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

[CT4Liberty]

Enjoy Obama or Romney, Johnson-haters.

That would suggest that Johnson has any chance of actually winning? Even if every RP voter went with Johnson, I doubt that he would garner enough for victory as a Liberty ticket candidate.

The question for people is... do they vote their conscience (assuming they want to write in Paul) or do they want to pool their votes behind 1 candidate in Johnson who is formally on the ballot.

On a personal level - I think it has less to do with 1 candidate getting 10-15% of the vote and more with the 2 parties losing 10-15%, even if its to multiple 3rd parties/write ins. So, in my opinion, any vote against the 2 party system is letting your voice be heard.

And when in doubt, always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

 

[Deborah K]

And when in doubt, always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

Care to put quotations around that? Or are you John Quincy Adams incarnate? LOL.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Every politician is a lesser evil. They're still men.

Voting for a lesser evil when the only impact of that vote will be rewarding the biggest evil of them all seems a bit nonsensical to me. I don't really see Johnson as much of an improvement over Romney anyway.

I'm also amused by seeing Gary Johnson made a third party hero.

This is the same Gary Johnson who was running for the GOP nomination just a few months ago and was a GOP elected official for years. Now he's lecturing people about ballot access and minor parties? C'mon, cut the BS. The only reason he's talking about that stuff is because he didn't win the GOP nomination. Otherwise, he'd be trying to get the LP candidate off ballot wherever he could.

 

[Working Poor]

Regardless of who wins or who we vote for the machine is till moving forward. We will have some victories because we have fought for them. We have helped we have kept the light on for liberty and this is good. The machine is moving we can steer it too. It is easier to steer a moving vehicle than a stopped one.

Your words are powerful careful now.

 

[acptulsa]

Every politician is a lesser evil. They're still men.

Well now. The most perfect Congressman and most tireless defender of the Constitution was the 'lesser evil' when we voted for him in the primary. Why? Because he has lust in his heart whenever he catches the aroma of Carol's cookies? Dude. Ron Paul is no evil politician. An imperfect man? What other kind is there? But in the political sense, an evil? Get out.

Voting for a lesser evil when the only impact of that vote will be rewarding the biggest evil of them all seems a bit nonsensical to me. I don't really see Johnson as much of an improvement over Romney anyway.

Of course, you actually consider the difference between the biggest evil and the second biggest evil to be significant. In this case, I think the facts put that theory to rest. And I doubt you see Johnson at all.

I'm also amused by seeing Gary Johnson made a third party hero.

I'm sure you are. I doubt, however, that if he were a genuine threat to the status quo you would be so blase' about it.

This is the same Gary Johnson who was running for the GOP nomination just a few months ago and was a GOP elected official for years. Now he's lecturing people about ballot access and minor parties? C'mon, cut the BS. The only reason he's talking about that stuff is because he didn't win the GOP nomination. Otherwise, he'd be trying to get the LP candidate off ballot wherever he could.

Point to one, just one, single solitary act in the man's record to support this theory. Did he sign a bill to restrict third party access in New Mexico? Did he make the New Mexico ballot harder to get on than, say, Oklahoma's? Did he sign the bill that outlaws write-in votes in New Mexico?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Opinions are like hemohrroids. Especially when they're this baseless.

The vast majority of the people here don't care to continue to prop up the one party system. Get over it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

That would suggest that Johnson has any chance of actually winning? Even if every RP voter went with Johnson, I doubt that he would garner enough for victory as a Liberty ticket candidate.

The question for people is... do they vote their conscience (assuming they want to write in Paul) or do they want to pool their votes behind 1 candidate in Johnson who is formally on the ballot.

On a personal level - I think it has less to do with 1 candidate getting 10-15% of the vote and more with the 2 parties losing 10-15%, even if its to multiple 3rd parties/write ins. So, in my opinion, any vote against the 2 party system is letting your voice be heard.

And when in doubt, always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

(Emphasis added)

And if your principles recoil in horror that he's already discovering powers in the Constitution that no founder, framer, or amendment writer ever envisioned?

 

[LibertasPraesidium]

I am torn between writing in and voting GJ. His record is alright and i haven't found any good sources for his economic understanding or how far his foreign policy cuts would go. So if he could win, that is the information that would sway me. Writing in Paul would be a good feeling but I dont believe it would accomplish anything. And trying to decide between the two party ticket is mind numbing.
I don't think that even if people did vote libertarian we would get the numbers necessary that the debate group would just move them higher.
I do not believe there is much anyone can do about the outcome of this election anymore. Though as libertarian party grows so too does its influence in the election and if we could get a good LP candidate then we could do something in 2016. Otherwise we still have portions of the R party and can possibly put up Rand Paul.

Obama will win 85%
Romney will win 14.9999%
Gary Johnson win 0.0001%
What I am trying to figure out is what happens from here.

Ron Paul took back his honorary title as chairman over C4L I have the email that this is from
Source.
I am not sure what he plans to do after the election.

Anything now would be nice, but the liberty movement isnt going to coalesce around anything until after the elections. imo

 

[DeMintConservative]

Well now. The most perfect Congressman and most tireless defender of the Constitution was the 'lesser evil' when we voted for him in the primary. Why? Because he has lust in his heart whenever he catches the aroma of Carol's cookies? Dude. Ron Paul is no evil politician. An imperfect man? What other kind is there? But in the political sense, an evil? Get out.

All political arrangements are a necessary level and all will always be flawed. None is going to bring heaven to heart. Those who believe in optimal policy choices are Marxists with poor self-awareness.

Of course, you actually consider the difference between the biggest evil and the second biggest evil to be significant. In this case, I think the facts put that theory to rest. And I doubt you see Johnson at all.


