# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Gary Johnson a "Liberty Candidate?"

## Weston White

Why is Gary Johnson provided a platform on this forum?  Although nominated by the Libertarian Party, he is by no means, in any way, whatsoever, a libertarian.

Furthermore, just look at the massive flopping in his campaigning platform from 2012 versus 2016.  He is openly for the TPP, has colored hints that he is actually a gun control nutter--in his VP selection of Gov. Weld, he is utterly divisive against others that are much, much more conservative than him, e.g., the Pauls and Trump.

Goodness, about the only thing quasi-libertarian about him is that he advocates for marijuana and a balanced budget.   To the former, I say big whoop, and to the latter, well, that is really nothing more than a pipe dream for those who are realistically non-libertarian.

It seems to me that Mr. Johnson's tact is to come out scrutinizing an issue or act that would be deemed as being anti-libertarian, but in the end ultimately determines the issue or act to be worthwhile, valid, favorable and for the best.  Bollocks!

Lending him such attention, serves only to dilute (however little) the voting pool of much more serious libertarian types.

----------


## givemeliberty2010

Johnson is probably a moderate libertarian, but there are at least two very libertarian things about him besides social issues: he is for a more restrained foreign policy and he is extremely anti-Trump.

----------


## givemeliberty2010

Found a third thing: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ga...fends-snowden/

----------


## Natural Citizen

A vote for Johnson is essentailly a vote for Clinton. That's the nuts and bolts of it.

While, Johnson does express some philosophy that supports liberty, he ultimately contradicts himself in scope of the parameters of liberty itself. Is what it is. People feel thrown under the bus by Trump. So, then, the illusion of principle is expressed by voting Libertarian Party while lashing back at the Republican Party. 

Of course, Johson has been mentioned around here for years anyway. So, I don't see a problem with a thread for him.

The flipside of that seems that some are of the view that they can forward a precise message in terms of principles by using his supporters as a vehicle. That won't really work but screw it. If it makes people feel productive in some way, then, whatever. Heh.

----------


## jurgs01

If the names on the ballot are Trump, Clinton and Johnson I am marking the box for Johnson. He doesn't inspire me, but is like a gazillion times better than the other two authoritarians.

----------


## erowe1

> Why is Gary Johnson provided a platform on this forum?  Although nominated by the Libertarian Party, he is by no means, in any way, whatsoever, a libertarian.
> 
> Furthermore, just look at the massive flopping in his campaigning platform from 2012 versus 2016.  He is openly for the TPP, has colored hints that he is actually a gun control nutter--in his VP selection of Gov. Weld, he is utterly divisive against others that are much, much more conservative than him, e.g., the Pauls and Trump.
> 
> Goodness, about the only thing quasi-libertarian about him is that he advocates for marijuana and a balanced budget.   To the former, I say big whoop, and to the latter, well, that is really nothing more than a pipe dream for those who are realistically non-libertarian.
> 
> It seems to me that Mr. Johnson's tact is to come out scrutinizing an issue or act that would be deemed as being anti-libertarian, but in the end ultimately determines the issue or act to be worthwhile, valid, favorable and for the best.  Bollocks!
> 
> Lending him such attention, serves only to dilute (however little) the voting pool of much more serious libertarian types.


Don't insult the Pauls by lumping them together with Trump.

Trump is by far the most far left candidate ever to run for the Republican nomination, much less actually win it. No one else even comes close. And as ill-fitting as the label "conservative" is for Johnson, he unquestionably fits it better than Trump does.

Johnson endorsed Ron Paul for president in 2008, by the way. Trump has only ever ridiculed both Ron and Rand.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Don't insult the Pauls by lumping them together with Trump.
> 
> Trump is by far the most far left candidate ever to run for the Republican nomination, much less actually win it. No one else even comes close. And as ill-fitting as the label "conservative" is for Johnson, he unquestionably fits it better than Trump does.
> 
> Johnson endorsed Ron Paul for president in 2008, by the way. Trump has only ever ridiculed both Ron and Rand.


Teddy Roosevelt would give Trump a run for his money.

----------


## Weston White

> Johnson endorsed Ron Paul for president in 2008, by the way. Trump has only ever ridiculed both Ron and Rand.


That is part of my point, I think Johnson really only injected himself into the liberty movement, but has since been slowly exposing his true colors since then.  As one example: http://independentpoliticalreport.co...o-libertarian/

----------


## Danke

He is better than Bob Barr.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Johnson is probably a moderate libertarian, but there are at least two very libertarian things about him besides *social issues*: he is for a more restrained foreign policy and he is extremely anti-Trump.


He's not all that libertarian on social issues, he' more liberal. Humanitarian wars and going to war for other countries aren't libertarian and so what if he' anti-Trump - he seems to like Clinton, is that a positive, too?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Don't insult the Pauls by lumping them together with Trump.
> 
> *Trump is by far the most far left candidate ever to run for the Republican nomination*, much less actually win it. No one else even comes close. And as ill-fitting as the label "conservative" is for Johnson, he unquestionably fits it better than Trump does.


lololol.   Bullcrap!!  In reality, he is far more conservative than the vast majority of them.




> Johnson endorsed Ron Paul for president in 2008, by the way. Trump has only ever ridiculed both Ron and Rand.


And Ron and Rand ridiculed him.  In fact, it was Rand who drew first blood.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Don't insult the Pauls by lumping them together with Trump.
> 
> Trump is by far the most far left candidate ever to run for the Republican nomination, much less actually win it. No one else even comes close. And as ill-fitting as the label "conservative" is for Johnson, he unquestionably fits it better than Trump does.
> 
> Johnson endorsed Ron Paul for president in 2008, by the way. Trump has only ever ridiculed both Ron and Rand.


You're exaggerating about Trump, as he has stated positive things about Ron in the past, and last year expressed respect that Rand was seemingly a strong contender in the primary race when it started. On balance he has five major policy stances that are net less statist compared to Hillary or Johnson. By far, Trump's candidacy is the most strategically consequential one for liberty in this year, in terms of both establishing a pathway to national victory for 'outsider' candidates that we can follow, and in terms of the above policy changes he will make. 

