Gary Johnson ~2012

[Andrew-Austin]

Ventura is preferred, ESPECIALLY because of the truther issue. Look, we tried it Paul's way of not talking about the false flag, and how many states did we win??? We tried it the nontruthers' way, it didn't work. It's time for frank engagement of all issues of wide concern to the liberty movement.

Trying it the truther way would obviously be far less effectual, it would actually be disastrous.

 

[mczerone]

Ventura is preferred, ESPECIALLY because of the truther issue. Look, we tried it Paul's way of not talking about the false flag, and how many states did we win??? We tried it the nontruthers' way, it didn't work. It's time for frank engagement of all issues of wide concern to the liberty movement.

But it is not an "issue of wide concern". It's like the JFK assassination: most of America has their own theory that isn't aligned with the official story, but if a presidential candidate started discussing such a thing, the opinion makers would immediately discredit the candidacy. So even if many people don't really believe the official story, they'll still join the bully in picking on the stupid 'conspiracy theorist'.

If you want to run a campaign featuring 9/11, I'm sure Cynthia McKinney will have your back. And 90% of the population will run the other direction.

 

[ArrestPoliticians]

Trying it the truther way would obviously be far less effectual, it would actually be disastrous.

Jesse COULD make it work, because he will be given time in the media to explain his reasoning.

 

[MRoCkEd]

I like his positions, but remember, he needs to play the "soundbite" game well.

 

[Printo]

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.

 

[Printo]

The way to win is with fiscal conservatives. Republicans, well everyone, loves money. Its all about the Benjamins baby.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

But it is not an "issue of wide concern". It's like the JFK assassination: most of America has their own theory that isn't aligned with the official story, but if a presidential candidate started discussing such a thing, the opinion makers would immediately discredit the candidacy. So even if many people don't really believe the official story, they'll still join the bully in picking on the stupid 'conspiracy theorist'.

If you want to run a campaign featuring 9/11, I'm sure Cynthia McKinney will have your back. And 90% of the population will run the other direction.

No they won't and you have no evidence, just a shopworn repetition of a false presumption that they would. I shall repeat, the evasion of this issue was the credibility killer---to this day, 9-11 is emotionally fueling the country's current foreign policy, surveillance state and war spending. It is a current issue, and to not deal with it eliminates the ability to reverse the above.

Those who just put us through a year of evading it, only to see Paul's positions ignored and marginalized anyway, are simply not in a position to keep lecturing everyone else about what is effectual and what is not. If liberty candidates can talk openly about the Fed, NWO, NAU and other conspiracies and frauds, they can do so about 9-11. Stop selectively discriminating, and stop dividing.

 

[ArrestPoliticians]

No they won't and you have no evidence, just a shopworn repetition of a false presumption that they would. I shall repeat, the evasion of this issue was the credibility killer---to this day, 9-11 is emotionally fueling the country's current foreign policy, surveillance state and war spending. It is a current issue, and to not deal with it eliminates the ability to reverse the above.

Those who just put us through a year of evading it, only to see Paul's positions ignored and marginalized anyway, are simply not in a position to keep lecturing everyone else about what is effectual and what is not. If liberty candidates can talk openly about the Fed, NWO, NAU and other conspiracies and frauds, they can do so about 9-11. Stop selectively discriminating, and stop dividing.

While I don't think the issue should be pushed too much, I agree with you!

 

[Andrew-Austin]

No they won't and you have no evidence, just a shopworn repetition of a false presumption that they would. I shall repeat, the evasion of this issue was the credibility killer---to this day, 9-11 is emotionally fueling the country's current foreign policy, surveillance state and war spending. It is a current issue, and to not deal with it eliminates the ability to reverse the above.

Those who just put us through a year of evading it, only to see Paul's positions ignored and marginalized anyway, are simply not in a position to keep lecturing everyone else about what is effectual and what is not. If liberty candidates can talk openly about the Fed, NWO, NAU and other conspiracies and frauds, they can do so about 9-11. Stop selectively discriminating, and stop dividing.

No its not, everyone has forgotten about 9/11.

Hijacking the movement for liberty and making it all about 9/11 would be disastrous. People like you would divide the movement.