I'm sure you are. I doubt, however, that if he were a genuine threat to the status quo you would be so blase' about it.



Point to one, just one, single solitary act in the man's record to support this theory. Did he sign a bill to restrict third party access in New Mexico? Did he make the New Mexico ballot harder to get on than, say, Oklahoma's? Did he sign the bill that outlaws write-in votes in New Mexico?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Opinions are like hemohrroids. Especially when they're this baseless.

I don't know, but did he make ballot access in Mexico easier?

More importantly: the man was just running for the nomination of half of the evil one-party just a few months ago. How exactly does he have credibility as a 3rd party hero? Do you really believe he has much of a problem with the 2 party system?

Everybody knows what his problem was: they didn't pick him. Otherwise he'd be running on the ticket of one of those evil parties. We can all agree on this, right? Trying to sell his candidacy as a principled stance against the 2 party system is amusing. [/QUOTE]

The vast majority of the people here don't care to continue to prop up the one party system. Get over it.

Really? One enters the forum and reads Bentivolio, Massie, Amash, Paul, etc, etc., etc..

There's a lot of attention and focus put on candidates for a party the majority of people here don't care about.

 

[acptulsa]

All political arrangements are a necessary level and all will always be flawed. None is going to bring heaven to heart. Those who believe in optimal policy choices are Marxists with poor self-awareness.

Tell it to Ron Paul.

I don't know, but did he make ballot access in Mexico easier?

How would he? And why?

More importantly: the man was just running for the nomination of half of the evil one-party just a few months ago. How exactly does he have credibility as a 3rd party hero? Do you really believe he has much of a problem with the 2 party system?

Why don't you ask Ron Paul?

Everybody knows what his problem was: they didn't pick him. Otherwise he'd be running on the ticket of one of those evil parties. We can all agree on this, right? Trying to sell his candidacy as a principled stance against the 2 party system is amusing.

He got into a debate. Are you saying that wasn't worthwhile? I have a principled stand against the one- (allegedly two-) party system, but that doesn't mean I've never voted for a Democrat or a Republican. I've voted for both.

You've got some serious Red Team/Blue Team mentality going on. But that doesn't mean I have some kind of anti-team mentality going on.

Really? One enters the forum and reads Bentivolio, Massie, Amash, Paul, etc, etc., etc..

There's a lot of attention and focus put on candidates for a party the majority of people here don't care about.

Oh, yes, let's explore this one. DeMint Conservative is saying that association with one of these 'two' parties is tantamount to having the evil rub off on you? So, by that logic, Ron Paul (after 24 years as a Republican Congressman) should be voting like Graham by now--or, at least, should have a voting record which deteriorated over time until it's no better than DeMint's. Because I, for one, didn't see that happen. Maybe you know something about the man's voting record I don't...

Thank you for coming to Ron Paul Forums and indirectly and by inference trashing the doctor's good name. Can't tell you how endearing that is.

 

[Aratus]

think of a 269 v. 269 ELECTORAL COLLEGE TIE that is followed by a 217-217-1 HOUSE split (seriously said!)

 

[DeMintConservative]

Tell it to Ron Paul.



How would he? And why?



Why don't you ask Ron Paul?



He got into a debate. Are you saying that wasn't worthwhile? I have a principled stand against the one- (allegedly two-) party system, but that doesn't mean I've never voted for a Democrat or a Republican. I've voted for both.

You've got some serious Red Team/Blue Team mentality going on. But that doesn't mean I have some kind of anti-team mentality going on.


Oh, yes, let's explore this one. DeMint Conservative is saying that association with one of these 'two' parties is tantamount to having the evil rub off on you? So, by that logic, Ron Paul (after 24 years as a Republican Congressman) should be voting like Graham by now--or, at least, should have a voting record which deteriorated over time until it's no better than DeMint's. Because I, for one, didn't see that happen. Maybe you know something about the man's voting record I don't...

Thank you for coming to Ron Paul Forums and indirectly and by inference trashing the doctor's good name. Can't tell you how endearing that is.

I could. But I guess his answer would be "But I'm not running on a 3rd party line". So i don't quite understand the point you're making.

Glen Johnson was perfectly happy with the idea of being part of the 2 party system. Till he lost. That's all there is to it. The rest is just spin that can't be taken serious.

I'm saying that suggesting the 2 major parties are some sort of evil incarnated or that 3rd parties are somehow superior is silly - as the fact that the most appreciated candidates here are running under one of those parties banner suggests. Political parties are just that, groups of individuals, some better than others.

 

[acptulsa]

I could. But I guess his answer would be "But I'm not running on a 3rd party line". So i don't quite understand the point you're making.

The point I was making is that your rhetoric might be more inflammatory if it actually made a little sense.

Glen Johnson was perfectly happy with the idea of being part of the 2 party system. Till he lost. That's all there is to it. The rest is just spin that can't be taken serious.

Oh, we're talking about Glen Johnson. Well, that's different. Never heard of him.

Or are you professing to be an expert on Gary Johnson? If so, why not give us some quotes to show how 'perfectly happy' he was to be associated with the GOP?

'...taken serious'? You mimic the southern U.S. dialect pretty well, for a European. My compliments.

I'm saying that suggesting the 2 major parties are some sort of evil incarnated or that 3rd parties are somehow superior is silly - as the fact that the most appreciated candidates here are running under one of those parties banner suggests. Political parties are just that, groups of individuals, some better than others.

So why are you promoting Romney? So he can appoint judges who wear an R next to their names? Thus reassuring us that they will be superior, despite the proof positive Roberts is giving us that we can not depend on that? Especially when the person picking which 'R label' judges get to be justices is the Taxachussetts, Big Digging Father of Obamacare?