Gary Johnson Gary Johnson - Is he a lesser of 3 evils or not

[surf]

I learned in Bush vs Gore that the lesser of two evils is well worth voting for.

i haven't thought about this in years.... not sure what the implication is - though i'm guessing you're saying you'd have preferred the dumb ivy-league warmonger over the dumb ivy-league warmonger.

 

[acptulsa]

..

 

[Noblegeorge]

Yeah im voting for Gary. He's an excellent alternative to RP. Hes got a great record. He understands monetary policy, foreign policy, education, civil rights issues etc.

 

[freedomordeath]

Yeah im voting for Gary. He's an excellent alternative to RP. Hes got a great record. He understands monetary policy, foreign policy, education, civil rights issues etc.

To the great record you are talking about, exactly what is his view point on central banking. THIS IS KEY, because central banking is a mechanism by which our labour and resources are used against us. IF this is not stopped, then they will have money infinity to finance the war against us freedom lovers.

Also I heard that he is for humanatarian war ie Kony etc is this true.

I haven't either. The people complaining about GJ are so nitpicky they will never have a candidate in power.

Whats so hard following the constitution, the correct question why can't we find one person in America that would follow the constitution in leadership.

Enjoy Obama or Romney, Johnson-haters.

lol... thats what the RNC told us when voting for Ron Paul, excl Romney ofcourse.

I like Ron Paul better, but he isn't more credible. Gary Johnson is a two term governor of a state. Ron Paul is a Congressman. He's never won a broad election or even been a leader. I guess maybe he ran a doctor's office. Though Gary Johnson ran a business with 1000 employees that he started.

Dude you missing the point... DO YOU NOT READ HAYEK, MISES, ROTHBARD, BASTIAT. We do not need some great business leader, if we wanted a great businness man we could ask Bill Gates. Infact a successful businessman would be counter productive becuase he would always want to RUN THINGS. The role of a great leader OF A COUNTRY (not a business) is one that steps aside, lets everyone else GET ON WITH IT. His role would be to interfere as little as possible, it should be the easiest job in the world.

 

[misean]

Dude you missing the point... DO YOU NOT READ HAYEK, MISES, ROTHBARD, BASTIAT. We do not need some great business leader, if we wanted a great businness man we could ask Bill Gates. Infact a successful businessman would be counter productive becuase he would always want to RUN THINGS. The role of a great leader OF A COUNTRY (not a business) is one that steps aside, lets everyone else GET ON WITH IT. His role would be to interfere as little as possible, it should be the easiest job in the world.

I'm torn with that thinking. If you would have asked me a year ago, I would have something similar. I would still think like that if the government were its Constitutional size. I've changed my mind for where we are at now. The President needs make a lot of decisions. A libertarian president ,in particular, would have a large challenge communicating the need to shrink government. There are challenges like working on budget. The President can't get all the cuts (or maybe any) he wants in the budget. He's going to have to work with legislators.

Eliminating the Federal Reserve would be a huge challenge. It would also be critically important to have to have competent people able to develop a strategy to unwind positions and sell this idea to the general public and Congress. This isn't something that could just be done overnight over even over the course of years. This is a situation where having a "good leader" is very important.

I'm more convinced of Friedman's approach to trying to change the country than Rothbard's.

And I wasn't making the point that the country needs a great business leader. I do think some high level leadership experience is important though.

 

[VIDEODROME]

He wants to end the IRS. I don't care if it'smore incremental than how people think Ron Paul would do it. End this bullshit now.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Somehow, somewhere, Gary Johnson has discovered the power in the US Constitution to enforce marriage equality against the States by Washington DC at the point of a gun. He calls it a Constitutional right. I frankly don't give a damn what someone thinks about gay marriage or traditional marriage, I simply cannot support any politician that invents random powers and calls them Constitutional. That power is not now nor has it ever been delegated to the Federal government in the US Constitution, and since I cannot vote for anybody I believe will ignore violate or abrogate the Constitution, I have now become unable to vote Johnson based on this position.

The Constitution says what it means and means what it says. If I wanted a President who just randomly invents new powers that the Constitution never conceived of, I could go with the expert at it RomBama.

 

[DeMintConservative]

I'm torn with that thinking. If you would have asked me a year ago, I would have something similar. I would still think like that if the government were its Constitutional size. I've changed my mind for where we are at now. The President needs make a lot of decisions. A libertarian president ,in particular, would have a large challenge communicating the need to shrink government. There are challenges like working on budget. The President can't get all the cuts (or maybe any) he wants in the budget. He's going to have to work with legislators.

