# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Did Gary Johnson Throw out AP's pistol?

## younglibertarian

A rumor has been going around that Gary Johnson threw the pistol Austin Petersen gave him in the trash. 

AP gave the pistol in his concession speech.
{I will link the speech when I find a YT video}




No conformation from AP yet

----------


## younglibertarian



----------


## Origanalist

He could have just given it to me.

----------


## younglibertarian



----------


## r3volution 3.0

Who cares?

----------


## euphemia

I think Libertarians are way too much into symbolism.  Be a jerk on purpose.  Wow that took courage.  Sheesh.

One would thing liberty is about accepting other people and working together.  What ever happened to graciousness?

----------


## younglibertarian

> Who cares?



Me. Because its a jerk move.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Me. Because its a jerk move.


Okay, so two politicians competing for the same office don't like each other...

<shrug>

Seems like the kind of petty crap that would cause an entirely unnecessary and harmful division within the party.

----------


## younglibertarian

> Okay, so two politicians competing for the same office don't like each other...
> 
> <shrug>
> 
> Seems like the kind of petty crap that would cause an entirely unnecessary and harmful division within the party.



Except for the fact that Austin gave it as a gift and to say "You have my support and my gun."

He was saying it to unify the party.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Who cares?


Not me.

But what a _great way_ to keep the LP in the news cycle or circulating on social media for the next few days! It has everything: two competing candidates, drama, a gun... Trump and Hillary have their media $#@!storms; Gary needs something to keep him newsworthy, and this could provide some media attention. If this wasn't orchestrated by someone, it should have been.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Except for the fact that Austin gave it as a gift and to say "You have my support and my gun."
> 
> He was saying it to be a unify er.


You have no idea what Austin really thinks about Gary.

Dogs smile when they're about to bite. 

For all you know, Austin's people manufactured this story to discredit Gary.

My point, however, has nothing to do with the facts of the "case."

I'm just saying that it's unwise to be spreading rumours like this which can have no effect other than to undermine libertarian unity.




> Not me.
> 
> But what a _great way_ to keep the LP in the news cycle or  circulating on social media for the next few days! It has everything:  two competing candidates, drama, a gun... Trump and Hillary have their  media $#@!storms; Gary needs something to keep him newsworthy, and this  could provide some media attention. If this wasn't orchestrated by  someone, it should have been.


If this shows up in national news (which it won't), I'll agree.

But if just circulates around hardcore libertarian circles, it will hurt not help.

----------


## younglibertarian



----------


## jct74

There was a confrontation between them today, maybe had something to do with it.




> The scrum quieted down for Johnson to do the interview. But when it ended, Petersen gave chase and pulled Johnson aside  in full view of reporters.
> 
> Do you want to unite the party? Petersen asked.
> 
> This is not the place, Austin, said Johnson, referring to the media attention.
> 
> Why did you pick Bill Weld? Petersen asked.
> 
> Johnson shook his head and walked away, as Petersen denounced Weld as a horrible statist and argued with a Johnson supporter who said that, at 35, Petersen was too young to represent the party.
> ...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...al-nomination/


I'm really not that concerned about it though.

----------


## Henry Rogue

Hmmm, Three different political parties, three gun hating candidates.

----------


## 69360

If I was running for potus, traveling out of state and somebody I barely knew handed me a gun, I'd want to get rid of it too. Can't you just see the headlines now? Presidential candidate Gary Johnson detained and anal probed by homeland for carrying illegal gun in airport.

----------


## younglibertarian

> If I was running for potus, traveling out of state and somebody I barely knew handed me a gun, I'd want to get rid of it too. Can't you just see the headlines now? Presidential candidate Gary Johnson detained and anal probed by homeland for carrying illegal gun in airport.



It was a replica

----------


## GunnyFreedom

That is so assholish as to defy reason.  From a purely pragmatic standpoint why are you going to throw away 30% of your LP support? I couldn't believe it, but the evidence in this thread is pretty compelling that it's true.  I don't care as much about the flintlock as the horrific personality flaw this reveals.  There is some kind of narcissistic disorder there count on it.  This when taken with an anti-gun VP?  Really?

Fk the LP.  They had their chance this year and they blew it.

----------


## 69360

> It was a replica


Tell that to homeland while they have you stripped naked and have a gloved hand up your butt. No way I would travel with that thing.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> There was a confrontation between them today, maybe had something to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				The scrum quieted down for Johnson to do the interview. But when it  ended, Petersen gave chase and pulled Johnson aside — in full view of  reporters.
> 
> ...


Ah, so Peterson is a $#@!ing idiot.

I'd have thrown out his pistol too.

----------


## younglibertarian

> That is so assholish as to defy reason.  From a purely pragmatic standpoint why are you going to throw away 30% of your LP support? I couldn't believe it, but the evidence in this thread is pretty compelling that it's true.  I don't care as much about the flintlock as the horrific personality flaw this reveals.  There is some kind of narcissistic disorder there count on it.  This when taken with an anti-gun VP?  Really?
> 
> Fk the LP.  They had their chance this year and they blew it.


Agree. It just was not classy at all.

----------


## William Tell

> 


Maybe Weld told Gary he's not allowed to have guns.

----------


## younglibertarian

> Ah, so Peterson is a $#@!ing idiot.
> 
> I'd have thrown out his pistol too.



Petersen doesn't have to be an angel to see that this was a jerk move.

Personally I don't mind Petersen.

But like him or not he has tons of support, and Gary isn't gonna get it when he does stuff like this.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Even in my low information voter days I was a rabidly pro gun voter.  Between this and Weld they would have lost my vote even back when I was a political idiot.  LOL clearly the LP doesn't want my vote this year.  More's the pity.

----------


## Origanalist

> Ah, so Peterson is a $#@!ing idiot.
> 
> I'd have thrown out his pistol too.


Maybe he he is, but Weld is still a statist.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Petersen doesn't have to be an angel to see that this was a jerk move.
> 
> Personally I don't mind Petersen.
> 
> But like him or not he has tons of support, and Gary isn't gonna get it when he does stuff like this.


