Gary Johnson booed at 2016 LP convention.

Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
629
Gary Johnson was booed at the unofficial presidential debate last night. Austin Petersen asked him why his VP pick Weld did not endorse ROn Paul or Gary in 2012, and noted that he endorsed McCain, Romney, and Kasich.

Gary responded by saying that Weld was "the Original Libertarian."

The boos came on hard.

Couldn't find a youtube video so I will try to link this one on facebook.


Note that this is not the official debate, that will take place on Saturday.
 
Gary is the favourite but if he doesn't clinch the nomination in the first round, he might end up losing. Anything can happen this weekend.
 
Could the LP win a state seat if they pooled all their resources into one race?

They should just pick McAfee since he's going to get the most attention.
 
“The more I listen to Ron Paul the more I think he actually despises this country” -Austin Petersen.

WTF is AP yammering aboout?
 
Could the LP win a state seat if they pooled all their resources into one race?

They should just pick McAfee since he's going to get the most attention.

That's what Gary should have done in 2012, run for the Senate in NM under the LP. That would have made him the only LP in Congress. Instead he ran for POTUS as a GOP for about 5 minutes, then switched to LP. I don't see any 3rd party winning POTUS until they get some representation in Congress.
 
“The more I listen to Ron Paul the more I think he actually despises this country” -Austin Petersen.

WTF is AP yammering aboout?

Ya, fuck that guy. I can't believe anybody here actually supports him.. Gary Johnson is not my favorite candidate for President, but he is my favorite candidate to win the Libertarian nomination because he will capture the most support and bring more people on the left into the liberty fold, or at least take votes from Hillary. If they choose Peterson, that will draw the most votes away from Republicans in the general, and he sucks.. I don't get the point.
 
“The more I listen to Ron Paul the more I think he actually despises this country” -Austin Petersen.

What video are you guys watching? I've been through this one twice and I don't hear that anywhere.

Ya, $#@! that guy. I can't believe anybody here actually supports him.. Gary Johnson is not my favorite candidate for President, but he is my favorite candidate to win the Libertarian nomination because he will capture the most support and bring more people on the left into the liberty fold

Whereas I actually can believe that you're not capable of seeing past your nose here.
You don't have a problem with forcing priests to perform gay marriages because you don't have a problem with gay marriage and you don't have a priest.
I think maybe you need to step outside your bubble for a second and recognize that a shit ton of American voters have a gigantic problem with that.
They simply aren't going to support a candidate who is on record saying that. And as a result, they will be TURNED AWAY from the liberty fold, because they're not going to listen to anything past "he wants to force priests to perform gay marriages".

Also outside your bubble are the libertarians who actually believe in principles. Using the state to force a social agenda is not libertarian. This isn't a statement of opinion on my part.

I know you're a reasonably intelligent guy, so can you seriously not see that Johnson is the absolute worst thing to happen to the liberty movement right now? He's not going to get the votes, he's not going to spread the message. All he's going to do is waste everyone's time.
 
Also outside your bubble are the libertarians who actually believe in principles. Using the state to force a social agenda is not libertarian. This isn't a statement of opinion on my part.

I know you're a reasonably intelligent guy, so can you seriously not see that Johnson is the absolute worst thing to happen to the liberty movement right now? He's not going to get the votes, he's not going to spread the message. All he's going to do is waste everyone's time.

Its^ all rather amusing since GJ was attacking Randal last year and saying how he was not a libertarian at all. GJ burnt too many bridges and shouldn't deserve any consideration.
 
What video are you guys watching? I've been through this one twice and I don't hear that anywhere.



Whereas I actually can believe that you're not capable of seeing past your nose here.
You don't have a problem with forcing priests to perform gay marriages because you don't have a problem with gay marriage and you don't have a priest.
I think maybe you need to step outside your bubble for a second and recognize that a shit ton of American voters have a gigantic problem with that.
They simply aren't going to support a candidate who is on record saying that. And as a result, they will be TURNED AWAY from the liberty fold, because they're not going to listen to anything past "he wants to force priests to perform gay marriages".

Also outside your bubble are the libertarians who actually believe in principles. Using the state to force a social agenda is not libertarian. This isn't a statement of opinion on my part.

I know you're a reasonably intelligent guy, so can you seriously not see that Johnson is the absolute worst thing to happen to the liberty movement right now? He's not going to get the votes, he's not going to spread the message. All he's going to do is waste everyone's time.

TRUTH BOMBS
This so many times, we have a real opportunity, let's not waste it on compromise that never works.
 
