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

[orenbus]

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.

Well I will grant you that (in my opinion) Johnson does at times come off as pretending to know a bit more than he does on certain topics or perhaps too confident (as in the economics interview example) and could come across as closed minded perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is. It does seem to me though that at least on the issue of Gitmo he and Rand's opinions are more closely aligned than that of Ron Paul's opinion that Gitmo should be closed down immediately without equivocation and the practice of military tribunals when it comes to "military combatants" in the "war on terrorism" be stopped mainly to protect U.S. citizens from potential dangers of government going down the road such as NDAA, etc.

edit: just found this Johnson response as well, in regards to NDAA and Gitmo.

 

[TheGrinch]

I just don't agree that writing in GJ shows RON PAUL's numbers better than writing in Ron Paul and showing up as a none of the above vote. I can see why those who WANT to vote for GJ would, but it baffles me why people who want to vote for RonPaul would think that better shows up by voting for someone else.

Sailing, it's my understanding that in states like mine, they won't even bother to count the vote at all.... And I mean, Ron isn't on the ballot, is the sad matter of fact.

But again, I have no problem with people casting their vote the way they choose. I just think that those who refuse to even consider a protest vote for Johnson because he's not Ron Paul is a bit short-sighted, when it shows our support for the issues... This isn't lesser of two evils, because no one is planning on GJ being the next president. This is about showing our numbers and standing up for ending the Fed, wars, patriot act, NDAA, etc., etc..

Especially since we haven't been preparing at all for a write-in campaign that could actually be effective, then no, I really don't see how it shows our numbers better to write-in a candidate whose name they won't even announce if they even count it.

 

[sailingaway]

Sailing, it's my understanding that in states like mine, they won't even bother to count the vote at all.... And I mean, Ron isn't on the ballot, is the sad matter of fact.

But again, I have no problem with people casting their vote the way they choose. I just think that those who refuse to even consider a protest vote for Johnson because he's not Ron Paul is a bit short-sighted, when it shows our support for the issues... This isn't lesser of two evils, because no one is planning on GJ being the next president. This is about showing our numbers and standing up for the issues that we all stand for.

Especially since we haven't been preparing at all for a write-in campaign that could actually be effective, then no, I really don't see how it shows our numbers better to write-in a candidate whose name they won't even announce if they even count it.

I consider it a protest vote to subtract the number who voted for president (a named candidate) from the number WHO VOTED and call that a protest vote. Those are all people who took the trouble to vote in a presidential race and refused to eat the dog food. I think that would be MORE troubling to TPTB than voting for a 'permitted avenue' because it demonstrates the choices don't cut it. A vote of no confidence is far closer to my mindset than a vote for GJ, because he doesn't do it for me, just as the Green party candidate doesn't. But you should vote as you want to vote.

In my state I am almost certain Ron will be a certified write in, however. I am in the process of confirming with the secretary of state if that has already been filed for effectively, since there was a letter to the editor in Napa saying the requirements were already satisfied in CA. I'm willing to be an elector and to beat the bushes for 54 more electors to file, if the requirements haven't already been met.

What I disagree with is the idea that voting for a candidate NOT Ron Paul shows 'our' numbers.

 

[thajuggla]

I've been hinting around for a while that we need to drop the presidential stuff (trying to campaign Ron to run third party, etc.) and focus solely on all of our local and state races. As well as federal.

We need liberty reps. and senators!

After listening to Ben Swann on Jerry Doyle yesterday, this is where I'm at. As Ben said, we learned this year that elections happen via back room deals. the only way to fix that is to get rid of the back room dealers.

 

[KingNothing]

I just don't agree that writing in GJ shows RON PAUL's numbers better than writing in Ron Paul and showing up as a none of the above vote. I can see why those who WANT to vote for GJ would, but it baffles me why people who want to vote for RonPaul would think that better shows up by voting for someone else.

The difference is that "writing in" Gary Johnson (you don't have to write him in) gets a vote counted in every state and that writing in Ron Paul (you do have to write him in) does not get your vote counted in every state.

The entire discussion is silly. Personally, I believe that voting for Johnson shows that the movement isn't just a cult of personality and that anyone who is in a state that does not recognize Paul's write in votes would be foolish to write in Paul.

 

[sailingaway]

The difference is that "writing in" Gary Johnson (you don't have to write him in) gets a vote counted in every state and that writing in Ron Paul (you do have to write him in) does not get your vote counted in every state.