As I said before about Johnson, he'll acceptably represent the LP in general, but his instincts are at heart moderate Republican in practice, that he wants to redefine as being libertarian in principle. Being liberal on social matters makes him left-authoritarian on ACTUAL ISSUES, which some here appear to find more forgivable than Trump having authoritarian personality traits. Johnson will be strategically consequential mainly in terms of improving the LP's position nationally in terms of permanent ballot status, if he maintains the poll numbers he's pulling now.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Johnson said he would vote for the Trans Pacific Partnership.  He is a piece of crap. Case closed.

----------


## euphemia

Johnson is not a libertarian.  He's a liberal.  He likes government every bit as much as any Democrat.  Either he doesn't understand how government works, or he would bring the full force of government to bear on bakers and photographers.  In other words, he would force a socially liberal agenda, just as Obama has.  

Totally not libertarian.

----------


## erowe1

> That is part of my point, I think Johnson really only injected himself into the liberty movement, but has since been slowly exposing his true colors since then.  As one example: http://independentpoliticalreport.co...o-libertarian/


This article is from 2001.
http://reason.com/archives/2001/01/0...ngerous-politi

----------


## erowe1

> On balance he has five major policy stances that are net less statist compared to Hillary or Johnson.


No, he doesn't. He has zero stances that are less statist than Johnson.

----------


## givemeliberty2010

> A vote for Johnson is essentailly a vote for Clinton. That's the nuts and bolts of it.
> 
> While, Johnson does express some philosophy that supports liberty, he ultimately contradicts himself in scope of the parameters of liberty itself. Is what it is. People feel thrown under the bus by Trump. So, then, the illusion of principle is expressed by voting Libertarian Party while lashing back at the Republican Party. 
> 
> Of course, Johson has been mentioned around here for years anyway. So, I don't see a problem with a thread for him.
> 
> The flipside of that seems that some are of the view that they can forward a precise message in terms of principles by using his supporters as a vehicle. That won't really work but screw it. If it makes people feel productive in some way, then, whatever. Heh.


It's not really a message bout principals. Supporting Johnson, for me, is a message about the direction of the country as well as an attempt to give attention to the Libertarian Party.

----------


## givemeliberty2010

> Teddy Roosevelt would give Trump a run for his money.


You get a Star of David for that one.

----------


## euphemia

> It's not really a message bout principals. Supporting Johnson, for me, is a message about the direction of the country as well as an attempt to give attention to the Libertarian Party.


No offense, but this is the wrong reason to support a candidate.  You are not supporting a candidate.  You are supporting their principles.  Johnson's principles are no different than Trump or Clinton.  All three support big government, even if they support it in different ways.  

This is not about sending a message, anyway.  It's about electing a President.

----------


## givemeliberty2010

> lololol.   Bullcrap!!  In reality, he is far more conservative than the vast majority of them.
> 
> 
> And Ron and Rand ridiculed him.  In fact, it was Rand who drew first blood.


I would think this incident came before Rand ever mentioned Donald Trump.

----------


## euphemia

> Johnson endorsed Ron Paul for president in 2008, by the way.


Who he endorsed for President in 2008 is irrelevant.  It's what he believes and planst to do as President that is relevant.  Johnson believes government should engage in war.  He believes government should control guns.  He believes government should force business owners should be forced to serve clients whose message violates deeply held religious beliefs.  He believes government is the solution to the problem.  He is not addressing how he would limit government as a means to personal liberty and responsibility.

----------


## givemeliberty2010

> No offense, but this is the wrong reason to support a candidate.  You are not supporting a candidate.  You are supporting their principles.  Johnson's principles are no different than Trump or Clinton.  All three support big government, even if they support it in different ways.  
> 
> This is not about sending a message, anyway.  It's about electing a President.


The election would be about electing a president if that were still an option. And, actually, Johnson is still the most viable candidate of the ones I could support. However, this election can also help with future elections, and that is the most realistic hope, in my opinion. Giving attention to the Libertarian Party helps with future elections.

In addition, more than a candidate's prinicples matter. Also important are the candidate's knowledge, honesty, judgment, experience and personnel.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> No, he doesn't. He has zero stances that are less statist than Johnson.


In a previous post I outlined five areas where Trump was much less statist than Hillary (trade deals, Supreme Court justice, foreign policy/war, Obamacare, borders). Of the five, Johnson clearly takes the more government position, and only possibliy matches Trump on war (basically due to vagueness, whereas Trump's less intervention plans are more specific).

----------


## givemeliberty2010

> In a previous post I outlined five areas where Trump was much less statist than Hillary (trade deals, Supreme Court justice, foreign policy/war, Obamacare, borders). Of the five, Johnson clearly takes the more government position, and only possibliy matches Trump on war (basically due to vagueness, whereas Trump's less intervention plans are more specific).


How is Trump for less government on borders and vetting? Does not border enforcement and vetting require the government to act?

----------


## erowe1

> In a previous post I outlined five areas where Trump was much less statist than Hillary (trade deals, Supreme Court justice, foreign policy/war, Obamacare, borders). Of the five, Johnson clearly takes the more government position, and only possibliy matches Trump on war (basically due to vagueness, whereas Trump's less intervention plans are more specific).


There is not a single item on that list where Johnson is more statist than Trump. And in trade and immigration you get it completely backwards. Trump's position of having more government regulation of them is the more statist position.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> There is not a single item on that list where Johnson is more statist than Trump. And in trade and immigration you get it completely backwards. Trump's position of having more government regulation of them is the more statist position.


Bull$#@!, again.

Johnson said he would vote for the Trans Pacific Partnership.  That makes him a traitor.

----------


## erowe1

> Who he endorsed for President in 2008 is irrelevant.  It's what he believes and planst to do as President that is relevant.  Johnson believes government should engage in war.  He believes government should control guns.  He believes government should force business owners should be forced to serve clients whose message violates deeply held religious beliefs.  He believes government is the solution to the problem.  He is not addressing how he would limit government as a means to personal liberty and responsibility.


If you measure him by the standard of a pure libertarian, he isn't one, and I don't see anyone pretending he is. But he is more libertarian than Trump or Clinton by far, including in the issues you mention. If he were in Congress he would be maybe at worst a notch below Rand, Amash, and Massie.

