Gary Johnson Money Bomb toady

[Nathan Hale]

I don't trust him because I don't know him - and when I say that, I mean that I am unaware of the relationship that he shares with Ron. So I have no idea if they plan on collaborating together in this election. I don't know Ron personally either, but he's already shown himself to be trustworthy because of his principles and honesty. You already know that, I don't know why you even need me to explain this to you. Gary might have a decent record but nowhere near Ron's. To the skeptical Ron Paul supporter who has never heard of him before, his statements show that he's untrustworthy.

I don't see how his statements show that he's untrustworthy - and his rocksolid record is available to anybody who puts forth an ounce of effort to investigate before pronoucing someone unfit for trust.

It isn't? Well then, it must be about supporting Ron then, seeing as he's made that very clear

So running for office can't simply be about the public good - it has to be about either selfishness or support for another person?

I have no suggestions to give to his campaign, that's up to them to figure something out.

But you're the one with the demands. So what would qualify to you that would also mesh with the "don't acknowledge the possibility of defeat" culture of running for political office?

No, but they will most certainly attempt to use their following to try and unite support behind Gary. They will drive a wedge between RP supporters and GJ supporters and if they want to back Gary, I wouldn't doubt that Gary would be receiving financial support from the Koch brothers to help fund his campaign.

Of course, because Gary is just a shill for powerful elites - lol. Of course Cato and Reason would try and drum up support for Gary, I see no problem with this. I'm all for an Ames Accord, but I am for the better candidate, not necessarily Ron Paul, remaining in the race.

I am willing to accept compromise for senate and congressional candidates, but not the presidency. Fool me once....etc. I'm a former Obama supporter. I will only vote for someone I find to be trustworthy now, or just not vote at all and many paul supporters I've run in to feel the same way.

Unfortunately even at the Presidential level, politics remains about compromise. No candidate in the history of the presidency, even Ron Paul, was ever loved 100% by all of their supporters. Supporters compromise to elect a candidate for office whom they all can stand. If nobody compromised in such a way you'd have 300 million candidates for the presidency.

Foreign policy is one of the main issues that attracted me to Paul and comes nowhere close to issues like abortion or illegal immigration in terms of my priorities.

nor did I imply that abortion or illegal immigration were the issues that people held their nose about. As for foreign policy, Gary and Ron share a foreign policy 95% of the way. Gary believes in America having military alliances, that's the only difference between him and Ron. Both opposed Iraq. Both supported the idea of going after Bin Laden but reject how it was done. Both support closing just about every overseas military endeavor. Ron takes it a step farther than Gary, and hey, if that little difference is enough to blockyour support, so be it, but let that he the difference of opinion that we have, and not all this other contrived crap.

Called him too "pessimistic", basically suggesting that republicans should be ones voting for him and not Ron

you're implying meaning where none is suggested.

Said his "no" was more powerful than Ron's "no" and that HE actually got things done. While you may agree with his statement, I still consider it bad form.

I totally disagree. He was talking about the difference between a legislative record and en executive record. Theres nothing wrong with that.

Has said that he would not consider being RP's VP. <- Suggesting that this campaign is only about himself.

You clearly know nothing about electoral politics. No candidate ever says that they're willing to be another's VP. It's the same as agreeing to answer the question: "who would you support if you lost the nomination?". Candidates for office are trained to never acknowledge the possibility of their not being the nominee. Even RP demurred to answer the VP question and the other question I mention above the last time he ran for office.

Well then, that's his problem isn't it? I'm not talking about the debates, I'm talking about LONG interviews where he has plenty of time to articulate his positions with more detail.

He still has to keep his answers short to cover as much ground as possible. His "long" interviews - what, 20 minutes - still only allow for brief answers. RP does the same thing. When Gary does live speeches, hour long affairs, he has often gone on about one or two issues.

He's boring, tone deaf and seems to have an extremely limited understanding of liberty.

This is arbitrary.

One of Johnson's many "soundbites" is claiming that good government is about "putting people first". What politician hasn't said that?

Johnson actually has a record of this.

Good government isn't about putting people first, it is about getting the hell out of the way.