I mean, this should be obvious from a pure political calculus.  

A skilled political operative would have put it on a stand and hid it away somewhere only to trot it out when an AP supporter came to visit, no matter how much he hated AP BECAUSE THAT'S HOW POLITICS WORKS.

You can damn bet you Hillary Clinton gun hating wretch that she is would have kept the pistol, put it on a stand, and buried it in a closet where noone could see it, and then have an index of visitors tagged "supporters of this guy" and out comes the pistol, somewhere prominent but tasteful.

In addition to everything else, this incident reveals Gary Johnson as a political imbecile.

----------


## William Tell

> Maybe he he is, but Weld is still a statist.


Yeah but he's a statist with an L after his name. Isn't that the best kind?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Petersen doesn't have to be an angel to see that this was a jerk move.
> 
> Personally I don't mind Petersen.
> 
> But like him or not he has tons of support, and Gary isn't gonna get it when he does stuff like this.


It's extremely stupid to airing intra-party squabbles in front of the media.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Maybe he he is, but Weld is still a statist.


It doesn't matter.

----------


## 69360

> I mean, this should be obvious from a pure political calculus.  
> 
> A skilled political operative would have put it on a stand and hid it away somewhere only to trot it out when an AP supporter came to visit, no matter how much he hated AP BECAUSE THAT'S HOW POLITICS WORKS.
> 
> You can damn bet you Hillary Clinton gun hating wretch that she is would have kept the pistol, put it on a stand, and buried it in a closet where noone could see it, and then have an index of visitors tagged "supporters of this guy" and out comes the pistol, somewhere prominent but tasteful.
> 
> In addition to everything else, this incident reveals Gary Johnson as a political imbecile.


He got elected governor twice. That disproves your statement I think.

----------


## younglibertarian

> It's extremely stupid to airing intra-party squabbles in front of the media.


It's stupid to create problems when your main opponent is literally conceding to you and saying he will help you in any way he can.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It's stupid to create problems when your main opponent is literally conceding to you and saying he will help you in any way he can.


...except by not calling you out in front of reporters from the Washington Post, evidently.

----------


## Origanalist

> It doesn't matter.


Lol, the word needs to mean something.

----------


## younglibertarian

> ...except by not calling you out in front of reporters from the Washington Post, evidently.


But he needed to be called out. Weld was a bad choice.

Have you seen Austin's concession speech? He said he fully supported Johnson, but not his VP pick.

He endorsed him.

----------


## William Tell

> Lol, the word needs to mean something.


Yeah, like the word Republican.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Lol, the word needs to mean something.


I give up.

Keep writing in Ron Paul or whatever you plan to do.

Watch what happens.

It won't be a freer country.

----------


## Origanalist

> It's extremely stupid to airing intra-party squabbles in front of the media.


Then he shouldn't have insulted someone who just conceded and endorsed him.

----------


## Origanalist

> Yeah, like the word Republican.


"small government"

----------


## erowe1

> Not me.
> 
> But what a _great way_ to keep the LP in the news cycle or circulating on social media for the next few days! It has everything: two competing candidates, drama, a gun... Trump and Hillary have their media $#@!storms; Gary needs something to keep him newsworthy, and this could provide some media attention. If this wasn't orchestrated by someone, it should have been.


Is this actually getting reported by some news outlet whose audience includes nonlibertarians?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Tell that to homeland while they have you stripped naked and have a gloved hand up your butt. No way I would travel with that thing.


It's easy to fly with a gun.  Just pack it in checked baggage and declare it.  Especially if it's a replica.  Better yet, replicas can be shipped, say back to a campaign office in New Mexico?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I give up.
> 
> Keep writing in Ron Paul or whatever you plan to do.
> 
> Watch what happens.
> 
> It won't be a freer country.


It's been made pretty clear now that neither would electing Gary Johnson provide us with a freer country.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> ...except by not calling you out in front of reporters from the Washington Post, evidently.


Because dude trashing your prized possession is supposed to mean nothing.

I hate AP, but if anything he showed remarkable restraint.

----------


## phill4paul

> That is so assholish as to defy reason.  From a purely pragmatic standpoint why are you going to throw away 30% of your LP support? I couldn't believe it, but the evidence in this thread is pretty compelling that it's true.  I don't care as much about the flintlock as the horrific personality flaw this reveals.  There is some kind of narcissistic disorder there count on it.  This when taken with an anti-gun VP?  Really?
> 
> Fk the LP.  They had their chance this year and they blew it.


   BIG TIME.

----------


## younglibertarian

> Because dude trashing your prized possession is supposed to mean nothing.
> 
> I hate AP, but if anything he showed remarkable restraint.


What the AP delegates are saying on FB is that he made no comment for the sake of party unity. 

I assume he will have to come out with a statement soon however.

----------


## 69360

> It's easy to fly with a gun.  Just pack it in checked baggage and declare it.  Especially if it's a replica.  Better yet, replicas can be shipped, say back to a campaign office in New Mexico?


I don't trust the TSA at all. I personally would want to be rid of that too. I have no idea of GJ's actual reason, just a theory.




> It's been made pretty clear now that neither would electing Gary Johnson provide us with a freer country.


I don't think anyone here actually thinks GJ will be elected. It's more about advancing a viable third party. I like the idea of another party option with automatic 50 state ballot access and matching funds.

----------


## younglibertarian

> I don't trust the TSA at all. I personally would want to be rid of that too. I have no idea of GJ's actual reason, just a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone here actually thinks GJ will be elected. It's more about advancing a viable third party. I like the idea of another party option with automatic 50 state ballot access and matching funds.


And if we sacrifice principle to get there, what is the point?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't trust the TSA at all. I personally would want to be rid of that too. I have no idea of GJ's actual reason, just a theory.


Brother, I am the king of not trusting the TSA.  You are failing to understand how bureaucracy works.  Declaring a replica pistol in one of your checked bags is the best way to ensure nothing gets stolen, because they put a higher level of surveillance and tracking on such bags, and TSA thieves go for low hanging fruit.  Back when I occasionally contended with live rats I carried and declared an air pistol in my toolbag and it was almost as good as carrying insurance since they tracked my toolbag like a hawk. 