----------


## erowe1

> Bull$#@!, again.
> 
> Johnson said he would vote for the Trans Pacific Partnership.  That makes him a traitor.


How does that make him a traitor?

Trump would vote for it too if it would let him charge us high enough tariffs. He's not anti-treaty, he's just pro-tariff.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> How does that make him a traitor?
> 
> Trump would vote for it too if it would let him charge us high enough tariffs. He's not anti-treaty, he's just pro-tariff.


Trump is against ceding our national sovereignty to an international ruling body, so no, he would NOT support the TPP.

----------


## LibertyEagle



----------


## euphemia

> If you measure him by the standard of a pure libertarian, he isn't one, and I don't see anyone pretending he is. But he is more libertarian than Trump or Clinton by far, including in the issues you mention. If he were in Congress he would be maybe at worst a notch below Rand, Amash, and Massie.


Johnson is no kind of libertarian.  Libertarian is not a label that has a lot of flexibility.  Either you believe in personal liberty and limited government, or you don't.

To clarify:  Democrats, Republicans, and Gary Johnson are all the same.  They believe the government is the solution to the problem.  Where they differ is on which issues they would apply more government.

Focusing on stuff like pot is just silly.  It does no good to be able to use whatever drugs I want if I still have to have a certain kind of ID and submit to an illegal search before I get on a plane.  The Constitution calls for equal protection under the law, so that means government is almost never the solution.  It is almost always the problem.

----------


## erowe1

> Johnson is no kind of libertarian.  Libertarian is not a label that has a lot of flexibility.


You're just playing word games. There's a spectrum of that goes from tyranny on one end to freedom on  the other, and the closer you are to the freedom end, the more libertarian you are. Someone can be a statist and still be more libertarian than another statist. By your reasoning, no politician this website has ever supported, including Ron Paul, is a libertarian.

----------


## erowe1

> Trump is against ceding our national sovereignty to an international ruling body


No he isn't.

----------


## euphemia

> You're just playing word games. There's a spectrum of that goes from tyranny on one end to freedom on  the other, and the closer you are to the freedom end, the more libertarian you are. Someone can be a statist and still be more libertarian than another statist. By your reasoning, no politician this website has ever supported, including Ron Paul, is a libertarian.


I am not playing word games.  I am looking at the issues and the statements of the candidates and making an evaluation of them.  People keep calling Gary Johnson a Libertarian.  He is not libertarian.  He does not believe we should be equally protected under the law.  He does not believe our national defense should be national defense.  He does not believe people should have the right to free association or the right to live out closely held religious faith. He is not a Libertarian.

Ron Paul believes in noninterventionist foreign policy.  He believes in limited government.  He believes in personal liberty.  As president he would have worked to bring those things about.  Gary Johnson has already said he would use government to accomplish certain things, and they are all things that limit personal liberty and reinforce big government.  Maybe he thinks if enough people are high enough they won't care when the rest of their liberties go away.

----------


## erowe1

> I am not playing word games.  I am looking at the issues and the statements of the candidates and making an evaluation of them.  People keep calling Gary Johnson a Libertarian.  He is not libertarian.  He does not believe we should be equally protected under the law.  He does not believe our national defense should be national defense.  He does not believe people should have the right to free association or the right to live out closely held religious faith. He is not a Libertarian.
> 
> Ron Paul believes in noninterventionist foreign policy.  He believes in limited government.  He believes in personal liberty.  As president he would have worked to bring those things about.  Gary Johnson has already said he would use government to accomplish certain things, and they are all things that limit personal liberty and reinforce big government.  Maybe he thinks if enough people are high enough they won't care when the rest of their liberties go away.


This is just gross misrepresentation of Johnson's positions. It looks like something someone who's trying to come up with excuses for supporting Trump might say.

----------


## euphemia

> This is just gross misrepresentation of Johnson's positions. It looks like something someone who's trying to come up with excuses for supporting Trump might say.


No, it's not.  I'm really up to here with people slapping a Libertarian label on two guys who mean to maintain the status quo.   They are not for liberty.  They aren't.  This election was never about limited government.  It has always been about where government would encroach next.  Johnson has said what he thinks.  Some war.  Some guns.  No religious belief. 

If Johnson wants to represent liberty thinkers, he needs to state postions that reflect constitutionally outlined principles.  So far, he has not done that, and I don't think he will.  He is no different than Trump or Clinton.  No different at all.

----------


## euphemia

> It looks like something someone who's trying to come up with excuses for supporting Trump might say.


And this is absolutely a unfair and desperate misrepresentation of what I said.

----------


## William Tell

> This is just gross misrepresentation of Johnson's positions.


 In what way?




> It looks like something someone who's trying to come up with excuses for supporting Trump might say.


No it doesn't, Trump, Clinton, and Johnson all hold some bad positions. Johnson may not be as bad as the other two, but he does have major problems as euphemia pointed out. That doesn't make her a Trump supporter, just like criticizing Trump doesn't make you a Hillary supporter.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, it's not.  I'm really up to here with people slapping a Libertarian label on two guys who mean to maintain the status quo.   They are not for liberty.  They aren't.  This election was never about limited government.  It has always been about where government would encroach next.  Johnson has said what he thinks.  Some war.  Some guns.  No religious belief. 
> 
> If Johnson wants to represent liberty thinkers, he needs to state postions that reflect constitutionally outlined principles.  So far, he has not done that, and I don't think he will.  He is no different than Trump or Clinton.  No different at all.


He's worse.  Supporting TPP will destroy what little national sovereignty we have left.

----------


## 69360

I'm tired of these threads. The people who post them are impossible. You are never going to find a viable candidate you agree with 100%.

Johnson is way better than Clinton or Trump. Realistically we all know Johnson won't be potus, but if he somehow was, he would a good president.

----------


## euphemia

Johnson is not better than Clinton or Trump.  He is the same.  The sooner people get this, the better off we will be.  

You can't elect someone who has stated he is in favor of big government and then expect him to protect your liberties.  He has stated positions that say he will not do that.  He intends not only to take away your liberty, but he intends to put our country in a binding agreement with other governments that are hostile to us.  He will keep our troops at war, and he will not reform government.  