Perhaps getting the hell out of the way IS putting people first.

He also said that he takes a common sense business approach toward government and that he wanted to make government more efficient. You would never catch Ron Paul saying such a thing.

Because RP is a philosopher and Gary is an executive. More on this below....

And it clearly suggests that Johnson has either never read, or perhaps never understood, Friedrich Hayek's Road to Serfdom, which warned that the rise of tyrants is often based on the fact that those tyrants call for more efficient government.

Calling for efficiency in government is not a call for tyranny. Sure, tyrants want their machine to run better, but so does a libertarian - because a government that operates more efficiently operates less expensively and is thus less of a burden on people. Gary has a record as an executive, that means making the government of which he is in charge run more efficiently. It doesn't mean he wants to make government do more things, he wants to make government both do less, but do what it does in a mor practical manner than it currently does it.

He's shown himself to have very limited knowledge on the FED, Austrian economics, foreign policy and so on.

prove it.

You make the excuse that he does not need to harp on these issues to understand them, but guess what? If he does not provide any effort to show his knowledge on these issues in interviews, then you're blindly providing damage control for him. There is more than enough time to show that he understands these issues in a single 10 minute interview, as Ron has proven this over and over again.

Ron shows his understanding to the detriment of communicating things to voters. That's why Gary CANT attempt to explain complex issues in short time. Sure, Ron will jump in depth during a 10 minute interview, but that jumping in costs him the ability to finish his points, and it costs him the ability to hit on many issues during the interview length. Gary knows this going in and doesn't try to spend his limited time teaching college courses on political issues. It's not a candidate's job to bring voters up to speed on hundreds of pages of text - something I've admonished RP *to his face* for doing (so I can't say he's taking all of my advice, but he has taken some).

 

[Liberty19]

Well then, that's his problem isn't it? I'm not talking about the debates, I'm talking about LONG interviews where he has plenty of time to articulate his positions with more detail. He's boring, tone deaf and seems to have an extremely limited understanding of liberty. One of Johnson's many "soundbites" is claiming that good government is about "putting people first". What politician hasn't said that? Good government isn't about putting people first, it is about getting the hell out of the way. He also said that he takes a common sense business approach toward government and that he wanted to make government more efficient. You would never catch Ron Paul saying such a thing. And it clearly suggests that Johnson has either never read, or perhaps never understood, Friedrich Hayek's Road to Serfdom, which warned that the rise of tyrants is often based on the fact that those tyrants call for more efficient government. He's shown himself to have very limited knowledge on the FED, Austrian economics, foreign policy and so on. You make the excuse that he does not need to harp on these issues to understand them, but guess what? If he does not provide any effort to show his knowledge on these issues in interviews, then you're blindly providing damage control for him. There is more than enough time to show that he understands these issues in a single 10 minute interview, as Ron has proven this over and over again.

Well said, Wren. Very good points. Thank you.

 

[Wren]

I don't see how his statements show that he's untrustworthy - and his rocksolid record is available to anybody who puts forth an ounce of effort to investigate before pronoucing someone unfit for trust.

His sheepish dodging on the hannity interview when asked if he supported RP's theory of blowback shows him to be untrustworthy and is an absolute dealbreaker. To not fully endorse Ron in the Guiliani spat shows cowardice if he's not willing to defend that against a TV personality, then that reflects what kind of a politician he'd be in office when there are special interest groups putting the pressure on him.

So running for office can't simply be about the public good - it has to be about either selfishness or support for another person?

Gary's campaign is selfish because we have spent YEARS to help build up RP's name recognition and his credibility in time for the 2012 elections. This is the last time RP can run for president, Gary should have waited till 2016 or 2020, but no, he wanted to jump in when it was RP's last time at doing this. 2007 was when the groundwork was laid, I wish I had known about him then but I only found out about him in 09. If Gary really supported the liberty movement he would have run for senator or collaborated with Ron Paul in this election but he's NOT and RP just said that on stossel, I hate to break it to you. RP said he didn't even know all of his policies, real shocker there when you've claimed that they're so close to each other. You accuse people of making foolish assumptions about Gary when you yourself are making the assumptions.