> I don't think anyone here actually thinks GJ will be elected. It's more about advancing a viable third party. I like the idea of another party option with automatic 50 state ballot access and matching funds.


If a third party wants my vote, then they will not nominate people who offend my most fundamental political principles.   

If this is the kind of schlep the LP is going to nominate, then why in the everlasting duck would I want to advance these lunatics?

----------


## 69360

> And if we sacrifice principle to get there, what is the point?


You have to give a little I think. You'll never find a candidate that you agree with all the time. Some of the posters have have impossibly nuanced stances and will never be satisfied. 

I don't agree with GJ on everything. But he's a good honest guy who means well and will at least move things in the right direction by using his credibility towards having a viable third party.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You have to give a little I think. You'll never find a candidate that you agree with all the time. Some of the posters have have impossibly nuanced stances and will never be satisfied. 
> 
> I don't agree with GJ on everything. But he's a good honest guy who means well and will at least move things in the right direction by using his credibility towards having a viable third party.


Give a little?  I'd have to give almost everything I believe in to support this turkey.  lol no.

----------


## younglibertarian

More evidence from an AP Supporter at the convention:

https://www.facebook.com/ialivefree/...c_location=ufi

----------


## 69360

> More evidence from an AP Supporter at the convention:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/ialivefree/...c_location=ufi


Isn't that the guy who was pushing some multi level marketing diet drink on here a few years back? Please correct me if I am wrong.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It's been made pretty clear now that neither would electing Gary Johnson provide us with a freer country.


A. That's nonsense. There are issues other than gay cakes, on most of which Gary would be an enormous improvement over the status quo. 

B. No one's talking about electing Gary. This isn't about electing Gary. This is about getting press for libertarianism.

----------


## phill4paul

If the LP ticket had been Glen Bradley and Derrick Grayson I'd be all in. Now THAT would be a 20% ticket. Easily.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> A. That's nonsense.


Only if you don't give a rat's damn about anyone else's liberty but your own.




> There are issues other than gay cakes,


You mean like the critical balance of federal and state powers?

Which balance Johnson will take even more catastrophically off-kilter than it already is?




> on most of which Gary would be an enormous improvement over the status quo.


On stuff YOU like maybe.  Certainly not on the stuff I like.




> B. No one's talking about electing Gary. This isn't about electing Gary. This is about getting press for libertarianism.


All the more reason _NOT_ to nominate a ticket that's worse on liberty than the HilldaTrump.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Yeah, writing in RP is getting even easier.

I'll sleep well on election night.

Gunny is right, it was a douche move.

----------


## Sujan

If Gary Johnson does well, the LP will get matching funds and automatic ballot access in all 50 states. That's huge. So then, in 2020, the delegates are free to elect a purer Libertarian candidate, like Austin Petersen. He is only 35, so I guess he'll be around next time.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If Gary Johnson does well, the LP will get matching funds and automatic ballot access in all 50 states. That's huge. So then, in 2020, the delegates are free to elect a purer Libertarian candidate, like Austin Petersen. He is only 35, so I guess he'll be around next time.


So I am supposed to abandon my every principle in a quest to obtain federal funds?

----------


## Sujan

> So I am supposed to abandon my every principle in a quest to obtain federal funds?


There are differences between Gary and Austin, but I don't see a big difference. I get it why Austin endorsed Gary, because Austin probably wants to run again in 2020, but then with a war chest and automatic ballot access, assuming Gary won't run again (which I think he won't). Could be a landslide victory for Austin. He is only 35, so he could be the prime Libertarian candidate for years, if not decades, to come.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> On stuff YOU like maybe.  Certainly not on the stuff I like.


You don't like cutting federal spending? Ending the wars? Repealing the PATRIOT Act? 

...to name a few of his many solidly libertarian positions. 




> All the more reason _NOT_ to nominate a ticket that's worse on liberty than the HilldaTrump.




That's the craziest thing I've heard all day.

...and I've spent a good part of the day dealing with Trumpkins.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

You know what the LP should do to get attention? Start a reality show. Seriously, this is straight out of one of those shows on the E! network.

----------


## phill4paul

> So I am supposed to abandon my every principle in a quest to obtain federal funds?


  No $#@!. I wasn't about to vote for Trump for "strategic" purposes, I'll be damned if I vote for Johnson/Weld for the same.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> There are differences between Gary and Austin, but I don't see a big difference. I get it why Austin endorsed Gary, because Austin probably wants to run again in 2020, but then with a war chest and automatic ballot access, assuming Gary won't run again (which I think he won't). Could be a landslide victory for Austin. He is only 35, so he could be the prime Libertarian candidate for years, if not decades, to come.


You aren't helping you case.  I don't like Austin any more than I like Johnson.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You don't like cutting federal spending? Ending the wars? Repealing the PATRIOT Act?


I like obeying the Constitution.  Johnson won't do it.  




> ...to name a few of his many solidly libertarian positions.


Like holding a gun to state's heads and making them obey his own private but now federalized version of morality?

No thanks amigo.  I get enough of that crap from the status quo left and right.




> That's the craziest thing I've heard all day.


I vote the Constitution.  Johnson has struck a course even more off-track from a Constitutional government than either Hillary or Trump.  If Gary Johnson wanted my vote, then he would not piss on the Constitution.  Why is this so hard for you Johnsonites and Trumpaloompas to understand?




> ...and I've spent a good part of the day dealing with Trumpkins.


Maybe that explains why you are acting like them?

----------


## Sujan

> You aren't helping you case.  I don't like Austin any more than I like Johnson.


Haha ok. But then who do you like?

----------


## Anti Federalist

Lol...this is funny.

Pushing the chance of getting better than 1 percent using the same arguments that Trump and Hillary people use.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> No $#@!. I wasn't about to vote for Trump for "strategic" purposes, I'll be damned if I vote for Johnson/Weld for the same.


