me.  Integrity is important to me.  Others will have other priorities, and I am not necessarily saying they shouldn't.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It's a different standard entirely.


 I can only judge people's actions by their actions.  Everyone's circumstances will be always and everywhere different, but unfortunately life is not a sterile, controlled, double-blind experiment.  So all we can do is look at the person's actions.  Ron Paul's actions have been impeccable.  He has consistently opposed increasing tyranny.  Gary Johnson has not.  He has supported measures, bills, and budgets increasing tyranny.  A lot of them.

One was a legislator, one was an executive.  Fine.  But all I can do is look at what they did.  To look at their actions as they really were.  To me, that seems like the exact same standard.  A perfectly consistent standard.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Well, he says things like wanting to dismantle the IRS. That by itself has a lot of appeal to me.

----------


## fr33

Yeah on my TX ballot, I'll be voting for every Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot.

----------


## AFPVet

> Most people, at least intuitively, understand basic prisoner's dilemma.  Voting third party is definitely not game theory optimal. It pretty much helps someone who is extremely horrible like Obama vs someone less good like Romney. I'm voting for Johnson because I hope that long term it will help libertarian ideas get into the Republican party. I think the short term pain of electing more socialists will be made up for long term gain by having someone like Rand Paul get taken seriously by the party.


Yes, but the fact remains... we cannot change the two party system. It is too corrupt. In a perfect world, yes, the game changer would be to take over the party; however, that is not going to happen. The two party system needs to go.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> One can go to the state's website and see the actual facts.


The state's web site actually has zero facts on the issue.  I've seen those two tables (one of which I believe refers to the debt percentage based on federal debt levels) at the center of many debates on these boards, but nothing from the actual state government on this issue.  Supposedly the wiki page is fake - as I said, talk to different people and you'll get different numbers.




> But I support Ron Paul because he _can_ be trusted.  And I can't enthusiastically support Johnson because he can't be.  Credibility is important to me.  Integrity is important to me.  Others will have other priorities, and I am not necessarily saying they shouldn't.


As you stated in your other post (which I will reply to here), Paul is a legislator.  When your vote is your record, it's not so much your actions that make you credible, but your voice.  Sure, a vote is an action, but it's more a show of opinion (a voice, if you will) than an actual act of office.  If you're an executive, you can't just say no because it's your job to make it work.  You can veto bad legislation, and Johnson had moreso than any other executive of his era, but if your veto is overridden it's your job to make it work.  Ron Paul is a great man, with an impeccable voting record, but comparing the two is apples and oranges because you have no idea what would happen under a Paul executive term - especially when faced with a hostile legislature.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> Most people, at least intuitively, understand basic prisoner's dilemma.  Voting third party is definitely not game theory optimal. It pretty much helps someone who is extremely horrible like Obama vs someone less good like Romney. *I'm voting for Johnson because I hope that long term it will help libertarian ideas get into the Republican party.* I think the short term pain of electing more socialists will be made up for long term gain by having someone like Rand Paul get taken seriously by the party.


How is that supposed to happen?

----------


## ZakB

If a large number of people consistently vote libertarian the republican party will adopt some of their ideas in future elections in order to try to win over those votes

----------


## jmdrake

> This will be the first time in my life that I vote for a pro choice candidate and I do not like it.


Well there's always Virgil Goode.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...-for-president

----------


## AFPVet

While it is a good thought that the Republicans would eventually adopt some aspects of the Libertarian platform, it still doesn't change the party at a cellular level. You can paint a tiger to look like a cow, but it's still going to be a tiger. Eventually, people will see them for what they are....

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> Well, he says things like wanting to dismantle the IRS. That by itself has a lot of appeal to me.


He wants to replace one tax with another tax....yay...

----------


## torchbearer

> He wants to replace one tax with another tax....yay...


remove the IRS, replace with a sales tax is light years better than any other option available on ballot.
even Ron has stated he would vote for such a tax as long as it removed the IRS, but it wouldn't be his end game.

----------


## surf

guys, Gary Johnson is a guy that i would see employing RP as his entire cabinet, and we all know what a great secretary of the Treasury, Defense, State, DHS, etc. that RP would be (and he could do it all at once from the Texas coastline).