But you're the one with the demands. So what would qualify to you that would also mesh with the "don't acknowledge the possibility of defeat" culture of running for political office?

So the 'demands' are for myself alone? No, they for most RP supporters out there, and I would SUGGEST that his campaign let out a subtle hint but that doesn't matter now because they are not working together. From: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/28/gary-johnson-i-have-no-contact-with-ron-paul/#ixzz1KqmWl3JE

But when asked if the Gary Johnson campaign is working with or has had any contact with Paul’s camp, Johnson replied, “No, no contact.”

“So in that context, he’s just another potential candidate.”

Want to know how he could have let out a tiny hint? He could have just said YES, I've been contact with RP's campaign BUT we haven't worked with each other.

Of course, because Gary is just a shill for powerful elites - lol. Of course Cato and Reason would try and drum up support for Gary, I see no problem with this. I'm all for an Ames Accord, but I am for the better candidate, not necessarily Ron Paul, remaining in the race.

It'll remain to be seen. Judging from his interview with hannity, I wouldn't be surprised if he accepted financial backing from Koch industries

Unfortunately even at the Presidential level, politics remains about compromise. No candidate in the history of the presidency, even Ron Paul, was ever loved 100% by all of their supporters. Supporters compromise to elect a candidate for office whom they all can stand. If nobody compromised in such a way you'd have 300 million candidates for the presidency.

I will never be willing to compromise that which I deem the top of my priorities, that's why I'm voting for Ron Paul and not Gary Johnson.

nor did I imply that abortion or illegal immigration were the issues that people held their nose about. As for foreign policy, Gary and Ron share a foreign policy 95% of the way. Gary believes in America having military alliances, that's the only difference between him and Ron. Both opposed Iraq. Both supported the idea of going after Bin Laden but reject how it was done. Both support closing just about every overseas military endeavor. Ron takes it a step farther than Gary, and hey, if that little difference is enough to blockyour support, so be it, but let that he the difference of opinion that we have, and not all this other contrived crap.

Nor did I suggest that you made that claim, I was using examples of political issues. Here's the dealbreaker:

I don't support GITMO.
I don't support defending Israel's right to exist militarily if needed.
I don't support the idea that Iraqi's need to pay us back for somehow 'liberating' them.
I don't support humanitarian wars.

So yes, I will gladly block out my support when it comes to those issues

You clearly know nothing about electoral politics. No candidate ever says that they're willing to be another's VP. It's the same as agreeing to answer the question: "who would you support if you lost the nomination?". Candidates for office are trained to never acknowledge the possibility of their not being the nominee. Even RP demurred to answer the VP question and the other question I mention above the last time he ran for office.

His VP statements are irrelevant now, because it's been revealed today that they aren't working together.

He still has to keep his answers short to cover as much ground as possible. His "long" interviews - what, 20 minutes - still only allow for brief answers. RP does the same thing. When Gary does live speeches, hour long affairs, he has often gone on about one or two issues.

prove it.

I'm not going to buy that. I won't accept soundbite answers and useless cliches in long speeches or interviews. I watched him on Alex Jones and the CPAC speech and the guy is just plain inarticulate when he talks about the FED or Austrian economics and never discusses them with deep understanding. You're asking me to "prove it" when it's right there in front of you, but you refuse to acknowledge it and like I said, just providing damage control for his lack of knowledge on these issues. In fact most of your recent posts have only been about GJ. It's not up to ME to prove that he understands these issues, HE is the one that needs to prove to everyone that he understands these issues. I don't mind if you support GJ over RP, but I guarantee that you won't convince most people here that it's a good idea for him to be in the race because he's established himself to be untrustworthy. You don't need to take MY word for it, all you have to do is read a few threads.

Calling for efficiency in government is not a call for tyranny. Sure, tyrants want their machine to run better, but so does a libertarian - because a government that operates more efficiently operates less expensively and is thus less of a burden on people. Gary has a record as an executive, that means making the government of which he is in charge run more efficiently. It doesn't mean he wants to make government do more things, he wants to make government both do less, but do what it does in a mor practical manner than it currently does it.