There's a slight difference.

Johnson is a libertarian on virtually every issue; Trump is not a libertarian on any issues. 

The "vote Johnson to get more press for libertarianism, ballot access, and matching funds" makes good sense.

The "vote for Trump because...chaos? " argument makes no sense at all.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Haha ok. But then who do you like?


I liked McAfee because even with no understanding of the Constitution, his policies most closely aligned with the Constitution anyway.

Now, I will probably write in "Giant Meteor" for the Presidential Race.

----------


## phill4paul

> Haha ok. But then who do you like?


  I can't speak for Gunny but I would have loved for Grayson to run as Pres, as opposed to V.P. Even if Grayson had won the V.P. pick I might have considered voting on the ticket. Johnson/Weld? $#@! them. Seriously. There is NOTHING about that ticket I care for. NOTHING.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> There's a slight difference.
> 
> Johnson is a libertarian on virtually every issue; Trump is not a libertarian on any issues. 
> 
> The "vote Johnson to get more press for libertarianism, ballot access, and matching funds" makes good sense.
> 
> The "vote for Trump because...chaos? " argument makes no sense at all.


TO _YOU_.  Why would _I_ want to give this steaming pile of $#@! ballot access?

----------


## phill4paul

> There's a slight difference.
> 
> Johnson is a libertarian on virtually every issue; Trump is not a libertarian on any issues. 
> 
> The "vote Johnson to get more press for libertarianism, ballot access, and matching funds" makes good sense.
> 
> The "vote for Trump because...chaos? " argument makes no sense at all.


  We'll just have to disagree.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I like obeying the Constitution.  Johnson won't do it.  
> 
> Like holding a gun to state's heads and making them obey his own private but now federalized version of morality?
> 
> No thanks amigo.  I get enough of that crap from the status quo left and right.
> 
> I vote the Constitution.  Johnson has struck a course even more off-track from a Constitutional government than either Hillary or Trump.  If Gary Johnson wanted my vote, then he would not piss on the Constitution.  Why is this so hard for you Johnsonites and Trumpaloompas to understand?
> 
> Maybe that explains why you are acting like them?


I don't know why I engaged you in this conversation.

You'd made it perfectly clear on previous occasions that you have no interest in the practical consequences of your decisions.

Your sole object of concern is whether your vote will be for a person who shares 100% of your principles. 

Whether that vote will be of any value in actually _realizing_ those principles is no importance whatsoever. 

So, there's really nothing more to discuss.

I hope what you perceive as your integrity keeps you warm as the tyranny which you refused to oppose closes in around you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't know why I engaged you in this conversation.


Same reason the Trumpaloompas kept coming at me I suppose.  




> You'd made it perfectly clear on previous occasions that you have no interest in the practical consequences of your decisions.


This is a belief which you hold that is yours, and yours alone.  It has been argued as fact merely by making the statement, therefore I will not vouch for it's integrity.




> Your sole object of concern is whether your vote will be for a person who shares 100% of your principles.


I have supported many candidates ... a voluminous quantity over the last 12 years and you know what?  _Not a single one of them_ did I agree with 100%.  Imagine that.  This charge is also all in your head. 




> Whether that vote will be of any value in actually _realizing_ those principles is no importance whatsoever.


Why do you claim to speak for my principles, when if you understood my principles at all you wouldn't bother lobbying me to support Johnson in the first place?




> So, there's really nothing more to discuss.
> 
> I hope what you perceive as your integrity keeps you warm as the tyranny which you refused to oppose closes in around you.


So refusing to support a statist authoritarian hack means that I refuse to oppose tyranny?

LOL you zombie kids and your 'logic.'

----------


## phill4paul

> I don't know why I engaged you in this conversation.
> 
> You'd made it perfectly clear on previous occasions that you have no interest in the practical consequences of your decisions.
> 
> Your sole object of concern is whether your vote will be for a person who shares 100% of your principles. 
> 
> Whether that vote will be of any value in actually _realizing_ those principles is no importance whatsoever. 
> 
> So, there's really nothing more to discuss.
> ...


  I think Gunny is quite clear, as I am, that integrity keeps us from choosing the lesser of evils. I don't do that. $#@! that stupid ass $#@! about choosing the lesser of evils to bring about liberty. It just doesn't happen that way.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think Gunny is quite clear, as I am, that integrity keeps us from choosing the lesser of evils. I don't do that. $#@! that stupid ass $#@! about choosing the lesser of evils to bring about liberty. _It just doesn't happen that way._


...and it never will.  Good will NEVER be brought forth by choosing evil.  Even the lesser evil.  This is axiomatic.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> ...and it never will.  Good will NEVER be brought forth by choosing evil.  Even the lesser evil.  This is axiomatic.


And you consider an evil any politician who doesn't share 100% of your principles, correct?

If not, which principles then are you willing to compromise?

----------


## libertyjam

> There was a confrontation between them today, maybe had something to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...al-nomination/
> 
> 
> I'm really not that concerned about it though.



Sounds like Peterson is a hothead and would not get my vote.  PS, he is too young and if he cant understand then he has no business at that level of politics.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And you consider an evil any politician who doesn't share 100% of your political principles, correct?


Absolutely not.  That entire idea is a figment of your imagination.  I have never in all my life said nor implied any such thing, nor do I now nor have I ever believed such nonsense.  I have not even done anything in my entire 42 years that could even be construed as holding that position, therefore I posit that you have an "assumed image" of what you think someone who hates Johnson looks like, and are applying your figment to me and declaring it reality.




> If not, which principles then are you willing to compromise?


I don't compromise, I collate.

----------


## libertyjam

> Yeah, writing in RP is getting even easier.
> 
> I'll sleep well on election night.
> 
> Gunny is right, it was a douche move.



Yes, it was a douche move.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Absolutely not.  That entire idea is a figment of your imagination.  I have never in all my life said nor implied any such thing, nor do I now nor have I ever believed such nonsense.  I have not even done anything in my entire 42 years that could even be construed as holding that position, therefore I posit that you have an "assumed image" of what you think someone who hates Johnson looks like, and are applying your figment to me and declaring it reality.
> 
> I don't compromise, I collate.