But he will get rich.  Wait and see.

----------


## erowe1

> In what way?


Because, Johnson is clearly campaigning on a pretty libertarian platform that calls for much smaller government and much more freedom. Talking about the rest of our liberties going away makes no sense, since there are zero issues where his policies would actually leave us even less free than we already are, and many (almost all) where they would make us significantly more free, and where he would drastically shrink government. This can't be said for Trump, not even in a single issue. She's just picking out his weak spots. And even there, she's overstating them. For all intents and purposes he is a noninterventionist. He has wavered on that some. But on balance he's come down more on the noninterventionist side than anything else.

Yeah, there's the wedding cake issue. He's clearly wrong about that. But it needs to be kept in perspective.

----------


## erowe1

> He's worse.  Supporting TPP will destroy what little national sovereignty we have left.


Why do you believe that?

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> How is Trump for less government on borders and vetting? Does not border enforcement and vetting require the government to act?


No border protection creates more government (increased welfare, law enforcement to deal with more crime, more CDC services to address disease etc) than border protection and vetting does.




> Why do you believe that?


Cue the Ron Paul video again.

----------


## euphemia

> Yeah, there's the wedding cake issue. He's clearly wrong about that. But it needs to be kept in perspective.


In perspective?  Compared to what?  You of all people should know that if we have a presidential candidate who would force you, at the point of a gun, to do something your faith convinces you should not be done, what liberty do you have?  This is the worst infringement of liberty, when the government takes away the right for you to decide how your faith is lived out in your personal life.

Johnson believes in "ethical wars."  What does that even mean?  He thinks some gun control is good.  What does that mean?  He thinks we should invade the privacy of those who want to immigrate here so they can prove they are not criminals and can pay taxes.  What does that mean?  It's sure not open borders.

If it's Libertarian, it must be right?  No.  Look at the issues.  Look at what the candidates say.  If Johnson wants to come on here and explain what he means, great.  In the meantime, I'm reading and listening, and he is not a Libertarian and I will not vote for him.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> In perspective?  Compared to what?  You of all people should know that if we have a presidential candidate who would force you, at the point of a gun, to do something your faith convinces you should not be done, what liberty do you have?  This is the worst infringement of liberty, when the government takes away the right for you to decide how your faith is lived out in your personal life.
> 
> Johnson believes in "ethical wars."  What does that even mean?  He thinks some gun control is good.  What does that mean?  He thinks we should invade the privacy of those who want to immigrate here so they can prove they are not criminals and can pay taxes.  What does that mean?  It's sure not open borders.
> 
> If it's Libertarian, it must be right?  No.  Look at the issues.  Look at what the candidates say.  If Johnson wants to come on here and explain what he means, great.  In the meantime, I'm reading and listening, and he is not a Libertarian and I will not vote for him.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Seems like Divide & Conquer is the game we're playing these days. Is counterintuitive. I'll give it another month or so. If I see it's still on the agenda, I'm in the wind. Nice knowing yuns. There's better sht I could be doing.

----------


## euphemia

It's definitely the game Libertarians are playing.  Bill Weld said so.

----------


## erowe1

> No border protection creates more government (increased welfare, law enforcement to deal with more crime, more CDC services to address disease etc) than border protection and vetting does.


That's false. What you are calling "border protection" itself is more government. Welfare, law enforcement, and CDC are all separate issues. Yes, they should be cut. And Johnson is the only candidate who has any likelihood of cutting them.

----------


## erowe1

> In perspective?  Compared to what?


Compared to pretty much every other issue.

----------


## erowe1

> Cue the Ron Paul video again.


Nowhere in that Ron Paul video was anything approaching an answer to my question given.

In fact, he explicitly said that he opposed TPP because it was too protectionist and had too many tariffs and was not free enough trade. That's the exact opposite of Trump, who wants more protectionism, higher tariffs, and less free trade.

----------


## William Tell

> I think it is very dangerous, dangerous for the undermining of the  Constitution, dangerous for the increase of the size of world  government, we complained about NAFTA and CAFTA, but those were small  compared to this and this is a big deal. It will be very interesting to  see what happens. It’s sort of sad that we have to depend and help and  encourage those people who object to the secrecy for the wrong reasons.  Why do you want us to live under the regulations, but they are not  interested so much in this Constitutional approach, they just don’t want  somebody messing around with wages or something. They might even come  up and say let’s get rid of minimum wage law or something like that, but  that wouldn’t be the point. 
> 
> 
>  I just think that it’s a sovereignty issue and it will be very  interesting to see, I don’t have any idea exactly when this vote would  come up, but I would assume that it won’t be terribly long from now.


http://www.ronpaul.com/2015-10-06/tr...rough-secrecy/

----------


## euphemia

> That's false. What you are calling "border protection" itself is more government. Welfare, law enforcement, and CDC are all separate issues. Yes, they should be cut. And Johnson is the only candidate who has any likelihood of cutting them.


It's the law now.  This administration has refused to enforce the law we have now.  What Johnson proposes is to violate the privacy of people who want to immigrate so they can prove they have a job and will pay taxes.  Basically he wants the same as we have now, only with enforcement.  If you believe in open borders, then that's not what Johnson is for.  

Unfortunately, it appears the Libertarian candidates have shown themselves to be authoritarian and have learned to pander.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No he isn't.


Yes, he is.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Nowhere in that Ron Paul video was anything approaching an answer to my question given.
> 
> In fact, he explicitly said that he opposed TPP because it was too protectionist and had too many tariffs and was not free enough trade. That's the exact opposite of Trump, who wants more protectionism, higher tariffs, and less free trade.


You seriously need to be banned for good.  

Ron Paul has ALWAYS been against this globalist horse$#@!.  He was against NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., and he is also against the TPP.  He is not only against them because they are NOT free trade, but managed trade, but because they include ruling bodies above our own Congress.  TPA/TPP is one of the worst yet and he is fervently against it, as was pointed out in the video I posted previously.  

Here is another for you, which you also have seen.




While we're at it, he is also against the IMF, World Bank, and the UN.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> I'm tired of these threads. The people who post them are impossible. You are never going to find a viable candidate you agree with 100%.
> 
> Johnson is way better than Clinton or Trump. Realistically we all know Johnson won't be potus, but if he somehow was, he would a good president.


