Gary Johnson Disturbing Video of Gary Johnson's Views on Iraq

[Tal]

Supporting naked imperialism like the Iraq war = a dealbreaker for me, usually im pretty tolerant of people, I dont agree with every anarcho capitalist or every libertarian but supporting the Iraq war is just too much for me, its proof to me that he doesnt have his head screwed on straight.

 

[ds21089]

I still think he's there to take votes away from Ron.

 

[SimpleName]

I find it rather depressing that so many here hold such a strong opposition to Gary. I can't fault you really. If interventionism is truly THAT important to you that somebody who just barely appears to be interventionist is an opponent, then I guess you shouldn't support the guy. I find it disappointing, though, that we can't accept some differences to better the agenda as a whole. I am personally willing to give up pretty much any one issue, sometimes two, for solid footing elsewhere. Ending the Fed, gold standard, drug legalization, abortion, some unconstitutional legislation, some tax increases, interventionism, zionism, property rights, gay marriage, affirmative action, etc. I can give up pretty much any two of these for a strong libertarian presence on all the other issues. Even I have been highly critical of compromising principles, but I believe we need to budge just a little.

As for Johnson being an opponent to Ron Paul's presidency, absolutely! And i too am weary of Johnson's shiftiness. Makes me worried, but still a decent track record.

 

[dannno]

Supporting naked imperialism like the Iraq war = a dealbreaker for me, usually im pretty tolerant of people, I dont agree with every anarcho capitalist or every libertarian but supporting the Iraq war is just too much for me, its proof to me that he doesnt have his head screwed on straight.

Did GJ say he supported the Iraq War? All I heard him say to Hannity was that he wasn't in 100% full agreement with everything RP has said, and what they were talking about was the subject of it being "our fault" that we got attacked on 9/11.

GJ is not Ron Paul when it comes to foreign policy OR economics OR even the war on drugs as a whole. I still think he's a good candidate, and if Ron Paul or Rand were not in the race I'm pretty sure I would have no problem supporting him.

 

[Aldanga]

GJ dodged the question. Was it honorable? I'm not sure, but he's playing politics. Honestly, Hannity was trying to paint him into an "anti-America" corner and he diffused the situation as best he knew how.

I'm not a GJ fan as I have concerns about his principles, but crucifying him in this instance is not necessary.

 

[Tal]

Did GJ say he supported the Iraq War? All I heard him say to Hannity was that he wasn't in 100% full agreement with everything RP has said, and what they were talking about was the subject of it being "our fault" that we got attacked on 9/11.

GJ is not Ron Paul when it comes to foreign policy OR economics OR even the war on drugs as a whole. I still think he's a good candidate, and if Ron Paul or Rand were not in the race I'm pretty sure I would have no problem supporting him.

Yeah ok maybe im reading more into it than there was.

 

[klamath]

I find it rather depressing that so many here hold such a strong opposition to Gary. I can't fault you really. If interventionism is truly THAT important to you that somebody who just barely appears to be interventionist is an opponent, then I guess you shouldn't support the guy. I find it disappointing, though, that we can't accept some differences to better the agenda as a whole. I am personally willing to give up pretty much any one issue, sometimes two, for solid footing elsewhere. Ending the Fed, gold standard, drug legalization, abortion, some unconstitutional legislation, some tax increases, interventionism, zionism, property rights, gay marriage, affirmative action, etc. I can give up pretty much any two of these for a strong libertarian presence on all the other issues. Even I have been highly critical of compromising principles, but I believe we need to budge just a little.

As for Johnson being an opponent to Ron Paul's presidency, absolutely! And i too am weary of Johnson's shiftiness. Makes me worried, but still a decent track record.

I will compromise quite a lot. I would have supported GJ in a heartbeat running for senate. There was no doubt RP was building on his support for a second run and this WILL be his last run where GJ could have waited. GJ is forcing RP to spend time trying to hang onto his base when RP HAS to be concentrating his effort trying to pull Palin Bachmann, Huckabee, voters. He cannot be fighting for the base he gained 4 years ago.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm disappointed in Gary Johnson for not sticking up for the blowback theory. That said I saw Rand do something similar during the primary when asked about Gitmo and military commissions. I forgave Rand because he's Rand. I'm not sure if I should treat Gary Johnson differently.

 

[TrueStrengthTurnsTheCheek]

yeah i use to think gj was "second best" to ron paul but there is no "second best". either your a man of principle or your a politician like the rest of em.. gj appears to clearly be the latter. i wont encourage the "rift" cause usually gj supports hearts are in the right place, ill just keep spreading the message of ron paul. i wanna do the double rainbow song except replace rainbow with ron paul cause thats how i feel about liberty.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm disappointed in Gary Johnson for not sticking up for the blowback theory. That said I saw Rand do something similar during the primary when asked about Gitmo and military commissions. I forgave Rand because he's Rand. I'm not sure if I should treat Gary Johnson differently.

