Gary Johnson ~2012

[Nathan Hale]

And your evidence for this is...? (Again lacking.)

Public opinion. Even among our kind, where opinion is rather radical in that general direction, there is little support for truther logic. Among the general public, there is none at all. I remember specifically that on O&A, Jim Norton, of all people, outdebated Jesse Ventura on 9/11. Now, if a retard like Norton can cause Ventura to storm out of the studio, then he is lacking.

Meanwhile, we have an entire year's worth of direct experience that ignoring the issue doesn't gain us any traction. This same exact kind of thinking encouraged looking the other way in the face of the Fed's destructive influence. Want to go back to that, too?

Please point out how there is a direct relationship between these two issues because, well, there is none.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Please point out how there is a direct relationship between these two issues because, well, there is none.

For decades when the Birchers and others brought up the Fed, they were ridiculed and marginalized, like truthers today. That's the connection. The public also finds talk about NAU, noninterventionism, ending the IRS, etc 'extreme'--so should we stop talking about those issues too?

 

[ArrestPoliticians]

I remember specifically that on O&A, Jim Norton, of all people, outdebated Jesse Ventura on 9/11.

Link or it didn't happen. I am of the opinion that Jesse can win in spite of his beliefs because he makes a strong case for them.

 

[itshappening]

if there is a right to life issue with Johnson he just needs to affirm states rights, same with drugs. it's NOT an issue for a President and they shouldnt be defined by it. heck, we have more pressing matters federally like a bloated massive government that is out of control

politically it could harm him though but who knows.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Johnson should speak of his position as ron paul did - he is pro-life but thinks the states should decide

 

[Nathan Hale]

For decades when the Birchers and others brought up the Fed, they were ridiculed and marginalized, like truthers today.

That's a circumstantial connection with no substance behind it. Perhaps the Fed critics were wrongly ridiculed and truthers are justly ridiculed. But I'll run with your take - even assuming that truthism will one day become part of the acceptable debate, it's political kryptonite today. And if a person makes such kryptonite an integral part of their political being, as Ventura has, it destroys his viability as a candidate. Regardless of the truth behind trutherism, the fact of the matter is that nobody wants to hear it, therefore it behooves us to advocate a candidate who isn't a truther.

The public also finds talk about NAU, noninterventionism, ending the IRS, etc 'extreme'--so should we stop talking about those issues too?

It's classic folly to assume that the only two options available to us are dramatic espousing of every crazy scheme we believe, or blind adherence to focus groups and polling. The best avenue is found in balance between the extremes. Even Ron Paul, when advocating things like ending the IRS, said that actually eliminating the IRS wholesale was a far-off goal - and that helped his traction, because much of the criticism coming from journalists and interviewers regarded how Paul intended to pull off such dramatic departures. And despite that, people supported that goal, as many people support noninterventionism. Trutherism has nowhere near the traction that ending the income tax does.

As for the NAU, I'm not about to start debating it here (search the threads I've debated the NAU plenty on this board), but I consider the NAU something that we should avoid as well.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Link or it didn't happen. I am of the opinion that Jesse can win in spite of his beliefs because he makes a strong case for them.

http://www.foundrymusic.com/media/displaymedia.cfm/id/17907/page/show_video_number_17907.html

I guess that means it happened.

 

[ArrestPoliticians]

http://www.foundrymusic.com/media/displaymedia.cfm/id/17907/page/show_video_number_17907.html

I guess that means it happened.

Not as composed as he should have been, thats for sure. Weak arguments of Opie and Anthony, he has done far better.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I don't share your opinion of Ventura, and I say this as a person who's seen or heard Jesse debate 9/11 dozens of times. I like Ventura. I have his latest book. I've youtubed his every media appearance this last year. I watched every episode of his short-lived MSNBC show. And my experience with the man informs me that he is not a good debater. There are countless instances where I find myself wincing at his missed opportunities and non-sequitor conversation changers.

 

[pacelli]

I think it is a little early to be making a final decision about who will be "our" presidential candidate for 2012. Sure, campaigning will probably start in 2010, with a field of 14 republicans, 3 democrats, Ralph Nader, and perhaps an Independent candidate like Ventura. There is still a great deal that will happen in the world between now and that time. I'm not suggesting to drop the issue.