Equivocation..

Either you are willing to compromise some principles (as by supporting a candidate who does not share 100% of them) or not.

It can't be both.

Which is it?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Equivocation..


Absolutely not.  There is an enormous difference between compromising principles, and building coalitions around common goals.  The very fact that you would call that an equivocation is frankly absurd.  




> Either you are willing to compromise some principles (as by supporting a candidate who does not share 100% of them) or not.


You live in such a 2D black and white world.  Your vision is so desperately narrow "It can only be this or that" and I'm just here laughing at the tesseract you are calling a diamond down there in flatland.




> It can't be both.
> 
> Which is it?


I vote for people whom I believe will bring us closer to Constitutional government, and I oppose people whom I believe will take us further away from Constitutional government than we already are.

I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I vote for people whom I believe will bring us closer to Constitutional  government, and I oppose people whom I believe will take us further away  from Constitutional government than we already are.


And you do not believe that, on balance, Gary Johnson's policy positions represent a shift toward constitutional government?

A few of his many positions which represent a dramatic shift toward constitutional government:

Abolishing the FedCutting federal spending (which is almost exclusively on unconstitutional programs) by 43%Repealing the PATRIOT Act 

Which of his unconstitutional proposals (gay cakes?) are so egregious that they outweigh the above, for a net move away from the constitution?




> I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp?


It's hard to grasp because you constantly equivocate.

....acting as if all  compromise is bad, and then backing down when challenged on the  absurdity of that position.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And you do not believe that, on balance, Gary Johnson's policy positions represent a shift toward constitutional government?
> 
> A few of his many positions which represent a dramatic shift toward constitutional government:
> 
> Abolishing the FedCutting federal spending (which is almost exclusively on unconstitutional programs) by 43%Repealing the PATRIOT Act


None of which outweigh his desire to make morality a federal mandate.

The federal and state balance of power is f'd up enough at it is, and it is a tenfold bigger issue than rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.




> Which of his unconstitutional proposals (gay cakes?) are so egregious that they outweigh the above, for a net move away from the constitution?


I love how you take a primary violation of the federal Constitution and blithely pass it off as baking a cake.  But yeah, I'll bite that halibut.  Any person who would hold a gun to someone's head and make them bake a cake should be in jail, not the White House.




> It's hard to grasp because you constantly equivocate.







> ....acting as if all  compromise is bad, and then backing down when challenged on the  absurdity of that position.


How have I backed down?  I sidestepped your complex-question trap by re-stating my actual belief and in your world this is backing down? LOL








Am I the only one who finds it brutally ironic how this guy was so rabidly anti-trumpaloompa all this time, and all the sudden Johnson is the topic and he turns into one of them, only pro-Johnson?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> None of which outweigh his desire to make morality a federal mandate.


Just to be clear: *You think that the federal government forcing businesses to serve gays is worse than the Fed, the PATRIOT Act, and 43% of all federal programs combined?* You'd rather prevent the former than abolish the latter?




> The federal and state balance of power is f'd up enough at it is, and it is a tenfold bigger issue than rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.


And you don't think that abolishing 43% of the federal government might rebalance things a tad?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Just to be clear: *You think that the federal government forcing businesses to serve gays is worse than the Fed, the PATRIOT Act, and 43% of all federal programs combined?* You'd rather prevent the former than abolish the latter?


You keep trying to pervert my position into the little box you have selected for me in your head.  It will not work, and it's a practice the Trumpaloompas used and you should be ashamed. 

I have said and I will say again, I vote for the people I believe will bring us closer to the Constitution, and oppose those who would remove us further from it.  The #1 issue in Constitutional Compliance today, is the balance of federal and state powers.  If anyone wants from me what YOU would call a "compromise vote" then first and foremost they will not f'k up the balance of federal and state power any more than it already is.




> And you don't think that abolishing 43% of the federal government might rebalance things a tad?


I get that you do not consider piddlin shyt like.......the entire foundation of American government.....important enough to affect your lofty goals, but I do not and will never think like you.  Indeed I am appalled that such a position would even be entertained.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Let's review:




> Originally Posted by r3volution  3.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
> ...


Now, how exactly did I misrepresent you?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Let's review:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, how exactly did I misrepresent you?


Well first of all you think I give a damn about 'gays' one way or the other.   

This perception is probably an effect of your aggressively narrow perspective.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Well first of all you think I give a damn about 'gays' one way or the other.   
> 
> This perception is probably an effect of your aggressively narrow perspective.


That is not an answer to the question: more like an evasion.

----------


## Working Poor

To me this seems like the most deranged election I have ever been aware of.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> To me this seems like the most deranged election I have ever been aware of.


No doubt about that..

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That is not an answer to the question: more like an evasion.


LOL really?  

How many times do I have to say that the #1 issue is the balance of federal and state power before you stop trying to make it about baking cookies and gay sex?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I mean, are cookies and sex all you can think about or something?

Because my position honestly has nothing to do with either, but you keep ruthlessly dragging them back in.

Why?

----------


## H. E. Panqui

....johnson sucks...but austin petersen sucks even worse...petersen praises the stinking warmonger ted cruz and the stinking warmonger glenn beck praises petersen...

....petersen appears to me as just another goddamned fool republican warmonger...petersen and his stooooooooooopid glenn beck supporters need to go back to the miserable, warmongering tea bag republican wing...no honest libertarian could support petersen...

...johnson sucks too...but many libertarians give him a pass for his support over the years...

....but republicrat weld is an ESPECIALLY bad VP choice for a 'just barely libertarian' johnson...

...johnson/weld or johnson/petersen=no vote/support from panqui....(this is like the stinking boob barf/WAR LP ticket in 2008..UGH!!)

----------


## presence

disappointment in Johnson beyond words

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

If I show up at the polls at all it will be to write in Rand (or his daddy...)