Yeah, it's the "No True Scotsman" argument. Crazy.

----------


## LibertyEagle

The Trans Pacific Partnership is a HUGE issue, people.  If you do not realize this, it is because you have not done your homework, or because you WANT the destruction it will cause.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> The Trans Pacific Partnership is a HUGE issue, people.  If you do not realize this, it is because you have not done your homework, or because you WANT the destruction it will cause.


Well. Respectfully, discussion in terms of world affairs/relations around here has become very shallow over the last couple of years. Noticeably shallow. There are a lot of things happening abroad. Nations are merging in interesting ways. That said, I think that Americans will suffer the brunt of the consequences given that they're the least informed. If we look around the world, people all over are hitting the streets in mass protest of the TPP. But not here. America is essentially the nucleus for protectionist government. And we've seen protectionist legislation penned and introduced by special interests functioning out of bounds of consent and our traditional governing structure. This stuff with unelected third parties getting together behind closed doors and penning the law is out of bounds of the founding principles of consent. It's  essentially a repatriation of the fundamental principles of our governing structure.

So, yeah. Once consent is out the window, it's over. Turn the flag upside down and say a prayer.

----------


## Suzanimal

> I'm tired of these threads. The people who post them are impossible. You are never going to find a viable candidate you agree with 100%.
> 
> Johnson is way better than Clinton or Trump. Realistically we all know Johnson won't be potus, but if he somehow was, he would a good president.


I'm not after someone I agree with 100%. I'm looking for someone to represent libertarianism and Johnson is not that guy. He doesn't understand liberty. Setting his questionable beliefs aside, he doesn't happen to have any balls. Really? Hillary's innocent? The guy is either a really bad judge of character, a dumb ass, or he's sucking up to the Clintons. That should be a slam dunk but no, she's "innocent". SMDH...

As you acknowledged, Johnson won't be potus so I don't understand the point of his campaign because he's not educating anyone. I never thought Ron Paul could win and I don't agree with him 100% but he was out there educating people so I sent him money, waved signs, went to rallys - heck, because of him I ended up at The Mises Institute. 

What's Johnson inspiring people to do?

----------


## dannno

> What's Johnson inspiring people to do?


So....you're not feelin' it?

----------


## Suzanimal

> So....you're not feelin' it?


Sadly, no and you know how much I like Johnson.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## Natural Citizen

> We must get behind the true leader of the Liberty Movement now (Donald Trump, not Gary Johnson.)


Doesn't seem like euphemia made that implication, cajun.

To imply that euphemia was making a case for Trump really only serves to further the divide & conquer element that is so abundant here these days. What's to be had aside from more useless drama?  Useless drama is distracting. It's counterintuitive.

----------


## euphemia

Not at all.  Go back and look.  The very same issues Trump and Clinton have been criticized for here on these boards are the same ones Johnson embraces.  If we are going to do anything, we must be consistent.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Doesn't seem like euphemia made that implication, cajun.
> 
> To imply that euphemia was making a case for Trump really only serves to further the divide & conquer element that is so abundant here these days. What's to be had?


It does. 

_Suzanimal's gotta spread it around before she reps NC again._

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It does. 
> 
> _Suzanimal's gotta spread it around before she reps NC again._


Meh. Don't worry about it. I still owe you one for my thumpin in that other thread anyway. Heh.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## euphemia

Again, just pointing out the inconsistencies between the criticisms of Trump and Clinton and noting that Johnson pretty much embraces the same thing.  In the pro-abortion issue, he is the same as Clinton.

----------


## erowe1

> TPA/TPP is one of the worst yet


Why do you believe this?

----------


## erowe1

> Again, just pointing out the inconsistencies between the criticisms of Trump and Clinton and noting that Johnson pretty much embraces the same thing.  In the pro-abortion issue, he is the same as Clinton.


No he isn't. He is the only one of the three candidates who doesn't support using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.

----------


## erowe1

> To imply that euphemia was making a case for Trump


She has been on the Trump bandwagon since the primaries. If she isn't any more, I welcome her to say so. But you can't blame people who have seen her say she supported him for connecting that to her current focused criticism of Johnson.

----------


## erowe1

> This administration has refused to enforce the law we have now.


That's a good thing. The laws you're talking about are unjust laws that ought not be enforced.

----------


## euphemia

I don't think we have a liberty leader at all right now.  Gary Johnson sure isn't one.  There are some people talking about liberty, but they are not doing much to lead.  And there are many people talking about labels that mean nothing.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, he is.


You are just molding Trump into whatever you want him to be without respect for his own words. I have heard him repeatedly say that he wants to renegotiate trade deals so that he can charge us higher tariffs. That means he is not against having them.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> Trump has only ever ridiculed both Ron and Rand.


This is a false statement.  Please restract your false statement, apologize for being a (mod edit)

----------


## phill4paul

At this point I really don't know. I do know I'm not voting for ClinTrump. Whether I will vote for the LP and their Johnson/Weld ticket I can't say. It would have been so much easier had it been McAfee or Peterson. Hell, if TMOT had run and been accepted I'd be all in. I dunno. I have no problem saying this at this point and time.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Mods closed my safe space.


Damn....that sucks. 



> And I don't appreciate your tone.


I thought you liked a little sass. You'd better get used to it, the wayward women are a lot tougher than I am.




> I am not offended fwiw.


Oh, I know.  Danke's just messing with me.

----------


## AuH20



----------


## phill4paul

> 


  Everybody loves them some Hillary.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Johnson 2016 is worse than Johnson 2012, and it's not like Johnson 2012 was that great.

----------


## phill4paul

> Johnson 2016 is worse than Johnson 2012, and it's not like Johnson 2012 was that great.


  Can't disagree.

----------


## William Tell

> Johnson 2016 is worse than Johnson 2012, and it's not like Johnson 2012 was that great.


Yeah.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm tired of these threads. The people who post them are impossible. You are never going to find a viable candidate you agree with 100%.
> 
> Johnson is way better than Clinton or Trump. Realistically we all know Johnson won't be potus, but if he somehow was, he would a good president.