Whenever they asked about his Dad's views he absolutely stuck up for his Dad. I agree I had questions where he drew the line himself. But Rand WAS NOT RUNNING AGAINST RON. Ron we have NO questions about. We supported Rand for Senate, and many here would have supported Johnson for Senate to see what his record would be like. That is not the same as running against Ron. Rand says of course he wont' run against his Dad. Gary, otherwise.

But are you suggesting upbringing is irrelevant?

Ron cured my apathy. I'll take fair chances his kid was sold on the big points, too. And we knew Rand from 2007 when he campaigned for his Dad. And I watched Rand closely. He also has a lot going for him Gary simply doesn't have. Rand and Gary are not comperable.

 

[BrendenR]

Rand would not have dodged the question if it was specifically framed around and referencing Ron Paul. He would have stood on principle and supported Ron, as GJ should have done.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I find it rather depressing that so many here hold such a strong opposition to Gary. I can't fault you really. If interventionism is truly THAT important to you that somebody who just barely appears to be interventionist is an opponent, then I guess you shouldn't support the guy. I find it disappointing, though, that we can't accept some differences to better the agenda as a whole. I am personally willing to give up pretty much any one issue, sometimes two, for solid footing elsewhere. Ending the Fed, gold standard, drug legalization, abortion, some unconstitutional legislation, some tax increases, interventionism, zionism, property rights, gay marriage, affirmative action, etc. I can give up pretty much any two of these for a strong libertarian presence on all the other issues. Even I have been highly critical of compromising principles, but I believe we need to budge just a little.

As for Johnson being an opponent to Ron Paul's presidency, absolutely! And i too am weary of Johnson's shiftiness. Makes me worried, but still a decent track record.

I'm willing to do the same, but when you have the titan of our time in the race, why settle or be happy with watered down competitors?

 

[sailingaway]

I'm willing to do the same, but when you have the titan of our time in the race, why settle or be happy with watered down competitors?

This.

 

[jmdrake]

Whenever they asked about his Dad's views he absolutely stuck up for his Dad. I agree I had questions where he drew the line himself. But Rand WAS NOT RUNNING AGAINST RON. Ron we have NO questions about. We supported Rand for Senate, and many here would have supported Johnson for Senate to see what his record would be like. That is not the same as running against Ron. Rand says of course he wont' run against his Dad. Gary, otherwise.

But are you suggesting upbringing is irrelevant?

Gary Johnson was asked point blank if he agreed with Ron on the 9/11 comments. GJ's response was that he agreed with Ron on a lot of things. During Rand's campaign I saw Ron and Rand interviewed together and Rand was asked a similar question and he went out of his way to distance himself from Ron. Yes it's true that Rand wasn't running against Ron and he won't. Of course not. He's Ron's son. There's bound to be family loyalty. But here's a question. Is Rand the only politician that can get away with that? That's a question I have to ask myself. Had Rand not been Ron's son I would have reamed him and everyone else would have too. But we trust Rand because of his lineage and so far that's worked out well. Still if the path the victory is to not lay out all of your ideological cards on the table, can we fault other liberty (or maybe not liberty) candidates from following the same playbook? Had Gary asked me I would have told him to sit this one out. But then again if he does he'd have to sit out 2016 because if Ron doesn't run then Rand will run.

Ron cured my apathy. I'll take fair chances his kid was sold on the big points, too. And we knew Rand from 2007 when he campaigned for his Dad. And I watched Rand closely. He also has a lot going for him Gary simply doesn't have. Rand and Gary are not comperable.

I met Rand in 2007 and personally asked him if he was going to run for political office. I'm glad Rand did. But everybody is comparable. Not in the "they are the same" category, but in the "we have to ask the same questions" category. We know the Rand strategy of "let them think you agree with them somewhat on foreign policy" works. Is Rand the only one allowed to use it? I'm not saying yea or nay. But if its nay, then how do other liberty candidates win? If its yea then when does someone else cross the line? Maybe Gary should have run for senator. (He'd have a much better chance at winning that anyway). But he didn't.

Anyhow, on a certain level the question is moot. Ron's running and even if I didn't have any reservations about Gary Johnson (and I had them before all this) I'd be 100% supporting Ron. This is more a philosophical exercise for me.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

We may be over inflating Johnson's impact on the race in any event. He is nowhere in most polls compared to Paul, has nowhere near the grassroots base or name recognition at this point, and no deep national mailing list of donors as does Paul. The two things his candidacy may positively do is to 1) take the isolated heat off Paul during the debates as the only libertarian, and 2) possibly be a back-up liberty candidate if 76 year old Paul has an unanticipated health issue that causes him to leave the race. I will repeat that Johnson is definitely a possible cabinet member, but is too hesitant under pressure about defending liberty principles, as shown in the video example. But the fact is this is RP's last shot at it, and if it's unsuccessful, several successors (Rand Paul, Johnson and so on) should be ready to carry on the cause in the Presidential race in future cycles.