----------


## Krugminator2

He are my observations from closely following Gary Johnson this Memorial weekend:

Gary Johnson supports equal pay laws, anti-discrimination laws, he scolded Republicans for wanting to cut funding to Planned Parenthood because it was meant to interfere with a woman;s right to choose, said the free market not the EPA bankrupted the coal industry, said Republicans should vote for Scalia's replacement because a liberal judge is going to side with Libertarians 75% of the time, said a Obama/Romney/Kasich eminent domain green energy supporter Bill Weld was the original libertarian, supports mandatory calorie labeling in restaurants, sending the US military to  go after Joseph Kony, was for banning burqas before walking it back, said he wants to cut the budget by 43% but wants to somehow preserve Social Security and Medicare,  he did not know who Henry Hazlitt was in an interview,  opposes the Indiana 1st Amendment confirmation law and hedged on whether or not ministers and priests to be forced to perform gay marriages.

I have changed my mind on the LP. I am solidly Republican and the LP should fail. I would take every single member of the House Freedom Caucus over Gary Johnson and I would take 1/2 of the House and Senate Republicans over Bill Weld.  Johnson/Weld is what the Daily Kos thinks a libertarian is. They are both socially progressive, moderate Republicans.

----------


## specsaregood

> So I am supposed to abandon my every principle in a quest to obtain federal funds?


Now that is funny.

----------


## specsaregood

> Yes, it was a douche move.


I've been saying for years that GJ was a giant douche.  Ever since that CPAC in 2010? where he introduced the giant standup photo of himself promoting his PAC.   It's been obvious for awhile now.

edit:

----------


## specsaregood

> A few of his many positions which represent a dramatic shift toward constitutional government:
> 
> Abolishing the Fed


Can you please cite for me a reference of GJ actually proposing/promoting abolishing the federal reserve. TIA.

----------


## undergroundrr

> ....johnson sucks...but austin petersen sucks even worse...petersen praises the stinking warmonger ted cruz and the stinking warmonger glenn beck praises petersen...
> 
> ....petersen appears to me as just another goddamned fool republican warmonger...petersen and his stooooooooooopid glenn beck supporters need to go back to the miserable, warmongering tea bag republican wing...no honest libertarian could support petersen...


Yeah, I could have supported Petersen (I'm supporting Johnson) but I wouldn't have felt great about it. From all I could see, he's a narcissistic hothead. Like an attention-seeking blogger, he rates his own performance by how many punches he lands and how much chaos he causes.

Petersen's confrontation with Johnson about Weld in front of the press can be taken two ways.  Some people, I'm sure, cheered AP on for stripping the bride bare with her bachelors.

I thought it was mega-childish and showed he's more interested in scorching earth and advancing himself than achieving anything for liberty.  And that confrontation probably was the tip of the iceberg in how AP has interacted with GJ.

I see the gun thing not as a laurel wreath from AP but as a parting shot at Johnson about Weld not being 100% on gun rights.  

Again, I have to assume AP was probably a complete dick behind the scenes. If I were GJ, I wouldn't feel like I owed him crap. But it also would have behooved GJ to take the high road.

----------


## jkob

This story seems a little too contrived don't you think? 

That replica gun costs about $80 when you look it up on Google by the way, it wasn't really George Washington's gun. It's a nice gesture, I guess, but an incredibly dorky one.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Can you please cite for me a reference of GJ actually proposing/promoting abolishing the federal reserve. TIA.


I'm not R3v, obviously, but here's a link where Gary says, at the 9:07 mark, that he would abolish the Fed, and if he couldn't get it abolished (which he thinks is likely, due to Congress), he'd get it audited.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> This story seems a little too contrived don't you think?


That's what I think. Austin Petersen prominently gives Gary a gun in front of the whole delegation, then Petersen's supporters find the gun in the trash _at the event_? Why would Johnson throw the gun away at the convention hall? It's a fake story, put together by Petersen supporters, or by people hoping to raise the drama around the LP.

----------


## younglibertarian

For all of you saying that this isn't a big deal, I'd recommend hopping on social media and looking at the flocks of AP supporters who will not be voting Johnson this fall.

----------


## 69360

> There are differences between Gary and Austin, but I don't see a big difference. I get it why Austin endorsed Gary, because Austin probably wants to run again in 2020, but then with a war chest and automatic ballot access, assuming Gary won't run again (which I think he won't). Could be a landslide victory for Austin. He is only 35, so he could be the prime Libertarian candidate for years, if not decades, to come.


I have nothing against this Peterson. But before running for potus again, perhaps he should get some experience? Run for a local or state office in the meantime. Lets say Johnson succeeds and gets the matching funds. If the LP nominates a nobody like Peterson in 2020 they will be right back where they started from.

----------


## 69360

> For all of you saying that this isn't a big deal, I'd recommend hopping on social media and looking at the flocks of AP supporters who will not be voting Johnson this fall.


Honestly, who cares? Johnson won't be president. We all know that. But I think the numbers of LP members who won't vote for him over some purity test will be dwarfed by the numbers of never Trump or never Clinton voters who will vote for him. 

The LP got a million votes last time. I don't think they have a million card carrying members do they?

----------


## younglibertarian

> Honestly, who cares? Johnson won't be president. We all know that. But I think the numbers of LP members who won't vote for him over some purity test will be dwarfed by the numbers of never Trump or never Clinton voters who will vote for him. 
> 
> The LP got a million votes last time. I don't think they have a million card carrying members do they?



That is nice and all, but what is the purpose if you alienate half of your original base? This is about building the party for the long term. A bunch of protest voters who come one election then go back to their respective parties are useless.

----------


## William Tell

> That is nice and all, but what is the purpose if you alienate half of your original base? This is about building the party for the long term. A bunch of protest voters who come one election then go back to their respective parties are useless.


I agree. The people they are making mad are the ones who usually vote LP in the general. Sure, they might get Kristol and Rubin this year but its a suicide move long term.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Honestly, who cares? Johnson won't be president. We all know that. But I think the numbers of LP members who won't vote for him over some purity test will be dwarfed by the numbers of never Trump or never Clinton voters who will vote for him. 
> 
> The LP got a million votes last time. I don't think they have a million card carrying members do they?