----------


## fr33

> Well there's always Virgil Goode.
> 
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...-for-president


The problem for me with Virgil Goode and the CP is that they claim to be a christian party and don't seem to respect the separation of church and state. I also do not agree with their strict views on immigration. I didn't fully agree with Dr. Paul on immigration either but the CP's platform goes even further away from me and calls for a moratorium on immigration.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I consider the IRS a massive invasion of privacy in addition to being a pain in the ass income tax. 

At least when you buy goods and pay a sales tax, that is your own choice.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> Regardless of who's running, if we don't start voting straight ticket 3rd party, nothing is going to change.





> +1
> 
> I don't understand why people don't get that simple concept?


I certainly don't get it.

What is supposed to change and how?

Do you want to end the 2-party system? Constitutional amendment, multi-member congressional districts with proportional representation plus popular vote for President. 

That's why you have a 2-party system, not because of a corrupt press or evil corporations.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> I certainly don't get it.
> 
> What is supposed to change and how?
> 
> Do you want to end the 2-party system? Constitutional amendment, multi-member congressional districts with proportional representation plus popular vote for President. 
> 
> That's why you have a 2-party system, not because of a corrupt press or evil corporations.


Agreed.  As I often tell people who criticize me for voting Gary Johnson: "don't hate the player, hate the game".  The problem is not the existence of more than two parties, the problem is the way we vote.  But I disagree that we need constitutional amendments and whatnot - just change from plurality voting, where each vote is a microcosm of the election, to approval voting,  where voters are invited to give an up-or-down vote to each candidate.  It's easy to implement using existing voting infrastructure and little explanation, and it eliminates any vestige of the lesser of two evils dilemma.

----------


## surf

i won't put up with criticism of my Johnson vote anymore. any "wasted vote" bull$#@! argument that comes my way is quickly countered with a "status quo" comment that is followed by "name a difference" between these two idiots....

it helps not being in a "swing state." imo, this is the greatest opportunity to make a "statement" with a vote for Johnson than i think i've ever had.

----------


## Dick Chaney

Good record in New Mexico, I'm still not going to vote for him, but he's certainly better then Obamney.

----------


## MelissaWV

The problem with posting arguments as to why *I* am not voting for Gary Johnson is that his supporters will start another thread shortly, and those arguments will be lost.  The dissection of each part of his website, which clearly states his views, and why they are at odds with just about everything I could ever consider being in the interests of liberty... it's pointless.  Tomorrow there'll be a great "woohoo Gary Johnson, legalize pot, better than the main two, be a rebel!" thread to wipe it out.  

If you want to keep ballot access, and you are just voting to keep other party candidates relevant, do so.  That's not where I have a gripe.  It does make me sad, though, that some of you are praising this guy like he's as good as OR EVEN BETTER THAN Ron Paul.  It makes me wonder if you've really bothered to take a look.

----------


## tuggy24g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjFZdCKtOfc

----------


## ftsmallwood

No worries, I and many others, voted for Dr. Paul, even though we prefer someone firmly pro-choice.  Don't let one issue divide us, we didn't.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> The problem with posting arguments as to why *I* am not voting for Gary Johnson is that his supporters will start another thread shortly, and those arguments will be lost.  The dissection of each part of his website, which clearly states his views, and why they are at odds with just about everything I could ever consider being in the interests of liberty... it's pointless.  Tomorrow there'll be a great "woohoo Gary Johnson, legalize pot, better than the main two, be a rebel!" thread to wipe it out.  
> 
> If you want to keep ballot access, and you are just voting to keep other party candidates relevant, do so.  That's not where I have a gripe.  It does make me sad, though, that some of you are praising this guy like he's as good as OR EVEN BETTER THAN Ron Paul.  It makes me wonder if you've really bothered to take a look.


This is a cheap shot.  Gary Johnson detractors have no greater claim to the moral high ground than Gary Johnson supporters - threads are started in both directions.  If you have a problem with Gary's platform, then let's have that conversation, but don't throw this on Gary Johnson supporters as though they are doing something wrong - new threads pop up all the time for a lot of issues, and Gary Johnson is a popular candidate in this movement.  Remember that we don't all think in lockstep,  there is a huge diversity of thought in this movement, as there is huge diversity of thought in any movement that has any semblance of a chance at having an impact.  I compromise in my support for Gary as he has negatives in addition to his positives, but I compromised in my support for Ron Paul as well.  I got behind both men because they are above the bar for approval in my eyes, and were miles ahead of their competition.