 

[Indy4Chng]

No its not, everyone has forgotten about 9/11.

Hijacking the movement for liberty and making it all about 9/11 would be disastrous. People like you would divide the movement.

+1

I like Johnson or Sanford, we need someone with governtorial experience, congressman DO NOT get elected to president.

They need to drop the rest of their platforms and focus entirely on fiscal principles and the economy... that will win the biggest appeal. Make it the number one issue and only one they give speeches about.

 

[StateofTrance]

Call me stupid but you can't become a president (read *cool president*) if you wear "glasses"..Last prez who wore glasses was Truman....

 

[SimpleName]

I have to say that I prefer Ventura, because he can break through the media blockade. The media is the main reason Ron Paul lost.

Ventura certainly does have the media exposure and that's why I think he is our best chance in 2012. How could you ignore Ventura? He'll be slamming the other candidates like they've never been slammed before. If he is "clean" and completely stops the acknowledgment of the inside job, he should be able to rally us all once again. And also, one thing I think the tough guy Republicans who think they have to vote for whoever is toughest (McCain...war hero) will find him very appealing.

 

[StateofTrance]

I'm scared that he will come off as a kooky, nut-case....I'm pretty sure his opponents will play clips of him talking "trash" ...I don't know..

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Gary should get started right now, he hasn't a shot in hell of making an impact in 2012 lol. Better get it started now.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Maybe I'm missing something, but is there any reason Ron Paul cannot run again? I know he'll be 76 in 2012, but he's healthy so I doubt there's an issue with age unless there's a specific rule. But he would actually need to be prepared this time to be president.

As we've seen, age is unfortunately an issue. The media makes great play out of the age issue. So unfortunately it would not be smart to run Paul for the top nod. How about Secretary of the Treasury?

 

[Nathan Hale]

Ventura is preferred, ESPECIALLY because of the truther issue. Look, we tried it Paul's way of not talking about the false flag, and how many states did we win??? We tried it the nontruthers' way, it didn't work. It's time for frank engagement of all issues of wide concern to the liberty movement.

PLEASE. Trutherism is Ventura's biggest weakness right now. Paul didn't fail because he wasn't a truther - in fact, if he WAS a truther he would never have gained the traction he did.

 

[scandinaviany3]

didnt know about the pro choice discussion..

Whomever Paul endorses in the Presidential election is likely to be the best option, but if any of them are anti-fed, non-interventionist, and of the Austrian free-trader variety (or maybe even the Chicagoan, but still anti-fed)---i'll support Sanford, Flake, or Johnson.

I think Johnson would cause some problems because he says he's pro-choice (but supported pro-life stuff while in office?) and doesnt seem to be outspoken on the war or the Fed. He's GREAT on the War on Drugs though. He's my top guy.

After that, Sanford. Sanford has proved he's willing to buck the system (releasing pigs on the floor of the SC House to protest "pork", AWESOME!) and is anti-REAL ID. He worked with Paul while in Congress in a great way.

Flake is now against the War in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and is beloved in Arizona and by pork-busters everywhere. Unfortunately he is still somewhat of a hawk, hasnt shown anything on the War on Drugs, and we know nothing about what he thinks of the Fed.

didnt know about johnson on pro-choice discussion...that is a deal killer to get him out of the primaries alive.

I think then Sanford makes the most sense.

 

[Slist]

As we've seen, age is unfortunately an issue. The media makes great play out of the age issue. So unfortunately it would not be smart to run Paul for the top nod. How about Secretary of the Treasury?

When Reagan was asked about his age in a debate, he wittily answered:

"I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponents youth and inexperience."

No one touched the age issue again after that answer

 

[Peace&Freedom]

PLEASE. Trutherism is Ventura's biggest weakness right now. Paul didn't fail because he wasn't a truther - in fact, if he WAS a truther he would never have gained the traction he did.

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

 

[Nathan Hale]

When Reagan was asked about his age in a debate, he wittily answered:

"I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponents youth and inexperience."

No one touched the age issue again after that answer

Yeah, but he was a LOT younger than Ron Paul will be in 2012, and we're far beyond those kind of jokes these days. Better to pick a person with experience who isn't all kinds of old.