No. No they don't. Even after 30% growth this year, registration is at 411,250, so Johnson was getting far more voters in 2012 than those actually registered in the party. I know that's true for me: I voted for Johnson in 2012, but I was a member of another third party. Johnson received 1,275,971 votes, so 3/4ths of his vote totals were from people officially outside the LP. And, obviously, with his poll numbers at 10%, nearly all of those people are outside the LP.

----------


## 69360

> That is nice and all, but what is the purpose if you alienate half of your original base? This is about building the party for the long term. A bunch of protest voters who come one election then go back to their respective parties are useless.


The hope is they stick around.

I'm just about ready to change my registration to LP. They have a legitimate ticket plus they are on the verge of becoming an actual party here in Maine. It seems worth it to me. If it goes back to a circular firing squad of perennial losers and fat guys stripping, I won't want to stay.

----------


## younglibertarian

> The hope is they stick around.
> 
> I'm just about ready to change my registration to LP. They have a legitimate ticket plus they are on the verge of becoming an actual party here in Maine. It seems worth it to me. If it goes back to a circular firing squad of perennial losers and fat guys stripping, I won't want to stay.


The Weld VP pick was essentially firing half of your team before playing in the super bowl in hopes that the crowds join us.

----------


## 69360

> The Weld VP pick was essentially firing half of your team before playing in the super bowl in hopes that the crowds join us.


Meh, could have been worse. I think his credibility and fundraising will bring more value for the LP than some policy point that fails a purity test.

----------


## specsaregood

> I'm not R3v, obviously, but here's a link where Gary says, at the 9:07 mark, that he would abolish the Fed, and if he couldn't get it abolished (which he thinks is likely, due to Congress), he'd get it audited.


Meh its better than actively opposing it but pretty darn lightly supported.   He basically says if congress abolishes it, that he would go along with it.  He certainly isn't promoting it.  Then talks about the treasury printing money which is basically the big government position instead of the gold standard or similar systems.

Also that was 4 years ago, anything more recent?

----------


## angelatc

> disappointment in Johnson beyond words



Agreed.  Petersen was acting like an adult, Johnson responded like a jerk.

----------


## Rudeman

> Honestly, who cares? Johnson won't be president. We all know that. But I think the numbers of LP members who won't vote for him over some purity test will be dwarfed by the numbers of never Trump or never Clinton voters who will vote for him. 
> 
> The LP got a million votes last time. I don't think they have a million card carrying members do they?



They are 100% not getting the Cruz never-Trump people. The consensus were open to Petersen but none were impressed by GJ, they view him as another liberal. No idea what the Bush/Romney types think. So I wouldn't bank on all those never votes. Plus there's the potential Kristol candidate.

----------


## 69360

> They are 100% not getting the Cruz never-Trump people. The consensus were open to Petersen but none were impressed by GJ, they view him as another liberal. No idea what the Bush/Romney types think. So I wouldn't bank on all those never votes. Plus there's the potential Kristol candidate.


I voted for Cruz in the primary, now I intend to vote for Johnson. Go figure.

----------


## Rudeman

> I voted for Cruz in the primary, now I intend to vote for Johnson. Go figure.


That's fine, I'm just relaying what I've seen from the pro-Cruz sites that I visit. Now that may change but that's just the initial reaction that I saw. I think a lot are also waiting to see who the Kristol candidate is.

----------


## nasaal

> The Weld VP pick was essentially firing half of your team before playing in the super bowl in hopes that the crowds join us.


More like recruiting a world class international soccer player with an american parent to the US Men's national team before the world cup.  His ability to fund raise and his appeal to independents is certainly a net gain over losing fat guys who strip on stage.  

If you don't want to support them then that's absolutely fine.  That's your right and even your duty.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> More like recruiting a world class international soccer player with an american parent to the US Men's national team before the world cup.  His ability to fund raise and his appeal to independents is certainly a net gain over losing fat guys who strip on stage.  
> 
> If you don't want to support them then that's absolutely fine.  That's your right and even your duty.


Provided that your world class soccer player actually plays baseball, and sucks at soccer.

----------


## nasaal

> Provided that your world class soccer player actually plays baseball, and sucks at soccer.


Makes no sense.  When talking about viability with regards to elections, getting someone who broke records with how he won his re-election in a blue state, is a net gain.

Dislike them and don't support them if you choose, but the analogy is correct given the purpose of the campaign.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Makes no sense.  When talking about viability with regards to elections, getting someone who broke records with how he won his re-election in a blue state, is a net gain.
> 
> Dislike them and don't support them if you choose, but the analogy is correct given the purpose of the campaign.


I don't GAF about 'elections,' I GAF about running a Constitutional government.  If making a chalk mark in a "win" box is that vital to you, well, lol you do you.  I will rather focus on actually saving America by upholding these little things called "principles."  Electoral victory is worthless if you are promoting people just as scummy as the other guys.

----------


## nasaal

> I don't GAF about 'elections,' I GAF about running a Constitutional government.  If making a chalk mark in a "win" box is that vital to you, well, lol you do you.  I will rather focus on actually saving America by upholding these little things called "principles."  Electoral victory is worthless if you are promoting people just as scummy as the other guys.


You just accused someone of repeated strawmen, and here you are.  With regards to the goal of the campaign, getting Weld on board vs losing half of a very very small crowd, is a net gain.  

I didn't say my personal goals, nor did I mention yours.

You don't GAF about elections.  That's good, because you will never have an impact on one with your outlook.  You GAF about running a constitutional government.  That's too bad, because you will never be able to impact the change required to bring the america people to your line of thinking.  

You cannot bring about a coalition for constitutional government without a national platform from which to speak on it.  You cannot get that platform unless you are a member of a major party. In the 2 party system you have no opportunity to form such a coalition because you have no basis on which to adjust the platform in an actionable way.

This leaves you to the process of generating new major parties.  You will never in a million years do this without compromise from all involved.