----------


## MelissaWV

> This is a cheap shot.  Gary Johnson detractors have no greater claim to the moral high ground than Gary Johnson supporters - threads are started in both directions.  If you have a problem with Gary's platform, then let's have that conversation, but don't throw this on Gary Johnson supporters as though they are doing something wrong - new threads pop up all the time for a lot of issues, and Gary Johnson is a popular candidate in this movement.  Remember that we don't all think in lockstep,  there is a huge diversity of thought in this movement, as there is huge diversity of thought in any movement that has any semblance of a chance at having an impact.  I compromise in my support for Gary as he has negatives in addition to his positives, but I compromised in my support for Ron Paul as well.  I got behind both men because they are above the bar for approval in my eyes, and were miles ahead of their competition.


No, it's not a cheap shot.  It's the white flag.  I was hopeful when I first heard about him, but there is literally almost nothing I agree with him on per his own website.  It is a case of "close but no cigar" for me.  Nice use of labels, by the way.  I keep talking in terms of only myself, and me not wanting to vote for him... and you call me a detractor.  I can't help feeling that these "Gary Johnson's record" threads keep popping up because, and not in spite of, the numerous threads where it's already been discussed.  You feel otherwise.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4647026

----------


## AFPVet

> Agreed.  As I often tell people who criticize me for voting Gary Johnson: "don't hate the player, hate the game".  The problem is not the existence of more than two parties, the problem is the way we vote.  But I disagree that we need constitutional amendments and whatnot - just change from plurality voting, where each vote is a microcosm of the election, to approval voting,  where voters are invited to give an up-or-down vote to each candidate.  It's easy to implement using existing voting infrastructure and little explanation, and it eliminates any vestige of the lesser of two evils dilemma.


This could work.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> No, it's not a cheap shot.  It's the white flag.  I was hopeful when I first heard about him, but there is literally almost nothing I agree with him on per his own website.  It is a case of "close but no cigar" for me.  Nice use of labels, by the way.  I keep talking in terms of only myself, and me not wanting to vote for him... and you call me a detractor.  I can't help feeling that these "Gary Johnson's record" threads keep popping up because, and not in spite of, the numerous threads where it's already been discussed.  You feel otherwise.


You are a detractor - it's nothing to shy away from.  Not everybody has to like Gary Johnson - and many people don't.  That's my point, there are threads started by both sides.  And if starting duplicate threads is your beef, you might as well shut down this entire forum (and every internet forum for that matter), because there has yet to be an event or person highlighted on this board that has not fallen victim to multiple threads about the same thing.  The mods used to clean up stuff like that, but it was a full time job so I don't think they even bother anymore.

----------


## surf

a vote for Johnson is a vote for Ron Paul, imo.

the rs and ds should see it this way. it's a vote for far less gov't and far more freedom.

ftsmallwood wins this thread. and i hope mellisawv will reconsider if our guy comes out with an edorsement of GJ.

----------


## AFPVet

I would love to see Ron officially endorse Gary; however, Rand is now in the Republican mix, so he won't. I totally agree with Surf though... if we could start a bottom top Libertarian movement (local, state, and federal levels), it would change the system a hell of a lot more than trying to change the two parties.

----------


## Lovecraftian4Paul

Gary could tip the balance against Willard in several key states, and that would be wonderful. I'm not terribly worried about small imperfections in his record because he won't win. Voting for the Johnson/Grey ticket is the best way to register a protest vote that will hurt the GOP. Not to mention leave a trail showing who was responsible for Willard's loss.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> This could work.


Olympia Snowe wildest dream.

----------


## acptulsa

For those who have forgotten that Johnson has been vetted at this site.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Update:




> I like Gary Johnson.


 No longer true.




> I don't think he's all bad.


 Still true.

But, his bad far outweighs his good in my current, improved judgment.  He is establishment.  He is a shill.  He is a big government man.  He shares none of my values and none of my ideology.  And he when he claims that he balanced the New Mexico budget, he is a liar.  The debt *tripled*.  The spending *skyrocketed*.  And, at the time, he took _pride_ in that.

*Fake.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> For those who have forgotten that Johnson has been vetted at this site.


ACP, do you agree with my vetting (and rejection) of this leftist imposter?

----------

