Gary Johnson A call for unity between Paul supporters and Johnson supporters.

[orenbus]

 

[The Free Hornet]

The vast majority of Paul supporters will pull the lever for Johnson so you guys are preaching to the choir for the most part and you're just antagonizing us at this point. I planned on voting for Johnson, even though he certainly has his intellectual shortcomings, but if you guys keep it up I won't even go to the polls. Put a fork in it already and keep the Jonhson threads in the proper subforum.

Bob Barr received 523,713 votes in 2008.

Ron Paul received 2,095,619 votes in the 2012 primaries. A "vast majority" is at least 75% which implies Gary Johnson gets at least 1,571,713 votes (I subtracted out your vote) or more than TRIPLE the Bob Barr amount from Ron Paul primary voters alone! Forum folk lore has it that Ron Paul supporters don't vote in the primaries but only show up to rallies. If only one in ten RP supporters voted in the primary, but half of them will vote in November, then the actual number of GJ RP-supporter votes could be 7.5 million. This puts GJ at about 6% from us alone!!!

Relax. We may not need your vote. Do you have a link to the Gary Johnson subforum? I can't find it...

 

[fr33]

Bob Barr received 523,713 votes in 2008.

Ron Paul received 2,095,619 votes in the 2012 primaries. A "vast majority" is at least 75% which implies Gary Johnson gets at least 1,571,713 votes (I subtracted out your vote) or more than TRIPLE the Bob Barr amount from Ron Paul primary voters alone! Forum folk lore has it that Ron Paul supporters don't vote in the primaries but only show up to rallies. If only one in ten RP supporters voted in the primary, but half of them will vote in November, then the actual number of GJ RP-supporter votes could be 7.5 million. This puts GJ at about 6% from us alone!!!

Relax. We may not need your vote. Do you have a link to the Gary Johnson subforum? I can't find it...

Why do you feel the need to argue about this? Haven't you realized it's pointless? We won't win regardless. Let the people cast their protest votes or not and regroup afterwards. Nothing is accomplished in these arguments.

 

[TrishW]

For me, there has to be unity between the Ron Paul supporter, and the Gary Johnson supporter. Otherwise I would be tearing myself apart.

I did not quit supporting Ron Paul, when I began supporting Gary Johnson.

I know that the owner and staff find that hard to believe since they consider Gary Johnson an opposing candidate. That is where we are told to be. How do you think that makes me feel, thinking that somehow I am supporting someone who opposes Ron Paul?

So no, I will not use that sub-forum. I will go elsewhere. And its ok... no hard feelings. I still come back here to take a peak at what's going on.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Bob Barr received 523,713 votes in 2008.

Ron Paul received 2,095,619 votes in the 2012 primaries. A "vast majority" is at least 75% which implies Gary Johnson gets at least 1,571,713 votes (I subtracted out your vote) or more than TRIPLE the Bob Barr amount from Ron Paul primary voters alone! Forum folk lore has it that Ron Paul supporters don't vote in the primaries but only show up to rallies. If only one in ten RP supporters voted in the primary, but half of them will vote in November, then the actual number of GJ RP-supporter votes could be 7.5 million. This puts GJ at about 6% from us alone!!!

Relax. We may not need your vote. Do you have a link to the Gary Johnson subforum? I can't find it...

Perhaps when the Johnson supporters take it upon themselves to create their own forum he will have one. You guys are rather awful at selling Johnson though, even to us, who should be very low hanging fruit to you. Votes are one thing, but you also have no money coming in. That is the nail in the coffin to third party candidates. Psychologically nobody will donate when it feels like its throwing money away.

 

[fr33]

Perhaps when the Johnson supporters take it upon themselves to create their own forum he will have one. You guys are rather awful at selling Johnson though, even to us, who should be very low hanging fruit to you. Votes are one thing, but you also have no money coming in. That is the nail in the coffin to third party candidates. Psychologically nobody will donate when it feels like its throwing money away.

I repeat:

Why do you feel the need to argue about this? Haven't you realized it's pointless? We won't win regardless. Let the people cast their protest votes or not and regroup afterwards. Nothing is accomplished in these arguments.

Winning this argument is not a victory for either side. Learn to shut your keyboard activist side off when it's possible it's doing more damage than good.

 

[Ekrub]

EXACTLY! I come here for Ron Paul information, not Gary Johnson information. If you are a Libertarian Party supporter, then create your own damn website. Stop leeching off of this site, and agitating us Ron Paul supporters. If you haven't noticed lately, the site banner states, "RON PAUL FORUMS". It doesn't state "GARY JOHNSON FORUMS"!

There are subforums for many other liberty candidates on Ronpaulforums, but not GJ. I think that is why many people will dump GJ information in this subforum. and GJ is at least as good on the issues as all the other candidates with subforums.

