Gary Johnson's record

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I'm so tired of people nitpicking GJ and comparing him to RP. The RP campaign is over and GJ is the closest person to RP on the ballot.

No, Virgil Goode is.

Gary Johnson is pro-abortion, Virgil Goode is pro-life
Gary Johnson wants marriage defined at a federal level, Virgil Goode wants government completely out.
Gary Johnson wants marijuana legalization at a federal level, Virgil Goode wants to return drug policy completely to the states.
Gary Johnson is pro-intervention, Virgil Goode is non-interventionist.
Gary Johnson sucks, Virgil Goode is good.

 

[dannno]

They are using government inflation figures for one, which are entirely inaccurate.

Secondly, the governor is not the dictator of a state.

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

They are using government inflation figures for one, which are entirely inaccurate.

I don't think you read this then:

Well, no. Yes, the budget rose 5% per year during his time in office. Unfortunately that's a roughly 50% increase in the size of the State Government during those eight years.

That might be ok if the rate of increase was less than the rate of inflation. So let's check the rate of inflation and see if Governor Johnson was telling the truth or if he's being less-than-honest with the public.

In 1995 the CPI index stood at 150.3. In 2003 when Johnson left office it stood at 181.7. That's a 20.9% increase over the same eight years.

In other words Gary Johnson increased spending in New Mexico at approximately 240% the rate of inflation -- or about double and a half as fast as prices rose.

Secondly, the governor is not the dictator of a state.

No, but he did have the power to veto, and New Mexico does have line-item veto as well. He vetoed only $27 million in spending, out of billions. Also, he boasted about increasing education spending many times.

 

[dannno]

I don't think you read this then:

The CPI is a government inflation figure.

 

[dannno]

In 1995 the CPI index

That's also redundant (The Consumer Price Index index)

 

[Nathan Hale]

No, Virgil Goode is.

Not so much.

Gary Johnson is pro-abortion, Virgil Goode is pro-life

Gary Johnson's policy prescription for abortion is identical to Ron Paul's.

Gary Johnson wants marijuana legalization at a federal level, Virgil Goode wants to return drug policy completely to the states.

Gary wouldn't force states to legalize marijuana, he would legalize it at the federal level and leave the states alone.

Gary Johnson is pro-intervention, Virgil Goode is non-interventionist.

You can't paint Gary like he's George Bush just because he talked about using the military to stop Kony. Virgil Goode, on the other hand, has a voting record that laughs in the face of your claim that he's non-interventionist.

Gary Johnson sucks, Virgil Goode is good.

Virgil Goode is a douchebag, my friend.

You're suffering from BobBarritis. Check Virgil Goode's voting record, since you're so interested in picking apart people's backgrounds.

 

[hrdman2luv]

This is a great post:

I didn't notice an employment stat in there. More jobs would mean more revenue. And not so much as an increase in taxes all together.

 

[hrdman2luv]

I don't think you read this then:






No, but he did have the power to veto, and New Mexico does have line-item veto as well. He vetoed only $27 million in spending, out of billions. Also, he boasted about increasing education spending many times.

He also fought the dems long and hard about education vouchers.

I'm just wondering, do some of you think that only god would be as good as Ron Paul? Surely not. I'm being sarcastic only to make a point. And not to be a jerk. Ron Paul has had 30 years to get the voting record he has.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I'm just wondering, do some of you think that only god would be as good as Ron Paul? Surely not. I'm being sarcastic only to make a point. And not to be a jerk. Ron Paul has had 30 years to get the voting record he has.

And let's not forget that Ron Paul's record is a *voting* record. Legislators always look better on paper than executives because legislators only have to vote, and that counts as their "record" on an issue. An executive actually has to manage the government and make things work. It's a different standard entirely.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Gary Johnson's policy prescription for abortion is identical to Ron Paul's.

There may be similarities policy-wise, but let's be honest...Gary is pro-abortion, which means he is not a true libertarian, because if he was a real libertarian, he would have read and understood Ron Paul's book Abortion and Liberty. Ron has the consistent libertarian position on this, and he argues it very soundly in that book.

You're suffering from BobBarritis. Check Virgil Goode's voting record, since you're so interested in picking apart people's backgrounds.

Yeah, but I can just as easily make that case against Gary supporters. The Libertarian party at the national level gets stars in their eyes and they nominate unprincipled people to run for president, Gary included. If the LP was principled at the national level, it would have nominated RJ Harris for president.

 

[AFPVet]

Regardless of who's running, if we don't start voting straight ticket 3rd party, nothing is going to change.

 

[farreri]

Regardless of who's running, if we don't start voting straight ticket 3rd party, nothing is going to change.

+1

I don't understand why people don't get that simple concept?

 

[misean]

+1

I don't understand why people don't get that simple concept?

Most people, at least intuitively, understand basic prisoner's dilemma. Voting third party is definitely not game theory optimal. It pretty much helps someone who is extremely horrible like Obama vs someone less good like Romney. I'm voting for Johnson because I hope that long term it will help libertarian ideas get into the Republican party. I think the short term pain of electing more socialists will be made up for long term gain by having someone like Rand Paul get taken seriously by the party.