Picking William Weld as his VP though was pretty awful.  Weld is the polar opposite of a libertarian.  I don't remember people here being so anti Johnson in 2012.  But the fact that he picked Weld as his VP and is running on a far less libertarian platform than he ran on in 2012 is why he's getting so much criticism.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> He is better than Bob Barr.


lol




> ... In addition, more than a candidate's prinicples matter. Also important are the candidate's knowledge, honesty, judgment, experience and personnel.


+rep




> If you measure him by the standard of a pure libertarian, he isn't one, and I don't see anyone pretending he is. But he is more libertarian than Trump or Clinton by far, including in the issues you mention. If he were in Congress he would be maybe at worst a notch below Rand, Amash, and Massie.


Yep.




> ... Johnson is way better than Clinton or Trump. Realistically we all know Johnson won't be potus, but if he somehow was, he would a good president.


+1

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Weld is the polar opposite of a libertarian.



There are definitely issues Bill Weld is not libertarian on, but "polar opposite" is not the right term.

----------


## erowe1

> There are definitely issues Bill Weld is not libertarian on, but "polar opposite" is not the right term.


But notice that that chart assumes the definition of libertarian as economically conservative and socially liberal.

----------


## Danke



----------


## RJ Liberty

> But notice that that chart assumes the definition of libertarian as economically conservative and socially liberal.


I have no problem with that; that's how libertarianism was loosely defined in Christopher Wolfe's 2006 book and in Shermer's 2011 book. If the idea is to eliminate government interference and the nanny state, then the line can (roughly) be drawn that way: you're never going to be free with the government in your bedroom, and you're never going to be free with the government taxing everyone to provide people with free hand-outs. Liberty won't occur with the government deciding which drugs you can and can't use, nor will it occur with the government prohibiting private sector growth by making thousands of job-destroying laws. YMMV.

----------


## phill4paul

Trump is the most libertarian candidate out there. Look, we all respect Ron. But, when Ron was running in 2012 on the GOP ticket (that was really what should have clued us in to Ron Paul's shenanigans) Trump threatened to run against him _as an independent_ because he wasn't libertarian enough. How much more libertarian can you be than to threaten to run as an independent? Who doesn't like Independence? I sure do. I don't think Trump is even a good liberty candidate ( I understand that the site does not support or allow promotion of Trump). Sometimes you just have to take the best choice available.

----------


## Brett85

> I have no problem with that; that's how libertarianism was loosely defined in Christopher Wolfe's 2006 book and in Shermer's 2011 book. If the idea is to eliminate government interference and the nanny state, then the line can (roughly) be drawn that way: you're never going to be free with the government in your bedroom, and you're never going to be free with the government taxing everyone to provide people with free hand-outs. Liberty won't occur with the government deciding which drugs you can and can't use, nor will it occur with the government prohibiting private sector growth by making thousands of job-destroying laws. YMMV.


But being "socially liberal" includes things like supporting gun control, supporting taxpayer funding of abortion, opposing religious liberty, etc.  Those obviously aren't libertarian positions, but yet they're socially liberal positions.

----------


## Krugminator2

I feel like this isn't the correct libertarian answer. Could be just me though. 




> "On the issue of Planned Parenthood: I would prefer that the government not be in the health care business. However, it is, and as much as 75% of the federal funding for PP comes in the form of providing services under Medicaid. Cutting off that funding from PP would simply result in it being directed elsewhere -- to other providers of the same services, where available. Targeting PP for 'defunding' is a political ploy that has the net effect of targeting a certain group of women by making it more difficult to access health care services, from cancer screening to prenatal care, for which they are otherwise eligible. As long as that is the case, I will not jump onto the 'defunding' political bandwagon. We can, and should, have a national discussion about the government's role in funding health care. However, arbitrarily targeting PP without having the discussion and reforming Medicaid, along with other federal and state programs, is simply unfair and discriminatory. There would be no benefit to taxpayers, and only disruption of services to which women are today legally entitled."

----------


## donnay

Mike Gravel is more Libertarian than Gary Johnson is.

----------


## Suzanimal

> I feel like this isn't the correct libertarian answer. Could be just me though.


It's not just you.

----------


## Weston White

Boom, case-in-point (he comes out against an issue that is of libertarian concern, but in the end wrangles whatever justification he can as to why we should maintain a progressive stance):




> Originally Posted by Gary Johnson
> "On the issue of Planned Parenthood: I would prefer that the government not be in the health care business. However, it is, and as much as 75% of the federal funding for PP comes in the form of providing services under Medicaid. Cutting off that funding from PP would simply result in it being directed elsewhere -- to other providers of the same services, where available. Targeting PP for 'defunding' is a political ploy that has the net effect of targeting a certain group of women by making it more difficult to access health care services, from cancer screening to prenatal care, for which they are otherwise eligible. As long as that is the case, I will not jump onto the 'defunding' political bandwagon. We can, and should, have a national discussion about the government's role in funding health care. However, arbitrarily targeting PP without having the discussion and reforming Medicaid, along with other federal and state programs, is simply unfair and discriminatory. There would be no benefit to taxpayers, and only disruption of services to which women are today legally entitled


By the bye, women are legally entitled to have an American Birth Control League?

----------


## RJ Liberty

> But being "socially liberal" includes things like supporting gun control, supporting taxpayer funding of abortion, opposing religious liberty, etc.  Those obviously aren't libertarian positions, but yet they're socially liberal positions.


Gary Johnson isn't supporting gun control, and has stated within this last month that gun restrictions make us less safe. Johnson banned late-term abortions in NM, and stated that public funds should not be used for abortion.

----------


## Weston White

Hmmm... I think Obama used to make those same claims, as well.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Hmmm... I think Obama used to make those same claims, as well.


Obama supported handgun bans in Illinois as early as 1996. Obama never banned late-term abortions (nor could he).

----------


## Weston White

Yea and Obama through the years, a few of his quotations: http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/.../02/id/602135/

From that to now calling for a no-gun-buy-list.