 

[sailingaway]

Gary Johnson was asked point blank if he agreed with Ron on the 9/11 comments. GJ's response was that he agreed with Ron on a lot of things. During Rand's campaign I saw Ron and Rand interviewed together and Rand was asked a similar question and he went out of his way to distance himself from Ron. Yes it's true that Rand wasn't running against Ron and he won't. Of course not. He's Ron's son. There's bound to be family loyalty. But here's a question. Is Rand the only politician that can get away with that? That's a question I have to ask myself. Had Rand not been Ron's son I would have reamed him and everyone else would have too. But we trust Rand because of his lineage and so far that's worked out well. Still if the path the victory is to not lay out all of your ideological cards on the table, can we fault other liberty (or maybe not liberty) candidates from following the same playbook? Had Gary asked me I would have told him to sit this one out. But then again if he does he'd have to sit out 2016 because if Ron doesn't run then Rand will run.



I met Rand in 2007 and personally asked him if he was going to run for political office. I'm glad Rand did. But everybody is comparable. Not in the "they are the same" category, but in the "we have to ask the same questions" category. We know the Rand strategy of "let them think you agree with them somewhat on foreign policy" works. Is Rand the only one allowed to use it? I'm not saying yea or nay. But if its nay, then how do other liberty candidates win? If its yea then when does someone else cross the line? Maybe Gary should have run for senator. (He'd have a much better chance at winning that anyway). But he didn't.

Anyhow, on a certain level the question is moot. Ron's running and even if I didn't have any reservations about Gary Johnson (and I had them before all this) I'd be 100% supporting Ron. This is more a philosophical exercise for me.

I know we have to ask the questions, and I did. And still have a couple, and so preferred Ron to run than Rand. However, Gary does nothing for me. So speaking of him is like speaking of someone else I think is good on some points but who doesn't inspire me, doesn't make me think he has a knowlegable, holistic philosophy so I can anticipate his views on changing issues going forward, and whom I frankly don't trust.

I do think upbringing adds a bit to the mix, and made me look at Rand when I might not have otherwise gotten involved with a Kentucky Senator. However, early on I was donating to Schiff, too, then became less enthusiastic. I donated to BJ and to John Dennis. I really really like Mary Ruwart, even though I disagree with her on some points -- she inspires the same trust by being true to her principles, so I know where she is coming from.

I don't think much of Gary. That isn't Rand's fault.

 

[dannno]

We may be over inflating Johnson's impact on the race in any event. He is nowhere in most polls compared to Paul, has nowhere near the grassroots base or name recognition at this point, and no deep national mailing list of donors as does Paul. The two things his candidacy may positively do is to 1) take the isolated heat off Paul during the debates as the only libertarian, and 2) possibly be a back-up liberty candidate if 76 year old Paul has an unanticipated health issue that causes him to leave the race. I will repeat that Johnson is definitely a possible cabinet member, but is too hesitant under pressure about defending liberty principles, as shown in the video example. But the fact is this is RP's last shot at it, and if it's unsuccessful, several successors (Rand Paul, Johnson and so on) should be ready to carry on the cause in the Presidential race in future cycles.

This.

 

[klamath]

We may be over inflating Johnson's impact on the race in any event. He is nowhere in most polls compared to Paul, has nowhere near the grassroots base or name recognition at this point, and no deep national mailing list of donors as does Paul. The two things his candidacy may positively do is to 1) take the isolated heat off Paul during the debates as the only libertarian, and 2) possibly be a back-up liberty candidate if 76 year old Paul has an unanticipated health issue that causes him to leave the race. I will repeat that Johnson is definitely a possible cabinet member, but is too hesitant under pressure about defending liberty principles, as shown in the video example. But the fact is this is RP's last shot at it, and if it's unsuccessful, several successors (Rand Paul, Johnson and so on) should be ready to carry on the cause in the Presidential race in future cycles.

Yes the bold is true but the people promoting GJ here ARE trying to syphon what RP built to GJ. People Posting threads on GJ money bombs is an out and out attempt to steal money from RP and finance a guy that is directly opposing RP. The vast majority of the donaters to RP donate the most they can afford so when they split the most they can afford between RP and GJ the net loss is to RP and the gain is to GJ. If people have maxed out to to RP's campaign then I wouldn't have as big a problem except promoting any opposing candidate is foolish.

 

[AGRP]

Off the top of my head, there's at least 10 candidates that I would donate to before I donate to GJ.

 

[BarryDonegan]

I would certainly choose Ron Paul over Gary Johnson any day, but nothing in the OPs video bothers me. Hannity was portraying it as if Ron Paul were saying we were guilty of 911, and Gary didn't get a chance to reframe the argument and in fact may not have been familiar with the exact quote enough to comment, so he did what any practiced politician would do and disclaimed that he may not agree with him on every sentiment, as an aside and not necessarily even in reference to that comment, and thereby not have to answer a question he doesn't understand on the fly. it was a standard duck and dodge so he could still look like he was in agreement to the Hannity viewer without verbally being forced to agree where someone could rewrite what he said and say he flip flopped on something, if that makes sense. He put nothing whatsoever in the "record" in his response.