 

[specsaregood]

There are subforums for many other liberty candidates on Ronpaulforums, but not GJ. I think that is why many people will dump GJ information in this subforum. and GJ is at least as good on the issues as all the other candidates with subforums.

I didn't know we supported candidates that want humanitarian wars and gulags. you think the other candidates want those?

 

[The Free Hornet]

I didn't know we supported candidates that want humanitarian wars and gulags. you think the other candidates want those?

If it becomes a contest for "Defenders of Liberty" slots, I'll wage an opinion on the others. Otherwise we are being asked to malign people for no reason.

Keep in mind 2016. Don't expect the LP to forget.

 

[orenbus]

I didn't know we supported candidates that want humanitarian wars and gulags. you think the other candidates want those?

For full disclosure purposes because you asked the question...





Now it might just be me, am getting older and my hearing isn't as good as it used to be, but to me Rand and Gary's answers sound eerily similar, and Ron's being completely different.

I might not agree with the original statement you were responding to, but lets at least consider that not all the other candidates are perfect and fit into a formula of qualification requirements that can be easily defined (or in some cases even understood) without considering thresholds of agreement/disagreement.

full disclosure: I am not a Gary Johnson supporter and will most likely write-in Ron Paul in November, but I still extend a level of respect to those that will support and vote for Gary Johnson, as many of them are, and have been Ron Paul supporters, those two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[specsaregood]

For full disclosure purposes because you asked the question...
Now it might just be me, am getting older and my hearing isn't as good as it used to be, but to me Rand and Gary's answers sound eerily similar, and Ron's being completely different.

I might not agree with the original statement you were responding to, but lets at least consider that not all the other candidates are perfect and fit into a formula of qualification requirements that can be easily defined (or in some cases even understood) without considering thresholds of agreement/disagreement.

full disclosure: I am not a Gary Johnson supporter and will most likely write-in Ron Paul in November, but I still extend a level of respect to those that will support and vote for Gary Johnson, as many of them are, and have been Ron Paul supporters, those two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

I think you need to relisten to them then, Rands answer and Johnsons answer were completely different.

Johnson straight up said that he has been convinced of the necessity of gulags and if we shut down gitmo we would have to create a new one somewhere, so why not keep Gitmo. He has decided to not even consider any other possibility, the US must have gulags.

Rand, said he didn't think we should shutdown gitmo UNTIL we decide what to do with the prisoners already there. Then he goes on to say what we should do with them: make sure due process is followed and all the prisoners are given a military trial and sent to a jail or released, as well as ensuring that only prisoners from declared wars end up there. Rand has often focused on getting trials for all the people in our gulag, rather than them being imprisoned indefinitely -- I hear no such mention in Johnsons response.

If Johnson had said anything about finding ways to close it down or give trials to the prisoners I would have no beef; but relisten to his answer; its quite a scary response.

 

[RickyJ]

After watching the Obama speech tonight, I think it's pretty safe to say it doesn't matter what we do at the polls for President. Even if we all vote for Mitt, Obama is gonna win this by a landslide. The real focus at this point should be on the Congressional races.

With this economy, there will be no landslide for Obama even though he is up against a weak candidate in Romney. If the economy worsens before November then I see Romney winning. This race is very close, there will be no landslide for either candidate.

 

[orenbus]

I think you need to relisten to them then, Rands answer and Johnsons answer were completely different.

Johnson straight up said that he has been convinced of the necessity of gulags and if we shut down gitmo we would have to create a new one somewhere, so why not keep Gitmo. He has decided to not even consider any other possibility, the US must have gulags.

Rand, said he didn't think we should shutdown gitmo UNTIL we decide what to do with the prisoners already there. Then he goes on to say what we should do with them: make sure due process is followed and all the prisoners are given a military trial and sent to a jail or released, as well as ensuring that only prisoners from declared wars end up there. Rand has often focused on getting trials for all the people in our gulag, rather than them being imprisoned indefinitely -- I hear no such mention in Johnsons response.

If Johnson had said anything about finding ways to close it down or give trials to the prisoners I would have no beef; but relisten to his answer; its quite a scary response.

Rand took more time to respond to the question in more detail and Gary really only addressed part of what the Judge was asking, here is a longer response to the question from Gary that sounds a lot like what you are describing is Rand's position on Gitmo and how you are asking Gary to respond. Although Rand is saying we shouldn't shutdown Gitmo UNTIL we decide what to do with the prisoners, the point is the influx of prisoners won't stop, so there will never be a point where we can say okay lets stop bringing in prisoners and shutdown gitmo by the philosophy he's following because he considers them enemy combatants which he starts to detail later on in his answer on the war on terrorism as it related to Afghanistan. If you shutdown Gitmo and you still have "enemey combatants" you have to put them some where, so where do they go? Essentially that form of logic follows to another Gitmo.