----------


## RJ Liberty

Is this a thread about Obama or about Gary Johnson? The allegation was made above that being "socially liberal" includes things like supporting gun control and supporting taxpayer funding of abortion, and Gary isn't and doesn't support either of those things, nor did he support those things when he was previously in office. "Hmmm.... well, Obama..." is a non-sequitur.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## Krugminator2

> Is this a thread about Obama or about Gary Johnson? The allegation was made above that being "socially liberal" includes things like supporting gun control and *supporting taxpayer funding of abortion*, and Gary isn't and doesn't support either of those things, nor did he support those things when he was previously in office. "Hmmm.... well, Obama..." is a non-sequitur.


He does support taxpayer funded abortion.  If you are sending taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, you are funding abortion, even if the dollars are allocated to other services.  Abortion is the reason Planned Parenthood exists no matter what the spin. I am pro-choice but it is unconscionable that taxpayers are funding something that 50% of people think is murder.

You can go down the list of issues he gets wrong because he thinks a libertarian is socially liberal. From a couple years ago. http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/21/ga...ate-anti-discr

----------


## RJ Liberty

> He does support taxpayer funded abortion.  If you are sending taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, you are funding abortion, even if the dollars are allocated to other services.


Johnson does not support taxpayer-funded abortion and the Hyde Amendment prevents federal funds from going to abortion, except in the case of rape or incest.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## euphemia

So on the issue of defunding Planned Parenthood, he's not willing to upset the apple cart because it is an issue he is in favor of.  He likes government and thinks it should be funding the things he likes.  That's the same as what Republicans and Democrats do.  

The correct answer is:  Government should not be funding abortion or any kind of elective procedure.  Full stop.  That will end within my first year in office.  We will be phasing out funding of other medical issues and repealing Obamacare over the next two years.  In the meantime, we will ask Congress to lift regulations on the insurance industry so people can shop around and buy the best policy for them.  This will include allowing individuals to purchase only the care they need.  

That would be the liberty answer.

----------


## acptulsa

And the correct answer on Social Security is no, too--yet even Ron Paul, who was far more interested in educating people than getting their votes, admitted that all hell would break loose if it were simply ended after people spent their lives paying into it instead of being allowed to pay into a decent retirement fund.

There are voters in this country who don't want tens of millions of poor women cut off from free birth control.  There really are.

In fact, there are at least a hundred times more people who don't want tens of millions of poor women cut off from birth control than people who are libertarian purists with strict litmus tests.  And they're all considerably more likely to vote, too.

Reality bites.  But ignoring reality bites harder.

----------


## euphemia

Conception control is available almost everywhere. Killing a human being right up to, and a little after the time of birth is not something anyone should do, and no taxpayer funds should ever be used to pay for it.

----------


## Krugminator2

> Johnson does not support taxpayer-funded abortion and the Hyde Amendment prevents federal funds from going to abortion, except in the case of rape or incest.


Who pays for the building that a Planned Parenthood is located in? Who pays for the utilities? If you are subsidizing one part of the business then you are subsidizing abortion. It does not matter if  the procedure itself is directly reimbursed. And the reason I posted his quote is to show that he breaks toward being socially liberal and not always libertarian.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> So on the issue of defunding Planned Parenthood, he's not willing to upset the apple cart because it is an issue he is in favor of.  He likes government and thinks it should be funding the things he likes.  That's the same as what Republicans and Democrats do.  
> 
> The correct answer is:  Government should not be funding abortion or any kind of elective procedure.  Full stop.  That will end within my first year in office.  We will be phasing out funding of other medical issues and repealing Obamacare over the next two years.  In the meantime, we will ask Congress to lift regulations on the insurance industry so people can shop around and buy the best policy for them.  This will include allowing individuals to purchase only the care they need.  
> 
> That would be the liberty answer.


Actually, if you want to really kill RvW and remove federal jurisdiction all together, let states write and enforce their own laws on it. Treat it like a violent crime much like armed robbery. The framers provided the means. And they were wise to do so.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> So on the issue of defunding Planned Parenthood, he's not willing to upset the apple cart because it is an issue he is in favor of.  He likes government and thinks it should be funding the things he likes.


We _all_ are guilty of that, Euphemia. Take a look at this thread. Longtime RPF members, who claim to be part of the liberty movement, calling for continued support for ticketing drivers who go too slow. They like government and think it should be funding the things they want, like tickets for slow drivers.




> The correct answer is:  Government should not be funding abortion or any kind of elective procedure.  Full stop.  That will end within my first year in office.  We will be phasing out funding of other medical issues and repealing Obamacare over the next two years.  In the meantime, we will ask Congress to lift regulations on the insurance industry so people can shop around and buy the best policy for them.  This will include allowing individuals to purchase only the care they need.  
> 
> That would be the liberty answer.


I'm glad you agree that repealing Obamacare is the liberty answer. This, in fact, is Johnson's position, but you are saying it as if Johnson has the _wrong_ position on Obamacare. Johnson has said for years and years that Obamacare is bad:

ObamaCare's promise of lower cost simply isn't happening. (Jan 2016)Government-managed healthcare is insanity. (Aug 2012)Block grant Medicare; carte blanche to the states. (Aug 2011)ObamaCare is unconstitutional; so is Bush's Medicare Rx plan. (Aug 2011)Cut Medicare/Medicaid by 43%, as part of $1.675 trillion cut. (May 2011)Repeal ObamaCare & failed Medicare prescription drug benefit. (May 2011)

Johnson is right on that issue, as well as about 40 other liberty positions, including our right to bear arms. Johnson is the only candidate regularly fighting the media's spin on gun control, arguing in interview after interview that restricting our guns makes us less safe. Trump is on the right side of gun issues but doesn't often talk about it, Clinton wants to "take on the gun lobby", Stein's position is similar to Clinton's, and Castle does almost no interviews in the MSM.

----------


## Cleaner44

> Johnson is probably a moderate libertarian, but there are at least two very libertarian things about him besides social issues: he is for a more restrained foreign policy and he is extremely anti-Trump.


Being anti-Trump is in no way libertarian. By your flawed logic all of the social justice warriors in CA are libertarians, right along with Bernie and Hillary. Seems like a very strange to judge someone as libertarian.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

Voting for Johnson is a liberty choice, even if he isn't a full-fledged liberty candidate.  Getting Johnson into the main debates is what we need.