Eliminating the Federal Reserve would be a huge challenge. It would also be critically important to have to have competent people able to develop a strategy to unwind positions and sell this idea to the general public and Congress. This isn't something that could just be done overnight over even over the course of years. This is a situation where having a "good leader" is very important.

I'm more convinced of Friedman's approach to trying to change the country than Rothbard's.

And I wasn't making the point that the country needs a great business leader. I do think some high level leadership experience is important though.

Fully agreed.

And when it comes to public policy changes, it's either gradualism or bust. It's how the constitutional machinery and political fabric are constructed to work.

 

[Gravik]

Indeed. GJ is about as credible as clown shoes on a golden retriever. If you want a credible LP candidate, look to Harry Browne. GJ has fucked up everything the LP ever claimed to stood for.

Sound money? GJ is clueless.

Non-interventionism? Clueless.

Drug war? Clueless. (Tax & regulate marijuana? Keep the hard drugs illegal? Absurdity.)

Furthermore, this "pragmatism/cost-benefit-analysis" approach to liberty isn't doing him any favors as far as his electability is concerned. All he's doing is making the LP look bad.

With that said, he is a fine protest vote. However, I don't want him anywhere near the debates, it would do more harm than good

How is he clueless on the drug war? Hard drugs would be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. IMO that's 10000x better than either what Obama or Romney will do.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I think as a strategy we now have different pieces on a board. If it were Chess we'd probably say Ron Paul was the King. But we also have other people on the board like Gary Johnson or Rand Paul. These pieces are different and are trying to maneuver differently but I hope one way or another are heading toward a desirable goal.

Basically, I'd like to think we have multiple players in this game and we should use all of them if they offer any progress at all.


Also, even I don't think Gary Johnson has the deeply nuanced understanding of Monetary Policy that Ron Paul does. Yet, if Johnson were president I think it is safe to say Ron Paul could have his choice of cabinet positions or even Fed Chairman.

If Ron wanted input on Johnson's proposals it would probably be welcomed.

 

[Deborah K]

Indeed. GJ is about as credible as clown shoes on a golden retriever. If you want a credible LP candidate, look to Harry Browne. GJ has fucked up everything the LP ever claimed to stood for.

Sound money? GJ is clueless.

Non-interventionism? Clueless.

Drug war? Clueless. (Tax & regulate marijuana? Keep the hard drugs illegal? Absurdity.)

Furthermore, this "pragmatism/cost-benefit-analysis" approach to liberty isn't doing him any favors as far as his electability is concerned. All he's doing is making the LP look bad.

With that said, he is a fine protest vote. However, I don't want him anywhere near the debates, it would do more harm than good

I'm not voting for GJ, but I really have to ask you if you've examined his record as Governor?

 

[torchbearer]

I'm not voting for GJ, but I really have to ask you if you've examined his record as Governor?

It is better if we just mindless bash someone who is on team liberty.
we get hungry. we are cannibals.

 

[TheTexan]

I'm not voting for GJ, but I really have to ask you if you've examined his record as Governor?

Yes I have. Does not change a thing

 

[torchbearer]

hope the johnson bashers aren't planning to do any team building in the future.

 

[TheTexan]

hope the johnson bashers aren't planning to do any team building in the future.

Criticism = bashing?

Was anything I said incorrect? Does Johnson actually understand sound money principles? Is he actually a non-interventionist? Is his drug policy not utilitarian in nature?

As governor did he pardon more than 2 people for non-violent drug offenses? Did he try to pardon more than 2 people for non-violent drug offenses? (I'm giving him 2 freebies, haven't investigated if those 2 were real)

I know he's lied about his pardon record. I can tell you that much. (It was either a lie, or he has no idea what "pardon" means... most governors I think would know what it means)

 

[Deborah K]

Yes I have. Does not change a thing

Really? He's advocating balanced budgets and tax reform, and while Governor he balanced budgets, didn't raise a single tax, and left office with a surplus. Gary Johnson's governorship presided over the largest job growth of any candidate with 11.6% job growth, and he did it by reducing the government's role. He was one of the most anti-spending governors in New Mexico history. He set a state record for vetoes.

Since the economy and its looming collapse is at the forefront in this election, I would think that people who are trying to decide who to vote for would at the very least give heavy consideration to this man's RECORD not RHETORIC on the subject.

 

[freedomordeath]

I think posts like this are good, because when you vote it must be a fully investigated informed decsion, if every American voted like this then it would change the country overnight. Every person you vote for from here on out must be fully vetted.