I think we should identify possible candidates and keep a close eye on ALL of them. If we are going to be an effective grassroots movement, wouldn't it be helpful to know about some previous false scandal or quote from our candidate, rather than be blindsided by it (i.e. newsletters)? Media presence will be a major issue, as well as the candidates' ability to WORK the media. We've learned that from the Ron Paul presidential campaign. Bydlak came on these forums and admitted to us that Ron turned down interviews and had to be pressed to campaign in person, especially during the earlier primaries. The next 'freedom and liberty' candidate will have to approach campaigning in a manner that makes it worth becoming a campaign donor.

When it comes time for all candidates to file their campaigns with the FEC, I am confident that we'll be down to a choice between 2 candidates.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

That's a circumstantial connection with no substance behind it. Perhaps the Fed critics were wrongly ridiculed and truthers are justly ridiculed.

Sauce for the goose, I find absolutely no substance or proof behind your 'trutherism is Kryptonite, no one wants to hear it' presumptions. Where is YOUR evidence? There are far more people who have demonstrated and protested over 9-11 than over the Fed or the income tax. I object to people selectively belittling issues they don't like, and then projecting their dislike into a universal dogma like "therefore, this issue has no appeal."

 

[pastortony]

Peace&Freedom,

Any candidate for national office that holds to a truther position will be made to look like the biggest idiot on the planet by their opponents and the media. It is not an issue that a candidate can win on.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Sauce for the goose, I find absolutely no substance or proof behind your 'trutherism is Kryptonite, no one wants to hear it' presumptions. Where is YOUR evidence?

Popular culture, polling, the world around me. Truther theology is not the religion of the nation.

There are far more people who have demonstrated and protested over 9-11 than over the Fed or the income tax.

Yes, but you're connecting two things that are not connected. Yes, more people demonstrated over 9/11 than the fed or the income tax, but those people weren't demonstrating about US involvement or complicity in 9/11, they were demonstrating about what America has done in the name of 9/11. That's a totally different issue.

I object to people selectively belittling issues they don't like, and then projecting their dislike into a universal dogma like "therefore, this issue has no appeal."

So do I. I'll let you know when I see someone like that.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Then I'll simply be just as vaguely dogmatic in return and say 9-11 truth is suported by popular culture, polling, the world around me. Anti-Truther theology is not the religion of the nation. In New York I have been at multiple, specifically 9-11 truth ('government is complicit') protest events where thousands were in attendance. I have been active in tax honesty and Fed protest events, which had nowhere near the same numbers or intensity.

 

[pastortony]

Then I'll simply be just as vaguely dogmatic in return and say 9-11 truth is suported by popular culture, polling, the world around me. Anti-Truther theology is not the religion of the nation. In New York I have been at multiple, specifically 9-11 truth ('government is complicit') protest events where thousands were in attendance. I have been active in tax honesty and Fed protest events, which had nowhere near the same numbers or intensity.

The reason that thousands turn up for a 911 truth protest is because the movement itself has many cultic qualities: an "us against them" mentality, the belief that only they are right and everyone else is either a fool or decieved, guru-type leaders (Alex Jones, et al.), financial exploitation, etc.

The same marks do not apply to anti-tax, or anti-fed movements, at least from what I have seen.

I said it before and I will repeat myself - any candidate that is a 911 truther will be made to look like a fool by their opponents. They will quickly be associated with the crowd that thinks that it was all done with holograms and therefore will be the laughing stocks of the campaign.

 

[Printo]

If you think a 9/11 truther can win an election, especially as a Republican, you are clearly high on drugs. The American people do not want a conspiracy nut to be their leader.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Then I'll simply be just as vaguely dogmatic in return

I'm not being vaguely dogmatic. I don't espouse dogma. I'm just talking about the way things are.

and say 9-11 truth is suported by popular culture, polling, the world around me.

But it isn't.

Anti-Truther theology is not the religion of the nation.

Neither is Christianity, there just happen to be a vast majority of people in both camps.

In New York I have been at multiple, specifically 9-11 truth ('government is complicit') protest events where thousands were in attendance. I have been active in tax honesty and Fed protest events, which had nowhere near the same numbers or intensity.

Name one event in NY attended by more than 2,000 people (i.e. "thousands") who believe that the US government did 9/11.

 

[Ron Paul Vermont]

Are you kidding me!?! The media would eat Ventura alive over his Truther beliefs! He doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell once it comes out that he thinks the government did 9/11. Plus he'll only run 3rd party & wont win.

Sanford, Flake & Johnson are all perfect candidates. They're young, principled & can make the appeal to the GOP, at least more-so than Ron Paul was able to. At least Dr. Paul was invited to the next CPAC meeting.

You are absolutely right.