The entire discussion is silly. Personally, I believe that voting for Johnson shows that the movement isn't just a cult of personality and that anyone who is in a state that does not recognize Paul's write in votes would be foolish to write in Paul.

cult of personality crap is just an insult. Ron's principles are what I am voting for and his character. You can call me a cultist all you want but it just makes me discount your argument because I know it is not merely incorrect, but dishonest. I will vote for the candidate I want, third party numbers aren't given much attention, and the none of the above number is better a COUNT (since they do count that even in states where they don't break out Ron's) of my personal position than a vote for GJ who doesn't do it for me. IF we got a large none of the above number and the community WANTED to spread it we could do that a lot more than GJ's numbers will be spread.

When you have to call people foolish for not doing what you want, it appears you don't have a more persuasive argument. In any event, I don't understand why you are arguing everyone should vote as you want them to.

 

[orenbus]

anyone who is in a state that does not recognize Paul's write in votes would be foolish to write in Paul.

I don't know if I would use the word foolish, but this was the argument I've had to deal with the last couple of days as a write-in vote for Ron Paul in my state won't be counted unless some special circumstances occur such as a recount or the like. However there is more to just voting for a party platform, there is something to be said about the individual you are voting for that should be someone that you consider has integrity and promotes some issues and principles that are important to you regardless of the outcome.

 

[CPUd]

The difference is that "writing in" Gary Johnson (you don't have to write him in) gets a vote counted in every state and that writing in Ron Paul (you do have to write him in) does not get your vote counted in every state.

The entire discussion is silly. Personally, I believe that voting for Johnson shows that the movement isn't just a cult of personality and that anyone who is in a state that does not recognize Paul's write in votes would be foolish to write in Paul.

Undervote is counted in every precinct, district and state.

 

[July]

After listening to Ben Swann on Jerry Doyle yesterday, this is where I'm at. As Ben said, we learned this year that elections happen via back room deals. the only way to fix that is to get rid of the back room dealers.

Agreed, same here. Unless something unforseen happens, I'll probably vote GJ as a protest vote. But my energy and time (and money) is going into local state and smaller federal offices we can win. We need to get on central committees, etc. Any liberty candidacy in 2016 or 2020 will need that infrastructure to stand a chance.

As much as I don't like Romney and the outcome of this race, there's a lesson to be learned here. What happens at the ballot box isn't the deciding factor.

 

[KingNothing]

cult of personality crap is just an insult. Ron's principles are what I am voting for and his character. You can call me a cultist all you want but it just makes me discount your argument because I know it is not merely incorrect, but dishonest. I will vote for the candidate I want, third party numbers aren't given much attention, and the none of the above number is better a COUNT (since they do count that even in states where they don't break out Ron's) of my personal position than a vote for GJ who doesn't do it for me. IF we got a large none of the above number and the community WANTED to spread it we could do that a lot more than GJ's numbers will be spread.

I didn't insult you, I was only saying what others beyond this message board will think -- that this is all a cult of personality, and with Paul gone we won't matter anymore.

As far as your last sentence is considered, it seems like nonsense to me. Any third party vote at this point means the exact same thing as a "none of the above."

When you have to call people foolish for not doing what you want, it appears you don't have a more persuasive argument. In any event, I don't understand why you are arguing everyone should vote as you want them to.

All I'm doing is saying that it is foolish to write in a candidate in states that do not count write-in votes.
Do whatever you want, though. I don't particularly care.

 

[TheGrinch]

What I disagree with is the idea that voting for a candidate NOT Ron Paul shows 'our' numbers.

Because "our" numbers are not just Dr. Paul supporters. Of course most of us are for obvious reasons, but in my view "our numbers" refers to anyone who stands with us on the important issues, regardless of which candidate they've supported throughout the cycle.

Kudos on working to get a certified write-in though. I wish I would have done the same, if I had any idea where to even start in the corrupt GA system.

 

[sailingaway]

I didn't insult you, I was only saying what others beyond this message board will think -- that this is all a cult of personality, and with Paul gone we won't matter anymore.

As far as your last sentence is considered, it seems like nonsense to me. Any third party vote at this point means the exact same thing as a "none of the above."



All I'm doing is to say that it is foolish to write in a candidate in states that do not count write-in votes.
Do whatever you want, though. I don't particularly care.

Uh, see my bolded part of your text. You just made my point. And this way, I am voting for the person I actually want.

 

[TheGrinch]

As far as your last sentence is considered, it seems like nonsense to me. Any third party vote at this point means the exact same thing as a "none of the above."