 

[torchbearer]

Most people, at least intuitively, understand basic prisoner's dilemma. Voting third party is definitely not game theory optimal. It pretty much helps someone who is extremely horrible like Obama vs someone less good like Romney. I'm voting for Johnson because I hope that long term it will help libertarian ideas get into the Republican party. I think the short term pain of electing more socialists will be made up for long term gain by having someone like Rand Paul get taken seriously by the party.

it is a rare day when i see/hear/read someone who understands game theory.

 

[JohnM]

This will be the first time in my life that I vote for a pro choice candidate and I do not like it.

This is the first time that I have considered voting for a pro-abortion candidate for President, and I'm not sure that I can do it.

If Gary Johnson were otherwise good, I guess I would vote for him.

But there is another big problem for me.

I've googled to find out where he stands on extrajudicial killing. All I can find is basically this:

Johnson said that while he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, that doesn’t mean he would necessarily stop drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, even though he believes they create more enemies than they kill.
'I would want leave all options on the table,' Johnson said."

It seems from that he has no objection to extrajudicial killing. In other words, he does not believe in due process. I think that's pretty serious.


EDIT: If someone can show me that Gary Johnson actually does regard drone attacks as immoral and illegal (and not just unwise), please do!

 

[hrdman2luv]

This is the first time that I have considered voting for a pro-abortion candidate for President, and I'm not sure that I can do it.

If Gary Johnson were otherwise good, I guess I would vote for him.

But there is another big problem for me.

I've googled to find out where he stands on extrajudicial killing. All I can find is basically this:



It seems from that he has no objection to extrajudicial killing. In other words, he does not believe in due process. I think that's pretty serious.


EDIT: If someone can show me that Gary Johnson actually does regard drone attacks as immoral and illegal (and not just unwise), please do!

I guarantee you, Gary Johnson won't win. And even if he does win, an Abortion bill will not hit his desk. Even if the republicans win or the democrats win every available seat in the Congress and Senate.

The abortion issue will be around for the republicrats to squabble about for many many moons.

 

[JohnM]

I guarantee you, Gary Johnson won't win.

I knew that already.

And even if he does win, an Abortion bill will not hit his desk.

But drones will.

(Metaphorically speaking, of course. Unless Obama is very angry at him for winning.)

This guy seems to have no regard for due process and to regard assassination as a legitimate tool of the state.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

It all comes down to what you believe and what you interpret from the data.

One can go to the state's website and see the actual facts. They're pretty clear. Tax revenue went up, government spending went up (and spending is the real tax), and the debt went up. Wikipedia's statements regarding there being a budget surplus are false. That's all there is to it. The facts contradict these statements. New Mexico's debt increased substantially every year Mr. Johnson was in office. It also increased every year before he was in office, and every year afterward. Is there some kind of accounting gymnastics he's doing to claim that there was a surplus? If so, perhaps the same gymnastics could be applied to the New Mexico governors before and after him, because the debt appears to be increasing at approximately the same rate for all of them.

Can you spot Gary Johnson's term in office in this graph? It's the period when the growth rate was drastically reduced.

Can't find it? Neither can I. The years 2002 and 2003 are higher than the curve, but other than that it appears to be a fairly standard exponential curve. The spending goes up. And then it continues going up. And then it continues going up. Forever. Before Gary Johnson was governor this happened. While Gary Johnson was governor this happened. After Gary Johnson was governor this happened. Gary Johnson did not detectably change this trend. He just didn't.

Now here's the debt chart. Can you spot the anomalous period of fiscal responsibility? The time when New Mexico stops its reckless borrowing and lived within its means?

If you can, your eyes are better than mine. Or your brain is more willing to ignore the obvious in an effort to avoid changing its opinions.

I like Gary Johnson. I don't think he's all bad. His commercials are good. He is saying libertarian things, spreading a pretty good message, albeit with qualifiers and compromises and that's unfortunate, but all-in-all he's a fairly good candidate for the LP. But I don't think he can be trusted to actually cut a budget. Now does that matter, since he's not going to be elected anyway? One could argue that it doesn't. But I support Ron Paul because he can be trusted. And I can't enthusiastically support Johnson because he can't be. Credibility is important to me. Integrity is important to me. Others will have other priorities, and I am not necessarily saying they shouldn't.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

It's a different standard entirely.

I can only judge people's actions by their actions. Everyone's circumstances will be always and everywhere different, but unfortunately life is not a sterile, controlled, double-blind experiment. So all we can do is look at the person's actions. Ron Paul's actions have been impeccable. He has consistently opposed increasing tyranny. Gary Johnson has not. He has supported measures, bills, and budgets increasing tyranny. A lot of them.

One was a legislator, one was an executive. Fine. But all I can do is look at what they did. To look at their actions as they really were. To me, that seems like the exact same standard. A perfectly consistent standard.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Well, he says things like wanting to dismantle the IRS. That by itself has a lot of appeal to me.