Whereas I actually can believe that you're not capable of seeing past your nose here.
You don't have a problem with forcing priests to perform gay marriages because you don't have a problem with gay marriage and you don't have a priest.
I think maybe you need to step outside your bubble for a second and recognize that a shit ton of American voters have a gigantic problem with that.
They simply aren't going to support a candidate who is on record saying that. And as a result, they will be TURNED AWAY from the liberty fold, because they're not going to listen to anything past "he wants to force priests to perform gay marriages".

Also outside your bubble are the libertarians who actually believe in principles. Using the state to force a social agenda is not libertarian. This isn't a statement of opinion on my part.

I know you're a reasonably intelligent guy, so can you seriously not see that Johnson is the absolute worst thing to happen to the liberty movement right now? He's not going to get the votes, he's not going to spread the message. All he's going to do is waste everyone's time.

Dude, you are totally over-reacting.. I am all for businesses having the right to put up "No blacks allowed" signs or doing whatever or serving whoever they want on their property, I wouldn't patronize them, but they have every right to do it imo..

We need to be realistic here, Gary Johnson is right - the discrimination issue is a black-hole issue at this point in time. He may even agree with you and I, but either way he knows it isn't a winning issue right now and will sink everything else we want to accomplish. I think Rand had balls to come out against the CRA, but it's probably one of the major reasons he isn't taken as seriously on the national stage (despite all the fantastic work he does in the senate). Anybody who thinks the way you or I do will not be able to win the general election right now. If people move in a more liberty oriented direction and we have more of these conversations with people it could happen, in time, but we aren't there right now.

Gary Johnson said that every pro-gay legislation he ever signed or backed always stipulated that priests would not be forced to marry gay couples. He doesn't think that cake bakers should be forced to bake a penis shaped cake for a gay wedding, but if a gay couple comes into their business and orders something they should be treated equally. That doesn't mean the cake baker has to customize their cake any specific way that goes against their beliefs because he said that would be violating their first amendment rights.

Religious freedom is pretty high on my priorities, despite the fact that religious fuckers are primarily the ones responsible for the war on drugs which takes away my freedom to perform my personal religion... And I have gay friends who I have told straight up that being pro-gay marriage is not something I actively support in most cases because it is being used to take the rights away from religious people.. But we have to be realistic here and see what areas are most important and where we can make the most headway and Gary Johnson is the person who has the best chance at reducing the size of government, ensuring our personal privacy, ending the war on drugs and reigning in our foreign empire.

I respect purists like Ron Paul, and Ron Paul was great at being a purist and drawing in people from the left.. But I also respect people who can bring large swaths of people together to help tackle the most important issues of the day because in the end we need a multi-pronged attack at authoritarianism.
 
What video are you guys watching? I've been through this one twice and I don't hear that anywhere.

It's what AP said about Ron about his views on blow-back. I think it was in a pod-cast.

Whereas I actually can believe that you're not capable of seeing past your nose here.
You don't have a problem with forcing priests to perform gay marriages because you don't have a problem with gay marriage and you don't have a priest.
I think maybe you need to step outside your bubble for a second and recognize that a shit ton of American voters have a gigantic problem with that.

They simply aren't going to support a candidate who is on record saying that. And as a result, they will be TURNED AWAY from the liberty fold, because they're not going to listen to anything past "he wants to force priests to perform gay marriages".

Also outside your bubble are the libertarians who actually believe in principles. Using the state to force a social agenda is not libertarian. This isn't a statement of opinion on my part.

I know you're a reasonably intelligent guy, so can you seriously not see that Johnson is the absolute worst thing to happen to the liberty movement right now? He's not going to get the votes, he's not going to spread the message. All he's going to do is waste everyone's time.

Except forcing priests to perform gay marriage is NOT GJ's position. So, there is that. Not that I personally care for GJ myself.
 
Last edited:
Could the LP win a state seat if they pooled all their resources into one race?

They should just pick McAfee since he's going to get the most attention.

It's possible- I just found this:

eVfwXRn.png

https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/gary-johnson-elected-president-home-state-new-mexico/
 
It sounded like he was for forcing bakers to make gay wedding cakes, what is the difference?

There is a big difference. But, he is also not for forcing bakers to bake gay wedding cakes. A facebook post of his I think should clear it up.

From his FB....