I wish there was just an option to vote "no confidence". It would have a good shot at winning this cycle!

Seriously, I look at it as, you better start listening to us, or your going to see this bloc go somewhere else... I want for them to see the numbers they're losing by refusing to welcome our ideas and people.

 

[sailingaway]

Because "our" numbers are not just Dr. Paul supporters. Of course most of us are for obvious reasons, but in my view "our numbers" refers to anyone who stands with us on the important issues, regardless of which candidate they've supported throughout the cycle.

Kudos on working to get a certified write-in though. I wish I would have done the same, if I had any idea where to even start in the corrupt GA system.

"our" numbers with Gary will not just be Paul either, and not most of Paul voters. Only those Paul voters who decide to vote for someone else, AND know who he is AND vote for him. In Rasmussen's poll, over 60% did not know who he even is. From that point of view, it might be easier to whip people who already know Ron up to vote with a write in than to pump up GJ's numbers, in any event. Maybe not, but I could certainly make a case for it, particularly with college students. And I, personally, oppose the suggestion that GJ and Ron are the same, and that meme supports that media suggestion. It downplays importance of ways in which they differ, to me. But if you want to vote for Gary, you should do that.

However, none of the above IS reported everywhere, and it better describes my vote, even were Ron's votes not separately broken out. Other people's mileage may vary, for them.

 

[KingNothing]

I wish there was just an option to vote "no confidence". It would have a good shot at winning this cycle!

Seriously, I look at it as, you better start listening to us, or your going to see this bloc go somewhere else... I want for them to see the numbers they're losing by refusing to welcome our ideas and people.

I think "no confidence" would win, or compete, in most elections.

I also believe, though, that a vote for the Libertarian Party in states that do not count write-ins means more than a write-in. At least then we're endorsing a platform and not having our vote mean the same as the guy's who voted for Tickle Me Elmo.

 

[TheGrinch]

"our" numbers with Gary will not just be Paul either, and not most of Paul voters. Only those Paul voters who decide to vote for someone else. And I oppose the suggestion that GJ and Ron are the same, and that meme supports that media suggestion. It downplays importance of ways in which they differ, to me. But if you want to vote for Gary, you should do that.

None of the above IS reported everywhere, and it better describes my vote, even were Ron's votes not separately broken out. Other people's mileage may vary, for them.

They stand for the same things, and that's what matters. I'm voting to show my voice for those issues that they refuse to acknowledge.

 

[sailingaway]

They stand for the same things, and that's what matters. I'm voting to show my voice for those issues that they refuse to acknowledge.

If you see it that way, that is your decision, and you should vote as you see best. I don't see GJ that way.

 

[KingNothing]

And I oppose the suggestion that GJ and Ron are the same, and that meme supports that media suggestion. It downplays importance of ways in which they differ, to me.

In the real-world, where they differ doesn't really matter. It's so far on the edges that Paul wouldn't even have the ability to exploit those differences if he were in the White House.

And, that, I guess, is what is bugging me. The hand-wringing over issues that are philosophically appropriate for Paul to hold that Johnson might not just seems unnecessary because they constitute such a small percentage of what each man does endorse. The implication is NOBP, forever and always.

 

[sailingaway]

In the real-world, where they differ doesn't really matter. It's so far on the edges that Paul wouldn't even have the ability to exploit those differences if he were in the White House.

And, that, I guess, is what is bugging me. The hand-wringing over issues that are philosophically appropriate for Paul to hold that Johnson might not just seems unnecessary because they constitute such a small percentage of what each man does endorse. The implication is NOBP, forever and always.

If 50% of what they do is naming postoffices or similar, that entire 50% is irrelevant to me. This goes back to your being on the pragmatic side and me being on the idealistic side. For me specific principles matter and if people aren't pushing them and don't have a record of having done so in office, that they name post offices right, or are fiscal conservatives, doesn't alone make them a liberty candidate.

Justice Holmes (a freaky guy, but great writer) said 'no amount of logic can convince a man to like beer'. I think we are at that point of the discussion.

 

[TheGrinch]

If you see it that way, that is your decision, and you should vote as you see best. I don't see GJ that way.

If he had a real shot at the White House, I'd agree completely. Since he doesn't, then I still have to look at it as a protest vote for the only candidate on the ballot calling for 95% of the things we're calling for.

Of course I know I'm not going to change your mind, and I don't seek to... I just think it's worthy of discussing what we can do to help make our voices heard from those of us who are willing, and don't have the option to have our vote for Dr. Paul counted.