Thank you for elaborating further by what he meant, but like I said, I just don't trust the guy.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for some sort of civil war here. I'm just frustrated that Gary is in this race because it'll create competition for the same voter block, and we have to convert republican primary voters at the same time. Despite all of this, I'm still confident that RP will breeze past GJ very graciously and we won't have too much to worry about (hopefully). But I'm not going to just blindly accept that he's working for Ron Paul's benefit with any solid evidence, not just mere assumptions.

 

[klamath]

His sheepish dodging on the hannity interview when asked if he supported RP's theory of blowback shows him to be untrustworthy and is an absolute dealbreaker. To not fully endorse Ron in the Guiliani spat shows cowardice if he's not willing to defend that against a TV personality, then that reflects what kind of a politician he'd be in office when there are special interest groups putting the pressure on him.

The biggist argument I keep hearing for having GJ in the debates is they back each other up against the other "Neocon republicans". Well you know what GJ just showed us how he is going to back RP up WHEN RP get's asked about his "Bombing them for ten years" statement. Zero Nada, Ziltch. No GJ will be licking his chops hoping some RP votes will float up to him from RP's wreckage.

 

[klamath]

Most respectfully, you should know full well that this isn't a zero sum game. If it was, there would be no point in trying to spread our message. And be careful when you throw around phrases like "our resources;" this is a community made up of individuals with their own views and priorities.

With that being said, it's a fair point to say that Gary being in the race could hurt the percentage Ron gets in the primaries. And being that this is a forum dedicated to the election of Ron Paul, we will be keeping that the focus and make sure efforts aren't sidetracked. But may I suggest that you make the point more diplomatically? Shouldn't we be encouraging Gary's supporters to vote for Ron, especially if Gary decides to drop out?
Honestly, our ideological opponents would absolutely love for this to become a battle between Ron and Gary, the two candidates who truly believe in freedom, while the rest of the pack laughs away as they continue to destroy the country.

I did a long google search of GJ threads around the net. What I saw without exception were former RP supporters deserting to GJ or GJ supporters that hate RP with a passion and would not vote for RP EVER as a second choice. GJ is bringing nobody to RP but GJ IS bleeding off RP supporters.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Sorry, I've lost interest. Fact is, your response is spin and not worth my time. I'm sticking to being productive in my involvement this primary season, and dealing with people who have emotional issues with GJ being in the race is just not worth my time. Sorry.

 

[YumYum]

So, if it comes down to Gary Johnson verses Ron Paul for the Republican nomination, who will you vote for?

 

[Nathan Hale]

So, if it comes down to Gary Johnson verses Ron Paul for the Republican nomination, who will you vote for?

Do you mean if everybody else dropped out leaving only Gary and Ron?

Or do you mean if both Gary and Ron remained, among others?

Because my answer would vary depending on what hypothethical we're talking about here.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Drop him a couple of bucks here:

Really bad form. Supporters of Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, etc. don't have the audacity to come to a Ron Paul supporter website and ask for money for an opposition candidate.

 

[jabf2006]

Really bad form. Supporters of Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, etc. don't have the audacity to come to a Ron Paul supporter website and ask for money for an opposition candidate.

Agreed. All of the other back and forth is meaningless. Asking for funds toward a candidate, on a forum dedicated to another candidate, shows no sense of manners, etiquette, or respect.

 

[Travlyr]

All of the other back and forth is meaningless.

Not really. You may be the type of person to do your own research. But many, many, people buy Air Jordan(s) because they are endorsed by former professional NBA basketball player Michael Jordan.

Now, while he is really only a Legend in his own mind at the moment, many, many, people may not research Gary Johnson's platform to learn that he is not a strict Constitutionalist simply because he is promoted by "The Legend."

 

[jabf2006]

Excuse me...meaningless in regard to the initial purpose of this thread.

