Gary Johnson Gary Johnson Is Seeking the LP Nomination

[Nathan Hale]

It seems to me that you don't need another political party if you are going to be part of the mushy, corporatist middle. There are already two parties occupying that space.

And I say that, having been a registered Republican ever since I could vote.

There's a big difference between working to attract moderates and distilling your party platform to the point of endorsing the status quo.

 

[klamath]

As previous posters have said, this simply is not true.

Oh really. And what other poster said it wasn't true? I think you need to go back and reread what they wrote. Do you really want me to go back and bump the thread with all the saved quotes of what he had on his website?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...hlight=campaign+donations+gary+johnson+paying

 

[Nathan Hale]

Oh really. And what other poster said it wasn't true? I think you need to go back and reread what they wrote. Do you really want me to go back and bump the thread with all the saved quotes of what he had on his website?

As sailingaway said, GJ's site LINKED to an article (not written by them) that IMPLIED Paul was a racist (but was likely linked to for other reasons, I don't hold Gary to account for every word of every article his site links to). I don't remember this, so I'd love to see the article (hence my reply to you).

 

[klamath]

As sailingaway said, GJ's site LINKED to an article (not written by them) that IMPLIED Paul was a racist (but was likely linked to for other reasons, I don't hold Gary to account for every word of every article his site links to). I don't remember this, so I'd love to see the article (hence my reply to you).

No sailing corrected himself on thinking it was only linked. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...hlight=campaign+donations+gary+johnson+paying

 

[Nathan Hale]

No sailing corrected himself on thinking it was only linked. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...hlight=campaign+donations+gary+johnson+paying

So it's an article posted that features Gary Johnson, written by an outside media organization. Why wouldn't Gary post it? Despite what was said that the beginning of your linked thread, that's not the language that Gary chose to keep in his summary of the article on his site. Should he have disavowed the entire article because in the section he chose not to include on his site it referenced a (true) liability that Paul will have to deal with if he ever faces Obama in the general? I disagree.

I think people are just bitter that Johnson got into the race, and are looking for reasons to hate him. At the end of the day, however, those of us who have met both men and know their history and the history of their relationship are comfortable in saying that they're friends.

 

[klamath]

So it's an article posted that features Gary Johnson, written by an outside media organization. Why wouldn't Gary post it? Despite what was said that the beginning of your linked thread, that's not the language that Gary chose to keep in his summary of the article on his site. Should he have disavowed the entire article because in the section he chose not to include on his site it referenced a (true) liability that Paul will have to deal with if he ever faces Obama in the general? I disagree.

I think people are just bitter that Johnson got into the race, and are looking for reasons to hate him. At the end of the day, however, those of us who have met both men and know their history and the history of their relationship are comfortable in saying that they're friends.

Whatever. You can like him if you want. I stated one of the reasons I don't have any use for him and you tried to claim I was lying. It was more than just the article as the campaign had to install the hyperlinks into the article to all the inflamatory points.
I have more reasons to not support GJ than that. He cheated on his wife, is a resent pot smoker, supports defending israel with US military power, supports federal enforcment of nutrition labels, prochoice, supports humanitarian wars, attacked RP on earmarks, and he has a very big ego as deminstrated by his "I, I, I, I" speech at the rally for the republic and his flat out refusal to run for NM senate, a seat he could have won.
I would vote for Palin over GJ.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Whatever. You can like him if you want. I stated one of the reasons I don't have any use for him and you tried to claim I was lying.

I didn't claim you were lying. I just wanted to see proof that he attacked RP - and there remains none.

It was more than just the article as the campaign had to install the hyperlinks into the article to all the inflamatory points.

I don't see the problem with the campaign linking to their source article. It wasn't like they were calling attention to the bad stuff.

I have more reasons to not support GJ than that. He cheated on his wife,

Cheated on his wife? He separated from his wife and eventually ended up with another woman before the divorce was final. He and his wife's actual relationship was over before he ended up with his new girlfriend.

is a resent pot smoker, supports defending israel with US military power, supports federal enforcment of nutrition labels, prochoice, supports humanitarian wars, attacked RP on earmarks, and he has a very big ego as deminstrated by his "I, I, I, I" speech at the rally for the republic and his flat out refusal to run for NM senate, a seat he could have won.

All fair reasons not to support him, though I would argue on some it's not worth it. I probably disagree with GJ on as much stuff, and with RP on as much stuff, but I support them because politics is compromise.

I would vote for Palin over GJ.

That sounds like anger talking. But hey, whatever. Your choice.

 

[klamath]

I didn't claim you were lying. I just wanted to see proof that he attacked RP - and there remains none.



I don't see the problem with the campaign linking to their source article. It wasn't like they were calling attention to the bad stuff.



Cheated on his wife? He separated from his wife and eventually ended up with another woman before the divorce was final. He and his wife's actual relationship was over before he ended up with his new girlfriend.