Unless you subscribe to Ron Paul's answer, then you take a different approach to the problem. Both Rand and Gary suggest enemy combatants should be treated differently than criminals and go through a separate form of justice through military tribunal.

 

[sailingaway]

With this economy, there will be no landslide for Obama even though he is up against a weak candidate in Romney. If the economy worsens before November then I see Romney winning. This race is very close, there will be no landslide for either candidate.

a classic race to the bottom. Not which do people like more, but can they find difference enough to like one less?

 

[specsaregood]

Rand took more time to respond to the question and Gary really only addressed part of what the Judge was asking, here is a longer response to the question from Gary that sounds a lot like what you are describing is Rand's position on Gitmo. Although Rand is saying we shouldn't shutdown Gitmo UNTIL we decide to do with the prisoners, the point is the influx of prisoners won't stop, so there will never be a point where we can say okay lets stop bringing in prisoners and shutdown gitmo by the philosophy he's following because he considers them enemy combatants which he starts to detail later on in his answer on the war on terrorism as it related to Afghanistan. Enemy combatants he suggests should be treated differently than criminals and go through a separate form of justice through military tribunal.

You are correct, that is a somewhat better answer. Of course he admits he misspoke, or is it flipflopping? Who knows what is in ones heart.
BUT, then again he starts to lose me again when he starts to go on about "costs" and its part of the serious flaw I see in his CBA philosophy. He says, "But from a COST standpoint, we HAVE to have a facility somewhere." I wish he would define "cost". Cost to what? money? freedom? national security? our moral highground?

Also, Rand directly addressed the influx issue; by saying we should only being in battles with constitutionally declared wars....well that would pretty much stop that influx.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Regardless of what you think of Johnson in terms of policy and ideology, am I the only one puzzled by the fact this guy won two statewide elections? So underwhelming in terms of political skill. Reminds me of folks running for City Council.

 

[sailingaway]

You are correct, that is a somewhat better answer. Of course he admits he misspoke, or is it flipflopping? Who knows what is in ones heart.
BUT, then again he starts to lose me again when he starts to go on about "costs" and its part of the serious flaw I see in his CBA philosophy. He says, "But from a COST standpoint, we HAVE to have a facility somewhere." I wish he would define "cost". Cost to what? money? freedom? national security? our moral highground?

Also, Rand directly addressed the influx issue; by saying we should only being in battles with constitutionally declared wars....well that would pretty much stop that influx.

well, it might have at the time Rand said it, but NDAA creates a pathway.

I remember when Rand said that though, it was when the left was still pushing to close Guantanamo, but the way Obama was doing it was to propose a Gitmo here, with mere transfer and never trial of the inhabitants. Them being where they were created pressure that they be dealt with, from that perspective, and I assumed at the time that was what Rand was trying to manipulate. I wish he spoke out more for liberty more bluntly, but that is my personal taste. To me if you aren't likely to win on a point your value is in educating. However, I think Rand was pushing for due process at the time.

 

[orenbus]

well, it might have at the time Rand said it, but NDAA creates a pathway.

Good point, which leads to U.S. citizens being thrown in the Gulag with no end in sight.

 

[specsaregood]

Good point, which leads to U.S. citizens being thrown in the Gulag with no end in sight.

And nobody near the senate opposed the NDAA more than Rand.

I think the crux of the difference for me between Rand and Johnsons answers are that Johnson is convinced we HAVE to have a gulag. But Rand has made no such statement but rather deal with the practicalities of being as humane as possible to the existing prisoners and then figure out if we can shut it down. One claims to have made up his mind, the other is still wanting to debate the issue.

edit: which is even more surprising because if I'm gonna vote for an LP candidate, I'd want to be voting for the most liberty minded person possible, as you are supporting an ideology more than anything. you'd think it would be the republican that had made up his mind that we have to have gulags, not the LP candidate.

 

[Cleaner44]

In my opinion we should be working for 2 goals, take the GOP back to its roots and/or replace the GOP with a new party, such as the Libertarian party. The way to move the GOP is to cause them to lose the white house over and over until they change to earn our votes. So we break the hold of the neocons by blocking them from winning. Eventually the Republican voters will get on board with us as they already are doing with Audit the Fed. The GOP will either change to stay relevant or be replaced, which is the less likely option in my opinion. Voting for the Libertarian candidate achieves both goals for me. It hurts the GOP and helps a 3rd party, which will be a threat to the GOP. Gary Johnson is simply a tool I will use to work toward my goals.