I did not mean to imply discussing the differences between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson to be meaningless...though I believe the argument to be obvious. Gary Johnson will not garner even close to the support Ron Paul did in 2008 on the Republican ticket. He would require Ron Paul supporters to defect completely, and they won't. It seems so obvious to me that liberty loving people should ride this wave until it peters out, and its not even close to doing so yet. If some people do not like Ron Paul and they choose Gary Johnson, good for them. But if you like Ron Paul, it seems so illogical to support anyone else at this point in the game. I would support their right to keep their head in their ass, but would strongly suggest they reconsider.

If you support liberty in this election, and you want liberty to win, you support Ron Paul. Any other choice is a complete waste of time, and would only serve as a protest vote against Paul; if you support liberty, why would you protest Paul?

 

[jabf2006]

Just to add...I do not, in a anyway, believe Gary Johnson should not be running. The more voices supporting liberty in the race, the better. I admit I sometimes think Ron Paul's voice being the lone supporter of liberty in 08 helped distinguish him, and that Gary being there this time around might somehow make Ron look less appealing. In the end, we cannot complain when more candidates arrive who talk like Paul. This is an expected development when you're winning the debate.

 

[SimpleName]

I distinctly remember the creators of this site expanding the message by buying the domain "libertyforest.com". I can't speak for them. Heck, I might even be wrong. I don't know. But I clearly remember a push by the forum as a whole towards bringing in people of all libertarian-esque ideology. Now that we have brought people in, they can't talk about the liberty candidates they favor? Are we not supposed to let anarchists discuss things because they are against Ron Paul's campaign as it promotes govt's existence?

 

[klamath]

h ttp://www.2012draftsarahcommittee.com/

 

[wizardwatson]

This is stupid.

What exactly does RP gain by being associated with GJ? To give "plurality" to his positions. I think the opposite is the case. The more people associate GJ with RP they are taking away RP's perceived stature. There's nothing imo that "having GJ in the race" adds to RP's chances of winning, if anything its the opposite. I can see the headlines now, "so do RP or GJ have a chance? let's look at 'their' positions". Just stupid, because obviously people, if they are presented both as "libertarians", RP will suffer by association with GJ's positions.

I don't know what Nathan is trying to accomplish in his mind. He seems to be out on a limb trying to rationalize how what he's suggesting is strategically viable.

 

[MelissaWV]

I distinctly remember the creators of this site expanding the message by buying the domain "libertyforest.com". I can't speak for them. Heck, I might even be wrong. I don't know. But I clearly remember a push by the forum as a whole towards bringing in people of all libertarian-esque ideology. Now that we have brought people in, they can't talk about the liberty candidates they favor? Are we not supposed to let anarchists discuss things because they are against Ron Paul's campaign as it promotes govt's existence?

Isn't this a wee bit different, considering that it's using an established board to raise money for a candidate running in the same race?

As I pointed out in an other thread, GaryJohnsonForums.com is open and could be developed.

It's great to have liberty candidates running at various levels. It's even great (imo) to have Gary Johnson out there. Do we have to also, though, actively help the effort? Does Josh get to host everyone promoting a candidate that a great number of people see as a distant second choice? Meh.

And actually various anarchists WERE booted from the forums for the way they promoted their positions

I still wish Josh would ride in and settle this. I'm guessing he's having to give it a lot of thought.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

As I pointed out in an other thread, GaryJohnsonForums.com is open and could be developed.

Think they'd be cool with me going there to promote Ron Paul's upcoming money bomb?

 

[MelissaWV]

Think they'd be cool with me going there to promote Ron Paul's upcoming money bomb?

If it were known you were doing it, then I think they'd be thrilled at the additional traffic I don't think this is being used as a base to promote anything. I think it's being used as a means to siphon people off from an existing store. I don't see an influx of Johnson-curious members flooding the forums and flocking to participate in Money Bombs. I see a few people who've been around awhile eager to have contributors.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Every Dollar Donated, Every Sign Painted, Every Yahoo or Other group that goes to Gary Johnson is less those for Ron Paul. I am fucking pissed off that this shit is going on. I will fight against this campaign harder then any other opposition.... why? Because this campaign of Gary Johnson takes from us, it does not take from the others.

so fuck you, and fuck Gary Johnson. I rather be fucking banned from this forum then stay if it starts allowing opposition to use OUR resources.

Then why are you telling people to get the fuck out?