All fair reasons not to support him, though I would argue on some it's not worth it. I probably disagree with GJ on as much stuff, and with RP on as much stuff, but I support them because politics is compromise.



That sounds like anger talking. But hey, whatever. Your choice.

No actually it is not. I agree with Palin on more of my major issues than GJ. Being prochoice is on the same level as being prowar and unfortunately GJ is just as much prowar as Palin and is prochoice while Palin is not. Had GJ not been prowar then the issues would have canceled each other out.
You are right that politics IS compromise but You and I have different reasons and issues on what we will compromise on. There are a couple of issues I support Obama on but not nearly enough to consider voting for him.

 

[Tannenzäpfle]

When I met Gary at Occupy Wall Street back in October, I said basically the following to him: If this GOP bid doesn't work out, please don't go off and hike the Appalachian Trail; you should do what Rand Paul is doing and raise your name recognition nationally when you have already got a base of people in NM who know you and approve of you.

This would reinforce his position for 2016/20 and he could also endorse and get endorsement from Ron Paul without the competitor factor. He'd also avoid alienating any of the GOP by jumping ship, which would help him not burn bridges. Rather than a quixotic bid via the LP (I think I posted a question a while back asking if the LP would bother to nominate anyone if RP got the GOP nod) he and "the cause" would probably be better served by paying some dues at the national level GOP in a senate seat.

I think he'd make a fine LP candidate. Not perfect, but I think Gary would be better off campaigning for Paul.

 

[69360]

When I met Gary at Occupy Wall Street back in October, I said basically the following to him: If this GOP bid doesn't work out, please don't go off and hike the Appalachian Trail; you should do what Rand Paul is doing and raise your name recognition nationally when you have already got a base of people in NM who know you and approve of you.

This would reinforce his position for 2016/20 and he could also endorse and get endorsement from Ron Paul without the competitor factor. He'd also avoid alienating any of the GOP by jumping ship, which would help him not burn bridges. Rather than a quixotic bid via the LP (I think I posted a question a while back asking if the LP would bother to nominate anyone if RP got the GOP nod) he and "the cause" would probably be better served by paying some dues at the national level GOP in a senate seat.

I think he'd make a fine LP candidate. Not perfect, but I think Gary would be better off campaigning for Paul.

Ron won't endorse Gary, Gary is pro choice.

 

[Nathan Hale]

No actually it is not. I agree with Palin on more of my major issues than GJ. Being prochoice is on the same level as being prowar and unfortunately GJ is just as much prowar as Palin and is prochoice while Palin is not. Had GJ not been prowar then the issues would have canceled each other out.

How do you figure that GJ is as pro-war as Palin?

You are right that politics IS compromise but You and I have different reasons and issues on what we will compromise on. There are a couple of issues I support Obama on but not nearly enough to consider voting for him.

Agreed, perhaps GJ is out of your threshold. On the Nolan spectrum, however, he remains quite close to Paul, so it's upsetting to see that you're not on board with either. But hey, Paul supporters come from all over the map, all compromising to support him. Perhaps you're from the more conservative end of things than libertarian end of things. No worries.

 

[klamath]

How do you figure that GJ is as pro-war as Palin?



Agreed, perhaps GJ is out of your threshold. On the Nolan spectrum, however, he remains quite close to Paul, so it's upsetting to see that you're not on board with either. But hey, Paul supporters come from all over the map, all compromising to support him. Perhaps you're from the more conservative end of things than libertarian end of things. No worries.

I hope you meant "both" instead of "either". Yes you are right that I come more from the conservative side. I don't hold drug legalization as the top issue as the majority of libertarians do. I believe it should be legal but I sure don't consider it as high up as abortion, war etc.
As far as the nolan chart thing you really can't peg peoples beliefs with a one size fits all chart.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I hope you meant "both" instead of "either".

Yes. I have a bad habit of accidentally switching words when I type quick. It's a brain quirk or something.

Yes you are right that I come more from the conservative side. I don't hold drug legalization as the top issue as the majority of libertarians do.

I agree. Many self-identifying libertarians tend to push for "every freedom, right this instant".

I believe it should be legal but I sure don't consider it as high up as abortion, war etc.

Here's an issue I have with your approach. Why should abortion be a high priority? I think the numbers are like 80/20 at this point in favor of keeping Roe v Wade. I'm as pro-life as the next guy, but I wouldn't make abortion a piece of my legislative agenda (full disclosure: the abortion issue has done wonders for RP's polling in Iowa, so I'm totally down with him doing that).

As far as the nolan chart thing you really can't peg peoples beliefs with a one size fits all chart.

I don't use the nolan chart to peg people's beliefs, I use to it sum them up - determine the net position based on the sum of their individual positions. Sure, I have watershed issues, but they are very few, I'm willing to hold my nose on quite a few one-issue disagreements in the name of a candidate who is well-positioned on the nolan chart. Mainly because such candidates are few and far between.