The important thing is making people realize that there are more than two choices of the same thing.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Voting for Johnson is a liberty choice, even if he isn't a full-fledged liberty candidate.  Getting Johnson into the main debates is what we need.


I think it will happen. Gary is trending slightly upward in the polls, and is generally being included in more and more polls as the pollsters realize that ignoring him won't contain the deep, growing dissatisfaction the public has with the two-party system.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Voting for Johnson is a liberty choice, even if he isn't a full-fledged liberty candidate.  Getting Johnson into the main debates is what we need.
> 
> The important thing is making people realize that there are more than two choices of the same thing.


Yes, because there is a whole lot to gain in adding another establishment globalist to the mix.

----------


## RJ Liberty

Yes, because the guy who couldn't get a CNN interview if his hair was on fire four years ago is somehow "establishment".

----------


## Working Poor

I think it would be very interesting to hear how Hillary and Trump would come back at Gary Johnson in the debate.

----------


## William Tell

> Yes, because there is a whole lot to gain in adding another establishment globalist to the mix.


Why not? I won't support Johnson/Weld but Pence is a globalist, the more the merrier, right?

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes, because the guy who couldn't get a CNN interview if his hair was on fire four years ago is somehow "establishment".


Haven't you heard?  Everyone who believes in free trade--everyone who thinks America can compete if only we can talk Oriental countries into lowering their tariffs, and is willing to actually look at any trade deal which promises to do that before rejecting it out of hand--is a globalist now.  Regardless of how they feel about national or individual sovereignty.

At least in _somebody_'s little make-believe, black-and-white world of cognitive dissonance.




> Yes, because the guy who couldn't get a CNN interview if his hair was on fire four years ago is somehow "establishment".


When your position is indefensible, a good offense becomes something more than 'the best defense'.  It's the _only_ defense.

----------


## cajuncocoa

//

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Haven't you heard?  Everyone who believes in free trade--everyone who thinks America can compete if only we can talk Oriental countries into lowering their tariffs, and is willing to actually look at any trade deal which promises to do that before rejecting it out of hand--is a globalist now.  Regardless of how they feel about national or individual sovereignty.
> 
> At least in _somebody_'s little make-believe, black-and-white world of cognitive dissonance.


In this new bizzaro world protectionism = liberty.  We need protectionism so we can keep regulating and taxing our producers, we need a wall on our southern border so we can keep up the welfare state, and we need national borders so we can keep up the warfare state.  Don't worry, the state will fix all the problems the state creates. 

That is being a bit factitious though.  Some have stated they aren't interested in liberty anymore.  And some have stated that they are interested in the proper solutions (getting rid of the taxes and regulations, getting rid of the welfare state, and getting rid of the warfare state) but that they don't see it as a possibility.  Regardless, I think it is the same with anything, whether it is the 'inevitability' of WWIII or the 'inevitability' of the state acting improperly, if we decide it is inevitable and therefore do not act to prevent this inevitability, then it becomes inevitable.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> I think it would be very interesting to hear how Hillary and Trump would come back at Gary Johnson in the debate.


Indeed. The presidential debates are prime-time spectacles watched by millions. Imagine if a liberty candidate (any of them, actually) was allowed to discuss even a few liberty positions in front of a massive audience: legalizing pot, stopping the NSA from spying on Americans, ending the endless wars on terror and drugs, etc. It would bring these positions into the national spotlight, and give them serious attention.

The fact that we have people on RPF arguing for _fewer_ debate voices is telling. A country as vast and powerful as our nation is should never have an artificial cap limiting the presidential choices to just two individuals. And no other first-world country limits the presidential choices to two, the way the US does.

----------


## Working Poor

> Indeed. The presidential debates are prime-time spectacles watched by millions. Imagine if a liberty candidate (any of them, actually) was allowed to discuss even a few liberty positions in front of a massive audience: legalizing pot, stopping the NSA from spying on Americans, ending the endless wars on terror and drugs, etc. It would bring these positions into the national spotlight, and give them serious attention.
> 
> The fact that we have people on RPF arguing for _fewer_ debate voices is telling. A country as vast and powerful as our nation is should never have an artificial cap limiting the presidential choices to just two individuals. And no other first-world country limits the presidential choices to two, the way the US does.


I can't believe people *here* would not want to hear Gary talk about the wars or cronyism because is is against that. He wants to cut spending for goodness sakes and end the drug war. Clinton and Trump need to respond to that.

----------


## euphemia

A person's view on the value of human life is the lens through which he looks at the world.  One does not kill infants in the womb or cavalierly put those same kids at risk when they volunteer for military service.  One does not insist that those children be forced to have injections of viruses or treat their education as some grand experiment.  The value of human life has no price and all people should be treated with dignity and respect.

I just don't see that happening with the current batch of candidates. 

If a candidate believes in personal liberty and responsibility, he should say so.  He should not be pandering to media and other special interests.

----------


## Michael Landon

> Voting for Johnson is a liberty choice, even if he isn't a full-fledged liberty candidate.  Getting Johnson into the main debates is what we need.
> 
> The important thing is making people realize that there are more than two choices of the same thing.


This is my feeling also.  I plan on supporting Gary Johnson in the hopes that he get enough support to make the debates and if the stars align perhaps even get elected as President.  If between now and the election, Johnson doesn't make the debates and drops down in the polls thus becoming irrelevant, then I'll vote for the more libertarian leaning candidate, Darrell Castle.  But my hopes are that Johnson can get some traction and make the Libertarian Party a viable party nationally moving forward and make it easier for Libertarians to get on ballots and in debates so true libertarians can get elected.

-ML

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> This is my feeling also.  I plan on supporting Gary Johnson in the hopes that he get enough support to make the debates and if the stars align perhaps even get elected as President.  If between now and the election, Johnson doesn't make the debates and drops down in the polls thus becoming irrelevant, then I'll vote for the more libertarian leaning candidate, Darrell Castle.  But my hopes are that Johnson can get some traction and make the Libertarian Party a viable party nationally moving forward and make it easier for Libertarians to get on ballots and in debates so true libertarians can get elected.
> 
> -ML


Well said.  You described my plan 100%, wouldn't change a word.

----------