In a nationally-televised debate among three of the Libertarian candidates for President (A debate that should, by the way, have been more inclusive of all the candidates.), a highly unlikely hypothetical question was raised about whether a Jewish baker has the right to refuse to serve a Nazi sympathizer asking for a “Nazi cake”. I responded to that question in the legal context of whether a public business has the right to refuse to serve a member of the public, as distasteful as it might be.

The simple answer to that question is, whether all like it or not, U.S. law has recognized the principle of public accommodation for more than 100 years: The principle that, when a business opens its doors to the public, that business enters into an implied contract to serve ALL of the public. Further, when that business voluntarily opens its doors, the owners voluntarily agree to adhere to applicable laws and regulations -- whether they like those laws or not.

To be clear, anti-discrimination laws do not, and cannot, abridge fundamental First Amendment rights. I know of no one who reasonably disagrees. In the highly unlikely event that a Nazi would demand that a Jewish baker decorate a cake with a Nazi symbol, the courts, common sense, and common decency -- not to mention the First Amendment -- all combine to protect that baker from having to do so. It’s not an issue, except when distorted for purposes of gotcha politics.

Does a public bakery have to sell a cake to a Nazi? Probably so. Does that bakery have to draw a swastika on it? Absolutely not. And that’s the way it should be.

Of course, we all know that this conversation is really “code” for the current, and far more real, conversation about society’s treatment of LGBT individuals. I have even heard some talk of a “right to discriminate”. And of course, we have states and municipalities today trying to create a real right to discriminate against the LGBT community on religious grounds -- the same kinds of “religious” grounds that were used to defend racial segregation, forbid interracial marriages and, yes, defend discrimination against Jews by businesses. That is not a slope Libertarians want to go down.

Once again, my belief that discrimination on the basis of religion should not be allowed has been distorted by some to suggest that a legitimate church or its clergy should be “forced” to perform a same-sex marriage. That is absurd. The various ballot initiatives I supported across the country to repeal bans on same-sex marriage all had one provision in common: A specific provision making clear that no religious organization, priest or pastor could be required to perform any rite contrary to that organization’s or individual’s faith. That protection was supported almost universally by the LGBT community -- even though most legal scholars agreed that such a protection already exists in the Constitution. We just wanted to leave no doubt.

https://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohnson/posts/10153109454754364

Note, I don't agree with him. I think businesses should be able to serve who they want. In other words, "the right to discriminate."
 
Last edited:
It's what AP said about Ron about his views on blow-back. I think it was in a pod-cast.



Except forcing priests to perform gay marriage is NOT GJ's position. So, there is that. Not that I personally care for GJ myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1B3UBvxlH8&t=63m14s

Here is the entire question in context.
Johnson's answer: "These religious freedom laws are just a way to discriminate against gay individuals."
That is a direct quote.

Here is the page for Virginia SB41:
https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+sum+SB41

Here is the summary as passed:

Religious freedom; solemnization of marriage. Provides that no person shall be (i) required to participate in the solemnization of any marriage or (ii) subject to any penalty, any civil liability, or any other action by the Commonwealth, or its political subdivisions or representatives or agents, solely on account of such person's belief, speech, or action in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman. The bill defines "person" as any (a) religious organization, (b) organization supervised or controlled by or operated in connection with a religious organization, (c) individual employed by a religious organization while acting in the scope of his paid or volunteer employment, (d) successor, representative, agent, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing, or (e) clergy member or minister. The bill also defines "penalty."

Here is the bit of Virginia's bill after the definitions section:

B. No person shall be:
1. Required to participate in the solemnization of any marriage; or
2. Subject to any penalty, any civil liability, or any other action by the Commonwealth, or its political subdivisions or representatives or agents, solely on account of such person's belief, speech, or action in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.

Do you want me to look up the other bills?

He's stuck. Either Johnson is in favor of forcing clergy to perform marriages (as he is directly against these bills), or he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and thinks the bills are something else.

Which of those possibilities makes him a good candidate?
 
He's stuck. Either Johnson is in favor of forcing clergy to perform marriages (as he is directly against these bills), or he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and thinks the bills are something else.

Which of those possibilities makes him a good candidate?

See the post before yours...
 
There is a big difference. But, he is also not for forcing bakers to bake gay wedding cakes. A facebook post of his I think should clear it up.
From his FB....
https://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohnson/posts/10153109454754364
Note, I don't agree with him. I think businesses should be able to serve who they want.

I bumped the interview from a year ago where he was asked specifically about it and it sure sounded like he wanted to make it a federal law forcing bakers to make gay cakes and do weddings. He specifically referenced the civil rights act and said it should include gays.
 
Back
Top