This isn't the route that you wish to take.  That's fine, and even laudable, but you remain separate from the process.

Do what you feel is best for your, man. Hopefully everyone else does the same.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You just accused someone of repeated strawmen, and here you are.  With regards to the goal of the campaign, getting Weld on board vs losing half of a very very small crowd, is a net gain.


That is an _electoral_ gain, which I have already demonstrated is worthless without principle.

If the LP discovers that electoral gains come by nominating statist authoritarians, then you can bet that's all they will ever nominate again.  If anything, voting for Johnson and contributing to his success will _destroy_ the long term future of a principled Libertarian Party.




> I didn't say my personal goals, nor did I mention yours.
> 
> You don't GAF about elections.  That's good, because you will never have an impact on one with your outlook.


You mean except for the ones I win myself? 




> You GAF about running a constitutional government.  That's too bad, because you will never be able to impact the change required to bring the america people to your line of thinking.


Do you mean to say that people like me can't get elected?




> You cannot bring about a coalition for constitutional government without a national platform from which to speak on it.


A national platform of "let's $#@! all over the Constitution" is not a platform that will advance Constitutional government in any way, shape, or form.




> You cannot get that platform unless you are a member of a major party. In the 2 party system you have no opportunity to form such a coalition because you have no basis on which to adjust the platform in an actionable way.


So what you are saying is you vote for the party not the candidate?




> This leaves you to the process of generating new major parties.  You will never in a million years do this without compromise from all involved.


You don't build a party through compromise, you build a party by coalition.  These are two completely different and even opposed techniques.




> This isn't the route that you wish to take.  That's fine, and even laudable, but you remain separate from the process.


You have made it abundantly clear that you do not have the first clue what "I wish" in the first place, and your lofty pronunciations of what you imagine me to believe are really more a reflection of your space than mine.




> Do what you feel is best for your, man. Hopefully everyone else does the same.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Can you please cite for me a reference of GJ actually proposing/promoting abolishing the federal reserve. TIA.


"Gary Johnson end the Fed" is the query which you could submit to Google.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> That's what I think. Austin Petersen prominently gives Gary a gun in front of the whole delegation, then Petersen's supporters find the gun in the trash _at the event_? Why would Johnson throw the gun away at the convention hall? It's a fake story, put together by Petersen supporters, or by people hoping to raise the drama around the LP.


I think so too.

Occam's razor n'all...

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RJ Liberty again"

----------


## nasaal

> That is an _electoral_ gain, which I have already demonstrated is worthless without principle.
> 
> If the LP discovers that electoral gains come by nominating statist authoritarians, then you can bet that's all they will ever nominate again.  If anything, voting for Johnson and contributing to his success will _destroy_ the long term future of a principled Libertarian Party.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean except for the ones I win myself? 
> 
> 
> ...


You either failed to address what was said, made a direct strawman, or outright deflected without actually stating any real view of your own.

If you dying want any discourse on the subject that's gravy.  Just needs to say so.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You either failed to address what was said, made a direct strawman, or outright deflected without actually stating any real view of your own.


If you can't tell which one, then chances are you are just making it up to mollify your own conscience.




> If you dying want any discourse on the subject that's gravy.  Just needs to say so.


Now I'm dying because I believe differently than you?

----------


## nasaal

> If you can't tell which one, then chances are you are just making it up to mollify your own conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm dying because I believe differently than you?


The separate accusations refer to you doing at least one in each seperate reply to a quotation. 

The dying thing is that fault of autocorrect.  The intended word was 'don't'

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The separate accusations refer to you doing at least one in each seperate reply to a quotation.


Well, you can accuse me of your own imaginations all day long, but none of that impacts anything I have said.  This long misled and ineffective attempt to poison the well by attacking my person does not change the fact that Gary Johnson is an anticonstitutionalist and that his election or even just his educational campaign would make things far worse for my agenda of restoring constitutional government to the United States.  His building actual support will likely set the Libertarian Party back 15 years, as once they see some electoral success in nominating a statist authoritarian narcissist, you can bet they will never nominate another liberty minded person again until the people in charge now are tossed out on their ears.

----------


## jct74

> *Austin Petersen Flix*
> May 31 at 12:07 am
> 
> From Austin Petersen concerning the flintlock issue, from his livestream in the private group Austin Petersen for President.
> 
> "About the gun issue, I mean guys I'm just going to tell you what. There is nothing to be gained in pushing this. No matter what the story is, and believe me it doesn't look good. It looks horrible. But there's nothing to gained by sparking a civil war over this.
> 
> So I can't tell you to support Gary Johnson. That's up to you. I definitely endorse him still because I think he is much better than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
> 
> ...


https://www.facebook.com/APFlix/posts/1710186835903891

----------


## GunnyFreedom

What does "Laughs in Libertarian" even mean?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> https://www.facebook.com/APFlix/posts/1710186835903891


Good, but he should have been contemplating the value of LP unity when he attacked Johnson in front of the $#@!ing Washington Post.

Okay, fine, calm, Serenity Now, HOOCHIE MAMA!

....I can deal with it, as the only thing that actually matters is that libertarians unite around _someone_.

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

I said Johnson wasn't libertarian in 2012, and I've been saying it ever since.  Now everyone is seeing what I've always known.

When I was at the Ron Paul rally in Tampa in 2012, Johnson had his supporters come in and try to disrupt the rally by staging supporters around the arena to shout /boo in unison.  Same type of classless story as this one.

Elect McAfee 2016.  splitting the "libertarian" vote hardly matters.  It's a protest vote, and Johnson isn't a libertarian.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Is this actually getting reported by some news outlet whose audience includes nonlibertarians?


It has been now, by the Washington Times and Fox News. I view this as a good thing; Trump's proved the old quote that there's no such thing as "bad publicity".

----------


## erowe1

> I said Johnson wasn't libertarian in 2012


Since when do you consider that a bad thing?

----------


## phill4paul

Supposedly they all made up. Got them a number of days in the news. Meh.

----------