 

[TheTexan]

Really? He's advocating balanced budgets and tax reform, and while Governor he balanced budgets, didn't raise a single tax, and left office with a surplus.

That's great. However, balancing budgets is meaningless without sound money, and his tax reform is simply tinkering around the edges than real reform. Fair tax can get rid of a lot of paperwork, but other than that, it solves nothing. (I am in favor of replacing income tax with the fair tax, but only as a minor issue)

Gary Johnson's governorship presided over the largest job growth of any candidate with 11.6% job growth, and he did it by reducing the government's role. He was one of the most anti-spending governors in New Mexico history. He set a state record for vetoes.

That's fantastic. He's very utilitarian like that. I'm sure while in office he would veto everything and cut spending to the best of his ability. I'm also sure that, after he left office, his successor would go right back to spending again.

As long as the Federal Reserve exists, spending will never be cut in the long term. And GJ has no plans to resolve that problem.

Since the economy and its looming collapse is at the forefront in this election, I would think that people who are trying to decide who to vote for would at the very least give heavy consideration to this man's RECORD not RHETORIC on the subject.

You only looked at the bottom line. The jobs, taxes, spending. Great indicators for sure. But you apparently glossed over the economic interventionism in his record and other such meddling where he does not belong.

His record proves he's a utilitarian. He has no problems with infringing upon your liberty if it's for the greater good. He just happens to believe that cutting spending and taxes is for the greater good. It has nothing to do with principles. Just utility.

I have zero trust, zero, that he would stay strong to those utilitarian spending-cuts and tax-cuts in an economic collapse. None. It's very likely that he would have a "utilitarian change of heart" and believe we'd need to "save the dollar and have a strong dollar again." The dollar can't be saved. It's beyond saving. But GJ can't see that. Which is why it would be very dangerous to have him in office during an economic collapse.

Furthermore, he has lied on several occasions. He has a very bad habit of answering "yes" to questions when he doesn't really mean it. How can I trust a man with no principles and little honesty? Because he had good job growth as governor? I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it. Not for me. You do what you like.

 

[misean]

Utilitarian... .. Utilitarian.... Utilitarian

This isn't a philosophy exam. About .3% or less of people think similarly to you. I don't even agree with you and I have probably read a lot of the same things you have. There are not a whole of people who think like the people on this forum. You aren't going to get a consensus on making huge changes that quickly. How about moving the football forward? It would be nice to actually see positive changes made and get some positive momentum.

Being utilitarian isn't bad. Mises was utilitarian. Hayek was the ultimate utilitarian.

 

[Deborah K]

That's great. However, balancing budgets is meaningless without sound money, and his tax reform is simply tinkering around the edges than real reform. Fair tax can get rid of a lot of paperwork, but other than that, it solves nothing. (I am in favor of replacing income tax with the fair tax, but only as a minor issue)



That's fantastic. He's very utilitarian like that. I'm sure while in office he would veto everything and cut spending to the best of his ability. I'm also sure that, after he left office, his successor would go right back to spending again.

As long as the Federal Reserve exists, spending will never be cut in the long term. And GJ has no plans to resolve that problem.



You only looked at the bottom line. The jobs, taxes, spending. Great indicators for sure. But you apparently glossed over the economic interventionism in his record and other such meddling where he does not belong.

His record proves he's a utilitarian. He has no problems with infringing upon your liberty if it's for the greater good. He just happens to believe that cutting spending and taxes is for the greater good. It has nothing to do with principles. Just utility.

I have zero trust, zero, that he would stay strong to those utilitarian spending-cuts and tax-cuts in an economic collapse. None. It's very likely that he would have a "utilitarian change of heart" and believe we'd need to "save the dollar and have a strong dollar again." The dollar can't be saved. It's beyond saving. But GJ can't see that. Which is why it would be very dangerous to have him in office during an economic collapse.

Furthermore, he has lied on several occasions. He has a very bad habit of answering "yes" to questions when he doesn't really mean it. How can I trust a man with no principles and little honesty? Because he had good job growth as governor? I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it. Not for me. You do what you like.

If the issue is to vote for someone for President other than Robamney, then carefully examining a candidate's record should be a priority, not his interviews, gaffs, mispeaks, etc. That is the true litmus test. It speaks to why electing (selecting) someone with virtually NO record for President (as in the case of Obama) has damaged this country, possibly irreparably.

As I stated, I'm not voting for GJ. I'm probably not going to vote at all, because I believe the whole process is rigged.....I'm very torn about all of this actually. Very sad and disillusioned.